As this great blog post illustrates, there is a line that helps you see who guards the gates, and that line is 9/11.
One of the biggest traps we can fall into is the adoration of the left gatekeepers. Always keeping things interesting by speaking volumes of truth while at the same time diverting attention away from the root causes of the injustices of the world or just plain lying by omission.
The Left Gatekeepers Phenomenon
The denial that 9/11/01 was an inside job is nowhere deeper than in the traditional Left and the established Left media. Respected commentators for the Left, such as David Corn of the Nation, pooh-poohed challenges to the official story of the attack, or at most suggested complicity of the Bush administration by pointing to Saudi connections to the Bush family, all while staying within the confines of the official myth of the hijackers, crumbling skyscrapers, etc.
The causes of the Left gatekeeper phenomenon are, no doubt, complex. It may be that, because of their political marginalization, writers on the Left tend to be more defensive about their credibility. Furthermore, many Left publications are dependent on foundation funding, and those relationships may compromise objectivity on conscious and unconscious levels. It is also probable that many left icons are co-opted by covert disinformation programs such as Operation Mockingbird that target the Left media precisely because people expect challenges to the official story to come from that quarter.
- Left Denial
- Hypocrisy Now!
- Cracks in the Wall
- The 2006 Offensive
Submitted by gulu on Thu, 2008-10-16 01:58.
I've always been suspect of the heroes the fake left embraces, Chomsky, Goodman, Olbermann, Stewart, Maddow to name a few.This piece confirms my suspicions of Klein.I should have known just by her articles being constantly praised by the lemmings over at AlterNet or by her many appearances on Bill Maher's hangout.A show I can't watch anymore without being over come by homicidal thoughts.
Naomi or Noam am I
by Peter Raza
I went to see Naomi Klein a few nights ago here in Victoria BC Canada. She was finishing up a book tour for her recently released "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" before heading abroad for the next stage of her promotional tour. In this excellent book Klein exposes how catastrophic events become extremely profitable for corporations while enabling governments to further an agenda of "disaster capitalism". As a speaker she brings together an aspect that at once encompasses her excellent research abilities while showing a personal warmth that enhances the impact of her arguments. I found her to be both very informative and engaging with the audience. She took a few questions afterwards and it was then I found myself questioning some of her views. The second speaker up to the microphone was a gentleman here in Victoria whom I happen to know named Hal Sisson.
Let me tell you something about Hal Sisson. This man is a noted author with 10 books published, he is a life-long social activist, spent 40 years as a lawyer, he's been a stand-up comic, and a few other vestments and layers I've yet to delve into. He's also 86 years old and a rare sort of individual who retains a sharp mental faculty despite their age. Most times I'm with him I forget that this icon is almost twice as old as myself. I'm heartened to think that it is possible for some of us to keep it so together despite the ravages of time, but usually it's about then I lose my thought and start looking for my keys only to find them in my own pocket. Hal is also a prominent member of the Victoria 9/11 Truth organization - amongst my friends in this group we share a quiet reverence for this man, as well as an appreciation for being able to benefit from his wisdom and experience.
Hal Sisson's question was, "In view of your remarks relating to events which create economic emergencies and subsequent capitalistic opportunities and predations - disaster capitalism - do you have any comment or opinion in regard to the fact that many of them may well be covert false-flag operations by rogue elements of western government or intelligence agencies - events such as 9/11, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Madrid and British bombings?" This was exactly what I kept thinking about all evening while she described events like Katrina, the tsunami that devastated the coasts of Southeast Asia, or the fires in Greece. In many instances governments will clearly manipulate people's misfortune to push through repressive laws and gross examples of economic opportunism after such events, but I was also interested in her thoughts on how some of these events are purposely created within the Hegelian dialectic. Although she is clearly willing to unveil post 9/11 misdeeds such as the out-sourcing of war operations to Halliburton and Blackwater, it is the event itself and the forces behind it to which Hal Sisson's interrogative bespeaks. Her answer started out all right - she said, "First of all, I'm not so sure I would put anything past these people. It's just that with these conspiracy theories I feel that we're taking away all this energy that could be going toward other issues that are so important right now". Alarm bells started ringing in my head, I immediately thought to myself "female Chomsky". I've actually seen and read interviews where Noam Chomsky comes right out and says, "It's not important who is behind 9/11, there are so many other things these people are guilty of...other things are more important." or "it's just an Internet thing". Sorry Noam - I believe it is THE most important thing. My blood boils every day when I read a news piece about the War of Terror or anything to do with the Department of Homeland Criminals, or especially the frequent reports about another one or two hundred Iraqis dead or wounded.
You have the unmitigated gall to insinuate that it is not important when our own soldiers are giving their lives away based on this horrible lie? I'm sickened to think that some people can be so callously indifferent or morally bankrupt not to connect the obvious dots in this situation. Moreover, why should it be such a mental stretch for anyone to even imagine that the US government was complicit in 9/11 when we have so much declassified material showing their guilt in perpetrating such acts. That's why Hal Sisson's question is so relevant - because we know as a matter of historical fact that the Gulf of Tonkin and many others were false-flag operations, self-inflicted wounds - we know they are more than capable of it and it is a technique used by military powers since ancient times. This is not some ludicrous idea, and to pull out the old utility-knife catch phrase "conspiracy theory" and smear anybody who questions the official doctrine is not only offensive - it represents the shoddiest form of logic I can imagine.
Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" - Einstein
You should have heard the crowd at that precise moment. As soon as she said "conspiracy theories" there was a murmur of disapproval toward the questioner, it was like a bunch of trained monkeys who stand up all at once when the buzzer goes off - and when she wrapped all of us independently thinking individuals into a neat ball and drop-kicked us in the gonads with the following summation, "It's just that with these conspiracy theories I feel that we're taking away all this energy that could be going toward other issues that are so important right now" - the audience burst into applause. The mood was something like, "There, that should put to rest you 9/11 truth idiots, way to go Naomi - we are cognitively dissonant en masse". I was crestfallen at that moment when I saw first hand the results of some studies that show greater than 80% of the public are too apathetic and will just as soon swallow up the government's propaganda as think for themselves. Sure, we've got our Naomi Kleins and Noam Chomskys to stand just a little on one side of the gate while many followers believe they lead the vanguard against the controllers - but no way will they go that extra step and take a peek over that wall. I'm not saying she is employed by them or even necessarily conscious of it - perhaps within her own paradigm she resembles many who just can't imagine our leaders murdering some of us on purpose to further their agenda, and yet that's what war is all about. That's the part that is puzzling - she has no trouble expounding on the methodologies of torture and crisis manipulation by these people, but her natural curiosity and professional assiduousness stop short at the root causes of 9/11. Maybe she feels that if she touches that truth her days flying about doing book tours are over.
Naomi's worried about how much energy I've got. Little does she know I'm a seething mass of thermo-nuclear potential. I've got enough in me to listen to her build her arguments, present her thorough research, and draw together elements for her theories. And whoa - look at that, I've still got plenty left over to examine the various aspects of 9/11 - who da thunk? As well, since when is it up to you to decide what subject is deserving of my energy? How would you feel if someone just wrote off your entire theory by smearing it with a brush and saying, "it's just not important"?
Sorry Naomi, I'm disappointed - I still think you are great author with important, well presented information that everyone should be made aware of, but your inability to step over that line and deal with 9/11 is problematic to myself and others - this is precisely the difficulty we face when it comes to the wider population's suspension of disbelief regarding this issue. The reaction of that audience demonstrates so poignantly the struggle we face in bringing forth the truth about 9/11. Thanks for not tasing Hal.
Below are a few views on some of the more well known "gatekeepers"
Amy Goodman should be regarded as a Left Gatekeeper (LG). Left Gatekeepers, like the journalists in George Orwell’s 1984, function to promote the official propaganda of the state. They amplify what is not credible while excluding other voices from challenging the government’s lies of the day....
Democracy Now!’s contribution to the global struggle to remove the neoconservatives from power in the US is undermined each day that passes that Amy Goodman fails to invite on her show an articulate critic of the official story of 9/11/01. In addition, what little that has been said on DN! about 9-11 should be regarded as disinformation which is completely at the service of the Bush regime.
What many of her critics want from Amy Goodman is for DN! to speak truth to power on the most important issue of our time. We all know from her past that when she speaks truth to power she can move mountains. Many of us also believe that we’re running out of time waiting for her to get moving.
September 11th isn’t an issue like any other.
Rachel Maddow says: The real issue is story selection, is editorial control. I can only control what it is that I get asked to speak about in a very blunt way. That said, the way that I handle that is that I, I am gunning to get my own show. I would really like to be hosting a show on cable television, rather than guesting because I would like to exert more control over what gets discussed, over what counts as important. More
(Well Rachel, you've received your wish. We'll see how far your handlers let you go. Probably about as far as the strings that control Olbermann will reach.)
Bill Maher is a left gatekeeper piece of shit. Just like Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Keith Olbermann, Dan Abrams, Chris Matthews, Geraldo Rivera, Jon Stewart, Alan Colmes, Katie Couric, Alexander Cockburn, William Blum, Matt Tabbi etc.
In the blogosphere you have a similar phenomenon of left gatekeeper blogs, such as Daily Kos, MyDD, Democratic Underground, My Left Wing, Mother Jones, Huffington Post, Salon, The Nation, Moxie Grrrl, Crooks & Liars etc.
It’s all about discourse control. Keeping the discussion within “safe” parameters. More
The punk did write an article with the title I, Left Gatekeeper.
I would not even bother reading it.
The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi
If NPR is your source of news, then frankly- you don't know what is really happening in the world. Some people feel offended when I tell them this, but it is the truth. NPR Lies by Omission- the most important stories are simply not covered - period. NPR is not 'neutral' - it is an entertainment-marketing program designed to distract and misinform those seeking 'alternative' news. More
The reasons for the intense denial about the 9/11/01 attack inside the Left establishment appear to go much deeper than the fact that many of its institutions are funded by endowments like those of the Ford Foundation. The official myth appeals to political philosophies that condemn U.S. imperialism by providing the supreme example of "blowback" -- the proverbial chickens coming home to roost. Researcher August West speaks to this and other psychological underpinnings of the denial.More
The Gatekeepers of the So Called Left
The Left Gatekeepers
LiberalPro - The Left Gate-keepers
The common thread with all the major media left gatekeepers, as well as the right, is that they are either jewish/zionist, work for the jewish/zionist media or are funded by jewish/zionist foundations. Enough said.