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

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
Yeah I don't see how he was referring to Communism when specifically mentioning secret societies and secret oaths either. IMHO the purpose of JFK's assassination was to send a direct message for everyone to stay in line. He was the last true president who put people's interest before corporate & military industrial complex interests and for that he paid with his life.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
....
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!!

...
And if the amount known is less than jack, then how would you enlighten them so they knew jack?
ie, who in the first place caused the Bay of Pigs and what secret society were they a member of?
How do you know being a member of said SS was a direct cause for the Bay of Pigs?
Is it worth getting frustrated over if someone doesn't have your knowledge?
 

6thSense

New Member
Which secret society? Which individuals?

And if the amount known is less than jack, then how would you enlighten them so they knew jack?
ie, who in the first place caused the Bay of Pigs and what secret society were they a member of?
How do you know being a member of said SS was a direct cause for the Bay of Pigs?
Is it worth getting frustrated over if someone doesn't have your knowledge?

Mick and Pete, I provided a solid hint. The knowledge I have is based on the good investigations of many others. In today's world of spying and data-mining I'm leery of sharing specifics, but there is not only too many ties that implicate the right people. But, if you know anything about micro-expressions there is even physical (micro-expression, which isn't so micro) proof that will only serve to solidify the knowledge.

If I provided details it would be a VERY long thread, because chances are I would hear the response "show me" or "prove it." There is plenty of proof, and even J. Edgar Hoover left a paper trail to ensure those seeking answers would find it. To start you off, consider this:

1. Do any of you believe the conclusion of the Warren Commission?
2. Why was Allen Dulles put on the Warren Commission? (He was the CIA Director that Kennedy "fired" in 1961 for the Bay of Pigs. With Kennedy reportedly saying he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds." ...may as well debunk that quote!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Mick and Pete, I provided a solid hint.
...
If I provided details it would be a VERY long thread, because chances are I would hear the response "show me" or "prove it." There is plenty of proof, and even J. Edgar Hoover left a paper trail to ensure those seeking answers would find it. To start you off, consider this:

1. Do any of you believe the conclusion of the Warren Commission?
2. Why was Allen Dulles put on the Warren Commission? (He was the CIA Director that Kennedy "fired" in 1961 for the Bay of Pigs. With Kennedy reportedly saying he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds." ...may as well debunk that quote!)

There's no need to be coy, no reason to drop hints instead of explicitly stating your facts.
Really.
You can start threads for each significant piece of evidence. And yes they must be proved, otherwise it's just conjecture. Nothing inherently wrong with conjecture, especially when well-informed, but it's not proof. It's okay not to know the answer sometimes.



With Kennedy reportedly saying he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds." ...may as well debunk that quote!)


Here's what (I think) is the source of that quote...(New York Times 1966)
http://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/Item03.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What do secret societies and secret oaths have anything to do with newspaper censorship?

THey are examples of secrecy, which we are, as a nation opposed to. Newspaper censorship is another example. Listen to the speech again, but this time imagine his sole goal is to persuade the newspaper editors that they need to self-censor more, because he does not want government censorship, because people are against it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"Who funded the Bolshevik revolution?

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


Sounds pretty monolithic and Ruthless to me."

You gonna argue this or did you forget?

That's just an obscure conspiracy theory by Anthony Sutton. Nobody really shares this view. It's based purely on speculation and cherry picking.
 

Arlen Williams

New Member
That's just an obscure conspiracy theory by Anthony Sutton. Nobody really shares this view. It's based purely on speculation and cherry picking.
I don't think it is refuted that the Rothschild/Schiff complex greatly assisted in the funding of both Lenin and Hitler, nor that the Rockefeller side aided Mao and hurt Chiang. I've seen some significant sources on that, but haven't traced it to the roots as of the moment.
 

BenGordonShow

New Member
I think when Kennedy mentioned secret societies he was talking about secret societies, where secret oaths are taken. Take Skull and Bones, it is well understood what goes down in that particular society, and the big players who come from it. I am reminded of the amazing meltdown David Gergen has when Alex Jones confronts him on Bohemian Grove. Gergen should have looked at him and said, "I don't know what your are talking about" Instead, he insinuates that because Jones got it, he had broken HIS oath. People organize in secret and use leveraging to work above or along side or underneath the democratic process. Why wouldn't people do that? I think a secret society is a VERY specific thing. I do not think Kennedy was referring to the press as a secret society, that doesn't make sense
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I do not think Kennedy was referring to the press as a secret society, that doesn't make sense

He wasn't referring to the press. He was making a general point about how Americans don't like secrecy, that's all. It's basically about censorship, the "secret societies" is another example of that type of thing. The speech is not about 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.
Content from External Source
I recommend reading, and listening to, the whole thing:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=8093
 

Hetware

Member
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


I don't get the necessary connection between JFK's comments regarding Marx's compensation as a journalist, and his subsequent comments regarding secret societies. What he said could equally well have been directed at Skull and Bones and other, interlocking secretive societies, such as the Suite 8F Group, and the CIA. JFK allegedly said "I want to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." There is no doubt that the CIA operates in secret, and has at its origins Wall Street bankers and lawyers.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't get the necessary connection between JFK's comments regarding Marx's compensation as a journalist, and his subsequent comments regarding secret societies. What he said could equally well have been directed at Skull and Bones and other, interlocking secretive societies, such as the Suite 8F Group, and the CIA. JFK allegedly said "I want to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." There is no doubt that the CIA operates in secret, and has at its origins Wall Street bankers and lawyers.

All he said was that people don't like secrets. The speech is about censorship.
 

pclunatix

New Member
I just heard about this recently I figured I would throw it out there as it seems quiet relevant.
U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

or thrivemovement seemed to make a great point with their video
opposing the idea that the one percent, basically everyone that makes over a trillion dollars a year such as oil companies the banks and all the rest of it is in a secret society working with the other trillionaires to assure the monopoly that is already in place seems absurd to me.
There is just overwhelming evidence. The real problem is that mostly we only look at the things they want to show us and for some odd reason the things that are not PRO "one percent" are staying real quiet for the most part.
Hmm rings a bell from that quote this all started with. " Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
anyway.. we cant convince someone of anything really.. we can present the information and they can do with it what they will. But if this whole "conspiracy" thing has anything to it at all, then it is something very serious and should not be laughed off because the implications could be very far reaching. And that is what I see. Free energy being one of the biggest in it's implications. If there is people at the top holding things back that could free the planet from suffering because it would simply cause them to loose the "Elite" title, things do get kinda serious in our everyday life matters.
Take it seriously people and do research! It's out lives they are playing with..
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
But if this whole "conspiracy" thing has anything to it at all, then it is something very serious and should not be laughed off because the implications could be very far reaching. And that is what I see. Free energy being one of the biggest in it's implications. If there is people at the top holding things back that could free the planet from suffering because it would simply cause them to loose the "Elite" title, things do get kinda serious in our everyday life matters.
"IF...", "THEN...".
But you haven't established the 'if', so why bother with the 'then'? Most people would agree with the second part, well yes that would be serious. But you have to convince people with actual evidence before you jump to the second part, which is essentially 'be worried about something we haven't proven and then do something about it'.
Why skip the first part?
 

Jason

Senior Member
Free energy being one of the biggest in it's implications. If there is people at the top holding things back that could free the planet from suffering because it would simply cause them to loose the "Elite" title, things do get kinda serious in our everyday life matters.
Do you honestly believe free energy exist in todays world? Why or how would the trillionares be able to suppress free energy? Do you think only the trillionares have scientist working for them, or that the millions of other scientist wouldn't report this scientific Nobel prize winning discovery. Free energy wouldn't be free energy anyway, in the sense that the parts for it would cost money, the distribution of the energy would cost money, the storing of this energy would cost money, and setting up an infrastructure to implement this new form of energy would cost money, since most homes in the US run off electric or gas. I've never understood this claim, and sure any business owners would be upset if it means putting their business and profits in jeopardy, but like any smart business owner they adapt and move on.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
A better question wouldn't be why they suppress it, but why don't they exploit it?

There's a whole style of business for people who want to wring as much money out of a thing as possible as quickly as possible without regards to the future. Maybe it's temporary (fashion trends boom and bust weekly), maybe it's unsustainable (new species of ornamental fish are regularly pushed to the brink of extinction before science has time to figure out what they even are), maybe it's doomed to be outlawed (synthetic marijuana, bath salts, designer drugs), or maybe the market will eventually destroy itself but not before you get your money out (subprime mortages). The early investors get to print their own money and retire to a country with lax extradition procedures while the bandwagon gets stuck holding the bill.

There's almost no redeeming qualities about this kind of business, but people still do it, all the time, even to the point of playing chicken with an entire country's banking system.

If somebody had a free energy device and the money to set up a fairly basic operation, they would sell that energy and expand it until they either crashed the world energy market or could no longer hide the source.

Yes, their business would then fail. Yes, it could leave the world's economy in shambles. But they're not sticking around to clean up, they made their billions, everything else is the world's problem.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
No, I'm suggesting something closer to the collapse of the housing market or the oil crisis or the dot crash. Wipe out an industry, possibly causing a recession in the collateral economic damage, but something the economy as a whole could recover from in a few decades.

Assuming, of course, the conspiracy claim that rich people know about it and intentionally suppress it is true. Because if rich people know about it and the rest of the world doesn't, they literally have a machine that prints money, but will cease to print money once it becomes known. History has taught us that in that scenario, the people with the machine will use it to print all the money right now. They would make far more money in the short time than they would playing the energy market (all the revenue almost none of the costs).

The wealthy don't wear their industries like millstones on their neck, they'll survive the destruction of their industry, even at their own hands, the same way people doing the same thing always have.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
No, I'm suggesting something closer to the collapse of the housing market or the oil crisis or the dot crash. Wipe out an industry, possibly causing a recession in the collateral economic damage, but something the economy as a whole could recover from in a few decades.

Assuming, of course, the conspiracy claim that rich people know about it and intentionally suppress it is true. Because if rich people know about it and the rest of the world doesn't, they literally have a machine that prints money, but will cease to print money once it becomes known. History has taught us that in that scenario, the people with the machine will use it to print all the money right now. They would make far more money in the short time than they would playing the energy market (all the revenue almost none of the costs).

The wealthy don't wear their industries like millstones on their neck, they'll survive the destruction of their industry, even at their own hands, the same way people doing the same thing always have.
But the lateral markets and industries probably wouldn't collapse because we would still need petro to manufacture the products needed for the devices, or to make machine parts, or to clean water for drinking, and free energy would most likely be in the form of "electric" energy, and there is way to much of an industry built around petro, natural gas, propane, deisel, etc, etc, etc for it to fall apart. In fact new forms of energy, never do away with older cheaper forms of energy. Free energy wouldn't be free, its sad but true. How do we convert the world to use free energy, it would be a painstaking and elaborate plan.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
All that would be quite true if it were a new but known technology transitioning from academic research to industry. It would be a slow process, very expensive (and very profitable). It would probably not kill the petroleum industry, but it will hit the natural gas industry worse (particularly if it leads to wider adoption of electric heating), and might cripple the coal industry.

However, the CT claim is that a handful of already ultrarich elites are jealously guarding a working technology that the world as a whole doesn't know/believe exists. That's a very different dynamic.

That exploitable secret is where you get the machine that prints money. It is an incredibly profitable secret, so either those ultrarich elites controlling it will willingly create the above scenario or, if we assume they're cackling evil-for-the-sake-of-evil comic book villains (which is required for most conspiracy theories to work), they would utilize the technology to generate cheap electricity (I assume their construction and maintenance costs would be similar, or even a bit higher, but their fuel costs would be zero taking a huge bite out of their budgets) that they would then sell at the market value as if it were generated using traditional fuel sources.

This is the path that will crash the market by overabundance, as they're flooding the market with product and will be able to undercut any other price due to their lack of fuel costs - they don't need to worry about driving up fuel costs the way somebody trying to flood the market with traditional technology would. Prices drop, market crashes, but not before those ultarich bought a better prefix than "ultra."

What those rich people would not do is sit on such an insanely profitable technology just for the sake of continuing to plod around in their established markets. That is literally the opposite of how rich people get richer.

I don't want to beat up on the mortgage scandal for a third post, so I'll talk about ornamental fish again. The pet trade discovers lots of new fish species, but their sources are usually known, leading to government and scientific involvement and hobby awareness. Every once in a while, though, you get an exporter with a secret source. The galaxy rasbora is the most recent example, it was discovered in a tiny area by an exporter who promptly took it to the apparent brink of extinction so fast that scientists barely had time to figure out it wasn't even a rasbora. He exported so many that despite the demand there simply weren't enough fishkeepers to buy them all, and prices on pretty much all small shoaling fish crashed.

Luckily for that one, it had a much wider range than the collector knew and it's a very prolific breeder, so it's safe. But the same can't be said for every fish this has happened to, like the Denisonii barb.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
No, I'm suggesting something closer to the collapse of the housing market or the oil crisis or the dot crash.
Okay, it just seemed a very dire interpretation.
I guess it would depend on the nature of the energy generator, but it would likely still need all the infrastructure to get the energy to people, so it would still be a supplied service needing maintenance and technicians.
 

gale_R_

New Member
Fist time here. What I do not understand in the process of debunking is when author of that process "knows" what Kennedy meant. I believe that first of all if we want to be serious about this process, we need to be a little bit more strict in not doing major falacies on our own.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Fist time here. What I do not understand in the process of debunking is when author of that process "knows" what Kennedy meant. I believe that first of all if we want to be serious about this process, we need to be a little bit more strict in not doing major falacies on our own.

I explain in the OP why he's talking about communism.
 

gale_R_

New Member
Yet, it is just your opinion, not the fact. What I would like to see in debunking process is balanced approach. What if? In the way the debunker takes the side, it is not debunking any more.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yet, it is just your opinion, not the fact. What I would like to see in debunking process is balanced approach. What if? In the way the debunker takes the side, it is not debunking any more.

Well feel free to point out errors in reasoning. The context does show he's talking about communism. Now of course maybe he's just pretending to speak about communism, but then you could take ANY speech, and randomly assign it another meaning.

You would agree here that he's talking to newspaper editors? That he references the bay of pigs? That the topic at least SEEMS to be encouraging self-consorship?
 

gale_R_

New Member
The context is actually rather dubious thing also. When I look at the Kennedy, first thing I take for the context for every word he said is that he was killed by inner circle of the government that showed off its presence. You can deny that statement it was inner circle of the government, but nevertheless we are talking about the power that can kill the US president with no consequence. Enough for me. So, what I can conclude form this perspective is that he fought some serious wars with the shadows that make me interested in the case.

From this point of view I can hardly take your context for granted, but rather opposite. Of course, as you do not actually have any proof, but speculations about what was Kennedy actually talking about, it is the same thing for me also. On the other hand, if I want to be objective, I have to treat various speculations on the same level and give them the same chance to prove themselves. So, this is what I ask myself. What if? What are the conclusions in one, or in another way? Taking a side that it was the first way is actually not debunking at all for my skeptical perspective, but biased approach.

What would actually debunk some noncritical thinkers is not to offer your explanation, but to take a balanced approach and remove obvious fallacies. What stays there keeps it legitimate position. Of course, I will admit that I do not know a lot, but almost nothing, so all I did was to comment this approach that is actually based on speculation, not facts.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Of course, as you do not actually have any proof, but speculations about what was Kennedy actually talking about,
I'm astounded you can say that when he provided the very words from the speech, which clearly is referencing the Bay of Pigs crisis and the hand of Soviet communism that was behind it. The Cold War was a very real thing, not speculation, and it is very clearly the context in which this speech takes place.
You would have to twist the words of the speech to make it about anything other than information being used against them during the Cold War, otherwise what did he mean by these phrases? -



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;
I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
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.
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;
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
But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

Content from External Source
It's obviously the Cold War.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's obviously the Cold War.

Not to mention:
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.
Content from External Source
 

Janet

New Member
"During the Red Scare of 1947–1957, agitators of the American secular and Christian right, influenced by the work of Canadian conspiracy theorist William Guy Carr, increasingly embraced and spread unfounded fears of Freemasons, Illuminati and Jews being the driving force behind an "international communist conspiracy". The threat of "Godless communism", in the form of a state atheistic and bureaucratic collectivist world government, demonized as the "Red Menace", therefore became the main focus of apocalyptic millenarian conspiracism. The Red Scare came to shape one of the core ideas of the political right in the United States, which is that liberals and progressives, with their welfare-state policies and international cooperation programs such as foreign aid, supposedly contribute to a gradual process of collectivism that will inevitably lead to nations being replaced with a communist one-world government.[14]"
Content from External Source
............Is this the Communist topic of concern JFK is referencing?

I don't believe JFK would add extra unnecessary words such as secret oaths, secret societies etc.. to construct a line to simply state, "people don't like secrets". Did the "international communist conspiracy" have secret societies in America with secret oaths? I do know of other secret societies that had secret oaths during the JFK presidency. I do see Communism as part of the "sobering" topic of concern, however it is strange that he mentions their (ruthless monolithic conspiracy) reliance on covert means, so why does he not say Communism? Why keep it's means covert? This along with other points lead me to believe it is not only Communism, in addition something greater than Communism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
............Is this the Communist topic of concern JFK is referencing?

Yes, the "Red Scare".

I don't believe JFK would add extra unnecessary words

Really? He's a politician giving a speech. See some of his other speeches for comparison. The people in the audience know exactly what he is referring to, he does not need to spell it out, he needs to convinced them that they should self-censor to avoid the imposition of government censorship.
 

Chuck

Active Member
"During the Red Scare of 1947–1957, agitators of the American secular and Christian right, influenced by the work of Canadian conspiracy theorist William Guy Carr, increasingly embraced and spread unfounded fears of Freemasons, Illuminati and Jews being the driving force behind an "international communist conspiracy". The threat of "Godless communism", in the form of a state atheistic and bureaucratic collectivist world government, demonized as the "Red Menace", therefore became the main focus of apocalyptic millenarian conspiracism. The Red Scare came to shape one of the core ideas of the political right in the United States, which is that liberals and progressives, with their welfare-state policies and international cooperation programs such as foreign aid, supposedly contribute to a gradual process of collectivism that will inevitably lead to nations being replaced with a communist one-world government.[14]"
Content from External Source
............Is this the Communist topic of concern JFK is referencing?

I don't believe JFK would add extra unnecessary words such as secret oaths, secret societies etc.. to construct a line to simply state, "people don't like secrets". Did the "international communist conspiracy" have secret societies in America with secret oaths? I do know of other secret societies that had secret oaths during the JFK presidency. I do see Communism as part of the "sobering" topic of concern, however it is strange that he mentions their (ruthless monolithic conspiracy) reliance on covert means, so why does he not say Communism? Why keep it's means covert? This along with other points lead me to believe it is not only Communism, in addition something greater than Communism.

Janet, those were not "extra unnecessary words" given the context of that speech. Did you read/listen to the entire speech Mick posted? I don't think anyone listening to it AT THE TIME IT WAS DELIVERED had the slightest question that JFK was referring to the global Communist threat. He didn't specifically mention "Communism" because it was so patently obvious. However, since we no longer live in those "cold war" times, it's very easy to lose focus. But everything must be interpreted by context or it can be manipulated to mean anything one wants. And that's exactly what people are doing.

To suggest that JFK was referring to Skull and Bones, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, a cabal of international bankers or any such "secret group" (that actually operate in plain view) is ignoring the times in which JFK spoke. JFK was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), he was a globalist and he believed in wealth redistribution. 70 of his appointees were from the CFR. So how can people promote, with any degree of credibility, that JFK was the man who opposed the organizations he was integrally a part of?

Some time ago I wrote a blog on this topic and every single email respondent over the age of 50 said the speech concerned communism. Those in their mid 30s and younger, even after listening to the entire speech, insisted that JFK was warning of the impending NWO.

A 70 year told wrote:
"Chuck, I heard the original speech when JFK gave it, and I knew EXACTLY what he was talking about, and I wager, so did the rest of America. We had a real enemy, and we knew it was Communism. I well remember the day that Castro took over Cuba - the people cheered, but I felt that they really didn't know what they were getting in that evil man."

One reviewer of the speech posted at the archive of presidential recordings, wrote the following:
"This speech was given 10 days after the bay of pigs. Kennedy is talking about communism and the cold war. He is discussing the balance between our freedoms of speech and the responsibility of newspapers to not publish information that might compromise national security (similar to the WWII "Loose ships sink ships" slogan). He is making an appeal (not a decree) to the newspapers to be more discreet with the information they publish."
Content from External Source
Janet, click the link for Soviet Espionage in the United States. This is one example among thousands. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the content politically, it's clear that there was at least the overwhelming perception of a Soviet infiltration at every level of society.

"Since the late 1920s, the Soviet Union, through its GRU, OGPU and NKVD intelligence services, used Russian Jews and foreign-born nationals as well as Communist, and people of American origin to perform espionage activities in the United States. These various espionage networks had contact with various U.S. government agencies, transmitting to Moscow information that would have been deemed confidential."
Content from External Source
"One chief aim was the infiltration, placement, and subversion of American political life at all levels of society.
Content from External Source
Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), served as an agent recruiter himself on behalf of Soviet intelligence."
Content from External Source

"One early Soviet spy ring was headed by Jacob Golos. Jake Golos (birth name Jacob Golosenko, Tasin, Rasin or Raisen) was a Ukrainian-born Bolshevik revolutionary and Soviet secret police (NKVD) operative in the USSR. He was also a longtime senior official of the CPUSA involved in covert work and cooperation with Soviet intelligence agencies. He took over an existing network of agents and intelligence sources from Earl Browder. Golos' controller was the head of the NKVD's American desk, Gaik Ovakimian, also known as "The Puppetmaster", who would later serve a key role in the assassination of Leon Trotsky.Golos was the "main pillar" of the NKVD intelligence network. He had worked with Soviet intelligence from the mid-1930s, and probably earlier. He was not merely a CPUSA official assisting the NKVD (an agent or “probationer” in Soviet intelligence parlance) but held official rank in the NKVD, and claimed to be an oldtime Chekist."
Content from External Source
People have attempted to use JFK as their credible front-man to peddle their various conspiracy theories. The fact is, he's not their man.
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
Do an image search for "Loose Lips Sink Ships" posters. Very similar phrases were used by all countries in wars. Some are still even used today with updated images.
 

Engonoceras

New Member
Communism and it's tactics and subversions were not "secret". There's public service cartoons going back 20 years that talk about Communism.

I think the man was also sending a message to the shadow powers, the "Elites", or if you want a cute term "Illuminati". It's the same message Eisenhower tried to send as he was headed out the door. They were saying un-elected powerful people were steering the government ship (and have been since). Maybe he perceived them as Communists or maybe Communism was a cover.

Then Kennedy got his head blown open and the Powers immediately conspired to slaughter 50,000 American kids in Vietnam at profit.
 
Last edited:

Chuck

Active Member
Communism and it's tactics and subversions were not "secret". There's public service cartoons going back 20 years that talk about Communism.

I think the man was also sending a message to the shadow powers, the "Elites", or if you want a cute term "Illuminati". It's the same message Eisenhower tried to send as he was headed out the door. They were saying un-elected powerful people were steering the government ship (and have been since). Maybe he perceived them as Communists or maybe Communism was a cover.

Then Kennedy got his head blown open and the Powers immediately conspired to slaughter 50,000 American kids in Vietnam at profit.

Good grief! Who in the world said anything about Communism being a big secret? JFK talked about infiltration by "covert means".
 

Latest posts

Top