Lessons from JFK's Pursuit of Peace

Lessons from President Kennedy's Legacy

President John F. Kennedy sought global peace through robust reciprocal diplomacy and common goals and interests.

The Murderers of President Kennedy sought U.S. global domination through state-sponsored overt and covert violence, war, proxy wars and assassination.

History informs us of the mindset and motivation of President Kennedy's enemies.

The survival of American democracy rides on our ability to transcend the tight grip BIG MONEY has on U.S. domestic policy and foreign policy.

During the Kennedy administration, ILLEGAL FOREIGN BIG MONEY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS was the problem of the day - the same as it is today.

Make no mistake about it: the U.S. military industrial complex and its associates murdered President Kennedy. Why?

The primary reason was because Kennedy wanted to restrict the MIC and regain control of the President's authority as Commander-In-Chief.

The MIC wanted Kennedy dead precisely because Kennedy was making peace, not war, with the Soviet Union.

No matter if it's 1963, 1993, or 2025 the MIC NEVER WANTS PEACE, ALWAYS WANTS MORE WAR, CAN'T GET ENOUGH WAR AND WAR PROFITS.

THE LESSON to be learned by the American people is that as long as BIG MONEY is in federal elections, the MIC will thrive and continue to control U.S. foreign policy and keep America in war.

The American voter had better wake up and realize that neither Democrats nor Republicans will ever vote BIG MONEY out of federal elections.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans will ever vote in 100% federal funding of all federal campaigns.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans will ever vote their BIG DONORS out of their bank accounts.

Both Democrats and Republicans promulgate U.S. foreign policy at the direction of AIPAC - who coincidentally OPPOSES 100% federal funding of all federal campaigns.

Remember, the day We The People vote BIG MONEY OUT of politics by voting in 100% federal funding of all federal campaigns, will be the day We The People END corporate and special interest control of U.S. domestic policy and END foreign lobby/MIC control of U.S. foreign policy.

Today's U.S. Presidents still face foreign lobby control of Congress and are the targets of MIC and AIPAC pressure to fund and arms wars and proxy wars INDEFINITELY.

It's the Cauc Cash Cow Gravy Train, ya'll.

And it's never going to stop until We The People elect a new political party to power in Congress - no matter how long it takes.

We The People cannot expect peace from Democrats and Republicans.

World Peace is a threat and enemy of the U.S. military industrial complex.

Institutionalized racism, greed and power got us where we are today, and have been for a very long time.

The MIC has gone from the Soviet Union threat, to the Islamic threat, to the Russian threat in Ukraine, now to the joint Chinese-Russian threat in space.

Now the MIC has expanded their filthy, dirty super-dangerous business to orbiting the globe.

The MIC weaponizes fear of China, Russia and Iran into support for endless military spending.

The MIC inhibits robust diplomacy with non-military outcomes.

Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.

“There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university,” wrote John Masefield in his tribute to English universities — and his words are equally true today.

He did not refer to towers, or the campuses.

He admired the splendid beauty of a university, because it was, he said, “a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see.”

I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived – and that is the most important topic on earth: Peace. What kind of a peace do I mean? What kind of a peace do we seek?

Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.

Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave.

I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and 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. I speak of peace because of the new face of war.

Total war makes no sense in an age where great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces.

It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War.

It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need them is essential to the keeping of peace.

But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles — which can only destroy and never create — is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men.

I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war — and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears.

But we have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of peace or world law or world disarmament — and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude.

I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it.

But I also believe that we must re-examine our own attitude — as individuals and as a Nation — for our attitude is as essential as theirs.

And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward — by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the Cold War and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First, examine our attitude toward peace itself.

Too many of us think it is impossible.

Too many think it is unreal.

But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief.

It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view.

Our problems are manmade.

Therefore, they can be solved by man.

And man can be as big as he wants.

No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.

Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and goodwill of which some fantasies and fanatics dream.

I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams, but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned.

There is no single, simple key to this peace, no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers.

Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts.

It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation.

For peace is a process, a way of solving problems.

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations.

World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor, it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement.

And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever.

However, fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbours.

So, let us persevere.

Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable.

By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

And second, let us re-examine our attitude toward the Soviet Union.

It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write.

It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims, such as the allegation that “American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars, that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union, and that the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries and to achieve world domination by means of aggressive wars.”

Truly, as it was written long ago: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.”

Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements to realize the extent of the gulf between us.

But it is also a warning — a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue.

As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity.

But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war.

Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other.

And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union in the Second World War.

At least 20 million lost their lives.

Countless millions of homes and families were burned or sacked.

A third of the nation’s territory, including nearly two-thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland, a loss equivalent to the destruction of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again, no matter how, our two countries will be the primary targets.

It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation.

All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours.

And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many countries, including this Nation’s closest allies, our two countries bear the heaviest burdens.

For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combat ignorance, poverty, and disease.

We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle with suspicion on one side breeding suspicion on the other, and new weapons begetting counter weapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race.

Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours, and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So, let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved.

And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.

For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet.

We all breathe the same air.

We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.

Third, let us re-examine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points.

We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment.

We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.

We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us.

We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists’ interest to agree on a genuine peace.

Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.

To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy, or of a collective death-wish for the world.

To secure these ends, America’s weapons are non-provocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use.

Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-restraint.

Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.

For we can seek a relaxation of tension without relaxing our guard.

And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove we are resolute.

We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded.

We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people, but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.

Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system — a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.

At the same time, we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention, or which threaten to erupt into war.

Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides.

We have also tried to set an example for others by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbor’s in Mexico and Canada.

Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear.

We are bound to many nations by alliances.

These alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap.

Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests.

The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace.

It is our hope, and the purpose of allied policies, to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others.

The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today.

For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.

This will require a new effort to achieve world law, a new context for world discussions.

It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves.

And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication.

One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreading’s of the other’s actions which might occur at a time of crisis.

We have also been talking in Geneva about our first-step measures of arms control designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and reduce the risks of accidental war.

Our primary long-range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament, designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms.

The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920’s.

It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations.

And however, dim the prospects are today, we intend to continue this effort, to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.

The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests.

The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiralling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas.

It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms.

It would increase our security; it would decrease the prospects of war.

Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.

I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.

First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.

Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on this matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so.

We will not be the first to resume.

Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one.

Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.

Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home.

The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad.

We must show it in the dedication of our own lives, as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.

But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together.

In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because freedom is incomplete.

It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government — local, State, and National — to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within our authority.

It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever the authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate.

And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of others and respect the law of the land.

All this is not unrelated to world peace.

“When a man’s ways please the Lord,” the Scriptures tell us, “he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.”

And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights, the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation, the right to breathe air as nature provided it, the right of future generations to a healthy existence?

While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests.

And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both.

No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion.

But it can — if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers, offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war.

We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war.

This generation of Americans has already had enough, more than enough, of war and hate and oppression.

We shall be prepared if others wish it.

We shall be alert; to try to stop it.

But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just.

We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.

Confident and unafraid, we labor on, not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.

Thanks.

John F. Kennedy's - Peace Speech Transcript - June 6, 1963

The Department of Defense had no time to be bored during this hectic time at the height of the Cold War.

The military and the defense industry seemed to thrive amid all the violence in the world. And yet, there was much dissatisfaction.

The future did not seem bright under Kennedy.

Authorities claim that there were concerns about Kennedy’s soft side: he preferred to peacefully resolve issues with the communists, especially those in Cuba and Vietnam, without escalating them into hotspots.

A large group of researchers suspects representatives of these industries of involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Numerous books have been written with plausible theories, and even in the most famous film about the case, Oliver Stone’s JFK, individuals within this ‘iron triangle’ do not come off lightly.

Lyndon B. Johnson was cut from a different cloth than his predecessor.

Many cash registers in the United States would ring like never before after Kennedy’s death. Officials from the Department of Defense, military personnel, and those in power in the defense industry might just have a murder on their conscience.

Complex relations

The Roman Praetorian Guard was a special military unit that served as the imperial bodyguard around 2,000 years ago.

In its nearly 400 years of existence, this powerful group is known to have assassinated at least twelve Roman emperors.

If they were displeased with the policies of the ruler, assassination was the most logical solution.

This phenomenon is timeless: military commanders who lead in battles, taste power, and then struggle to relinquish authority to civilian governance.

Decisive men who can leverage their influence and often get their way, be it by bribing politicians or simply eliminating them.

How objectively can crucial political decisions be made when there is substantial money to be made from a particular choice?

Do we all desire as much peace on earth as possible, or is a portion of us content with yet another lucrative war?

Several researchers have written impressive books about the situation in America in the first decades of the twentieth century, highlighting the unhealthy conditions that, according to them, worsened during World War II.

Entangled interests with significant consequences on the world stage were commonplace.

Consider President George W. Bush and his cabinet members Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Wolfowitz.

They all earned considerable profits from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and almost all had close ties to military companies like Lockheed-Martin, KRB, Boeing, and Carlyle.

Forty years earlier, Lyndon B. Johnson had extensive connections with the contractor and construction company Brown and Root, the organization that worked extensively for the U.S. military during the Vietnam War.

When an industry is powerful enough to put forth its own politicians—decision-makers who can also profit significantly from war and distress—dangerous political perspectives emerge.

The United States was warned about this by the departing President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the supreme commander of the country during World War II.

On January 17, 1961, three days before John F. Kennedy succeeded him, he delivered his farewell speech to Congress and the American people, introducing the term ‘military-industrial complex.’

In essence, his words were: ‘An essential element in keeping peace is our military establishment.

Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.

We recognize the imperative need for this development.

Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.

Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved.

So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.

The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties and democratic processes.

We should take nothing for granted.

Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.’

These are significant words. Oliver Stone even began his film with them thirty years later.

And over fifty years after Eisenhower’s speech, we can consider these words prophetic: the entangled interests have only increased.

The annual budget of the Department of Defense has skyrocketed.

In 1950, the military budget was a staggering 13 trillion dollars, equivalent to 120 trillion dollars in 2012.

By 1961, it had already risen to 47 trillion dollars.

After the Vietnam War in 1975, over 100 trillion dollars were spent, and in 2006, under Bush, the threshold of 500 trillion dollars was reached.

Obama’s proposal for 2013 totaled 613.9 trillion dollars—more than five times as much as in 1950, adjusting for inflation.

The fact that the military and arms industry have gained so much influence over the years is only known to a few.

Sustaining the wartime economy seems to be the dictum among the powerful.

A second Pearl Harbor, where the United States was unexpectedly attacked by a hostile nation, should absolutely be prevented.

Assembly and production lines had to be continuously operational so that America could swiftly engage in war when necessary.

Be prepared for the worst.

And, an argument from an industry representative could be: millions of Americans depend on the sector and defense contracts, so why shut down the market?

JFK and the military–industrial complex

Even the young Senator Kennedy, during his presidential campaign in 1960, sided with the Pentagon, as the Department of Defense in the United States is often called, referring to the pentagonal headquarters of the U.S. armed forces.

He promised an increase in military spending.

However, once elected, he changed his mind, partly because he claimed to have been misled by officials about the actual threat from enemy nations.

Later, more authorities stated that there was a huge gap between the actual power of the Soviet Union and the power attributed to it by the military.

Tom Gervasi wrote a book about it in 1987: The Myth of Soviet Military Supremacy.

By creating a dangerous enemy, it was easy to generate support for substantial investments in defense.

Shortly after his election as president, Kennedy complained about the incorrect intelligence that had been presented to him.

Partly for this reason, he appointed someone from outside as the new Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, chairman of Ford Motor Company.

The secretary would develop a very good relationship with the Kennedy brothers.

McNamara’s appointment brought about many changes immediately.

In March 1961, Kennedy stated: ‘In January, we saw that immediate major changes were necessary.

I have instructed the Secretary of Defense to reevaluate the entire strategy, capacity, commitments, and needs in light of current and future potential danger.’

Like with the CIA, Kennedy wanted to do things his own way, and the Pentagon had to adjust.

The president had little regard for recently introduced tactics like counter-guerrilla strategy, flexible response, and the formation of special units.

Especially not when he and his brother realized, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, what the doctrines actually meant: a collective obsession with secret, clandestine operations, based on the ‘need to know’ principle, involving as few responsible leaders as possible.

After the heavy defeat in that invasion, several things became clear to the president: he was misled, the government and the military were unhealthily intertwined, and the military-industrial complex was more powerful than he could have imagined.

War should be a last resort for politicians.

And if a war had become inevitable, it should be led by military personnel with clear objectives, without a hidden agenda or conflicting interests. Kennedy could no longer rely on either.

In June 1961, Kennedy signed two important new laws.

National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) 55 stipulated that the president held the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff responsible for all activities of the military, both in war and in peacetime.

The leader of this body with commanders of the U.S. armed forces would thus have control over all activities at all times—no one else could pull the strings any longer.

Since the Joint Chiefs of Staff fell directly under the president, Kennedy now had a much better understanding of what was going on.

NSAM 57 dealt with a new division of paramilitary activities and responsibilities between the military and the CIA.

The intelligence agency could only be involved in small secret operations; for larger matters, the military had to be involved for approval.

The CIA and the Pentagon felt severely restrained by the new laws.

Their infallibility came to an end, despite the enormous interests at stake—especially financial gain.

Kennedy cleaned house in the organizations, dismissing high-ranking CIA officials and replacing Lyman Lemnitzer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In March 1962, Lemnitzer came up with the secret Northwoods project.

He wanted to simulate terrorist actions within U.S. borders and blame the Cubans, thereby gaining public support for a war against Fidel Castro’s island.

The dubious plan suggested, among other things, exploding an empty ship in Guantanamo Bay and then spreading a fake list of supposed victims.

Plane hijackings were also considered, as well as terror in Miami and other cities in Florida.

In the capital, bombs could be detonated at carefully chosen locations, with no hesitation to cause casualties.

The plan, only released in 2001, is a good example of the approach the president detested.

Lemnitzer had to pack his bags; he got a position in Europe.

His replacement was Maxwell D. Taylor: a man whom the Kennedys held in high esteem and saw as a person of unquestionable integrity, sincerity, intelligence, and diplomacy.

Again, it was time for a new direction: Kennedy wanted to shape the country to his liking.

He demonstrated this in the dispute with the steel industry in early spring 1962.

The president was concerned about inflation due to rising costs, which posed a threat to the economy.

The steel industry was crucial in the pursuit of price stability because an increase in steel prices had such a comprehensive effect on the entire economy.

Kennedy asked the major steel companies not to raise their prices again and also asked the union to revise its wage demands.

Both the unions and the companies eventually responded positively, and Kennedy was pleased.

However, he rejoiced too soon.

Ultimately, U.S. Steel, the largest company, did not adhere to the agreements.

They raised the steel price by six dollars per ton.

The next morning, Bethlehem Steel, the second-largest company, also announced a price increase.

Other companies followed quickly.

The actions posed a serious threat to Kennedy’s wage and price policy, the growth of the economy, Kennedy’s budget, and the trust that major unions had in him.

JFK was furious and felt betrayed.

He instructed the Department of Defense to cancel all orders to U.S. Steel in favor of companies that had not yet raised their prices.

Public opinion rallied behind the president, and more and more steel companies announced that they would not increase their prices.

Ultimately, U.S. Steel also capitulated.

Too much was at stake now that all lucrative projects at home and abroad were in danger of going to the competition.

Kennedy had made it clear once and for all who was in charge of American business.

As described in the previous chapter, the oil industry would realize this shortly afterward.

The list of Kennedy’s enemies was getting longer and longer.

In October 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred.

Enemy missiles were only 150 kilometers from the American coast: the military and the CIA were unanimous and unyielding.

Cuba had to be bombed, and a new invasion was absolutely necessary.

The nonviolent deal that Kennedy ultimately struck with Nikita Khrushchev angered many in various offices.

The president became a hero among the population, but in various capital offices, people were furious.

And the reduction of military spending continued unabated in 1963.

Kennedy continued to fuel the fire. In March, McNamara came up with a reorganization plan in which 43 military institutions would close within three years: 22 in the United States and 21 abroad.

In late July, Kennedy enthusiastically spoke of the first steps toward the end of the Cold War, and a week later, England, the United States and the Soviet Union signed a treaty that would lead to a global nuclear weapons stop.

A direct phone connection was established between Moscow and Washington.

The developments differed greatly from the tough policy of the pre-Kennedy era, and military leaders did not hesitate to express their disapproval again.

Of great importance was also Kennedy’s decision to reassess the role of the United States in Southeast Asia.

Was his, according to some, too soft policy fatal for him?

Some researchers believe that the key to understanding the true culprits behind Kennedy’s assassination lies in investigating this.

JFK and Vietnam

After Kennedy’s death, Lyndon B. Johnson took over.

He promised to continue the policy initiated by JFK, at least until the next elections.

He kept that promise on some points; for example, Johnson was the one who ultimately pushed the civil rights laws through Congress.

However, many other intentions of Kennedy were completely ignored.

Four days after Kennedy’s assassination, Johnson signed NSAM 273, the document in which massive intervention in South Vietnam was decided.

South Vietnam, the land of the unfairly elected fervent anti-communist Ngo Dinh Diem, was threatened by the so-called National Liberation Front, known to American soldiers as the Vietcong.

This communist resistance and guerrilla group had started infiltrations since 1959.

Initially, the United States provided only support and material to South Vietnam.

Combat training was given to South Vietnamese soldiers, and Ngo Dinh Diem surrounded himself with American advisors.

Kennedy followed the policy of his predecessor Eisenhower.

He had been interested in Indochina early in his career.

In 1956, he spoke about the security threat to countries like Laos, Cambodia, and the Philippines if the red danger of communism were to flood Vietnam.

In the period before his presidency, he often talked about appeasing third-world countries with economic aid to prevent them from falling under the influence of the Soviet Union and also communist China, if necessary intervening with force.

Father Joseph Kennedy had become friends with Ngo Dinh Diem, and his son also developed increasingly closer ties in South Vietnam.

During Kennedy’s time in the White House, the number of American ‘advisors’ in the country continued to rise—by the end of 1961, there were already more than 2,200.

In May 1962, the president announced that they were all trying to work towards a peaceful solution.

Yes, they were occasionally involved in firefights, but according to Kennedy and Secretary of Defense McNamara, these cases were only in self-defense.

The situation was more nuanced in reality.

In October, the New York Times wrote, ‘In 30 percent of all combat missions in Vietnamese planes, Americans are at the controls.’

Meanwhile, the focus in Washington was mainly on the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Berlin.

But that changed in the hot summer of 1963.

Kennedy received conflicting information and began to reconsider his policy.

He was also concerned about Ngo Dinh Diem, whose policies were becoming increasingly unpopular.

Some Buddhist monks set themselves on fire in protest against the regime.

Resistance among the Catholic aristocracy also grew, believing that Diem stood in the way of potential peace talks with North Vietnam.

The Americans decided not to intervene in the event of a coup.

The U.S. ambassador, Henry Cabot Lodge, refused to talk to Ngo Dinh Diem any longer and openly supported high-ranking military officers known for their negative attitude toward the regime.

Kennedy also loathed the dictator and approved plans that involved the return of a thousand American military advisors by the end of 1963.

The president no longer wanted to be heavily involved in the conflict.

Ultimately, dissatisfied officers staged an armed coup in Saigon on November 1, 1963, led by General Duong Van Minh.

Both Ngo Dinh Diem and his younger brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu (the head of the security service), lost their lives.

The southern government had been overthrown.

According to various studies, CIA officials were involved in the coup.

No strange insinuation: they had had similar experiences in other parts of the world in the 1950s.

Many years later, some evidence surfaced, but U.S. involvement is not 100 percent certain.

The coup had been extensively discussed in the White House.

Kennedy wanted to banish Ngo Dinh Diem as soon as possible.

He only heard the next morning that the coup had ultimately become deadly.

According to a witness, JFK was astonished and shocked three weeks before his own death.

He found the murder repulsive.

This opinion was not shared by many: most officials in the American capital were glad to be rid of the leader.

Kennedy publicly praised Ambassador Lodge: ‘Thanks for a highly important presentation recognized by the entire government.’

The White House faced a choice: deploy a large American expedition and quickly resolve the problem in South Vietnam, as the Pentagon wanted, or simply withdraw and accept the criticism of the anticommunist military-industrial complex.

The assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem seemed to strengthen Kennedy’s resolve to break free from the conflict.

He wanted to limit American involvement—but only after the next elections, in November 1964.

JFK knew that a new soft decision might be deadly for his eagerly desired reelection.

He told his advisor Kenneth O’Donnell: ‘Ultimately, everyone will call me a communist.

I don’t care about that.

As long as it happens after 1964.’

In the fall of 1963, he already mentioned in a television speech: ‘This is an important struggle, even though it is fought far away. But ultimately, it is their war. Not ours.

They must win or lose, not us.’

Fellow countrymen with financial interests in the military-industrial complex may have shuddered at those words in their living rooms.

Two days before the Dallas motorcade, after optimistic words from Robert McNamara about the situation in South Vietnam, Kennedy approved a plan to bring all Americans out of Vietnam by the end of 1965.

With the document NSAM 273 signed by President Johnson, that plan was reversed less than a week later.

While the initial goal was to assist the people in South Vietnam, it was subtly added that assistance should be provided to defeat the communists.

The war could be expanded to North Vietnam, and, as stated in the memorandum, higher officials should not even think about criticizing the new plan.

‘The first shots of that terrible war in Vietnam,’ as author Jim Marrs writes with a sense of drama, ‘were basically fired in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas.’

The senseless war in Vietnam lasted about ten years.

More than 58,000 Americans died, and 2,000 went missing.

However, within the Department of Defense, the military, and the arms industry, there was little reason to complain.

Nothing had come of all the cutbacks Kennedy had in mind; on the contrary, the military-industrial complex flourished as never before.

As long as money can be made from misery, we will continue to see a lot of misery.

But were individuals from this world really so greedy for money that they were willing to assassinate the president for it?

Explore diplomacy and the legacy of JFK's commitment to global peace and integrity.

Let's cut to the chase: President Kennedy was assassinated for several reasons listed below, but the primary root cause of his assassination was JFK's commitment, plan and action towards permanent peace with Kruschev and the Soviet Union.

This website provides information that reveals Kennedy's intentions and actions towards permanent peace with the Soviet Union.

Kennedy's killers were stone cold crazy anti-communists who perceived Kennedy as a Communist sympathizer who bent the knee and cozied up to Kruschev and they believed it was their patriotic duty to kill the President of the United States.

Who was "they?" Allen Dulles and his gang of murderers.

Who else was instrumental in the assassination and was highly motivated to support JFK's assassination?

*CIA, Allen Dulles - CIA-JFK webpage >>>

*Lyndon Baines Johnson - front and center; LBJ-JFK webpage >>>

*Israel - Israel-JFK webpage >>>

*Texas Oilmen - Texas Oilmen-JFK webpage >>>

*The Republican Party, the John Birch Society webpage >>>

To this day many Americans still subscribe to the 1950's era Red Scare rhetoric, thanks to decades of non-stop anti-Russian rhetoric propagated by the CIA and participating US media outlets.

In the year 2025 the US military industrial complex (MIC) still relies upon infecting the minds of Americans with artificial, highly-produced fear and hate of Russia, China, Iran and Palestinians in order to force public support for larger US military budgets and spending.

For the MIC, there never has been profits in making peace, but only in making war.

U.S. senators are constantly on the search for new non-white people and land suitable for dumping US defense contractor arms inventories on.

U.S. Senators select the target population, then CIA funds propaganda in support of bombing that population.

What does Israel have to do with MIC?

Israel's founder and first prime minister Ben Gurion witnessed the "respect and fear" the US gained after dropping nuclear bombs on the Japanese and wanted to command that same kind of "respect and fear" for Israel.

President Kennedy believed in pursuing Peace through diplomacy.

Kennedy's enemies pursued world military and energy domination by murdering President Kennedy and facilitating an LBJ Presidency and legacy of war.

Belligerent, megalomaniacal anti-Communists in our government agencies found common ground, interests and goals - not with other nations, but with THE MOB, THE CIA AND BIG TEXAS OIL.

The common thread binding all these defendants together was their irrational, sociopathic passion to kill Communists in their Communist countries, and to identify American commies and deport them.

President Kennedy was killed by anti-Communists who had additional reasons to kill him beyond their wild insistance that President Kennedy was a Communist.

THE MOB were kicked out of Cuba and wanted to return to Cuba and resume gambling, prostitution, loan-sharking, vices, etc. in Cuba.

BIG TEXAS OIL hated Kennedy not only for being Communist-friendly in their eyes, but for eliminating the Texas Oilman's Depletion Allowance.

The CIA wanted him dead for a list of reasons.

HOW AND WHY THE ASSASSINATION OCCURRED

Who the hell was Lee Harvey Oswald and Donald Byrd? (brother of the famous North Pole explorer, Robert Byrd)

Donald Byrd was an officer in the U.S. military who later created and funded an anti-Communist training facility to train young Marines into becoming undercover Communist spies, posing as Russians in search of fellow Communists.

One of those Marines was 17-yr. old Lee Harvey Oswald, who......

Oswald was informed he was being sent to Russia on an undercover CIA spy mission.

Upon return, Oswald and his new wife Marina Oswald needed a place to stay, and the CIA provided an usher of sorts, George de Morenshildt who provided a place for Lee and Marina to stay at house in Irving, Texas.

testified to the Warren Commission that she got Lee a job at the Texas School Book Depository - the same TSBD owned by Donald Byrd, Oswald's trainer.

JFK researchers know that Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed employed by the CIA and was being used in the service of the CIA on Nov. 22, 1963 in the TSBD building.

JFK researchers have good cause and reason to believe that LHO did NOT shoot JFK or Officer Tippit, as on-scene eyewitness testimony reveals the on day of the Tippit murder.

JFK researchers have good cause and reason to believe that LHO was a CIA patsy who was promised and expected legal representation that day.

It is a well-documented fact that once LHO was jailed, LHO attempted to contact a known CIA operative in Virginia by telephone from the Dallas County Jail.