Imagine 30 to 40 million American men and women, classified
as blue collar workers, and 120 million other ones classified as service
industry workers, all toiling and producing the wealth of the nation.
These people deserve to be entertained once in a while,
which is why there are television shows, big screen shows, nightclubs, the
circus and what have you. Some of these people, especially the younger ones
among them, love scary shows all the time but especially at Halloween time.
They pay good money to be scared by a form of entertainment that's seen as
legitimate because it is harmless. It is so because the audience knows that the
show will end in a few minutes, and that life will get back to normal.
However, this cultural activity must not be confused with
something called demagoguery; a word that's defined as the use of the language
to sow fear in the hearts of the audience. The intention here is not to
entertain but to control the emotions of the people so as to control their
activities at the end of the day. Moreover, this “show” is not designed to end
in a few minutes; it is designed to go on indefinitely.
But who would want to do that? If you really want to know, I
can give you two names, and you take it from there. They are Stephen F. Hayes
and Thomas Joscelyn who co-authored “The Final Obama Scandal,” a lengthy
article that also came under the subtitle: “Closing the book on a deceptive
narrative about the al Qaeda threat.” It was published on January 30, 2017 in
the Weekly Standard.
Hayes is the new editor-in-chief at the Weekly Standard, and
Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the thing which calls itself Foundation
for Defense of Democracies. The latter is an outfit that pretends to be a think
tank even though it has less of the gray matter that's necessary to think, than
you could fit into the skull of a bird.
Hayes and Joscelyn are whining because they say that the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a total of 571
documents of the million that were collected from Bin Laden's hideout. The
Director said that no more will be released as he was closing the book on the
Bin Laden matter.
When you read the 5,660-word article, you can tell that the
two authors spent a great deal of time reading the Bin Laden documents and
“analyzing” them. But these are only 571 documents of the 1,000,000 that Hayes
and Joscelyn want to read – a ratio of 1 in 1,750. Now imagine how much time
they will be spending going over the rest of the documents. More importantly:
how much money they will be paid for the privilege? And that's not all because
our authors are but two of the thousands who will get paid exorbitant sums –
money that's marked as charitable donations, and doled out tax free.
So you ask: how can anyone justify any of this? The answer
is that all these people – Hayes and Joscelyn included – drum into the heads of
their audiences the thought that society is in existential danger. They claim
they can protect society but to do this, they must know what's in the Bin Laden
documents.
In short, the two authors want to see the release of all the
Bin Laden documents. They also want society to pay them millions of tax free
dollars while they spend several years reading and analyzing those documents.
And while doing this, they will be scaring society – not to entertain it, but
to control it.
Do they believe they have an argument that is strong enough
to persuade the new administration to release all of Bin Laden's documents –
including those pertaining to his wives and children? Apparently, Hayes and
Joscelyn fear they may not, which is why they decided to play the ace card.
Here is how they did that: “Why do the documents still
matter? Over the course of eight years, President Obama and his advisers repeatedly
downplayed the Jihadist threat.” They continue to make their case like this:
“There is no better resource for understanding al Qaeda than the intelligence
recovered in its founder's compound”.
But the problem with Hayes and Joscelyn is that they didn't
bother explaining why they believe they can do a better job understanding
what's in those documents than the professionals who work in the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence, the people that did all the analysis that
can be done.