James Leroy Wilson's blog

Monday, January 14, 2008

Ideologues and Mind Control

Over 2000 books have been written on the JFK assassination. I don't know how many national television specials have also been made, but my guess is that a small minority of the books have the "Oswald Acted Alone" thesis, while almost 100% of the tv specials conclude the same. Another one for the American Experience was on tonight on a local PBS station.

Here's why I'm an agnostic on this and other conspiracy theories for other tragic events: I do not know anything about "black ops" hypnosis and mind control. I could see Oswald acting alone, or I could see him hypnotized to think he's acting alone - as tonight's special reminds us, he had always acted alone, all his life. If a conspiracy, the conspirators would have had to produce a fall guy who wouldn't name names, i.e., who wouldn't know he was part of a broad conspiracy - such as a hypnotized or mind-controlled ideologue.

(Makes me wonder about Timothy McVeigh, but anyway...)

Wouldn't a conspirator have come clean by now? Well, Chuck Harrelson confessed at one point, then recanted. Who knows how many others come forward, but see their stories isolated and forgotten, or discredited by "others who were there at the scene."

And frankly, if you felt fully justified in what you were doing, and if, perhaps, you were hypnotized yourself, it's likely you'd never confess; you might not even remember having participated in a conspiracy. Again, I say this because I don't know how anything about mind-control techniques. It at least sounds plausible to me.

Furthermore, conspiracies are plausible in part because just about anyone could be tempted to be part of one. For instance, you are convinced there is an "Islamo-fascist threat," and you perceive one candidate as "strong" and the other "weak" on this vital issue, wouldn't you be tempted to rig the election to keep your nation safe? From certain perspectives, that would be the patriotic thing to do. It is not that hard for any of us to break the law or "undermine democracy" if we believe we are serving some higher or more urgent purpose.

Or if you had the opportunity to engage in shenanigans that are the equivalent of "pressing the button" to achieve the kind of society you want, wouldn't you take it? Is not liberty more important than democracy for libertarians? Is not social justice and equality more important than democracy for liberals? Is not morality and safety more important than democracy for conservatives?

So, if a league of CIA agents genuinely believe their President is an impediment in their fight against communism, what would be better than getting a communist to pull the trigger in this President's assassination? (Or, be one of two or three gunmen, but take the entire blame?)

At trial, Oswald could then be framed as a Cuban spy, because then war on Castro would be justified, and the goals of the Bay of Pigs invaders would be complete. (In this scenario, Jack Ruby would have been the one who "acted alone." There are, of course, other possibilities.)

Who knows. Who knows if there was a conspiracy, and who knows what its purpose was, and who was involved (aside from all those recognizable CIA agents in Dallas such as Edward Lansdale and E. Howard Hunt.) But to the ideologue, the ends justify the means, and that is why the motivation to create or join conspiracies is plausible. And the more we can add hypnosis/mind control to the mix, the more conspiracies seem possible.

No comments:

Post a Comment