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

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Most likely he was talking about voluntary press constraints regarding the discovery of Missiles in the Soviet Union and Cuba.

So why would he want the press to keep this information from the "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy"?
 

cheeple

Member
The words highlights in yellow are the 186 words cherry picked by conspiracists to create the illusion JFK was discussing 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 ............ John F. Kennedy

Totally Conspiracy, he never once even mentioned Secret Societies.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Because there are different ways of pronouncing it, and those ways vary in popularity by location. The OED is descriptive, not prescriptive. When I say "official" I just meant that there is only one listed when I looked.

The one I listed was from the full OED (which I can access via my Library web site) which is very UK centric and only has "kuvet". Yours is from the more recent US online version, which has three and "co-vert" is the first one, so hence that would seem to be the common US pronunciation. There's also the "British & World English" version which just has two, and here "kuvet" is first, "co-vert" second.



Upper class Americans (like JFK) are more likely to use UK or European style pronunciations of words (certainly back in the 1960s and before), and conversely the US pronunciations are increasingly found in the general public in Britain (and the world) with the prevalence of US TV and Films.
 
Last edited:

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
Because there are different ways of pronouncing it, and those ways vary in popularity by location. The OED is descriptive, not prescriptive. When I say "official" I just meant that there is only one listed when I looked.

The one I listed was from the full OED (which I can access via my Library web site) which is very UK centric and only has "kuvet". Yours is from the more recent US online version, which has three and "co-vert" is the first one, so hence that would seem to be the common US pronunciation. There's also the "British & World English" version which just has two, and here "kuvet" is first, "co-vert" second.



Upper class Americans (like JFK) are more likely to use UK or European style pronunciations of words (certainly back in the 1960s and before), and conversely the US pronunciations are increasingly found in the general public in Britain (and the world) with the prevalence of US TV and Films.

Aaaaaah, i see. So, basically, the "R" is silent in the UK pronunciation. Boy that makes it confusing when you hear it, it sounds like a biblical reference to not covet your neighbor's possessions. I DID think it odd that a man of JFK's intellect would misread the same word not once but twice or more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
And JFK spent quite a bit of time in the UK and the rest of Europe as well as attending Princeton and Harvard and being from Mass in the first place. Accents and pronunciations were much more regional in those times.
 
N

Newbie

Guest
I think this is a solid debunk, seen it debunked by many others as well. I was just wondering whether the 'dimona' nuclear plant conspiracy, regarding JFK's murder has ever been debunked? Cannot find any debunks and frankly, the conspiracy sounds more viable too. For more info, it assumes Israel was behind his assassination, for being to nosy into the Israeli nuclear activities, on which Israeli officials swore, to JFK, they were merely peaceful (which indeed turned out to be lies).

On conspiracy theories in general I agree with Mick. There's most likely no vast 'illuminati' conspiracy. But there are definitely small scale conspiracies, both happening now and lots that happened in the past. I think Julian Assange summed it up quite nicely: "This is not a sophisticated conspiracy, controlled at the top. There's a vast movement of self-interest by thousands and thousands of players, all working together... and against eachother"
 

Chuck

Active Member
Well done PCWilliams. Thanks. I was one who had been fooled by what people told me was the intent of JFK's speech. I remember listening to that speech thinking that JFK was referring to communism, but I was perhaps thrown off kilter by the beginning which did in fact seem to be referring to secretive organizations like Skull and Bones and the Bilderbergs. So, what do you think he meant by "secret societies..."?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So, what do you think he meant by "secret societies..."?

It was an illustration of a manifestation of "secrecy". He's talking about possibly censoring the news. So he notes that "secrecy" is not a good thing in a free and open society, and give examples of the type of things that we don't like. It's not clear he had anything in particular in mind, nor if he's implying that they exist. We are opposed to slavery, and that does not mean slavery exists.

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 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.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Holy shill central Batman!

Hey, why don't we know who killed JFK? Why are all the files concerning his assassination still classified? Was it them damn commies that off'd him, too? Secret societies in the US?! No way. Those don't exist. We debunked it!

PRO TIP: If the site has "debunk" or "skeptics" in its name - look elsewhere. There be government paid agents, and then there be outright liars aka imperialists.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
he was talking about george bush and the nwo, "guerrillas by night instead of armies by day" - bay of pigs anyone?
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
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

I clicked on the PDF link but it did not work for me.

JFK, (and presumably advisers), obviously went to a great deal of trouble to make this speech as unambiguous as possible but sadly, it appears to have failed.

I honestly do not know in a, definitive sense, whether he is referring to communism, 'secret societies' or both.

Logically, references to media reports aiding foreign governments seem to be aimed specifically at communism but equally, communism cannot realistically be described as a 'secret society' as alluded to, albeit that they undoubtedly have secrets, as do all governments and indeed institutions and corporations and even trades, i.e. trade secrets.

If we for arguments sake, accept the concept of The Illuminati and NWO and recognise that their stated aim is a 'benign socialist world government', which arguably amounts to some form of communistic world government, then could it not be feasible that he was warning of 'both', rather than either/or.

The aim of World rule or domination is not restricted to the likes of 'Dr Evil', but has long been known as the aim for the Catholic, (Worldwide) Church; Islam; Communism; Capitalism; Roman Empire and umpteen other Empires including, British, German, French, Spanish etc etc although obviously these have 'ultimately' failed in the past.

America itself seems to be currently 'enjoying' its own Panamerican Empire

http://attacberlin.de/fileadmin/Sommerakademie/Panitch.Gindin_Global_Capitalism.pdf

The American empire is no longer concealed. In March 1999, the cover of the New York
Times Magazine displayed a giant clenched fist painted in the stars and stripes of the US flag above
the words: ‘What The World Needs Now: For globalization to work, America can’t be afraid to act
like the almighty superpower that it is’. Thus was featured Thomas Friedman’s ‘Manifesto for a Fast
World’, which urged the United States to embrace its role as enforcer of the capitalist global order:
‘…the hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist.... The hidden fist that keeps
the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy
and Marine Corps.’ Four years later, in January 2003, when there was no longer any point in
pretending the fist was hidden, the Magazine featured an essay by Michael Ignatieff entitled ‘The
Burden’: ‘…[W]hat word but “empire” describes the awesome thing that America is becoming? …
Being an imperial power… means enforcing such order as there is in the world and doing so in the
American interest.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Aaaaaah, i see. So, basically, the "R" is silent in the UK pronunciation. Boy that makes it confusing when you hear it, it sounds like a biblical reference to not covet your neighbor's possessions. I DID think it odd that a man of JFK's intellect would misread the same word not once but twice or more.

That is really interesting, I had never noticed the strange pronunciation before. I simply took it to be an Americanism but now it is being attributed to an English pronunciation, which I guarantee 100% it is not, I really think he could have been saying 'covet' as in the Biblical term. Thanks.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
It's absolutely not of your own accord. See:

http://youarenotsosmart.com/

However that does not mean it's been deliberately programmed. People have always been narrow minded, and religion is more of a symptom of that than a cause. Religion has independently and naturally been part of life for thousands of years. Did the illuminati simultaneously affect the animism of Africa, the Shinto religion of Japan.

Religion has shaped thinking for a very long time. It needs no conspiracy to explain this.

You need to take into account sociopaths, men and women capable of lying because quite simply it benefits them. As long as their real motives are spoken of behind closed doors they have plausible deniability, you have your 'debunking' and I have a tin foil hat. Sick world.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You need to take into account sociopaths, men and women capable of lying because quite simply it benefits them. As long as their real motives are spoken of behind closed doors they have plausible deniability, you have your 'debunking' and I have a tin foil hat. Sick world.

But the existence of sociopaths (which nobody denies) does not then validate any particular conspiracy theory. You can't say "sociopaths exist, therefore everything you see on TV is fake".
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
But the existence of sociopaths (which nobody denies) does not then validate any particular conspiracy theory. You can't say "sociopaths exist, therefore everything you see on TV is fake".
First of all everything you see on TV is fake, ratings are essential therefore so are exaggerations. (faux news etc.)

Second, you also cant say "Sociopaths exist, but no way do they hold positions of power."

Study body language and lawyer tactics for few years, when mastered you can say or do anything without a smidgen of empathy. Its what got crowds of people crying over Obamas hope and change garbage.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
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.

Assuming what you say is true. Unfortunately it wouldn't make sense. If Kennedy was trying to get the public to understand what is going on, why would he use cryptic language in his speeches? What good is going public with his speeches, if no one is going to understand what is really going on?

I do believe there is a conspiracy out there to enslave us financially (and it really isn't a conspiracy anymore, it's actually true). But your argument is not holding any weight. I believe Kennedy was GOING to go public with the information, and that is why they killed him.
 
But the existence of sociopaths (which nobody denies) does not then validate any particular conspiracy theory. You can't say "sociopaths exist, therefore everything you see on TV is fake".


Well said Mick however the other side(the opposite perspective) is also true in that the lack of [debunker level satisfactory] evidence is not itself proof that there is no global level Conspiracy to implement a one world government known as the New World Order agenda.

In science if you form a theory you then test that theory in order to validate it. Should your testing fail then you have failed to validate your theory. The failure to prove your theory does not automatically mean your theory has been disproven only that it has yet failed to be proven. Here the absence of proof is not itself proof that the theory is false.

In the case of the Global New World Order conspiracy, each claim that the debunker community claims to have debunked is not proof that the NWO theory itself is invalid. If I were to claim the sky is pink and upon visible inspection we all see that the sky is not pink then my claim has not only failed to be validated but it has also been invalidated because the sky has been proven (visibly) to be a different color from what I claimed. In that scenario the theory has been disproven.

In the case of this JFK speech, the debunker community is seeking alternative explanations for what the Conspiracy Theorists claim the speech is about. The debunkers aren’t testing the claim made by the conspiracy theorists to see if what the theorists are saying about the speech is true, they are simply seeking an alternative explanation. The claim as to what JFL is referring to in his speech is muddied by the fact that there’s no way to ask the speaker “what exactly did you mean in your speech”. Debunkers claim its about communists and conspiracy theorists claim it’s about the global elite. It very well could be that both sides are right in that JFK may have been referring to both. And claims to the contrary are speculative without something else that provides proof of what JFK’s was referring to. This association between things is where the Debunkers and the conspiracy theorists diverge.


When the Conspiracy Theorists examines the JFJK speech and the Eisenhower speech they see a connection between the 2 whereas the debunker treats them as a separate unrelated events or incidents. The theorists sees the big picture, how the things are pieced together to form something bigger whereas the debunker is focused on each individually. This is significant because the disassociation of the various parts allows one to ignore what is sometimes referred to as ‘The whole is more than the sum of its individual parts’. There are certain chemicals which are harmless by themselves and yet are deadly when mixed. That’s because the whole is more than the sum of its parts.


THE BELLY ACHE EXAMPLE

In the case of the Batman Movie Theatre Shooting, each piece of evidence put forth by the conspiracy theorists as proof that the incident is at some level a government cover up is individually analyzed and countered by the debunkers. There is no attempt to provide an alternative for the whole, something that explains away not only each claim but how so many can be in play in one place at one time. If a kid goes to school on the day the teach is giving an important test for which the student did not study and is not ready the student claims to have a belly ache and is excused from the test and sent home. This by itself is something coincidental since the student just so happens to get sick on the day of a test however its far from improbable and so its accepted. If however the student does this exact same thing each day of the week a test is given for the next 8 weeks’ worth of tests, the chances of it being coincidental exceed what is plausible and so the teacher stops seeing/believing that it’s just a coincidence and nothing more. If the conspiracy theorists put forth the theory that the child was conspiring to avoid taking tests by faking being sick each time a test was given the debunker would examine each incident independent from the rest and claim that it’s just coincidence.


The difference between the conspiracy theorists and the debunker; one group seeks to provide alternative explanations to proposed theories and is able to ignore the bigger picture so as to avoid connecting the lines and possibly drawing some uncomfortable conclusions. The other sees an analyzes the combined (the big picture) as well as its individual parts and also seeks to test theories in search of the truth and not simply how to counter something they don’t like or don’t want to believe.

MICK – In a previous post you asked the question :How would the world be different to you if there was no New World Order Conspiracy’. An excellent question and one I ask you from the other side. In your mind what would the world be like (different from today) if there was a secret movement of the world’s elite to redistribute wealth from the many to the few to form a single global one world government in which these same elite were the modern day ruling class with the rest of the world serving as either servants to those elite or as land serfs/slaves?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well said Mick however the other side(the opposite perspective) is also true in that the lack of [debunker level satisfactory] evidence is not itself proof that there is no global level Conspiracy to implement a one world government known as the New World Order agenda.

In science if you form a theory you then test that theory in order to validate it. Should your testing fail then you have failed to validate your theory. The failure to prove your theory does not automatically mean your theory has been disproven only that it has yet failed to be proven. Here the absence of proof is not itself proof that the theory is false.

It's proof of an absence of EVIDENCE, which is what debunking is about. It's about pointing out what is bunk - I look at the evidence for a theory, and I say what parts of the evidence are bunk. I care not what you do with what remains, and if you choose to still believe a theory when 99% of the "evidence" has been debunked, and the rest is circumstantial, then I can do nothing about that.

In the case of the Global New World Order conspiracy, each claim that the debunker community claims to have debunked is not proof that the NWO theory itself is invalid. If I were to claim the sky is pink and upon visible inspection we all see that the sky is not pink then my claim has not only failed to be validated but it has also been invalidated because the sky has been proven (visibly) to be a different color from what I claimed. In that scenario the theory has been disproven.

Again, I'm not trying to disprove a theory. I'm disproving specific claims of evidence. For example, if someone says there were no persistent contrails before 1995, then I show them lots of photos of persistent contrails, then I've debunked that bit of bunk. I've not disproved the chemtrail theory. I've show it to have one less bit of evidence than the theorist claimed to have. I can usually repeat this with the remaining bits of evidence.

In the case of this JFK speech, the debunker community is seeking alternative explanations for what the Conspiracy Theorists claim the speech is about. The debunkers aren’t testing the claim made by the conspiracy theorists to see if what the theorists are saying about the speech is true, they are simply seeking an alternative explanation. The claim as to what JFL is referring to in his speech is muddied by the fact that there’s no way to ask the speaker “what exactly did you mean in your speech”. Debunkers claim its about communists and conspiracy theorists claim it’s about the global elite. It very well could be that both sides are right in that JFK may have been referring to both. And claims to the contrary are speculative without something else that provides proof of what JFK’s was referring to. This association between things is where the Debunkers and the conspiracy theorists diverge.


When the Conspiracy Theorists examines the JFJK speech and the Eisenhower speech they see a connection between the 2 whereas the debunker treats them as a separate unrelated events or incidents. The theorists sees the big picture, how the things are pieced together to form something bigger whereas the debunker is focused on each individually. This is significant because the disassociation of the various parts allows one to ignore what is sometimes referred to as ‘The whole is more than the sum of its individual parts’. There are certain chemicals which are harmless by themselves and yet are deadly when mixed. That’s because the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

I think I see the big picture of this speech. To understand it you have to understand the historical context. I think I covered that fairly well in the top post.

Conspiracy theorists are adding their own "big picture". Since they already believe there's a vast conspiracy, then they feel they have special insight into the words of the speech. But if they could remove their preconception, then they really don't have any evidence. The actual context of the speech being about press self-censorship is blindingly obvious in the historical context. The alternate reading about the NWO makes no sense at all unless you already believe it.

THE BELLY ACHE EXAMPLE

In the case of the Batman Movie Theatre Shooting, each piece of evidence put forth by the conspiracy theorists as proof that the incident is at some level a government cover up is individually analyzed and countered by the debunkers. There is no attempt to provide an alternative for the whole, something that explains away not only each claim but how so many can be in play in one place at one time.

If everything has a perfectly reasonable explanation, then the amount of things that can be reasonably explained is irrelevant. Asking a lot of questions about a topic does not make that topic suspicious, it just means that you asked a lot of questions.

If a kid goes to school on the day the teach is giving an important test for which the student did not study and is not ready the student claims to have a belly ache and is excused from the test and sent home. This by itself is something coincidental since the student just so happens to get sick on the day of a test however its far from improbable and so its accepted. If however the student does this exact same thing each day of the week a test is given for the next 8 weeks’ worth of tests, the chances of it being coincidental exceed what is plausible and so the teacher stops seeing/believing that it’s just a coincidence and nothing more. If the conspiracy theorists put forth the theory that the child was conspiring to avoid taking tests by faking being sick each time a test was given the debunker would examine each incident independent from the rest and claim that it’s just coincidence.

The difference between the conspiracy theorists and the debunker; one group seeks to provide alternative explanations to proposed theories and is able to ignore the bigger picture so as to avoid connecting the lines and possibly drawing some uncomfortable conclusions. The other sees an analyzes the combined (the big picture) as well as its individual parts and also seeks to test theories in search of the truth and not simply how to counter something they don’t like or don’t want to believe.

And yet EVERYONE would suspect the child is faking after eight weeks of this. So this is not a good example. I think a conspiracy theorist would start to think this after ONE incident, and then would start looking for various coincidences to support his theory.

I think I do see the big picture. I read a lot about history. I read a lot of independent and alternative media. I'm relatively intelligent. I'm 45 years old. I've lived in two countries. I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy to form an authoritarian New World Order.

MICK – In a previous post you asked the question :How would the world be different to you if there was no New World Order Conspiracy’. An excellent question and one I ask you from the other side. In your mind what would the world be like (different from today) if there was a secret movement of the world’s elite to redistribute wealth from the many to the few to form a single global one world government in which these same elite were the modern day ruling class with the rest of the world serving as either servants to those elite or as land serfs/slaves?

That's kind of begging the question. You ask what it would be like if there was a "secret" movement. But the answer would be that we would not be able to tell, because it is secret. I can't disprove the existence of something that leaves no evidence.

But that's not what the conspiracy theorists are claiming. They are claiming that it DOES leave evidence. They are claiming that it's OBVIOUS that there is this secret movement. They are claiming that there are things that cannot be explained any other way.

What's obvious is that there are rich powerful people, and there are poor powerless people. The rich don't need any secret society to get rich, that's just capitalism. They certainly don't need to shoot up theaters or schools.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I wouldn't ever have considered any deep involvement in all the crap I've just skimmed past. Life really is too short. Putty medal for Mike yet again. C-OH-VERT is the way Welshmen pronounce it.

It has sprung from the manner in which communist Russia defeated fascist Germany: they out-performed the West by 400% in ingenuity, hard work, and self-sacrifice.

That inspired fear*, don'tcha know... ...Only the Bomb appeared to hold them off from continuing westward. I say "appeared to" because I believe the Russians were determined to finish Hitler's Germany above all else, and really wanted to stop dying by the million once that job was complete.

The young missed all that. They play with "Illuminati" instead.

* That's fear in the hearts of the "brave and true".
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Explanation: He was referring to Communism, in a speech about press freedom during the cold war.

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.

Go read he's book; "Why england slept" , mister Kennedy had a pretty clear understanding of geo-politics in that time, he was aware of who CREATED communism and was about to open a can that could not be closed, so they killed him, not the puppet commies, the infamous "they" did.

This site is one of the most obvious sock-puppet sources around i think. Sadly it's probably being somewhat effective.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Go read he's book; "Why england slept" , mister Kennedy had a pretty clear understanding of geo-politics in that time, he was aware of who CREATED communism and was about to open a can that could not be closed, so they killed him, not the puppet commies, the infamous "they" did.

Who created it?
 

carl54

New Member
Who created it?


Any good conspiracy theorist will tell you 'it' was created by the Jew/Zionist. Just ask Czar Nicholas and read the protocols of the learned elders of Zion.

Good stuff, Mick. Anyone who doesn't understand JFK was talking about communism (namely the Soviets) and press self-censorship, but instead, insist that he was speaking in some code about the illuminati, club of rome, freemasons, etc, has no concept of history and historical context.

And this did he say covet or covert debate? Everybody knows Kennedy was from New England/Mass./Boston area, right? They have difficulty with 'R's' up there.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Any good conspiracy theorist will tell you 'it' was created by the Jew/Zionist. Just ask Czar Nicholas and read the protocols of the learned elders of Zion.

Good stuff, Mick. Anyone who doesn't understand JFK was talking about communism (namely the Soviets) and press self-censorship, but instead, insist that he was speaking in some code about the illuminati, club of rome, freemasons, etc, has no concept of history and historical context.

And this did he say covet or covert debate? Everybody knows Kennedy was from New England/Mass./Boston area, right? They have difficulty with 'R's' up there.

It is obviously 'covert'... 'covet' makes no sense in the context used.

"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,
Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It is obviously 'covert'... 'covet' makes no sense in the context used.

"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,
Content from External Source
If he meant Communism . . . why didn't he just say Communism, poetic license? . . . . in historical context, why beat around the bush . . ? Like the members of the press and general public didn't already know the tactics of the Communist Party . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If he meant Communism . . . why didn't he just say Communism, poetic license? . . . . in historical context, why beat around the bush . . ? Like the members of the press and general public didn't already know the tactics of the Communist Party . . .

Because it's quite clear from the speech what he's talking about. It's also an effective rhetorical device to describe something rather than name it.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Because it's quite clear from the speech what he's talking about. It's also an effective rhetorical device to describe something rather than name it.
It is also a device to talk to a larger group at one meaning and communicating those in the know something else . . . I continually used this device myself when talking at large organizational meetings while sending a different meaning to higher management . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It is also a device to talk to a larger group at one meaning and communicating those in the know something else . . . I continually used this device myself when talking at large organizational meetings while sending a different meaning to higher management . . .

Who would "those in the know" be in your interpretation of JFK's speech? And if they already know, what is he telling them?

You might want to listen to the speech again.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Who would "those in the know" be in your interpretation of JFK's speech? And if they already know, what is he telling them?

You might want to listen to the speech again.
I have heard and read the speech and heard the original or rebroadcasted speech at the time he gave it . . I have no problem ascribing other nuances of meaning to it. . . in fact, I thought at the time Communism was not the only group being addressed . . . though it is the logical target most would assume . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have heard and read the speech and heard the original or rebroadcasted speech . . . I have no problem ascribing other nuances of meaning to it. . . in fact, I thought at the time Communism was not the only group being addressed . . . though it is the logical target most would assume . . .
So who else? Who are the "people in the know?" What do they know?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So who else? Who are the "people in the know?" What do they know?
That is the rub is it not Mick. . . . My thoughts go back many, many years. . . .I come from a long line of conspiracy believers. . . .my grandfather who died in 1950 and was an educator and State Represenative from my home district felt there existed a group of puppet masters pulling the strings. . . .he passed these beliefs down to his ancestry, me being receptive. . . it was never given a specific name just covert and powerful. . . .
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
That is the rub is it not Mick. . . . My thoughts go back many, many years. . . .I come from a long line of conspiracy believers. . . .my grandfather who died in 1950 and was an educator and State Represenative from my home district felt there existed a group of puppet masters pulling the strings. . . .he passed these beliefs down to his ancestry, me being receptive. . . it was never given a specific name just covert and powerful. . . .

Hey, G. How do?

In the absence of names and faces, I suggest we call them Gics - gangsters-in-charge
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I don't understand why you think there's a single centuries old group. I don't think there's any evidence for it. All the existing corruption can just be explained by individuals or governments acting in selfish self interest.

The idea that there's some common thread behind the scenes does not hold water. Corruption is just human nature.



I don't follow. Maybe you could rephrase that?

I have really been enjoying this conversation. I see that it happened last year. Good stuff, though. Anyway, check this out. http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I think I will pass, the VERY fact that they use the word 'Zionism' on their page tells me a lot about their Nazi roots.

Folks that blame others for their problems, I discount.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hey, G. How do?

In the absence of names and faces, I suggest we call them Gics - gangsters-in-charge
Lee. . . when you finally return. . . Yes, gangsters-in-charge is a possible term of endearment that could be used. . . :)

The question of their (Gics) existence I think is based on the observation and question . . . could this world be so messed up simply from the malfeasance of each succeeding generation . . . to me that is hard to believe unless there is not a succession of finance, concept, power, motive and plan . . . the only question in my mind is how extensive, connected and capable are the conspirators . . . . :)
 

6thSense

New Member
Who created it?
I am necro'ing this thread a bit. However, the "who created" Communism doesn't matter. Just remember that Karl Marx was a London foreign correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune in 1851.

What I find interesting in all this chattered about Kennedy's "meaning" behind the speech that you fail to put EVERYTHING in context.

1. The speech was given on April 27, 1961... approximately 8 days after the Bay of Pigs incident (debacle), aka Operation Zapata

Why would Kennedy use the terms secrecy, secret societies, secret oaths, and secret proceedings. None of these things describes Communism. In fact, Communism was TRYING to recruit members. It wasn't a secret society and it didn't require secret oaths.

Would this be the first time a president attempted to warn the American people? Not in the slightest. President Dwight Eisenhower tried to warn America about the "military industrial complex." And if you've seen the movie "Why We Fight" you may know that he removed a term from that speech so not to piss certain people off... "congressional... military industrial complex."

My point, while speaking about Communism (Bay of Pigs) he is also referencing secret societies. No, not the eff'ing Illuminati. I get rather sick of seeing that term used, although George Washington acknowledged their presence in America (side track).

Why is he referencing Communism and secret societies?

Because if you know jack about what was going on and who caused the Bay of Pigs in the first place you'd know those individuals were tied to an eff'ing secret society. FFS!!


Are you following, or are you stuck nitpicking words in the speech and don't understand or have the context?
 
Top