Left Gatekeepers: "Silence is Betrayal"

Left Gatekeepers: "Silence is Betrayal"
Written by Chris Rose

It's getting harder and harder to be a "left gatekeeper". The Hugo Chavez story is a good case in point. Notice how tentative the "progressive" media were about jumping on the Rangel Pelosi band wagon.

While many of these gatekeepers are "adept at playing the public mind", they do so while knowing and to a certain degree, suppressing the truth within their own minds. It's kind of like the habitual liar who starts to believe their own B.S. It becomes harder to keep track of the actual truth. Here, the progressive media have implicitly "agreed" to remain collectively silent on the "9/11 Truth" issue.

So when a story like "Chavez calling Bush the devil" breaks, the progressives tend to sit back for awhile to see how the story is being played by the MSM. Remember, they kept "silent" on Chavez when he was ranting about Bush and his involvement in 9/11 only a few days prior. How can they possibly comment on the "Chavez called Bush the devil" story without simultaneously revealing themselves to be hypocrites? Keeping in mind the fact that the truth of the first story (Bush and 9/11) tends to prove the truth of the follow-up story ("Bush is the devil"). "Oh what a tangled web" indeed. This phenomenon is not unlike that of trying to avoid stepping in one's own B.S.

While they are doing that, the hard-core neo-con right is busy setting the agenda. They are actually engaged in producing more of the very same B.S. that the "progressives" are trying to avoid. They do this by literally feeding the MSM machine with talking points and bald faced lies and right-wing propaganda across all forms of media (print, radio, tv, internet). This neo-con machine of mendacity (for me, MSM = "Main Stream Mendacity") is so adept at staying "on message" it generally does not take them long to totally influence the "outcome" of virtually any story they choose. Regardless of whether or not that outcome is based in truth. Remember... "[we] can't handle the truth!"

Since the gatekeepers on the left have also determined to a certain degree that too much "truth" is (somehow) bad for the citzenry, they get caught up in the game. A game where the rules have been set by the neo-cons. A game they cannot possibly win. For example, one major rule has been, if you say anything at all supporting the 9/11 Truth Movement, you will have irrevocably surrendered your credibility. This particular rule has been held inviolate thus far by the "left gatekeepers"; therefore, they remain virtually SILENT on issues involving "9/11 Truth". In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., "A time comes when silence is betrayal." And that time has come for us in relation to 9/11.

Also posted at Daily Kos: Please vote in my poll.

Great blog dude!

Great blog dude!


The 9/11 Truth movement has a very good foundation in that it IS grassroots; MSM may come and go, but Truthers remain on the ground. So far, the most I've seen in print about Press For Truth or 9/11 truth is what I've put in my own local paper, although there was a letter to the editor in the Washington Post today asking ABC if they'de be willing to conduct an investigation into their Disney docudrama.
There are those who beleive...with good argument...that Bush actually wants to get caught. Subtle little things like leaving his microphone on. It is not out of the realm of possible that he is actually the one who comes forward with a vague confession. Looking at his facial expressions at the Booker school, you see a tremendous transformation of thought, not the least bit of it being "Hell, they're actually doing it..." And from there he was locked in.
You can bet MSM will avoid any confessions there, too, so let's keep the grass roots watered and fed! (And to the blogger who recomends tens of thousands of us show up armed to the teeth; I think not.)


I forgot to include the following http://www.benfranl.net/disinfo/ for all of you to study as the approach to denyers (purposely spelt that way) because cutting through b.s. with clear communication (gently) will be the most disarming in any argument/discussion. Thanks.

oops http://benfrank.net/disinfo/

sorry for theypo; it's