Jump to content
The Education Forum

Noam Chomsky vs. Oliver Stone


Recommended Posts

Large parts of my new book POLITICAL TRUTH: THE MEDIA AND

THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY are devoted to analyzing the stark failings of Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Alan Brinkley, Eric Foner,

Richard Hofstadter, and other celebrated historians (some

of whom have done good work in other areas, such as Foner

on the Reconstruction period) in dealing with the

assassination. I explore why this failure came to be, why they, despite

having time to reflect and do actual research, instead have chosen to

follow the cover story fabricated in the first weekend by the mainstream news media

with the help of the CIA and other government agencies, working together in what film critic

Jonathan Rosenbaum has called "the media-industrial complex."

Edited by Joseph McBride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As I point out in POLITICAL TRUTH, Chomsky belligerently claims

that the two subjects he refuses to discuss are the assassination

of President Kennedy and 9/11, yet he has published books on

both subjects. His book on JFK and Vietnam is really an attack on Oliver

Stone and his film JFK. Chomsky once "joked" that his

salary since 1955 has been paid by the military-industrial

complex. I assume he means that he has worked all those

years for MIT (for which he is still an emeritus professor, even though

he is also a professor at the University of Arizona now). That

comment by Chomsky reminds me of Freud's observation that

there is no such thing as a joke.

Edited by Joseph McBride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

As I point out in POLITICAL TRUTH, Chomsky belligerently claims

that the two subjects he refuses to discuss are the assassination

of President Kennedy and 9/11, yet he has published books on

both subjects. His book on JFK is really an attack on Oliver

Stone and his film JFK. Chomsky once "joked" that his

salary since 1955 has been paid by the military-industrial

complex. I assume he means that he has worked all those

years for MIT (for which he is still an emeritus professor, even though

he is also a professor at the University of Arizona now). That

comment by Chomsky reminds me of Freud's observation that

there is no such thing as a joke.

Touche. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Listen 30mins onwards

Podcast / video
https://odysee.com/@hugokruger:5/:7


Marc Crispin Miller talks about the moment he became a conspiracy theorist in the public eye, and it was purely for pointing out the use of propaganda around the JFKA. Marc, a professor and lecturer on propaganda, gives an overview of how the CIA were concerned by Mark Lane and were concerned by a loss of control of the narrative.  He talks about the CIA using media to swing this narrative back toward the Warren Commission and how they used the term "someone would have talked" to deflect, and he explains why it was so potent. He believes the propaganda was so successful because people want to hear certain things, and effective propaganda tells people what they want to hear. Nobody wanted to hear that their government had killed the president. 

There is then a discussion on which sectors of society have knowledge of corrupt US foreign policy. He maintains unless you have a decent understanding of the JFKA, then you'll be blind to the MLK or RFK assassinations. He says this kind of thing has been pro forma for a long time. 

At 40 mins a stinging attack on Naom Chomsky begins. Miller claims that Chomsky has been on the wrong side of history on just about every high-crime against democracy since WW2. He explains that Chomsky has been a denialist on all of these major events and he will not debate such matters. Chomsky has an authoritarian worship of credentials and calls anyone an idiot who doesn't agree. 

Is this self-preservation from Chomsky? I have read manufacturing consent, he has done brilliant work on US foreign policy but why does he leave more contentious issues alone? Miller maintains that Chomsky has been misleading the left. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Man Mark has really swung around on this one.

He used to attack me.

Now he is after Chomsky and defending Oliver.  Which is  good news.

The guy I debated is also a Chomskyite, Buzzanco.

Aaron Good moderated that one and he made a really nice program on it.  I think it will play on Black Op Radio pretty soon.

As far as I am concerned, this phoney debate about Vietnam was settled by the ARRB.  In fact, I think it was settled before that. Stone, Prouty and Newman were correct on this.  The MSM, Chomsky, and Cockburn were wrong.  Although its odd how the so called leftist brigade, found itself uniting with the MSM on this issue.  But if you really think about it, its not odd. Its quite natural.  

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Man Mark has really swung around on this one.

He used to attack me.

Now he is after Chomsky and defending Oliver.  Which is  good news.

The guy I debated is also a Chomskyite, Buzzanco.

Aaron Good moderated that one and he made a really nice program on it.  I think it will play on Black Op Radio pretty soon.

As far as I am concerned, this phoney debate about Vietnam was settled by the ARRB.  In fact, I thin it was settled before that. Stone, Prouty and Newman were correct on this.  The MSM, Chomsky, and Cockburn were wrong.  Although its odd how the so called leftist brigade, found itself uniting with the MSM on this issue.  But if you really think about it, its not odd. Its quite natural.  

I understand what the old-school leftists are saying, and that is that the US is ruled by multinationals, financial elites, the Deep State military-industrial, and affiliated media-think tanks-lobbyists, etc. All true. 

But JFK knew all this, and was an exception. He knew to be a colonizer would no longer work, and was not in US interests, and was probably immoral also. US interventionism is not worth it, whether Vietnam, or elsewhere. 

What is spooky is how much more powerful the entrenched multinationals, Wall Street, media and the Deep State have become since JFK's time.  Also, the unseemly alliance between multinationals and the CCP. 

You have figures in major media and political parties openly calling for censorship. And for banning inconvenient conversations. 

Will either party in 2022 nominate a Presidential candidate not vetted by the Deep State? I doubt it. The long knives will come out for any non-establishment pol. 

 

 

Edited by Benjamin Cole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think you mean 2024.  But I agree with the sentiment.

Look what happened to Sanders.  

Sanders was probably the most radical presidential candidate since RFK.

But also, look at what they did to Perot. 

Since they got rid of Bobby, they find other ways.  Sometimes within their own party, like with Bernie.

But I have to say, the stuff Wikileaks dug up on HIllary was really something those huge fees for Wall Street speeches, vacationing with Kissinger, Mr. Genocide.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I think you mean 2024.  But I agree with the sentiment.

Look what happened to Sanders.  

Sanders was probably the most radical presidential candidate since RFK.

But also, look at what they did to Perot. 

Since they got rid of Bobby, they find other ways.  Sometimes within their own party, like with Bernie.

But I have to say, the stuff Wikileaks dug up on HIllary was really something those huge fees for Wall Street speeches, vacationing with Kissinger, Mr. Genocide.

Oh sheesh. A warmonger in pantsuits. I suspect HRC is really Liz Cheney wearing glasses and a wig. 

What HRC did to Trump in Russiagate...like I said, the long knives were out. This does not make Trump a nice guy, or a good president. 

Also: The modern left wing is obsessed, just obsessed, with Trump, and has decided being in bed with the Deep State is fine and dandy if you can stick the long knives into Trump. 

So...the Deep State has an annual budget of $1.4 trillion (DoD, black budget, VA), and a panopticon state, and has aligned 90% of academia, media, lobbyists, think tanks, etc. 

But the threat is Trump? 

Trump is odious, but...IMHO there has been a lot of barking up a bonsai tree in a redwood forest.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Trump is odious, but...IMHO there has been a lot of barking up a bonsai tree in a redwood forest.....

 

Trump and his lackeys tried to overthrow the election. He tried to get government officials to commit election fraud for his benefit. He waited hours before finally calling off the violent Capitol insurrection (not "scrum") which he had incited.

These are all well-known documented facts. Am I "obsessed" for pointing out the obvious to a person who is in denial over it?

Trump's actions have proven that he  IS a threat to American democracy, as the possibility of his being re-elected are real. The "long knives" for Trump are well deserved.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Since they got rid of Bobby, they find other ways.  Sometimes within their own party, like with Bernie.

But I have to say, the stuff Wikileaks dug up on HIllary was really something those huge fees for Wall Street speeches, vacationing with Kissinger, Mr. Genocide.

That's certainly my interpretation of what they did to Bernie. Politicians with RFK ideas don't get near the oval office, the system of marketing and nominating them excludes them and public perception thinks its because they were not the best candidate. That's one interpretation, anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

a threat to American democracy

I think that's been an illusion since the JFKA. I know we all like to believe in it, including me. If the system markets and serves up two crooked candidates, so we have the choice of the lesser of two evils, democracy has already failed. 
 

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

What is spooky is how much more powerful the entrenched multinationals, Wall Street, media and the Deep State have become since JFK's time.  Also, the unseemly alliance between multinationals and the CCP. 

I agree. Things have got worse since the JFKA and not better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Trump and his lackeys tried to overthrow the election. He tried to get government officials to commit election fraud for his benefit. He waited hours before finally calling off the violent Capitol insurrection (not "scrum") which he had incited.

These are all well-known documented facts. Am I "obsessed" for pointing out the obvious to a person who is in denial over it?

Trump's actions have proven that he  IS a threat to American democracy, as the possibility of his being re-elected are real. The "long knives" for Trump are well deserved.

 

Sandy-

Richard Nixon was probably the worst president in postwar history, unless it was George Bush jr. 

Both are them are history...and the Deep State is here and more-powerful than ever. Soon Trump will be history...and the Deep State will still be here. 

Much of the anti-Trump narrative is a construct. Much of the ID politics is fabricated divisionism. 

Trump was a lulu, a miscreant, a grifter but his chances of overthrowing the government were up there with the '64 Mets. 

IMHO, let's keep our eye on the ball. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Richard Nixon was probably the worst president in postwar history, unless it was George Bush jr. 

 

In three scholarly polls, Trump is ranked among the four worst presidents of all time. (Source). Which makes him the worst president in postwar history. Just sayin'...

 

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Both are them are history...and the Deep State is here and more-powerful than ever. Soon Trump will be history...and the Deep State will still be here. 

 

That doesn't mean I shouldn't be bothered by the shorter-term harm Trump does.

 

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Much of the anti-Trump narrative is a construct. Much of the ID politics is fabricated divisionism. 

 

None of those things I cited above were fabricated.

 

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Trump was a lulu, a miscreant, a grifter but his chances of overthrowing the government were up there with the '64 Mets. 

 

Note that I didn't say anything about Trump overthrowing the government.

 

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

IMHO, let's keep our eye on the ball.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

In three scholarly polls, Trump is ranked among the four worst presidents of all time. (Source). Which makes him the worst president in postwar history. Just sayin'...

 

 

That doesn't mean I shouldn't be bothered by the shorter-term harm Trump does.

 

 

None of those things I cited above were fabricated.

 

 

Note that I didn't say anything about Trump overthrowing the government.

 

 

Well, OK. I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...