Chris Hedges, CIA?

[jlaw172364]

People who are mentally ill are often said to be confused. By telling me I'm confused, you're suggesting, as opposed to explicitly stating, that I'm mentally ill.
I'm not confused. I wrote a post, the forum software told me it was successful, and then when I come back to see if anyone replied to it, it is nowhere to be found. Then I wrote a second post inquiring about the first post. I saw it go up, but then when I refreshed it a bit later, it went down again, so I made a third post, and then the second post reappeared. Those are the facts on my end. I'm not confused and I don't have any eye problems.

[justdrew]

FYI - I'm not a moderator and do not moderate, don't have rights to; but I _can_ see the moderation log. None of your posts show as deleted jlaw172364.

I have to guess that the first post timed out (maybe due to host slowness) and never got recorded in the system. Did you actually SEE it posted in the thread? or perhaps you hit post, then closed the tab? Maybe the second post you looked for in a tab that was already open and hadn't been refreshed since your post?

Anyway, sorry to see posts lost, if that happens, sometimes you can use the browsers back function, and it'll have preserved the text, another thing when making a large post, is to select all and copy the text to your clipboard before posting (but I don't even do that often, because posting works 99.99% of the time.)

on edit: I see you're saying you saw it. Can you look in your browser history and see if you can find record of the post there? The url will look something like this:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34179&p=451531#p451531

I'd need the number after p=

[brekin]

Well seems like it's best to let certain dogs lie.
Some people don't want to go certain places in their minds and I respect that.
I just find it funny that many of the same people who shrug at Obama, CIA? are
in a tizzy over Chris Hedges, CIA? Oh well, I guess we all need our Joe DiMaggio's.

And really there is nothing wrong with asking the question per se. It's a game I often play, William Burroughs, CIA? etc.
Strangely when I play it with me and my friends it never has brought ruin upon the people in question or broke the internet.
I think it is a fair question of anyone in media journalism. For example in a press conference I think it would be a fair question to him or any other journalist,
"While employed at the NYT did you have any dealings with the CIA or have you had any previously in your past?"

But since this thread has become a thread about not asking a question that has already been asked, there really isn't much more to discuss.
I'll bow out then with a theoretical reenactment of how Hedges's possible disenchantment with the CIA to progressive beacon could have happened:

[Simulist]

People who are mentally ill are often said to be confused.

So are confused people.

By telling me I'm confused, you're suggesting, as opposed to explicitly stating, that I'm mentally ill.

No, I'm not. I claim no knowledge of any mental illness on your part, nor would I even if I did know of it.

[justdrew]

that's right, the eyeglasses are a tell




but, in the end, I don't think it's useful to worry about. Such accusations have long been used by bad guys to undermine good, sow disunity, etc... and we're unlikely to ever have proof one way or the other. Best thing is just to use your own discernment and consider his words on their own merit and take your own council.


I've never been a big fan of this whole "gatekeeper" concept, but then again, a "controlled opposition" is a possibility.

As to his run down of the bad things about Iran, we really shouldn't lose site of the fact that absent the insane war talk, we'd all be very much opposed to the government of Iran, for many good reasons.

[jlaw172364]

I wonder if there is a firefox addon that saves posts for circumstances such as this. Maybe I should install a keylogger. Some people have alleged that certain online fora have silent bans that make the target think that their posts are being submitted when in fact the posts are blocked, but things are made to appear on the submitters end as if the post was actually submitted.

To summarize my first post: Chris Hedges need not be in the direct employ of the CIA to be working for them. The CIA may be influencing him in a number of ways, many of which most people who read this blog might be familiar with. Additionally, Hedges may be conflicted. He may hate the elites enough to want to see a revolution, but also fear the revolutionaries as well for the violence they would bring. Its a common predicament for people with some degree of intelligence. They abhor violence, so they deplore a violent system. They speak out against it, but then observe that this has little effect, and so become frustrated. But they also recognize that effective actions of non-violent opposition will be met with violence, and that advocating retaliatory violence only means more violence. So they often contradict themselves.

The U.S. government has a history of acting violently towards people that oppose it. It even kills people that offer up only the feeblest of non-violent opposition, as well as violent insurgencies. Advocating for non-violence winds up killing people as the system marches on, and advocating for violence winds up killing people as the goon squad hunts down the opposition.

As far as I'm concerned, I think the best thing to do is advocate for boycotts that suck energy out of the system. However, historically, the system has found ways to make things difficult for boycotters and refuseniks as well. Its a difficult situation.

[jlaw172364]

Well, maybe I made an error in posting then. Maybe I am confused. Maybe not.

Another thing I wrote was about this sort of thing:

http://www.american-buddha.com/great.vendetta.htm

[Project Willow]

Another thing. Someone use the term "resistance" vis-a-vis Chris Hedge's position. That's funny. I don't see Chris Hedges running around in the dark, sabotaging bridges, and taking out occupation forces. How is he resisting? He expresses his disapproval publicly, but that is not resistance. He encourages others to express their disapproval as well. Expressing disapproval of anything is national past-time. While people express disapproval, the machine grinds up more people.

I used the phrase resistance movement to describe Occupy. Sim also used it.

Is Occupy not a resistance movement? Seems like a fair enough start for a discussion but I don't wish to have it here. I'd like to see this thread die a quick and merciful death.

[Jeff]

It's not outright dismissal of the question, which can be applied to anyone, that apparently makes several of us gag at the headline; but an understanding that promiscuous accusations of agentry have been the most common, and one of the most effective of all COINTELPRO tools.

And why from the start I've made it a rule that we not do that to each other. It's a vile, disharmonious tactic.

Another thing. Someone use the term "resistance" vis-a-vis Chris Hedge's position. That's funny. I don't see Chris Hedges running around in the dark, sabotaging bridges, and taking out occupation forces. How is he resisting? He expresses his disapproval publicly, but that is not resistance.

You seem to hold a terribly narrow definition. I suppose Martin Luther King Jr didn't resist either?



BTW, I'm just about ready to lock this, so if anyone has serious objection, lemme know!

[jlaw172364]

Maybe I'm just burnt-out and cynical, but it seems to me that Occupy just resulted in more people being herded into the police-state surveillance dragnet. So people showed up to a public space and waved some signs around for a few months. It was inevitable that the police would come in and rain on their parade. What's the point of demonstrating and waving a sign when the people in power are immune to any sort of appeal? These people know what they are doing. They just don't care. They pretend to care, but they don't. They destroy other people so they can enjoy a higher standard of living, just like any predator.

In contrast to the French "resistance" movement, where people actually attacked an occupation in a variety of ways. Of course, this resistance was backed by enemy states....

Its the same thing over and over again. Governments despise domestic revolutionary movements and applaud foreign ones so they can destabilize and weaken enemies and competitors. That's why you have a Russia Times video up; the Russian media approves of toppling the corrupt U.S. government, the better to take away market share from it, and vice versa.

Every non-U.S. country almost certainly has people in it who aspire to achieve the level of dominance currently enjoyed by the U.S., to the extent that countries even matter anymore.

Initially, when the antiwar demonstrations against the second Iraq war began, a lot of people pointed out, excitedly, that there was a record turnout, unlike during the Vietnam war, where it took years to build up huge crowds of people opposed to the war. Ultimately, the war machine carried out its operations, and continues to carry them out in spite of all this protest. How does a dove actually stop a hawk once a hawk has made up its mind to go ahead and execute? Its a paradox.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Maybe I'm just burnt-out and cynical, but it seems to me that Occupy just resulted in

FUNNY, I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS OVER.

[jlaw172364]

@Jeff

Resistance has military connotations. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke out on behalf of an oppressed minority of which he was a member, engaged and led acts of civil disobedience and economic disobedience (boycotts). He also spoke out against U.S. militarism. But I don't think that constitutes resistance, although the military probably defines everything other than abject, servile obedience as resistance under the term "low-intensity conflict," so by arguing with your boss over your lousy pay, you're actually taking a step down the path towards Osama bin Laden.

To me, resistance implies that you're actually damaging the enemy, posing a threat to it. It seems to me that the enemy has only gotten stronger, better organized, more intelligent, more deadly, and more dangerous.

For example, instead of enslaving people based on race, something that creates cognitive dissonance, we now have flexible, multi-tiered systems of crypto-slavery, such as excessive and expensive schooling and the prison system, all of which are far easier to justify than just singling out some group based on skin colour.

Acts of resistance during the Vietnam War would have constituted sabotage of equipment, fragging officers, and maybe even draft-dodging. But the system is flexible enough to figure out ways to feed off of acts of resistance and jujitsu them into benefits. For example, outlaws and criminals, while costing the system energy, can also be used to terrorize the populace and drain resources for them. I'd wager that many spooks and military types would actually enjoy MORE actual "resistance," and less sign-waving. It would give them an opportunity to actual "prove" their superiority if they actually thought they were risking their necks against an actual enemy, instead of obligatory threatening the proverbial punch to the soft belly every week to collect the milk money. It seems like they are trying to make things worse just to see how far they can push people before they actually snap. And if examples worldwide are any indication, the U.S. has a long way to go, even if pockets of it are already third world.

[wintler2]

Maybe I'm just burnt-out and cynical, but it seems to me that Occupy just resulted in more people being herded into the police-state surveillance dragnet. So people showed up to a public space and waved some signs around for a few months. It was inevitable that the police would come in and rain on their parade. What's the point of demonstrating and waving a sign when the people in power are immune to any sort of appeal? These people know what they are doing. They just don't care. They pretend to care, but they don't. They destroy other people so they can enjoy a higher standard of living, just like any predator.

In contrast to the French "resistance" movement, where people actually attacked an occupation in a variety of ways. Of course, this resistance was backed by enemy states....

Its the same thing over and over again. Governments despise domestic revolutionary movements and applaud foreign ones so they can destabilize and weaken enemies and competitors. That's why you have a Russia Times video up; the Russian media approves of toppling the corrupt U.S. government, the better to take away market share from it, and vice versa.

Every non-U.S. country almost certainly has people in it who aspire to achieve the level of dominance currently enjoyed by the U.S., to the extent that countries even matter anymore.

Initially, when the antiwar demonstrations against the second Iraq war began, a lot of people pointed out, excitedly, that there was a record turnout, unlike during the Vietnam war, where it took years to build up huge crowds of people opposed to the war. Ultimately, the war machine carried out its operations, and continues to carry them out in spite of all this protest. How does a dove actually stop a hawk once a hawk has made up its mind to go ahead and execute? Its a paradox.

It is fine and helpful to cast a critical eye on opposition to Empire and be dissatisfied with progress to date. Both inform the work the world is calling you to do, and your greatest happiness will lie in promoting and doing what you see needs doing, not in merely watching or undermining others, and only with critical eye to own opinions as well. But i reckon you should think very hard about using words like resistance & attack in favourable terms on *any* electronic medium, unless you're writing an expose on terrorism frame-ups from 1st person.

[jlaw172364]

@Wombat

What? Do you think that this will be the time where the human skull finally bashes through the brick, no wait, let's make that reinforced steel wall? When you see people doing the same thing that didn't work over and over again, what are you supposed to think? People are arguing over the same details that they were arguing years ago!

People are accusing Chris Hedges being a CIA shill because he expressed an inconsistency and directing violence at the police, who themselves, have no problem with violence. They beat and kill people every day! And the finance people kill people indirectly, by squeezing them to death to extract more profits for themselves. And they know this. And Occupy is telling people to wave signs at them and try to shame them? These people will not resign. They will not step down. Maybe some of them will be fired, but the new boss will be the same as the old boss. I fail to see how Occupy won't be as ineffectual as the antiwar movement was during the Bush years. Its all just an exercise in sheep herding. The people that organize these events are like concert promoters.

[kenoma]

As stupid as the OP is - and it is magnificently stupid - I'm glad it sent me to the original MoA post.

A useful dossier there of spook-media manipulation of the situation in Syria:

What Is Edith Bouvier's Role In Sarkozy's "Humanitarian Corridors" Plans?







Interesting, disturbing stuff, contextualised when you follow links and more intelligent comments.
None of it posted here on RI thus far.

And if it were, it would probably get far less attention than the grandstanding attack on a prominent anti-war journalist. I used to go here, lurking or commenting, expecting fairly thorough, sceptical research/analysis of things that mattered currently. I expected to find something I never knew before. But now this place is rapidly becoming the Perez Hilton of various CT/antiwar/anti-imperialist personalities, sane or not.
Why? A greater number of malicious or gratuitous shitstirrers? Or just apathy, resignation, etc.?