Explained: JFK: "We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy"

[Mick West]

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 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 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.

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:

Mr. 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 meaning of the terms, allusions and references in the quote and context

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.

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.

The meaning of the quote.

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.

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.

Bottom line:

JFK was referring to Communism, in a speech about uncomfortable limits on press freedom during the cold war.

 

[commonsense]

He was talking about the elitist, industrial complex. So he was referring to commy's when he refers to those trying to perpetrate security threats falsely? NOPE

 

[Ross Marsden]

Are you referring to "Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism"?
That was Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen in 1997.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/15...ngaging-even-in-an-eco-type-of-terrorism-quot

 

[MikeC]

He was talking about the elitist, industrial complex. So he was referring to commy's when he refers to those trying to perpetrate security threats falsely? NOPE

So which part of the "elitist, industrial complex" was he talking about when he said:

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;

?

what were these covert activities the US was carrying out against US industry that were so well documented?

Saying "NOPE" is not really convincing as an argument - it doesn't show how you have made connections to the "Elitist, industrial complex" from the speech, it doesn't tell me how this complex was carying out the cold war - really it simply fails to make any case at all.

Can you please do me the courtesy of at least explaining why you think Mick is wrong??

 

[Anonymous]

Who funded the Bolshevik revolution?

Oh yeah, that's right. Wall Street and the criminal banking families.


Sounds pretty monolithic and Ruthless to me.

John F. Kennedy signed EO 11110 that abolished the Federal Reserve, a private central bank and returned the issuance of currency directly into the US Treasury.

6 months later he was dead in Dallas.


Now they are running END GAME on you, are you ready for what they have in store?

 

[Mick West]

The EO 11110 conspiracy theory has been debunked. Read this:

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html

 

[bostonmason@yahoo.com]

So in conjunction with Ikes warning you still think that he was referencing commies .He very well might have. Concealing his intent to unmask the true foe, maybe kennedy's intellect convinced him that he had to be obfuscatory in light of the algebra of the implication of his coming out and nameing names ...use the mind God gave you and stop something out of nothing which actually is an OXYMORON.

 

[MikeC]

"Maybe" isn't evidence of anything.

 

[Madan]

The most insidious threat posed by communism is not trade unions demanding fair pay and a minimum
wage, but the principle of operating one central bank.

This was also referred to by J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
from 1924 until 1972 (and he would know) when he stated:

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot
believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been
introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a
philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent."

The Elks Magazine (August 1956)

"...The demoniac, who are lost to themselves and who have no intelligence, engage in unbeneficial,
horrible works meant to destroy the world...

"...They believe that to gratify the senses is the prime necessity of human civilization.
Thus until the end of life their anxiety is immeasurable. Bound by a network of hundreds of thousands
of desires and absorbed in lust and anger, they secure money by illegal means for sense gratification.

"The demoniac person thinks: "So much wealth do I have today, and I will gain more
according to my schemes. So much is mine now, and it will increase in the future, more and more.
He is my enemy, and I have killed him, and my other enemies will also be killed. I am the lord of
everything. I am the enjoyer. I am perfect, powerful and happy. I am the richest man, surrounded
by aristocratic relatives. There is none so powerful and happy as I am. I shall perform sacrifices, I
shall give some charity, and thus I shall rejoice." In this way, such persons are deluded by ignorance."

Bhagavad-gita Chapter 16, verses 9 to 15

 

[Mick West]

Sounds like he's just referring to communism itself there, not central banking.

The Hoover quote is also about Communism. I address it more full here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/33...ous-he-cannot-believe-it-exists-quot-(Hoover)

 

[PCWilliams]

Hi all, i just posted this video concerning this issue. In the comments section of the video i link back to this thread.

​

I'm including a PDF file of the entire 2,249 word speech given by JFK. The words highlights in yellow are the 186 words cherry picked by conspiracists to create the illusion JFK was discussing secret societies.

View attachment 153

 

[Mick West]

That's a well made video. However, I was reading this handbook today:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf

To debunk a myth, you often have to mention it -
otherwise, how will people know what you're talking
about? However, this makes people more familiar
with the myth and hence more likely to accept it
as true. Does this mean debunking a myth might
actually reinforce it in people's minds.


To test for this backfire effect, people were
shown a flyer that debunked common myths
about flu vaccines.
Afterwards, they were asked
to separate the myths from the facts. When
asked immediately after reading the flyer, people
successfully identified the myths. However, when
queried 30 minutes after reading the flyer, some
people actually scored worse after reading the
flyer. The debunking reinforced the myths.


Hence the backfire effect is real. The driving force
is the fact that familiarity increases the chances of
accepting information as true. Immediately after
reading the flyer, people remembered the details
that debunked the myth and successfully identified
the myths. As time passed, however, the memory
of the details faded and all people remembered
was the myth without the "tag" that identified it as
false. This effect is particularly strong in older adults
because their memories are more vulnerable to
forgetting of details.

I wonder if your video might have what they call The Familiarity Backfire Effect - as you present the 186 word version so well, with such ominous music, that you may well end up having a net reinforcing effect for the myth.

 

[PCWilliams]

That's a well made video. However, I was reading this handbook today:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf



I wonder if your video might have what they call The Familiarity Backfire Effect - as you present the 186 word version so well, with such ominous music, that you may well end up having a net reinforcing effect for the myth.

That's interesting because i was going to add some kind of watermark to the video during the scrolling of the words to say it was a hoax by conspiracists.

Hmmmm .....

Now that i look at it, somebody could do some creative editing on my video and eliminate any mention of being debunked.

I'm open to suggestions on how to modify it to make it less vulnerable to the Backfire Effect.

 

[Unregistered]

Kennedy was very likely talking on two levels. On one level to the journalists about the 'Communist threat' and on another level, to those in the know, about the very serious threat from within the US. Kennedy made it clear enough that he knew that there was a threat to American freedom and democracy from within the US power structures themselves. The hard evidence that that threat was very real is that he was murdered for knowing about it and trying to do something about it. Unless of course you erstwhile debunkers here are going to go all "magic bullet" on me. In which case, adios.

 

[Mick West]

Did you read the entire speech? It's very very clear that he's talking about a very specific topic.

Read the whole thing, and understand the context I've described above, about the bay of pigs.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/...merican-Newspaper-Publishers-Association.aspx

 

[Unregistered]

Kennedy was very likely talking on two levels. On one level to the journalists about the 'Communist threat' and on another level, to those in the know, about the very serious threat from within the US. Kennedy made it clear enough that he knew that there was a threat to American freedom and democracy from within the US power structures themselves. The hard evidence that that threat was very real is that he was murdered for knowing about it and trying to do something about it. Unless of course you erstwhile debunkers here are going to go all "magic bullet" on me. In which case, adios.

And he was so obtuse about it, that no one knew what he was talking about, and instead just listened to what he actually said: hey journalists, please censor yourselves, because we're trying to beat the Soviets.

If he was killed for this, why did the assassins wait two and a half years?

get over it. He's not who you thought

 

[Unregistered]

The EO 11110 conspiracy theory has been debunked. Read this:

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html

Just because its says debunked doesn't actually mean its been debunked its as shallow as "this is the real truth." Why Dont you post links to forums where they said gulf of tonkin debunked. They posted some really hardhitting facts that it happened and was not subject to conspiracy theories but in the end it didnt happen. Or you should post some debunking links that validated there was weapons of mass destruction in iraq, o but wait... and watergate before the trials i'm sure there were articles up the yang that said nothing is happening all your conspiracies debunked in this article. Its just like medicinal history for the day doctors thought they knew everything till the next generation thinks how could we be so stupid. Debunks are subject to debunking

http://newworldorderreport.com/News...Should-Know-Updated-Revised-and-Extended.aspx

 

[Mick West]

A debunking is indeed subject to being debunked itself - if it actually contains bunk. Perhaps you would like to address the link you claim is incorrect? What is wrong with it?

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html

E.O. 11,110 did not create authority to issue new silver certificates, it only affected who could give the order. The purpose of the order was to facilitate the reduction of certificates in circulation, not to increase them. In October 1964 the Treasury ceased issuing them entirely. The Coinage Act of 1965 (PL 89-81) ended the practice of using silver in most U.S. coins, and in 1968 Congress ended the redeemability of silver certificates (PL 90-29). E.O. 11,110 was never reversed by President Johnson and remained on the books until 1987 when there was a general cleaning-up of executive orders (E.O. 12,608, 9/9/87). However, by this time the remaining legislative authority behind E.O. 11,110 had been repealed by Congress with PL 97-258 in 1982.2

​
In summary, E.O. 11,110 did not create new authority to issue additional silver certificates. In fact, its intention was to ease the process for their removal so that small denomination Federal Reserve Notes could replace them in accordance with a law Kennedy himself signed. If Kennedy had really sought to reduce Federal Reserve power, then why did he sign a bill that gave the Fed still more power?

 

[Unregistered]

Your right and your wrong. The threat was and still is communism. Secret societies were perpetrating communism. So all the points you made is just missing the concept of what jfk "thought" communism was and the real question is where is communism today. It did not go down with USSR and its alive and well within our government. Give me a day to reinforce my claims cause i have to go to work soon. But take this quote into consideration because this sums up the illuminati and its influence over governments "Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible.
Thus he is master of his enemy's fate." Sun Tzu

P.S. forgot to answer random question and words got jumbled

 

[Jay Reynolds]

the real question is where is communism today. It did not go down with USSR and its alive and well within our government.

The debunking was about what Kennedy said, not anything else. The debunk makes it clear that he was speaking about the march of the iron, bamboo, and sugarcane curtains in communist countries. Mick wasn't debunking anything else. He was specific in that, and though he may want to debate another subject, if that is his choice, you haven't shown anything in his specific citations which lend credence to the idea that he ws speaking about anything other than communism.

BTW, I happen to think there is plenty of evidence that many organizations and individuals not usually associated with communism DID and ARE promoting its goals, even if they aren't open about it.

 

[Deathseye63]

The debunking was about what Kennedy said, not anything else. The debunk makes it clear that he was speaking about the march of the iron, bamboo, and sugarcane curtains in communist countries. Mick wasn't debunking anything else. He was specific in that, and though he may want to debate another subject, if that is his choice, you haven't shown anything in his specific citations which lend credence to the idea that he ws speaking about anything other than communism.

BTW, I happen to think there is plenty of evidence that many organizations and individuals not usually associated with communism DID and ARE promoting its goals, even if they aren't open about it.

Here are my beliefs in a nutshell.

Communism < secret societies < illuminati = Illuminati > Secret Socities > Communism

JFK says secret societies for a reason even if you think it was just about communism thats really a good point because they'd be one in the same. Your still admitting to the monolithic and ruthless conspiracy whether its communism he's talking about or not. So instead of trying to convince you that he's talkin about secret societies I'll convince you that there still is a monolithic ruthless conspiracy, communism. Even though Commies and the illuminati would be described in the same way. JFK was trying to warn us that these things were gonna happen.

"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."

This is extremely foretelling of jfk. You can argue that we haven't lost our traditions but they have most undoubtedly changed since then( I think mostly for the worst). And grave danger is what we're already in with Patriot act, NDAA and SOPA turned ACTA.

" 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."

This makes the case for infiltration as he is talking about but in indirect means such as the ones who enacted welfare which is a communist ideal. I think this also makes the case "a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity". "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." I think this really drives home that communism is among the people in the states and is everywhere.

He also makes the case for not censoring news but asking them to be responsible even when news has revealed national security issues to commies. My point being nowadays we have a tight censorship on the news. Another commie trait.
"No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will." This is happening with Free Speech zones.

" No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. " http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ufc...nts-to-fight-obama-gets-secret-service-visit/ Another commie trait.

"And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution" http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/...omplains-of-media-blackout-at-occupy-wall-st/

Although you might argue that the links are exceptions to the rule I can find more that proves we are slowly becoming a communist nation. Which the illuminati would approve of.

 

[Mick West]

I would hardly say we have tight censorship of the news. Can you give an example of a news story being censored? Not just local police excluding journalists from an event, but actual censorship? Consider Wikileaks - if the media is censored, then how could they publish all the leaked cables?

Kennedy's speech was 50 years ago. The world is very different now - consider that many of the achievements of the civil rights movements happened AFTER Kennedy's death. In many ways we have a lot MORE access to information than we did back then. I really don't see the connection of the things you mention to communism, unless you are simply equating communism with oligarchy. That seems like rather a semantic argument.

I'm also against "free-speech zones", but really I'm failing to see evidence of some vast decades old conspiracy here. Just the usual ebb and flow of freedoms in a dynamic society.

 

[Deathseye63]

Being arrested for trying to report on an event is censorship. And why would you ignore the fact that they should've been protected by the constitution from getting arrested. Censorship comes in different forms retalitation is one of them. http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html. And media will be getting censored on a massive scale http://news.antiwar.com/2012/01/27/with-sopa-on-hold-attention-turns-to-acta/, They can't censor the leaked cables on the internet because once it goes viral there'd be no point it would just make them look guilty because anyone can save what was leaked and repost unless something like ACTA comes along.

Kennedy's speech being 50 yrs ago is a very weak arguement seeing how Sun Tzu's art of war is how old? And how relevant is it today? The world isn't very different theres still is racism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY. And the civil rights movement was co-opted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyyFGOAwTYM, http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201006030063.

Its true we have alot more access to information but how bout the important ones like gulf of tonkin only rediscovered till recently. It defined a generation and killed thousands what other info that is similar has been hid.

Heres a link that BEGINS to explain illuminati and communism http://www.benabraham.com/html/illuminati_-_4a.html

What I was trying to point out is everything jfk said in his speech as he wouldn't do as president is what our president is doing now

 

[Mick West]

JFK only said he would not censor the press, preferring voluntary self-censorship. Are you saying Obama censors the press? Specifically newspapers?

 

[Deathseye63]

Not obama directly but the government was trying with sopa then turned to acta. They don't need to censor mainstream news just the internet because they don't control that like they do news papers and television.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tn5-uKgkWw that vid is kinda old here's something recent that shows that all news stations are told to say the same things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GME5nq_oSR4

 

[Mick West]

That video is of local CBS news affiliates reading a story written at the national level. Surely you don't expect every local news station to write a story about Conan's wedding? It's no different from local papers running AP stories.

 

[scombrid]

kinda old here's something recent that shows that all news stations are told to say the same things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GME5nq_oSR4

News outlets are out to make a profit. That includes cutting costs. If they can use material from AP or their parent network, as opposed to creating new content, and still sell draw viewers and sell advertising space to local markets then they are going to do that. Sometimes they carry stories of substance. Often though, the pracitce of regurgitating from a central source only saves them money. It often reduces the quality of material and subverts there being any real and disciplined journalism going on. It isn't censorship though. It is more a call for the viewer to demand more. I'm not holding me breath on that call though. People like to be dazzled and entertained. Thinking? Not really. Heck, I think that is why certain conspiracies gain traction so easily. They dazzle a sense of fear and indignation without the participants really having to do real thinking or scholarship.

 

[Deathseye63]

News outlets are out to make a profit. That includes cutting costs. If they can use material from AP or their parent network, as opposed to creating new content, and still sell draw viewers and sell advertising space to local markets then they are going to do that. Sometimes they carry stories of substance. Often though, the pracitce of regurgitating from a central source only saves them money. It often reduces the quality of material and subverts there being any real and disciplined journalism going on. It isn't censorship though. It is more a call for the viewer to demand more. I'm not holding me breath on that call though. People like to be dazzled and entertained. Thinking? Not really. Heck, I think that is why certain conspiracies gain traction so easily. They dazzle a sense of fear and indignation without the participants really having to do real thinking or scholarship.

The Conan clip wasn't an example of censorship just what I think shows how media is being controlled on a massive scale. Its one thing to share a story its another to have almost the same phrase used 18 times. I answered your questions why don't you admit my answers like why did news reporters did get arrested when they're suppose to be protected by their first amendment rights or why is the US trying to extradite julian assange, the gulf of tonkin was a conspiratorial fact. That was dazzling and entertaining and true i might add. Why don't you debunk the other vid i posted and explain to me why so many news anchors were apart of the cfr heck cfr was a conspiracy. Did JP Morrigan hire those people.

 

[Danny55]

Nice avatar for Deathseye63. M C Escher, great artist.

 

[Mick West]

The Conan clip wasn't an example of censorship just what I think shows how media is being controlled on a massive scale. Its one thing to share a story its another to have almost the same phrase used 18 times.

It's a script. CBS news write the story. The local news stations read it. They do it save money. What's wrong with that?

I answered your questions why don't you admit my answers like why did news reporters did get arrested when they're suppose to be protected by their first amendment rights

First amendment rights do not allow you to break the law - to trespass or invade privacy, or endager public safety. Of course there will be cases when vested interests also don't want reporters to cover things - but that in itself is not evidence of any vast conspiracy, it's just part of the natural order of things. People shirk from the press. Justin Beiber's bodyguard shoves photographers away - is that a first amendment issue? These are all individual issues where the boundaries are the law are tested for motives on both sides.

or why is the US trying to extradite julian assange,

Because they think he committed a crime over which they have jurisdiction.

the gulf of tonkin was a conspiratorial fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
This seems simply like someone taking advantage of unclear information, like Bush with the Iraq WMDs.

That was dazzling and entertaining and true i might add.

What was?

Why don't you debunk the other vid i posted and explain to me why so many news anchors were apart of the cfr heck cfr was a conspiracy. Did JP Morrigan hire those people.

I don't have time to get into every single conspiracy theory out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

 

[Deathseye63]

That also reinforces what i'm saying about news outlets. If they want to save money they have to send out the same message as all other news outlets.

"No media allowed in." Is what is said in the news article and she said she was being pushed. That don't sound like tresspassing that sounds like a media blackout. "The city also closed airspace in lower Manhattan to prevent news helicopters from taking aerial footage of the police crackdown" Another sign of censorship. "Whatever the arguments for clearing and cleaning the park, denying the rest of us the opportunity to witness the police action through the independent reporting of a free media simply reinforces the suspicion that the city government is seeking to hide from democratic scrutiny," said Kwame Anthony Appiah, president of PEN American Center." People don't shirk from the press on a city wide scale. What you said about vested interest is true but sets the stage that there are at least city wide conspiracies. The natural order of things is someone does something they're not suppose to do. they go to jail or compensate for what they did. Bush and cheney didn't get a trial for iraq war http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/as-...ey-while-chirac-convicted-on-minor-fraud.html nor a trial for gulf on tonkin for the people still alive. You can't tell if there's a vast conspiracy if you look at it by a case by case basis if you step back and look at it as a whole with correct evidence you will see. Just because you might succeed in debunking one thing doesn't mean all conspiracies are not true and only time will tell.

So the US is not trying to get even with julian assange. Sweden has laws against extraditing some1 but the US are still trying to extradite him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d36xEvVnF2I&feature=player_embedded

Gulf of tonkin no trials and no mass media event for awarness.

"That was dazzling and entertaining and true i might add. " I was talking about the gulf and that was aimed at scombrid.


"Nice avatar for Deathseye63. M C Escher, great artist. " Didn't actually choose my avatar but I approve of whomever may have did it.

You don't have to worry about getting into every conspiracy out there. Pretty soon those conspiracies will be coming after you and already have. Like tonkin, like iraq and like soon to be iran Its gonna affect you one way or another.

 

[Mick West]

Well it seems you see evidence of a "vast and monolithic" conspiracy, but I just see evidence of lots of smaller, often fleeting conspiracies.

Take Tonkin - at worst that people privately saying beforehand "let's wait for a good opportunity to pretend we were attacked by North Vietnam". More likely there were skirmishes with conflicting reports, and the people who would benefit from it being one way promoted the more extreme reports.

I don't see that as some vast conspiracy - I see it as opportunistic politicians. The "second attack" did not happen, but shots were fired at what were thought to be attacking boats. Hawkish elements promoted this as an attack, and the rest is history.

Where is the evidence of LONG TERM conspiracy?

 

[Deathseye63]

Well it seems you see evidence of a "vast and monolithic" conspiracy, but I just see evidence of lots of smaller, often fleeting conspiracies.

Take Tonkin - at worst that people privately saying beforehand "let's wait for a good opportunity to pretend we were attacked by North Vietnam". More likely there were skirmishes with conflicting reports, and the people who would benefit from it being one way promoted the more extreme reports.

I don't see that as some vast conspiracy - I see it as opportunistic politicians. The "second attack" did not happen, but shots were fired at what were thought to be attacking boats. Hawkish elements promoted this as an attack, and the rest is history.

Where is the evidence of LONG TERM conspiracy?

"Take Tonkin - at worst that people privately saying beforehand "let's wait for a good opportunity to pretend we were attacked by North Vietnam". More likely there were skirmishes with conflicting reports, and the people who would benefit from it being one way promoted the more extreme reports."

Your failing to see the bigger picture even amongst your own observations with above quote. But who's the people benefiting, why would they want to benefit in that way, how did they benefit and why was there no justice because if there's no justice amongst government actions then you should suspect every government action after. If you took that into account when the iraq war came along and then produced the same results you should have at least contempt for your government. Pearl Harbor before tonkin was also a false flag attack In that they knew japan would attack them if they resourcefully starved them which they did.

And thats the brilliance of the Illuminati and it is also why I said this quote. "Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus he is master of his enemy's fate." Sun Tzu

They want you to see opportunistic politicians not them. They want you to see individual events. The evidence of the long term conspiracy is everywhere including this forum.

"The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation". "Of all the means I know to lead men, the most effectual is a concealed mystery. The hankering of the mind is irresistible;" Adam Weishaupt (code-name Spartacus)
http://www.bilderberg.org/lucis.htm

As much as it is physical evidence to find out if this was true its also a phsycological test. Do you think your mind could handle it if it was true. That everything you've ever done in your life from birth till now has been a controlled experience. I'd hate to reference movies but its the closest thing to try to explain what I'm trying to say. Would you take the red pill. You should watch "the matrix" or "they live" with the concept that maybe...just maybe the world of conspiracy is real and that you've been living a lie.

See if i'm wrong I'd just look like an idiot if your wrong the world will be enslaved.
Infowars.com Because there is a war on for your mind.

 

[Mick West]

What would the world look like if this conspiracy did not exist? How would you tell the difference? How would your life be changed by the absence of this conspiracy?

 

[Unregistered]

Actually it'd be impossible because there would be no conspiracy to commit murder and we all know that won't happen. The word conspiracy has been skewed and its another illuminati design that when you say or think conspiracy you think it belongs to a subset of people within our society that questions their government and are quacks. Have you ever heard of conspiracy to commit leisure.

I would tell the difference that I wouldn't understand the concept of a secret society but I do. There definitly was secret societies that means if it happens once it'll happen again and it has.

Before I even knew what conspiracy was I was pretty average and played games and tried to talk to girls like any other teenager. I always felt like there was something wrong in the back of my head. When i was 15'ish 9/11 happened and because I was big into scifi movies and said this the day after it happened "maybe we did it," I said to my teacher Not because scifi movies train you to be conspiracy theorists but because the false flag concept has been used in movies one example is star wars. The clones were already there for the republic/ imperial army to use once the chancellor became the emperor. Art imitates life. but even then it took me about till i was 22 when I read the weight loss cure they don't want you to know about by Kevin Trodea(even if you think he was lying about the cures) how massive corruption can be. Within that same year I saw loose change and thats when I was "AWAKE" for the very first time in my life. From there everything I ever saw connected. Before that day was just a jumbled mess of thoughts and the pessimistic view that the world was just one big corrupted pot. What I realized is in some way this is all connected and sure enough it is. I found out everything I thought was not my own thoughts but a projected one designed to compartmentalize, divide and control people.

All warfare is based on deception- Sun Tzu your submitting to phsycological warfare without you even knowing it.

 

[Mick West]

I mean the specific conspiracy you are referring to. The illuminati conspiracy. What would the world be like if that did not exist? How would it differ for you?

 

[Deathseye63]

I mean the specific conspiracy you are referring to. The illuminati conspiracy. What would the world be like if that did not exist? How would it differ for you?

Only saw this post till after I replied give me a while I got do something

 

[Deathseye63]

If the illuminati didn't exist we would have come to the concept of America alot sooner and it would be a universal appeal. wars would be on a much smaller scale if any at all. Disease and sickness would be a thing of the past. There'd be no such thing as hunger and racism would be nonexistant. Religon and mysticism would be fully explained. If there were any other type of beings out there everyone would know. I'd be at a higher plane of consciousness and so would you.

 

[Mick West]

I'm sorry but I really don't see any evidence for that. Human nature would seem to ensure those things would continue without the "illuminati".

How exactly do you "explain" religion?

 

[Deathseye63]

Can you honestly say that what you think human nature is, is entirely of your own accord. Or like i've been saying is a programmed response that compartmentalizes thought that you learned from Entertainment,so called education and religon.

Because like people religon is compartmentalized, divided and controlled. What you see as different religons are all chopped and mixed with other past religons. This movie explains it well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJiCU6Jw0Co but its long. When I say religon would be explained I think it'd be reverted to its base form and I don't think people know what it is.