Fox News, The “Intelligence” Hearing, and Pseudo-Debates

Still not feeling up to par this evening, so I won’t be hosting my radio program tonight. I am, however, planning to be back next Monday.

In the meantime, because I’m not on the air tonight, I want to share something with you that has been bothering me for a long time, but amazingly I have been unable to put into words. Until now. This would have been my opening monologue tonight if I was on the air:

——

“In the case of pseudo-debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo-debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle.”

While watching the “Intelligence” hearing (Senate Armed Services Committee) on Capitol Hill earlier today, the entire thing struck me as much ado about the wrong thing. A dog and pony show constructed of smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the truth about our recent presidential election. A “pseudo-debate.”

Sentient human beings — you being among them — understand that this theater is nothing more than that, a charade — a meaningless attempt to detract from a variety of overt and covert crimes, sins, and lies by those in our government who have perpetrated them and those who help cover them up by engaging in a pretend hearing about pretend Russian incursions into our election process.

The follow-up to the hearing was the off-kilter blah-blah-blather on Fox News (and talk radio) by shallow debutantes and their toupee’d Ken dolls — pseudo debates — that we’re supposed to buy into as “serious discussion” about the particulars of a topic in which there is no “there” there.

I find myself asking of these talking heads on the screen and on the radio, “Are they really THAT shallow and vapid?

Or are they deliberately taken a point of view that misses the mark and skirts the REAL issue at hand? A “pseudo-debate?”

It’s a lot like spending an hour discussing the methodology of applying cake icing, when the critical point is the ingredients that go into making the cake poisonous.

I’m pretty sure you’ve noticed that these talking heads who have a BIG media platform never, EVER drill down to the essential question — or fact — or point — which in this case is:

The BIG DEAL about Russia’s so-called, alleged “involvement” in our election process.

Now, given what we’ve seen in the WikiLeaked DNC memos of its outright manipulation of the Democrat primary during which Bernie Sanders was robbed of his electoral support by the Clinton machine; the voter fraud; ballot tampering; Obama’s interference in Netanyahu’s reelection, Canada’s prime minister election, and the Brexit vote, are we supposed to believe this manufactured crap and pearl clutching about Russia?

The entire brouhaha about Putin and the Russians is sleight of hand, nothing more than a magician’s trick to divert attention to the real issue: to control a hidden narrative (the poisonous cake) and dupe the American public, done by a corrupt Administration and its slime ball Congressional partners in crime on both sides of the aisle who have something to gain — or protect.

So disgusted with the level of superficiality in both the Hearing and ensuing TV discussion, I snapped off the set and I’ve absolutely NO interest in turning it back on anytime soon, if ever.

The chattering fake-eyelashed magpies and their male counterparts give NOTHING that interests, intrigues, or informs me. I’m so far beyond their inane prattle about the trivial I find it a huge irritant.

There is nothing new under the sun. A better use of my time is to read books and history that illuminate me about our path to the future. The history of human nature and its wiles and constructs used to achieve power IS the best teacher.

So, I want to share with you something I read that gave me an “Aha!” moment. Words that so clearly convey what I’ve been struggling to define and articulate and share with you.

E. Martin Schotz, author of “History Will Not Absolve Us,” described what was happening then as it is now, in remarks he delivered at the COPA Conference, 20 Nov 1998, titled “The Waters of Knowledge versus the Waters of Uncertainty: Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy.”

Stay with me here, and when you’re done reading, I’d like to know if you agree with him.

He spoke of President JFK’s assassination and the use of “pseudo-debates.” He talked about the media and the power elite who control the conversation — the “narrative” that tells us what we’re supposed to think:

“The lie that was destined to cover the truth of the assassination was the lie that the assassination is a mystery, that we are not sure what happened, but being free citizens of a great democracy we can discuss and debate what has occurred. We can petition our government and join with it in seeking the solution to this mystery.

This is the essence of the cover-up.

The lie is that there is a mystery to debate.

And so we have pseudo-debates.

Debates about meaningless disputes, based on assumptions which are obviously false. This is the form that Orwell’s crimestop has taken in the matter of the President’s murder.

I am talking about the pseudo-debate over whether the Warren Report is true when it is obviously and undebatably false. The pseudo-debate over whether the Russians, or the Cubans, or the Mafia, or Lyndon Johnson, or some spinoff from the CIA killed the President.

These are all part of the process of crimestop which is designed to cover up the obvious nature of this assassination.

And let us not forget the pseudo-debate over whether JFK would or would not have escalated in Vietnam. As if a President who was obviously turning against the cold war and was secretly negotiating normalization of relations with Cuba, would have allowed the military to trap him into pursuing our war in Vietnam.

Since the publication of “History Will Not Absolve Us,” what I have found most striking is the profound resistance people have to the concept of pseudo-debate, a resistance in people which is manifest as an inability or unwillingness to grasp the concept and to use it to analyze their own actions and the information that comes before them.

Even amongst “critics” who are very favorably disposed to my book, I note a consistent avoidance of this concept. And I see this as part of the illness, a very dangerous manifestation of the illness, which I want to discuss further.

Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo-debate is a benign activity. That it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case.

I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate.

In the case of pseudo-debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo-debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle.

The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo-debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise. It is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This premise – that there is uncertainly to be resolved – seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water.

But the fact remains that there is no mystery except in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial.”

Do you get it? “Pseudo-debates” are what the media at Fox et al feed us ALL THE TIME.

Arguing the nits. The mundane. The unimportant while they use up precious air time that should be spent informing us of The TRUTH.

What do you think?