Skip to main content

Christine Blasey Ford: insane "fabricator"

Tucker, everyone in this business is screwing up. The GOP is giving Blasey Ford a free pass. Everyone is accepting the notion that Kavanaugh is credibly, allegedly, (and consequently, probably) guilty, and then reinforcing that presumption of guilt by going on the defensive.  Meanwhile the Democrats are starting from the presumption of guilt and the Republicans are letting them get away with it.

This can be turned around. Someone needs to grow a set and do the obvious: GO ON THE OFFENSIVE.  Start with the assumption that Blasey Ford is GUILTY.  Assume that she is a "fabricator".  Assume that her "sexual assault" narrative is a complete and monstrous slanderous fiction, a deliberate and well-crafted campaign aimed at intentionally destroying Kavanaugh's life and reputation.  She wasn't assaulted at all. Exactly the opposite.  It is she who is assaulting Kavanaugh,

In a situation like this, where two stories conflict, one fact stands out as indisputable: there are two possibilities, one that Kavanaugh is lying, and one that Blasey Ford is lying.  So let's look at this from the perspective that ***BLASEY FORD IS THE "LIAR"***.  (But I'm going to use the term "fabricator" from here on out in the place of "liar", for reasons that will become clear.)

A "theory of the crime" that Blasey Ford is making the whole thing up is quite a bit more difficult to believe than the "drunken teenage high school boys jump a girl at a party" theory of the crime".  Everyone accepts that rowdy drunken teenagers, charged up with hormones, are wild sexual creatures in need of adult supervision, and thus it is easy to believe Blasey Ford's story.  In contrast, challenging any woman's accusation of sexual assault is a real challenge: for cultural reasons, "respect for women" reasons, sympathy for women's indisputable experience of abuse at the hands of sexually-aggressive often violent men, and first and foremost, in light of all these factors, the ***presumptive*** unlikelihood of untruthfullness in a sexual assault accusation.

Despite the difficulty that confronts us in making the case that Blasey Ford is a fabricator, let's give it a try.

First, we need to note that the ongoing discourse characterized by endless repetitions of the phrases "the party" and "the sexual assault" has already created in the minds of everyone watching this event, a presumptive "narrative" which has created a sense that these things are real and factual. So we are back on our heels from the start.  We have to struggle against an already established "narrative". No matter that might be fictional.

That said, I will have at it and present the case that Blasey Ford is in fact a "fabricator".

The question simply put is: "Why would a woman make up such a story?"

Here are the elements in the case:

Ford goes to high school in toney, upscale Maryland.   She is entering adolescence, her teen age years, with all that that implies of the challenge of developing adult maturity.  She faces raging hormones, emotional volatility, peer pressure, social group acceptance, and "courtship/dating".  Who can dispute that this is a very challenging time in a person's life for anyone, even a person emotionally stable with strong family support?  Which brings me to point number one: Blasey Ford appears to be an emotionally fragile person, someone who has suffered from mental instability all her life.  And I would suggest that this emotional instability plays a major role in her descent into "obsession" and derangement from which the "fabricator" eventually emerged.

Blasey Ford of course blames this on Brett Kavanaugh, around whom she has built the narrative to justify that blame. But is Brett Kavanaugh's role in this, her "truth", of which she accuses him, or is his role completely different, something else entirely?

I recently, and entirely coincidentally, watched a YouTube video by Jordan Peterson where he discussed the difference between how men and women express aggression.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyKGv7zjMs8

At 13 seconds into the video, Peterson says, of female aggression: "It takes the shape of reputation destruction, innuendo, and gossip."

So note this as point one: "REPUTATION DESTRUCTION"

So now, since you're a bright guy and can put the pieces together yourself, let me condense/summarize my argument, stating it almost but not quite, as a bullet point:

 She's a teenager, somewhat fragile emotionally. She goes to high school and starts to engage in the natural activities of socialization and emotional development. She sees Brett Kavanaugh, young, handsome, athletic, brilliant, well-behaved, of high social standing, and so she identifies him as "The Perfect Mate".  She obsesses on him -- some people would call it "falling in love" -- in the way one might expect an emotionally fragile, hormonally-driven, and immature young woman to obsess.  She goes a little crazy, in a teenage sort of way.  But then, when he pays no attention to her, ignores her, rejects her, "assaults" her sense of self and worth, she crosses over into genuine pathology.  Her "love" -- obsession actually -- turns to hate.  In the following years this trauma exacts a terrible price on her ability to function.  This is the period where she said she had great difficulty coping "because of the assault".  But there was no physical assault, there was only the self-inflicted emotional damage brought on by her obsession and her inability to process through that teenage event.

It further appears that her inability to process that event continued throughout her life.  Unable to let it go, she fed her obsession, revisiting the trauma and reinforcing her hatred every time she saw Kavanaugh's name in the public discourse.

In short, "Hell hath no fury..."  Christine Blasey Ford is a real life example of Glen Close's character in "Fatal Attraction".

It doesn't really matter whether this is precisely the reason, the explanation, that resolves the conflict between the two competing narratives. What it does accomplish is it provides a plausible explanation for what is otherwise seemingly unexplainable: "Why would a woman make a false accusation?" And that provides reasonable doubt of Brett Kavanaugh's otherwise "presumptive" guilt.   That doubt is what is needed to secure Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.

It's up to you Tucker to make that argument in the court of public opinion and secure Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

re censorship at antiwar.com

Really, Thomas? Who is the drama queen here? You're embarrassing yourself with this name calling. My comment disappeared. What am I to think, you're on a coffee break? So I posted the link to my backup, my all-but-invisible, low-traffic,... make that no-traffic,... blog. The "rules" you cite give the Jews a free pass on their complicity in the Zionist project. It's ok to criticize Zionism or Israel, but not the Jews that make their crimes possible. That appears to be the rule, and it amounts to Antiwar.com caving to Jewish/Zionist intimidation. It may be discretion -- as in "discretion is the better part of valor" -- but absent the lethality of bullets-and-bombs-combat, it's cowardly. It was cowardly then, as it is cowardly now. That said, it ***IS*** Justin's website and he gets to decide on when "discretion" -- strategic restraint -- is called for. I've had this issue since before you were moderator. Someone Jewis...

Sunshine on the Suck-ups

In response to an article -- "a splendid little war could end Trump's presidency" --  by Jim Jatras https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/a-splendid-little-war-could-end-trumps-presidency-/ Jatras is a perfect example of the comprehensive cluelessnesss of the political class. Here, on display is the reason US foreign policy has been a flat out disaster for the last thirty years. Generations in the echo chamber of foreign policy "expertise", where the rule is bobble-headed yes-man servility and craven obsequiousness to the interests of the 1%, has lead US foreign policy to a place where an enforced and self-reinforcing notion of "expertise" is in fact zombified incompetence. Trump is in the big chair. That Jatras cannot see him except through the lens of "a shallow, superficial, unqualified Twitter-addicted unstable personality who never should have been allowed into the Oval Office..." clearly indicates that a war for the definition of ...

Right to exist, right to self-defense.....not!

The following is a post I made to The Algemeiner, an online Jewish publication, in response to "Golda Meir was no J-Streeter", http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/09/08/golda-meir-was-no-j-streeter/#comment-4474211. Like many Jewish publications The Algemeiner has a limited tolerance for the truth when the truth is critical of Israel and its supporters, and so, not surprisingly, the comment was deleted by "moderation". I reprint it here for your consideration. ************************** Make no mistake, I’m an American and a Jew. For those of you thoroughly infected with the Judiasm-destroying poison of Zionism, here is the antidote to your Kool-aid dreams. Drink deeply and wake up to reality. We often hear the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” and along with it, “Israel’s right to self-defense.” Hear them endlessly, by propagandists who repeat them endlessly. But endless repetition does not make a thing true. The phantom “legiti...