Television – that panorama of intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy – remains as America’s insatiably fantastic playground of colorful images, tailored to pacify a nation populated by the perpetually bored, and the emotionally arrested.

During the daytime hours, millions can be found whittling away their vast energies better spent elsewhere in zombie-like dedication to the ringleader of a most ghastly entertainment, and human interest spectacle, known as “Doctor Phil.”

Turns out folks, not only is Doctor Phil an impostor, but a grotesquely drawn character portrayed by a famous host actor who was recently embroiled in allegations of sexual impropriety. One has also managed to discover, connections between “Doctor” Phil’s host actor and the British royal family.

Needless to say, America has been bamboozled, and for quite an extended time, held hostage to the willful mind games of a prevaricating fraud.

In addition, as one shall soon observe, “Doctor” Phil is not the only character with an alleged Phd. portrayed by his host actor.

As a widely distributed broadcast medium, the concept of television was never designed solely for entertainment purposes. Rather, and perhaps never considered by its millions of adherents, it was designed as a social and mass behavioral modification tool.

And, in the case of the program known as Dr. Phil, this is particularly evident.

Drawing in millions of viewers with his faux Texas drawl, accompanied by slews of Southern fried witticisms delivered with the requisite comic timing, the celebrity known as Dr. Phil resembles – contrary to what is indicated by fabricated qualifications and certifications – an exploitive, theatrical ringmaster rather than an objective, clinical psychologist.

Before delving into one’s examination of the celebrity phenomenon and cult of personality known as Dr. Phil, one would like to point out that the scientific validity of many of psychology’s observations regarding human behavior – at least as they are popularly understood – have not only been put to question by some of its more notable practitioners, but even by those generally considered to be luminaries in the scientific and philosophical community.

This is so, chiefly due to the fact that the body of knowledge making up the field of psychology draws upon a priori reasoning, or theoretical deduction rather than verifiable empirical observation. While the counter argument may exist that observation is rife with verisimilitude, the fact remains, psychology as a scientific field does not meet the most basic of requirements to be defined as such (clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility, predictability and testability), those requirements that have been rigorously met by other scientific disciplines such as biology, chemistry, and physics. In fact, the brand of psychology sold by Doctor Phil McGraw, is heuristic in nature, and due to its short cut methodology is often branded “pop” psychology, and can hardly qualify as scientific in nature.

In essence, the fast food approach to psychological analysis sold by Doctor Phil offers about as much nutrition for one’s mind as McDonalds’ artificial swill masquerading as food does for one’s body. Paradoxically speaking, merely because the brand of “pop” psychology peddled by most practicing clinicians and those who play psychologists on television may happen to lack overall scientific merit, by no means does this indicate the ruling elite families lack any significant knowledge, through centuries of empirical observation, of the base impulses that truly motivate the mass human organism.

Regardless, it cannot be denied the celebrity of Doctor Phil McGraw continues unabated and unmolested by any such inconvenient scientific shortcomings.

The birth of a television celebrity

Doctor Phil McGraw first came to public notice when, during the latter part of the 1990’s, the character began making regular appearances on the highly touted Oprah Winfrey show. One doesn’t have to be a major corporate television executive to comprehend that the daytime television audience is almost solely dominated by those belonging to female demographics, and if the character of Doctor Phil was to become a heralded and bona fide star, he would have to be wholly endorsed by the reigning queen of daytime television and her rabidly loyal court of female fans.

McGraw’s biography alleges that Winfrey hired the legal consulting firm he had founded, CSI (Courtroom Sciences), to prepare her for what came to be known as the Amarillo Texas beef trial. It is further alleged, Winfrey was so impressed with McGraw – though during the initial course of one’s investigation it was not clear what role he played in the legal outcome – she thanked him for the subsequent victory in the case, and decided to invite him to appear on her show.

The legal decision reached in the Amarillo trial resulted in what were termed “food libel laws.” Passed in thirteen states, the laws thereby allowed for a lower standard for civil liability and allowed for punitive damages and attorney’s fees for plaintiff’s alone, regardless of the case’s outcome. Although the particulars of such food disparagement laws vary in each of the thirteen states (13/symbolic of masonic pyramidal summit), the standards of proof for libel cases, where normally the burden of proof would lie with the party being sued, were observed to have been unfavorably altered, leading many, not only in the legal profession, but in the lay community, to question the law’s constitutional validity.

Here’s where – as they say, folks – the plot thickens.

When one investigated the history of Courtroom Sciences, the firm hired to help Oprah Winfrey “prepare” for her so-called trial, one began to swiftly connect the proverbial dots as to what genuinely may have transpired during the Amarillo trial. It appears, from the description of the brand of courtroom consultation CSI specializes, that the Amarillo case may have been what amounted to a show trial, from which genuinely enforceable laws nonetheless emerged.

Such a seemingly glaring anomaly, given recent events, does not represent an isolated occurrence.

Here are a pair of pertinent excerpts from the book, “The making of Doctor Phil, from the couch to the courtroom,” that provides a greater, in depth illustration of McGraw’s and the role of CSI in Oprah Winfrey’s highly publicized Amarillo case:

In 1990, McGraw and Gary Dobbs founded a trial consulting firm they named Courtroom Sciences, Inc., (CSI for short), in Irving, a fast growing suburb west of Dallas. McGraw brought his psychological expertise and charisma to the company; Dobbs, whose license to practice law in Texas was suspended for non-payment of state bar dues and the attorney occupational tax, came with legal knowledge, connections, and some would say, mostly money.

And this:

Trial consultants like CSI help attorneys understand juror’s mind-sets and motivations for more effective voir dire. They sell services such as attitudinal research to uncover juror’s preexisting beliefs. They also offer witness preparation. McGraw, with a mischievous grin, told David Letterman, “We don’t coach them, we just teach them to tell the truth more effectively.” CSI employs artists and computer technicians who prepare graphic evidence for presentation to the jury. The company even developed a proprietary software program, called Trial Vision, that aids attorney’s in creating their own computer presentations. “This software is the bread and butter of their business,” according to a former employee.

Certainly folks, it doesn’t require much imagination to contemplate the implications of what has been described – particularly if one wanted to stage a show trial, or at the very least frame a jury in ways favorable to a predetermined legal outcome. As it turns out, computer software plays a very large role in the creation of the Hollywood conceived character of Phil McGraw. And as alluded to previously, though one is not a gambling man, one might be compelled, given the suspicious elements that come into play, to perhaps lay favorite odds that the Amarillo case was staged, utilizing a renowned television star, aided by another Hollywood star portraying the role of television psychologist, to frame the outcome of a show trial that would not only be perceived as a genuine legal verdict by the general public, but would result in a most favorable outcome for corporations related to or operating under the same corporate umbrella as those who own and operate the network on which Winfrey’s show was broadcast – namely Monsanto, Dow and Viacom.

CBS – the network that aired the Oprah Winfrey show from 1986 until 2011, is affiliated with Desilu Productions, whose owners and major shareholders, the British royal family, had direct involvement and colluded with American merchant bankers, the Rockefellers, in the execution of not only the Kennedy assassination hoax, but the Columbine and Sandy Hook events.

This connection with the British royal family shall also, in a moment, loom large in the identification of Phil McGraw’s host actor, and the royal distinction bestowed upon him.

Once the character image of Doctor Phil had been suitably cemented into the public consciousness with the dawn of the new millennium, Phillip Calvin McGraw was given his own television show in 2002. With a sturdy endorsement from American television’s reine du royaume, Oprah Winfrey, it wasn’t long before Doctor Phil held the attentions of millions captive with his decidedly unpretentious and homespun brand of television charisma. Merely from a cursory view of snippets broadcast on You Tube, one could readily observe why this character is so beloved, for he dispenses his advice with a seemingly benevolent evenhandedness that repeatedly endears him to an audience not especially gifted with the requisite sophistication to glean the smoke and mirrors of McGraw’s psychological circus act.

Examining Doctor Phil’s character physiognomy more closely, one began to notice the deliberate application of facial stippling and even CGI overlays, the sort of modifications applied in Hollywood style post-production. And, while closely examining the slope of the brow ridges, the contours of McGraw’s lips, and considering the rather unique gradient of his nose as well the diameter of the nasal cavities, comparative matches with another famous and award winning Hollywood actor began to steadily emerge.

Surely, loyal readers shall recognize this guy:

Kevin Spacey:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Spacey#/media/File%3AKevin_Spacey%2C_May_20…

Spacey, in addition to having been awarded both the prestigious Tony and Golden Globe for his extensive work in the theater and on television, has also been formally bestowed with a KBE, which is a knighthood affiliation to the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. Presumably, Spacey was bestowed this honor for his work as artistic director of London’s Old Vic theater from 2004 until 2015.

However, as alluded to earlier, Phil McGraw is not the only doctor Spacey portrays. So, just take a look at this character and see if you can detect the obvious resemblances:

Doctor Drew Pinsky:

Yes folks, one should think twice before heeding any advice, whether psychological or otherwise, from either of these deceiving court jesters.

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s