Introducing a new genre of television programming:
The Unreality Show.
The recent, much ballyhooed televised "trial" of Lee Harvey Oswald is nothing other than the latest in a seemingly endless series of theatrics designed to prolong the "debate" of an issue settled decades ago -- a debate that nourishes the uncertainty upon which the Sponsors and Facilitators of JFK's murder depend for hegemonic and personal survival.
As I have written elsewhere:
The long-term protection of the Sponsors of JFK's murder and the power structure they embody relies not upon the creation of an overwhelming consensus of opinion in support of the Lone Nut lie. On the contrary: It is the maintenance of uncertainty the fashionable post-modern conclusion that we can never really know anything about existence that provides ultimate security for the few who control the many.
Put another way: The Sponsors' goal is not to settle debate or stifle debate, but rather to prolong debate.
Keep us fighting among ourselves.
Indefinitely.
Yet so many of those who should know better eagerly glue themselves to the computer screen, choose a "side" in the "trial," and hang on every word.
Fifty years later, and we're playing Perry Mason games.
I continue to extol the effectiveness of art -- including theater -- as one of the most potent weapons in the war against John Kennedy's murderers. See JFK for a prime example. Weaponized art attacks the mind and the heart and ultimately bends the will. See Triumph of the Will for a prime example.
And so it is for those of us who embrace this aspect of art appreciation to outdo the enemy as shapers of public opinion. Noam Chomsky has observed that propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship. Our appeals must be to the hearts and minds in that order of the people. And so we await -- and a few of us work to create -- the next JFK.
Understand then that this "trial" is propaganda-as-theater in service to the JFK cover-up, pure and simple. And the only effective counter is to expose it as such while refusing to act like soap opera junkies hanging on every word.
Any other response to this filth amounts to the provision of aid and comfort to the enemy.
And don't think for a nanosecond that such a production helps to educate the masses and move them toward understanding of the truth of conspiracy. The only lesson being taught here is of the "we can never really know" variety.
Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that a criminal conspiracy resulted in the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
Great notion, Charles, that "Unreality Show", as art is indeed a potent weapon that "they" use only too well. And I really love your idea of "The only lesson being taught here is of the "we can never really know" variety". From my experience with people around me, that is usually the final answer, with the "ah, what can you do ?"...
Somehow, it indeed looks like a toreador constantly playing with the attention of the bull. The opinion being that massive, strong and determined sack of meat and muscles, even if the sword and the fool's game is obvious, the red cape will trap for ever the attention of the beast, and no amount of warning will be enough to cancel the distraction.
For us who try to understand how that red cape works, somehow it doesn't really matter how much we warn other people about the danger, sword and banderillas, as long as the cape is active. And the bullfighting turns to slaughter, of the industrial kind.
About JFK's death, I'd like to raise the notion of "symbolic death". Many people much clever and authoritative on that matter probably thought of this before, but in my simple opinion, I think that JFK had to be killed not only physically, but most of all symbolically.
That is : in plain sight, as if humiliated in front of everyone one, his beautiful wife, his dangerous big-teeth brother, all people who'd think he would be a tangible alternative to an all-out war about to happen.
The Prescott's and Allen's working in the shadows could have killed him a thousand times in a much much easier way, like a good ol' cancer that would have seemed more natural, or by an easily-identified enemy (say, a cuban...), but they chose to eliminate him in an elaborate, intricate pattern of cross-fires, using world-class shooters and then having to make a decent job for the cover-up. (barely decent, because of those silly details, and that dear Malcolm W leaving that oh-so-dirty fingerprint...)
The fact that JFK is still used in these conclusionless televisual parades, like a roman emperor triumph showing a to-be-executed gallic (or here, irish) chieftain, is maybe like an occasional booster shot, the syringe being injected in our minds. The message is reinstated : all rebels will be dealt with like that, and the target is the subconscious, penetrated as we see JFK's brain exploding and Jacqueline on her knees to gather the remains. That is : submission, the female of your enemy being dominated.
Kadhafi had the same fate : he had to be symbolically killed, as a clear message to all foreign chieftains. You'll be lynched, raped, stomped on, no matter how we praised you or gave you cheap junk bargains.
So, the conscious mind is indeed played with with an unreality show, but the unconscious is imprinted with a much more real show.
If its already been decided then why are we losing ground in the court of public opinion?
Especially with the declassified files of the ARRB proving even more conclusively Oswald's innocence.
If you choose to withdraw from these things, then you go ahead and cede even more ground to Bugliosi, O'Reilly, Brokaw, Mack and Perry, Sixth Floor, Rawlings etc.
And we will always be occupying little hovels of the internet slapping hands with ourselves. Over what?
That may suit you Charles, and your Drago-Evica schematic, but some of us are not ready to cede anything in public. So we try and take on the O'Reillys and Bugliosis and Sixth Floor. Head on, if need be.
Towards the end of her life, Sylvia Meagher had essentially retired from the field. She spent her time going to Yankees games.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:If its already been decided then why are we losing ground in the court of public opinion?
Especially with the declassified files of the ARRB proving even more conclusively Oswald's innocence.
If you choose to withdraw from these things, then you go ahead and cede even more ground to Bugliosi, O'Reilly, Brokaw, Mack and Perry, Sixth Floor, Rawlings etc.
And we will always be occupying little hovels of the internet slapping hands with ourselves. Over what?
That may suit you Charles, and your Drago-Evica schematic, but some of us are not ready to cede anything in public. So we try and take on the O'Reillys and Bugliosis and Sixth Floor. Head on, if need be.
Towards the end of her life, Sylvia Meagher had essentially retired from the field. She spent her time going to Yankees games.
I'm not ready to do that yet.
You'll never catch me at a Yankee game. Not in the Albert Speer Memorial Baseball Mausoleum. If the we are losing the battle of pubic opinion, and I wasn't aware the polls had dropped below 50% in favor of conspiracy, then it is because most of us who can remember 11/22/63, are 60 or beyond, and most under 30 have an historical awareness that doesn't extend 5 years from the present.
Now now, Jim. Let's abandon rancor in favor of thoughtfulness and accuracy.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:If its [sic] already been decided then why are we losing ground in the court of public opinion?
The main reason is that we continue to present ourselves as representing one side of a debate. Or, in this case, a "trial." And in so doing we play directly into the enemy's hand.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:If you choose to withdraw from these things, then you go ahead and cede even more ground to Bugliosi, O'Reilly, Brokaw, Mack and Perry, Sixth Floor, Rawlings etc.
Nowhere have I suggested that we "withdraw from these things." Please enlighten us: Where in the following quote from my opening post do you detect even a scintilla of defeatism:
"Understand then that this "trial" is propaganda-as-theater in service to the JFK cover-up, pure and simple. And the only effective counter is to expose it as such while refusing to act like soap opera junkies hanging on every word." [emphasis added for this post]
Or in the paragraph that follows it:
"Any other response to this filth amounts to the provision of aid and comfort to the enemy."
Really, do you choose to read these words as some sort of capitulation to the enemy?
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:That may suit you Charles, and your Drago-Evica schematic ...
That's the Evica-Drago Model. Which you seem to reference here in a mocking and provocative tone. Do you have problems with our work? Do you detect weaknesses in it? Do you choose to raise substantive objections? If so, please share. Nothing would please me more than to have the model refined. If not, then why so bitter? Propose something better. We're all ears.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:... but some of us are not ready to cede anything in public. So we try and take on the O'Reillys and Bugliosis and Sixth Floor. Head on, if need be.[
Bravo, Jim! You are indeed a brave warrior for the truth.
But judging by O'Reilly's JFK book sales, the courting of Bugliosi by Hollywood, the demonstrated impotence of your recent campaign to deny control of Dealey Plaza to the enemy, the ongoing status of The Sixth Floor as the media go-to source for JFK "facts," and your stated, passionate eagerness to continue to prolong the debate that guarantees our continuing failure and the uninterrupted power and survival of the enemy, your valor is being wasted on ill-considered actions that at best serve as public relations vehicles for those taking them..
I know this to be a war, I do what I can to wage it, and for you to imply -- ignorantly and/or with malice -- that I have "retired from the field" says more about you than it does me.
Which in an odd way strikes me as being the basic motivation for your post.
The one I'm really disappointed in is Howard Roffman, who wrote a great book (Presumed Guilty), and then dropped out in the late 70s and went to work for George Lucas.
The winners write the official history. A few scholars may challenge it, but the official history will be what most people learn about Richard III, or the Carthaginians, or JFK, if they learn anything at all.
