[lbo-talk] Re: conspiracy, jfk

Joseph Wanzala jwanzala at hotmail.com
Sat Nov 22 16:54:41 PST 2003


Well said Mr. Scott. Certainly one the notions that dominates the 'anti-conspiracist' posts on this list is the false dichotomy between 'secret' and 'open' conspiracies, which originated with deliberate misreading of Parenti's article. In fact, the anti-conspiracists are trying to convert a obvious and now admitted flaw in their position - the idea that there are 'no conspiracies' into a counterpoint by now pretending that they have all along been arguing only against the idea of 'secret' conspiracies, and even with these, they concede that they do exist, but move the goalposts yet again and say that 'there is more to it than that' - an argument that exists only in their own minds, since so-called 'conspiracy researchers' have always seen subterfuge as one of many factors.

Joe W.


>From: "Frank Scott" <frank at marin.cc.ca.us>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: conspiracy, jfk
>Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:06:34 -0800
>
>-"So what exactly is so foolish about talking
>about conspiracies? This is a real, not a
>rhetorical question. Maybe I just don't really
>understand what "conspiracy" means."
>
>I thought parenti gave a good, brief definition,
>and he was trashed here, with his words
>selectivley quoted to sound like they were taking
>the position they were actually criticizing...
>
>this area seems to be one of almost religious
>belief for many, pro or con...believers often go
>over the edge, making it easy for non-believers
>to paint the whole idea with the broad brush of
>idiocy, which is there in some cases...
>
>the nons are often over the edge with
>intolerance for anything that might make things
>seem a little different than their " schooled"
>analysis would accept...today being jfk
>assassination day, that case offers an example
>of how logic, critical thinking and zany nonsense
>can all wind up in the same place: acceptance,
>or tolerance of bullshit as reality, period...
>
>despite any number of nut cases making up the
>wildest stories of conspiracy, i think the
>acceptance by many of the ridiculous notion that
>oswald did it all by himself is even dumber than
>the nut cases...
>
>there is an actual film record of the event
>showing clearly that jfk's head was blown open
>by a shot coming from in front, not behind..duh?
>"expert analysis" proves that what our eyes can
>see is a trick, and that he really was hit from
>behind and all laws of motion, impact etc are
>out the window...yeah, right...
>
>lefties who trash conspiracy but accept the lone
>assassin story are as misguided as the
>unfortunate types looking for x-files or matrix
>answers to serious questions...but even without
>the filmed record, there is solid evidence to
>indicate that oswald could not shoot well
>enough to hit a sitting, stationary target - some
>right wing general whose name escapes me at
>the moment - and in fact missed the guy,
>badly...how the hell could he then proceed to
>shoot three times, in eight seconds, with a
>crappy rifle that had a faulty sight, to boot, and hit
>a moving target with two of those shots?
>
>no marksman was ever able to duplicate that
>feat, and there was even evidence that oswald
>was a very poor shot when in the service....so,
>leaving out who did it, and avioiding the false
>identities of alleged conspirators, oswald didn't
>do it alone...
>
>but accepting that seems to make some people
>uncomfortable, because america only tolerates
>lone nut assassins, and others uncomfortable
>because..??? what the hell is so difficult to
>accept? that capitalist nations fight wars? that
>ruling class circles might have serious
>differences? that big money doesn;t all go to
>one ruling sector alone? that there are divisions
>among the most powerful forces?
>
>apparently, that makes the plot too thick, or not
>thick enough...of course we will not bring on the
>revolution by jumping up and down screaming
>that jfk wasn't killed by oswald alone, but we'll
>never have a revolution by accepting the
>established bullshit story simply because it has
>the veneer of an official, academic and scientific
>picture , and doesn;t sound as kooky as some
>critics...
>
>fs
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>--
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

_________________________________________________________________ Has one of the new viruses infected your computer? Find out with a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now! http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list