By Paul Craig Roberts: Another goon thug gratuitous murderer has been let off by an US grand jury and a prosecutor. Read the condolences offered by NY mayor Bill de Blasio, officer Pantaleo and the Obama Puppet: http://rt.com/usa/211203-garner-chokehold-grand-jury-decision/ They are so sorry about the collateral damage of protecting the public from criminals and terrorists. But our society would collapse if people are allowed to sell on the street untaxed individual cigarettes out of a pack. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/03/the-policies-behind-eric-garner-s-death.html Without the death of innocents, none of us would be safe. Our safety depended on the NYPD murder of Eric Garner, a father of six who was a threat to no one.
Another police murder of a US citizen who was no threat to anyone–just more collateral damage–as the US military calls it when US forces blow up kids’ soccer games, weddings, funerals, and birthday parties. Any concentration of people, regardless of what they are doing, is considered to be an enemy force and legitimate target. This includes people picking their crops in fields.
Unfortunate perhaps, but soldiers and police and US presidents have the right to make mistakes. Only a dangerous “domestic extremist” would think that a goon thug should be held accountable for a murder. I mean, after all, the 21st century American courts have established that those in the executive branch are above the law. American judges are sworn to uphold the US Constitution, but this has not stopped them from subverting it in the interest of executive power in order to make us “safe.”
Accountability would prevent “our” government from protecting us. Law gets in the way by protecting innocents from fabricated charges and a citizenry from a tyrannical government. How can any American be safe unless the government has total power to protect the citizen by declaring him without any evidence to be a threat and thereby a subject for extermination?
Really, I mean, without the authoritative powerful and unrestrained government in Washington and in the police, how would any of us be safe? Threats would be everywhere, and we would all be murdered in our beds by domestic extremists if not by terrorists.
Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler have shown us the way, and Washington has taken it to heart as long as you understand that killing is what makes us safe.
You might be next, but it will just be collateral damage, an essential element of keeping
Americans “safe.”
Dr. 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.
Source
This is not a welcome question, and those who explore it are branded as “controversial.”
Dahr Jamail interviewed Professor McPherson and asked him: “What do you say to people who call you extreme for talking about this?”
Professor McPherson answers: “I’m just reporting the results from other scientists. Nearly all of these results are published in established literature. I don’t think anybody is taking issue with NASA or Nature, or Science, or the Proceedings of National Sciences . . . the others I report are reasonably well-known and come from legitimate sources like NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], other NASA sources etc. . . . I’m not making this information up. I’m just connecting a couple of dots, and it’s something many people have difficulty with.”
In the West truth is dying, because anyone who departs from the official line is branded “controversial.” In other words, truth or the search for it is controversial. People who persist in chasing after truth or alternative explanations to the official line are discredited by those who are not served by the truth or alternative explanations. Whistleblowers, once protected by federal law, have been turned into traitors.
I have no position on the causes of climate change or Professor McPherson’s prognosis.
My point isn’t that he or the experts he cites are correct. The point is that talking about what is possibly a serious problem is stymied by name-calling and shooting the messenger.
I experience it all the time. For example, on December 3 in the London Telegraph, a reporter, Hamish MacDonald said that I am “controversial” for raising questions about “the US government’s reaction to the spread of the [ebola] virus” and for “questioning the official story of the September 11 terrorist attacks.” In other words, believe the official line because independent thinking is “controversial.”
It seems odd that a British reporter would settle on his own on me and on University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle as examples of controversial bloggers. Perhaps he was handed the story by the CIA, as German journalist Udo Ulfkotte confesses he often was.
The absence of thought is how humanity walks into armageddon. But we mustn’t think or we are controversial. Not only must we not think, we must not report on the thinking of others. Like Professor McPherson who is “just reporting the results from other scientists,” I made myself “controversial” by merely reporting the findings of architects, engineers, physicists, chemists, first responders, pilots, and former high government officials concerning the destruction of three WTC skyscrapers and difficult flight maneuvers by inexperienced pilots. We are supposed instead to dismiss these thousands of experts and their professional experience as “conspiracy kooks” or worse. Remember, British prime minister David Cameron declared skeptics of the 9/11 official line to be as dangerous as Islamic State terrorists. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/29/guest-column-peter-drew-cameron-tries-protect-us-uk-governments-truth/
In other words, it is controversial to report that a team of scientists led by a professor of nano-chemistry at the University of Copenhagen found reacted and unreacted nano-thermite in the dust of the destroyed skyscrapers and that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration, hitherto associated only with controlled demolition.
I am certainly skeptical of the official explanation of 9/11. As a former government official, I find it difficult to believe that a few young Saudi Arabians operating without the benefit of an intelligence service could outwit the entire National Security apparatus of the Western world. Moreover, if such an implausible event occurred, there would have been demands from the White House and Congress for a thorough investigation of the failure. Instead, the White House resisted any investigation, and in place of an investigation, a political committee wrote down the government’s story as the unexamined truth. This is not a believable response to such a humiliating blow suffered by “the world’s only superpower.” Why is it controversial to make this point?
A spoon-fed, no-think society has been created for us, and no one is supposed to think. Reminds me of a science fiction story I read many years ago in which at some point in their development children were tested for the thinking gene. If they had it, they were put down in order to protect the society from dangerous thoughts.
Drawing on my education and experience, I look beyond the propaganda for the real explanations. I might not always be correct, but my inquiries are not agenda-driven in behalf of some interest or the other, whether material or ideological. In order to continue, I need your support. I am constantly attacked by trolls and Reagan-haters, and if the Western intelligence services are at work presenting me as a target for establishment-tamed journalists, trying to wake up an insouciant people is not a pleasant task.
Dr. 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.
Source
Unfortunate perhaps, but soldiers and police and US presidents have the right to make mistakes. Only a dangerous “domestic extremist” would think that a goon thug should be held accountable for a murder. I mean, after all, the 21st century American courts have established that those in the executive branch are above the law. American judges are sworn to uphold the US Constitution, but this has not stopped them from subverting it in the interest of executive power in order to make us “safe.”
Accountability would prevent “our” government from protecting us. Law gets in the way by protecting innocents from fabricated charges and a citizenry from a tyrannical government. How can any American be safe unless the government has total power to protect the citizen by declaring him without any evidence to be a threat and thereby a subject for extermination?
Really, I mean, without the authoritative powerful and unrestrained government in Washington and in the police, how would any of us be safe? Threats would be everywhere, and we would all be murdered in our beds by domestic extremists if not by terrorists.
Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler have shown us the way, and Washington has taken it to heart as long as you understand that killing is what makes us safe.
You might be next, but it will just be collateral damage, an essential element of keeping
Americans “safe.”
Dr. 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.
Source
_______
Thinking Is An Expensive Occupation
By Paul Craig Roberts: Raising unsettling questions and providing disturbing explanations
seldom meet with accolades. For example, Guy McPherson is a University
of Arizona scientist who has been studying human disruption of the
environment and climate for 30 years. Many human caused disruptions
have developed into local or regional disasters, but now the question is
whether the planet itself is endangered. Is human activity bringing
about human extinction?
This is not a welcome question, and those who explore it are branded as “controversial.”
Dahr Jamail interviewed Professor McPherson and asked him: “What do you say to people who call you extreme for talking about this?”
Professor McPherson answers: “I’m just reporting the results from other scientists. Nearly all of these results are published in established literature. I don’t think anybody is taking issue with NASA or Nature, or Science, or the Proceedings of National Sciences . . . the others I report are reasonably well-known and come from legitimate sources like NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], other NASA sources etc. . . . I’m not making this information up. I’m just connecting a couple of dots, and it’s something many people have difficulty with.”
In the West truth is dying, because anyone who departs from the official line is branded “controversial.” In other words, truth or the search for it is controversial. People who persist in chasing after truth or alternative explanations to the official line are discredited by those who are not served by the truth or alternative explanations. Whistleblowers, once protected by federal law, have been turned into traitors.
I have no position on the causes of climate change or Professor McPherson’s prognosis.
My point isn’t that he or the experts he cites are correct. The point is that talking about what is possibly a serious problem is stymied by name-calling and shooting the messenger.
I experience it all the time. For example, on December 3 in the London Telegraph, a reporter, Hamish MacDonald said that I am “controversial” for raising questions about “the US government’s reaction to the spread of the [ebola] virus” and for “questioning the official story of the September 11 terrorist attacks.” In other words, believe the official line because independent thinking is “controversial.”
It seems odd that a British reporter would settle on his own on me and on University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle as examples of controversial bloggers. Perhaps he was handed the story by the CIA, as German journalist Udo Ulfkotte confesses he often was.
The absence of thought is how humanity walks into armageddon. But we mustn’t think or we are controversial. Not only must we not think, we must not report on the thinking of others. Like Professor McPherson who is “just reporting the results from other scientists,” I made myself “controversial” by merely reporting the findings of architects, engineers, physicists, chemists, first responders, pilots, and former high government officials concerning the destruction of three WTC skyscrapers and difficult flight maneuvers by inexperienced pilots. We are supposed instead to dismiss these thousands of experts and their professional experience as “conspiracy kooks” or worse. Remember, British prime minister David Cameron declared skeptics of the 9/11 official line to be as dangerous as Islamic State terrorists. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/29/guest-column-peter-drew-cameron-tries-protect-us-uk-governments-truth/
In other words, it is controversial to report that a team of scientists led by a professor of nano-chemistry at the University of Copenhagen found reacted and unreacted nano-thermite in the dust of the destroyed skyscrapers and that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration, hitherto associated only with controlled demolition.
I am certainly skeptical of the official explanation of 9/11. As a former government official, I find it difficult to believe that a few young Saudi Arabians operating without the benefit of an intelligence service could outwit the entire National Security apparatus of the Western world. Moreover, if such an implausible event occurred, there would have been demands from the White House and Congress for a thorough investigation of the failure. Instead, the White House resisted any investigation, and in place of an investigation, a political committee wrote down the government’s story as the unexamined truth. This is not a believable response to such a humiliating blow suffered by “the world’s only superpower.” Why is it controversial to make this point?
A spoon-fed, no-think society has been created for us, and no one is supposed to think. Reminds me of a science fiction story I read many years ago in which at some point in their development children were tested for the thinking gene. If they had it, they were put down in order to protect the society from dangerous thoughts.
Drawing on my education and experience, I look beyond the propaganda for the real explanations. I might not always be correct, but my inquiries are not agenda-driven in behalf of some interest or the other, whether material or ideological. In order to continue, I need your support. I am constantly attacked by trolls and Reagan-haters, and if the Western intelligence services are at work presenting me as a target for establishment-tamed journalists, trying to wake up an insouciant people is not a pleasant task.
Dr. 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.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment