Chris Hedges, CIA?

[wordspeak2]

Is this thread dead or alive? It was a decent thread. Brekin showed that Hedges has done some sketchy things in the past, as a reporter. That's hardly surprising, given his position. He was clearly an establishment man. Did he wake himself up, or is he an intelligent agent? I'd have to lean towards him not being CIA. I'm definitely don't see any strong reason to think he's CIA. He doesn't get "conspiracy," but he doesn't go out of his way to attack it, which makes him *completely different from, no relation to,* Mr. Chomsky, who's made a huge part of his esteemed career a disingenuous attack on all things conspiracy.

Totally separately, I wish we would separate "the Black Block" from "property destruction." I'm against window-smashing as a tactic, though I supported Jose Bove's physical takedown of a McDonald's in France, and I think the European tactic of ripping up GMO crops has a place, too. Anyway, though, a group of Black Block kids once totally saved me from potentially serious physical harm. It was at the protests against the World Bank and IMF, April 16, 2000. I was locked down in an intersection. A van pulled up, and out jumped a group of about ten to fifteen cops, with batons pulled. They starting walking towards us with blood in their eyes, ready to beat us to a pulp. Out of nowhere a large contingent of Black Block kids showed up with shields and shit. They literally fought the cops off, kept our intersection safe, and to this day I can say I've never been beaten up by a cop. There's a place for self-defense/militancy at certain protests, and the non-violence crowd doesn't get that. Thank you, Black Block kids. end rant.

[CarlosMarxist]

Hedges background points to him being CIA. I believe that it is reasonable to believe that he is a CIA agent. I base this on the fact that the New York Times has an ongoing relationship with the CIA where they gave journalist cover to agents. My source for this is a 20 October 1977 Rolling Stone article by Carl Bernstein. http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php When you look at where Hedges was stationed you see that he covered places where he would be of great value to the CIA. Hedges was in Central America when the Maya genocide occurred. He covered the color revolutions the CIA instigated in Eastern Europe. He covered the United States bombing of Serbia. He was in the West Bank when the Israelis were dismantling Arafat's PLO compound. The speech he gave at Rockford College in Illinois looks like a classic sheep dipping situation. For those that don't know "sheep dipping" is used in intelligence circles to give their agents cover. His Rockford College speech gave him an antiwar cover. Hedges has all of the earmarks of being a CIA agent. It is definitely reasonable to believe his is a plant in the left.

[Twyla LaSarc]

I grew up in that portion of flyover. The only private 'Rockford College' I can summon now besides a trade school and Rock River or something like that community college is an old private instiitution called 'Rockford University' and in their mission statement state:

Rockford University's mission is to educate men and women to lead responsible productive lives by means of a curriculum grounded in liberal arts learning and complemented and extended by professional and practical experiences. Through the total academic and co-curricular experience, Rockford University strives to prepare students for fulfilling lives, careers, and participation in a modern and changing global society. At Rockford University we have a vision to be Jane Addams' college in the 21st century. By that, we signal an aspiration to live, learn and work in a contemporary way that honors the principles of Jane Addams, the distinguished 1881 graduate of the college who founded Hull House in Chicago and became the first American woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Long before Miss Addams won the 1931 Nobel Peace Prize, she was a Rockford University student.

I cannot imagine Jane Addams fanbois rushing the stage like hooligans.

[divideandconquer]

I believe all of the men and women, whether they work for the mainstream or receive considerable mainstream coverage, who appear to take up the plight of the downtrodden and/or appear to fight and/or "expose" the establishment--Nicholas Kristoff, Jeffrey Sachs, Chris Hedges, Ellen Brown, Daniel Ellsburg, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Jerermy Scahill, Glen Greenwald, Michael Eric Dyson, Cornel West and Tavis Smiley, etc., in reality, are people (mostly brilliant people) playing their roles to control, steer, contain the opposition.

I hate to believe this, because some of the aforementioned people used to be my heroes. I've learned much from these men and women. However, now that I see them for what they truly are, it's much easier to disengage, to filter out the substance of what they're saying/writing/reporting from the underlying message or agenda. In other words, escape the container they so skillfully create, to take the information and run, think for myself.. .

[82_28]

I remember when he gave that commencement speech denouncing the Iraq war at Rockford. I was horrified by the reaction of the crowd. Those were scary days. Surreal days. When he was shouted, chanted and intimidated off the stage was that all part of the "plot" as well? While I have little doubt he has connections within the CIA, is he a real agent (whatever a real agent is)? I don't think so. I think he just saw what he determined to be a path into a perpetual protracted war for empire and called it out and expressed concern when no one else was doing it.

Say he is an "agent", I don't think I've ever read or heard anything he ever did that I say he has ill and plotted intentions working as a social mole. I basically agree with everything he has espoused. Left wing causes have definitely put him on the map. Same with Chomsky and Zinn etc. I didn't need no "gatekeeper" to tell me what is right and what is wrong. Hedges gives a singular voice to shit he has seen and then applies that to current events. Also, I know enough to read one more thing by Hedges. Like I was explaining to my family last night as I was cooking dinner, anarchism is not going out and breaking shit and hurting/killing any entity, anarchism is that you pay no fealty to authority. Even the authorities deserve respect because they like you are entities as well. Idealism is a bitter pill because it never works. I also told them that if I like Sanders that means instant loss. And so it goes. . .

[CarlosMarxist]

I think skepticism is healthy but when it is born of naivete it can be deadly for movements. My argument is not a-priori; it is based on empirical evidence i.e. the known history of the CIA. Yes, the whole incident at Rockford College was probably contrived to sheep dip Hedges. The CIA has a long history of recruiting on college campuses. Liberal Arts students make for good analysts. They would want to recruit from Rockford College. And of course Hedges says things you agree with because that is how you create a cover.

Let's not forget the Sullivan memorandum from the Church Committee Report on the FBI's harassment of Martin Luther King. In this memorandum Sullivan outlined a plan for a "New National Negro Leader". This goes to show that the intelligence agencies have planted people in political organizations to take them over. For those that don't know many say that Jesse Jackson was this man that Sullivan was talking about in the memo. But back to Hedges it is has background prior to his Rockford incident that points to his being an agent. We know from the Church Committee hearings that the New York Times gave the CIA 12 positions to be filled. Hedges was in all the CIA hot spots during his career. Is this all a coincidence? Let's not be naive. You should take everything that Hedges says with a grain of salt because of his own words. "As journalists our job is to manipulate facts. I did it for many years. I can take any set of facts and spin you a story anyway you want and if I’m very cynical I can spin it in a way that I know is good for my career. But is not particularly truthful to my reader.”
FROM Chris Hedges Urban Poverty in America Made Me Question Everything Pt 1 & 2


History of CIA activity on college campuses.
Here is an excerpt from the Church Committee Hearings.
Excerpts from The Final Report of the Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect To Intelligence Activities ("Church Committee"), Book I, "Foreign and Military Intelligence," U.S. Senate, April 26, 1976


The Church Committee on the CIA in Academia

____________
Committee's note: The material italicized in this report has been substantially abridged at the request of the executive agencies.
____________

The Central Intelligence Agency has long-developed clandestine relationships with the American academic community, which range from academics making introductions for intelligence purposes to intelligence collection while abroad, to academic research and writing where CIA sponsorship is hidden.

The Central Intelligence Agency is now using several hundred American academics ("academics" includes administrators, faculty members and graduate students engaged in teaching), who in addition to providing leads and, on occasion, making introductions for intelligence purposes, occasionally write books and other material to be used for propaganda purposes abroad. Beyond these, an additional few score are used in an unwitting manner for minor activities.

These academics are located in over 100 American colleges, universities, and related institutes. At the majority of institutions, no one other than the individual concerned is aware of the CIA link. At the others, at least one university official is aware of the operational use made of academics on his campus. In addition, there are several American academics abroad who serve operational purposes, primarily the collection of intelligence.

Although the numbers are not as great today as in 1966, there are no prohibitions to prevent an increase in the operational use of academics. The size of these operations is determined by the CIA.

With the exception of those teachers, scholars and students who receive scholarships or grants from the Board of Foreign Scholarships, the CIA is not prohibited from the operational use of all other categories of grantee support under the Fulbright-Hays Act (artists, athletes, leaders, specialists, etc.). Nor is there any prohibition on the operational use of individuals participating in any other exchange program funded by the United States Government.

The Committee is disturbed both by the present practices of operationally using American academics and by the awareness that the restraints on expanding this practice are primarily those of sensitivity to the risks of disclosure and not an appreciation of dangers to the integrity of individuals and institutions.

The Committee believes that it is the responsibility of private institutions and particularly the American academic community to set the professional and ethical standards of its members.

Here are some links:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/04/07/ ... on-campus/

http://todayinclh.com/?event=fbi-plans- ... uther-king
C. William Sullivan proposes a, plan to promote a new negro leader: January 1964

On January 6, 1964 -- about two weeks after the FBI's conference to plan methods of "neutralizing" Dr. King's influence and to gather information about Dr. King's personal life -- the FBI installed the microphone in Dr. King's room at the Willard Hotel. As explained in the preceding chapter, additional microphones soon followed; physical and photographic surveillance was initiated; special Headquarters "briefings" were held; "dry runs" were planned; and the most sophisticated and experienced Bureau personnel were deployed to gather information that might be used in a concerted effort to destroy Dr. King's influence.

Two days after the installation of the Willard Hotel microphones, Assistant Director William Sullivan proposed that the FBI select a new "national Negro leader" as Dr. King's successor. In proposing the plan, Sullivan stated:

It should be clear to all of us that Martin Luther King must, at some propitious point in the future, be revealed to the people of this country and to his Negro followers as being what he actually is -- a fraud, demagogue and scoundrel. When the true facts concerning his activities are presented, such should be enough, if handled properly, to take him off his pedestal and to reduce him completely in influence. When this is done, and it can be and will be done, obviously much confusion will reign, particularly among the Negro people. . . . The Negroes will be left without a national leader of sufficiently compelling personality to steer them in the proper direction. This is what could happen, but need not happen if the right kind of a national Negro leader could at this time be gradually developed so as to overshadow Dr. King and be in the position to assume the role of the leadership of the Negro people when King has been completely discredited.

For some months I have been thinking about this matter. One day I had an opportunity to explore this from a philosophical and sociological standpoint with [an acquaintance] whom I have known for some years.... I asked [him] to give the matter some attention and if he knew any Negro of outstanding intelligence and ability to let me know and we would have a discussion. [He] has submitted to me the name of the above-captioned person. Enclosed with this memorandum is an outline of [the person's] biography which is truly remarkable for a man so young. On scanning this biography, it will be seen that [he] does have all the qualifications of the kind of a Negro I have in mind to advance to positions of national leadership....

If this thing can be set up properly without the Bureau in any way becoming directly involved, I think it would be not only a great help to the FBI but would be a fine thing for the country at large. While I am not specifying at this moment, there are various ways in which the FBI could give this entire matter the proper direction and development. There are highly placed contacts of the FBI who might be very helpful to further such a step. These can be discussed in detail later when I have probed more fully into the possibilities 231

When Sullivan was shown this memorandum by the Committee, he testified:

I'm very proud of this memorandum, one of the best memoranda I ever wrote. I think here I was showing some concern for the country. 232

[82_28]

If anything he should just come out and say whether it be true or not that Yes, I work for the CIA. See what happens. Obviously, this is what secrecy creates. I vote for him having lifted the veil and not contributing to it. I had a friend in high school who's dad worked with the CIA. They seemed normal enough to me. But THEN, just blocks south of where he lived was an illegal weapons dealer dad too! Such is life in south Denver I guess back then. Both of their dads were spoken of not to be spoken of at all. I gotz the namez. Since they lived in both secrecy and/or weaponry I totally will never say what I saw on the Internet ever, just that they existed.

One other thing that is sorta funny, as it were, is that the friend I had that had the CIA dad seems to be unsearchable as he has a unique name. Wiped off the map in some sense. Weapons dealer dad and son the same -- he was a crazy drug dealer. But whatever. I still don't think that Hedges is a plant or whatever it is we call it.

[Wombaticus Rex]

If anything he should just come out and say whether it be true or not that Yes, I work for the CIA. See what happens.

I'm no expert, but I don't think that is how Controlled Opposition works.

It's a nice thought, however, and I agree: everyone should tell the truth.

If only.

[CarlosMarxist]

Well said! I wish we all lived in a world where simply asking the question, "are you a CIA plant"?, would out agents. The thing about Hedges is that his background just screams C.I.A. his dots are not that hard to connect at all.

If anything he should just come out and say whether it be true or not that Yes, I work for the CIA. See what happens.

I'm no expert, but I don't think that is how Controlled Opposition works.

It's a nice thought, however, and I agree: everyone should tell the truth.

If only.

[Hunter]

If anything he should just come out and say whether it be true or not that Yes, I work for the CIA. See what happens. Obviously, this is what secrecy creates. I vote for him having lifted the veil and not contributing to it. I had a friend in high school who's dad worked with the CIA. They seemed normal enough to me. But THEN, just blocks south of where he lived was an illegal weapons dealer dad too! Such is life in south Denver I guess back then. Both of their dads were spoken of not to be spoken of at all. I gotz the namez. Since they lived in both secrecy and/or weaponry I totally will never say what I saw on the Internet ever, just that they existed.

One other thing that is sorta funny, as it were, is that the friend I had that had the CIA dad seems to be unsearchable as he has a unique name. Wiped off the map in some sense. Weapons dealer dad and son the same -- he was a crazy drug dealer. But whatever. I still don't think that Hedges is a plant or whatever it is we call it.

That kind of defeats the entire purpose of the CIA though doesnt it? It is an spy agency so you obviously cant have everyone blowing their cover. Of course we are also supposed to be secure in the knowledge that they are not legally allowed to run ops against US citizens on US soil, it is a foreign spy agency not domestic, but we know how that goes.

[Hunter]

I remember when he gave that commencement speech denouncing the Iraq war at Rockford. I was horrified by the reaction of the crowd. Those were scary days. Surreal days. When he was shouted, chanted and intimidated off the stage was that all part of the "plot" as well? While I have little doubt he has connections within the CIA, is he a real agent (whatever a real agent is)? I don't think so. I think he just saw what he determined to be a path into a perpetual protracted war for empire and called it out and expressed concern when no one else was doing it.

Say he is an "agent", I don't think I've ever read or heard anything he ever did that I say he has ill and plotted intentions working as a social mole. I basically agree with everything he has espoused. Left wing causes have definitely put him on the map. Same with Chomsky and Zinn etc. I didn't need no "gatekeeper" to tell me what is right and what is wrong. Hedges gives a singular voice to shit he has seen and then applies that to current events. Also, I know enough to read one more thing by Hedges. Like I was explaining to my family last night as I was cooking dinner, anarchism is not going out and breaking shit and hurting/killing any entity, anarchism is that you pay no fealty to authority. Even the authorities deserve respect because they like you are entities as well. Idealism is a bitter pill because it never works. I also told them that if I like Sanders that means instant loss. And so it goes. . .

The problem with gatekeepers is that what they are offering you might in fact be very good but they are also keeping something even better from you, steering you away from it.

A gatekeeper could for example go all in and tell you that the CIA is spying on Americans and really lay it all out there with regard to that, go all in on spying and how terrible it is but that could all be a cover to hide something even worse like human or drug trafficking etc. Just a basic example but you could apply that in many ways. Same with 9-11 they might go all in and let you know that yes the CIA was involved in 9-11 but it was the result of a bungled op from them trying to infiltrate al qeada and it backfired on them, they would go all in on this idea but never let you in on the real meat and potatoes that it was in fact all planned, plotted and manufactered, every detail. I am not saying that is the case, just another simple example of what a gatekeeper could accomplish with a limited hangout agenda. It is good, what they offer is good but they are not letting you go deeper to get to the real heart of it and thus nothing ever comes of it, the people responsible are never exposed and held accountable.

I have no clue if Chomsky or Hedges are gatekeepers, never really thought much about it but everything they have to offer is great, you listen to them and you think ok these guys are really spilling the beans and exposing shit, but are they really, or are they just steering you away from even worse shit? I dont know but it is entirely possible, especially today on the internet, I believe almost every good site and cause out there has been infiltrated and the narrative is now completely controlled, the NSA does in fact employ a literal army of people working on the internet controlling sites and comments to control information and steer us in one way or another.


You have people like Chomsky who are generally pretty level headed and reasonable and then on the other side you have Alex Jones a complete fucking nutcase, so what do you believe if both of those sides are controlled opposition, probably something in the middle, in between the two but they likely have that covered too right?

[Hunter]

On the subject of anarchy, I think it is just the most ridiclous position to espouse, it does not and will not work, people cannot be trusted, you think the wealthy and those with money are bad now, just imagine them without any government, they would be complete savages and quickly dominate those in a weaker position, what good is that, we NEED someone like Bernie is what we need, we need regulation and reform more of it not less. You think people with money would just stop polluting rivers and shit and destroying the earth in a world of anarchy? It would be a million times worse. Maybe I am naive and drinking the kool aide but I believe someone like Bernie is good for all of us, especially the working class people who would otherwise be dominated by those with guns and money in anarchy. And yes of course I am aware they already dominate us now WITH government etc but that is whole point of electing good people like Bernie, there are good people in the world who can be trusted to lead but for some reason we have elected the wrong ones over and over and over, but there is no reason to assume that there are not good people in the world that can be trusted with power, they are out there, I would like to believe some of you right on this board are among them, are you not? Do any of you believe that you could be trusted with power to lead ethically and morally, I not only believe I would I know I would because that is how I roll and if you believe or know you would also then that shatters the whole idea that government cannot work, it can work, we have just entrusted the wrong fucking people, we keep electing sociopaths to lead us, well no fucking shit that is a disaster.

[coffin_dodger]

Hunter:

...we have just entrusted the wrong fucking people, we keep electing sociopaths to lead us...

Whilst there appears to be some truth in this statement, I have to disagree. Come election time, when the electorate is presented with a choice of two or three candidates, one from each 'party' - that have been spotted, nurtured and progressed by The Handlers for their sociopathic compliancy, one can only expect to elect a willing and malicious tool. The only option open to voters is one and the same, part of a system that is a closed loop.

[Hunter]

Hunter:

...we have just entrusted the wrong fucking people, we keep electing sociopaths to lead us...

Whilst there appears to be some truth in this statement, I have to disagree. Come election time, when the electorate is presented with a choice of two or three candidates, one from each 'party' - that have been spotted, nurtured and progressed by The Handlers for their sociopathic compliancy, one can only expect to elect a willing and malicious tool. The only option open to voters is one and the same, part of a system that is a closed loop.

Yea, I see what you mean, that is definitely the issue we face, the sociopaths are all entrenched now and they all have to be rooted out, no small matter, I understand that and didnt mean to make any of this sound easy or simple, it isnt, but I do believe that there are good people out there than can be trusted to lead. I was in rant mode there for a few minutes is what that was mostly about, someone on fb had pissed me off and I was in a mood, but I do think government can work, maybe it is beyond repair at this point though. Good point for sure.

[CarlosMarxist]

If Hedges is CIA, it makes you wonder about Ralph Nader. Hedges was Nader's speech writer. So Nader speaks the words the CIA puts into his mouth. That says a lot when you think about it.