On the 27th of April 1961, US President John F. Kennedy spoke of "a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" [1|2|3|5|9] that opposed the people of the United States.
Consequently many conspiracy theorists, including Christopher [1], Laura Knight-Jadczyk [2], Dystopian Awakening [4] and others [9], misquoted JFK as referring to a "corrupt organization controlling our [the U.S.] government" [1|4] (referring to the New World Order).
These, much like many contemporary theologians, are careful never to quote any passage of the original [3] within it's original context and setting:
"Ladies and gentlemen, 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. But we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding it's 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. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not headlined. It's dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No rumor is printed. No secret is revealed... That is why the Athenian lawmaker, Solon, decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be ... free and independent." [1]
"Ladies and gentlemen, 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. But we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding it's 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. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not headlined. It's 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. I am not asking your newspapers to support an 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 it's 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 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 crisis and our choices, to lead, loath, 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 recorded 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." [4]
"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 out-weight the dangers which are sighted to justify it. Even today there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating it's arbitrary restrictions. Even today there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation, if our traditions does not survive with it. And there is a very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand it's 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 descent, to cover up our mistakes, or to withhold from the press and the public the facts that they deserve to know. For we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding it's 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. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not headlined. It's 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. I am not asking your newspapers to support an 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 it's 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 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 crisis and our choices, to lead, loath, educate and sometimes even anger ..." [5]
THE ACTUAL SPEECH
"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 the New York Herald Tribune, under the sponsorship and publishing of Harold Riley employed as it's London correspondent, an obscure journalist by the name of Carl Marx. We are told that foreign correspondent, Marx, stone-broke and with a family ill and under-nourished, constantly appealed to Riley and Managing Editor, Charles Dana, for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment - a salary which he and Ingles ungratefully label as 'the lousiest petty boswa cheating'. But when all of 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 bequive to 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. 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 man. I have selected as a title of my remarks tonight 'The President & 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 to usually assault on the so-called 'one-party press'. On the contrary, in recent months I rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the Press, except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discus or defend the televising of Presidential Press Conferences. I think it's highly beneficial to have some 20 million Americans regularly sit in in these conferences, to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by our 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, 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 been a secret service man. My topic tonight is a more sober one, of concern to both Publishers as well as Editors. I want to talk about our common responsibilities, in the face of common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some, but the dimensions of it's 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 it's 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. The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society. And we are as a people, both 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 out-weight the dangers which are sighted to justify it. Even today there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating it's arbitrary restrictions. Even today there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation, if our traditions does not survive with it. And there is a very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand it's 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 descent, to cover up our mistakes, or to withhold from the press and the public the facts that 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 times 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 are 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 it's presence have never been more imminent. It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions, by the Government and 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 it's 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. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not headlined. It's 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 wartime 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. But 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. The details of this nations covert preparations, accounts of the enemies' covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike. 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 to satisfy any foreign power. And at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed, required it's alteration at the expense of considerable time and money. The newspapers that 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, 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 it's 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 command this problem to your attention, and urge it's 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..." [3|10]
CONCLUSION
Kennedy's address were delivered on the 27th of April 1961, before the American Newspaper Publishers Association [3|10], following the Second World War (1939-1945), amidst the Vietnam- (1961-1970) and Cold- (1947-1991) [6] wars.
JFK called upon "every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation" [10], not only to "reexamine [their] own standards" [10], but to "recognize the nature of [their] country's peril" [10], and further "to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy" [10]
Apparently their "foes have openly boasted of acquiring through [US] newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of [America'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 [their] forces and weapons, and [their] 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 in 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." [10]
While the Soviet Union's military preparations were "concealed, not published" [10], theirs were.
As the old saying goes, "Loose Lips Sink Ships" [7] and "A Slip of the Lip Will Sink a Ship" [8]
Therefore, while the above may be both, true and applicable, to the New World Order, John F. Kennedy's original address had absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with any secretive conspiracy within the US Government, but rather to warn the media to hold their tongue.
The "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" [1|2|3|4|5|10], Kennedy spoke of, was that of their Cold War enemies - the Soviet Union [6], Cuba [6] and Vietnam.
SCRIPTURE
"He who has knowledge spares his words, and a man of understanding is of a calm spirit. Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace; when he shuts his lips, he is considered perceptive." (Prov. 17v27-28)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Christopher. The speech JFK wrote that got him murdered (YouTube; 19 June 2008)
2. Laura Knight-Jadczyk. John F. Kennedy and the Monolithic and Ruthless Conspiracy (Signs of the Times; 22 November 2006)
3. John F. Kennedy Speech, April 27, 1961 (April 27, 1961) (Internet Archive; 2 September 2010)
4. JFK told us the TRUTH (YouTube Channel of Dystopian Awakening; 10 March 2009)
5. JFK telling us the 911 truth (YouTube; 1 November 2006)
6. Cold War (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; 2 September 2010)
7. Loose Lips Sink Ships (EyeWitness to History; 2 September 2010)
8. Loose Lips Sink Ships: the Trouble of Talkativeness (ReveLife; 22 April 2010)
9. JFK Speech about Secret Societies (YouTube; 22 November 2007)
10. The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association (John F Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum; 3 September 2010)
REVISION
02-03.09.2010 / 18.09.2010
