Roberts, as most readers of this blog know, was a member of the Reagan administration in the Treasury Department. People don't get appointed to this government agency unless they are highly trusted and loyal to the ruling capitalist class. It would be interesting to know how and why Roberts became such a critic of government policies and media coverage. His transformation seems to have corresponded with the 9/11 event and all the other subsequent false-flag events. Also, I suspect that he didn't fit well with the increasing influence of neoconservatives that have infiltrated the government since he held office in the Treasury in the 1980s.
The major difference between then and now is the major influence of Zionist-oriented actors in the government and the increased activities of unaccountable secret agencies such as the CIA, NSA, etc. The same goes for media: before it was controlled by the wealthy, and now the main difference is that it wasn't nearly as concentrated in a few hands as it is now.
It's obvious that Roberts is no leftist critic. He believes that "democracy" formerly existed in the US (apparently when he was in office), and since has been radically diminished by corrupt or evil actors in collusion with media "presstitutes". Of course, he is referring to bourgeois democracy or the capitalist version of democracy. The reality is that the US, since its founding, has always been ruled by capitalists and not the people . If Roberts had read Upton Sinclair's book "The Brass Check", which Sinclair was forced to self-publish in 1919, he would know that at least by then the US was firmly controlled by Wall Street. Here are two paragraphs from the book:
In any case, he does provide valuable information about government crimes with the collusion of major media which he, no doubt, gathers from his wide connections among ruling class figures.This power of concentrated wealth which rules America is known by many names. It is "Wall Street," it is "Big Business," it is "the Trusts." It is the "System" of Lincoln Steffens, the "Invisible Government" of Woodrow Wilson, the "Empire of Business" of Andrew Carnegie, the "Plutocracy" of the populists. It has been made the theme of so much stump-oratory that in cultured circles it is considered good form to speak of it in quotation marks, with a playful and skeptical implication ; but the simple fact is that this power has controlled American public life since the civil war, and is greater at this hour than ever before in our history. The one difference between the Empire of Business and the Empire of Louis [of France] is that the former exists side by side with a political democracy. To keep this political democracy subser- vient to its ends, the industrial autocracy maintains and sub- sidizes two rival political machines, and every now and then stages an elaborate sham-battle, contributing millions of dollars to the campaign funds of both sides, burning thousands of tons of red fire, pouring out millions of reams of paper propaganda and billions of words of speeches. The people take interest in this sham-battle — but all sensible men understand that which- ever way the contest is decided, business will continue to be business, and money will continue to talk.
In this article he argues that Americans are now in the majority who do not believe the fairy tales in connection with the John Kennedy assassination and 9/11. But when one examines the poll reports, on which he bases his argument, in more detail, one finds that the people polled answered questions which indicated only partial disbelief with official stories. The pollsters never went so far to ask them about their belief that government agencies conspired to bring about these events.
What I found to be even more interesting was the information that he provides about the recent terrorist incidents in Europe--they appear to be false-flag terror events with government coverup attempts.