Page 338

Chapter 26 — Pre-Chapter Quiz:

Question 51: who is our history written by?

5.) people we trusted

*.) people who lie best

$.) The ones left behind

u.) The winners

 

Question 52: Why is it best to play the witnss?

$.) People like talking about their opinions most

u.) Both 5 and *

5.) only a defendant/prosecuter can lose a trial

*.) it’s hard to blame evidence, even verbal kinds

Page 339

When you die, will you be dying as a hero, or as a villain?

What do you know of the heroes from history? What do you know of others, outside of those you've actually met, at all? Surely you haven't met ALL of your favorite celebrities, or politicians, or historical figures, so what makes you like them? The answer? You don't like them. You like their authority. You want it, and you don't have it. This either leads to either envy and resentment, or admiration and praise. The fact is, no matter how much simpler life would be if it wasn't true, we admire, and long to be, those who win.

But how can you know how to win a fight, when you don't even know the exact rules of the game, and when there are so many other players? It seems like you're doomed to fail at this highly competitive game when you play alone, because everyone else will know that you're an easy mark. If you make clear your ignorance, you will become the only sheep, amidst a pack of wolves.

Whether people were debating between themselves, or with you, you should have often found yourself asking questions similar to "What exactly is my role here, right now?" and "What is my job in this game?" In my mind, I often ask, "What is my role within this courtroom?", and that, my dearest readers, is the very first question that you need to ask yourself if you're going to play the game of the con. The most pitiful thing about players in a new game, is when they keep trying to win, without asking for help, or reading the rule book.

If you wish to seem justified when persuading others (or tricking them) you must first find out if you are the judge, the jury, the executioner, the prosecutor, the defendant, or some other choice. There are many choices that you could select from freely, and with no one even batting an eye,

Page 340

but more often than not, you'll come to realize that it's completely best to simply play a witness. When it comes to fights, arguments, or really just any type of disagreement or challenge (including the challenges from liars, life, business, or even challenges from God), history is written by the victors, and if you side with no one, the victors will, at the very least, have no need to attack you from within their history books. When you're new to playing the game of “justice” and “truths”, that doesn't mean that you have to play alone.

A witness is not necessarily on the side of the defense or the prosecution, though they may be biased due to their own perspectives. In such, no matter what side wins, they have the best chance of staying up on top, and not sinking into the depths of being labeled as “Deceitful” or “Wrongful” in any way. They're not on trial, so they cannot reach a "guilty" sentence; not yet anyway. With the right placement, any outcome decided by another person or group, can transform into long-term success, for you as an individual.

I state this mostly within the metaphor being about a "you versus them" dynamic. It’s best not to see yourself as a defendant or a prosecutor. Even if someone accuses you of something, it’s best to simply play a nonbiased witness, without any ill intent towards them, or even a feeling of fear for yourself. This way, if you win, they can be certain that you’ve done so in a justified way, and that their accusations were ill-founded. If you were already in the right, then the more they talk, the less they'll seem to prove. How can an accusation be good if it falls apart without any direct defense or opposition from you? If you've spoken the truth, let reality back you up a little. There's no need to fight a battle of wits all on your own.

Here's an example for you: There was once an old man walking across the street, and at a rather slow pace at that. From what I saw, a young student decided to be “courteous” by hitting the handicap button as a way to hold the door for this older gent. 

Page 341

And then? They just stood there, by the door, in order to make sure that the old man could get there in time. Now, I’ll be fair. This may simply have rubbed me the wrong way, but, knowing that this particular handicap button only keeps the door open for approximately 3 seconds, I knew that I could step in. It rarely even lasts long enough for wheelchair riders to get in, from starting right in front of it (I’ve even seen them get hit before, on occasion), I decided to walk up behind him and grab the door with my own right hand. As the old man started walking into the building he looked straight past the other, “gentleman”, and stared directly at me. “Thank you.” is what he said. The young man turned around and looked at me. “I don’t think you need to be holding that.” He said. In this case, it would be very easy to place myself as a defendant, and to take it personally, but in truth, his argument was about "a need". That's not exactly me. In such, all I had to do was somehow display the need that I had previously seen, as a witness. Do you remember what I saw?

There are many things I could have said to defend myself in that situation. I could have gotten into a long debate with that young man, right then and right there. I could have stated that, to quote the usual, “I know what I’m doing.”, but that would be making it all about me. That would be playing a defendant - something that I didn't even need to do. Instead? I simply looked at him, and smiled, annnnd...?

I let go of the door.

It immediately began to fall towards the old man. I then reached out and grabbed it again, without saying a word. Evidence is far more important than witness testimony, if used correctly, because it's clearly unbiased. Evidence does not care WHO’s right. It only cares about What’s right. As a witness, you should consider yourself as a mere piece of evidence, and refuse to commit to anyone's side, even your own. In fact, when it

Page 342

comes to debates and other "games" in life, you shouldn't even have a side at all. You can't lose the competition if you're not on a team, even a team of 1. As I had written previously, this door never stayed open for very long, and I have witnessed that. There, my friends, is your need. It was there. I had seen it, and I had witnessed it, and that's all that I needed to make clear. In the end, after all of this 5-second debate, the old man simply turned forward, and laughed a jolly old laugh. It almost reminded me of Santa Claus. 

My point is that I used the door, not to defend myself, but merely to state the facts of our reality "as I had witnessed". The door would NOT in fact hold up without my hand being there. This was not done to defend me, but to help everyone keep track of the true reality. It was done to explain What is “true”, and What is “right”, without giving a single damn about WHO is right. Justice cannot be based on morality because, as we've recently discussed, we have no clue what is truly good or bad. Therefore it cannot be based on emotional values, and so must be based on logical facts. WHOs are for emotional, seemingly illogical perceptions. Plus, WHOs cannot even be measured directly. In order to find a measurable, and therefore certain (justifiable), verdict, we cannot use WHOs. After all, true justice is universal and equally applied to ALL of us, no matter WHO we are as an individual. So, we'll need to use something else. We now need to use, our Whats. This of course, throws off all of the simple minded manipulators, that only studied the tactics of fighting with WHOs. In short, if you master your WHOs you’ll have the perfect shields for liars, and if you master Whats you’ll have the perfect weapons.

If I was wrong, if I had let go of the door and it had stayed there until the old man had walked in? You can bet your ass that I would have apologized right then and there, as I would have been the one not living within the rules of reality. Within the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth, I would have been acting in a way that is false, and therefore cannot be justified within the eyes, not just of humanity, but also of reality, or fate herself. Please, understand, very few arguments really have anything to actually do with you, though the people you

Page 343

argue with may think that it is (Greene and Elffers 329). If you go back to chapter 3, you'll see that it isn't. Never take it personally, because taking things personally starts a journey towards emotions and vagueness on the parts of observation, and understanding. The more vague your observations or strategies, the more vague, and therefore the more unreliable, your results.

Please note: The rest of this chapter and section will be more about dismantling lies than benefiting from them. The benefits will come in book 3. 

Being a witness in life is all about having the right mindset. Just because you may have committed to the same actions as me does not mean that you have acted in the way of “justice”. Being a witness is about choosing not to commit to anyone, not even yourself. It’s about simply committing to the process of informing everyone, in a specific situation, of all facts and perspectives you have to offer, even those that may hurt you. Yes, in actual court a witness IS often on one side or another, be it the defense, or the prosecution, but what you need to keep in mind is that no matter what, they're not the ones on trial here. Plus, at the end of the day, their role is not to defend or condemn. Honestly, that's mostly the jury's job. Nonono. The role of a witness is purely to inform the jury of what they, themselves, have witnessed, albeit from a biased, and singular sided, point of view.

Their role allows for others to know, understand, and oddly appreciate, that what they witnessed is from their own perspective, and as such, it may be biased. After all of the testimonies, the monologues, and the speeches, in order to find justice in your outcomes or ideas, it is the jury that must decide whether or not the witness testimony is legitimate enough, or not legitimate enough, to be used as actual evidence for the court. The problem that often arises between two people arguing, is that they try to play too many roles. They try to be judge, jury, executioner, prosecutor, defendant, lawyer, AND the witness. Don't let this be you. Concentrate your energy on the simple, one or two roles needed, and if

Page 344

you don't need to, don't let yourself be forced into the position of defendant. You can't lose the case if you're not on trial.

The purpose of words is simply to inform. One may be more persuasive by changing the structure of sentences, or by choosing what to inform you of, but at the end of the day, the words themselves should be there to inform. Do not commit the injustice of mixing them for anything else, especially not to form a lie. Within life, as within the courtroom, your objective as a witness is simple. You speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth. Being a witness means simply stating your perspective to the proper authorities. In this metaphor that would be the police, the jury, or the judge. With an exact example from reality, it’s honestly likely that you will be informing your opposition. It’s their life, and if they aren’t harming anyone else, let their definition of justice be their own, but also shed light, with your words, or your actions, or anything else for that matter, on what “injustices” may be occurring within their own backyard, in the back of their minds, or in their actions, without them even knowing it. (Perhaps like using the wrong method of holding a door.) After all, they are the authorities on what happens in their lives... for the most part.

Some authorities are corrupt. Some opponents may continue to disagree with your testimony no matter what. In such cases, it is best for you to prove your point to a jury of your peers. By "your peers", I mean the peers of both you, and your opponents. Let reality be the prosecutor, but speak on behalf of that prosecution, and the reality's truths, whenever the need arises. If, during the conversation, the opposition says something that is actually justified? Back it up as such, state that you too have witnessed what they are speaking of. Do this, not with them in mind, but with your eye set on the jury. 

You must always keep in mind, if you're forced to be a prosecutor, that you don't ever prove guilt to the defendant. A guilty man will know that he's guilty. He'll need no proof from you on that. The point of a court is to prove that hidden guilt, to others, outside of the guilty party, be it a judge, or a jury. Nothing good will be won by directly attacking a

Page 345

defendant. Deciding to bury your opposition in the dirt will only lead to a vengeful ghost that'll haunt your every moment's rest, until it has either been exorcised, with religious fervor, or until you have been made a ghost yourself. Better to please the jury, and spare the defense, in the long run. Whether the liar agrees with your shared jury's verdict or not, is inconsequential. The verdict is passed, and their sentence will be carried out by those who's role it is "to execute" it. While actions speak louder than words, results speak louder still. Let your success, after the debate, and perhaps with the new jury, of new friends, prove your worth.

Sometimes people try to play multiple roles for themselves as a way to obtain more power over the court. Let them. It’s far easier to lose track of what you're saying if you can’t stay on a single path. You, being merely a witness, have a single, and easy path. They, will not. Plus, the truth is often more memorable than those countless, meaningless, lies.

In such cases, you can concentrate all energy into one powerful blow, directed towards a single point of attack: their main weakness in this court case, their Achilles heel. Their pain often will come from how, if they aren’t telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the  truth, you can prove that, and their whole case falls apart. If you find that they are speaking truthfully, then let justice be served. If they are justified, back away, and let reality, or fate, take its course. Let them have the results that they deserve. You must be seeming to create justice through debate. “Create through debate” my friends, you should keep that in mind.

Understand, knowing your place in the courtroom is  the crucial first step towards establishing your definition of justice in the minds of other people, plural or not,. Whether that “justice” is to have you win or to have you lose (Which can also be oddly helpful, sometimes), always seem to be accepting the results with dignity, because between success, and your dignity, you should always, choose your dignity.