Who, Imus or Mangum, Did Us Most Harm?

Like weapons, medicine, electronics, technology of all kinds, and many more, the people of the United States of America didn’t invent hypocrisy. But, just as they have become scientifically sophisticated, they have raised hypocrisy to a level history could never before have imagined. More, my recent book “Letters to Aaron, the Hal Luebbert Story,” is subtitled, “’America’ and Its Freedom Myths.” I’ve never, in other words, had any doubt about my country’s proclivity for self-serving and self-deceiving dissimulation.

But the most recent example is absolutely stultifying. More, nothing could have more thunderously and clearly made apparent the chaotic effect of our national hypocrisy on our nation and its absolutely necessary ability to do justice than the juxtaposition of the Don Imus Affair and that of a “Nation of Laws” and “Land of the Free” having finally acquitted of rape the Duke University Lacrosse Team players.

A supposedly sexist and racist “slur” equated with perjuring accusation of rape.

Originally, I wrote here that we would stop to think about what that means. Don’t bother: a nation and people as deliberately – whether passively or actively doesn’t matter here – mindless in the fragmented state it is found aren’t capable any more of useful thought.

Oh, there will be some, and it is for them, and for history, that I bother with what follows. Somebody now living may benefit, and some historian of the future may come across these message-in-a-bottle lines.

Don Imus uttered three words that could not possibly do any real harm to anyone normally rational and emotionally healthy; by that, I mean one whose mind has not been twisted, folded, torn, stained, or mutilated by the devastating traffic of sexism and racism that has run over and through it. I’ve announced my topic for today, so I’ll point out that the same people who are raging at Don Imus are the ones whose sexism and racism made his supposed victims so vulnerable.

In twenty minutes, find or dream up for me a more archetypical example of hypocrisy.

“Nappy-headed ho.” I have, since my last writing here, discovered one thousand, one hundred and thirteen repetitions of that term in normal Black American art, music, and discourse. It is everywhere that Black Americans frequent - literally everywhere - from the halls of the highest public offices, to the street corners. It is all but impossible to imagine a conversation having to do with the distaff side of that culture and between black males that doesn’t produce it at least once.

And, we are told by the tabloid scum-sucking, hatemongering media, that young women on the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team wept on account of a white man having said it. One needs only to try to imagine a black woman weeping because a black man called her a “ho” – I still can’t find out what “nappy-headed” means; no one seems to know (?????) – and you’ve made my point.

Next we consider Crystal Gail Mangum. Let’s get a couple of things out of the way – all of it far more familiar to the general public in the United States than the word “ho” is to Black Americans. Crystal Gail Mangum should not elude prosecution for her lies because she is a woman, because she is poor, because she is black, or because she is a whoring stripper.

I’d say the same thing if she were filthy rich, powerful, and male. If that reminds anyone of a certain All-Pro football player who murdered his wife, tough. It’s even fair to mention that the football player was a Black American. Crystal Gail Mangum, like the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Lauren Lake, Anthony D. Bradley, and all the scum who carried banners demanding castration for the three falsely accused players, and drove by means of their political clout a scheming demagogue politician to avail himself of perjury, don’t deserve to kiss the feet of all the decent people of their race or otherwise.

As difficult as life as been made for them – especially now that government chooses to inflict illegal immigration from Mexico on the youth among them seeking employment - all of these people have somehow managed to live without making any self-serving attempt like this to destroy and defile the lives of others.

I’ve written here repeatedly to deplore the use being made of hate by the U.S. Government and its propagandist media. More, this is about hypocrisy, and I don’t want to make of myself a hypocrite, so I will point out that I don’t hate hatred, not entirely. In fact, I once demanded it of my sons. True, I demanded that they love the liar, but I also demanded that they hate the lie. I hate the prostitution of hate, the sale of it to a public as eager for it as that same public is for drugs, for pornography, and for the food with which they stuff their gluttonous bellies and walrus-like forms.

But I don’t hate Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Crystal Gail Mangum. I don’t even hate the ravening morons who clamored for the blood – castration means blood, you know – of three young guys who went to watch a woman disrobe (still another thing done since antiquity, but now somehow become a crime against all things female). Stupidity falls at some point off the target of hate. Even a mean dog is hard to hate.

Far from hating, I stand in stupefied astonishment at the shear single-mindedness and minimalist vapidity of militant feminist sexists like Nancy Grace, Wendy Murphy, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Georgia Goslee, and those who used a host of internet websites and other forms of communication including television to spew – and flaunt with meretricious arrogance for all to see - their legally suicidal and rabidly ferocious hatred of anything male. To confess, I spent more time laughing at the bizarre spectacle of otherwise well-educated people engaged in such ridiculously self-demeaning spiritual burlesque dancing and posturing pantyhose-pontificating.

Where Black females joining in the witches’ witch hunt for warlocks were concerned, they were like their counterparts on the Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team – the only emotions possible being sympathy or “what-the-hell-is-this?” mirth. Motor-mouthed Lauren Lake, for instance, is comical more than anything else, and the black feminist website I cited yesterday will give the reader all he needs to make the point (besides, this is comical stuff, worth reading if only in that regard).

http://blackfeminism.org/index.php/2006/03/28/duke-u-lacrosse-team-rape-case/

But I digress. Which would you rather have: someone call you the most vile name imaginable, or have him so empowered and free to send you to prison by simply pointing a finger and yelling “rape!”? The synergistic coupling of fervid minimalist feminism with the hatemongering of federal government has reached critical mass, a fact thundering despite themselves like an atomic explosion through the Operation Mockingbird-controlled media.

Nothing - not even the fact of hundreds of men imprisoned for the crime of rape they didn’t commit - could represent in such Brobdingnagian fashion the evil result of affairs like the Duke Lacrosse Team Rape Case. We are in a death struggle now, one wherein we eradicate the virus raging through our societal veins, or we die as a nation.

When we are no longer capable of simple justice, in other words, where our lives or freedom may be forfeit to sexist or racist ideology and the mania attendant them, we are no longer the United States of America. When the uncorroborated testimony of single witness, in violation of one of the oldest tenets of jurisprudence known to man, can deprive any one of us of his freedom, we cease to be a nation of laws. No hypocritical demagoguery, no sanctimonious societal sophistry, and no individually self-righteous and self-aggrandizing argument can change that.

Already, examples like FoxNews’ Megyn Kelly last night and others during the early hours of the Imus and Duke news scum-suck frenzy, the arrogantly assured voices of minimalist feminism are being heard. What, Kelly wondered, would the states capitulation in the Duke case mean for future “victims of rape.” Would the women be loathe to “come forward? “

Not, Megyn, if she has evidence other than her word to support her effort to send a man to jail for forty or so years.

Already, even before the echoes of the first shouts have died, the mindless urges of feminist minimalist begin to demand that a practice almost as odious as the unus testis nullus testis conviction of innocent men continue. Of course, I speak of the immunity from consequences for the woman who has used perjury to deprive an innocent man of his freedom – and, for some reason, to ignore the danger to life and limb inherent in being arrested for such a crime. Anticipating, perhaps, trouble with keeping liar Crystal Gail Mangum free of responsibility for her outrage of justice, female “analysts” have already made the suggestion that she has psychological “issues.”

Until the dawn of militantly mindless feminism, perjured report leading to false arrest was a serious matter. I’d do that, too, were I they. I find it, however, demeaning to the women I love that penis envy should have been raised to the level of the justification for criminal conduct once reserved to temporary insanity. If the female would have equality under the law, then she must accept equality under the law.

“No” meaning “maybe” or “yes” may be a female prerogative everywhere else, but it cannot be in the law.

Once, moreover, burden of proof at civil and common law rested upon the shoulders of the individual or individuals claiming injury. While certain actions were held to be injurious per se, none other might be claimed. Jurisprudence obviated entirely the very real possibility otherwise of each citizen or group thereof making law applicable only to him or themselves. No more: today, the Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team might claim that being called The Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team did them injury and made them cry.

Not long ago, apologist for black racism like Lauren Lake were able to somehow convince themselves and their racial fellows that paying one of their number a compliment offended the rest. Black racism, it seemed, had learned at great deal from militant feminism, and the affair ought to have served warning for what was to come, the Imus case, but it didn’t.

The hideous parallels and corollaries are everywhere. No nation, “conceived and dedicated” as this one once was, can go on with a great segment of its public existing in the mental and emotional state of seven or eight year olds. We cannot hold up the airliner of government and national affairs every time the child among us has a temper tantrum. If it is necessary to formally legalize certain supposed hate words, we must do just that.

If supposed hate can be made illegal, the law may certainly decide that certain words are not hateful or against the law. Just as it is where "unus testis, nullus testis" is concerned, it's time.