JFK and the Unspeakable

Mon Jan 13 20:34:48 CST 2014

Why don't you actually say something you chicken shit asshole.  You have never said anything of your own.  You are a boring malignancy. Guess what big brain, Oliver Stone has made more than one film.  What have you done lately?  
On Jan 13, 2014, at 6:28 PM, MalignD at aol.com wrote:

> Sentence one is Japan.  Sentence two,  Oliver Stone's "artistic" output, despite his film being completely wrong in its hypothesis.  Sentence three, if Oliver Stone were on the p-list!.  Sentence four, Jim Douglas is worth reading because he's not Oliver Stone who, one assumes, would not be worth reading (despite his artistic output and were he a writer).  Sentence five, which ignores the four-sentence preamble, instead makes a claim for what is "just pretty fucking obvious."  Sentence six -- which is that the President is a pawn of the security state.  Sentence seven "there's a hole in (your?) big brother's arm ..." for which I'll have to take your word.
> Japan has faced its crimes far more deeply than the US. No one on the p-list has 
> remotely rivaled Oliver Stones artistic output or skill though the JFK focus on 
> Jim Garrison was a mistake. If  Stone was on the p-list I doubt he would be 
> treated with dismissal. Anyway Jim Douglas is not  Oliver Stone and the book is 
> worth reading. The problem is pretty fucking obvious and it isn't in ancient 
> history. The president is a pawn played by the national security state. There's 
> hole in big brother's arm where the money and the power goes and pretending 
> won't make it go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> To: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 1:29 am
> Subject: Re: JFK and the Unspeakable
> 
> Japan has faced its crimes far more deeply than the US. No one on the p-list has 
> remotely rivaled Oliver Stones artistic output or skill though the JFK focus on 
> Jim Garrison was a mistake. If  Stone was on the p-list I doubt he would be 
> treated with dismissal. Anyway Jim Douglas is not  Oliver Stone and the book is 
> worth reading. The problem is pretty fucking obvious and it isn't in ancient 
> history. The president is a pawn played by the national security state. There's 
> hole in big brother's arm where the money and the power goes and pretending 
> won't make it go away.
>   
> On Jan 12, 2014, at 6:56 PM, Rich wrote:
> 
> > Japan hasn't really fessed up to the war. Ask the Chinese or the Koreans
> > 
> > Didn't realize we had Oliver Stone on the plist. You're smarter than that man 
> c'mon
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> On Jan 12, 2014, at 5:52 PM, Joseph Tracy <
> brook7 at sover.net
> > wrote:
> >> 
> >> I disagree. It matters. It is about a point of departure, and it is precisely 
> because there was this challenge to and defiance of the prevailing myth that it 
> matters. It is critical that we have a line that can't be crossed and crimes 
> that must be faced just as Germany and Japan have faced their crimes. Kennedy 
> represents  a point where the peacemaking that is currently deemed by the 
> dominant culture to be unspeakable became both speakable and persuasively 
> refreshing. Kennedy was loved and the love was growing and changing the culture. 
> His death was not a meaningless accident. Not a paranoid fantasy.  Even the most 
> cursory look at the assassination unleashes a flood of official denial, lies, 
> manipulations, and  non-credible coincidences that demand that we simply refuse 
> the official story. The narrative which the CIA tried to erase returns again and 
> again and all the evidence functions as an Occam's razor to point to the CIA as 
> the center of a successful plot to shift power away from elected leaders to an 
> empire of secretive alliances between military, industrial, resource extraction 
> and investment forces. Civilian and democratic oversight died with Kennedy. The 
> only challenge to that was Carter who was easily relegated to one term and was 
> still the vector of Breszinski's tenure as manager of imperial agenda.  
> >> 
> >> When you speak of thought crimes you relegate yourself to a cage which only 
> you have the lock or key for.  
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On Jan 12, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Martha Rooster-Singh wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Douglas doesn't have to prove that the CIA killed JFK. It doesn't much 
> matter at this point. In fact, I question why bring the assassination into it? 
> It only muddies the waters.  The obvious reason is that he wants to show us how 
> we got to this point from 1960. If we agree with his assessment of where things 
> are and how things got to be as they are, the assassination is only a 
> distraction. The unspeakable now is not the assassinations. And JFK's 
> assassination, if you think the CIA killed him and the others, was only one of 
> several unspeakable murders. The unspeakable is not nuclear war with the 
> Soviets.  This is not 1960. But the counter to unspeakable violence has not 
> changed. Peace is still unspeakable. The kind of world JFK described in the 
> University Speech is, in 2014, unspeakable. It is a thought crime. You can't 
> even think it. 
> >>> 
> >>> On Sunday, January 12, 2014, Joseph Tracy wrote:
> >>> The reek of conspiracy is deep  and the obvious center is the CIA. What 
> becomes clear is why. And how they had so many allies or sympathizers that they 
> could be pretty certain they would get away with it.  The continuous growth of 
> the Military industrial complex and the power of intelligence agencies along 
> with the erosion of civil liberties points to the fundamental success of a coup. 
> The degree and depth of Kennedy's embrace of an alternate vision to the cold 
> war( which he seemed to foresee as the beginning of a permanent state of war) is 
> made evident by Douglas through Kennedy's speeches and conversations with  his 
> few  friends and allies.
> >>> On Jan 11, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Yeah, the CIA did it.
> >>>> Read Bugliosi's book as well.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Friday, January 10, 2014 10:20 PM, Joseph Tracy <
> brook7 at sover.net
> > 
> wrote:
> >>>> Starting into Jim Douglas's book, JFK and the Unspeakable. I didn't know he 
> was part of the Catholic worker movement and had written mostly as a Christian 
> pacifist. So far the prose and organization of information is engaging and 
> substantive. As he tracks Kennedy's confrontation with the Military and CIA he 
> also follows the contemporaneous work of Thomas Merton to confront the immoral 
> essence of nuclear military power( while being obedient to church authorities). 
> The phrase ' the unspeakable' was used by Merton to describe  the mentality and 
> unscrupulous behavior of those who have accustomed themselves to enormous power 
> and will do anything to retain it.
> >>>> Just the clarity with which he tracks the postwar rise of the national 
> security state gives the book a rare quality. He is not trying to be inductive, 
> but sets out his contention from the start, provides a timeline and begins to 
> fill in the JFK timeline with asides to examine the parallel peace work of 
> Thomas Merton.
> >>>> Other works on the JFK assassination seem to get whelmed in competing 
> theories, players, elaborate timelines, scientific issues, etc.  Douglas sets 
> out to detail the motives of the CIA  and to elaborate how the CIA planned and 
> covered up the assassination, as though he were a prosecutor making a case.
> >>>> 
> >>>> What gives the book an added power is the concept of what is 
> unspeakable,and how even when overwhelming evidence points to a reality, there 
> are realities that remain unspeakable. The article on holocaust film footage 
> also deals with the phenomenon. Pynchon spends much of his energy as a writer 
> bringing us into proximity to unspeakable parts of human experience. He backs us 
> into it with jokes and wonders, coincidences and seedy lost souls, lists, and 
> the inevitable force of history. But it is that feeling of scraping up against 
> the raw madness that compels one to think and speak about the unthinkable and 
> unspeakable.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> -
> >>>> Pynchon-l / 
> http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> -
> >>> Pynchon-l / 
> http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> 
> >> 
> >> -
> >> Pynchon-l / 
> http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> 
> > -
> > Pynchon-l / 
> http://www.waste.org/mail/?list
> 
> 
> -
> Pynchon-l / 
> http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l