Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK's strategy to move from a unipolar to a multipolar world

Recommended Posts




From the interview:

C. Austin Fitts: Right. So if you look at the build-out on the Silk Road, it’s explosive in terms of wealth creation. It’s amazing what’s going to happen.
That’s why I think the China-Iran connection has always been one that’s
freaked out the United States.

I wanted to mention one thing. I just published a book review on David
Talbot’s book about Allen Dulles. It’s called The Devil’s Chessboard. It’s
fascinating because one of the things you realize is the Anglo-American
Alliance spent World War I and World War II and made enormous sacrifices to
amass a huge amount of global power. Then John F. Kennedy comes in and
essentially decides he’s going to switch everything to a multipolar world.
I realized, “Oh, that was the empire’s last experiment with stopping a
multipolar world from happening.” Then you see from the time of the
Kennedy assassination this real buildout of a unipolar world, and you take it
global with the balancing of the global economy. Now you really have an
exhaustion and an unraveling, like as if they tried to do a global empire and
they didn’t quite make it, and now its unraveling back. Whereas Kennedy was
trying to do it the nice way, now we’re going to do it the rough way. Does that
make sense?

Saker: I never thought of Kennedy as trying to unravel the empire, to be
honest. I would need to think about that. But what is certainly happening is that there is imperial overreach very evidently happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with almost everything you posted above.

In my opinion the folks that gained power or perhaps consolidated power increasingly since 11-22-63 are focused on a unipolar world order. A quick search on how many references George Herbert Walker Busch made to the New World Order is eye opening. The watering down of or at least the attempted watering down of Nationalism since that time is likewise. It is so ironic that the forces in play on 11-22-63 seemed to be motivated by Nationalism and how one potential long term consequence of what took place that day is the rise of Globalism and an apparent disrespect of national borders and cultural differences. Respect for sovereignty is not even mentioned during coverage of the many conflicts that have developed in the Middle East since 9-11-01. While here was not much respect for the soveriegnty of Cuba in the early sixties it was not nearly as in your face in today's coverage. Perhaps in the sixties the memory was still fresh with images of WW2 and the consequences of disrespecting the borders of ones neighbors. At the time at least in the media that kind of aggression in the form of direst military action was not an easy sell even when many believed we were in a life and death struggle with communism.

It is debatable as to whether the current world events are a set back for them or part of the plan. For sure many Nation States in the Middle East and Northern Africa are a shadow of what they were before the buildings fell down in New York. The refugee crisis developing in Europe has the potential to trigger a rebirth of Nationalism within the EU while it inherently waters down each country unique culture.

It looks like Russia and China are progressing towards a multipolar world order with alternative currency and such. It is ironic that the two Comunist powerhouses of the Cold War are once more the opposition to whoever it is that rules the west.

While I agree that the western world seemed to be dominated by Anglo-American forces in 1963 that is far from clear to me today.

I think there were two very distinct world orders fighting for dominance on 11-22-63 and that struggle played a huge part of what happened that day. While those powers or at least one of them had exhausted themselves by the fall of the Societ Union there was no peace dividend with a Unipolar World. Far from it.

From where I am sitting not much has changed since 11-22-63 in terms of who is struggling for world dominance but the motivation is not nearly as clear at least in terms of how it was sold to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Kennedy and DeGaulle were both of the belief that the long term consequence of maintaining the Empire was not in the best interest of either nation. I think the forces that either tried to kill DeGualle and in fact killed Kenedy were on the same page and there is evidence that they were more than that. The Permindex/Clay Shaw connection is a hint.

Clay Shaw was the head of the New Orleans Trade Mart.

The building in New York were known as The World Trade Center.

Kenedy was on his way to the Dallas ...

To those that wonder if there was an industrial aspect to both the Kennedy and DeGaulle events there are plenty of clues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always liked FItts,.

She used to work with the late Mike Ruppert.

And she is right about the whole multi polar vs uni polar thing.

Glad she read Talbot. Talbot is good on Kennedy vs Dulles in the last third of the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...