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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Did you find this article helpful?

If so, please consider a donation to help the evolution of Wake Up World and show your support for alternative media.

Your generosity is greatly appreciated.

Wake Up World's latest videos

  • Scott Gentry

    I suppose JFKs’ revelation to the press shouldn’t have constitued a surprise for me but the existence of domestic private societies/organizatiions has been public knowledge for years. How extensive the Communist threat to our world was back in the 50s and 60s wasn’t quite so apparent and to this date we still search out answers as to the why of the President’s assasination in 1963. Not unlike Martin Luther King in the late 60s, I believe Kennedy had some foresight into the threat he was facing as a result of the termoil associated with the cold war meance, the communist conspiracies and it’s domestic implications. It’s a real leap to the absurd to believe that Kennedy’s death was effected by domestic considerations as is/has been the positioins proffered by those attempting to bury the truth in the assasination investigations.

    • Johngatto

      The reason these devastating opinions are not widely known is a legacy of rhe net of information suppression imposed on our society by our press snd institutional schools.Herevis a glaring example: onOctober3rd,2003, in avradiondiscussion on Israeli radio between premier ArielSharon snd Defense head,ShimonPeres,Peres cautioned Sharon to be csreful sbou policy decisions that involved Palestine, on grounds they might. “Upset” Americans, a proposition,seemingly reasonable to which Sharin responded with derision: saying (para phrased)”We have nothingbtobfesr from Americsn public opinion.WeownAmerica snd the Americans kow it.Not a word of thisvwasvrepored by TheNEwYorkTimes, The Washington Post, Time Magazine,Newsweek, or sny of thebthree major tv snd radio networks,but awAS carried by the BBC,Veteran’s Nagazine, snd most of the major world press like Britain’s GuAZDIAN,atHevIrish Times,And the Hong Kong Morning News.mIf our “best” newspapers omit
      Reporting newslikevthisDELIBERATELY,myouneon’t be (shouldn’t be astonished to hear they were aware if,but kept silent about , sn offer by the Germsn militsry to end world war2 in1843, or it’s despcusiin to suppress news of US drone bases in SaudiArabia or our orison camp program of “extraordinary rendition.” It serves notice thatbthebinformatiin retailed by commercial journ slims is delsys to be held suspect,because no agency of rigorous morality hils those corporations to account, sny more than does “free msrket”internal safeguards

  • Ronnel Petersmith

    This makes JFK sound like a mad man. And now we have a free (my butt) press that prints only what it wants Americans to know!


    Clearly, he was talking about the Russian government and spies, not any secret societies.

    • Dallas Fowler

      Until about 15 years ago Russia never had the capabilities.The war machine woudn’t go away after ww2.To much money to be made!!


    I find it sad that when people in the past tried to
    inform the public of what was really going on,
    we seem to have a very disinterested public who
    just wanted a comfortable life.

  • ken koenig

    JFK was reffering to the ILUMINATTI — the super secret group of 3,000 families worlwide who are the infamous NEW WORLD ORDER gang that engineered 9 / 11 and are pushing for a meaningless one world religion, killing off 75 % of mankind ( see GEORGIA GUIDESTONES ) and instituting a CASHLESS MONETARY SYSTEM that will require the ” MARK OF THE BEAST ” to buy and sell — they have tiurned our ” military / industrial complex ” into their empire enforcement machine

    • royce

      Thats rite Ken. Thats exactly rite. Help us spread the word Ken, And also Join the Tea party if you havent Brother. But you hit the nail on the head when you said all that.

  • Snowy Smith

    The Protocols of the Elders of Zion “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” the classic anti-Semitic hoax, first published in Russia in 1903, that claims a Jewish plot to take over the world.
    This book is NOT a hoax.
    It is 100% TRUE.
    If you do not think so YOU are an idiot.
    The JEW CRIMINAL MAFIA has hijacked the American government.
    The New World Order is a JEW Communist Dictatorship.
    We are all going to be slaves.
    The American “PEOPLE” have gone from the most LOVED in the World to the most HATED in the World as a direct result of the WAR MONGERING JEWS.
    There is only ONE group of TERRORISTS in the World today and they are the WAR MONGERING JEWS.
    It’s time to impeach JEW PUPPET OBAMA.

    I am totally amazed that most of the Americans are still asleep.
    All those IDIOTS who voted for JEW PUPPET Obama.
    They are coming for your GUNS.
    All you have to do is STUDY the JEW Bolshevik Russian Revolution.
    Study the complete process, every tactic, every step the JEWS did in the premeditated Murder, GENOCIDE of 62 Million Russians.

    JEW USA New World Order BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION coming to America 2013.
    There is only ONE group of TERRORISTS in the World today and they are the WAR MONGERING JEWS.
    It’s time to impeach JEW PUPPET OBAMA.

    • Name (required)Yassur

      Snowy, you are right on the mark. You could have added that they had Kennedy assassinated too. Read Michael Collins Piper’s book “Final Judgment” to see the reason and the links to these so called Jewish
      perps. The people that Jim Garrison linked to the assassination were all connected to Jewish interests. These people have no morals and no God except satan. Meanwhile the nations are too damn stupid to see what is easily available for them to read that would reveal it all. By their historical fruit you shall know them, devils in little Gods clothing.

      • Troy

        If we all want to know who is in charge, just think about the one entity we are not allowed to criticize: ZIONIST ISRAEL. Throughout the decades, any elected official, or anyone running for an elected position found out quite quickly how they can be villified. Just make one comment toward Israel that can be deemed derogatory. I’m surprised my computer hasn’t been built with an internal “Anti-Semitist” finger shocker. Oops, I just gave someone belonging to God’s Chosen Race an idea.

  • Ian Wulf

    It seems like this speech was mostly intended to put forth a call to action to the press and civilians alike to decide how to handle the dissemination of information during the Cold War (as it related to national security). I think the paragraph on secrecy (which mentioned “secret societies” among a list of other things utilizing the word “secret” in a form of literary parallelism) was meant to serve as a reminder of the sentiment of the American public – that they inherently opposed limitations to freedom of speech. JFK seems to dance on a razor’s edge, balancing concern for national security with the implications it would have for American civil rights. He didn’t want his administration (or the American government in general, really) to be responsible for curtailing freedom of speech during a psuedo war against Communism (and possibly other tacit, inconspicuous forces), especially during an era where civil rights were such a large concern (namely minorities and the Civil Rights movement). It’s hard to justify increased regulation of the press, and information in general, when technically the nation has not acknowledged that it is formally at war with anyone.

    The real question, I guess, is whether Kennedy was strictly referring to Communism, and nations/organizations that adhered to that ideology, as the threat which America was combating and needed to protect its secrets from. He did seem concerned that their might be some people, either within the American government or possibly operating inconspicuously in American society, that might have been keen to censor and bottleneck the information presented to the public about America’s affairs overseas.

    Clearly, Kennedy was concerned about information leaking to America’s enemies around the world (who he said had boasted of easy access to information they might otherwise have had to obtain more covertly). He felt that the nation needed to more closely guard its secrets. But on the other hand, he knew that increased national security inherently conflicted with the ability of the public to keep track of the nation’s actions and to construct well-informed opinions about those actions in order to affect policy.

  • d marino

    The Jewish controlled press does NOT want a free and independent people but a dominated people whereby the Jews are in control.