As I said, my son is erudite. But that may be an understatement. When he chose Philosophy as his college major, a decision much maligned by others, I was often asked why in the world he would make Philosophy his major when there was so little he could ever do with it. My answer, in his defense, was always that he would learn to think, and that if he learned to think he would find that he was capable of doing whatever he might wish to do. Prophetically, I didn't miss. My son certainly can think and do. He has gone on to become a successful entrepreneur with his own consulting firm, a brilliant playwright, with six of his seven plays professionally produced, and, recently, a political columnist in his local paper who has now had a selection of his columns published in book form.
I, on the other hand, have little to counter his achievements and, even less, his intellect. I can boast of nothing more substantial than an innate intuition that has served me well so far. It has enabled me to come down philosophically not always on the winning side of momentous world events, but historically on the right side. At the tender age of eleven in 1935-6, I followed with fear and fervor Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia. I anguished over the courageous Ethiopian natives as they helplessly challenged Mussolini's tanks with little more than spears and bows. Then, just three years later in1939, I was in anguish again. This time it was for the white-clad Finns on skis as they swooped down on the invading Soviet troops with little hope of success. In addition, during those three years, I followed the sad and futile struggle of the Loyalists in Spain against Franco's fascism. In each of these cases, my sympathies amounted to more than simply rooting for the underdog. I instinctively sensed the evil of Mussolini, Stalin and Franco. I may have been on the losing side in opposing each of them, but, as history has proved, it was the right side. It wasn't until Hitler made his mad moves that I finally found myself not only on the right side, but also on the winning side. It was then, too, that I actually became a participant in determining the outcome, rather than observing from the sidelines.
Is It Crazy To Believe in an Autocratic International Cabal?
Is It Crazy To Believe in an Autocratic International Cabal?
This brings us to the current state of world affairs. Son Sean, as I construe his position, naively insists that it is only in my depraved imagination that our government and thus our democracy has given way to the greed of a psychopathic and sociopathic cabal of bankers and others that control the monetary policies of most governments, at least in the West. Was it not Amschel Rothchild who said "Give me control of a country's money supply and I care not who makes its laws." Sean refuses to even consider the possibility that in an effort to win support for an illegal and armed takeover of the Middle East, our own government might resort to the use of a dastardly false flag operation we know as 9/11. Further, he cannot bring himself to entertain the slightest thought that the grand strategy of the cabal is preemptive and perpetual war, which is exactly what the "war on terror" amounts to. Such a strategy is not new. It dates back historically to Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)and Leon Trotsky (1879-1940). More recently, the Neocon movement seems to have adopted many of the teachings of the Chicago political scientist and philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973), a devotee of Trotsky. One of Strauss's main ideas is that perpetual war is necessary, so there must always be external threats, even if manufactured. Immediately, Al Qaeda and 9/11 come to mind.
The Benefits of an Instinctive Approach to Historical Truth
It seems that while my son relies on his extremely analytical thinking to explain events, I, by contrast, admittedly trust in my natural instincts for guidance in an effort to distinguish right from wrong. Since only time will tell whether his intellect or my instinct offers the best pathway to the truth, it may serve us well before-hand to consider the consequences of each. In this technological age, we now find ourselves with the ability to literally bring life as we know it to a tragic end. Are we playing with fire? It could be an all-consuming conflagration.
On the one hand, should my instincts be acknowledged and
proved to be sound, the consequence could be a public uprising against the
proven lies that have kept the population constantly fearful of external enemies. It is that fear that underlies our present "war on terror."
With a slightly different interpretation, I harken back to FDR's
admonition that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. With an
acceptance of my warnings, and with it a demand to act, a new and different body
of elected officials could replace the obligated sycophants who now represent not We the People, but the moneyed interests of those who financed their
campaigns and who profit from the perpetual war on terror that they created but in the cause of which our own sons and daughters are called upon to make the supreme sacrifice. The new governing body replacing the sycophants, bearing allegiance to the people who elected them, would demand
accountability and punishment for all those responsible for the treasonous
crimes of the past against the state and humanity. Such crimes have been committed under every
administration since that of John F. Kennedy.
It must be stressed, however, that only a complete reversal in public attitude and values could bring about such transformational change. Only We the People, taking a cue from the enlightened chorus that eventually brought us out of Viet Nam, can reclaim the government and with it the promise of our Founding Fathers. Conversely, the consequence of a failure of the people to rise up, to question, and to speak out would be to allow the evil forces to continue, unobstructed, on a path that could eventually mean the destruction of all human values needed for the survival of the human race. If indeed the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK Jr. did represent attempted coups d'etat, a failure of the people now to restore democratic government could mean that any effort to do so in the future short of a violent revolution may be impossible. If indeed 9/11 was an inside job with no independent investigation to discover the truth, what we think of as government of, by and for the people could permanently be replaced with irreversible fascism. From my own "instinctual" point of view, the risk of not acting now is simply unacceptable, because the likely consequences are too dire.
Without an option of refusing to take one side or the other, since to do nothing constitutes a choice, each of us will play a role in determining the kind of government we will live under, whether we wish to or not. With my option, calling for investigations and honest answers to the questions we raise, we have little or nothing to lose and everything to gain. With a refusal to act, it is our children and grandchildren who must suffer the dire consequences.