Willyloman on the Gatekeeper OpEdNews

Posted on


There are a great number of sincere and knowledgeable writers and contributors at OpEdNews.
Criticism of them is not a part of this, it is aimed at the editor and publisher Rob Kall.

Censorship is sometimes justified. I’ve had to do it here at this blog on occasion when comments advocate violence or are from known trolls with worthless words.

Scott Creighton of American Everyman weighs in on the censorship at OpEdNews and how a so called progressive site manipulates the message.

If a well known site is a gatekeeper, I say expose them.


Posted by willyloman on November 18, 2008

by Scott Creighton
Once proud bastions of critical thinking and informed dissent are quietly transitioning into not so subtlety regulated echo-chambers for “topic positioning” of progressive discourse. It used to be that progressive and liberal “alternative” sites would pride themselves on the free and open exchange of ideas. That was before the run-up to the election and the muting of the far left that followed directly after “their candidate” won. It would seem, that the very same people that criticized the right-wing trolls for not being capable of examining the actions of their president, are in fact suffering from the same ailment themselves; blind, submissive loyalty to “party”. The level of hypocrisy is stunning but not unexpected.

Case in point: Rob Kall, Op Ed News
(Disclaimer: I posted over 25 articles for consideration of publication to Op Ed News. Every one of them was published.
Yesterday, I disagreed with a conclusion that Rob Kall made about blindly supporting the choices being made by Barack Obama. I gave proof that this new Auto Industry Bailout Plan of his and the democrats would likely include forcing undue concessions on the United Auto-Workers of America.
After several other posters on that site left comments that agreed with me, Rob Kall erased the comment I left.
After I had contacted other regulars at Op Ed News, Rob Kall attempted to spin the removal of the labor concern comment by claiming he removed it because of spelling errors. He had also removed a comment I left in response to someone that agreed with me. There were no “spelling errors” in that second comment of mine he removed.
After he read several comments that I left on the site showing that Rob Kall was erasing dissent of his “We MUST support Obama” claim, he realized that the comment that the individual left supporting mine, mentioned my “Watchmen” avatar, and clearly stated he agreed with my position.
So, Rob Kall erased that one as well. There was no “spelling errors” in that person’s comment. He erased it because it agreed with my conclusion.
And that makes Rob Kall a liar as well.
Screenshots of all of this are located at the end of this story as well as the original text of the comment I left for Rob Kall in which I argue that the bailout is fine and dandy, but there is NOTHING that says we have to support Obama’s purely Clintonesque effort at union busting.
The UAW made concessions in 2007 contract negotiations, and there is no need for congress to hand over billions of dollars the Big Three automakers will use for bonuses for the CEOs while forcing the workers to accept less money and benefits.
If Rob Kall wanted to argue this point, he should have in the open discussion forum. Instead he chose to hide any mention of the labor issue.)
I should not be surprised at all by what transpired with Op Ed News. All I had to do was read Rob Kall’s bio on the site. It is all right there for anyone to see.
Rob Kall is a snake oil salesman. Literally.
On his bio page he states the following:

Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor .”

Futurehealth is a “biofeedback” alternative treatment procedure website that sells equipment, books, seminars and so forth, run by Rob Kall.
If you want to understand a little about the “science” of biofeedback treatments, read Snake Oil Science: The Truth about Complementary and Alternative Medicine by by R. Barker Bausell (Oxford 2007). I will give you a little taste of the review.

“The good news for the millions of people who spend billions of dollars on CAM every year is that most of the CAM therapies work. This is an obvious fact, of course. These treatments would have died with the first shamans had there not been a large base of satisfied customers. The bad news is that their effectiveness is weak, temporary, based on subjective rather than objective outcomes, and the evidence that they work for the reasons their advocates claim is either non-existent or very weak. They work but they don’t work any better than a placebo. In fact, Bausell argues, that’s what CAM delivers with each dose of hope it packages-placebos and a few other artifacts unrelated to the hocus pocus or metaphysical beliefs in which these therapies are wrapped.”

The fact is, yes even Snake Oil “worked”. No better than the placebo effect, but it “worked”. The author of this work lumps biofeedback in with such medical marvels as healing touch, homeopathy (water and massively diluted elements), guided trance healing, and so forth. But be my guest and look it up. Apparently it is so “scientific” that even Dr. Phil ran a “biofeedback” clinic for a while.
The other dead giveaway on Rob’s bio page is the second quote I took from it;

“He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates.”

Now what does that mean?
It means he claims to be an expert at “positioning” issues by directing narratives to certain audiences. In short, he lies or omits parts of stories that don’t support his agenda.
His bio links to a site called www.StoryCon.org , a place, again run by Rob Kall, where you can buy CDs and tapes (for $100 a piece) of a conference they had where they taught people that the most important thing for a politician is “story”.
I shit you not.
Read the rest here.



Posted on


Artist: mimi yoon

One of the biggest traps we can fall into is the adoration of the left gatekeepers. Always keeping things interesting by speaking volumes of truth while at the same time diverting attention away from the root causes of the injustices of the world or just plain lying by omission.

The Left Gatekeepers Phenomenon

The denial that 9/11/01 was an inside job is nowhere deeper than in the traditional Left and the established Left media. Respected commentators for the Left, such as David Corn of the Nation, pooh-poohed challenges to the official story of the attack, or at most suggested complicity of the Bush administration by pointing to Saudi connections to the Bush family, all while staying within the confines of the official myth of the hijackers, crumbling skyscrapers, etc.

The causes of the Left gatekeeper phenomenon are, no doubt, complex. It may be that, because of their political marginalization, writers on the Left tend to be more defensive about their credibility. Furthermore, many Left publications are dependent on foundation funding, and those relationships may compromise objectivity on conscious and unconscious levels. It is also probable that many left icons are co-opted by covert disinformation programs such as Operation Mockingbird that target the Left media precisely because people expect challenges to the official story to come from that quarter.

Source: http://911review.com/denial/gatekeepers.html

I’ve always been suspect of the heroes the fake left embraces, Chomsky, Goodman, Olbermann, Stewart, Maddow to name a few.This piece confirms my suspicions of Klein.I should have known just by her articles being constantly praised by the lemmings over at AlterNet or by her many appearances on Bill Maher’s hangout.A show I can’t watch anymore without being over come by homicidal thoughts.

https://i2.wp.com/z.hubpages.com/u/159945_f260.jpg https://i2.wp.com/blog.ahmadghareeb.com/media/users/ahmadgh/Chomsky.jpg

Naomi or Noam am I

by Peter Raza

Not sure if that’s a clue for a cryptic crossword, or I’m about to tell you a story.

I went to see Naomi Klein a few nights ago here in Victoria BC Canada. She was finishing up a book tour for her recently released “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism” before heading abroad for the next stage of her promotional tour. In this excellent book Klein exposes how catastrophic events become extremely profitable for corporations while enabling governments to further an agenda of “disaster capitalism”. As a speaker she brings together an aspect that at once encompasses her excellent research abilities while showing a personal warmth that enhances the impact of her arguments. I found her to be both very informative and engaging with the audience. She took a few questions afterwards and it was then I found myself questioning some of her views. The second speaker up to the microphone was a gentleman here in Victoria whom I happen to know named Hal Sisson.

Let me tell you something about Hal Sisson. This man is a noted author with 10 books published, he is a life-long social activist, spent 40 years as a lawyer, he’s been a stand-up comic, and a few other vestments and layers I’ve yet to delve into. He’s also 86 years old and a rare sort of individual who retains a sharp mental faculty despite their age. Most times I’m with him I forget that this icon is almost twice as old as myself. I’m heartened to think that it is possible for some of us to keep it so together despite the ravages of time, but usually it’s about then I lose my thought and start looking for my keys only to find them in my own pocket. Hal is also a prominent member of the Victoria 9/11 Truth organization – amongst my friends in this group we share a quiet reverence for this man, as well as an appreciation for being able to benefit from his wisdom and experience.

Hal Sisson’s question was, “In view of your remarks relating to events which create economic emergencies and subsequent capitalistic opportunities and predations – disaster capitalism – do you have any comment or opinion in regard to the fact that many of them may well be covert false-flag operations by rogue elements of western government or intelligence agencies – events such as 9/11, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Madrid and British bombings?” This was exactly what I kept thinking about all evening while she described events like Katrina, the tsunami that devastated the coasts of Southeast Asia, or the fires in Greece. In many instances governments will clearly manipulate people’s misfortune to push through repressive laws and gross examples of economic opportunism after such events, but I was also interested in her thoughts on how some of these events are purposely created within the Hegelian dialectic. Although she is clearly willing to unveil post 9/11 misdeeds such as the out-sourcing of war operations to Halliburton and Blackwater, it is the event itself and the forces behind it to which Hal Sisson’s interrogative bespeaks. Her answer started out all right – she said, “First of all, I’m not so sure I would put anything past these people. It’s just that with these conspiracy theories I feel that we’re taking away all this energy that could be going toward other issues that are so important right now”. Alarm bells started ringing in my head, I immediately thought to myself “female Chomsky”. I’ve actually seen and read interviews where Noam Chomsky comes right out and says, “It’s not important who is behind 9/11, there are so many other things these people are guilty of…other things are more important.” or “it’s just an Internet thing”. Sorry Noam – I believe it is THE most important thing. My blood boils every day when I read a news piece about the War of Terror or anything to do with the Department of Homeland Criminals, or especially the frequent reports about another one or two hundred Iraqis dead or wounded.

You have the unmitigated gall to insinuate that it is not important when our own soldiers are giving their lives away based on this horrible lie? I’m sickened to think that some people can be so callously indifferent or morally bankrupt not to connect the obvious dots in this situation. Moreover, why should it be such a mental stretch for anyone to even imagine that the US government was complicit in 9/11 when we have so much declassified material showing their guilt in perpetrating such acts. That’s why Hal Sisson’s question is so relevant – because we know as a matter of historical fact that the Gulf of Tonkin and many others were false-flag operations, self-inflicted wounds – we know they are more than capable of it and it is a technique used by military powers since ancient times. This is not some ludicrous idea, and to pull out the old utility-knife catch phrase “conspiracy theory” and smear anybody who questions the official doctrine is not only offensive – it represents the shoddiest form of logic I can imagine.

Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance” – Einstein

You should have heard the crowd at that precise moment. As soon as she said “conspiracy theories” there was a murmur of disapproval toward the questioner, it was like a bunch of trained monkeys who stand up all at once when the buzzer goes off – and when she wrapped all of us independently thinking individuals into a neat ball and drop-kicked us in the gonads with the following summation, “It’s just that with these conspiracy theories I feel that we’re taking away all this energy that could be going toward other issues that are so important right now” – the audience burst into applause. The mood was something like, “There, that should put to rest you 9/11 truth idiots, way to go Naomi – we are cognitively dissonant en masse”. I was crestfallen at that moment when I saw first hand the results of some studies that show greater than 80% of the public are too apathetic and will just as soon swallow up the government’s propaganda as think for themselves. Sure, we’ve got our Naomi Kleins and Noam Chomskys to stand just a little on one side of the gate while many followers believe they lead the vanguard against the controllers – but no way will they go that extra step and take a peek over that wall. I’m not saying she is employed by them or even necessarily conscious of it – perhaps within her own paradigm she resembles many who just can’t imagine our leaders murdering some of us on purpose to further their agenda, and yet that’s what war is all about. That’s the part that is puzzling – she has no trouble expounding on the methodologies of torture and crisis manipulation by these people, but her natural curiosity and professional assiduousness stop short at the root causes of 9/11. Maybe she feels that if she touches that truth her days flying about doing book tours are over.

Naomi’s worried about how much energy I’ve got. Little does she know I’m a seething mass of thermo-nuclear potential. I’ve got enough in me to listen to her build her arguments, present her thorough research, and draw together elements for her theories. And whoa – look at that, I’ve still got plenty left over to examine the various aspects of 9/11 – who da thunk? As well, since when is it up to you to decide what subject is deserving of my energy? How would you feel if someone just wrote off your entire theory by smearing it with a brush and saying, “it’s just not important”?

Sorry Naomi, I’m disappointed – I still think you are great author with important, well presented information that everyone should be made aware of, but your inability to step over that line and deal with 9/11 is problematic to myself and others – this is precisely the difficulty we face when it comes to the wider population’s suspension of disbelief regarding this issue. The reaction of that audience demonstrates so poignantly the struggle we face in bringing forth the truth about 9/11. Thanks for not tasing Hal.

Source: http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/1779


Below are a few views on some of the more well known “gatekeepers”


https://i2.wp.com/blog.theavclub.tv/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/keith-olbermann.jpgWhile I have enjoyed a lot of what Keith Olbermann has said on his program, it is the things like this that make me believe his purpose might be to misdirect opposition into faux solutions. In other words, he will gain credibility by making a correct diagnosis, but then he will lead them to the wrong cure.


Amy Goodman in the studio of Free Radio Santa Cruz

Amy Goodman, Left Gatekeeper; by Scott Loughrey

Amy Goodman should be regarded as a Left Gatekeeper (LG). Left Gatekeepers, like the journalists in George Orwell’s 1984, function to promote the official propaganda of the state. They amplify what is not credible while excluding other voices from challenging the government’s lies of the day….

Democracy Now!’s contribution to the global struggle to remove the neoconservatives from power in the US is undermined each day that passes that Amy Goodman fails to invite on her show an articulate critic of the official story of 9/11/01. In addition, what little that has been said on DN! about 9-11 should be regarded as disinformation which is completely at the service of the Bush regime.

What many of her critics want from Amy Goodman is for DN! to speak truth to power on the most important issue of our time. We all know from her past that when she speaks truth to power she can move mountains. Many of us also believe that we’re running out of time waiting for her to get moving.

September 11th isn’t an issue like any other.



Rachel Maddow says: The real issue is story selection, is editorial control. I can only control what it is that I get asked to speak about in a very blunt way. That said, the way that I handle that is that I, I am gunning to get my own show. I would really like to be hosting a show on cable television, rather than guesting because I would like to exert more control over what gets discussed, over what counts as important. More

(Well Rachel, you’ve received your wish. We’ll see how far your handlers let you go. Probably about as far as the strings that control Olbermann will reach.)



Bill Maher is a left gatekeeper piece of shit. Just like Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Keith Olbermann, Dan Abrams, Chris Matthews, Geraldo Rivera, Jon Stewart, Alan Colmes, Katie Couric, Alexander Cockburn, William Blum, Matt Tabbi etc.

In the blogosphere you have a similar phenomenon of left gatekeeper blogs, such as Daily Kos, MyDD, Democratic Underground, My Left Wing, Mother Jones, Huffington Post, Salon, The Nation, Moxie Grrrl, Crooks & Liars etc.

It’s all about discourse control. Keeping the discussion within “safe” parameters. More


https://i0.wp.com/www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/04/taibbi_265x312.jpg Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi

The punk did write an article with the title I, Left Gatekeeper.
I would not even bother reading it.

The Ultimate 9/11 ‘Truth’ Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi


If NPR is your source of news, then frankly- you don’t know what is really happening in the world. Some people feel offended when I tell them this, but it is the truth. NPR Lies by Omission- the most important stories are simply not covered – period. NPR is not ‘neutral’ – it is an entertainment-marketing program designed to distract and misinform those seeking ‘alternative’ news. More

(I listen to NPR often when out on jobs. It’s the only alternative around here to the neocon talk shows. They have some excellent features but for every good one you can probably think of ten issues never touched upon. They gently shut the gate and hope you won’t notice.)


Open this in a new window or tab for a better view.

The Psychology of Denial

The reasons for the intense denial about the 9/11/01 attack inside the Left establishment appear to go much deeper than the fact that many of its institutions are funded by endowments like those of the Ford Foundation. The official myth appeals to political philosophies that condemn U.S. imperialism by providing the supreme example of “blowback” — the proverbial chickens coming home to roost. Researcher August West speaks to this and other psychological underpinnings of the denial.


Also see:

The Gatekeepers of the So Called Left

The Left Gatekeepers

LiberalPro – The Left Gate-keepers

The common thread with all the major media left gatekeepers, as well as the right, is that they are either jewish/zionist, work for the jewish/zionist media or are funded by jewish/zionist foundations.
Enough said.

Part Three Of Frank Rich, Arianna Huffington, & Dwight Garner Are Liars, Deceivers, And Traitors

Posted on

Written by Eric Larsen
Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Atlantic Free Press

Part I and Part II

https://i2.wp.com/www.trogart.com/summergroup06/miniatures/locked%20gate_sm.jpg art: Locked Gate by Scott Geyer

Howard Zinn And The Tea Cozy

For just about two years now, I’ve been posting essays on this web site that describe, castigate, and lament the patent madness, especially since 9/11, of American policy, leadership, and popular behavior. These essays, further, have described and cried out against the deathly and poisonous effects not just on the political nation but on its entire culture that have been produced by Americans’ choosing to go on living—or “living”—under the corrupting miasma of one of the greatest, most grotesque, and most destructive lies ever told in the long and admittedly often grim history of the human race.

I’ve gotten a certain, though not great, number of attacks for my efforts, one of the goofiest being from an old socialist friend in Canada who seems to have gone over the edge of something somewhere. His position, as he explained it via email, is that I’m myself the demented one for keeping up the battle for 9/11-Truth—because in actuality “9/11 was a flyspeck on the dust-jacket of history for nearly everyone except those who live in the US and believe fervently that the US is an impregnable monument to all things good and true.”

My old friend must indeed have lost his marbles—and memory—if he really means to put me in the company of those who “believe fervently that the US is an impregnable monument to all things good and true.” After all, he himself declared, just before putting me in that ungodly company, that what I really “think” (or hope) is “that the ripcord of truth on 9/11 might bring down Bush and corporate-imperialist conspiracy,” hardly the aim of one who sees in the U.S. “all things good and true.”

But there’ s something more sinister at work in my friend’s thinking, and something also much more self-paralyzing than just tossing out absurd false accusations about people worshiping the U.S. as being all good if not in fact being the world’s only good. The kindling that set my friend’s anger aflame was an essay I wrote attacking, among other things, Howard Zinn. The kind of “thinking” I attacked in Zinn’s case is repeated by my friend himself in his attempt to attack me for attacking Zinn. Here’s a look. My friend’s first sally:

So what is Zinn’s sin, what is at the root of EL’s extended attack on this man? Only that he doesn’t join in with his clarion call to denounce 9/11 as a false-flag inside job.

Even my friend’s first shot is mortally compromised by that little word, the adverb “only.” Other little smear-words, like “clarion call,” we can ignore. But truth is truth, and the question of Zinn’s failure to show any interest in the 9/11 Truth movement was, in point of fact, “only” a part of what I really did attack him for. If you’d like, read the essay and see.

On the specific matter of 9/11 truth, my friend begins delicately and ends grotesquely:

Now, I am not for a moment going to suggest that the official explanations [of 9/11] are true, but I will suggest that there may be a number of reasons why one bites one’s tongue on this issue, the foremost of which is that, given the horror that is Amerikan history, it’s not really that big a deal. Just stack it up next to the assassinations of Jack Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther [King], Malcolm X, John Lennon, and Jimmy Hoffa, all within a period of less than twenty years—most, if not all, of these were also “inside jobs.” And this only scratches the surface of malfeasance: Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile, the Dirty War in Argentina, the Contra war against the Sandinistas, and on and on. And that’s only Latin America.

So if EL thinks that the ripcord of truth on 9/11 might bring down Bush and corporate-imperialist conspiracy, then I might ask, if that were true, then why did not the exposures surrounding the Bay of Pigs or the Iran-Contra scandal have the same potential? I’m sorry, but 9/11 was a flyspeck on the dust-jacket of history for nearly everyone except those who live in the US and believe fervently that the US is an impregnable monument to all things good and true.

What on earth kind of argument, may I ask, is that? Actually, it’s in a crucial way parallel to the argument that informed Zinn’s own thinking in “Empire or Humanity? What the Classroom Didn’t Teach Me About the American Empire,” the essay that recently, after some time away, drew my attention back to Zinn. In that essay, the historian says, first, that his school years hadn’t let him in on the secret that the U.S. in fact had a long imperial history. And, second, he says, or lets it be implied, that that failure was really bad. Well, who couldn’t agree? That failure was intolerable. What it means is that schools in the U.S. didn’t, and doubtless still don’t, provide education, at least not in history, but provide propaganda instead, just like the mass media does, and the treasonous New York Times.

The trouble is, though, that the matter doesn’t end there—or, rather, the trouble is that in Zinn’s hands and mind it does end there. That is, there’s so much more remaining to be said after what he does say, but Zinn chooses to express—and do—virtually nothing. It’s as though his essay is all body but has no brain, or is all face but has no vocal cords. The essay seems almost to have no conclusion; it seems to take us nowhere.

Let’s look at what really happens in the essay. Zinn tells us that in school he didn’t learn about the “Trail of Tears,” or the “Sand Creek massacre,” or the fraudulent seizing of half of Mexico, or “the invasion of Cuba” (after the phony Maine sinking), or the subsequent “invasion of the Philippines, halfway around the world.” Fine. Good. He cites for us these ruinous, rapacious, brutishly opportunistic things and events that he didn’t learn about until after school. Fine and good, but now what? What is the essay going to say? What is Zinn, now, going to tell us about what he’s told us so far? And there lies the great trouble. The great trouble is that there’s not going to be anything more. We’re given the litany of the acts and deeds of brute imperialism that weren’t taught in school—but then there’s no further step.

So what, do I hear someone ask? And my own answer is, so everything.

What do I mean? Well, we’ve looked at the essay. Now let’s look at it closely.

As you can see for yourself by clicking again here, Zinn’s essay is related to a new comic book he’s bringing out called A People’s History of American Empire. I find this association—and this new marketing project—very interesting.

Just suppose something for a moment. Just suppose that you were a very, very successful salesman of—well, let’s just say very, very successful salesman of snake oil, although I hasten to add that not for a millionth of a nano-second would we think of Howard Zinn as a salesman of snake oil. Perish the thought. No, we must all clearly agree that the snake oil metaphor is for illustrative purposes only.

Now that that’s cleared up, let’s pursue the illustration. If you were a successful snake oil salesman, what’s the last thing in the world you’d want to happen? Well, that’s an easy question, isn’t it! The last thing in the world you’d want to happen is that people would become aware that your snake oil actually had no curative effects whatsoever—in other words, that it had no power.

You wouldn’t want the whistle blown on your snake oil. You wouldn’t want snake oil reform. You wouldn’t—like all those much-hated liberal reformer-types who are always meddling in things that are none of their business while claiming that they’re working only and solely for the welfare of the people—what you wouldn’t want, in other words, is for the snake oil market to bottom out and disappear.

Now let’s shift gears just a bit. If you had built a career based on—just say—your having very successfully sold your claims, for a long, long time, that a certain government, or a certain aspect of a government, or even a certain trait, element, or unit of a government was vile, inhumane, deceitful, self-interested, and perfidious—well, if you were in that situation, and if sales were still going well, what’s the last thing in the world that you’d want to happen?

Okay now, hold onto your hats, and please don’t rush to an adverse judgment, either of me or of this essay I’m writing right here and right now, until you’ve finished reading the whole damned thing! Nobody—nobody—gets to attack me or it unless they’ve read the piece to the end!

There. That’s settled. Now back to business.

If you were a successful salesman such as the purely hypothetical one described above, here’s what the last thing in the world that you’d want to happen would be: The last thing in the world that you’d want to happen would be that the government you were concerned with should stop being vile, inhumane, deceitful, self-interested, and perfidious.

Fair enough? We hear a lot about “fallible human nature,” and isn’t it generally thought to be true that most people will follow that fallible nature and seek—or create—ways to protect and preserve their own interests?

And, if you agree with that premise, wouldn’t a corollary premise follow that in very great likelihood Howard Zinn would hope and choose not for his own interests to be squandered, dissipated, and transformed into an airy nothingness?

In other words, how could you possibly reject—now, remember your agreement: You promised not to jump all over this essay, cursing and trampling it in outrage and anger, until you’ve read the whole thing—how could you possibly reject out of hand the working hypothesis that Howard Zinn, best-selling author, might very possibly or even powerfully wish that the United States not stop being vilely, inhumanely, deceitfully, self-interestedly, and perfidiously imperial?

The logic is probable and clear, you must agree. On the other hand, in case you don’t agree, let’s look further.

First, let’s take a close look at the closing three paragraphs of Zinn’s essay. Thus:

The American Empire has always been a bipartisan project—Democrats and Republicans have taken turns extending it, extolling it, justifying it. President Woodrow Wilson told graduates of the Naval Academy in 1914 (the year he bombarded Mexico) that the U.S. used “her navy and her army. . . as the instruments of civilization, not as the instruments of aggression.” And Bill Clinton, in 1992, told West Point graduates: “The values you learned here. . . will be able to spread throughout the country and throughout the world.”

For the people of the United States, and indeed for people all over the world, those claims sooner or later are revealed to be false. The rhetoric, often persuasive on first hearing, soon becomes overwhelmed by horrors that can no longer be concealed: the bloody corpses of Iraq, the torn limbs of American GIs, the millions of families driven from their homes—in the Middle East and in the Mississippi Delta.

Have not the justifications for empire, embedded in our culture, assaulting our good sense—that war is necessary for security, that expansion is fundamental to civilization—begun to lose their hold on our minds? Have we reached a point in history where we are ready to embrace a new way of living in the world, expanding not our military power, but our humanity?

Three points, and then a pulling of the three together. First point, corresponding to the first paragraph: Here, Zinn compiles a few more imperialist lies—and, indeed, they are imperialist lies, no doubt about it. These lies are in keeping with the earlier sections of the essay, which compiled other imperialist lies that were, generally, from earlier years of U.S. history. Therefore, the essay would seem to be bringing its subject matter, its interest, and its purpose increasingly close to the present.

And, indeed, point two (corresponding to paragraph two) reinforces this idea by means of its references to the present carnage in Iraq—made possible by lies—and then to the displacement of populations both in New Orleans during and after Katrina—now—and in the Middle East generally.

At this point a sub-question arises: Let’s call it Question 2 (b). Here it is: Why stop there? If—if—the essayist’s wish is that imperialism be challenged, brought down, and ended, then why doesn’t he keep going and stick his lance into the biggest, most visible, and most vulnerable chink in the imperialists’ armor?

But no dice. Zinn hits the brakes instead. And then he drinks down a huge draught of some kind of intellect-numbing agent, a cliché-inducing liquor, or a draught of Lethe-like make-me-a-plain-vanilla-hollow-man drug. I suspect it may, in fact, be the same stuff that Dwight Garner drinks each morning to keep his glibness-while-lying machinery so well oiled.

And so we come to point three. And point three brings us to this great question: The question of just what Zinn does with his subject, exactly what it is he’s going to do to help us get rid of a criminal, pirating, inhumane, earth-destroying, treason-engendering, treason-requiring, ugly, vile, despised, genocidal, republic-destroying U.S. imperialism.

And the answer to this question?


Take a look. Here’s firebrand anti-imperialist Zinn telling us—in subordinate phrases—first, that the lies he’s cited are “justifications for empire”; second, that they are “embedded in our culture” (dammit, let’s un-embed them, then, and while we’re at it let’s un-embed the press, too); and, third—oh, lordy! oh, me! can we stand up under the power of such rhetoric?—that these lies “assault our good sense”!

“Assault our good sense”?! God in heaven, it’s as though Henry James himself had stepped in front of Zinn and taken over the keyboard. Fiery in prose! Resolute in tone! Masculine in stance! Determined in judgment! Immediate in impulse! How much more direct a call to summary and significant action could we possibly wish for?

How interesting it is—that this is what we get from the great progressive historian and well known public figure—assault our good sense—when the actuality is dire, overwhelming, and so extreme as soon to be beyond any reach of correction or repair whatsoever: When the actuality is that the repugnant American imperialists now in power are indeed assaulting us, but with nothing so subtle or perceivable in such delicate ways as Zinn suggests; no, the repugnant American criminals, imperialists, and pirates now in power confront us each and every day with things impossible to ignore, with repeated acts of treason, with repeated breaches of international law—much of that law dating from the American-sponsored Nuremberg Trials after WWII—with repeated crimes against humanity, against peace, against the republic, against the Constitution, against their sworn oaths of office, against their own countrymen and their own countrywomen and against the children and the poor of their own nation, against the very elements of decency itself, against Magna Carta, against the individual, against the future and the well-being of Earth, against the subtleties and highest accomplishments of all cultures whether ancient or modern, against truth, and, again and again and again, against the most basic notions of humanity or feeling or decency or generosity or compassion in dealings either between peoples or between nations or between men.

Those are the actualities, and why do you suppose it is that instead of touching upon them, recognizing and confronting them, let alone taking or recommending action to repudiate or defeat them, Zinn offers us only the most wan and pale of rhetorical questions: Has the time come, asks he, when all these criminal and imperial lies and crimes and atrocities have “begun to lose their hold on our minds”?

But why should they have begun to “lose their hold on our minds”? What has Zinn said or done to help bring about any semblance or likelihood of an end so desirable as that? Why, for one, single, glaring example—an exact parallel of Naomi Klein’s extraordinary and traitorous omission in Shock Doctrine—did he stop short of 9/11, merely skip over it?

Well. Now that we know that Zinn isn’t going to tell anywhere near the whole truth, and that in fact, historian or not, he shows no interest in the whole truth, his vacant, bland language, something like the language of a Lotus-eater, begins to make perfect sense. Labeled “progressive,” frequent contributor to the pernicious Progressive magazine, he shows no quality here of anything like the true progressive but, instead, every quality of the keeper of the status quo. Have you ever in your life heard words less rooted in the hard stones and packed earth of the real events, crimes, and atrocities that constitute the horrors of imperial policy under the Bushiscti? words any more suitable to the Sunday pulpit than to the progressive reformer? words more calculated to bring on self-referential swoons of complacency rather than calls to fight the bastards than Zinn’s closing sentence?

Have we reached a point in history where we are ready to embrace a new way of living in the world, expanding not our military power, but our humanity?1

1 Contrast the closing three paragraphs of Paul Craig Roberts’ “There May Be Many Mushroom Clouds In Our Future” (08/14/2008):

The Ukraine, where a sick nationalism has taken hold funded by the neocon National Endowment for Democracy, will be the next conflict between American pretensions and Russia. Russia is being taught by the neocons that freeing the constituent parts of its empire has not resulted in their independence but in their absorption into the American Empire.

Unless enough Americans can overcome their brainwashed state and the rigged Diebold voting machines, turn out the imbecilic Republicans and hold the neoconservatives accountable for their crimes against humanity, a crazed neocon US government will provoke nuclear war with Russia.

The neoconservatives represent the greatest danger ever faced by the United States and the world. Humanity has no greater enemy.

I first became aware of this essay, ancillary to Zinn’s new comic book, when it appeared on Tom Englehardt’s well known TomDispatch.com. On that site, above each new “dispatch,” you’ll find a sentence designed to explain what the web site’s purpose and intended audience are. That sentence is worth a close look. Thus:

Tomdispatch.com is for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of our post-9/11 world and a clear sense of how our imperial globe actually works.

Am I alone among the throngs of humanity in finding this an eminently foolish sentence—and at the same time one perfectly suited to what we’ve seen of the spirit and stance of Howard Zinn? Two things leap out, one of them a real shocker, the glib and simple phrase “our imperial globe.” Good god, is it true? Is it a fact that now not only the U.S. but the entire globe is imperial? Zounds, that’ll up the ante for the extent and breadth of Howard Zinn’s exhausting non-work: Now he’ll have to slave away at scaring everyone in the world instead of only those in the U.S. with the horrifying facts of imperialist behavior while at the same time making sure he does all he can to allow that set and species of great crimes to continue.

A Herculean task, but not, apparently, Sisyphean.

The other phrase is a wretched cliché seen everywhere, a phrase that can be spoken only by those plunged in deep ignorance, victimized by immeasurable indolence, or in the grip of the most egregiously criminal malignancy. I mean the phrase “our post-9/11 world.”

It is, of course, with very few exceptions, always a lie, intentional or unintentional. Those ignorant enough to believe the “official” line that on 9/11 the U.S. really was “attacked” by nineteen Muslim kids with box-cutters are unintentional liars when they use the words “post-9/11 world,” since what they mean is “the world after the U.S. was attacked by Al Qaeda and nineteen young members of militant Islam.” And in truth, of course, there simply is no “post-9/11 world” of that kind, of the kind they think, or may think, there is, since that kind of “attack” never happened. On the other hand, the actual malignant and treasonous perpetrators of 9/11, those from within our own government or associated with our own government, are liars of another kind, deliberate and witting ones, when they speak of “our post-9/11 world.” The reason is obvious: They lie in order to maintain the wholly false myth that the U.S. really was attacked by Al Qaeda and members of militant Islam, and they do so in order to keep the way clear for the continuation of the very same international crimes and crimes against humanity and also against the republic and against the Constitution that they all along planned and intended 9/11 to be the door that, once opened, would clear the way for them, with neither punishment nor accountability, first to initiate and then to continue perpetrating without end in sight.

Now, the really fascinating question is the question of which kind of liar Tom Englehardt is. He plays his cards very close to his chest, telling his considerable readership that he will give them, as I mentioned, “a deeper understanding of our post-9/11 world,” though without tipping his hand in any way whatsoever as to what that term might possibly mean. At the same time, through actual practice, it becomes clear that TomDispatch.com won’t even entertain the idea of touching the subject of the truth of 9/11 with a ten-foot—well, with a ten-foot fire hook.

But let it go—TomDispatch.com is, after all, “A Project of The Nation Institute,” and we all know—or if any of us don’t, we damn well should know—that The Nation is one of the most visible, egregious, complicit, and thus traitorous of “left-wing” gatekeepers that our now-all-but-lost republic is burdened, cursed, and diseased-unto-the-death by. It follows that so is TomDispatch.com.

But let that go, too. Our real subject here, after all, is, first, the thinking of Howard Zinn, and, second, the thinking of my old socialist friend in Canada.

After its appearance on TomDispatch, the Zinn essay appeared widely on various outlets on the internet. And what could possibly be wrong with that? Well, nothing at all—except that, like Zinn’s essay itself, all that exposure led to nothing, and certainly to nothing good.

As a way of suggesting why it led to nothing good, allow me refer to a recent and worthwhile piece by Kieren McCarthy called “Why TV News in the US is Utter Rubbish.” McCarthy quickly, deftly, and accurately shows how and why U.S. television news is indeed “utter rubbish,” and then he asks a perfectly reasonable question: “So where do you get your news while living in the US?”

The Daily Show and the Colbert Report, he says, are two places (sort of), but his most interesting observation has to do with National Public Radio. It’s this:

News-starved Americans usually hold up National Public Radio, NPR, as the best option. But with interlude music fresh from the 1920s and a twee, kitchen-table-chat approach, this is news wrapped in a tea cosy.

And there it is: McCarthy has hit precisely on what the relationship is between Howard Zinn and his audience—he’s wrapped in the tea cozy, and his audience absolutely loves how warm and soft he is. Even my angry socialist friend from Canada criticized my attack on Zinn for the very reason that Zinn “truly is a warm-hearted and brilliant leftist.” Now, the “brilliant” point aside, if anyone can tell me what in the name of the devil being “warm-hearted” could have to do with any of the intellectual questions at hand, I hope they’ll write and let me in on it. But as far as I can tell, my friend has effectively put his own imprimatur on the tea-cozy concept of Zinn, just as Kieren McCarthy has put his imprimatur on the tea cozy nature of NPR.

It means, quite literally, that for his particular audience, Zinn is the tea cozy. He is nice and warm and reassuring and soothing—exactly the things the tea cozy is. And, oh, disgruntled reader, I hear you asking, “And what’s wrong with that?” Well, what’s wrong with it is that tea cozies may be cozy, but they don’t think, and neither do they express thought. And Zinn, in his function as tea cozy (just like NPR in its function as tea cozy), has set out to make absolutely certain that his audience continue to think that it’s thinking while at the same time, at whatever cost, he continues to keep it from actually doing so. If this weren’t the case, both Howard Zinn and NPR would be out of business. Would it were so, since then they might each be able actually to do some real and whole truth-telling and therefore some good.

Let’s just consider, together, the cases of Howard Zinn and Tom Englehardt. Let’s think of each of them as tea cozies. And let’s do so, specifically, in regard to the question of the truth about 9/11—who did it, why they did it, and how they got away with it.

Of course, how they got away with it is almost entirely through the complicity of a corrupt, controlled, and treasonous mass media—with the initial exception of now-gone Dan Rather, who was far enough out of the criminal loop that he naively and honestly put into words exactly what he saw. But not Howard Zinn, and not Tom Englehardt. God forbid that Zinn as tea cozy should ever do anything that’s, let’s say, cold or jarring to his audience of loving and devoted followers, or harsh or unexpected or against the grain or counter-intuitive or unfamiliar or—or true in some unexpected way—having to do, say, with 9/11 truth—that the tea-cozy-cuddlers hadn’t previously thought of, been in the habit of thinking of, or been lucky enough to have had reason to be awake to at all.

What would happen to Tom Englehardt if he told or revealed the truth about 9/11? Well, he’d lose his job with The Nation Institute, naturally.

And so what should Tom Englehardt do? He should—if he’s an American, a patriot, a citizen of the world, a humanist, an adherent of international law and of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles and a defender of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man—he should tell and reveal the truth about 9/11 at once, immediately, boldly, bravely, and informedly.

And Howard Zinn? What would happen to Howard Zinn if he told or revealed the truth about 9/11? Well, he’d lose his publishing opportunities with TomDispatch.com, and with Progressive Magazine, naturally, and he’d lose half or more, maybe all, of the audience for his new comic book, also naturally.

And so what should Howard Zinn do? He should—if he’s an American, a patriot, a citizen of the world, a humanist, an adherent of international law and of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles and a defender of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man—he should tell and reveal the truth about 9/11 at once, immediately, boldly, bravely, and informedly.

That is what they should do—and it’s what they must do if they hope in any way whatsoever to avoid the absolute certainty of history’s declaring them at some later date—a date that I devoutly wish be soon—to be quislings, traitors, criminals against the republic, criminals against the republic’s Constitution, criminals against peace, criminals against international law, criminals against conscience, criminals against the sovereignty of nations, and criminals against the sanctity of the individual human self.

Exactly the same is true also of the following people, not to mention many, many, many others not listed here: Alexander Cockburn, Arianna Huffington, Bill Keller, Bill Moyers, Bob Herbert, Christopher Hayes, David Corn, Dwight Garner, Elliot Spitzer, Frank Rich, Jacob Weisberg, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Larry Silverstein, Matthew Rothschild, Nicholas Lemann, Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, and Ted Rall.

And what about my old socialist friend in Canada? Do you remember what he said?

Well, in case you don’t, here’s what he said:

Now, I am not for a moment going to suggest that the official explanations [of 9/11] are true, but I will suggest that there may be a number of reasons why one bites one’s tongue on this issue, the foremost of which is that, given the horror that is Amerikan history, it’s not really that big a deal. Just stack it up next to the assassinations of Jack Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther [King], Malcolm X, John Lennon, and Jimmy Hoffa, all within a period of less than twenty years—most, if not all, of these were also “inside jobs.” And this only scratches the surface of malfeasance: Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile, the Dirty War in Argentina, the Contra war against the Sandinistas, and on and on. And that’s only Latin America.

So if EL thinks that the ripcord of truth on 9/11 might bring down Bush and corporate-imperialist conspiracy, then I might ask, if that were true, then why did not the exposures surrounding the Bay of Pigs or the Iran-Contra scandal have the same potential? I’m sorry, but 9/11 was a flyspeck on the dust-jacket of history for nearly everyone except those who live in the US and believe fervently that the US is an impregnable monument to all things good and true.

Well, old friend, you who value Howard Zinn because he “truly is. . . warm-hearted,” how much of “a flyspeck on the dust-jacket of history” do you really think 9/11 is to the million and a quarter Iraqis now dead because of it, or the four million Iraqis now displaced because of it, or the unnumbered dead and dying from radioactive depleted uranium because of it? And how much of “a flyspeck on the dust-jacket of history” do you think it will mean to Canadians themselves when the sovereignty of their own nation is stolen from them because of it? How much of “a flyspeck on the dust-jacket of history” does it seem to the South Ossetians who are dying because of it? How much of “a flyspeck on the dust-jacket of history” will it seem to the Iranians if they are atom-bombed because of it?

And, old friend, your notion that 9/11 is “a flyspeck on the dust-jacket of history” because it’s historically preceded by so many other heinous crimes committed by the same “Amerikan” elements that committed 9/11—well, what you’re saying is the equivalent of this: “There have been cases and cases of cancer ever since the earliest dawn of antiquity. Therefore, any new case of cancer is nothing more than ‘a flyspeck on the history of cancer’ and shouldn’t be treated as anything special—in fact, shouldn’t be treated at all,” especially since all those much earlier cases went untreated.

Good god, old man. You’re not one of them, are you? One of the Zinnians? One of the Englehardts? One of the Katrina vanden Heuvels? One of the Amy Goodmans?

One of the default complicitors?

One of the tea cozies?

Tell me not, I pray you. Tell me not.

Source: http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4870&Itemid=81

Media War on "Conspiracy Theorists":

Posted on Updated on

Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi is Mentally Ill and will Only be Hunter S. Thompson in his most Far-Fetched Dreams

By Alex Constantine

Matt Taibbi, in (controlled) left media interviews often introduced as “another Hunter S. Thompson”:

“I’m sitting here 90 minutes north of Chicago in my shorts and flip flops after mowing the lawn on this 77 degree October 21. While waiting for the 60 Minutes story on mega-fires in the American west, I find myself nostalgic for certain individuals, now dead, who used to tell it like it is.

“There was Warren Zevon, for one. There was also Hunter S. Thompson.”

Of course Thompson “told it like it is” (standard Taibbi hackneyed phrase) – he was an anti-fascist “conspiracy theorist.” (The personification of “Gonzo” was investigating Omaha’s Franklin Credit Union and child molestation scandals when he “suicided” ((or was “suicided,” to scuttle any revelations he may have scratched out of the stone walls of Nebraska)).

A literary find? Who cares about Taibbl’s “flip flops” … or his lawn … or the temperature while he sits idly waiting to watch TV … or even the nostalgia, because it’s signally hypocritical?

Matt Taibbi on Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat:

“Already the premise is totally fucked. … “

Hunter S. Thompson wrote this badly?

When did anyone but a classless, low-brow, print-media-answer-to-shock-jock diversion ever write this way?

Tabbi’s book is titled The Great Derangement, and it accuses “conspiracy theorists” – who, contrary to disingenuous and desperate claims from the (controlled) media, actually exhibit active, balanced, fiercely-independent minds – of having severe mental problems. It’s a projection, IMHO …

“The country … was losing its shit.” http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/4/1602/63749/

Hunter Thompson would have never written this sentence. But a writer who thinks in these terms – like a street head – considers himself capable of judging informed political researchers who do actually comprehend fascist conspiracies, an everyday American phenomenon – a verifiable reality, when you deconstruct the (controlled) “mainsteam” media lies – that Taibbi denies.

The psychological term for the self-elevation is “narcicissism.” Denying reality is “dissociative.”

Taibbi needs to look up these terms and confront his own derangements.

The wit of Matt Taibbi: ” … Taibbi is embarrassed by all the comparisons. “It sucks,” he says. … “

Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi

Taibbi wanted to be a novelist, but doesn’t write novels, he says, because his fiction writing “sucks.”

So bad you couldn’t stand it.

I believe this is true.

But we are to believe that his real talent is political journalism. I don’t think so:

“Actually, listening to Joe Biden sound self-righteous about anything makes me want to puke my guts out. I don’t know what it is about him. Maybe it’s that creepy poof of blowdried gray pubic fuzz he has now … “

Thomsonesque? Or is the dissociative, narcissistic Matt Taibbi a good soldier planted by the intelligence bund (” … if the FBI really is following anyone on the American left … ” “… The Truth Movement thinks I’m a shill … “) to discredit dissidents:

“Liberal” Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi on the Left’s “Ugly Little Secret”:

The American Left’s Silly Victim Complex
From Adbusters #71, May-Jun 2007

” … The sad truth is that if the FBI really is following anyone on the American left, it is engaging in a huge waste of time and personnel. No matter what it claims for a self-image, in reality it’s the saddest collection of cowering, ineffectual ninnies ever assembled under one banner on God’s green earth.

“And its ugly little secret is that it really doesn’t mind being in the position it’s in – politically irrelevant and permanently relegated to the sidelines, tucked into its cozy little cottage industry of polysyllabic, ivory tower criticism. When you get right down to it, the American left is basically just a noisy Upper West side cocktail party for the college-graduate class.

“And we all know it. The question is, when will we finally admit it? … “

More Evidence of Taibbi’s Narcissism and Dissociative Tendencies

Matt Taibbi’s Perspective on 9/11:

THE LOW POST: I, Left Gatekeeper

Why the “9/11 Truth” movement makes the “Left Behind” sci-fi series read like Shakespeare

Posted Sep 26, 2006 12:14 PM

A few weeks ago I wrote a column on the anniversary of 9/11 that offhandedly dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theorists as “clinically insane.”… Apparently every third person in the United States thinks George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

“You’re just another MSM-whore left gatekeeper paid off by corporate America,” said one writer. “What you do isn’t journalism at all, you dick,” said another. “You’re the one who’s clinically insane,” barked a third, before educating me on the supposed anomalies of physics involved with the collapse of WTC-7.

I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement. The first is that it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes. In fact, if there were any conspiracy here, I’d be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying. …

Taibbi’s “Libertarian” Politics

Reason magazine – a CIA Mockingbird propaganda sheet – interviews Matt Taibbi:

Reason: You’ve told one interviewer, “I’m never comfortable when people call me a lefty. If anyone were to ever ask, I’d say I’m probably more of a libertarian than anything else. I believe in capitalism, small government, etc.” 

Taibbi: My political views shouldn’t be important. I’m more comfortable describing other people than talking about what I really think. I have different beliefs that are all over the place. I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned because I believe in the federalist model; I believe that states should be able to make their own drug laws. The more democracy you have, the more people can make decisions for their own communities, the more freedom people have.

His father is NBC’s Mike Taibbi – an establishment propgandist:

Mike Taibbi is a television journalist working at NBC.

Taibbi received Bachelor of Science degrees from Rutgers University in sociology and journalism in 1971. He worked for ABC and CBS affiliates before settling in at NBC. He specializes in international news and has reported on the war on terrorism from Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years.

He has a son, Matt Taibbi, who is a contributing editor and writer for Rolling Stone.



• Unholy Alliances: Working the Tawana Brawley Story (Harcourt, June 1989). ISBN 0-15-188050-6.

Redacted Pages on 9/11 Isn’t Just Hilarioous! It’s Shilltastic! (TM)

Posted by: johndoraemi on Jun 26, 2007 9:57 PM

Yeah Taibbi, you’re so brilliant. Twenty eight pages that they won’t release to the public, including evidence of “foreign governments” assisting alleged 9/11 hijackers (Bob Graham), is just waiting for some good penis joke angle to make it sing.

You’re worse than a shill. You’re an imbecile spreading stupidity as far and wide as you possibly can. ….
Matt Taibbi Bio:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matthew C. Taibbi (born February 3, 1970), an American journalist and political writer. He currently works at Rolling Stone where he authors a column called “Road Rage” for the print version, and an additional weekly online-only column called “The Low Post”. He is best known for his coverage of the 2004 US presidential election, and for his former editorial positions at newspapers the eXile, the New York Press, and the Beast.

Taibbi spent his childhood in the suburbs of Boston, Massachusetts, attended Concord Academy, and attended Bard College at Annandale on Hudson, New York, spending his senior year abroad at Leningrad State Technical University. His father is Mike Taibbi, an NBC television reporter.

Taibbi responds to blog questions:

For all American politicians in general, how much of their religious faith is real, and how much is for the votes? – Name Withheld

I think Bush’s is real. Gary Bauer’s is real, so is Santorum’s. The rest are all completely full of shit. …


… I should say that the hardest thing for me in dealing with the Truthers is this feeling of being intimidated by how ridiculous they are. It would take a comic genius to really do them justice and the fear of falling short of that can be paralyzing. If you’ve ever seen the movie Eating Raoul there’s this scene where Paul Bland throws an electric bug-zapper into a hot tub full of swingers and they all just sort of fall naked and limp all at once. It’s hilarious. Somebody, and it may very well not be me, is going to write the electric bug-zapper of 9/11-debunker essays. But it’s going to have to be an inspired effort, not something you just toss off in one night. I really wish Mark Twain were alive for that reason. A Jim Fetzer’s Literary Offenses would potentially be one of the funniest things ever written in the English language.


Noam Chomsky fails 911 Litmus Test Again

Posted on

https://i1.wp.com/images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/09/51/23365109.jpgThat there’s something strange, mysterious, contradictory, absurd, about his refusal to see that anybody other than Lee Harvey Oswald might have killed JFK, his refusal to become involved in looking into, whatsoever, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy and Malcolm X, and then, of course, although a lot of people cut him slack and were in effect in denial about Chomsky on those decapitations of the Left… but 9/11 came along, it’s a Litmus test, I swear it’s a Litmus test for every individual, every organization… where do they stand on 9/11?

And of course he just proceeded to fail the 9/11 Litmus test entirely. And I think this has caused a lot of people to just say, to themselves, “There’s gotta be something really wrong with Chomsky.” And apparently I’ve articulated it in this 15,000-word chapter.

And I do believe, that he is, an “agent of disinformation”. Now, I don’t say “disinformation agent”, which would imply that he is on the payroll of the CIA, which is something that I cannot prove, and I do not necessarily believe. But he certainly is an “agent of disinformation”. And there are many kinds of disinformation, he engages in about 20 different kinds of nasty propaganda techniques himself, especially in his public lectures… dismissive ness is one of the trickiest cards that he plays in his public lectures. He’ll say things like, ‘Oh well, we don’t know who did 9/11, but it really doesn’t matter,’ and then he’ll just go on!

And that is a point where in a just, in an intellectually honest world, someone would say, “Hold it right there, Noam. Just hold it right there. WHY does it not matter, who did 9/11?”

But of course when he’s speaking before an adulatory crowd, they just accept this, he throws out these great dismissive phrases, and just continues on. And one of the tricks of his trade, is of course that he’s written this immense number of books, he’s incredibly prolific, I have 16 of his books myself, and in each of those books if you look toward the end, you’ll find these massive numbers of footnotes, and he’s renowned for tracking down these obscure facts from obscure journals and documents, and so people assume, when he’s doing public speaking, that everything he says is equally well-researched, equally well-footnoted, equally valid… and it’s not. He makes all sorts of just vague, sweeping generalizations, dismissive statements, complete mis-weighting of things, where something is very important he’ll dismiss as unimportant and vice-versa.

He throws up a smokescreen by way of always talking, and I don’t disagree with him on this… it’s an effective one, in any of his talks he’ll talk about Granada, he’ll talk about El Salvador, he’ll talk about East Timor… no question, he was blowing the whistle on those for a long time, he harks back to them, but you know what?
posted by Whisleblower


The Shame of Noam Chomsky & left gatekeepers

Author Barrie Zwicker’s book, Towers of Deception: Noam Chomsky and the media cover-up of 9/1


posted by Whisleblower


Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Dissent

Chomsky’s comments on the 9/11 Truth movement are full of surprising statements and bizarre non sequiturs. Find out more about the ways in which Chomsky is attempting to limit dissent by dismissing the concerns of a growing percentage of the population who no longer believe the official government-approved conspiracy theory about 9/11.
Part 1

Part 2
In the second part of this examination of Noam Chomsky’s dissembling in regards to 9/11, we hear some of the voluminous evidence that all is not as it is portrayed in the media in regards to that attack. From terrorist financiers dining with intelligence committee chairman on the morning of the attack to CIA insider trading to Able Danger to military drills. We also hear Chomsky ask “Who cares?” if 9/11 were an inside job.

More at http://www.corbettreport.com

posted by Whisleblower

Does Noam Chomsky Matter Anymore? Of Course Not

Posted on

Noam Chomsky is first and foremost a Jew and as anyone with any sense and knowledge of 9-11 knows, September 11th was a kosher operation.

By Douglas Herman

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” -Noam Chomsky

Is it acceptable for a student to hotly contest his professor? When may an apprentice argue with his master? Or when may a lowly skeptic like myself loudly disagree with a widely known and respected figure?

Suppose a top politician, entertainment figure, or sports star said it didn’t really matter who shot Lincoln or why, who attacked Pearl Harbor, the Alamo or the USS Liberty. Imagine the derision. Imagine the ridicule. Imagine the loss in credibility and marketing revenue. Now imagine if a well-respected academic”who should know better”said exactly the same thing. It doesn’t really matter who committed a great crime; history had nothing to teach us; we should never waste precious time trying to apprehend the perpetrators, nor understand their motives but focus only on the outcome of their foul deeds.

Well, that is exactly what Noam Chomsky appears to believe. Do not focus on the plot or the plotters or the clever planning of any crime but only the aftermath. Strangely, I had always thought Linguistics was the scientific study of language rather than a lame attempt at disinformation.

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant man. According to his Wiki Bio, Chomsky holds honors and degrees from well over forty colleges and universities. His books enjoy a wide popularity and critical acclaim. He holds a PHD in Linguistics and lectures worldwide, and much of what he has said or written resonates with a certain insight that might appeal to the Founding Fathers.

Recently one of his overseas lectures caused a firestorm of controversy, but if you simply got your news and opinion from the mainstream media, you would never have known. Chomsky spoke of a topic he had written about”911–and yet brushed the topic aside with an off-hand remark.

Seems Chomsky spoke to a modest gathering of acolytes in Budapest , Hungary . On the video, we see Chomsky relaxed, surrounded by wine bottles, banners in the background. The moderator asked him a two-part question regarding the repercussions of 911 and towards the end he says: “Even if (911 conspiracy theories) were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn’t have any significance. It’s a little bit like the huge energy that’s put out on trying to figure out who killed John F. Kennedy. Who knows? And who cares? Plenty of people get killed all the time, why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy? If there was some reason to believe that there was a high level conspiracy, it might be interesting. But the evidence against that is just overwhelming. And after that, if it happened to be a jealous husband, or the mafia, or someone else, what difference does it make? It’s just taking energy away from serious issues onto ones that don’t matter.”

Who cares?

As one respondent to the YouTube video wrote: “This guy has lost all credibility when he says investigating mass murder and coups d’etat takes energy away from ‘serious matters’. What could be more serious?”

Unfortunately for Mr. Chomsky, nearly a half million (and counting) viewers have watched that rare six minute performance, captured at an odd moment of frankness. Indeed, nearly twice as many viewers have heard Noam,s true opinion of two catalytic events that spawned imperial American hubris then have bought Noam,s book on 9-11.

Is Chomsky relevant anymore? Seriously, a public figure, lauded as the most brilliant intellectual of his day, who brushes aside two key events that triggered massive US policy change, enormous changes that affected the rest of the world; does this intellectual retain any merit as a clear thinker? To remark flippantly, “who cares” about the assassination of a American political leader despised by The Pentagon, the FBI, CIA and Mafia, not to mention oil tycoons and arms dealers, is the sort of inanity normally reserved for Fox News hosts.

Especially curious, since Chomsky stated: “People will want to know what you mean. Why did you say that? You’d better have a lot of evidence.”

Yes. Evidence is ammunition, as any good CSI knows. But suppose this evidence is never allowed in a court of law, never allowed in the mainstream media, never allowed a forum in the very controlled system Chomsky derides?

Clearly, here is a man who adheres to a widely held theory of attacking the branches of evil. 1. Speak from an ivory tower but rarely take a cutting tool in hand, unless when advising others. 2. Lecture at length, inspire others to unselfish acts of civil disobedience or quiet resistance, but rarely perform such acts yourself. 3. Become a widely-heralded critic of the state from within a respected state institution.

In 1963, at the time of the JFK assassination, Chomsky was a tenured professor at MIT. Did he ever discuss world events such as this in the faculty lounge with his fellow professors? Did any of them ever draw conclusions? Did any of them observe the immediate escalation of the Vietnam War by LBJ? If not, how could any of these men, or anyone else for that matter, consider themselves intellectuals?

Only after FOUR YEARS of escalation did Chomsky deign to pen an essay for The New York Times Review of Books. At the time he claims, “I was very much involved in the resistance movement in the 1960’s. In fact, I was just barely — the only reason I missed a long jail sentence is because the Tet Offensive came along and the trials were called off. So I was very much involved in the resistance, but I was never against the draft.”

Resistance? By penning an essay to the NYT Review of Books? By 1968 I was in a military jail. Sentenced to thirty five days for AWOL, car theft and refusing to become a Security Policeman, likely bound for Vietnam . But then, I had never heard of Noam Chomsky; I had simply listened to my conscience and determined the war in Vietnam did not require my presence there, nor did it to my sworn oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic.

Consider then Chomsky on dissenting discussion: “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.”

Brilliant, wouldn’t you say?

But then Chomsky himself limits the discussion of the pivotal events of 911 or JFK, with exactly the same derision, as the mainstream media. But since Chomsky wrote a book called 9-11, one would think that to “allow very lively debate,” would include discussion of the very topic he wrote about. I mean if you wrote a book called “Bass Fishing,” and people attempted to discuss the myriad ways of bass fishing and you waved them away, most fishing aficionados would rightly conclude you were either a hypocrite, a poseur or a pompous ass.

Previous to the 9-11 attack, talk radio host, Alex Jones remarked: “Chomsky, you’re a New World Order shill, and I’ve got twice the brain you’ve got with both arms tied behind my back.” Since Jones predicted the attack prior to 911, and what that event might mean to the average American, Jones appeared to be right. Noam no longer mattered.

Many of Chomsky’s biggest fans have noticed an aversion to connect 911 with huge crimes of the state. The off-hand remarks on YouTube only verify what many feel. For many Americans, 911 was the key that fully opened Pandora,s Box, releasing this up-armored imperialism, this New World Order. Why, many wonder, is Chomsky averse to speak out against the imperial juggernaut that used this singular event to launch an American Blitzkrieg in the Middle East ? As top detectives always ask: Cui bono?

Dissident, novelist and resident skeptic, Douglas Herman resides near Bullhead City, Arizona and knows less than he claims and more than given credit for.


Post by way of: Curt Maynard’s Blog
& New From the West

The Huffington Post Names Jewish Lesbian Feminist Hilary Rosen Political Director**

Posted on

The left gatekeepers neighborhood just slid a little further downhill.
**Title of post altered for clarification.

By Sarah Lai Stirland

Former music industry chief Hilary Rosen, whose deep unpopularity online once earned her a description in Wired as “the Unabomber in a pantsuit,” has been named political director at The Huffington Post.Rosen_huffington

Rosen is best known as the Recording Industry Association of America’s former chairman and chief executive officer. She headed up the group just as file-sharing took off, and she subsequently became the ubiquitous face and voice of the recording industry’s aggressive and futile attempts to contain the explosion of online downloading of illegal music.

She stepped down from the RIAA in 2003 and became an interim director for the Human Rights Campaign.

She’s now a pundit on MSNBC as well as a media and technology consultant in Washington, DC.

But Rosen, 50, has had a long career in politics that spans beyond her 17 years at the RIAA, and it’s her network of contacts and know-how that Huffington wants to tap into as The Huffington Post grows.

“Hilary really knows Washington and its political players intimately, and everyone on [The Huffington Post‘s] team in Washington loves her,” said Arianna Huffington in an interview.

Huffington says that Rosen’s deep network of contacts in DC should help to boost her publication’s political coverage. She says that she also expects Rosen to help out with The Huffington Post’s Off The Bus citizen journalism reporting project, as well as plan this summer’s convention coverage.

In addition to being a pithy, long-time blogger at The Huffington Post and MSNBC political analyst, Rosen is the co-founder and board member of OurChart.com, a social networking site for lesbians.

During this election cycle, she’s announced her support for Hillary Clinton, and co-executive produced a Democratic presidential forum organized by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and LOGO television.

Photo: D Farber.



Marc Parent