Democrats are crawling out of the woodwork like roaches
seeking to prove that Kavanaugh got drunk as a teen, as if to prove that the
drinking – he already admitted to doing – somehow proves Ford’s suppressed
memory recounting of a rape attempt that allegedly happened in high school in
the early 1980s.
First of all, suppressed memory recovery is rarely accurate –
which is why no court will accept it as evidence. The sub and unconscious
distort painful memories, often shaping them into Freudian architypes that give
clues to some event, but often twist the details into symbolic wish-filling
images.
What you get when you drag them out is a dreamlike sequence
of images and feelings that need to be interpreted. They are very much the same
as dreams which use elements of day’s events but often in different context to
reflect some issue ongoing in that person’s life.
I've seen this kind of suppressed memory reconstruction first hand, and heard testimony from a family member who was convinced she'd been gang raped by male relations -- based on the information gained from such therapy -- when I know for a fact that the events in her life never happened. While something clearly did happen to her, it wasn't in any way, shape or form, the way the therapy reproduced it.
Clearly, Ford had issues, but what these are may not be reflected in the testimony she gave, since much of what she said clearly isn’t accurate or is so full of gaps as to be suspect.
I've seen this kind of suppressed memory reconstruction first hand, and heard testimony from a family member who was convinced she'd been gang raped by male relations -- based on the information gained from such therapy -- when I know for a fact that the events in her life never happened. While something clearly did happen to her, it wasn't in any way, shape or form, the way the therapy reproduced it.
Clearly, Ford had issues, but what these are may not be reflected in the testimony she gave, since much of what she said clearly isn’t accurate or is so full of gaps as to be suspect.
Democrats, of course, need to take her testimony as gospel
and so are using strategies that used to be reserved for shyster lawyers
against women accusers of rape to suggest they are hysterical or worse. This is
classic passive aggressive Democratic attack, in which Kavanaugh has become the
real victim, and so the Democrats are resorting to every trick to discredit his
legitimate outrage.
Because he got emotional at being falsely accused of rape, Democrats
are painting him as too “emotionally compromised” to sit on the high court.
This is like saying a victim of rape is too emotional to testify, or in many of
the divorce cases where lawyers do their best to saddle the victim with the
illusion of hysteria.
The fact that Kavanaugh got drunk as a teen (the way most of
us did—men and women) does not mean he raped anybody. The fact is that
Democrats are building this case on the two already discredited witnesses that
followed Ford, creating a myth out of bullshit, in order to intimidate the GOP
into believing it or worse, fearing their reelection if the GOP doesn’t get on
board with what is clearly an outrageous lie.
Media – including the infamous New Yorker – helps spin this
crap, weaving fiction into reality so that the GOP will face the backlash when
the general public accepts fantasy as fact.
In trying to use media to discredit Kavanaugh, the Democrats
have raped Kavanaugh more fundamentally than Ford’s faulty memory ever could,
building a case out of smoke and mirrors, in their desperate attempt to regain
power, then using all the techniques male lawyers of the past used to use to
discredit real rape victims.
Since media and the Democrats can’t get Kavanaugh to
withdraw, they will utterly destroy him, playing his legitimate rage as
something out of control, and his admission that he drank beer and got drunk like
most real boys did his age – unlike the new generation of castrated males that the
women’s movement appears to approve of these days.
Drinking is not proof that he raped anyone. Getting angry at
injustice is not a sign that he is unqualified for the high court. But what
Democrats have managed to do is piss off the deciding vote on the supreme
court, who might previously have given them the benefit of the doubt.
No doubt, this will come back to haunt Democrats over the
next 30 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment