To the surprise of no one, on the left or right, it has now been confirmed that I.F. Stone, the journalist hero of the American left was a Soviet Spy working to destroy the United States.
Absolutely: John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev, writing for Commentary Magazine.
Of course the story did not break in any of the mainstream media, nonetheless the story and NEW FACTUAL evidence made the rounds in most conservative media outlets.
Sorry if this bit of news breaks your bubble. As you can see it did not go over well with proudfootz.
actually i was expecting that response, and i am aware of their work. even conservative commentators have pointed out that the accusations against IF Stone are false.
another point: i don't think IF stone was a communist agent, but for the sake of argument lets say he was. does that mean everything he said is false? should we distrust his saying that "governments lie" ?
are his numerous scoops based on publicly available documents then all null?
You may be "aware" of their work, but perhaps you should read it as well. You will find they are not accusations or false.
I never said, nor do those writing about his Soviet spy days, suggest everything Stone said is false. More importantly, one would have to look at his words realizing this is a man that spied on his country for an adversary that was the most murderous regime in the 20th century.
Certainly no man is entirely evil. It is a well known fact, Hitler loved his German Shepherd.
This tired story has been floating around for years, and like fluoride paranoia will probably never disappear so long as Stone's solid reporting threatens the myths the radical right needs to live.
i did not realize you took notice of my comments. i don't know that much about IF stone, except the quote "governments lie!" and i just started looking into him.
even if he was a soviety spy, doesn't negate all the journalism and exposing and scooping he's been doing - though atlastobjectivist and others seem that think that such accustaions (whether true or not) will discredit everything he's done
I am glad I stumbled upon this thread. I believe Stone PROBABLY took some money from the KGB in the 1930s. But he was probably NOT influenced by the Soviets in the least bit.
I am impressed with I. F. Stone and I respect him -- but I don't see the world exactly as he did. I would never seek to silence such a person.
this reminds me of critics of israeli policy being called "anti-semitic." it's just an attempt to smear his name and discredit him without actually going up against his arguments.
the criticisms of IF Stone would have more teeth if they actually refuted IF Stone's news scoops and analysis rather than basically going after him in mccarthy-style witchhunts.
so please: do you have any criticisms of IF Stone' journalism, of his scoops?
haynes, klehr, and vassiliev never prove that BLIN from venona is IF Stone. in fact, the evidence they gave would implicate walter lippman as a soviet agent much more so than IF Stone. walter lippman actually had regular contact with a soviet agent pravdin, while IF Stone avoided that same soviet agent. so go after walter lippman if you want, but you don't have a case against IF Stone. try finding any holes in his reporting if you want people to take you seriously
Your last post only proves you are not entirely aware of confirmed evidence against Stone.
The Venona files are old news. You see, your sources like... Wikipedia, fail to mention the latest and more damning evidence from the Vassiliev Notebooks.
Please go to Commentary Magazine on line and read it yourself. It is a well written, balanced and fair article There isn't much to debate here.
the point about hitler loving his dog is kinda irrelevant. IF stone isn't hitler. and i doubt he had access to anything but we'll see from the article you provide.
do you think that penn and teller are gonna see your video and produce raw footege only for you??? my ass! if they see you with that stupid hat looking like you have some kind of mental deices, they are gonna laugh at you like for 5 sec.
you know why people see them? because they like them, you only got hate message
..and George Shultz admitted lies are correct in war like Churchill when he said the lies are necessary...Shultz addmited this in Reagan's administration regarding bombing Libya I think do nos remember exactly...I hope many people all over the world debate many things, you are promoting a debate and is good...thanxs
Your leap in logic for that conclusion is that of a five year old.
Dude, get over the fact your ugly. Just because someone else doesn't post themselves online doesn't mean that your by default more attractive. Actually more to the point, just in denial. And denial means your an idiot...
By giving your reply you took away any credibility of taking the moral high ground. Seriously, for an old guy, your mentality is seriously worrying/dissapointing
Don't compliment yourself, your clearly a wanna-be scholar whose failed, going through a, no doubt, lonely, mid life crisis, ands spewing shit on the net.
I'd love to see more Philosophy Departments make use of this book.
Trying to study Plato out of the historical context is like trying to understand the USSR by only reading <i>Pravda</i> - interesting but completely unbalanced.
And you have a degree in philosophy suposedly, well you just called the founder and/or his apprentice an idiot
You sir are a fucking retard. Read articles about this book that will give you a 360 view on it, not your one sided biased view. Surely you must have been taught that when doing your degree....
I'm glad you feel free to spout your uninformed opinion, but go ahead and do so on your own channel.
Since my having actually read the book makes my view of it 'horrifically limited', your complete ignorance about the book makes your opinion even more limited.
Your source is only Stone's book, which I have highlighted valid criticisms and you have yet to even comment upon them.
My criticisms come from scholars/the intellectually recognized. To say they are simply 'wrong' as you have in the past is no better then a Xian saying God exists because the Bible says so.
Therefore you believe critics & scholars should not be listened to?
And don't try to deny the fact that your review on Stone's book hasn't actually looked at where it could and is incorrect. That makes your review biased, and Im sure I dont need to tell you why a biased review sucks...
I'll stop you there as clearly you have never written any essay etc in your life.
You have only studied that text, not scrutinized it as the critics/scholars I read about have. Your no better then someone who read the Bible before Darwin and refuses to accept evolution.
I simply skipped a stage and went straight to the reviews because what he was saying seemed so dubious, low and behold, I was right.
Oh so because of my age I simply don't know better then you?
Seriously I am willing to bet money you haven't got a degree or a decent one at that, simply because you have no idea how to analyse anything.
I haven't missed the point, your the one who constantly answers my questions with further questions, fool. And im studying to learn, whereas you clearly think your right about everything....
Energetic read, covers some of the basics, but has a few flawds, such as the ideal democracy Stone claims Athens is, when, due to economic reasons, it was a democracy only for the wealthy. Also Stone takes Plato's Socrates to be 100% correct, as well as labels anything not democratic to be totalitarian, such as the Republic.
Good basic ground, but suffers due to Stone's skim reading of Socrates and false ideas of Athens.
"Hearsay" aka reviews and articles written by professors.
Proud doesnt want to admit the book isn't perfect.
Such as it never mentions that Socrates & Critias didnt agree on their views of government written in Charmides, and that Stone's view of Athens is incorrect, based on Perices funeral speech.
ive read it. certainly an extraordinary book. athens betrays its tradition of tolerance and free-thinking in his execution. soon after, monarchy makes its way by force and democracy is forgotten for many centuries.
The jury that convicted Socrates may well have been convinced the man was a menace after the treason of his most famous student at the time, Alcibiades, and the recent mass murders by his other student Critias.
Socrates, being anti-democratic, would have been pleased by the downfall of government by the consent of the citizens.
Izzy rox.....
kevinherbert 1 year ago
5 stars
opchidexio2 2 years ago
4/21/09 Here is a little amendment to this video:
To the surprise of no one, on the left or right, it has now been confirmed that I.F. Stone, the journalist hero of the American left was a Soviet Spy working to destroy the United States.
Real "swell guy" Proudfootz.
AtlasObjectivist 2 years ago
HAHAHAHA!
You can't argue the facts so you attack the man by making up such rightwing slander?
What else to expect from an Ayndroid?
proudfootz 2 years ago
give the source
boing3887 2 years ago
Absolutely: John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev, writing for Commentary Magazine.
Of course the story did not break in any of the mainstream media, nonetheless the story and NEW FACTUAL evidence made the rounds in most conservative media outlets.
Sorry if this bit of news breaks your bubble. As you can see it did not go over well with proudfootz.
AtlasObjectivist 2 years ago
actually i was expecting that response, and i am aware of their work. even conservative commentators have pointed out that the accusations against IF Stone are false.
another point: i don't think IF stone was a communist agent, but for the sake of argument lets say he was. does that mean everything he said is false? should we distrust his saying that "governments lie" ?
are his numerous scoops based on publicly available documents then all null?
boing3887 2 years ago
You may be "aware" of their work, but perhaps you should read it as well. You will find they are not accusations or false.
I never said, nor do those writing about his Soviet spy days, suggest everything Stone said is false. More importantly, one would have to look at his words realizing this is a man that spied on his country for an adversary that was the most murderous regime in the 20th century.
Certainly no man is entirely evil. It is a well known fact, Hitler loved his German Shepherd.
AtlasObjectivist 2 years ago
boing -
Your points are well taken.
This tired story has been floating around for years, and like fluoride paranoia will probably never disappear so long as Stone's solid reporting threatens the myths the radical right needs to live.
proudfootz 2 years ago
i did not realize you took notice of my comments. i don't know that much about IF stone, except the quote "governments lie!" and i just started looking into him.
even if he was a soviety spy, doesn't negate all the journalism and exposing and scooping he's been doing - though atlastobjectivist and others seem that think that such accustaions (whether true or not) will discredit everything he's done
boing3887 2 years ago
boing -
They focus on this 'commie spy' thing as if it was still the height of Joe McCarthy's reign of domestic terror.
This book on Socrates is pretty good - kind of shows the deep dark roots of fascism in the western tradition.
proudfootz 2 years ago
I am glad I stumbled upon this thread. I believe Stone PROBABLY took some money from the KGB in the 1930s. But he was probably NOT influenced by the Soviets in the least bit.
I am impressed with I. F. Stone and I respect him -- but I don't see the world exactly as he did. I would never seek to silence such a person.
opchidexio2 2 years ago
The US got lots of help from the Soviets in the war against fascism, and we were glad to get it, too.
The only people who were upset were the fascists' friends...
proudfootz 2 years ago
this reminds me of critics of israeli policy being called "anti-semitic." it's just an attempt to smear his name and discredit him without actually going up against his arguments.
the criticisms of IF Stone would have more teeth if they actually refuted IF Stone's news scoops and analysis rather than basically going after him in mccarthy-style witchhunts.
so please: do you have any criticisms of IF Stone' journalism, of his scoops?
boing3887 2 years ago
haynes, klehr, and vassiliev never prove that BLIN from venona is IF Stone. in fact, the evidence they gave would implicate walter lippman as a soviet agent much more so than IF Stone. walter lippman actually had regular contact with a soviet agent pravdin, while IF Stone avoided that same soviet agent. so go after walter lippman if you want, but you don't have a case against IF Stone. try finding any holes in his reporting if you want people to take you seriously
boing3887 2 years ago
Your last post only proves you are not entirely aware of confirmed evidence against Stone.
The Venona files are old news. You see, your sources like... Wikipedia, fail to mention the latest and more damning evidence from the Vassiliev Notebooks.
Please go to Commentary Magazine on line and read it yourself. It is a well written, balanced and fair article There isn't much to debate here.
AtlasObjectivist 2 years ago
give me the weblink and we'll see.
the point about hitler loving his dog is kinda irrelevant. IF stone isn't hitler. and i doubt he had access to anything but we'll see from the article you provide.
boing3887 2 years ago
boing -
It seems some are upset with Stone because he wasn't a fascist, and will stoop to anything to smear the man.
As you so rightly point out no one has been able to offer any significant critique of Stone's reporting.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Interesting.
BusyBeetle 3 years ago
GET A LIFE YOU STUPID PEACE OF SHIT!!
Both now that sex is not a part of your life...
do you think that penn and teller are gonna see your video and produce raw footege only for you??? my ass! if they see you with that stupid hat looking like you have some kind of mental deices, they are gonna laugh at you like for 5 sec.
you know why people see them? because they like them, you only got hate message
sieg5 3 years ago
siegheil -
'get a life'?
Pretty funny coming from some ass-hat who spams my videos with the same exact message whether or not it's relevant.
Epic FAIL on your part, loser.
proudfootz 3 years ago
He said something like "any government is managing by liars, and anything from them should not be believable"
delsur2009 3 years ago
del -
Plato's ideal government is based on lies - sadly, many look on this concept with approval.
proudfootz 3 years ago
..and George Shultz admitted lies are correct in war like Churchill when he said the lies are necessary...Shultz addmited this in Reagan's administration regarding bombing Libya I think do nos remember exactly...I hope many people all over the world debate many things, you are promoting a debate and is good...thanxs
delsur2009 3 years ago
do a shoutcast but we dont want to see your ugly face!
noslana 4 years ago
noslana -
You must be a real troll to be too scared to show your own mug.
But only a real idiot would judge a person by their looks.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Your leap in logic for that conclusion is that of a five year old.
Dude, get over the fact your ugly. Just because someone else doesn't post themselves online doesn't mean that your by default more attractive. Actually more to the point, just in denial. And denial means your an idiot...
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fata -
I'm glad "your" okay with being fat and ugly, as well as stupid.
Now go sneak some of your momma's gin.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Its oh so very scary to see that your a 40 something year old man saying childish insults and I'm the one using logical statements...
Damn, whats your job again?
Something tells me your one of life's losers...
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fata -
People who attack me because I'm 'ugly' are using logical arguments in your view?
I guess that says a lot about where you're coming from...
proudfootz 4 years ago
Beauty is symmetry, fool. therefore, you are indeed ugly.
Get over it. Your face isn't a pleasant one to look at, that is what the person was reasonably saying.
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fatandfoolish -
...and I merely extrapolated that he must be following his own advice and hiding his hideous deformity.
I don't understand why this idiot thinks only 'beautiful people' Brad Pitt should be allowed to state an opinion.
proudfootz 4 years ago
HA. Read what he said, put your voice on youtube, just not your face.
And your extrapolation was nothing more then the childish response of 'I know you are, you said you are, but what am I'...
Maturity oozes with your comments.
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fatandlazy -
I thought her childish remark was deserving of a childish response.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Sure, but then why your defense of the last few statements without stating this immediately...?
Oh, busted....
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fata -
Anyone with the least amount of wit would have recognized what I was doing without needing it to be explained to them in excruciating detail.
Sorry I confused you.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Childish humour in your eyes is wit?
Nope, just immature.
By giving your reply you took away any credibility of taking the moral high ground. Seriously, for an old guy, your mentality is seriously worrying/dissapointing
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fata -
You sure are obsessed with me - maybe I'm not as ugly as all that.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Don't compliment yourself, your clearly a wanna-be scholar whose failed, going through a, no doubt, lonely, mid life crisis, ands spewing shit on the net.
Now, back to the point, your ugly, get over it.
fatandhorny 4 years ago
i am actually kind of interested in this book. i have not seen it in any bookstores though. any ideas where i can find it?
tubbytitan23451 4 years ago
I picked up my copy at a used book store - it's an older book and I think some colleges use it as a text.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Thanks for this video. I'll have to pick up a copy.
2LegHumanist 4 years ago
2Leg -
I'd love to see more Philosophy Departments make use of this book.
Trying to study Plato out of the historical context is like trying to understand the USSR by only reading <i>Pravda</i> - interesting but completely unbalanced.
proudfootz 4 years ago
How does the theory of the Forms have anything to do with historical context?
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fata -
How does theory of Forms have anything to do with the trial of Socrates and Plato's Apology?
proudfootz 4 years ago
Answering my question with one of your own.
FAIL.
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fatandfailure -
Try reading or listening sometime - this book is about the trial of Socrates - an event in history - not some idiot's kooky ideas about 'Forms'.
Drunk again?
proudfootz 4 years ago
Ah dear, calling Plato/Socrates a fool..
And you have a degree in philosophy suposedly, well you just called the founder and/or his apprentice an idiot
You sir are a fucking retard. Read articles about this book that will give you a 360 view on it, not your one sided biased view. Surely you must have been taught that when doing your degree....
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fandloser -
Better yet, I suggest people actually *read* the book.
But I guess actually knowing what one is talking about makes one a 'retard' in your view.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Your view is nothing more then that book. Therefore yours is horrifically limited. Its as simple as that.
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fatandcantread -
I'm glad you feel free to spout your uninformed opinion, but go ahead and do so on your own channel.
Since my having actually read the book makes my view of it 'horrifically limited', your complete ignorance about the book makes your opinion even more limited.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Idiot.
Your view on Socrates and more importantly the book is hideously limited as you only read it and nothing else.
Your the same as someone who uses the Bible to defend the existence of God - illogical and simple.
My view is formed form numerous sources, whereas yours is just I.F. 'Wanna be historian' Stone's book
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fatanstupid -
You have no ideas what my sources are, nor do you know anything about Stone's book.
Anyone following your advice about books may as well chop off their heads as they won't need them any more.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Your source is only Stone's book, which I have highlighted valid criticisms and you have yet to even comment upon them.
My criticisms come from scholars/the intellectually recognized. To say they are simply 'wrong' as you have in the past is no better then a Xian saying God exists because the Bible says so.
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fata -
This is a review of Stone's book, which I recommend that people read - even if in the end they disagree with Stone's conclusion.
Those who only read things they know in adavance they will agree with are incapable of intellectual growth.
A true scholar goes to the source - in this case you have chosen to ignore Stone and rely on the claims of certain reviewers as to what Stone says.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Therefore you believe critics & scholars should not be listened to?
And don't try to deny the fact that your review on Stone's book hasn't actually looked at where it could and is incorrect. That makes your review biased, and Im sure I dont need to tell you why a biased review sucks...
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fata -
I come by my 'bias' by studying the text.
Too bad you couldn't be bothered to know what you were talking about before you commented.
Since you don't evenn know what Stone says, you don't know where I differ from his conclusions.
proudfootz 4 years ago
"I come by my 'bias' by studying the text"
I'll stop you there as clearly you have never written any essay etc in your life.
You have only studied that text, not scrutinized it as the critics/scholars I read about have. Your no better then someone who read the Bible before Darwin and refuses to accept evolution.
I simply skipped a stage and went straight to the reviews because what he was saying seemed so dubious, low and behold, I was right.
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fata -
Since you haven't yet earned your degree in anything you don't know what it takes to get one.
It seems dubious you'll be able to earn one since you have consistently missed the point about everything you've commented on.
Why don't you 'skip a stage' and quit university now? Obviously you know too much to learn anything by studying...
proudfootz 4 years ago
Oh so because of my age I simply don't know better then you?
Seriously I am willing to bet money you haven't got a degree or a decent one at that, simply because you have no idea how to analyse anything.
I haven't missed the point, your the one who constantly answers my questions with further questions, fool. And im studying to learn, whereas you clearly think your right about everything....
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fata -
Then I suggest you read the books you talk about. You won't go far in school trying to get by using book reviews for your research...
proudfootz 4 years ago
Energetic read, covers some of the basics, but has a few flawds, such as the ideal democracy Stone claims Athens is, when, due to economic reasons, it was a democracy only for the wealthy. Also Stone takes Plato's Socrates to be 100% correct, as well as labels anything not democratic to be totalitarian, such as the Republic.
Good basic ground, but suffers due to Stone's skim reading of Socrates and false ideas of Athens.
fatandhorny 4 years ago
Warning!
fatandhorny has <i>not</i> read Stone's book, so his 'review' is based on hearsay and not first hand knowledge.
proudfootz 4 years ago
"Hearsay" aka reviews and articles written by professors.
Proud doesnt want to admit the book isn't perfect.
Such as it never mentions that Socrates & Critias didnt agree on their views of government written in Charmides, and that Stone's view of Athens is incorrect, based on Perices funeral speech.
Get over it proud, the books not perfect
fatandhorny 4 years ago
ive read it. certainly an extraordinary book. athens betrays its tradition of tolerance and free-thinking in his execution. soon after, monarchy makes its way by force and democracy is forgotten for many centuries.
hargodwinson 4 years ago
The jury that convicted Socrates may well have been convinced the man was a menace after the treason of his most famous student at the time, Alcibiades, and the recent mass murders by his other student Critias.
Socrates, being anti-democratic, would have been pleased by the downfall of government by the consent of the citizens.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Read Charmides and then tell me that Socrates should have been executed for NOT sharing the same views as a murderer
fatandhorny 4 years ago
fata -
At the conclusion of Charmides Socrates says to future dictator and mass murderer Critias and his henchman Charmides: "Temperance is useless...."
They took his teachings to heart.
It is all a very amiable example of socratic double-talk. No 'falling out' is described between Socrates and the future Pol Pot of Athens.
proudfootz 4 years ago