Huey Long--Why does he get so little attention?

[Myra Bronstein]

Doesn't the life and assassination of Huey Long fit right into the big picture? Elimination of populist pols. When he does get attention it tends to be of the non-flattering kind (All the King's Men).

Why is he largely forgotten?

[Myra Bronstein]

Just checked Wikipedia to learn the prevailing propaganda about Long. Turns out he was not just a populist, but a "radical populist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long

I stand corrected.

[Peter Lemkin]

Just checked Wikipedia to learn the prevailing propaganda about Long. Turns out he was not just a populist, but a "radical populist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long

I stand corrected.

In a way, you answered your own question. He is 'ignored' by the MSM and society lie-weavers BECAUSE he was a radical populist. One can list others who fall into that rubrik - and they all fell into the memory hole of the 'powers-that-be' and 'free' press (to one who owns one).

http://www.amazon.ca/Huey-Long-Assassina...0966030508

[Myra Bronstein]

http://www.amazon.ca/Huey-Long-Assassina...0966030508

Oh, thanks for the link Peter. Has anyone read the book?
"The Huey P. Long Assassination Conspiracy Unveiled: The Jessica Lauren Fields Story" by Duel Stone

[Paul Rigby]

Oh, thanks for the link Peter. Has anyone read the book?
"The Huey P. Long Assassination Conspiracy Unveiled: The Jessica Lauren Fields Story" by Duel Stone

M.,

For an eye-opening examination of the relevance of the Huey Long assassination to that of JFK, beg, borrow or purloin a copy of Donald Gibson's The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up (Commack, NY: Kroshka Books, 2000). Chapter 6 is entitled "Long and Kennedy"; the next chapter, "From Huey Long to Clay Shaw." As an added bonus, chapter 9 is the most intelligent discussion of "Establishment Radicals and Kennedy: Lamont, Chomsky and Russell," in the entire JFK assassination literature.

Paul

[Myra Bronstein]

M.,

For an eye-opening examination of the relevance of the Huey Long assassination to that of JFK, beg, borrow or purloin a copy of Donald Gibson's The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up (Commack, NY: Kroshka Books, 2000). Chapter 6 is entitled "Long and Kennedy"; the next chapter, "From Huey Long to Clay Shaw." As an added bonus, chapter 9 is the most intelligent discussion of "Establishment Radicals and Kennedy: Lamont, Chomsky and Russell," in the entire JFK assassination literature.

Paul

Thank you Paul! That's exactly what I want to see--not only attention paid to "radical populist" Long, but the pattern of assassinated populists which includes President Kennedy.

Since the name Chomsky came up--is he to be trusted? I'm under the impression that he never acknowledges the suspicious (understatement) nature of the JFK case.

[Paul Rigby]

Since the name Chomsky came up--is he to be trusted?

Like a Wall Street banker...or a CIA spin-doctor.

Paul

[Myra Bronstein]

Like a Wall Street banker...or a CIA spin-doctor.

Paul

Uh, well, I've long wondered if he was a CIA limited hangout kinda guy since he seems to be a JFK conspiracy denier. He's also at MIT, a place long associated with the CIA, where he has access to many young minds he can mold.

I just found out he's a 911 conspiracy denier too. Much more at this link:
http://www.oilempire.us/chomsky.html

[Paul Rigby]

Uh, well, I've long wondered if he was a CIA limited hangout kinda guy since he seems to be a JFK conspiracy denier. He's also at MIT, a place long associated with the CIA, where he has access to many young minds he can mold.

I just found out he's a 911 conspiracy denier too. Much more at this link:
http://www.oilempire.us/chomsky.html

For a man so keen on the analysis of institutions, he's curiously reluctant to offer any kind of in-depth look at the Agency. Don't blame him, though - might lead into "difficult" territory.

One of the big problems with criticism of him is the unwillingness and/or inability of said critics to pay proper attention to his arguments. Many of them are too absurd for words. Here's a classic example of what I'm getting at:

Readers of The Chomsky Reader, edited by the sycophantic James Peck, learn that the great one visited Israel in 1953 “at the time of the Slansky trails in Czechoslovakia”(1).

We are first informed that the kibbutzim on which he stayed was “a functioning and very successful libertarian commune,” that he “liked…very much in many ways”(2), so much so that he “came close to returning there to live”(3). So far so clear.

Yet in the very next paragraph, we learn that this same “functioning and very successful libertarian commune” was nothing of the sort. It was, instead, a sectarian hellhole: “…the ideological conformity was appalling. I don’t know if I could have survived long in that environment because I was very strongly opposed to the Leninist ideology, as well as the general conformism…”(4).

This is ridiculously contradictory as straight autobiographical reminiscence, but then to read these paragraphs in that conventional way is to miss the point. For these “recollections” have nothing to do with an accurate history of Chomsky’s life and intellectual development. Instead, the great, shameless, absurd volte-face is “legend” creation. If his opinions were to carry weight with the CIA’s particular target audiences, and thus help set the limits of 1960s dissent, Chomksy had to be armoured against two principle likely objections: that he was a self-hating Jewish intellectual, and/or a Stalinoid fellow-traveller. Now we have the key to unlocking the contradictory farrago that is Chomsky’s characterisation of the kibbutzim he visited in 1953.

(1) James Peck (Ed.) The Chomsky Reader (London: Serpent’s Tail, 1992 reprint), p.10.

(2) Ibid., p.8.

(3) Ibid., pp.8-9.

(4) Ibid., p.9.

[Myra Bronstein]

...Readers of The Chomsky Reader, edited by the sycophantic James Peck, learn that the great one visited Israel in 1953 “at the time of the Slansky trails in Czechoslovakia”(1).
...

Oh, ok. What a relief. For some reason Paul I quickly read the chapter name you posted and thought that Chomsky was a contributor to that chapter. And I was sorta freaking out 'cause I think of Chomsky as a propagandist.

I see now. Gibson is outing Chomsky as the propagandist he is.
There are samples of the chapter here: http://books.google.com/books?id=7n_sF3P...&ct=result

Dang, you're right. I have to beg/borrow/steal/whatever that book.