JFK's secrecy speech dissected

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society. April 27, 1961 By John F. Kennedy Waldorf-Astoria Hotel New York City 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.

(my take is that he is describing the general public's perception of what secrecy is.)

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.

(IMHO he is describing the path a corrupt government would take in a prolonged effort to gain ultimate control. Almost like the way we live today. Our government seems to be chipping away at our rights. Patience always wins. They are very patient.)

That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s 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.

(Here he is telling us and his cabinet and military that he will not justify hiding military mistakes or cover ups. )

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.

(here he describes the military industrial complex to a "t". He is spot on with what has happened over history. We just don't see it. If everyone was ready to be opened up to the real world, they would see it in this speech. (again, IMHO))


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. No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary.

(again, probably describing what he has discovered in the ranks. He probably just figured out that the president is just a guy who is told what to say and do. Like a good puppet)

I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors and we expect you to point them out when we miss them. Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion. This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security. And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

( I think at this part, he is asking the press to pick a side. The president, or the administration. We all know what side they chose.)

Tragically, on November 22nd 1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated because he had planned to end the Vietnam war, and it was a big secret, until recently.

Link here




Those are my thoughts and not the thoughts of masonry.

any comment?


[edit on 26-8-2010 by network dude]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by network dude]

reply to post by network dude


network dude, As I respect your opinion alot, I have to say, i do believe this Secrecy Speech you mention here in more in-line with what happened during the Bay of Pigs and that Government fiasco.

The Bay of Pigs Invasion (known as La Batalla de Girón, or Playa Girón in Cuba), was an unsuccessful attempt by a CIA-trained force of Cuban exiles to invade southern Cuba, with support from US government armed forces, to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro.

The plan was launched in April 1961, less than three months after John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency in the United States. The Cuban armed forces, trained and equipped by Eastern Bloc nations, defeated the exile combatants in three days.
You'll notice that dates of his Secrecy Speech and the dates of the Bay of Pigs, April 1961.

I do also believe JKF had planned to end the Vietnam war but after he got the CIA cleaned out, which it needed to be.

I do believe though if LBJ hadn't had JFK killed, Our Government would have truly BEEN MORE TRANSPARENT AS PROMISED.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by guohua]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by guohua]

Thanks for posting this. I hadn't read it before.
Things have not really turned out the way it sounds like he wished them too.
More cover-ups than ever...

reply to post by guohua

Thanks for the compliment.

I believe you are right with the time frame. And I may be reading a bit too much into this particular speech, but I feel it was such a pivotal moment in JFK's life that there should be some hidden meaning. I think he knew all too well, what was going to happen to him. I think he was trying to step out as far as his handlers would let him. thanks for posting.

reply to post by network dude


network dude, You're Very, very Welcome and I always enjoy reading your threads.

As far as JFK and the Viet Nam war, ( I'm a Viet Nam Vet like many here )
I believe that Kennedy wanted the US involved but not to the extent for a long as we were and the man power was increased under JFK's administration but mostly with Advisor's and his newly created Green Berets.

If you're interested, please try going here www.gwu.edu...
and here www.cia.gov...

I believe JFK's Viet Nam was a two edged sword for him at the time.
I also believe JFK's biggest mistake was ousting Dulles of the CIA who was part of the Good Old Boy Network and part of the Old Regime.

But that's another thread and I won't derail your good work here or your thoughts on this subject, I'm just giving you my view from on old person.

My old stomping grounds.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by guohua]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by guohua]

Awesome thread and awesome OP. I've seen this speech many times, I've read its transcript. Though taken in context it seems a veiled response, or even admission of responsibility for what happened during the BoP invasion, I think it was the beginning of JFK's downfall. You don't out the more conspiratorial aspects of this nation's clandestine puppetmasters without repercussions... but God love him, that's exactly what he did. There should be a day before each congressional and presidential election dedicated to this speech... just to remind both the citizenry of the United States and those elected to its leadership what their responsibilities truly are.

Basically, you play with fire and you just might get burned.

JFK got burned.

What a situation later? His brother got burned! RFK.

The next brother? Sucked up Chappawquidik, decided to NOT persue a serious POTUSn campaign. Just some illusions.

Really, want to uncover the Kennedy family history? Just let them evolve into has beens, rich drug addiction and rapists. They are killing themselves, because they are no longer on the "right" side.

No, not democrats or repubblicans......just the "wrong" side. It helps, though, that they have been democrats. Or they could have been republicans, It doesn't matter, does it?

This was the start of what Kennedy was trying to disclose.


In 1913 with heavy political sponsorship by the bankers Woodrow Wilson became president, before he was president he had agreed to sign the federal reserve act.
Later he wrote in regret to his signing of the federal reserve.

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world -- no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government of conviction, and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress, of small groups of dominate men." President Woodrow Wilson

[edit on 123131p://upFriday by seridium]

Originally posted by seridium
This was the start of what Kennedy was trying to disclose.


In 1913 with heavy political sponsorship by the bankers Woodrow Wilson became president, before he was president he had agreed to sign the federal reserve act.
Later he wrote in regret to his signing of the federal reserve.

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world -- no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government of conviction, and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress, of small groups of dominate men." President Woodrow Wilson

[edit on 123131p://upFriday by seridium]

Id hate to be such a conspiracy theoriest, but did you know that the two basketball teams located in Washington DC are called the Wizards and the Mystics. This of course implies something more informed people already know. Almost every politician in DC is a mystic; and given how they govern is so fully of trickery and deception, theyre also wizards.

Now, if they can name BASKETBALL teams after this, they muust be obscenely powerful and theyre agenda must be universally accepted amidst the intelligentia. The so many collegiate Secret societies, masonry, and the too many to count Orders in the world These people are so firmly established that it would have been sheer lunacy for JFK or any other major politician to go against them.

Yes, he was killed. Maybe his speech was speaking out against them, or maybe, something else was going on. All i know is, JFK was a man with alot of skeletons in his closet. He was a member of many secret socieities, two of them being the KoC and Elks.

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. No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary.

Communism in America.

reply to post by network dude


While I applaud the efforts of Network Dude to shed some light on this speech, I'm afraid that he too has fallen trap to the propaganda of conspiracy theorists.

The link he gave is not the complete speech, and has been edited heavily.

For those who wish to learn the truth, read the full speech.

There are some gaping holes in all the versions presented on YouTube and on conspiracy websites. It's really shameful... no better than quoting Albert Pike out of context.

Some key bits that most of them ignore:

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

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.

…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.

See, in fact, Kennedy was asking for MORE secrecy, once you get into it. He's saying "yeah, everybody hates secrecy BUT..."

[edit on 8/27/2010 by JoshNorton]

Thanks network dude, good to get into more detail on this JFK speech.

I notice that JoshNorton has his emphasis posted here too. Yeah, he's right about the speech excerpts, that seem to maybe have an agenda beyond the actual speech. But, sure seems like everyone wants to put in their edit. Not bad really, because we all want to point out what we think is the most important.

Here's my emphasis, you know, that part when he actually says "secret societies"...

"...we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings."

I completely agree with Josh that a straight reading of that speech, what's on the surface, as a whole, is the Cold War and Communism. But I applaud you network dude in making an honest attempt to go deeper, even if you don't feel the "secret society" part is quite as important as I do.

SO, looking more at the entirety of the speech, a crucial part is where Kennedy himself defines what he is about to speak of, and he says there are two contradictory things that must be reconciled.

First, that there is a greater need for information to get to the public.

Second, that there is also a greater need for official secrecy (considering the unprecedented era of the Cold War, where the old tactics don't work anymore).

SO, what Josh says can make sense, from this sort of "preliminary" review.

Notice the word "official" (that was my emphasis, Kennedy's speech didn't necessarily reflect special intonations there), but I think it's interesting. At that time, there was already plenty of "official" secrecy, with spies on both sides, disinfo campaigns, regimes being supported / subverted, by both sides, etc. What could he be talking about?

Well, as others have pointed out, the context for this speech, as far as timing, does seem to be Bay of Pigs, a titanic failure, and early embarrassment to the Administration.

This episode taught Kennedy that he had been perhaps intentionally misinformed, and he would not continue to trust his generals, many advisors, and least of all, the damnable CIA.

Bay of Pigs was such a titanic fiasco, that the highly intelligent Kennedy realized that such a thing really could not have happened, unless it had been planned to be a failure.

Imagine YOU'RE the president, and this happens, what to do? Well, Kennedy didn't shy away from responsibility, but he then took steps to get rid of the "obvious" culprits, the CIA traitor scum, who had to step down.

And he looked around I think, and realized further, how far out of sync he was with the established powers. By the 27th of April, when the speech was given, he already had those who originally backed the plan, politically back-peddling, such as Senator Fulbright, who of course wanted to go on record as having opposed the plan.

Betrayal was what he felt perhaps, but worse, he was smart enough to realize that real TRAITORS surrounded him.

No, it was not possible that it was all the manifestation of Soviet spies, who had somehow infiltrated, and were guiding the hands of generals, senators, and apparently the highest figures in the CIA.

What was it then?

Yes, this is indeed the context of this speech. Kennedy was no idiot, he had experienced real "proof" of a "shadow government" that he discovered was literally operating ABOVE him.

Secret proceedings indeed.

Obviously, the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower mentioned has to figure into this mix somewhere, but Kennedy seemed to see a real "Masonic" reality before him.

Honestly, when he says "secret societies", is he talking about Kruschev and the Politbureau?

When he says, "secret oaths", is he just talking about the KGB?

"Secret proceedings"...You know, I think he was very, very pissed that secret proceedings had obviously gone on, when considering the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and he was damn close to just flat out calling a spade a spade.

Today, the thing that we should be careful of sweeping under the rug, is this issue of the "shadow government".

How does it operate? How do you accomplish things like trust, and confidence, across seemingly incongruous lines, such as the different "branches" of government, which obviously manifested itself rather boldly when it came down to the Warren Commission?

What other broad "organization" would anyone posit in this case, besides Masonry?

Sure, at this point, we may hear of off-shoots, Skull and Bones, etc., and as always, this has "nothing" to do with masonry!

But if we concede that the assassination had all the appearances of a large conspiracy, then we're always going to want to find that "logical" culprit.

And sorry, "the Mafia" doesn't cut it, considering all the facts. The Russians, no they don't cut it either.

"Who" was behind the JFK assassination? Anyone want to venture a reasonable "short list" of possibilities?

Of course, this can be terribly controversial, because the answers have implications for us all.

JR

Today, the thing that we should be careful of sweeping under the rug, is this issue of the "shadow government".

Is there a possibility that we just don't understand the shadow governments transparent disclosures? Here on ATS we teach critical thinking and try to enlighten the gullible, is that not the same goal as Kennedy's?

reply to post by JoshNorton


Thanks Josh, you are absolutely correct. I was rushing to make my point before I forgot what it was. (old age creeping early)

I still feel that that speech only used secret societies as a way to make a point. there is a lot of JFK's personal feelings showing though. At least as I see it. I think he was pissed and trying to vent and let everyone know that there was indeed a wizard behind the curtain. I do think it would have been an amazing ride to see what he could have accomplished had he lived.

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Second, that there is also a greater need for official secrecy (considering the unprecedented era of the Cold War, where the old tactics don't work anymore).

SO, what Josh says can make sense, from this sort of "preliminary" review.

Notice the word "official" (that was my emphasis, Kennedy's speech didn't necessarily reflect special intonations there), but I think it's interesting. At that time, there was already plenty of "official" secrecy, with spies on both sides, disinfo campaigns, regimes being supported / subverted, by both sides, etc. What could he be talking about?

See, I don't think it's a topic of "official" secrecy so much as personal judgement. He asks again and again that the press evaluate what it's about to disclose. Further, he says

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.

and that "personal" secrecy is identical to that in Masonry.

Masons don't kill people for spreading the secrets. OK, yeah, you're going to bring up William Morgan or the P2 lodge, but I think you'll find that in the almost 300 years of organized Freemasonry, and the tens of thousands of members who might have quit in those 300 years, such possible acts of retribution are very slim.

The secrets in Masonry are kept as a matter of honor. It's not that I couldn't tell you; It's not that I should be afraid to tell you; It's that I'd be less of a man if I broke my vow not to tell you.

This is the same "duty of self-restraint" that I think Kennedy was suggesting.

And, as we often have to point out, JFK was, in fact, a member of the Knights of Columbus, and had received honors and higher degrees in that order. He never denounced KoC, and it's just as much a secret society as the Masons. Also, I believe he invited members of the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction, to the White House to honor their commitment to charity. (Not finding who or when easily in my Google searches yet this morning, but I know I've read that before somewhere...)

reply to post by JoshNorton


I have to agree with you that it looks like Kennedy's frustrations were coming out in this speech, that what he said, and maybe even the way he said it, had more to do with his exasperation, with what he had just gone through with Bay of Pigs.

Was he just venting, or could there have been more to it?

As I said in my previous post, I think that the particular words he chose to use, regardless of the immediate motivation, could only logically refer to what he actually said, that is, "secret societies".

He was speaking before the Press in the USA. Using this specific terminology would not have been interpreted differently than what it sounded like, especially since he elaborated, and said "secret oaths", and "secret proceedings" too.

I personally think this is a tough one to dodge.

That being said, I can totally understand the average Mason's frustration with a public that is often hell-bent on laying the worst crimes before Masonry.

I would not want to add to that burden, especially because it's really a small, and seemingly rather Southern-flavored subset responding here on ATS, and with half the Baptist clergy being Masons too in the South, it's clearly absurd to assume nefarious activity from this quarter (at least in my opinion).

Should we bring in Continental Masonry in contrast, should we mention the P2 Lodge (hey, you brought it up!), specific historical controversial instances, etc.?

No, I don't feel we need to go there actually, not yet. Again, I respect where the average Mason is coming from, and personally know Masons, their families, good people.

But in spite of the fact that there were very high degree Masons in my own family, and in my wife's family, and that I have friends as well who are Masons, should I allow that to color my present judgment, and considerations, concerning what mechanisms may most logically be in place, that could account for what appears to be a "shadow government", and one powerful enough to terminate the POTUS?

Here's what I said in my post above...

Today, the thing that we should be careful of sweeping under the rug, is this issue of the "shadow government".

How does it operate? How do you accomplish things like trust, and confidence, across seemingly incongruous lines, such as the different "branches" of government, which obviously manifested itself rather boldly when it came down to the Warren Commission?

What other broad "organization" would anyone posit in this case, besides Masonry?

Another poster above picked that right up. Do we have a "shadow government", or not?

If so, how could it have come to be?

How could it operate, even now, literally in the shadows?

How could it achieve a level of power and control that apparently resulted in the assassination of a president?

How long has this been going on?

No, I'm not addressing these broad questions to US Southern Masonry really. And I honestly agree with you that you should not "have" to answer them necessarily, certainly not as individuals.

Rather, if it was me, I would WANT these answers myself, if perhaps I had joined as a young man, or as I looked out onto the current insane landscape unfolding in this nation, and the world.

How did it all come about? Could Masonry, somehow, play a role? If so, how big is that role?

And after getting those answers, and only afterward, would I want to get closer to home. Then one could ask how "our" particular groups, lodges, individuals, plugged into the whole.

JR

reply to post by Bordon81


I'm not sure Kennedy was consciously trying to enlighten the "gullible" as you say.

Certainly, as pointed out by others in the thread, there was a fair amount of frustration coming out in the speech, that was understandable considering what had recently transpired.

But, did he perhaps leave us some "bread-crumbs" to follow, even if he did so unwittingly?

Lots of people think so. His choice of words was unusual, unexpected, but specific enough, to have caused a bit of a storm, most especially if taken out of context.

But, the speech, on it's face was about much more, and it was probably easy to allow the pointed reference to Masonry (that's what I believe it was), to leave it alone, especially considering the perception of bigger fish to fry, such as the big-bad Soviets.

How about this: Let's consider the possibility that Kennedy had just gone through the horrific Bay of Pigs betrayal, and after his own immediate investigation, come out the other end having concluded that Masonry was looking like the "common denominator". Again, consider the idea for a moment.

How would he act in that case? Would he grab the first microphone, and scream at the world that a "Masonic conspiracy" had just made him look like a fool? That "they" were trying to undermine his Administration?

If he believed such a thing had taken place, no, that's the last thing he would have done. He might have even thought he would be playing into their plans if he did that, considering he was a Catholic president, and people could easily have said he had an axe to grind, and that he was failing to take responsibility, etc.

Instead, he largely took responsibility, and went on defense, trying to get the Press behind him, in spite of the recent fiasco, sort of coming to them on bended knee, with his famous speech.

It may have worked too, which may have only served to complicate matters as things got closer to the Missile Crisis, and ultimately, to the assassination.

Most I think believe that the Press did treat him fairly well, so much so that his own father, Joe Kennedy is reported to have made a remark about how his son could land in a pile of sh**, and still come out smelling like a rose. Even Pops was amazed after Bay of Pigs, and further remarked that it was good that it happened early in his son's career, because now he could go forward on more solid footing.

But getting back to the speech, I think is very possible, considering the level of Kennedy's frustration, that he did at least want to let "them" know, even if in a somewhat veiled manner, sort of putting them on notice.

Now, let's look at it from the other side. What if "they" took his notice seriously. Perhaps they were irritated that his Administration was apparently getting a pass from the Press, after the engineered Bay of Pigs incident, that "worked", but Kennedy was too politically savvy to allow it to destroy him. Maybe he would have been allowed to live too, but what if the reality was that he sort of "declared war" on them, in which case, it would be incumbent upon them to not back down. Maybe they even needed to draw a line, send a message, to make sure future upstarts didn't get any ideas.

And don't forget, some of the actions that his brother RFK was taking, were indeed beginning to look like a "war" was going to be waged by these titans (which is why he couldn't live either).

Here's the other thing I've been waiting to say, to perhaps add a bit to what network dude started to allude to earlier. Yes, the Federal Reserve, and those powers that be, behind that throne, undoubtedly had something to do with terminating Kennedy.

I'm not saying this to let Masonry off the hook, sorry, not just yet, but it's part of the bigger story.

Perhaps some out there are collectors, of coins, or stamps, currency maybe? There is a famous note, the $100 denomination 1966 red seal, and it is known by collectors as the "Assassination Note". The reason why is because Kennedy arranged for it's issue, before he died. While dated after his death, it was quickly taken out of circulation by the banksters, because it had an embarrassing message on it's face.

This $100 bill was the first since 1934 that said "United States Note" across the top. What? No "Federal Reserve"?? Oh my. What could happen if people began looking at the bills in their pocket, and questioning if they even needed a Federal Reserve at all? That would not do.

Today, it's a harder bill to locate, and might cost you a couple hundred bucks, if you can even find one, maybe on eBay. Not just a great piece of history, but perhaps "physical" evidence that there were motives out there for killing a president, that had the balls to go up against such a huge power.

Is this Fed thing "enough" motive to account for the assassination, by itself.

Probably.

Is it enough to account for the Warren Commission white-washing the whole thing?

I don't think so. Most Americans don't think so either.

And so, what does that leave us with, especially in regards to Masonry? Pretty much the same questions that I raised in my previous post.

JR

[edit on 28-8-2010 by JR MacBeth]

[edit on 28-8-2010 by JR MacBeth]

Originally posted by JoshNorton
reply to post by network dude

 

While I applaud the efforts of Network Dude to shed some light on this speech, I'm afraid that he too has fallen trap to the propaganda of conspiracy theorists.

The link he gave is not the complete speech, and has been edited heavily.

For those who wish to learn the truth, read the full speech.

There are some gaping holes in all the versions presented on YouTube and on conspiracy websites. It's really shameful... no better than quoting Albert Pike out of context.

Some key bits that most of them ignore:

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

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.

…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.

See, in fact, Kennedy was asking for MORE secrecy, once you get into it. He's saying "yeah, everybody hates secrecy BUT..."

[edit on 8/27/2010 by JoshNorton]

That just doesnt add up.

What does the beginning of the speech, this what you posted, have to do with secret socieites?

Originally posted by dontreally
That just doesnt add up.

What does the beginning of the speech, this what you posted, have to do with secret socieites?

Nothing, because the speech is not about secret societies as they are commonly (mis-)understood on this forum.




[edit on 29-8-2010 by AugustusMasonicus]

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by dontreally
That just doesnt add up.

What does the beginning of the speech, this what you posted, have to do with secret socieites?

Nothing, because the speech is not about secret socities as they are commonly (mis-)understood on this forum.

So than why does he mention secret socieites in his speech?