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

[Mick West]

"Secrecy" is referring to the potential need for government censorship, not communism.

 

[Chuck]

There are two things at play in that speech. Both regard secrecy. Kennedy was contrasting the two structures of government i.e. one that relies on the freedom of the media and the other that intimidated and oppressed the dissension.

1. Self-censorship of the media in a free society:
"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."

2. The threat of communism was in JFK's mind a ruthless conspiracy that relied on covert means to expand it's influence:
"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.

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."

 

[WeedWhacker]

There are two things at play in that speech.

Is this in any way related to President Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex" warning? I see this as a prophetic "warning" that has been proven to come to pass. (Sorry for the video, I will add text links below, as well. I think it's important that an out-going United States President made such a claim):



The video (above) has 'annotations' (of a sort) edited in.

We can presume that "profit" (i.e., Big Business defense contractors' profit) were then, and continue today, to be influential in Government.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/farewell_address.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex

 

[Mick West]

Is this in any way related to President Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex" warning?

No, it's an entirely different topic. JFK is talking about newspaper self-censorship in the face of the Soviet threat. Eisenhower is talking about excessive interrelationships between industry (and hence the legislature) and the military becoming a driver of American foreign policy.

 

[WeedWhacker]

OK....different decade.

I wonder (though) if the reference to Eisenhower might be relevant?

You actually alluded to it:

...and the military becoming a driver of American foreign policy.

Or, did I misunderstand?

(EDIT.....THIS is why a salient discussion is important. Even if online? Somehow we can eventually reach an "understanding"...usually).

 

[Mick West]

I was talking about Eisenhower. I was explaining the difference. I was not alluding to anything.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I was talking about Eisenhower. I was explaining the difference. I was not alluding to anything.

OK. Gotcha!

i still wonder if (based on this thread's OP?) that Eisenhower's speech might be a "basis" for some conspiracy theories? (It could merit its own thread...).

 

[Mick West]

OK. Gotcha!

i still wonder if (based on this thread's OP?) that Eisenhower's speech might be a "basis" for some conspiracy theories? (It could merit its own thread...).

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/eisenhower-warns-of-new-world-order-iraq-afghanistan-syria.2348

 

[WeedWhacker]

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/eisenhower-warns-of-new-world-order-iraq-afghanistan-syria.2348

Ahh...as usual...."Asked, and then answered!"

Thanks. I hope this contributes to further discussion, "on-topic" (of course!).

(Still....I doubt that President Eisenhower had the ability to foresee Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, his "warning" remains true, and should be considered by ALL in the military today. He was somewhat "prescient".)

 

[McGurnicle]

2. The threat of communism was in JFK's mind a ruthless conspiracy that relied on covert means to expand it's influence:
"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.

How do conspiracy theorists interpret this? Do they generally deny that JFK is here referring to the Soviet System? Do they believe rather that he is referring to some sort of unnamed shadowy cabal with vast resources and global reach?


The irony is that given the nature of the United States' activities in South America, Asia, and the Near East at the time of this speech and the decade or so prior, the behavior of U.S. could very aptly be summed up in these exact same terms.

 

[Pete Tar]

How do conspiracy theorists interpret this? Do they generally deny that JFK is here referring to the Soviet System? Do they believe rather that he is referring to some sort of unnamed shadowy cabal with vast resources and global reach?

I think they are saying there is a hidden meaning that they can recognise but the uneducated masses do not - there is the boring explanation of communism for the sheep to consume, but then there is the secret meaning for the turned-on and awakened to comprehend in higher understanding.

 

[Jan]

Thanks for posting the whole speech. We are opposed around the internet by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on manipulating means for expanding its sphere of ideology. It is a system which has conscripted little resources into the editing of a YouTube video that omits the parts which are referring to communism and Cold War.

I mean, really: Are disinformation agents out there to discredit conspiracy theories or are those creators really such deceitful and cunning? I cannot imagine that the normal conspiracy theorist (cliché: graduated from YouTube university, believing every bunk on the internet) would be able to find this speech. Most rely on others who did the excavation.

My only »rational« explanation: There were some people who became suspicious about JFK's death and looked what he did the days before his death. They came upon an archive website and skimmed the texts for keywords such as »conspiracy«. Then they came upon the discussed speech transcript and read »secret society« and »monolithic conspiracy«. Enough for them to become giddy with excitement and skim the rest of the transcript even more superficially and they »overlooked«* the communism part, so they omitted the middle.

*Could have been out of excitement or deliberately, because this wouldn't fit to their thesis, so their brains told them »this is not important, focus on the conspiracy part«.

 

[Jazzy]

their brains told them »this is not important, focus on the conspiracy part«.

Yes. Exciting isn't it? More exciting than Chicken Little, anyway.

Not only can one have a brain that uses itself to think for itself, but this "open" brain may freely add disinfo agents, lying and spying, as a bonus package.

Whoever said that life was meaningless? Ooo those dots....

 

[Mick West]

I see Dane Wigington has misused the quote:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/facing-the-insanity-that-currently-rules-the-world/

Industrialized society has made modern man complacent beyond comprehension. For most, unpleasant truths about our government are not something to be investigated and exposed, but rather to be avoided and ignored at all costs. This paradigm must be overturned if we are to have any chance of long term survival. Unnecessary daily distractions must be discarded in exchange for a pursuit of the common good. Countless crimes that have been hidden by the power structure must be brought to light.

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.​

John F. Kennedy

JFK was assassinated shortly after he made the speech from which this quote was taken. This is the society in which we live and that many have so far chosen not only to accept but to embrace.

Besides the speech not meaning what Wigington thinks it means, JFK was assassinated two and half years after this speech. Not "shortly after".

 

[Eric Gaul]

I think his reasoning behind not putting a name to the entity he refers to in this speech is, his words weren't meant to only be heard in his time. The statements here are timeless, can be held by all Americans as a warning against any entity (within our borders or not) that attempt to corrode our sovereignty and disfigure our Constitution. My belief is at the time that entity he was speaking of was communism, but as with most all our late President Kennedy's speeches they were intended to be heard and apply to all Americans within any time past, future, and present. That is what makes the man who he was, one of our greatest Presidents. He placed no names to the oppressor because it was not necessary. Whether it be communism, illuminati, or any other entity that trys to oppress the American way of life.....so.... there is no conspiracy to be debunked here. I will say, there is a scary movement in motion against the American Traditions. Its been moving so long now that many of our core rights have been allowed to be distorted, and now more are on the chopping block. This speech needs to be replayed nationally, repeated yearly, for all modern-day Americans to hear and feel. Yes it was stated in 1961, but will remain true in 2061.

Just my 2¢

 

[Jan]

If JFK was actually exposing something, then why should he do this only once in a cryptic speech? I mean, he appears to have been part of the elite establishment, meeting with blokes such as Averell Harriman... the only stringent explanation would be, that JFK didn't actually want to warn, but haughtily, with disdain for the 'small people', ridicule them and laugh behind their backs and behind closed doors.

To seinsibly hold one of those Illuminati-alike Conspiracy Theories requires to presuppose 'irrational' behaviour by the conspirators.

The man, who put his life at stake for exposing the truth, meeting the unsuspicious Averell Harriman in 1960.

 

[John Robertson]

Anyone who listens to the speech in its entirety as linked here: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHA-025-001.aspx, or reads the entire transcript of the aforementioned speach will learn two things.

JFK had an accent which rendered his pronunciation of the word "covert" as "cuh-vut". This can be easily discerned just before the 12 minute mark of his speech.

Secondly, one will learn that the topic of the speech was the need for the US Government to be more secretive over its military preparations, readiness, and covert abilities, operations, and deployment while simultaneously being more open about virtually everything else that it is doing. The context of this was the fact that the Press historically understood the need for the Government and the Press not to aid our enemies in times of declared war by disclosing such things; but because the Nation was not engaged in a declared war against the forces of Communism and Socialism seeking to engulf the rest of the world, there were many members of the Press who felt such secrecy on the part of the US Government was unwarranted. President Kennedy was simply attempting to get the Press to adopt a "wartime footing" with respect to the US Military and National Defense without an official declaration of War.

The Communist countries, and Communist sympathizers have ever been open about their intentions, but always covert and secretive about their specific activities and tactics. The governments of such countries are highly secretive and controlling, using the press in their countries as the propaganda arm of the government, censoring any criticism while lauding or outright manufacturing its successes and accomplishments. There is little question that the great threat that President Kennedy was speaking of was not the USSR, but the geo-socio-political philosophy of Marxism as promulgated by the Eastern Bloc countries, especially practiced by, but not limited to, the USSR.

 

[Hachiman]

I agree with Mick and others here that he is indeed talking about communism. If you truly want to know the full and horrifying extent to which the Soviets were waging covert and ruthless wars both physically as well as psychologically against their own people, the US and the world at large, then no defector explains it better than ex-KGB officer Yuri Bezmenov in the following interview with Edward Griffin in 1984:



The US government and JFK were fully aware of the nature of the game the Soviets were playing. Though as Mr. Bezmenov points out, they (referring specifically to the CIA) did not fully grasp the true extent of it. In fact, the CIA officers seemed reluctant to believe some of his warnings at the time of his defection in 1970. So the argument that there is nothing 'secretive' or 'covert' about communism is hopefully hereby invalided for good. Deception was the name of their game. I recommend everyone to view this video from start to finish, it might still shock you.

 

[David Bump]

Anybody who remembers the 60s or early 70s recognizes right off that Kennedy was speaking of the "Cold War" with Communism.

[Off topic material removed]
For those wondering, the removed material addressed the claim that "JFK was talking about some Illuminati/NWO plot," but I guess I went on too much about it.

 

[rbhatia]

This is thoroughly absurd and one of the most intellectually dishonest things I have ever read. You cannot be serious if you're trying to attribute JFK's references to Soviet Communism. In written form it is very easy to twist anyone's words and distort the original meaning if things are taken out of context - that is why it is essential to LISTEN to the speech as well, in its entirety, rather than nitpicking certain passages here or there to prove your dishonest point. It is very obvious what JFK is referring to from hearing the audio of his speech.

 

[Mick West]

This is thoroughly absurd and one of the most intellectually dishonest things I have ever read. You cannot be serious if you're trying to attribute JFK's references to Soviet Communism. In written form it is very easy to twist anyone's words and distort the original meaning if things are taken out of context - that is why it is essential to LISTEN to the speech as well, in its entirety, rather than nitpicking certain passages here or there to prove your dishonest point. It is very obvious what JFK is referring to from hearing the audio of his speech.

So what events do you think he was referring to when he said:

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.