The relevance of JFK's peace speech to the JFKA and to where we are today

[Roger Odisio]

The essence of JFK's peace speech can be found in this passage:  “What kind of peace do we seek?  Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war but the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living… that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children—not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women—not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.” 

 

This was a direct challenge to the war machine.  A Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war precisely expresses what they *did* want. You don't understand anything about the importance of the JFKA without understanding this basic conflict within the White House.

 

A few decades later with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Pax Americana became official policy, per Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, now called the international "rules based order" (rules made by the US) designed to ensure American hegemony.    Every effort was to be made to prevent a challenge to US "authority" by another country.

 

That was 30 years ago.  The rules based order and its twin idea of "American exceptionalism" are now crumbling before our eyes.  In one sense the partnership of China and Russia, and BRICS and the more than 20 countries that want to join it, are now, on the 60th anniversary of the speech, taking up the gauntlet laid down by JFK to fashion a multipolar, peaceful world order. To end the economic and military dominance of the US. To end the dominance of the dollar in world trade.  To replace war with peaceful interaction.

 

All that is  missing is a voice in the US to support JFK's vision of peace.  Enter Bobby Jr.  The peace candidate lane to the presidency is wide open. With his understanding of the issues and what happened to his father and uncle, he is uniquely qualified to fill it.  

 

As we get closer to the election, the need for a discussion about a more peaceful world will become more apparent.  It all begins with JFK's vision of peace and the murders and wars that followed the silencing of the Kennedy brothers.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Dear forum members,

Feel free to express yourselves with on-topic comments. But at the same time, try to keep this thread as apolitical as possible. If you do post something political, please treat leadership members of all parties with respect so as not to offend forum members who voted for or otherwise respect those members.

I don't want to have to move the thread to the political discussions forum.

 

[W. Niederhut]

10 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

The essence of JFK's peace speech can be found in this passage:  “What kind of peace do we seek?  Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war but the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living… that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children—not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women—not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.” 

 

This was a direct challenge to the war machine.  A Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war precisely expresses what they *did* want. You don't understand anything about the importance of the JFKA without understanding this basic conflict within the White House.

 

A few decades later with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Pax Americana became official policy, per Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, now called the international "rules based order" (rules made by the US) designed to ensure American hegemony.    Every effort was to be made to prevent a challenge to US "authority" by another country.

 

That was 30 years ago.  The rules based order and its twin idea of "American exceptionalism" are now crumbling before our eyes.  In one sense the partnership of China and Russia, and BRICS and the more than 20 countries that want to join it, are now, on the 60th anniversary of the speech, taking up the gauntlet laid down by JFK to fashion a multipolar, peaceful world order. To end the economic and military dominance of the US. To end the dominance of the dollar in world trade.  To replace war with peaceful interaction.

 

All that is  missing is a voice in the US to support JFK's vision of peace.  Enter Bobby Jr.  The peace candidate lane to the presidency is wide open. With his understanding of the issues and what happened to his father and uncle, he is uniquely qualified to fill it.  

 

As we get closer to the election, the need for a discussion about a more peaceful world will become more apparent.  It all begins with JFK's vision of peace and the murders and wars that followed the silencing of the Kennedy brothers.

 

Roger,

    We probably all agree that the U.S. military industrial complex post JFK's assassination has been an international humanitarian disaster-- in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Afghanistan, and the Middle East.

      But how does your concept of a putative "peaceful multi-polar world" order jive with Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine, in accordance with Aleksander Dugin's blueprint for the Geopolitical Future of Russia?

      Putin sent tactical nukes to his puppet dictator Lukashenko in Belarus this week-- a nation that has brutally repressed democratic protesters in recent years.

     Is this an example of your new "peaceful multi-polar" world?

     Other Putin allies in your "peaceful multi-polar" world include the NOKO dictator Kim Jong Un and his nuclear missiles, and the Iranian Imams who have recently been executing human rights protesters.

     In contrast to the prosperous democracies of the G-20 nations, most of your "peaceful multi-polar" heroes appear to be dictators-- Putin, Xi, et.al.

     

Edited June 19, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Roger Odisio]

19 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Roger,

    We probably all agree that the U.S. military industrial complex post JFK's assassination has been an international humanitarian disaster-- in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Afghanistan, and the Middle East.

      But how does your concept of a putative "peaceful multi-polar world" order jive with Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine, in accordance with Aleksander Dugin's blueprint for the Geopolitical Future of Russia?

      Putin sent tactical nukes to his puppet dictator Lukashenko in Belarus this week-- a nation that has brutally repressed democratic protesters in recent years.

     Is this an example of your new "peaceful multi-polar" world?

     Other Putin allies in your "peaceful multi-polar" world include the NOKO dictator Kim Jong Un and his nuclear missiles, and the Iranian Imams who have recently been executing human rights protesters.

     In contrast to the prosperous democracies of the G-20 nations, most of your "peaceful multi-polar" heroes appear to be dictators-- Putin, Xi, et.al.

     

WK:   We probably all agree that the U.S. military industrial complex post JFK's assassination has been an international humanitarian disaster-- in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Afghanistan, and the Middle East.

 

RO:  Start there.  The rest of the world, outside of Europe, Canada and Australia, non-white, easily more than 70% of the people, is fed up with the US's "rules based order" in which the US, by any means necessary, makes the rules and actively seeks to prevent anyone from challenging their "authority". 

 

The sanctions the US thought it had the right to impose on others because of the Ukraine war have backfired spectacularly.  So far they've hurt Europe for example more than Russia.  When the US grabbed millions of Russian reserve currency in foreign banks the rest of the world took notice.  It could be done to them any time they displeased the US.

 

There is an organized plan being spearheaded by the BRICS countries, and other major nations that want to join with BRICS, to reorganize trade--replacing the dollar as the only reserve currency--and political alliances. The stunning deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran recently brokered by China is an early example.

 

What did you say when I mentioned this before--it was a ludicrous idea or some such pejorative?  Don't take my word for it.  It's happening. Just pay attention. It would help if you followed people who understand this stuff, like Pepe Escobar, Ray McGovern,  or the two Alexes on the Duran (just a brief list of many).  For that matter, the recent interview of Jeffrey Sachs on the Duran, posted here a few days ago, that covers this and ties in the JFK speech, is well worth your time.  Did you watch it?  (Sachs actually wrote a book on the importance of the speech at the 50th anniversary of the JFKA.  Given the MSM blackout, who knew?)

 

You continuously rant about "brutal dictators" that populate your cardboard, dictators vs democracies world.  But consider what JFK did.  He was actively working with those "brutal dictators", Krushchev and Castro to find common ground going forward when he was murdered. After the Cuban missile crisis he and Krushchev realized how close they came to ending the human race (and we didn't find out until later about the Russian commander who refused an order to fire a nuke from a sub, that would have likely been the beginning of the end).  They realized the insanity of it.  Unfortunately the neocons now running Washington give me little reason to think they understand that.  That's a major problem. 

 

When others around him could only demonize the Soviet Union (McCarthyism), in the speech JFK talked about laudable culture of the Russian people and the sacrifice the SU made to defeat the National Socialists before the US even showed up in Europe during WWII. The key, he said, was understanding the other guy, accepting differences, and working things out without war.  Not a "Pax Americana" enforced by American weapons of war. We all breathe the same air.

 

What I'm suggesting is, it has taken 60years but the world is finally getting serious about throwing off the yoke of the US hegemon, solidified in place by the JFKA back then, and establishing a multipolar world, just as JFK proposed in the AU speech.  It won't be simple or easy, but things are already moving rapidly (considering the complexity of the endeavor) in that direction.  

 

[W. Niederhut]

Geez, Odisio, have you read, or understood, any of our detailed commentaries here on these multiple, redundant "JFK Peace Speech" threads-- including your own threads-- contrasting JFK's June 26, 1963 Berlin Speech with his idealistic, olive branch Peace Speech earlier that month?

All you have done is to repeat the same tropes, like a broken record.

Do you understand the relationship between the two JFK speeches-- the Peace Speech and the subsequent Berlin Speech?

Peace is a terrific global ideal, as delineated by JFK in June of 1963-- but it is difficult to achieve for liberal democracies facing militant, totalitarian police states with imperialist ambitions-- e.g., N-a-z-i Germany, the Soviet Union post-WWII, Putin's fascist police state today, North Korea, et.al.

The prosperous, free, U.S.-allied democracies of the G-20 today can't maintain world peace by simply wishing for it, and doing nothing, when sovereign nations like Ukraine are invaded and annexed by fascist police states like Putin's Russian Federation.

That's why JFK flew to Berlin in June of 1963, after his Peace Speech, and pledge to defend freedom and democracy in Europe from Russian totalitarianism.

Is democracy worth defending from totalitarianism, (e.g., fascism and communism) in your opinion?

The last time I checked, your "peaceful, multi-polar," anti-American heroes are mostly dictators-- Putin, Lukashenko, Kim Jung Un, Xi, et.al.

Was Winston Churchill correct when he said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms of government?"

Would you choose to live in one of your anti-American, "peaceful, multi-polar" dictatorships-- Russia, Belarus, North Korea, et.al.-- or in one of your oppressive, U.S.-aligned democracies like South Korea, Japan, Canada, and the free nations in the EU?

Edited June 19, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Kirk Gallaway]

Roger, I'm going to deal with just your first post now. I liked and agreed with your first post up to the paragraph below. The second one I think you went astray when you characterized W's questions to you as a "rant'. His questions to you were well thought out and very legitimate.

 

Roger:That was 30 years ago.  The rules based order and its twin idea of "American exceptionalism" are now crumbling before our eyes.  In one sense the partnership of China and Russia, and BRICS and the more than 20 countries that want to join it, are now, on the 60th anniversary of the speech, taking up the gauntlet laid down by JFK to fashion a multipolar, peaceful world order. To end the economic and military dominance of the US.

 

Well first off. We did have a multi polar world but the Soviet Union collapsed.

 

Roger: taking up the gauntlet laid down by JFK to fashion a multipolar, peaceful world order. To end the dominance of the dollar in world trade.  To replace war with peaceful interaction.

 

I neither know why you assume the past was historically so brutal, or why you assume this collection of nations with greater economic instability will be any more peaceful. But I have no problem with those countries striking out on their own.

 

With all the U.S. excesses that you and W. have noted, this period of western hegemony has produced the most quiet peaceful period in Europe perhaps ever. It's lasted almost 80 years, and my entire lifetime with nary a peep. A lot of  blood has been spilled unnecessarily spilled by the U.S. in other places without a doubt.

 

The era of super globalism is ending, China's unparalleled prosperity was really  completely based on the U.S. consumer and Europe. We can pull out the rug from them, and I think they know it now and I'm among those people who would think it's probably pure foolishness for China to invade Taiwan. Let Xi rationalize the complete world instability that would ensue after China is just starting to get a taste of the good life.

 

Again, why do you assume this group of nations will be peaceful?

 

 

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

WK:   We probably all agree that the U.S. military industrial complex post JFK's assassination has been an international humanitarian disaster-- in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Afghanistan, and the Middle East.

 

RO:  Start there.  The rest of the world, outside of Europe, Canada and Australia, non-white, easily more than 70% of the people, is fed up with the US's "rules based order" in which the US, by any means necessary, makes the rules and actively seeks to prevent anyone from challenging their "authority". 

 

The sanctions the US thought it had the right to impose on others because of the Ukraine war have backfired spectacularly.  So far they've hurt Europe for example more than Russia.  When the US grabbed millions of Russian reserve currency in foreign banks the rest of the world took notice.  It could be done to them any time they displeased the US.

 

There is an organized plan being spearheaded by the BRICS countries, and other major nations that want to join with BRICS, to reorganize trade--replacing the dollar as the only reserve currency--and political alliances. The stunning deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran recently brokered by China is an early example.

 

What did you say when I mentioned this before--it was a ludicrous idea or some such pejorative?  Don't take my word for it.  It's happening. Just pay attention. It would help if you followed people who understand this stuff, like Pepe Escobar, Ray McGovern,  or the two Alexes on the Duran (just a brief list of many).  For that matter, the recent interview of Jeffrey Sachs on the Duran, posted here a few days ago, that covers this and ties in the JFK speech, is well worth your time.  Did you watch it?  (Sachs actually wrote a book on the importance of the speech at the 50th anniversary of the JFKA.  Given the MSM blackout, who knew?)

 

You continuously rant about "brutal dictators" that populate your cardboard, dictators vs democracies world.  But consider what JFK did.  He was actively working with those "brutal dictators", Krushchev and Castro to find common ground going forward when he was murdered. After the Cuban missile crisis he and Krushchev realized how close they came to ending the human race (and we didn't find out until later about the Russian commander who refused an order to fire a nuke from a sub, that would have likely been the beginning of the end).  They realized the insanity of it.  Unfortunately the neocons now running Washington give me little reason to think they understand that.  That's a major problem. 

 

When others around him could only demonize the Soviet Union (McCarthyism), in the speech JFK talked about laudable culture of the Russian people and the sacrifice the SU made to defeat the National Socialists before the US even showed up in Europe during WWII. The key, he said, was understanding the other guy, accepting differences, and working things out without war.  Not a "Pax Americana" enforced by American weapons of war. We all breathe the same air.

 

What I'm suggesting is, it has taken 60years but the world is finally getting serious about throwing off the yoke of the US hegemon, solidified in place by the JFKA back then, and establishing a multipolar world, just as JFK proposed in the AU speech.  It won't be simple or easy, but things are already moving rapidly (considering the complexity of the endeavor) in that direction.  

 

Well said, Roger.

[W. Niederhut]

23 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Well said, Roger.

John,

     Did you ever tell us whether you would choose to live in the oppressed U.S. "vassal state" of South Korea, or the "peaceful, multi-polar," Putin-allied nation of North Korea?

 

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

John,

     Did you ever tell us whether you would choose to live in the oppressed U.S. "vassal state" of South Korea, or the "peaceful, multi-polar," Putin-allied nation of North Korea?

 

William,

I’ve already explained on the “Dear Moderator” thread that this question by you is a “tu quoque” fallacy, despite which I answered it anyway.

This kind of persistently perverse behaviour by you is the reason I raised the question of whether you had been “institutionalised” by the years you have spent as a psychiatrist.

In this regard I referred to the Rosenhan experiment, which reflected what Thomas Szasz wrote in The Manufacture of Madness (p 283): ‘“There is no human dialogue between the hospital psychiatrist and his committed patient; instead the patient’s talk is “clinical material.” The mental patient is a living corpse.’

You’re not engaging in dialogue. You treat the arguments of your opponents as if they’re non-existent and instead constantly repeat assertions and arguments already refuted and questions already answered.

Edited June 19, 2023 by John Cotter

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

William,

I’ve already explained on the “Dear Moderator” thread that this question by you is a “tu quoque” fallacy, despite which I answered it anyway.

This kind of persistently perverse behaviour by you is the reason I raised the question of whether you had been “institutionalised” by the years you have spent as a psychiatrist.

In this regard I referred to the Rosenhan experiment, which reflected what Thomas Szasz wrote in The Manufacture of Madness (p 283): ‘“There is no human dialogue between the hospital psychiatrist and his committed patient; instead the patient’s talk is “clinical material.” The mental patient is a living corpse.’

You’re not engaging in dialogue. You treat the arguments of your opponents as if they’re non-existent and instead constantly repeat assertions and arguments already refuted and questions already answered.

John,

     Please take a break from your moronic ad hominem t-r-o-l-l-i-n-g here.  Your highly offensive, personal insults about my 40-year career of hard work with the mentally ill should qualify you for a long overdue suspension from this forum, IMO.  It's, frankly, pathetic.

     And what do your inaccurate, personal insults have to do with JFK, or with related world events?  

    "No human dialogue between the hospital psychiatrist and his committed patient?"   "The mental patient is a living corpse?"

     I think my former patients would pointedly disagree.

     Which "hospital psychiatrist" are they referring to with this insipid generalization?

     Meanwhile, you dodged my question about whether you, yourself, had ever spent any time with mentally ill people on psychiatric wards, to inform your self-professed "expert" opinions about the medical sub-specialty of psychiatry.

     And what have the self-promoting gadflies, Szasz and Rosenhan, taught you about actual psychiatric phenomenology?

Edited June 19, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

Can we get this back to the topic. I mean please.

Can we talk about Norman Cousins and his role in all this?

I mean how many presidents would even have a guy like that--an anti nuke peace activist--as part of a discussion between, Nikita K and the Pope? Consider this:

 

NK to Cousins: I am not religious.  But I can tell you I have a great liking for Pope John. There's something very moving to me about a man like him struggling despite his illness to accomplish such an important goal before he dies.  His goal as you say , is peace.  It is the most important goal in the world....During that week of the Cuban crisis, the Pope's appeal was a real ray of light.  I was grateful for it. 

 

This is what made the Douglass book so remarkable.  I don't ever recall a JFK assassination book with this angle to it, including Cousins and the Pope. To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of it myself before.

And this is what Jeff Sachs means when he says, contrast that with Biden and Putin who have not talked at all in over a year. This is why the Peace Speech is so topical.

[W. Niederhut]

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Can we get this back to the topic. I mean please.

Can we talk about Norman Cousins and his role in all this?

I mean how many presidents would even have a guy like that--an anti nuke peace activist--as part of a discussion between, Nikita K and the Pope? Consider this:

 

NK to Cousins: I am not religious.  But I can tell you I have a great liking for Pope John. There's something very moving to me about a man like him struggling despite his illness to accomplish such an important goal before he dies.  His goal as you say , is peace.  It is the most important goal in the world....During that week of the Cuban crisis, the Pope's appeal was a real ray of light.  I was grateful for it. 

 

This is what made the Douglass book so remarkable.  I don't ever recall a JFK assassination book with this angle to it, including Cousins and the Pope. To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of it myself before.

And this is what Jeff Sachs means when he says, contrast that with Biden and Putin who have not talked at all in over a year. This is why the Peace Speech is so topical.

Jim,

    What is your recollection of the events leading up to the breakdown in Biden and Blinken's efforts to forestall Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine last year?

     Do you condone Putin's illegal invasion and war crimes in Ukraine?

     Also, do you condone Putin's illegal 2014 annexation of the Crimea?

      Peace is an admirable ideal, but when was JFK ever confronted with an illegal invasion of an independent,  sovereign nation by a totalitarian police state?

      As a matter of fact, JFK vowed to defend West Berlin from Soviet annexation, didn't he?

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

John,

     Please take a break from your moronic ad hominem t-r-o-l-l-i-n-g here.  Your highly offensive, personal insults about my 40-year career of hard work with the mentally ill should qualify you for a long overdue suspension from this forum, IMO.  It's, frankly, pathetic.

     And what do your inaccurate, personal insults have to do with JFK, or with related world events?  

    "No human dialogue between the hospital psychiatrist and his committed patient?"   "The mental patient is a living corpse?"

     I think my former patients would pointedly disagree.

     Which "hospital psychiatrist" are they referring to with this insipid generalization?

     Meanwhile, you dodged my question about whether you, yourself, had ever spent any time with mentally ill people on psychiatric wards, to inform your self-professed "expert" opinions about the medical sub-specialty of psychiatry.

     And what have the self-promoting gadflies, Szasz and Rosenhan, taught you about actual psychiatric phenomenology?

William,

I have already dealt with all these issues on the "Dear Moderator" thread. 

Please stop spamming threads with repetitious and irrelevant nonsense.

[W. Niederhut]

18 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

William,

I have already dealt with all these issues on the "Dear Moderator" thread. 

Please stop spamming threads with repetitious and irrelevant nonsense.

Learn the definition of "spam," John.

This isn't spam.  It's a direct rebuttal of your inaccurate, inappropriate t-r-o-l-l-ing (above) on this thread.

 

[James DiEugenio]

In April of 1963, Cousins met with Nikita K at his estate on the Black Sea.

Cousins presented to him the Pope's Pacem in Terris.  The Russian leader was the first person to read it outside the Vatican. And they discussed the part dealing with atomic weapons and the need for disarmament.  But he added that his scientists wanted more testing not less and therefore the next move toward disarmament would have to come from JFK. 

When Cousins reported back to JFK, he said there were mounting pressures on Khrushchev from his hard liners. Cousins said he felt he had failed.

JFK replied, "I can't accept the fact of failure.  We have to try and find some way of getting through and breaking the deadlock.