Jump to content
The Education Forum

Noam Chomsky vs. Oliver Stone


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I suppose so. Though I don't know how one can disagree with facts.

 

OK, not to belabor a point, but try to give a fair hearing to this article, regarding FBI assets in the Jan. 6 scrum-insurrection.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/11/fbi-refuses-to-say-how-many-informants-were-involved-in-jan-6-violence/

The FBI refuses to say how many assets they had in the crowd, even to the US Senate. 

Now, in the JFKA, if the FBI withheld key information behind "sources and methods" smokescreens, even from the Congress, what would you think?

Well, we have a parallel---the CIA withheld info from the HSCA.

The Jan. 6 event remains mysterious, not the least that the 3,500-officer Capitol Police, and the 2,500 DC Metro Police essentially took the day off. That does not even include other and many various police agencies in DC---all a phone call away. 

The idea of federal provocateurs and embedded assets is hardly novel. Just remember, the same media that told you the Wuhan lab leak was a conspiracy theory, and that Brian Sicknick was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher---they say "nothing to see"on FBI instigators on Jan. 6. And Hunter Biden's laptop was a Russian disinformation story. 

Hey, Trump can be a bad guy...but the Deep State has about 1000 times the assets and influence Trump ever had. 

Trump will depart the scene soon enough. But the Deep State will outlive us. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

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. 

What has happened, and I think its a result of the sixties assassinations, is that the MSM has step by step, narrowed down the political  spectrum. McGovern was the last one who made it through and they slaughtered him over the Eagleton affair. But if you recall, they even went after Wesley Clark.  Peter Jennings asked him to denounce the rumor that W had gone AWOL while in the Guard.  Which turned out to not be a rumor. 

Well, we saw what happened when the MSM decided that the "rumor" was not really a story. 

But this is how it works now.  We went from a political spectrum defined by JFK, Malcolm X, King and RFK, to one where the choices are HRC and Trump. And hardly anyone let out even a yelp over what had happened. Even after MLK and RFK were killed in the space of about 60 days. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

OK, not to belabor a point, but try to give a fair hearing to this article, regarding FBI assets in the Jan. 6 scrum-insurrection.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/11/fbi-refuses-to-say-how-many-informants-were-involved-in-jan-6-violence/

The FBI refuses to say how many assets they had in the crowd, even to the US Senate. 

Now, in the JFKA, if the FBI withheld key information behind "sources and methods" smokescreens, even from the Congress, what would you think?

Well, we have a parallel---the CIA withheld info from the HSCA.

The Jan. 6 event remains mysterious, not the least that the 3,500-officer Capitol Police, and the 2,500 DC Metro Police essentially took the day off. That does not even include other and many various police agencies in DC---all a phone call away. 

The idea of federal provocateurs and embedded assets is hardly novel. Just remember, the same media that told you the Wuhan lab leak was a conspiracy theory, and that Brian Sicknick was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher---they say "nothing to see"on FBI instigators on Jan. 6. And Hunter Biden's laptop was a Russian disinformation story. 

Hey, Trump can be a bad guy...but the Deep State has about 1000 times the assets and influence Trump ever had. 

Trump will depart the scene soon enough. But the Deep State will outlive us. 

 

The FBI would not reveal this kind of info to anyone at any time. Therefore their refusal to answer cannot be misconstrued as hiding something. They would answer that way even if there were no federal agents in the crowd.
Powerful interests of any stripe will do whatever they can to preserve their power, including infiltrating their perceived enemies. It’s an ancient practice. But it’s a stretch for me to imagine that anti-trump forces within the government would even conceive a fake insurrection, so much so that I will tell you flat out I don’t believe it. But I am sure that the FBI has informants in far right groups, and possibly undercover agents as well. Well, you know how that goes I’m sure. You make a drug or gun bust with the idea of gaining an informant inside an organization that may be hard to infiltrate. Point is that is the norm like it or not. Now sometimes an undercover agent, not at informant - big difference - takes on the role of agent provocateur. In this case they are following orders from someone with an objective. Is that your take? If so, who is giving the orders, and what is the objective? And why would they withdraw capitol police protection unless their objective was to stage a successful coup?
You are very fond of using the words Deep State. Many of us believe in something like that. The term dates back at least to Peter Dale Scott, and until relatively recent was only in use by people whose critiques of government came from the anti-establishment Left. I watched with alarm this change on social media beginning with the run up to the 2016 election, because I knew I was seeing my version of the Deep State at work. It’s been a clever shift of definition. Suddenly righties who would have stood in opposition to everything JFK stood for are jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon. 
I’d like to hear your definition of Deep State, since you use the phrase constantly. And because you use Donks and Phants all the time as if there is no difference, I’d like to know if you think any individuals in Congress are worth a damn, and if so to name them. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

The FBI would not reveal this kind of info to anyone at any time. Therefore their refusal to answer cannot be misconstrued as hiding something. They would answer that way even if there were no federal agents in the crowd.
Powerful interests of any stripe will do whatever they can to preserve their power, including infiltrating their perceived enemies. It’s an ancient practice. But it’s a stretch for me to imagine that anti-trump forces within the government would even conceive a fake insurrection, so much so that I will tell you flat out I don’t believe it. But I am sure that the FBI has informants in far right groups, and possibly undercover agents as well. Well, you know how that goes I’m sure. You make a drug or gun bust with the idea of gaining an informant inside an organization that may be hard to infiltrate. Point is that is the norm like it or not. Now sometimes an undercover agent, not at informant - big difference - takes on the role of agent provocateur. In this case they are following orders from someone with an objective. Is that your take? If so, who is giving the orders, and what is the objective? And why would they withdraw capitol police protection unless their objective was to stage a successful coup?
You are very fond of using the words Deep State. Many of us believe in something like that. The term dates back at least to Peter Dale Scott, and until relatively recent was only in use by people whose critiques of government came from the anti-establishment Left. I watched with alarm this change on social media beginning with the run up to the 2016 election, because I knew I was seeing my version of the Deep State at work. It’s been a clever shift of definition. Suddenly righties who would have stood in opposition to everything JFK stood for are jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon. 
I’d like to hear your definition of Deep State, since you use the phrase constantly. And because you use Donks and Phants all the time as if there is no difference, I’d like to know if you think any individuals in Congress are worth a damn, and if so to name them. 
 

Although I am not a socialist, Bernie Sanders at least strikes me as a man of integrity. On the other side of the aisle, Rand Paul is interesting. 

Again, although I disagree with some of her posing, AOC strikes me as honest. On the other side of the aisle, Thomas Massie has said some interesting things. 

I do not know why you dismiss the idea of federal instigators or provocateurs on 1/6. There are people on this forum who believe the JFKA was essentially a CIA job, or that Bush & Co., Israelis, and a New York property owner engineered 9/11. 

IMHO, the best definition of the Deep State is the book by Michael Lofgren (2016) Not an academic, he worked the halls of Congress for 30 years. To Lofgren's excellent book, I would add the military-industrial-intel complex, and a coopted media. 

IMHO you are correct, and the "populist right" has belatedly discovered the Deep State, and is appropriately appalled at what they see. I say welcome them to the bandwagon. 

IMHO, be wary. The Deep State has coopted the establishment  Donks, and allied media.  

Interesting, from Matt Taibbi, truly a dedicated journalist:

"After revelations from the ongoing Michael Sussman trial, former Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi asked an obvious question Friday in his Substack article titled, "Shouldn't Hillary Clinton Be Banned From Twitter Now?"

Taibbi’s piece asked why the revelation that Clinton herself facilitated the start of the media’s Russia collusion hoax isn’t bigger news. The article also included a damning video compilation of the many times the media parroted Clinton’s Trump-Russia collusion talking points."

---30---

IMHO, I have had it with the red kool-aid or the blue kool-aid. 

They can wrap themselves in the rainbow flag, or the US flag, but I think we have been gamed, and hard.

What happened to America's middle class? 

Just IMHO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you link to this, I like Matt.

 

"Taibbi’s piece asked why the revelation that Clinton herself facilitated the start of the media’s Russia collusion hoax isn’t bigger news. The article also included a damning video compilation of the many times the media parroted Clinton’s Trump-Russia collusion talking points."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to get back to the original topic, what we learn from the Stone vs Chomsky duel is that there really was a leftist attempt to try to deny the fact about Kennedy's withdrawal program.

And it was not just Chomsky, Cockburn and the Nation.  I would extend it to such flunkies as Tom Blanton, the favorite PBS hour scholar.

Now, if you note closely, its those kinds of so called scholars who get exposure.  And who get praised.  Cockburn had a column in the LA TImes for awhile. As I said Blanton gets on PBS--which has become utterly horrible on the JFK case.  I mean the Mike Sullivan  plots aided by Russo and Myers, really sank them, grouped them with the MSM.

Now compare that with what happened to Fletcher Prouty and John Newman. Oliver will tell you that this is how he got the info for that Vietnam angle for his film, these two guys.  John publishes  his own books now.  I have an article coming up at Kennedys and King entitled "Fletcher Prouty vs the ARRB."  This one will be a real eye opener for most of us.  It kind of takes us behind the curtain at the Board.

But bottom line, the whole Vietnam angle of the film was too much for both the MSM, and the left establishment.  And it still is, as my debate with Buzzanco illustrates.  Its odd how extremes meet on the JFK case, is it not?

But, and here is the real point, Stone, Prouty and Newman were correct.  As was illustrated by Howard Jones, David Kaiser, Jim Blight, Gordon Goldstein and James Douglass, among others. And even the MSM had to admit later when the ARRB declassified the May 1963 Sec Def documents, that JFK had a plan to withdraw at the time of his death.  But would they admit that Oliver Stone said this, like six years earlier? Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Can you link to this, I like Matt.

 

"Taibbi’s piece asked why the revelation that Clinton herself facilitated the start of the media’s Russia collusion hoax isn’t bigger news. The article also included a damning video compilation of the many times the media parroted Clinton’s Trump-Russia collusion talking points."

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/shouldnt-hillary-clinton-be-banned?s=rhttps://taibbi.substack.com/p/shouldnt-hillary-clinton-be-banned?s=r

Here you go. 

As I say, I wish Trump would disappear. But the entire left-wing has been completely diverted by, and even coopted by, the Deep State and allied media. 

There is a distant parallel, which you and I are old enough to have in common. The day Nixon was routed from office. It felt wonderful, and he was truly a bad president. 

But of course, the routing of Nixon did little to the Deep State (and some say was a Deep State op). 

So it goes. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/shouldnt-hillary-clinton-be-banned?s=rhttps://taibbi.substack.com/p/shouldnt-hillary-clinton-be-banned?s=r

Here you go. 

As I say, I wish Trump would disappear. But the entire left-wing has been completely diverted by, and even coopted by, the Deep State and allied media. 

There is a distant parallel, which you and I are old enough to have in common. The day Nixon was routed from office. It felt wonderful, and he was truly a bad president. 

But of course, the routing of Nixon did little to the Deep State (and some say was a Deep State op). 

So it goes. 

 

Ben - this story belongs on the McBride thread. Would you post it there? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ben - this story belongs on the McBride thread. Would you post it there? 

Are you sure? I am beginning to feel like a punching bag. Everything devolves into blue vs. red. 

I am interested in the HRC torpedo of Trump due to the Deep State angle...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks for that Ben.  What a fine example of real journalism.

BTW, I should add, something that has to interest people on this forum about this issue.

Max Holland used this phony frenzy about Russia Gate to sucker the Daily Beast into running one of his many BS stories about the JFK case, this one about the so called Mitrokhin Archives, which was not an archives.  And Mark Lane proved that by demolishing a story from that so called archives about him. (See Last Word, pp. 90-97)

But based on that ersatz Archives, Max did write that a story in an Italian newspaper was planted by the KGB, and this story was what led Jim Garrison to  Clay Shaw.  Well, this was 100 per cent pure Hollandaise BS. And anyone can figure that just by following a calendar.  Garrison started investigating Shaw three months before the Italian story came out.  Two of the main reasons were Shaw's relationship with Ferrie and suspicions about his use of an alias. Neither of which relate to the story. Garrison then arrested Shaw before the story was published!  This is how bad Max Holland is and how easy Daily Beast was to sucker.

But its worse than that.  Because this was one strand of BS used by Tim Weiner and James Kirchick to attack Oliver Stone's documentaries.  When I tried to challenge Kirchick directly on this, he placed me on ignore for his twitter account. 

Question:  If you do not know anything about the declassified record by the ARRB, which is what the film (s) was based on, then why not just shut up?  Why use someone as useless and agenda driven as Max Holland?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for that Ben.  What a fine example of real journalism.

BTW, I should add, something that has to interest people on this forum about this issue.

Max Holland used this phony frenzy about Russia Gate to sucker the Daily Beast into running one of his many BS stories about the JFK case, this one about the so called Mitrokhin Archives, which was not an archives.  And Mark Lane proved that by demolishing a story from that so called archives about him. (See Last Word, pp. 90-97)

But based on that ersatz Archives, Max did write that a story in an Italian newspaper was planted by the KGB, and this story was what led Jim Garrison to  Clay Shaw.  Well, this was 100 per cent pure Hollandaise BS. And anyone can figure that just by following a calendar.  Garrison started investigating Shaw three months before the Italian story came out.  Two of the main reasons were Shaw's relationship with Ferrie and suspicions about his use of an alias. Neither of which relate to the story. Garrison then arrested Shaw before the story was published!  This is how bad Max Holland is and how easy Daily Beast was to sucker.

But its worse than that.  Because this was one strand of BS used by Tim Weiner and James Kirchick to attack Oliver Stone's documentaries.  When I tried to challenge Kirchick directly on this, he placed me on ignore for his twitter account. 

Question:  If you do not know anything about the declassified record by the ARRB, which is what the film (s) was based on, then why not just shut up?  Why use someone as useless and agenda driven as Max Holland?

I always wondered what influence of the Italian article on Permindex had on Garrison. If a Communist publication comes out with a story it must be bs right? It’s like the good journalists previously working on RT. Chris Hedges makes it clear that Putin welcomed journalists like him who were critics of US foreign policy, but never tried to shut him down. it was the US that removed RT from YouTube, and Hedges take was that Google needn’t have bothered because Russia would have intervened and removed anti-Putin pieces after the war began anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no influence at all on that story back in 1967 Paul.

Gary Aguilar demolished Holland as badly as Mark Lane did.  This was during a debate  in Washington back in the COPA days.  The problem for the CIA was that Paesa Sera was exposing CIA covert ops in Europe, like the attempted overthrow of DeGaulle.

So what happened was that Helms testified before congress that somehow it was all from the KGB.  And Holland used that report which Gary had..  The problem was and is simple: the CIA was in cahoots with the rebel generals from the OAS.  And that was in mainstream French journals like Le Monde.  My God, even Reston and the NY Times wrote about it, as did a CIA friendly writer like Tully.

In other words, as Gary pointed out, what Holland was doing was recycling Richard Helms' disinfo. And the Daily Beast fell for it.  In fact, as I recall, Helms even tried to tell congress that the CIA had nothing to do with attempts to overthrow or kill Sukarno.  Which is more BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have not seen this debate, you really should watch it.  If there would have been a referee, he would have called it about 3/4 of the way through since Gary had TKO'd Max. Gary really rose to the occasion here, as I was supposed to debate Max but I did not go that year.  But I hand it to Gary, he really did a nice job in taking Max apart.

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?183565-4/warren-report-garrison-investigation

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...