Sunday, October 20, 2013

“Beware Conspiracy Theorists?” No – Beware Those Who Are Part of the Unspeakable!

Media personality Michael Smerconish in his Op-ed in today’s Denver Post, advises one and all (based on his header) to ”Beware Conspiracy Theorists”. We are supposed to be the bane of national existence, sowing paranoia with our every blog post, and hey – we are little different from the generic nuts who fret over UN helicopters and FEMA concentration camps. In this way, lumped in with whackjobs, all manner of conspiracies are instantly consigned to the dumpster of history.

But based on accumulated documents, I choose to believe something different: That REAL conspiracies DO exist and have occurred, and hiding them doesn’t help the citizens or the nation. Author Michael Parenti (The Dirty Truth) makes no bones about the fact that “most people suffer from conspiracy phobia” and “they treat anyone who investigates conspiracy as a conspiracy buff or oddball”. He also has a problem with the term “conspiracy theory” since it permits the critics and skeptics to have their intellectual cake and eat it. If the claimed conspiracy hasn’t been validated to their satisfaction, it’s merely a theory (which they erroneously equate with speculation), but if it was validated, as in Watergate, then ‘Voila!’ it’s no longer theory but an actuality! But this is essential nonsense. As Parenti observes, it means that “conspiracy can never be proven and if proven it can’t be conspiracy”.

But we know that real, bona fide conspiracies have indeed occurred and been validated. In the Watergate conspiracy, Nixon and his cronies virtually handed the evidence to investigating committees and prosecutors on a 'silver platter' since they’d taped everything! Every word and every plan or scheme was recorded, from targeting McGovern supporters using the IRS, to illegal wiretaps of those on the “enemies' list” to breaking and entering into Daniel Ellsberg’s place In the BCCI conspiracy, the machinations of a criminal bank were almost kept hidden as tens of thousands lost their money around the world and the bank funded terrorist activities. In the Iran –Contra conspiracy, Reaganites sold Israeli Hawk and TOW missiles to Iran and funneled the money from sales into Nicaragua to support the Rightist “Contras’. In the 'Operation Northwoods' conspiracy, the plot was exposed before a clique of U.S. generals could unleash terror attacks on Americans and blame Castro, to start a war in 1962.

So why not also a conspiracy to murder a popular President? Especially when that President altered his stance from being a cold-warrior to a leader committed to peace – to the extent of banning nuclear weapons tests and disciplining run amuck generals who wanted to launch a nuclear war. But as author James Douglass has noted ( JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters), too many in the media and in government have sought to protect those who killed Kennedy and prevent the truth from disclosure. .

In Douglass’ words:.

“Our collective denial of the obvious, in the setting up of Oswald and his transparent silencing by Ruby, made possible the Dallas cover-up. The success of the cover-up was the indispensable foundation for the murders of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy by the same forces at work in our government – and ourselves:

Hope for change in the world was targeted and killed four times over. The cover-up of all four murders, each leading into the next, was based – first of all –on denial. Not the government’s but our own- and the unspeakable was not far away.” .

Nevertheless, it appears those like Michael Smerconish are quite happy to go on killing hope for change in the world multiple times over, as they seek to dissuade the citizen from examining the facts of the conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination. Smerconish begins his sarcastic attack by singling out Jesse Ventura’s book: They Killed Our President: 63 Reasons to Believe There Was A Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK. So Smerconish gets Ventura in an interview and asks the question: “Who is ‘they’?” Ventura, honest as he is, responds that he doesn’t know. The ‘they’ employed was generic, and could apply to any of the conceivable forces – or all – that had it in for Kennedy, but especially his national security state. Besides, Ventura could have told Smerconish if he really knew who ‘they’ were he likely wouldn’t be alive to say so! As per Richard Charnin’s excellent graphical proof of conspiracy based on the death of witnesses at the times of the two main investigations, see. e.g.

So really, Smerky, if ANYONE did know who ‘they’ were, they are long since dead and buried. Smerconish then goes on to cite the infamous Katzenbach memo – which read in its intro and first section:

”"It is important that all 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.

He spuriously claims that (1) alone “sounds ominous” but when the whole is taken in context, not so much! Katzenbach was merely “anticipating that 50 years later guys like Ventura would seek to prosper by spinning yarns”, but fails to observe that Katzenbach himself never seriously believed anyone would challenge the words, or Warren Report in a serious way since LBJ had sealed all the records at least until 2037 when most of those who care would likely have died. It was only the passage of the 'JFK Records Act' in 1992 that averted this national travesty!

So, to Smerconish's arguments, I reply: Codswallop! To the critical thinker, the above enumerated first point of the memo provides enough evidence to disclose the true purpose of any ''official' investigation: to arrive at a preconceived and pre-accepted conclusion, that was politically and socially expedient. This was as opposed to the outcome of an open-ended, genuine investigation. This also goes under the rubric of a fundamental logical no-no called: 'Affirming the consequent' - i.e. affirming ab initio that which you need to prove. Taking the shortcut - avoiding the process, more: ensuring the outcome of the process blends with one's own 'truth'. A much more acceptable version for public consumption or to put it in blunt terms: expeditious political PR.

Smerconish ends his whiff effort at smacking “conspiracy theorists” in the JFK case by appealing to Arlen Specter, who he avers was “so passionate for the truth about the Warren Commission that he intended to maintain an active speaking schedule during the 50th anniversary year – to defend his conclusions from years ago.” We shall miss the voice of the “passionate” Mr. Specter, but it’s perhaps better he isn’t adding to all the existing noise and deception ….or the unspeakable…especially with that insane “magic bullet” fairy tale he fabricated. As I showed in my previous post (on Joe Klein's BS), it was Specter's own yarn that propelled the Warrenites to lie, debase and distort the evidence to find for one lone gunman – including to do with the autopsy – and I cited examples in that last post and in the one taking Larry Sabato to task.

I have not read Ventura’s book, I admit. He may be closer to the truth or not. But I again recommend to all serious readers, who really want to know why Kennedy was killed, to get hold of James Douglass’ book and make it your best friend for the next month. In that way, you will assure you won’t be part of the unspeakable.

No comments: