Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LAAMN] GOOD READ : Agenda Prevails over Truth by Paul Craig Roberts

Expand Messages
  • scotpeden@cruzio.com
    I wouldn t call that a good read, I d call it an agonizing painful read, rubbing my face into the reality we re in. It is like watching a train wreck in
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 28, 2012
      I wouldn't call that a good read, I'd call it an agonizing painful read,
      rubbing my face into the reality we're in.

      It is like watching a train wreck in motion, and being barely aware your
      on that train, and doing nothing to save yourself or others, instead your
      screaming, LOOK AT THE TRAIN WRECK!! and are arguing with the person next
      to you over; Bad Engineers! or, Bad Government Protecting Agency!!!!

      So which one of these extremes, the right or the left, is the one you
      actively support?


      > Agenda Prevails over Truth
      > by Paul Craig Roberts
      > In the Western world truth no longer has any meaning. In its place stands
      > agenda.
      > Agenda is all important, because it is the way Washington achieves
      > hegemony over the world and the American people. 9/11 was the "new Pearl
      > Harbor" that the neoconservatives declared to be necessary for their
      > planned wars against Muslim countries. For the neoconservatives to go
      > forward with their agenda, it was necessary for Americans to be
      > connected to the agenda.
      > President George W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neil,
      > said that prior to 9/11 the first cabinet meeting was about the need to
      > invade Iraq.
      > 9/11 was initially blamed on Afghanistan, and the blame was later
      > shifted to Iraq. Washington's mobilization against Afghanistan was in
      > place prior to 9/11. The George W. Bush regime's invasion of Afghanistan
      > (Operation Enduring Freedom) occurred on October 7, 2001, less than a
      > month after 9/11. Every military person knows that it is not possible to
      > have mobilization for invading a country half way around the world
      > ready in three weeks.
      > The Orwellian "PATRIOT Act" is another example of planning prior to
      > the event. This vast police state measure could not possibly have been
      > written in the short time between 9/11 and its introduction in Congress.
      > The bill was already written, sitting on the shelf waiting its
      > opportunity. Why? Who wrote it? Why has there been no media
      > investigation of the advanced preparation of this police state
      > legislation?
      > Evidence that responses to an event were planned prior to what the
      > government said was a surprise event does suggest that the event was
      > engineered to drive an agenda that was already on the books.
      > Many on the left-wing are immune to evidence that is contrary to the
      > official 9/11 story, because for them 9/11 is refreshing blow-back from
      > the oppressed. That the oppressed struck back is more important to the
      > left-wing than the facts.
      > The right-wing can't let go of the fantasy either. America in all its
      > purity and wonderfulness was attacked because evil Muslims cannot stand
      > our goodness. "They hate us for our freedom and democracy." The
      > right-wing vision of a great and good America wronged is essential to
      > the right-wing's sustaining ideology, an ideology that is prepared to
      > commit violence in order to prove its righteousness.
      > Implausible stories can be useful to other agendas and thus be
      > sustained by their use in other arguments. For example, the Obama
      > regime's story of the killing of Osama bin Laden is central to Charles
      > Pierson's story in the November 16-30, 2012, CounterPunch in which
      > Pierson writes about the growing strains on the US-Pakistan alliance.
      > Pierson writes that bin Laden resided next to Pakistan's largest
      > military academy and that bin Laden "did go next door every Wednesday to
      > use the pool. If the Pakistani government was unaware of bin Laden's
      > presence this would mark an intelligence failure of heroic proportions."
      > Is it plausible that Osama bin Laden, a hunted man (actually a man
      > dead for a decade), visited the Pakistani army, a bought-and-paid-for
      > entity used by Washington to launch attacks on Pakistan's
      > semi-autonomous tribal areas, to go swimming every Wednesday?
      > Or is this a fairy tale made possible by ignoring the live interviews of
      > the neighbors of the alleged "bin Laden compound." According to
      > Pakistanis who knew the person living in "bin Laden's compound," the
      > person Americans were told was bin Laden was a long-time friend who
      > imported foreign delicacies. An eye witness to the "assault" on "bin
      > Laden's compound" reported that when the helicopter lifted off
      > it exploded and there were no survivors. If there were no survivors,
      > there was no sea burial of bin Laden.
      > How is it that the US media can produce a story as fact that is
      > contradicted by the news on the ground? Is the answer that the bin Laden
      > assassination story served an agenda by providing evidence that we were
      > winning?
      > Consider the Sandy Hook school shooting. This shooting serves as an
      > excuse for "progressives" to express their hatred of guns and the NRA
      > and to advance their gun control agenda. Few if any of those
      > hyperventilating over the tragedy know any of the parents of the
      > murdered children. They have shown no similar response to the US
      > government's murder of countless thousands of Muslim children. The
      > Clinton regime alone killed 500,000 Iraqi children with illegal
      > sanctions, and Clinton's immoral secretary of state, a feminist hero,
      > said that she thought the sanctions were worth the cost of one half
      > million dead Iraqi children.
      > Suddenly, 20 US children become of massive importance to
      > "progressives." Why? Because the deaths foster their agenda -- gun
      > control in the US.
      > When I hear people talk about "gun violence," I wonder what has
      > happened to language. A gun is an inanimate object. An inanimate object
      > cannot cause violence. Humans cause violence. The relevant question is:
      > why do humans cause violence? This obvious question seldom gets asked.
      > Instead, inanimate objects are blamed for the actions of humans.
      > In one of its reports on the Sandy Hook shooting, Time noted that such
      > events "inevitably reopen debates about gun control, or more
      > tenuously lead people to complain about American culture itself. Yet on
      > the very same day, a 36-year-old Chinese man attacked 22 children with a
      > knife at a primary school in China, suggesting that there is a critical
      > factor with mass homicides that gets far less attention." That factor,
      > "the core of these events," is mental health and "our failure to address
      > it as a society."
      > That factor remains unaddressed, because the agenda-driven media is
      > determined to use the Sandy Hook shootings as a means of achieving gun
      > control. One wonders if there is a "knife control" agenda in China. What
      > follows is not an argument that the report of the Sandy Hook shootings
      > is a hoax. What follows is an argument that suspicions are created when
      > agenda takes precedence over reporting and discrepancies in reports are
      > left unresolved.
      > Agenda-driven news is the reason that apparent inconsistencies in the
      > Sandy Hook story were not investigated or explained. According to some
      > reports, the medical examiner said the children were shot with a rifle,
      > but
      > other reports say the accused was found dead inside the school with two
      > pistols and that a rifle was found outside in the car. The police
      > capture a man in the woods who says "I didn't do it." How would a person
      > in the woods know what has just happened? Who was the man? Was he
      > investigated and released? Will we ever know?
      > Some reports say the school was locked and admission is via security
      > camera and being buzzed in. Why would a heavily armed person be buzzed
      > in? Other reports say he shot his way in. Why wouldn't such a commotion
      > have alerted the school?
      > Another puzzle is the video of a father whose child has supposedly been
      > shot to pieces. Prior to the interview
      > he is caught on camera laughing and joking, and then, like an actor, he
      > pulls his face and voice into a presentation of grief for the interview.
      > The spokesman for the Connecticut State Police is anxious to control the
      > story, warns social media against posting information contrary to official
      > information, but provides little information, refusing to answer most
      > questions. The usual "ongoing investigation" is invoked, but Lanza has
      > already been declared to be the killer and the number of dead reported.
      > About the only hard information that emerges is that the police are
      > investigating where every component of the weapons was manufactured. The
      > relevance to the shooting of where the components of the weapons were
      > manufactured is not explained.
      > The medical examiner's press conference is weird. He is incoherent,
      > unsure of what he is supposed to say, hasn't answers to questions he
      > should have, and defers to police.
      > Perhaps the best way to avoid fueling suspicion is for public
      > officials not to hold press conferences until they are prepared to
      > answer the relevant questions.
      > And where are the bodies? Like the alleged murder of Osama bin Laden
      > by a SEAL, the crucial evidence is not provided. Paul Vance, the
      > Connecticut State Police spokesman, said that the "victims' bodies were
      > removed from the school overnight" and that detectives "were able to
      > positively identify all of the
      > victims and make some formal notification to all of the families of the
      > victims."
      > Allegedly, no parent wanted to see the body of their dead child, but
      > how do you know it is your child if you do not see the body? It is a
      > strange kind of closure when it is provided to parents by impersonal
      > detectives. Has anyone seen a body other than a state medical examiner
      > and a few detectives? Where are the media's films of body bags being
      > carried out of the school? Why would Obama's gun control agenda forego
      > the propaganda of a procession of body bags being carried out of a
      > school?
      > Perhaps the sensitivity issue prevailed, but with all the suspicion
      > that already exists about the government and its claims, why fuel the
      > suspicion by withholding visual evidence of the tragedy?
      > There are reports that when emergency medical help arrived at the
      > school, the medical personnel were denied access to the children on the
      > grounds that there were no survivors and the scene was too gruesome.
      > Yet, there is a conflicting story that one six-year old girl had the
      > presence of mind to play dead and walked out of her classroom unscathed.
      > If the story is true, how do we know that other survivors did not bleed to
      > death from wounds because the emergency medical personnel were denied
      > access? Did police exercise more control over the scene than was
      > warranted?
      > It doesn't seem to matter that questions are not answered and
      > discrepancies are not resolved. The story is useful to the gun
      > control agenda. Progressives, in order to achieve their agenda, are
      > willing adjuncts of the police state. The facts of the shooting are less
      > important than the use of the incident to achieve their agenda.
      > Probably there are answers to the questions. Moreover, the news
      > reports that are the basis for questions could be incorrect. But why
      > aren't the answers provided and confusions cleared up? Instead, people
      > who ask obvious questions are dismissed as "insensitive to the tragedy"
      > or as "conspiracy kooks." This in itself deepens suspicion.
      > The Colorado movie theater shooting has its own unresolved
      > discrepancies. One eyewitness claimed that there were two shooters.
      > Apparently, the suspect was captured sitting in a car in the theater
      > parking lot, which seems strange. There are claims that the accused, a
      > graduate student in neuroscience, was involved with the Defense Advance
      > Research Projects Agency in mind-control research and that he doesn't
      > remember doing the shooting.
      > Do we actually know? Apparently not. Wouldn't it be preferable to
      > investigate these claims rather than to leave them as unanswered sources
      > of suspicion? The loose ends of the Colorado movie shooting contribute
      > to the suspicions caused by news reports of the Sandy Hook shootings.
      > A shooting incident occurs. The government puts out a story. Agendas
      > form and take the place of the story. Unresolved issues disappear in
      > heated dispute over agendas. Gun control advocates blame guns, and
      > Second Amendment defenders blame other factors.
      > When the media permit agenda to take precedence over news,
      > people lose confidence in the media and distrust spreads deeper into
      > society. If the media and the government are opposed to conspiracy
      > theories, they should not foster the theories by mishandling the news.
      > Neither the right-wing nor the left-wing has an interest in getting
      > to the bottom of things. The right-wing is aligned with the police state
      > in order to make us safe from "terrorism" -- Muslim terrorism, not the
      > terrorism of the unaccountable police state.
      > The American left is so feeble that it essentially doesn't exist. Its
      > issues are gun control, homosexual marriage, abortion, and taxing "the
      > rich." Such misfocus cannot slow the onrushing militarized police state.
      > American liberals have such an abiding faith in government that they
      > are incapable of believing that beloved government would be culpable in
      > crimes -- unless, of course, it was Ronald Reagan's government.
      > As tyranny envelops the land, the main goal of the left-wing is to disarm
      > the population.
      > The American left is the enabler of the police state, and the American
      > right is its progenitor.
      > Americans began their descent into deception and tyranny in the final
      > years of the 20th century with the Clinton regime's aggression against
      > Serbia and murderous sanctions on Iraq. These war crimes were portrayed
      > by the US media and foreign policy community as great achievements of
      > Western democracy and humanitarianism.
      > In the first decade of the 21st century Americans lost their
      > constitutional protections and had their pocketbooks opened to
      > indefinite wars. The latest report is that Washington is sending US troops
      > into 35 African countries.
      > Worse is to come.
      > http://www.opednews.com/articles/Agenda-Prevails-Over-Truth-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-121228-479.html
      > Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant
      > Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street
      > Journal, has held numerous university appointments and is Contributing
      > Editor to Gerald Celente's Trends Journal. His columns are at
      > www.paulcraigroberts.org.
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.