Barry Zwicker: Noam Chomsky And The Left Gatekeepers

Posted on June 17, 2010 by Lila

My Comment:

This piece was published on the web in October  2008 2007 and is an excerpt from Chapter 5 of “Towers of Deception,” Barry Zwicker, New Society Publishers, September 1, 2006. The left gatekeepers referenced in the piece include well-known and well-respected activists like Amy Goodman, Sonali Kolhatkar, David Basarmian, Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky.

One doesn’t want to asperse the motives of these activists and intellectuals. They might very well be doing their best in the circumstances. given the nature of their funding and employment.. Nonetheless, with another war about to unfold, it’s crucial for the public to notice the disturbing fact that the focus of their criticism is almost solely on such issues as the corporatist right, the neo-conservative agenda, and scripts like “war-for-oil” or “privatization of public resources’ that automatically feed a dynamic of binaries (black -and-white oppositions).

The globalists, naturally, are quite happy with such a dynamic, since it leads people to react along predictable lines: capitalist versus communist, right versus left, workers versus bosses etc. The dynamic of the binary (either-or) inevitably leads to what is presented to the public as “compromise,” but is in reality an ever-changing “consensus” that moves inexorably toward the goals of the underlying globalist agenda.

Excerpt from Chapter 5 of Barrie Zwicker’s Towers of Deception

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/zwickergatekeepersofleft05oct07.shtml
October 5, 2007

A surprisingly large number of Left/ radical / alternative / non-establishment media outlets – most of them, in fact – have adopted the same stance on 9/11 as Chomsky: refuse to investigate 9/11, and discourage and ridicule those who do. Most wind up using the familiar “wacky conspiracy theorists” put down to describe others on the Left who want to discuss the evidence of an inside job on 9/11. The almost total uniformity within the media (of all political alleged political persuasions) in sync with the White House is more puzzling. In other cases, the Left media pursue questions of malfeasance on the part of the power elites, including some conspiracies such as Iran-Contra.

Individuals and media outlets that have exhibited this stay-away-from 9/11 stance, entirely or in large part, for more than four years now include David Corn and The Nation; Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!; Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates in Somerville, Massachusetts; David Barsamian of Alternative Radio; Michael Albert of Z Magazine; Alexander Cockburn , Norman Solomon, The Progressive, Mother Jones, Alternet.org; Global Exchange; PBS; South End Press; Public Research Associates’ FAIR / Extra; Counterspin; Columbia Journalism Review; Deep Dish TV working Assets; Molly Ivins; Ms Magazine; Inter Press Service; MoveOn.org; Greg Palast; David Zupan; Northwest Media Project ….

Of course, different people can independently or through dialogue arrive at the same or similar conclusions. Bu it it’s a startling anomaly for so many organs and leaders of the conscious Left to be seemingly unconscious regarding 9/22. More than a few on the Left share the opinion of progressive film maker Roy Harvey that “the greatest single obstacle to the spread of 9/11 Truth is the Left media.” To my mind, the relationship of Chomsky and the Left Gatekeepers on 9/11 is analogous to the relationships of the White House and the 9/11 Commission. Both relationships are so tight as to invite close scrutiny. Elementary pattern recognition reveals a common agenda among these otherwise well-informed, intelligent, investigative critics of corporate greed, the power elite and the US hegemony. The agenda, completely atypical of their approach generally, is to vigorously reject investigation into 9/11. This is prima facie. One example, that of perhaps Chomsky’s best known protégé and amplifier, David Barsamian, is typical of 9/11 blindness on the Left.

On March 7, 2006, Barsamian spoke at a small event in a church basement in his home city of Boulder, Colorado. He made points about the immorality and wrongness of the war in Iraq, the US imperial project, corporate greed, etc. His audience was appreciative of him, his approach, his knowledge of the territory and his ability to express himself. At the question period, the first hand up was that of a Denver man. It’s worth nothing that, while Barsamian knew many in the room by name, he did not know who this questioner was except that he was sitting with a 9/11 Truth activist known to Barsamian. Barsamian recognized other hands one after the other, repeatedly ignoring the first hand up. Finally the Denver man’s still raised arm could not be ignored any longer. His question in part: “There’s been a lot of research into 9/11 in the four-plus years since it’s happened.” He then gave examples including the WTC Twin Towers, WTC7, the inadequate military response, the multiple war games. “…my question is this: given this regime is murderous – you have to use that word, you’ve been talking yourself about what’s been going on in Iraq – when are we going to stop calling people ‘conspiracy theorists’ and dismissing them and be willing to look at 9/11 as an inside job, because it’s been the thing that’s been galvanizing this fear that’s been gripping us?”

Barsamian replied: “I’ve looked into some of these things and I haven’t found any convincing evidence that would persuade me…” he agreed the Bush administration has taken advantage of 9/11. “It’s 9/11 24/7. That’s their theme song. That’s their national anthem.” Barsamian said Osama bin Laden “took credit for what happened on September 11th 2001. Why don’t we take him at his word?” This overlooked the first audio tape ostensibly from Osama, in September 2001, denying involvement. The murky December 2001 videotape allegedly [ostensibly from bin Laden,] “found” by US military in Kandahar, “took credit.” There are many reasons to believe the second is fake. Barsamian pointed to statements by Zacarias Moussouai that he had foreknowledge of 9/11 and said famed investigative reporter Seymour Hersh “doesn’t find compelling evidence.”

(Lila’s Note: In “Language of Empire” I noted that Seymour Hersh’s role in the disclosure of the torture at Abu Ghraib seemed like part of a ‘controlled opposition’ operation. It was a conclusion I reached from analyzing the press coverage, but something of the kind was later confirmed to me personally by two very credible, brave, and accomplished journalists, Doug Valentine (with regard to the torture issue), and Ann Williamson (with regard to the Russian debt crisis and US banks). After I published a piece by Valentine on the CIA on my blog, I was targeted by a former CIA officer and journalist who commented on the piece negatively. My blog readers wrote back vehemently and demolished his arguments, so he dared not use his own name to respond (he has his own archive on the web). Instead, he started making pseudonymous blog posts at Townhall and in other places claiming I was a fraud, a jihadi operative, and anti-American (most nebulous of crimes) etc. and asking people to shut down my blog. That went nowhere of course, but I’ve no doubt it hurt the blog for a while. Not for the first time).

Zwicker (Continued):

“If there was a whiff, a whiff… this would be the greatest story in the history of the world… bigger than Watergate,” Barsamian said. He then said “there’s a little bit here and there (which sounds like a whiff) but it doesn’t connect. It reminds me of the grassy knoll.” He stated: “We know of criminal activities of this administration that can be proven beyond a scintilla of doubt. I think we should concentrate on those things.” He did not specify which these were or who would concentrate on them or in what ways. He concluded by saying that pursuing the truth about 9/11 is a “black hole,” worse than a waste of time. The questioner said later he was “shocked into silence by his response.”50

Barsamian’s response was remarkable for its synchronicity with Chomsky’s and for the way it echoed that of David Ray Griffin’s critics Chip Berlet and Robert Baer, David Corn of The Nation, Michael Albert of Z Magazine, and Matt Rothschild, editor of The Progressive.

That the agenda of Chomsky, Barsamian et al would be so widespread and pursued with such intensity begs explanation. One theory would be incompetence – that for some reason all these “thinkers”, editors, producers and writers have just lost their curiosity and forgotten how to use the tools of their trade when it comes to 9/11. This theory requires the belief that such widespread persistent incompetence is also coincidental.

Another theory would be that some, perhaps a surprisingly large percentage, of these individuals are following instructions that benefit the national security state; that they are, in other words, agents. The nature and consistency of the anomalies they present prohibit a focus for potentially acrimonious debate. That is, indeed, a not unreasonably founded conspiracy theory. The situation beings to mind the line from the famous Sherlock Holmes mystery The Sign of Four by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: “Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Acrimony can be diminished in a proportion to facts being brought to bear on the discussion. Because of the suffocating secrecy that attends operations by agents of influence, finding direct evidence is next to impossible. That is why those who want to investigate this intensely troubling and important situation are obliged to turn to circumstantial evidence, intuition and principles of inquiry such as the identification of contradictions, pattern recognition, and the Latin cui bono? (To whose benefit?)

There are other possible, and possibly overlapping, explanations for near-uniform 9/11 blindness on the part of the Left leaders and alternative media. These lead back, in part, to the CIA. Left media increasingly have been seeking and receiving funding from the likes of the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, and MacArthur Foundation. Bob Feldman of San Francisco has been a tireless researcher of Left-foundation connections. His articles paint a picture rarely mentioned because both Left and Right have an interest in perpetuating the paradigm and keeping quiet about it.

The accompanying chart shows recent money flows from establishment foundations to Left / alternative media. In a recent article for critical Sociology entitled “report from the Field, Left Media & Left Think Tanks: Foundation-Managed Protest?” Feldman begins “:Left media and their organizations of grants from liberal foundations has transformed their organizational priorities, subjected them to elite control, or channelled their energies into safe, legalistic, bureaucratic activities and mild reformism.”

However, 5,000 words and dozens of charts later, he concludes: “..there is much evidence that the funded left has moved towards the mainstream as it has increased its dependence on foundations. . This is shown by the “progressive”, reformist tone of formerly radical organizations; the gradual disappearance of challenges to the economic and political power corporations or United States militarism and imperialism; and silence on the relationship of liberal foundations to either politics and culture in general, or to their own organizations.”51

Specifically on the subject of 9/11, some subtle inducements and pressures on Left media by Right-wing and overtly CIA-connected foundations have come to light. For instance Deep Dish TV Inc was given $75,000 is 2002 by the Ford Foundation to enable “the television news series Democracy Now! to continue incorporating the aftermath of September 11th attacks into future broadcasts.” 9/11 Truth activist Emanuel Sferios of Seattle, who found the information, commented at the time: “They never told us a reason [that Democracy Now!] refused to consider any programming about 9/11, but it’s quite simple. The Ford Foundation, by supplying so much money to Democracy Now! so they can ‘continue incorporating’ 9/11 into their broadcasts, does not have to explicitly tell Democracy Now! how they want 9/11 to be covered. Democracy Now! will simply self-censor, because they want future money from the Ford Foundation.”52

A few of the left-wing organisations are primarily concerned about threats to media independence, yet all their attention is focused on for-profit corporate (or government) control; they ignore the possible influence of large subventions from non-profit institutions such as foundations, says Feldman. Journalist Ron Curran maintains that: “The only money nonprofits can get these days is from private foundations – and those foundations want to control the political agenda and debate.”53 Another critic of the grant system, Brain Salter, makes a strong case against foundation funding of left media and think tanks. After examining the corporate and political connections of Ford and similar foundations’ board members, Salter concludes: “The big establishment foundations are likely to seek out ‘alternative’ media that is more bark than bite, which they can rely on to ignore and dismiss sensitive topics … as ‘irrational distractions’ or ‘conspiracy theory.'” [emphasis added]

(Lila’s Note 2: in a month or two, when I have the time, I will put together my own encounters with the left-liberal propaganda machine, as well as with the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” The story is especially instructive for non-Westerners, immigrants, and those who blindly follow Western academics and intellectuals, left or right. My latest experience of this was the way in which I was dis-invited to a conference at the last minute, solely because material on my blog “might offend”. This was a “libertarian conference,” mind you. Some libertarianism. It isn’t afraid of criticizing people at the bottom, but quivers in its shoes to mention the glaringly obvious at the top.  So it’s quite okay in libertarian circles to make jokes about Hispanic immigrants who shoplift or blame Haitian culture for the damage caused by the earthquake, but not to describe in similar terms the Wall Street culture responsible for most of the financial crime in this country).

Zwicker (Continued):

“The Kind of Opposition the US Elite can Live with” and Chomsky as its leader

Salter points out that recipients of funding protest that they are not swayed by any conflicts of interest and don’t allow the sources of funding to affect their decisions, “but whether or not these claims are actually true is already somewhat of a red herring. Judging by the journalism being offered (and not offered) by The Nation, FAIR, The Progressive, IPA, Mother Jones, AlterNet.org and other recipients of their funding, the big establishment foundations are successfully sponsoring the kind of ‘opposition’ that the US ruling elite can tolerate and live with.”54

During the cold War, the CIA utilized foundations such as Ford “to set up and finance a ‘parallel’ organization to counter known left-wing bodies.55 In 975, the radical US feminist group Redstockings asserted that: “one major CIA strategy” during the Cold war was “to create or support parallel organizations which provide alternatives to radicalism and yet appear progressive enough to appease dissatisfied elements of society.”56 There are no grounds to imagine the CIA or their partners in the foundations have changed their tune or their methods – except to make them more effective. Chomsky’s record shows little or no attention to this kind of subversion.

To conclude, Chomsky, the most quoted “radical progressive” or “Leftist” in the Left media, systematically engages in deceptive discourse on certain key topics, such as 9/11, the JFK assassination and with regard to the CIA. In warning the Left against examining the evidence on JFK and 9/11, he lines himself up with George Bush and the corporate media, thereby advancing their agenda – which he otherwise opposes. When he is not appearing to undermine the American Empire, which is the main thing he does, he is buttressing it by undermining the most effective and therefore dangerous for the Empire faces – a conscious radical intelligentsia.

A study of Chomsky’s stands on particularly dreadful actions such as JFK’s assassination, 9/11, and with regard to the roles of the CIA and FBI, shows Chomsky to be a de facto defender of the status quo’s most egregious outrages and their covert agency engines. He conducts his de facto defence of the Empire he appears to oppose through applying the very propaganda methods against which he has warned, including use of the derogatory phrase “conspiracy theorist,” which in one context he has characterized as “something people say when they don’t want you to think about what’s really going on.”

His recommendation that people practice “intellectual self-defence” is well taken. But how many could dream the person warning you is one of the most perilous against whom you’ll need to defend yourself? That he is the fire marshal who wires your house to burn down, the lifeguard who drowns you, the doctor with the disarming bedside manner who administers a fatal injection? If Noam Chomsky did not exist, the diaboligarchy would have to invent him. To the New World Order he is worth 50 armoured divisions.

Barrie Zwicker

[POSTSCRIPT: In preparing this book, I contacted Chomsky well in advance and asked him if he would respond to a few questions. No response was received.

]PART 1 | PART 2 | PART 3