On June 20th, 2023, I heard presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. address Saint Anselm College about peace and diplomacy. He acknowledged a commencement speech by his uncle, John F. Kennedy Jr., at American University in Washington, D.C. that was delivered 60 years prior (June 10, 1963). After establishing context of its relevance, I was curious about the details and clicked over to a recording of the aforementioned speech. I was enthralled by the speech that would later develop the moniker “The Peace Speech”. I spoke about it to several others to which one of my trusted bitcoin friends recommended “The President and the Press” as another fascinating oration by JFK. These two speeches, coupled with the legend of JFK's rivalry with the institution of central banking, have encouraged me to celebrate his timeless words with two contemporary commentaries on messages that should be at the forefront of all stories told about him. I encourage the reader, as you would any other commentary on an original work, to read or listen to the speech before and after you read my essay. Do your own research!
A Review on JFK’s The President and the Press
“The President and the Press”, lasting 19:20 as short as it was, spent the first 5 minutes of the message to the American Newspaper Publisher Association with relevant comic levity. Journalism was not nearly as partisan as it is now, but that does not mean people's sensitivities were not tuned to political nuances of the day. He wanted to make sure the audience of publishers had an open heart and mind for this message. Several times JFK mentions that he was not looking to combat with the press at this particular time.
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.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press.
JFK mentioned two topics of concern that should also concern his audience. These needs he identified were "greater public information" and "greater official security". This concerned a president in 1961 with no internet, a divided political world, and globalization only in its infancy. Fast forward 62 years, we have exponentially better communication, but a public that seems to be more in the dark than ever before. News stories that one would think are relevant to public safety and freedom of thought rise up and vanish before a resolution can ever be found. Motives of recent mass shooters, Nord Stream attack findings, alien congressional hearing decisions, U.S biolabs in Ukraine, riots in France coverage, and FTX CEO absolved of criminal charges are just a few topics that have wide ranging impact to the public but the mainstream media do not seem to feel they are worth pursuing answers or details. These observations could be either a failure to answer the decades old call for "greater public information" or a vigorous and expansive execution of "greater official security".
A couple of curious notes when analyzing this concern of JFK begins with the need for a high degree of general trust. The decency of good actors can only carry a social contract so far. Additionally, while this speech is called "The President and the Press", there is one other stakeholder here: the "People" or "Public". The Public are at the mercy of the moral agreement between two other parties. We don't need a degree in game theory to know the inevitability of the two parties' potential to prioritize their benefit over the passive third.
In JFK's breakdown of "secrecy", he voices the very fear I just mentioned,
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.
Without mechanisms in place to mitigate the gravity of centralization, the owners of the mediums of information exchange have an ever-growing incentive to use their tools for personal gains. And honestly, should they not? What then should they use their private property for if not for private profit? Due to technological constraints, JFK's hope in transparency and security is to convince the gatekeepers of those concepts to act without their own benefit in mind. I am sure that something like the Bitcoin Network would have been a prime example for him to point to had it been discovered during his time.
Of course, he does acknowledge the Cold War numerous times as "Today no war has been declared" and "no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired." Then he says something intriguing that is not as straightforward as it appears.
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.
If it was just the Soviets, maybe he would have prefaced this description with them or a similar word. The fact that JFK starts the serious portion of the speech describing net negatives of secret societies would lend one to believe that most everything about the rest of the speech had a partial or total relationship to that subject.
Describing that secret society as “monolithic” (large, powerful) and “ruthless” means he isn't speaking about a simple college fraternity. We can understand that JFK recognizes this threat as not a trifling matter. He also states “there is little value in ensuring the survival of the nation if our traditions do not survive with it.” JFK clearly feels that preserving the USA without preserving the founding principles for the people of the USA. These concepts are peppered throughout the speech: freedom, independence, and transparent government leadership, particularly. It is hard to honestly claim that the government of the USA has made strides to enable these rights to the people. More laws have been enacted to constrain our movement and communication. More taxes have been levied to restrict our individual economic power. More private technology has been co-opted as an extension of government surveillance. Why do people think that we can make the proverbial “they” see the benefit of Bitcoin? They, such as tech monopolies, mainstream media, and their government allies do understand, and shudder at the thought. Bitcoin is antithetical to their apparent aim which is a pollution of JFK’s plea: “greater official security” at the expense of public information.
JFK touches several open-ended examples and philosophical questions directed at the audience.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news.
Compare this to modern day when our current administration has used Facebook, Twitter, and a short lived Disinformation Governance Board to precisely “govern the flow of news.” One would think JFK to be some far-right extremist with this type of domestic policy. He did not think the media is a tool for the government to keep the Public in the dark. If this was America in the 1960s, why have we become so similar to the rivals we fought in the Cold War today?
JFK urges his audience to consider if the topic of note “is in the interest of the national security.” To that nature, if there is some information during a time of war that would hurt war efforts, it is imperative that the news media help preserve the efforts of the country. When one surveys the current state of the media and compares it against this JFK speech, one cannot dismiss that the media handles news stories as if the nation were at war. But with whom is the USA at war? As painful of a conclusion as it is, the only logical answer is the USA and its tech/media allies are in a “cold and secret war” with the very Public that JFK has “complete confidence…whenever they are fully informed.”
How can the State go to war with its own People? What is there to gain to subjugate and lie to your own citizens? As Murray Rothbard puts it, the State is “the most extensive criminal (and hence the most immoral) group in society.” Additionally, he posits
the State obtains their revenue by coercion, by threatening dire penalties should the income not be forthcoming. That coercion is known as “taxation”
All other [non-criminal] persons in society obtain the income voluntarily; either by selling goods or services…or by voluntary gift.
The State recognizes a valuable resource in its people. Even Winston Churchill said, “Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have.” Seeing people as both valuable and confiscatable is no different than a rival nation recognizing a strategic port, river, oil field, or farmable land belonging to another.
Thus this “cold and secret war”, as JFK said, is composed of nontraditional warfare such as,
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
For as many decades back as I can reason and recollect, have we not seen countless narratives championed by the co-opted media and social media outlets to force inoculation, take away personal arms, weaken through social division, guilt trip for using energy, distract with fleeting sensationalism, hide embarrassing stories that would hurt the support of the regime, imprison those that expose lies, amnesty those that enable lies, propagate an oppressive dollar enforced by wanton international military intervention, and create desperate lies about the decentralized private money Bitcoin? Yes, this is secret warfare JFK warned the Press and the Public 60-ish years ago. However, because of the sweet-tasting rhetoric from the politicians, the hypnotizing distractions from technology, and the blind trust in institutional media, most of the public would be considered “captured”.
JFK was adamant in this speech that he has an “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.”
This flies in the face of anything we know now from our government about the proxy wars we fight, the economic damage done with a fiat monetary system, or how the domestic spending policies waste billions for the sake of buying votes and bribing corporations.
He then goes on to make three profound statements that are in direct opposite of anything that would describe a modern politician or media mogul.
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.
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.
Not only is JFK describing a government that vectored away from this vision of transparent and open service to the Public, but he is also making these statements without any leading reasoning. If this speech was simply about the Cold War efforts versus the Soviets, why does he repeat multiple times that he pledges commitment to transparency? What mistakes does he want pointed out? What Soviets would he debate? Who was hiding information from the Press and Public? It is confusing if we accept the simple narrative. If we look at this speech as a stance against the encroachment of secret societies waging a secret war on the Public in America, then JFK is saying he refuses to bend the knee to people that would lie, steal, and cheat the public for selfish gain.
Richard Nixon was beaten by JFK in the 1960 presidential election. He was also the one that removed the dollar from the gold peg as president in 1971. It is not far-fetched that there was some undercurrent of behind-the-scenes influence from those that would have wanted such a move to take place earlier. This speech carries a spirit of rebellion in his words and tone, especially when discussing the quotes above. Not in the sense that he is fully in control, rather there is uncertainty, but holds on to hope based on what he knows about the Press audience and Public at-large. The one thing he is certain of is that if the Public is not allowed to know the failures of the President and government, America as JFK understands it ceases to exist.
It begs the question if JFK would see modern day America as his worst fear. The homeland is safe from state enemies, there have been multiple technological booms where America is near the forefront of each. In economic hardship, the USA tends to experience the lightest blow. All of these are positive outcomes, but the cost of these outcomes would likely disappoint him in the end. Are dozens of covert special military operations in foreign lands the type of foreign policy that reflects founding American principles? Would JFK marvel and celebrate a growing technocracy or be shocked at how much privacy the average American handed over to corporations for a paltry price? Would JFK be surprised at the size of the national debt especially when he finds out it snowballed due to the decisions of his election rival only 8 years after his assassination? It is hard to dismiss the eerie warnings from a silenced president coupled with the changes in the direction of the economy and personal liberty shortly thereafter.
JFK was sure of the existence an unseen enemy. This speech was surely not just about the Soviet communists. This was about recruiting help from the Press to be on the side that helps the Public before they compromise themselves and their readers.
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.
Needless to say, JFK lost that fight. The free thought remnant wade through a sea of normies and NPCs on a daily basis today. This is the result of a compromised media institution. This is also the result of the risk-free existence of certain institutions closest to the money printer. After 1971, the power of the USA government to prop up winners in the economy became unlimited. The best economic survivability strategy was no longer dependent on how well one provided value to the Public, rather how well they could possibly serve the President (and government). A weaponized money can be used domestically to skew economic results and infringe on open international markets whenever it benefitted their interest. Using the captured Press, these actions can be advertised as the endlessly ambiguous idioms "for the greater good" or "democracy", but that euphemism always hides the individual whose "good" matters most (hint: it is never the Public/People).
Bitcoin, taking money creation out of the hands of politicians, destroys the cronyism supply chain that has grown magnitudes more powerful since 1971's Nixon Shock. Never has there been a greater form of Stockholm Syndrome than a Public that doesn't run full force into money that disables the greatest thief in society from their actions. The Public has been groomed to accept one inefficient actor as legitimate because of a power they stole before the Public had realized. Do you really believe the old adage "possession is 9/10th of the law"? If so, then you would be the perfect accomplice of state coercion. If the Press did not work, to the fear of JFK, to "stifle controversy"for the sake of the future Presidents and governments, we may have been saved by good actors long ago. This unfolding of history truly shows what the fiat hypocrite Charlie Munger says that "no one is greater than their incentives."
It is interesting that in JFK's conclusion he would briefly shift to transformative technologies that changed the course of the world: compass, gunpowder, printing press. The compass was the beginning of globalization. Gunpowder was the beginning of the risk of ultimate civilization destruction. The printing press expanded the ability to record and disseminate knowledge only bound by time and space. These tools advanced humanity faster than anything until the internet removed the constraints on the printing press. Follow that with the discovery and the perseverance of Bitcoin, and I cannot find a scenario where JFK does not identify Bitcoin as an entity that will “welcome controversy” to compete with Kenesyian economics. Through the lens of the truly scarce monetary system, a nation could not operate a crooked fiscal policy “without debate, without criticism.” Most importantly, it is my belief that if JFK lived in a time where he could do his research about the effective decentralization, trustless, anti-censorship, and borderless Bitcoin network, he would not need to plead for the trust of a media that could be bought or compromised. He would recognize that Bitcoin was indeed the only temporal way for “man [to] be what he was born to be: free and independent.”
»»»»»» Twitter | Youtube | Citadel21.com | #WEAREALLHODLONAUT ««««««