Addressing the JFK “Secret Society” Speech...

page: 3
54
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by TheMindWar
Never has this speech been more relevant than it is today
Indeed. As JFK called for more secrecy by the press, he would have been appalled by things like WikiLeaks.


Indeed and I hope this is not seen as an atempt at thread de-railment but I ran across this article just a few minutes ago and thought it relevant to this thread. It states:


Despite that outcome, the Drake case will have broad implications for the relationship between the government and the press. And it did not settle the broader question that overshadowed the proceedings: Are employees of sensitive agencies like the NSA, the CIA and the FBI who leak information to the news media patriotic whistleblowers who expose government abuses—or lawbreakers who should be punished for endangering national security? The question is becoming only more complicated in an age marked by unprecedented flows of information and the threat of terrorism.
Smithsonian.com - Leaks and the Law: The Story of Thomas Drake




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Well RA here it is a day later and I finally got some time to read the whole thread including the transcript. As you recommended I put myself in a 60's mindset. Kind of easy for me since I was around then.

Now that said, I would have to say that you are absolutely correct with your analysis of this speech. Any other interpretation of it shows a lack of mental ability that is really quite frightening. Kennedy is clearly asking the press to reign it in so to speak, and think about the possible consequences of what they write. Not that they shouldn't criticize the administration, but that they should think about the consequences of what they print.

How anybody can get that this is a speech about secret societies from one line is beyond imagination and clearly points to people who have been taught what to think and not how to think. Obviously the result of not having been around then and the failings of what is now a very poor education system.

Were there secret societies then? Of coarse there were. Was Kennedy talking about them. Absolutely not. To think so shows weak and muddy thinking. Sadly trolls have a problem with proof. Having no experience to draw upon and no proof to back themselves up they make unsupported statements and call names to direct the attention away from anybody seeing the fact that they are ignorant. Unfortunately for them it's rather obvious.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


How about you believe what you like, While allowing others here to form their own opinions without having to read your reckless insults on, or judgement of, those beliefs? The truth of the matter is, nobody knows exactly who JFK was talking about. Yes true, he was calling out the media to use integrity while reporting, but there is much more to it then that. It's about what they were reporting, and who was influencing them to report it. You don't speak for anyone but yourself here. ~SheopleNation



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation
The truth of the matter is, nobody knows exactly who JFK was talking about.
Sure we do. He's quite clear about it in both that speech and the one he gave a week earlier.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


Perhaps you don't know what he was talking about, but those of with reading comprehension skills do. If you had been around back then like I was you would have understood what he was talking about.With no basis in the history of that time , it would be impossible to know. Life experience is more valuable than stupid assumptions.


Since my previous post was not directed at anyone in particular, I find it odd that you seem to have taken it personally........well if the shoe fits.......
edit on 3/16/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


I don't take it personally at all, I just disagree with your assumption. While I do agree that experience is very important when it comes to forming opinions, In this case it would not make you anymore right concerning this. I can watch the video as if I was there, back then. The puppet masters murdered Kennedy for a few reasons. This could be one of them. I repeat, could be.

P.S, Love your Crusader Avatar.
~SheopleNation

edit on 16-3-2012 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


Thanks for the compliment on my avatar. The credit for that goes to Slayer I got it from him. If I may make a recommedation, I would suggest that you go to the link posted for the transcript of the speech. When you read it instead of watch it you may change your opinion of what the speech was about.

This speech was given not long after the disaster of the bay of pigs. If you don't know what happened there then I recommend some research on the topic. As has been posted in this thread, he was actually continuing the topic of a previous speech given two or three weeks before. At the time of this speech the cold war was heating up. In school we were being put through drills in case the soviets launched against us.

The conalrad system which is now called the emergency broadcast system was being tested every day. There wasn't as much television coverage as there is now. In those days you were lucky if you even had a TV. Most news was still broadcast on the radio. The times were very different than they are now. There wasn't the attention on "Secret Societies" that there is now. In fact nobody cared about them at the time. If you look at this speech with the eyes of todays world , you will miss the reality of what is actually being said.

In those times, and from that very perspective this speech is about not giving the soviets anything that they could use against us. He's basically saying that the press needed to use some common sence when they were writing for general consumption. The line about secret societies was used to make a point about the lack of censorship in this country because of the first amendment. Basically stating that anything secret is frowned upon by a free people because of the first amendment. That's what this speech is about and that's all it is about. Sorry if you think otherwise.
edit on 3/16/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


Don't be sorry, because you and I neither know what is the truth 100%. Look my friend, I was born in 1972, so no I was not around to see what you seen, or comprehend what you understand. I respect your opinion, though I believe that there is much more to what Kennedy was getting at.

JFK had a bone to pick with the federal reserve as well. He also was against Israel having Nukes. Do you remember anything about those issues, because I would love to hear about it if you do, I honestly would lonegurkha ?

With that being said, I have enjoyed this discussion with you even if you and I disagree. I really enjoy History alot. Back to the avatar though. Yeah, I used a Crusader for almost 10 years online. My family has some teutonic Knight geneology. Always loved Medieval History, even as brutal as it was. Best wishes. ~SheopleNation



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


I, to, have enjoyed our discussion. You seem to be a good person. As for the bone Kennedy had to pick with Israel and the federal reserve, I believe that they are the reason that he was assassinated. I think that LBJ was heavily involved. I also don't think that Oswald was anything but a patsy. He simply didn't have the shooting skills to make the shots. There were clearly shooters on the grassy knoll. I saw a documentary back a while ago that had witnesses who saw three men with a gun there. They even had a blown up picture,which I can't find now, that clearly showed the shadow of a gun with flash suppressor on the wall behind the fence. The rifle that Oswald used is known to be a piece of crap. The bolts jam and to get off that many shots in the time alloted would be simply impossible.

Jessie Venture a former seal tried to get off three accurate shots in the time limit and he couldn't. The bolt jammed on him and he couldn't get the gun bck on target to get an accurate shot. He ranks as an expert shooter while Oswald was just a marksman(the lowest ranking in shooting).There have also been other expert shooters who have said that they couldn't cycle that piece of junk in the limited time allowed and be that accurate. I have been shooting since I was 5. I can tell you that I couldn't get off that many accurate shots at a moving target in that short a time and hit it. I mean jeez my grandfather and I used to hunt rabbits with 22s.

To me the fatal shot came from the grassy knoll. in the zabgruder film you can clearly see Kennedy's head snap back when he was hit. The laws of physics says an object in motion tends to stay in motion, in a straight line unless moved by an outside force. So how could he have been hit from behind if his head snaps backward?

So any way that is my opinion. I'm going to friend you . I can agree to disagree on this topic. Hope that we find a topic to agree on in the future. By the way 72 was the year I graduated from high school. My ancestery is Scottish, McMillian clan on both sides. See ya around the boards.


Lonegurkha
edit on 3/17/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/17/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonegurkha
Were there secret societies then? Of coarse there were.


What people also forget was that Kenendy was a member of one until the day he died.


RisingAgainst, excellent thread, you and I have discussed this on multiple threads and your analysis of the speech is outstanding.




edit on 17-3-2012 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
Never has this speech been more relevant than it is today

Yes, it is relevant today, and I would like to comment.
From the transcript of the speech:

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.

Source
I would agree that the American way of life is under attack, along with the American Worker, the American Housewife, and even the American Citizen. The American Dream has died, right before our eyes, and we just stood there and let it die. The Secret Societies Kennedy is talking about is the secret banking cartels. These vipers start, and finance war actions all over the world, and make loans to both sides, reaping a profit from both after the bullets stop flying. Refuse to pay, you might get a visit from the Marines. Remember what happened to Noriaga? Saddam?
America has long been under Martial Law, and very few seem to even know this:
The Lieber Code of 1863
This edict still applies, here is one way it is used:

Legal scholars everywhere have different views about the scope and origin of this existing authority, but whatever it is, it hasn’t changed.
But I want to concentrate on a different aspect. For some time, there has been a controversy in the federal courts over how to interpret the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that Congress passed to give the President the power to fight the War on Terror.
Source
This all breaks down to the Rule of Law.

The United States exists in two forms:
1. The original United States that was in operation until 1860; a collection of sovereign Republics in the union. Under the original Constitution the States controlled the Federal Government; the Federal Government did not control the States and had very little authority.
2. The original United States has been usurped by a separate and different UNITED STATES formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and it’s territories, and which is actually a corporation (the UNITED STATES CORPORATION) that acts as our current government. The United States Corporation operates under Corporate/Commercial/Public Law rather than Common/Private Law.

The original Constitution was never removed; it has simply been dormant since 1871. It is still intact to this day. This fact was made clear by Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan (Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 1901) by giving the following dissenting opinion: “Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.”

The Restore America Plan reclaimed the De Jure institutions of government of the 50 State Republics in order to restore Common Law that represents the voice of the people and ends Corporate Law that ignores the voice of the people while operating under Maritime/Admiralty/International Law. This occurred when warrants were delivered to all 50 Governors on March 30, 2010.

The rewritten Constitution of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION bypasses the original Constitution for the United States of America, which explains why our Congressmen and Senators don’t abide by it, and the President can write Executive Orders to do whatever he/she wants. They are following corporate laws that completely strip sovereigns of their God given unalienable rights. Corporate/Commercial/Public Law is not sovereign (private), as it is an agreement between two or more parties under contract. Common Law (which sovereigns operate under) is not Commercial Law; it is personal and private.

To understand this document, you need to understand some basic terms. Visit [link to www.usavsus.info/] for complete understanding. The basic terms are:

De Jure – Existing by right or according to law; original, lawful. Common Law operates under De Jure terms.

De Facto - In practice but not necessarily ordained by law; in fact, in reality. Corporate Law operates under De Facto terms.

Source

"When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance becomes Duty."
~Thomas Jefferson



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Thanks for the compliment and thanks for your post also.

Work means I can't post as much as I'd like so I'm grateful other members have kept this thread sane - JohnNorton being another in particular.

Yes secret societies do exist, IMO, and yes they did exist at the time of JFK's death and speech 2 years before.. but was he talking about them and are they responsible for his demise? Certainly not and there's no indication saying they was.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


Kind words, sir.

I do have a suggestion for a new JFK thread you may be interested in researching… Are you aware that JFK was the first US president in about a century who didn't wear a hat publicly? The hat unions were having a fit—they must have had hundreds delivered to the White House, but he still preferred to go hatless.

The morning of his assassination, Kennedy was given a cowboy hat at breakfast with 2000+ Texas ranchers. He wouldn't put it on though.

I have to imagine how things might have been different if he'd been wearing a hat in the back of that convertible…



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
wow my wife found this speech today.. i was blown away , by this MANS abillity to inspire me even though hes been dead for 50 years.. and that he seen this coming. and was removed from this planet cause of it. i have not begone to read the tread before replying so i may edit later.. but it seems to me he was refering to the bildinburg group..sp??? seems it may be to late to stop it but dont mean i wont fight for it. i am not a sheep i do not walk blindly into the night... its sad i the only real pres i have knew in my life was reagan



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I completely agree with this thread. There has never been anything in history presented in symbolism or allegory - everything is watered down for the average person to understand. Take everything at face value, never think outside of the box.

The Bilderbergs don't rule the world, they are well intentioned and have absolutely no influence on behind the scenes politics. Ditto with CFR, TRC, Club of Rome, Council of 300, Skull and Bones, Bullingdon Club, Queens Privy Council of Canada, and so on and so fourth.

Just remember one thing - secret societies do not rule the world. If you think they do you are ignorant. Get good grades in school because the information they teach you is not biased, it is not intended to generate a standardized POV. If you don't get good grades in school, you are an idiot.

And after you're done getting good grades in school, move on to College and University, where you will not be further indoctrinated into blindly serving a corrupt system designed to favor the few.

And after you're done there, move onto the 'real world" and get a job. A job that does not further indoctrinate you into worshiping money and materialism, meanwhile taking all the joy and meaning out of being a human being.


In the beginning, the OS made the heavens and the earth.
There is no God before the OS
The OS hath died for your sins
edit on 6-6-2012 by albertabound because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   


What people also forget was that Kenendy was a member of one until the day he died.


Only until then, not a day after? They revoked his membership the same day he died? Talk about double bummer!

To be more serious, why would it be relevant to mention: "..until the day he died"? Why not just say "He was a member of one". It's a given, taken for granted, self-explanatory, that of course he was one 'until the day he died' - he couldn't have very well continued his membership from the other side, now could he?



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   


I have to imagine how things might have been different if he'd been wearing a hat in the back of that convertible…


You mean, a bulletproof hat?

Or a whole Knight's Armor-type helmet system?

I think the driver would have got him anyway, no matter what he was wearing (except maybe a bulletproof, full-body armor with very tiny breathing hole).
edit on 13-6-2012 by Shoujikina because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   


Yes secret societies do exist, IMO, and yes they did exist at the time of JFK's death and speech 2 years before.. but was he talking about them and are they responsible for his demise? Certainly not and there's no indication saying they was.


Shadow Government, you mean? Of course they killed him. How can you even say 'certainly not'?

Another thing also puzzles me; why would Kennedy -mention- "secret societies" specifically, if his speech had nothing to do with secret societies? You seem awfully sure about something you can't possibly have first hand knowledge of. There's lots of smoke and mirrors, misinformation, disinformation and shrouds of mystery surrounding JFK and his death, so I don't think it's wise for even the most diligent researcher to be 100% sure about his view being the absolute truth.

Though this particular issue is not a real interest of mine, I am sometimes a bit curious about it, and I tend to try to find the core truth among all the BS in any issue.. but I could be mistaken. And so could you.

He was certainly mentioning "secret societies", so by definition, he WAS talking about them (at least enough to mention them, if not more). And obviously the people with real power behind the scenes, MJ-12, The Military-Industrial-Complex, Illuminati, NWO gang, The Powers That Be, The Shadow Government, The dudes with the reverse-engineered UFO-tech... whatever you want to call them - a group of 'powerful' people decided that they needed to get him out of the way, and play it safe from there on by selecting only 'safe' presidents..

When we can easily know all this, how can you say (and I assume with a straight face) that "there's no indication"?

By the way, it's 'they were', not 'they was'.

And I'd say if you haven't found any indication, your research is missing important core pieces, as extensive as it may otherwise be. But it doesn't mean that there IS no indication - it simply means you haven't yet FOUND the indication(s).

One more thing - he could have been talking in multiple meanings and layers.. Eisenhower had already given his warning to the people, and even though someone claimed here that back then life was so different that no one cared - which may be true, it still doesn't completely rule out the possibility, that he may have been talking about the communists and all that on the surface - saying what he was expected to say - but at the same time, making sure his speech would at the same time warn the people by adding another layer, a deeper, more meaningful layer into it. Why couldn't his speech be amount multiple things at the same time? He was a relatively clever chap, as far as I know, and did know 'more than a president should'. So why couldn't he have done the same thing Eisenhower did, but in a more subtle, masked way? Can you honestly rule out that possibility completely?
edit on 13-6-2012 by Shoujikina because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


Hey ya.... Interesting thread, I had some questions, if you wouldn't mind applying your response mechanism to overcoming the challenges embedded within my specific method of *RETORT*

1. how can an ideology conduct a cold war?

In his speech, JFK mentions that "It" conducts the cold war..... was he referring to the political ideology of communism?

If so, why would he call it..... "It"?


2. "for we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless...... political ideology?"

In this speech, JFK clearly states that "we are opposed by a monolothic and ruthless conspiracy"

He did not say nations, he did not say communism, or socialism, or whatever.....

Why do you think he shirked his responsibility in clearly labling the threat to the nation, if that threat was Communism?

Why would he call it a conspiracy, if calling it Communism would more easily identify the potential threat?


3. how can a political ideology be a conspiracy?

Related to the previous question, actually.


4. we are as a nation historically opposed to secret societies

Why didn't he say communism?

Why would he mention Secret Societies at all if he was referring to communism in his speech?

and for that matter, Why, if his speech was ABOUT communism, does he never mention it....

Once?

5. "but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people".... of what?

If, as you say, the speech is JFK asking the press to keep some things secret..... why would he ask them to help him inform the public?

Would that not be against what you say is the PURPOSE of the speech?


6. If this thread was a well..... it smells like it has been poisoned.


That is all. *Shaman Out*



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Rising Against
 


Hey ya.... Interesting thread, I had some questions, if you wouldn't mind applying your response mechanism to overcoming the challenges embedded within my specific method of *RETORT*

1. how can an ideology conduct a cold war?

In his speech, JFK mentions that "It" conducts the cold war..... was he referring to the political ideology of communism?

If so, why would he call it..... "It"?


2. "for we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless...... political ideology?"

In this speech, JFK clearly states that "we are opposed by a monolothic and ruthless conspiracy"

He did not say nations, he did not say communism, or socialism, or whatever.....

Why do you think he shirked his responsibility in clearly labling the threat to the nation, if that threat was Communism?

Why would he call it a conspiracy, if calling it Communism would more easily identify the potential threat?


3. how can a political ideology be a conspiracy?

Related to the previous question, actually.


4. we are as a nation historically opposed to secret societies

Why didn't he say communism?

Why would he mention Secret Societies at all if he was referring to communism in his speech?

and for that matter, Why, if his speech was ABOUT communism, does he never mention it....

Once?

5. "but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people".... of what?

If, as you say, the speech is JFK asking the press to keep some things secret..... why would he ask them to help him inform the public?

Would that not be against what you say is the PURPOSE of the speech?


6. If this thread was a well..... it smells like it has been poisoned.


That is all. *Shaman Out*


Very good questions and some I had myself. I'm interested in seeing other views on these comments. It is obvious his speech is about the press screening what they print during war time. As the WW2 saying goes... Loose lips sink ships. Yet parts of this speech lend to a deeper meaning than simple "watch what you print" imo. the language he uses to describe what people are saying is directed at the cold war I find to be rather crypt for such a well known, and obvious, political situation of the time, no? Or possibly it is just the style of his speech... nevertheless I would like to see views on the questions posted above...





new topics
top topics
 
54
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join