by Dreams End » Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:09 pm
I have started reading Schotz's "History will not absolve us." He purports (I haven't read enough yet) to show how obvious the conspiratorial nature of the JFK assassination was and how left gatekeepers, primarily The Nation magazine, actively worked to suppress it. The Nation had a reporter with great credentials doing a long analysis of the Warren Commission report and the editor consistently kept throwing up hurdles and it was not ever published. Others apparently involved: I.F. Stone, Chomsky.<br><br>His thesis is not that these guys open their mail box and get checks from the CIA (well, Chomsky actually has gotten money from a CIA front...but I don't think that's mentioned in the book), but rather that the culture of politics in this country is such that an assassination of a president by the CIA is considered acceptable and that those "gatekeepers" do not want to risk disrupting the culture in which they are active by alienating those "progressives" in the power structure. so they might really go all out, as Chomsky seems to do on foreign policy, and yet refrain from questioning an obvious intelligence agency hit on the President. <br><br>The book wants to show that the facts of the conspiracy were obvious and plain to see (evidently Castro laid it all out clearly only two days after the hit...haven't read the speech yet) and that NO ONE in the power structure resigned in protest at being forced to go along. NOT ONE congressman, senator or newspaper editor. These guys might not have said, should you ask, "Oh sure, it's okay for the CIA to knock off elected officials," but when faced with this obvious conspiracy, clearly decided that allowing it to go unquestioned was far superior to unleashing whatever popular forces might have been unleashed should the truth have been acknowledged. <br><br>So, we don't have to assume that the Cockburns and Chomsky's are actively receiving orders from Langley, and can still even find merit in their writings in the areas that they are "allowed" so to speak, to write about. But we need to be aware that they are a part of the power structure, too, and as such, will not touch or even actively discredit those items that might upset the whole apple cart. <br><br>Here's a great quote from Schotz about why so many can believe JFK was victim of a conspiracy and yet no one acts on it:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It is so important to understand that one of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed but nothing can be known, nothing of significance, that is.<br><br>And the American people are more than willing to be held in this state because to KNOW the truth - as opposed to only BELIEVE the truth - is to face an awful terror and to be no longer able to evade responsibility. it is precisely in moving from belief to knowledge that the citizen moves from irresponsibility to responsibility, from helplessness and hopelessness to action, with the ultimate aim of being empowerd and confident in one's rational powers.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Note, he's not blaming everyday citizens so much as explaining how the "gatekeepers" so to speak could ignore facts that should be obvious and contribute, therefore, to this climate of "belief" vs. "knowledge." <br><br>One of my big revelations, and it started before RI, but RI has helped, too, is that I'm not nuts. These intellectual giants whom I respected, such as Chomsky, don't call these "conspiracy theories" nuts because they are crazy, they call these theories nuts because the alternative is too disruptive to the power structure they are part of. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
