Obama Creates the “Truth” of His Agenda
Michael S. Rozeff
Why does Obama come up with such quick judgments on news events and make them public? Whether it’s the downing of MH17, the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the death of Michael Brown, or the hacking of Sony, Obama hastily tells everyone what happened even though he cannot possibly know what has happened. Why does he do this?
In each case, he clearly has an agenda that he wishes to promote. He has ulterior motives. He wants to use the events to advance his political agenda. Whenever he does this, he can be proven wrong — later on. But since he has spoken out early and loudly and since he gets instant and wide publicity, his version becomes the predominant version. Even if it doesn’t predominate, he has managed the news to his own satisfaction. He has altered the attitudes or perceptions of a certain segment of the population, and this has advanced his agenda. He has advanced the reality he’s after, and he has made it come true. His position is so powerful that, with some care and skill, he creates “truth” and reality. What he says about events may later be shown to be false. He’s willing to take that risk and live with it in order to advance his agenda, which is the “truth” or reality he’s after. There’s usually enough uncertainty surrounding events that he can make a plausible-sounding case for his version. The public is not interested in knowing the truth or meaning of many events anyway, and their attention is onto the next story.
There is the truth obtained by careful consideration of causes and effects. This truth is one of understanding and knowledge. This is not what Obama or any politician is after. Their idea of truth is what is real, or what occurs, or what is material reality. The politicians think in terms of objects and what is or is not, as experienced in objects. People to them are objects for manipulation. The free mind and personality are not valued by those who have this will to dominance. They manipulate, as masters to slaves. Their manipulation of the minds of the people who live under their rule is surely of no less importance, and perhaps of greater importance, than all the material aggressions of the state. If people do not mind those material inroads and think of them as not aggressions, they will think themselves free when actually their minds and thoughts have been conditioned and heavily influenced and controlled. The problem here is that, with enough conditioning, slaves can think themselves free.