Ever had a light-bulb moment, that sudden realisation when a development or situation becomes swathed in an almost eerie clarity so much so that it appears as a revelation, or if the whole picture is not immediately apparent there is at least a prompting alerting one to take a second look, this being suggestive of something amiss, or not what it seems.
I had such a moment at the time known as the Syrian chemical weapons crisis, when Putin rode in on a white horse to save the day, which resulted in the touted Russian deal, in which a plan to avoid military action by the US culminated in placing Syria’s arsenal under international control. Putin was instantly propelled into the category of global statesman on the incline even being nominated for the prestigious Nobel peace prize award. However that only partially caught my attention, it merely solidified a small part of the whole picture. The bigger framework is a tale of two countries, Russia and the US, the first moving away from its ideological past, the latter moving toward a new one, in polar opposite directions it seems.
I won’t dwell on the details as this falls outside the confines of this article, suffice to say Russia has moved right of centre while America continues along a progressive path. Fair enough some would say, so they’ve changed politically and economically over the years, so what. Maybe, but to some the changes in fortune seem almost contrived. Putin’s address to the American people in an opinion piece in the New York Times at the time of the deal – besides being unprecedented - was preachy and moralising- You are NOT exceptional- true, he was referring to America’s role as world policeman in response to Obama’s article – but the word in political terms also has other connotations.
The term American exceptionalism was coined by Marxists to explain why this ideology did not gain a foothold in US society- the primary reason thought to be the existence of a large middle class which acted as a buffer. Was Putin using the double entendre- normally the domain of politicians- by playing on words that have a double meaning. Who knows what his intent was.
Cryptic language certainly featured in the address of John F Kennedy, ex democratic US president to the American Newspaper Publishers Association, fifty three years ago. We’ll revisit his address here and attempt to deconstruct its meaning. The full transcript of his speech can be accessed at this link;
Only a famous extract of his speech will be highlighted for the purpose of this article.
The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society.
He goes on to say that Americans have been historically opposed to secret societies, secret oaths and secret proceedings.
Taken at face value then he is referring to the dangers associated with secret societies.
His statement has to be taken in context with the rest of his speech though, noting that this was the year 1961 at the height of the cold war, and further reading of the transcript reveals that he is not proposing censorship in dealing with this reality as it would be counterproductive to the American way and would advance the cause of the Nation’s enemies, but cautions the Press to be cognisant of this fact and to exercise self-censorship, so he is cautioning them .Note that his address and message is directed at the press.
He then goes onto say; 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.
Many have assumed this to be an extension of his warning on secret societies, but no, he is referring to Soviet communism here. Kennedy was known as a vehement anti- communist and had experience in this regard first hand as President when he oversaw the Cuban missile crisis, and again, this in the context at the height of the cold war between Russia and America, he was also well aware this threat included a possible nuclear holocaust. And yet, why did he not refer to communism by name, why is he being so mysterious, could his words have a double meaning and be just as applicable to another threat- that of a shadow government comprised of a cabal.
This may be debatable but Kennedy most surely found himself fighting for control and authority in his capacity as President against an established military and intelligence network.
The strategies employed by the architects of the Bay of Pigs invasion were surely grounded upon the assumption that provocation of the two super powers to nuclear exchange was possible.
In addition, perusing his full speech Kennedy seems to acknowledge the ultimate decisions he makes as President and is implicitly asking the press and the American people to support and trust him as military leader, over other forces which transcend any president’s term of office.
US Democratic Senator from Hawaii, Daniel Inouye, who was involved in the Iran-Contra investigations of the 1980’s and chaired a special committee from 1987 to 1989, referred to the operations that had been revealed as a ‘secret government’ saying “ There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of the national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself.”
Maybe the question maybe should be- Is the shadow government’s – whatever its label maybe- tactics and objectives similar in nature to that of the communists i.e. is there a synchronisation in methods and a convergence of objectives or strategy at play?
In part three we will examine these issues.
In ending a quote from Richard Gardener, member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations 1974;
…….few people retain much confidence in the more ambitious strategies for world order that had wide backing a generation age- federalism, charter review and ‘world peace through world laws’ …If instant world government, Charter review and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? …In short, the house of ‘world order’ would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’ to use William James’s famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.