Tweet
Since Oliver Stone confronted Bill Maher in late June, on Palestinian rights, on Maher’s show, I’ve been waiting to see where the push-back would come from. We need wait no longer. Andrew Breitbart, desperate to regain his creds, appears to be ready to lead the attack.
At about 1:00 a.m. Monday, EDT, Breitbart’s site, Big Hollywood, picked up on Alana Goodman’s 9:00 p.m. EDT story at the far-right site, Newsbusters, which opens with:
Director Oliver Stone belittled the Holocaust during a shocking interview with the Sunday Times today, claiming that America’s focus on the Jewish massacre was a product of the "Jewish domination of the media."
The director also defended Hitler and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and railed against the "powerful lobby" of Jews in America.
The Times only allows subscribers to view their full articles. The article was written by Camilla Long.
What’s Breitbart’s Big Hollywood site trying to turn this into? And who else is picking up on the story, and where it may lead? The Charlotte Conservative News is running the Alana Goodman piece almost in entirety. It may be time to start a timeline. Breitbart involvement timelines in the O’Keefe and Shirley Sherrod fiction events are fascinating.
I’m ready for Breitbart, smacked down pretty thoroughly last week, to make a move into new territory, away from his anti-Black racism. Stone is verdant territory for Breitbart’s methods of taking advantage of cutouts to distance himself – at least in his own mind – from the originators of the stuff he likes to take credit for.
Stone’s work has always been all over the map. I’ve never discovered a unifying element in his takes on history, politics, social mores or film making. There are no lack of documentaries that compare Stalin to Hitler. Stone’s 10-part series isn’t about that, though, even as his critics suggest otherwise. From all I can tell, Stone’s series will be more Howard Zinnish than Kumbaya with Adolf, Josef, Fidel, Hugo and Mahmoud.
Stone’s upcoming Showtime documentary is about under-reported events in mid-20th century American history. It has been targeted since January by the far right. Articles from the far right press on Stone’s newest TV effort center on terms that point out Stone’s interest in Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and so on. The term "belittling the Holocaust" is Goodman’s, not Stone’s.
Essentially, regarding the "belittling," Stone said in the Camilla Long piece, "Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed]."
I’m not sure why this is belittling the Holocaust, as it is true in terms of numbers of people killed, if not addressing those numbers as population percentages. Since shortly after the end of World War II, some portrayals of Eastern European deaths caused by conflict between 1939 and 1945 have been criticized for not being Holocaust-centric enough. American journalist and writer, Alexander Werth, may have been the first to observe this, in updated editions of his masterpiece, Russia at War 1941 to 1945. The official position of the USSR on how to deal with why the Nazis killed whom and when has always been suspect because of Katyn and the Soviet system’s own holocaust against so many of their own citizens. The Soviet position that had Hitler been given more time, he would have turned to Slavs and others after he had liquidated all Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and Jehovah’s Witnesses has resonance, based on captured Nazi documents from the war.
Stone’s statements about Jewish influence in American media are the closest to real trouble I can find in these articles. The influence is pervasive. And it is often wonderful. Jewish voices like Amy Goodman, Phil Weiss and Glenn Greenwald would probably like to affirm Stone’s message in his upcoming documentary.
Stone fails to describe what he sees accurately. The Jews he may be referring to probably don’t represent where Judaism is going in the 21st century. He should have taken more time to define this influence for what it is, a sub-set of anything that can be identified as "Jewish influence." I’m not about to claim the generals in Myanmar represent Buddhism, anymore than I’m ready to claim militant Zionist expansionism’s enablers who are Jewish represent Judaism.
Is there a move afoot to try to get Stone’s series cancelled? Some are trying to get Sarah Palin’s Alaska reality series cancelled, so?
Is Breitbart man enough to attack Oliver Stone more openly than his hit piece Sunday night might suggest?
We’ll see.
19 Comments
I don’t think Stone means that there are too many Jewish people in the media.
Excerpt from The Sunday Times interview. You can read the whole article here, but it’s behind a pay wall. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Review/article352668.ece#next $2 for 24hour access.
——————
The 10-part documentary will address Stalin and Hitler “in context”, he says. “Hitler was a Frankenstein but there was also a Dr Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support.”
He also seeks to put his atrocities in proportion: “Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30m.”
Why such a focus on the Holocaust then? “The Jewish domination of the media,” he says. “There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has *beep* up United States foreign policy for years.”
————————-
I think he means that the media has has to take the Israel’s side on everything, regardless of how questionable some of their actions may be. If not, the Israeli lobby will make its influence known. Don’t know for sure, however.
I would love the read the raw interview in full context. With these editorialized interviews, it’s so easy to twist what the interviewee said around. Especially when it’s a Rupert Murdoch publication, which The Sunday Times is.
Here’s an excerpt from an interview with Peter Kuznick, co-writer on Stone’s upcoming documentary Secret History of America, and it tells you a lot about the aims of the documentary. It’s long and very informative.
Excerpted from an interview with History News Network 3/10/10
http://www.hnn.us/articles/124005.html
———————————————-
HNN:Is there anything else you would like people to know about the mini-series that is especially important to you?
Kuznick: Yes, there is. Based on some comments that Oliver made during our recent appearance at the Television Critics Association conference about putting Hitler in historical context and not treating him as an expression of personal pathology or disembodied evil, we were widely attacked for wanting to redeem Hitler’s image. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no historical figure who Oliver or I revile more than Hitler. But we also despise the German bankers, capitalists, and militarists who aided Hitler in his rise to power, inspired, in part, by their belief that he would destroy the German communists, and we feel similarly toward American bankers, industrialists, and politicians who also sympathized with and aided the Nazis.
The German question is also very personal to both of us. Oliver’s father was a colonel on Eisenhower’s staff in Paris, where he met Oliver’s mother. Most of my family was killed in the Holocaust. The reality of what happened to the Jews, in particular, was a constant presence throughout my childhood. It shaped my ethical upbringing. From the stories of my parent’ and grandparents stories, I intuited an early lesson in personal responsibility. I understood that not only were the Nazi leaders reprehensible for what they had done, but the German people bore responsibility for letting it happen. It was only later, when I began studying German history, that I started to understand some of the complexities in the situation and the problems with such sweeping attributions of blame. But the lesson of personal responsibility and the dangers of silence stuck. I learned that one must never be a “good German” and remain silent in the face of evil. So in that sense my abhorrence of fascism has influenced my sense of personal and political responsibility ever since, which is why being attacked as a Hitler apologist was so preposterous.
…
While Oliver and I consider Hitler to be as close to a force of evil as has existed, although one made possible by structural forces and wrongheaded policies dating back to Versailles and earlier, we believe that decent, well-meaning people are also capable of unleashing great evil. And that is especially the case when they possess the inordinate and sometimes unchecked power that American leaders have enjoyed in recent decades
———————-
but that seems to be a central theme in the push-back against him. Why do you think that might be happening?
If you don’t find in your powers to recognize that Stone’s claims are a dungheap, that his accusations are antisemitic, that his defense of Chavez is bizarre, and you call yourself “progressive”, then fuck your “progress”.
Funny to watch the panel on Maher’s show. At one point, they are all leaning back in nearly identical poses. The are all pretty clearly terrified about where Stone may go and that they may have to respond, especially when the subject turns to Gaza. Such a bunch of dorks.
Hey folks please do not feed.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention ET.
I see foreignpolicy.com is just not enough. ET, you and FDL must have been upgraded on the troll list.
These two quotes from Kuznick irt the series need to be repeated over and over. It outs Breibart’s attack on Stone and the series and puts it into perspective in terms of the Tea Party telling the Lie on racism and goal of dividing the nation.
If I may, two reasons – the ‘Jewish-dominated media’ trope dovetails nicely with Bircherite/Tea Party/Silent Majority Yahoo preconceptions and biases, of course…such people are always looking for the ‘Goldstein in the woodpile’, as it were.
Additionally, it knocks the target off-message and puts them on defense – The ‘make the bastard deny it’ strategy.
It doesn’t matter how far out of context the remarks are taken as long as the selected knees are set to a symphony of jerking, and an undecided-yet-undesiring-of-being-deeply-informed public can be landslided into the appropriately finger-wagging reaction.
;>)
Might also have something to do with this part:
If they’re going after the Nazi/Fascist supporters in America, they’re going after some pretty big names. That crap was all the rage with the rich and powerful back in those days.
Indeed, we wouldn’t want to pull the class-war covers off of the star-spangled ‘bund’, now would we? That might lead to some sort of a reality-based consensus that all the jiggling teats on FOX would be hard pressed to offset.
Frankly, Breitbart trying on the Hollywood establishment as personified by Stone strikes me as a ‘bite the hand that feeds’ moment with some potentially deep and unforeseen consequences. Far be it from me to suggest that he not tilt at that windmill, however.
;>)
What Hannibal cites is probably closer to the real reason Stone is being attacked. I just got up, and dozens of hit pieces on Stone appeared overnight. From my favorite, titled The Onanistic Oevre of Oliver Stone:
‘Morning In America belongs to me’, ET…That said, Stone certainly has been a low-hanging pinata for any on the putative Right wishing for an opportunistic bash regarding their pet peeves, much like fellow personalities Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn.
I doubt such bitter boo-birds affect the greenlighting of any given project, even a project exploring the nature of fascism in America, right up until the studio’s financial committal stage (where it would no doubt meet an ignominious fate – “Good lord man, why trifle with America’s precious wallet when Pretty Woman II – Vivian Unleashed begs to be made?”) – but personally, I’d rather a factual documentary came into being on such a topic rather than another contentiously plotted cinematic epic.
;>)
Yup, if Stone is going to tell the truth about Wallstreet and the City of London then it’ll be no surprise to see the right wing attack machine target him.
In effect, the power centers that enabled Hitler’s rise are now attacking their critics as being antisemitic.
If Breitbart tell’s a big enough lie….
I remember watching Oliver Stone on Bill Maher ,not long ago,when Stone stated that he,himself, was half Jewish.
Oliver Stone – Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWilliam Oliver Stone (born September 15, 1946) is an American film … His father was Jewish and his mother a Roman Catholic of French birth, and Stone was …
Early life and career – Mainstream success – 1996–present
I doubt that Stone cares one iota about Mr. Bb. Stone is famous enough that I don’t think he can be hurt by this annoying little twit.
Well, he’s walked it back now – Breitbart might not have the window to gin up the ol’ outraged base. Never stopped him before, of course.
;>)
Certainly if you say anything that even hints the Palestinians might have a legitimate reason to be unhappy with the people in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, you’ll get a wave of comments accusing you of antisemitism and so on. I’ve seen it at several different sites already. I don’t know if it’s actually organized, but it’s certainly fast, and it doesn’t represent most of the Jews that I know.
Simple, basic, and true thruout history.
Well spoken. Thanks.
You and Hannibal got this goin on, thanks to you both, and to ET for starting the thread.
As I read in another diary tonight, I don’t think Stone is a problem in terms of being attacked.
Breitbart and his funders are after the Spence Ackerman’s, and after him, others in the blogosphere who research and tell things the PTB/MOTU would prefer be concealed.,
Good luck, given the list at AW Dot Com alone is a few hundred . . . of columnists and contributors.
*G*
Did I mention how decent and fresh it is to have a real thread discussing real realities and not some jumbled mess of links and convoluted constructs that say nothing and take no positions?
It’s fresh, ET and all!
*G*
Rcc’d of course!