Gatekeepers of the Left.

[hang a left]

This subject was broached a few years ago here. Not actually in the 9-11 forum because there wasn't one them. But here on DU. I am curious as to the CTers exposure to this subject.

[hang a left]

1. I guess I will help my post out a little bit.

The Left establishment's attack on 9/11 skeptics

Soon after revelations concerning Bush administration prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks ("Memogate"), a number of well-known media "liberals" and "progressives" launched a heavy-handed series of broadsides against independent 9/11 researchers who had been developing alternative theories in response to the deeply flawed and fraudulent official story. Why would they do this, at precisely the point that the Bush administration was clearly sweating bullets and in deep trouble? This question is particularly important in light of the fact that the anti-conspiracy critics have not been able (nor apparently willing) to articulate their own theory of what happened on 9/11 (and why) which can explain the devastating evidence and contradictions that have been exposed by independent researchers. Instead of offering a credible explanation, the gatekeepers merely saw fit to pathologize 9/11 skeptics as "paranoid conspiracy nuts" and "a danger to our movement."

Not surprisingly, the rank and file didn't buy into the hype—nor were many convinced by the gatekeepers' offhand, passionless calls for an official investigation. Interest in alternative 9/11 reporting continued to grow, and by the time that members of 9/11 victim's families began publicly demanding an end to the government coverup and even mainstream media outlets such as the NY Times were admitting that the lack of an independent investigatory commission was "extraordinary," the Left media gatekeepers backed down and adopted a new tactic of silent stonewalling and tacit support for the official story.

snip>

http://www.questionsquestions.net/topics/left_911.html

[spooked911]

2. ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!

this is why so many people have lost faith in the Democratic party. Because in a way, the Democratis cling to the official 9/11 story even more than the Bushies. Certainly Democrats cling to the Al Qaeda did it myth.

[dchill]

3. I'm attempting to compile a list...

of OTHER hugely complicated, highly sophisticated, extremely damaging, smoothly executed attacks by Osama bin Laden and/or Al Qaeda anywhere in the world before or since 9/11. And gosh darn it, there just don't seem to be any! Surely something that can be attained with a few Cessna flying lessons and box cutters would be tried again!

I have even less respect for Dems & liberals who defend or subscribe to the O'CT than I do for Freeps, who actually may have something to lose if they're proven wrong.

[rman]

5. Very few of these supposed gatekeepers do actually "support" the OCT

Most simply don't mention it.

I think that is because 9-11 is to much of a hot potato for those in the fringe of mainstream. I think that's true for Democracy Now. Garofolo is probably being a loose canon and is really sticking her neck out (a brave thing to do).
Also many of them can hardly be called "democrats". Have you ever seen Bill Clinton be interviewed on Democracy Now? Left Wing media pissing of the big dog.

Chomsky: a libertarian socialist anex anarcho-syndicalist - "there's virtually no difference between the republican party and the democratic party".

Chomsky has this agnostic attitude about any CT that he has not personally investigated. Not does he have any obligation to investigate any particular one.

When was the last time Mother Jones said anything nice about the Dem party?

[rman]

6. Which of the "well-known media "liberals" and "progressives"

launched a heavy-handed series of broadsides against independent 9/11 researchers"?

I'd like to see some sources on that.

[Bushwick Bill]

7. Well

R, I suspect that if we post them, they'll just get nuked. A couple of them have beaten up on Mike Ruppert and David Ray Griffin pretty good. Who knows, maybe it was all in the spirit of good debate?

[rman]

13. give it a try, or PM me

[Christophera]

10. That Would Actually Be A Good Thing To Know-We Should Be Keeping Score

Almost makes me wish I had a TV, then I might stand a chance of knowing some of the answer. As it is, I can just encourage those that do watch to list the left leaners that bashed our sacred quest.

And it is sacred. Our 3,000 sacrificed brothers and sisters are most deeply honored by those that seek the truth of their deaths because knowing will protect those that were loved by the dead when they lived.

[rman]

4. Then who are not keepers, and what's behind the gate?

It seems someone forgot to add unspecified connections between Bill Moyers/PBS on the one hand, and on the other hand S&B, TC, CFR, CIA etc.

[Christophera]

8. Connections Are Property Of Secret Societies

and nobody wants to know how they keep secrets. The connection between left and right.

So unless people figure out they NEED to know, we'll never know who the keepers, keepers.

[rman]

12. that doesn't answer my questions

[staticstopper]

14. Well,

I don't know if this fits the description....


When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad

By David Corn, AlterNet. Posted March 1, 2002.


...I won't argue that the U.S. government does not engage in brutal, murderous skulduggery from time to time. But the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd. Still, each week emails passing on such tripe arrive. This crap is probably not worth a rational rebuttal, but I'm irritated enough to try.

snip

Would George W. Bush take the chance of being branded the most evil president of all time by countenancing such wrongdoing? Oil may be in his blood, but would he place the oil industry's interests ahead of his own? (He sure said sayonara to Kenneth Lay and Enron pretty darn fast.) And Bush and everyone else in government know that plans leak. Disinformation specialists at the Pentagon could not keep their office off the front page of The New York Times. In the aftermath of September 11, there has been much handwringing over the supposed fact that U.S. intelligence has been too risk-averse. But, thankfully, some inhibitions -- P.R. concerns, career concerns -- do provide brakes on the spy-crowd.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/

[rman]

16. still no names of non-gatekeepers, and no saying what the keepers

are keeping us from.

[hang a left]

15. Well I am not sure but I do know that 9-11 debate is quelled.

Here at DU the debate has been relegated to this forum here. It used to be discussed out in the open in GD. We are lucky though, Kos has banned discussion all together.

[rman]

17. I'm asking who are NOT gatekeepers

You've already made your case about who you think are gatekeepers.

Also i'm asking what the keepers are trying to keep us from; what is behind the gate (other then 911 mihop)?

The same supposed keepers that you mention do reveal US govt mihop wrt various (attempts of) false-flag ops, coups and assasinations against governments that did (or do) not support "US interests", and creating RW dictators that do support those interests. It shows a pattern of deception where 911 mihop fits comfortably.

One example: some would have it that Chomsky does not believe election fraud took place. Reality is that the stealing of elections is so self-evident to him that he mentions it only in passing. Otoh he does think that election fraud is not the biggest problem - according to Chomsky a bigger problem is the manipulation of public opinion, by both Repubs and Dems;


Both Parties Try to Exclude People from Voting
The Toothpaste Election
By NOAM CHOMSKY
http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky03122005.html

<snip>

"In the year 2000, there was a huge fuss afterwards about the stolen election, with the Florida chads and the Supreme Court. But ask yourself who was exorcised about it? It was all among a small group of intellectuals. They were the ones who were upset about it. There was never any public resonance for this. In the current election it's being reiterated. There's a big fuss among intellectuals about the vote in Ohio, how the voting machines didn't work, and other things. But the interesting thing is that nobody cares.

Why don't people care if the election is stolen? The reason is that they don't take the election seriously in the first place. They reacted about the way that people react to television ads. It's a mode of delusion. If the Democrats want to succeed in that game, they're just going to have to figure out better ways of delusion."

<more>

[dailykoff]

19. Chomsky is a major, major gatekeeper.

His political analyses have always bothered me. People "don't care if the election is stolen"? "they don't take the election seriously"? Bullshit on that. People care, and there is a huge difference between the parties and the candidates. Chomsky has an axe to grind.

On the other hand, Counterpunch is definitely not a gatekeeper.

[Christophera]

9. As Far As I Can Tell ALL Media Is A Gate Keeper. All Power Is Too

basically, no one is given any power if they will not keep the gate on secrets. Power can use media but it won't.

It steps out to protect its liberal image on a regular basis and rarely does more.

[rman]

18. Tell me what Dave Emory is keeping;

http://www.wfmu.org/playlists/DX

Aliens perhaps? That's one of few CT's he doesn't do.

[MrSammo1]

11. It's called......

hedging your bet!