The Nation: "The Paranoid Style at Pacifica"
The Paranoid Style at Pacifica
posted by Eyal Press on 10/22/2009 @ 4:20pm
In his Wall Street Journal column yesterday, Tom Frank paid homage to Richard Hofstadter's famous essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." As Frank noted, Birthers convinced that Barack Obama's birth certificate was forged in a plot to turn the United States into a fascist state are heirs to a long tradition of conspiracy thinking that has periodically flourished on the fringes of the American right.
But the paranoid style has seeped into some institutions on the left as well. For proof, look no further than a recent meeting of the Pacifica radio network's National Board, where a resolution was introduced that requires all programmers to disclose funding sources above $5,000. "The reason I created this motion," Chris Condon, a member of Pacifica's National Governance Committee, explained, "is because there has been a lot of debate about whether or not Amy Goodman has received CIA conduit foundation funding from the Ford Foundation and other places."
Amy Goodman is, of course, the co-host of Democracy Now!, an unabashedly progressive news program that airs on over 800 stations across the country. As anyone who has listened to even five minutes of the program knows, Goodman is about as likely to be on the payroll of the CIA as Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky. She has probably devoted more airtime to dissecting the CIA's transgressions in the past decade than any other member of her profession.
No matter, the Governance Committee at Pacifica passed the resolution, a step taken to discover whether you-know-who has been funneling money to Goodman to cover up "the truth" about 9/11. "We'd like to know what kind of 9/11 coverage the Ford Foundation paid for," said Condon. "The whole issue of 9/11 and Amy Goodman has been ongoing for years and years and years."
The disquieting coverage was apparently just journalism, as when Goodman had the gumption to ask David Ray Griffin, a 9/11 Truther who appeared on her program several years ago, to name some engineers who supported the theory that passenger planes could not have brought down the Twin Towers. (The real cause was explosives set off by the attack's covert plotters, 9/11 Truthers allege.) When Griffin referred vaguely to the notes in his book, Goodman persisted: "Name just one. Name just one structural engineering expert who said it is not feasible that the planes caused the towers to go down." "I'm sorry, I don't have that information at my fingertips," Griffin replied.
The suspicions about Goodman would be laughable were they not coming from board members at an independent radio network with a proud history of promoting progressive dialogue and dissent. Pacifica was founded by conscientious objectors a half-century ago and has stations in some of the largest markets (New York, Los Angeles, Washington) in the country. In the late 1990s, some of the network's supporters fought off what they believed was an attempt by the National Board to standardize programming and soften its edge.
The struggle was successful, but the unintended consequence was to democratize Pacifica in a way that has ended up empowering many cranks. Instead of serving as a vibrant home for incisive programming that challenges the assumptions of mainstream debate, the network has fallen into the hands of sectarians and crackpots whose control over the Governance Committee may be strong but whose hold on reality appears tenuous.
- simuvac's blog
- Login to post comments
www.LeftGateKeepers.com is gone....
I just checked, and the domain name is now assigned to a foreign language management web site.
Does anybody know what became of the original?
http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
question left gatekeepers
Eyal Press could have defended Amy Goodman without insulting the intelligence of those who question the official account of 9/11. It seems illogical to accuse people with reasonable questions of being "crackpots" when the problem is clearly Amy's refusal to address those questions. As a journalist, surely it is her responsibility to investigate such an important issue, not just ignore it.
I have come to the realization that much of the so-called "alternative media" is little more than a rehash of msm with a slightly different spin... they don't ever provide a comprehensive narrative or a cohesive framework through which their audience might gain some insight into the power structures that control capital and determine policy. Nor do they provide their audience any tools or ideas for dealing with the forces arrayed against civil society. They are, in the main, just as boring, depressing and disempowering as their mainstream counterparts.
It IS possible that Amy is getting money from the CIA
It is quite an oddity that Amy Goodman has avoided the topic of 9/11 for eight years. It is even more odd that Alternet, CommonDreams, Counterpunch, antiwar.com, MotherJones, and all of the other progressive alternative media sites have done the same.
In fact, it is impossible that they just don't understand the issues, or have missed the glaring contradictions in the official story of 9/11.
Check out the foundational support for sites like Alternet....................the foundations are fronts for the biggest international (Kissinger type) corporations and financial institutions in the world with leaders that can easily be connected to groups that would not want the truth out.
Amy and Joshua Holland of Alternet and others have purposely censored this information. It is not far fetched to call this treason. We need to know exactly why these journalists would avoid the most important issue of our time, with such blatant lies about 9/11 so easily seen.
There could be many reasons
these "progressive" sites have avoided 9/11. The fear generated by the Bushies after 9/11 really scared away some journalists. I think at this point, so many years later, journalists see no career advantage to addressing 9/11, as long as the "mainstream" encourages this attitude.
Today's Alternet story:
"Obama is Keeping Bush's Worst War on Terror Policies Firmly In Place," is another misdirection sham. Still I couldn't resist posting a comment. "Scientific Proof of 9/11 Treason......Time to Rethink!" (under top thread 'piling on', as zeitgeist)
http://www.alternet.org/story/143400/obama_is_keeping_bushs_worst_?page=...
Anyone want to step in? The last time I posted on Alternet, simuvac and I had the top 2 comments and Alternet pulled the entire article! How's that for censorship?
Done
I left one. Thanks for the alert.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
Wish I could but I've been banned from Alternet.
Alternet doesn't like it when I would comment that they have censored 9/11 truth from their site.
So they banned me.
I wish I could jump in.
Joshua Holland, senior writer and editor, has made it clear that the only time he will allow any evidence that the official 9/11 story is a lie is when he insults and mocks the 9/11 movement.
It is clear he knows there are lies, but he censors all of the information. I feel this is a form of treason. Because of him and others like him, millions have died in the war on terror, and we have been left with the Patriot Act, two occupations, covert actions in many other places, lots of homeless people, torture.
These horrors have all come because Americans were kept from the truth by Alternative media, which exists solely to bring us the news that the msm will not present for us.
Commondreams.
I wrote a comment to Michael Moore on Commondreams.
Michael had written:-
"We invaded two nations that didn't attack us, failed to find the real terrorists and, in effect, ignited our own wave of terror. People all over the world wondered if we had gone mad".
I wrote:-
Michael, the real terrorists are still at large.
Time for a criminal investigation.
My comment remained up overnight. Then I failed to find it.
So I sent it in again.
Also I wrote to Huffington Post.
Arianna had written that she detests 9/11 truthers.
I wrote that it follows that Arianna detests me.
My comment failed to show up on Huffington Post.
We face a powerful stone wall.
And we keep the pressure on.
Common Dreams banned me.................
after just one comment about 9/11 truth.
Pure censorship.....................
= treason.
Why is the "leftwing media" obsessed with coddling the neocons?
Ironically, it boils down to the bizarre notion that the major icons on the left, such as Noam Chomsky, David Corn, David Swanson, Amy Goodman, Victor Navasky, Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington, Howard Zinn, and the other self-styled "left-gatekeepers" are the very people who are helping the planners, organizers and perpetrators of 9/11 get away with mass murder (whoever "they" happen to be). Goodman et al are helping maintain the status quo by not rocking the boat, keeping the 9/11 issue taboo, preventing their left-oriented readership from getting the salient facts, and using the "conspiracy theory accusation" as the default (kneejerk) response. Some supposedly "left" leaning websites, such as the Daily Kos and AriannaHuffington, have even gone to the extreme measure of banning anyone who even brings up the notion that 9/11 was other than what was sold to the world by the Bush Administration, the Pentagon and intelligence officials! From all the best evidence that is out there, it is abundantly clear that "the planners, organizers and perpetrators of 9/11" were not "19 arabs and a man in a cave who hate our freedoms", but unknown parties who are motivated by some very "NON-liberal" politics, such as across-the-board corporate welfare, a quantum leap in militarism and warmongering, a general rollback of civil liberties and human rights, imposition of a big brother type "surveillance society", an obsession with security, secrecy and conformity, and all the other ugly consequences and programs that were rapidly enabled by the events of 9/11.
If there was any logic or justice, Amy Goodman and the so called "progressive" publications should have jumped all over 9/11 with a fine-tooth comb, especially considering that many of the demonstrable lies, absurdities and untenabilities of the official fairy-tale became glaringly apparent from very soon after the event. But no... they clammed up and closed ranks, just like the weasels and appeasers in the mainstream corporate media. To evade and deny the subject that has been the direct cause of all the policy set which Goodman etc. have been bellyaching about so bitterly for the last 8 years, is a bit like investigating the destruction in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in 2005, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that a massive Category 3 hurricane had just barrelled through the area (!!); it is that blatant and illogical.
I am not one to idly speculate, but the fact that all these left-media leaders have been effectively protecting their apparent political enemies leads one to consider the possibility that they have been coerced (by parties unknown) into such an illogical and mysterious set of non-reactions and silence. Perhaps advertisers threatened to withdraw sponsorship if pro-9/11 truth material was published? Perhaps they are scared of being name-called as "tinfoil hatters" or "wackos" in the mainstream press and television? Perhaps they are scared of losing tenured positions in academia? Perhaps they did indeed get threats directed against themselves and/or family members... these things really can, and do happen. I am purely guessing here... because without threats, the stand take by the "left" media makes absolutely *zero* sense. To be fair, I am sure that Amy Goodman (and her cohorts) are enjoying their often well-paid careers in broadcasting, and in these crazy economic times, I am sure that nobody is that keen to jeopardize their livelihoods. However, the inaction of the progressive left is brought more starkly into focus by the fact that many of those who *have* stepped up to the plate are represented by the (libertarian) right, not to mention that two of the most important movers and shakers in the 9/11 Truth movement (physicist Dr. Steven Jones and architect Richard Gage) are moderate Republicans.
Parenti on 'conspiracy phobia'
Is it invariably the case, 100 per-cent of the time, that this gatekeeping is the result of being on the take from some government agency? All gatekeeping is damaging, but I think the explanations for it can vary, and there's only so much we can determine from where we are. But I do think that sometimes we can forget that 'intelligence' isn't everything when it comes to discerning the truth. Besides intellect, there's horse sense, and having what you might call a robust bullshit detector. I also think that the self-image of some of these so-called progressives as being so much smarter than the rest of the citizenry just can't allow for admitting that they were mistaken about 9/11. To do so now would mean that they would have to admit having been slower to realize this than a lot of very average less-educated folks. Their psyche just can't allow for this, so they huddle together, hurling the same tired old epithets.
I also think that in Islamic extremism, the powers that be found an enemy that Western leftists are more prepared to believe the worst about than would be the case with respect to other purported enemies.
Michael Parenti's observations from some years ago are again very relevant here. Here's a link, with prefatory remarks (c2002?) re relevance to 9/11 gatekeeping by Brian Salter of questionsquestions.net:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/conspiracyphobia.html
fear of confrontation amongst the Left allows groupthink dynamic
Psychologically, I have noticed a tendency of circles on the left to be very averse to any perceived confrontation, especially with people perceived as their 'leaders.' I was at a house party-type salon a few weeks ago in Beverly Hills with Max Blumenthal presenting his book "Republican Gomorrah (sp?)." After waiting for my chance during Q+A, I provocatively pointed out that, while Blumenthal did a very interesting job elucidating the deep psychological kinks of the reactionary 'religious' right and the links of serial woman killer Ted Bundy to elements thereof, he was speaking to and from within a party in full power with a president who, in terms of the term "serial woman-killer" literally meaning killing women over and over again (GWOT drone strikes), had likely well-surpassed Bundy's carnage. So, I asked him to take his analysis further and openly pondered whether the problems of the impotence of the left came from an unwillingness to face difficult truths and the facts thereof. Blumenthal had mentioned earlier in the evening that he would theoretically support a woman in the audience running for the local pacifica board of KPFK as long as she "wasn't a 9/11 truther." So, towards the end of my statement/question, I asked, what do you want- a "9/11 liar?"- and mentioned the left's troubled relationship with confronting the basic facts of 9/11.
Blumenthal started his answer by early on saying that "9/11 truthers are horrible people" or something directly to that effect. He then told a few stories of some alleged "truthers" harrassing people in Shanksville and purposefully misquoting people. I then asked whether he was talking about the thousands of family members of the victims of 9/11 who still want their very basic questions answered about their loved ones' deaths or the almost 1000 architects and engineers for 9/11 truth pointing out the very basic scientific facts showing those buildings and the humans therein to have been demolished in a controlled manner. I was then told to be quiet since I had "already asked" my question by the moderator Louis Vandenburg, the producer of KPFK show host Ian Masters who has called those investigating 9/11 "nuts" and "navel-gazers" and worse. Numerous others in the room told me to be quiet and shut up since Blumenthal had given his answer. I said, with an emotional Libran sense of injustice and a bit of very honest and raw hurt in my voice, that these matters shouldn't be silenced, and asked whether others in the room felt like that was a respectful way to deal with serious debate.
Blumenthal immediately picked up on my hurt and pounced on it by saying, "there's your 9/11 truthers for you." "What, are you going to cry like Glen Beck?!" At this point, I was asked to leave the house, since the "owners were uncomfortable with me being there." I relinquished since the owners appeared to be going along with this. I asked whether I could use the bathroom before I left, was allowed, did so, and then left through the front door while the evening began to carry on. While one man, a 9/11 truth advocate from LA, came out to mediate and be with the man of the house and me to discuss what had happened and what my point was, not one person in that living room, which had numerous individuals allegedly in support of outing the truth of 9/11, either jumped to my defense and tried to mediate inside (which I am always amenable to after my passions rise a bit, which they are sometimes wont to do despite my desires to stay cool), or at least ask, in the moment, Blumenthal to be fair and not slander the entirety of the 9/11 truth movement if not deal with the hard facts themselves. He was the leader who had the book to sell and no passionate 'disrupter' had any valid reason to ask a rhetorically tough question or, get offended after the bookman had 'answered' by slandering a whole group of people, and demand a clarification on the matter.
After leaving, I asked the homeowner whether it would be ok if i stuck around until the event ended so Blumenthal and I could talk about our disagreement, since it was ending in about half an hour or so. He said he could not speak on behalf of Blumenthal but that it was fine with him if I wanted to come back to the front of his house towards the end of the event. I did, but somehow I missed Blumenthal. Many people coming out expressed sympathy both for what I said and for how I had been ostracized in a manner. Others, were quite snooty. The homeowner and I had some intense exchanges and debates with some advice coming from the more established older man to the uppity younger man. I appreciated that he was very honest about how perceived power dynamics played an important role in exchanges like this, where Blumenthal had earned his respect and clout by writing his book and doing the circuit, and I was just some nobody that gave him no reason to listen seriously to anything I had to say. The exchange between us was raw but deep as we called out what we perceived to be each others' weaknesses and blindspots. It was an interesting, but semi-painful, evening of psychological revelation for me both about myself and about the 'scene.'
-more on my experience with Blumenthal, or my non-experience of Blumenthal later...
On different reactions from the Left around 9/11 and gate-keeping see:
-"Breakfast with Peter Phillips- Media Gate-keeper Constipation & the Solution to the Power Elite"- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsoEUbWKN3I
-"Amy Goodman questioned about 911"- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXTlxT7gFGk
-"Chris Hedges "was there" and saw Building 7 "go down" and "it does" look like a controlled demolition, but he's not sure it was."- http://www.911blogger.com/node/19814
“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato
"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush
Thank You
You are a very brave person. It takes some serious cojones to stand as a lightening rod in a room of sheeple and speak the truth to power.
PARENTI ON CONSPIRACY
http://911truthburn.blogspot.com
This is good folks
http://www.tucradio.org/081015_ConspiracyONE.mp3
http://www.tucradio.org/081022_ConspiracyTWO.mp3
This is an in-depth analysis of the modern state and the exercise of power behind the scenes. The speech is also an important historic document. Given in 1993 it issues a warning of the use of deception to justify going to war. The speech also explains the expansion of the deregulated free market that would lead to a financial crisis as we see it today.
The speech on Conspiracy and Class Power was lost for several years and only recently discovered in the collection of a listener in Seattle. Michael Parenti spoke before an overflow audience in Berkeley, CA. Michael Parenti is an internationally known author and lecturer. He received his Ph.D. in political science from Yale in 1962 and is one of the nation's leading progressive political thinkers. His highly informative and entertaining books and talks have reached a wide range of audiences in North America and abroad. His books include Democracy for the Few, Superpatriotism, The Assassination of Julius Caesar, History as Mystery, and Contrary Notions.
Has Parenti come out for 9-11 truth?
Has Parenti made a definite statement regarding 9-11 truth, or is he still sitting on the fence? I'm not quite clear on where he stands.
I can't say I know him that well, but................
he seems locked in with Chomsky, who has disappointed the whole world of people who really care about reality and evidence.
It is such a shock that these people would abandon the search for truth as they have, probably because of the Jewish connection, although I really can't say why they have. I don't have any other reason why. I've thought this through and through. The reasons for their avoidance of seeking the truth in this are quite hidden from us. I doubt that Chomsky is in any way on the dole from the big corporations. What else could it be? Senility? No...............I've seen him lately in action.
What IS IT?????????
Parenti signed the 2004 Truth Statement
that was circulated after the Commission cover up report was released
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
A good person to ask about this
A good person to ask about this (if you can find his contact info?) would be Barrie Zwicker. Didn't Parenti write the preface or some favorable commentary for 'Towers of Deception'?
I know--Zinn also was quoted on the jacket of 'The New Pearl Harbor,' and we see what's happened to him. Still, I'd like to hear any update on Parenti if there is any.
http://911truthburn.blogspot.
http://911truthburn.blogspot.com
Parenti will appear in my and Gregg Roberts film about deception and 9-11
He agreed to the interview knowing full well where I stand on 9-11.
Jobs
Goodman may not have another source of income but she should quit her job anyway if she's a decent person. Moore and Huffington don't need any money, so it's bizarre they still refuse to give in to 9/11 truth.
It's all about FEAR
Real Fear for their lives and careers and family. Why is it so hard to understand? Our politicians, journalists, college professors, military people, FBI agents you name it they are AFRAID. If the powers that be can collapse buildings on people in Oklahoma and NYC and send Anthrax thru the mail why wouldn't these people turn away from the issue. They know the truth, the bigger truth and they are Worried! As are we all. This is a war and we all know who our real heroes are and aren't. Let's stop pretending people like Chomsky and Goodman and so many others are going to lead our troops. They will only come on board when and if we start winning the war and while many of them may be secretly hoping for us, they're sure not betting on our side. That's what makes each of us honestly in this movement including those with different views and opinions on specifics bonded together as patriots for our Republic and defenders of Justice.
Oh and I would like to add that there are people who know the truth and are in agreement with the perps that this is what is needed in our world and let us not fail to recognize these folks as our true enemies in this war.
I hate even to write this thought but,
frankly, I've been surprised that Sibel Edmonds is "with us."
Clearly, the relieving news is that she is, and now having gone on record and continuing to speak out, I hope that means she always will be.
It is almost ironic that Chomsky wrote:
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
It was a big shock to me to discover early on after 9/11 how many of my "progressive" friends were unwilling to even discuss the evidence regarding what happened on 9/11. "I don't believe in conspiracy theories," was and remains a near unanimous "mantra". Now, surely not all these people are on the CIA's payroll. I've maintained all along that the problem is predominantly psychological -- it is fear: People don't want to believe that we're so far gone that something like this can be done to us, that treason and mass murder can be conducted in broad daylight, and that it can be completely gotten away with. They grasp at straws: "It would take too many people," "surely someone would come forward," "they couldn't keep something that big secret," "They're evil but they're not that evil!" And so on. These are direct quotes from people whose political points of view are way left of center.
People who hold such attitudes aren't interested in "evidence" no matter who it comes from. They've "made up their minds" already and reinforce not only "the system" external to themselves, but their already established inner systems of belief. (I see much the same thing going on within the 9/11 community in regards to the evidence at the Pentagon, by the way).
My point is that "fear" IS the driving force behind such attitudes -- regardless whether one is on a "pay roll" or not, regardless whether one is under assumed or direct threat. (All we need do is look at what happened to many of the progressive leaders of the 1960s to know that such threats are real.) It takes a lot of courage to go up against the "limits put on the range of debate," to risk not only ostracism and marginalization but to risk dealing with a deep truth that requires courage and does NOT have an "easy" answer. If the problem is the system itself then piecemeal "solutions" are nothing but band-aids that do nothing to address the real, fundamental problem. Worse, when it comes to something as big and traumatic as 9/11 is/was for the American psyche, it requires that one admit to one's self that one's fundamental understanding of what the system is and how it actually operates in terms of manipulating our perceptions, including our strategies for change, is pervasive, deeply rooted in the culture (such as the right/left paradigm) and ultimately requires a fundamental change in the way one understands one's self. Those of us who have made "the paranoid shift" (see my post below) already understand that, although we need to keep the pressure on at every level of social organization, the fundamental problem IS the system and this can not be changed satisfactorily until the full depth of that system is laid bare for all to see.
Finally, what is needed is genuine hope. It wasn't by accident that Obama's primary appeal was "hope you can believe in." People need to believe that there are genuine solutions to the real problems they face -- without that one has to ask, why bother? 'Things are bad but they could get worse, even out of control.' This is a criticism I make of many such as Alex Jones who point to the 'cause' but do not give a clear alternative. It isn't enough to talk about the NWO agenda and what have you, what is needed is genuine strategies and alternatives that take into account the complexities of living in a post-industrial, highly technological world.
I think 9/11 Truth has come a long way, especially since 2006. But it is clear we're entering a new phase where any hope of "a new investigation" is becoming increasingly unlikely even in the minds of those who (naïvely, IMO) hoped that such a thing was possible. I've never believed "the system" could or would allow itself to be used for this purpose. Calling for "a new investigation" has been a good way to entice some to look at the evidence but we need to move beyond it now because, absent "the system," the investigation has been and continues to be on-going. The "system" did not and will not investigate 9/11 and what has emerged in its place is something completely new (in my experience): A group of loosely nit individuals who feel the direct personal need to confront the tyranny of lies that surrounds and permeates us.We have solid evidence that these lies exist, that the system itself perpetuates them, that, indeed, "the system" is itself a kind of "grand lie" within which we are all trapped.
The power that lies have to control us ends when we see them for what they are and this is what "the system" fears the most. The story that "the system" told us about 9/11 was a lie -- an obvious and easily provable one -- but it was only one lie in a tapestry of lies in which we participate day in and day out. Now something new is required of us and that is to find not only the truth of 9/11 but the truth of the whole system of lies within which we find ourselves. It is precisely this kind of shift in awareness and understanding that can redefine an entire civilization. If this is not a turning point in human history (and I believe it is) then there will be no future history worth talking about.
I remember when........
The first few people mentioned to me that 911 was an inside job............no novice to conspiracy theories but I still told them to back off and not go there............which they did........and then when I finally did check things out for myself .......WOW................OH MY! And for the first few days I didn't say ANYTHING to ANYBODY because frankly I was really SCARED........when I finally had the courage to whisper to some of my friends who were miles ahead I realized that things for me were never going to be the same again. At that time I wasn't even sure I wanted my family to know.....not because they wouldn't believe me but because the truth was so ugly and to be honest I was afraid..........for myself and them.........why wouldn't we be afraid.............So it's not that these folks haven't checked it out for themselves they know the truth and either they have been compromised or they are AFRAID and not without good cause. Everyone has a right to be afraid and some may even know more than we know and may believe it's best for us all not to go there etc. What's it like to have anthrax in your mail and your staff dying? I am encouraged by the brave people in this movement, I believe most people in our Government and police departments, the FBI etc are honest folks with patriotic beliefs. I believe that 911 is a move on the chess board in a game that has been going on for a very long time played by patient and dangerous people. Our real hope is in numbers and that's why the internet is our best weapon, this is where we have connected and where our leaders have come from and our movement really exists. It is also where the gameplan was weak as played by our masters. But as I have said time is not on our side because as more and more time passes people care less and less. Sure the grassy knoll was never investigated, the gulf of Tonkin was a lie but what's getting done about it? My hope is that we can get a break from someone on the inside who can deliver a real smoking gun before too much more time goes by. But everyday more people wake up and many of the younger generation who are internet savvy already know the truth so who knows...
Two points:
1. We DO have a true real smoking gun............the nanothermite in the dust samples.
2. It is understandable that many journalists would feel some fear in presenting 9/11 lies and contradictions by the government. But that doesn't explain it all. We have many people in the 9/11 movement that are people with a lot to lose, and yet they stand up and are working to spread the truth. It is too suspicious that virtually the entire alternative media doesn't have one mouthpiece breaking the silence about 9/11. There is more going on than just a generaly scary feeling about exposing 9/11. There is a system there somewhere.
Thanks for your post, though. I liked it.
Don't forget Project Censored
they have consistently covered 9/11 and have an essay that discussed Left gatekeeper phenomenon. Peter Phillips the founder and former director has a recent essay that describes the US as having a "truth emergency".
http://www.projectcensored.org
http://www.projectcensored.org/articles/story/left-progressive-media-ins...
http://www.projectcensored.org/articles/story/truth-emergency-us/
they have consistently covered 9/11?
Until this year when they baited us with "Thermitic material" then switched and omitted it completely from their most censored stories. Someone had a talk with them.
BS
Peter Philips and Project Censored say what they think we want to hear. Check out the Top 25 Censored stories for 2010:
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/two-thousand-and-ten...
Not a peep about Harritt, Ryan et.al.'s identification of nanothermite. Not a peep about Richard Gage and AE911 Truth.
There is token (and buried) mention of it in their book, but given the shattering nature of these revelations, PC has failed to shine light where it is needed most.
painter, great post
really enjoyed reading your post, brother (or sister)
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
It --> is <-- fear.
If you break anything down to its very lowest level, there ARE only two things operating in the world: Love and Fear.