Post by Rob Caprio on Nov 12, 2018 17:23:53 GMT -5
Quote on
Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy
by E. Martin Schotz
INTRODUCTION
My task this afternoon is to explore with you the reasons the American people do not know who killed President Kennedy and why. In order to do this we will have to deal with three interdependent conspiracies which developed in the course of the assassination and its aftermath.
These are (1) the criminal conspiracy to murder the President by a cabal of militarists at the highest echelons of power in the United States; (2) the conspiracy which aided and abetted these murderers after the fact, by covering for the assassins, also a true criminal conspiracy involving an extremely wide circle of government officials across the entire political spectrum and at all levels of government; and (3) a conspiracy of ignorance, denial, confusion, and silence which has pervaded our entire public.
The major focus of my talk today is this third conspiracy on the part of the public, which includes our so-called "critical community". I want to show you that our failure to know is not based on any lack of data or because the data is ambiguous. It is all extremely simple and obvious. Rather we don't know because we are deeply emotionally resistant to what such knowledge tells us about ourselves and our society. Furthermore the powers-that-be do not reward people for such knowledge. Indeed if a person is willing to acknowledge the truth, is in a position to share such knowledge with the public, and wishes to do so, then the organized institutions of our society will turn sharply against such a person.
The struggle for truth in the assassination of President Kennedy confronts us with the problem of the "waters of knowledge" versus "the waters of uncertainty." Let me give you an example involving two important individuals who attempted to bring the truth before the American people. I am speaking of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and filmmaker Oliver Stone.
Both Garrison and Stone knew that the President was the victim of a conspiracy by high level US military intelligence officials. Each in his own way tried to bring such knowledge to the attention of the American people. In the case of Oliver Stone, even before his film JFK had received its final cut there developed an unprecedented campaign of slander against Stone, that he was a madman, that he was a drunk. In the face of this attack Stone was advised to compromise and did so. He backed off from telling the American people that his film was the truth, and instead claimed that his film, JFK, was "my myth". In other words Stone said "I have my myth and you are entitled to yours. I'm not saying I know what happened here. There is uncertainty." The instant Stone did that, the campaign of slander ended. He was again acceptable. He was invited to address Congress and was permitted to ask the government to release more information so as to help us clear up the supposed mystery.
Jim Garrison's story is different. In the face of his effort to reveal the true nature of the assassination there was a campaign to discredit him. It was claimed that he was a drug addict, that he had ties to the Mafia, that he was grandstanding and self seeking. But Garrison never backed down. And because of that, even today a noted biographer cannot get a major publisher to enter into a contract to do an honest biography of the man. He is still an outcast, a madman as far as the society is concerned. Stone agreed to drink the waters of uncertainty and society recognized him as having miraculously recovered his sanity. Garrison refused, insisting on continuing to drink the waters of knowledge, and for this he suffered accordingly.
Not too long ago I received a letter from a lawyer and leading human rights activist in Bangladesh. Her name is Sultana Kamal, and in commenting on my book, History Will Not Absolve Us, she wrote the following: "There are so many ways human beings invent to humiliate their basic sense of dignity --- the sense of dignity which comes from the courage to acknowledge the truth. Instead we choose to live in falsehood to make ourselves instrumental in remaking conditions which bring us indignity, loss of self esteem and again bind us to the task of reconditioning the evil cycles of denial of truth and justice to ourselves."
WHAT THE WATERS OF KNOWLEDGE TELL US
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.
Picture by WC of Magic Bullet path Picture of JFK's Jacket
Here 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 involuntay intellectual emotional and spiritual illness, part of the psychology of war which has pervaded our society.
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.
The 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.
1. [bThe 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[/b].
2. 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.
3. 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 reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job.
The only 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 sort.
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
Deputy Attorney General
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 up.
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 military intelligence.
But I want to take us a stepfurther, 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.
The rest of the article can be found here:
www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/COPA1998EMS.html
Quote off
Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy
by E. Martin Schotz
INTRODUCTION
My task this afternoon is to explore with you the reasons the American people do not know who killed President Kennedy and why. In order to do this we will have to deal with three interdependent conspiracies which developed in the course of the assassination and its aftermath.
These are (1) the criminal conspiracy to murder the President by a cabal of militarists at the highest echelons of power in the United States; (2) the conspiracy which aided and abetted these murderers after the fact, by covering for the assassins, also a true criminal conspiracy involving an extremely wide circle of government officials across the entire political spectrum and at all levels of government; and (3) a conspiracy of ignorance, denial, confusion, and silence which has pervaded our entire public.
The major focus of my talk today is this third conspiracy on the part of the public, which includes our so-called "critical community". I want to show you that our failure to know is not based on any lack of data or because the data is ambiguous. It is all extremely simple and obvious. Rather we don't know because we are deeply emotionally resistant to what such knowledge tells us about ourselves and our society. Furthermore the powers-that-be do not reward people for such knowledge. Indeed if a person is willing to acknowledge the truth, is in a position to share such knowledge with the public, and wishes to do so, then the organized institutions of our society will turn sharply against such a person.
The struggle for truth in the assassination of President Kennedy confronts us with the problem of the "waters of knowledge" versus "the waters of uncertainty." Let me give you an example involving two important individuals who attempted to bring the truth before the American people. I am speaking of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and filmmaker Oliver Stone.
Both Garrison and Stone knew that the President was the victim of a conspiracy by high level US military intelligence officials. Each in his own way tried to bring such knowledge to the attention of the American people. In the case of Oliver Stone, even before his film JFK had received its final cut there developed an unprecedented campaign of slander against Stone, that he was a madman, that he was a drunk. In the face of this attack Stone was advised to compromise and did so. He backed off from telling the American people that his film was the truth, and instead claimed that his film, JFK, was "my myth". In other words Stone said "I have my myth and you are entitled to yours. I'm not saying I know what happened here. There is uncertainty." The instant Stone did that, the campaign of slander ended. He was again acceptable. He was invited to address Congress and was permitted to ask the government to release more information so as to help us clear up the supposed mystery.
Jim Garrison's story is different. In the face of his effort to reveal the true nature of the assassination there was a campaign to discredit him. It was claimed that he was a drug addict, that he had ties to the Mafia, that he was grandstanding and self seeking. But Garrison never backed down. And because of that, even today a noted biographer cannot get a major publisher to enter into a contract to do an honest biography of the man. He is still an outcast, a madman as far as the society is concerned. Stone agreed to drink the waters of uncertainty and society recognized him as having miraculously recovered his sanity. Garrison refused, insisting on continuing to drink the waters of knowledge, and for this he suffered accordingly.
Not too long ago I received a letter from a lawyer and leading human rights activist in Bangladesh. Her name is Sultana Kamal, and in commenting on my book, History Will Not Absolve Us, she wrote the following: "There are so many ways human beings invent to humiliate their basic sense of dignity --- the sense of dignity which comes from the courage to acknowledge the truth. Instead we choose to live in falsehood to make ourselves instrumental in remaking conditions which bring us indignity, loss of self esteem and again bind us to the task of reconditioning the evil cycles of denial of truth and justice to ourselves."
WHAT THE WATERS OF KNOWLEDGE TELL US
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.
Picture by WC of Magic Bullet path Picture of JFK's Jacket
Here 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 involuntay intellectual emotional and spiritual illness, part of the psychology of war which has pervaded our society.
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.
The 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.
1. [bThe 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[/b].
2. 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.
3. 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 reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job.
The only 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 sort.
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
Deputy Attorney General
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 up.
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 military intelligence.
But I want to take us a stepfurther, 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.
The rest of the article can be found here:
www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/COPA1998EMS.html
Quote off