this is nothing new for Chomsky. The problem of left gatekeeping precedes 9/11, and concerns more than just Chomsky. I have posted the link below many, many times in similar threads on this site--and it seems to be called for again. The piece was written by Michael Parenti in the mid-90s, focusing on the dismissive, poorly reasoned rejections of Kennedy assassination alternative research offered by otherwise sharp writers like Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn (there is also a preface--written by either Brian or Eric Salter of questionsquestions.net--discussing the relevance of Parenti's piece to the left intelligentsia's acceptance of the 9/11 official story). As you'll see (and as is manifest in Chomsky's rambling comments above), a frequent argument such left intellectuals like to resort to is a false dichotomy between 'institutional' and 'conspiratorial' analysis:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/conspiracyphobia.html

I often hear people in the truth movement talk about how 'mindboggling' it is that so many left intellectuals basically accept the 9/11 official story, when they are the very people who should be the most knowledgeable about what governements and their rich cohorts are capable of. But personally, I no longer find it mindboggling. However contradictory, this tendency occurs with such regularity that after a while, it becomes a recognizable trait--something that I have come to expect (much as I don't want to), so that, when you find one of them who's actually open to considering that 9/11 was an inside job, it comes as a pleasant surprise, because it's so outside the norm.

I have been involved in many conversations over the years with people trying to find an explanation for the gatekeeping left, and ultimately have found them tiresome, and that they lead nowhere. Yes, I think it's possible that some might be acting out of fear, perhaps even (as it sounds bloggulator is suggesting) in response to specific threats. And I think their postion of dependency--on government and/or corporate funding--could also be a reason.

Those are probably the explanations that I most often find discussed. But sometimes I think these high-profile public intellectuals might be uncomfortable with the democratizing effects of the internet, wherein people who haven't even finished (or started!) college can learn about matters that previously they would depend on such intellectuals to inform them about.

And I think about other possible psychological factors. Much as the left like to think of themselves--and particularly of left intellectuals--as being principled and courageous by nature, I'm afraid they are as susceptible to the same forces of groupthink and conformity that we find in the corporate media, and in the public at large. They're proud to not conform to the views that the corporate media and politicians want them to conform; but just like most anyone else, they are loathe to find themselves standing apart from their own group. I recall how the first edition of Griffin's 'The New Pearl Harbor' included an endorsement from Howard Zinn; then, about a year before Zinn's death, I saw a clip from an interview in which, while offering some mealy-mouthed support for 9/11 truth, he was clearly trying to backpedal, saying he was worried the issue was serving as a 'distraction' from other issues (another of the standard bogus talking points). Had Zinn been 'gotten to'? Or was he simply tired of being isolated from so many of his peers on this issue, and so seeking to distance himself from the truth movement? I think both are possible. But I think it wastes time to pretend to be certain what the explanation is, when really the best we can do is guess.

For me, to use words such as 'maddening' or 'disappointing' to describe left gatekeepers still isn't sufficient to convey the full depth of frustration and disappointment and disillusion. After all, public intellectuals of their stature and reputation ARE supposed to be principled and courageous by definition. But evidently, that's how it is, and we need to keep whatever sense of frustration we feel from making us less effective communicators with those who are members of their audience.

One other point: Sometimes I come across people in the truth movement who appear to be using the term 'gatekeeper' as exclusively meaning those in the 'alternative' press whom they suspect are getting paid off and willingly 'working for the other side.' I think that is an unhelpfully narrow use of the term. What ultimately is at issue isn't the character of the gatekeeper, but the harm done by the act of gatekeeping. When important information is prevented from flowing freely, through the very channels where it is expected to flow most freely, that is very, very, harmful indeed. And the harm done is the same whether the person who is doing the gatekeeping is motivated by fear or greed, by blackmail, bribery, ego, a desire to conform, or whatever.

And yet another point: I have also encountered people in the truth movement who speak as if 'support for Israel' is a sufficient explanation for left gatekeeping. As difficult as it is to dislodge this notion in the minds of those who are attached to it--and, again, as I have posted many times previously in the threads on this site--there is a simple rebuttal to this position (which I have yet to see refuted, only ignored), at least where the issue of 9/11 truth is concerned. That rebuttal is: Counterpunch, Antiwar.com. It would be hard to find two websites more critical of Israeli policy and the pro-Israel lobby than these; yet their scorn for 9/11 truth is identical to that found in much of the rest of the so-called alternative press. (Or have they changed since I got fed up and stopped visiting those sites? Somehow I doubt it.) In fact, it's not difficult to find websites and orgnazations that are sympathetic toward the Palestinians, and that are opposed to Islamophobia in general, but are not at all receptive toward 9/11 truth.

Good points! Yes, Chomsky embarrassingly makes up factoids when it suits him. How can we fight this pseudo-intellectualism? Here are some thoughts of mine on how to approach a Chomsky fan on this issue.

I think it is necessary to repeatedly point to clear examples where Chomsky is pseudo-intellectual. And in my experience it takes some time to make people aware of and admit that Chomsky is blatantly pseudo-intellectual in the case of 911. The trick to get people to see the pseudo-intellectualism is to repeatedly get back to concrete examples of Chomsky's writings or interviews. The direct evidence for his pseudo-intellectualism is right there. No need to speculate or get into Chomsky's motives (whatever they are). Just home in on the concrete examples (and there are plenty on this page!!).

Since Chomsky's pseudo-intellectualism is so blatantly obvious even a Chomsky supporter will eventually see that. But it requires some effort and consistency. Sometimes it can be a good strategy to take one of Chomsky's blatant examples of pseudo-intellectualism and ask the person himself, as an exercise, to point out the logical fallacies. Tell him/her that unless s/he is able to point them out it will be very hard to have a sensible discussion. Ask *them* to demonstrate to *you* that they have some level of critical thinking.

Another key point is to also praise Chomsky where praise is due. In other areas he is scholarly and then this should be recognized and not downplayed.

Anyway, this is my (limited) experience of this situation!