Illuminati dubstep Secret Society testo (John F. Kennedy) traduzione

Illuminati dubstep Secret Society testo (John F. Kennedy)Stasera un gran bel pezzo di dubsptep, che è mixato con un discorso del Presidente degli Stati Uniti John Fitzgerald Kennedy, un famoso discorso  contro le società segrete che ai suoi tempi avevano troppo potere.

Il discorso era chiaramente rivolto alla CIA che all’inizio degli anni ’60 in America aveva un potere incredibile, un vero stato nello sttato, che rovesciava governi, aveva un suo esercito, faceva rivoluzioni e che in molti pensano che abbia ucciso lo stesso Presidente Kennedy, proprio poco dopo questo discorso, che anni dopo, molti storici lessero come la condanna a morte che lo stesso JFK si firmò.

Di seguito, il testo originale completo del discorso, per intero: 

 

  • 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.

Traduzione ( è solo una parte del discorso sopra):

 

  • La parola segretezza è in sé ripugnante in una società libera e aperta e noi come popolo ci opponiamo storicamente alle società segrete, ai giuramenti segreti, alle procedure segrete. Abbiamo deciso molto tempo fa che i pericoli rappresentati da eccessi di segretezza e dall’occultamento dei fatti superano di gran lunga i rischi di quello che invece saremmo disposti a giustificare. Non c’è ragione di opporsi al pericolo di una società chiusa imitandone le stesse restrizioni. E non c’è ragione di assicurare la sopravvivenza della nostra nazione se le nostre tradizioni non sopravvivono con essa.
  • Stiamo correndo un gravissimo pericolo, che si preannuncia con le pressioni per aumentare a dismisura la sicurezza, posta nelle mani di chi è ansioso di espanderla sino al limite della censura ufficiale e dell’occultamento. Non lo consentirò, fin dove mi sarà possibile. E nessun membro della mia Amministrazione, a prescindere dal suo alto o basso livello, civile o militare, dovrebbe interpretare queste mie parole come una scusa per imbavagliare le notizie, soffocare il dissenso, occultare i nostri errori o negare alla stampa e al pubblico i fatti che meritano di conoscere.
  • Chiedo però a ogni editore, a ogni direttore e a ogni giornalista della nazione di riesaminare i suoi stessi parametri e di riconoscere la natura del pericolo che corre il nostro Paese. Solitamente, in tempo di guerra, il governo e la stampa si sono uniti nel tentativo, basato principalmente sull’autodisciplina, di impedire divulgazioni non autorizzate al nemico. In tempo di chiaro ed effettivo pericolo i tribunali hanno confermato che persino i diritti garantiti dal Primo Emendamento debbano sottomettersi alla necessità pubblica di sicurezza nazionale.
  • Oggi non è stata dichiarata alcuna guerra e, per quanto violento possa essere lo scontro, potrebbe non essere mai dichiarato nel modo tradizionale. La nostra qualità della vita è in pericolo. I nostri nemici dichiarati proliferano in tutto il globo. La sopravvivenza dei nostri amici è in pericolo. Tuttavia, non è stata dichiarata alcuna guerra, nessun esercito ha oltrepassato un confine, nessun missile è stato lanciato. Se la stampa aspetta una dichiarazione di guerra prima di imporsi l’autodisciplina delle condizioni di guerra, posso solo dire che nessuna guerra ha mai rappresentato una minaccia più grande alla nostra sicurezza. Se state aspettando un reale ed effettivo pericolo, posso solo dire che il pericolo non è mai stato più reale e la sua presenza non è mai stata più incombente.
  • È necessario un cambiamento di punto di vista, di tattiche, di finalità da parte del governo, della gente, di ogni uomo d’affari o leader sindacale e di ogni giornale.
  • Poiché siamo osteggiati in tutto il mondo da una cospirazione monolitica e spietata che si avvale principalmente di mezzi occulti per espandere la propria sfera di influenza attraverso l’infiltrazione piuttosto che l’invasione, la sovversione piuttosto che le elezioni, l’intimidazione piuttosto che la libera scelta, la guerriglia notturna piuttosto degli eserciti diurni. È un sistema che ha investito molte risorse umane e molti materiali nella costituzione di una macchina efficientissima e perfettamente oliata che combina operazioni militari, diplomatiche, d’intelligence, economiche, scientifiche e politiche.
  • I suoi preparativi non vengono resi pubblici, ma occultati. Ai suoi errori non vengono dedicati i titoli di testa, ma vengono nascosti. I dissidenti non sono elogiati, ma messi a tacere. Nessuna spesa viene messa in questione, nessuna indiscrezione pubblicata, nessun segreto svelato. In poche parole, la Guerra Fredda viene portata avanti con una disciplina di guerra che nessuna democrazia si augurerebbe o desidererebbe mai di eguagliare. Ciò nonostante, ogni democrazia riconosce le restrizioni necessarie alla sicurezza nazionale e resta da stabilire se tali limitazioni debbano essere osservate più rigorosamente nel caso di un attacco di questo tipo, come anche di una reale invasione e forse non ci sono consigli da dare.
  • Forse non c’è risposta al dilemma che una società libera e aperta deve affrontare in una guerra fredda e segreta. In tempo di pace, qualsiasi discussione a riguardo e ogni conseguenza, sono dolorose e senza precedenti. Ma questo è un epoca di pace e di pericolo che non ha precedenti nella storia. È dalla natura senza precedenti di questa sfida che nasce il vostro secondo obbligo, un obbligo che condivido. È nostro obbligo informare e mettere in guardia il popolo americano per essere certi che conosca e comprenda tutti i fatti che deve sapere: i pericoli, le prospettive, le finalità del nostro programma e le scelte da affrontare…
  • Ai vostri giornali non chiedo di sostenere l’Amministrazione, chiedo invece il vostro aiuto nel fondamentale compito di informare e mettere in guardia il popolo americano.
  • Nutro infatti un assoluta fiducia nella risposta e nella fedeltà dei nostri cittadini a condizione che siano completamente informati. Non solo non potrei soffocare le voci di dissenso fra i vostri lettori, le auspico. Questa Amministrazione vuole essere trasparente nei propri errori, perché, come disse un saggio: «Un errore non diventa madornale finché non rifiuti di correggerlo». Vogliamo assumerci la piena responsabilità dei nostri errori e auspichiamo che voi li indichiate quando manchiamo noi di farlo. Senza dibattito, senza critica, nessuna Amministrazione e nessun Paese può avere successo come nessuna repubblica può sopravvivere.
  • È questo il motivo per cui il legislatore ateniese Solone definì un crimine per ogni cittadino rifuggire dal dibattito. Ed è questo il motivo per cui la nostra stampa era protetta dal Primo Emendamento l’unica attività in America specificamente protetta dalla Costituzione, che non serve per divertire e intrattenere, per enfatizzare il triviale e il sentimentale, o semplicemente per dare al pubblico ciò che vuole, ma per informare, risvegliare, per riflettere, riconoscere i nostri pericoli e le nostre opportunità, segnalare le nostre difficoltà e le nostre scelte, per guidare, plasmare, istruire e a volte persino per fare infuriare l’opinione pubblica.
  • Questo significa maggiore attenzione e maggiore analisi delle notizie internazionali,perché non c’è più nulla di lontano ed estraneo, ma tutto è vicino e ci riguarda.
  • Significa fare più attenzione al capire le notizie e al perfezionarne la divulgazione. E significa che il governo, ad ogni livello, deve onorare il proprio dovere di fornire più informazioni possibili al di fuori dei più stretti limiti della sicurezza nazionale, e questo intendiamo farlo. All inizio del Diciassettesimo Secolo Francis Bacon commentò tre recenti invenzioni che stavano cambiando il mondo: la bussola, la polvere da sparo e la stampa. Ora che i legami tra le nazioni tracciati all inizio dalla bussola ci hanno resi tutti cittadini del mondo, le speranze e le minacce del singolo sono diventate le speranze e le minacce di tutti noi.
  • I tentativi di vivere insieme, l’evoluzione della polvere da sparo fino agli estremi ha messo in guardia l’umanità sulle terribili conseguenze di un fallimento. Ed è quindi alla stampa, biografa delle imprese dell’uomo, custode della sua coscienza, foriera delle sue notizie, che ci rivolgiamo per avere forza e sostegno, fiduciosi che con il vostro aiuto l’uomo diventerà ciò per cui è nato: libero e indipendente».

John Fitzgerald Kennedy 27 Aprile 1961

Illuminati dubstep Secret Society testo (John F. Kennedy) traduzioneultima modifica: 2013-02-02T21:03:00+00:00da blogmaster70
Reposta per primo quest’articolo

Lascia un commento