Edumacate me on Leftgatekeepers?

by **AnnaLiviaPlurabelle** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 10:04 pm

<a href="http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm">www.leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm</a> This appears to be quite a sharp crew at RI, and I’m a relative newcomer to this world of deep parapolitics…which is enabled by much disinformation courtesy of much of the media. So I’m wondering if any of you has experience with or information about this website above…and especially what do you make of this chart I’ve linked to? I’m spending enormous amounts of time reading here (and your posted links), and have not yet tried to verify the accuracy of this “follow the money” chart. Anyone have opinions on this leftgatekeepers site? If I remember correctly, I originally clicked a link to this article in finding the place: <a href="http://leftgatekeepers.com/articles/PropagandaTheFormationOfMen%27sAttitudesByJacquesEllul.htm">leftgatekeepers.com/artic...sEllul.htm</a> Any enlightenment appreciated!

by **robertdreed** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 10:47 pm

To the extent that they exist, they no longer have anywhere near the power that they used to- be they "Left", "Right", Eastern Establishment", "Birchite", or any other sort. Hence the tactic of resorting to rampant disinformation...somebody's getting desperate. And I feel fine. I don't think any of us reckoned with the immense parallel processing media power of the Internet. Even the most techno-visionary could have foreseen what it's meant in terms of fulfilling the power of the 1st Amendment to the constitution. Incredible, somehow the 1st Amendment manges to have a character that's democratic, meritocratic, and antistatist all at the same time. If that's pro-American puffery, so be it. Too bad about what's happened to the overall quality of our leadership in the meantime.

by **Sweejak** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 10:55 pm

The problem as I see it is trying to prove intent. I think this can only be done with a history of... usually.. omission, but also misdirection. The outright lies are easy enough to spot. Following the money is a good thing to do but it is not really conclusive either. For instance Soros sponsors IndyMedia and MoveOn and I believe Democracy Now as well. (I may be wrong on some of these) The question is are they just taking the money or does Soros have some sort of ultimate control.... or, would it matter if things did get out of control? If I get money from the government as a tax return and give it all to an anti government group what does that say? If you know anything of Project Monarch... or was it Mockingbird then the graph looks perfectly reasonable to me. The main idea here is controlled opposition. A few quotes from the 60's <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In the evening, I went up to the U. to check out a strategy meeting. A kid was giving a report on the SDS [Students for a Democratic Society] convention. He said that at the convention, men from Business International Round Tables, the meeting sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of government, tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the world's leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the guys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They are the left wing of the ruling class. They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered ESSO (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left. ---- James Kunen, The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary, pg. 116 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Young people have no conception of the conspiracy's strategy of pressure from above and pressure from below.... They have no idea that they are playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they're fighting the forces of the super rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and they don't realize that it is precisely such forces which are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes... ---- Jerry Kirk, former Black Revolutionary in 1970 testifying before the House and Senate Internal Security panel. ------------------------------------------------------------- "Tom Hayden, who by 1986 was defending his state assembly seat against those trying to oust him because of his anti-war record, was quoted as saying that while he was protesting against the Vietnam War, he was also cooperating with U.S. intelligence agents" --- AP in San Francisco Examiner, June 21, 1986. ---------------------------------------------------- <hr></blockquote> I never have verified the Hayden/Examiner quote though I did ask Tom Hayden about it. When asked he was taken aback and said, "I never heard of it". I think he has. If it was actually in the SF Examiner then it is very unlikely that he never heard of it. But that is controlled opposition. Gatekeeping I think is when someone for whatever agenda tries to manipulate the information and shut down discussion. I see this most often when the issues involving Israel come up. There are other issues for sure but it is far and away the most noticeable. As an example of "right wing" gatekeeping I think the most interesting one is Fox News and the spiked Carl Cameron Report which was totally purged from the Fox News site. You can see here -- <a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5133.htm">www.informationclearingho...le5133.htm</a> On the "left' the film "Outfoxed" which is a film about the shenanigans at Fox neglects to even mention this and instead attacks Carl Cameron.(Justifiably imo) but to me this is left gate keeping by omission. This act of censorship was a huge story online and it isn't even mentioned on a film that is made explicitly to damage FOX. (?) So here you have the same info being purged and omitted by different political wings. Heh. And it's no wonder why many see little difference between left and right, at least as practiced in the USa. I can tolerate some gatekeeping simply because often we have the same enemy but eventually there will be a falling out. About Soros you might want to google this so called neo Liberal philanthropist.

by **Sweejak** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:02 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I don't think any of us reckoned with the immense parallel processing media power of the Internet. <hr></blockquote> Don't you find the irony that the internet was fostered by DARPA delicious! Is it beyond control? Did LSD get beyond control, a mind control experiment with unforeseen consequences? You know what they do when an experiment goes wrong. <a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/06/working-class-hero-is-something-to-be.html">rigorousintuition.blogspo...to-be.html</a> and Mae Brussel <a href="http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Operation%20Chaos.html">www.maebrussell.com/Mae%2...Chaos.html</a>

by **psyop samurai** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:34 pm

I believe the chart to be well researched (have not heard its accuracy disputed in heated arguments about "left" media and gatekeepers - see <a href="http://portland.indymedia.org/en/topic/mediacriticism/">portland.indymedia.org/en...criticism/</a> , for examples). IMO, leftgatekeepers.com is a valuable site with many good articles on the subject, an appreciation of which I regard as crucial. There is disagreement as to the significance of elite foundation funding of "left" media sources, and I think how one views it depends largely on one's own experience and willingness to compromise with truth. While foundation funding can't account for all gatekeeping phenomena, I believe it's integral to a longstanding strategy of "managed dissent". edit: I should clarify that I arrived at the term "left gatekeepers" via 9-11 skepticism, as did, I assume, Brian Salter and the bulk of others discussing it, though that might not be strictly correct. I don't know that the term existed prior to the 911 skeptics movement - I'd be curious to find examples of it. Within that context, "blowback" is the accepted discourse of the "establishment left", while black ops and false flags are "beyond the pale". That, in a nutshell, is "left gatekeeping". Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=psyopsamurai@rigorousintuition>psyop samurai</A> at: 7/18/05 10:11 pm

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:20 am

Fred J Cook, an early critic of the Warren Report, writes poignantly about coming up against the brick wall of The Nation in his autobiography, later reprinted in History Will Not Absolve Us. In 1964, Cook submitted a seven-page memorandum "tearing at the guts of the report" to editor Carey McWilliam. He knew their editorial policy was endorsement of the findings, but he "felt that The Nation was the only magazine with sufficent independence and nerve to print the kind of article I wanted to write." After three weeks of silence, McWilliam rejected it, telling him that he could find no flaw in his reasoning, but that The Nation didn't want to criticize the Report. Ramparts expressed interest, then got cold feet and dropped it. When the criticism of the Report became more acceptable The Nation published it a year and a half later, with a disclaimer that it was only his opinion, but immediately followed it up with a ridiculing piece by a university professor and CIA asset who later admitted to Cook's friend and fellow researcher Vince Salandria that they were right, but that "The truth is too terrible. The American people would never be able to stand it."

by **psyop samurai** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:53 am

Thanks for the info... That is one suggestion that really rankles me. When exactly did we become a "nanny state"? Why does our delicate psychology need to be protected? In fact, it doesn't. The only thing that needs protecting is their hides.

by **glooperoo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:29 am

I haven't familiarized myself with this particular angle of our world since I'm a relative n00b at this stuff too and I've pretty much taken a "proceed with caution" approach to any and all media nowadays. You can get a nice overview of how the big foundations fit into the Bigger Picture in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0964084813/104-8837555-5942304?%5Fencoding=UTF8&resultsPage=2&keywords=Foundations&v=search-inside">"How the world REALLY Works" by Alan B. Jones (1997)</a>. If you have an amazon account you can read the Foundatiosn chapter by doing a "Search inside this book" search for "Foundations" and reading a few pages at a time starting around page 60 in the search results. Also do a search for "The Naked Capitalist" and pages 43-45 will have some on the Foundations too. I recommend the book overall. It's an excellent place to start looking into all this stuff.

by **hanshan** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:31 pm

"Without the complicity of the mainstream media, the 911 cover-up could not exist. Those who control the mainstream media control the brainstem of our collective consciousness. When those charged with being the skeptical inquirers are neither skeptical nor do they inquire, the only phrase for it is deep complicity. When investigative journalists fail to investigate the obvious, it is deep complicity. When investigative journalists only investigate that which distracts the public from the obvious, it is even deeper complicity." -- Barrie Zwicker "The de facto censorship which leaves so many Americans functionally illiterate about the history of US foreign affairs may be all the more effective because it is not official, heavy-handed or conspiratorial, but woven artlessly into the fabric of education and media. No conspiracy is needed. The editors of Reader's Digest and U.S. News and World Report do not need to meet covertly with the man from NBC in an FBI safe-house to plan next month's stories and programs; for the simple truth is that these men would not have reached the positions they occupy if they themselves had not all been guided through the same tunnel of camouflaged history and emerged with the same selective memory and conventional wisdom." - from Killing Hope, Ù.S. Military and CIA Interventions since WWII, by William Blum, p. 19, Common Courage Press, 1995.  "The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth." –Aldous Huxley (author of "Brave New World"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">  "The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies -- all this is indispensably necessary." - George Orwell, on "Doublethink" from his book of faction, "1984 <a href="http://www.oilempire.us/gatekeepers.html" target="top">www.oilempire.us/gatekeepers.html</a> Hayden was bought & paid for; Jerry Rubin was COINTELPRO... ...

by **AnnaLiviaPlurabelle** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:27 pm

Thank you, gallant teachers, for your most helpful and thoughtful replies and links. (I spent a long time at that Portland Indymedia site in particular, and found valuable and pertinent further info and discussion there.) will investigate recommended books next. Myself, I have the idea that the only “true” divide is between the house of have and the house of want (it still astonishes me that billionaires are allowed to walk around on this planet in plain sight), and therefore I place great importance on following the money trail. It is an attempt to keep in a healthy balance that makes me question whether I place too MUCH importance on such largely unseen funding sources. Overall, I can’t see how you can “defeat the devil” when you’re on his payroll, so to speak. Mostly the question for me is, yes, wondering who is “in cahoots” vs. who “just beez dumb”…so to speak again. It becomes harder and harder to trust anyone, the further one digs, sigh. Makes for a lot of us having to repeat the same work each for his own, but I can’t see any way around that, and mostly just lament the time-consuming factor of that since the clock ticks so ominously these days. That leftgatekeepers site is part of the very reason I am here at RI, and I would like to share that story. I was never at DKos or DU, but experienced a striking parallel to what some here were subjected to at those sites. I was enthusiastically involved in a (seemingly) innovative electoral politics project at a little-known site, and at the time (this past spring) still thought a true reform could/might be achieved through the track we were on. I thought I was working with people who were true to their stated values, but then came events which caused me doubt. Specifically, an anarchist entered the forum, and was group-attacked with haughty (and childish) derision I could not understand. Why would these “enlightened folks” be so adamant in their aversion to simply hearing him out? When I called (only for) letting the man be heard, the attacks on me started as well. Then another forum member started pushing the 9/11 truth. He saw the exposure of the real deal behind 9/11 as the greatest key we have been given to unlocking a lot of locked-down minds in the usa, and tried to persuade that our energies were far better applied to exposing this issue, than to what “my group” was working on. But none of these “strident lefties”, very proud of their “warriorism” (and very dismissive/derisive of “The Feminine” I might add), would listen. I became more and more flabbergasted at the vehemence with which this man, too, was attacked. He was a brilliant debater…maybe the best I’ve ever seen…and though none of them could lay a hand on his evidences in battle after battle, he was relentlessly painted as a dis-info agent trying to sabotage “the left”. Calls soon came to ban him…as they had for the anarchist guy…and I totally had to rethink. Again my own calls were basically for letting all voices be heard, reminding the others what glowing things they had said about this guy when he’d first arrived there, trying to gently get my forum friends to see that they were saying one thing and doing another. That was it. how dare I question them and their superior alpha-male knowledge. I was ruthlessly attacked then myself, and in the end left the site with great disappointment but glad as glad to know the truth about people I had actually once looked up to. The 9/11 guy went by the name of Knight Templar (and I’m aware that might seem a strange moniker at first). I owe him a great deal for helping lift more veils from my own eyes. He is the one who linked me to sources which linked me to leftgatekeepers and other places…until I finally found myself right here at RI (was it via link at Kurt Nimmo? I just can’t remember, I’ve followed so many trails by now). Certainly was surprised to find that just as I arrived, others too were finding this place a refuge from the same kinds of intolerance and censorship and denial that occurred at Kos and DU. I’ve said before that this forum is one of the most civil I have seen, and that’s a big accomplishment considering what gets discussed here (the unallowable thoughts). I cannot say how wonderful it is to have found a place with so many truly thoughtful minds willing to consider/examine/chew…virtually everything under the sun. you are courageous thinkers here, and jiminy it’s refreshing to my soul to find such a place exists. In a perfect yin-yang kinda way, it’s also exhausting. Someone posted that article about the 8 veils, and I guess I’m past number 5, now examining number 6. call me too new to the stuff past that sixth veil to be making discernments yet, and I expect it’ll be a while before I can decide, but I am willing to GO THERE AND LOOK. (although deep-study of Finnegans Wake with a genius mentor I have the great fortune to know, has in some ways taken me to the realm past veil 8 even…more on which some other time.) to know a little more about me might give you who have been in these trenches much longer some…dare I say it…hope. That’s because I always thought I am the biggest skeptic I know, and yet I grew up as much a sheeple with the wool pulled over her eyes as most other Americans (and most people, period). I am not higher-educated; I am a workingclass homemaker from “the heartland” with slim financial resources who went looking for some sanity right after 9/11. I hadn’t even been on a computer before that. Made my kids show me the basics of how to navigate, and what can I say but what a long strange trip its been ever since. I was one of those who, much as I despised bushco, could not believe that a president of the usa would help murder his own countrymen like on 9/11. I posted to that effect in the first forum I was ever in (egad!!) Perhaps it was precisely the lack of formal education that saved me…that, and an insatiable curiosity (and james joyce). I knew I didn’t know, but I wanted to, thirsted to. When I would come across revelations that were entirely verifiable (think northwoods documents, etc), my own reaction was “well, I’ll be go to hell! What the bleep ELSE don’t I know…or have wrong as wrong?” Time to research! So you see, the most “ordinary” people CAN wake up. I’m walking proof. Yes, it has been agonizing, carrying that burden of knowing in a sea of deniers and the willfully ignorant. (it is seriously white, dangerously ‘christian’, and nauseatingly right-wing where I live). Yes, that blue pill tastes like steak. But I think we’re fast reaching an escalation point that will cause (either our demise or) the collective psychosis to snap apart at the seams (and like Knight Templar I think 9/11 truth has a great potential to expose what’s really going on). This is too long now, so I’ll wind up saying big thanks again for your responses to my question. I do so appreciate the help. You all know how hard it is to sort through all the disinformation, details, credibility of sources, etc., and how difficult it is for the psyche to accept what it would rather avoid. Your own bravery feeds my courage. Namaste, AnnaLivia

by **Sweejak** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:43 pm

What a fine post. I think your experiences on forums are pretty typical. As an aside, we need more women on forums!

by **wolf pauli** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:55 pm

Another useful link: <a href="http://www.questionsquestions.net/topics/left_gatekeepers.html">www.questionsquestions.ne...epers.html</a> Sweejak is right when he says the difficulty is proving intent. Consider this excerpt from an interview with John Kaminski. Asked about “Left Gatekeepers” and 9/11, Kaminski says: "Left Gatekeepers is correct. Best accounts are at questionsquestions.net and leftgatekeepers.net. From Chomsky to Amy Goodman, from Pacifica Radio to Common Dreams, from The Progressive to The Nation, these publications are all silent on 9/11 — at least on the truly salient points — because they receive funding from the power elite, funneled from the CIA through for Ford Foundation and other establishment financial mechanisms. It's a tragedy that the phony concern of these liberal shills actually helps Bush and his neocon criminals cover up their atrocities more than the blatantly fascist mainstream press because they motivate the liberal opposition to fragment their focus onto relatively trivial issues — e.g., Haiti instead of Palestine — and limit the spectrum of debate by not mentioning certain important area for investigation — most notably 9/11. The left almost unanimously buys into the hijacker myth. Bush couldn't be happier about that." <a href="http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/conspiracy.htm">nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/conspiracy.htm</a> Is it true that "these publications are all silent on 9/11 ... because they receive funding from the power elite", or is it the other way around -- they receive the funding because they don't believe 9/11 was an inside job? Is this a case of "the phony concern of ... liberal shills", or the sincere concern of misguided people? Kaminski may be right, but he provides no evidence, and the money trail, while certainly notable, doesn't settle the question. It's worth adding that a writer can be wrong about 9/11 and other conspiracies but right about many political matters. Chomsky for one, though lousy on parapolitics, has written insightfully about propaganda's role in paving the way for empire, among many other things.

by **Project Willow** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:42 pm

What is that quote from Chomsky about complicity among the intelligencia being necessary for the support of any ruling class? I wish I had a source for it, don't have time for a search right now. The irony of this quote strikes me when I read of his shortcomings in regards to parapolitics. PW

by **toscaveritas** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:07 am

it's good to see you here, Anna. My journey has been quite similar and I'm still in disbelief, how so many so-called 'bush haters' can still buy the official conspiracy myth. I've made 91101 my personal litmus test when assessing whether someone is a real truth-seeker or a phoney/coward/armchair 'warrior'. Ironically, I've often heard the voice of Jack Nicholson in my head saying: 'You can't handle the truth'. Meaning, that many many people really wouldn't be able to handle it and thats why they are in such deep denial willingly. Of course, some 'ordinary' people can, will , and have awoken. I did also-- over 3 years ago. My life has dramatially changed since then and I also, had no higher 'education', which would have probably killed my common sense and ability to question. I don't know why some 'awake' and others don't. Maybe it's something within the character, some fearless gene or something ......that , once it is awoken, is not afraid to push on past veils that present themselves. It's definetely a journey with tears, rage, highs , lows, and much lonliness....and ultimately also, a look within...for peace. tosca

by **psyop samurai** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:11 am

Anna, thank you for that wonderful post..., and tosca too. I'm another "ordinary" person who "woke up"..., although I didn't experience it as an "awakening" so much as "going through a looking glass", i.e., a series of revelations where the dots suddenly connected to reveal an inverted world. Only subsequently did research confirm what I saw, and even then, I went over the same things a thousand times because "they couldn't be true", and yet they were. I identify with so many things in your post, and there's so much I could respond to. I get frustrated because I don't write with the kind of facility that many others do... it takes me a long time to formulate my thoughts to express them properly. Much of the time I'm on information overload, which is another factor. I'm not sure how others do it. I appreciate this little RI oasis..., it stimulates much insight and thoughts that I haven't fully expressed.

Edumacate me on Leftgatekeepers?

Edumacate me on Leftgatekeepers?

Gatekeepers?

Re: Edumacate me on Leftgatekeepers?

Re: Gatekeepers?

Re: Edumacate me on Leftgatekeepers?

Re: Edumacate me on Leftgatekeepers?

Re: 'The American people would never be able to stand it'

gatekeepers

re: gatekeepers

so grateful

Re: so grateful

Re: Edumacate me on Leftgatekeepers?

Chomksy

annalivia

Re: annalivia

Who is online