JFK's Secret Societies Speech -- Infiltration Instead of Invasion
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (25)
sorted by:
Thank you. I've read and reviewed the whole speech, quite a few years ago.
Is this actually correct? This is not an "official US archive". It's a post/compilation written by "American President John F. Kennedy" The speech is certain available in its entirety, but if this edited version is part of some official US archive, I've yet to see it. (Archive.org doesn't qualify)
Correct. I gave these as examples of secret societies that many anons are familiar with.
Well, flesh it out and make the argument. By the way, I don't think what you say here is true; "Critical thinking is saying X". Critical thinking is not saying or making an assertion. It's a methodology about HOW we review information that we have at hand. You might assert that critical thinking leads to the conclusion that JKF is highlighting the Cabal, but not that it is equivalent to saying that. As far as I can see.
Yes, I know that Q references the secret societies, and specifically in relation to JFK.
Actually, I have done this in the past. What I am saying is, anons need to review the whole speech in its full textual and historical context. Do you disagree?
In an edited version of my comment above, I've added a link to the speech. I know well that Q referenced secret societies, but this speech is what it is, in full context.
I don't think your reply here is much of a rebuttal. I'd be interested to read a serious rebuttal of why this speech COULD NOT BE about the Soviet conspiracy, and MUST be about secret societies aka the Cabal. I'm all ears. But I'm wary of prejudice and bias, and when we anons ride short drift with what appear to be foregone conclusions, it raises red flags for me.
It's OK to disagree, but surely our collective aim should be to apply as rigorous a self-examination and review of our own approaches as possible.
Is it a debate your want or an argument about how you don't like the way I said something? If you just want to get into that discussion then we should take it to pm.
I find arguing with someone's tone just derails a thread.
Thanks. When I comment, I tend to write out fast, throw up the discussion, and then edit back. Probably not the best approach, but due to time zone issues, usually, I'm not engaging with someone who responds within 10 minutes!!!!
I edited out the section you quote here, because, as you rightly point out, its unproductive. Derails is the right word, and you are right to point it out. mea culpa.
I'm glad to hear that. I understand that sometimes we write things hastily and it can read in a way we didn't mean or intend for it to read.
I try my best to write in a neutral way, but I also tend to write fast. For example, I realized that I wrote four times in my comment the same phrase. I didn't even realize I had done it until after the comment went live.