As a writer I have found that one problem in
communicating with readers is that many have political, social, economic, or
ideological agendas. They read in order to confirm their beliefs and agendas. Neither the right-wing
nor the left-wing can escape their ideological boxes and are creatures of their
biases. They want their prejudices vindicated and their beliefs supported. A
writer who tells them something that they do not want to hear receives abuse.
These readers cannot benefit from facts and new information and change their
minds. Truth is what validates their prejudices, biases, or their programing.
Objective truth is not the matrix in which they live.
If a writer makes a case so clear that readers
simply cannot avoid it, the reader will intentionally misread the article or
book and attack the writer for saying everything that he does not say. The
chorus will join in the effort to shut down the unwelcome information before it
The Israel Lobby uses the technique of branding
everyone who criticizes, no matter how constructively and moderately, any
Israeli government policy, no matter how egregious, as anti-semite. The Israeli
government applies this tactic to its own Israeli political opposition and to
Jews themselves who are branded "self-hating Jews" if they criticize government
policy toward the Palestinians. The effect is to deprive the Israeli government
of constructive criticism. Only the Israel Lobby could call former President
Jimmy Carter an anti-semite. Anyone who is not totally enthusiastic about
Israel's theft of Palestinian lives and properties is an enemy of Israel. These
wild accusations from the Israel Lobby deprive the term "anti-semite" of any meaning.
Essentially, every moral person has become an anti-semite. The Israeli
government has simply cut itself off from truth.
The identical hardline substitution of self-interest
for factual reality characterizes the American right and left. The right-wing
insists that America is going broke because of welfare spending. The left-wing
persists in its belief that government is capable of great good if only the
right people are in power and that social institutions, such as religion, and
inanimate objects, such as guns, are responsible for human evil.
If a majority of Americans sought objective truth
instead of confirmation of their beliefs, truth could prevail over special
interests. Reality would inform social, political, and economic life, and
American prospects would be good. But when a majority are hostile to facts and
truths that do not support their biases and serve their interests, there is a
disconnect from reality, which is the situation in America today.
It is ironic that the left-wing, which has a large
repertoire of tales of societies in the clutches of shamans, witch doctors and
priests, imposes its own artificial or make-believe realities on social,
political, and economic explanations. Leftists who appear to be oblivious to the
militarized murderous police state erected by Bush and Obama still go out of
their way to tell me how evil Ronald Reagan was and that I must also be evil
because I served in the Reagan administration.
It is ironic that the Republican federal judges that
the right-wing said were so desperately needed to save the Constitution are
precisely the ones who have destroyed it. Americans can be indefinitely detained
or assassinated by their government on suspicion alone without due process,
because Republicans are enamored of the "unitary executive" theory of
presidential power. The Republican Supreme Court gave private business
corporations the right to purchase the US government in the name of free speech,
because Republicans believe private interests should prevail over public
It is easy to become discouraged by the clueless
American majority. However, as insightful people have remarked in the past, it
only takes a few determined people to change the world. On the other hand, in
the past governments did not have such technological advantages as they have
today. In a modern context, Paul Revere's ride is hard to imagine. The British
would have shot him out of the saddle with a drone. How far would Lenin have gotten if the Russian government had had spy drones everywhere?
Perhaps our hope today is that the government's
disinformation produces unintended consequences that overwhelm the
Hope or no hope, truth is becoming harder to come
by. During the Vietnam war when Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, the
New York Times published them. However, during the Iraq war when a National
Security Agency whistleblower leaked the information to the New York Times that
the Bush regime was spying on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA
court as required by law, the New York Times told the White House and sat on the
story for a year until Bush was reelected. The newspaper might even have turned
in the whistleblower. When the Guardian and other newspapers were threatened by
the US government, they turned on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, the suppliers of
their headline stories.
To see the fate of whistleblowers, read Sibel
Edmonds' book, Classified Woman. Few people are willing to undergo such
wear and tear in an effort to get truth to the American people.
There is another constraint on revealing truth. The
human capital of people with inside knowledge is destroyed if they speak out.
Position, contacts, invitations, income, and social life are all forfeited when
an insider becomes a dissenter or a truth-teller. Only the extremely naive can
believe that governments cannot keep conspiracies a secret, "because someone
would talk." No one talks, because talking harms the personal interests and
human capital of the insider, and seldom does any good.
Al Jazeera was founded in the closing years of the
20th century to provide more objective news coverage of the Middle East than the
spun news coverage of the Western media. The news organization soon fell afoul
of Washington and its Middle Eastern puppet states and was reined in by
censorship, threats, and actual physical attacks by US military forces on its
Kabul and Baghdad offices.
Truth-tellers are inconvenient. Major General
Antonio Taguba was given the assignment of conducting the official inquiry into
the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. Instead of covering up the incidents as he was
expected to do for his third star, he produced a professional and truthful
report. It was Taguba's career that was terminated, not the careers of those
responsible for the illegal torture of prisoners. Gen. Taguba was instructed to
resign by Gen. Richard Cody, the Vice-Chief of Staff of the Army. When told that
he was going to be investigated, Taguba said, "I'd been in the Army 32 years by
then, and it was the first time that I thought I was in the Mafia."
General Benton K. Partin, the US Air Force's munitions expert, wrote to Senator Trent Lott
on July 30, 1995: "The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of
four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level." Partin was Commander of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory and had ultimate responsibility for all non-nuclear weapons in the Air Force. His report
fell on deaf ears and disappeared down the memory hole.
So did the report of University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Niels Harrit, a member of a team of scientists who found reacted and unreacted nano-thermite in the dust of the World Trade Center towers. The findings of this scientific team are known in Europe and Canada, but were not reported by the US media. Anyone who still believes the official story of 9/11 should listen to the interview with this accomplished scientist
or read, if able, the scientific paper.
They should also read the 9/11 Toronto Report:
International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001. Hearings were
held at a Canadian university in Toronto on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11
attacks at which experts and professionals presented evidence that the official
story of 9/11 is improbable. The hearings were conducted as if they were a grand
jury proceeding before a panel of judges consisting of accomplished scholars and
Judge Ferdinando Imposimato, the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of
Italy. Judge Imposimato cut his teeth as the "scourge of the Mafia." His cases
involved the kidnapping and murder of Italian President Aldo Moro, the attempted
assassination of Pope John Paul II, and the Mafia assassination of Carabinieri
General Carlo Alberto Della Chiesa.
Judge Imposimato concluded, as did the other
accomplished members of the panel, that "the omissions of relevant evidence in
the NIST investigation and the investigation of the Pentagon, their
contradictions and the lack of independence and impartiality, as a body
controlled by the Bush administration, requires an impartial, independent
scientific investigation group."
As far as I am able to ascertain, the Toronto
Hearings and the decisions based on evidence alone by the panel of judges was
never reported in the US media. Not a single member of the US Congress raised
even one question. The American presstitutes were utterly silent.
The country in which we live is one in which the
available information consists of government and corporate lies. Information in
the alternative media does not have a track record with the wider public. Some
of the sites are too loony to be taken seriously, and the information provided
by credible sites is too different from what the public hears from the print and
TV media for the public to take it seriously. I have wondered if governments are
behind the worst sites in order to discredit alternative media.
Government agencies and corporations recognize the
threat posed to their control of explanations by internet writers and hire
"trolls" to use the comment sections of sites to discredit truth-tellers. The
combination of trolls and readers who only want to hear what they want to hear
can bury the truths that try to emerge.
Movie directors glorify torture
in exchange for government help for their movies.
The year 2012 consisted of a continuous sequence of
destructive acts by Congress and the White House. In a final destructive act,
the Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013. This act
continues the unconstitutional grant of power to the executive branch to violate
all rights of US citizens. In the US laws cannot take precedence over the
Constitution. Yet, we now have successive National Defense Authorization Acts
that render the Bill of Rights moot.
There is no public uproar over the idea that
national defense requires that US citizens lose the protection of law that is
granted by the US Constitution. When citizens stand defenseless before their own
government, what national defense do they have?
The obvious conclusion is that most Americans are
indifferent to liberty and are content with tyranny. This means that truth does
not have a healthy future in America.