Talk:Antony C. Sutton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

Contents 1 karl marx 2 Vandalism 3 POV 4 Another view 5 "In his own words"

[edit] karl marx

in his the federal reserve conspiracy he talks about karl marx he says that "the ten points of the Marxian Manifesto, a program designed to overthrow the middle class bourgeoisie (not the big capitalist)"

this is an error on Sutton's part as Marx does not talk much about a middle class, Marx defines bourgeoisie as the upper class the rulers.

This argument on Sutton part seems as a fallacy of redefining words.

I wonder how much or if any more Sutton crosses the line to conspiracy, which i find a waste of time.

Reply: 9/11 was a conspiracy of some kind (among the perpetrators at least) as are most criminal enterprises and covert CIA ops. It's laughable that the word "conspiracy" has become (to some) something like the "n" word except when a western government official uses it ("Saddam may be conspiring to provide WMDs to Terrorist groups": GWB 2002). Then it seems to have a ring of assumed truth among the same bunch that summarily dismisses the concept when used by anyone other than a western government spokesperson. As I say; it's really quite laughable :)

[edit] Vandalism

This article was vandalized by someone who made it appear that Sutton's work done at and for Stanford Univ. was just shared with Stanford. 64.229.31.80 14:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I find earlier versions to be more descriptive, but some of your edits are also constructive, but, imo, bordering on POV. The revision before yours says: He shared his research with the University of London and Stanford's Hoover Institute and paid no heed to how governments, corporations, and political powers would react. I don't see what qualms you have here... If you could combine this current revision and the revision before into one article, that'd be awesome. Copysan 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"sharing with the public an evident life of unmitigated research [...], of passion in answers, in truths regardless of how government, corporations, and political powers would (and did) react." and "he was not one to characterize the notion of respect in acquiescence; thus he continued his research"

This is clearly POV:ed.. More a hagiography than actual facts. Apparatus 20:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another view

There's barely any information in the article. The other people posting seem to be arguing over tiny crumbs. [Sept. 12, 2006]

[edit] "In his own words"

What's the story of this section? Is it an autobiographical sketch? What's the source? It should either be placed in quotation marks or edited for consistency with the other material. -Will Beback 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)