The Independent, 21 October 2011

The Guardian, 21 October 2011

The Independent, 21 October 2011

The Independent, 28 August 2011

The Observer, 20 March 2011

(The Observer is the Sunday edition of The Guardian)

Probably most people who have studied unofficial 911 literature are familiar with the idea of a left gatekeeper. If you don't, remember that Google is your friend.

However, I see recurring evidence of what amounts to HATEKeeping. By this I mean, smear type of rhetoric, broadly applied to an entire group, that paints them as hateful. The net effect of this is that it serves to divide the public, by encouraging primitive, emotional, tribablistic 'thinking' about the evil other. It thus inhibit real communication, which could lead to united political action (say, e.g., against the clear and present danger of plutocracy).

I'm sorry that I don't have the time to develop this idea, more. I will make a few more points, and hope that I inspire somebody to look more carefully into this.

Points:

1) Imputing hatred to others is just one way to generate hatred for the others. There's also speaking of the others in a contemptuous tone of voice. This is certainly done a great deal on the radio, by right-wing gasbags such as Rush Limbaugh, and a misanthrope I've heard in the NYC area called Bob Grant.

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."

http://pacificfreepress.com/news/1/4874-mad-media-bedfellows-amy-goodman...

The Wonderful World Of Unbalanced Media,
Is Amy A CIA Agent?, BECK BLASTS FREE PRESS
by Danny Schechter
Beckian demagogues on the Left too: New Pacifica Mishigas' attack on Amy Goodman as a CIA agent.

Goodman: Paid by CIA to cover-up 9/11 Truth?

Christopher Condon, an ally of Pacifica’s interim director Grace Aaron, last month introduced a resolution at a meeting of the Pacifica National Board’s Governance Committee targeting Democracy Now! over allegations that is is being secretly funded by the CIA.

The action, which would require every Pacifica programmer to disclose all sources of funding above $5000 and related contracts, passed the Committee and is before the Pacifica National Board, meeting in Houston this weekend, for approval.

This week Doug Lain from the Diet Soap podcast and KMO of the C-realm podcast discuss 9/11 conspiracies on both their respective shows. There is a special emphasis on the pervasive resistance to critically engage with the subject, and an analysis of how leading alternative thinkers and dissidents seem unable to think critically on the subject. The C-Realm podcast is here and the Diet Soap podcast is here.

As many of us are aware, the Daily Kos is one of those supposedly "progressive" websites which puts an outright ban on 9/11 truth. No doubt in my mind that many of those people are CIA or some variant.

Today, "TylerFromNE" posted a diary entry imploring Daily Kos to reconsider its position. In addition, he posted a poll:

Is it time for DKos to stop arbitrarily silencing discussion of 9/11 so-called "conspiracy theories," given that the government is now irrefutably involved in a cover-up of the financing of the attacks?

Here's the current result (it might be locked now, I don't know):

Yes.
63% 259 votes
No.
33% 139 votes
I don't care what you say, it's still too much for me to accept that conspiracies actually do exist.
2% 11 votes

| 409 votes

So it appears that even their own readership disagrees with their anti-9/11 policy.

At the end of the thread of 301 comments, a chief admin, "Meteor Blade," made this following post:

June 22, 2009

The CIA and US Media Roles in Destabilizing Iran

By Michael Green

While everyone who writes about the recent Iranian election has very strong opinions, very few have very many, if any, firm facts. Even such a seemingly solid article by Mr. ZMag, Stephen Zunes, i.e., "Has the Election Been Stolen in Iran?" Posted on June 13, 2009, Printed on June 14, 2009, http://www.alternet.org/story/140626/
makes broad claims and assertions of patent theft without citing a single source or providing a satisfactory example of any of his claims. I have emailed Professor Zunes for solid examples and have asked him how he obtained so much information so quickly, but have not had a reply (his sites advises that he typically cannot answer all inquiries). For example, Zunes writes from the omniscient perspective:

Three editors of a University of Florida College Newspaper joined together in an effective ban on printing anything having to do with the government coverup of the events of 9/11/2001.

In their September issue of THE FINE PRINT (TFP) the editors characterized their inspiration as coming from a core of dedicated “truth seekers” and affirmed their commitment to print “the Naked Truth”. But by October, they had retreated to a disturbing “mainstream” position that betrays their initial enthusiastic promise.

Read the September "Letters From The Editors" and their commitment to printing The Naked Truth:
http://gators911truth.org/PDF/FinePrint-Editors.pdf

I posted a link to my article on Glenn Greenwald's blog on Salon last night, and Greenwald has replied with this comment:

"None of what you wrote or accuse me of has anything to do with what I think. I never said I know who perpetrated the anthrax attacks because . . . I don't know, because . . . I haven't seen the evidence. What I have seen is unconvincing, but I find people like you who just invent theories without facts and then think you've discovered Truth to be exactly the same as those who blindly believe whatever the Government says."

All I want from him is an explanation, as I said here:

Greenwald backpedals

On August 3, 2008, Glen Greenwald wrote in Salon:

"It is so vital to emphasize that not a shred of evidence has yet been presented that the now-deceased Bruce Ivins played any role in the anthrax attacks, let alone that he was the sole or even primary culprit."

Now, in his retraction, er, update from yesterday, he writes:

OpEdNews
Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Are--Progressive--Medi-by-Bill-Will...

July 11, 2008

Why Are "Progressive" Media Burying 9/11?

By Bill Willers

If you have a spare few minutes, peruse http://patriotsquestion911.com/ and see that more than 130 senior military (including generals), intelligence (including CIA and FBI) and governmental figures (all the way to cabinet level), 490 engineers and architects, 120 pilots, 260 academics, 210 survivors and families (includes fire, police and emergency medical personnel) and 140 celebrities and media professionals question the 9/11 Commission Report. Really, scroll down and read the sometimes scathing commentary.

Now add to these the many top level military figures from around the world including defense ministers and secretaries from Britain, Germany, Canada and Russia ( http://www.sf911truth.org/ and scroll down).

Eric Larsen

This article is by Eric Larsen

[Eric's website has been mysteriously down for several days and he sent out this article with a cover letter to his mailing list. He is the author of A Nation Gone Blind: America in an Age of Simplification and Deceit. Read an excellent review of the book Posted on Online Journal by Sean M. Madden. I hope this thoughtful recent piece by Eric will go viral. He would like it to be reposted widely. I came across it on Atlantic Free Press whose website is suddenly unaccessible.]

Debate? Was that the word just used? Debate over 9/11?

John Doraemi

"... and Popular Mechanics’ issue on the subject is a good place to start."
-Singer turned pundit, David Rovics/CommonDreams.org

CommonDreams is a highly visited "progressive" news site. The focus there is mainly on reprinting corporate-produced pieces that somehow share the biases of the editors. They do also however print editorials from freelance writers, and when the issue of the 9/11 cover up is breached, only one side is permitted to weigh in. And that side is permitted to outright attack and to libel the other side, the 'other' side being the amorphous "9/11 Truth Movement."

No response in kind is permitted; it doesn't matter the content, nor the quality of the evidence. This policy has rightly earned CommonDreams the reputation of "gatekeepers" among disgruntled readers.

I posted this earlier on David Rovics' blog, and though it might be worth posting here...

http://songwritersnotebook.blogspot.com/2008/03/911-truth-movement-vs-91...

David. I love your music, but I was quite disappointed when I read your 9/11 essay on Rabble.ca, and have been following your appearances on the web since then.

I wanted to ask you a couple of questions directly, and thought your blog would be the best place to do so.

First, I wanted to tell you that I was disappointed because I felt your article was written based on your emotions, and did not actually discuss any factual information. I understand and share your frustration regarding the abrasiveness of some 9/11 Truthers, but feel that your comments contribute to the divisiveness that many of us on The Left are trying to patch up.

Eric Larsen--novelist, English professor emeritus, trenchant social critic and 9/11 truth supporter--will be my guest today, Monday 4/7/08, on Dynamic Duo, 4-6 pm CT, http://www.gcnlive.com Network 4 Eric recently blasted the left gatekeepers: http://www.ericlarsen.net/foodforthought2.1.1.2008.html See excerpt below.

Singer-songwriter David Rovics http://www.davidrovics.com/ for his part recently ripped on the 9/11 truth movement and defended those we call left gatekeepers:http://sketchythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/04/david-rovics-on-911-truth-movement.html I've had an email conversation with him since then, and he says he'll look at http://www.patriotsquestion911.com, http://www.ae911truth.org, and http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org and would be happy to have a radio conversation with a 9/11 truth jihadi! This suggests to me that unlike certain people on the other side, Rovics has integrity and a reasonably open mind. It should be a great conversation.

by John Doraemi

I might as well get an article out of my serial banning in the "progressive" sphere of the interweb tubes. Funny, I hold some pretty "progressive" ideas.

My ideas about the corruption of the alternative media by foundation funding grants seems to irk a few lib-censors however. That is where the rubber and road meet. They wanna get paid, homes. And they don't want readers to know by whom.

Somebody may find this issue instructive. Alternet.org just banned me, without explanation. I figured it out quickly however, because my last post there was deleted, which I will try and recreate here from an admittedly faulty memory.

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.

I weighed in yesterday and today on a post on Dissident Voice, "9/11 — Conspiracy or Blowback?" by Rosemarie Jackowski / September 8th, 2007. Jackowski attributes everything to "blowback". I posted a response yesterday:

Mike Zimmer said on September 9th, 2007 at 10:40 pm #

This is not an particularly insightful analysis. Although I respect Blum and know about the blowback thesis, 9/11 was far from a case of simple blowback. Start here, and inform yourselves:

http://ae911truth.org/
http://www.911review.com/
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq37.html

Blowback advocate rosemarie jackowski took my comments as hostility, and replied:

rosemarie jackowski said on September 10th, 2007 at 10:04 am #

This seems to be a preemptive attempt to muddy the waters in advance of the publicity that the 9/11 first responders are bound to get on the upcoming anniversary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/nyregion/07sinai.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx...

I thought I would copy my comment here in case it get's canned again.

Let me introduce myself.

I am a 51 year old white woman not prone to conspiracy theories. I don't believe in aliens, do not posses crystals or throw the I Ching. I am connected to the Internet with the fastest broadband connection I could find and spent 6 hours a day researching for articles I write.
When I grew up in Holland I was taught in History class that the Dutchman Marinus van der Lubbe, the guy whom the Nazi's alleged to have been the sole perpetrator of the fire that gave Hitler his dictatorial power, was in fact a patsy. Marinus van der Lubbe was a of low intelligence and did not have access to the building, but they told the German people that he was a dangerous communist and he was hung for the crime.

Peter Dale Scott: 9/11, Canada, Left Gatekeepers & Zelikow

Interviewed at the Vancouver 9/11 Conference, June 2007

Veteran political analysis Peter Dale Scott critiques the role of
left gatekeepers for their superficial analysis of American politics
which leaves the criminal structure intact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_uad3-RsQk

courtesy of Snowshoe Films

One of the most 'controversial' chapters to appear in any 9/11 book, was written by Barrie Zwicker in his 'Towers of Deception'. This 'controversial' but true, accurate and highly education chapter has found its way onto the internet, and has been reproduced as far as I can see word for word and illustration for illustration. So if you would like to analyze the methods of propaganda, and dissect through the obfuscation here are the links:

http://www.geocities.com/agent_noam_chomsky/chomsky.htm
http://www.geocities.com/agent_noam_chomsky/chomsky2.htm
http://www.geocities.com/agent_noam_chomsky/chomsky.htm3

Here are two reviews of the book from Amazon.com, which particularly mention this specific chapter as forming the basis of opinion concerning the book, and the review written about it:

The first reader gives the book 2 Starts out of 5 (2/5):
I gave the book two stars mainly because Zwicker's treatment of Noam Chomsky, with its continual oscillation between fawning adulation and vituperative disgust, is worth a read.

The second reder gives the book 5 Starts out of 5 (5/5):

From indoctriNATION @ TheFilter.ca

I recently dug up an episode of one of my favoutrite Canadian alternative radio shows, Elephant Talk, which is broadcast from CHLY 101.7 in Nanaimo, British Columbia.

Progressive Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker was the guest, discussing his new book Towers of Deception, The Media Cover-Up of 9/11.

One of the hosts of the show, James Booker, asked the award-winning journalist and university professor about something that had been on my mind for months, ever since I read Noam Chomsky’s uncharacteristicly emotional and logically stunted arguments against the hypothesis that 9/11 was a covert operation perpetrated by criminal elements of the US government.

Visit indoctriNATION to listen to Barrie Zwicker on Elephant Talk

The following is a transcription of part of their conversation (from 14:56 to 21:27):

Double-billing with Howard Zinn, who is a lukewarm supporter of 9/11 Truth. What better opportunity to expose Goodman's hypocrisy?

Let's not let Amy Goodman pose as a patriot!

April 16, 2007
Boston, MA

Award-winning journalist Amy Goodman, host of the daily, grassroots, global, radio/TV news hour Democracy Now!, is on a national speaking tour to mark DN!'s 10th anniversary and launch her second book with journalist David Goodman, Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders, and the People Who Fight Back.
WHEN:PATRIOTS' DAY - Mon., Apr. 16th, 7:00 PM
WHERE:Faneuil Hall, Boston
DESCRIPTION:

A POWER GOVERNMENTS CANNOT SUPPRESS:
an evening with Howard Zinn and Amy Goodman

celebrating the publication of Howard Zinn's new book, "A Power Governments Cannot Suppress" and benefit for audience-supported Democracy Now!, a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 500 stations in North America.

Co-sponsored by Democracy Now! and City Lights Books

TICKETS: $10.00 General Admission
http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/11606
or call 888-999-3877, press 2

This brief video opens with gray smoke mysteriously emanating from WTC-7. A fireman warns his comrades on what to do if WTC-7 comes down! A policeman then demonstrates this same type of foreknowledge! We are shown scores of people & reporters who have assembled behind police barricades about a half-mile north of WTC-7, obviously waiting for something to happen!

Among the crowd watching WTC-7 is gatekeeper Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now!". As WTC-7 begins to implode in a controlled demolition, Ms. Goodman yells, "Oh God", & she runs through the crowd! (I made 2 screenshots of Ms. Goodman that appear at the end of the clip.)

Who gave all these people the info that they should stand by & observe WTC-7??? Why has Ms. Goodman never revealed this shocking scene that she eye-witnessed??? Why did she wait in the street before 5:20 pm on 9/11, looking directly at WTC-7???

Ms. Goodman & others need to come forward immediately & answer the above questions!!!

9/11 Truth Has Already Won the Debate

Why "criminal negligence" is enough.

Crimes of the State

This is a very simple concept, elegant and straightforward:

We never had to prove what truly happened on September 11th 2001. No. All we had to do was prove that the US federal government had covered it up.

On that point, I would like to thank George Monbiot of the UK Guardian for his hysterical meltdown of late. George Monbiot has conceded the argument when he said:

"I believe that they [the Bush administration] were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida..." --George Monbiot, "9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns", UK Guardian

I wrote this in response to Peter Michaelson's essay at Buzzflash. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/803

Mr. Michaelson,

I agree that there are an infinite number of ways to
seek power, and that not all of them are rational.
However, I believe you're being sloppy or myopic when
you suggest that conspiracy theorists are given a
false sense of security when they cling to irrational
beliefs. Having read a number of articles and books
on the subject of US complicity in the attacks of 9/11
I would argue that taking the notion seriously brings
on a sense of anxiety and not security. I think that
would be the normal reaction to that belief system.

In any case, whatever a person's motives may be for
believing this or that fact or theory doesn't have any
impact on the truth value of the fact or theory. In
the case of 911 conspiracies I believe that there are
many facts that lead to believing that the US was
complicit. The August 6th memo, dozens of foriegn
intelligence warnings, and the most recent revelations
about Tenet's meetings with Rice and Rumsfeld on the
subject establish that the Administration had

Its news when a large left gatekeeper site covers false flag terror. Here, a diary about Zbigniew Brzezinski and Operation Northwoods has become a Recommended Diary at Daily Kos, which means it will be widely read. Is the impending war with Iran FINALLY opening Democrats' eyes to the reality of false flags?

AlterNet has posted the George Monbiot hit piece.

Come on over and let's give them a whole lot of truth.

It's hard to imagine how much intestinal fortitude Monbiot had to work up to dare take on the mighty internet documentary, loose change.

Ok, it's not. Actually, it's pretty easy. The truth be told, picking a fight with Loose Change is passé. Monbiot should have saved his load for the theatrical release. But he just couldn't help himself. On February 6, The Guardian published his commentary, "A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world, but it has no basis in fact".

However, Monbiot, like other Left personalities with a soapbox and a bias against "conspiracy theories" in general, fails the public when he reaches for easy insults like "gibbering idiots", reducing the discourse to kindergarten-level. Monbiot is (was?) an intelligent man. He knows the effect that an ad hominem abusive would generate in someone who was inspired by Loose Change, so it would seem that he is trying to affect the viewer's emotional state, particularly a viewer who, inspired by the film, began to seek out corroborating evidence after watching Loose Change.

So, in the same way that conservative D'Souza fails his audience, Monbiot offers a hot cup of tea and some biscuits to his audience, but how much of what Monbiot is saying in The Guardian a bunch of bollocks?

Liberal Talk Radio - Sirius.com

Is 9/11 Paranoia Bad For The Country?
Tomorrow 5:00 pm ET
The Nation contributer Christopher Hayes will talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories-- and the trouble such paranoia causes to legitimate skepticism of the government and its behavior (especially this particular administration).

You can find 'Sirius Left' on channel 146 on Sirius radio. The exact date of the show isn't stated, so keep an eye out today and tomorrow.

Thanks Kleetus for the heads up!