Oliver Stone’s son embraces Muhammed

February 14, 2012

(Tel Chai Nation) Media silent on Oliver Stone: Sean Stone is a graduate of history from Princeton University and has collaborated on many of his father’s projects such as the 2004 Alexander. (image PressTV) Oliver Stone told how he supports Ron Paul, just like Bill Ayers. Now, his son, who’s making a documentary in Iran, has converted to Islam: According to the Persian service of the Fars News Agency, Stone adopted the name Ali upon becoming a Shiite Muslim. “The conversion to Islam is not abandoning Christianity or Judaism, which I was born with. It means I have accepted Muhammad and other prophets,” Stone told AFP.


Why Are So Many Public Figures Ranting Against "The Jews"?

March 7, 2011

When celebrities are drunk, on drugs or just high on their own egos, they often engage in rants. These days many such rants are captured on cell phone videos or audio tapes and go viral on the internet. Nothing surprising there. What is surprising to many is that the rant de jour these days seems to be directed against Jews.

Consider the former Dior designer, John Galliano, who was sitting in a bar in a Jewish section of Paris and announcing his love for Hitler and smiling as he told the people at an adjoining table, who he apparently assumed to be Jewish, that “People like you would be dead. Your mothers, your forefathers, would all be f—– gassed.”
Or consider Charlie Sheen who claims to be high on Charlie Sheen, attacking his producer by emphasizing the Jewish nature of his original name, Chaim Levine.
Or Oliver Stone telling an interviewer last year that too much attention is paid to the Holocaust because of “Jewish domination of the media.” And that Hitler wasn’t all that terrible to the Jews.
Then there is the Reverend Louis Farrakhan, ranting and raving about Satanic Jews controlling the world.
This is not an entirely new phenomenon. Mel Gibson delivered a similar rant when he was stopped by Los Angeles police in 2006. “F*****g Jews… The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” Gibson then asked the deputy, “Are you a Jew?”
Generally, sobriety results in apology, but the damage has been done.
The question is why the Jews? There’s an old joke about a Nazi rally in Nuremberg where Hitler is screaming, “Who causes all of Germany’s problems?” An old man in the crowd shouts back, “the bicycle riders.” Hitler’s taken by surprise and asks, “why the bicycle riders?” To which the old man replies, “why the Jews?” That was the 1930s. But “why the Jews” in the second decade of the 21st Century?
Let me suggest two possible answers. The first is that little about the nature of prejudice has really changed, but the advent of the age of high technology has brought private prejudices into the public arena. In commenting on the Galliano outburst, Michael Goubert, a French DJ and music designer, observed that “virulent views like those expressed by [Galliano] are not rare.” But “the public expression” of intolerance is unusual and particularly troubling, according to patrons of the bar in which Galliano expressed his bigoted views. The pervasiveness of cell phone videos and the widespread use of the social media have blurred the line between private and public expression. What used to be only whispered to friends at a bar is now broadcast around the world.
There is a second, a far more troubling answer to “Why the Jews?” Prominent public figures have blurred another line as well—the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, between attacking the Jewish state and attacking the Jewish people. Consider widely publicized remarks made by Bishop Desmond Tutu, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and the American Model of Freedom, and a man openly admired and praised by President Obama. He has called the Jews “a peculiar people” and has accused “the Jews” of causing many of the world’s problems. He has railed against “the Jewish Lobby,” comparing its power to that of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.
He has said that “the Jews thought they had a monopoly of God: Jesus was angry that they could shut out other human beings.” He has said that Jews have been “fighting against” and being “opposed to” his God. He has “compared the features of the ancient Holy Temple in Jerusalem to the features of the apartheid system in South Africa.” He has complained that “the Jewish people with their traditions, religion and long history of persecution sometimes appear to have caused a refugee problem among others.” Tutu has minimized the suffering of those murdered in the Holocaust by asserting that “the gas chambers” made for “a neater death” than did Apartheid. He has complained of “the Jewish Monopoly of the Holocaust,” and has demanded that its victims must “forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust,” while refusing to forgive the “Jewish people” for “persecute[ing] others.”
He has complained that Americans “are scared…to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful—very powerful.” He has accused Jews—not Israelis—of exhibiting “an arrogance—the arrogance of power because Jews are a powerful lobby in this land and all kinds of people woo their support.”
Tutu has acknowledged having been frequently accused of being anti-Semitic,” to which he has offered two responses: “Tough luck;” and “my dentist’s name is Dr. Cohen.”
Former President Jimmy Carter too has contributed to this new legitimization of Jew-bashing, by echoing Tutu’s derisive talk about the Jewish domination of America (“powerful political, economic and religious forces…that dominate our media”) and his use of the term “Apartheid” in his book about Israel.
By thus blurring the line between legitimate political criticism and illegitimate bigotry, widely admired people like Tutu and Carter tend to legitimate the kind of anti-Semitic attitudes that manifest themselves in the rants of celebrities like Galliano, Sheen, Gibson and others.
This blurring has also affected the tone on university campuses around the world, where Tutu and Carter are particularly admired and imitated. I speak on campuses throughout the world and I had never, until recently, heard and seen the kind of language now being directed against Jewish students and faculty who support Israel.
So I was not as surprised as some by the recent celebrity rants. The oldest prejudice has never quite disappeared. It just went underground and has now resurfaced as a result of new technology and new legitimization by the likes of Bishop Tutu and Jimmy Carter.
Fortunately there are intelligent and principled young celebrities like Natalie Portman who are trying to offset this development by speaking out against bigotry.

This article originally appeared in a different version in the New York Post, March 6, 2011.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

not sure if I’d call Natalie Portman principled with these matters, but I do think she is trying 


Media silent on Oliver Stone

July 29, 2010

Alana Goodman, who brought the Oliver Stone story across the Atlantic from the Sunday Times of London to Newsbusters, asks why the reaction has been muted compared with the reaction to Mel Gibson’s drunken anti-Semitic rant four years ago.

Read the whole thing. Could it be that Oliver Stone is being treated like an etrog by his friends in the Leftist mainstream media? Jennifer Rubin seems to think so:

Maybe it’s Stone’s long leftist track record — who can forget his glowing biopic of Fidel Castro? — that has earned him a pass from the liberal U.S. media.
But maybe there is something else at work. Stone’s venomous rant against “Jewish domination of the media” and his assertion about the “Israel lobby” (”They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years”) are not so different from what comes from the lips of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the writings of the Israel-hating left, and the bile-drenched blogs of those who, for example, claimed John McCain was surrounded by Jewish neocon advisers.
It’s reasonable to conclude that Oliver Stone hasn’t been called out by the liberals — those who advertise themselves as experts on diversity and bigotry — because a great deal of what he said doesn’t sound all that objectionable to far too many of them. And of course, it’s rather embarrassing for those seeking respectability (the “tough love for Israel” gang) to illuminate that anti-Israel venom is, when you scratch the surface, nothing more than old-fashioned Jew-hating.


Hugo Chavez, Oliver Stone Give Socialism a Bad Name

June 28, 2010

( By Cliff Kincaid June 28, 2010 ) Unfortunately for acolytes of Chavez, the Stone film has proven to be too slanted even for the New York Times to accept as a “documentary.” As Hollywood director Oliver Stone releases his pro-Hugo Chavez film, “South of the Border,” the Socialist International (SI) reports that the oil-rich Venezuelan ruler is suppressing dissent, interfering with freedom of the press, mismanaging the economy, and threatening peace in the region.

The SI report includes a description of the Chavez regime as a “democradura”—a democratic dictatorship.
The SI is an international alliance of 170 left-of-center political parties and organizations that might be expected to defend the Chavez regime. But its report (PDF) confirms all of the charges that critics have been making about the would-be dictator. What’s more, it says that Chavez’s policies are hurting the very people he claims to represent—the poor—through schemes that are undermining economic growth and costing jobs.
In other words, Chavez is demonstrating, once again, that socialism doesn’t work.
Following the release of the report, the Socialist International Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean issued a statement expressing “concern with regard to the respect for human rights and democratic freedoms” in Venezuela and calling for the release of political prisoners there.
Chavez is a hero of “progressives” who support Obama and staff his administration. For example, Mark Lloyd, the Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has publicly praised Hugo Chavez and the Marxist revolution in Venezuela.
Other supporters of the regime include Mark Weisbrot of the George Soros-supported Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and Tariq Ali, a British Pakistani associated with the Institute for Policy Studies, also based in Washington, D.C.
Weisbrot and Ali wrote the screenplay for the Oliver Stone film about Chavez.
In a previous report, I had identified Weisbrot as a leading member of a Chavista Terror Support Network in the U.S. that operates with funding and direction from the Chavez regime.
Robert McChesney, the Marxist co-founder of the Free Press, another George Soros-funded group that has supplied personnel to the Obama Administration, praised the film, saying, “I enjoyed it a great deal.” McChesney’s Free Press has argued for transforming the media in the U.S. in much the same way that Chavez has done so in Venezuela.
Unfortunately for acolytes of Chavez, the Stone film has proven to be too slanted even for the New York Times to accept as a “documentary.” Larry Rohter’s Times article, “Oliver Stone’s Latin America,” points out several factual inaccuracies and other “discrepancies” in the film, as well as Stone’s inability to correctly pronounce Chavez’s last name.
One of Stone’s sources, the article points out, is the husband of a Chavez government employee who misrepresents the facts about a coup attempt against Chavez in 2002 and helps run an “information” service paid for by the Chavez government.
The report of the SI mission, which has just been released, is based on a trip to the country in January and finds that Chavez produced an inflation rate of 30 percent in 2009, “the highest on the continent.” The result of Chavez’s policies, the SI report adds, is “an arbitrary and often incompetent centralized management [that] has had disastrous results on an economic level, with serious social repercussions, in particular for the poorest individuals.”
Since the end of 2008, the country is in a “deepening recession” and the industrial sector has lost 36 percent of its companies, “with a corresponding reduction in jobs,” the report says.
But the regime has been more competent in suppressing dissent. “Violence, threats, intimidation, insecurity, uncertainty and instability of laws and procedures constitute the framework of society” under Chavez, it asserts.
The Socialist International report was based on the findings of Chilean Luis Ayala, Secretary General of the Socialist International; Peggy Cabral of the Dominican Revolutionary Party, Dominican Republic; Renée Fregosi of the Socialist Party of France; Paulina Lampsa of the Panhellenic Socialist Movement of Greece; Emilio Menéndez del Valle of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party and Jesús Rodríguez of the Radical Civic Union of Argentina.
In Caracas, Venezuela, members of the mission met over a three-day period with representatives of political parties; trade unions; student organizations; university, industry and Church institutions; media and communications; human rights organizations; and other civil society institutions.
But Chavez’s ruling party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, refused to meet with the SI delegation.
The SI mission found “a climate of insecurity and fear” in the country that is specifically focused on the college and university campuses, where “a spirit of critical thought amongst younger generations” is being actively discouraged and suppressed by the regime.
Students have been helping lead the domestic opposition to the Chavez government.
The SI is publicly committed to “democratic socialism” and clearly finds the Chavez style of socialism to be at variance with democratic processes of free and fair elections, freedom of expression, and even “social justice.”
All of this directly contradicts the theme of the Oliver Stone movie about Chavez and his Latin American supporters.
The SI was particularly concerned that an “official trade union” manual for “workers’ education” in Venezuela openly endorses violence by quoting Marx as saying that “violence is the means for the implementation of modern societies.”
Although the SI is a global socialist movement, it finds that the Chavez regime has moved too far and too fast in the socialist direction, subverting democratic procedures while seizing a “whole series of strategic products and services, such as oil, electricity, steel, construction, agro-industry, telecommunications and the banking sector.”
The results have also been terrible for human rights and freedom.
Members of the SI mission to Venezuela report that the Chavez regime is regarded domestically as “an authoritarian mechanism of a new type,” a government with a “democratic origin” which has become “in reality authoritarian.”  Another word for it is “democradura,” democratic dictatorship.
Venezuelans told the SI commission that the regime uses the elements of governmental power to impose its will on the populace and intimidate and silence those who resist. They used terms like “criminalization of dissent,” “revolutionary constitutionalism,” and “terror and corruption.”
Chavez is is accomplishing this through the use of government power to stage new takeovers of private businesses, new governmental entities answerable to Chavez, and manipulation of election laws to disadvantage opposition political parties and groups.
Nevertheless, the SI expressed the hope that there is a “possibility” that legislative elections scheduled for September 2010 might be held under fair and honest circumstances.
While the Venezuelan authorities tolerate “certain areas of freedom,” the report says, these are “reduced in number and reach” and “limited to sectors that do not affect the public at large, the popular masses, or the poorest sectors of society.” The areas of freedom are limited to intellectuals “and a limited section of the middle class,” but even here the major newspapers are “closely monitored and threatened with disruption of its paper supply” if they criticize the regime too much, the report discloses.
In foreign policy, the SI report accuses Chavez of “a policy of confrontation” with neighboring Colombia, under assault by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and “the importation of the Middle East conflict,” an obvious reference to his dealings with Iran and willingness to act on behalf of the interests of the fanatical anti-Israeli and anti-American regime. All of this presents “serious risks to regional stability and a threat to peace” in Latin America, the report says.
(Hosting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Associated Press reports that Chavez has denounced Israel as a genocidal government, saying, “We have common enemies,” describing them as “the Yankee empire, the genocidal state of Israel.” He went on, “Someday the genocidal state of Israel will be put in its place, in the proper place and hopefully a real democratic state will be born. But it has become the murderous arm of the Yankee empire—who can doubt it?—which threatens all of us.”)
It is a known fact that the Chavez regime has also been active collaborating with the communist narco-terrorists known as FARC. The U.S. Treasury Department on September 12, 2008, designated two senior Venezuelan officials, Rangel Silva and Hugo Armando Carvajal Barrios, and one former official, Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, as materially assisting the narcotics trafficking activities of the FARC.
But Oliver Stone’s collaborator, Mark Weisbrot, who co-wrote the screenplay for “South of the Border” with Tariq Ali, appeared on Robert McChesney’s public radio show to insist that all of these charges against Chavez are nonsense.
McChesney interviewed Weisbrot on his “Media Matters” radio show on WILL AM 580 in Urbana, Illinois, and they agreed that the U.S. media have given Chavez a “horrible press” by unfairly depicting him as a dictator, oligarch and friend of terrorists. Chavez’s policies “have benefitted the vast majority of the country,” Weisbrot claimed.
The other “South of the Border” screenwriter, Tariq Ali, is the British Pakistani author of Bush in Babylon: The Recolonization of Iraq, whose cover depicts a boy in Iraq urinating on the head of an American soldier. An earlier book was titled, Pirates of the Caribbean: Axis of Hope, about Evo Morales of Bolivia, Fidel Castro of Cuba and Chavez.
During a recent protest of the Israeli military action that was taken against the Gaza flotilla, Ali urged economic sanctions on the “killer state” of Israel and the prosecution of Israeli leaders for “war crimes.”
Blogger and researcher Trevor Loudon notes that, in addition to having  a long-time affiliation with the Institute for Policy Studies,  Ali was elected in 2007 to the board of the U.S. based Movement for a Democratic Society with former Weather Underground terrorists Bernardine Dohrn, Mark Rudd and Jeff Jones.
Dohrn and her husband, Obama associate and former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers, have direct connections to Chavez through their son, Chesa Boudin, who actually worked in the presidential palace in Venezuela. Ayers and Dohrn traveled to Venezuela in 2005 and Ayers, now a University of Illinois education professor, went in 2006 to speak at a government-sanctioned “World Educational Forum.”
Asked by the New York Times to explain the factual problems in the film and the failure to acknowledge honest criticism of the Chavez regime’s human rights record, Ali told the Times that “It’s hardly a secret that we support the other side. It’s an opinionated documentary.”
But it’s opinion with no basis in fact.


Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org

via aim.org


Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Oliver Stone Scrooges New York Actors

December 16, 2009

hmmm… dad has been screaming that I should run through the system to get healthcare. It didn’t help when I tried to get welfare. They just don’t like white boys from Liberal Media families I guess. Too bad Dad didn’t vote Republican so that I could have a job with healthcare… like the one he took… um… yeah. funny how that worked out. Looks like Dad is going to come face to face with his own politics.

During the best of times, acting in film is a precarious way to make a living. Not complaining just stating a fact. Medical insurance and pension benefits are not guaranteed to Union (SAG) members, but qualified for by accruing, yearly, ever increasing amounts of earnings. The more you work the more likely you are to qualify and, conversely, the less you earn the more likely you are to find yourself and your family without.Enter humanitarian, caring and defender of the common man, Oliver Stone.

Stone wrapped shooting “Wall Street 2,” here in Manhattan, a couple of weeks ago. He decided that his monied (in some cases multi-millionaire) friends deserved the jobs, that might have made the difference between real SAG actors (or as he identifies them, “starving actors”) qualifying for pension and medical insurance or going without.

On some shoot days, as many as 100 of his “Upper East Side Friends” put trained, professional actors on the unemployment line.

Like most of his fellow travelers, in Hollywood and elsewhere, this is the old “Love the Masses and Hate the People,” that is the hallmark of such champions of compassion.

If you haven’t seen this in the media, don’t be surprised. They take care of their own.

Oliver Stone to New York Acting Community: “Drop Dead“!

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon’s posterous


Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Oliver Stone Scrooges New York Actors

December 16, 2009

hmmm… dad has been screaming that I should run through the system to get healthcare. It didn’t help when I tried to get welfare. They just don’t like white boys from Liberal Media families I guess. Too bad Dad didn’t vote Republican so that I could have a job with healthcare… like the one he took… um… yeah. funny how that worked out. Looks like Dad is going to come face to face with his own politics.

During the best of times, acting in film is a precarious way to make a living. Not complaining just stating a fact. Medical insurance and pension benefits are not guaranteed to Union (SAG) members, but qualified for by accruing, yearly, ever increasing amounts of earnings. The more you work the more likely you are to qualify and, conversely, the less you earn the more likely you are to find yourself and your family without.Enter humanitarian, caring and defender of the common man, Oliver Stone.

Stone wrapped shooting “Wall Street 2,” here in Manhattan, a couple of weeks ago. He decided that his monied (in some cases multi-millionaire) friends deserved the jobs, that might have made the difference between real SAG actors (or as he identifies them, “starving actors”) qualifying for pension and medical insurance or going without.

On some shoot days, as many as 100 of his “Upper East Side Friends” put trained, professional actors on the unemployment line.

Like most of his fellow travelers, in Hollywood and elsewhere, this is the old “Love the Masses and Hate the People,” that is the hallmark of such champions of compassion.

If you haven’t seen this in the media, don’t be surprised. They take care of their own.

Oliver Stone to New York Acting Community: “Drop Dead“!

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon’s posterous