JFK describes "The Unthinkable" -- "The High Cabal"

[David Sellers]

P.S.

The entire speech may be read at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...347234634#

JFK was referencing the communist system -- at least at the literal level of his remarks.

The section directly preceding your quote:

"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."

I want to believe that JFK was sending a message at the level of subtext.

The passage that directly follows your quote:

"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."

This may be interpreted as a subtle warning for the media to police itself before the government forces it to do so.

Please understand my position: Both John and Robert Kennedy are, for me, saintly men not because they were born so, but because they became so in spite of every imaginable counter-influence.

And so they were crucified.

Charles,

In my opinion, the scope of power to which JFK refers goes far beyond the constraints and/or boundaries of any nation's sovereignty, beyond any political ideology (communist, capitalist, or otherwise); indeed it goes beyond that which is "speakable". That his speech was made in the context of the "communist" threat is incidental to the larger picture.

Moreover, the words he uses to describe the "system" and the "conspiracy" are easily seen as attributes of our own government at the time (maybe even now) and of the Soviet Union--and beyond.

Wasn't the initial charge in the JFK case going to be a "Communist conspiracy?"

[David Sellers]

I think JFK was talking about exactly what it sounds like he was talking about. Secret societies. People have to remember just how intelligent he was and how well read. He was aware of groups that he did not join. And how powerful they were.
That is my opinion, of course. That the "subtext" was actually the very core.

He was in this speech attempting to expose some of his killers before they acted.

Dawn

JFK grew up in a "secret society" as all one has to do is read the connections his family has had over the last 300 or so years! He father had many connections too, but the matter is how much of this was made known to him? He was not the designated (or anointed) one at birth as Joe Jr. was so we don't know how much of this stuff he was exposed to. His father once said 50 men run this country and that figure may be too high.

I'm sure when he was in the Congress he began to see more regarding the true nature of things, but he forgot this when he went off track after his father's stroke.

Just my opinions.

[David Sellers]

"Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." -- David Rockefeller, 2002 memoirs

[Greg Burnham]

David Sellers:
Couldn't he simply be speaking about the Communist systems in Russia and China (and elsewhere)?

As we've been discussing in this thread, it is a matter of interpretation. I don't interpret it that way, myself. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to determine at this time exactly how far reaching his understanding of these things was at that time.

There are elements in the speech that appear, in my opinion, to indicate references to "power" that exists independently of the political/idealogical factors that you mention, namely, our relationship to (not with) the Soviet and Red Chinese communists' and their systems of government and conduction of the Cold War, respectively. However, that isn't to say I believe he was referring to his own murderers, either.

[Albert Doyle]

Couldn't he simply be speaking about the Communist systems in Russia and China (and elsewhere)?

If you observe Kennedy's pattern he was a clever man who always made sure he rounded things off in order not to draw the predictable political backlash that direct statements would have incurred. He always left a criticism of communism in there to make sure his statements couldn't be taken advantage of politically. However, he also honestly believed the things he said in criticism of the communist system. He wasn't a communist sympathizer.

Kennedy was definitely talking about the CIA and Military Industrial Complex. He gives this away by criticizing their funding source. Now if he was talking about the communist system he wouldn't single out the dubiousness of how they funded their shadow government because the communist system is straight-up about how it funds itself. It funds itself in a totalitarian manner. So there are no variations possible within that system. Kennedy is clearly referring to an unsound funding method that applies to the CIA-Mob underground financing structure that existed in their covert relationship with the US syndicate. So that right there tells you who he is talking about. Why do you think Bobby was going after the mob? And why do you think Wayne January's Cuban pilot said "They're really going after Bobby Kennedy"? When January asked him why, the Cuban said "That you would have to have a need to know". They really hated Bobby because he was going after their money source - the US mob.

Like I said a few posts back, Kennedy has to be talking about the US government because he's referring to a shadow system happening within a government. Since the communist system is straight-up totalitarian it can't be them he's referring to because you can't have a system within a totalitarian system by definition, because that violates the basic principle of totalitarianism.

I don't see why people have a problem connecting what Douglass more than clearly shows Kennedy was doing to this statement. He was clearly trying to rein-in the out of control CIA.

In my opinion we are at the point where overly technical approaches to what Kennedy was saying here are preventing us from seeing the simple and obvious. The reason Douglass's book shines is because he correctly isolates this basic fact.


.

[Greg Burnham]

Couldn't he simply be speaking about the Communist systems in Russia and China (and elsewhere)?

If you observe Kennedy's pattern he was a clever man who always made sure he rounded things off in order not to draw the predictable political backlash that direct statements would have incurred. He always left a criticism of communism in there to make sure his statements couldn't be taken advantage of politically. However, he also honestly believed the things he said in criticism of the communist system. He wasn't a communist sympathizer.

Kennedy was definitely talking about the CIA and Military Industrial Complex. He gives this away by criticizing their funding source. Now if he was talking about the communist system he wouldn't single out the dubiousness of how they funded their shadow government because the communist system is straight-up about how it funds itself. It funds itself in a totalitarian manner. So there are no variations possible within that system. Kennedy is clearly referring to an unsound funding method that applies to the CIA-Mob underground financing structure that existed in their covert relationship with the US syndicate. So that right there tells you who he is talking about. Why do you think Bobby was going after the mob? And why do you think Wayne January's Cuban pilot said "They're really going after Bobby Kennedy"? When January asked him why, the Cuban said "That you would have to have a need to know". They really hated Bobby because he was going after their money source - the US mob.

Like I said a few posts back, Kennedy has to be talking about the US government because he's referring to a shadow system happening within a government. Since the communist system is straight-up totalitarian it can't be them he's referring to because you can't have a system within a totalitarian system by definition, because that violates the basic principle of totalitarianism.

I don't see why people have a problem connecting what Douglass more than clearly shows Kennedy was doing to this statement. He was clearly trying to rein-in the out of control CIA.

In my opinion we are at the point where overly technical approaches to what Kennedy was saying here are preventing us from seeing the simple and obvious. The reason Douglass's book shines is because he correctly isolates this basic fact.


.

I tend to see this the same as you, Albert.

[Jan Klimkowski]

This excerpt from JFK's speech is surely about the supposed Red Menace, its suppression of dissent through lack of a free press, its Reds Under the Bed strategy of infiiltrating commies into positions of influence, the need for a "free American press" to act responsibly according to the requirements of American "national security".

Etc.

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.

[Charles Drago]

Jan is right. Beyond all reasonable doubt

JFK's spiritual evolution is most certainly on display in the American University speech. There is no need to look elsewhere. And there is most assuredly no need to search for that which is simply not present.

I want to read these words as Greg and Albert read them.

But unless they provide more than expressions of wishful thinking -- such as similar comments by JFK within the contexts of the timing of their delivery and the broader documentary record of how JFK had addressed the "Unspeakable" issue at those times -- we yet find ourselves in mutually respectful if, at times, passionate disagreement.

[Albert Doyle]

I personally feel what JFK was doing was presenting the offenses of communism in such a way as to make the comparisons to how it also applied to the CIA unavoidable. Hey, it was no secret what JFK was doing at the time.


What I found amazing in Unspeakable was the ingenious device Pope JohnXXIII used in his intervention in Pacem In Terris. The Pope did a similar thing as JFK and I think Douglass is hinting JFK might have followed his lead with some clever psychology. Knowing how pompous the Russian generals were the Pope deliberately inserted a similar case of double entendre where he knew the Russians, not being able to admit it applied to them, would immediately apply it to the US and tell their people the Pope is criticizing the US. And the US generals, not wanting to assume it was them the Pope was listing the faults of, would assume it was the Russians the Pope was referring to. It was a real artwork of a sincere yet craftily clever piece of word work that then made each side, at the same, time think they were being validated by the Pope. That satisfied the egotistical need of both sides and put both sides in a consenting mood at the same time. The moves toward the test ban treaty and disarmament soon followed. It was a masterful act of diplomacy with huge world scale consequences.

When Kennedy tried his Pacem In Terris in the form of the American University speech it didn't have the same effect and probably ended up getting him killed.



Charles will cringe, however I have found more hints that the change of the vital paragraph between the NSAM 263-73 documents was almost certainly done as a covert strategy. I believe a very sinister plot was happening where Oswald was going to be claimed to have shot Kennedy because he changed his word on Viet Nam as seen in NSAM 273. Remember, the letter to the Soviet embassy showed Oswald knew that the man in the Cuban consulate was going to be transferred. Investigators say they can't figure out the meaning of this. Well the meaning could be that there was a plan to show Oswald was privy to secret information. Greg might have much more bang to the buck than he realizes. There could have been a plan to show Oswald was deeper than people thought, as shown by his knowledge of the transfer, and shot Kennedy in reaction to his secret knowledge Kennedy had betrayed Khrushchev and reversed his policy on Viet Nam.

Knowing what we know about CIA/FBI manipulation and alteration of evidence it makes sense to me that there was very likely a plan to use Kennedy's secret communications with Khrushchev to show Kennedy had lost his mind and gone into secret cooperation with the enemy. This would automatically validate any Executive Action as a reasonable response - but most importantly an act of law. And that's important because I'm beginning to understand that the outrageous acts associated with this assassination had to have some kind of rational justification. I'm beginning to see a pattern in the conspiracy that suggests these people considered they were acting under some kind of valid legal definition.

I think Greg doesn't realize he may have uncovered much more than he thinks and that the real purpose of the NSAM 273 document manipulation wasn't just to allow escalation in Viet Nam but was a clever way to associate it with the reason for the assassination. Before Charles questions this (if he does) he should consider the other similar 'literary' devices seen in this assassination elsewhere.


Oswald is in close contact with the Russians in Mexico; He shows signs of having inside knowledge of communist internal affairs; JFK is set-up as having betrayed the Soviet premier he is in secret communication with by breaking his word on Viet Nam; Defector and traitor Lee Harvey Oswald, who is in direct contact with KGB, then assassinates Kennedy.

Like the many Oswald doubles running around Dallas framing Oswald, this plan was never executed (but it was available).



.

[Charles Drago]

I personally feel what JFK was doing was presenting the offenses of communism in such a way as to make the comparisons to how it also applied to the CIA unavoidable.

Hey, this sort of thread is quite appropriately more about "feeling" than "knowing" --much as my threads in which I hypothesize about the nature of the Chicago operation and possible communist and/or Nazi entrapments of JFK are based upon and encourage the application of intuition.

What I found amazing in Unspeakable was the ingenious device Pope JohnXXIII used in his intervention in Pacem In Terris. The Pope did a similar thing as JFK and I think Douglass is hinting JFK might have followed his lead with some clever psychology. When Kennedy tried his Pacem In Terris in the form of the American University speech it didn't have the same effect and probably ended up getting him killed.

In re the John XXXV/John XX111 comparison: Wishful thinking, pleasant dream. And please don't demean JFK's 6/10/63 "and we are all mortal" speech by favorably comparing it to his earlier Cold War rhetoric being disected on this thread.

By the way, you don't have to sell me on either the spiritual content and power of the American University speech or its status as a death warrant.

Charles will cringe[.]/

We've come to know each other well.


[quote=Albert Doyle]I believe a very sinister plot was happening where Oswald was going to be claimed to have shot Kennedy because he changed his word on Viet Nam as seen in NSAM 273.

CRINGING!


[quote=Albert Doyle]It makes sense to me that there was very likely a plan to use Kennedy's secret communications with Khrushchev to show Kennedy had lost his mind and gone into secret cooperation with the enemy ... I'm beginning to see a pattern in the conspiracy that suggests these people considered they were acting under some kind of valid legal definition.

Now you're on to something. Such has been my contention for some years now. But try to focus on your definition of "these people," and your exercise in applied imagination will begin to pay dividends.

In doing so, you'll begin to build a comprehensive model of the plot. As you use "these people" above, you logically should be referencing individuals within rabidly anti-communist elements of the U.S. military and intelligence communities (and perhaps elsewhere) who were critical components in the Grand Design but who needed a push over the final line.

I think Greg doesn't realize he may have uncovered much more than he thinks and that the real purpose of the NSAM 273 document manipulation wasn't just to allow escalation in Viet Nam but was a clever way to associate it with the reason for the assassination.

Albert, by this time I think you've come to know how much I value your participation here at DPF. But in this instance you're self-contradictory. The plotters at all cost would have avoided correlation between NSAM perfidy and the assassination.

Before Charles questions this (if he does) he should consider the other similar 'literary' devices seen in this assassination elsewhere.

Perhaps, before Albert advises Charles to "consider the other 'literary' devices" evident in this case, Albert should read Charles's work, as published here and elsewhere over the past 20 years, in which Charles has followed the lead of George Michael Evica and investigated the theatrical constructs of the Kennedy regicide.