Salandria-Schotz-Douglass material

[Dawn Meredith]

Phil Thank you for posting this most important speech. When I first read parts of it in 1974 Paris Flammonde's important book on the Garrison investigation I was so taken by his vast insights, combined with the synchronistic event to which he refers here :

And this individual talks here about Kennedy's primitive way of looking at the agrarian problem. And then finally there is something very interesting - really very interesting ...

It says the third editor to express his opinion, Carbo, who is director of the Executive Council of the Inter-American Press Association - which is a very important job in the intellectual sectors of reaction and the oligarchy - emphasized that there were not strong statements in favor of the liberation of Cuba like the statements that had been made in previous speeches by President Kennedy, especially in the one he made after the heroic battle of Playa Giron -that "heroic battle" where every one of them ended defeated and imprisoned- forecasting the crisis of the Communist regime of Cuba. He claims in "Cuba the situation of the government verges on the insoluble, economically, politically and Internationally since Castro is no longer reliable, not even to Russia.' '

But most important of all is how the statement made by this gentleman who holds an important post in Reactionary intellectual circles in the United States and abroad as Director of the Executive Council of the Inter-American Press Association, how his statement ends -and this is what drew my attention. The editor of the confiscated Havana newspaper ended by saying: "I believe a coming serious event will oblige Washington to change its Policy of peaceful co-existence." What does this mean? What did this gentleman mean when he said this three days before the assassination of Kennedy? What did this gentleman who holds an utmost post in the Ultra-Reactionary intellectual circles in and outside of the United States, the Director of the Executive Council of the Inter-American Press Association, mean in a cable that is not from Prensa Latina, but from Associated Press, dated November 19th -AP Num, 254, AP November 19th, Miami Beach - when he said: "I believe that a coming serious event will oblige Washington to change its Policy of peaceful co-existence?"

What does this mean, three days before the murder of President Kennedy? Because when I read this cable it caught my attention, it intrigued me, it seemed strange to me. Was there perhaps some sort of understanding? Was there perhaps some sort of thought about this? Was there perhaps some kind of plot? Was there perhaps in those Reactionary circles where the so-calledm weak Policy of Kennedy toward Cuba was under attack, where the Policy of ending nuclear threat was under attack, where the Policy of civil rights was under attack .... Was there perhaps in certain civilian and military Ultra-Reactionary circles in the United States, a plot against President Kennedy 's life?



He knew. It's so clear all through that amazing speech.

I just sent Marty an email asking him to share his thoughts on that most bizarre passage in his book. Rather than speculate I 'd rather hear it from him.

If he remembers beyond what he wrote: "The purpose of the dialogue was to investigate the logic of war and the logic of peace". (This is a reference to a second dialogue as well, between King Malcolm Sonrobe and Einstein).

My scanner has long been broken so I cannot scan the dialogue requested.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

Marty was kind enough to reply quickly:

Hi Dawn,


Finally someone asks!! Here is the story in brief. The two scenes in the book are from a play (that couldn't be performed -- more what they call a closet drama, something to be read). It is entitled "How Ronald Reagan Finally Saved the World, or As You Like It, as long as You Finally Save the World." The play is really an examination of logic, and it begins with an odd thesis. Suppose instead of having the Rosenbergs who were supposed to have stolen the supposed secret of the atom bomb from us for the Russians, suppose we had had the Bergenroses, the opposite of the Rosenbergs. The Bergenroses were a Russian couple who discovered a lens secret which could protect people from nuclear weapons and attempted to bring the lens secret to JFK. The play tries to see what would have happened logically in history if such a couple had existed. Now it turns out there is not one logic but two different kinds of logic. There is the logic of the cold war, the logic of ideology. And there is a deeper logic a dialectical logic. And it turns out that if you follow cold war logic nothing different happens. The US government fashions the same history "following cold war logic" out of the fictional efforts of the Bergenroses as it fashioned out of the fiction efforts of the Rosenbergs. The dialogue between JFK and Dulles in heaven is the culmination of the exploration of the cold war logic and where it goes. JFK ultimately is won over by Dulles to the assassination, because all the people surrounding Kennedy all the establishment liberal forces including The Nation Magazine, IF Stone, etc... chose to cooperate in the cover-up and not expose the CIA and Dulles. Of course Dulles is a symbol in this sense. For me the key line in the dialogue is where Dulles says "We didn't take over the government. We just shot you.". And I think this is correct. Our government and society was so wedded to the cold war that JFK could be removed, and that was enough to turn off the movement toward peace. JFK was a deKlerk without an ANC. By an American "ANC" I have in mind something like what Martin Luther King Jr. was talking about in his last book, Where Do We Go From Here: Crisis or Community. If anyone wants to know why MLK was killed they can read that book. This why Obama seems to be so limited when it comes to dealing with the war machine. He doesn't have a mass peace movement.


Maybe I can add one more thing. At the beginning of the play it is explained that the characters in the play don't really stand for persons but rather for points of view. And the reader is warned not to get too upset if he or she sees a character doing something that he or she doesn't like. I imagine the part where JFK embraces Dulles and is won over to the assassination is the confusing point.


By the way there is a lens that can protect people from nuclear weapons and the play examines that lens as well. The lens is dialectical logic which helps people penetrate the irrationality and insanity (and this in not hyperbole) of "mutual assured destruction". And this is also explored in the play and ultimately triumphs. Einstein said, "The splitting of the atom has changed everything in the world except our thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." In part what Einstein meant was that the moral imperative "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was transformed by the splitting of the atom into a practical necessity. Now whatever we do to others we are doing to ourselves. The more we threaten others with nuclear weapons, the less secure we become. The only answer for freedom from the threat of nuclear weapons is an international regime to which all states subordinate themselves, which eliminates nuclear weapons.


Hope this is helpful. If not, I perhaps can answer other questions. If the group is interested I could make a copy of the play and send it to you.


Anyhow perhaps this helps explain.


Best wishes,


Marty

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Hi Dawn

To fully appreciate Martin's explanation and it will be best if you can ask him to provide you
the whole conversation so you can post it here

[Gary Craig]

I would ask anyone that has the book "History will not absolve us" and he/she is
kind enough to scan the whole imaginary conversation between Dulles and JFK and post it
in this thread?

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Thank you very much Gary

[Vasilios Vazakas]

I wonder if other members could see that there is something wrong with this imaginary conversation or is it just me?

[Dawn Meredith]

I wonder if other members could see that there is something wrong with this imaginary conversation or is it just me?

Vasilious, I think it is bizarre. But Marty is most sincere in his feelings about this assassination. He keeps up with the latest books, considers JFKU the best, like most of us. Try not to look for something that is not there. Marty is part of a group with Vince Salandria which I have long been a part of, in fact those two refer to each other as his "best friend". You don't get any more sincere, committed, or correct than Vince. He's been on the side of the angles from the start. So ....as strange as this imaginary exchange is...there is nothing sinister.

Dawn

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Dawn

I will accept your word that Marty has and had noble intentions when he wrote the book. I also admire Salandria and if it was not
for him, we would have still be in the dark about many things.
However, even the most noble intations can spread the wrong message if they are not written carefully.
I assume his book is read by a wide audience, not just people with knowledge about the assassination but regular people
who have not a clue about JFK and his policies or his assassination.
If an unsuspected mind reads this dialogue will believe that JFK was some kind of Communist who betrayed his people, the democratic
way and freedom. An unsuspected mind will believe that it was JFK who acted aginst people's free will, like Russia Communists
always knew what it was best for the people. A distorted free will that gives people the rigth to blow up the planet if they desire.
Dulles justified the blow up thing by saying, that if we deprive them of that right then what's the difference between us and Communists.
That JFK gave up the right of the people to lead the country, and instead transferred the right to an elite with the power to manipulate
the media.
An unsuspected mind will not know that what Dulles accuses JFK, is something that Dulles and the people he represents are an elite who took control
over people, manipulated the media (Mockingbird) and covered up the assassination for 40 years.
And while Dulles champions the right of democracy and free will, an unsuspected mind would not know that it was Dulles who generated
coup d'etat in foreign countries against a foreign's people will, just because an elite desired. And yet he has the nerve to accuse JFK for this.
An unsuspected mind will side with Dulles words once he finally sees JFK to agree and asks for forgiveness.
So i still think that no matter his noble intentions he passed the wrong message, unwittingly i would like to think.

[Charles Drago]

My problem is not with Mr. Schotz's intentions, but rather with his limited literary gifts.

The central conceit of this mini-drama, I would submit, is that "Dulles" is so skilled in the dark arts of deception that he can convince "JFK" to indict and convict himself of capital offenses and apologize to his own murderer for the transgressions that brought about a well-deserved act of regicide.

The dramatic argument that "Dulles" makes to "JFK" is, in condensed form, the real argument used to convince some Facilitators and accessories-after-the-fact that the violent removal of the president was a necessary, patriotic, righteous act.

The drama breaks down at the point when the dramatist asks us to suspend our disbelief and accept that "JFK" would agree with the argument for self-implication and offer his apology to "Dulles."

John Fitzgerald Kennedy as unenlightened, naive spirit?

A better writer might have convinced us that forgiveness of the murderer by the murdered is the ultimate expression of spiritual enlightenment, and that "JFK" was doing to his tormentor exactly what the latter was attempting -- and failing -- to do to him.

Not Mr. Schotz.

[Phil Dragoo]

When a friend from Army intelligence from the Korean Armistice told me in unquestionable gravity, "Kennedy was very dangerous, very dangerous," I had a glimpse behind the curtain.

I cannot see Kennedy embracing one from the dark side which produced and maintains the assassination.

The argument of literary license is not adequate to overcome the basic revulsion.

One might better read George Michael Evica, A Certain Arrogance, for a sense of the decades of Dulles duplicity.

Is the dialogue malicious or merely inept.

I would rather see Kennedy as Harrison Ford in Air Force One shoving Dulles out the door.

"Get off my plane!"

Spiritual plane, of course.