Left Gatekeepers

"Progressive" Censorship: Banned Again For Telling It Like It Is

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.

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.

Hitting back at the left-gatekeepers

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:


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

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

NY Times article questions accuracy of 9/11 health problems

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.


A comment I placed under the Weimar article on the Buzzflash site was placed immediately

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

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.


courtesy of Snowshoe Films

Noam Chomsky, Gatekeepers And Barrie Zwickers 'Controversial' Chapter 5.

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:


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):

Noam Chomsky And The Gatekeepers Of The Left

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):

Calling all Boston Truthers - Confront Amy Goodman on 4/16

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

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
or call 888-999-3877, press 2

Amy Goodman & Others Waited for WTC-7 to Implode!

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

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

Letter to Peter Michaelson

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

Is Iran War Finally Opening Democrats' Eyes to The Reality of False Flags?

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?

Brzezinski eviscerates Bushco, tries to warn world (world looks the other way)! "I think that our Iran policy is a train wreck in the making."

Senator Chris Dodd, here

This is astounding and I'm surprised it hasn't been covered more extensively here.

The "Mainstream Media" has IGNORED this. Gosh, I wonder why ....

For Zbigniew Brzezinski, in testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, absolutely DESTROYED Bushco's web of lies regarding the "War on Terror", Iraq and Iran.

AlterNet posts Monbiot hit piece

AlterNet has posted the George Monbiot hit piece.

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

George Monbiot Bravely Tackles Loose Change UPDATE

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?