Explanation: JFK was referring to Soviet Communism, in a speech about press freedom during the cold war. The speech (to newspaper publishers) was on April 27, 1961, more than two years before his assassination.
(Note: The explanation here is not debunking that he said it - he did. The debunking is the use of the quote, absent the explanatory context, to make it seem like JFK was talking about some Illuminati/NWO plot)
The Original Source
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/doc...the-american-newspaper-publishers-association
Also at:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/...ewspaper-Publishers-Association_19610427.aspx
High quality audio:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHA-025-001.aspx
The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
President John F. Kennedy, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City
April 27, 1961
There are two commonly quoted parts of this speech that are taken out of context:
The speech is from April 27th, 1961, just one week after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Kennedy makes reference to this at the start of his speech:
The "common danger" is communism. The "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" is communism. The speech is entirely about communism and the Cold War. This is made quite clear.
Once you know it's the Communists he's talking about, then the quote needs no more explaining. But what is the speech about? What is he warning us of?
When you read the whole speech, it turns out he's not warning us (the public) at all. He's asking "every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation" to behave as if the country is at war with the Communists, even though there has been declaration of war.
Here's a long quote (all these quotes are from the same speech) where he quite eloquently lays out the case, basically for self-censorship by the press.
JFK was referring to Communism, in a speech about uncomfortable limits on press freedom during the cold war.
(Note: The explanation here is not debunking that he said it - he did. The debunking is the use of the quote, absent the explanatory context, to make it seem like JFK was talking about some Illuminati/NWO plot)
The Original Source
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/doc...the-american-newspaper-publishers-association
Also at:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/...ewspaper-Publishers-Association_19610427.aspx
High quality audio:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHA-025-001.aspx
The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
President John F. Kennedy, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City
April 27, 1961
There are two commonly quoted parts of this speech that are taken out of context:
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.
Context.For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily 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.
The speech is from April 27th, 1961, just one week after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Kennedy makes reference to this at the start of his speech:
The meaning of the terms, allusions and references in the quote and contextMr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
[... joke about Marx being fired from a newspaper and then starting Communism ...]
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 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.
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.
The "common danger" is communism. The "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" is communism. The speech is entirely about communism and the Cold War. This is made quite clear.
The meaning of the quote.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.
Once you know it's the Communists he's talking about, then the quote needs no more explaining. But what is the speech about? What is he warning us of?
When you read the whole speech, it turns out he's not warning us (the public) at all. He's asking "every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation" to behave as if the country is at war with the Communists, even though there has been declaration of war.
Here's a long quote (all these quotes are from the same speech) where he quite eloquently lays out the case, basically for self-censorship by the press.
Bottom line: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.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
JFK was referring to Communism, in a speech about uncomfortable limits on press freedom during the cold war.
