Chris Hedges, CIA?

[Simulist]

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

No objection, at all.

[Nordic]

Whoda thunk this thread might actually get interestung?

Jlaw makes some very interesting points, even if I'm not 100 percent with him/her.

The Occupy movement is going to be a severe education to most as to just how powerless we are. Because yes, I think most people still feel you can affect change simply by building awareness, but that ain't gonna happen here. The PTB's ain't gonna let anyone pry their fingers off the levers of power unless they're cold and dead.

Or unless a force stronger than they are literally forces their fingers off, then locks their asses into a deep dark dungeon where they can waste out their lives until they turn into worm meat.

That being said, Occupy is a start. Its a seed. Which is what it takes to grow a tree, or a gorilla, or an elephant, or a weed. No seeds, you get nothing at all.

I agee there is a real paradox about the violence issue. I think the only way to actually have an affect, and I've said it many times before, is to peacefully use massive numbers of people to shut things down -- literally block anyone from entering or leaving the buildings -- a human blockade. But this will take literally a million people willing to fill the streets of NY and I don't see that ever happening except for New Years Eve.

[Simulist]

In deference to you, Nordic, I withdraw the request.

But I do wonder if a different thread might be a better venue for the interesting points you mention.

[wordspeak2]

I don't know, you'all, could we tone it down a notch? I think we're losing some constructiveness. Going back a couple pages, Simulist, I was not at all being sarcastic in my curiosity. Nor am I expressing with certainty that Chris Hedges has any relations to any intelligence agency. However, he won't talk about 9/11 truth, or, as far as I can tell, any "conspiracy" topic, so, as far as I'm concerned, my neighbor is more radical than Hedges.

And given what we know, just even referencing the Carl Bernstein article, about the extent of CIA influence in the media, that Hedges worked in a prominent New York Times positions in a very key area of the world- working for absolutely the wrong side- and later won one of the ultimate awards for his 9/11 era writing on "terrorism"... I'm just baffled as to why people get so worked up over this raising a red flag.

I certainly hope you all are right and Hedges is a real hero, just naive about conspiracy politics. I don't deny that there are others, like Greg Palast and Cornel West, who are just that. However, to take Palast as an example, he was booted from U.S. mainstream media real fast. Hedges was winning awards, not long ago. Then he was presumably forced to move over to The Nation... ok.

Barracuda, I understand what you're saying about the burden of proof being on an accuser, that being your instinct... but, I don't know... I guess I don't totally understand. Shouldn't we just look at the totality of a complex situation and try to understand it? No doubt the CIA has planted countless people in the media; this we know.

By the way, has anyone actually met Chris Hedges? I think you can tell a lot about someone by meeting him. I'm also curious about more of the substance of his Pulitzer-Prize winning reporting. One thing for sure is that Hedges is sticking around as a central spokesperson for what qualifies as "the Left" today in the U.S. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a background check and an open look at what his politics are, beyond just the articles he's writing in the moment.

[eyeno]

I don't know if it is true or not but thanks grizzly for bringing it to our attention. I am willing to entertain almost anything in these days and times of word wars. I would need more evidence for an indictment but thanks all the same for bringing it to our attention. If he is an asset we won't know without examination so I see no harm in examining the possibilities.

[wordspeak2]

Why block a thread just because a sub-thread got juvenile? My goodness.

[Grizzly]

Wow! Okay, I'm done posting here, I didn't expect such a visceral reaction to what I thought might be a interesting diologue . Several times it seems my posts are either out right ignored or cause for some disturbance. So, I'll bow out too. It was never my intention, I know that some of you read the popular blog, moonofalabama.org and i'll be frank, I was lazy and late for work , the poster whose comments I posted saddened and shocked me, )because I really really like Chris Hedges )respect the knowledge of many of the posters here and thought you guys/gals could help me with my cognitive disonance only to once again have posters here attack the not the question, but my person? Enjoy the echo chambers folks, geez. Now I really am saddened, however passive/aggressive this sounds, sorry I'm not in the clique, fellers.

[kenoma]

I don't know if it is true or not but thanks grizzly for bringing it to our attention. I am willing to entertain almost anything in these days and times of word wars. I would need more evidence for an indictment but thanks all the same for bringing it to our attention. If he is an asset we won't know without examination so I see no harm in examining the possibilities.

I'm repeating myself, I know, but...
that post at Moon of Alabama showed really persuasive evidence that the Syrian opposition is exaggerating supposed massacres with the connivance of CNN and Al Jazeera.
Leaving aside the unproveable nature of accusations against Hedges, aren't the facts regarding Syria simply far more interesting and consequential? What am I missing here?

[eyeno]

Wow! Okay, I'm done posting here, I didn't expect such a visceral reaction to what I thought might be a interesting diologue . Several times it seems my posts are either out right ignored or cause for some disturbance. So, I'll bow out too. It was never my intention, I know that some of you read the popular blog, moonofalabama.org and i'll be frank, I was lazy and late for work , the poster whose comments I posted saddened and shocked me, )because I really really like Chris Hedges )respect the knowledge of many of the posters here and thought you guys/gals could help me with my cognitive disonance only to once again have posters here attack the not the question, but my person? Enjoy the echo chambers folks, geez. Now I really am saddened, however passive/aggressive this sounds, sorry I'm not in the clique, fellers.

Don't take it personal grizzly. There is more here than meets the eye. Attacking the messenger is flavor of the day. If you give up you have been defeated.

[kenoma]

Wow! Okay, I'm done posting here, I didn't expect such a visceral reaction to what I thought might be a interesting diologue . Several times it seems my posts are either out right ignored or cause for some disturbance. So, I'll bow out too.

OK, everyone's under orders to reread all of this guy's posts and find within them something to praise effusively. If you can't, you're nothing better than a priest on heat. Hop to it!

[Nordic]

Wow! Okay, I'm done posting here, I didn't expect such a visceral reaction to what I thought might be a interesting diologue . Several times it seems my posts are either out right ignored or cause for some disturbance. So, I'll bow out too. It was never my intention, I know that some of you read the popular blog, moonofalabama.org and i'll be frank, I was lazy and late for work , the poster whose comments I posted saddened and shocked me, )because I really really like Chris Hedges )respect the knowledge of many of the posters here and thought you guys/gals could help me with my cognitive disonance only to once again have posters here attack the not the question, but my person? Enjoy the echo chambers folks, geez. Now I really am saddened, however passive/aggressive this sounds, sorry I'm not in the clique, fellers.

Why did you take the commenter's comments to heart?

That's what I (and perhaps "we") don't understand.

Some anonymous commenter with zero evidence vs. Chris Hedges. Who wins?

[temp-monitor]

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/r ... 10-15-2002

On October 15, 2002, on the eve of the Congressional authorization vote to attempt to give Bush legitimacy in attacking Iraq, Chris Hedges appeared on NPR's "Talk of the Nation".

But it was a very different Chris Hedges persona to the Chris Hedges that we are familiar with today.

I have never trusted Hedges, despite his seminary bona fides & authorship credentials, based entirely on my memory of this NPR show.

At the time, I felt under siege, listening for ANYBODY who was against the insanity and lies that had engulfed the U.S.

I remember listening to this show. It was very memorable, because it was entirely unclear which side Hedges was advocating for, during most of the show.

In the context of the time that the show was broadcast, Hedges' extreme ambiguity did not seem as sage or detached as it might to a listener in 2012.

In the context of the time that the show was broadcast, Hedges' extreme ambiguity came off as just another useless hack liberal-leaning reporter (from the New York Times, no less, an Iraq War cheerleader at the time) who was using that ambiguity to suck up to power and sell books.

Hedges' book at the time, War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, is an anti-war book that nevertheless does not shy away from the allure and addictive quality of the immediacy of battle. The ambiguity of the title, which would be easy for a pro-war jingoist American to misinterpret and project pro-war sentiments into, was not dispelled or explained for simple minds by Hedges on that October 15, 2002 NPR show. Even though, at the time, America did not need that ambiguity from Mr. Hedges.

Whatever you make of the NPR broadcast, one thing is clear: Mr. Hedges has absolutely changed his persona from that time.

Nowadays, Mr. Hedges has transformed himself into an archetype of a prophet in the wilderness, staking out a position on the farthest humanitarian Left, positioning himself as a spokesman for OWS.

Take a listen to the NPR broadcast. Ask yourself: Isn't it curious?

Where was this new prophet-in-the-wilderness Chris Hedges back in October 2002, when it really mattered? When he had a platform on NPR?

This thread could be interpreted by a skeptical mind as a modified limited hangout, designed to quash any legitimate discussion of Mr. Hedges' shifting persona, accusing him of being CIA on a flimsy basis. But I, for one, don't trust Chris Hedges.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

The Occupy movement is going to be a severe education to most as to just how powerless we are. Because yes, I think most people still feel you can affect change simply by building awareness, but that ain't gonna happen here. The PTB's ain't gonna let anyone pry their fingers off the levers of power unless they're cold and dead.

Here's the thing though. One day (and may it be soon) the present generation of the PTB will be cold and dead, and the levers of power will be pried from their fingers - by the next upcoming generation of PTB. Who will those new leaders be? Well, the Occupy movement seems to be largely made up of first-time protestors - many of them very bright, middle class, well educated, many of them the kind of people who've never really had any reason to stand up for themselves against the system before (because they were always somewhat cushioned from it's rougher edges, and traditionally did quite well inside it's confines).

Quite a few of these people have a future in exactly the "leadership" positions in our society that will eventually be vacted by the current noxious crew - many will go into the law, politics, media, etc. and a few will rise high. Occupy will have been an invaluable lesson to all of them, one they never would have learned otherwise, teaching them that their country is not free or equal, political dissent is not tolerated to any real degree, the state is not their friend or protector, the police are violent, not on their side, and cannot be trusted, the government and media will collaborate to lie about (and lie to) the populace in order to smear peaceful movements which annoy or inconvenience them in any way, etc.

And when they are in positions of "power" themselves, hopefully not too many years from now, maybe they will set about changing things for the better, having seen first-hand just how bad it can be?

Is this stupidly optimistic? Probably. But it is useful for a whole generation (and everybody knows somebody who's at an Occupy) to have learned the truth so young. It does make a difference.

Probably not enough of one, though. The Sixties generation weren't exactly peaceful and selfless once they got their hands on the reins...

[Simulist]

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=5&prgDate=10-15-2002

On October 15, 2002, on the eve of the Congressional authorization vote to attempt to give Bush legitimacy in attacking Iraq, Chris Hedges appeared on NPR's "Talk of the Nation".

But it was a very different Chris Hedges persona to the Chris Hedges that we are familiar with today.

I have never trusted Hedges, despite his seminary bona fides & authorship credentials, based entirely on my memory of this NPR show.

At the time, I felt under siege, listening for ANYBODY who was against the insanity and lies that had engulfed the U.S.

I remember listening to this show. It was very memorable, because it was entirely unclear which side Hedges was advocating for, during most of the show.

In the context of the time that the show was broadcast, Hedges' extreme ambiguity did not seem as sage or detached as it might to a listener in 2012.

In the context of the time that the show was broadcast, Hedges' extreme ambiguity came off as just another useless hack liberal-leaning reporter (from the New York Times, no less, an Iraq War cheerleader at the time) who was using that ambiguity to suck up to power and sell books.

Hedges' book at the time, War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, is an anti-war book that nevertheless does not shy away from the allure and addictive quality of the immediacy of battle. The ambiguity of the title, which would be easy for a pro-war jingoist American to misinterpret and project pro-war sentiments into, was not dispelled or explained for simple minds by Hedges on that October 15, 2002 NPR show. Even though, at the time, America did not need that ambiguity from Mr. Hedges.

Whatever you make of the NPR broadcast, one thing is clear: Mr. Hedges has absolutely changed his persona from that time.

Nowadays, Mr. Hedges has transformed himself into an archetype of a prophet in the wilderness, staking out a position on the farthest humanitarian Left, positioning himself as a spokesman for OWS.

Take a listen to the NPR broadcast. Ask yourself: Isn't it curious?

Where was this new prophet-in-the-wilderness Chris Hedges back in October 2002, when it really mattered? When he had a platform on NPR?

This thread could be interpreted by a skeptical mind as a modified limited hangout, designed to quash any legitimate discussion of Mr. Hedges' shifting persona, accusing him of being CIA on a flimsy basis. But I, for one, don't trust Chris Hedges.

Is it inconceivable that Chris Hedges may actually have grown as a person in the ten years since 2002? That the burgeoning collection of obvious betrayals of the Bush Administration, the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the craven and evident manipulation of the ubiquitous terror alerts in those days served as catalysts of change for Mr. Hedges?

Since I too was changed by these things, it certainly seems conceivable to me that others might have been changed by them also, including Mr. Hedges.

Although the oncoming Iraq War was not the topic of the interview in the broadcast you've suggested (from 10/15/2002), Hedges nevertheless does touch upon it. Rather, the topic of this broadcast, as expressed by the announcer, was "human nature and the human forces unleashed during war," and it revolved around Hedges' book, War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. Still, in the course of this conversation, Chris Hedges expresses notable distrust for the upcoming Iraq War, clearly evident during the twenty-eighth minute of the discussion, mentioning also that many military people were skeptical of this too. And while certainly not the strident anti-war critic he is today, Hedges does express caution about Iraq, something that was all-too-rare in those days.

Chris Hedges is not a pacifist, and believes that war is sometimes necessary. But he does urge that "if we don't understand what war is and how deadly it is, it can destroy us" (39:20).

Clearly he is all-too-right about that, as we can see so plainly today.

[barracuda]

Barracuda, I understand what you're saying about the burden of proof being on an accuser, that being your instinct... but, I don't know... I guess I don't totally understand. Shouldn't we just look at the totality of a complex situation and try to understand it?

Sure. I don't have a problem with investigating conections to intelligence agencies. I'm just offering my opinion on the proposition, my opinion being that I usually want a little more juice these days. Personally speaking. Back when I was dealing drugs, everyone was a narc, though, so I understand the impulse form a practical standpoint.

No doubt the CIA has planted countless people in the media; this we know.

Hmm. Planted? Certainly there are individuals like Markos Moulitsas and Anderson Cooper who we know from their own admission underwent agency training in their youth. Were they then "planted" in some fashion and cultivated? Maybe. But I'd guess it's just as often, or maybe more often, that people in media are simply recruited if they can be visualised at useful, or enticed, or coerced to the point of collaboration, or contracted for specific needs. A great deal of what we "know" about this process is, of course, somewhat speculative.

Wow! Okay, I'm done posting here...

C'mon man. If I had a nickle for everytime I was ignored, or yelled at, or got a thread locked on this site... well, I'd have a bunch o' nickles. Buck up.