Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[James H. Fetzer]

Charles, I am very troubled by this. You appear to be on a Quixotic JFK campaign.

And so the floodgates open.

No matter where these exchanges lead us, let me state for the record and as powerfully as I am able that:

1. Nothing herein disagreed upon will have the power to negate my friendship with and respect for Jim Fetzer.

JF: Well, then, I would appreciate more consideration of the real issues that are involved.

2. Nothing I post should be construed as a respectful disagreement with Nelson and his acolyte Morrow. The LBJ/"mastermind" construction is a product of, at best, ignorance -- and at worst, of a wilfull attempt to disinform and protect the guilty.

JF: Don't you mean, "Nothing I post should be construed as disrespectful disagreement"?

3. The Fetzer/DiEugenio contratemps is best understood as an intentional byproduct of Nelson's horrific endeavor -- a manufactured conflict between natural allies. Jim F., Jim D. -- Stop it. For the love of all that is just in our shared endeavor, understand that Nelson and his idiot son Morrow are not worth the consequences of our disagreements. In my educated opinion, Nelson accomplishes a major part of his mission by weakening our alliance.

JF: No, I stand with Phil. Jim has repeatedly demonstrated that his work is not competent.

My goals in this thread and everywhere else I can engage the Nelson obscenity/absurdity are to expose it as such and to heal the rifts it is causing.

JF: Egad! Haven't you understood my posts? I am offering powerful support for Phil here.

Is Nelson an enemy agent of disinformation? A simple-minded executioner of the mother tongue? Both?

JF: This is beneath you. The last time you attacked, you hadn't read his book. Have you?

In the final analysis, the distinctions matter not a hell of a lot. All of Nelson's arguments are, by their nature, sophistic: THEY ARE BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE.

JF: You are committing the fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. You have to prove it.

Does Nelson know the premise is false, or is he honestly arguing a patently and demonstrably idiotic point?

JF: A false dichotomy. Neither is true. The premises is not false and he is competent.

In the final analysis, it matters not.

If a man wants to shoot you in the head because he hates you, or because he honestly believes that to do so will cure your headache, you still end up dead as Julius Caesar.

JF: I am profoundly troubled by this. I am completely behind Phil. Attack him/attack me.

Here are the bottom lines:

1. Neither Nelson nor his factotum Morrow define "mastermind." With this context, they dare not/cannot.

JF: Robert Morrow is quite brilliant in his own right. You are off base on all counts here.

2. To ascribe to any 20th century president OTHER THAN JFK the power Nelson ascribes to Johnson is to fatally and almost comedically misunderstand deep politics.

JF: We have been over this ground before, Charles, related to the term "mastermind".

3. I reiterate: To declare that LBJ was the "mastermind" of the JFK assassination -- within reasonable parameters of the definition of "mastermind" -- is tantamount to claiming that a welder designed the Petronas Towers.

JF: Charles, reread my posts, including my intro to Phil's rebuttal. Alas, you are all wet.

Charles Drago