Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

We've been having a lively online discussion tonight within the OIC, and I wish to post an exchange between Vincent Salandria and Eli Schotz, who goes by Marty. These two men share a very great distinction: when Jim Douglass wrote his masterpiece, JFK and the Unspeakable, he dedicated his book to the two of them. That tells you what he thinks of them.  

I should point out that Vince is a member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign. While Eli "Marty" Schotz is not, he does participate in some of our discussions, and we are honored that he does.   

Dear Marty,

        You and I know Jim Douglass.  We know him to have an integrity that would never have permitted him to consent to the elimination from his great book any reference which he considered important to sustain and support his ultimate conclusions.  Douglass has always been true to his understanding that JFK was executed by the U.S. national security state.  Douglass was and is convinced that the national security state killed JFK in order to prevent Kennedy from turning towards peace and away from the Cold War, the continuation of which Kennedy felt threatened us with a thermonuclear war and a species-ending nuclear winter.

          As I see it, we should be taking sharp issue with any assassination critic, including any of us participating in this discourse, who refuses to accept this amply-proven hypothesis. I see no need to preclude discussion with anyone who is committed to this historical truth- even if he opines that I am a Mafia figure.  I do not consider my integrity to be a question of central importance.  I will leave it to people who might be interested to examine my life and to make whatever they wish from the facts. Any fair look into the life of Jim Douglass will reveal him to be a giant and exemplar of integrity.

        But let us, for the purpose of argument, exercise our imaginations.  Imagine me hypothetically in the shoes of Douglass.  Imagine me being offered the proposition that my book, "The Unspeakable," would be published only if I would agree to have proof that a certain person participated in the plot to kill Kennedy be excised from the text.  What would my decision have been?  Not having Douglass' quality of integrity, I would have opted to have the historical truth set forth in the book  published sans the evidence against the suspect.  I would have reasoned that later other authors could fill in the gaps.  I would have felt justified in doing so because I would have believed that I was accomplishing social good in establishing a substantial  portion, albeit, not the whole, of the historical truth of the assassination.

       But never ever would I have consented to step away from or diminish in any way the concept that the killing of Kennedy was a coup by the national security state. As a tactic, I could have allowed myself to sign onto an incomplete presentation of that coup.  However, as a matter of immutable principle, I never would have consented to retreat from proclaiming the core truth: that the killing of Kennedy was a national security event, a coup from within the state. Marty, I agree that naming a person or persons as being responsible for killing Kennedy, and not designating the institutions of the national security state as the perpetrators of the assassination, would clearly put one in the service of the assassins. 

        I cannot agree with all the comments which were made in this discourse.  But I will not do battle over sub-issues which are raised and with which I disagree.  However, for me to continue in this discourse, I insist that the following three quintessential issues be treated as decided and incontestable historical facts: (1) The national security state killed President Kennedy in order to continue the Cold War, (2) The institutions of the national security state which killed JFK are still in major control of and shape our foreign policy and national budgets, and (3) We must be willing to disseminate these historical truths by joining together peacefully with elements of our society, including parts of the more enlightened, decent and socially conscious establishment in the tough desperate struggle to regain a true republic.

        Perhaps these preconditions to my continuation in this discussion will mean that I will be a persona non grata in this distinguished group of thinkers. But in my lengthy interest in this subject, I have in the past experienced what it is to be ineffectual and alone in my opinions.

        I love you, Marty,

        Peace,

        Vince


*       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *        *        *
    
Dear Vince,

I don't disagree with anything you say here.  I would just add to your three quintessential truths, that the national security state both serves and is served by the corporations and mass media which dominate our culture.  The fact of conspiracy was obvious from the beginning, and the role of the mass media, which is happily wedded to the national security state, was critical, not to mention the assistance the assassins received from what I would call the "Establishment Left"  -- I.F. Stone, The Nation Magazine, Chomsky, et al.

The only other point I would make is the issue of mass denial -- the lack of desire of the broad American public to know the truth, its preference for eternal debate and mystery,  because knowing the truth is too disruptive of most people's comfort.  This is one of the reasons that I don't believe that naming names really is that important.  As long as the public feels it is being served by this system, the truth of the JFK assassination, as well as MLK, Malcolm X, RFK, 9/11 will not be KNOWN by the broad public, because the broad public won't need to know and won't want to know.

Best, Marty

*      *        *        *            *          *         *           *          *           *     
  
RC: I'll point out that this thread began as an inquiry as to why Jim Douglass did not include the name George HW Bush in JFK and the Unspeakable- considering that he included a lot of other names. Some wondered if Jim was warned that his book would be blacklisted if he mentioned Bush. I pointed out that there seems to be a lot more tolerance for LBJ-bashing than there is for Bush-bashing in the mainstream media. Roger Stone's book accusing Johnson of involvement in the murder received a lot of press. And when Jackie's tapes were released, in which she pointed a finger at Johnson, it was well covered by the MM too. So, why the difference? Is it just because Bush is still alive while Johnson is long dead? That may be part of it, but I think there is more to it than that. But, I agree with Marty that there is a lot of indifference today among Americans about what happened to John Kennedy. The majority of Americans don't care at all. Yet, there is a small cadre of people who are extremely interested and passionately involved, and fortunately, they aren't going away.