Posts Tagged ‘justification’

Justification

12 May 2021
From an Italian painting depicting the Spanish capture of the Inca in Peru. This long period of conquest was justified by a Roman Catholic document known as “The Requirement.”

I want to spend a few paragraphs addressing a common mechanism in life known to me as “justification.”

What I really want to address is the tendency of “rational” people to take all arguments seriously. I see this very often in political discussions and less often in conversations about random personal issues.

Moral Codes

Let’s start with the concept of what is “right” or “good” versus what is “wrong” or “bad.” These ideas can become fixed in society and be elevated to the status of moral codes. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But it can get out of hand.

At the highest spiritual levels, moral codes aren’t really needed. It’s not that spiritual beings are incapable of being naughty. It’s just that it doesn’t usually matter. A spiritual being in good shape can tolerate almost anything you can do to it. It is massless and eternal, so how can you hurt Spirit?

However, in the games of life, which involve possessions (at least bodies) and hunger and emotions and all that, codes of conduct become more important if you want to build some sort of society (game) that can last.

Very high-spirited (free) people will develop very high-minded moral codes. They are closer to a Code of Honor, which would be entirely voluntary. Such beings normally allow for lots of freedom but can also be very strict, or you could say, demanding.

Slaves, or slave societies, will develop very savage moral codes that might seem bizarre or arbitrary to freer beings.

But wherever you or your society is at, below the level of pure Spirit there will be codes that attempt to define the rules for the various games played in that society. To follow the codes is “good” and to break the codes is “bad.” Because following the moral codes will keep the game going.

No one wants to be wrong

If you break a rule for a game you are playing, you could be kicked out of that game. And most people don’t want that. They need games. Games make life fun and give it meaning.

So when a person realizes they are breaking a rule – the moral code – their first reaction is to create a justification. Justifications can be off-the-cuff and very superficial, or long and involved theories “proving” that the moral codes somehow don’t apply in their case, or maybe even need to be thrown out or revised.

The problem with justifications is that their only purpose is to make the rule breaker right. Though they might seem logical or “based on science” they are not invented to further the cause of science or human understanding or even to win a debate. Their only purpose is to cleverly find a reason or explanation for why the bad deed was really okay.

You can’t argue with a justification

Thus, any attempt to pick apart the logic, rationale, or scientific basis for a justification is time totally wasted. If a wrongdoer finds his justification getting weak, he will simply change it or replace it. There is no desire to do anything with it other than to justify his misdeed.

I see a LOT of time spent in political debate, and to a lesser extent in life in general, treating justifications seriously. Of course, that’s exactly what the creator of the justification hopes you will do. But the fact is (we can assume) that some crime or bad deed has been committed, if a justification is being invoked to explain it. Why even bother addressing the justification? That just encourages the evil-doer. A bad deed was done; what are we going to do about it?

Those of us who wish for a saner and more honest world would do best to ignore justifications as thoroughly as possible, and focus on what was actually done, why it might have been done, and how the situation could be corrected. One reason justification has become a totally reactive coping mechanism is to avoid punishment. On Earth, most punishments are relatively mild. But this has not always been the case. In the deep dim past, the punishment for doing wrong could be extremely horrific. Thus, punishing offenders almost assured that they would reactively attempt to justify their actions.

Some examples you may disagree with

In the larger games of life, spotting the link between bad events and their perpetrators can be a real problem. Thus a justification can be brought up and seem legitimate because the one voicing it has no obvious connection with the bad thing that happened. Thus, a news outlet might run a story that blames some politician for some tragic event. The news outlet “obviously” had nothing to do with causing the tragic event, so there is no reason to see their story as a justification for the event.

Oh boy…

An example of this is the “mainstream” still clinging to the story that Oswald killed JFK. This justifies the murder of Oswald (which prevented him from testifying in his own defense), as well as hiding what really happened. Ruby becomes some sort of frustrated patriot, and the fact that Oswald was killed closes the case.

But…

It is clear now that Oswald did not kill JFK. He might have had information that would have pointed to who was behind this horrendous act (someone in the CIA), so he had to be killed in order to protect the identities of the true killers. Someone (Ruby or a pretender) was sent in to do the job, and that act was pinned on Ruby. Ruby had mob connections, as did certain people in the CIA. But these could be ignored as long as the story that Oswald killed JKF held firm. The Warren report was concocted to justify the “fact” that Oswald was the lone gunman. The report and all the effort spent to defend it is a load of reactive bullshit and should be expunged from history, as far as I am concerned.

The mainstream perpetuates the Oswald story to this day. For “fairness” sake, it has to admit that other “conspiracy theories” exist. But because of the hidden connections between mainstream news, the CIA, organized crime, and other criminal elements in high places, those “theories” will never be taken seriously by the current mainstream, as the truth would expose not only that atrocity but many, many others.

And so with the pandemic…

Research by people who don’t have a finger in the pie suggests the initial release was an accident, and was from a lab. The truth of this may never get straightened out.

The use of cheap and safe drugs for early treatment of the disease was suppressed by the mainstream. This was a very clear misdeed. VERY CLEAR! For the most part, they don’t even bother to justify this, beyond attempting to keep our attention riveted on some new danger posed by this bug. One form of justification is total invalidation to the point of making nothing out of the true facts. This has been the favored approach here in the U.S., where the misdeed was so obvious and egregious (proper early treatment could have saved thousands of lives).

A similar approach has been taken with the vaccine. A good vaccine should not kill people or have terrible side effects. These vaccines do, but they have been minimized or brushed off as coincidence. There is a lot of money to be made from these vaccines, and Big Pharma now has a history of being deceitful in order to get drugs approved that are actually ineffective or harmful.

Social distancing measures have been justified using a shaming approach: “How dare you act in a way that would jeopardize the life of another?” As if you don’t do this every time you take your car out on the road (one reason I don’t drive). It is clear now that social distancing, as a protection against disease spread, is a total joke, and that all arguments for doing it, after maybe the first month, have been reactive and irrational justifications. That Fauci went along with this identifies him now as just one of the criminals involved in this attempt to destroy a planet through medical terrorism. At this point, the arguments in favor of social distancing are not even worth taking seriously. It was a total scam.

I am venting.

These examples are perhaps too large and controversial to make my point. But the evidence that crimes have been committed are clear as a bell to me. And so all the arguments in favor of those crimes reduce to reactive and irrational justifications.

Should I next take up “social justice?” I think not. If the damage done by the riots is not clear enough evidence that evil was intended, then you can continue to embrace the justifications put forward for that destruction. But if you wake up one day to find your planet turned to dust and all your attention being attracted to a slave auction on Arcturus, don’t say I didn’t warn you.