+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: JFK's "secrecy" speech and the Masons

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dujac View Post
    you realize the speech was about the 'bay of pigs' and communism, right?
    He doesn't. It's quite sad.
    "Quia tu lucerna mea Domine et Domine inluminabis tenebras meas."

    Traveling Templar - 29JULY2014

  2. Prosper.com, finance, financial, investing, lending, borrowing, banking, credit card, payday, borrowers, lenders, debt consolidation, Prosper, investment, personal loans, personal loan, investors, investment opportunities, debt consolidation

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSigMason View Post

    He doesn't. It's quite sad.
    i'd like to see him try to defend his ridiculous position

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dujac View Post
    you realize the speech was about the 'bay of pigs' and communism, right?
    Yes but this poster hit the nail right on the head.oh and you did not answer my question of are you one of those lone nut theorist who thinks oswald did it?

    Actually JFK's "secret society" speech was about national security, classified information versus freedom of the press. If one actually reads the entire speech its quite obvious. Also note that he gave it at a dinner for journalists.
    Yes but he is also opposing the abuse of classifying information to the extent that TPTB keep the public in the dark about matters they should know about.

    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.

    And he directs this speech to journalists to inform them that a secret conspiracy does exist, and it is up to them to expose it.

    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.


    In the full speech it is quite obvious that he was addressing Communism as a 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.-Monkey Puppet

    PNAC, Zionism (Communism), anyone?


    THIS POSTER TOOK K MASON TO SCHOOL

    Yes but he is also opposing the abuse of classifying information to the extent that TPTB keep the public in the dark about matters they should know about.

    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.

    And he directs this speech to journalists to inform them that a secret conspiracy does exist, and it is up to them to expose it.

    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.


    In the full speech it is quite obvious that he was addressing Communism as a 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.-Monkey Puppet

    PNAC, Zionism (Communism), anyone?
    __________________
    s


    __________________
    Last edited by 9/11 was an inside job; May 14 2011 at 12:54 PM.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9/11 was an inside job View Post
    Yes but this poster hit the nail right on the head.oh and you did not answer my question of are you one of those lone nut theorist who thinks oswald did it?

    Actually JFK's "secret society" speech was about national security, classified information versus freedom of the press. If one actually reads the entire speech its quite obvious. Also note that he gave it at a dinner for journalists.
    Yes but he is also opposing the abuse of classifying information to the extent that TPTB keep the public in the dark about matters they should know about.

    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 itís 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.

    And he directs this speech to journalists to inform them that a secret conspiracy does exist, and it is up to them to expose it.

    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.


    In the full speech it is quite obvious that he was addressing Communism as a 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.-Monkey Puppet

    PNAC, Zionism (Communism), anyone?


    THIS POSTER TOOK K MASON TO SCHOOL

    Yes but he is also opposing the abuse of classifying information to the extent that TPTB keep the public in the dark about matters they should know about.

    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 itís 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.

    And he directs this speech to journalists to inform them that a secret conspiracy does exist, and it is up to them to expose it.

    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.


    In the full speech it is quite obvious that he was addressing Communism as a 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.-Monkey Puppet

    PNAC, Zionism (Communism), anyone?
    __________________
    s


    __________________
    You hit 'paste' twice, there. It might help you if you read what copy.
    This Speech is my recital.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9/11 was an inside job View Post

    In the full speech it is quite obvious that he was addressing Communism as a 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.
    secret societies like the ones in the kremlin, secret oaths like the ones castro made with the kremlin and secret proceedings like the ones that lead to missiles being shipped to cuba


    the speech had nothing to do with nwo delusions, the failures of the soviet union just illustrate that no singular group, country or organization has enough power to control the world, new world disorder is the dominant force

  7. #26

    Default

    9/11 boy, quit twisting his words around. He was concerned with government agencies, national security, and public knowledge/freedom of the press...not fraternities. He himself was in a Catholic version of the Masons.

    It's quite sad that today either his words are ignored or misconstrued to snare the minds of the ignorant. <<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

    And why did he meet with them if he didn't like them?
    Last edited by cenydd; May 17 2011 at 05:54 AM.
    "Quia tu lucerna mea Domine et Domine inluminabis tenebras meas."

    Traveling Templar - 29JULY2014

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dujac View Post
    secret societies like the ones in the kremlin, secret oaths like the ones castro made with the kremlin and secret proceedings like the ones that lead to missiles being shipped to cuba


    the speech had nothing to do with nwo delusions, the failures of the soviet union just illustrate that no singular group, country or organization has enough power to control the world, new world disorder is the dominant force
    your living in denialthat post took you guys to school that it was. and you STILL have not answered my question of do you believe the lone nut theory that osalwd killed kennedy? <<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>
    Last edited by cenydd; May 17 2011 at 05:55 AM.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9/11 was an inside job View Post
    your living in denialthat post took you guys to school that it was. and you STILL have not answered my question of do you believe the lone nut theory that osalwd killed kennedy? <<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>
    That post took no one to school.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9/11 was an inside job View Post
    Yes but this poster hit the nail right on the head.oh and you did not answer my question of are you one of those lone nut theorist who thinks oswald did it?

    Actually JFK's "secret society" speech was about national security, classified information versus freedom of the press. If one actually reads the entire speech its quite obvious. Also note that he gave it at a dinner for journalists.
    Yes but he is also opposing the abuse of classifying information to the extent that TPTB keep the public in the dark about matters they should know about.

    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.

    And he directs this speech to journalists to inform them that a secret conspiracy does exist, and it is up to them to expose it.

    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.


    In the full speech it is quite obvious that he was addressing Communism as a 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.-Monkey Puppet

    PNAC, Zionism (Communism), anyone?


    THIS POSTER TOOK K MASON TO SCHOOL

    Yes but he is also opposing the abuse of classifying information to the extent that TPTB keep the public in the dark about matters they should know about.

    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.

    And he directs this speech to journalists to inform them that a secret conspiracy does exist, and it is up to them to expose it.

    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.


    In the full speech it is quite obvious that he was addressing Communism as a 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.-Monkey Puppet

    PNAC, Zionism (Communism), anyone?
    __________________
    s


    __________________
    ha ha,not one poster has been able to counter anything this post said.no surprise there. well guess my question will go unanswered that I asked three times to you two but never got an answer for which was -do you believe the lone nut theory of the governments that oswald killed kennedy.since I never go an answer,I will leave this thread and assume the answer was yes which tells me that at least a couple people here for sure are living in denial.
    Last edited by 9/11 was an inside job; May 18 2011 at 02:14 PM.
    five 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists on ignore.Reason? they lie when they are defeated and wont look at the evidence.

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9/11 was an inside job View Post

    ha ha,not one poster has been able to counter anything this post said.no surprise there. well guess my question will go unanswered that I asked three times to you two but never got an answer for which was -do you believe the lone nut theory of the governments that oswald killed kennedy.since I never go an answer,I will leave this thread and assume the answer was yes which tells me that at least a couple people here for sure are living in denial.
    you quoted yourself, so it's unclear who you're addressing

    the subject of this thread is jfk's speech, not 'who shot him?'

    your post was not only countered, it was shown to be inaccurate

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks