The trial is underway in Wisconsin for Darrell E. Brooks, who is charged with "six counts of intentional homicide with the use of a dangerous weapon (his SUV), and more than 60 counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety and six counts of fatal hit and run, according to an amended complaint."  The trial format is allowing Brooks to be his own attorney, which means he can question witnesses, offer objections, request grounds for overruling of objections, and interact directly with the judge.  The judge, Jennifer Dorow, is beautiful, poised, and patient in her explanations to Brooks and in her overall conduct of the proceedings.

In our time, high-profile cases involving black defendants put a special burden on our court system, as there are many who assume that our courts are overwhelmed by bias against black defendants so that a fair trial is almost impossible.  The judge's patience and goodwill notwithstanding, it is clear to this writer that for many commentators as well as citizens, Brooks is not only innocent until proven guilty, but innocent whether proven guilty or not.  No "proof" will meet the standard of viability for justice in our legal system because many on the left say that our legal principles are inherently biased against people "of color."  For the left, we proportionally have so many African-Americans in jail because of this bias, and not because of actual wrongdoing, and not because our law has drafted punishments to fit the crimes. It is against this distorted backdrop that we should observe the progress and conduct of this case.

In looking at the conduct of this case, the first matter I would note is that whenever the prosecution refers to the defendant as "Mr. Brooks," the defendant objects.  He does not want to be named as the subject of this prosecution.  Fortunately, Judge Dorow always overrules this objection.  This attempt to deny his identity as the person who is defending himself and, at the same time, is on trial (two simultaneous roles) is part of the nihilism of the present era.  Brooks wants to project himself as Brooks's attorney, but not as Brooks the defendant.  He purposely tries to project that being his own attorney enables him to deny that he is the defendant.  This nihilism, which seeks to deconstruct all identity as arbitrary and in some important sense "undefinable," is part of a rampant subterfuge that is going on every day in all our institutions.

Brooks playacting in court.

First, boys can think they are girls, and girls can think they are boys.  Many powerful voices are arguing and implementing the right of young boys to be identified as girls and chemically castrated while still young children, even without parental notification or consent.  The collapse of identity thus becomes a weapon for the destruction of the family. The child not only can deny his sex, but can partially vacate his role as a family member.  And even some (many?) parents are in agreement because it relieves them of the guilt of saying "no" to their children, and living with that no on a daily basis until the child is no longer a minor. 

Even knowing that 85-plus percent of children (not counting the rare cases of hermaphroditism, where both genitals appear in some form) do not go through with their experienced gender dysphoria when they reach their majority, there are parents who are convinced that it is unloving not to give in to their offspring earlier.  Laws denying parents a say in that decision relieve them of psychological tensions that they find unbearable.  The parents so afflicted have a diminished sense of reality and cannot accept that a male is a male and a female is a female.  The recent appointee to the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, when asked to define what a woman is (even though she is a woman), answered that she could not because she is "not a biologist."  Although she warmly accepted the nomination to deal with some of the most controversial and thereby the most stressful legal cases in our country, she cannot work through the stress of defining her own womanhood.  She cleverly avoided possible controversy with her crafty answers to senators' questions.

Brooks is also being crafty in his own defense.  Crafty is not the same as smart.  He wants to reveal what he believes to be witness bias, so he asks police officers who is paying their salaries and tries to imply that the very people paying them are the same as those who are prosecuting him.  The officers' testimonies are biased or even corrupted by that vocational connection.  This is not unlike the serpent, who, when Eve told him that God had forbidden her and Adam to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that if they did eat from it, they would surely die, replied, "Did he really say that?"  That was not a sophisticated argument against God's commands, but it was a crafty means to induce doubt.

Fortunately, the prosecution has objected to Brooks's devilish crafty questions of some of the witnesses, and the judge has upheld the objections.  Typically, an objection is made to Brooks's question of a witness, and Brooks objects to that objection by saying "grounds?" (meaning "what are the grounds for the objection?"), and the judge replies "argumentative...sustained" when siding with the prosecution.  The serpent in Eden was "crafty," and the judge refers to Brooks as "argumentative," which amounts to the same thing.

So Brooks is not Brooks, males are not males, females are not females, and the list goes on...looting and burning buildings is not violence, but peaceful protest; oil and gas shortages are based not on premeditated policy, but on policies supposedly intended to keep us alive by protecting the environment; and parents are sexists or domestic terrorists because they do not want re-labeled boys in girls' bathrooms exposing themselves, or raping their daughters.

With this reversal of definitions and identities, countries like Hungary that resist migration by Africans and Middle Easterners, particularly those who are Muslim, are often labeled as fascists and horrible bigots even though in fact the Islamic world already attacked them multiple times in history and had to be defeated.  Hungary successfully repelled the Muslim invaders in 1687 after having lost the city of Buda to them in 1541 and suffered 146 years of stagnation and oppression.  The Hungarians are not going to ignore their own history because the E.U. tells them they are bigoted.  In parallel fashion, we should not fail to convict perpetrators of crimes because some angry persons say it is racist to do so even when the accused are patently guilty.

Everywhere we look, people are trying to flee from their identity and their history.  A mass murderer on trial in Wisconsin is doing everything he can to evade his own identity.  In doing so, he is joining gangs of liars all over the world who, in their own spheres of activity, are doing the same thing.