Thank you. I've read and reviewed the whole speech, quite a few years ago.

It's from the official US archives which also contains a video link to the speech. https://archive.org/details/jfk_secret_societies

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)

It did not say anything about those specific names.

Correct. I gave these as examples of secret societies that many anons are familiar with.

It's also critical thinking to say this is JFK highlighting the cabal.

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.

If you wanted to see the whole thing you can just go find the full context.

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.

Thank you. I've read and reviewed the whole speech, quite a few years ago.

It did not say anything about those specific names.

Correct. I gave these as examples of secret societies that many anons are familiar with.

It's also critical thinking to say this is JFK highlighting the cabal.

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.

If you wanted to see the whole thing you can just go find the full context.

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.