JFK Secret societys speach

behold the reson why jfk was killed

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 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 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."

"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, 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.

who do you think he is talking my thoughts it coud be the the wonderfull institution of democrocy the cia or somthing else

reply to post by ninjas4321

behold the reson why jfk was killed

He was talking about the cold war and at the time he was addressing the press and asking them to be more secretive so that incidents like the Bay of pigs for example, which they can be partly blamed for, don't happen again. It has nothing to do with secret societies - That's a modern day wrong interpretation of a 1960's speech.

Here's the full speech:



Here's a full transcript of the entire speech: The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961

A snippet of interest:

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.

Again, it has nothing to do with secret societies. It was obviously to do with the Soviet Union and the threat of communism which was a huge issue at the time. In his speech, as I said before, he was addressing the press and asking them to be more secretive which we can understand better by listening to the full speech, not the edited down version.

Originally posted by ninjas4321
behold the reson why jfk was killed

who do you think he is talking my thoughts it coud be the the wonderfull institution of democrocy the cia or somthing else

This has been done to death, I just posted the below response in another thread:


I find it very difficult to see how anyone can misinterpet this speech:

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

Owing to his call for more secrecy from the press.

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...

He is refering to the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

...but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

He is refering to Communism, particularly in the Western Hemisphere. You need to bear in mind that this was the height of the Cold War.

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 bolded part is completely self-explanatory.

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.

A clear and unambiguous appeal to the press for more secrecy in concerns of national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

The bolded part is a direct reference to the Soviet Union and its allies.

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.

Another clear call for more secrecy from the press.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. 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.

Again, it is very obvious he is refering to the Soviet Union, its oppresive regime and how they handled their client states and allies.

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.

Here is the clincher so to speak. If he is refering to 'secrect societies' then why does he specifically mention the Cold War?


There is no confusing the intent and topic of this speech. Only the purposefully oblivious can read this and misinterpret his point.

Addtionally, if this speech were the 'cause' of his death, why wait several years to do it?

reply to post by ninjas4321


It's more than just that.
The main reason JFK was terminated is because of his desire to share with the world the truth behind the extraterrestrials.
TPTB couldn't take any chances and had him "removed".
Since Eisenhower put together the initial teams to explore and debunk the situation, several presidents obtained the ultimate knowledge. JFK did not, however he knew that such knowledge existed and he was bent on exposing what he knew to the American people.
I would say very few presidents since had the amount of clearance to get to the truth. Of course Bush Sr. did, he's been up to his neck in it since day one.

Originally posted by ninjas4321
behold the reson why jfk was killed

You honestly believe he pissed someone off in this speech and it took them 2 and a half years before they could kill him?

reply to post by ninjas4321

Oh look. Another thread consisting of a cut-and-paste job of JFKs speech. Read the entire thing then come back to us.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
I find it very difficult to see how anyone can misinterpet this speech:

Never underestimate stupidity.

reply to post by KSigMason

Never underestimate stupidity.

No one in this thread has agreed with the OP, but only one of us has acted like a jerk to him.

No need for it at all really.

I'm sure we all know this is a surprisingly common mistake to make and in my opinion since we know what the speech was really about, which was the cold war, it's up to us to steer the OP in the right direction. Not insult him and call him names like we're a bunch of immature kids.

This is ATS, not GLP..

reply to post by Rising Against

I was responding to Augustus, not the OP.

reply to post by KSigMason


I know who you're "responding" to, that's obviously not what I'm having an issue with here. If there's a mistake somewhere then my apologies of course but it does look like you are sneakily referring to the OP here and insulting him as he's the only one in this thread who's misinterpreted the speech and believes it is referring to secret societies. I mean here's what was wrote after all:

AugustusMasonicus wrote:

I find it very difficult to see how anyone can misinterpet this speech:

You wrote in reply:

Never underestimate stupidity.

edit on 11-3-2012 by KSigMason because: (no reason given)

Sounds very much so like you're calling the OP stupid to me after 'AM' questions how anyone could misinterpret it. See what I mean now? And if that is the case then I stand by what I said here. But anyway, once again, you have my apologies if there was a misunderstanding somewhere..

reply to post by Rising Against

I wish the OP is the only person who has misinterpreted the speech, but alas he's not.

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Rising Against

 

I wish the OP is the only person who has misinterpreted the speech, but alas he's not.

Instead of beating around the bush, just say what you want to say.

It's really not difficult.

Sorry OP I have posted this a time or two myself. I know it's tuff to concieve but I ended up agreeing with RA. I still do agree with him. This gets blown out of proportion by those with their own agendas. Nothing in the world of conspiracies is at all cut and dry my friend. I'm gonna flag your post purely out of sentiment since I been there.

Originally posted by TimesUp
reply to post by ninjas4321

 

It's more than just that.
The main reason JFK was terminated is because of his desire to share with the world the truth behind the extraterrestrials.
TPTB couldn't take any chances and had him "removed".
Since Eisenhower put together the initial teams to explore and debunk the situation, several presidents obtained the ultimate knowledge. JFK did not, however he knew that such knowledge existed and he was bent on exposing what he knew to the American people.
I would say very few presidents since had the amount of clearance to get to the truth. Of course Bush Sr. did, he's been up to his neck in it since day one.

Oh, yeah....that was it all right...the "extraterrestrial" thing. The above statement leads me to believe you need to do a little more investigation into the history of Kennedy's presidency, because JFK's enemies were numerous for a number of reasons..... Pull your head out of the ufology realm for a half a second and you'll see what I mean.

It would be silly to assume that the words in Kennedy's speech were directed solely at communism. I would ask those who keep relaying this belief why we should not logically presume that Kennedy's words about the dangers of "secrecy" and the desire for transparency in government weren't representative of his viewpoints on the issues across the board?

reply to post by NightGypsy


I'm sure RA has some great answers to that question Night. Make sure you direct that inquiry to him. He really is a THE ATS go to man for all things Kennedy IMO. Check out the guys profile even. You will find your answer there. I guarantee that.

reply to post by Rising Against


You have to admit, the first time you hear it, it does sound highly suspicious. But yes, this speech is clipped together from other speeches op. One has to wonder where this speech/video origanally came and what was the purpise of making itl

reply to post by Rising Against

People often jump to conclusions without making sure they have all the information and make wrong judgements, such as the example of this guy (but with many, many more).

Cold war secrecy that has now been declassified. JFK was apparently an outsider that needed to be disappeared.

In a meeting on December 5, 1962, President John F. Kennedy and his senior military advisers met to discuss the proposed budget for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1964. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, anticipating criticisms of the budget, pointed to a controversy from the late 1950s based on “a myth” that “was created by . . . emotionally guided but nonetheless patriotic individuals in the Pentagon.” President Kennedy replied with self-deprecating humor, calling himself a “patriotic and misguided man” who had been “one of those who put that myth around.”1

www.dorringtoninstruments.com...

Thanks Rising Against,
I always took this speech for face value until i read your post

Originally posted by NightGypsy
why we should not logically presume that Kennedy's words about the dangers of "secrecy" and the desire for transparency in government weren't representative of his viewpoints on the issues across the board?

Because Kennedy's actually arguing for the exact opposite--more secrecy and less transparency. You have to understand that the two and a half minutes some seem to think is the entire speech is an acknowledgement of his audience the media's natural aversion to being asked to bury a story; the entirety of the remainder is his justification for asking them to do exactly that. Kennedy's not arguing against secrecy (and even then, certainly not a private association very much alike in character to one he belonged to) but for it.