Forum Post: JFK isn't just rolling over in his grave, he's madly thrashing around.
Posted 10 years ago on Feb. 9, 2014, 7:22 a.m. EST by bullfrogma
(448)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
A hijacked Internet, NDAA, delusive media, spreading our efforts as thin as possible and subverting occupy. This is what Kennedy speaks about in his SSS speech, and warns us of. This enemy, which uses infiltration and coveting. That while the news should be careful about what it reports in the interest of national security, it absolutely must always remain free, to keep watch and protect us from becoming blinded. That free speech is our only weapon against this kind of enemy.
This is exactly what they are doing, manipulating the mass. They don’t want independent communities and free education; they want capitalism and mass distribution. They don’t want people to earn their power through understanding; they want to control the information and indoctrinate us into their view of reality, conditioning people into a slave machine that supports their own, greed driven authority.
They have us spread out, confused, addicted to comfort and distracted. We make a petition for change and they duplicate it, spreading us thin. We need a single organization that the mass can focus on and pay attention to, and we need to combine and focus our effort like a laser. That's why they're determined to confuse us, strip rights and censor communication, to dilute our advantage. They need to prevent people from uniting against their blatant domination of our government.
Who are they? Who knows; they keep secrets. But one thing is for sure, their use of deception. The proof is in the pudding, and we can fight them, always, with truth. But we have to fight. This is what uniting is all about, standing together as one, becoming a laser to accomplish that which everyone knows to be truth and justice. We need unity so the mass can pay attention, and so that our effort can consolidate, to have that strength, the power of the people.
A 'new' author has written a book wherein the powers that be abduct and imprison or coerce every individual who has made a discovery of significance, like the cure for cancer; the objective is to control every possible advance in medicine, technology etc and even squelch it. Along those lines, in the early 90s I met the son of a seriously wealthy family who claimed that the cure to AIDS was readily available for a price. I was flabbergasted with his revelations. AIDS was allowed to spread to diminish unwanted populations. Seriously. One has to wonder. He had a few remarks about the plans to decimate the masses eventually as well, as in drop the big one, the 'elite' would have radiation proof aircraft and be airborne at safe distance, although I couldn't get the technology that supposedly created nuclear fallout that dissipated or became rapidly diluted in the atmosphere without damaging it further; he said the ships would land and said 'elite' would then be rid of the majority of the population and start over, molding the land and society to their liking. Apparently without the icky poo 99% . Presumably he felt they were so advanced and deserving as rich people as opposed to, say, intelligent and ethical people. Or just plain nice people. It was bizarre. One wonders if it is indeed an objective the uberwealthy aspire to. And what needs to be done to identify and contain threats from the wealthy?
Good stuff. Blind ego is going to destroy everything good. It's that primal instinct to fear anything different that manifested into self important bigotry. They're going to strip those more intelligent and will-powered people while cultivating the narcissistic. If they want the variety of people to be better maybe they should stop brainwashing them to be retarded?
I heard a song on the radio yesterday in the laundromat that had the most idiotic line and it repeated over and over literally the entire song like Chinese water torture. The next song was exactly the same. I'm never going to do laundry again.
hard work makes you strong
I could do laundry
Controlled media, constructed scarcity, forced reliance on out of control multinational conglomerates ...and now the TPP ...as we enter this Brave New Age who will rise against it? We need each and every voice out there combined we can not be drowned out or ignored.
How about the dissolution of political parties ?
no one liked my thread ?
[Removed]
[Removed]
From what I've heard, Kennedy was assassinated a few weeks after giving that speech. Convenient that his death be directly after attempting to expose an organized, secretive corruption. The point isn't Kennedy, it's what he was saying about free speech being our only weapon against corruption.
We could stop whining and do this tomorrow if everyone would just put their swords in the same battle. All of these things going on are these people trying to prevent that. They have a strategy of confusion and spreading us thin. They've done their homework and know mass psychology, and their only weakness is our concentrated firepower hammering in truth.
This is a comparatively small group of people trying to rape a world that everyone is part of. We have got to snap out of our brainwashed uncertainty, and smack this down.
What do you mean exposed? 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.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper
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.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one-party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man. My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
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.
[Removed]
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.
I.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
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.
That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the Nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said-and your newspapers have constantly said-that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
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 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.
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 this same exacting test.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
II.
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is 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.
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. 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 doesn't 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 law-maker 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 we intend to do it.
III.
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
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. http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-034-021.aspx
[Removed]
He brings it up that this enemy exists and is attacking us. I'd call that exposing. What other president would even acknowledge anything like this?
What's with this forum? Any conversation about combining effort gets completely ignored, everything else gets attacked. I'm starting not to trust anyone on here with more than 1000 points.
It was written during the cold war. Fear of the pinko-commie bastards Part II. His rebuking of the press in this instance is regarding what had been running in the papers during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Yep, no other president had ever had to contend with the media ever before or with profiteers or with opposition. No Alien and Sedition Acts either. Dallas was a very warm and friendly environment filled with support, too. It was all very, very secret. :/
Sorry, I just get fed up with checking out the occupy forum to talk about uniting only to find that everyone ignores it.
[Removed]
Your attempts at conspiracy theories fail again. See ya.
Get your head straight, for the 5th time now, it's doesn't even matter. Whatever is going on we have to deal with the result. As for secret societies there's no way to know, that's the nature of a secret. I mention uniting and you troll about this? See ya.
got a job for me ?
Be homeless? Enjoy being alive? Don't participate in a system that makes things worse? Start an organization to consolidate our political efforts into one gun that the mass can follow and participate with, using occupy to let everyone know?
Find out who's removing comments here and try to stop them with karate?
no guns
[Removed]
[Removed]
That's a really good point. I definitely read into the whole secret society thing. I've had some personal experience that could also be a few different things, but whatever it is, it's organized. But it doesn't matter. The result is mattering, and I think that speech means a lot right now. Free speech is our only weapon. Maybe It's not entirely what Kenndy meant at the time, but I wish you guys would give me a break and stop filling up the forum with bs (in general, not pointing fingers).
[Removed]
the just have a lot more cash than you
And you.....
[Removed]
I'm trying to describe a fortress which they have transformed our government into. Come on, secret societies, illuminati, brotherhood of the skull, the master race, etc. It's perfectly possible that things really are how they look. But it doesn't matter. We need to punch holes in that fortress, and take back our humanity.
[Removed]
The wrath of unnatural probability. You're probably right, but neither of us know for sure. That's the nature of a secret. But it doesn't matter, we still have to fight the result.
I mean collective humanity, not individual, nevermind, it's poetry.
I'm still curious about this whole deal with multiple petitions for the same thing. Do they ever cross-check and consolidate them, or is it really just counterproductive?