Rescue from the Matrix

[Bill Totten]

Rescue from the Matrix

A Review of Paul Craig Roberts' New Book, Empire Of Lies (2023)

by Mike Whitney

https://www.unz.com (May 23 2023)

https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/PCR-MW.jpg





Of all the endangered species, Truth is the most endangered. I am
watching it go out.

- Paul Craig Roberts (September 04 2019)

What makes Paul Craig Roberts' writing so powerful, is his ability to
cut through false narratives and identify the elite agendas that are
shaping events. This is the work of a truth-teller which is the
designation that is typically applied to Roberts. The term refers to a
person of deep moral convictions who devotes his life to exposing the
lies and fabrications of the state and its corrupt allies. This is
what Roberts has been doing for more than 40 years, and this is why
thousands of people around the world flock to his website every day.
They know his posts will be hard-hitting, well-researched, and
engrossing. More importantly, they know he will make every effort to
bring them the unvarnished truth just as he has for more than four
decades.

Roberts' latest collection of essays, titled Empire Of Lies, is an
assortment of articles that show the remarkable scope and depth of the
author's knowledge. Frequent visitors to his website will notice some
familiar themes here while other topics may not have been as
thoroughly explored. For example, there are many essays on the fragile
US economy, the "experimental" COVID-19 vaccine, the war in Ukraine,
the stolen presidential election, and the January 6 fraud. At the same
time, there are a number of other articles that one might not
typically associate with Roberts. These include a short but riveting
post on 9-11, ominous reflections on the year 2022, the manipulation
of the bullion markets, and an astonishing piece titled "Germany did
not Start World War 2". Here's a brief excerpt from the article:




The aims of the National Socialist German Workers Party ... (was) to
correct the unemployment caused by unjust reparations forced on
Germany ... following World War 1 and to put Germany ... back together
...

World War 2 began when the Churchill government and the French ...
declared war on Germany ...

The German leader, Adolf Hitler, had reacquired German territories
given to Denmark, France, and Czechoslovakia by the humiliating
Versailles Treaty and had united with German Austria without war ...
The British guarantee emboldened the Polish military dictatorship to
refuse to negotiate the return of German territory ... All Hitler
contributed was to force countries given German territory by the
Versailles Treaty to release the lands and the Germans, who were
heavily persecuted in Czechoslovakia and Poland. Hitler's restoration
of Germany's national boundaries was misrepresented in the British and
US press as 'German aggression' ...

This fake news story of German aggression was used to to build the
case that Germany, which was merely recovering its national territory,
and rescuing German people from persecution in Czechoslovakia and
Poland, was an aggressor with world conquest as its goal ...

Hitler stated many times that he did not want, or intend, war with
Britain and France and only intended to recover the lost German
populations stolen from Germany by the unjust Versailles Treaty".

- Empire Of Lies (2022) by Paul Craig Roberts, page 280

In these few paragraphs, Roberts obliterates the foundation upon which
our understanding of World War 2 rests. The author challenges the
ideas that:

1. That Hitler started the war

2. And that Poland represented the first step in Hitler's broader plan
to conquer the world.

If neither of these is true, then we need to ask ourselves why
Hitler's invasion of Poland was used as a pretext for a full-blown
world war instead of treated as a regional 'border dispute' as one
would expect. Clearly, there was no need for France and England to
declare war on Germany when Germany was simply gathering back the
territories it had lost after Versailles. Had cooler heads prevailed,
World War 2 could have been avoided. Here's more from the text:




During his political rise, Hitler had hardly concealed his attempt to
dislodge Germany's tiny Jewish population from the stranglehold they
had gained over German media and finance, and instead run the country
in the best interests of the 99% German majority, a proposal that
provoked the bitter hostility of Jews everywhere. Indeed, immediately
after he came into office, a major London newspaper had carried a
memorable 1933 headline announcing that the Jews of the world had
declared war on Germany, and were organizing an international boycott
to starve the Germans into submission.

- Empire Of Lies, page 286


This is another astonishing excerpt that conflicts with historical
narratives propagated in the West. In the United States, students are
told that Hitler's treatment of the Jews was fueled by his insatiable
antisemitism, but here the author suggests that there were social and
economic reasons for his policies as well. That doesn't diminish the
gravity of Hitler's depredations, but it does create a more plausible
explanation for why events unfolded the way they did. At the very
least, Roberts provides a thought-provoking analysis that veers from
the oversimplified "Hitler was a homicidal maniac" narrative that is
used to answer every question and to effectively blunt critical
thinking. In contrast, Roberts' treatment of the topic generates
curiosity which points the reader in the direction of more research
which is the author's intention.

Robert's treatment of the US Civil War is equally provocative. In a
chapter titled How We Know The So-Called "Civil War" Was Not About
Slavery, Roberts disputes the widely-held view that the war between
the states was launched to free the slaves. Here's an excerpt from the
piece that helps to explain:




Two days before Lincoln's inauguration as the 16th president,
Congress, consisting of only the northern states, passed
overwhelmingly on March 02 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave
constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment
in his inaugural address saying, "I have no objection to its being
made express and irrevocable".

Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war to end slavery
when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president
were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.

Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept
in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery ...

The real issue between the North and South could not be reconciled on
the basis of accommodating slavery. The real issue was economics as
DiLorenzo, Charles Beard, and other historians have documented. The
North offered to preserve slavery irrevocably, but the North did not
offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies that the South
saw as inimical to its interests.

- Empire Of Lies, page 221

Later in the text, Roberts lifts a quote from Lincoln's inaugural
address that further supports his point of view. Lincoln says:




I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have
no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Roberts presents his case rationally and persuasively, but Lincoln
made other comments that appear to conflict with those above. He also
said, "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free",
and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in
the course of ultimate extinction. Even so, the passing of the Corwin
Amendment in 1861 strongly suggests that Congress was not planning to
go to war to end slavery; otherwise, they wouldn't have supported the
bill. So, how is it that so many Americans cling to the idea that the
Civil War was a struggle to end slavery?

Just as historians have tried to describe World War II as a "morally
unambiguous" intervention, so too, historians have transformed the
Civil War from a bloody dispute over tariffs into a righteous struggle
against human bondage. Unfortunately, the propaganda does not align
with the facts which suggests that more mundane factors were involved.
Lincoln's actions were not guided by some higher principle any more
than FDR's efforts to drag the country to the Second World War was
aimed at "defeating fascism". In both cases, the presidents pursued
policies that were aimed at crushing their enemies while increasing
the power of the state. It's the job of the court historian to make
these recurrent bloodbaths look like lofty moral crusades, but they
are not, which is why we are fortunate to have researchers like
Roberts to strip away the fakery and expose the self-serving
machinations of raw political ambition.

In another chapter titled The Proof is In: The Election Was Stolen,
Roberts contests the outcome of the 2020 presidential election not
based on voting machine snafus or the mail-in ballot fiasco or any of
the other technical glitches that beset the election. Instead, he
presents a number of "common sense" observations that reveal the utter
implausibility of a Biden victory. Take a look:




Consider that Joe Biden's Twitter account has 20 million followers;
Trump's Twitter account has 88.8 million followers.

Consider that Joe Biden's Facebook has 7.8 million followers; Trump's
Facebook account has 34.72 million followers.

How likely is it that a person with 4 or 5 times the following of his
rival lost the election?

Consider that Trump's campaign appearances were heavily attended but
that Biden's were avoided ...

Consider that despite Biden's total failure to animate voters during
the presidential campaign, he won 15 million more votes than Barack
Obama did in his 2012 re-election.

Consider that Biden won despite under-performing Hillary Clinton's
2016 vote in in every US urban country, but outperformed Clinton in
Democrat-controlled Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Philadelphia the
precise cities where the most obvious and blatant electoral fraud was
committed.

Consider that Biden won despite Trump bettering his 2016 vote by ten
million votes and Trump's record support from minority voters.

Consider that Biden won despite losing the bell-weather counties that
have always predicted the election outcome and the bell-weather states
of Ohio and Florida.

Consider that Biden won in Georgia, a completely red state with a red
governor and red legislature, both House and Senate. Somehow a red
state voted for a blue president.

Consider that Biden won despite the Democrats losing representation in
the House.

- Empire Of Lies, page 324

There are many more of these eye-opening observations in the book, but
they all underscore the same dismal fact; that the election was stolen
and that the wrong man now sits in the White House. It's very clever
of Roberts to avoid abstruse technical issues and to make his case
based on the glaring inconsistencies that ordinary people can
understand. The idea that Joe Biden, who was unable to draw enough
supporters to fill a small gymnasium, got 15 million more votes than
Barack Obama is laughable in the extreme. Roberts should be applauded
for taking the time to create this compelling compilation that greatly
reinforces his thesis that the election was rigged.

This is what we have come to expect from Roberts who always goes the
extra mile to bring the truth to his readers. His latest contribution,
Empire Of Lies, follows in that same tradition. The book is a varied
digest of the author's recent work covering a broad range of topics
that include everything from Neo-Nazis in Ukraine to the manipulation
of gold prices. It's a fascinating read that moves quickly due to the
uniqueness of the subject matter and Robert's blunt but explosive
writing style. Simply put, there's something here for everyone. I'll
finish with a quote from Harold Pinter's Nobel acceptance speech
which, in many ways, could have been a description of Paul Craig
Roberts:




A writer's life is a highly vulnerable, almost naked activity ... You
are out on your own, out on a limb. You find no shelter, no protection
- unless you lie ...

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching,
unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define
the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation
which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we
have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity
of man.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2005/pinter/lecture/

Repeat:




... unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination.

Indeed, that is Roberts in a nutshell.

Mike Whitney Archive: https://www.unz.com/author/mike-whitney/

Subscribe to New Columns: https://www.unz.com/subscribe/?domain=mwhitney

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/rescue-from-the-matrix/


TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
the appropriate link at the top or bottom of
https://billtotten.wpcomstaging.com/2023/05/30/rescue-from-the-matrix/