JFK’s Speech On Secret Societies
John
F. Kennedy gave this speech to the American Newspaper Publishers
Association on 27th April 1961, two and a half years before his
assassination (November 22, 1963).
He
details his thoughts on secret societies and what seems to be a call to
action. Some believe that he is referring to secret societies being
established within the US government and to others it is a cryptic
message about an overseas communist threat.
I
will leave it up to you to come to your own conclusion as to what this
speech is about, but it is apparent that he is well aware that secret
societies exist and are attempting to infiltrate society. In his own
words he finds the situation “repugnant”
Below
are some quotes from the event, followed by a video that broadcasts the
essence of his speech. Lastly, the entire speech has been transcribed
for people who wish to read everything he had to say on that day.
*
“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”
*
“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”
*
“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”
Full Speech
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 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.
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 that 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.
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 a 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment