Truth Movement is obsessed with meaningless tidbits of information and
Here's an excerpt from an article on JFK and
the Warren Commission, that highlights the same problem.
Besides this article, I would also add that the
announcement from a Texas DA (?) that Oswald's CIA payroll number was
110669, might be a good place to stop, or add only a little more
corroboration on the facts that suggest that in NO WAY was Oswald a
Another solid point would be that Oswald stamped his pro-Cuba Communist group flyers with the office address of 540 Camp Street, the Newman Building, whether or not it could actually be determined that Oswald rented an office there. According to the second JFK committee, the only known Oswald-related tenant in that building was this man, Guy Banister.
According to FBI files reviewed by committee
staff, Banister also became excessively active in
anti-Communist activities after his separation from the FBI
and testified before various investigating bodies about the
dangers of communism.
The Waters of Knowledge
The Waters of
Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy
by E. Martin Schotz
WHAT THE WATERS OF KNOWLEDGE TELL
Over and over again we hear people asking
for more and more information from the government. I suggest to you that the
problem is not that we have insufficient
data. The problem is that we dare not analyze the data we have had
all along. In fact we need very little
data. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned you can throw almost the whole 26 volumes of the
Warren Commission in the trash can. All you need to do is look at this.
Here [left] is the Warren Commission drawing of the path of the
"magic" bullet. And here is a photograph of the hole in the President's jacket.
Now what does this tell us? It tells us without a shadow of a doubt that
the President's throat wound was an entry wound, and that there was a conspiracy without any question. But it tells
us much more. It tells us that the Warren Commission knew that the conspiracy
was obvious and that the Commission was engaged in a criminal conspiracy after
the fact to obstruct justice. The Chief
Justice of the United States was a criminal accessory to the murder of the
President. Senator Arlen Specter is a criminal
accessory to murder. The Warren Report was not a mistake; it was and is
an obvious act of criminal fraud.
Think of this for a moment. The Warren
Report is an obvious criminal act of fraud and no history department in any
college or university is willing to say so. What does such silence mean?
It means that we are dealing with something that has effected every history department of every college and
university in our society, every major newspaper and magazine, and all means of
mass communication. It has effected virtually every "loyal American."
This phenomenon is what George Orwell in his novel 1984 called "crimestop" or "protective stupidity".
According to Orwell, "crimestop" is
really a form of self mind control in which we find the effected
individual "stopping short, as if by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought... not
grasping analogies... failing to perceive logical errors... misunderstanding the simplest arguments... and
being bored or repelled by any train of thought" if such is inimicable to the
powers that be.
As a clinician, I look at "crimestop" as a mass psychological illness, an
intellectual emotional and spiritual illness, part of the psychology of war which has pervaded our
So let us go on and ask who was Lee Harvey Oswald. I suggest to
you that it is equally obvious that Oswald was a
CIA agent from the data the Warren Commission provided to us. Look at the
relevant chapter in Sylvia Meagher's Accessories
After the Fact, which was published in 1967. Indeed, what Meagher did was
to confirm what Harold Feldman, with the help of Vincent Salandria, had already
suggested in The Nation magazine even before the release of the Warren Report.
If you look at History Will Not Absolve
Us, you will find that Castro could see this immediately by knowing how
to read our press. And Castro was not the only one who saw this.
following is the text of an internal memorandum from the Assistant Attorney
General of the United States to President
Johnson's press secretary Bill Moyers,
written just three days after the assassination:
Memorandum for Mr. Moyers
It is important that all of
the facts surrounding President Kennedy's assassination be made public in a way
which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts
have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now.
public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have
confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he
would have been convicted at trial.
Speculation about Oswald's
motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting
thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is
saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the
facts on Oswald seem about too pat --- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife,
etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy
theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.
The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor
conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumor and speculation. We can scarcely
let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our
President is murdered.
I think this objective may be satisfied by making
public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the
assassination. This may run into the difficulty of pointing to inconsistencies
between this report and statements by Dallas police officials. But the
reputatlon of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job.
other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission of
unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce its
conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages. I think it can await
publication of the FBI report and public reaction to it here and abroad.
I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made
public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need
something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
There are two aspects of this memorandum to which I want
to draw your attention. First we see written
proof that Attorney General Robert Kennedy's aide was engaged in a criminal
conspiracy to cover up the crime three
days after the fact. But there is another aspect. Look what Katzenbach
says about the frame-up of Oswald. "Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about
too pat -- too obvious..." What does this mean? It means Katzenbach can see that this guy has been set
So we have to ask ourselves, "Who can murder the President, frame a CIA agent, and
command this kind of cover?" I am not going to reiterate what Vince
Salandria has presented to you. As we knew at the time, Kennedy had begun a
process of rapprochement with the USSR
and had been making clear moves away from
the Cold War. The very simple and obvious question is,
Who had the means and motive to organize a conspiracy to
assassinate President Kennedy, frame in advance a CIA agent for the murder, use
immediately all media channels to spill the frame-up of Oswald to the world,
have the White House radioing Air Force One on the way back from Dallas that
Oswald was it before the Dallas police had anything on him? Who can do all this
and command a complete cover-up by all our society's institutions? Only one
institution had the means and motive to accomplish all this, an element of the
United States government that is so necessary to the "defense" of the nation
that to expose it would be unthinkable -- the answer is obvious -- high US
But I want to take us a step further,
because today the truth is not just that our military intelligence assassinated
our President. Today, thirty-five years later, such an assertion is a
half-truth. The full truth today must include an acknowledgment that the source
of the assassination conspiracy was knowable and known at the time, and
continues to be. The full truth requires that we acknowledge that every leading institution of this society has
cooperated in covering up the President's murder.
COVER-UP WAS NECESSARY
At the time of
the assassination what would have happened if it had been acknowledged that the
assassination had been a high level conspiracy of the US military intelligence
apparatus? I suggest to you that if this truth had been acknowledged early on,
our own CIA and military would have emerged as leading threats to freedom,
democracy and peace here at home as well as throughout the world. Such an
awareness on the part of a significant portion of our public would have led to
the fragmentation of our society, and to a level of domestic turmoil which would
have disrupted America's international empire. Think of the potential function
of such truth in the context of the political movements of the 60's. In no way
could the United States have prosecuted the Vietnam War under those
circumstances. An enormous anti-militarist opposition would have thwarted much
of what our military intelligence has perpetrated over the years in Latin
America, and around the world.
What does all this tell us about
ourselves? Well, one of the implications is that we have a very strange sort of
democracy. It is a democracy in which the press is so free that the President
can't have sex with a White House intern without being hauled before the court
of public opinion, but the military intelligence
establishment can openly assassinate the President and escape without any
serious effort by that press to call it to account. The President Iying
in a civil deposition, and supposedly obstructing justice over something that is
totally meaningless, gets infinite
attention from our media. This, while clear obstruction of justice in the murder of a
President passes in silence. To see such a thing is to realize when we
call ourselves "free" and "democratic", we are wrapping ourselves in the window
dressing of a modern militarist empire --- an empire of which we are but
subjects. Granted, ladies and gentlemen, some of us in this country may be
privileged subjects, maybe even the majority of us are privileged subjects, but
when the day is done, that is what we are --- subjects. We are not citizens of a free democratic society, but
subjects of a modern version of the Roman Empire.
I suggest to
you that this is a truth about ourselves which most Americans would rather not
hear, because we Americans love to bask in the illusion that we are a beacon to
the world, that we are freer and more democratic than the poor of the world whom
our tax dollars have so effectively help to murder and suppress.
the truth which the powers that be have no interest in the American people
knowing and which the American people are more than happy to be protected from.
Under such conditions it isn't hard to motivate people to avoid the truth. It is
only necessary to supply them with a workable lie. But just what lie would serve
this purpose? What lie could bind the society
together and allow people to preserve their illusory identity as "citizens of a
free democratic state"? Here we come to the "waters of uncertainty"
THE WATERS OF UNCERTAINTY
The lie that was destined to cover
the truth of the assassination was the lie that the assassination is a
mystery, that we are not sure what
happened, but being free citizens of a great democracy we can discuss and
debate what has occurred. We can petition our government and join with it in
seeking the solution to this mystery. This is
the essence of the cover-up.
The lie is that there is a mystery
to debate, and so we have pseudo debates, debates about meaningless disputes,
based on assumptions which are obviously false. This is the form
that Orwell's crimestop has taken in the matter of the President's murder. I am
talking about the pseudo debate over whether the
Warren Report is true when it is obviously and undebatably false, the
pseudo debate over whether the Russians, or the
Cubans, or the Mafia, or Lyndon Johnson, or some spinoff from the CIA
killed the President. These are all part of the process of crimestop which is
designed to cover up the obvious nature of this
And let us not forget the pseudo debate over whether JFK would or would not have
escalated in Vietnam, as if a President who was obviously turning against
the cold war and was secretly negotiating normalization of relations with Cuba,
would have allowed the military to trap him into pursuing our War in Vietnam.
Since the publication of History Will
Not Absolve Us, what I have found most striking is the profound
resistance people have to the concept of pseudo debate, a resistance in people
which is manifest as an inability or
unwillingness to grasp the concept and to use it to analyze their own actions
and the information that comes before them. Even amongst "critics" who
are very favorably disposed to my book, I note a consistent avoidance of this
concept. And I see this as part of the illness, a very dangerous manifestation
of the illness, which I want to discuss further.
THE MALIGNANT NATURE OF PSEUDO DEBATE
Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo debate is a benign activity, that it
simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this
because every debate rests on a premise to which
the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo debate
the premise is a lie.
So in the pseudo debate we have the
parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the
more malignant because it is subtle. The
unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo debate does not understand that
he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a
premise; it is so subtle that the premise just passes into
the person as if it were reality. This prernise -- that there is
uncertainly to be resolved -- seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass
of treated water.
But the fact remains that there is no mystery except
in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a
lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a
lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial.
That the entire establishment has been willing to join in this process
of cover-up by confusion creates an extreme form of problem for anyone who would
seek to utter the truth. For these civilian institutions -- the media, the
universities and the government-- once they
begin engaging in denial of knowledge of the identity of the assassins,
once they are drawn into the cover-up, a secondary motivation develops for them.
Now they are not only protecting the state, they are now protecting themselves,
because to expose the obviousness of the
assassination and the false debate would be to reveal the corrupt role of all
these institutions. And there is no question that these institutions are
masters in self protection. Thus anyone who would attempt to confront the true
cover-up must be prepared to confront virtually
the entire society. And in doing this, one is inevitably going to be
YES, so refuse to marginalize ourselves seeking truth about 9-11, by looking in all the wrong places, with a microscope.
Most of the JFK assassination studies
and debates misses the OBVIOUS facts, in order to debate the minutae.
So does 9-11 Truthiness.