Lessons in Operation Mockingbird - How to Foment Hate & Deceive a Nation

The picture is a copy of art by Frank Frazetta.

I wrote yesterday about hate. This morning, the media’s prurient interest in Anna Nicole Smith satisfied, famed lawyer Gerry Spence’s “Bloodthirsty Bitches and Pious Pimps of Power have raced to the next possible filth-feeding frenzy to the matter of Don Imus having said, “Ho.” Even I - cynical, anti-social SOB that I am – find hard to believe what’s going on. Damn – are we sick!

Rita, my schoolteacher wife, promises to find out for me to what “nappy-headed” may refer. It won’t be hard – she hears the same thing Imus said literally dozens of times a day from students in the middle school were she teaches English. No one heard using the expression, incidentally, is in any danger of being expelled or even disciplined for use of the term. Prayer to a god, on the other hand, might do it.

Odd, what? An hour ago, waiting for traffic at a stop sign beside a car, I hear a “rapper” on the car’s sound system say the word “ho” seven times (that after I started counting). Did I say “odd?”

So why is brother Imus in such hot water? Well, as I said, I spoke of that yesterday. Hate is the reason. More specifically, the fact that hate sells as nothing else, even that so-called “music,” rap.

Earlier by a few minutes, I commented on a forum, thread, or whatever the correct term is here (you’ve got to watch your terminology, these days, you know; say anything useful to one of our demagogues or special interest groups, you’re in big – Don Imus style – trouble), my comment having to due with the already explosive topic of rape. This is what I said (I corrected a couple of “typos”):

“As a retired (formally and partially, actually) Private Investigator (that’s not right, either – but it’s the term you’ll understand) my interest in the subject here is one spanning several decades. Then, too, I wrote on my "blog" yesterday about hate. It's hard to overlook the hate lurking behinds the words many purported rape counselors use. This is an example. Here’s some of what I said:

“If the definition of rape given here is correct, then I was raped when I was thirteen or so, and the story is in my recent book. The four men caught me during one of my habitual walks by the river back home, and it was several hours before I escaped by diving into the river. One result of the incident was the physical strength and fitness regimen I put myself on, a regimen that ultimately would lead to two U.S. National Judo Championships. I learned, in other words, to fight.

“Each year at county fair time (the men were carnie workers), I would go back to the river where the men camped, to watch them. Unfortunately, the next year, I was forced to watch - still too puny to do anything - as the men caught the Native American wife of a trapper who lived nearby. All I could do, as I say, was watch.

“I should have said all I had the courage to do was watch. The humiliation of that probably provided greater impetus for my training than anything else.

“Grown strong beyond anything most people would believe, I caught the men one day at their usual annual campsite. The story's in my book, and it tells how I killed the four men, ground them up, and fed their remains to a herd of pigs nearby.

“Not a good thing, everyone will say. That's the trouble, part of it, anyway. "They" won't know the circumstances. Their ethics and morality isn’t written in a few lines, or words, even.

“It happens that, once I had begun professional forensic investigation work, I undertook to find out for myself the truth about rape. Part of my research was to contact and interview with twenty-five women who had reported rape that resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of the men accused. That, many years before DNA testing, also had a lot to do with my subsequent training and attitudes – those you’re now reading about now.

“One woman, whose testimony led to the imprisonment for forty years of four men (one who had been impotent from puberty - another story), told me at length that "maybe they didn't know it was rape." To my astonished response, the obvious – I trust – question, she said, "In the final analysis, that's up to the woman - isn't it?"

“Yes, I know. Nothing I have written about in the past several years has brought me more hate mail. Hate is how we deal with most things in the U.S., and what I really want to write about here.

“Oh, incidentally, twelve of the fifteen rape cases I worked resulted in dismissal of charges, acquittal, or reduction of the charge. It was the local prosecutor's call to the IRS that resulted in destruction of my business, and it was my having reneged on my promise to stop PI work that brought the second attack from IRS and a repeat of their depredations against me, my wife, and family. Two marriages went with the businesses, my son attempted suicide three times, and I lost my family.

“Rape charges can go much further than putting an innocent man in prison, you know. That's true, perhaps, of any subject that so lends itself to hatred.

“I'll write more in my ‘blog.’”

There, that’ll do it. An object lesson in how (even, perhaps, why) to do “reconnaissance by fire.” That, for the uninitiated, means to shoot in order to see if anyone shoots back. If the past is any indication, the blizzard of mindless invective and verbalized hate will be phenomenal. It’ll be, hopefully, worth it.

The reason I’ve picked the topic is that few of such results in more kinds of responsive hate than that of rape. When William Congreve (or was it Alexander Pope?) observed that “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” he forgot about woman raped (assuming, of course, that – “male chauvinist” that he must have been – he didn’t equate the two).

Oops! – One thing, first. I should think it goes without saying that rape is evil. I would have said “unspeakably evil” but in view of the fact that it seems we hardly speak of anything else these days, that might sound a little silly. I’ve already remarked here that I would be happy to be selected as the executioner who dispatches to his eternal reward the pedophile who abuses children, and the SOB who by force imposes any of his sick behaviors on another isn’t far behind where my contempt – let’s call it what it is, fear - is concerned.

But stop and think about that. More, let’s assume that the essay to which I refer here is correct when it says, “rape has little to do with sex.” If that’s true, then forcing someone to accept attack – right term? – with the sex organ is no different in its essence than forcing with a gun someone to surrender his money, or accept punches, kicks, and all that. Forcing someone to work for nothing is the same crime, isn’t it? So is the fact that the “weapon” is a male organ (see me tippy-toeing around the verbal mines) different? If a man uses the threat of using his sex organ to demand and obtain money from a woman, what, exactly, crime has been committed?

Try to imagine a guy robbing a bank by threatening the woman teller with his – “tool,” shall we say? – and we’ve reached reductio ad absurdum (to say nothing of a little comic relief). But what’s the crime? Is it a sex crime? Will the penalty be worse? I hope you can explain why.

Then why, in the essay here, all the rest? Why the tone, the obvious rancor? Am I more or less “humiliated” because the weapon was a club, knife, or gun, and what I had to do was surrender my property, or my services other than sexual? Why isn’t anyone raging on a regularly continual basis about robbery in general? Slavery (no, the current version – not what happened to your ancestors)? How about being sent to Iraq for the third time?

Those astute enough know where I’m going; in fact, they’re already there. The others can’t be helped, not even answered – and I haven’t much time for that kind. “The only thing that will argue with a jackass, my grandfather was wont to say, “is another jackass.”

My interest is hate, anyway, not rape (not even so much, these days, sex). Gerry Spence’s book was about the way hate sells. My blog was about the way it can be used by CIA-U.S. Government Operation Mockingbird technicians like Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, Nancy Grace, Rosie O’Donnell (sorry I can’t remember more of those from that side of the screaming match, but I pay very little attention to the liberals these days), and the rest. Suffice it to say in that regard that hate is used pretty much the same way lurid sex is. It SELLS.

And it motivates. It blinds the hater to everything but what he has been induced to hate. I quoted historian William L Shirer yesterday, and one quote is salient in the way it relates here. Shirer tells of meeting well-educated and intelligence individuals, hearing them mouth the most outlandish assertions. “It was obvious,” he says, “that they were parroting some piece of nonsense they had heard on the radio or read in the newspaper” (remember, there was no television then).

How do you get the most intelligent people in society to “mouth” “nonsense?” How do you get what was then – may still be, actually – the intellectually brightest culture and nation on the planet (Germans invented physics, among several other things our lives depend upon today, you know) to goose-step, scream “sieg heil,” and attempt genocide?

In answer, of course, you could have the purveyors of federal propaganda and Operation Mockingbird mind and opinion-control devilment in our own country tell you – they’ve mastered it and used it against you for more than half a century now. But, of course, if you ask them to tell you how it’s done, they won’t. It’s a secret.

How do you get people who fairly worship democracy (at least pay it adulatory lip-service) to simultaneously worship hate and its purveyors? Democracy, you know – “the noble calling,” Gerry Spence calls it in his new book - has for its sine qua non (the Latin means “without which nothing”) the willingness of people of different views to practice their beliefs in peace, and let everyone else do the same.

Let’s use the essay I’ve referred to as an example”

“Rape . . . is the ultimate merging (italics mine) of sex and violence.” Really? So what we’re saying is that without violence, the crime is not rape? And “the ultimate?” What’s the objective here? Everyone conscious and awake knows that rape is a crime. It’s been a crime in most societies for centuries. So why the language? We need to be told again?

In fact, little in the context of that initial sentence is fact. “Male rapists both hate and fear women. They are incapable of having equal relationships with women. Rapists do not like themselves very much. They choose the crime (yes, yes, we know – why repeat it again and again, a propagandist technique invented by the Goebbels I had reference to yesterday in my blog?) of rape as a way to satisfy their need to dominate . . . rapists hold the belief that real men can do anything they want with women. “

Obviously, to anyone knowledgeable, and anyone who doesn’t listen because it gives them some kind of satisfaction, this is more harangue than anything else. It seeks to instill hate. This is Nancy Grace (CNN television) stuff, hatemongering.

“Rape . . . is a weapon a rapist uses to degrade and humiliate victims in order to feel powerful and masterful over another person.” I can, as can many, think of twenty words one could substitute here for the word “rape,” without changing the truth of the sentence – if that’s how you view it. Or that’s what’s been done to you. For the word “rape,” substitute “kidnapping,” for instance.

I trust I can rest my case at this point, without going further with analysis of what is clearly an attempt to arouse hatred as much as anything else. I can tell you as an investigator of fifteen years experience on the subject of rape that “all rapists” do not intend to “degrade” or “humiliate,” anyone. Several with whom I spoke said they were starving men stealing food, or the like. One guy, at first a “flasher” who “did his thing” in the hopes that a woman would want what he was showing her (his method was to ring the door bell and demonstrate when the prospective object of his twisted affections answered), finally was charged with attempted rape once he had actually grabbed the woman in an apparent effort to convince her. Barry’s technique may have been more than a little clumsy, but it wasn’t about “degradation” or “humiliation.” Not his victim’s anyway. The fact is that were prosecutors limited to the arguments and definitions provided by the author of the essay in question, they would be able to charge only a small, very small, percentage of rapists with rape.

“Barry,” by the way, killed himself.

This is, as I said, the hatemongering of a Nancy Grace (and anyone who needs to assess further why it scares me need only to watch her shows for a month or so). And, this is how the masters and purveyors of hate, do it. It’s how a nation is controlled, and led like a lynch mob to a killing – in this case, it’s own. This is the reason we, the nation, are hiding our faces in shame as one after the other men imprisoned for years for rape are incontrovertibly proved to be innocent by DNA tests.

This is also the reason that we are in Iraq, doing despicable things. Recall for me the rhetoric immediately after 9-11. Go back, copy some of the hatemongers’ words – I’ve given you the names of most of the leading lights there; just add that of your president – and compare them with those quoted here above.

Nice word, “terrorist,” isn’t it? How about “rapist?” That better?

P.S. As I finish this, the radio announces that rape charges against the three Duke University Lacrosse players - I trust everyone reading here remembers how it all occurred, and how the media "reported" the story - have been dropped. "Ravenqueen," "Eyes Wide Open," and others on the Truthout Forum will no doubt also remember - including what I said in writing there. Readers here might find the discourse enlightening. It'll sound familiar, now that you've read this, my latest comment on "rape."

I would be interested to hear what everyone thinks should be done about the Duke Players' accuser, to say nothing about the accusers of all the men recently freed by DNA testing. I'd also like any comment or explanation concerning what HAS occurred in that regard. Has anyone ever heard of a woman who falsely accused a man of rape being charged with anything?

In no instance of any of the men I proved innocent of the rape charges brought against them was a woman charged with any crime. "'Splain dat to me, Luci."