27-06-2018, 02:43 PM
​As I said, I had done some work on the Mary M case years prior to Janney's book being published. So I had read all the literature in the field as of 1997.
But I had not read anything that Damore had done on her, except some predictable quotes about his upcoming work. But someone got me an outline of what Janney was preparing based upon some of Damore's work. Although I should not have been, I was surprised to see that Janney had consulted with David Heymann. I did not know at that time that Damore had been in communication with Heymann and his researcher for a number of years. But I have since read the letters proving such. Based on some of that info, I wrote an early warning article about what was being prepared. In it, I spent a few paragraphs on the follies of Heymann. So, in his book Janney did not mention that aspect. But in Janney's portrait of Kennedy one can see the influence of the Heymann/Damore nexus. This fulfills the Procrustean formula of shrinking Kennedy and aggrandizing Mary.
The problem is that if you know anything about Kennedy's self education in the fifties, one sees that JFK was one of the most sagacious and curious thinkers on American foreign policy that there was in congress at that time. I mean the only person I can think of who is even in his league was Fulbright. Kennedy was so well informed that he was admired by George Kennan, the original author of the containment policy, because Kennan had very much softened his position in the fifties.
This aspect of Kennedy's intellectual make up was very much concealed by the MSM and our "rent a scholar" book publishing industry. But I accidentally stumbled upon it and have worked on it almost exclusively for about the last five years. But even at the time of the release of Janney's book I knew something about the subject and how it had been covered up for political reasons. So I didn't buy his Damoresque portrait of Kennedy.
But I had not read anything that Damore had done on her, except some predictable quotes about his upcoming work. But someone got me an outline of what Janney was preparing based upon some of Damore's work. Although I should not have been, I was surprised to see that Janney had consulted with David Heymann. I did not know at that time that Damore had been in communication with Heymann and his researcher for a number of years. But I have since read the letters proving such. Based on some of that info, I wrote an early warning article about what was being prepared. In it, I spent a few paragraphs on the follies of Heymann. So, in his book Janney did not mention that aspect. But in Janney's portrait of Kennedy one can see the influence of the Heymann/Damore nexus. This fulfills the Procrustean formula of shrinking Kennedy and aggrandizing Mary.
The problem is that if you know anything about Kennedy's self education in the fifties, one sees that JFK was one of the most sagacious and curious thinkers on American foreign policy that there was in congress at that time. I mean the only person I can think of who is even in his league was Fulbright. Kennedy was so well informed that he was admired by George Kennan, the original author of the containment policy, because Kennan had very much softened his position in the fifties.
This aspect of Kennedy's intellectual make up was very much concealed by the MSM and our "rent a scholar" book publishing industry. But I accidentally stumbled upon it and have worked on it almost exclusively for about the last five years. But even at the time of the release of Janney's book I knew something about the subject and how it had been covered up for political reasons. So I didn't buy his Damoresque portrait of Kennedy.