Loudmouths and celebrity riffraff from the right and the left are uniting around crazy new twists in JFK conspiracy theories - A guest post, by Fred Litwin.
Carlson’s Fox commentary on the JFK assassination amounts to this: two shooters (Oswald and Ruby) could not have acted alone, and various Presidents refuse to release thousands of pages of documents, therefore the CIA were involved.
View this in light of the following: taken from a November 22, 2013, piece in the National Post by Michel Jacques Gagné: How Oliver Stone turned me into a conspiracy theorist: “As Political Scientist Robert Robins and Psychologist Jerrold Post once suggested, ‘The social harm that the film [JFK] commits goes beyond the distortion of history. It creates a broader intellectual pollution [and] gives weight to a popular mentality of paranoid belief.’”
Carlson’s logical fallacies and paranoia fit the category of intellectual pollution….in my humble opinion.
As a fellow Canadian, I first heard of Glenn Greenwald when he broke the story with Edward Snowden that the NSA was secretly spying on American citizens, and collecting and organizing their data. They had backdoor access to people's phones and computers. That story sparked a global debate on internet privacy, and the potential overreach and abuse of people's rights by their governments; a debate that we are STILL having today, though people are more concerned about what social media companies do with data that they freely share than with what our government does with data that they secretly collect and record. A potential misdirection? Hard to say.
The CIA and other so called "Deep State" apparatchiks have legally done, and continue to do, more heinous and evil shit than (supposedly) killing their own president. With their current track record, and the polarity that exists in the US Congress, they could literally fess up to the assassination and nothing would happen. Time to put this cultural moment to rest permanently.
Glen Greenwald’s story from Edward Snowden, as with Wiki Leeks and Julian Assange, are perfect examples of what journalism should be. Breaking stories that provide proof of the malfeasance of powerful institutions or corporations is what journalists are suppose to do. Catering to the powers that be, does just the opposite, to which this writer doubles down on. It’s why no one pays much attention to the mainstream news anymore and why it’s no longer relevant to most people in todays world. The partisan belittling has grown thin as has opinion writing, now considered to be journalism. Writing from press releases from the Government or it’s many institutions is not journalism nor is taking a story from the Canadian Press and reposting it in a multitude of publications. It’s garbage journalism and this writer has shown exactly why he is irrelevant today. How about Event 2001? Any stories on that to the public from the main stream media? Those who can no longer be bothered to attempt to look at known facts and put them out to the general public have no business calling anyone a conspiracy theorist or themselves, a journalist. This is the kind of journalism everyone should avoid.
Off topic. Read your story story in the NP. I'm glad you started "naming" names re: chinaphile MPs. Please keep up this great work and keep naming and shaming!
Has Mr Litwin ever read Marc Morano's "The Great Reset", which seems to me a very effective takedown of the entire Covid Lockdown mania that DOES originate with Klaus Schwab, the WHO and the Davos clique. The article also seems to imply that the Covid vaccines are HARMLESS and Big Pharma's efforts are JUST DANDY. Mr Litwin would do well to listen to Neil OLiver.
Why so defensive? Surely you recognize that this article in nowhere close to your own exacting standards. It isn't very informative. The ratio of facts to insults is at least 1:10. What's up with that?
I'll stay for the good stuff, and I'll feel free to ignore or express my views on the weak stuff, if it is all the same to you.
Carlson’s Fox commentary on the JFK assassination amounts to this: two shooters (Oswald and Ruby) could not have acted alone, and various Presidents refuse to release thousands of pages of documents, therefore the CIA were involved.
View this in light of the following: taken from a November 22, 2013, piece in the National Post by Michel Jacques Gagné: How Oliver Stone turned me into a conspiracy theorist: “As Political Scientist Robert Robins and Psychologist Jerrold Post once suggested, ‘The social harm that the film [JFK] commits goes beyond the distortion of history. It creates a broader intellectual pollution [and] gives weight to a popular mentality of paranoid belief.’”
Carlson’s logical fallacies and paranoia fit the category of intellectual pollution….in my humble opinion.
I always look forward to reading the comments here. They never disappoint.
Sorry Terry - you friends take on this and many current pharma scams is way off to the point of willful ignorance.
As a fellow Canadian, I first heard of Glenn Greenwald when he broke the story with Edward Snowden that the NSA was secretly spying on American citizens, and collecting and organizing their data. They had backdoor access to people's phones and computers. That story sparked a global debate on internet privacy, and the potential overreach and abuse of people's rights by their governments; a debate that we are STILL having today, though people are more concerned about what social media companies do with data that they freely share than with what our government does with data that they secretly collect and record. A potential misdirection? Hard to say.
The CIA and other so called "Deep State" apparatchiks have legally done, and continue to do, more heinous and evil shit than (supposedly) killing their own president. With their current track record, and the polarity that exists in the US Congress, they could literally fess up to the assassination and nothing would happen. Time to put this cultural moment to rest permanently.
Glen Greenwald’s story from Edward Snowden, as with Wiki Leeks and Julian Assange, are perfect examples of what journalism should be. Breaking stories that provide proof of the malfeasance of powerful institutions or corporations is what journalists are suppose to do. Catering to the powers that be, does just the opposite, to which this writer doubles down on. It’s why no one pays much attention to the mainstream news anymore and why it’s no longer relevant to most people in todays world. The partisan belittling has grown thin as has opinion writing, now considered to be journalism. Writing from press releases from the Government or it’s many institutions is not journalism nor is taking a story from the Canadian Press and reposting it in a multitude of publications. It’s garbage journalism and this writer has shown exactly why he is irrelevant today. How about Event 2001? Any stories on that to the public from the main stream media? Those who can no longer be bothered to attempt to look at known facts and put them out to the general public have no business calling anyone a conspiracy theorist or themselves, a journalist. This is the kind of journalism everyone should avoid.
Off topic. Read your story story in the NP. I'm glad you started "naming" names re: chinaphile MPs. Please keep up this great work and keep naming and shaming!
Down here in Seattle they have discontinued my favorite chocolate milk. It's a damned conspiracy I tell ya
Has Mr Litwin ever read Marc Morano's "The Great Reset", which seems to me a very effective takedown of the entire Covid Lockdown mania that DOES originate with Klaus Schwab, the WHO and the Davos clique. The article also seems to imply that the Covid vaccines are HARMLESS and Big Pharma's efforts are JUST DANDY. Mr Litwin would do well to listen to Neil OLiver.
I was looking for some facts. This was just a tirade of insults and abuse. Not what one would expect on a Glavin website, I must say.
By all means leave.
Why so defensive? Surely you recognize that this article in nowhere close to your own exacting standards. It isn't very informative. The ratio of facts to insults is at least 1:10. What's up with that?
I'll stay for the good stuff, and I'll feel free to ignore or express my views on the weak stuff, if it is all the same to you.
Donald Trump lost the 2000 election? 2000? That has to be a typo or a stupid claim.
Fixed! My bad. It's too late for the email version but fixed on the web version.
t