In 1991, Oliver Stone was the most celebrated director in Hollywood, having won 2 Oscars in 4 years. Instead of cashing in, he used his platform to make "JFK," the first mainstream cultural product to question the official JFK narrative. He was pilloried and destroyed for it.
The vicious reaction to that film on the part of the corporate press was insane. Go read it. But it resulted in opening up the archives. His new documentary -- "JFK Revisited" -- leaves no doubt for any rational person that the Warren Commission story is a lie, a cover-up.
Even Stone's critics admit that this new documentary destroys the lone shooter/Oswald theory which the US Govt fed the public for years. The film doesn't try to answer who actually killed JFK, but I urge everyone to watch it and decide for yourselves.
A little brigade of snotty movie critics have arrived with their "LOL: JFK was nominated for 8 Oscar: learn to use Google" tantrums. Two points:
First, learn how to read. He was pilloried and his reputation destroyed for JFK *by the corporate press*, exactly as I wrote:
Second, I don't need to use Google. I've known Stone for years. He made a film in which I was a character. He was just in my home last Sunday. I've had many long conversations with him about the impact on his career from the media contempt for "JFK":
His latest documentary shows some of the corporate press reaction to "JFK." It was insane. He was widely labelled a liar, a crazed leftist and conspiracy theorist. All of that laid the groundwork for Hollywood to withdraw after "NBK" and especially when "Nixon" performed poorly.
Thank you for this helpful reminder, @TwitterSafety. As we saw before when political reporters condemned "Zero Dark Thirty," snotty film critics can be quite vicious whenever uncredentialed interlopers think they may speak about films without the proper licensing and training.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The shooter also praised Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant (anti-Muslim mass shooters); commemorated murdered wife of white separatist Randy Weaver and Timothy McVeigh; "Kick a spic"; cited Waco.
The need to instantly impose a clear ideology on mentally ill killers is stupid.
This platform is filled with countless pundit and influencer-types trying hard to claim the shooter was motivated by whatever ideology or group they most hate:
It was anti-Zionism! It was leftism! It was far-right racism.
Many, perhaps most, mass shooters are principally ill.
See also👇. You can turn the shooter into whatever you want if you try hard enough:
More here from Waal -- if you can bear to listen to it -- on exactly what the IDF and US are doing to block food from entering Gaza, and the reason why Stage 5 famine and dying of starvation is one of the worst ways a human being can perish:
Yale's "Fascism expert" Jason Stanely -- Yale's "Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy" (does anyone now who that is?) -- explains why he's fleeing the US in fear withYale's Timothy Snyder and his wife Marci Shore -- to Canada, which he calls "the Ukraine of of North America."
He says Canada is Ukraine beacaue it's a bastion of freedom and nobility threatened an by authoritarian neighbor.
The absolute narcissism and melodrama of these people: there are those whose civil liberties are threatened. Celebrated, rich Yale professors are not among them.
Extra gross that Snyder is very wealthy by heralding himself the world's leading warrior against fascism. His book implores others not to "anticipatorily obey" Trump.
2 months into Trump's term, he flees the US as if he's an underground #Resistance leader in occupied France.
If Joe Biden had announced that any private universities that allow criticism of him or Dems shall immediately lose all federal funding -- while keeping the funding if they allow criticisms of Trump -- would that have been constitutional since no school has the right to funding?
How about if Biden cut off all federal funding to universities that deny the validity of the trans identity or the existence of multiple genders -- on the ground that such teaching incites violence against trans people and is hate speech?
Would that have been constitutional?
The only tactic needed to induce support for censorship is train people to believe the views they hate are violence.
Anti-trans activists are inciting violence and calling for genocide, etc.
Opponents of Israel's war on Gaza are calling for genocide and must be censored, etc. etc.
During the Dem primary campaign, one of RFK Jr.'s core issues was free speech and opposing censorship. Then he became known for wanting to combat chronic disease.
So what does he use his first month for? Threatening universities which allow protests against Israel on campus:
Note: you're free to protest the US on campus. You can protest any country or group: just not Israel.
And of course this censorship - like all censorship - is justified the name of stopping hate speech and keeping one group "safe": as if they're being relentlessly attacked.
Every government in the world -- including the most repressive and tyrannical -- "protects free speech" for the views they like.
It's the views they most hate that are targeted. And the most sacred issue for many in the Trump Admin is Israel: that is what's therefore shielded.
There's nothing stopping Germany or the EU from funding war in Ukraine until the end of eternity if they wish, or sending their citizens to Ukraine to fight Russia.
But the German Greens -- the worst of the worst -- are emblematic of European liberals: all posturing, no action.
British pundits prance around as if they're Churchill, and Macron walks around like he's a tough guy, and German Greens and other vague Berlin liberals posture as if they're the paragon of compassion: all while they rely on the US to finance wars, fight and protect them.
Zelensky begged and begged Westerners to get off line and stop tweeting with their blue-yellow emojis and instead go to Ukraine to help them fight the Russian Army, knowing he couldn't win without non-Ukrainians volunteering to fight. Very, very few did.