James Robenalt interviewed Jefferson Morley on the JFK assassination documents this week in Vanity Fair.
There was this question right at the end of the interview:
Robenalt: So let me conclude with what I thought was a quote attributed to you—that the JFK assassination is the Rosetta Stone to postwar American history. What does that mean?
Morley: No, it wasn’t me. A colleague said that to me. And I thought it was a striking formulation. Because if you understand that event, you understand so much more about the world, the power-political world from which it came. And we’ve always had this confusion, this blind spot at the heart of our own history, our own sense of history was like, “What was that?” And because the government has no credible explanation and the whole thing is surrounded by mad conspiracy theories and disinformation and stupid apologetics, it’s a sore point. But that’s why it still matters in the political culture, because somehow that event still resonates in our politics today.
And there is the corollary view that America can only return to greatness when it uncovers the truth about the JFK assassination.
This is just plain ridiculous. The JFK assassination is not the Rosetta Stone to postwar American history. All of this stems from the belief that the "why" of the assassination precedes proof of how it was accomplished.
[Oliver] Stone has also been saying that he's less interested in the "who" and the "how" of the conspiracy than in the "why" -- that the answer to why Kennedy was killed will lead us to the truth about everything else. The most charitable interpretation of that statement is that Stone isn't a rigorous logician: how, exactly, would someone determine why a President was murdered without first knowing who did it and how it was done.
I discussed this concept in my book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza: (pages 577 - 579)
The crux of JFK: Destiny Betrayed is a jejune political theory that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam and usher in an era of peace and detente. The CIA and the military-industrial establishment had to stop this, and the only way was to have JFK killed.
Emerging from this erroneous reading of history is a nihilist prescription, that unless we unravel the JFK conspiracy, the United States can never fully realize the promise of democracy.
Here is author David Talbot: (54:11 in Episode 4 of Oliver Stone's documentary series JFK: Destiny Betrayed)
I think there's a direct thread between the events of 1963, and the kind of horror show that America is having to endure right now. And I think once you kill a president in broad daylight on the streets of an American city, and everyone knows that powerful forces did it, and it can never be solved, that crime, that sends a signal, not only to the American people, but to the American media, to American future leaders. And if American really wants a democratic society, then we should get to the bottom of this traumatic crime that continues to reverberate throughout American history.
What kind of message is this? Telling people that their actions are useless unless the supposed JFK conspiracy and cover-up are revealed? Is this not a nihilist recipe for inaction?
A minute later (55:30) the narrator asks this question:
Can a democracy survive if it does not know its deepest secrets about the darkest days of its past?
None of this is new. Stone is just recycling the discredited theories of Fletcher Prouty, the model for Mr. X in his film JFK. Here is what Prouty wrote in his article “The Shadow of Dallas” in the January 1974 issue of Genesis magazine:
Until our government moves positively against this continuing cover-up of the three assassinations, and the many related crimes, we shall not have a free and unfettered country. The “offer they cannot refuse” hangs over the head of every man in office and over his every decision. Watergate has helped us considerably. It has shown us what the will of the people can do. But until the people of this country rise up and demand that the stains of Dallas be removed, we shall continue in an uncertain manner and with an unknown shadow over us all.
This message of hopelessness is courtesy of a man who believes that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is rational, calm, and thoughtful.
This naive theory rests on the belief that JFK wanted to completely withdraw from Vietnam, an assertion that is not backed up by the evidence.
The Skeptical Inquirer has a review of an interesting new book, The Story Paradox, by Jonathan Gottschall:
As Jonathan Gottschall observes in The Story Paradox, even if conspiracies about the Moon landing or Kennedy assassination refer to long ago, the dark forces that supposedly orchestrated them are still committing every possible misdeed today. All conspiracy narratives urge their followers to do something about it as if it were a matter of the highest moral duty.
Morley is setting himself for an enormous disappointment. The release of the remaining unredacted documents in the JFK collection, and any new documents from outside the collection will most probably tell us little about the assassination and so will not lead to a finding of conspiracy. And then what? A belief that the United States can never return to greatness?
Previous Relevant Blog Post
Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Jefferson Morley
An analysis of the 13 documents Morley wants to see.
Morley claims I am a CIA apologist and then misquotes me.
It would be worthwhile for the CIA to release the Joannides file just to stop the incessant posts from Jefferson Morley.
Actually, Oswald stayed at two budget-priced hotels in Helsinki.
He keeps asking the same questions, and we keep posting the same answers.
Conspiracy authors are playing fast and loose with the facts.
There is no evidence that Diaz was involved in the JFK assassination.
There are clues as to what is in a redacted section of Schlesinger's memo.
Chad Nagle and Dan Storper's article on New Orleans gets everything wrong.
Believing Michael Kurtz is problematic.
Morley wrote that there are two redacted memos on CIA reorganization, but there is only one. He wrote about Goodwin's copy as if it was a different memo, rather than a copy of the Schlesinger memo.
The phrase 'who shot John' does not refer to the JFK assassination.
Only one word is redacted in Harvey's deposition.
There are no redactions in the Operation Northwoods document.
Kilgallen had nothing to tell.
An underwhelming interview of Marina Oswald.
Morley often repeats stories and changes their meanings.
Chad Nagle claims there was an assassination plot against JFK in Chicago in November 1963. One problem: There is no evidence of such a plot.
A response to Morley's Substack post alleging that I am a CIA apologist.
A rebuttal to Morley's response to my post Was Bill Harvey in Dallas in November of 1963?
There is no credible evidence Harvey was in Dallas in November of 1963.
Morley repeats the claim that Dulles was at a CIA training center during the weekend of the JFK assassination. He wasn't.
Morley's claims about Efron are all wrong.
Morley responded to my article "The Truth about Operation Northwoods." Here is my reply.
W. Tracy Parnell is one of the best JFK assassination researchers out there. Here is his look at Jefferson Morley with several important articles.
Operation Northwoods can only be understood as part of the Kennedys' war against Cuba and Operation Mongoose.
And a response from me.
There is no evidence that Dr. West petitioned the court to examine Jack Ruby before his trial.
There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Louis Jolyon West interfered with Jack Ruby's case.
Jefferson Morley used a fake Oswald handbill in his press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation.
An examination of redactions in the JFK collection of documents.