Juror No. 8
New Member
Did he? Or did he refer to the Soviets as just the visible left arm of a monolithic system which he wasn't at liberty to discuss in greater depth?
Explained: JFK: "We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy"
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Did he? Or did he refer to the Soviets as just the visible left arm of a monolithic system which he wasn't at liberty to discuss in greater depth?
No. He used the term "monolithic" in a very straightforward manner to describe the soviets as anti-diverse.
Juror No. 8
New Member
Kennedy was the consummate politician. I'm not so sure anything with him was very straightforward.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Really? Do we need to define monolithic? he just laid out the ruthless conspiracy in black and white- read again:
Sounds like a ruthless, external conspiracy to me.We dare not fail to see the insidious nature of this new and deeper struggle. We dare not fail to grasp the new concepts, the new tools, the new sense of urgency we will need to combat it-whether in Cuba or South Viet-Nam. And we dare not fail to realize that this struggle is taking place every day, without fanfare, in thousands of villages and markets-day and night-and in classrooms all over the globe.
he clearly sees it as an external threat:
...it is clear that this Nation, in concert with all the free nations of this hemisphere, must take an ever closer and more realistic look at the menace of external Communist intervention...
As for evidence-that the conspiracy was being driven from abroad...one need only look at the VENONA project's discoveries to this evidence as the Soviets aggressively targeted the US for espionage.
That the Bolsheviks had connections to financiers in the US does not mean that the driving force of for the global push of "communism" was coming from within the US.
Juror No. 8
New Member
Sorry, but the Soviet Union and its government weren't "monolithic" on their own, nor could it be classified as a "conspiracy". You're grasping at straws.
Sure, he saw the Soviet Union as the external threat portion of the much larger conspiracy he was really referring to, which was internal.
That's not evidence of the conspiracy being driven from abroad, that's only evidence of the Soviets' intelligence agencies working on behalf of the conspiracy working from within and behind the U.S. government.
Sure it does, as the Bolsheviks were dead in the water without assistance from Wall Street. The hand that gives (Wall Street) is above the hand that takes (Soviet communists).
The international communist conspiracy, as it is known, was made right here in the USA.
SR1419
Senior Member.
thats funny...if that truly is your opinion then you are so far off base that it is ridiculous to continue the discussion.
Monolithic : constituting a massive undifferentiated and often rigid whole <a monolithic society>
As has been pointed out earlier, JFK frequently referred to the Soviets as monolithic- that YOU do not agree with him does not mean that they were not what he was referring to.
The conspiracy was being perpetrated by them from their tanks marching across Eastern Europe to their missiles on Cuba to the whispers of deceit and espionage spreading throughout the World.
...but whatever- feel free continue to believe he was speaking some vague, secret code that only you can understand.
U
Unregistered
Guest
To those saying Kennedy's speech was about communism: Where does he actually mention that word specifically. In his speech he mentions secret societies, not communism. So-called conspiracy theorists are not the only ones who are making presumptions.
As he doesn't actually mention Tonkin or Communism that's a pretty big assumption. It might have happened during the backdrop of communism, but then many researchers would argue it was happening during the backdrop of the Federal Reserve getting more powerful and secret socieities getting a foothold too.
Let's be clear on this. There was nothing secret about communism. The communist threat and intentions were clear. There was nothing hidden about it. How can communism be described as "a secret society" which Kennedy refers to, when they were very open about their intentions?
Rather than accuse "conspiracy-theorists" of reading into quotes, when he actually does make reference to secret societies, maybe you should point us to the bits in the speech that you have quote, where he mentions communism specifically.
Also do some research on what we mean by "the elite" or how the "illuminati" operate. I think you'll find that there is little difference between their intentions and the communism threat anyway. By the way, both capitalism and communism comes from the same people. Not the US government like Kennedy, Obama, or even Bush. But by the disparate groups, often called the illuminati, but who are made up of groups like the CFR, Bilderbergers, Skull and Bones, Freemasons, Knights Templar, etc. It's an old war tactic - you help to create and support both sides, so you win whatever happens.
And hey, why don't you try reading up on their intentions - from the horses mouth? Why rely on what conspiracy theorists say - why not read their own literature - Eco Science is a pretty good one to start with. The Report from Iron Mountain is another. Of course, they dismissed that last one as a "hoax" even though it says the same thing as in Eco Science - which they do stand by, and even the the "hoax" was written by an academic who was actually part of these secret societies who openly admitted to it, and said on national television back in the 60s that he supported the proposals put forward in their documents.
Why not read the works of Manly P Hall - an ardent supporter of the secret societies I refer to. Why don't you do some proper research into the subject, obtain documents under the Freedom of Information Act like I have, read around the subject, see for yourself that things aren't quite as they appear to be. Just because the government tells you they are not lying, doesn't mean they're telling the truth.
Of course, there are some nuts within the conspiracy movement like the David Ickes, The Alex Jones, and anybody else who speaks of a reptoid-alien invasion. I mean for goodness sakes. And perhaps we'll never know for sure what Kennedy really meant. The way I see it, his refusal in that speech to clearly say "communists" and the fact that like so many other US presidents, he just happened to die, means that it cannot just be dismissed out of hand. The fact is there are some so-called conspiracy theorists
Rather than posting YouTube vids - and "debunking" things based upon YOUR interpretation - because let's be honest, if Kennedy didn't define what he meant either way or explicitly mention communist, or specific wars by name, then I'm afraid it is simply your interpretation, based upon the knowledge you have been taught about certain events. Why don't you go back and read the old Cointel Pro documents, and read books like Morals and Dogma, Borne in Blood, The Route to Global Occupation, all of these books written by people with very little to gain from writing little-known books about a subject that most people blindly dismiss without even bothering to read what they say.
As he doesn't actually mention Tonkin or Communism that's a pretty big assumption. It might have happened during the backdrop of communism, but then many researchers would argue it was happening during the backdrop of the Federal Reserve getting more powerful and secret socieities getting a foothold too.
Let's be clear on this. There was nothing secret about communism. The communist threat and intentions were clear. There was nothing hidden about it. How can communism be described as "a secret society" which Kennedy refers to, when they were very open about their intentions?
Rather than accuse "conspiracy-theorists" of reading into quotes, when he actually does make reference to secret societies, maybe you should point us to the bits in the speech that you have quote, where he mentions communism specifically.
Also do some research on what we mean by "the elite" or how the "illuminati" operate. I think you'll find that there is little difference between their intentions and the communism threat anyway. By the way, both capitalism and communism comes from the same people. Not the US government like Kennedy, Obama, or even Bush. But by the disparate groups, often called the illuminati, but who are made up of groups like the CFR, Bilderbergers, Skull and Bones, Freemasons, Knights Templar, etc. It's an old war tactic - you help to create and support both sides, so you win whatever happens.
And hey, why don't you try reading up on their intentions - from the horses mouth? Why rely on what conspiracy theorists say - why not read their own literature - Eco Science is a pretty good one to start with. The Report from Iron Mountain is another. Of course, they dismissed that last one as a "hoax" even though it says the same thing as in Eco Science - which they do stand by, and even the the "hoax" was written by an academic who was actually part of these secret societies who openly admitted to it, and said on national television back in the 60s that he supported the proposals put forward in their documents.
Why not read the works of Manly P Hall - an ardent supporter of the secret societies I refer to. Why don't you do some proper research into the subject, obtain documents under the Freedom of Information Act like I have, read around the subject, see for yourself that things aren't quite as they appear to be. Just because the government tells you they are not lying, doesn't mean they're telling the truth.
Of course, there are some nuts within the conspiracy movement like the David Ickes, The Alex Jones, and anybody else who speaks of a reptoid-alien invasion. I mean for goodness sakes. And perhaps we'll never know for sure what Kennedy really meant. The way I see it, his refusal in that speech to clearly say "communists" and the fact that like so many other US presidents, he just happened to die, means that it cannot just be dismissed out of hand. The fact is there are some so-called conspiracy theorists
Rather than posting YouTube vids - and "debunking" things based upon YOUR interpretation - because let's be honest, if Kennedy didn't define what he meant either way or explicitly mention communist, or specific wars by name, then I'm afraid it is simply your interpretation, based upon the knowledge you have been taught about certain events. Why don't you go back and read the old Cointel Pro documents, and read books like Morals and Dogma, Borne in Blood, The Route to Global Occupation, all of these books written by people with very little to gain from writing little-known books about a subject that most people blindly dismiss without even bothering to read what they say.
He's not referring to Communism as a secret society. Communism is the "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy". He didn't need to say the words because it was blindingly obvious to those present what he was talking about.
He's saying that America has always been opposed to secret societies, hence that's whey he was strongly opposed to government censorship of the press.
I highly recommend you listen to the entire speech. It's only 20 minutes:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHA-025-001.aspx
I did not fully appreciate just how fully people were confusing the two things in the speech. It seems like people just focus on two sentences, ignoring the rest of the speech, and the historical context. It seems for them the speech boils down to:
[bunk]"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. ... For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy"[/bunk]
But those are referring to two entirely different things, as a full reading (or especially a full listening) of the speech will confirm. A better summation would be:
That, in a nutshell, is what the speech is about. Please take the 20 minutes to actually listen to it.
If you put those 20 minutes into it (by listening to the speech), I will too. What's the most compelling 20 minutes that sums up your argument? Surely someone can make at least a reasonable introduction to the topic in 20 minutes?
He's saying that America has always been opposed to secret societies, hence that's whey he was strongly opposed to government censorship of the press.
I highly recommend you listen to the entire speech. It's only 20 minutes:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHA-025-001.aspx
I did not fully appreciate just how fully people were confusing the two things in the speech. It seems like people just focus on two sentences, ignoring the rest of the speech, and the historical context. It seems for them the speech boils down to:
[bunk]"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. ... For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy"[/bunk]
But those are referring to two entirely different things, as a full reading (or especially a full listening) of the speech will confirm. A better summation would be:
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society ... [so] no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
[however]
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy [who] have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; [so even though] I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news,... I am asking the members of the newspaper profession [...] to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
That, in a nutshell, is what the speech is about. Please take the 20 minutes to actually listen to it.
If you put those 20 minutes into it (by listening to the speech), I will too. What's the most compelling 20 minutes that sums up your argument? Surely someone can make at least a reasonable introduction to the topic in 20 minutes?
U
Unregistered
Guest
You are absolutely wrong. I have both listened to and read the transcript of the whole speech again and in that part of the speech where he mentions secret societies:
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."
He was clearly NOT referring to communism. That is 100% ridiculous, I'm afraid. What he was referring here to was secret societies, quite distinct from communism. Now that I've re-read the whole thing, it makes your argument non-existent. When he was talking about secrecy, I accept after re-reading it, that he was not just referring to secret societies, he was also referring to freedom of the press, and warning against censorship and that becomes clearer in other parts of his speech.
Whilst he clearly viewed communism as a threat, it is patently ridiculous to say his WHOLE speech particularly the part I refer to, as only being about communism, that is clear even to a child I'm afraid. Clearly he thought there was a number of threats to American freedoms at the time. Yes, ok, communism was one. Of course it was. Secret societies were another. Not unless you are implausibly trying to argue that communism IS a secret society, which makes no sense.
Freedom of the press was another concern he had, he warned against its censorship. Censorship from who I might ask? So clearly it was not a speech about one thing, he laid bare a number of concerns.
I never said communism was a secret society. Please pay attention to my words "There was nothing secret about communism. The communist threat and intentions were clear. There was nothing hidden about it. How can communism be described as "a secret society" which Kennedy refers to, when they were very open about their intentions?"
I said "how can communism be described as a secret society?" so no, Mick I did NOT say communism was a secret society. If you are going to quote me, do so accurately. Re-read my sentence please. I think you'll find I said the exact opposite. It is YOU who are confusing the argument; Kennedy refers to secret societies in the text quoted, not communism. THAT is what I said.
I also said that members of "elite" secret societies have used communism just as they use capitalism and that their goal is to create a kind of corporate society where people below have no possessions and do not own private property -communism by another name, or more accurately, corporatism. But really, I'm not all that concerned with names. My stance is whatever you choose to call it, it is controlled by the same people. It is the people who run things - secretly - which are the problem, not the system itself, although I would say, out of all the political systems, communism is probably the most undesirable.
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."
He was clearly NOT referring to communism. That is 100% ridiculous, I'm afraid. What he was referring here to was secret societies, quite distinct from communism. Now that I've re-read the whole thing, it makes your argument non-existent. When he was talking about secrecy, I accept after re-reading it, that he was not just referring to secret societies, he was also referring to freedom of the press, and warning against censorship and that becomes clearer in other parts of his speech.
Whilst he clearly viewed communism as a threat, it is patently ridiculous to say his WHOLE speech particularly the part I refer to, as only being about communism, that is clear even to a child I'm afraid. Clearly he thought there was a number of threats to American freedoms at the time. Yes, ok, communism was one. Of course it was. Secret societies were another. Not unless you are implausibly trying to argue that communism IS a secret society, which makes no sense.
Freedom of the press was another concern he had, he warned against its censorship. Censorship from who I might ask? So clearly it was not a speech about one thing, he laid bare a number of concerns.
I never said communism was a secret society. Please pay attention to my words "There was nothing secret about communism. The communist threat and intentions were clear. There was nothing hidden about it. How can communism be described as "a secret society" which Kennedy refers to, when they were very open about their intentions?"
I said "how can communism be described as a secret society?" so no, Mick I did NOT say communism was a secret society. If you are going to quote me, do so accurately. Re-read my sentence please. I think you'll find I said the exact opposite. It is YOU who are confusing the argument; Kennedy refers to secret societies in the text quoted, not communism. THAT is what I said.
I also said that members of "elite" secret societies have used communism just as they use capitalism and that their goal is to create a kind of corporate society where people below have no possessions and do not own private property -communism by another name, or more accurately, corporatism. But really, I'm not all that concerned with names. My stance is whatever you choose to call it, it is controlled by the same people. It is the people who run things - secretly - which are the problem, not the system itself, although I would say, out of all the political systems, communism is probably the most undesirable.
Well, yes, that's what I'm saying too. My post you are replying to says: "He's not referring to Communism as a secret society."
He's saying he doesn't want America to be a secret society.
U
Unregistered
Guest
But here is what I am throwing up. America can't be a secret society. That makes no sense, either logically or grammatically. It can however, be controlled by a secret society, or rather, secret societies, which is the more likely scenario. Introducing communism into a country for example, would not make it a secret society. It would make it communist, but not exactly secret. There's nothing 'secret' about communism. It might be an unworkable system, but if there is widespread knowledge of its existence, that is practiced by all through enforcement, then it can hardly be described as secret. That's the key to what I am saying here. His speech refers to secret societies plural, not America becoming a secret society.
You could well argue that he was saying that communism could allow it to become a dictatorship, in which a few elite men at the top would censor everything not on par with the system and force everybody else to live "as equals" with the exception of themselves. Actually that is not to dissimiliar to the kind of society envisaged by what high-ranking members of the CFR, Bilderbergers and similar groups, who all meet in secret.
Remember at one time, the meetings by the Bilderberg was once dismissed as a silly conspiracy theory. People who suggested there was a bilderberg meeting were called conspiracy nuts. Now that such meetings are widely known - though the discussions never made public - I hardly think it is a wild assumption, or even an assumption full stop, to say that there are groups of powerful people that do meet in secret and discuss the fate of the world, or at least their countries in secrecy. So it is perfectly plausible that among the many problems that Kennedy referred to in his speech, the issue of secret societies as defined by so-called conspiracy theorists was one of the things he warned us against. Communism may have been another, but as others have already pointed out, these people I referred to earlier,are known, documented and are proven to have financed both sides of most of the major wars in Europe. (If you like I can provide a bibliography - as I read around this subject all the time, I'm not one of those spotty teenagers that watches Alex Jones or David Icke on Youtube and then pretend i know about the world.) So if they are known to do that, is it really that improbable that communism and capitalism have been created in the same way? You'll have to make your own mind up, but I would say no.
You could well argue that he was saying that communism could allow it to become a dictatorship, in which a few elite men at the top would censor everything not on par with the system and force everybody else to live "as equals" with the exception of themselves. Actually that is not to dissimiliar to the kind of society envisaged by what high-ranking members of the CFR, Bilderbergers and similar groups, who all meet in secret.
Remember at one time, the meetings by the Bilderberg was once dismissed as a silly conspiracy theory. People who suggested there was a bilderberg meeting were called conspiracy nuts. Now that such meetings are widely known - though the discussions never made public - I hardly think it is a wild assumption, or even an assumption full stop, to say that there are groups of powerful people that do meet in secret and discuss the fate of the world, or at least their countries in secrecy. So it is perfectly plausible that among the many problems that Kennedy referred to in his speech, the issue of secret societies as defined by so-called conspiracy theorists was one of the things he warned us against. Communism may have been another, but as others have already pointed out, these people I referred to earlier,are known, documented and are proven to have financed both sides of most of the major wars in Europe. (If you like I can provide a bibliography - as I read around this subject all the time, I'm not one of those spotty teenagers that watches Alex Jones or David Icke on Youtube and then pretend i know about the world.) So if they are known to do that, is it really that improbable that communism and capitalism have been created in the same way? You'll have to make your own mind up, but I would say no.
U
Unregistered
Guest
Also..in addition to my response to you this line here:
"The very word secrecy is repugnant, in a free and open society, and we are as a people, inherently and historically, apposed to secret societies, secret oaths, and to secret proceedings...."
"Secret oaths?" Clearly he was not referring to the whole of the US being turned into a secret society.
"The very word secrecy is repugnant, in a free and open society, and we are as a people, inherently and historically, apposed to secret societies, secret oaths, and to secret proceedings...."
"Secret oaths?" Clearly he was not referring to the whole of the US being turned into a secret society.
Okay, I phrased that poorly. I agree he's not talking about America becoming a secret society. He's saying what is quite plain in that line there: that America is opposed to that kind of thing.
LBJ used the term "Secret societies" a few years later in discussing civil rights. He's referring to the KKK.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=26605
If you remove all the stuff about censorship and press restraint, then what is left? What is the message of the speech? You say he's warning us of many things, but all I see is:
A) Secrecy and censorship is bad
B) Communists are bad
C) Communists get useful intelligence from the newspapers
D) So maybe you guys could be a bit more thoughtful about what you print.
LBJ used the term "Secret societies" a few years later in discussing civil rights. He's referring to the KKK.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=26605
I think you are fixating on the words "secret society" and "conspiracy" in insolation. This is a speech about the need for restrain in the press. The use of those words is quite reasonable in context used.Let's try to lead our country and our friends. Let's try to teach our children to love and to respect their neighbors instead of hating and suspecting them. Let's say to those that join these secret societies and march in the night with masks on their heads, that this is not really the thing that built America. Let us all come out in the open and unite behind one program, and that is, preserving our country first.
If you remove all the stuff about censorship and press restraint, then what is left? What is the message of the speech? You say he's warning us of many things, but all I see is:
A) Secrecy and censorship is bad
B) Communists are bad
C) Communists get useful intelligence from the newspapers
D) So maybe you guys could be a bit more thoughtful about what you print.
No, I don't remember that. When was that? They first met in 1954. Here's a 1964 newspaper article By Ralph McGill about them. While it does dismiss the concerns as a silly conspiracy theory, it does NOT dismiss the existence of the meetings. Indeed, McGill describes the meetings pretty much as they are described now.
Last edited:
And here's a newspaper article from 1957, just after the first US meeting. Clearly the meetings were never denied. But those who did not attend have been spreading conspiracy theories about them since the very beginning.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9WIzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1eYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5671,4662079
And this is from Pacific Stars and Stripes, Feb 17, 1957:
The Daily Mail, Hagerstown, Maryland, Feb 12, 1957:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9WIzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1eYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5671,4662079
And this is from Pacific Stars and Stripes, Feb 17, 1957:
The Daily Mail, Hagerstown, Maryland, Feb 12, 1957:
Last edited:
For reference, here's Schlafly's "A Choice Not An Echo" (as reference by McGill, above), which popularized the Bilderberg conspiracy theory:
https://www.metabunk.org/files/Schl...How American Presidents are Chosen (1964).pdf
Here's Ch14, better formatted:
https://www.metabunk.org/files/Sclafy - A Choice, not an Echo c14 Bilderberg.pdf
Excerpt:
https://www.metabunk.org/files/Schl...How American Presidents are Chosen (1964).pdf
Here's Ch14, better formatted:
https://www.metabunk.org/files/Sclafy - A Choice, not an Echo c14 Bilderberg.pdf
Excerpt:
Several years ago, the author of this book stumbled on clear evidence that
very powerful men actually do meet to make plans which are kept secret from American
citizens. While visiting at Sea Island, Georgia, this writer discovered the details of a
secret meeting on nearby St. Simon’s Island, Georgia, held at the King and Prince
Hotel, February 14-18, 1957.
The most elaborate precautions were taken to prevent Americans from knowing who
attended this secret meeting or what transpired there. Advance agents came in four
months ahead to check security and search every room in the hotel. All hotel
employees were given the most rigid security check and their names sent to
Washington for additional investigation. During the four days and five nights of the
meeting, all roads leading to the hotel were blocked off and the road block
maintained by the Georgia State Police. The hotel was closed to all other patrons.
NATO and FBI guards in plain clothes kept constant surveillance on the hotel itself.
None of the hotel employees was permitted to go into the ballroom where the
meetings were held. At the end of each session, one of the participants personally
gathered up all notes and memos used during the meeting and burned them.
Who were the participants at this secret meeting at St. Simon’s Island? They were
many of the top-level kingmakers who exercise financial, political and propaganda
control over American citizens and policies. The 69 participants on the official
unpublished list included the following:
Last edited:
SR1419
Senior Member.
Actually, the Bilderberger meeting is not "secret"- its private- there is a big difference. The time and location is known in advance. Attendees are known and do not deny they attend- they just do not report what was discussed and they are certainly entitled to that right. The discussions are intended to be off-the-record. Moreover, different people are invited every year.
The Belief that it is "secret" and therefore the intentions of the attendees are somehow to control the "fate of the world" is not a reflection of the facts.
http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.html
U
Unregistered
Guest
Yup, that might be a good idea, as I would be taken in, thinking JFK was talking about the mega-banks, big Pharma, Wall-street, NWO, skull n bones, Illuminati, if I hadn't read the thread from the beginning. Well, not those last few, I like to believe I have at least one foot firmly planted in 'reality' (whatever that may mean), but yeah...
We had Ike talking about the military-industrial complex, so why not JFK?
U
Unregistered
Guest
Here's a quote from David Rockefeller's memoirs (A member of the Elite):
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Debunk that!
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Debunk that!
U
Unregistered
Guest
Not that i care about quotes but even if he was talking about the communists- who do you think controls America now?? because it certainly isn't WE THE PEOPLE.
U
Unregistered
Guest
JFK mentioned "secret societies". Communism isn't secret. There exists systems which are far more evil and concealed than Communism. It definitely is about the global elitists and the NWO if you ask me
I think you need to listen to the entire speech again. Yes, the phrase "secret societies" was NOT referring to communism. He talking about it as a negative as he's explaining why he does not want to censor the press.
U
Unregistered
Guest
Dear Mick, and other posters,
I have tried to follow the reasoning behind your 'alleged' and 'objective' opinion that you have debunked JFK's speech, as sourced from the "The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961" after following YOUR link on the first pages of comments. See here;
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/...merican-Newspaper-Publishers-Association.aspx
However, your self-assertion that JFK was referring to 'Communism' is at best lamentable for anyone who can actually read or listen to, AND comprehend the speech. To explain myself, if I may, I'd like to post the start of your original thread, whereby you claim to debunk this speech;
Posters comments; A very valid point to make here Mick. In the book, 'JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters', by James W. Douglas It was generally thought, and agreed with by Marr, Roberts, Bugliosi, Ray and Files et al in their books, that JFK realised that the Bay of Pigs WAS a plan by the Military Industrial Complex and the CIA and other 'corrupted' organisations and departments within Government, that was an attempt to lead the USA into direct Nuclear war with the then USSR. JFK, allowed the bay of Pigs to fail after realising that his own Chiefs of Staff and the Intelligence community wanted 'Hot War', as 'they' believed with a first strike scenario that they could win such a war with 'tolerable' collateral damage (Sic!!)
So, now the context is set correctly as backed up by documentation and 'non-challenged' hypothesis from several different authors and a more subjective stance from several differing view points and reasoning processes.
Now, to go back to the issue of 'Monolithic' meaning the Communists, let's revisit the speech, but this time in context and in total...
Starting with the opening lines of the speech;
I quote JFK directly from the speech verbatim;
(NB Section I of the speech) I
Now, after reading Mick's comments, it is obvious that Mick is not unintelligent nor is he being 'stupid' or of limited vision. I feel however, that he is being disingenuous at best, and at worst prompting misdirection and misinformation. Using logical fallacies, for example, Mick's example of the Myth Busting posters and their intent being reversed, is exactly what he is trying here, and by the way, please could you list your source of information for that 'Myth Busting poster campaign', it's context, who funded it it and for what ends please? Otherwise, why did you include it, if you, Mick, cannot validate it? Also by the constant moving away from the point of the original thread and the 'debunked' speech and 'myth', when you haven't actually done so or even attempted to rationalise it adequately, and so by, start on a plan of distraction, and raising other non-related subjects. Indeed, not even by addressing ALL the pertinent points nor backing it up with fact or even logic? Well, I'll leave that for other readers to decide upon as to why you do this.
Personally, I would conclude, after having read the speech, listened to the speech and read at least five other sources quoting the speech and concluding in each case that JFK was referring to a Secret 'cabal' for want of a better word within the US Administration, Military and Intelligence services, that had designs on taking over power from the Executive officer, AKA The Presidential Office, and so by taking control of both domestic and foreign policy, and Governance of the country. There is nothing in this speech that even suggests he was referring to Communism at all, nor in the subject of the speech itself.
Many thanks for your time and I hope this may help you consider the position you have taken on this matter. If you wish to discuss the debunk theory you have presented regards this speech, and that ALONE, without other distractions, then I would gladly indulge you.
Good wishes, and kind regards,
Thucydides
I have tried to follow the reasoning behind your 'alleged' and 'objective' opinion that you have debunked JFK's speech, as sourced from the "The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961" after following YOUR link on the first pages of comments. See here;
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/...merican-Newspaper-Publishers-Association.aspx
However, your self-assertion that JFK was referring to 'Communism' is at best lamentable for anyone who can actually read or listen to, AND comprehend the speech. To explain myself, if I may, I'd like to post the start of your original thread, whereby you claim to debunk this speech;
Posters comments; A very valid point to make here Mick. In the book, 'JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters', by James W. Douglas It was generally thought, and agreed with by Marr, Roberts, Bugliosi, Ray and Files et al in their books, that JFK realised that the Bay of Pigs WAS a plan by the Military Industrial Complex and the CIA and other 'corrupted' organisations and departments within Government, that was an attempt to lead the USA into direct Nuclear war with the then USSR. JFK, allowed the bay of Pigs to fail after realising that his own Chiefs of Staff and the Intelligence community wanted 'Hot War', as 'they' believed with a first strike scenario that they could win such a war with 'tolerable' collateral damage (Sic!!)
So, now the context is set correctly as backed up by documentation and 'non-challenged' hypothesis from several different authors and a more subjective stance from several differing view points and reasoning processes.
Now, to go back to the issue of 'Monolithic' meaning the Communists, let's revisit the speech, but this time in context and in total...
Starting with the opening lines of the speech;
The President starts with a preamble that is witty, urbane and humorous until he gets to the start of the matter in hand. I haven't cut and paste the speech, both in order to save space, and as it is easy to click the links above and read it yourself for the first twelve paragraphs or sections until you get to the line;"Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight."
Now I shall cut and paste the speech IN CONTEXT and in full to the Monolithic paragraph and a little beyond;"My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors."
I quote JFK directly from the speech verbatim;
[Posters comment; Would this imply Communism? Personally, in the context of the times and relative scientific advances, I think not.]"I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate [Posters comment; Why does he use this word here; especially in a speech about secrecy and secret societies? I wonder indeed... A coded acknowledgement perhaps?] that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
[Posters comment; Why would Communism threaten the US press? Or indeed JUST the President, note the phrasing here.]This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
(NB Section I of the speech) I
[Posters comment; The threat of 'Communism' can cause this statement can it? Please note the sentence "And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment." ~ Communism, seriously..?]The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
[Posters comment; remember the Bay of Pigs occurred a mere week before this speech! See above]But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
[Posters comment; Again, not exactly a description of the USSR or Warsaw pact circa 1961 is it?]It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless CONSPIRACY [Posters emphasis] that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence [Posters Comment; Now ask ourself, when was Communism ever subtle, Hungary '64 right? Czechsloavkia '68, again a Masterplan of subterfuge and subtlety... not!] --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.
Posters comments;Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money."
Now, after reading Mick's comments, it is obvious that Mick is not unintelligent nor is he being 'stupid' or of limited vision. I feel however, that he is being disingenuous at best, and at worst prompting misdirection and misinformation. Using logical fallacies, for example, Mick's example of the Myth Busting posters and their intent being reversed, is exactly what he is trying here, and by the way, please could you list your source of information for that 'Myth Busting poster campaign', it's context, who funded it it and for what ends please? Otherwise, why did you include it, if you, Mick, cannot validate it? Also by the constant moving away from the point of the original thread and the 'debunked' speech and 'myth', when you haven't actually done so or even attempted to rationalise it adequately, and so by, start on a plan of distraction, and raising other non-related subjects. Indeed, not even by addressing ALL the pertinent points nor backing it up with fact or even logic? Well, I'll leave that for other readers to decide upon as to why you do this.
Personally, I would conclude, after having read the speech, listened to the speech and read at least five other sources quoting the speech and concluding in each case that JFK was referring to a Secret 'cabal' for want of a better word within the US Administration, Military and Intelligence services, that had designs on taking over power from the Executive officer, AKA The Presidential Office, and so by taking control of both domestic and foreign policy, and Governance of the country. There is nothing in this speech that even suggests he was referring to Communism at all, nor in the subject of the speech itself.
Many thanks for your time and I hope this may help you consider the position you have taken on this matter. If you wish to discuss the debunk theory you have presented regards this speech, and that ALONE, without other distractions, then I would gladly indulge you.
Good wishes, and kind regards,
Thucydides
It's interesting how someone can read the same thing, and come to a very different conclusion. I'll questions two points:
1) Why do you say the quotes are "not exactly a description of the USSR or Warsaw pact circa 1961"? What exactly is inconsistent with the US public perception of the USSR and the language that JFK uses to describe it?
2) to this section:
He does not say that communism threatens the press. Let's rearrange it slightly without changing the meaning
1) Why do you say the quotes are "not exactly a description of the USSR or Warsaw pact circa 1961"? What exactly is inconsistent with the US public perception of the USSR and the language that JFK uses to describe it?
2) to this section:
You replied: "Why would Communism threaten the US press?"This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
He does not say that communism threatens the press. Let's rearrange it slightly without changing the meaning
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements:
1) the need for a far greater public information
2) the need for far greater official secrecy
These two requirements may seem almost contradictory in tone.
But if we are to meet this national peril, then they must be reconciled, and fulfilled.
Now it seems very clear to me that the "deadly challenge" and the "national peril" are the same thing. Let's call it "the enemy", and with that in mind, let's simplify the paragraph some more, adding some information from the surrounding context. 1) the need for a far greater public information
2) the need for far greater official secrecy
These two requirements may seem almost contradictory in tone.
But if we are to meet this national peril, then they must be reconciled, and fulfilled.
We need to do two things to fight this enemy:
1) We need far greater public information (so we don't become a secret society)
2) We need far greater official secrecy (to prevent secrets being revealed to the enemy)
These two requirements may seem contradictory
But if we are to combat this enemy, then we must figure out how to both, and get it done.
Do you agree with this re-phrasing? If not, then why not, and can you do a better one?1) We need far greater public information (so we don't become a secret society)
2) We need far greater official secrecy (to prevent secrets being revealed to the enemy)
These two requirements may seem contradictory
But if we are to combat this enemy, then we must figure out how to both, and get it done.
cheeple
Member
Listen to JFK's speech he told us that he and his administration were opposed to "monolithic" and ruthless conspiracy meaning a single organized stalinist group of men that relies on "covet means" ( to want others money, property, and freedom blamelessly)
He also said that this group infiltrates he was telling us that they ARE IN Govt, and that elections mean nothing, and that they rely on Intimidation, that tells me he was intimidated and he did what a true patriot would do, he put his life on the line and this speech was one big fat pimp slap in the face of the same elitists that had been raping and pillaging this Country for decades. He made it very clear this group of elitists are a highly efficient machine and that they control everything from Military to economic to politics. There is so much in this speech if you listen to every carefully placed word it becomes very clear.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies 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.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
He also said that this group infiltrates he was telling us that they ARE IN Govt, and that elections mean nothing, and that they rely on Intimidation, that tells me he was intimidated and he did what a true patriot would do, he put his life on the line and this speech was one big fat pimp slap in the face of the same elitists that had been raping and pillaging this Country for decades. He made it very clear this group of elitists are a highly efficient machine and that they control everything from Military to economic to politics. There is so much in this speech if you listen to every carefully placed word it becomes very clear.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies 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.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
cheeple
Member
wow really, that is a very famous speech by JFK, he said Covet means, the site I copied that from put covert means by accident but that doesnt change what JFK actually said.
Clearly from the context he's saying "covert". "Covet" is a verb, not an adjective. The actual transcript of the speech and all accounts of the speech say "covert".
Did you listent to the entire speech cheeple? Not the heavily edited and misleading version in your video, bur the full speech where he explains about the need for self-censorship in the press?
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHA-025-001.aspx
Did you listent to the entire speech cheeple? Not the heavily edited and misleading version in your video, bur the full speech where he explains about the need for self-censorship in the press?
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHA-025-001.aspx
Gunguy45
Senior Member.
Well since you put it out there...I assumed it was correct. Now that I've looked...3 or 4 different transcripts on the 'net do indeed say "covert", not "covet". Since covert also fits the context of the rest of the statement and covet does not...I still believe you are mistaken. No I am not going to listen to it right now....I have to go help at a kids triathalon.
Google results for:
"relies on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence" = 5
"relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence" = 22,500
Cheeple, does this correction make any difference to your understanding of the speech? Can you describe the difference?
"relies on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence" = 5
"relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence" = 22,500
Cheeple, does this correction make any difference to your understanding of the speech? Can you describe the difference?
PCWilliams
Senior Member.
Yup, JFK misspoke.
A copy of the original text is located at http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-034-021.aspx
Page 11 and 13 have the word "covert."
Yeah, the communists, this was during the red scare. Have you listened to the entire speech?
So why do you think he was calling for press restraint in the speech?
cheeple
Member
National Security.
from?
Similar threads
