I was also pleased to see that it is largely devoid of liberal political preaching. Even its segment on JFK and Vietnam is not abrasively liberal.
I think that was because Oliver Stone and Jim D are not far left liberals. I think they might even be considered somewhat conservative.
I think that was because Oliver Stone and Jim D are not far left liberals. I think they might even be considered somewhat conservative.If you think those people are "conservative" then I'm not sure what political yardstick you are using? I guess you can argue the so-called "horseshoe theory" of politics; that is the far right and the far left sort of merge or come together in some areas. So someone on the hard left resembles someone on the hard right.
If you think those people are "conservative" then I'm not sure what political yardstick you are using? I guess you can argue the so-called "horseshoe theory" of politics; that is the far right and the far left sort of merge or come together in some areas. So someone on the hard left resembles someone on the hard right.
Jim Garrison called himself a "libertarian conservative" but his view of America, of who he thought ran the country (the "war state"), sounded exactly like that of the New Left of the 1970s, of the anti-American leftwing, and the "woke" left of today, that views the American project as thoroughly corrupt.
Oliver Stone produced a movie for HBO - "The Untold History of the United States" - that argued that the Cold War was caused solely by the policies of the US, that if we had elected Henry Wallace instead of Harry Truman in 1948 that none of the subsequent conflict would have followed. Yes, poor Uncle Joe Stalin never had a chance <g>. That's a left wing view of US/Soviet relations. It's even further left than what a Chomsky or Zinn said. They at least were critical of both sides.
Both Stone and the DiEugenio are, in my view, on the political left. I have no idea what "conservative" view they hold. Could you give us an example?
If you think those people are "conservative" then I'm not sure what political yardstick you are using? I guess you can argue the so-called "horseshoe theory" of politics; that is the far right and the far left sort of merge or come together in some areas. So someone on the hard left resembles someone on the hard right.
Jim Garrison called himself a "libertarian conservative" but his view of America, of who he thought ran the country (the "war state"), sounded exactly like that of the New Left of the 1970s, of the anti-American leftwing, and the "woke" left of today, that views the American project as thoroughly corrupt.
Oliver Stone produced a movie for HBO - "The Untold History of the United States" - that argued that the Cold War was caused solely by the policies of the US, that if we had elected Henry Wallace instead of Harry Truman in 1948 that none of the subsequent conflict would have followed. Yes, poor Uncle Joe Stalin never had a chance <g>. That's a left wing view of US/Soviet relations. It's even further left than what a Chomsky or Zinn said. They at least were critical of both sides.
Both Stone and the DiEugenio are, in my view, on the political left. I have no idea what "conservative" view they hold. Could you give us an example?
It is rock solid on every issue relating to the assassination.
In the 1960s through a decade ago, liberals were skeptical of the government. Particularly such institutions as the FBI and military. Mostly due to Vietnam and Watergate. They promoted free speech even of extreme views and were skeptical of the government (even LBJ's administration) while conservatives tended to support the status quo. There has been a sea change in the present day. Now the leftists are lock step with the FBI and anything espoused by left wing politicians. There is a Stasi-like compliance to authority fueled by the media and social media propaganda. No one dares to question what they are told. If they do so, they are destroyed. Stone may no longer fit easily into the same leftist mold that existed in the past. He is a complete krank but his questioning of the government rather than blind compliance is commendable even if his conclusions are wrong.Isn't it just simply that people tend to lose their skepticism of government (or becomes supporters of it) when they or their side is exercising that power? Conservatives were defenders of the FBI, of the military, of the national security state during the Cold War but have only recently questioned those institutions as Democrats and liberals began to control them. Hoover's FBI is now Comey's FBI and so on. When universities were suppressing radical left views conservatives tended to support that. Now it's the left suppressing views and conservatives are (rightly) upset. It's all tribal politics now.
Now the leftists are lock step with the FBI and anything espoused by left wing politicians. There is a Stasi-like compliance to authority fueled by the media and social media propaganda. No one dares to question what they are told.
Conservatives were defenders of the FBI, of the military, of the national security state during the Cold War
| (https://www.historyonthenet.com/authentichistory/1946-1960/4-cwhomefront/1-mccarthyism/19541007_McCarthyism-Carry_On_Lads.jpg) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Ahh. The Glory Days of McCarthyism, and complying dossiers on homosexuals and "uppity" blacks. But then the FBI "went after" the Klan and then Nixon over Watergate. That's really when the Republicans started to suspect the Bureau. |
(https://www.historyonthenet.com/authentichistory/1946-1960/4-cwhomefront/1-mccarthyism/19541007_McCarthyism-Carry_On_Lads.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Ahh. The Glory Days of McCarthyism, and complying dossiers on homosexuals and "uppity" blacks. But then the FBI "went after" the Klan and then Nixon over Watergate. That's really when the Republicans started to suspect the Bureau.
Your understanding of American history is lacking. It was a group of Dems including LBJ in the senate who held up any advancement of civil rights for almost a hundred years. Republicans from Grant to Eisenhower were advocates of equality.
There also was a real threat of Communist infiltration of the government. The Russians had an extensive intelligence operation that had infiltrated many areas of the government because so many leftists in government were sympathetic to the cause. Academics, scientists and others actively provided information to the Soviets. All that has little to do with the point under discussion which was that the questioning of the government was once a leftist trait. LBJ was a favorite target of liberals even though he was a Democrat with the most liberal agenda until Biden. There would be no criticism of him under the modern liberals. They walk in lock step, Stasi-like compliance.
Yet they failed to act on it. Between 1860 and the Great Depression, Republicans controlled the White House and, at the same time, Congress more than half the time. Something about the blacks ought to be content with having the vote and businessmen didn't want to be forced to open up to blacks. Blaming inaction on the Democrats during that time is just more gaslighting from the current weird GOP.
Eisenhower entered office with a Republican majority in the House and control of the Senate. The two Civil Rights Bills passed in Ike's second term had support from the majority of Democrats in both Houses (most Southern Democrats holding out).
Richard does so well at seeing how he was once deluded and conned by the JFK Assassination Conspiracy mind-benders. Now Poor Richard has become all radicalized by the soul-sucking Fox News and alt-right-web echo chamber.
"Stasi-like" is the du jour dog-whistle at Fox since Trump stooge Jeffrey Clark used the term at a Jan-6th hearing last June. Now the Trump raid has inspired such effusive-though-inapplicable terms as "preemptive coup", "Third World bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns", "Partisan witch hunt", "dark day for our republic" and "Gestapo". Gee, some poor person literally getting their door kicked in or hauled out of their car window are supposed to be compliant and not complain. Now we know who the marshmallows really are.
I think that was because Oliver Stone and Jim D are not far left liberals. I think they might even be considered somewhat conservative.
As to Stone: But he doesn't question governments; he only questions the US (or western) governments. He's been an apologist for decades for the Castros and the Chavezs and other authoritarian governments that are hostile to the US. His rule is that if they oppose the US - or the US opposes them - then they must be defended. He really does view the US as a thoroughly corrupt country - he calls the US the "wild beast" that must be tamed. And if a government, no matter how corrupt it is, opposes the US then he'll defend it. Go watch his HBO movie on the history of the US. He believes that the Cold Was was caused solely by the US and that if we had elected Henry Wallace none of that conflict would have followed. Stalin gets a pass.
BTW, to relate this to the assassination: One of Wallace's top advisers in his presidential campaign was John Abt. Yes, that John Abt.
JFK Revisited is the short version of the four-hour documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed. Thankfully, the short version leaves out most of the liberal preaching found in the long version. The long version contains a lot more material on each subject than does the short version, but the long version also contains an unfortunate dose of ultra-liberal politics.
Conspiracy theorists need to understand that you do not have to be an ultra-liberal to regret JFK's death, to reject the lone-gunman theory, and to admire the good things that JFK did as president. Sadly, most conspiracy theorists act like if you believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy, you must also believe that the Vietnam War was evil, that JFK would have done nothing to prevent the fall of South Vietnam, that the CIA should be abolished, that Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning are heroes, that even Obama's anti-terrorist drone program was wrong, that the PATRIOT Act was a tyrannical violation of constitutional rights, that Reagan was a bad president, etc., etc.