…Speaking of the US anti-war movement’s ongoing partisan support of the pro-war Democratic Party, activist Charles Shaw sees such positions as “part of a larger pattern of “regulated resistance”, a system by which dissent is carefully managed and constrained by self, overt, or covert censorship; denial-based-psychology; fear of personal or professional criticism and reprisal; and pressure from powers above including elected officials and those establishment foundations which flood millions into the not-for-profit activist sector.” (2)
Though Chomsky is famed for his Propaganda Model of the mass media, a demonstration of how corporate ownership dramatically influences content, he is also a resolute anti-conspiracist. In Chomsky’s world, Lee Oswald alone murdered President Kennedy, Saddam Hussein ‘misunderstood’ the US position on Kuwait in 1990 and Osama bin Laden broke ties with his patrons following the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan. Even as Hollywood stars speak openly on CNN about self-inflicted US terrorism, Chomsky and his colleagues have not deviated from their stance. For them, it is axiomatic of the current conflict that a) there is an entity known as ‘Al Qaeda’, international in scope and pursuing its own goals independent of US policy, b) said entity was responsible for the attacks of 9/11/01, and c) there exists a consequent ‘War on Terror’ which, whilst it may be exploited for ulterior motives, stems from legitimate security concerns. Exhaustive investigations, sometimes even by mainstream sources (3) have shown the complete emptiness of these propositions.
The Chomskyite Left’s connivance in the corporate media’s whitewash of problematic events, and worse, its unremitting hostility to alternative interpretations, led researcher Bob Feldman to investigate the sources of ‘alternative’ media’s funding. His discoveries revealed a complex financial trail originating with huge establishment foundations. The Ford Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Trilateral Commission, George Soros and many others, were found to be generously sustaining allegedly ‘alternative’ media in the US. (4)
When aspects of independent 9/11 research threatened to penetrate mainstream awareness in 2002, these media cliques signed on to a savage attack of key figures in the 9/11 Truth Movement. (5) But this gatekeeper Left was not able to suffocate 9/11 questions except by amputating a part of their erstwhile collaborators and alienating much of its audience. Whereas those outside of its fold (for example Mike Ruppert) could be subjected to interminable ad hominem attacks, Professor Chossudovsky’s work would simply be ignored. Further confirmation of the gatekeepers’ entrenched interests is the fact that increasing public awareness and acceptance of a 9/11 ‘inside job’ has not influenced the gatekeepers’ coverage in the slightest. From recent firings at (Rockefeller-funded) Pacifica Radio, to Counterpunch’s excommunication of ‘conspiracy nut’ Kurt Nimmo, the line has been clearly drawn: ‘responsible’ critique on one side, ‘conspiracy theory’ on the other…