From: Peri E. Arnold.1.ndedu (Peri E. Arnold)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Won't change history (was Re: What REALLY happened)
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:05:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr16.210537.5178
Organization: University of Notre Dame

In article <1992Apr13.005444.11924@dg-rtp.dg.com>, hicks@pulsar.rtp.dg.com (Linus Hicks) writes:
> 
> In article <61560001@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com>, hypes@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Gary Hypes) writes:
> 
>       [Stuff deleted]
>  
> |> - The Evil Government conspiracists would get to stand up and say,
> |> "THERE! SEE!?!" - And then what? Personally, I will finish my dinner and
> |> go work on the lawn; my dogs will go back to sleep; the mail and
> |> newspaper will still be delivered more or less on time. It may affect
> |> our understanding of history, but it will not CHANGE history, past or
> |> present. The greatest impact would be on the Kennedy family, who would
> |> be more tortured, I think, than relieved to discover that the government
> |> had murdered JFK.
> |> 
> |> I don't mean to imply that it's pointless to pursue; there is always
> |> some intrinsic merit in uncovering "truth", and I feel that if
> |> governmental elements were involved, it's worth knowing.
> |> 
> |> But I have to wonder if "truth" is what really motivates most conspiracy
> |> buffs. I think that, by and large, it is hatred and distrust of Big
> |> Government - and the power that accompanies an opportunity to prove Big
> |> wrong or guilty in some demeaning fashion.
> 
> If it didn't change history, then I would be very sad. Perhaps "truth"
> doesn't motivate some conspiracy buffs. But there seems to be a certain
> lack of integrety among those in government, in the CIA, and the FBI.
> You seem to assume (as I'm sure most Americans do) you have the right
> to certain freedoms without having to make sure those freedoms are
> still intact. I'm not sure we have that luxury. If the government (or
> certain elements within the government) is willing to go to the
> trouble to (assuming the worst) kill a standing president, or (assuming
> the best) protect the public from traumatic information, what assurance
> do we have that the government is truly acting in our best interests?
> At the very best we are considered incompetent. At the worst we are
> considered manageable. That doesn't flatter me.
> 
> Information is our (we the people) only tool.

There has always been a paranoic impulse in our politics.  Know
Nothingism, fear of the foreigner, the Catholic, the Jew, theories about
the conspiracies of Eastern finance, have always fueled movements in
American politics.  These historical patterns should forewarn us that 
conspiracy theories need to be bracketed with some skepticism.  They
too easily become the lens through which we find comforting (even if
dark) explanations for a damnably complex world.  At the very
least, be skeptical.  Ask why is it likely that in a government as
riddled by conflict and cross pressures as ours, information about
a conspiracy would not begin to appear, years after the fact?  
Consider how "leaky" Washington is about other conspiracies that 
we have known about, Iran-Contra, for example.  Be critical when
considering conspiracy explanations, and ask yourself whether it is
likely that the scenario envisioned could remain undercover.  In the
real world of politics, there is always some persons or interests who
will benefit from leaking information to which they have access.

Peri Arnold.

						

> 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk