Rivero - bald deception

I was reading Rivero's essay on "fake terror" for the previous post. I saw something odd, and was going to raise it, but decided against it. But I've just read something else at his site - "a new WRH Exclsuive" (wooo)- which completely contradicts his earlier position.

Here's what he wrote years back, explaining how "fake terror" is supposedly used to manipulate public opinion, in this example America's entry to WW2:

Roosevelt needed an enemy, and if America would not willingly attack that enemy, then one would have to be maneuvered into attacking America, much as Marcus Licinius Crassus has maneuvered Spartacus into attacking Rome.

The way open to war was created when Japan signed the tripartite agreement with Italy and Germany, with all parties pledging mutual defense to each other. Whereas Hitler would never declare war on the United States no matter the provocation, the means to force Japan to do so were readily at hand.

The first step was to place oil and steel embargoes on Japan, using Japan's wars on the Asian mainland as a reason. This forced Japan to consider seizing the oil and mineral rich regions in Indonesia. With the European powers militarily exhausted by the war in Europe, the United States was the only power in the Pacific able to stop Japan from invading the Dutch East Indies, and by moving the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Roosevelt made a pre-emptive strike on that fleet the mandatory first step in any Japanese plan to extend its empire into the "southern resource area".

Roosevelt boxed in Japan just as completely as Crassus had boxed in Spartacus. Japan needed oil. They had to invade Indonesia to get it, and to do that they first had to remove the threat of the American fleet at Pearl Harbor. There never really was any other course open to them.
SOURCE

Well, I wouldn't listen to Rivero for any history - why trust him at all. But notice the strength of his argument that Japan had no choice but to react USA provocation? I thought this was a pretty ridiculous view when I read it first, but look at this new post of Rivero's where he likens Israel's 'attack' on the flotilla to Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour? Look at how his ideological and tactical need dictates his view of history (and not the other way around):

Back in 1941, there was this foreign nation, Japan, which was illegally occupying other peoples' lands in China and Indonesia.

There were Americans in close proximity to that foreign nation, in the then-territory of Hawaii, and even though the Americans had not actually done much of anything, that foreign nation decided it had the right to attack and kill Americans just on the off chance that somewhere down the road, they might be in inconvenience.

Thus came about the attack on Pearl Harbor.
SOURCE

Some difference, huh?!! Sheesh. In the first one Rivero has to emphasis the US government's desire to enter war - and so Japan is cast as a poor trapped manipulated innocent. But in the second, so as to rhetorically attack Israel, Japan is cast as an aggressive, imperial power, which attacked the USA. Same events, completely different explanations - dependent on the propaganda needs of the moment. The guy is mentally ill if he doesn't recognise these contradictions. If he does recognise them (even only to himself), he's obviously working a propaganda agenda for which the truth is voluntarily and consciously disregarded as necessary.