"You know what's interesting about assassination? Well, not only does it change those popularity polls in a big fucking hurry, but it's also interesting to notice who it is we assassinate. Ya ever notice who it is, got to think who it is we kill? It's always people who've told us to live together in harmony and try to love one another. Jesus, Gandhi, Lincoln, John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, John Lennon – they all said, "Try to live together peacefully." Bam! Right in the fucking head! Apparently we're not ready for that. " - George Carlin
Us Hippies are dying out as well. I feel like were few and far between. I just don't understand why it's so wrong to want to live in peace? We're ONE race the HUMAN RACE when will people start to see that... We can't look to our governments to save us. We the people must save ourselves. Stop building walls between each other and instead take each others hands. I know you're scared, hurt, and angry friend. I am too. I don't like the world we live in today, but I have hope we can change it. My spirit will not be broken and I do believe we can live in unity.
Slowly but sure my brother, people are actually finally starting to understand this. It's not some wacky radical concept anymore. We are finally starting to see past our religious/ethnic barriers and search for a way to live peacefully and efficiently without boundaries. The New World Order is going to offer a similar "inter-connected" society, only theirs will be under the watcheful eye of a few elite, void of any civil liberties. Their "world order" is a much different idea of what our world order is. They just want to consolidate, centralize, and get us all under the control of one central governing force. Greed is their driving force, they already have everything they could ever want. Why not go all the way?
Lol, yea, the Elite will have anybody killed who doesn't commit to their agenda, regardless of what party they are in. They know that both parties are corrupt and that the 2 party system is really just a spectacle to divide the people. Garbage in, garbage out.
Exactly man. The very concept of the two party system is inherently going to cause divide. 2 choices for political parties, either on this side or that side....They've essentially created a giant football game with 2 teams and fans of each side hate the other side (just like in real football games, the opposing team has an "evil" or "bad guy" quality to them, right?). It encourages a close minded mentality of "Im on TEAM A, and everything TEAM B does is against us!". People are finally breaking free of the stupid 2 party system and at last we are seeing the true nature of it's grip on us.
Everytime there is an articulate, and clean cut African American "father figure" that has a message of unity for the minority masses, the Elite always take them down. They seem to want the minorities to be huddled in crime/drug ridden areas of the cities and just be in and out of the penal system their whole lives. Anytime a black man with stature and a different message stands up and takes charge, he's always killed. The elite don't benefit from articulate, clean cut African American "father figures" that have a message of unity and pride.
God damn I wish the general public had access to time travel. 1st order of business, save JFK. 2nd order: film 9/11 in its entirety with no fuckery. Lmao
I actually did watch it. I was pretty impressed right up until the moment I realized they were going with the whole Oswald acted alone bull-crap. And then they tried to portray saving JFK as leading into a nuclear war. Blehhh come on Stephen King...
It's an 8 episode mini series based on the Stephen King novel (of the same name) where the main character finds a time portal to a certain date in the 60s. There he basically sets out to save JFK by living through the early 60s and gathering evidence to prove Oswald was the shooter so he could stop him.
The Hulu show has James Franco as the main character and is overall pretty darn good. I loved the book though so I'm partial to it. If you're a reader, read the book. If not, the show is well made and worth the watch IMO
This speech was on April 27, 1961, less than two weeks after the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion. President Kennedy is speaking to the American Newspaper Publishers Association.
This video has deliberated edited Kennedy's speech to distort what it was about.
For more information see this dissertation chapter called, "Kennedy and the Press", starting at "The Kennedy Administration responded to this criticism by citing the need to protect national security and by criticizing newspaper performance."
The speech was given at the suggestion of Kennedy's press secretary, Pierre Salinger, who writes about the speech and the reaction to it on pages 155-160 of his book With Kennedy.
Another book, Writing JFK: Presidential Rhetoric and the Press in the Bay of Pigs Crisis (not online), discusses the speech and how the president's speechwriter, Ted Sorensen, developed it.
The real speech, if I can sum it up, says, Secrets are bad,butsometimes we need to keep secrets. The real bad guys, the communists, work in total secrecy, so give us a break. Consider national security when deciding what to print. Things you have printed have helped the enemy. You guys are doing a great job informing the public. Keep it up, but don't forget there's a cold war on and we're in great danger.
Of course, you can't get that from the video, because that was deleted. The person who edited the speech did it to fool you. He deleted the main theme of the speech as well as references—"It conducts the Cold War"—that make it clear who JFK is talking about.
This video omits several parts. It omits the president's opening words entirely—not only the anecdote, but also where he's serious. Just before the part where the video starts, the president says "This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy." (Emphasis added to highlight the theme omitted from this video.)
Another section omitted is just after the sentence (around 1:20 in this video) "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.
Then there's a longer part, just after "No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed." (around 2:30)
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 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.
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.
The 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 any 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 the same exacting tests.
This, this, this! It annoys the shit out of me when this speech is used to suggest JFK was killed because he was about to expose TPTB. It discredits modern day TPTB conspiracy theories when it is used like this. Makes it obvious that many conspiracy theorists don't bother to dig deep at their sources of information, to verify the true meaning of words spoken within their context.
There's a few brave people throughout history who will be immortalized for their bravery and impact. John F Kennedy, you were one of them. Rest in Peace you freedom loving Irish mad man ;)
This speech definitely has different overtones when listened to unedited. I wonder how JKF would have perceived the current campaign on "Fake News". It actually sounded like he was asking those in the press to be mindful of what they wrote in case it allowed the soviets access to sensitive information. It could be argued that he was advocating for a form of soft censorship.
It actually sounded like he was asking those in the press to be mindful of what they wrote in case it allowed the soviets access to sensitive information. It could be argued that he was advocating for a form of soft censorship.
You're wrong. Listen to the whole thing. You're ignoring the part where he describes a monolithic movement that subverts our elections and act like "guerillas by night instead of armies by day". He was telling the press and american people that the press was being controlled by this monolithic force.
Look up the Steve Jobs story about him saying some wacky shit in a lunch room. This is what he said:
“The most powerful person in the world is the story teller.
The storyteller sets the vision, values and agenda of an entire generation that is to come.”
The shadow government controls the press -> the press control the story -> the story controls the man
Why does he reference Karl Marx at the very beginning? - Communism
Why does he say "opposed around the world" in reference to this "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy"? - Soviet influence in governments around the world = Vietnam/North Korea/Cuba et al.
When he says "guerrillas by night", who is the pop culture icon for guerrilla militias? Che Guevara, of Cuba....which turned communist.
This speech is about reminding the press that the have a responsibility to inform the public but not at the cost of national security, even when the US is not in a declared state of war. Hence the reason why it was called the "Cold" War.
"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."
This is about communism. Nothing more, nothing less. I wish that JFK was revealing to the world that the US was being controlled by its own "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" but he wasn't. Committing anachronism is tempting and easy but does not result in the revelation of truth.
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 publics need for national security.
He then goes on to explain that war hasn't been declared, but the danger is real via a shadow war. He is not saying the "monolithic movement" controls the media. He is asking to press to be careful what they print, and to consider the nation at war.
He is asking to press to be careful what they print, and to consider the nation at war.
Yes, a shadow war. Something he says himself:
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.
Any comment is potentially posted by a shill. That's the key danger of all the major astroturfing that's been happening - you can't know whether any comment was legit, posted by a bot, or posted by a paid shill of any particular allegiance. You just can't know.
And furthermore, you can't know what's a fact anymore. No media outlet is reliable. Anyone might be posting for an agenda, whether they've been told to or not.
We don't know what's real. No one does. Everything is Schrodinger's facts - simultaneously true and false.
42 comments
108 djklbd 2016-12-11
"You know what's interesting about assassination? Well, not only does it change those popularity polls in a big fucking hurry, but it's also interesting to notice who it is we assassinate. Ya ever notice who it is, got to think who it is we kill? It's always people who've told us to live together in harmony and try to love one another. Jesus, Gandhi, Lincoln, John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, John Lennon – they all said, "Try to live together peacefully." Bam! Right in the fucking head! Apparently we're not ready for that. " - George Carlin
31 obscure_survivor 2016-12-11
Us Hippies are dying out as well. I feel like were few and far between. I just don't understand why it's so wrong to want to live in peace? We're ONE race the HUMAN RACE when will people start to see that... We can't look to our governments to save us. We the people must save ourselves. Stop building walls between each other and instead take each others hands. I know you're scared, hurt, and angry friend. I am too. I don't like the world we live in today, but I have hope we can change it. My spirit will not be broken and I do believe we can live in unity.
7 djklbd 2016-12-11
Slowly but sure my brother, people are actually finally starting to understand this. It's not some wacky radical concept anymore. We are finally starting to see past our religious/ethnic barriers and search for a way to live peacefully and efficiently without boundaries. The New World Order is going to offer a similar "inter-connected" society, only theirs will be under the watcheful eye of a few elite, void of any civil liberties. Their "world order" is a much different idea of what our world order is. They just want to consolidate, centralize, and get us all under the control of one central governing force. Greed is their driving force, they already have everything they could ever want. Why not go all the way?
1 [deleted] 2016-12-11
[deleted]
14 djklbd 2016-12-11
Lol, yea, the Elite will have anybody killed who doesn't commit to their agenda, regardless of what party they are in. They know that both parties are corrupt and that the 2 party system is really just a spectacle to divide the people. Garbage in, garbage out.
4 [deleted] 2016-12-11
[deleted]
6 djklbd 2016-12-11
Exactly man. The very concept of the two party system is inherently going to cause divide. 2 choices for political parties, either on this side or that side....They've essentially created a giant football game with 2 teams and fans of each side hate the other side (just like in real football games, the opposing team has an "evil" or "bad guy" quality to them, right?). It encourages a close minded mentality of "Im on TEAM A, and everything TEAM B does is against us!". People are finally breaking free of the stupid 2 party system and at last we are seeing the true nature of it's grip on us.
1 toomuchdota 2016-12-11
Interesting quote and good point. But, Malcolm X wanted peace? Really?
1 djklbd 2016-12-11
Everytime there is an articulate, and clean cut African American "father figure" that has a message of unity for the minority masses, the Elite always take them down. They seem to want the minorities to be huddled in crime/drug ridden areas of the cities and just be in and out of the penal system their whole lives. Anytime a black man with stature and a different message stands up and takes charge, he's always killed. The elite don't benefit from articulate, clean cut African American "father figures" that have a message of unity and pride.
40 holyshiziter 2016-12-11
God damn I wish the general public had access to time travel. 1st order of business, save JFK. 2nd order: film 9/11 in its entirety with no fuckery. Lmao
9 toodarnloud88 2016-12-11
Did you watch 11/22/63 on Hulu?
10 holyshiziter 2016-12-11
I actually did watch it. I was pretty impressed right up until the moment I realized they were going with the whole Oswald acted alone bull-crap. And then they tried to portray saving JFK as leading into a nuclear war. Blehhh come on Stephen King...
1 [deleted] 2016-12-11
[deleted]
10 friskydrisky 2016-12-11
It's an 8 episode mini series based on the Stephen King novel (of the same name) where the main character finds a time portal to a certain date in the 60s. There he basically sets out to save JFK by living through the early 60s and gathering evidence to prove Oswald was the shooter so he could stop him.
The Hulu show has James Franco as the main character and is overall pretty darn good. I loved the book though so I'm partial to it. If you're a reader, read the book. If not, the show is well made and worth the watch IMO
35 twsmith 2016-12-11
This speech was on April 27, 1961, less than two weeks after the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion. President Kennedy is speaking to the American Newspaper Publishers Association.
This video has deliberated edited Kennedy's speech to distort what it was about.
What is the main point of the speech? Kennedy is blaming the press for leaking national security secrets and asking them to censor themselves.
Here are some newspaper headlines the next day:
For more information see this dissertation chapter called, "Kennedy and the Press", starting at "The Kennedy Administration responded to this criticism by citing the need to protect national security and by criticizing newspaper performance."
The speech was given at the suggestion of Kennedy's press secretary, Pierre Salinger, who writes about the speech and the reaction to it on pages 155-160 of his book With Kennedy.
There's also an excerpt from another book on Google Books.
Another book, Writing JFK: Presidential Rhetoric and the Press in the Bay of Pigs Crisis (not online), discusses the speech and how the president's speechwriter, Ted Sorensen, developed it.
The real speech, if I can sum it up, says, Secrets are bad, but sometimes we need to keep secrets. The real bad guys, the communists, work in total secrecy, so give us a break. Consider national security when deciding what to print. Things you have printed have helped the enemy. You guys are doing a great job informing the public. Keep it up, but don't forget there's a cold war on and we're in great danger.
Of course, you can't get that from the video, because that was deleted. The person who edited the speech did it to fool you. He deleted the main theme of the speech as well as references—"It conducts the Cold War"—that make it clear who JFK is talking about.
This video omits several parts. It omits the president's opening words entirely—not only the anecdote, but also where he's serious. Just before the part where the video starts, the president says "This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy." (Emphasis added to highlight the theme omitted from this video.)
Another section omitted is just after the sentence (around 1:20 in this video) "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."
Then there's a longer part, just after "No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed." (around 2:30)
5 Wolfwoman1210 2016-12-11
This, this, this! It annoys the shit out of me when this speech is used to suggest JFK was killed because he was about to expose TPTB. It discredits modern day TPTB conspiracy theories when it is used like this. Makes it obvious that many conspiracy theorists don't bother to dig deep at their sources of information, to verify the true meaning of words spoken within their context.
1 Doriaunas 2016-12-11
A little excessive, but it's earned an upvote
17 [deleted] 2016-12-11
There's a few brave people throughout history who will be immortalized for their bravery and impact. John F Kennedy, you were one of them. Rest in Peace you freedom loving Irish mad man ;)
15 Sheeieeeet 2016-12-11
oh they killed the shit out of him
6 Kittyfiever 2016-12-11
For sure. MLK jr too.
3 fat_osvaldo 2016-12-11
Malcolm X as well, very detailed recap in his autobiography chapter written by Alex Haley
2 sganninger 2016-12-11
I have read that lengthy masterpiece twice!!
2 kybarnet 2016-12-11
Though I agree, I just want to clarify, this video in full speaks a lot to communism. Much of what he says here is a reference to communism.
2 [deleted] 2016-12-11
[deleted]
1 anarchosmurf 2016-12-11
communists aren't illuminati..too poor
1 The_gray_ghost 2016-12-11
Maybe not for the reason you think, it looks like mlk had connections to communists and the cia more likely than not took him out for it.
1 MMEDS 2016-12-11
Definitely 2 shots
1 victoryindark 2016-12-11
Also if I remember correctly, Jackie was heard yelling immediately after JFK was shot; "they did it, they really did!" Or something to that effect
4 RPmatrix 2016-12-11
"they killed my husband"
10 N_Amplified 2016-12-11
This speech definitely has different overtones when listened to unedited. I wonder how JKF would have perceived the current campaign on "Fake News". It actually sounded like he was asking those in the press to be mindful of what they wrote in case it allowed the soviets access to sensitive information. It could be argued that he was advocating for a form of soft censorship.
Full Speech without editing
4 [deleted] 2016-12-11
You're wrong. Listen to the whole thing. You're ignoring the part where he describes a monolithic movement that subverts our elections and act like "guerillas by night instead of armies by day". He was telling the press and american people that the press was being controlled by this monolithic force.
Look up the Steve Jobs story about him saying some wacky shit in a lunch room. This is what he said:
The shadow government controls the press -> the press control the story -> the story controls the man
JFK was pleading with them.
4 N_Amplified 2016-12-11
Why does he reference Karl Marx at the very beginning? - Communism
Why does he say "opposed around the world" in reference to this "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy"? - Soviet influence in governments around the world = Vietnam/North Korea/Cuba et al.
When he says "guerrillas by night", who is the pop culture icon for guerrilla militias? Che Guevara, of Cuba....which turned communist.
This speech is about reminding the press that the have a responsibility to inform the public but not at the cost of national security, even when the US is not in a declared state of war. Hence the reason why it was called the "Cold" War.
"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."
This is about communism. Nothing more, nothing less. I wish that JFK was revealing to the world that the US was being controlled by its own "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" but he wasn't. Committing anachronism is tempting and easy but does not result in the revelation of truth.
Edit: fixed up some formatting/ typos
3 GoldMoose16 2016-12-11
Also don't forget Eisenhower's warning about the Military Industrial Complex in his farewell speech.
Here is the short version with the reference. Audio is shit, but please do listen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
1 twsmith 2016-12-11
N_amplified is correct according to newspaper reports of the day, historians, and Kennedy's own press secretary. See my other comment.
1 DesertOTReal 2016-12-11
He then goes on to explain that war hasn't been declared, but the danger is real via a shadow war. He is not saying the "monolithic movement" controls the media. He is asking to press to be careful what they print, and to consider the nation at war.
1 [deleted] 2016-12-11
Yes, a shadow war. Something he says himself:
1 WontDieIn_A_Hospital 2016-12-11
You're ignoring the Soviet Union buddy.
9 StyleandSpeed 2016-12-11
Interested how the shills will try to downplay this one.
6 bernitallup 2016-12-11
Is it me or has it been relatively quiet today compared to other days this week. Guess they get weekends off.
3 SituationGang 2016-12-11
shills only get paid monday-friday
-4 therodt 2016-12-11
Anyone that disagrees is a shill these days. Facts dont care about your feelings
1 KinglyWeevil 2016-12-11
Any comment is potentially posted by a shill. That's the key danger of all the major astroturfing that's been happening - you can't know whether any comment was legit, posted by a bot, or posted by a paid shill of any particular allegiance. You just can't know.
And furthermore, you can't know what's a fact anymore. No media outlet is reliable. Anyone might be posting for an agenda, whether they've been told to or not.
We don't know what's real. No one does. Everything is Schrodinger's facts - simultaneously true and false.
3 HulaguKan 2016-12-11
It's a speech about communism. Nothing mysterious about it.
1 KinglyWeevil 2016-12-11
Is it though? Or is it about secret societies, or intelligence agencies, or the wealthy? Show me conclusive proof one way or the other.
1 HulaguKan 2016-12-11
https://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/American-Newspaper-Publishers-Association_19610427.aspx
Full transcript.
2 Katayani108 2016-12-11
One of my favorite references.