in thinking we should strive for consistency, but not give way to demands for conformity which arise from partisanship. truth is an early casualty of ‘class warfare’ and other sociopolitical struggles just as it is ‘the first’ casualty of military conflicts.

Like me, who had an exclusively Left-wing outlook, Cockburn’s writings got me not to accept everything I was reading from the Left — and by “Left” I mean the spectrum from Liberal to Marxist. He did, often times challenge their ideas and propaganda.

For this he was labeled an “anti-Semite” by these same “Leftists” because he challenged their perspectives. While Counterpunch featured Chomsky he wasn’t South End Press with its Chomsky-worshiping. Cockburn had writers like the Christisons that broke through the stifling Chomskyite boundaries. And Cockburn featuring of former Reaganite Conservative Paul Craig Roberts (PCR) came with tremendous ire from the Left.

Cockburn sought to bridge the divide between the Right meaning Libertarians and a anti-war Paleos. Cockburn deserves credit for that because, for me, it opened up my perspectives about the Right — they weren’t all “enemies” and that the possibility of a working coalition was possible. This is why CounterPunch supported Nader’s 2004 run and was critical of the pseudo-Left sabotage of the Green Party.

By introducing PCR to CounterPunch readers, I followed his article to other “Right-wing” outlets and got to read their perspectives especially about monetary policy and Zionism — perspectives muted on the Left. Today I fully understand why those perspectives are “censored” on the Left.

Cockburn, early on, understood the political impact of the Tea Party and refrained with the racist labeling unlike his Left-wing gatekeeper niece Laura Flanders. And Cockburn called for “debt repudiation”. As a “Deadbeat”, I totally agreed with that.

I do firmly agree that Cockburn fell woefully short on 9-11. Unfortunately IMO that is how history will most likely remember Cockburn. But for me at least, his real contribution, was as a gateway to question and to scrutinize the Left. As epitomized by Noam Chomsky, the Left is not who they appear and pretend to be.

Chomsky’s talk started off with a brilliant dissection of who were the geo-political beneficiaries of 9/11 (Israel and the US neocon agenda), but then he switched off his intellect to pooh-pooh the idea that there was any US government culpability, eventually concluding that we never really can know the truth about historical events and that it didn’t really matter who ‘did’ 911.

it may be that even on the left it is not possible to remain a validated public intellectual if one questions the official 9/11 story. thus well-known figures like Chomsky and Cockburn, who are not liars, would have to persuade themselves that this ridiculously flawed official narrative is nevertheless, essentially correct.

i had not at that stage encountered the useful notion of ‘gatekeepers’.

i had encountered Julien Benda’s phrase la trahison des clercs – the title of a book he published in 1927 (Benda was Jewish, btw).

i decided not to raise 911 again with this particular friend as he came out with a remarkable emotional outburst, to the effect that if 911 had been done with insider complicity he would give up his interest in politics, stop reading newspapers etc. etc. – in other words he felt his world-view would be shattered.

that, it seems to me, illustrates one danger of having a ‘world view’.

I had the opportunity to meet Alexander Cockburn during that period and thanked him for his articles and perspectives especially being the lone voice on at the Nation, countering their Liberal spin.

My only grip with Cockburn was his position on 9-11 but I agreed with his position on “Climate Change”.

Cockburn wasn’t perfect especially for someone who had to navigate the Zionist pseudo-Left but overall when I was extremely naive and believed nearly all of what I was reading from the Left, Cockburn provided a gateway to the antidote.