No Choice but to Choose. Opinion by Hal O’Leary
Perhaps it’s time Just Hal dares to become ever so slightly controversial. My erudite son and I often engage in what seems to be a never-ending discussion, or to be more precise, argument over whether or not our government has fallen victim to an evil cabal that I believe is dead set on nothing short of global economic and military hegemony with no allegiance to any sovereignty but their own. It is they, who in their own interest, who will determine right from wrong. Sean, of course, believing, as I think he does, in the intrinsic good of humanity and that the world is far more complex than my simplistic thinking would allow for, is determined that I must be one of those crazy conspiracy kooks determined to find ulterior motives behind every event. Please hear both arguments as I perceive them, and then, if you should be so moved, let me know which side in this ongoing debate you might choose.
As I said, to say that my son is erudite, may be an understatement. When he made his much maligned decision to choose, as his college major, Philosophy, I was often asked why in the world he would make such a choice and what in the world would he ever do with it. My answer, in his defense, was always that he would learn to think, and if he learned to think, he would find that he is capable of doing whatever he might wish to do. Prophetically I didn’t miss. He certainly can think and do as evidenced by the fact that 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 he has become a political columnist on his local paper with a selection of his columns having been published in book form.
I, on the other hand, have little to counter his achievements or much 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. In anguish I felt for 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 and In addition, during those three years, I was following the sad and futile struggle of the Loyalists in Spain against Franco’s fascism. It was more than simply rooting for the underdog, instinctively I sensed the evil of Mussolini, Stalin and Franco. With each of them, I was on the losing side, but as history has proved, it was the right side. It wasn’t until Hitler made his mad move that I finally found myself not only on the right side, but also on the winning side, and I, rather than observing from the sidelines, actually became a participant.
This brings us to the current state of world affairs. Son Sean, as I believe, 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 of 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 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 his main proposals 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.
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 will provide the proper course, it may serve us well before hand to consider the consequences of each. We now find ourselves in this technological age, with its 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 in a constant state of abject fear. It is a fear of external enemies, the “war on terror,” created for just that purpose, 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 interest of those who financed their campaigns and who profit from the perpetual war on terror they have created while our sons and daughters are called upon to make the supreme sacrifice. This new body, with its 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 committed under every administration since that of John F. Kennedy. Only such a complete reversal in public attitude and values could bring this about. Only we the people, as the enlightened chorus that eventually brought us out of Viet Nam, can reclaim the government and with it the promise of our founding fathers.
On the other hand, the consequence of not rising up, of not questioning, of not speaking out is 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 race. If indeed the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK Jr. did represent a coup d’etat, any recovery 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 unchallenged fascism.
Instinctually, to my mind, the risk of not acting is simply too great and the consequences, 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 the outcome 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.