Oliver Stone: 'Jewish-Dominated Media' Prevents Hitler from Being Portrayed 'in Context'

[Bloodeagle]

Oliver Stone: 'Jewish-Dominated Media' Prevents Hitler from Being Portrayed 'in Context'
By Alana Goodman
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 21:03 ET

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.

Stone said that his upcoming Showtime documentary series "Secret History of America," seeks to put Hitler and Communist dictator Joseph Stalin "in context."

"Hitler was a Frankenstein but there was also a Dr Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support," Stone told reporter Camilla Long during the interview, which can be found behind the paywall on the Sunday Times' website.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Stone said that, "Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed]."

The Sunday Times interviewer then asked why there was such a focus on the Holocaust.

"The Jewish domination of the media," responded Stone. "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 f***** up United States foreign policy for years."

The director, who recently met with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, also slammed the U.S. policy toward Iran as "horrible."

"Iran isn't necessarily the good guy," said Stone. "[B]ut we don't know the full story!"

The Scarface screenwriter had even more encouraging words for socialist Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, who Stone called "a brave, blunt, earthy" man. The director has recently been promoting his Chavez-praising documentary called "South of the Border."

When the interviewer pointed out that Chavez has had a less-than-stellar record on human rights, Stone immediately dismissed the criticism.

"The internet's fully free [in Venezuela]," said Stone. "You can say what the hell you like. Compare it with all the other countries: Mexico, Guatemala, above all Colombia, which is a joke."

While Stone has not been as blunt about his views on Jews and the Holocaust in the past, he has been outspoken in his fondness for Chavez and his disagreements with the U.S.'s policy on Iran.

On ABC's Good Morning America on July 28, the director told anchor George Stephanopoulos that he "absolutely" believes Chavez is a good person, and claimed that there was "there's no pattern of censorship in this country [Venezuela]."

Stone also said that if the U.S. pursued sanctions against Iran, "it's going to be like North Vietnam again."
Source (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/alana-goodman/2010/07/25/oliver-stone-jewish-dominated-media-prevents-hitler-being-portrayed-c#ixzz)

[Agrippa]

I hope his new movie is good, sounds promising at least and hopefully he tells more people more of the truth...

He seems to be a Leftist with some distorted views, but at least a honest one with a relatively open mind, which is rare these days.

[Hussar]

I really respect Oliver Stone now.


He is a democrat. He's been a "democratic" director for his whole career (as most of Hollywood celebrities and entertainment world) ; however he focused his career on the research of the truth ("J.F.K." for example) to see the tings from a different perspective from the classic "american way".

Now we have the confirm he is coherent with his belief, at least. Intellectual honesty is all i ask to respect an artist.

[Peasant]

I'll be watching this. Sounds interesting!

[Gamera]

It might be true what he says, in some sense, but I don't like Oliver Stone these days. He is the same guy who supports Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and says the "bad countries" in South America are the ones who have a right-wing president (such as Colombia with Uribe).

I don't think he's that much of a democrat if he supports a dictator like Chavez.

[The Ripper]

It might be true what he says, in some sense, but I don't like Oliver Stone these days. He is the same guy who supports Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and says the "bad countries" in South America are the ones who have a right-wing president (such as Colombia with Uribe).

I don't think he's that much of a democrat if he supports a dictator like Chavez.

Chavez probably isn't the best possible leader - but at least he, along with Morales of Bolivia, is not an American puppet and they form a counterforce against American hegemony in the region.

[mvbeleg]

I hope his new movie is good, sounds promising at least and hopefully he tells more people more of the truth...

And maybe it is a chance for him to redeem himself after butchering the story of Alexander.

[Bloodeagle]

Chavez probably isn't the best possible leader - but at least he, along with Morales of Bolivia, is not an American puppet and they form a counterforce against American hegemony in the region.

When I strip away the mask of American propaganda against Chavez, he does appears to be a decent leader of his people.;)

Any American who publicly befriends such a leader will probably in the end be cast off as a lunatic.
His films will flop and his reputation will be smeared. :coffee:

[Gamera]

When I strip away the mask of American propaganda against Chavez, he does appears to be a decent leader of his people.;)

Any American who publicly befriends such a leader will probably in the end be cast off as a lunatic.
His films will flop and his reputation will be smeared. :coffee:

I don't know what kind of information or propaganda you get in America about Venezuela or Hugo Chavez (although, I can imagine since they exaggerate everything). However, he is no way near to be a decent leader of his people.

I live in South America. Chavez is probably one of the most idiotic presidents out there. I don't doubt that he is indeed well-intentioned, like Evo Morales is as well; but I have been to Venezuela myself and things there are truly bad, not only economically, but also socially, causing a moral crisis within the population. Most people there do agree that they live in a dictatorship, ruled by a guy who in 1999 said he wouldn't shut down any TV channels or go to re-election for a third time. The Parliament, on the other hand, is completely controlled by his party.

I understand governments like Venezuela's and Bolivia's are a symptom of a long-lasting disease in South America: Americanism and capitalist exploitation of the poor, but they are in no way the solution to the problem. They will only continue to sink their country, and time will show that I was right.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I don't want to get too much off the topic here, which is Oliver Stone and his new movie. :thumb001:

[Agrippa]

I understand governments like Venezuela's and Bolivia's are a symptom of a long-lasting disease in South America: Americanism and capitalist exploitation of the poor, but they are in no way the solution to the problem. They will only continue to sink their country, and time will show that I was right.

Finally that's another topic, but I think such countries, whether that great for the local people or not, are necessary to build up a resistance. You need a base, hope and organisation, voices to be heared, which can't be shut down immediately, like Venezuela, Iran, etc.

Also don't forget that the US of A try to ruin him and his reputation, always think about what they did to various countries, including the prospering economy of Argentina, just because they didn't submit to their terms immediately and were systematically ruined.

Seriously, Chavez is not the greatest leader in the world, but I'm glad we have him right now and hope he's doing well, because he's still better than another US-Liberalcapitalist puppet for the Plutocrats!

[Gamera]

Finally that's another topic, but I think such countries, whether that great for the local people or not, are necessary to build up a resistance. You need a base, hope and organisation, voices to be heared, which can't be shut down immediately, like Venezuela, Iran, etc.

Also don't forget that the US of A try to ruin him and his reputation, always think about what they did to various countries, including the prospering economy of Argentina, just because they didn't submit to their terms immediately and were systematically ruined.

Seriously, Chavez is not the greatest leader in the world, but I'm glad we have him right now and hope he's doing well, because he's still better than another US-Liberalcapitalist puppet for the Plutocrats!

Yes, the USA has always sticked their nose in South America. Like helping Pinochet overthrow the democratically elected government, or almost every dictator we had for that matter.

I understand that Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia, Russia, etc.; constitute an opposing position in a very westernized and Americanized society. I guess it's a necessary opposition, and they hear the voice of those who never had a voice in the past, or in most of it. However, I don't prefer Chavez-like governments more than right-wing governments. I see with sympathy governments like Lula's in Brasil, who is a what is known as "modern leftist", he has the highest approval rate in the region: around 80% of his people are very happy with him, and he has reduced poverty a lot. Something other presidents in the region, have not.

Anyway, I think I made my points clear. Cheers.

[Óttar]

And maybe it is a chance for him to redeem himself after butchering the story of Alexander.
That shouldn't be too hard to do. He had 3rd century BCE Persians dressed up in medieval Arab garb!!! :mad:

I agree with him that in today's society we can apply moral relativism to, and speak objectively about anything but Hitler, Nazis and Nazi Germany. I think it's ridiculous. I couldn't even watch a documentary about Martin Heidegger without them mentioning he was a member of the Nazi party every 2 seconds. They didn't say a word about his philosophy! :mad:

But support for Ahmedinejad and Iran's present regime??? :thumb down2

[Guapo]

...

[RoyBatty]

I don't think he's that much of a democrat if he supports a dictator like Chavez.

Dictator?

Uhm, not that I care for elections or democracy but Chavez was elected.

I guess that doesn't matter to you people because of course "democracy" is only a good thing when the "right candidate" (meaning your sockpuppet) wins, isn't that so? :thumb001:

No doubt true lovers of "freedom and democracy" rather support US Coup attempts such as the ones launched against Chavez in recent years. :rolleyes2:

[Gamera]

Dictator?

Uhm, not that I care for elections or democracy but Chavez was elected.

I guess that doesn't matter to you people because of course "democracy" is only a good thing when the "right candidate" (meaning your sockpuppet) wins, isn't that so? :thumb001:

No doubt true lovers of "freedom and democracy" rather support US Coup attempts such as the ones launched against Chavez in recent years. :rolleyes2:

I don't know of many people who supported the 2002 coup against Chavez. Which other coups are you referring to? The US did play an important role on it, and most people reject that too. Historically, the US has supported several of the South American dictators.

As for Chavez being a dictator, there are different views on it. Some people consider it to be an authoritarian democracy, others do think it's a sort of dictatorship, like most of the people I talked to in Venezuela. It's like what happened in Peru with Fujimori. He controlled the Parliament and every other State Power, from 1992 until the year 2000. Of course, on every election he was "elected". That doesn't mean he is still not considered a dictator by the majority of the Peruvian population (around 80%). He is now in jail.

I don't understand what you mean with "you people" or "our sockpuppet". Could you please explain me that?

[MagnaLaurentia]

Oliver Stone is jew, no?

[Bloodeagle]

Oliver Stone is jew, no?

Yes he is.

[Megrez]

Chavez is the most "right-wing" thing you can find in South America.

[Falkata]

Dictator?

Uhm, not that I care for elections or democracy but Chavez was elected.

I guess that doesn't matter to you people because of course "democracy" is only a good thing when the "right candidate" (meaning your sockpuppet) wins, isn't that so? :thumb001:

No doubt true lovers of "freedom and democracy" rather support US Coup attempts such as the ones launched against Chavez in recent years. :rolleyes2:

Hitler was a dictator too and he was elected. If after reaching the power you want to be eternal destroying the rest of political parties, censoring the media... then you´re a dictator. Like Hitler was and like Chavez is or at least wants to be

[Wölfin]

And maybe it is a chance for him to redeem himself after butchering the story of Alexander.

Urgh. I still have nightmares about that movie.
I'm still strongly disturbed by the load of anachronisms, the bad bleach job on Colin Farell and... well everything else.

[MagnaLaurentia]

Urgh. I still have nightmares about that movie.
I'm still strongly disturbed by the load of anachronisms, the bad bleach job on Colin Farell and... well everything else.

hahaha :D

This is exactly what I think!

And Angelina Jolie looks like an old prostitute in this movie!

[mvbeleg]

That shouldn't be too hard to do. He had 3rd century BCE Persians dressed up in medieval Arab garb!!!

I have not carefully studied the dress and gear of the Achaemenid military. However, it seems that in the Gaugamela scene in Alexander, the Persian military dress and gear is represented reasonably well [albeit generically]. See the images below.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Battle_of_Issus.jpg

http://www.livius.org/a/1/iran/darius_face.jpg

Alexander III and Darius III at Issus from Pompeii mosaic


http://www.firouzanfilms.com/images/HollywoodAndIran/Alexander/Alexander_004.jpg

Darius III at Gaugamela from Alexander (2004)


http://www.spartanandamazonwarriors.com/sitebuilder/images/persian_immortals_2-240x310.jpg

http://www.livius.org/a/iran/susa/susa_palace_glazed_relief_2_louvre_01.JPG

Achaemenid soldiers from Susa relief


http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_47/720000/720829/1/source/Persepolis_The_Persian_Soldiers.jpg

Achaemenid soldiers from Persepolis relief


http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/resource/pix/warfare/army/p_immort.jpg

Achaemenid soldier from http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/


http://www.firouzanfilms.com/images/HollywoodAndIran/Alexander/Alexander_002.jpg

http://www.firouzanfilms.com/images/HollywoodAndIran/Alexander/Alexander_003.jpg

Achaemenid soldiers from Alexander (2004)


Keep in mind that the cultural of the Achaemenid dynasty was a mixed one having Persian, Median, and Elamite components. Also, the ethnicity of Darius III's army was heterogeneous. Aside from the Medo-Persian core [which included the Elamite group], Darius III's army was comprised of Greek mercenaries [Darius III's most prized soldiers after his Immortals]; Aramaens, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and other Mesopotamians; Bactrians, Scythians, and other groups from modern day Afghanistan and Central Asia. So, it likely that Darius III's army showed a great deal of heterogeneity in their dress and gear.


I have not studied the dress and gear of medieval militaries carefully. But my impression is that Kingdom of Heaven (2005) did a reasonably good job with this. The only thing that I noticed out of place was Saladin's banners that had 'God is greatest' written on them after the manner of the Arabic script in the Arabic language. Having 'God is greatest' written on a banner is sacrilegious in Muslimdom.

[Beorn]

He's come out and apologised now. Apparently he doesn't actually mean what he said, and was misinterpreted.

I loved the quote where he denied that Hollywood wasn't dominated by Jews. :D

iAweiV944qI

Hm? Whatever! :rolleyes:

[Óttar]

Having 'God is greatest' written on a banner is sacrilegious in Muslimdom.
:confused:


http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:U-kvm315_yD_KM:http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/stories/coalitionflags/new_iraq_flag_hi.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Iraq.svg
A horizontal tricolour of red, white, and black charged with the takbir [Allahu Akbar (God is great) in Kufic script] in green centered on the white stripe.On flags

The phrase "Allahu Akbar" is written on the center of the flag of Iraq, 22 times along the borders of the central white stripe on the flag of Iran, and beneath the Shahadah in the 2004 draft constitution of Afghanistan in white script on the central red background.

Iraq

During the Iran-Iraq war in January 1991, Saddam Hussein held a meeting with top military commanders, where it was decided to add the words Allahu Akbar (described as the Islamic battle cry)[28] to Iraq's flag to boost his secular regime's religious credentials, casting himself as the leader of an Islamic army.[29][30] Henceforth, he said, the flag would literally be "the banner of jihad and monotheism".[31]

In 2004, Iraq's U.S.-picked Governing Council approved a new flag for Iraq that abandoned symbols of Hussein's regime, such as the words Allahu Akbar.[29][32] In January 2008, however, Iraq's parliament passed a law to change the flag by leaving in the phrase, but changing the calligraphy of the words Allahu Akbar, which had been a copy of Saddam's handwriting, to a Kufic script.[33][34]

Iran

The phrase Allahu Akbar is written on the Iranian flag, as called for by Article 18 of Iran's constitution.[35] The phrase appears 22 times on the flag.[36]

Afghanistan

The Afghan constitution that came into force on January 4, 2004, required that Allahu Akbar be inscribed on Afghanistan's national flag.[37]

1930s Waziristan (Pakistan) resistance movement

A resistance movement in Waziristan, Pakistan, that fought the British during the 1930s had a red flag, with Allahu Akbar written on it in white letters.[38]

[mvbeleg]

Having 'God is greatest' written on a banner is sacrilegious in Muslimdom.


:confused:

. . .

Iraq
. . .

Iran
. . .

Afghanistan
. . .

You got me, Óttar.
:embarrassed
Can I plead insanity?


Lesson to learn: Avoid presumptuousness.


For now, I am going to modify my claim and claim that the banners with 'Allahu akhbar' on them were used inappropriately at the siege of Jerusalem in Kingdom of Heaven. [Though probably someone will refute this as well.]

It is my understanding that in Islam when 'God' is written on an object that the object becomes sacred. In Kingdom of Heaven, the Saracens carry lots of war banners; some have 'Allahu akhbar' written on them while others have the crescent moon on them. [Note that the crescent moon is an anachronism as it did not come into usage until the time of the Ottomans.] Below are some images from the film.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UhNJrxzKWvc/SyweixPllZI/AAAAAAAAAXo/rGlE1WZx0OA/s320/Saracen+Flags.jpg

http://thecia.com.au/reviews/k/images/kingdom-of-heaven-9.jpg


I do not believe that the Saracens would have sent 'sacred banners' into the front lines to risk being 'desecrated' by 'Franks'. However, in Kingdom of Heaven, they apparently do this. For example, there is a scene during the siege of Jerusalem where some Saracens storm one of the towers and begin raising an 'Allahu akhbar' flag and a crescent moon flag at the top of the captured tower. Balian rushes to the tower to stop the Saracen flag bearers. He first cuts down one flag bearer but in the process his hand is sliced. He then proceeds to kill the second flag bearer and casts a crescent moon flag to the ground.

[RoyBatty]

Hitler was a dictator too and he was elected. If after reaching the power you want to be eternal destroying the rest of political parties, censoring the media... then you´re a dictator. Like Hitler was and like Chavez is or at least wants to be

My understanding about Hitler is that he was technically appointed Chancellor of a coalition govt rather than elected outright in 1933. He didn't have an outright majority but somehow managed to suppress his parliamentary rivals from challenging his position.

After Hindenburgh's death in 1934 the power of the Presidency was transferred to Hitler. There was a subsequent referendum in which he gained mass approval to cement this position.

In layman's terms, he was not exactly elected but assumed his leadership position through a series of complex political wranglings which were eventually approved by majority public vote during a referendum. He did not come to power through an election though.

[RoyBatty]

I don't know of many people who supported the 2002 coup against Chavez. Which other coups are you referring to?

2002 was the blatantly obvious and violent coup attempt. It was typical of the older Gringo methods employed against countries which didn't obey them.

Súmate in 2004 was the other.

I'll add that this was a much more subtle attempt by the Gringos to get rid of Chavez but imo this was just a legal coup attempt using "non-violent" means. They made use of a more "modern regime change method" perfected by the Soros mafia which is often put to use in Eastern Europe and ex-USSR countries.