JFK and the Ku Klux Klan

[Paul Trejo]

Why did LBJ, the FBI, the CIA, and the military go to such concerted lengths to cover up for these people, including provision of a ready-made lone-nut patsy?

Ron, I'll try to answer that. First, the Establishment (LBJ, FBI, CIA, Pentagon) did not provide the patsy (Lee Harvey Oswald).

It seems to me that there were two plots -- the plot to kill JFK and the plot to cover it up. The two plots were guided by two different groups with two different goals.

The kill-JFK plotters provided the patsy, Oswald, and their goal was to inspire the USA to invade Cuba and eliminate Castro (much as we invaded Iraq and eliminted Saddam Hussein in the past decade).

The coverup-plotters knew who the kill-JFK plotters were, but they believed that the truth would only make the USA attack the right-wing, start a Civil War in the midst of the Cold War, tempt the USSR to interfere, and thus start World War 3. So, the goal of the coverup-plotters was National Security -- that is, to prevent a Civil War and so prevent World War 3.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 3, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Would these Klansmen have been infiltrated by the rogue members of the CIA? They would need black ops help to get away with it and insider help to complete the cover-up.

John, on the theory that the KKK was at the center of the plot to kill JFK, I have no problem believing that rogue or ex-CIA players would be involved. I think Terri is correct in suspecting that plenty of conservative officers of the US Government were (and are) secretly members of the KKK.

Naturally, if some loose-cannon rogues from the CIA did get involved with a grass-roots plot like this, they would bring a lot of resources to the table.

However, repeating my reply to Ron, I don't think that the cover-up was planned at the same time as the JFK assassination. IMHO the perpetrators believed in their hearts that the USA would get behind them 100% and blame Oswald the Communist, and then blame Castro, and then invade Cuba within a few days.

In other words, the patsy was their whole gambit -- their entire alibi. IMHO, they thought the Communist patsy ploy was a fool-proof plan that would have no repercussions at all.

They did not count on the Federal Government's response -- namely, to blame neither the left-wing extremists (Communists) nor the right-wing extremists (KKK) but to blame the Lone Nut and his neurotic mother.

IMHO, the people who killed JFK did not care if they were caught, as long as the American people became fired up enough to invade Cuba. It would have been worth it to them, even if they were later caught, as long as Cuba was taken back from the Communists.

The people who covered up the JFK killing, on the other hand, prevented the truth from becoming known -- not to protect the KKK, but to protect the planet from World War 3.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 3, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Would these Klansmen have been infiltrated by the rogue members of the CIA? They would need black ops help to get away with it and insider help to complete the cover-up.

Very astute observation Paul Trejo.

Terri, that was John White's observation.

I think it is more likely that when LBJ, the FBI, the CIA, and the military got off work, they attended the same KKK rallies. I think it is fairly obvious, at least to me, that the KKK had the controlling hand in what went on and they had, not only the membership, but the smarts to plan such a coup. I wouldn't be so hasty to tease out members of the different groups mentioned as being NON-Klan. Even top CEO's, people in positions of great power (possibly even Hoover) were members of the KKK (right wing groups).

Terri, I think what you're saying here is plausible to a degree, but I would hedge my bets a little more.

What you're implying, namely, that high-placed members of the US Government were supporters of the KKK, was certainly true in the early 1900's. The great Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson, for example, was an outspoken advocate of the KKK, and he allowed the KKK to march in Washington in great parades. Wilson promoted the movie, Birth of a Nation, as historical truth.

The reason that Woodrow Wilson was nominated by the Democrats in 1912 was because he successfully maintained race segregation at Princeton University. (It's hard to imagine that the party of JFK and LBJ was once the party of racism and Jim Crow. But the new movie, Lincoln, makes this very clear.)

There was a time when keeping a US University free from Negroes could get a man elected President. That is possibly what Ross Barnett believed (with ex-General Walker at his side) when he struggled so hard to keep the first Negro student (James Meredith) from enrolling at Ole Miss University in 1962. We should count George Wallace in that same category.

The KKK was still very active in the South in 1962, and the riots at Ole Miss are sufficient proof. But the time for racist Presidents had long passed. After World War 2, the USA (like it or not) inherited the mantle of the British Empire. So, in order to be the new World Police, the USA has to put on a noble face for the whole world. JFK was very good at this. Ross Barnett didn't understand what was going on. The KKK, in my opinion, still does not understand what is going on.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 3, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Terri Williams]

The KKK was still very active in the South in 1962, and the riots at Ole Miss are sufficient proof. But the time for racist Presidents had long passed. After World War 2, the USA (like it or not) inherited the mantle of the British Empire. So, in order to be the new World Police, the USA has to put on a noble face for the whole world. JFK was very good at this. Ross Barnett didn't understand what was going on. The KKK, in my opinion, still does not understand what is going on.

It is more my view that those who are in right wing power, ARE KKK, or some such group. If the USA is concerned about its image, it is more likely that it would just go to great lengths to hide the truth, rather than filter out the "wrong types". In fact I would be flabergasted if there was some mechanism that filtered out racists from the CIA, especially when so much of the right wing are the ones with the money, hence power & influence.

The KKK and other such groups, are employed in some high-powered positions and backed by some high-powered money. They do not operate out in the open. They know the law enough to be "diplomatic" when needs be, but they are determined in their point of view. You'd never know if one was your respresentative. I think the right-wing pretty much runs things these days anyway. It is entirely possible that the KKK planned, covered up and carried out the whole JFK, MLK & RFK killings. It wasn't just some rogue CIA agents, the whole organization has too much going on in secret. I think the CIA had MANY members involved in carrying out the assassinations. I would be shocked if the CIA, Border Security, FBI wasn't crawling with KKK or other racist groups.

I think the racists run a lot more than you think. You may be shocked to find out who is a member of racist groups. Most of those kinds of people have a LOT of money and with it, have I mentioned - LOTS of power and influence. If LBJ wasn't a Klansman, I'll be a dillied liver. I think the KKK planned the whole assassination, cover up right down to the song:

"The Eyes of Texas" -

'

The eyes of Texas are upon you

All the live long days

The eyes of Texas are upon you

And you cannot get away

Do not think you can escape them

From night till early in the morn

The eyes of Texas are upon you

Till Gabriel blows his horn

'

Hell yeah the KKK (LBJ, CIA, FBI, Standard Oil, Dixie Mafia, National Guard and Reservists, many big wigs) planned,

supplied, carried out and covered up JFK and more. Still do I suspect.

Ross Barnett was small potatoes who liked to show off and was mighty proud of the members of 'his' state; he licked the boots of those who DID pull off the coup d' etat.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Terri Williams

[Paul Trejo]

It is more my view that those who are in right wing power, ARE the KKK, or some such group. If the USA is concerned about its image, it is more likely that it would just go to great lengths to hide the truth, rather than filter out the "wrong types". In fact I would be flabbergasted if there was some mechanism that filtered out racists from the CIA, especially when so much of the right wing are the ones with the money, hence power & influence.

There is clearly a lot of truth in your words, Terri. At the turn of the 20th century, the USA was 94% white, while colored people as a whole owned next to nothing in terms of land or capital property. Therefore, to protect private property (which is widely considered the basis of civilization) it was most common for people in power to be white, and to give preference to other white folks.

However after World War 2, the demographics of the USA began to change significantly. American boys who fought in Europe saw first hand that they were no longer as white demographically as the USA used to be -- there were already lots of half-breeds in the USA population.

By the time of LBJ, it was clear that half-breeds in the USA were a major force. With the passage of LBJ's Civil Rights legislation, the dam broke, and lots of colored people began to own land, companies, capital and to get rich in the USA. At the turn of the 21st century, there is hardly one city in the USA that can claim to be purely white anymore. Things have changed.

There are exceptions. My guess is that in the South there are pockets of old-fashioned culture that resist any encroachment of the modern age. It's all too sinful -- all these half-breeds running around doing whatever they want.

But the world has changed. By the middle of the 21st century, the half-breeds in the USA might even become the majority.

The problem with the KKK is not that it's right-wing (because everybody who wishes to protect private property is right-wing to that extent). Rather, the problem with the KKK is that it still lives in the turn of the 20th century, when the USA was 94% white. But those days are long gone.

The KKK and other such groups, are employed in some high-powered positions and backed by some high-powered money. They do not operate out in the open. They know the law enough to be "diplomatic" when needs be, but they are determined in their point of view. You'd never know if one was your respresentative. I think the right-wing pretty much runs things these days anyway. It is entirely possible that the KKK planned, covered up and carried out the whole JFK, MLK & RFK killings. It wasn't just some rogue CIA agents, the whole organization has too much going on in secret. I think the CIA had MANY members involved in carrying out the assassinations. I would be shocked if the CIA, Border Security, FBI wasn't crawling with KKK or other racist groups.

I actually agree with you here, Terri. The KKK today is still represented by some large land-holders in the South, and because USA property values are forty times what they were at the turn of the 20th century, some of them are very rich and powerful.

Now, when it comes to 1963 and the assassination of JFK, I am not at all surprised to hear claims that the KKK was not only rooting for the ground-crew, but supporting them and even guiding them at every turn. That sounds correct to me. Guy Banister was reputed to be a profoundly racist individual.

I think the racists run a lot more than you think. You may be shocked to find out who is a member of racist groups. Most of those kinds of people have a LOT of money and with it, have I mentioned - LOTS of power and influence. If LBJ wasn't a Klansman, I'll be a dillied liver. I think the KKK planned the whole assassination, cover up right down to the song: "The Eyes of Texas"...

But there is still a difference. In 1912 the KKK was out in the open, proud of their enormous membership, and they even marched in Washington and convinced several Congressmen to join their ranks. But that doesn't happen anymore. In fact, that stopped happening soon after World War 2, and by 1963, the KKK was only a shell of its former self (at least in public; because it's hard to say what happened behind closed doors).

But my point is that the KKK, if it still operated with power, had to take that power underground. Now -- joining other underground organizations would make this an easier task. The Minutemen were a secret organization, also. They also had lots of rifles. They also practiced target shooting on a regular basis, out in the countryside. It makes good sense to me that there were plenty of KKK members there in the underground with the Minutemen. No problem.

As for the CIA however, they had rules against membership in the KKK. It was already illegal -- illegal -- to be a KKK member and also an employee of the CIA or the FBI (although secret, underground membership was still possible). The differnece is -- how open were they?

Already in 1963 the days were gone when racists like the KKK, or the Third Reich, could march in large numbers down public streets in their full costumes with pride. No, already in 1963 the racists had to hide in the shadows.

But it is precisely these same shadows that give more credence to your theory, Terri, that the KKK was centrally involved in the JFK assassination.

Hell yeah the KKK (LBJ, CIA, FBI, Standard Oil, Dixie Mafia, National Guard and Reservists, many big wigs) planned, supplied, carried out and covered up JFK and more. Still do I suspect.

Ross Barnett was small potatoes who liked to show off and was mighty proud of the members of 'his' state; he licked the boots of those who DID pull off the coup d' etat.

Well, there I agree, too -- Ross Barnett was not a major player -- although he took a gamble. If he had successfully made JFK back down at Ole Miss, then Ross Barnett (like Woodrow Wilson) would have had a chance to become President of the USA.

I agree, also, that in 1963 the majority of rich and powerful people in the USA were white and proud, and convinced that there must be something about their genes (as opposed to, say, their Judeo-Christian culture) that gave them their great power. Add to this the USA emerging from World War 2 as the most powerful nation on earth. There's an ego-booster. Yet the paradox was that the USA gained power only after the ignoble defeat of Nazi Germany, who tried to attain global power based on their white race credentials.

What a challenge for the rightists in the USA. The USA under Eisenhower (and Earl Warren) found another way to be rightist and conservative -- without racism and without the KKK.

The riots at Ole Miss, brought on by Ross Barnett and ex-General Edwin Walker, wanted to return to the old days -- when white was right and colored people knew their place. Eisenhower and Earl Warren were Communists, preached the JBS. That's just what the KKK wanted to hear. Yet by 1963 they were already reduced to running in the shadows.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited January 4, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Terri Williams]

But there is still a difference. In 1912 the KKK was out in the open, proud of their enormous membership, and they even marched in Washington and convinced several Congressmen to join their ranks. But that doesn't happen anymore. In fact, that stopped happening soon after World War 2, and by 1963, the KKK was only a shell of its former self (at least in public; because it's hard to say what happened behind closed doors).

In the South in 1963, almost anywhere in the South, the KKK did not have to hide so much. They were the power in power. They were the sheriffs and marshals, they were the authority. There was no way to report a black person as "missing" after a lynching back then. They didn't march in public, except at night. And they are very good at hiding in the dark, in fact prefer darkness as the setting for their activity.

The KKK RAN my hometown/the South back then. There was no going against them in the 60's even into the 70's. By the 80's things were changing. I think after the Republicans lost power, the KKK lost some teeth, but they have never just gone away. You may not know about their activity in the North, but plenty of white Southerners know. No they were VERY active in far more than just church burnings and lynchings. They were the young men who were training to invade Cuba. Kennedy confiscating their weapons really pissed them off, then James Meredith. The plot thickened all with the help of backing and funds from the KKK. There may have been outside help, but the Klan are very picky about who they do business with. It is more likely that all the people involved in the assassination and cover up were Klan.

In the sixties, whites, the KKK, were not trying to turn the clock back; they were trying to keep it from moving forward. The South WAS a time capsule back then. When I moved from Mississippi to New York in 1962, it was like moving forward in time. Moving back to Mississippi in 1963 was like stepping back in time a hundred years. It was still segregated back then. Blacks were not "free". Most could not vote without fear. Most blacks lived in poverty. The South had not kept pace with the changes happening in the rest of the country. Actually, slavery was not abolished in Mississippi until 1991. Whites were "The Culture". And everyone KNEW the Klan watched them always.

No, in 1963, the KKK did NOT have to hide in the South; they WERE the power and they wanted fiercely to keep it that way.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Terri Williams

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Lyndon Johnson was not a KKK member. In fact, he and his family hated and feared the KKK. LBJ was also very pro-Jew at a young age. The local KKK hated LBJ's father.

LBJ may have thought and *behaved* like Adolph Hitler & Joseph Stalin, and he may have thought that the proper relationship of white and black folks was "master and slave," but LBJ was most definitely NOT a Klan member. LBJ was very pro Jew and very pro Israel.

Lyndon Johnson was a murderous thug, with a mentality like a classic tyrant, but he hated the Klan.

Read this: http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48942551.html

[Ian Kingsbury]

Robert

LBJ was pro anything that benefitted himself!.

Perhaps he feared the Klan because he knew what they were capable of?.

[John Dolva]

There were assasination threat reports re LBJ. The one that comes to mind is a right wing one involving blowing up a train.

LBJ also did bow to pressure and not only watered down the implementation of the Civil Rights Bill but also presided over changing it significantly from that proposed by JFK in '63. He sent Allen Dulles to Mississippi regarding the M3. Poor blacks suffered disproportionately in the Vietnam War. It was where MLK was focusing when he was shot. It's wrong to go from an assumption that LBJ did not help in his way the cause of bigotry. It doesn't matter whether he was a signed up member of the reviled KKK. He did his bit to mollify them. Would Kennedy have done so (MLK, RFK)? I think there is good reason to think not.

[Paul Trejo]

In the South in 1963, almost anywhere in the South, the KKK did not have to hide so much. They were the power in power. They were the sheriffs and marshals, they were the authority. There was no way to report a black person as "missing" after a lynching back then. They didn't march in public, except at night. And they are very good at hiding in the dark, in fact prefer darkness as the setting for their activity.

The KKK RAN my hometown/the South back then. There was no going against them in the 60's even into the 70's. By the 80's things were changing. I think after the Republicans lost power, the KKK lost some teeth, but they have never just gone away. You may not know about their activity in the North, but plenty of white Southerners know. No they were VERY active in far more than just church burnings and lynchings. They were the young men who were training to invade Cuba. Kennedy confiscating their weapons really pissed them off, then James Meredith. The plot thickened all with the help of backing and funds from the KKK. There may have been outside help, but the Klan are very picky about who they do business with. It is more likely that all the people involved in the assassination and cover up were Klan.

In the sixties, whites, the KKK, were not trying to turn the clock back; they were trying to keep it from moving forward. The South WAS a time capsule back then. When I moved from Mississippi to New York in 1962, it was like moving forward in time. Moving back to Mississippi in 1963 was like stepping back in time a hundred years. It was still segregated back then. Blacks were not "free". Most could not vote without fear. Most blacks lived in poverty. The South had not kept pace with the changes happening in the rest of the country. Actually, slavery was not abolished in Mississippi until 1991. Whites were "The Culture". And everyone KNEW the Klan watched them always.

No, in 1963, the KKK did NOT have to hide in the South; they WERE the power and they wanted fiercely to keep it that way.

Terri, I agree with you on most points here. I have a friend in church about my age (60) who grew up outside of Dallas, and he tells me that in his home town the KKK was very active and strong.

In my own home town, Duarte, California, there was a tree on the main road, Huntington Boulevard, called "the hanging tree", and it had a historical marker that explained its use in the 1920's and 1930's for "lynching." I never saw a lynching myself, but I was assured that it was not unknown in my parent's generation in Southern California.

Even in my wife's home town in Northern California, even today, near Stanford University, West Palo Alto is almost entirely white and East Palo Alto is almost entirely black. California is advanced -- but not that advanced. (Southern California reflects the South a bit more, so we had the Rodney King beatings, for example.)

So, I can accept your observation that in the early 1960's in the South the KKK did not have to hide but was often openly in power through the police departments. I get the impression from your posts that you might have seen a lynching in your lifetime. If so, I'm sorry to hear that -- it sounds traumatic.

Another image you conveyed that sounds eerie is the night-time marches of the KKK. I gather this was their "duty" after work as they burned crosses on the lawns of suspected infidels, or went wild in a lynching. It's discouraging to recollect that the KKK was a normal part of American life at the start of the 20th century. In your own perception, the KKK ran your home town all the way through the 1970's. Furthermore, even though they lost some influence in recent decades, we must all agree that the KKK still exists today.

What is crucial for the EDUCATION FORUM, Terri, is your perception that the KKK in the 1960's were also "training to invade Cuba."

From 1959 to 1963 we see a five-year period -- before Vietnam -- in which the USA was obsessed with the news about Cuba. In 1960 Che Guevarra had published a book called "Guerrilla Warfare," and this terrified many Americans. Robert DePugh responded with his own book, and he started the Minutemen.

Robert De Pugh and his hunting friends were terrified that Cubans (and other Latin American forces) would invade the USA, beginning with the South. So, they organized as many riflemen as they could into a secret organization called the Minutemen.

Robert De Pugh was the leader -- sort of. Ex-military men (like Edwin Walker) would join and would take command of entire cities of Minutemen. They held official guerrilla warfare training in large outdoor camps. Naturally, ex-military men with combat training would be very valuable to them. The Minutemen ground-troops would consist of volunteer policemen, National Guard, reservists, Klaverns, and various hunters and mercenaries looking for connections.

Naturally, Cuban Exiles would become involved in the Minutemen -- seeking support for their next raids against Castro. But the Minutemen did not pay -- they charged membership dues. The Minutemen were not generally rich men but were generally working men and women. Cuban Exiles could be valuable if they could lead combat training. They might also give speeches about how dangerous Castro had become.

But there would also be tensions because Minutemen tended to be WASP, while Cubans tended to be Catholic, and many Cubans spoke little English. (This is why non-religious, English-speaking Latinos like Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Ed Butler could become the leaders in and around the Minutemen and the Cuban Exiles.)

What your claims clarify, Terri, is that in the South the KKK was deeply involved in the Cuban crisis through paramilitary training camps like those of the Minutemen and the Cuban Exiles. JFK's demand to keep these low-profile as possible was probably misunderstood (or misinterpreted) to mean that JFK was against them. But the Ole Miss riot was probably the final straw.

Now, you believe that the KKK was probably the leader of the plot to kill JFK, Terri, because the KKK would not do business with just anybody. I can understand that. For example, the KKK was and I believe still remains exclusively WASP -- that is, no Jews or Catholics were invited. Do I have that right?

In that case, the Minutemen would be in a stronger position, since it could include more money and members from among Catholic and Jewish rightists in the USA.

Your portrait of Mississippi in 1963, in which blacks were intimidated at polling places, is chilling. I know little about the South -- it is especially chilling to read your words that "slavery was not abolished in Mississippi until 1991." I take that to mean that slavery -- which was illegal in the USA since Abraham Lincoln abolished it in 1865, was still practiced underground in Mississippi. Is that correct? This culture was hidden from the rest of the country, but in the countryside in Mississippi, in 1963, black slavery was still practiced out in the open? Is that what you're saying?

This is important information for gauging the social climate in the South in 1963, and why the South was more dangerous than JFK ever understood.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 4, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Terri Williams]

In the South in 1963, almost anywhere in the South, the KKK did not have to hide so much. They were the power in power. They were the sheriffs and marshals, they were the authority. There was no way to report a black person as "missing" after a lynching back then. They didn't march in public, except at night. And they are very good at hiding in the dark, in fact prefer darkness as the setting for their activity.

The KKK RAN my hometown/the South back then. There was no going against them in the 60's even into the 70's. By the 80's things were changing. I think after the Republicans lost power, the KKK lost some teeth, but they have never just gone away. You may not know about their activity in the North, but plenty of white Southerners know. No they were VERY active in far more than just church burnings and lynchings. They were the young men who were training to invade Cuba. Kennedy confiscating their weapons really pissed them off, then James Meredith. The plot thickened all with the help of backing and funds from the KKK. There may have been outside help, but the Klan are very picky about who they do business with. It is more likely that all the people involved in the assassination and cover up were Klan.

In the sixties, whites, the KKK, were not trying to turn the clock back; they were trying to keep it from moving forward. The South WAS a time capsule back then. When I moved from Mississippi to New York in 1962, it was like moving forward in time. Moving back to Mississippi in 1963 was like stepping back in time a hundred years. It was still segregated back then. Blacks were not "free". Most could not vote without fear. Most blacks lived in poverty. The South had not kept pace with the changes happening in the rest of the country. Actually, slavery was not abolished in Mississippi until 1991. Whites were "The Culture". And everyone KNEW the Klan watched them always.

No, in 1963, the KKK did NOT have to hide in the South; they WERE the power and they wanted fiercely to keep it that way.

Terri, I agree with you on most points here. I have a friend in church about my age (60) who grew up outside of Dallas, and he tells me that in his home town the KKK was very active and strong.

In my own home town, Duarte, California, there was a tree on the main road, Huntington Boulevard, called "the hanging tree", and it had a historical marker that explained its use in the 1920's and 1930's for "lynching." I never saw a lynching myself, but I was assured that it was not unknown in my parent's generation in Southern California.

Even in my wife's home town in Northern California, even today, near Stanford University, West Palo Alto is almost entirely white and East Palo Alto is almost entirely black. California is advanced -- but not that advanced. (Southern California reflects the South a bit more, so we had the Rodney King beatings, for example.)

So, I can accept your observation that in the early 1960's in the South the KKK did not have to hide but was often openly in power through the police departments. I get the impression from your posts that you might have seen a lynching in your lifetime. If so, I'm sorry to hear that -- it sounds traumatic.

Another image you conveyed that sounds eerie is the night-time marches of the KKK. I gather this was their "duty" after work as they burned crosses on the lawns of suspected infidels, or went wild in a lynching. It's discouraging to recollect that the KKK was a normal part of American life at the start of the 20th century. In your own perception, the KKK ran your home town all the way through the 1970's. Furthermore, even though they lost some influence in recent decades, we must all agree that the KKK still exists today.

What is crucial for the EDUCATION FORUM, Terri, is your perception that the KKK in the 1960's were also "training to invade Cuba."

From 1959 to 1963 we see a five-year period -- before Vietnam -- in which the USA was obsessed with the news about Cuba. In 1960 Che Guevarra had published a book called "Guerrilla Warfare," and this terrified many Americans. Robert DePugh responded with his own book, and he started the Minutemen.

Robert De Pugh and his hunting friends were terrified that Cubans (and other Latin American forces) would invade the USA, beginning with the South. So, they organized as many riflemen as they could into a secret organization called the Minutemen.

Robert De Pugh was the leader -- sort of. Ex-military men (like Edwin Walker) would join and would take command of entire cities of Minutemen. They held official guerrilla warfare training in large outdoor camps. Naturally, ex-military men with combat training would be very valuable to them. The Minutemen ground-troops would consist of volunteer policemen, National Guard, reservists, Klaverns, and various hunters and mercenaries looking for connections.

Naturally, Cuban Exiles would become involved in the Minutemen -- seeking support for their next raids against Castro. But the Minutemen did not pay -- they charged membership dues. The Minutemen were not generally rich men but were generally working men and women. Cuban Exiles could be valuable if they could lead combat training. They might also give speeches about how dangerous Castro had become.

But there would also be tensions because Minutemen tended to be WASP, while Cubans tended to be Catholic, and many Cubans spoke little English. (This is why non-religious, English-speaking Latinos like Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Ed Butler could become the leaders in and around the Minutemen and the Cuban Exiles.)

What your claims clarify, Terri, is that in the South the KKK was deeply involved in the Cuban crisis through paramilitary training camps like those of the Minutemen and the Cuban Exiles. JFK's demand to keep these low-profile as possible was probably misunderstood (or misinterpreted) to mean that JFK was against them. But the Ole Miss riot was probably the final straw.

Now, you believe that the KKK was probably the leader of the plot to kill JFK, Terri, because the KKK would not do business with just anybody. I can understand that. For example, the KKK was and I believe still remains exclusively WASP -- that is, no Jews or Catholics were invited. Do I have that right?

In that case, the Minutemen would be in a stronger position, since it could include more money and members from among Catholic and Jewish rightists in the USA.

Your portrait of Mississippi in 1963, in which blacks were intimidated at polling places, is chilling. I know little about the South -- it is especially chilling to read your words that "slavery was not abolished in Mississippi until 1991." I take that to mean that slavery -- which was illegal in the USA since Abraham Lincoln abolished it in 1865, was still practiced underground in Mississippi. Is that correct? This culture was hidden from the rest of the country, but in the countryside in Mississippi, in 1963, black slavery was still practiced out in the open? Is that what you're saying?

This is important information for gauging the social climate in the South in 1963, and why the South was more dangerous than JFK ever understood.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Yes the South was a dangerous enemy of JFK and RFK. Probably, I am not sure, Catholics were kept out of the Klan. I only knew of a couple of Catholic families in the south back then. They had money and position and I know some were quite friendly with Klan members. There were hardly any Jews in the south and they would NOT have been accepted into the Klan, no if and or buts.

Yes I did witness a couple of lynchings, heard a few more coming from ------ --- ----- ' property during rallies at night in the late 50's. There were church bombings and that, as I said before, was because since white people didn't allow anything to be taught at the black schools, which were just fronts, blacks held classes at church. It was the whole integrated schools thing that was of great concern to the Klan. If blacks were to go to white schools, they would learn and eventually, VOTE.

I think the white Klansmen could see the hand-writing on the wall. Black people were having children and white were buying birth control. The Klan, although kings in the south were reacting like rats in a cage back then. They could feel that the world they had so carefully kept the way they wanted it, was about to be torn asunder. Their power would be disrupted.

There was not slavery per se back then, but blacks were not hired at good paying jobs and most worked for peanuts. Commodity trucks would come around regularly with food for the poor (blacks). Most black families were under the control/protection of white families. A certain black family was associated with a certain white family. The "Taylors" worked for the "Ervins". The "Porters" worked for the "Eeley's". If the black family needed something, they generally asked the white family for it. Good people helped. Racists felt it was their duty to make life hard for any black person.

Some white families even taught "their" blacks, but word of such things was kept very quiet out of fear of the Klan. The Klan knew who were on their side and who they had to watch out for. Even white families that were not at all racist, had to tow the Klan line.

Fortunately for me, my family had money and power, otherwise I would have ended up in the woods. Whites with no money were lynched if caught stepping boldly (teaching blacks, befriending blacks) outside of Klan lines. Whites who stepped out of line and whose families had money, were sent for shock treatment. I never had shock treatment; they had a better solution for me, send me to my uncle. Still I live to write about it.

My mom was sent by the Klan to Whitfield for three months of shock treatment for sitting on the back of the bus in 1956 in solidarity with Rosa Parks, for instance. If we had been poor, she would have been paraded to the woods. Lots of "missing" whites as well as blacks from back then.

I guess I am a dillied liver, but then the link you provided states this about LBJ: "His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America." The Zionists are every bit as racist and extreme as the Klan if not more so. Zionists are just another racist group. Don't give up on my liver just yet though, it will be dilled if it is proven that LBJ knew nothing about the planned events in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is no doubt in my mind that he knew what was comin' 'round the bend. Hell I knew and I was only ten. There is no way LBJ didn't know.

the KKK in the 1960's were also "training to invade Cuba.

Yes they were. Many who were training were young men and cousins of mine. They were furious when JFK confiscated their weapons. The white boys came to school ranting and raving about it. I don't know, but have been told by those who do know, that Dr ---- ------- ------- supplied some of the arms. He even had a training area on his property, but from what I heard back then, most of the training to invade Cuba was done in Louisiana. Not sure if it was a military operation at an army base or just back in the woods.

I'd like to give a little bit of my family history. The Terry's owned most of the land that Dry Grove, Mississippi was built on, and more. Augusta Terry who live primarily in the 1800's, had a notion that slavery was wrong. He would buy slaves, lots of them and set them free. Robert Terry, son or grandson of Augusta Terry, eventually gave the land that Dry Grove was built on, to the town, provided they name it after him; its name was change to Terry. He was one of my uncles. I am named for his niece, my great grandmother's maiden name, Terry, only Mom spelled it with an "i". (Thanks Mom)

The Klan were not happy with Augusta Terry. They didn't like blacks being 'set free', but the old man had lots of money and lots of land, he was their landlord. So they put up with it, but continued on their way anyway, in spite of him. Plenty of them were the ones who did business on his property and ran the commerce of the area. I am not sure about some of the history between Klan and my family, but the Klan have 'grown up' having that kind of relationship with members of my family. The great conundrum, what to do about the unruly rich; draw them in! My uncle (mother's brother) was at least a Klansman, and more.

Eventually after marrying into Klan families, members of my family became Klansmen. Not all of us though. I came out the exact opposite and am, what you might call 'totally liberal' even 'socialist', while there are hard core deep rooted Klansmen in my family. Of course I chose to leave rather than stay and be persecuted, which would have continued.

Living with my uncle taught me lots. He was a cagey man. He and one of my cousins, who used to be a cop in New Orleans in the early 60's, exposed me to quite an education.

I sometime miss the south and would like to return home, but I feel it would be a dangerous thing to do. It is not the same place anymore. There would be no one to watch my back and I would need that if I was to live there. There are new dangers, as well as old.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Terri Williams

[Paul Trejo]

...There was not slavery per se back then, but blacks were not hired at good paying jobs and most worked for peanuts. Commodity trucks would come around regularly with food for the poor (blacks). Most black families were under the control/protection of white families. A certain black family was associated with a certain white family. The "Taylors" worked for the "Ervins". The "Porters" worked for the "Eeley's". If the black family needed something, they generally asked the white family for it. Good people helped. Racists felt it was their duty to make life hard for any black person.

Some white families even taught "their" blacks, but word of such things was kept very quiet out of fear of the Klan. The Klan knew who were on their side and who they had to watch out for. Even white families that were not at all racist, had to tow the Klan line.

OK, I understand what you're saying now, Terri. This is interesting sociological anecdotal information, and I'm not aware of any other writer who has been willing to come forward with anecdotes about the KKK during the 1960's as it relates directly to the JFK assassination.

You're saying that black slavery was still illegal in Mississippi in 1963, although the social climate was still profoundly oppressive of black Americans. That's an important distinction for me -- I define slavery in terms of ownership of one's own body. (That is, genuine slaves, no matter what race, can be bought and sold, their children can be bought and sold, and they can be rented as sexual objects, female or male, at the caprice of their owners, all within the permission of the legal system. That's the only true definition of slavery -- metaphors don't apply. When people use catch-phrases like 'wage-slavery,' that is just literary phooey. True slavery is physical brutality and any milder definition desecrates the memory of real slaves.)

So, slavery was gone in Mississippi, although the KKK and similar organizations worked hard to keep black Americans (along with brown, yellow, red and Jewish Americans) as dependent as possible, including lynching as a deterrent. Although that is obviously criminal, it is not precisely the same as slavery. I just wanted to clarify my opinion on that.

Fortunately for me, my family had money and power, otherwise I would have ended up in the woods. Whites with no money were lynched if caught stepping boldly (teaching blacks, befriending blacks) outside of Klan lines. Whites who stepped out of line and whose families had money, were sent for shock treatment. I never had shock treatment; they had a better solution for me, send me to my uncle. Still I live to write about it.

My mom was sent by the Klan to Whitfield for three months of shock treatment for sitting on the back of the bus in 1956 in solidarity with Rosa Parks, for instance. If we had been poor, she would have been paraded to the woods. Lots of "missing" whites as well as blacks from back then.

Terri, your claims here are interesting on multiple grounds. They help to explain why Brown v. the Board of Education was such a disaster for the KKK and its Southern culture. It was probably perceived as part of the Restoration after Lincoln. No wonder the same arguments used before the Civil War would arise again when speaking of the integration of public schools, specifically, the argument of State's Rights.

It's a legitimate argument -- whether States ought to retain any rights or not. But the outcome of World War 2 complicated this -- now the USA was no longer one more nation in the world, but the USA now became the new British Empire -- the leader of the free world. We now have to put on a noble face for the whole world to see.

(Here's something we don't commonly learn in US History class -- the US Army during World War 2 did not start out as racially integrated. Yet we were going up against Nazi Germany, which was stridently racially segregated. In order to preserve Army morale, Eisenhower and the Pentagon generals decided to racially integrate the US Army. Hollywood was drafted into this propaganda campaign, to always portay US soldiers in racially integrated platoons. But when the War began, that was a myth. World War 2 changed everything for the USA.)

Anyway, your claims are topical today, Terri, because education remains a major problem in the USA. Public education is more expensive than ever, and yet millions of kids graduate from high school with low reading, writing or arithmetic abilities. Many US public schools are surrounded by guards and barbed wire, and some of them resemble prison camps. White flight from public schools is a cliche today. Home schooling is increasingly common. It is disingenuous to ignore race as the primary issue here.

That is, it appears that some powerful force is working overtime to ensure the failure of the public schools, and to undermine education for the children of poverty. Your citation of the KKK in this same regard in your home town while you were growing up is interesting sociological anecdotal information.

I guess I am a dillied liver, but then the link you provided states this about LBJ: "His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America." The Zionists are every bit as racist and extreme as the Klan if not more so. Zionists are just another racist group. Don't give up on my liver just yet though, it will be dilled if it is proven that LBJ knew nothing about the planned events in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is no doubt in my mind that he knew what was comin' 'round the bend. Hell I knew and I was only ten. There is no way LBJ didn't know.

As for LBJ, Terri, I'm one of those who places LBJ above the level of the JFK assassination itself. In my opinion, LBJ was the leader of the cover-up of the JFK assassination. I hope the difference is clear. Some right-wing extremists (probably inluding the KKK, the Minutemen, the JBS and ex-General Walker) were the perpetrators, but they only wanted to invade Cuba. That was their main target.

LBJ did not belong to the perpetrators, because he did not want to invade Cuba. (If LBJ was on the side of the perpetrators of the JFK assassination, we would have invaded Cuba right away, I have no doubt. Lee Harvey Oswald would have been portrayed as a Communist Castro agent, and that would have been that.)

LBJ belonged to the second plot -- to the cover-up plot. But the cover-up plot was not invented by the JFK assassination plotters. This is clear because the cover-up plot had a different motivation or goal. The cover-up plotters wanted to hide the identity of the actual JFK assassins because they knew that the American people would start riots in all major cities, and that this might spark a new Civil War in the USA. Now, during the Cold War, a new Civil War would have tempted the USSR to interfere, and this could have ignited World War 3.

Therefore, LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover and Chief Justice Earl Warren, in order to prevent World War 3, told the truth -- for reasons of National Security the truth about Lee Harvey Oswald would be sealed away until 2039. This is the only explanation that makes sense to me. If Oswald was the lone assassin, and Oswald was now dead, then how is National Security threatened by releasing his files? No, the only threat to National Security was in disclosing the identity of the real perpetrators.

So, you're partially correct, Terri, in my opinion, that is, LBJ certainly knew more about the JFK assassination than he ever admitted -- however, it wasn't because he was a member of the KKK. As Robert Morrow rightly said, LBJ was an enemy of the KKK. But for purposes of National Security, LBJ would protect the identities of the real JFK assassins for 75 years. That's my opinion.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 4, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Terri Williams]

Ian Kingsbury

LBJ was pro anything that benefitted himself!.

Perhaps he feared the Klan because he knew what they were capable of?.

If LBJ hated the Klan, I suspect he was like some of my family members and grew to tolerate (even using) them, while maybe feeling he was in competition with them, on his part. I know some of my family members are members of other groups that feel they are superior to the Klan, which seems to have created a more competitive/antagonistic relationship between themselves and Klan. Using one another is not beyond them.

[Terri Williams]

So, you're partially correct, Terri, in my opinion, that is, LBJ certainly knew more about the JFK assassination than he ever admitted -- however, it wasn't because he was a member of the KKK. As Robert Morrow rightly said, LBJ was an enemy of the KKK. But for purposes of National Security, LBJ would protect the identities of the real JFK assassins for 75 years. That's my opinion.

That makes sense to me, since he certainly DID manage to let the real assassins live out their lives in peace and prosperity.

I have no proof, but I know that ------ --- ----- was the man who actually pulled the trigger, that shot the bullet, that killed JFK. It was not at all beyond the man to do such a thing. My uncle was also present at what was a 'Turkey Shoot'. I have heard tell of another man named Malcolm Wallace who may have been the third shooter. No matter who it was, I am convinced there were three marksmen that day in Dallas; only one of them is attributed with having fired the fatal shot.

But the files sealed until long after the cows come home, must contain more than just info on Oswald. If LBJ was in on the cover up, there would have been such things as the letter I wrote to JFK to warn him. If I live long enough, I would like the letter back; it is my only evidence that I have not made this whole 'theory' up.

Without it, I trudge forward to open the bag a little so to speak, ahead of schedule. I am not sure what harm it could do now, most of the guilty are dead. No one has ever listened to me in the past and I must say I am surprise anyone does now, but I will say in my defence, I have not said anything that didn't actually happen. I have not made up any 'facts'. That's what it was like in the south in the fifties and sixties, total apartheid. It has morphed into the various right wing groups today.

Besides, it is common knowledge among racists, just who killed JFK AND where he is from. The info racist groups in Canada have about the JFK assassination did NOT come from me; it came from the Klan.

[David Andrews]

Where's J. Edgar Hoover in all this? A Johnson crony and Kennedy enemy whose agency had infiltrated the Klan for at least three decades by 1963?

Edited January 5, 2013 by David Andrews