Text primit de la colegul nostru DEC. Este discursul care i-a fost fatal marelui JFK
**
“Cuvintul “secret” insusi este respingator intr-o societate libera si deschisa, iar noi ca popor, prin istoria si mostenirea noastra, ne opunem societatilor secrete, juramintelor secrete a procedurilor secrete.
Noi am stabilit cu mult timp in urma ca pericolele tainuirii excesive si neinstiintate, a unor fapte pertinente, egaleaza pericolele ascunderii justificarii tainuirii.
Astazi se pune putin pret pe lupta impotriva amenintarii unei societati secrete prin limitarea restrictiilor ei samavolnice.
Astazi se pune putin pret pe asigurarea supravietuirii natiunii noastre, daca traditiile noastre nu supravietuiesc odata cu ea.
Si exista un mare pericol, asupra caruia trebuie sa veghem in avans mai mult, caci vom fi expusi acestuia de cei dornici sa isi puna in aplicare intentiile chiar pina la limitele cenzurii oficiale si tainuirii. Nu intentionez sa permit ca aceasta sa se petreaca, in masura in care depinde de mine. Si nici un oficial din administratia mea, indiferent daca are o pozitie importanta sau nu, daca e civil sau militar, nu ar trebui sa interpreteze acest discurs al meu ca o scuza pentru a nu informa, pentru a nu ne arata intentiile, pentru a ne acoperi greselile, pentru a nu arata presei si publicului faptele pe care acestea merita sa le stie.
In lumea intreaga exista o conspiratie monolitica si barbara care ni se opune, care se bazeaza in principal pe mijloace ascunse pentru a-si extinde experienta ei de temut, prin infiltrare in loc de invazie, prin actiuni subversive in loc de alegeri, pe intimidare in loc de alegere libera, pe guerile, noaptea, in loc de armata ziua. Este un sistem care a acumulat resurse materiale si umane imense in construcita unei retele strinse.
A unei masinarii eficiente la nivel inalt, care combina: operatiuni militare, operatiuni diplomatice, operatiuni de spionaj, operatiuni economice, operatiuni stiintifice si operatiuni politice.
Pregatirile ei sunt secrete, nu sunt date publicitatii. Greselile ei sunt ingropate, nu evidentiate. Descendentii ei sunt tainuiti, nu onorati. Extinderea lor nu este pusa sub semnul intrebarii; niciun zvon nu se raspindeste, niciun secret nu este relevat.
Niciun presedinte nu ar trebui sa se teama de analiza din partea publicului a programei sale, caci din acest studiu provine intelegerea, iar din acea intelegere rezulta sustinerea sau opozitia si ambele sunt necesare.
Nu cer publicatiilor voastre sa sustina o administratie, dar va cer ajutorul in indatorirea colosala de a informa si alerta poporul American in aceste privinte…”
JFKennedy
Este cel mai mare discurs al unui președinte american:„The President and the Press”, rostit la New York în aprilie 1961, cu inteligență și bun simț care contrastează puternic cu discursurile demagogice și goale de conținut ale politicienilor-marionetă. John Kennedy știa exact cum stau lucrurile, știa că Războiul Rece e doar o farsă sinistră, că aceiași stăpâni sunt la Moscova și Washington și că acționând pe ascuns, fără a declara sincer război, mafia transnațională jidovească atacă și distruge țările și popoarele lumii. Cuvintele sale sunt profetice și revelatorii pt. lumea de azi, și, împreună cu acțiunile sale de redobândire a suveranității SUA, i-au atras moartea. Rostul presei așa cum l-a definit aici rămâne doar un gând frumos, deoarece presa este și a fost o unealtă indispensabilă a mafiei transnaționale.
„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.(…)
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.(…)
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.(…)
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 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 law-maker
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.(…)”
Complet, cu ultima parte.
Kennedy Speech Conspiracy Secret Societies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeYgLLahHv8
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/11/20/the-two-speeches-that-got-jfk-killed-part-one/
The Text of the “Secret Societies” Speech
Courtesy of the JFK Library and Museum
“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 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 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. 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.
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.
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.
II
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.
III
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.”