Politics as the WWF

Not to be confused with WEF

Does anyone here remember the World Wrestling Federation? From the 80s? Hulk Hogan? The Undertaker? Cyndi Lauper? Lou Albano? Rowdy Roddy Piper? I do. Here’s a reminder.

My brother was into wrestling so we all got into it - well, at least by watching it on the television in this dramatized format.

The entire thing was like a circus, wasn’t it? Complete with a ring. A ring surrounded by excited spectators looking for a winner. Looking to smell blood. And defeat. And victory. Each person as a spectator would have their own favorite and their own commentary on who did what right, what was fake, and who should be wearing that mighty gold belt at the end of the fight.

This is exactly how I see politics and why, in fact, I believe many players in the game of life refuse to debate others in a politicized arena. We have seen a lot of this in the past three years. Steve Kirsch is notorious for requesting debates and many of his requests simply go unanswered. Why?

It has a lot to do with the fact that it is never simply about two people debating, no matter how it might be framed, and no matter how good the moderator might be. There is always going to be a vast circle of ‘spectators’ in the world of politics or any politicized forum (which is basically everything now). These spectators are not members of the public who are vying for their favorite wrestler to wear a gold belt however, they are more akin to blood-thirsty vultures, in many cases.

We used to have a world of journalists - people interested in breaking stories that would be in the public interest to know. Extra! Extra! Read all about it! I mean, yes, sensationalism has always been a part of journalism, but the truth used to be sensational enough.

Now, we have the media. We have ‘fact-checkers’: people paid by corporate entities to disseminate fiction impostering as fact. We have news agencies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. What else would a news agency funded by pharma do but promote the sale of their products? It’s in their contract to do so. We also have massive censorship as per the past three year debacle. I have fallen victim to being censored and still am to this day, as have many others who have changed nothing of their truthful story, their quality or their path.

Going back to the debate analogy, every single word uttered by say, a two-member debate, must be carefully chosen because every single word will be up for scrutiny. This is why people who are not standing on solid factual foundations or truth often refuse to debate others - they would crumble under scrutiny. People who are not afraid to be wrong or who can stand to be corrected are usually people who base their conclusions in truth and fact, and thus are not afraid to be scrutinized.

I am not saying it is an easy thing to be in a debate, or in the ring of politics. On the contrary. From my point of view, the entire forum has always been akin to a WWF wrestling match and has recently morphed into something that doesn’t even have a good guy. I am not saying there are no good guys around - there are - but this circus of politicizing ‘experts’ who refuse to simply have a discussion with another scientist is simply doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo.

This is why Peter Hotez (where did he go by the way?) refused to accept Joe Rogan’s debate invitation. This is why the cowards in the mutton crew won’t debate their hits. Their claims are not backed by scientific truth, but rather by pedantic rhetoric and catch phrases to sell products and support false narratives. They know they cannot stand tall in a circle of scrutiny. They would end up looking foolish.

So like the WWF, in the world of politics, most get close-lined in the ring. But to me, this means you simply need to be better. And I really do mean, be better.