PrisonPlanet Forum
July 28, 2014, 10:36:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: FULL JFK SPEECH APRIL 27, 1961 - Media & Secret Societies  (Read 23229 times)
The Scribbler
Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


Oooh...you want...this?


« on: June 19, 2009, 02:19:34 PM »

Posted here on Prison Planet Forum for reference, clarification, examination, and debate.

Full credit goes to YouTuber KRISisLOST for the audio and script.

Audio links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXKzKrIrg1s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g81_1Oznz-s&feature=related

Transcript link:
http://pastebin.com/f65d4172a

Quote
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 the 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 man.

     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.

      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 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’s 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 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 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 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.

      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 the same exacting tests.

      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.

      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 does not 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 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.

      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.
Logged
Berminator
Guest
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2009, 05:56:21 PM »

That's a keeper, thanks. Smiley
Logged
cold fusion
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,992


Sola Scriptura


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2009, 08:12:21 PM »

Here's  an mp3 file (19 minutes & 17 seconds) that you can save in QuickTime for your computer or mp3 device: (I pasted the two parts together & converted to mp3 format). Full credit goes to YouTuber KRISisLOST for the audio.

President JOHN F. KENNEDY APRIL 27 , 1961 SPEECH - Media & Secret Societies

JFK was one of "theirs" when he was elected, but his heart was turned to his people, and his wannabe "masters" had him killed. He was a great American, and I'll never forget the day he died. Notice the notorious dirtbag and political hack LBJ sitting behind him.

If your browser is IE or Firefox, you can use foxytunes to play the mp3 files on this web page without opening a new page or tab, just by clicking the little triangle to the left of the file name. This triangle will not be visible unless you install foxytunes.
Logged

Berminator
Guest
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2009, 08:23:46 PM »




Thanks friend i saved it.
Logged
Berminator
Guest
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2009, 04:51:44 PM »

Here's  an mp3 file (19 minutes & 17 seconds) that you can save in QuickTime for your computer or mp3 device: (I pasted the two parts together & converted to mp3 format). Full credit goes to YouTuber KRISisLOST for the audio.

President JOHN F. KENNEDY APRIL 27 , 1961 SPEECH - Media & Secret Societies

JFK was one of "theirs" when he was elected, but his heart was turned to his people, and his wannabe "masters" had him killed. He was a great American, and I'll never forget the day he died. Notice the notorious dirtbag and political hack LBJ sitting behind him.

If your browser is IE or Firefox, you can use foxytunes to play the mp3 files on this web page without opening a new page or tab, just by clicking the little triangle to the left of the file name. This triangle will not be visible unless you install foxytunes.

At 9 mins in the audio fks up?
Logged
AzNsQuAd27
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 512


« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2009, 05:19:25 PM »

operation get this to bermus (for invisible empire) is now in progress!!! GOGOGO!!
Logged
cold fusion
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,992


Sola Scriptura


WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2009, 06:12:25 PM »

Quote
At 9 mins in the audio fks up?

Fixed. Trim feature in QuickTime 10 is a bit weird and glitchy... reprocessed the track in 7.6.2 to fix the overlap of part 1 with part 2... plays fine now.

President JOHN F. KENNEDY APRIL 27 , 1961 SPEECH - Media & Secret Societies

NB: The last 1 second (last 3 words) of the audio is cut: "with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."
Logged

Berminator
Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2009, 06:16:00 PM »

Fixed. Trim feature in QuickTime 10 is a bit weird and glitchy... reprocessed the track in 7.6.2 to fix the overlap of part 1 with part 2... plays fine now.

President JOHN F. KENNEDY APRIL 27 , 1961 SPEECH - Media & Secret Societies

NB: The last second (1sec) of the audio is cut: "with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."

Brillant, thanks, it's 128Kbps so it sounds great.

"free and Independant" is all that's missing.
Logged
superfender
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,010



« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2011, 12:50:53 AM »

Recently on the history channel show "decoded" somebody said that in that speech JFK was talking about the threat of communism, not the NWO.  Is this true?
Logged
MonkeyPuppet
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,982


aut libertas aut mors


« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2011, 01:20:40 AM »



Recently on the history channel show "decoded" somebody said that in that speech JFK was talking about the threat of communism, not the NWO.  Is this true?


In context with the full speech it is quite obvious that he was addressing that particular threat.  However, his remarks regarding secret societies, secret oaths and secret proceedings were separate but applicable to the context of his speech in general.  The manner in which he made those statements was not by accident nor incidental, and separately, the application of those statements to communism and to the freedom of the press, which was the target of the context, was equally deliberate.  After all, the speech was aptly titled "The President and the Press".

JFK's remarks regarding the opportunistic nature of those in power to seize upon times of strife and anxiety to gain a foothold against liberty are timeless and need not be reduced to a specific threat from "long ago".  To do so is to reduce his words to mere anti-communism talking points.

Besides, we must remember that communism is but a tactic used by those whom would fulfill their goal of a New World Order, all the while using the press as a tool for control while implementing planks of the Communist Manifesto.
Logged


Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!
superfender
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,010



« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2011, 02:50:38 AM »

....JFK's remarks regarding the opportunistic nature of those in power to seize upon times of strife and anxiety to gain a foothold against liberty...

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking, being that he was obviously opposed attacking Communist Cuba in the name of defeating the Soviet Union. 

Just replace Cuba with Iraq/Afghanistan and Soviet Union with the fight against 'Global Terrorism.'
Logged
iks83
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,521


« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2011, 04:35:43 AM »

"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."

Thats something every media person needs to hang up in his/her office. Because today they see their role as primarily to amuse and entertain and only emphasize the trivial and sentimental and I've heard the exuse before that they are just giving the public what it wants. But it is not their purpose to give it what it wants.
Logged
agentbluescreen
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,510


« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2011, 05:28:18 AM »

"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."

Thats something every media person needs to hang up in his/her office. Because today they see their role as primarily to amuse and entertain and only emphasize the trivial and sentimental and I've heard the exuse before that they are just giving the public what it wants. But it is not their purpose to give it what it wants.

Nowadays the MSM twinkie newsreaders simply exist to parrot the lies of the intelligencia. When challenged they say they are simply there to "parrot reports" as nobody-mouthpieces .
Logged
agentbluescreen
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,510


« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2011, 06:18:09 AM »

What this aspect of this speech specifically called for and started was a movement to bring the moral challenge of media culture to the popular forefront of news and entertainment in the new, emerging TV age. More than any other the Mary Tyler Moore Show and it's spinoffs (and to a far lesser, openly hateful, polarizing and dehumanizing extent: All In the Family) explored these dangers and challenges.

Apparently most of these messages fell upon deaf ears.


Excerpt:

Two of the shows -- Mary Tyler Moore and the spin-off, Rhoda, depicted the emerging paradox of American culture: growing freedom for women (and men) to shape their own lives, accompanied by a new sense of limits and a loss of optimism. In the show, Mary Tyler Moore plays Mary Richards, a well-integrated, genuinely nice, non-narcissistic character who is stuck with a less than ideal life, for a new, less optimistic, age. She works for a mediocre television station and, despite the fact that she is the best catch in America, she can't find a mate.

The program also starred Ed Asner as Lou Grant, the outwardly hard nosed and gruff news editor who is inwardly a pussy cat. The late Ted Knight played Ted Baxter, as the television anchor whose outward appearance as an airhead conceals absolutely nothing underneath. He is self-worshipping, superficial and has no idea of the meaning of many of the stories he relates on the air, all of which makes him a good symbol for the popular culture that was developing in America. Like Diana Christensen, played by Faye Dunaway, in the movie Network, he is television.

Betty White plays Sue Ann Nivens, the man-hungry gourmet with a cooking program that is on the same network as the news show. She's Mary's opposite -- conniving, cynical, sarcastic -- just as Lou and Ted represent alternative forms of age and authority: image versus imagelessness, vacuousness versus substance, narcissistic self-absorption versus (more or less) altruistic adulthood.

The newsroom, which is the main site of the action, along with Mary's studio apartment, is a kind of trap of banality, made more livable by the fact that Mary is able to bond with the men on her right and left, as if they are her family. Lou is her surrogate father; and Murray Slaughter, the news writer, her brother. Mundane Murray sits next to her, pounding out the words, turning the great and small events of the day into copy that will be butchered by Ted.

If the newsroom is a family, then Ted is the idiot uncle and the only one who seems to be in his element. Sue Ann Nivens is the neighbor with an over-active social life.

Mary Tyler Moore turned out to be the nexus for, and force behind, some of the best stuff on television. She co-starred on The Dick Van Dyke Show and, as noted, her MTM Enterprises was responsible for The Mary Tyler Moore Show; Rhoda and The Bob Newhart Show. In addition, it produced the program, Lou Grant, the finest drama ever created for television, which depicts journalists who try to solve social problems by telling the truth to the public. That show's tempered optimism was in stark contrast to the cynical depictions of life that were to come with Hill Street Blues, et al. Lou Grant depicted a fallen world capable of redemption, in which good had to struggle against bad, and also had to struggle to figure out what was good and bad. Many of the best dramas that came after it showed a world that, in the immortal words of the television commercial, had fallen and could not get up.

Alex Jones is the Lou Grant of the Internet age, let's hope we can finally all get up together off of our couches and finally work together to make these decisions and choices for ourselves and openly with one another once again
Logged
JT Coyoté
Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 3,597


"REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"


« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2011, 07:49:48 AM »

What this aspect of this speech specifically called for and started was a movement to bring the moral challenge of media culture to the popular forefront of news and entertainment in the new, emerging TV age. More than any other the Mary Tyler Moore Show and it's spinoffs (and to a far lesser, openly hateful, polarizing and dehumanizing extent: All In the Family) explored these dangers and challenges.

Apparently most of these messages fell upon deaf ears.

Alex Jones is the Lou Grant of the Internet age, let's hope we can finally all get up together off of our couches and finally work together to make these decisions and choices for ourselves and openly with one another once again

Alex had Ed Asner on as a guest back in '08 if memory serves...

Oldyoti

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain
and most fools do."
~Benjamin Franklin
Logged

No2NWO
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 954


"It's Just A Ride" ~ BH


« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2011, 08:40:47 AM »

Alex had Ed Asner on as a guest back in '08 if memory serves...

Yes it does, here it goes....

1/2.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr_TsT62u4E
2/2.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZSDzf1Hyao&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QGX6gh5cDc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlHMlxmtB48&feature=related



Logged

"BEAT THEM BY NEVER JOINING THEM" ~ No2NWO
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!