We are currently awaiting some very substantive, researched, background and proprietary information, regarding the events which surround the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.
However, in advance of the information it is perhaps important to revisit the substance of our position from the outset of initial interest in this case; And, more importantly, discuss two specific principles which have caused some readers to erroneously reconcile information gleaned from the spotlight of our research: Projection and Transference:
Projection – where a person subconsciously denies his or her own negative attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world instead; or a person affirms their own positive attributes by ascribing positive intent toward the behavior of another.
Thus, projection involves projecting faults or attributes of altruism onto others.
Projection can also be established as a means of justifying a person bearing witness to certain actions that would normally be considered intolerable.
This often means projecting false altruism toward an individual for the sole purpose of maintaining a self-created illusion.
One of the many problems with this process whereby ‘something dangerous that is observed can be justified’, or shifted, from actual expressed intent into a false belief of assigned honesty – ergo a process of “projection”‘ – Danger lies in the approach because as a result the projector may become somewhat cognitively depleted and rendered limp in objectivity.
Transference – is the phenomenon whereby we unconsciously transfer feelings and attitudes from a person or situation in our recognized past on to a person or situation in our present view.
When we encounter a person, or we review a situation, where we are reminded of someone or some personal event that was/is important to us, we infer, unconsciously, that this person or situation is indeed like our historical context.
Like projection transference can be dangerous. Especially when a person is reviewing behaviors without understanding the personality behind the behavior. A myriad of effects can arise from this, including inferring traits belong to the new person or situation, that in fact belong to ourselves and not them.
This common perspective of people and events has generated a wealth of well documented research that illuminates how we tend to reconcile disparity in the present by referring to our own historical references.
It takes a conscious effort not to fall into the traps of both “Projection” and “Transference”.
Having said all of that, and despite our initial reluctance, there became a time when it actually was necessary to contact people close to the situation. We needed to evaluate what we were discovering against the backdrop of ‘were we being fair and objective’. In addition, I personally need to reconcile the disparities, and glaring inconsistencies, that seemingly did not make sense.
To that end I have personally interviewed, and/or spoken with, George Zimmerman’s father Robert, his Mother Gladys, and his brother Robert Jr. on a few occasions.
Those who have taken exception to my critical writing about attorney Mark O’Mara have nothing but supposition, which is painfully fraught with both projection and transference, to frame their opinion/view.
Subsequently, many of those opinions contain vitriolic animosity toward my refusal to indulge in the fantasy of projecting and reconciling behavior by O’Mara as well intended.
Most, somewhere around 60% (or maybe higher) by my estimation –using this example-, of those O’Mara opinions following this case, are extremely flawed and factually incorrect. More than a few border on absurd.
However, this one is keenly insightful. It comes from Boricuafudd:
[…] I think that SD is being misunderstood, he sees MOM as someone who aids the system that railroaded GZ to begin with. He also feels that vindicating GZ is not enough, because it does not expose the reason it happened. His frustrations with MOM and his handling of the case are due to what he perceives as his lack of interest in fighting against the BGI, corruptible officials, the aiders and abettors that have made this tragedy into what it is.
I tried to tell SD on several times that GZ and family may not want to go that far. That exoneration of GZ was their goal. That the GZ family may identify with the BGI or at least support some of its goals. I think this is when he decided to stop the Daily thread. To SD is about principle …
The thread where this comment originates over at Diwataman’s blog continues; And to perhaps over-generalize Boricuafudd has been able to read between the lines and understand what I was reluctant (for over 6 months) to say openly.
But I will below.
Before going forward it’s important to note we have specifically and intentionally never talked to, or communicated with: Mark O’Mara, Don West, George or Shellie Zimmerman.
However, people have conveyed second-hand sentiments they claim to be of the aforementioned opinions. We have no cause to frame reference from second-hand accounts; Nor will we.
Regarding the previous first person interviews mentioned I did complete; We also interviewed over two dozen people in the metro Orlando area who know, with great detail and specificity, Mark O’Mara and the O’Mara law firm. Some were former clients, some are current clients, some are peers or exist within the immediate social circle, and a few he probably would define as friends.
I stand behind every scintilla of my former statements in that regard. Period.
Now to the larger understanding….
…… The “aggregate Zimmerman’s” had no clue about the Professional Grievance Industry prior to the shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26th 2012. Nor did they have any frame of reference regarding media bias and how the media is used and manipulated by progressives, for progressive causes.
None. Nothing. Zippo….
The Zimmerman family did not know, because they ARE, or at the very least WERE, progressively-minded themselves. They were/are like the people y’all discuss with great frustration in your daily lives that just “don’t get it”.
They were/are comfortably clueless, and really there’s nothing wrong with that.
In addition, Mark O’Mara is embedded within the Professional Grievance Industry in the same vein as attorney Natalie Jackson. Sympatico in almost all aspects.
So it is quite impossible -from an ideologically honest reference- to be critical of the sentiment of Nat Jack, yet be affirmational toward Mark O’Mara. Yes, they have differing approaches, (example – Nat Jack is rude, nasty and curt in her tone) but the ideological destination -outside the Zimmerman case- is exactly the same.
Hopefully that helps you toward a greater reconciliation of the aspects that never made sense. Mark O’Mara is no Gerry Spence:
I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief – Gerry Spence
Perhaps it would also assist understanding to define the aggregate Zimmerman family as “socially liberal” with some religious reservations, especially from Gladys, regarding liberal behavior and moral definitions. However, they definitely present themselves in the Barbara Boxer/Juan Williams vein of progressive approach and outlook toward society. It is a rather complex sociopolitical psyche to understand.
That said, the primary adjective would be “naive” or “blind” to the politics that surround modern everyday events.
Therefore, early on, without any understanding of the road they were travelling, they were unable to make what I would call ‘good decisions’ simply because they were unable to predict the direction they were travelling. Heck, they had never even known of the existence of the path they were on.
Hence, DECISION – Mark O’Mara….. and by the time they realized wrong guy, wrong mindset, wrong case, wrong advocate….. well, if you value your freedom, and honesty, and advocate type stuff, (June-ish 2012) it was simply too late.
Think about it this way – In essence, they were projecting and transferring their internal paradigms of how the world works into a situation that was 180 degrees opposite from what they actually faced. Therefore they seemingly chose a representative that was 180 degrees wrong in approach from the direction they really needed.
If you don’t know where you are, and you don’t know where you are headed, and you’re totally out of sorts, fearful and under constant glare, how do you know who to ask for directions? You don’t.
Mark O’Mara has no intention, nor the desire, to deconstruct the BGI in any frame of reference – they are, quite simply, his comfort zone of association. His wagon has been hitched to that ideological horse throughout his entire career. Political correctness is embedded in the DNA – to a fault.
Apparently, O’Mara wants become famous inside the same system he is supposed to be fighting. Imagine how a quarterback, who fawned over the opponent in the super-bowl, and wanted to be traded to them, would play….
Conversely, the Zimmerman’s have no desire to do it either. It is a battle they choose not to even discuss. It is antithetical to their frame of reference; and besides, they don’t know how – even if they wanted to – which they don’t.
Now please understand, when I say ‘they don’t desire the deconstruction’, this includes EVERY aspect of the BGI including Benjamin Crump and the Scheme Team.
Neither Mark O’Mara, nor George, Shellie, Robert, Gladys, Robert Jr. et al, have any inclination, propensity, comfort or desire to deconstruct their adversaries – openly OR privately. Even when their adversaries are lying to the world. Period.
They do not understand it – and therefore they do not know how to approach it.
(It’s the legal/judicial/trial version of John McCain VS Barack Obama 2008)
Unfortunately, in my opinion, this limits their capacity to fight for justice because, again I repeat what has been oft spoken of before, this is not a legal fight – this is a political fight.
Absent of a willingness to actually fight – I mean fight to win – they will accept the lesser of all evils as a victory; Including martyrdom.
This is the approach we are all witnessing.
This is the brutal honesty of it all…
