The post below by "R" is a great example of how to smear me without taking any personal responsibility for the smear. If anyone on this list wants to challenge me or my work or my associations, don't be such a coward: state your complaints and criticisms plainly.
The articles by Bob Feldman about the vast liberal/CIA conspiracy are ludicrous examples of the spiderweb approach to guilt by association. Some guy is on the board of a foundation which once gave PRA funding and this same guy used to work for another guy who is said to have had ties to the CIA--so I am somehow an agent of the CIA. Outlandish rubbish.
CIA funding of liberal/left groups was exposed in 1967, and what used to be done secretly is now done openly through the National Endowment for Democracy--which Holly Sklar and I criticized in a Nation article over ten years ago. Some cranks point out that I once worked for the National Student Association (NSA) and the NSA was secetly funded by the CIA and therefore I was funded by the CIA. What these incompetent nitwits don't mention is that I worked for the NSA in the 1970s, after the ties with the CIA were exposed and cut. Furthermore, I wrote articles about CIA manipulation and surveillance of the left.
The Dan Brandt article is a sour grapes polemic aimed at discrediting me because I used to work with Brandt on a research database project which became "Namebase." Holly Sklar and I resigned from the board of Brandt's project after he became an apologist for the neofascist antisemitic Liberty Lobby and the Spotlight newspaper. Brandt's rant about women running PRA is just plain sexist whining.
One of the links leads to someone claiming I said burning aviation fuel can melt steel. This is just plain false. I said aviation fuel can explode, and start a fire that is so hot for so long that the steel fails as a structural support. Big difference.
Amy Goodman is not the enemy. She is an aggressive progressive journalist with a long track record of investigative journalism. What the conspiracists call "gatekeeping" is just good editorial judgement. Amy needs to be supported. Conspiracism needs to be exposed as a waste of time and energy--it is toxic to democratic discours--it is a narrative form of scapegoating.
Exposing real conspiracies, abuses of power, opression, and repression requires more than the ability to repeat gossip and rumor while implying it is fact.
The real sucker punch here comes from the conspiracists, and it is the political left that takes it on the chin when our work is undermined by febrile claims that are easily refuted.
Here is the statement at the top of the pages where I discuss Griffin's book and he responds:
"People with unfair power and privilege generally try to hold onto that unfair power and privilege. Sometimes they make plans that are not publicly announced. Sometimes they engage in illegal plots. Real conspiracies have been exposed throughout history. History itself, however, is not controlled by a vast timeless conspiracy. The powerful people and groups in society are hardly a 'secret team' or a tiny club of 'secret elites.' The tendency to explain all major world events as primarily the product of a secret conspiracy is called conspiracism. The antidote to conspiracism is Power Structure Research based on some form of institutional, systemic or structural analysis that examines race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, class and other factors that are used to create inequality and oppression. Political Research Associates does not criticize conspiracism because we want to shield those with unfair power and privilege; but because we believe that conspiracism impedes attempts to build a social movement for real social justice, economic fairness, equality, peace, and democracy."
"There are many unanswered questions about the attacks on 09/11/01, the obvious failures of existing security systems, the decisions regarding the assessment of terrorist threats; the wisdom, morality, and legality under international law of the unilateral attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq; the implementation of repressive domestic measures such as the Patriot Act and the confinement of immigrants and undocumented visitors without due process; and the reluctance and refusal of key government officials to fully cooperate with congressional and media investigations. Political Research Associates fully supports the vigorous investigation of these matters."
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html
Chip Berlet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: R [mailto:rhisiart at charter.net]
> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 12:30 AM
> To: LBO-Talk
> Subject: [lbo-talk] sucker punch
>
>
> DATA DUMP #3
> questionsquestions.net, 28 May 04
>
> http://www.questionsquestions.net/datadump03.html
>
> A short collection mostly of recent articles.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> ----
>
> Berlet vs. Griffin, the latest 'gatekeeper' spectacle
>
> Amy Goodman has sucker-punched the 9/11 Truth Movement,
> having invited attack-dog John Foster "Chip" Berlet to impose
> his typical hatchet-jobs on top of her interview of David Ray
> Griffin, author of "The New Pearl Harbor". Following is an
> initial exchange of essays between the two.
>
> Berlet attacks David Ray Griffin's New Pearl Harbor
> http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubi> ous_claims.html
>
> Griffin responds to Berlet
> http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/Griffin1.html
> (comment: not only does Griffin demonstrate Berlet's
> absolutely mediocre or sometimes incompetent command of
> rhetorical logic, he points out a couple factual omission /
> misrepresentations, such as Berlet's evasion of the evidence
> concerning the scramble times and speed of fighter
> interceptors. With this, Berlet shows that he is not only a
> sophist hack but unmistakably a willful liar. Still, I have
> to say that Berlet is still giving Griffin rather more
> respect than he affords others).
>
> Two articles by bob feldman concerning the financial sources
> behind John Foster Berlet and his organization:
> http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/ChipBerletSponsoredByF
ordFoundationByBobFeldman120903.htm
http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/feldman10.html
one of the best all-around critiques of berlet is by Daniel Brandt,
highly
recommended:
An Incorrect Political Memoir
http://www.namebase.org/zipdir/ppost01.html
Some additional comments on Berlet from 911 researcher Nico Haupt:
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=286
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk