Mary's Mosaic: Entering Peter Janney's World of Fantasy

[Jan Klimkowski]

There are many excellent threads on Leary, LSD and the abuse of dissociative mental states on DPF.

Here's the one detailing Walter Bowart nailing Leary.

Good stuff at the following too:

Acid Dreams

Naval Intelligence, MKUltra and the Hippie Movement

Convicted RFK assassin says girl manipulated him

[Charles Drago]

Charles I can see that you know very little about this matter also.

So please read Lisa's excellent essay and then read mine since I will touch on matters she leaves out.

What you are quoting does not come from any "diary".

It comes from that CIA asset Timothy Leary. And it is complete crap that I will go over minutely in my essay. Leary did not utter one word of this stuff until decades after Mary Meyer died. ANd he did it to sell books. Just like he made up an alleged affair with, get this, Marilyn Monroe. Now if you believe that Leary slept with Monroe then you might buy Ultimate Sacrifice also.

But the idea that JFK was changing in 1963 is absurd. It was one of the faults with the Douglass book. And it is something I will correct in my book this fall. Kennedy could not be changing since, once in the Senate, he was never a Cold Warrior to start with. Kennedy got his education not from toking with Mary Meyer in 1963. But from his discussions in Edmund Gullion's office in Saigon in 1951. And this is what started him on his opposition road with Allen Dulles which exploded after the Bay of Pigs in 1961. And its what caused him to immediately break with the Dulles brothers foreign policy once he was inaugurated. And this was exemplified in Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia, COngo and even Iran at THAT TIME! This idea that Kennedy was "turning" after the Missile Crisis is, in large part, a myth. But bullshit artist Tim Leary did not know that. So he sold it in his book. But it only holds if you don't study Kennedy's career. IF you do it exposes Leary as the liar he was. And the idea that JFK needed someone like Mary Meyer to show him the way in foreign policy is so ridiculous as to be risible.

But this is the snake oil that Janney is selling. Straight out of John Simkin.

Please CD, you are better than that.

Jim,

Your vision is impaired.

So too are your abilities to read for subtext and reason logically;.

My reference to the "couldn't control him" quote was sarcastically expressed negative criticism of Janney's work -- or at least most of it. Your inability to grasp this is, in a word, Fetzer-esque.

Let's talk about change -- of sort that JFK may have experienced during his presidency. But first let's try to add basic logic to your reading skill set.

Even if JFK did not evolve intellectually or spiritually during his presidency -- which is to say, even if he was an enlightened humanist before January, 1964 and experienced unprecedented stasis in the areas thereafter -- this tells us nothing about his willingness to act in ways contrary to said enlightenment.

In other words, he may have been willing to compromise his values -- for reasons relating to electoral politics and/or geopolitical strategies, for instance -- to the degree that he was rightly or wrongly perceived to be "controllable" during a meaningful portion of his presidency. It's the "any more" construction that is most important here.

Now, my understanding of the human mind and the human spirit leads me to conclude that your argument regarding JFK's unchanging attitudes in certain critical areas over the final three-plus years of his life is utter balderdash. I am as familiar with his youthful embraces of enlightened/liberal political and social standards as I am with his later Cold Warrior posturings.

JFK's heroism is best understood as his positive response to the changes roiling internally. The stasis for which you argue has no basis in centuries of observation -- scientific and spiritual -- of the human condition.

[Greg Burnham]

JFK was against unilateral American involvement in Indochina from before the days of the French defeat. There is no evidence that his personal position on the matter changed once he became president. In fact, the evidence is that he was politically astute enough to realize the difference between his "public position" and his actual position. Inasmuch as there was a discrepancy between the two, he would need to juggle for a time until he could take the action necessary to extricate us from the conflict. However, the official documents indicate withdrawal. Some of the public statements gave mixed messages for a time, but were beginning to introduce the idea of it "being their war to win or lose--not our war" as a first step toward reconciling the apparent ambiguity.

Even as a Senator, in response to then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles' pitch for American intervention in Vietnam, Kennedy argued that:

"...to pour money, materiel, and men into the jungles of Indochina without at least a remote prospect of victory would be dangerously futile and self destructive. Of course, all discussion of United States action assume the inevitability of such victory. Such assumptions are not unlike similar predictions of confidence which have lulled the American People for many years. I am frankly of the belief that no amount of American military assistance in Indochina can conquer an enemy which is everywhere and at the same time nowhere, an enemy of the people which has the sympathy and covert support of the people."

He goes onto say that if the French persist in refusing to grant the people their independence and if the surrounding nations continue to remain aloof which they did "Then it is my hope that Secretary Dulles will recognize the futility of channeling American men and machines into that hopeless struggle."

Moreover, Speaker of the House, Tip O'neil says:

"And in my last conversation with him (JFK) I'll always remember it. He said, 'As soon as the election is over I'm going to get the boys out of Vietnam'. To myself, I've always said that there never would have been that great disaster that we had--the great loss of life--had he (JFK) lived."

This seems to me to be strong evidence that JFK remained consistent in his opposition to "war" -- be it an escalation of the Cold War or the prospect of actual war -- throughout his political career.

However, the reality of "gaining and holding public office" sometimes dictates various political subterfuges be employed...only to later be sorted out after election or re-election is successful. A distasteful reality? To be sure.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Jim,

Your vision is impaired.

So too are your abilities to read for subtext and reason logically;.

My reference to the "couldn't control him" quote was sarcastically expressed negative criticism of Janney's work -- or at least most of it. Your inability to grasp this is, in a word, Fetzer-esque.

If there was humor there, it was so subtly expressed that it was negligible. Therefore to jump from that to compare me with Fetzer is in a word, unjustified.

Let's talk about change -- of sort that JFK may have experienced during his presidency. But first let's try to add basic logic to your reading skill set.

Even if JFK did not evolve intellectually or spiritually during his presidency -- which is to say, even if he was an enlightened humanist before January, 1964 and experienced unprecedented stasis in the areas thereafter -- this tells us nothing about his willingness to act in ways contrary to said enlightenment.

In other words, he may have been willing to compromise his values -- for reasons relating to electoral politics and/or geopolitical strategies, for instance -- to the degree that he was rightly or wrongly perceived to be "controllable" during a meaningful portion of his presidency. It's the "any more" construction that is most important here.

Now, my understanding of the human mind and the human spirit leads me to conclude that your argument regarding JFK's unchanging attitudes in certain critical areas over the final three-plus years of his life is utter balderdash. I am as familiar with his youthful embraces of enlightened/liberal political and social standards as I am with his later Cold Warrior posturings.

This is so qualified, so limited, so ill defined that I really don't know what to say. Let me be clear, as Burnham said, Kennedy was enlightened way before he got to the White House. And he was at loggerheads with the Dulles/Ike foreign policy credo numerous times in the fifties. Just read his magnificent 1957 speech on Algeria. Then, in 1961, he began turning things around almost immediately in Congo, Laos, Vietnam and Indonesia. (BTW, this will be the centerpiece of my book this fall.) The only place I can find where this was excepted was Cuba. But when the opportunity came, he took advantage of it. And it had nothing to do with Mary Meyer. It had everything to do with Donovan and Castro. Now, In Janney's book, which I don't think anyone here has read, there is not one word about any of this 1951 -1957 education. And he calls JFK a Cold Warrior when he became president. Which is so ignorant as to be ludicrous. To use just one example,if that were the case, Kennedy would have sent in the Navy at Playa Giron. He did not. Instead he fired Dulles, Bissell and Cabell.

JFK's heroism is best understood as his positive response to the changes roiling internally. The stasis for which you argue has no basis in centuries of observation -- scientific and spiritual -- of the human condition.

Kennedy's heroism, if you want to call it that, was that when he was in Saigon in 1951, he did not want to listen to the canned briefings by the French emissaries there to meet him. He ditched them and found a young man named Edmund Gullion who had a good reputation from the State Department. There, he got his education about how democracy vs. communism was really a cover for imperialism versus nationalism in Vietnam. That is a lesson he never forgot. Which is why Gullion was moved into the White House in 1961, and Kennedy broke with the Dulles/Eisenhower precedent in a matter of weeks.

And that history lesson turns the whole Janney/Leary line into a gallon bottle of snake oil.



[/QUOTE]

[Seamus Coogan]

I think CD was really taking the piss in his first comment. I also think all of you JD, GB and CD are actually hitting the right points vis a vis Kennedy's positions. As you all bloody know expediancy in politics is paramount. There's so many things to contend with the public expectations and private/military considerations. This is where Kennedy becomes rather complex and I think you can almost go either way to a point. Kennedy certainly made some poigniant comments concerning all manner of situations. But he also had to play the game in some ways as well. While we all know he was definitely not going to pursue Vietnam, he had an election to win and seen as being soft on the commies was a sure fire way to lose ground, despite the success of the missile crisis. So chief while I tend to go with you and Greg, I do appreciate what CD is getting at and I'd actually like to see a debate with less barb's between you both.

Remember domestics are traumatic and I'm an impressionable youth. If you keep it up I'm staying at Aunty Magdas.

Thank's Jan by the way mate maybe it was you who gave me that stuff? Cheers for the links I'm sure we'll use them to skewer Mr Janney further. As for Lauren lol. Oh my God Mimi Alford. I can't speak on behalf of anybody here. But I think you'll find most of forum believe she's full of shite lol. Not to mention that you'll likely find that now thanks to Lisa's article that our dear Mr Janney and his gangs works bite the big kahuna.

I'll make a fine mod one day...I'm just joking I really am!

[Jim DiEugenio]

There is no doubt that the Vietnam withdrawal plan was keyed around 1964.

But there was never any real doubt which way Kennedy was headed after the November debate of 1961. I mean especially after he sent Galbraith to Saigon to counter the Taylor/Rostow report.

So, if that is what CD meant by that, then fine. I agree.

But what I am saying is that Kennedy's general direction was decided long before he won the WH. And it was clearly manifested in 1961.

A key point which is denied by Janney.

[Greg Burnham]

Agreed. And, I might add, Mary and her alleged "altered perception sharing" (even IF true, which I highly doubt) had nothing to do with ANY of it. A tryst, at best. A "policy making round of pillow talk" -- ??? Laughable if not so tragically an example of character assassination.

:fullofit:

[Seamus Coogan]

Agreed. And, I might add, Mary and her alleged "altered perception sharing" (even IF true, which I highly doubt) had nothing to do with ANY of it. A tryst, at best. A "policy making round of pillow talk" -- ??? Laughable if not so tragically an example of character assassination.

:fullofit:

Yes the Smiley with the volcanic turd and brain injury sum it up very well GB.

[Charles Drago]

I contest none of the facts proffered by Greg and Jim.

Nonetheless, I continue to reject out of hand the argument that spiritual and intellectual development -- and the growth spurts of courage, focus, determination, and insight they stimulate -- somehow did not manifest in what, if I read Jim correctly, for decades was a fully and irrevocably formed spirit/intellect.

Did the Missile Crisis have no impact on John Kennedy's mind and soul?

Did the death of Patrick have no impact on John Kennedy's soul and mind?

[Albert Doyle]

The crucible of the Missile Crisis and how those around him were calling for pre-emptive nuclear war may have induced JFK into a second more direct phase of his peace-making that manifested itself in the nuclear test ban treaty and American University speech.


There's something in my brain that looks at the tow path murder and tells me it was a CIA hit. Apparently Cord Meyer too.


Is it possible this wasn't based on bong smoking, LSD tripping, or sex but was instead based on intel suspicion that Kennedy laid-out his battle with domestic Cold War authorities to Mary Meyer and they were afraid Meyer recorded JFK voicing the reasons he was killed too clearly? Is it possible that Leary was deliberately planting disinformation in order to conceal this real cause?