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

[Jan Klimkowski]

Read in full, the speech is framed as an appeal to newspapers to tow the line in the Cold War.

Its first significant anecdote is:

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.

The theme is picked up with:

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.

This all reads as a stereotypical Cold War speech by a western political leader.

The passage excerpted by Greg in the original post is not, in my judgement, akin to Eisenhower's military-industrial-complex moment.

My point is simply this: I'm not certain that at the time he made the speech JFK fully understood what you, I, and a handful of others now acknowledge to be true -- which is to say, the nature of the Unthinkable.

Wasn't it RFK who, some time after his brother's murder, said words to the effect of, "I thought I knew how the world worked, but I didn't"?

I agree with Charles' interpretation here.

[Greg Burnham]

In my opinion, there are several "deep" layers interwoven into this speech.

Although I agree that it can be interpreted as nothing more than a Cold Warrior's appeal to the sensibilities of the press, it is much more than merely that, IMO. I even believe that JFK was correct in making such a speech, even if only for that one reason, namely, protecting National Security.

However, that is a minimalistic interpretation and is lacking in historic context. The "entity" that he is describing is not limited by political ideology, by nationality, by allegiance, nor by religious fervor. It is not limited to communists, fascists, capitalists, Christians, Muslims, or Jews.

His description of the "unspeakable" fits the bill perfectly. Whether or not he meant to convey this interpretation of his words is unknown. However, it seems to be a HUGE stretch to imagine that he did not.

[Peter Lemkin]

"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..."

-- from JFK's "The President and the Press" speech

Yes, I join the chorus of 'Great Find'...hidden in plain sight. He was, IMO, talking beyond the 'Soviets' and to the 'Unspeakable'.

[Charles Drago]

In my opinion, there are several "deep" layers interwoven into this speech.

Although I agree that it can be interpreted as nothing more than a Cold Warrior's appeal to the sensibilities of the press, it is much more than merely that, IMO. I even believe that JFK was correct in making such a speech, even if only for that one reason, namely, protecting National Security.

However, that is a minimalistic interpretation and is lacking in historic context. The "entity" that he is describing is not limited by political ideology, by nationality, by allegiance, nor by religious fervor. It is not limited to communists, fascists, capitalists, Christians, Muslims, or Jews.

His description of the "unspeakable" fits the bill perfectly. Whether or not he meant to convey this interpretation of his words is unknown. However, it seems to be a HUGE stretch to imagine that he did not.

I wish I could agree with you, Greg. But I can't shake the feeling that you're conflating what you, I, and many others wish to believe JFK knew with what in fact he could have understood at the time.

Now if RFK, post-1963, had delivered similar words, I'd support your interpretation of his subtext.

[Peter Lemkin]

Well it was 27 April 1961, what had happened by then that might have made him 'aware'?!.....

[Charles Drago]

Peter,

You're begging a "Bay of Pigs" response.

I'm afraid I can't buy an argument that posits the BOP betrayal as an educational/enlightenment experience sufficient to promote anything more than a nascent awareness of the Unspeakable for JFK.

[Jan Klimkowski]

In my opinion, there are several "deep" layers interwoven into this speech.

Although I agree that it can be interpreted as nothing more than a Cold Warrior's appeal to the sensibilities of the press, it is much more than merely that, IMO. I even believe that JFK was correct in making such a speech, even if only for that one reason, namely, protecting National Security.

However, that is a minimalistic interpretation and is lacking in historic context. The "entity" that he is describing is not limited by political ideology, by nationality, by allegiance, nor by religious fervor. It is not limited to communists, fascists, capitalists, Christians, Muslims, or Jews.

His description of the "unspeakable" fits the bill perfectly. Whether or not he meant to convey this interpretation of his words is unknown. However, it seems to be a HUGE stretch to imagine that he did not.

Greg - I agree that the JFK passage you excerpted in your original speech could theoretically be describing an "entity" which "is not limited by political ideology, by nationality, by allegiance, nor by religious fervor. It is not limited to communists, fascists, capitalists, Christians, Muslims, or Jews."

However, in my judgement, the "HUGE stretch" is to imagine that JFK is describing this "entity" in his speech to the press.

My position is closer to Charles', in that I accept that JFK appears to have been on a journey leading to a withdrawal from military-industrial-complex war on Vietnam, the banishment of many key OSS/CIA/intel leaders, and the dismantling of the Federal Reserve's power. However, it was a journey, and JFK was travelling the path.

[Seamus Coogan]

In my opinion, there are several "deep" layers interwoven into this speech.

Although I agree that it can be interpreted as nothing more than a Cold Warrior's appeal to the sensibilities of the press, it is much more than merely that, IMO. I even believe that JFK was correct in making such a speech, even if only for that one reason, namely, protecting National Security.

However, that is a minimalistic interpretation and is lacking in historic context. The "entity" that he is describing is not limited by political ideology, by nationality, by allegiance, nor by religious fervor. It is not limited to communists, fascists, capitalists, Christians, Muslims, or Jews.

His description of the "unspeakable" fits the bill perfectly. Whether or not he meant to convey this interpretation of his words is unknown. However, it seems to be a HUGE stretch to imagine that he did not.

Greg - I agree that the JFK passage you excerpted in your original speech could theoretically be describing an "entity" which "is not limited by political ideology, by nationality, by allegiance, nor by religious fervor. It is not limited to communists, fascists, capitalists, Christians, Muslims, or Jews."

However, in my judgement, the "HUGE stretch" is to imagine that JFK is describing this "entity" in his speech to the press.

My position is closer to Charles', in that I accept that JFK appears to have been on a journey leading to a withdrawal from military-industrial-complex war on Vietnam, the banishment of many key OSS/CIA/intel leaders, and the dismantling of the Federal Reserve's power. However, it was a journey, and JFK was travelling the path.

Dear Jan and Charles.

I discussed this speeches misappropriation by Jason Bermas in his awful NWO documentary. I concur with you both fully. Kennedy is clearly asking for the press to tow the line in the cold war. This is what I wrote in Alex Jones Part II and to my knowledge I am the first person to have actually been critical about the speech and its usage by unscrupulous or over imaginative others.

The secret society BS out there is the last bastion of truly bad researchers. So many things overlap and so many things don't to lay it all at the feet of one institution, group or individual is frighteningly naive.

Bermas's film was spoiled right off the batthree minutes and forty-two seconds into the productionby his misappropriating Kennedy's April 27, 1961 speech made to the American Newspaper Publishers Association. Granted, Kennedy does discuss the need for a free and open society, and yes, he does speak out against secret societies, secret oaths and the potential power of government taking advantage of any given situation and imposing censorship. It's powerful stuff.

In particular, Kennedy's prophetic jibes at the "trivialization" and "tabloidization" of the media, which few people seem to note, are arguably the most important part of his speech.

What is alarmingly dishonest, however, is that Bermas has used an edited version of this speech to make it appear as if Kennedy is rallying against a Jonesian-style secret society, when in point of fact, he clearly is not. In his speech, before Kennedy famously states "We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy," Bermas has removed three contextually related paragraphs which precede this famously quoted line, and which, to all but the most imaginative thinkers, make it quite clear that Kennedy is referring not to some collusive NWO conspiratorial-style cabal, but rather to the conventional Cold War forces of communism.

And sadly, there are more than a few wishful thinkers out there. Places like YouTube (where it's quite likely Bermas picked this up from) abound with edited versions of "The speech that got Kennedy killed" or "JFK New World Order Illuminati Speech." No one realizes (least of all Bermas) that Kennedy delivering a speech to the likes of Henry Luce about secret groups is akin to Mowgli giving a warning to Shere Khan about his human diet. Thus, Bermas, without even knowing it, stands guilty of "cutting the cloth to suit the fit," in much the same way as John Hankey inventively turns John Connally into an arch-conspirator and has George Bush threatening Hoover with a dart gun in his Hoover's FBI office.

In Bermas' history lesson about the NWO, he completely overlooks the fact that Hitler himself was a conspiracy theorist of some renown. It was this, plus his own racist beliefs, that led him to exterminate millions of Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Socialists, as well as some 20,000 to 80,000 Freemasons (Christopher Hodapp, Freemasonry for Dummies, pg 85). Bermas goes on to name numerous secret groups from the Masons to Bilderbergers, Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, and the ever-present Skull and Bones. Collectively, according to Bermas, these groups form the New World Order, and together they inflate his hypothesis that all are working toward the same goals. Let's have a quick look at this twisted mass Bermas construes.
Masons Though the Masons only account for a speck of the invisible empire on Prison Planet, the Libertarian Jones has a strange relationship with Freemasonry. According to Jones, groups like the Freemasons supported many prominent "founding fathers" of the United States.

Alex Jones, in one of his more sober moments, in a discussion with a caller on his show, actually said much of the above. However, he couldn't help but add that only the higher levels, or 33rd degree Masons, are dangerous or enlightened.

President Harry Truman was a bona fide and ardent mason and reached the much-vaunted 33rd degree level of Masonry. He also created the CIA in 1947. Yet in 1963 he wrote a famous editorial decrying the some of the operations that the CIA had partaken of as being way beyond what he had imagined. Allen Dulles was so worried about this column, which was published a month after JFK's murder, that he paid a personal visit to Truman and tried to get him to retract it. (Jim DiEugenio; Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman, and Bugliosi's Bungle, Part 8; Section VI)

Further, Truman's 33rd degree level of Masonry didn't stop his administration from being undermined by the Republicans and the likes of Joe McCarthy which eventually saw the resultant rise of Eisenhower in 1952 over Adlai Stevenson (Richard M. Fried, Nightmare in Red pgs 7-10, 16-17). Warren Commission member Senator Richard Russell was a high-level Freemason. He was also the most ardent critic of the lone gunman line on the panel (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, pgs 282-298). And he was the first of the Commissioners to break away from the Oswald-did-it-alone scenario. In fact, he actually conducted his own private inquiry while the Commission was in progress.
Bohemian Grove, CFR, Trilateralists, Skull & Groaners According to author Michael Wala, Eisenhower was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and a regular visitor to Bohemian Grove. That didn't stop him from warning the US about the acquisition of power by the Military-Industrial Complex. Being granted entrance to a place like Bohemian Grove did not stop Bobby Kennedy (who addressed a Grove retreat while Attorney General) from having his brother and himself both shot under the most suspicious circumstances. (William Domhoff, The Bohemian Grove and Other Retreats; p. 27)
Richard Nixon, also a CFR member, didn't get any help from his fellow Bohemians during Watergate. Likewise, for Jimmy Carter: Being a member of Bohemian Grove, the CFR, and an ardent Trilateralist didn't stop him from signing into existence the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) which concluded there was a probable conspiracy in the killings of both Kennedy and King. Nor did the protection of these groups help Carter when the Republicans derailed his re-election campaign with the October Surprise.
Touching on the Skull and Bones fraternity, Bermas has clearly never heard of another prominent Bonesman, Robert Lovett, who was scathing of CIA foreign policy under the Eisenhower administration. (Jim DiEugenio; Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman, and Bugliosi's Bungle, Part 8; Section V)

Another Warren Commission member, John Sherman Cooper, was also a member of Yale's Skull and Bones Society, and his doubts about the lone gunman conclusion have been well documented. Being a member of Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, the Trilateral Commission, and the CFR didn't help George Bush get elected over Bill Clinton. Clinton is a known Bilderberger whose connections didn't save his "socialistic" healthcare initiatives, nor save him from being smeared in numerous supposed scandals around his business dealings in Little Rock, Arkansas, nor from being impeached by the US House of Representatives when his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was exposed.
The point is (as anyone who studies the Power Elite well knows) that there are splits among the upper classes. For instance, there can be little doubt that around 2004-2005, when the Iraq War began to head south, that there was a powerful reaction against the Bush family. For Bush was such a horrible president that he endangered the future of the GOP. None of the Bush family connections saved them from this. It's a little known fact that many a "crank's" arch-conspirator, George Bush Sr., signed the JFK Act in October of 1992. The tickler here is that it came under the steerage of Bill Clinton and led to the establishment of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in 1994, whence a number of sealed documents from Carter's HSCA saw the light of day.

[John Korienek Jr]

In his The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up, Gibson suggests there is a secret Cabal located in the Council of Foreign Relations in NYC that may have been the prime mover of the plot.
He is mentioned in the few pages that Jim Marrs devoted to the assassination in his Rule by Secrecy.
Funny, looks like nobody is picking up on this material.

[Albert Doyle]

His description of the "unspeakable" fits the bill perfectly. Whether or not he meant to convey this interpretation of his words is unknown. However, it seems to be a HUGE stretch to imagine that he did not.

[Off-Topic] I used the search engine to find an excuse to mention I'm just starting to voraciously dig-in to 'JFK And The Unspeakable' by James Douglass.


.