Valid Conspiracy Theory

Tom Lehman TLehman at lor.net
Sat Jan 15 08:32:10 PST 2000


The Nation magazine portrayed it as political descent.

I think anyone who has ever fired a rifle, even under ideal conditions, understands the basic implausibility of the single gunman theory.

Also, there is no magic power in a telescopic sight either.

The best anecdote I've ever heard about the Kennedy assasination was in the Fall of 1967. Sometimes these very non-descript people from places like East Nowhere, New Jersey or West Nowhere, West Virginia know what they are talking about!

Castro maybe the smartest guy in the Americas. He conquered South Florida for Cuba without ever firing a shot! After Castro's gone the Cuban's will still control South Florida.

TL

Michael Hoover wrote:


> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Carrol Cox wrote:
> > I don't think the Watergate conspiracy was very
> > significant, with one qualification. In the various discussions in the
> > White House that we have learned of through tapes and memoirs, we have
> > discovered that the activities of the anti-war movement did really bug
> > those jerks in D.C. to the extent that they over-reacted. That tidbit of
> > information may prove useful in the future. But as far as either the
> > actual conspiracy or its revelation having any direct importance in
> > human affairs, Nah! The absence of either the conspiracy or its
> > exposure would have made no real difference (outside the careers of a
> > few reporters and the profits of a few publishers or film makers).
> > Carrol
>
> Have no idea if any listers ever leaf through intro US gov't texts but
> they generally (with a few exceptions) convey message that 'system' worked
> in Watergate scandal. Typical line might read: 'Nixon's downfall was owed
> in no small measure to the handiwork, two centuries earlier, of the
> writers of the Constitution.' Blah, blah, blah...
>
> Activities of Watergate (sabotage, theft, wiretapping, coverup, etc.) and
> worse had been carried out against left for years. What press (and Dem
> congressional majority) conveyed to folks as aberration was actually
> 'standard operating procedure.' Difference, to some extent, was that such
> actions were carried out against 'loyal opposition' faction of
> establishment (among which were Dem pols, Dem supporters, mainstream
> journalists). But as Anthony Summers indicates in his book on J. Edgar
> Hoover, both Dem and Rep presidents used wiretaps to spy on political
> rivals so that even importance of differing degree is limited.
>
> As for Oliver Stone on JFK, his film can be reminder that there
> exist US gov't intelligence & military operations whose very purpose
> is conspiratorial and that have a long history of covert operations
> and assassinations. But his contention that Kennedy's assassination
> was conspiracy to prevent civil rights & end Cold War is, at best,
> naive (even if, as some suspect, national security apparatus was
> involved). Changing of guard at White House, whether through murder,
> impeachment and removal, or election (i.e., 'if we'd only had a
> stronger Dem - Ed Muskie? - in 72') cannot displace powerful set of
> ruling elites. So conpiracy doesn't take us very far in explaining
> political events.
>
> US political institutions are designed to 'govern' what Shakespeare had
> that famous conspirator Brutus recognize in *Julius Ceasar*: 'tide in the
> affairs of men.' It isn't necessary very often for US elites to construct
> great conspiracies to maintain their control and dominance. And in
> that sense, intro US gov't texts are correct, system did work: Ford,
> Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton followed... Michael Hoover



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list