distracting people from the real focus of the story – “…The recent flap between Mike Ruppert, crusading creator of the highly respected From the Wilderness website, and Amy Goodman, crusading interviewer of the much-listened-to radio program Democracy Now, is especially revealing as to the sublety of the deception. Ruppert has consistently complained about harassment from the so-called left media, which claimed he was a hysterical conspiracy theorist because he asked embarrassing yet wholly evidence-based questions about the unanswered questions concerning the tragic mystery and coverup of 9/11. Let it be known now that Ruppert is one of the more conservative and respected analysts of the 9/11 enigma. He refuses to speculate about what might have been and instead concentrates on what is empirically obvious. Yet he has been the target of ridicule and scorn from virtually all the left commentators, Goodman and Nation columnist David Corn in particular, and the spectrum of all those supposedly progressive magazines like Mother Jones and The Progressive, and supposedly progressive websites like Common Dreams and Alternet, none of whom will touch the 9/11 issue with a ten-foot pole. Even as mainstream media and the timid alternative press toss out tidbits of information that acknowledge questions exist about the official 9/11 story (the Bob Graham campaign gambit is the latest, in which the Florida senator, who is up to his ears in the conspiracy himself, is hinting that Bush has something to hide), Ruppert himself has a credibility gap, ever since he went to New York City in the weeks following the attacks and announced with certainty that Israel had nothing to do with them. In his defense, he had no evidence. In his indictment, he overlooked the obvious existence of the not-so-invisible giant of Jewish power over U.S. politics and media. So there you have the two litmus issues that can help you distinguish whether a particular news source is on the up-and-up, or simply pretending to be progressive or patriotic, but really just distracting people from the real focus of the story with tantalizing bits of evidence that will ultimately lead nowhere, which ultimately deflects the public from perceiving the right questions to ask…” (Solving The Enigma Of Media Manipulation)
values and orientations of the U.S. empire – “…The Ford Foundation’s history of collaboration and interlock with the CIA in pursuit of U.S. world hegemony is now a well-documented fact. The remaining issue is whether that relationship continues into the new Millenium after the exposures of the 1960s? The FF made some superficial changes. They are more flexible in providing small grants to human rights groups and academic researchers who occasionally dissent from U.S. policy. They are not as likely to recruit CIA operatives to head the organization. More significantly they are likely to collaborate more openly with the U.S. government in its cultural and educational projects, particularly with the Agency of International Development. The FF has in some ways refined their style of collaboration with Washington’s attempt to produce world cultural domination, but retained the substance of that policy. For example the FF is very selective in the funding of educational institutions. Like the IMF, the FF imposes conditions such as the “professionalization” of academic personnel and “raising standards.” In effect this translates into the promotion of social scientific work based on the assumptions, values and orientations of the U.S. empire; to have professionals de-linked from the class struggle and connected with pro-imperial U.S. academics and foundation functionaries supporting the neo-liberal model…” (The Ford Foundation and the CIA)
the risk of losing their foundation funding – “…One of the most notable cases of Left denial is that of the respected journalist Amy Goodman and her show Democracy Now!. Goodman has long rebuffed requests that she interview an expert on the subject. Instead she has tiptoed around the core facts of the attack and addressed only peripheral issues, such as the EPA’s fraudulent assurances that the air in Lower Manhattan was safe to breathe while Ground Zero was still smoldering. Finally, after a concerted campaign by the 9-11 Visibility Project, Goodman featured David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, on her May 26, 2004 show. Goodman pitted Chip Berlet against Griffin, and gave the last word and closing summary to Berlet, who spun the myth that the attack was strictly blowback. Nonetheless, Griffin was allowed to make the case that the attack was an inside job for the first time ever on the nationally syndicated show. Mark Robinowitz recounts confronting Amy Goodman about her refusal to cover the issue prior to the Griffin interview…In the fall of 2002, Ms. Goodman spoke in the same room at the University of Oregon during a previous speaking tour. After her speech (which was very similar to her May 2004 speech), I asked her after the event if she would help investigate the recently disclosed story of how the Air Force, CIA, NORAD and National Reconnaissance Office were conducting “war games” similar to 9/11 during the 9/11 “attacks,” which were apparently used to confuse the air defense response. She would not reply, and looked at me in apparent fear. It was a particularly strange response considering she had just spoken eloquently about her tremendous courage in reporting on the massacre in East Timor. (The issue of the 9/11 war games on 9/11 has not ever been mentioned on Democracy Now — and it is likely that if they were, DN would run the risk of losing their foundation funding, which would force them to lay off much of their staff.)…” (The Left Gatekeepers Phenomenon )
weapons research think-tank – “…Besides receiving money from Bill Moyers’ Schumann Foundation and the Hochschild Charitable Trust/Sequoia Fund of one its own board members, another interesting connection to the world of Establishment foundations exists at MOTHER JONES magazine. In 1997, the wife of MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress board member Adam Hochschild–University of California-Berkeley Professor of Sociology Arlie Russell Hochschild–was given a $3 million grant by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation “to establish a Center for Working Families” at UC-Berkeley, which she now directs. Among the Establishment folks who presently sit on the board of trustees of the Sloan Foundation which funds UC-Berkeley Professor Arlie Russell Hochschild’s center is former Secretary of the Air Force Sheila Widnall–who presently represents MIT on the board of trustess of the Pentagon’s weapons research think-tank: the Institute for Defense Analyses (www.ida.org). Other members of the Sloan Foundation board include former chairmen of the General Motors, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley corporate boards and two other MIT professors. In 1991, the wife of MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress board member Hochschild also was apparently given a grant by the Ford Foundation. So it’s probably not likely that many muckraking articles about either the Ford Foundation’s historic relationship to the CIA, Bill Moyers’ Schumann Foundation and Public Affairs TV Inc., the Sloan Foundation, the Institute for Defense Analyses, MIT or UC-Berkeley–or on what evidence has been dug up by 9/11 conspiracy journalists and researchers–will be published much by the MOTHER JONES magazine alternative media gatekeepers/censors.” (Alternative Media Censorship: Sponsored By CIA’s Ford Foundation?)
- Official Web-site: Questions Questions
- “Alternative” media paymasters: Carlyle, Alcoa, Xerox, Coca Cola…?
- Alternative Media Censorship: Sponsored By CIA’s Ford Foundation?
- The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited
- Amy Goodman, Left Gatekeeper