David Guyatt Wrote:::laughingdog:eople's perceptions about JFK is your guiding philosophy for making judgements today is it? Something that happened over 50 years ago?
Meanwhile, back in the land of reality some facts: Seymour Hersh has won the Pulitzer prize, two National Magazine awards, five George Polk awards and one George Orwell report - he's the guy who broke the My Lai massacre story and too many others to mention here - and who has regularly embarrassed and held power to account.
Tell us what amazing things have you done journalistically, Tracy?
What ho? Hersch would be in the same vein as Chomsky who turned on Kennedy for the false left.
Yes, the corruption concerning the assassination of Kennedy is pretty much a permanent Deep Political reference point, formative event, and fixture for the current state of politics.
I suggest reading DiEugenio on Hersh. It is some of Jim's better material when he's not defending ROKC.
David Guyatt Wrote:The latest credentialed independent journalist, Seymour Hersh, blasts the media for uncritically promoting Russian hacking story.
But is he, like most other independent reporters just ::headbang::::headbang::::headbang:: in the face of a rampant psychological contagion?
Hersh also noted that Trump's counter-attack on the media was "right out of national socialism" and also warned about Trump's access to the unbridled power and snooping ability of the US Intelligence Community.
Seymour Hersh? The guy who accepts the official version of the JFK assassination and wrote that there may have been "some justice" done when he was killed?
::laughingdog:eople's perceptions about JFK is your guiding philosophy for making judgements today is it? Something that happened over 50 years ago?
Meanwhile, back in the land of reality some facts: Seymour Hersh has won the Pulitzer prize, two National Magazine awards, five George Polk awards and one George Orwell report - he's the guy who broke the My Lai massacre story and too many others to mention here - and who has regularly embarrassed and held power to account.
Tell us what amazing things have you done journalistically, Tracy?
David, I think Tracy has a point here. Hersh is a very questionable character. In fact, anyone who is allowed to be a part of the Mighty Wurlizter should be treated with at least some degree of skepticism.
Doug Valentine in his The CIA as Organized nothing good to say about Hersh. His criticism is that in his reporting on My Lai, he turned the story into a cover-up by the higher brass of a group of bad soldiers who disobeyed orders. He ignored the real story in that this group was a part of the Phoenix Program who were supposed to kill civilians indiscriminately in order to terrorize the population. He goes on further to say:
Quote:Like Seymour Hersh and other liberal media icons, he avoids naming CIA officers or detailing the CIA's class functions. He's an expert who tells the bourgeoisie it's all under control. He serves this symbolic function and he's been doing it for forty years. And if, like me, you violate his sanctity by revealing the truth, you'll never get published by the Compatible Left. You lose access.
Valentine, Douglas. The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World (Kindle Locations 424-427). Clarity Press, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Further he has nothing good to say about Daniel Ellsberg nor any of the current crop of celebrity truth tellers like Jeremy Scahill, etc.
Quote:Maintaining Ellsberg's image is mostly a business decision, because Ellsberg is what the Mafia calls "a money-maker." If one of these Compatible Left media outlets has Ellsberg talk at a peace conference it's sponsoring, a hundred fans will pay cash to see him. The Compatible Left is a business venture that's dependent on the capitalist society within which it operates. At the same time, Ellsberg is a symbol of the illusion that change is possible within the system. He calls for reform, yes, and like the Compatible Left, he backs many important progressive programs. But more importantly, by covering up his own CIA connections, he's reassuring the bourgeoisie that subscribes to these media outlets that everything they assume about their leaders is right. And that's how symbolic heroes mislead the way. This is Ellsberg's symbolic function; as a certified hero who has achieved celebrity status, he proves the system works. He leaked the Pentagon Papers and stopped the war. And he suffered for it. President Nixon wanted to put him on trial for treason. Nixon's staff pulled all sports of dirty tricks to intimidate and discredit him, but he soldiered on. That's the myth of the hero. But there are no heroes, and the system doesn't work for everyone, like it rewards Amy Goodman at Democracy Now! Or like it rewards Greenwald and Scahill.
Valentine, Douglas. The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World (Kindle Locations 411-421). Clarity Press, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Quote:Josef Joffe, the editor-publisher of German weekly Die Zeit, suggests the easiest way to end the "Trump catastrophe" is to murder the president in the White House.
Joffe joined panel show ARD-Presseclub to answer questions from the public. A viewer called in to ask if it was possible to impeach President Donald Trump and end the "catastrophe."
"There has to be a qualified two-thirds majority of the Senate in order for a removal of office to take place," a female panelist responded. "These are politically and legally pretty high hurdles, a lot would have to happen for it, we're far away from that."
offe recently authored an op-ed in The Guardian where he argues Trump will do "untold damage to Europe."
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Quote:It would never occur to ordinary CIA officers that derailing a presidency might be a desirable thing to do. The rumor of some kind of coup in the making is the creation of a media that is looking for a story and trying to bash Donald Trump at the same time.
To be sure, there has been an open dispute between Trump and several intelligence officials over the nature of the alleged Russian threat, with the new president tending to dismiss the alarms being raised by former CIA director John Brennan and others. Trump has struck back against the criticism in general terms, noting dismissively how several of the various agencies that make up the community have had a tendency to get things wrong, most notably the CIA's Weapons of Mass Destruction assessment on Iraq.
Sometimes this rift has morphed into an alternative media narrative suggesting that the intelligence agencies are actually trying to stage a soft coup through their criticism of Trump and his advisers, attempting to delegitimize the presidency and wage war on Trump's policies as he struggles to establish himself in Washington. There have also been allegations that leaks reportedly coming from the top levels of several agencies have been intended to discredit the new president.
Some others have noted, less alarmingly, that a president at odds with the intelligence agencies he directs is a formula for trouble internally and will also create problems in sharing information with friendly foreign security services. Those who are more conspiracy-minded see instead a focused effort to pile up criticism and distractions that will narrow Trump's options for dealing with Russia and the Middle East. In its most extreme rendition, some suspect that the national security "deep state" is even eager to enter into a new Cold War with Moscow, possibly to justify its own existence and emoluments.
Trump has responded sharply to a so-called dossier containing allegations about his relationship with Moscow, calling the possibility that an intelligence agency leaked the scandalous but unverifiable material something that might have happened in Nazi Germany. John Brennan saw an unacceptable analogy in that comment and also warned that the impression that the White House does not trust its own spies could have major international repercussions. He recommended that the new president should be more careful in what he says and does, particularly regarding Russia, further fueling the perception that the national-security state is building a united front against any possible shift in policy.
I do not, however, share the view that a major conflict between America's intelligence community and the Trump administration is in place or somehow developing. Nor is there a potential problem with foreign intelligence services, which continue to receive much more information from Washington than they provide. Yes, there is a rift between the new White House and its national-security apparatus, but what we have been seeing is a largely internal conflict between the outgoing Obama administration and the incoming Trump administration over the foreign-policy and national-security agenda.
Sources of Russian Hysteria
Obama, for reasons that elude me, used his last several weeks in office to punish Russia. Relying on the as of yet evidence-free claims of Moscow's interference in the U.S. election as a pretext, 35 Russian diplomats and their families were expelled just before the New Year while an American infantry brigade supported by armor was shifted to Poland over a largely speculative threat to allies in Eastern Europe.
The Obama attempt to lock Russia into a certain foreign-policy box has been aided and abetted by a largely Democratic Party and media-induced hysteria over the results of the election, one that increasingly blames Russia and Vladimir Putin personally for the outcome. The narrative has expanded as it has gone along, adding an apparent Russian-Putin plan to destabilize all of Europe. Republican notables, including Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have eagerly jumped on board the bandwagon and are chairing committee hearings where no one who has anything exculpatory to say about Russia need apply.
But as the CIA does not often do things spontaneously, someone should be asking who in the White House directed the agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to focus on Russia and the election, resulting in the yet-to-be-seen-by-the-public classified 35-page report on the alleged hack that is now being used to explain the stunning election results. As John Brennan has been promoting the anti-Russian agenda as Obama's yes-man in Langley, he is almost certainly the source of much of the prevailing narrative, but one nevertheless has to assume that he was acting under orders.
Another prominent former CIA officer who has also been aggressively pushing the anti-Russian button is retired Acting Director Michael Morell. He is best known for his recent recommendation that the United States begin to assassinate Iranians and Russians to send a "serious" message that they are interfering in Syriaand that we are really angry about what they are doing. (Morell somehow missed the fact that we are the ones who are interfering, as Syria has an internationally recognized government that has sought assistance from Tehran and Moscow while excluding us.)
Morell is currently calling on Russian President Vladimir Putin to return whistleblower Edward Snowden to the U.S. so he can be tried and punished as an inaugural "gift" to President Trump. If the proposal is being made in all seriousness, it suggests that Morell has completely lost touch with what most would regard as reality.
Morell is inevitably a passionate Clinton supporter who might have been aspiring to be named as her CIA director. During the campaign, he described Trump as an "unwitting agent" of Russia even though his own career through the CIA bureaucracy rather suggests that "unwitting" might well apply to several of his stops along the way. Morell, as White House briefer, delivered the false report that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. He also presented to George W. Bush the August 2001 CIA report suggesting that a major terrorist strike on the U.S. was about to take place but added his own view that "there was no need to worry about an Al Qaida attack on the homeland." Morell also led the team of analysts that prepared the infamous Colin Powell UN speech that falsely claimed Iraq possessed "biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."
But Morell is gone for good unless one has the misfortune to see him on CBS News. Brennan is now also out the door, soon to be replaced by Mike Pompeo, and if Brennan's personal staff is not gone already, it soon will be. So the drive for a certain flavor of foreign policy being supported by cherry-picked intelligence to suit will lose its raison d'être and will change to conform with what the new administration desires.
The Permanent CIA
The CIA is not the departed John Brennan and his inner circle of heavily politicized senior managers. Nor is it Michael Morell. It is nearly 20,000 employees who are generally type-A personalities: headstrong and largely unwilling to have anyone tell them what is right and what is wrong. Many who work through a couple of overseas tours return home pretty much as political nihilists, regarding one band of corrupt politicians pretty much like any other, including those who sit in Washington. To cite only one example, while serving in Geneva, fugitive whistleblower Edward Snowden recounted how he met many American spies who were deeply opposed to the ongoing war in Iraq and U.S. policy in the Middle East. "The CIA case officers were all going, what the hell are we doing?" That kind of reaction by CIA's foot soldiers to what was coming out of Washington was not exactly unusual.
An interesting recent op-ed by David Ignatius, who is well plugged in to Washington intelligence circles, explains inter alia how the CIA is not equivalent to the agency leadership, which comes and goes with each administration. As Ignatius describes, most CIA staffers are currently more engaged in a controversial internal reorganization Brennan has been implementing over the past yearin part to punish the agency's actual spies, who reportedly rejected his services 37 years ago, instead forcing him to become an analyst. He has never forgiven them, apparently. Ignatius cites two senior operations officers who describe the changes as the "revenge of the nerds."
The bottom line is that few agency staffers care very deeply about how Donald Trump might perceive the organization that pays them, as long as it continues to pay them and gives them at least a modicum of respect. No cuts in the intelligence-community budget are anticipated and some believe that it might actually increase. I know there were no exit polls at CIA headquarters, but I would bet that an overwhelming majority of agency staffers, who normally identify as Republicans anyway, actually voted for Donald Trump. Many were more than a little disgusted by what they regarded as a pusillanimous Obama and hold Hillary Clinton in utter contempt for no-fault email caper.
Trump, for his part, has clearly understood the need to reassure the intelligence community that new management is preparing to take over. His first visit to a government agency on the day after the inauguration was to CIA, where he was applauded as he said at least some of the right things to heal the breach.
Sure, it is nice to be lovedbut it is far more important to have a good job with benefits, work that is fulfilling, and regular promotions that help pay the mortgage and kids' college tuition. CIA employees who put their job and family first will go with the program as long as the leadership doesn't go completely bonkers. Most also take seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution, not necessarily what they perceive as the propaganda that comes out of every White House.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
David Guyatt Wrote:The latest credentialed independent journalist, Seymour Hersh, blasts the media for uncritically promoting Russian hacking story.
But is he, like most other independent reporters just ::headbang::::headbang::::headbang:: in the face of a rampant psychological contagion?
Hersh also noted that Trump's counter-attack on the media was "right out of national socialism" and also warned about Trump's access to the unbridled power and snooping ability of the US Intelligence Community.
Seymour Hersh? The guy who accepts the official version of the JFK assassination and wrote that there may have been "some justice" done when he was killed?
::laughingdog:eople's perceptions about JFK is your guiding philosophy for making judgements today is it? Something that happened over 50 years ago?
Meanwhile, back in the land of reality some facts: Seymour Hersh has won the Pulitzer prize, two National Magazine awards, five George Polk awards and one George Orwell report - he's the guy who broke the My Lai massacre story and too many others to mention here - and who has regularly embarrassed and held power to account.
Tell us what amazing things have you done journalistically, Tracy?
David, I think Tracy has a point here. Hersh is a very questionable character. In fact, anyone who is allowed to be a part of the Mighty Wurlizter should be treated with at least some degree of skepticism.
Doug Valentine in his The CIA as Organized nothing good to say about Hersh. His criticism is that in his reporting on My Lai, he turned the story into a cover-up by the higher brass of a group of bad soldiers who disobeyed orders. He ignored the real story in that this group was a part of the Phoenix Program who were supposed to kill civilians indiscriminately in order to terrorize the population. He goes on further to say:
Quote:Like Seymour Hersh and other liberal media icons, he avoids naming CIA officers or detailing the CIA's class functions. He's an expert who tells the bourgeoisie it's all under control. He serves this symbolic function and he's been doing it for forty years. And if, like me, you violate his sanctity by revealing the truth, you'll never get published by the Compatible Left. You lose access.
Valentine, Douglas. The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World (Kindle Locations 424-427). Clarity Press, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Further he has nothing good to say about Daniel Ellsberg nor any of the current crop of celebrity truth tellers like Jeremy Scahill, etc.
Quote:Maintaining Ellsberg's image is mostly a business decision, because Ellsberg is what the Mafia calls "a money-maker." If one of these Compatible Left media outlets has Ellsberg talk at a peace conference it's sponsoring, a hundred fans will pay cash to see him. The Compatible Left is a business venture that's dependent on the capitalist society within which it operates. At the same time, Ellsberg is a symbol of the illusion that change is possible within the system. He calls for reform, yes, and like the Compatible Left, he backs many important progressive programs. But more importantly, by covering up his own CIA connections, he's reassuring the bourgeoisie that subscribes to these media outlets that everything they assume about their leaders is right. And that's how symbolic heroes mislead the way. This is Ellsberg's symbolic function; as a certified hero who has achieved celebrity status, he proves the system works. He leaked the Pentagon Papers and stopped the war. And he suffered for it. President Nixon wanted to put him on trial for treason. Nixon's staff pulled all sports of dirty tricks to intimidate and discredit him, but he soldiered on. That's the myth of the hero. But there are no heroes, and the system doesn't work for everyone, like it rewards Amy Goodman at Democracy Now! Or like it rewards Greenwald and Scahill.
Valentine, Douglas. The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World (Kindle Locations 411-421). Clarity Press, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Relevant to note that Hersh was used by Colby to oust Angleton; and that what Tracy has served up in this thread is nothing more than warmed over Angletonianism - guilt by Russophobic smear, non-sequitur, confabulation, and association. Truly dreadful stuff redeemed only by its manifest absurdity.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
David Guyatt Wrote:The latest credentialed independent journalist, Seymour Hersh, blasts the media for uncritically promoting Russian hacking story.
But is he, like most other independent reporters just ::headbang::::headbang::::headbang:: in the face of a rampant psychological contagion?
Hersh also noted that Trump's counter-attack on the media was "right out of national socialism" and also warned about Trump's access to the unbridled power and snooping ability of the US Intelligence Community.
Seymour Hersh? The guy who accepts the official version of the JFK assassination and wrote that there may have been "some justice" done when he was killed?
::laughingdog:eople's perceptions about JFK is your guiding philosophy for making judgements today is it? Something that happened over 50 years ago?
Meanwhile, back in the land of reality some facts: Seymour Hersh has won the Pulitzer prize, two National Magazine awards, five George Polk awards and one George Orwell report - he's the guy who broke the My Lai massacre story and too many others to mention here - and who has regularly embarrassed and held power to account.
Tell us what amazing things have you done journalistically, Tracy?
David, I think Tracy has a point here. Hersh is a very questionable character. In fact, anyone who is allowed to be a part of the Mighty Wurlizter should be treated with at least some degree of skepticism.
Doug Valentine in his The CIA as Organized nothing good to say about Hersh. His criticism is that in his reporting on My Lai, he turned the story into a cover-up by the higher brass of a group of bad soldiers who disobeyed orders. He ignored the real story in that this group was a part of the Phoenix Program who were supposed to kill civilians indiscriminately in order to terrorize the population. He goes on further to say:
Quote:Like Seymour Hersh and other liberal media icons, he avoids naming CIA officers or detailing the CIA's class functions. He's an expert who tells the bourgeoisie it's all under control. He serves this symbolic function and he's been doing it for forty years. And if, like me, you violate his sanctity by revealing the truth, you'll never get published by the Compatible Left. You lose access.
Valentine, Douglas. The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World (Kindle Locations 424-427). Clarity Press, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Further he has nothing good to say about Daniel Ellsberg nor any of the current crop of celebrity truth tellers like Jeremy Scahill, etc.
Quote:Maintaining Ellsberg's image is mostly a business decision, because Ellsberg is what the Mafia calls "a money-maker." If one of these Compatible Left media outlets has Ellsberg talk at a peace conference it's sponsoring, a hundred fans will pay cash to see him. The Compatible Left is a business venture that's dependent on the capitalist society within which it operates. At the same time, Ellsberg is a symbol of the illusion that change is possible within the system. He calls for reform, yes, and like the Compatible Left, he backs many important progressive programs. But more importantly, by covering up his own CIA connections, he's reassuring the bourgeoisie that subscribes to these media outlets that everything they assume about their leaders is right. And that's how symbolic heroes mislead the way. This is Ellsberg's symbolic function; as a certified hero who has achieved celebrity status, he proves the system works. He leaked the Pentagon Papers and stopped the war. And he suffered for it. President Nixon wanted to put him on trial for treason. Nixon's staff pulled all sports of dirty tricks to intimidate and discredit him, but he soldiered on. That's the myth of the hero. But there are no heroes, and the system doesn't work for everyone, like it rewards Amy Goodman at Democracy Now! Or like it rewards Greenwald and Scahill.
Valentine, Douglas. The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World (Kindle Locations 411-421). Clarity Press, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Hersh broke the Syrian sarin story which caused howls of hate and angst inside Langley - and resulted in a NATO attack on Syria being cancelled ---- and thus almost single handedly avoided a major, perhaps a world war, with Russia.
Thank you for that Seymour Hersh.
It transpired that the sarin attack was actually carried out by a jihadi group hoping to use it as a false flag provocation to force the US and NATO to go to war against Syria.
That story resulted in his usual magazine refusing to publish him anymore, even though his editor there clearly regards him as the very best there is - and has said so publicly. Hersh had to go to London to find a new publisher.
But the point is being missed, as it so often is these days, when the focus is shifted away from the story and towards the personality instead.
Hersh is merely the latest in a long line of respected international and independent journalists - who stand out from their corporate and shill brethren - and publicly decry the Russia did it fabrication. They point out that the IC conducted an investigation of the DNC claims of Russian hacking, but were refused access to investigate the actual DNC servers. Let me repeat that singular fact. The fake news story was propagated by Clinton and her team who refused to allow the FBI to investigate their servers.
That fact should see headlines screaming "fake story" in ten foot high letters.
When we add to this that there are actually no facts, none, nada, zilch in support of the IC "appraisal" then it stands to reason we should be treating that story with the greatest possible cynicism. Especially on this forum where members should, by now, have developed an understanding of the way deep politics work.
But for some here, reason has fled - and been replaced by emotive hate, cunning distortion, straw-grabbing and shadow projection.
And all aimed, as far as I can see, at reconstituting - and trying to make pure - a miserably failed war-mongering political shill and her even more failed, shill party - because Americans chose to be presided over by a loud-mouthed, arrogant, foul mouthed mafia neanderthal fascist.
Out of the fire and straight into the frying pan.
That's what Jung called meeting your fate.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Oliver Stone adds his name to the growing list --- saying that the Russian hacking story is "childish" and calls on America to Wake up! Before it's too late.
He also makes the point, that I also have made on this forum, that America has never suffered a war (or at least a modern war) on its soil. It always projects its war ecstasy overseas - for profit.
For those who don't know, Stone fought in Vietnam as a special forces LURP.
Quote:
HOW AMERICA PLAYS WITH HISTORY
Robert Parry gets it right once again in his anger at 50 years of Establishment lies from the New York Times, Washington Post, Time, CNN, Wall Street Journal, New Yorker, ad nauseum. When will we get it right with ourselves? We've reached this insane cul de sac with liberals,' so called, wanting to push to war with Russia to prove that Donald Trump is some kind of Manchurian Candidate' in Vladimir Putin's pocket. What next! We're talking WAR here, American troops moving on the borders of Russia on Obama's last day in office. Did I not see another supposed liberal, Rachel Maddow, on her MSNBC show say that with US troops on Russia's borders we will now find out if Trump is in Putin's pocket? Is there no end to her amusement? It's all just a game to these TV people -- a game for higher ratings, sales, advertising.
I believe the problem stems from our intelligence agencies not telling the American people the truth. How can they now? They've lied so much. It seems there's simply no awareness in these circles of ANOTHER point of view -- some compelling counter-narrative to the Ukraine/Crimea story, such as a strong CIA/State Department interference in a violent coup, abetted by Right-Sector snipers at work; or Syria -- with US support for terrorists fighting for regime change. There just seems to be a lack of understanding of the games of strategy played by armchair warriors in Washington, who always seem to be given the benefit of the doubt somehow as innocent servants of our country. I also have this strange and chilling feeling that too many people in this millennial generation simply don't know what war means. Too many slick action films with us kicking ass? Vietnam was horrible enough. It taught me that war destroys most everything, including the truth; it levels, it brings everyone to their basest level. We're already on our way there with these childish allegations of Russians hacking our election. Think about it. I see it repeated and repeated, although a report of some 25 pages was released that showed no evidence at all.
I repeat -- Americans have never suffered war. The Russians remember too well; it's in their DNA, not in ours. We like to pretend we're tough, but we don't take casualties very well. We love proxy armies, but our wounded veterans are screaming for help out of all proportion to what a major war will do to our population. Jack Ma, CEO of Alibaba, hit it right when he was talking about globalization recently -- "In the past 30 years, America had 13 wars spending $14.2 trillion… no matter how good your strategy is you're supposed to spend money on your own people." He also said this is why America hasn't profited from its globalization of the world.
I'm a liberal like many of you. And though I visit the New York/DC world and know some media, I've never seen people so crazy, drunk on the same Kool-Aid, grieving for a warmonger like Hillary Clinton. Wake up, America -- before it's too late. Trim your huge waistline, buckle your big, arrogant mouth, stop kidding yourselves that you can control the world and tell people how to behave. You can't back it up. In all the newsprint/TV blabber about how righteous we are, it won't make an iota of difference when the winds of war blow. Wake up please in time. Think differently, open your eyes and minds to other possibilities. There's nothing worse than war.
Robert Parry, "How the NYT Plays With History," Consortiumnews, http://bit.ly/2kdoJj1
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Albert Doyle Wrote:It would be remiss to not mention the zionist commonality between Chomsky and Hersh or its coincidental appearance in their views on Kennedy.
Right. Of course then there's Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Mae Brussell, Bob Tannenbaum, Cyril Wecht, etc. who also share a "zionist commonality", but strangely don't have the views of Chomsky or Hersh. BTW, Chomsky as "zionist"? You seem to have gotten some bad drugs.:tampfeet::
That's a logical fallacy. Perhaps the motivations were more along the influences detailed by many, including DiEugenio and Heidenheimer, for the false left. Whatever the motivation there's no excuse for leaving out the true history of the Kennedy Assassination. To me Lane is a hero, but it could be said he didn't press the full evidence to its conclusion as much as Douglass.
eople's perceptions about JFK is your guiding philosophy for making judgements today is it? Something that happened over 50 years ago?
tampfeet::