GROUND ZER0, New York, N.Y.--July 22, 2003-- 

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

     In Shakespeare's famous play, Hamlet, the above 27 words leap from the scribe's manuscript like arrows of truth shot into the hearts of all the world's moral wanderers.  

     How do I be true to others? 
     Be true to yourself first!
     The Truth!
     What is it?
     Today, the world is spinning about over untruths, or alleged untruths.

     It's all about war.
     It's all about finding ways to kill the messengers of the untruth.
     President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain are under heavy attack by both critics of political skullduggery, as well as from frontal assaults of opposing parties seeking to cripple their efforts to lead their respective nations.
     All is fair and unfair, it seems, in politics and war.

      The central issue in both leaders' clogged political toilets is the intelligence issue leading to a statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address in 2003 that suggested Iraq was in the process of purchasing nuclear material from Niger.   The 16 words incorporated in his statement fueled the justification for launching war against Saddam Hussein. While not the primary reason for the decimation of a tyrannical leader who supported Terrorism on a worldwide basis, it has become the focus of political vultures eager to bare the bones of deceit of leaders they would like to displace with their own vultures.
       The issue at hand is about the Truth, not about politics.
       In Britain, one of the nation's leading scientists who served on the U.N. arms inspection team, Dr. David Kelly, allegedly told the BBC that Tony Blair's government had "cooked the intelligence books" and "sexed up" information to imply that Saddam Hussein was buying nuclear weapons material from Niger.  Kelly adamantly denied he was the source of the information to the BBC and, following his testimony into the issue, Kelly was found dead.  He was an apparent "suicide."
       Many question his death, which is currently under investigation.
       He died with the Truth locked inside him.

      The BBC, however, claims he told an investigative reporter a story different than the one he denied.   In a clash of Truths, the BBC is like the New York Times and the Jason Blair incident--the veracity of their "Truth" is now being called into question.   Could the BBC have "cooked their own reporting books?"    Evidence from across the pond suggests if the New York Times can let a reporter like Jason Blair "cook the Truth," why not others  in other parts of the world able to do the same?
      In the New York Times incident, reporter Jason Blair manufactured facts and stories without checking them out, including making up false evidence found at a location where a Terrorist sniper in Washington D.C. was on a rampage  shooting people randomly.    He has been subsequently fired, and that "Truth Editors" of the Times replaced with another squad of "Truth Managers."
       Cracks in the public's credibility of news issuing from the Times remain open.
       Now, the BBC joins the crowd.
       What if, some purport, that David Kelly didn't admit the government had "cooked its books?"  What if, the BBC was on a private agenda to cripple Tony Blair and twisted  Dr. Kelly's  words to fit an agenda that had little to do with the Truth?
       The New York Times editorial staff was more than willing to turn its head and let Jason Blair manufacture critical national news misinformation, why not the BBC?
       In other words, why not let the Beast of Terror Terrorize the Truth?

       The media, allegedly, is the supposed to be the guardian of the public Truth.   It is supposed to be true to itself first, so as Shakespeare says, it can be true to all others.   Without one being honest within, it makes it hard to be honest without.
      The United States is under attack from the same front.   The former ambassador to Gabon, Joseph Wilson, was sent to Niger to investigate claims about the African country selling "yellow cake" to Iraq.  "Yellow cake" is a term used to describe nuclear material able to turn a missile into a bomb.
        He is being described as the source of the infamous 16-words that wormed their way into the State of the Union Address, strengthening the government's immediate need to attack Iraq on a "national defense" agenda.   If Saddam was going to fuel up nuclear missiles, then the United States had to act immediately.

      Wilson is denying he is the source of the misspeak.   The intrigue goes farther.    New information leaked accuses his wife as being a CIA operative, charged with ferreting out information about nuclear development in nations the U.S. wants to keep out of the arms race.
        On one side of the Atlantic we have a British scientist refuting he was the source of intelligence about a government twisting of Truths and then committing suicide.  On the other side, are an American former ambassador and his alleged CIA wife, the husband claiming he wasn't the one who manufactured the Truth confirming Niger had, or was about to, sell nuclear yellow cake to Saddam.
        It all comes down to a big, ugly mess.
        Stir into the cacophony a pack of political rats vying to dethrone both the current U.S. and British government leaders--add to that a wounded press including the BBC and New York Times reeling from accusations that they are Un-Truthful--and, you have a quagmire of Truth under attack.
         So what, says the average person viewing the mudslinging?

        For the most part, nothing is new in this story.  Anyone who ever believed that the Truth wasn't dressed up by government doesn't know the source of the word "spin."    Since the beginning of time, governments have issued only that face they wished to present, and held back from exposing the warts.
        Nero said it best:  "When people are starving, give them a circus."
        And that's what people have today.  They have the government, supposedly the guardian of the public trust, being untrustworthy, either through intent or neglect of questioning the Truth before delivering it as the Truth.
        Then, you have the "watchdogs of the public trust," the news media, supposedly set in place to create a Fourth Estate between government and the people, to serve as the conscience of the people, and to challenge the Truth being issued by government.

         But when the Fourth Estate itself twists and "spins" the Truth to meet its own private or political agendas, then you have the Un-Truth eating the Un-Truth, and to none being true.
         Even Shakespeare would be confused over all this.
         Vigilance is more important to me than the Truth, for the Truth is about what one thinks it is from his or her perspective.   It is all about one's agenda, one's composition as a being.   Truth to one person can be a lie to another.  
         But if we take what Shakespeare said to heart, we realize that the Truth is not really about what one thinks it is.  "To Thine Own Self Be True," is only one-half of his equation.
         The second half is the vital factor:  "And it must follow, as night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."
         As a Sentinel of Vigilance, I hear Shakespeare's words telling me that my Truth is not as important as the Truth that I issue forth to the Children's Children's Children.   The second part of what he says in Hamlet is my checkpoint.  "What is the Truth for the future, not the present?"  
         As a person, I want to be "right."  Often, as all people, I will twist and bend data in my mind to fit my own righteousness.   Sometimes, I'll believe what I say to be the Truth despite all evidence to the contrary.
        However, what stops me cold, what sends shivers through my bones about my Truths is when I am forced to think about delivering the Truth to the innocent, to the Children's Children's Children.
        Something inside me puts the brakes on certain thoughts and ideas I hold as Truths, and drives me to question my own Truths in relation to what is right for the future of the Children.
        Would I, as a responsible adult, tell a child a lie about the world they face?  Would I pass on to a child my prejudice, my bigotry, my politics, my beliefs or lack of them, without first asking myself:  "Is it right to pass on to an innocent child anything that is false, or possibly false?"

      When a child asks me a question I do not quickly answer.    Inside, a switch lights up.  I see yellow warning lights flashing and hear sirens.   I am being cautioned to check my tongue.  I am being warned that whatever I am about to say has a duty and responsibility to it that far exceeds my self.
        I find myself speaking to a child from a deeper well.
        I find myself more conscious of the Truth than with anyone, for I see the child as vessel, a Holy Grail, upon whose ears I cannot paint un-Truths, half-Truths, almost Truths.
        I know the Beast of Terror attacks children's ears.   He thrives on telling children lies, un-Truths.  He sees the ears as roadway to the soul, and whispers into them words that create Fear, Intimidation and Complacency in the child.
        I can follow the Beast's path if I am not careful.
        But, as a Sentinel of Vigilance, I know my mission on earth is to help the child develop counter-Terrorism tools:  Courage to displace Fear, Convictions to quash Intimidation, and Right Actions that benefit future generations rather than Complacencies that ignore the duty to the future.

       So I try to sharpen my tongue to cut through the deceits of the self.
        I measure what I say, knowing that truth to my own self is only that truth worthy of being published to all the children of all time, and that all the other so-called "Truths" don't measure up to those I tell the children
         Today, unfortunately, the press and governments try to fit their Truths to fit the adults, they lie to their own generations because they limit the Truth to the present.   This is the big lie.  It is Terroristic in nature, because it has no validity to the future.  It spins about like a top, resting where it will.
        However, if the media and governments were to speak only to the Children's Children's Children, and gear their decisions solely to future generations, and justify them from that perspective, fewer un-Truths would be heard, less quagmires would bog down the Vigilant and make them appear the Beast of Terror.
        Right now ugly arrows are being shot at people with good intentions.   They are trying to slice the tongues of the leaders and make them objects of selfish deception, willing to lie and cheat their way toward agendas they believe in, that oppose the public's goals.
        With them is the press, just as guilty.
        And, sadly, on the sidelines, are the children.  They watch the icons of Truth being demolished before their eyes.   They hear adults calling each other names, and wonder:  "Who's watching out for me?"

       I urge the leaders of the world and the leaders of the press to take the Pledge of Vigilance.   If you want to protect the Truth, you must act in behalf of the future generations, and tell the people why you act the way you do.   The more you do that, the less you need 16 words to justify removing a Beast of Terror from a lair of horror.  
       Only when each us, the average citizens of the world, believe the Truth rests not within us alone, but in our ability to pass on the Truth to our Children's Children's Children, will we truly find the Truth as Shakespeare meant.
        Then, we just might change that saying from: "To Thine Own Self Be True," to what Shakespeare really meant, "To Thine Children's Children's Children Be True."


 

July 21--Be An Archer Of Vigilance

©2001 - 2004, VigilanceVoice.com, All rights reserved -  a ((HYYPE)) design

The Pledge Of Vigilance