As someone who exchanged a few emails with Alexander Cockburn regarding 9-11truth, and became frustrated with his refusal to address evidence and/or research that brings into questions the government's 9-11 conspiracy myth, I was pleased to see that Counterpunch decided to print this Paul Craig Roberts essay. I'm going to send CP a thank you mote. ;-)
I could not download the story with all of the videos and all, so go to the link for best reading and viewing. This story is sort of going viral. Hope it gets the attention of the people in the alternative media censoring the news about Kevin Bracken and 9/11 truth in general. They need to be exposed and criticized, POLITELY, or something like that!
So-Called Alternative Media Are a Bunch of Wannabe MSM Cowards
November 3, 2010 by Shepard
Filed under Constitution and Politics, Intel Hub Featured Articles, Propaganda
September 11th is indisputably the greatest crime in modern history. Everyone agrees that it has been the catalyst to excuse everything that has taken place in America since: wars, illegal surveillance, and torture, most notably.
It is the story of the century and it is still not to be questioned by the leading so-called alternative news websites that have reached mainstream levels of viewership. 9/11 is the stinky fart in the newsroom, where everyone with half-a-brain knows who cut the cheese, but because the boss is the culprit they’re afraid to be ridiculed or fired for speaking out. It’s authentic cowardice in the first degree.
A recent article on Disquiet Reservations called out specific “alternative” news sites for their cowardly unwillingness to mention 9/11 at all costs. The story they refused to cover happened last week in Australia, where the country’s top Union official, Kevin Bracken, caused international uproar when he was attacked for claiming on a national radio show that “the official story of 9/11 does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.” Of course, on the surface this doesn’t seem like a big story, but what is a huge story is that when the Herald Sun posted an online poll about it, an astounding majority (76.79%) agreed with Bracken, as reported by Excavator:
The Herald Su
The Kevin Bracken Story: These Alternative Websites and media outlets have not covered the story AT ALL.
I have just done a search on several of the most popular alternative websites for any information they have posted about Kevin Bracken. This story, about an important person in Australia, and the popular support he has gotten after his stand about 9/11 truth, should be everywhere, at least on the alternative media.
And yet, not a word.
I went to each of these sites, put a search for whatever they had published about Kevin Bracken. None of the searches came up with any stories.
I feel this is a good indication of a real purposeful censorship. It is hard to miss this huge story. I am not surprised at the msm avoiding the story. But we rely on the alternative media to tell us about issues that the msm and their corporate sponsors are not keen on us seeing.
Let's follow these sites about other big 9/11 stories and see how they avoid the topics.
Something is obviously going on. It is not just ignorance of the facts. They do not want to publish this information. I call that very irresponsible, if not criminal.
These are the media outlets that have not covered the Kevin Bracken story:
If you have seen some stories about Kevin Bracken in these outlets, let me know. I am only going by what I have seen, not seen, and searched.
Cockburn ridicules Castro regarding his doubts about the US government’s official version of 9/11. There are numerous US and international scientists, engineers, and writers who have raised very important questions about the validity of the government’s version. David Ray Griffin’s article, “Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?”, contains extensive factual information and analyses in this regard (Web link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20039).
Here is the article. The link is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21185
Counterpunch and 9/11 and Alexander Cockburn: From exposing the truth to complete 9/11 censorship and insults...in just 2 years
The alternative media has been hijacked, conquered, by forces that will not allow the truth of 911 to even be discussed. What in the world has happened? Here is one example.
In 2002, Counterpunch runs an article deeply questioning the official story, one that could be found on 911 blogger, with information that shows clearly that something is wrong with the official 911 story.
In 2004, Counterpunch runs a story that insults the 911 movement, calling us "conspiracy nuts", and never again runs any story at all that has any of the mounting and well documented evidence that shows the official story to be at least conflicted.
What happened during the years from 2002 to 2004? Alexander Cockburn was the editor throughout it all. Was he threatened, or convinced of something, or did he receive some kind of support from foundations that would ultimately not want the real truth to come out?
The exact same thing happened with Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com. In fact, Raimondo even sold a book about the Israeli connection to 911. And then he went mum, except to also insult 9/11 truthers.
Something is going on, and I wish someone would come forward with what it could possibly be.
and 4 years later . . .
I have just perused some of the most popular "alternative" media sites this Saturday morning to see what is being written about Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN this week.
Seems like complete avoidance.
Censorship is a better word.
While the msm at least covered the story, the alternative media has avoided the story, hoping it would go away. They are, it seems, under strict guidelines to not mention 9/11 truth or any of the evidence that conflicts with the official story of 9/11.
I looked at Alternet, CommonDreams, Truthout, DemocracyNow, Counterpunch, antiwar.com.
I did see a small mention of the speech on DemocracyNow, as part of their news rundown. No details.
I didn't see anything on antiwar.com's listing of headlines around the world that normally would have had information about the speech.
Just noticed this advertisement in Counterpunch.org for its print edition. Sort of a shocking headline, and it got my attention because Counterpunch has never presented any 9/11 truth at all, ever. In fact, I remember Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch being downright insulting of the entire 9/11 movement. Like almost all other alternative media, Counterpunch has felt the need, for some still unknown reason, to censor the most proven and well documented evidence provided by the 9/11 truth movement proving the official 9/11 story to be untrue.
And yet, here is this ad. Seems odd to me, but I will not again pay the $35 to get the print edition and find that the truth is censored on this media outlet like so many others. My money is better spent on organizations that support the truth, no matter how unappealing.
If any of you do get this print edition, please tell us where they are going with this ad.
CounterPunch Print Edition Exclusive!
By Paul Craig Roberts
March 24, 2010
There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.
Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.
Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”
Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.
Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.
Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.
In Search of Morale - Are Americans Too Broken for the Truth to Set Us Free?
By BRUCE E. LEVINE
Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not “set them free” but instead further demoralize them? Has such a demoralization happened in the United States? Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further? What forces have created a demoralized, passive, disCouraged U.S. population? Can anything be done to turn this around?
Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not “set them free” but instead further demoralize them?
Re: "Shining a Light on the Roots of Terrorism"
Letting the "elephant out of the bag" on 9/11 would of course require the word "treason." You're a bright, studied guy. You know this.
Further, if your intent is to fight terrorism, as the article positions itself, then western INTELLIGENCE support for terrorism should be front and center. From Mujahadeen in 1979 to KLA in the 1990s, Jundullah and MEK today, and Alpha 66, death squads on most continents and other seedy CIA connected "terror," this is quite an omission.
Besides the Israeli question -- which is all well and good, but not the whole story by a long shot -- we have US ALLIES supporting Islamic terrorist networks.
Further, these networks could not have accomplished 9/11 or numerous other attacks without treasonous support by US leaders and their allies in the Saudi Arabian government, the Pakistani government and elsewhere. When are your readers going to see an in-depth analysis of these matters, truly the matters that bear on the issue?
Remember Gandhi's three stages... ;-)
Also, I love how now that we have a democrat president, all of a sudden 9/11 truth is a "far right" issue.
By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO
The full extent of the conservative movement’s radicalization is becoming more apparent after nine months of the Obama administration. Increasingly, reactionary media pundits and much of the rank-and-file of the Republican Party are taking the American right down a dangerous path, marked most ominously by the abundance of conspiracy theories directed against the Democratic Party and mainstream liberals.
Prominent writers have long warned about the rise of the reactionary right into the national spotlight. Thomas Frank leads the way in many of these charges with bestselling books like The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, and What’s the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. Frank’s warnings are particularly insightful in light of the rise of right wing conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy, Inc.: Wild Tales From the Reactionary Right
You can't even provide a reasonable definition of "conspiracy" in your mindless call to ignorance. I also strongly detest your guilt by association approach, as if we are all alike, all incredible, all in the same category because you say so. The smear that people who call out government complicity and cover-up must be from the "reactionary right" is worthy of the drooling neanderthals you hoped to lampoon.
If you had a dictionary handy, you might have learned that conspiracy is any crime involving multiple parties. It's one of the most prosecuted charges in the US by the justice department (sic).
We are to take it -- from you -- a priori that the government never commits crimes. People in the white house, for example, never agree to break the law.
Large mountains of empirical evidence dispute this "theory" you posit. Your position is laughable on its face, of course, and your rant is gibberish.
Ketcham keeps bolstering the Big Lie by pretending that the incompetence theory of 9/11 has merit. In numerous ways he defends the criminal actions of high level players who have a long history of helping terrorists and funding their networks. While admitting to such practices in the distant past, Ketchum ignores the period leading up to 9/11 as well as the present.
What Ketcham should have grilled Baer about is terrorism by proxy: ISI and Saudi intelligence in particular, (MI6, BND and Mossad also engage in this practice).
It is no longer even denied that ISI created and protected "Al Qaeda," and assists the Taliban to this day, nor is it reasonable to deny that the USA funds the ISI.
Much credible evidence links the Saudi government to the 9/11 hijackers, and we don't hear anything about that, despite Senator Graham's open admissions of the facts. FBI surveillance showed links between a Saudi agent and the Saudi embassy, as he assisted hijackers in San Diego.
"Paul Krassner is the editor of The Realist. His books include: Pot Stories for the Soul, One Hand Jerking and Murder at the Conspiracy Convention. He can be reached through his website: http://paulkrassner.com/"
Subject: what a completely idiotic and useless bit of propaganda
If the matters weren't so serious, it would be just another sad joke.
Again, Mr. debunker9978451236,
I'll spell it out for you.
The focus of your attack piece was not the 9/11 COVER-UP, which is clearly the elephant in the room and undeniable, even by you. No, the focus was some fringe people in the 9/11 Truth Movement who you use to malign the entire movement in a guilt by association attack.
Crimes of the State Blog
"Conspiracism is raising its Medusa’s head again, her lethal visage wreathed with hissing absurdities, immobilizing judgement, melting intellect to pumice." --Alexander Cockburn (ignoring all evidence that is contrary to his irrational biases)
Blather at new heights of cognitive dissonance over at CounterPunch this weekend. Cockburn uses the term "conspiracism", as if that were a real thing, to mock any and all comers, even in a piece about the minutiae of some Wall Street fraud (Bernie Madoff).
But how can he get away with this childish mocking about the JFK assassination, without having to address even one piece of evidence at all?
Here is the entirety of what Cockburn says about "conspiracism" and the JFK assassination in that piece: