If anything can be learned from the "teacher of life" (history), it is the experience - even the rule of law - that whenever the balance of political power of the great powers in the world changes and is disturbed, civilization is in mortal danger. That's when it is the abyss a realistic human horizon.
Throughout the XNUMXth century, the danger of the abyss is all the greater, because the military, media, financial and numerous other powers of global state powers are planetaryly dangerous. Especially since the Second World War here.
On the other hand, the fear of the abyss and "the end of history" (F. Fukuyama), moves society to resistance and directs it towards the creation of a new balance.
That is how it has always been and will be. Nothing new.
The pendulum of human civilization and the "work" of power always goes from one point to another. Therefore, it would not be wrong if we divided the history of the human "pendulum" by historical events and not by calendar time. You could easily divide history from one event to another by which global powers direct the flow of human consciousness in their own interest.
And precisely, the speech of some elite individual (statesman, etc.) can easily tighten or loosen the "pendulum of history" and be a mediator of history.
Therefore, these speeches are like lighthouses that warn the human race in stormy times: where society should and where it should not be directed; who you should and shouldn't go with; which means should be used to fight and which should not be used; which goals and tasks of elite individuals are realistic in "troubled times" and which are not, etc.
Such individuals and their speeches are the treasure of a country.
Let's give an example of a great speech addressed to people from the top of a "lighthouse" of the United States of America.
It's about speech John F. Kennedy from 1963, which is known as the "Speech of Peace".
State of consciousness in the state
In that speech JF. Kennedy describes the current state of consciousness in his country, but also in the world during the so-called "Cuban Missile Crisis". That crisis culminated on the world political and military scene in October 1962.
To remind.
The communist USSR was an ideological, military and political rival and even an opponent of the United States of America. The Soviet Union tried during 1961/2. to install its missile nuclear weapons in Cuba near the US border. It was the Soviet response to the previous installation of US missiles in Turkey near the Soviet border. (Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952.)
So, the time of Kennedy's speech (1963) was a time when nuclear-tipped missiles were on standby on both sides.
So, at the beginning of the 60s, the balance of global forces was fundamentally disturbed. It was necessary to establish a new, "higher" balance of power. In other words, in the interest of peace, a pacifist consciousness was needed from both "warring" sides. Both from the side of the USA and from the side of the USSR.
The capsule of pacifism was started by Dž. F. Kennedy.
Humanity needed brave words instead of cowardly clanking of weapons.
Thus, the media become the epicenter of events and political life. There are numerous speeches by officials from both "warring" sides. The political scene was extremely dangerous and incendiary. Media ie. those who manage them have their finger on the pulse of the media.
At that time, it was a great courage to advocate for peace and oppose the hidden parts of your establishment, which only sees a victorious way out of the crisis in war.
And precisely in such a heated and combative atmosphere, on June 10, 1963, US President John F. Kennedy gave a half-hour speech in support of the fight for global peace. Admirable courage. Admittedly, just a few months later, he would pay for his commitment to peace with his life.
J. F. Kennedy gave his speech in a paradisiacal setting in front of selected American individuals and pacifists (university professors, congressmen, senators, selected politicians, intellectuals, journalists). This, therefore, meant that he intended the speech primarily for his elite audience or an audience in which he had confidence.
Escape from the struggle for global power
And when we're talking about which ears (brains) the speech was addressed to, let's state that Kennedy did not give this speech before Congress, which would be politically natural, or to some Hollywood scene, which would be populistically useful for him. On the contrary. The location and selection of the "audience" was Kennedy's clear sign that he turned his vision and responsibility for that vision to where it should be: the American elite.
More broadly, the speech was intended for the ears of the USSR and its dignitaries and leaders.
In short, Kennedy extended the hand of peace to all sides.
A little more hidden, let's note that Dž. F. Kennedy was not a pure populist, which is a real miracle for the American political scene. He gave his peaceful and co-existing political ideas a higher and universal significance. With this, he also gave his vision of politics the dimension of escape from the struggle for global power and supremacy, which is usually led by a series of down-to-earth politicians. Both in the USA and in the USSR. But also everywhere.
Therefore, he gave priority to the vision of peaceful coexistence in the mutual usefulness of those ideas that had a mutually beneficial character and significance.
To save newspaper space, I will very briefly mention a few crucial ideas of this Kennedy's speech. I won't even mention many dimensions of speech.
"The most important topic on earth"
Kennedy called peace "the most important topic on earth" and renounced the idea of the superpower of American weapons, i.e. "Pax Americana which imposes itself on the world". A total and all-out war, Kennedy saw, "makes no sense in an age when great powers can have invulnerable (?) relations with each other."
Kennedy gives special emphasis to the cost aspect of weapons because "empty (atomic-VP) supplies - which we will never use - is essential to maintaining world peace and is our contribution to such peace... I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war... and will continue until the leaders of the Soviet Union take a more enlightened attitude ".
Let us stop here for a moment and emphasize that the Communist Soviets also fought for peace in a very enlightened and devoted manner. In contrast to the policy of the Americans in their giant atomic base "Incirlik" in Turkey, they urgently dismantled their already installed atomic launch pads in Cuba. Not as a sign of weakness, but as a sign of global responsibility. At the same time, let's extend the thinking even further in advance, the Soviets kept Cuba in their ideological environment.
So, the Soviets bravely and responsibly picked up the gauntlet that Kennedy threw in their face with the Peace Speech.
Let's go back to Kennedy's speech.
Kennedy was also very self-critical. It also seeks "a review of one's own (it means the American public - prim.VP) responsibility... and that every citizen begins to look at himself, examining his attitude towards the possibilities of his own peace, towards the USSR, towards freedom and peace here at home".
"Our problems are made by humans, therefore, they can be solved by humans and humans can be as big as they want... because not a single problem is outside of human beings... let's focus on practical real peace... which is not a magic formula that a poor power or two would adopt. True peace must be the product of many peoples, the sum of many parts."
Regardless of the fact that Kennedy's speech naturally contains American ideology, self-love and even conceit, let's quote his words that "we can still salute the Russian people for their many achievements in science, in economic and industrial development, in culture and courage... None our difference is not stronger than our rejection of war... No nation in the history of battles suffered as many casualties as the USSR during the Second World War”.
Again, let's step away from Kennedy's speech for a moment to see its importance more clearly. Let's notice that today almost no one sees or expresses in their opponent a measure or even a shadow of friendly value and greatness. Kennedy saw it and publicly stated it on the world stage.
In his speech, he significantly criticized the senseless nature and character of the Cold War. “We are both caught (it means the USA and the USSR - VP) into a vicious and dangerous cycle in which doubt on the one hand breeds doubt on the other)."
Kennedy also encourages other nations and states to realize their visions because "we are all equally mortal."
With his speech, Kennedy initiated the establishment of a telephone line for emergency communication between the presidents of the USA and the USSR and the cessation of atomic bomb testing. (Except underground, though.)
Fighting for peace is very dangerous
But politics is most often not a rational, ethical, pacifist and vital reflection on concrete reality. On the contrary. Dark forces forever overpower her, and even win. The world always moves between fear and hope, evil and good, to quote from the memory of one hero Tolstoyov Roman.
But fighting for peace is very dangerous.
Only a few months after this speech, Dz. F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 in Dallas (Texas). And the assassination of any president - and especially a world power such as the USA - is not and cannot be carried out by wild and unaccountable individuals. On the contrary.
Obviously, Kennedy's "Peace Speech" did not suit some American warmongers ("hawks").
Who knows, maybe the "Peace Speech" did not suit some powerful people from the rival, Soviet side.
J. F. Kennedy was assassinated under ("still" - CIA) unexplained circumstances. The arms of doubt point in all directions. And that means - nowhere to touch anyone. Various analyses, researches, conclusions are made about the assassination of Kennedy, including the one that he was killed by some (American!) militant state secret service eager for war, glory and - profit. And maybe he was killed by joint Soviet-American underground forces. Who knows that anymore?
Camouflage the past
Let's conclude something about the Speech of Peace from the point of view of today's Montenegro.
In the context of Kennedy's "Peace Speech" and the XNUMXth century, national and any other independence is a narrative that has - to put it mildly - a dubious utility value.
Today, only a few large states and their ruling "new classes" have fought for their sovereignty (M. Djilas). (Today, the "new class" is most often called the "establishment". Some also call it the "deep state".)
Only "fools" such as J. F. Kennedy and Milovan Đilas.
Until the beginning of the XNUMXth century, Montenegrins were independent in decision-making and excellent, as long as there were Turks-Ottomans in Montenegro. (The USA was also excellent, while their rival was the USSR.) Later, both of them were less and less excellent, until they slipped into...
It is obvious that the "teacher of life" (the past) knows how to change her clothes and show herself in her new, modern, fraudulent clothes. He knows how to camouflage himself. Then history tries to show and show how society - even Montenegrin - can live today on the wings of the past and old glory.
J. With this speech, F. Kennedy discovered, showed and proved how (every) diseased time must be treated in a new way and not with an old narrative. There is the pain of Montenegro.
Bonus video:
