JFK Blows The Whistle on Secret Societies!

[bridgit]

Run time: 05:11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkdfFAqsHA   Posted on YouTube: October 29, 2006 By YouTube Member: seandulac Views on YouTube: 154173   Posted on DU: November 03, 2006 By DU Member: bridgit Views on DU: 3156

 

[Submariner]

1. Thanks for this

I hope not much was cut off the end. JFK, my homeboy boyhood hero, had great punch lines.

[bridgit]

2. he said it straight and without need for applause lines and pauses...

:cry:

[SouthernBelle82]

11. I just love him

This is an oldie but a goodie. No wonder these fascists hated him. :cry:

[grasswire]

3. JFKennedy? Or JFKerry?

I would seriously like to hear a repudiation of secret societies from JFKerry.

[blm]

6. Name one other person who ever worked to expose BushInc even half as much

Clinton wasn't in S&B yet he closed the books on all the work that Kerry had done to expose BushInc.

What damaged this nation and world more - Kerry's investigations and exposing BushInc crimes IranContra, BCCI, illegal wars in Central America, CIA drugrunning...or...Clinton closing the books and downplaying those crimes for BushInc?

YOU and everyone at DU wouldn't know HALF the crimes of BushInc if John Kerry didn't expose it.

Blame plenty of non S&Bers who worked AGAINST Kerry and FOR BushInc.

[ozymandius]

4. Gods! how I miss such a well spoken President.

JFK's themes are universal and, by extension, prescient of these dark times.

Edit: recommended

[bridgit]

5. me too...

[juajen]

7. I was ignorant of what this man stood for

when he was President. I was just too naive politically. No wonder they had him killed. Mustn't have a truth teller in the Whitehouse. What an unbelievable man. He changed me from a pug to a dem; and, yet, I didn't truly know him. The sixties were rough.

[bridgit]

9. John was a bit before my time, but i come from a family of long-time...

dems, and so knew of John over the breakfast/dinner table & more, my brother was in the room where Robert was shot...it's all just too sad, to see such progressive attitudes snuffed so ruthlessly; there can be no more giddy naivete as to what the opposition, any opposition will do to win their twisted points, and i would council all dems to understand that with a quickness...some opposition will imo stop at nothing; believe it!!

[lyonn]

8. How inspirational was that? Wow

Happy to say he was the first president that I voted for. His ability to inspire the best in people and govt. was obvious even to this day. Don't know who wrote his speech but you can tell he meant every word. Not like the idiot in chief that can't read a speech properly or even know what he is saying. Disgusting that so many don't care to know this.

He explained so clearly why an open govt. and press is critical to a country's success.

[bridgit]

10. very...

[Virginia Dare]

12. Wow, that is one amazing speech....

he was telling us our future, and the future is now.

The Kennedys have always stood for social justice above all. They stand for it to this day.

Last night on the D.C. local news I heard that Joseph P. Kennedy II is working with the Venezuelan government to bring subsidized oil to the poor for heating this winter.

[bridgit]

14. that's good to hear...

:)

[patrick t. cakes]

13. our last great president.

[populistdriven]

15. /.

[bridgit]

16. zzzzzz / ~_~ \ zzzzzzz

;)

[HamdenRice]

17. Sorry to debunk this ... JFK was talking about communism

But we discussed a text version of this several months ago. Kennedy is talking about Leninist-communism and secret communist parties, not secret establishment societies like Skull & Bones. Kennedy was a Cold War Liberal and a virulent anti-communist, and he was contrasting the openness of democratic societies and the free press to what he considered to be the stealth method of operations of communist parties at the time.

Sorry I'm too lazy to get the thread cite right now.

[BootinUp]

18. Why does that devalue the words today?

I insist you get off your lazy ass. :poke: Wheres the thread? :)

[HamdenRice]

25. LOL! but sorry, it's not just laziness, it's also stupidity

For some reason, with my addled brain I can't seem to master the search function. I searched for posts under my screename, and just couldn't find it. Maybe someone more adept at searches could find the thread.

But rman below has given you the evidence in the mp3 file.

[BootinUp]

26. I listened to it already, thanks for trying.

I listened to somewhat more than half of it. It appears the main point of the speech was to remind the media that they should consider National Security in light of the threat of communism before publishing sensitive information on our defense capabilities or plans. The segment in the OP is a where he tempers that request by saying we should not forget or give up the freedoms we are fighting for.

[angry_chuck]

44. you said it best when

you said "we should not forget or give up the freedoms we are fighting for."

Nothing could be more true and relevant to our America today.

[bridgit]

20. if it's one thing Kennedy was able to convey it was universal themes...

applied, we here are under no obligation to deny that he wasn't talking about S&B...though my sense it that he was aware of their charter as well if only imo

[rman]

23. this video leaves out parts of the original speech,

parts that if included, put the rest of the speech in a different perspective than is apparent from the video in the OP.

http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/kennedy/jfk_1961_0427.html
ftp://webstorage2.mcpa.virginia.edu/library/nara/jfk/audiovisual/speeches/jfk_1961_0427_press.mp3 (mp3)

[HamdenRice]

24. Thanks rman, cause we debated this ...

and you found the complete speech, and like the honest guy you are, agreed.

[bridgit]

28. all are encouraged to search where they may...

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com

but to belittle what are clearly important words is to miss the point altogether imo

[rman]

31. What are you saying? That the speech is not edited?

Or that the editing does not distort the message?
It is not me who is belittling the man's words, it is someone else who is distorting his words.

[bridgit]

32. dude, the piece is CLEARLY edited, it is cut off at the end, are you seeking...

some pat on the head or other; puh-lease pull it together = the times in which the words were spoken were themselves different, the menace itself he was referring to/talking about different in some senses...your "debunking skills" are wasted here as you need to pony them over to you-tube and visit them upon whomever posted that piece originally

listen for the second batch of Kennedy's words...the ones few people quote routinely

are you trying to insinuate that the words of John Kennedy are somehow in appropriate in hindsight? cause this i gotta hear, state your case; otheriwse i don't have time to break this down for you Barney Style

[rman]

34. Indeed, and the original is not about secret societies

And that's clearly what i have been saying all along, so there's no point in asking me what i am insinuating. As there is no point in telling me what i should do.

It's just that i am mildly surprised that some people insist on the JFK speech being about secret societies in spite of clear evidence that it is not.

[bridgit]

35. and that is the wasted nuance imo; as to whether societies are secret...

or secrets are societal, etc, etc, etc; quoting here: "secrecy in societies" is quite different than "secret societies", even that turn of words 'secret societies', does itself NOT either by foundational/masonic gravitas or implication imply per se S&B's why should it...the people that mix up KFC's secret-finger-licking-recipe can be said by that definition to be members of a 'secret society', as are a host of French chefs so i don't rise to that as a matter of course but that's just me standing in a world where every society has a secret somewhere

it is said by many that one cannot look upon the face of God lest their head explode, truth occupies imo a similar province

[sam sarrha]

57. like the 'skull and bones' society

[angry_chuck]

42. so JFK wasn't silenced for

his opposition to the wholly un-American abuses of the CIA? You think Oswald did it?

Conspiracy is a sticky topic but to dismiss such theories out of hand is to play directly into the hands of those who covet your mind most.

[rman]

47. Kennedy was not talking about "un-American abuses of the CIA"

As becomes clear when one listens to the original speech.

transcript: http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/kennedy/jfk_1961_0427.html
mp3: ftp://webstorage2.mcpa.virginia.edu/library/nara/jfk/audiovisual/speeches/jfk_1961_0427_press.mp3

[angry_chuck]

48. ok smart guy

why don't you enlighten us all with your 'brilliant' insight? He is talking about the covetous frat boys controlling our media and country by proxy. We can all link to the speech...

"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."

"...our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face."

Not pertinent? Get past the literal context of 4.27.61 and wake up bud.

[rman]

49. So you agree JFK does not literally talk about secret societies.

Only selective quoting out of context creates the impression that he might have been talking about it. When put into context he clearly does not:

"We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and Managing Editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war."

<snip>

"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."
http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/kennedy/jfk_1961_0427.html
ftp://webstorage2.mcpa.virginia.edu/library/nara/jfk/audiovisual/speeches/jfk_1961_0427_press.mp3 (mp3)

-
Which "events of recent weeks" would JFK be talking about? Does anyone think these events did involve the Bilderberg Group or CFR?

[rman]

51. btw, the editing is clearly not only in the end being cut off

As anyone who compares this version of the speech with the original will notice.
http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/kennedy/jfk_1961_0427.html
mp3: ftp://webstorage2.mcpa.virginia.edu/library/nara/jfk/audiovisual/speeches/jfk_1961_0427_press.mp3

[bridgit]

52. that was established days ago long before this OP, you're not 'illuminate'...

illuminati'ing anything new here

[rman]

53. It's only two days ago that you said differently

[bridgit]

54. you are intellectually myopic, and only able to see one thing at a time...

there are those among us that are as well only able to drive their cars in one direction unless & until they see a sign that they are able to recognize, it must be a sign they are both able to read and be familiar with lest they will see it not, my greater sense is that you are this kind of person...myopic, narrow in perspective & opinion

yet there are others that read signs as well, road signs yes: exist, freeeway/highway exchanges, 'pick your own apples next exit', pears $1/bushel, etc...though when they are called upon they read alternate indicators such as the positioning of the sun, the length of specific shadows,

neither do i think Hugo Chavez a great man

[rman]

55. You are being deceptive if you maintain

that JFK's speech is about "blowing the whistle on secret societies" when you know that's not what the speech is about.

And your lack of appreciation for Chavez obviously has nothing to do with it; that's just a feeble attempt at a put-down, and possibly an attempt to distract from the topic at hand.

[bridgit]

56. again, and you refuse to see it for the sake of argument alone...

but the piece was tagged by another and so, were you to click the image a 3rd time (as many here have already done), and then on through to you-tube itself, you could then see it for yourself: "JFK Blows The Whistle on Secret Societies!" and so, tagged as such by another, and i can only suggest that you do so so that you will be apprised from whence it is more truly come; your issue is with them, whomever they are, and i have already suggested that you take your angers to them yet here you are so why waste your time with me...

when i am happy for the work i have, enjoy this day as it is an important one

[rman]

19. This is an edited (distorted) version of a JFK speech

Edited to make it sound as though JFK is talking about secret societies, while in the original speech he is in fact talking about communism:

----

"The President and the Press" (April 27, 1961)
Transcript: http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/kennedy/jfk_1961_0427.html
MP3: ftp://webstorage2.mcpa.virginia.edu/library/nara/jfk/audiovisual/speeches/jfk_1961_0427_press.mp3

The speech opens differently:

"Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 t. he New York Herald Tribune, under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and Managing Editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war."

<snip>

"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. 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.

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 far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy."

[bridgit]

21. the ills of secrecy in societies is what i have taken out of it...

and they are applicable to this cheney/bush admin today...in spades

[rman]

22. "secrecy in societies" is quite different than "secret societies"

The video and the OP present this speech as though it is the latter, now you claim it is about the former, and in reality the speech is about the threat of communism.

[bridgit]

29. splitting hairs...

[rman]

30. sure...

[bridgit]

33. waste...

[mhatrw]

27. Great speech! n/t

[bridgit]

41. i agree...

[HamdenRice]

36. Here's the real relevance of JFK's speech to today: From Leninist to neocons

First of all, as rman and I have stated above, the unedited version of JKF's speech is clearly and exclusively directed at secrecy in the communist party. Kennedy was a member of a very common political faction at the time -- cold war liberals, or anti-communist liberals.

The reason there were so many vehement anti-communist liberals from the 1940s onward had to do with the secrecy, manipulation and betrayals of the orthodox Moscow-directed communist parties.

From the time of the consolidation of communism in the Soviet Union, the Soviet communists developed some very destructive theories. First of all, they believed that politics was a science, that as in math or chemistry, political problems had correct, scientifically deducible solutions. This, btw, is the origin of the term, "politically correct." It did not have to do with politeness to minorities and women as it does now. It came from the idea that there was a "correct" solution to any political problem.

It did not matter if the majority had a different view. Communism, which was also called "scientific socialism," came to correct solutions. That truth was held by the central committee of the communist party. They really believed that they could not make incorrect decisions.

As a result, they did not believe in democracy (if you don't count "democratic centralism" which really just meant rule by the central committee). Hence national communist parties, such as the communist party of the US, was not allowed to make decisions. All truth came from Moscow.

During the 1930s, communist parties in western democracies formed alliances with other progressive parties, labor unions and anti-fascist movements. This was called the "united front" approach. But communist parties saw themselves as only using and manipulating these other parties. That's because these other parties did not have the "politically correct" analysis. Therefore they were merely dupes to be used.

The communists pretended to follow democratic procedures, but would turn on, betray, and manipulate other groups, who they pretended to unite with but actually despised. Meanwhile, the "truth" coming from Moscow could change overnight, depending on the strategic calculations of Stalin -- for example, telling their allies that the Hitler Stalin pact was a good thing one day, and then after Germany invaded the Soviet Union, turning on a dime and saying fascism was the enemy.

One of the best narratives of how European socialists felt utterly betrayed by communists, read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. The communists consistently betrayed radicals, and anarchists, even into fascist hands, to maintain their supremacy in the united front.

The liberal, Democratic and progressive forces that allied with the communists in the US and western Europe never forgave them. They had extremely bitter memories of working with communist parties, and from the late 1940s liberals, socialists, labor and others on the left despised the methods of the communists.

It is this secrecy, manipulation, sense of superiority and betrayal by communist parties that Kennedy is referring to.

The one powerful group in this country that adopted the methodology of the communists -- secrecy, manipulation, betrayal -- and that continues to operate today is the neo-conservative movement. Many of its elder members were Trotskyite communists in the 1930s. But when the neo-cons abandoned communist policy they maintained Lenninist organizational techniques.

This is why the neo-cons running the Bush administration have such horrifically manipulative methods. They believe they have the truth and everyone else is a useful idiot. They believe in operating as a secret cabal, the power behind the idiot throne. They believe in running secret structures behind the formal structures -- hence the lines of power in the Powell State Department that ran not to Powell, but to Cheney and Rumsfeld. (The REAL NSA wiretapping scandal is how Bolton used NSA wiretaps of Powell to undermine his diplomacy, as reported in the British press.) They believe in using religion to blind people and keep them in line, even though they themselves are athiests.

So if JFK was warning us of anything that is happening today, he is warning us of the Trotskyite methods of the neo-con movement.

[BootinUp]

37. So you disagree with my post #26?

[HamdenRice]

38. Sure, as a general idea I agree

with your post. What I disagree with is the idea that has been floating around the internets for a few weeks that Kennedy was presciently warning against establishment "secret societies" like Skull & Bones, the Bilderbergs, the Council on Foreign Relations, or whatever.

He was talking about the dangers of communist tactics as he saw it.

[rman]

50. Thanks for that interesting bit of background

[SeaBob]

39. K & R NOW!!!

[upi402]

40. Corporate censorship is in full force with their media.

The secrets are safe. Man, we have lost a lot, and when I time travel back like this it is glaringly apparent.
Not wanting to split hairs, but broadly it seems striking that what overlays onto the former soviet state is modern America under corporatism. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism is authoritarianism (say that 3X fast & click your heels together and something might happen).

Thanks to OP, HamdenRice and rman.

[angry_chuck]

43. He is talking about the collusion between

the 'men of privilege' as demonstrated by the mass media moguls in our country. The centrally controlled media and the federal reserve (as federal as federal express) are a direct manisfestation from the communist manifesto. Is it surprising that there are illusions to communism? Listen twice if you must, there are many enlightening foresights contained within JFK's eleoquent rhetoric.

Secret Societies

Here is a speech by JFK to listen to...

"You must conceal all the crimes of your brother Masons... and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him.. It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but your keeping your obligations."

[angry_chuck]

45. sorry, same speech in above link as top thread

I didn't label that clearly, it is the full speech, in total.

[bridgit]

46. naw, you're good, i remain unconvinced Kennedy words were...

"clearly and exclusively directed at secrecy in the communist party" alluded to yes, but these words alone from a guy that had his head disassembled by certain & specific secrecies while here in his own country? my thought is otherwise, my opinion so as to say,

earlier words were spoken as to a 'military-industrial-complex', words that flew cross the tops of many at that time; only somewhat recently are they seen for what they meant more earnestly then...

neither do i think when it was suggested that: 'a rising tide lifts all boats', are those words meant only for people that own boats...but i digress if only by design

welcome to du, angry_chuck :hi: