Back to Conspiracy

Roger Odisio rodisio at igc.org
Wed Jan 19 00:33:47 PST 2000


Carrol Cox wrote: I think you should take this injunction of yours, Carroll:


> As I used to tell my freshman comp students (sometimes in language almost
> this crude), no one except your mother or your therapist gives a fuck
> about what you think. We are interested in what is.

and apply it to the first sentence in your post:


> First: I think Doug should threaten with expulsion from the list
> anyone who continues to return to this subject

Then take your next two assertions and put them where the sun don't shine:


> . All the possible
> positions have been expressed over and over again -- and there
> is *no* empirical evidence that can be relevant, for if there were
> it would be widely known already.

You couldn't possibly know that "all possible positions have been expressed" because you don't know all possible positions. Nor is all history ever known; facts emerge all the time.

And the last person I want in a prominent position on the thought police around here, or anywhere, is you.

Now, as to the Kennedy assassination: Contrary to Wojtek, the single bullet theory was concocted by the Warren Commission, and specifically Arlen Spector as a staff attorney, not because it makes sense--it is laughable--but because the WC was not interested in what actually happened. They were specifically directed by Johnson to provide a story that would calm people's fears about the way power had changed hands. The single bullet schlock was the only way to pin it all on Oswald as loner and complete their mandate.

Johnson himself was initially very worried that Russia or Cuba was involved, and he sought to avoid all thought of confrontation over the shooting. After all, *he* was pres now, and he wasn't going to war just cause a few commies might have shot Kennedy. Which is why he gathered every top member of the elite and plunked them down as figureheads to sign the damn report. Note for Charles: ever think about why Bobby K. was so silent on the whole thing? Plausible thought: because he knew too much about JFK's enemies, not only what they tried to do to Fidel and the murder of Nhu in Vietnam, but to the mob as well. I think he knew, as a member of the elite, that the whole thing was better left buried as much as possible, despite the personal pain that caused him.

JFK was killed in a crossfire. Which means that the results of the election were changed by a group of two or more people, whose identities have escaped us. And it's not at all clear that the killers were members in any standing of some segment of the ruling class. What is clear is that they threw it into crisis for a time, during a period of growing turmoil in general.

Is this information important to the crushing of capitalism? Not really. But neither is most of the stuff posted here that whizzes past me into my trash file. The Warren Commision and its aftermath is a case study in how capital closes ranks when crisis looms. How the job of guy in the oval office--i.e., the chief servant of transnational capital--can be passed around on a moments notice. They all understand their roles as servants, and are happy to get the crumbs passed their way (shitkicker Lyndon died a millionaire). Sometimes some of us don't understand that so well.

So I cast this belated vote for more discussion of the ruling class implications of coups, and less talk about which servant is better, Bradley or Gore.

RO



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list