JFK — Accept Our Diverse World as It Is

Guest Post by Pat Buchanan

JFK -- Accept Our Diverse World as It Is

Kennedy was asking us to recognize that the world consists not only of democrats but also of autocrats, dictatorships, military regimes, monarchs and politburos, and the goal of U.S. foreign policy was not to convert them into political replicas of the USA.    Kennedy was willing to put our political model on offer to the world, but not to impose it on anyone…

Seven months after the Cuban missile crisis, President John F. Kennedy, at American University, laid out his view on how the East-West struggle should be conducted to avoid a catastrophic war that could destroy us both.

Kennedy’s message to Moscow and his fellow Americans:

“If (the United States and the Soviet Union) cannot end now our differences, at least we can make the world safe for diversity.”

As George Beebe writes in his essay, “It’s a Big World: The Importance of Diversity in American Foreign Policy,” in the July National Interest, Kennedy later elaborated:

“We must recognize that we cannot remake the world simply by our own command. … Every nation has its own traditions, its own values, its own aspirations. … We cannot remake them in our own image.”

To Kennedy, a student of history, acceptance of the reality of a world of diverse political systems, many of them unfree, was a precondition of peace on earth and avoidance of a new world war.

Kennedy was asking us to recognize that the world consists not only of democrats but also of autocrats, dictatorships, military regimes, monarchs and politburos, and the goal of U.S. foreign policy was not to convert them into political replicas of the USA.

Kennedy was willing to put our political model on offer to the world, but not to impose it on anyone: “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.”

The higher goal: “Preserving and protecting a world of diversity in which no one power or no one combination of powers can threaten the security of the United States.”

For JFK, national interests transcended democratist ideology.

He knew that throughout our history, we Americans had partnered with dictators, monarchs and autocrats when our interests required it.

The 1778 alliance we forged with the French King Louis XVI was indispensable to the victory at Yorktown that ensured our independence.

Woodrow Wilson took us into World War I as an “associate power” of four great empires — the British, French, Russian and Japanese.

In World War II, we allied with Stalin’s Russia against Hitler’s Reich.

The South Korea we saved at a cost of 37,000 dead from 1950 to 1953 was ruled by the autocratic and dictatorial Syngman Rhee.

The thrust of Beebe’s article is that President Joe Biden, in defining the new post-Cold War era as featuring a new-world ideological struggle, between authoritarian and democracy, is misreading the conflict.

Said Biden, in his major foreign policy address during the campaign: “The triumph of democracy and liberalism over fascism and autocracy created the free world. But this contest does not just define our past. It will define our future.”

Biden’s Interim National Strategic Security Guidance fully embraces the same thesis of a new world ideological struggle:

“Authoritarianism is on the global march. … We must join with likeminded allies and partners to revitalize democracy the world over.”

Yet, neither of our great adversaries is preaching a global crusade to remake the world in its image.

Communist China does business with Japanese and American capitalists, with South and North Korea, with Arab monarchs and Israelis, with Europeans and Iranians, Africans, Latin Americans and Central Asians, without attempting to impose its system beyond its borders.

Consider Russia. President Vladimir Putin, it is said, is an autocrat.

But Putin’s interest in bringing home ethnic Russian kinfolk left behind when the USSR broke apart is a normal and natural expression of his people’s and his country’s national interest.

So, too, is Moscow’s effort at re-knitting relations with Ukraine and Belarus, the two nations with whom Russia’s ties are the oldest, closest and deepest, culturally and ethnically.

What Russia, a Black Sea power since the 18th century, is doing in Yalta and the Donbas is understandable from the standpoint of history, ethnicity and national interests.

The question is: What are we doing there?

When did Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia become our concerns?

Russia’s alarm at having the world’s largest military alliance, NATO, led by its former Cold War adversary, squatting on its front porch from the Arctic Ocean to the Baltic and Black Sea, is as understandable as is Putin’s impulse to push that alliance some distance away.

That is what any Russian nationalist ruler would do.

But when did relations between Belarus, Ukraine and Russia become the concern of the USA, 5,000 miles away?

Is Putin an autocrat? But so what?

When has Russia not been ruled by an autocrat?

From Peter the Great to Catherine the Great to Alexander I, Nicholas I, Alexander II, Alexander III and Nicholas II in 1917, Romanov czars ruled Russia. After 1917 came Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin.

During his speech at American University, Kennedy mentioned a crucial fact about the long history between Russia and America:

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

Maintaining that 230-year tradition should be at the apex of our concerns, not how Vladimir Putin rules what is, after all, his country.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise

15
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Georges S
Georges S

Few days ago an interesting article was on RT. It was about the new movie by Oliver Stone, a documentary about JFK. As reported by RT, no MSM commented on the doc. Did Oliver Stone stepped in Deep State swamp forcing MSM to silence him? I haven’t seen the doc so who knows?

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/529754-stone-documentary-jfk-cuba/

Archeopteryx Phoenix
Archeopteryx Phoenix

I would really love to hear people’s thoughts on this narrative.

Possible scenarios:

1. Wife gets raped by a black man. Has child. The wife and husband decide to make up a story.

2. Wife willingly has sex with a black man. Has child. The wife and husband decide to make up a story.

3. Man enjoys being cuckolded. Husband asks a black man to have sex with his wife. She becomes impregnated. The wife and husband decide to make up a story.

4. Other?

Note that the wikipedia entry does not mention any modern genetic testing done to prove that the child was related to the father. It only states that a blood test was performed to see if it could have been his child. And this blood test, of course, could have been lied about.

Thoughts?

BL aka dipshit
BL aka dipshit

I’d say there was a kneegrow in the woodpile somewhere. A black baby born to white parents has happened before. It is not impossible, that said I think the film to which you refer was propaganda.

Machinist
Machinist

I’d say you’re right, it’s not exactly something mommy could pick up from a toilet seat.

GNL
GNL

Can you prove that?

Flim Flam
Flim Flam

For a gnee grow to be born to white parents there would have to be a black wood cutter on both sides of the wood pile. A high yellow is possible with just one side being infected

GNL
GNL

You know me…The truth does not exist.

overthecliff
overthecliff

Don’t know what the real story is but there was a nigger somewhere in that woodpile.

That Boomer Platform
That Boomer Platform

The world was sold a bag of lies about South Africa and Hollywood was the primary tool used to break apartheid.

Captain_Obviuos
Captain_Obviuos

The answer to this dilemma is staring us right in the face: Laing and Veldman. Do a little check on those two family names and see what you come up with… as if you can’t tell right now.

Given this information, along with what we know about who controlled the whole Apartheid debacle (I don’t mean Mandela, though it was through these people he was himself controlled), I agree, this whole story is fake. That’s not their child. Those aren’t her parents. This is pure propaganda; do you think Hollywood would have made a movie about it otherwise? Who controls Hollywood?

(While it does happen — sometimes a “dark” White child is born to Caucasian parents, I dated a girl who had jet-black hair and brown eyes while everyone else in her family was blonde/blue, but she still looked White, of course, AND she looked like her parents — to have one come out looking like a Mulatto, without there being a fox in the hen house, is next to impossible.)

*EDIT* Sandra’s “mother” also supposedly gave birth to a boy who was also born dark like Sandra, yet there is no mention of this in the “movie” and the narrative focuses only on Sandra. And, as I expected to find when I looked at all cast and crew for this “film,” most of it reads like the roll call at Temple Emanu-El.

That Boomer Platform
That Boomer Platform

Interesting SA history sidenote: SA developed nuclear weapons in collaboration with Israel. They ended the program in 1989, right at the fevered pitch of Hollywood apartheid agitprop.

anthony aaron
anthony aaron

Well, the israelis had to make some money off their stolen nuclear technology … and, for once, the US wasn’t going to buy it back from them … and heaven knows how much of that technology they sold to the chinese (like they did so much other weaponry the US Citizens and Taxpayers gave them).

Flim Flam
Flim Flam

Right. I left a reply and a link about that very thing on the Pegasus thread below.

Archeopteryx Phoenix
Archeopteryx Phoenix

Thanks. This has the feel of a psyop from Those Who Cannot Be Named.

anthony aaron
anthony aaron

Maybe, as they used to say, there was a honky in the woodpile … 

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading