"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
--Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli of England, in 1844.
Recognizing that the great bard himself asked this timeless question in another form, why do so many avoid it, today? When Hamlet spoke the famous soliloquy "To be, or not to be, that is the question . . .", he was contemplating suicide. Modern day Shakespeare's could update the doubt of personal existence to encompass all of society. Why do the aggregate of masses deny confronting the record of power politics, that shapes and determines the future of our collective reality?
The convenient answer really is an excuse. In order to entertain that history is best understood as a study in the conflicts of competing factions for the ability to rule, disturbs most people. Average folks would listen to the likes of Jeff Rense and come away shaking their heads. Others would read about the deaths of Vince Foster and Ron Brown on What Really Happened, and dismiss such accounts as preposterous. Even the infamous 'magic bullet' of Senator Arlene Spector, explains the JFK assassination, so people can maintain confidence in their government.
But the main reason that theories and evidential accounts that contest the standard approved versions of events are dismissed out of hand is to prove your loyalty. The acid test clearly is decided upon the degree that you accept the official world view. For those who have legitimate and logical questions, the best way to shut them up is to discredit them as kooks. Viscous attacks are only surpassed by the harshness shown to their examiners. The need to reply, answer or provide evidential explanations, are pushed aside; when the seeker of understanding can be characterized as a crazed loon.
Telling the Truth, has never been the strongest trait for any regime. No one should be naive to think any different. The task is left to others to fill in the blanks and between the lines. So why are so many people, intensively uncomfortable in facing facts when government accounts don't pass the laugh quiz? Living dumb, means that you need not answer Hamlet. Escapists into the 'Twilight Zone' of government reality, are balanced and productive citizens. Or so they attempt to convince themselves . . . But who are the real enlightened ones?
The collective depression is the product of official lies. Continuous melancholy results when the lies are known to be untrue, and hope is slim to stop the deceit. So why face the facts, just ignore them. Knowing the extent of the charade, might just compel that some direct action would be required. Who wants to risk the wrath of the State and be labeled a nut? You don't need to be a member of good standing in that right-wing crew that HilLAIRy was so intent on smearing, to be grouped with this whacked crowd. RIGHT?
Recently the notion that the mainstream media is willing to lift the curtain of suspicion has been suggested by the Mr Left Coast, himself Alexander Cockburn. In an example of courageous reporting by the Communist News Network, that pillar of the establishment; Richard Butler now on the CNN payroll, discusses charges that the Bush administration "slowed down FBI investigators of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a deal with Taliban on oil." How interesting that approved 'conspiracy theories' are acceptable when the interests of the power elites are being served.
It is a cardinal error to conclude that any one group of 'Mattoids' are pulling the strings on all world events. But it is suicidal to dismiss the vested interests in the known players, when it comes to shaping political outcomes. If you think the Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission and the CFR are just social clubs, you are drinking too much kool aid. Political decisions are seldom benign to the general welfare, while ubiquitous to the interests of the ruling classes. To conclude this is just coincidental, is psychotic.
Conspiracy only means that more than one person agrees to an evil act. When applied to politics, it normally refers to committing an illegal act. The rule makers define their actions as proper. But in fact they cooperate to institutionalize their own illegality under the guise and stamp of a legal process, they enact. As in any era of history, those behind the scenes, play a pivotal role that few of us ever know. Isn't it more probable that their influences direct the design of pupil policy more than the sentiments of the taxpaying voter? Than why do you censure inquiry into the belly of the beast, when you should be condemning their dominion of plunder?
Pollyanna populace, betray their own intelligence. Misplaced optimism in a chimera account of current events, only serves the powers that be . . . One need not abandon their rational attributes when seeking answers to serious questions. But if those inquiries are automatically tagged as the province of the extreme, how can their conclusions be disproved, if they are with error? Prudence would demand that open inquiry is desirable. We need not have fear of the unknown, where we should properly dread that which can be understood.
The lesson rests in how you answer Hamlet, he continues:
"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?" Hamlet (III, i, 56-61)
Will you resign yourself to exist in the dark or dare yourselves to uncover the schemes that rule the day? Illusion is more real for the timid, while scorn is the reward for having integrity in the truth. Those who conspire require the consent of those they pillage. Your silence allows the 'perception of deception' to reign, as fact; when the opposite bears more substance. The conspiracy that is discredited with the greatest disdain, might reveal more than what the mind can imagine. The mysteries that must be concealed, just could be the crimes that go unpunished. So what will it be? "To be, or not to be?" The society that is committing self-destruction, just might be your own.
SARTRE - January 14, 2002