The Left establishment's attack on 9/11 skeptics

(this page originally published July 2002)

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

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

Responses to the attack:

The following is lengthy, but a stunning and detailed rebuttal of the government's "universal incompetence" cover story and the media pundits who support it, from the author of the best-selling War on Freedom:
9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis: How Ideologues on the Left and Right Theorise Vacuously to Support Baseless Supposition (Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Institute for Policy Research and Development. 24 June 2002)

Established Left as Ideology Police: Now More Than Ever (Jack Straw, QQ contributing writer)

What's Left to Talk About (MalcontentX)
The author of September 11—unanswered questions thoroughly critiques the institutional Left's response to 9/11 skeptics, and explores philosophical questions about how to approach political activism in areas which have been deliberately marginalized and stigmatized. A reflective and philophical piece.

"Pathologizing" protest: an exploration of "conspiracy phobia" (Carolyn Baker, Online Journal)

Now is not the time to question those who ask questions (James Higdon, Online Journal. 22 June 2002)

Which terrorists? (or "The Very Hungry Conspiracy")
by Carolyn Baker, Online Journal

Rebuttal to David Corn from Mike Ruppert which quickly exposes the reckless and outrageous misrepresentations put forth by Corn in a series of personalized smear pieces against Ruppert (attacks which were shamefully supported by "progressive" and "liberal" websites such as Commondreams and TomPaine.com).

Pacifica Radio blows 9/11 coverage (Kellia Ramares)
Ramares is the co-producer of Guns and Butter: The Economics of Politics, and a KPFA news reporter.
also by Ramares: Rebuttal to Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive

America Through The Looking Glass by David McGowan

9/11 in Context, by Carol Schiffler
How the talking heads of the media undermine a balanced discussion of controversial information.

Responses to Michael Albert and the structuralist false dialectic

A ponderous didactic missive by Michael Albert and Steven Shalom of Zmag brought the debate over 9/11 conspiracy research to a new low by regurgitating the Structuralist Left's facile and baseless false dialectic between "correct" institutional analysis and "bad" conspiracy analysis, in the form of Manichean, us-vs-them demonization. The following 1996 essay by Michael Parenti effectively reveals the intellectual poverty of this black and white approach, and also presents a cautionary exposé of the willingness of the Left Establishment to ridicule and dismiss valid, well-documented evidence in their singleminded pursuit of anticonspiratorial ideology, concerning the bizarre case of Noam Chomsky and his know-nothing denial of the evidence for conspiracy in the JFK assassination:
Conspiracy Phobia on the Left

What Did Bush Know, When?—Reply to ZNet Commentary of May 22, 2002 by John McMurtry

Conspiracy theories and real reporters (Carla Binion, Online Journal)
Under close examination, the "structuralism vs. conspiracy theory" dialectic used by the media gatekeepers to give an air of intellectual legitimacy to their stubborn thought-policing quickly reveals itself to be laden with logical contradictions and blind spots.

Various additional rebuttals to Michael Albert, from Indymedia:

http://www.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=182391
http://www.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=182399
http://www.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=182424
http://www.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=182469
http://www.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=182488