Final_Judgment

[440] Final Judgment 537
assassinations chief Yitzhak Shamir and their allies in the CIA and in the
Lansky Crime Syndicate did not.
Be all of this as it may, I can only conclude that the refusal by these
"big names" to either debate me publicly or to attempt to repudiate my work
in any way, shape or form is precisely because they cannot. Final Judgment
is thus, in my view, for all intents and purposes, the final judgment on what
really happened in Dallas. I have indeed secured, as I've said, a default
judgment simply because no one has stepped forth to answer my charges.
"CERTAIN DOCTRINES OF THE FAITH"
Although esteemed maverick linguist Noam Chomsky has riled Israel
with his criticisms of its international misdeeds, Chomsky himself refuses to
become embroiled in any debate about the JFK assassination whatsoever. In
fact, Chomsky has described the unending flow of letters he's received on
the subject, pointing out that he's been forced to resort to a form letter
outlining the reasons why he will not discuss the subject. But Chomsky, as a
critic of Israel, recognizes how public debate over controversial issues has
been impacted by the media and the academic community. In an
introduction to one volume exposing Israeli intrigue, Chomsky wrote:
History, particularly recent history, is characteristically presented
to the general public within the framework of a doctrinal system based
on certain fundamental dogmas. In the case of the totalitarian societies,
the point is too obvious to require comment.
The situation is more intriguing in societies that lack cruder forms of
repression and ideological control. The United States, for example, is
surely one of the least repressive societies of past or present history
with respect to freedom of inquiry and expression. Yet only rarely will
an analysis of crucial historical events reach a wide audience unless it
conforms to certain doctrines of the faith . . . 1103
The doctrines of the faith—in the case of the JFK assassination
debate—are quite restrictive: in short, there is no debate. The case is closed.
Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. There was no conspiracy. Anyone who
says that there was a conspiracy is—God forbid—a "conspiracy theorist"
and anyone who believes in conspiracy theories might potentially be the
kind of person who would blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City and
murder 168 innocent men, women and children. That is precisely the
argument put forth in the "mainstream" media following that tragedy.
The argument went like this: the militia movement influenced Timothy
McVeigh. The militias believe in conspiracy theories. Tim McVeigh blew
up the federal building in Oklahoma City. Therefore, if you believe in
conspiracy theories, you're bad. You're against the government. You're
against America. You support the terrible things that McVeigh did in
Oklahoma. Don't believe in conspiracy theories—and that includes the
theory that there was a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination.