I. Two Human Epistemologies

• Rational – Speech pursues the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth about the Natural World.
• Emotional – Speech is to make the communication pursuers FEEL COMFORTABLE.

II. In Yiddish, the non-rational types are colloquially called SCHMUCKS (too stupid to reason). There are two sub-categories of SCHMUCK as illustrated by an old Yiddish joke about a waiter and a customer in a restaurant.

• The ‘schlemiel’ is the clumsy careless waiter who spills the soup on the customer.
• The ‘schlimazel’ is the pitiful customer upon whom the soup is spilled.

They are both Schmucks – active and passive.  Today, the Active Political Schmucks revolve around the Democrat Party and the rest of the Anti-MAGA Trump World.  The Passive Schmucks are the MAGA People (like me) who are always on the defensive and, therefore, always lose.  Today’s Political Debate invariably follows the agenda of the Active Political Schmucks.

III. Political Debates – Two Historical Versions

Classical Athens (before party loyalties superseded individual voting) up to the beginning of the Peloponnesian War in which the last Rational Political Leader Pericles died in Year 2.

After Pericles died, there were hard-core party alignments and individual voters were no longer individuals.  (There was one monthly Assembly exception.  Once a month, a Special Pleading Assembly conferred tax-payer money to individual citizens whose pitiful stories elicited a subsidy or pension, etc.)

America – Two Phases

Before the Cartel-like Legacy Media (ESP) became entrenched (with the massive aid of the 1965 Sullivan Rule catastrophe), there was always a widely available true ‘Debate’ about Policy.  This is the reason that the treasonous Communist Party used so many prestigious ‘Useful Idiots’ from the Entertainment and Academic Worlds to stop the Rule of Law from treating the Communist conspiratorial (insurrectionists) from being unmasked.  It is the opposite of how the Hard-Left Islamic Alliance treated the J-6 Protestors and Demonstrators with true FASCIST LAW ENFORCEMENT TACTICS as if they were Insurrectionists.

There is no true debate about Policy in decades.

Pre-Modern America:  Before TV news, for centuries, Political Debates in America were actual debates.  The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 (pre-Civil War for a Senate seat in Illinois) was a perfect example of a Political Debate in a civilized free country.  The audience sat, watching and listening, without the slightest (unacceptable) attempt to intrude, let alone disrupt.  Each speaker, uninterrupted, made his presentation in turn – sometimes more than one turn each.

The speakers spoke and individual citizens were free to make up their own minds WITHOUT SOCIAL PRESSURE.

When TV news, over the course of decades, intruded and controlled the TV News stars became more important and powerful than the political speakers.  They are the ones that determine the Social and Political Consciousness of the Society.  If they want a subject to never go away, they update you every day.  If what they call ‘McCarthyism’ is their perpetual INJUSTICE, you will be reminded of their version of McCarthyism forever.

And, for example, if a True Injustice that comports with their ‘McCarthyism’  characteristics, if you are lucky, you will get a one-day story – never referred to again.

On August 7, on this website, there is a little essay about the New ‘McCarthyism.’  I thought about that essay while writing this essay, but had to re-read it to find the story that was less than two weeks old.  A one-day report is easily forgotten.  A week after week after week public performance like the January 6 Congressional Select Committee Hearings and follow up news, can never disappear and be forgotten.

Nor can the myth about ‘McCarthyism.’  Let me explain.

Two or three years after 9/11, True Believers in the ideology of the Hard-Left Islamic Alliance created a heavily promoted movie about ‘McCarthyism.’  It was called “Good Night and Good Luck” (Edward R. Murrow’s ‘tag line’ for decades).  The following is a Conservative’s Deconstruction of this propaganda film.

Although the Korean War was in progress (1950-1954) at the beginning, there is not the slightest indication in the movie (even with a newspaper picture) that Communism was at war against Civilization.  Murrow and his ‘Liberal’ acolytes are looking to stop all investigations of Communist subversion of our government.  (Any such investigation requires people who associated with guilty parties to truthfully answer Rule of Law inquiries about their associations with those who were true conspirators.  Treating sympathetic associates of Communist Conspirators as sources of information does not make them ‘guilty by association’ but the great McCarthyism hoax created that delusion.  Therefore, innocent useful idiots refusing to answer probative Rule of Law interrogations about actual Communist conspirators became reinterpreted as an unacceptable tactic of abusive law enforcement.  Obviously, that pattern of false belief was completely reversed in the extremely abusive January 6 law enforcement persecutions.)

In this movie, the CBS news department collectively believed that they found their TV anecdote in the case of a Yugoslavian-American junior officer in the Air Force whose sister and father are overt fans of Communism and, therefore, loses his ‘job’ as a ‘security risk.’

The movie begins with a fancy Black-Tie event with prestigious celebrities glorifying each other.  As best I recall, they are all White – except for a brief screenshot of the ‘serving staff.’

The movie ends when the Murrow campaign results in the Air Force officer’s job loss being reversed.  Murrow and his acolytes cannot stop cheering at their great VICTORY FOR JUSTICE.

Today nobody will lift a finger to restore Miss North Carolina USA to her position – someone found an old social media post that made her potentially a ‘Security Risk’ to the Hard-Left Islamic Alliance cultural mandates.  In some western countries, such as the UK, people are criminally prosecuted for social media posts that violate Islamic protocols.  You can complain about and/or make fun of Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists – but not Islam.

PS –   In 1987, Thomas Sowell published an excellent book about the two human epistemologies – it is called “A Conflict of Visions.”