Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy - Schotz

  1. #1

    Default Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy - Schotz

    This document is online at: http://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is an annotated transcript that started with the copy at
    http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp...ue/schotz.html. All
    hyperlinks, and footnotes by David Ratcliffe with the permission and
    encouragement of E. Martin Schotz.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Waters of Knowledge versus the Waters of Uncertainty:
    Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy
    By E. Martin Schotz
    Coalition on Political Assassinations Conference
    20 November 1998
    Dallas, Texas

    Contents
    * Introduction
    * What The Waters of Knowledge Tell Us
    * Why The Cover-Up Was Necessary
    * The Waters of Uncertainty -- The Essence of the Cover-Up
    * The Malignant Nature of Pseudo-Debate
    * The Role of Robert F. Kennedy
    * The Assassination Records Review Board
    * Conclusion
    * Notes

    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.[1] 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.

    Now this is not a new problem in the history of society. In fact, I want to
    read to you a Sufi tale from the Ninth Century which can help to orient us
    to the problem. The tale is entitled "When the Waters Were Changed." It goes
    as follows:

    When the Waters Were Changed

    Once upon a time Khidr, the Teacher of Moses, called upon mankind
    with a warning. At a certain date, he said, all the water in the
    world which had not been specially hoarded, would disappear. It
    would then be renewed with different water, which would drive men
    mad.

    Only one man listened to the meaning of this advice. He collected
    water, went to a secure place where he stored it, and waited for
    the water to change its character.

    On the appointed date the streams stopped running, the wells went
    dry, and the man who had listened, seeing this happening, went to
    his retreat and drank his preserved water.

    When he saw, from his security, the waterfalls again beginning to
    flow, this man descended among the other sons of men. He found
    that they were thinking and talking in an entirely different way
    from before; yet they had no memory of what had happened, nor of
    having been warned. When he tried to talk to them, he realized
    that they thought that he was mad, and they showed hostility or
    compassion, not understanding.

    At first he drank none of the new water, but went back to his
    concealment, to draw on his supplies, every day. Finally, however,
    he took the decision to drink the new water because he could not
    bear the loneliness of living, behaving and thinking in a
    different way from everyone else. He drank the new water, and
    became like the rest. Then he forgot all about his own store of
    special water, and his fellows began to look upon him as a madman
    who had miraculously been restored to sanity.[2]

    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.[3] 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,[4] 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.

    [Commission Exhibit 385] [Supplemental Report exhibit 59]

    Commission Exhibit 385 Supplemental Report exhibit 59

    Here [on the left] is the Warren Commission drawing of the path of the
    "magic" bullet. And here [on the right] 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.[5]

    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 affected every history
    department of every college and university in our society, every major
    newspaper and magazine, and all means of mass communication. It has affected
    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 affected individual "stopping short, as though 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 inimical to the powers that be.

    As a clinician, I look at "crimestop" as a mass psychological illness, an
    involuntary 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.[6] 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.[7] 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.[8]

    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. The 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.

    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[9]

    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[10] and had been making clear
    moves away from the Cold War.[11] 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?[12] 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 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.

    Why The 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 lying 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 helped to murder and
    suppress.[13]

    This is 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 Essence of the Cover-Up

    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 assassination. 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,[14] 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
    premise -- 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
    marginalized.

    The Role of Robert F. Kennedy

    It is at this point that we can begin to look at the role of the "critical
    community" in this process, but before I do this I want to examine the role
    of Robert F. Kennedy.

    When I have tried to point out to people that Robert F. Kennedy, in
    cooperating with the cover-up, became in every sense of the word an
    accessory after the fact in his own brother's murder, there has generally
    been an instant recoil. But I want to tell you that this is not an opinion;
    this is just a fact. There is no way we can deny this, if we think about it.
    I'm not talking about why he became an accessory, but the fact that he did
    is absolutely undeniable. Robert F. Kennedy had a legal sworn obligation to
    seek out the assassins, and in failing to do so he joined the criminal act
    of conspiracy with the criminal act of cover-up and sealed the deal. And
    don't let anyone tell you that it was because he couldn't put two words
    together after his brother was murdered. I have seen his correspondence with
    Ray Marcus. And if it were some kind of personal emotional reaction, how is
    it that none of the people surrounding Robert Kennedy could utter the
    obvious truth of the assassination? No, Robert Kennedy's cooperation,
    agonizing and humiliating as it must have been for him, was dictated by
    political considerations, which led him away from his legal and moral
    obligation to tell the American people what he knew.

    When I start talking to people about this, I hear Robert Kennedy's actions
    defended with the idea that if he had spoken out he would have been
    marginalized. And this is important, because maybe that was part of Robert
    Kennedy's motivation. But I think the person who responds to me in this way
    is telling me something about his or her own motivation. The person is
    telling me that in their opinion, the desire not to be marginalized can
    somehow justify lying to the public about what you do and don't know about
    the assassination of the President. I want to say in no uncertain terms this
    lying is not only profoundly lacking in morality but is in addition
    profoundly foolish and is totally indefensible. It was indefensible for
    Robert Kennedy and it is indefensible for any one of us.

    There is no justification whatsoever for lying to anyone about what you do
    and don't know about this murder. Quite to the contrary, if telling the
    truth marginalizes you, then that is the place to be. After all, if enough
    people are willing to be marginalized, then before you know it, society has
    developed a different center. This is the politics of truth. But Robert
    Kennedy wasn't really used to the politics of truth. Instead, he was
    captivated by the illusory politics of power, influence and access. And I am
    afraid that many of us are also caught up with such ideas.

    So now we have come to a problem. Our society confronts the individual with
    a choice: "If you want to avoid marginalization, you compromise the truth."
    And the problem is that the moment you compromise with the truth, the moment
    you contribute false uncertainty, at that moment you have joined the
    cover-up. This is the critical point. Another way of saying this is, that
    society is prepared to confer a reward to anyone who is willing to drink the
    waters uncertainty. The reward is legitimacy; the reward is credibility; the
    reward is access; the reward is rescue from being marginalized.

    I understand that the pressure to compromise the truth is enormous, because
    our society finds the truth and it implications so repugnant. Any normal
    person wants to be able to communicate. A normal person doesn't want to be
    isolated, doesn't want to turn people off. But in being concerned that the
    truth as we know it will turn off our neighbor, in compromising and
    pretending we do not know, for the sake of having "credibility," we are
    destined to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. We
    are destined to become agents of the public's confusion and denial.

    So there can be no doubt about what I am saying, I need to examine specific
    examples of how the so-called "critical community" has been operating.

    The Assassination Records Review Board

    Given what I have set before you -- the whole effort by the "critical
    community" to petition the United States Government to establish a Board
    which would assist it in resolving the "mystery" of the assassination --,
    such an effort represents precisely the process described by Sultana Kamal
    in which people "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."

    The President was assassinated, the government covered for the assassins,
    the media covered for them, all the established institutions of society fell
    in line with this, and the public was not prepared to take matters into its
    own hands. This is the sorry truth of American democracy, and there is
    nothing to be done about it, other than to witness the full horror and shame
    of it all, to feel the helplessness that is our reality before this state
    which is in the grip of militarism and the economic interests which this
    militarism serves.

    Our problem is not that our government lacks credibility in the eyes of many
    of its subjects. That's our government's problem. Anyone who takes the
    government's problem as his own problem in so doing becomes an agent of the
    government, if not a government agent. And it should be clear that the
    government is more than happy to have you do this.

    No, our problem, the problem for people who want the truth to be known, is
    that despite the lack of government credibility, the public does not have
    the ability to think its way through the lies and discern the truth. The
    great shame of the "critical community" is that rather than seizing on this
    as its mission, the critical community has chosen to ally itself with the
    government and has only fostered further public confusion.

    So we have a Board set up on the false premise that the problem is that the
    government wasn't open enough with the public when it came to the
    assassination. Not one member of the Board is capable of coming before you
    and stating the most simple and axiomatic truths of this case. There was a
    conspiracy without a doubt. The Warren Report was an obvious act of criminal
    fraud. Senator Arlen Specter should be indicted for criminal obstruction of
    justice. Can any member of that Board come before you and say that? Of
    course not. Because respected members of the legal and academic
    establishment who can get the appropriate security clearances to serve on
    that Board are incapable of speaking simple truths like this. And if you try
    to get them to admit this kind of thing they look at you as if you are some
    kind of weirdo, or nut. And I remind you, they do not feel that way about
    Oliver Stone today, because he isn't saying these are facts. These are only
    theories, "myths," and he is not claiming that he knows what happened. So he
    is not a problem.

    In fact they can use the film JFK now, and claim they are responding to the
    film through this Review Board. And COPA and JFK Lancer and all the
    "respected" members of this critical community go and praise this Board and
    testify before it, and they and the Board embrace each other. What is there
    to say? This is our independent research community. With this as our
    independent research community there is no mystery about why the public
    doesn't know who killed President Kennedy and why.

    I was going to read to you how the press is using the statements of various
    respected researchers who are here. I was going to read to you the COPA
    mission statement and dissect it -- but what is the point? For the sake of
    completeness and for illustration, when and if this speech is ever
    published, I'll include this as an appendix. You know I like appendices?

    But I would rather, at this point, leave it up to any person individually,
    if they wish, to take what I've said here, think about it and try to apply
    it to anything that comes before him. If anyone is interested in doing this,
    I'll be happy to communicate further on an individual basis, but really I've
    said enough about the "critical community."

    Conclusion

    In conclusion I want to share with you something a close friend, Professor
    Rudi Cardona, pointed out after reading an earlier draft of this speech.
    Although Rudi has lived in this country for many years, he was born and
    raised in Costa Rica and has a real international perspective. He mentioned
    that throughout our history, we Americans seem always to prefer domestic
    tranquility over justice and the principles which supposedly underlie our
    democracy. He remarked on how a recent TV series on slavery had shown that
    Washington and Jefferson knew slavery was wrong but could not bring
    themselves to oppose it openly because of the turmoil this would have
    caused. Of course, the turmoil they were concerned about was the turmoil
    that whites would feel. The slaves were not being spared any turmoil.

    And I think the analogy is very apt, because to those who would attempt to
    defend the cover-up, by suggesting that the truth would have been too
    painful for our country to endure, I want to remind us that the people of
    Vietnam were not spared the turmoil of our military rule. The people of
    Latin America and South America have not been spared. By cooperating in
    holding this society together through lies, we have made it that much more
    possible for our military intelligence apparatus to impose enormous
    suffering on people throughout the world. And this turmoil and mayhem has by
    no means been ended.

    On April 25th of this year [1998], Guatemalan Bishop Juan Jose Gerardi
    Conedera was assassinated one day after he stood before an audience in the
    Metropolitan Cathedral of Guatemala City and gave a speech in which he
    presented the findings of an in-depth probe into thousands and thousands of
    murdered and disappeared persons, casualties of a campaign of terror against
    the people of Guatemala waged by their own government, a right wing
    militarist government which over the years has enjoyed the consistent
    training and support of our US military intelligence establishment, the well
    protected home of the assassins of President Kennedy.

    I want to read to you some of the thoughts Bishop Conedera expressed in his
    April 24th speech. Amongst other things he said,

    "The root of humanity's downfall and disgrace comes from the
    deliberate opposition to truth ... this reality that has been
    intentionally deformed in our country throughout thirty-six years
    of war against the people.

    "To open ourselves to the truth and to bring ourselves face to
    face with our personal and collective reality is not an option
    that can be accepted or rejected. It is an undeniable requirement
    of all people and all societies that seek to humanize themselves
    and to be free....

    "Truth is the primary word, the serious and mature action that
    makes it possible for us to break the cycle of death and violence
    and open ourselves to a future of hope and light for all ...

    "Discovering the truth is painful, but it is without a doubt a
    healthy and liberating action."

    Thank you very much.

    Notes
    -------------------------

    1. See E. Martin Schotz, History Will Not Absolve Us, Orwellian Control,
    Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy (Brookline, Mass.:
    Kurtz, Ulmer, & DeLucia, 1996) for an explication of the transparency
    of the assassination its ensuing obfuscation. From the book's
    Introduction,

    In our efforts to confront the truth of the assassination of
    President Kennedy we are at a very different point today than
    we were thirty years ago when the first critical analyses of
    the Warren Report were published. Dozens of books and
    thousands of magazine articles have been written about this
    case. Almost without exception, no matter what the author's
    view concerning who killed President Kennedy or why, these
    works have directly or indirectly contributed to the public's
    conviction that the murder of the President is a mystery. As
    a result, although a vast majority of our public believes
    that there was a conspiracy, most people do not know this as
    a fact and are convinced that they can never know for sure
    what happened.

    On both points the public is mistaken. The murder of the
    President is not a mystery. The nature of the conspiracy that
    took President Kennedy's life was from the outset quite
    obvious to anyone who knew how to look and was willing to do
    so. The same holds true today. Any citizen who is willing to
    look can see clearly who killed President Kennedy and why.
    (pp. 3-4)

    2. Idries Shah Tales of the Dervishes, Teaching-stories of the Sufi
    Masters over the past thousand years (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co.,
    1969), pp. 21-22.

    3. From History Will Not Absolve Us, p. 286:

    . . . The pressure [to compromise] was intense and Stone
    turned for advice to Frank Mankiewicz, an old Kennedy ally.

    The advice apparently was that Stone should not insist that
    his film was the truth (which he knew it was), but that he
    should simply present it as his interpretation. Thus, with
    the release of the film Stone began referring to the film as
    his "myth." The instant he did that, the criticism was muted.
    He was invited to address Congress and call for the release
    of more information. Once again he became acceptable.

    Stone knows this movie is not myth. It is a brilliant
    synthesis of twenty-five years of critical work by Garrison
    and independent citizens. It is completely factual except for
    the obviously created and condensed scenes. Beyond that, to
    call on the government to provide further information is to
    logically contradict the film's central thesis that the
    government was behind it. So Stone wound up being turned
    against his own film.

    There is a very important lesson in this. There is no mystery
    in the JFK assassination today. And to pretend otherwise is
    to join the cover-up, something Stone has done in calling for
    the release of more information and referring to his film as
    "myth."

    4. The complete book is available online.

    5. See an annotated transcript of Vincent Salandria's speech -- also
    presented at the 1998 Coalition on Political Assassinations conference,
    "The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes" -- for
    a detailed explication listing many instances of malfeasance,
    misfeasance, and obstruction of justice carried out by officials of the
    U.S. government responsible for the investigation of President
    Kennedy's assassination -- some of whom were themselves criminal
    accessories after the fact.

    6. Meagher, Sylvia. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, the
    Authorities and the Report. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.,
    1967.

    7. Feldman, Harold. "Oswald and the FBI", The Nation, 27 January 1964.

    8. "Concerning the Facts and Consequences of the Tragic Death of President
    John F. Kennedy, speech commentary delivered by Fidel Castro on Cuban
    radio and TV, Saturday evening, November 23, 1963, Appendix II, History
    Will Not Absolve Us

    9. Memorandum to Bill Moyers, Press Secretary to President Lyndon Johnson,
    from Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, written November 25,
    1963, three days after the assassination of President Kennedy; report
    from Hearings Before the Select Committee on Assassinations of the
    United States House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 2nd Session,
    Volume 3, pp. 566-68.

    See pages 2, 3, and 4 of a copy of this memorandum from a segment of a
    so-called FBI "file": "62-109090 File (Headquarters Warren
    Commission)," "11-25-63 Katzenbach to Moyers, w/Evans to Belmont cover
    (62-109090-1st NR 2)". A local-to-ratical PDF copy is replicated from
    History Matters' section on Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

    The full title of the twelve volumes of hearings is:
    INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY:
    HEARINGS BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS OF THE U.S.
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION,
    SEPTEMBER 18, 19, 20, AND 21, 1976
    See a complete alternate copy of the 12 volumes at: HATHI TRUST Digital
    Library

    10. One of the foundations of this rapprochement was a confidential
    correspondence between Khrushchev and Kennedy that began with a 26-page
    letter from the Soviet Chairman to the American President. It was
    written during the Berlin crisis on September 29, 1961, and smuggled in
    a newspaper carried by Georgi Bolshakov, a Soviet intelligence agent,
    to Pierre Saligner, Kennedy's press secretary. Bolshakov was also an
    editor of USSR magazine and an interpreter for visiting Russian
    officials in Washington. He spent an entire night translating the
    letter from Russian and gave Salinger the original in Russian as well
    to permit comparison by U.S. translators. [Pierre Salinger, With
    Kennedy (New York: Doubleday, 1966), pp. 197-199]

    See Jim Douglass, JFK and The Unspeakable, Why He Died and Why It
    Matters (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010): "In July 1993, the U.S.
    State Department, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request
    by a Canadian newspaper, declassified twenty-one secret letters between
    John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev." (p. 23) In 1996 all the private
    correspondence between JFK and Khrushchev was published in Foreign
    Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1961-1963, Volume VI,
    Kennedy-Khrushchev Exchanges (Washington: U.S. Government Printing
    Office). The Kennedy-Khrushchev Exchanges: Document List contains 120
    communications, of which 21 make up the secret letters between JFK and
    Khrushchev. It is not clear precisely which of the 120 make up the
    subset of 21 private communications. Here is a list of what probably
    constitutes the bulk of the private missives:
    o Document 21: Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy,

    Moscow, September 29, 1961
    o Document 22: Letter From President Kennedy to Chairman Khrushchev,

    Hyannis Port, October 16, 1961
    o Document 23: Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy,

    Moscow, November 9, 1961
    o Document 24: Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy,

    Moscow, November 10, 1961
    o Document 25: Letter From President Kennedy to Chairman Khrushchev,

    Washington, November 16, 1961
    o Document 26: Letter From President Kennedy to Chairman Khrushchev,

    Washington, December 2, 1961
    o Document 27: Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy,

    Moscow, December 13, 1961
    o Document 32: Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy,

    Moscow, February 10, 1962
    o Document 34: Letter From President Kennedy to Chairman Khrushchev,

    Washington, February 15, 1962
    o Document 37: Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy,

    Moscow, February 21, 1962
    o Document 42: Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy,

    Moscow, March 10, 1962
    o Document 51: Letter From President Kennedy to Chairman Khrushchev,

    Washington, July 17, 1962
    o Document 71: Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy,

    Moscow, October 30, 1962
    o Document 82: Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy,

    Moscow, November 22, 1962
    o Document 84: Letter From President Kennedy to Chairman Khrushchev,

    Washington, December 14, 1962
    o Document 85: Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy,

    Moscow, December 19, 1962
    o Document 99: Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy,

    Moscow, May 8, 1963
    11. In the summer of 1962 John Kennedy gave himself three Bay of Pigs -type
    events -- specific conflicts with his national security managers from
    the military and intelligence establishments -- before a military coup
    would overthrow him and seize control of the United States. A list of
    such conflicts between himself and his national security state
    includes:

    1. 1961: negotiated peace with the Communists for a neutralist
    government in Laos;
    2 April 1961: Bay of Pigs and JFK's response: "[I want] to splinter
    the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."
    3. 1961-63: Kennedy-Hammarskjold-UN vision kept the Congo together
    and independent;
    4. April 1962: conflict with big steel industrialists;
    5. October 1962: Cuban Missile Crisis;
    6. 1961-63: Diplomatic opening to Third World leadership of President
    Sukarno;
    7. May 6, 1963: Presidential order NSAM 239 to pursue both a nuclear
    test ban and a policy of general and complete disarmament;
    8. June 10, 1963: American University Address - the Real JFK Jubilee
    - not November 22;
    9. Summer 1963: Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
    10. Fall 1963: beginning of back-channel dialogue with Fidel Castro;
    11. Fall 1963: JFK's decision to sell wheat to the Russians;
    12. October 11, 1963: Presidential order NSAM #263 to withdraw U.S.
    troops from Vietnam by 1965;
    13. November 1963: Khrushchev decides to accept JFK's invitation for a
    joint expedition to the moon.

    For a summary of JFK's turning toward peace during his Presidency that
    marked him out for assassination, see Jim Douglass, "The Hope in
    Confronting the Unspeakable in the Assassination of President John
    Fitzgerald Kennedy," Keynote Address at the Coalition on Political
    Assassinations Dallas Conference, 20 November 2009. Many endnotes in
    this annotated transcript include segments from JFK and the
    Unspeakable.

    12. For a compilation of biographical details on Lee Harvey Oswald which
    confirm his identity as an agent for U.S. intelligence services see
    "Oswald and U.S. Intelligence," Appendix V, History Will Not Absolve
    Us. For a series of letters which grew out of the revelation by
    Theodore H. White that on the flight back to Washington, President
    Johnson, aboard Air Force One, was informed that Oswald had been
    arrested and that there was no conspiracy, see "Internal Data on the
    United States Government's Immediate Reaction to the Assassination,"
    Appendix IV, Ibid.

    13. For background on what our tax dollars fund and have perpetrated over
    the decades around the world, see, for example, Killing Hope: US
    Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II by William Blum
    (Common Courage Press, 2008); "Be nice to America. Or we'll bring
    democracy to your country!," an animated cartoon about US foreign
    policy written by William Blum; War Is A Racket by retired USMC Major
    General Smedley Butler, two time Medal of Honor recipient, 1935;
    American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection,
    and the Road to Afghanistan, by Peter Dale Scott (Rowman & Littlefield
    Publishers, 2010) - see chapters 3, 4, 7, 10 available online.

    14. Three weeks after the assassination French journalist Jean Daniel wrote
    about his role as an unofficial emissary to Castro from Kennedy in
    "Unofficial Envoy: An Historic Report From Two Capitals," New Republic
    (December 14, 1963), p. 15-20.

    When President Kennedy spoke at the United Nations on September 20,
    1963. "he suggested that its members see the Test Ban Treaty as a
    beginning and engage together in an experiment in peace:

    Two years ago I told this body that the United States had
    proposed, and was willing to sign, a Limited Test Ban treaty.
    Today that treaty has been signed. It will not put an end to
    war. It will not remove basic conflicts. It will not secure
    freedom for all. But it can be a lever, and Archimedes, in
    explaining the principles of the lever, was said to have
    declared to his friends: "Give me a place where I can stand
    and I shall move the world."

    My fellow inhabitants of this planet: Let us take our stand
    here in this Assembly of nations. And let us see if we, in
    our own time, can move the world to a just and lasting peace.

    When he said these words, John Kennedy was secretly engaging in another
    risky experiment in peace. That same day at the United Nations, Kennedy
    told UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson that his assistant William Attwood
    should go ahead "to make discreet contact" with Cuba's UN Ambassador
    Carlos Lechuga. The question: Was Fidel Castro interested in a dialogue
    with John Kennedy? A strongly affirmative answer would come back from
    Castro, who had been repeatedly urged by Khrushchev -- by Khrushchev --
    to begin trusting Kennedy." Quoted in The Hope in Confronting the
    Unspeakable in the Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

    The story of Kennedy's quest to negotiate with Castro on a new
    U.S.-Cuban relationship is told by Cuba's then-UN ambassador Carlos
    Lechuga in his book In the Eye of the Storm: Castro, Khrushchev,
    Kennedy, and the Missile Crisis (Ocean Press, 1995) and by U.S.
    diplomat William Attwood in The Reds and the Blacks; A Personal
    Adventure (Harper & Row, 1967) and The Twilight Struggle: Tales of the
    Cold War (Harper & Row, 1987).

    See also: Document 367. Memorandum by William Attwood and Document 374.
    Memorandum From William Attwood to Gordon Chase of the National
    Security Council Staff, New York, November 8, 1963, from FRUS,
    1961-1963, Volume XI, Cuban Missile Crisis and Aftermath, October
    1962-December 1963 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997);
    "Kennedy Sought Dialogue with Cuba -- Initiative With Castro Aborted by
    Assassination, Declassified Documents Show," The National Security
    Archive, November 24, 2003.
    If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” - Frederick Douglass
    "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
    "Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Lemkin View Post
    This document is online at: http://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is an annotated transcript that started with the copy at
    http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp...ue/schotz.html. All
    hyperlinks, and footnotes by David Ratcliffe with the permission and
    encouragement of E. Martin Schotz.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is an excellent and important essay, in my estimation. It began as an address to the 1998 COPA conference in Dallas, and is included as an appendix to Vince Salandria's False Mystery, albeit without David's annotations.

    In between, it appeared in Fair Play mag. The spot.acorn site is the Fair Play archive, created by Deanie Richards, who once published JFK Honor Guard.

    At present this essay is also on a site I created called Fifty. I think I've already directed readers of this forum there.

    http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/fifty/jump.html

    None of this is particularly important information and I don't wish to bore anyone. But I do want to take this opportunity to (again) reference an early, remarkably prescient essay by M.S. Arnoni, first published in The Minority of One in December 1963, "Who Killed Whom and Why?" It too is on Fifty. Everyone should read it, if only for historical context.

    http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/fifty/arnoni_01.html

    Check out the rest of David Ratcliffe's site, "Topics on the National Security State of America," here:

    http://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Lemkin View Post

    I understand that the pressure to compromise the truth is enormous, because
    our society finds the truth and it implications so repugnant. Any normal
    person wants to be able to communicate. A normal person doesn't want to be
    isolated, doesn't want to turn people off. But in being concerned that the
    truth as we know it will turn off our neighbor, in compromising and
    pretending we do not know, for the sake of having "credibility," we are
    destined to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. We
    are destined to become agents of the public's confusion and denial.

    So there can be no doubt about what I am saying, I need to examine specific
    examples of how the so-called "critical community" has been operating.

    That's why evidence should always be discussed directly instead of being filtered by politically correct assumption of what topics are permissible and what topics aren't.

    I think he should have mentioned that even though Bobby was wrong in courting the status quo that his eventual turning towards exposing the conspiracy is what got him killed.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Kelin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Lemkin View Post
    This document is online at: http://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is an annotated transcript that started with the copy at
    http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp...ue/schotz.html. All
    hyperlinks, and footnotes by David Ratcliffe with the permission and
    encouragement of E. Martin Schotz.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is an excellent and important essay, in my estimation. It began as an address to the 1998 COPA conference in Dallas, and is included as an appendix to Vince Salandria's False Mystery, albeit without David's annotations.

    In between, it appeared in Fair Play mag. The spot.acorn site is the Fair Play archive, created by Deanie Richards, who once published JFK Honor Guard.

    At present this essay is also on a site I created called Fifty. I think I've already directed readers of this forum there.

    http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/fifty/jump.html

    None of this is particularly important information and I don't wish to bore anyone. But I do want to take this opportunity to (again) reference an early, remarkably prescient essay by M.S. Arnoni, first published in The Minority of One in December 1963, "Who Killed Whom and Why?" It too is on Fifty. Everyone should read it, if only for historical context.

    http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/fifty/arnoni_01.html

    Check out the rest of David Ratcliffe's site, "Topics on the National Security State of America," here:

    http://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/
    John, Thanks for those additional references and pointing to you GREAT website 'Fifty'....if 'ya ain't seen it yet...DO!

    E. Martin Schotz was one of the clearest thinkers on this 'matter' and an early one too. His book in pdf format I TRIED to attach below - History Will Not Absolve Us - It contains many very interesting items! - but it was apparently too large to attach on this forum. It is, however, available with an internet search of the title and the term 'pdf' for download.
    If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” - Frederick Douglass
    "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
    "Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn

  5. #5

    Default

    I saw this speech and the only thing I took issue with was the way he blasted Bobby. Later over drinks with Vince, Fonzi, and others Marty and I disagreed further about RFK's "coverup".
    Later Vince (Salandria) sent me this book and I read it in one sitting. One of the most important parts of this book is the amazing speech Castro gave the day after the assassination. He KNEW.
    Both what forces and why. I had first read portions of this speech in 1975 in Paris Flammonde's seminal book on the Garrison investigation. It was great that Marty Schotz published the speech in its entirely.
    Just as amazing to me is that a shrink accepts the truth in these matters. I agree 100% about his analysis re. "mass denial". Nothing else explains this odd refusal to comprehend, or care.

    Dawn

  6. #6

    Default

    What the failed American experiment proved was in a democracy the public will act like an arrogant aristocracy or monarchy when given the chance.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Doyle View Post
    What the failed American experiment proved was in a democracy the public will act like an arrogant aristocracy or monarchy when given the chance.
    What it proved was there is no democracy and no one noticed. Or cared because so civicly disengaged.
    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •