Naomi Klein as an asset

The debate of whether the 9/11 truth movement should consider what we call the "Left Gatekeepers" (like typically Noam Chomsky or Amy Goodman) as enemies or should simply ignore them is coming to an end. These folk will soon be considered as victims and moreover, they will like to be called that way. The book of Naomi Klein "The Shock Doctrine" will be a tool for such a move.

What is the main thesis of the "Shock Doctrine" ? That the US neoliberals and imperialists are using perceived shocks as tools to erase and rebuild societies on grounds favorable to private interests, mainly theirs. This is the definition of fascism/corporatism. This thesis is becoming very popular. Why ? Because it provides an excuse for the left (which nowadays should be understood as the antifascists ;-) for having been impotent in preventing the rise of fascist America. They were under "Shock" after 9/11, like everybody else (the Cheney gang being strangely immune to the 9/11 shock). And that is what NK tells you in her book: the Bush administration has used the shock of 9/11 (and other event) to implement radical changes in the American society (and elsewhere), not only in US foreign policy.

So the left was under shock after 9/11 and that is why they were impotent in preventing Bush from implementing his nefarious policies. That is the new narrative and it is a very seductive one. Whether it is accurate or not is of little importance: this is politics and what counts is the feeling of the majority of leftists.

But the book also claims, in its chapter exploring the CIA MKUltra program, that people under shock are more vulnerable to manipulation by someone they perceive as a protector. If the Left admits they were under shock after 9/11, then they must also admit that they could have been manipulated by the Bush administration into believing a particular narrative of the events of 9/11. That is basically a simple logical consequence from the main thesis of "The Shock Doctrine".

So now, people of the Left defending the Official Conspiracy Theory have a argument to back off from their gut-grounded position: "I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests." They were duped because they were under shock. That is why they believed the unbelievable and highly contradictory OCT.

Chomsky, Goodman and others are not gods, they are human, and they do not want to admit they have been fooled with an event like 9/11. It is highly discrediting to admit such a weakness. After all, it is very understandable: who would like to admit he as been passively complicit in the crime by not exercising his otherwise efficient judgment ? Now, whether this is justified or not as an excuse is not relevant here, and I am no judge of courage and wiseness. But the Left has build, with the "Shock Doctrine", the tool that will enable them to back off and investigate what they were previously constrained to believe.

It is up to the 9/11 truth movement to wisely exploit the "Shock Doctrine" to help them question their instilled beliefs and put them on our side. They are not our enemies, so lets make them our allies.


"It is up to the 9/11 truth movement to wisely exploit the "Shock Doctrine" to help them question their instilled beliefs and put them on our side. They are not our enemies, so lets make them our allies."

Yup. If we are going get things moving. We will need the left/antiwar crowd.

That's also one of the reasons why the situation with the "left gatekeepers" are so frustrating. (and shameful.)

Richard D. Brinkman

Richard D. Brinkman, I agree too, Thanks CasaZaza for jump starting this important issue, We need to expore Naomi's work rather than tossing it out the window with-out being open minded to the wealth of information her book may have.

I think you're right when it

I think you're right when it comes to some folks such as Naomi Klein, but we also have to be open to the very real possibility that some "gatekeepers" are in fact Controlled Opposition, designed to distract us from the real issues. I sincerely believe that Goodman, Moore, and Chomsky are examples of these... controlled agents of the state (or New World Order). Those who are not agents designed to mislead the progressive left but who are saying things such as "conspiracy theories distract from the important issues" are problematic in the extreme, and are (unwittingly) assisting those who are intentionally trying to derail the anti-false flag movement. They need to wake up very fast because they are doing more harm than they realize.
Those who are actively trying to wake people up to the notion of state-sponsored terrorism are the REAL anti-imperialists, and the imperialists know it. It's time to get the impotent left in this country to understand this. The 9/11 truth and justice movement needs to become the next anti-globalization movement. This entails numbers, alliance-building, persistance, and street actions.

I mostly agree but ...

not with that "I sincerely believe that Goodman, Moore, and Chomsky are examples of these... controlled agents of the state".

I would not put Moore on par with NC and AM. I don't think they act on the same playground. As for NC and AM, for my part, I do not think they defend the imperial system as you suggest it. We should not forget that they might have been harassed by truthers which could have radicalized their positions, sort of putting them on the defensive if you want. I do believe that they are sincere when doubting that the OCT might be absurd: because they cannot handle the alternative.

As for NC, I think he is quite contradictory when he states "9/11 truth (even if true) is not such an important issue" while at the same time he states "Even for Bush, it would be utterly insane to do such a thing".

But in my humble opinion, he can maintain this position only because he cannot project himself in an alternative view of 9/11. My point of view is that he was shocked and forged his belief under this shock. Maybe the realization that he was shocked could help him reconsider the belief he then formed. I don't think reason his an efficient tool to protect you from shocks (faith is certainly more efficient.) Maybe he will realize his intellect did not protect him more than the intellect of Mr. Anybody.

You're certainly entitled to

You're certainly entitled to your view dmx, but I think it's important to understand the complexity of the opposition we face. These are mad-men and women who always look ahead to see what kind of challenges they might face and they prepare in advance. They understand that there are those who are fundamentally anti-imperialist so they have to CONTROL it. Noam Chomsky is the prime example of someone who uses the "bait and switch" technique to distract away from THE most revolutionary issues: the CIA, 9/11 (false flag terror), and the money system (federal reserve bank). Amy Goodman is the same. I'll grant you the benefit of my doubt about M. Moore, but certainly not so with the former 2. Please read Barry Zwicker's book "Towers of Deception", primarily the chapter about Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers. This is too important a topic to just be giving all these prominent voices a willy-nilly benefit of the doubt. They have obligations and they are not meeting them.

Ok I own Zwicker book

but haven't had time to read it by now ... many others books are in my library waiting ... alas.

What about other anti-imperialists like Chalmers Johnson, Robert Fisk, Alexander Cockburn or Justin Raimondo? Do we need a friend/foe list ?


Hey, you have to admit it's kind of funny.


Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein


The important issue is the expose the fallacies of their positions in a careful, scholarly and civil way while ALSO praising them for the work on what we all agree on, that the other work they do is good and important, because in most cases it really is.

Doling out threats and accusations is a task that won't be heard by either the icons themselves or anyone who supports them, and they will turn their supporters against us if they feel threatened.

We have to remember that the vast majority of left icons want what we want too and are not agents, but have their own limitations. Needing to be a part of the authoritative position on 9/11 is likely more about their own life experience of being rejected by that authority over and over and also about the tendency of intellectuals in general to have a harder time believing the truth than average people for the same reasons that they are focused on academic issues. We cannot change all that, but we can use what parts benefit us.

Are some, or even just one of them, agents? Probably. Will we somehow expose that? Unlikely. Will telling people "So-and-so is an agent" help our work? Doubt it. Will it help the peace movement to accept 9/11 truth? Highly unlikely. Will it make us seem nuts to average people? You bet.

We can't help wondering aloud, but we need to stay focused to get work done.

Civility and common respect for differences is key. In the end, we all want the same thing.

Agree 100%

But I did not mean we should intimidate them. I just meant, in the case of NK and all those who praise her work, we should put them before the logical consequence of them being exposed to the 9/11 shock.

NK and 9-11

There's a good story on Naomi's opinion on 9-11 Truth here


Thanks, I wasn't implying you were suggesting we intimidate them, but others on here have, especially the statements against Amy Goodman, such as the idea that she -

"has participated in the treasonous media cover-up of the 9/11 inside job, accepting over $100,000 from the CIA-disinfo-disseminating Ford Foundation to 'report on the aftermath of 9/11."

This, to me, only discredits us to her and her supporters. Just imagine someone saying that to you for moment -- put your name at the start of that sentence and read it again -- and you get the idea of how emotionally threatening such statements really can be, regardless of their explicit intentionality or lack thereof.


I agree that the positions of NC, AM or MM can be perceived as against the interests of the 9/11 truth movement., but this is mainly because we seek their support for "mainstream" access. I am not sure this support is necessary anymore.


1/ they have not obligation to be with us. Not criticizing OTC does not mean they are on Cheney's side.

2/ I do believe they are sincere even though they are not necessarily logically coherent.

3/ (I know I insist) there are reasons for their lack of will to think critically about the OCT, reasons that we should expose if we want them to reconsider.

4/ we could also ignore them and wait until we are mainstream, in which case they will have to reconsider anyway.

I definitely don't consider

I definitely don't consider Cockburn to be a genuine anti-imperialist. He utilizes too many of the same tactics employed by agents provocateurs to derail the strong arguments put forth by prominent 9/11 researchers. Isn't he a spokesman for Popular Mechanics?
As for the list of friends/foes...that's a good question.