Oliver Stone concedes that voting for war-mongering Joe Biden was a grave error
Filmmaker Oliver Stone, known for masterly films such as JFK, Platoon, Natural Born Killers, and Wall Street, recently spoke at length on comedian Russell Brand's podcast regarding a range of issues.
Stone was promoting his latest documentary Ukraine on Fire, which details the U.S. using Ukraine as a proxy against Russia for many years. It also covers the ousting of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych following a "coup d'état" aided by the Obama administration in 2014.
Stone began by explaining the origins of the Ukraine war:
You have to look at the reasons for this war, and whenever you do, the Americans like to simplify and say it’s a question of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. That's very simplistic and very black-and-white.
Recounting the production of Ukraine on Fire, he argued that the film "explains the origins of this war in the coup d'état of 2014 which was sponsored and supported thoroughly by the United States" and that "it was a very deep plan to penetrate the Russian Federation."
Stone slammed the "neoconservative movement who started the war in Iraq" and whose members remain "deep inside our government."
Stone excoriated Joe Biden, calling him "an old cold warrior" who "really hates the old Soviet Union which he confounds again with the Russian Federation, which is not communist."
Stone rightly warned that unless the United States changes its "suicidal" course, it faces a "potential World War III."
"If we don't stop this, what Biden is doing, this guy is — I voted for him — I made a mistake, I was thinking he was an old man now that he would calm down, that he would be more mellow and so forth, I didn't see that at all," he said.
Stone also conceded what most reasonable people would admit after seeing Biden struggle to make sense of words on a teleprompter or on finding he was on the White House lawn.
"I see a man who maybe is not in charge of his own administration. Who knows?"
It seems that he's dragging us stupidly into a confrontation with a power that is not going to give. This is their borders. This is their world. This is NATO going into Ukraine. This is a whole other story.
Stone also denounced under secretary of state for political affairs Victoria Nuland, national security adviser Jake Sullivan, and secretary of state Antony Blinken.
He also argued that the conflict has the United States being "dragged" into a volatile conflict similar to that sparked in the Balkans in World War I.
Stone noted the ethnic complexity of this conflict in that U.S. "allies are rabid anti-Russian people" and have been fighting against ethnic Russians who live in eastern Ukraine, claiming that the media do not recognize that these ethnic Russians have been seeking autonomy, saying, "That's all they asked for in 2014."
Stone revealed that negotiations for ethnic Russian autonomy in eastern Ukraine had almost been reached toward the start of the war in 2022, until "America squelched it," suggesting, "They didn't want the deal, they didn't want the peace treaty. They don't want to give autonomy to Donetsk and Lugansk. Now look where we are. It's gotten worse, and it's going to get worse."
Stone also opined that Russia specializes in nuclear energy, which could be of great help to the U.S.
So what does one make of all this?
Before President Trump, D.C. had a convenient arrangement. Democrats and Republicans pretended to stand for different issues and "despised" each other.
The GOP pretended to be the war-mongers, while the Democrats claimed they were the peaceniks.
The Republicans would say "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here," while Democrats claimed to oppose American military interventions abroad.
To keep the public busy, they focused on divisive social issues such as redefining marriage and abortion. As important as these issues were, they were meant as tools for distraction.
It caused people to vote out Republican George H. W. Bush in favor of Democrat Bill Clinton. People then elected Republican George W. Bush, followed by Democrat Barack Obama.
With every new president, the public believed they were beginning afresh, but instead, they were loyal to the military-industrial complex in either beginning or continuing optional foreign military interventions.
Hollywood too played this game; they all claimed to be liberals and hence peaceniks. Most pictures during the Bush era, such as the Jason Bourne and Jack Ryan films, depicted the U.S. government and its agencies as villains.
Michael Moore famously attacked Bush for the war in Iraq in an Oscars speech:
Predictably, Bush-supporters despised the move, while Democrats cheered him, and the charade continued.
If these people were really peaceniks, then they would have all supported President Trump because he is the only modern president not to begin a new foreign conflict.
But nothing of the kind occurred.
In D.C., funding for the Ukraine war has been one of the rare displays of unanimity.
How is Hollywood reacting?
Michael Moore is meekly critical of the war but hasn't blamed Biden.
The rest of Hollywood no longer condemns war because warring is the new groupthink.
They instead focus on worshiping Ukrainian president Zelensky. Hollywood stars such as Sean Penn, Ben Stiller, Jessica Chastain, and Angelina Jolie posed alongside Zelensky.
Zelensky was allowed to deliver speeches at the Grammys and the Golden Globe Awards:
The adulation that Zelensky received from Hollywood was enough to make Obama jealous.
In all this slobbering, Oliver Stone is a welcome change.
You may not have agreed with Stone in the past and perhaps not even now, but he was, is, and continues to be an antiwar crusader. He isn’t changing his opinion based on the direction of the wind.
By slamming Biden and the Ukraine war, Stone will doubtless be blacklisted in Hollywood. It is unlikely he will ever work in the mainstream again, and he may never even make a new movie, documentary, or television series.
Unlike his peers, who have changed their tune on the command of the establishment to facilitate career and pecuniary prosperity, Stone seems to be standing by his convictions.
They say the true character of a man is revealed when he takes a stand on the moral ground that goes against his interests.
Stone deserves plaudits, much like the journalists such as Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibi, who haven't changed their tune merely to remain in the mainstream, do.
How will Hollywood and D.C. react to Stone?
They will brand Stone a stooge of President Putin and dismiss him. They will claim he is pushing the Kremlin's narrative.
Oliver Stone should wear these attacks from Hollywood like medals of honor.