JFK and the Unspeakable

[Martha Rooster-Singh]

Obviously you are not familiar with Douglas.   As noted, Douglas uses the
loaded terms you object to. Most historians study dead people they neither
knew nor would have known had they lived when said dead people were alive,
so, no, most historians, most rational people would not limit the study of
history to friends and such. But you knew that to be true. So what.

On Saturday, January 11, 2014, Michael Bailey wrote:

>
> On Jan 11, 2014 8:54 AM, "Martha Rooster-Singh" <
> martharoostersingh at gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'martharoostersingh at gmail.com');>> wrote:
> >
> > The assassination theories, like the conspiracy theories, obscure what
> Douglas calls the turns and the moments of grace.
>
> How so?
>
> <Unfortunately, Douglas is not have the fortitude to let go of the
> conspiracy because he is haunted by the assassinations, murders of
> strangers, of men he had no real connection with but in whose deaths he
> invested his entire life.
>
> Would most historians accept the notion that the only fitting subjects are
> persons one knows...are we only allowed to write about family members?
> Or, if friends, how many hours must we have spent with them?
>
> >Douglas speaks of grace, the moments of grace, the Noah's Ark moment, the
> exchange of letters, the conversations, the speeches and so on, and how the
> turnings  through grace from the unthinkable and  toward peace and so
> forth, but he resists it, though it pounds on his heart and brain.
>
> What is this grace you claim he is resisting?
> Is it some kind of spiritual rapture that would make a person not value
> inspirational leadership and consequent achievements in civil rights and
> diplomacy...
>
> a state of mind that would make a person not deplore the misuse of
> military power and the abandonment of worthy societal goals since then?
>
> Some sort of "let go and let God," where God = internalization of the ALEC
> and Koch agenda, that will make you glow, like the Kentucky Woman in Neil
> Diamond's song, with your own kind of light?
>
> Some state of bliss where this idea makes sense to you: that a nincompoop
> like Oswald is allowed to defect back and forth pretty much at will,
> associates with a lot of people who wanted Kennedy dead, yada yada yada,
> and yet he is solely responsible so let's stop thinking about it
>
> If so, is "grace" the right term?  I think it's closer to our old friend
> acidie, or sloth...
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20140111/b7a452ae/attachment.html>