Noam Chomsky vs. Oliver Stone

[Guest]

On 5/27/2022 at 7:08 PM, James DiEugenio said:

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.

This is more or less what Aldous Huxley stated would happen in 1958 (a bit of trivia: he died the same day as JFK and CS Lewis). Huxley said what would be optimal for the power elite would be politicians who could be trained to appear as sincere in the public domain. And to have a two party system where there was almost zero difference in policies between the two. 
Of course the MSM does its job of making these narrow policy differences appear as wide as the Atlantic. The reality for the power elite is “continuity” to protect and further their wealth. 
 

In your lifetime you have observed Mocking Bird become a whole system of delivering narratives, as opposed to its strategically places reporters and editors in the 1950’s. 
 

On 5/27/2022 at 7:08 PM, James DiEugenio said:

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. 

It’s controlling information and shaping public opinion. Orwell feared that books would be banned. Huxley feared that there would be no need to ban them, as nobody would want to read them. Truth would be lost in a sea of irrelevance and distractions. 
 

That narrative worked this side of the Atlantic in the UK also. My fathers generation accepted that America is a very dangerous place, lone nutters are always killing politicians, like its an extension of a wild west cowboy movie. The propaganda isn’t just on news sites as you know, it’s in film too, and books, school etc. 
 

😞 

[Paul Brancato]

Since that debate between Max and Gary much more evidence has surfaced regarding CIA and CMC connection. 

[James DiEugenio]

Yes that is correct. 

And that is why I have decided to write about it soon.

[Guest]

We know Chomsky is a charlatan, but, he spoke some truth. 
 

#OperationMockingBird

Edited February 1, 2023 by Chris Barnard

[James DiEugenio]

Chomsky has serious credibility problems that stem back to the holocaust in Cambodia.

He and Herrman wrote a story on the cover of The Nation that said the reports coming out of Cambodia about what the Khymer Rouge were doing were either not credible or from tainted sources.

Needless to say, they were wrong in a colossal way.

When someone tried to place this in an Oxford Desk Encyclopedia, Chomsky, Mr. Free Speech, objected and threatened legal action, even though it was true.

This predated me finding out abut his duplicity on the JFK case.  Which I think is really sickening.

 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Chomsky has serious credibility problems that stem back to the holocaust in Cambodia.

He and Herrman wrote a story on the cover of The Nation that said the reports coming out of Cambodia about what the Khymer Rouge were doing were either not credible or from tainted sources.

Needless to say, they were wrong in a colossal way.

When someone tried to place this in an Oxford Desk Encyclopedia, Chomsky, Mr. Free Speech, objected and threatened legal action, even though it was true.

This predated me finding out abut his duplicity on the JFK case.  Which I think is really sickening.

 

 

A snake - Yet he has done some good. 🐍 

[James DiEugenio]

There used to be a good web site called The Chomsky Hoax which showed his communications with French Holocaust deniers.  

It must have been forced down I guess.

But there is a book on this by a guy named Werner Cohn who you can look up and this is what is left of the site.

http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet81b/

Once you read it this stuff is really hard to swallow.

And that was it for me and Chomsky.

Here is the link to the Cohn book.

https://www.amazon.com/Partners-Hate-Chomsky-Holocaust-Deniers/dp/0964589702/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1675211833&refinements=p_27%3AWerner+Cohn&s=books&sr=1-1

Edited February 1, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

IMO, what Chomsky and Cockburn did when JFK came out was simply a disgrace.

It has always been my belief that although the rightwing has the money and power  the left had the intellectual truth and moral advantage.

I do not think there is any way not to say today that Chomsky and Cockburn forfeited that back in 1992.

Both on the assassination itself, and the whole Vietnam issue.

This issue of intellectual censorship and duplicity goes back to 1971 and the Gravel edition of the Pentagon Papers. Chomsky and Zinn edited those papers, much longer than the Ny TImes edition. They did not want to include Peter Scott's early essay on how one could piece together Kennedy's withdrawal plan from the PP. 

You know what Zinn said: It will make people think that the president can make a difference.  

Think about the above for a moment.  Please.

See, this is not writing history.  This is writing by ideology.

Finally, Chomsky said that they should let it go on the grounds that Scott should be able to voice his opinion. And that is how it got printed. 

This gets worse about Zinn also.  Ray Marcus wrote him a letter in 1992 about how people like LeMay and Lemnitzer despised Kennedy on policy grounds.  And therefore could have taken part in a plot.  Zinn wrote back saying something like, well if that happened they were wrong!

I am not kidding.  Ray said to me: What the heck does that mean?

This is how ridiculous the left got under those three men in relation to the JFK murder.

Edited February 1, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Guest]

Do we sometimes get incensed or blinded to the bigger picture? 
 

Chomsky:

Anti US foreign policy. 

Anti CIA

Anti Mocking Bird

He let us down and showed cowardice at the most important time when we needed dissent. Thats his legacy. 

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

IMO, what Chomsky and Cockburn did when JFK came out was simply a disgrace.

It has always been my belief that although the rightwing has the money and power  the left had the intellectual truth and moral advantage.

I do not think there is any way to say today that Chomsky and Cockburn forfeited that back in 1992.

Both on the assassination itself, and the whole Vietnam issue.

This issue or intellectual censorship and duplicity goes back to 1971 and the Gravel edition of the Pentagon Papers. Chomsky and Zinn edited those papers, much longer than the Ny TImes edition. They did not want to include Peter Scott's early essay on how one could piece together Kennedy's withdrawal plan from the PP. 

You know what Zinn said: It will make people think that the president can make a difference.  

Think about the above for a moment.  Please.

See, this is not writing history.  This is writing by ideology.

Finally, Chomsky said that they should let it go on the grounds that Scott should be able to voice his opinion. And that is how it got printed. 

This gets worse about Zinn also.  Ray Marcus wrote him a letter in 1992 about how people like LeMay and Lemnitzer despised Kennedy on policy grounds.  And therefore could have taken part in a plot.  Zinn wrote back saying something like, well if that happened they were wrong!

I am not kidding.  Ray said to me: What the heck does that mean?

This is how ridiculous the left got under those three men in relation to the JFK murder.

I think what this reveals is the hubris of those subscribing to the "deep state" model of history. "There are forces that move in directions that can only be held off by mass populist movements--and individual politicians have little to do with it." Or whatever. The problem with this is that it denies the reality that individuals can make a difference. Lincoln, Gandhi, MLK, and General Smedley Butler come to mind, not to mention the name of that Russian U-boat commander who personally held off WWIII. (I really should learn his name seeing as he quite possibly saved the world.)

Edited February 1, 2023 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

i agree with that Pat.

It is part of a structural model--that to me, and you--does not always fit the facts.

[Matthew Koch]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I think what this reveals is the hubris of those subscribing to the "deep state" model of history. "There are forces that move in directions that can only be held off by mass populist movements--and individual politicians have little to do with it." Or whatever. The problem with this it denies the reality that individuals can make a difference. Lincoln, Gandhi, MLK, and General Smedley Butler come to mind, not to mention the name of that Russian U-boat commander who personally held off WWIII. (I really should learn his name seeing as he quite possibly saved the world.)

Give this a listen, if you haven't already it's basically about the Deep State without calling it that.

Parenti also calls out Chomsky in the lecture. 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

Give this a listen, if you haven't already it's basically about the Deep State without calling it that.

Parenti also calls out Chomsky in the lecture. 

 

I like Parenti a lot. He is logical and he highlights the parody that is the official narrative. 

[Joseph McBride]

Chomsky once "joked" that his salary since 1955 has been paid

by the military-industrial complex. That was the year he

started teaching at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He remains an Institute Professor Emeritus at MIT even

though he has moved to Arizona, where he is a Laureate

Professor of Linguistics at Arizona State University. Freud

once observed that there is no such thing as a joke.

Chomsky has also declared that the two subjects he

won't touch are the JFK assassination and 9/11, although

he has published books about both subjects. His 1993 book RETHINKING

CAMELOT: JFK, THE VIETNAM WAR, AND U.S. POLITICAL

CULTURE is a not-so-oblique attack on and response

to Oliver Stone's 1991 film JFK.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Joseph McBride

[Roger Odisio]

On 2/1/2023 at 2:52 AM, Joseph McBride said:

Chomsky once "joked" that his salary since 1955 has been paid

by the military-industrial complex. That was the year he

started teaching at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He remains an Institute Professor Emeritus at MIT even

though he has moved to Arizona, where he is a Laureate

Professor of Linguistics at Arizona State University. Freud

once observed that there is no such thing as a joke.

Chomsky has also declared that the two subjects he

won't touch are the JFK assassination and 9/11, although

he has published books about both subjects. His 1993 book RETHINKING

CAMELOT: JFK, THE VIETNAM WAR, AND U.S. POLITICAL

CULTURE is a not-so-oblique attack on and response

to Oliver Stone's 1991 film JFK.

This is an audio of the full talk by Michael Parenti, given I think at Berkley in '93.  It's fabulous.  Here we are 30 years later and things are worse.