Agenda Prevails Over Truth By Paul Craig Roberts December 29, 2012
Agenda Prevails Over Truth

By Paul Craig Roberts

December 29, 2012 "Information Clearing House" - 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. and
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.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.

There's the rub

"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." There's the rub. (Shakespeare, Hamlet )

Sandy Hook: Cop in CT on Contradictions, Inconsistencies & Gun G

Sandy Hook: Cop in CT on Contradictions, Inconsistencies & Gun Grab - Part ONE

Sandy Hook: Cop in CT on Contradictions, Inconsistencies & Gun Grab - Part TWO

Great Find, I Thought I Had Seen Them All

The Meat :

This is not you father's conspiracy video. This is not arcane references to Batman movies or NWO scary ass "the devil's gonna get you" stuff. This is a straight forward, clear, sober and mature deconstruction of what in the vernacular we refer to as a "mind f*ck." The caller lays out in a clear, Wilsonian-like "8 point list" the staggering anomalies in the tragic story of Sandy Hook. It is really a must see. The caller says stuff like: "I know you want to make this into a false flag and I don't want to go there; I just want to look at a story that doesn't make any sense at all." (me paraphrasing.)

The Potatoes :

If you are watching TV you are getting gypped. You pay for cable but you pay for "free" TV as well. Broadcast TV is paid for by advertising revenues, what I like to call the Cheerios Tax . Ironically, you can't opt out of the free one as you have to pay the Cheerios Tax whether you find Letterman, for example, amusing or not; personally I don't. Fortunately, generic products are improving all the time. Whether you subscribe to cable, with its line-up anchoring news services like CNN or you go the "free route" you are not getting your moneys worth. I know I don't have to say it but some of these journalists are getting paid millions of dollars and this whole story is a cock-up both in part and in toto. This is the tale told by idiots full of sound and fury and signifying nothing, to borrow from Will.

Posted Elsewhere

Keith Hansen, alias Vyzygoth / , did hours of programming on mass killing incidents. Hansen has now retired from investigative journalism and social commentary but his archives are maintained at Think or Be Eaten . While past programs are released for a nominal fee, the moderator of the site has seen fit to make available, for free, downloads of a series entitled: Anatomy of Three Massacres: Columbine, Dunblane, and Port Arthur . The two in the series that deal with Port Arthur I found quite fascinating. One interview is with a policeman of 17 years and the other is with a contributor to Nexus Magazine . Evan Long's Columbine Cause is yet another good resource. The official story doesn't square at all with even official documents. Long cuts through some of the over eleven thousand documents from the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office. All documents discussed by Long are available from The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office or from torrents, so the veracity of his statements are easily documented.

I'm going to need some other lure besides

the Second Amendment to get me to watch these videos.

I'm interested in the anomalies and evidence of foreknowledge or planning. And we know much of the news we get is agenda driven. However, I tune out and my eyes glaze over as soon as I hear Americans citing the Second Amendment. Not that I want to erode rights you've earned lawfully and constitutionally, but it gets a bit tiring hearing about it up here in Canada, where we've had handgun registry since 1934, where automatic weapons are prohibited, and lo and behold, we also have much less gun violence (def: violence where guns are involved) yes, per capita, than the U.S. How did THAT happen?

Sandy Hook was an incident where a semi-automatic weapon was used. When are you, the average American citizen, EVER going to need an semi-automatic assault rifle?? Get real. Of course they should be restricted.

If there's an agenda to take guns away from Americans (an agenda which I personally would support), how does that jibe with the current Conservative government of Canada threatening to eliminate gun registry altogether? Whatever it is, it's not some global agenda inspired by secret Bilderberg meetings of government elites.

I'm more concerned about the state of mind of these supposed 'lone nut' shooters and whether there is a Manchurian Candidate kind of control occurring.

How did they get away with 9/11?

"I'm going to need some other lure besides
the Second Amendment to get me to watch these videos."

? ? ?.... no comprende

Your right to bear arms evidently did nothing to stop them from getting away with 9/11.

naivety and incredulity of intelligent people


Had I Wanted to Talk About Guns.....

Had I wanted to talk about guns I would have sent you to Alex Jones. Yes, they discuss gun-grabbing, its in the title after all, but they go into a lot of very weird details that are quite provocative and have nothing to do with guns at all per se. Re: "Whatever it is, it's not some global agenda inspired by secret Bilderberg meetings of government elites;" I quite succinctly pointed out the fact that this video was not about naming any kind of conspiracies.