I've seen too many articles on LewRockwell about JFK. Time to destroy the JFK myth.
http://www.cwporter.com/jfksex.htm
If you want to debunk something you may have an effect if you present it well. That website looks like a mess.
That website looks like a mess.
It looked like a case of the crazies.
Unlike my contemporaries, I will not offer a superficial critique based on aesthetics, while ignoring your content (judging a book by its cover).
Interesting stuff.
It's not mine. I just found interesting such a devastating side of the "hero" of Kenedy. I'm of the school of making fun of the state and showing the emperor is naked, so all that destroys their hard-earned and protected "credibility" is welcome. Like; "the people making the decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis were all "speed freaks" "JFK's handling of the crisis to the point of our nuclear annihilation was the most irresponsible act of any president in history. His body was on speed and his mind was on sex at the height of the crises – he asked McNamara about an attractive Pentagon secretary, “I want her name and number." The state convinces people to go to a desert thousands miles away to shoot goat-farmer because the commander in chief says it's vital to protect our land. Well, if the commander in chief is exposed as a sex-maniac drug-addict liar and blackmailed by everybody then his authority vanished. The sanctity of "The Office" has to be preserved at all cost, if it goes down, the faith and authority of the Federal Government goes down. I found that page because the author is a translator of "all this shit that comes from the European Union and he knows what they are up to", he also wrote about Ayn Rand and monetary mass and seems relatively libertarian, even a bit too radical in antisemitism, maybe he has translated them too! But my point here was JFK.
Kennedy a minarchist hero?! The guy who almost went to war with the Soviets thrice?! Hitler was closer to a minarchist, by comparison.
To be fair, it is pretty much common knowledge that JFK cheated on his wife regularly, that his books were ghostwritten and that he had a relationship with Max Jacobson, although I wasn't aware of the extent to which it went. Despite the shoddy layout I wouldn't put it past him and his family to be involved with such dealings.
Kennedy was no minarchist....
he destroyed states rights
He tried to get us in a war with Cuba, countries in Latin America, and Asia.
he supported the immigration and nationality act of 1965, supported by his brother
created and increased the size of lots of government programs such as education, the peace corps, and the space programs
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
He may have been a prick, but he wasn't enough of a prick for some people in the MIC.
Indeed! I did my senior thesis on culture and its influence over events in Berlin between 1961 - 1963, and from my own interpreation of the sources, we have to give Khrushchev a lot of credit for backing down at the last minute on several occasions to avert war. Both Kennedy and Khrushchev were under a lot of pressure to appear "tough" and "masculine," but at least Khrushchev seemed to know where to draw the line.
Khrushchev had to be pretty smart, in some ways, to survive Stalin and manouver his way into power.
Kennedy was picked by certain interests specifically because they thought he'd be weak and easily manipulated. That's the image he conveyed behind the facade, unfortunately.
Merlin:Kennedy a minarchist hero?! The guy who almost went to war with the Soviets thrice?! Hitler was closer to a minarchist, by comparison.
It's well-documented that Kennedy defused the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Cuban Missile Crisis almost single-handedly. See Wikipedia, for example.
When was the third time that "the guy almost went to war with the Soviets"?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Let me add that initiatives such as the space program and the Peace Corps could be seen as efforts by Kennedy to re-direct the resources of the military-industrial complex towards more peaceful endeavors. After all, if you're exploring space and providing aid to the rest of the world, you can't kill people and subjugate the world -- at least, not as much.
The guy was no saint, but I'll take peaceful initiatives over violent ones.
Kennedy could have pulled the plug on the Bay of Pigs fiasco before it even started. The BoP was originally concocted by the CIA under Eisenhower and JFK gave it the thumbs up because he was told everything would go swimmingly. JFK did keep the American military from directly intervening, but the botched invasion ultimately occurred under his watch.
As for the Cuban Missile Crisis - how did Kenney "single-handedly" defuse the situation? I know that he and McNamara helped keep the military at bay, and that he also agreed to pull American missiles out of Turkey and Italy in exchange for the dismantling of the missiles in Cuba. Still, he did so secretly, and what would have happened if the Soviet simply ignored the naval quarantine of Cuba? Do you think JFK would have not ordered the navy to sink them? Installing nuclear missiles on Cuba is one thing, but the I believe that they were to be used as a deterrent and for political leverage considering that the U.S. already had missiles in the USSR's "backyard."
Oh, and I'm trying to think of that "third time." You had the Bay of Pigs (which probably would not have led to war), the Cuban Missile Crisis (which could have), Berlin Tank Stand off (which may have), the Vienna Summit (which was just a mess due to the BoP), neither party wanted to start a war over Laos, or anywhere in Asia for that matter ... hmm ....
"It's well-documented that Kennedy defused the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Cuban Missile Crisis almost single-handedly. See Wikipedia, for example." Or maybe he made Castro a favor and betrayed his opposition. I fail to see the heroism and importance of the Cuban Missile Crisis, that's more American Syndrome (that is arrogance). Soviet Union and Europe can have missiles pointed at each other at close distances and it's not a crisis, it's only a crisis when it happens to America. Soviet missiles could reach France or Britain in a very short time, but no one screamed hysterically, but when that happened to America, Holy! Everybody call the press! The President! Not that it mattered much, 10 minutes or 19 minutes, nothing could be done to stop it anyways, but let's point the stupidity of it, Europe had been living with nuclear missiles pointed at each other for several years, why can't the Americans suffered the same, specially when they intervened in WW1, WW2... it's fun to wage wars far away and intervene in other countries right? But as soon as they came close to their soil... heey...that's not how we wanted to play it... the plan was we stayed here, safe, with the big oceans protecting us, and you kill each other in Europe while we benefit, that's how we played the last 2 WW... bringing missiles close to us is not part of our game! Get them out! We are willing to risk a whole nuclear war if necessary!
Autolykos,
are you kidding,,, the space program was just an excuse for government to ask for more funds... the space program also was to piss off the Russians...it was to try to see how much America can dominate in the field of Space over Russia...for the purpose of Democracy vs Communism, or the Cold War...
the peace corps are just as bad because the united states thinks it can cure the problems of the world, it is a wanna be superhero... it was also to encourage developing countries to support America rather than Russia, or to support Democracy over Communism...
All of Kennedy's policies was for the purposes of the Cold War, "How can we do it better than the Russians?" should be Kennedy's motto
even if you set the purposes for the programs aside, a minarchist would never create such programs, such as NASA or peace corps....
It's hard to sell an incredibly expensive bazilion dollars tin can.
If ever humanity leaves atmosphere, it will take a lot, lot of time and resources.
You can't sell this to the taxpayers, that they will be paying NASA 200 years with no apparent result, for something that may never be possible ( radiation or absence of gravity may kill you fast if not immediately and anti-gravity may never be possible, nor radiation protection or it may be too costly for centuries until battlestar galactica like thick walls are possible).
Stanley Kubrick was hired to direct the Moon Movie, once sold, you would have inertia for some time. If you need more, prepare a Mars Movie.
I'm assuming they wanted to leave the planet. More probably it was a military cold war that could not be sold to their people but had to be done, they were launching spy planes, satellites, space weapons and they had to respond to each other, such big operations would be too big and obvious to hide so they disguise them as "space program".
CIA covert operations are disguised as "pro democratic groups" too.
GPS could be achieved without satellites, with antennas and buoys, the big push for civilization was electronics and signals not satellites,without government intervention we may have GPS'like technologies based on antennas deployed by free enterprise, it is more economical, more flexible, it's highly socialist to defend government intervention there, you don't know the opportunity cost or the alternatives that would have appear in the free market. You can "fake" their effects as I say with antennas and buoys, America and Europe were already connected by submarine cables in the 1860's.
It's even easier, antenna for mobile phones already cover most of the civilized areas and could easily work as GPS. So my point is proven.
Agamentus:Kennedy could have pulled the plug on the Bay of Pigs fiasco before it even started. The BoP was originally concocted by the CIA under Eisenhower and JFK gave it the thumbs up because he was told everything would go swimmingly. JFK did keep the American military from directly intervening, but the botched invasion ultimately occurred under his watch.
This is all true. I'm not sure what the consequences would have been had Kennedy pulled the plug completely. It seems that he was concerned about the situation escalating into a larger military confrontation. Perhaps, in the aftermath, he wished he'd nixed the plan altogether.
Agamentus:As for the Cuban Missile Crisis - how did Kenney "single-handedly" defuse the situation?
He had a direct line with Khruschev during the crisis. The negotiations were essentially one-on-one, from what I understand.
Again, I'm not trying to completely defend Kennedy, let alone portray him as some kind of saint. It seems to me that he saw dangers in escalating the Cold War and tried to steer clear of them. That doesn't mean he wasn't anti-Communist or wasn't willing to stand up to (what he saw as) Communist threats.
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:Autolykos, are you kidding,,, the space program was just an excuse for government to ask for more funds... the space program also was to piss off the Russians...it was to try to see how much America can dominate in the field of Space over Russia...for the purpose of Democracy vs Communism, or the Cold War...
No, I'm not kidding. Why would I be?
Of course, that's what the space program turned into after Kennedy was assassinated. Do I think he had those same intentions? Honestly, no I don't.
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:the peace corps are just as bad because the united states thinks it can cure the problems of the world, it is a wanna be superhero... it was also to encourage developing countries to support America rather than Russia, or to support Democracy over Communism...
Of course. I'm not defending the Peace Corps per se. I thought I made that clear already, but it seems I need to re-emphasize that point. From what I can tell, Kennedy wanted the US to stand up to the Soviets in less violent and confrontational ways -- if that was possible.
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:even if you set the purposes for the programs aside, a minarchist would never create such programs, such as NASA or peace corps....
Trust me, I know that. Where did I claim anything different?
I understand. It's remarkable when you compare public rhetoric to the private correspondence between the two leaders. From one angle, they seem like warmongers, and from the other they look like sane, rational human beings. Whether or not Kennedy's actions steered the U.S. clear out of escalations depends on the action - there are many which can be argued both for and against. Was Kennedy ultimately against war? I think so. The same goes for Khrushchev. The problem goes back to maintaining a specific public image and the whole mess of international commitments, in which there was enormous pressure to "look tough" and "stand by your allies." So much for George Washington's advice against entangling ourselves in foreign affairs right?
And it just happened that, out of the blue, on his watch three crises just swept through. Why didn’t Nixon or Reagan have their near-war crises?
Kennedy gave us two Cubas, Berlin and Vietnam. Perhaps once could be understandable, but four times? Even if he, quite incredibly to me, had nothing to do with these instances (thus being certifiably the worst luck on earth), I still can’t see why would we call him a minarchist hero. Nixon was much, much better.
Don't agree on Berlin and Vietnam. The partition of Berlin / Germany began in Postdam in 1945 and was an awful idea until German re-unification. The city was a source of conflict starting with Truman and ending only when the wall fell. And I don't think Kennedy gave us Vietnam. He might have started sending "military advisors" there, but LBJ gets the lions share of the blame (and it also took Nixon a while to wrap things up, too).
As for why Nixon or Reagan didn't have their own near-war crises - I can't answer that definitively. I think the USSR was pretty much on the way out when Reagan was President. Perhaps Nixon was shrewd enough to know not to pick his fights with the Russians. This, of course, didn't keep him out of trouble entirely.
Agamentus:Don't agree on Berlin and Vietnam. The partition of Berlin / Germany began in Postdam in 1945 and was an awful idea until German re-unification. The city was a source of conflict starting with Truman and ending only when the wall fell. And I don't think Kennedy gave us Vietnam. He might have started sending "military advisors" there, but LBJ gets the lions share of the blame (and it also took Nixon a while to wrap things up, too).
The military advisors were initially sent by Truman, to help the French forces there. Apparently Kennedy wanted to pull them out of Vietnam, and planned to do so after the 1964 election (provided that he won it).
Agamentus:As for why Nixon or Reagan didn't have their own near-war crises - I can't answer that definitively. I think the USSR was pretty much on the way out when Reagan was President. Perhaps Nixon was shrewd enough to know not to pick his fights with the Russians. This, of course, didn't keep him out of trouble entirely.
Nixon fought the Soviets by going to China.
By the time Reagan was elected, the Soviets were bogged down in Afghanistan and the US was bogged down in stagflation. Then Gorbachev came along.
I’d say that, knowing as we do the Misesian cycle of government intervention failures, sending advisors to Vietnam is what started the thing. I can almost sympathize with LBJ for being under heavy pressure ala “We are failing Vietnam!’, It was much easier for Kennedy to keep hands off than for Johnson to pull out.
Berlin was tough for everyone, not just for Kennedy. Still he is the only one to have made Berlin a near-war scenario. Reagan had much more cause to put pressure on the soviets on Berlin, yet he didn't. I still can't shake the impression that some military conspiracy had Kennedy killed to avoid a fifth, definitive, crisis. At least I would have, had I been in their position.
Nixon, on the other hand, has three distinct merits. First, pulling out of Vietnam. Being the first American president to acknowledge defeat, he showed some testicular fortitude there, say what you will about his presidency in general.
Second, he defused China. It is not inconceivable that, without the better relation with the US that Nixon had the courage to bring on, Deng could not have transformed China the way he did.
Third, the first SALT treaty.
As for Reagan, perhaps by than the USSR was indeed on its way out, but yet I believe he had many temptations and a lesser president would have jumped in to fill the void the USSR was leaving. But we’ll never know, of course.
I see your point - I'll have to crack open some history books and read about the Nixon / Ford / Carter / Reagan era some more. This is an era of the Cold War in which I'm not terribly knowledgeable. Too bad contemporary politicians lack such fortitude. The only attribute many seem to reflect now is a massive case of stupid.
Ah ha! So it's Nixon's fault that China began modernizing and then proceeded to take all of our manufacturing jobs! If it wasn't for him, we could be slamming some other developing nation for the outsourcing of these jobs.
Merlin:Nixon, on the other hand, has three distinct merits. First, pulling out of Vietnam. Being the first American president to acknowledge defeat, he showed some testicular fortitude there, say what you will about his presidency in general.
Not before the worst casualties in the conflict occurred under his watch.
Merlin:Second, he defused China. It is not inconceivable that, without the better relation with the US that Nixon had the courage to bring on, Deng could not have transformed China the way he did.
It seems that Nixon went to China in order to out-maneuver the Soviets. So it was pure Realpolitik.
Merlin:Third, the first SALT treaty.
MAD targets politicians too.
Merlin:As for Reagan, perhaps by than the USSR was indeed on its way out, but yet I believe he had many temptations and a lesser president would have jumped in to fill the void the USSR was leaving. But we’ll never know, of course.
Wait, what?
The US did fill the void that the USSR was leaving.
What do you think George H. W. Bush's "New World Order" speech was all about?
Not his fault. Johnson left the hot potato in his hands. What he could do, that is give up, he did. God enough for me.
Why didn't Johnson find that in his interests? besides, does it matter why Nixon did it? It helped changing the lives of a billion and a half poolpe for the best. Thats all we should wish to know.
Again, that applied well before Nixon. he was the only one to come to his senses.
Wait, what? The US did fill the void that the USSR was leaving. What do you think George H. W. Bush's "New World Order" speech was all about?
Precisely. Bush did, Reagan declined the honor, although he had built much of his career on the macho, hard-line guy image, he tried not to interevene too much in that unstable world. Its easy to see how a less resolute man could have played with soviet Afghanistan much more (dangerously). Actually keeping in mind the degree of heat in the air at the time, Reagan and Gorby both deserve large credit for steering the world clear of war. A JFK style hot shot (cough cough McArthur cough) could have erred.