The Most Damning Evidence Against Oswald

[John Dolva]

John, I do not want to repeat myself but the proven disposition of the arch-segregationists to use violence and murder to prevent the integration of the South makes them in my mind a far more likely group of interest than say the oil barons. I just want to note that if your suspicions are correct the arch-segregationist conspirators sure shot themselves in the foot. I think one of the reasons LBJ was able to obtain passage of the civil rights bills of 1964 and 1965 was because of the changed atmosphere following the death of JFK. I am not sure that had he lived JFK would have been able to accomplish what LBJ did.

The death of JFK also led to: (1) the greatly decreased efforts to rid Cuba of Castro; and (2) marked decrease in DOJ prosecutions of organized crime.

"The death of JFK also led to: (1) the greatly decreased efforts to rid Cuba of Castro; and (2) marked decrease in DOJ prosecutions of organized crime."

side effects.

"I think one of the reasons LBJ was able to obtain passage of the civil rights bills of 1964 and 1965 was because of the changed atmosphere following the death of JFK. I am not sure that had he lived JFK would have been able to accomplish what LBJ did."

The Civil Rights Bills that LBJ got through were NOT as Kennedy had planned. They were LBJ's and they came about as a result of watering downs and compromises with the 'arch-segregationists'. Following their passage, LBJ scuttled their power base by rationalising/marginalisin the departments in charge of carrying them out and the roll back to the 'civil rights' (What civil rights? for Patriots only?) of today started.

Without passage of the bills LBJ (his Bills) would perhaps not have been elected at all.

The Kennedy assassination was a pivotal moment in history with a before and after. The after is not pretty. (nor was the before, but Kennedy severely challenged centuries old status quo, and set in motion a thread in history that's not ended yet.)

[Tim Gratz]

John, what is your reference to JFK-supported civil rights bills?

In what ways did the LBJ supported civil rights bills "water down" the bill(s) supported by JFK?

[Greg Parker]

Greg: Do you have any further info on this story? The late Larry Ray Harris seemed fairly certain that Lee Oswald had in fact paraded in downtown Dallas with a "Hands Off Cuba" sign somewhere around the time of the Walker shooting.

Ray, took me a while to locate the info. CE 1409 is a post-assassination report on the incident.

This document dates the incident as being late spring or early summer of '63. Patrolman Finigan noticed a white male with a Viva Castro sign passing out literature on the corner of Main and Ervay. He was eventually chased by Finigan, but got away.

Oswald wrote the FPCC on Apr 16, 1963 telling them about the incident and requesting more literature (could be wrong, but I believe VT Lee denied in testimony that the FPCC had sent the one used in Dallas).

[Mark Knight]

The evidence that Oswald participated in the Walker shooting incident is tenuous at best. We have Marina's statement, we have Walker's statement, and we have Ruth Payne essentially corroborating Marina's statement. I'm just not convinced that LHO pulled the trigger anywhere near Walker's residence. I must say that Jim Root makes a VERY convincing case as to WHY Oswald might have done it; but I have my doubts about the chances of success of a prosecutor going forward with the prosecution of LHO in the Walker shooting based ONLY upon the KNOWN evidence in the case. It wouldn't take a Perry Mason to introduce enough reasonable doubt to drive a truck thru the holes in the prosecution's case.

I'd suggest it would even be within the abilities of Mr. Gratz, if he were still practicing law.

[John Dolva]

The evidence that Oswald participated in the Walker shooting incident is tenuous at best. We have Marina's statement, we have Walker's statement, and we have Ruth Payne essentially corroborating Marina's statement. I'm just not convinced that LHO pulled the trigger anywhere near Walker's residence. I must say that Jim Root makes a VERY convincing case as to WHY Oswald might have done it; but I have my doubts about the chances of success of a prosecutor going forward with the prosecution of LHO in the Walker shooting based ONLY upon the KNOWN evidence in the case. It wouldn't take a Perry Mason to introduce enough reasonable doubt to drive a truck thru the holes in the prosecution's case.

I'd suggest it would even be within the abilities of Mr. Gratz, if he were still practicing law.

Agreed, Mark, further, Walkers Lawyer (Brig. Gen. (National Guard?)) Watts, from Oklahoma, 'Looney, Looney, Watts, et.c. and co, (apt name, interesting location) investigated by sending a couple of investigators, they make no mention of Oswald. Oswald named by Walker came shortly after the assassination through a right wing newspaper in Germany, translation published in 'The Councillor' in Shrevesport where Walker was on his way when the assassination occured. (When he heard of it, he had the foresight to have the pilots sign his ticket.)

A thorough investigation picking up the trails left off then as left by various persons named and unnamed is probably undesirable to the conspirators.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray, took me a while to locate the info. CE 1409 is a post-assassination report on the incident.

This document dates the incident as being late spring or early summer of '63. Patrolman Finigan noticed a white male with a Viva Castro sign passing out literature on the corner of Main and Ervay. He was eventually chased by Finigan, but got away.

Oswald wrote the FPCC on Apr 16, 1963 telling them about the incident and requesting more literature (could be wrong, but I believe VT Lee denied in testimony that the FPCC had sent the one used in Dallas).

Greg: Thank you very much.

Now if this incident really did occur, I can see why Lee Oswald might fear arrest, but the reference to being taken alive seems odd, if the note was simply referring to FPCC activities. He could hardly have expected that the police would shoot him for campaigning on behalf of Castro. Perhaps he feared that the anti-Castroites might kill him. Some of them could be pretty rough, by all accounts.

[Jim Root]

Mark

Thank you for the kind words, "I must say that Jim Root makes a VERY convincing case as to WHY Oswald might have done it." they are appreciated.

In regards to your statement, "The evidence that Oswald participated in the Walker shooting incident is tenuous at best. We have Marina's statement, we have Walker's statement, and we have Ruth Payne essentially corroborating Marina's statement."

We also have the lands and groves on the bullet, the letter and the pictures taken of Walker's home. I might suggest that we have more physical evidence than we have for a grassy knoll shooter! While the testimony of Marina may be considered tainted for whatever reason we may wish to create, in Marina's recent interview with Vincent Bugliosi she made it clear that she does not believe that Lee shot Kennedy but is still convinced that LHO shot at Walker because, "he (LHO) told me so."

I have been able to develop my story by fitting together a very complex maze of history and relationships that dates back to the 1920's. There is a motive that is consistant with National Security and consistant with the personalities of the people I believe were involved with arranging the assassination. It is very complicated in every aspect except one, the actual assassination. Where my ideas differ from most conspiracy theories is that the assassination itself is the easy part while the positioning of the responsible parties within the government, that occured over a 30 year period, is what gave the conspirators the opportunity to develop and execute their plan. While everyone seems to be willing to increase the complexity of what happened on Nov. 22, 1963 and after by having people everywhere to "fix" evidence in order to frame Oswald, I leave Oswald as the shooter and leave all the "evidence" in place.

The three things that point to the conspirators is their "coverup" of:

1) Missing flight records of Oswald's trip from London to Helsinki. (I am currently extending my research into the "Venona Secretes" and am amazed by how many coded identities were uncovered by following travel records for people whose travels occured, in some cases, 15 years earlier).

2). The Hosty note of Nov. 4, 1963 which provided the needed information of where Oswald was working but was not given a Commission Exhibit Number nor was it tracked to see who had access to that information, yet even Hosty knew that the State Department received a copy and Dulles (as well as McCloy I believe) was aware that that copy would have made its way to the CIA.

3). Oswald's attempt to contact John Hurt. Even if this John Hurt that Oswald attempted to contact is not the John B. Hurt that was a NSA employee for 30 years, the failure of the Warren Commission to include this vital piece of information within its report is a travesty.

It is the third point (John Hurt) that is the most revealing to me. If I am correct, Lee Harvey Oswald's attempt to contact a man who's work is still classified today would have sealed his own fate (leaving the hands of the conspirators clean in that respect). It is also that attempted contact, discovered by chance during the HSCA hearings, that points directly toward persons high within the intelligence structure of the United States. That two men, Frank Rowlett and Meridith Gardner, would be assigned by the NSA to investigate Oswald's intelligence connection (the documents by Rowlett and Gardner were themselves classified for 40 years), and that both were associated with John B. Hurt only adds to my presumption of complicity by members of the intelligence establishment.

If I am correct the biggest thing that those responsible for the assassination had to do was to convince the American public that Oswald was not the lone assassin of John F. Kennedy. While most people believe that our government is capable of many things, the one thing that most do not believe is that they themselves can be decieved by our government and that Oswald was not the lone assassin.

Everytime I read an explanation for some part of the assassination story the first question that goes through my mind is, "How many people did that take?" The numbers are to great. KISS

Jim Root

[J. Raymond Carroll]

To show you, gentlemen, how illogical your position is that the Walker shooting has no bearing on the Kennedy case, let us assume the DPD had very good reason to believe that Oswald had shot at Walker but for whatever reason were unable to prove it. Let us assume that they had shared that belief with the Secret Service. Should the Secret Service have then put Oswald on its "watch list" with JFK coming to town? By your "logic" the answer would be "no"

Mr. Gratz is confusing two very different concepts. SUSPICION is not the same as EVIDENCE.

Evidence is stuff that can be used to PROVE something, while suspicion is really just CONJECTURE and cannot PROVE anything. Of course, suspicion and conjecture and guesswork are often the starting point of an inquiry, and it can happen that they lead us to relevant evidence, but it is only the relevant EVIDENCE that has probative value, not the suspicion or conjecture or guesswork that sent us to look for the evidence in the first pace.

I am sure Mark Knight would agree with me that the SS would be fools not to add Lee Oswald’s name to its “watch list” IF the circumstances were as described in Tim’s example. But if someone on that watch list (whether his name is Tom, Dick, Harry or Lee Oswald) is on trial for the assassination, it would be illogical, and indeed dishonest, to argue that THE FACT THAT HIS NAME IS ON The WATCH LIST is evidence that he shot JFK on November 22nd 1963.

It is our old friend character evidence which, from time immemorial, has been considered logically irrelevant and therefore inadmissable (except for very limited purposes as specified in the FRE). Character evidence is argument ad hominem, which was recognized as a logical fallacy umpteen centuries ago.

Professor McKnight, ... thinks that whether Oswald shot Walker is a key to whether he participated in the Kennedy assassination. So do I.

If we knew for a fact that Lee Oswald fired at Walker, that fact might be grounds for SUSPECTING that he was also involved in the assassination, but it IS NOT EVIDENCE that he was involved in the assassination, and the number of Warren Commission documents read by Professor McKnight, or me, or Mark Knight has absolutely no relevance whatsoever on that question.

The Warren Commission claimed to have proven that Lee Oswald fired at Walker. Each of us can make up our own minds on whether they succeeded or not. But even if you agree that they DID prove that he fired at Walker, that can lead to no more than a SUSPICION OR CONJECTURE that he might have shot JFK.

The Warren Report says that, by shooting at Walker, Lee Oswald showed “determination and other traits required to carry out a carefully-planned killing of another human being.” The Freedictionary defines “trait” as “A distinguishing feature, as of a person's character.”

As I have pointed out before, Character evidence is legally inadmissible to prove guilt on a specific occasion, and this rule is firmly grounded in logic.

MAJOR PREMISE: Whoever shot JFK had a bad character (undisputed fact)

MINOR PREMISE: Lee Oswald was one person who had a bad character, as evidenced by his attempt to shoot Walker

CONCLUSION: Lee Oswald shot JFK.

Even if the minor premise were true, the conclusion simply does not follow from the premises. It is a logical non-sequitor.

The Warren Commission claimed that the TRAITS demonstrated by the Walker shooting have PROBATIVE value in the JFK case. In fact they have NONE because character traits are not EVIDENCE of guilt on a specific occasion. Character traits at best are merely grounds for suspicion, conjecture and speculation.

To The Times on 7 July 1902, Churchill wrote: “I will not take occasion here to comment upon this travesty of justice further than to point out three cardinal principles of equity which it violates—that suspicion is not evidence; that accused persons should be heard in their own defence; and that it is for the accuser to prove his charge, not for the defendant to prove his innocence.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/....cfm?pageid=936

Suspicion is not evidence and speculation is not proof.

http://www.flra.gov/decisions/v50/50-033-4.html

But suspicion and conjecture are not evidence. Browning-Ferris, 865 S.W.2d

at 928; Kindred, 650 S.W.2d at 63. Legally sufficient circumstantial evidence requires a logical

bridge between the proffered evidence and the necessary fact. See Joske, 44 S.W. at 1064 (inference

is merely a deduction from proven facts). Although Justice Baker argues that there is sufficient

circumstantial evidence to make this bridge, he never pieces these circumstances together to make

the requisite connection, and in lieu of such analysis, he substitutes only his own suspicion. Our law,

however, “does not permit the citizen to be deprived of his property, his liberty, or his life upon mere

surmise or suspicion, and places upon a trained judiciary the grave responsibility of determining as

a question of law whether the testimony establishes more.” Id. at 1062.

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/hist...c/990121cd3.pdf

[Tim Gratz]

Mr. Carroll may not think that character evidence is probative but Peter Tillers, a very distinguished professor of criminal law at Cardozo Law School thinks it is:

http://tillers.net/character.html

I would also suggest that the proximity of time between the Walker shooring and the Kennedy assassination is something a court would look at in deciding whether to admit the evidence.

If you had only two candidates as potential assassins of JFK, and the only information you knew about either of them was that one had previously attempted a presidential assassination which one would you select as the more likely assassin of JFK?

It absolutely amazes me that Mr. Carroll cannot see this.

Now an ad hominem attack on character would be if Oswald had been convicted of attempted murder of walker, and had served his time (never having killed JFK of course) and went back on the lecture circuit arguing Marxist socialism. If his opponent attempted to inject that he had once tried to shoot someone, that would be a logically irrelevant ad hominem attack.

Let's carry Carroll's argument to an extreme. You have a just released serial killer who it has been determined killed fifteen women using a certain modus operandi. Does that person have a charcter likely to commit sex crimes? Of course and he should be on everyone's watch list.

Tillers and McKnight are correct. Mr. Carroll is not.

[Greg Parker]

Ray, took me a while to locate the info. CE 1409 is a post-assassination report on the incident.

This document dates the incident as being late spring or early summer of '63. Patrolman Finigan noticed a white male with a Viva Castro sign passing out literature on the corner of Main and Ervay. He was eventually chased by Finigan, but got away.

Oswald wrote the FPCC on Apr 16, 1963 telling them about the incident and requesting more literature (could be wrong, but I believe VT Lee denied in testimony that the FPCC had sent the one used in Dallas).

Greg: Thank you very much.

Now if this incident really did occur, I can see why Lee Oswald might fear arrest, but the reference to being taken alive seems odd, if the note was simply referring to FPCC activities. He could hardly have expected that the police would shoot him for campaigning on behalf of Castro. Perhaps he feared that the anti-Castroites might kill him. Some of them could be pretty rough, by all accounts.

Ray, the incident seems to have really occurred. Why would Finigan make it up? How did Oswald know about it to take credit in his letter of April 16?

As to the reference to being taken alive... let's look at the two situations...

Solo Pro-Castro picketing in the busy streets of Dallas in '63 had to have a certain amount of risk to life involved for the reason you note. He was exposed to anyone packing a gun and a Castro grudge.

If we are to believe Oswald was the shooter in the Walker case, he did so after staking out the house to find out when Walker would be alone -- the shot was an easy one (just a bit damn bad luck got in the way of success!) and he had his getaway equally carefully planned. Additionally, there was low risk of witnesses -- and only then from the Mormon Church. Even if he's seen, the chances that any of those Mormon's packed a gun in church seems pretty low.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray, the incident seems to have really occurred. Why would Finigan make it up? How did Oswald know about it to take credit in his letter of April 16?

As to the reference to being taken alive... let's look at the two situations...

He was exposed to anyone packing a gun and a Castro grudge.

(vs)

the chances that any of those Mormon's packed a gun in church seems pretty low.

Nice work Greg, you make a cogent argument.

And now for Mr. Gratz:

Professor Tillers’s diatribe is nearly ten years old, yet has anyone heard of a movement to repeal the law which excludes character evidence when it is offered to prove guilt on a specific occasion?

And I am reliably informed by one of Tillers's former students that he always advised his students to cite the federal rules of evidence -- and not their nutty professor's eccentric theories -- if they wanted to have any hope of passing the New York bar exam.

Now imagine we have two suspects, E. Howard Hunt and Lee Harvey Oswald, and we feel absolutely certain that they both have bad characters.

The rules of evidence come to our rescue and tell us how to decide. In the case of Howard Hunt we have his own detailed confession given under oath (and corroborated up the yin-yang) that he FORGED certain state papers in an attempt to assassinate the character of JFK.

Logic tells us that Character evidence cannot take us DIRECTLY to guilt but it can take us a step in the direction of guilt in certain circumstances.

One of those circumstances is when character evidence provides PROOF OF MOTIVE.

So the rules of evidence tell us that, when considering the question “who killed JFK?, Howards Hunt’s bad character is EVIDENCE, while Lee Oswald’s “bad character” is not evidence, but merely inadmissable conjecture. Howard Hunt’s bad character has some REAL relevance and probative value, Under logic and the Rules of Evidence, because it shows actual malice towards JFK as an individual.

As the ancient Roman said, it is the nature of man to hate those he has injured.

[Jim Root]

Greg/Ray,

I find this subject very interesing and somewhat supportive of my position when taken in total.

"the incident seems to have really occurred. Why would Finigan make it up? How did Oswald know about it to take credit in his letter of April 16?"[/b]

1st "Patrolman Finigan noticed a white male with a Viva Castro sign passing out literature on the corner of Main and Ervay. He was eventually chased by Finigan, but got away."

If Oswald "got away" he could not have been identified by Finigan, correct?

2nd In the testimony of James Patrick Hosty we find this information:

Mr. HOSTY. It says, "On April 21, 1963, Dallas confidential informant T-2 advised that Lee H. Oswald of Dallas, Tex, was in contact with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York City at which time he advised that he passed out pamphlets for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. According to T-2, Oswald had a placard around his neck reading, 'Hands Off Cuba, Viva Fidel.'"

Mr. STERN. Did you attempt to verify that information?

Mr. HOSTY. When I got it, it was approximately 6 or 7 weeks old, past the date it allegedly took place, and we had received no information to the effect that anyone had been in the downtown streets of Dallas or anywhere in Dallas with a sign around their neck saying "Hands Off Cuba, Viva Fidel." It appeared highly unlikely to me that such an occurrence could have happened in Dallas without having been brought to our attention. So by the time I got it, it was, you might say, stale information and we did not attempt to verify it.

Mr. STERN. When you record this as something that an informant advised about on April 21, that doesn't mean he advised you or the Dallas office on April 21?

Mr. HOSTY. That is right.

Mr. STERN. Did this information come from another part of the FBI?

Mr. HOSTY. Yes, sir; it came from the New York office of the FBI. They were advised on the 21st of April.

Mr. STERN. But the information didn't get to you until some time after?

Mr. HOSTY. In June, I believe.

Mr. STERN. Did you have any information apart from this that there was an organization active in the Dallas area called, "The Fair Play for Cuba Committee"?

Mr. HOSTY. No, sir; we had no information of any organization by that name.

According to Finigan, Oswald was not identified because he "got away." How then did the FBI get the information to inform Agent Hosty that the event did occur and that Oswald was involved unless the Oswald letter was read in New York. If Oswald's mail was being read and he was writting to the FPCC on a regular basis, all of his movements (that we know that he was reporting to the FPCC) were being reporte by Oswald himself and if his name was on the mail opening watch list then all of his movements were being monitored by both the FBI agents and those doing the mail opening (see post above on mail opening program conducted by the CIA). Not only Oswald's movements but his thoughts were being monitored as well

Does this prove or just suggest that Oswald was on the CIA mail opening watch list? If so, when could we suppose that Oswald's name got added to this watch list. Since we know for a fact that the CIA was reading mail sent to organizations in New York and it appears that Oswald's mail was being read around April 21, 1963 would it be so far off the mark to suggest that Oswald's name may have made it to the watch list in 1957?

Jim Root

[John Dolva]

"Mr. STERN. Did this information come from another part of the FBI?

Mr. HOSTY. Yes, sir; it came from the New York office of the FBI. They were advised on the 21st of April."

- Other similar situations indicate these are processed in about two weeks. ie Hosty should have had it in 2 weeks, not 6 or 7. IOW it remained under consideration at the CIA / FBI for 4 or so more weeks than usual. This indicates a degree of interest. At the same time, T-7 (Holmes) was a hop skip and jump from CIA FBI heads, plus a secure line to Washington, ie. T-7, and hence T-6 and likely others, including FBI / DPD personnell could very well be advised quickly. What to make of it? Hosty is lying/ covering re orders?

Dallas T-1 Royal Canadian Mounted Police,

Criminal Investigative Division

Ottawa, Canada

Dallas T-2 ? - who? Wade? 2 is a bit like 7 depending on writer, also given that T-1 is in canada and T-3 is in mexico, where is T-2? Is T-2 in NY? Is T-2 is advised by T-? from Dallas?

Dallas T-3 Legat, Mexico City

Dallas T-4 Mrs. Jane Petta aka Mrs. Joseph F. Petta

Hostell, El Jordan Coffee Shop

Brownsville, Texas

Dallas T-5 George Clement Reid

8651 Groveland

Dallas, Texas (Request)

Dallas T-6 Roy F. Armstrong

U.S.Postal Inspector

Dallas, Texas

Dallas T-7 Harry Holmes

U.S. Post Office Inspector

Terminal Annex(overlooking Dealey Plaza)

U.S. Post Office

Dallas, Texas

Dallas T-8 ?

Dallas T-9 ?

Dallas T-10 ?

Dallas T-11 ?

Dallas T-12 ?

Dallas T-13 Germinal Messina

Louisiana Division of Employment Security

New Orleans, Louisiana (Request)

Dallas T-14 Charles Hall Steele, Jr.

1488 Madrid

New Orleans, Louisiana

Dallas T-15 R.L. Adams

Employment Interviewer

Texas Employment Commission

Dallas T-16 Otis Withers

Assistant Vice-President

Fort Worth National Bank

Fort Worth, Texas

"Since we know for a fact that the CIA was reading mail sent to organizations in New York and it appears that Oswald's mail was being read around April 21, 1963 would it be so far off the mark to suggest that Oswald's name may have made it to the watch list in 1957?"

I don't think so. (However given that thinking so and it being so are two totally different things, it begs further research)

[John Dolva]

John, what is your reference to JFK-supported civil rights bills?

In what ways did the LBJ supported civil rights bills "water down" the bill(s) supported by JFK?

Answered b4, and you know it.

___________

further re: rolback, civil rights. Even Bush is 'concerned'.

September 20, 2007, 2:03 pm

2 p.m.| Richard G. Jones, a reporter for The New York Times, is in Jena, La., today, where protesters have converged in support of the six black youths arrested for beating a white classmate.

Their numbers are overwhelming the little town, he reports. There are crowds gathered peacefully at the city’s courthouse, at a nearby park, and at the high school that was at the center of the incident whose aftermath drew them here.

They came from far and near: Many of them rode buses all day and all night to get to this town where there was something called “the white tree.'’

Fanon Brown, 16, is one of them: He told Mr. Jones that he left Philadelphia at 3 a.m. Wednesday and got to Jena 27 hours later. He is here, he says, not just for the six black boys who were arrested for beating a white classmate after a series of incidents in the town, but for the larger things he said the case represents about race and justice in America: "I can’t believe that after all these years we still have deformities in our justice system. We have to free the Jena Six but we’ve got to go home and take care of this racism thing."

Before this week, the major national news outlets had barely mentioned the chain of events in Jena that began more than a year ago, but word circulated through the Internet, in the e-mail and text messages that young people use these days to relay news to one another.

Now, the story is on the national agenda, and even President Bush discussed it today with reporters: "Events in Louisiana have saddened me," he said at a press conference at the White House. "I understand the emotions. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. are monitoring the situation down there and all of us in America want there to be fairness when it comes to justice."

'...the troubles here, which began when a black student asked the school’s assistant prinicipal whether he could sit under a tree in the center of Jena High School that was known as a whites-only gathering place, and was told he could.

The next morning, there were two nooses found hanging from the tree."

Diana Jones traveled from Atlanta with her 17-year-old daughter April and her husband, Derrick. “Nobody should have to ask if they can sit under this tree,'’ Mrs. Jones told The Times. “I’m surprised to hear that this is still happening in 2007.'’

____________________

http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/pap122h.html

"Stating the point more generally, we may say the Negro identity (like any other externally imposed and therefore stereotypically limited identity) is a character-form of group-emotion, determined through the mediation of identification with the oppressor. Conscience and consciousness are both whitened out, and blackness becomes firmly attached to unacceptable, predominantly aggressive, infantile emotional impulses. Black people and white people alike come to have a character-structure in which the I, including the moral I, is white, and the It is black. Within this relationship, black people can think of themselves as fully human only by denying their true racial identity, while white people secure their humanity only at the price of black dehumanisation. Thus the concept of the emotional-group here emerges in the form of a dominating-dominated intergroup relationship. In this relationship the repressed sadistic tendencies of the dominating group become the self-hatred, the masochistic tendency, of the dominated group. Conversely, the alienated self-esteem of the dominated group becomes the narcissism of the dominating one. And through the work of secondary elaboration or rationalisation, the members of both groups are held firmly in the grip of a stereotypical false consciousness"(Wolfenstein, 1981, p. 145).

So a group of 'had enoughers' strike back. Why do so if there is no felt need to.

[Tim Gratz]

"Answered b4 and you know it."

No, sir, I do not recall--or I would not have asked. If that is the case, you need not bother reposting but just post a url to the thread where it was posted.