The President and the Press
JFK wrote a speech, which lasted only 6 minutes, that quickly enumerated his feelings on the media in general, and it's involvement with what can be considered to be by many, cultural Marxism. While short, it was incredibly revealing in to the mindset of JFK and his fight against communism, and what he viewed the primary problem of communist infiltration in America and the rest of the world to be. In my opinion he correctly identified that communism waged a secret, hybrid political war in the U.S., with a mixture of real world violence outside the system and insidious and sometimes even clever political maneuvering within the system achieve their results. A real world event, such as a riot, would intimidate politicians and be used to force their hands in voting a certain way, to provide a particular outcome that could be exploited inside the system and open up more attacks from the outside. Police of course would not be ordered murder people outright, but would be ordered to stand down by high-ranking politicians, to allow an angry mob to murder someone (often with terrorist embedded inside), thus deflecting responsibility on to the crowd and confusing police and unconnected politicians on how the event even occurred. Creating a degree of plausible deniability, a sort of secret war is waged, which is never officially declared but that destroys it's enemies both from tee inside and outside, playing off each strength, and by any means necessary, be it through lies and slander, or at times direct violence. JFK in my opinion accurately predicted what would be the rise of fake news, cultural marxism, the culture wars, and the danger of off-the-books, extra-judicial force to achieve goals outside political arenas, in order to influence what went on in political arenas, and the speech shows how prophetic his words would be in the modern era.

JFK's speech has been analyzed due to it's candidness, references to secret societies, and other intriguing elements over the years, including the secret war he referenced was going on in America; a speech which has been broken apart, and stripped down over time for a deeper meaning, which in my opinion was specifically referring to the threat of communism, and the media's direct or indirect support of it, be it by cultural support, or direct beliefs in communism itself. It has been revealed later in time that indeed many secret communist societies were operating in America, including in journalistic outlets, with journalists and university professors being one of the most popular cover for Russian spies. Russian spies would infiltrate in to American universities and schools, as well as the media, and spread false information in support of communism, often through indirect means, which would convince generations of Americans to belief in communist viewpoints, or show sympathy towards them, thus grooming a group of individuals to support a Russian intervention in to America or support political measures which would be favorable to the communists in time. Many of the university professors who regurgitated the same arguments would merely serve as "useful idiots" to propagate the communist ideas, unaware of the Russian spies in their midsts, but nonetheless pushing the same agenda and acting in accord with the Russian goals, whether knowingly or not. On top of infiltrating universities and media outlets the Russians also created numerous terror cells overseas, such as 17N, and the Red Army Brigade in Italy, groups that referred to themselves as "antifascists".

Modern day terror cells, such as groups calling themselves antifa today, referred to as such and in direct parallel to the problems back in the day, probably in all likelihood are no longer predominately ran by Russian spies, and is likely only filled with those left over from the cold war who were too scared to return home after the fall of the soviet union. Nonetheless these group espouse the same ideology and beliefs as the communist terror cells in Europe and by the Russians, and uses the same tactics as the organizations that came before it. In away these organizations could be seen as a relic of the cold war, organizations that are motivated by the same rhetoric and ideology insidiously implanted in to public schools by various communist groups, particularly the Russians, but no longer ran by the Russian government itself. Given the rise of such groups in America, I feel the speech is more relevant than ever, not only in regards to the groups themselves, but those that support them, such as several mainstream media outlets. Whether by downplaying or even supporting their efforts, communist and by proxy socialist sympathies have lead to a rise in disturbing trends in the U.S. and the rest of Europe, such as a general acceptance of communism and to a lesser extent, socialism which is seen as a crutch or an ally of communism.

Communism resulted in the deaths of at least 100 to 140 million people directly, failed miserably in every country it was in (from Russia, to China, to Ukraine, to Cuba, to Korea) and lead to government mismanagements and resultingly famines that have indirectly killed hundreds of millions of people, potentially over 300 million. On top of this included millions more in slavery or gulags, constant daily oppression and brainwashing that still effects many of it's people today. Many still support the communist ideals, with over 50% of people in Russia wishing for a return of the Soviet Union, and China still be communist to this very day. It's important to understand that the threat of communism is not yet gone, and it's ideologies, still present in many American cultures, lives on today in various forms. Whether knowingly or not, many people endorse cultural marxism or, the viewpoints of communism without themselves explicitly endorsing communism, and ideas that were designed to weaken America from the inside. Be it by weakening the military, getting rid of means to defend ourselves or other such means, political decisions designed to weaken the U.S., internally or overseas, are still endorsed by many political groups today, which still has a purpose of serving our foreign enemies or allowing for internal forces to take over. Another speech, by Yuri x, can also be used to enumerate on this, who was himself once a Russian spy tasked with just such a job.



Anti-fascism and communism - Some Background
The communists historically have preferred to use the term "anti-fascism" to make their views more palatable to the general populace who, by and large widely needed convincing to follow the state's harsh and often oppressive rules that resulted from communistic rule. Riots and disorder was frequent and so, to belay the people's retaliation they often had to invent threats that the government was supposedly fighting in order to justify the often extreme measures they took. For instance, the Berlin Wall was officially known as Antifaschistischer Schutzwall (‘Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart’), denoting the communists peculiar view that they were fighting fascism, or that the wall was used to keep fascists out, rather than keep their own citizens in. The term Schutzwall has defensive connotations of course and is hence used euphemistically here, to give the impression that the people of the GDR had to be protected from an outside threat, when in reality the real reason was much more insidious, to cage their own people in. Many communist terror cells, funded or even created by the soviet union called themselves anti-fascist groups (such as blank x etc.), representing a mindset that could more easily penetrate in to societies not as open to communism or marxist viewpoints, but more open to the idea of uniting to fight a common enemy which could be carefully crafted and controlled in the minds of their followers, and those exposed to the propaganda. This required of course infiltrating or creating major mainstream media establishments, and then selectively revealing their viewpoints and falsified or twisted information in order to rile the people up in support of their goals. It is not a coincidence that after the Cuban, Chinese, and Eastern European revolutions that Russia was quick to show up and "support" these new government, assisting in the destruction of the old to establish a new order. What was presented an organic revolution by the people was instead carefully planned by the Russian government and it's allies, in order to take over more surrounding governments and convert them to communism by force. By pretending that what they were doing was in support of a supposedly unconnected country's revolution, they could give a cover for their invasion, and under the guise of helping the revolutionaries, pretend their actions were not a hostile take over of the country.

While an interesting trend and look in to the mindset and psychology of the communists, it is particularly concerning that this terminology has made it's way in to common vernacular in many western countries, including the United States. Groups, such as Anti-fa, responsible for violence at various anti-government and anti-establishment protests (such as burning down schools and small businesses, apparently to fight "the man", rather than attacking the supposedly evil corporations themselves), have begun springing up in the west, officially declared a terrorist organization in the U.S. and committing acts of violence globally, such as in Germany at the G20 summit (with over 8,000 violent protesters showing up). The Communist mindset, interestingly enough, has at it's core has strangely virtually never really been about the support of the communist system itself, which takes the form of an amorphous rorscheck test, representing whatever the follower projects on to it, but really more so grounded in what they are united against. They claim to dislike capitalism, imperialism and, what they tend to deem "fascism". As fascism is seen as the worst of all of these common enemies, especially in the western world, these countries delved deeply in to a paranoid delusional focus on anti-fascist activities, largely predicated on fighting and developing means to fight a supposed external outside aggressor, or bogeyman, known as "the fascists". While the Nazis were a real threat to Russia once, decades later they had ceased to be a real problem and thus the communist insistence that their organization was necessary to defend against this external threat gave them leniency to operate accordingly as a police state, with the approval of enough within the public sphere and their own militaries. The paranoid delusional tail-spin that would inevitably lead to the organization delving deeper and deeper in to the rabbit hole, and would lead to the organization seeing nazis and fascists everywhere, even where they did not exist, in order to spread and justify the beliefs as well as the actions and behavior of the communist state.

This is occurring today not only by the rise of various terrorist cells and criminal organizations, but also in the media in general. The fear of nazis, or "fascists" is at an all time high, with the president of the United States or Donald Trump erroneously refereed to as a fascist (despite supporting Israel, Jueralism, and having Jewish family members himself, as well as gun rights and other civil liberties), as well as many other politicians. Some believe that up to 29% of the United States are nazis, which despite making up less than .01% of the population, is believed by many to be well over 10%. The great over estimation of nazis and nazi sympathizers, has lead to delusional paranoia to many in the media, who continuously to accuse various political groups of being corrupt, despite walking the claims back merely a few days later. While somewhat ironically Russia is seen as an enemy (with the narrative of Trump-Russia collusion dominating the media space, despite most journalists not believing in the story themselves), Russia has been behind funding groups like Black Lives Matter and antifa, in order to promote extremism in the United States, ironically supporting those that claim the other side are fascists. While a problem on both sides, it nonetheless is odd to see the same claims being supported by the same political party the Russians infiltrated before, and the general same tactics being used.


The actual speech itself
What's interesting about the speech to me is not the contents themselves, but how it would go on to predict and correctly assess the problems not only of the day, but of the future. JFK refers to a secret culture war going on in America, pushed strangely by the media, that despite giving him praise, seemed to be endorsing dangerous points of view. While JFK speaks of regulations on the media, he ends the speech with the idea that regulating freedom of speech is a problem as well, and encourages the media to be self regulating while only alluding to possible restrictions in the future. In my opinion he correctly identified the danger of fake news, and the harm it could have to national security, as well as the culture wars taking place in America. JFK prefaces the argument with allusions to Karl Marx and the dangers of communism, and laments that only if the media had been more concerned with it's dangers, in a facetious way asking to have given the man (Karl Marx) more money, that maybe the horrors of communism could have been avoided all together. "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."

While an important pretext to his reference of the secret societies in America being communist (including terror cells, at universities, various journalist outlets and even the growing hippie movement, 10% of it's members of which were communist at the time), the real importance is in the paragraphs after this, detailing the danger. While previously he speaks of communism and the media, and after he speaks of potential solutions and their allies, the middle of the speech details the threat itself, which is eerily familiar to today's struggles. "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."

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.