Oswald was not alone
nemonemini at SPAMyahoo.com
Thu Mar 29 17:00:05 MST 2001
The mystifications of Camelot are undoubtedly a bit
much, especially in some of the investigators into the
Kennedy assassination. This theme tends to be a center
of gravity of any number of the books in the genre,
many of which are very confused. And I can understand
the impatience with the question of who killed
Kennedy. It is probably correct that it hardly matters
in the long run, for the current moment is different
now in detail, though not in essence,for at the time
Kennedy was shot, the British Empire was still in
place, sort of. So it hardly matters now. However,
consider this, without sentimentality, about Kennedy,
who was undoubtedly a member of the power elite, that
he was also a small fry in the power game who got aced
for rocking the boat, in some fashion we should be
curious to discover. He seems like a fat cat to us,
but he was a prole grubber to the hampton set. We
never quite see the invisible game, but here we see
rustling in the bushes. We should wonder why they
risked exposure just here. We think Kennedy with his
father's bootleg millions was some kind of capitalist
bigshot. Not the case. The real money you never see.
It is a point Lundberg tried to make in his several
books, which are worth reading, no doubt with some
reservations. Kennedy didn't kneel to the gang. And it
wasn't the mafia, the CIA, Hoover, or the Dallas
police. The real perpetrators must still be laughing
at the rap taken by the Dallas police, who were as
baffled and suspicious as anyone till they were shut
up for mumbling at press conferences there may have
been a second gunman. So, for what it is worth, it is
necessary to know at least whether one was fooled, for
almost everyone got outplayed after Kennedy got shot.
All we know is that Oswald didn't act alone, and that
the Warren Commission didn't really investigate, and
that somewhere just there, we see the people connected
to the real conspirators, who know enough about
leftists to get them to blame the wrong villains using
disinformation. Most of the rest is speculation and
false charges aimed at the wrong people, and they
still control everything, although their power is
eroding slowly no doubt as times change.
The most recent book I know on the question is "The
Kennedy Assassination Cover-up" by Donald Gibson,
Roshka Books,2000. I won't vouch for any book on this
subject, but this one is at least the latest, with an
interesting twist: critiquing previous books for their
'generalized villainy in government' approach. The
author points out that the government gets a bad rap,
and points the finger at the '(Eastern)Establishment'.
And then goes into a lot of detail. I don't know, but
it is a little closer than the previous set of books.
The point is that it isn't the government that did
this, but, precisely the point, the elites who are not
a part of the government. The managed to rig the
Warren commission without anyone figuring it out.
Anyway, the book by Gibson has an interesting twist on
'class analysis' that one might disagree with but
which is a reminder that class struggle can fail at
the point it becomes some hegelian abstraction. The
bandits are out there laughing still, buttoned down
clubby bandits who are very clever. Part of the reason
the confusion has gone on so long is that the visible
government establishment, guilty of a multitude of
other sins, could always rightly plead innocence.
Gibson does have the vein of the "Kennedy mystique"
the post complains of, but at least, according to the
author, Kennedy believed in economic progress in the
undeveloped world. The Establishment he points to did
not, for this was the period of transition from
colonialism to neo-colonialims, whose hidden
beneficiaries were very threatened by a man like
Kennedy as they scrambled to recompute their game,
which was based on the third world staying poor,
period. It is hard to figure out.
Anyway, Gibson's work is worth reading, as still one
more step beyond Scott's "Deep Politics" thesis, which
for a moment was helpful, but still aiming at the
'generalized villain' who is innocent because he
I found the reference I was thinking of, Vincent
Salandria, "The Warren Report", Liberation (1965).
Salandria, if I have the right reference, figured out
the whole thing almost immediately, perhaps before the
tide of propaganda descended on common sense. So this
piece in Nature is a bit late in the day. Also there
is a speech of Castro, almost the same week. He
understood right away what was going on.
nemonemini at aol.com
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
More information about the Marxism