home | Tea Party Economist | JFK: A Man Terrified of Castrotion

JFK: A Man Terrified of Castrotion

Gary North - January 17, 2014
Printer-Friendly Format

Reality Check

Fidel Castro is the last of the Communists. He no longer is the power behind the throne in Cuba. His kid brother (age 82) runs the show. But the movement that Fidel launched in 1953 lives on in his aged body. The victory he achieved on New Year's Day, 1959, still is politically intact. All the rest have come and gone. He is the last Commie doddering.

Castro was Eisenhower's nemesis -- also Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, Carter's, Reagan's, Bush's, Clinton's, Bush's, and now Obama's. They all lived in the shadow of south Florida's election returns, and they swallowed their pride. They all reacted to who he was and what he had done and still could do. He stayed. They came and went.

If there were no Fidel Castro, there would be no Marco Rubio.

If there were no Fidel Castro, you could legally buy a Cuban cigar.

When Kinky Friedman lit a Cuban cigar, and offered one to Bill Clinton, Clinton said: "Uh, you know, that's illegal in this country. You can't do that here." Friedman responded: "We're not supporting their economy. We're burning their fields."


John Fitzgerald Kennedy never got over the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco, which was designed by Allen Dulles, approved by Eisenhower, and inherited by Kennedy. He risked nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 in order to avoid what the press would describe as "Kennedy gets Castroted again."

In October 1962, the Soviets could have taken out large cities in the Eastern United States without the Cuban missiles. Beginning in July 1961, they had nuclear submarines with nuclear missiles off the coast, five minutes away from Washington, D.C. or New York City. Kennedy could do nothing about the subs. So, their existence was ignored publicly. Missiles in Cuba would be visible; the subs were not. It was all about perception -- public relations. The Cuban missile crisis was mainly about defending Kennedy's macho image, not defending the homeland.

New York's Senator Kenneth Keating, a Republican, had been warning about the missiles in Cuba for two months. He gave 10 speeches and 14 public statements on this, August to October. The Kennedy administration brushed this off as nonsense. But when the Soviets were about to arm the missiles, Kennedy had a huge political problem. He would look like a fool. Keating had warned the voters, and Kennedy's flacks had pooh-poohed this.

To understand his dilemma -- a political dilemma -- we need to consider one of the crucial speeches of his career. It is never discussed in the textbooks, but it established the Kennedy doctrine of the self-censored press.


On April 27, 1961, Kennedy gave a speech to a group of newspaper publishers: the American Newspaper Publishers Association. It was a speech on why the press should show self-restraint in publishing negative reports on the foreign policy failures of his administration.

Of course, he did not come out and say this. Instead, he raised the issue of national security. The title: "The President and the Press."

If you want to understand this speech, think of Tom Sawyer and the fence. He was supposed to whitewash it. He was looking for volunteers.


He began with a brief history of the early years of Karl Marx. Marx was unemployable all his life. He was on the dole from his partner Engels, a capitalist Communist. He briefly was a columnist for a New York newspaper. That was in 1851. He wanted more money. The owner refused. The owner was a liberal reformer, Horace Greeley. Kennedy commented.

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the Cold War.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper.

It was an amusing vignette. But Marx was already a Communist in 1851. He and Engels wrote The Manifesto of the Communist Party anonymously in late 1847. They were on a deadline. They missed it. They predicted an imminent revolution in Europe. The book was in German. It was published in London on February 21, 1848. The 1848 revolution started in France on February 22. Copies reached Germany in June. Marx was never good about deadlines. More money from Greeley would not have changed Marx's commitment to Communism -- or his hatred of deadlines. He kept writing articles until 1861. (Engels ghostwrote some of these articles when Marx missed his deadlines. You can tell which ones. They are the clear ones.)

So, the context of Kennedy's speech was the newspaper guild. He was speaking at their national forum. In this context, he talked about the Soviet Union. But he did not mention the USSR by name. That would have been bad for diplomacy. The Berlin wall went up four months layer. His introduction on Marx made his frame of reference clear: international Communism.


He began the main section of the speech with this:

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.

This was straight Catholic doctrine. The Church forbade membership in the Freemasons. Freemasonry had a long history in the United States. It was basic to the American Revolution. Kennedy knew this. He knew that Americans had a fascination with secret societies. He began his presentation with a convenient falsehood: ". . . we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings."

Then he called for secrecy.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

He was talking about the USSR.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

He gave the speech on April 27. This was 10 days after the Bay of Pigs fiasco officially began. The CIA had planned this under Eisenhower. Kennedy had been humiliated days before April 27. His speech was an obvious reference to this fiasco. He knew that secrets about the total bungling would start leaking out soon.

He went on:

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

In short, "It's the Communists' fault. It's not the CIA's fault!" Or, as Oliver Hardy put it to Stan Laurel, "Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into."

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

What was the solution? Why, self-restraint, of course. "Don't publish things that might embarrass me or the CIA."

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The trouble was, the Soviets knew about the plans for the Bay of Pigs before it happened. Worse, the CIA knew the Soviets knew. It went ahead anyway. Wikipedia summarizes.

On 29 April 2000, a Washington Post article, "Soviets Knew Date of Cuba Attack", reported that the CIA had information indicating that the Soviet Union knew the invasion was going to take place, and did not inform Kennedy. On 13 April 1961, Radio Moscow broadcast an English-language newscast, predicting the invasion "in a plot hatched by the CIA" using paid "criminals" within a week. The invasion took place four days later.

Kennedy knew by April 27 that the Soviets knew on April 13. He wanted to head this off at the pass -- head it off in the American press. He was successful. It was not until April 2000 that a few members of the public found out about the Soviet broadcast.

It is clear what this speech was all about: damage control. He was spinning the press. Nothing new here.


With this in mind, read this analysis by a Right-wing anti-conspiratorialist. Here is his assessment of Kennedy's speech.

Doesn't this match exactly what we are facing today? JFK is speaking about what he called the "Gnomes of Zurich". He is specifically referring to the banksters, the NWO and the enemy of humanity as a whole. These gnomes are going to use the Russians to enforce a brutal martial law which will complete the destruction of the United States.

The problem is not that Kennedy "knew" about the New World Order. The problem was that he was a naive, pseudo-macho President who had been suckered by Allen Dulles, who ran the CIA. Kennedy had the power to start a nuclear World War III, as he almost did a year and a half later: the Cuban missile crisis.

Kennedy was a tool of the NWO, not its exposer. He was a man who, 10 days before the speech, had been caught with his pants down, metaphorically speaking. (He was never caught literally. The press covered for him.)


The context of Kennedy's speech was the Bay of Pigs, not fractional reserve banking.

Look for the context of any document you cite. The context is usually the key to understanding it. Look for veiled warnings about the New World Order only after you have examined the context with care.

Printer-Friendly Format