Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Paul - hatred is the motive? Plenty of that to go around. I prefer to think the killers had specific aims which were realized afterwards.

Walker was a bad dude, to the bone, as were several others who you have called heroes, such as A. Dulles, Hoover, LeMay. Simply Paul, and everyone here sees this, your theory breaks down for one simple reason - the willingness to whitewash as many of your heroes as you can on principle. What principle is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul - hatred is the motive? Plenty of that to go around. I prefer to think the killers had specific aims which were realized afterwards.

Well, Paul B., Walker didn't use the word 'hatred' or 'hate' or any of its cognates in that declaration that William O'Neil cited for us.

Instead, Walker, who went to military school as a young boy (evidently because his father was afraid he was homosexual), and then went to West Point after that, and then went into World War 2 after that, and then into the Korean War after that, was a profoundly patriotic American.

Sadly, this profound and shrewd American was no intellectual, and when Edwin Walker got hold of the writings of Robert Welch in 1959 -- he became convinced that President Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist -- so he quickly resigned from the US Army.

Walker's motivation was patriotism -- even though it was profoundly misguided by Robert Welch.

Eisenhower rejected that first resignation, but during JFK's first year, Walker resigned from the US Army again -- and JFK allowed the resignation to pass. This made Edwin Walker the only US General to resign in the 20th century, forfeiting his Army Pension.

Robert Welch's politics grounded Walker's motivation in 1959, in 1961, in 1962 and in 1963.

Walker was speaking as a patriot (in his own mind, and perhaps in the mind of Robert Welch) when he condemned the Kennedy brothers to a firing squad. It was not hate -- it was patriotism misguided by Southern Politics and its Confederate Flag -- and encouraged by Robert Welch and his John Birch Society propaganda.

Walker's specific and immediate motive for the JFK murder, IMHO, was to end Communism in Cuba.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul - hatred is the motive? Plenty of that to go around. I prefer to think the killers had specific aims which were realized afterwards.

Well, Paul B., Walker didn't use the word 'hatred' or 'hate' or any of its cognates in that declaration that William O'Neil cited for us.

Instead, Walker, who went to military school as a young boy (evidently because his father was afraid he was homosexual), and then went to West Point after that, and then went into World War 2 after that, and then into the Korean War after that, was a profoundly patriotic American.

Sadly, this profound and shrewd American was no intellectual, and when Edwin Walker got hold of the writings of Robert Welch in 1959 -- he became convinced that President Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist -- so he quickly resigned from the US Army.

Walker's motivation was patriotism -- even though it was profoundly misguided by Robert Welch.

Eisenhower rejected that first resignation, but during JFK's first year, Walker resigned from the US Army again -- and JFK allowed the resignation to pass. This made Edwin Walker the only US General to resign in the 20th century, forfeiting his Army Pension.

Robert Welch's politics grounded Walker's motivation in 1959, in 1961, in 1962 and in 1963.

Walker was speaking as a patriot (in his own mind, and perhaps in the mind of Robert Welch) when he condemned the Kennedy brothers to a firing squad. It was not hate -- it was patriotism misguided by Southern Politics and its Confederate Flag -- and encouraged by Robert Welch and his John Birch Society propaganda.

Walker's specific and immediate motive for the JFK murder, IMHO, was to end Communism in Cuba.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

In the past, Paul has boldly declared that the Birch Society (and its adherents) were "traitors" -- but, now, in this current message, Paul describes Walker (and by inference -- other adherents of JBS ideology) as being motivated by "patriotism" -- albeit a "misguided" version. This is another example of why it is difficult to understand what Paul really means.

Also -- I have asked this question before but I don't recall getting Paul to answer it: Is there anything in Walker's personal papers which confirms that Robert Welch sent a copy of the unpublished "private letter" version of The Politician to Walker in 1959? This is the unedited version in which Welch made his now famous statements regarding Eisenhower being a Communist traitor.

IF Paul informs us that "yes" -- Walker's papers reveal that he received a loaned copy of The Politician in 1959 -- then it strains credulity to ascribe "patriotism" as a predominant motive or explanation instead of "hate" -- because (by definition) "hate" is "intense and passionate dislike for someone".

Wouldn't describing someone's motives and behavior as conscious, deliberate treason inevitably produce "hate" as a deserved response? Synonyms for "hate" include: detest, loathe, despise.

As a serving senior career military officer, Walker supposedly unquestioningly accepted the primacy of civilian leadership of our military and our country. Consequently, his natural reaction to someone viciously attacking both our civilian and military leadership in terms of "treason" should have been precisely opposite to accepting such accusations IF he was motivated by "patriotism".

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the past, Paul has boldly declared that the Birch Society (and its adherents) were "traitors" -- but, now, in this current message, Paul describes Walker (and by inference -- other adherents of JBS ideology) as being motivated by "patriotism" -- albeit a "misguided" version. This is another example of why it is difficult to understand what Paul really means.

Well, Ernie, the question is topical. Last month in South Carolina, the Confederate Flag was finally removed from that State Capitol building mast, and the charge of 'treason' was used in the arguments demanding its removal.

The Confederate Flag represents 'treason' to many Americans, since it represents the losing side of our Civil War, and yet also represents 'patriotism' to many Americans, especially in the Deep South. It's a modern quandary that has lasted 150 years now. One cannot make a simple Either/Or statement out of it.

One may justly argue that the John Birch Society doctrines, with their flat condemnation of so many sitting US Presidents, were 'treasonous.' One may also argue, as John Simkin argues in his Spartacus entry on the John Birch Society, that they were well-meaning patriots.

J. Edgar Hoover didn't regard Robert Welch as a traitor -- however, here is what J. Edgar Hoover said:

"Personally, I have little respect for the head of the John Birch Society since he linked the names of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the late John Foster Dulles, and former CIA Director Allen Dulles with communism." [FBI File 100-114578-152, October 22, 1965].

That is not calling Welch a traitor -- but it does clearly state that J. Edgar Hoover had "little respect" for Welch, and gave the precise reason why.

This fact is relevant to the current thread about the forthcoming book on Edwin Walker and the JFK murder by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, because Robert Welch was the de facto spiritual guide of resigned General Edwin Walker.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the past, Paul has boldly declared that the Birch Society (and its adherents) were "traitors" -- but, now, in this current message, Paul describes Walker (and by inference -- other adherents of JBS ideology) as being motivated by "patriotism" -- albeit a "misguided" version. This is another example of why it is difficult to understand what Paul really means.

Well, Ernie, the question is topical. Last month in South Carolina, the Confederate Flag was finally removed from that State Capitol building mast, and the word 'treason' was used in the dialogue leading up to its removal.

The Confederate Flag represents 'treason' to many Americans, and also represents 'patriotism' to many Americans. It's a modern quandary that has lasted 150 years now. One cannot make a simple Either/Or statement out of it.

One may justly argue that the John Birch Society, with its denunciation of so many sitting US Presidents, were 'treasonous.' One may also argue, as John Simkin argues in his Spartacus entry on the John Birch Society, that they were well-meaning patriots.

J. Edgar Hoover didn't regard Robert Welch as a traitor -- however, here is what J. Edgar Hoover said:

"Personally, I have little respect for the head of the John Birch Society since he linked the names of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the late John Foster Dulles, and former CIA Director Allen Dulles with communism." [FBI File 100-114578-152, October 22, 1965].

That is not calling Welch a traitor -- but it does clearly state that J. Edgar Hoover had "little respect" for Welch, and gave the precise reason why.

This fact is relevant to the current thread about the forthcoming book on Edwin Walker and the JFK murder by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, because Robert Welch was the defacto spiritual guide of resigned General Edwin Walker.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I don't recall the word "treason" being used in the media coverage of the confederate flag in South Carolina. Instead, the coverage was focused upon what the flag represented to many contemporary Americans (i.e. racism and defense of slavery).

The defenders of the confederate flag being prominently displayed on South Carolina capitol grounds did not argue that it represented "patriotism" as such. Rather, they said it represented the heroism and valor of their ancestors.

Obviously, one can recognize how individuals can bravely fight and die or be severely wounded for a cause while at the same time acknowledging that their cause was not a morally just one (when judged by contemporary standards).

As I have told you numerous times in answer to your false assertions --- the FBI never even opened a formal investigation into the Birch Society. The reason was because they determined very early (after a preliminary inquiry) that the Society was NOT engaged in illegal or subversive or criminal activities -- nor did it seek to facilitate or defend or finance such activities. Consequently, there were no violations of federal laws falling under the jurisdiction of the FBI which required any sort of investigation.

Obviously, this does nothing for your argument because while senior officials of the FBI universally denounced Welch and the JBS and considered them to be "irrational", "extremist", and "irresponsible" -- as well as poisoning the minds of Americans with false information --- nevertheless, the FBI did NOT agree with YOUR characterization of the JBS as "traitors".

In addition, the FBI did NOT believe that the JBS was subversive or deserved to be closely monitored by the FBI -- as was the case for other extreme right-wing individuals and groups which never attracted the caliber of individuals that the JBS did (previously described by me).

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...In addition, the FBI did NOT believe that the JBS was subversive or deserved to be closely monitored by the FBI -- as was the case for other extreme right-wing individuals and groups which never attracted the caliber of individuals that the JBS did (previously described by me).

Well, Ernie, it's very well-known that J. Edgar Hoover himself published books extolling Anticommunism.

The fact that Robert Welch (and Edwin Walker) concealed their passive-aggressive power-grab with patriotic flag-waving, and concealed their Southern politics under the slogan, "Impeach Earl Warren" (who was famous in 1959 precisely for his Brown Decision to racially integrate US Public Schools) -- all this was evidently enough to convince J. Edgar Hoover that the JBS was never as dangerous as the KKK or the Minutemen or other radical rightists.

Yet we should never forget that even though Hoover and Welch were both staunch Anticommunists, Hoover refused to respect Robert Welch, precisely for Welch's condemning remarks about US Presidents and the Dulles brothers.

Runaway McCarthyism is the single most important aspect of the John Birch Society, IMHO, and places them under suspicion of Treason -- most especially when the topic turns to the role of Edwin Walker in the murder of JFK.

So I look forward to the publication of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's forthcoming book on Edwin Walker and the JFK murder.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...In addition, the FBI did NOT believe that the JBS was subversive or deserved to be closely monitored by the FBI -- as was the case for other extreme right-wing individuals and groups which never attracted the caliber of individuals that the JBS did (previously described by me).

Well, Ernie, it's very well-known that J. Edgar Hoover himself published books extolling Anticommunism.

The fact that Robert Welch (and Edwin Walker) concealed their passive-aggressive power-grab with patriotic flag-waving, and concealed their Southern politics under the slogan, "Impeach Earl Warren" (who was famous in 1959 precisely for his Brown Decision to racially integrate US Public Schools) -- all this was evidently enough to convince J. Edgar Hoover that the JBS was never as dangerous as the KKK or the Minutemen or other radical rightists.

Yet we should never forget that even though Hoover and Welch were both staunch Anticommunists, Hoover refused to respect Robert Welch, precisely for Welch's condemning remarks about US Presidents and the Dulles brothers.

Runaway McCarthyism is the single most important aspect of the John Birch Society, IMHO, and places them under suspicion of Treason -- most especially when the topic turns to the role of Edwin Walker in the murder of JFK.

So I look forward to the publication of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's forthcoming book on Edwin Walker and the JFK murder.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

1. Hoover never published any books. His 3 books on anti-communism were actually written by FBI employees but released under his name.

2. The impetus for the "Impeach Warren" campaign was not primarily the Brown decision. Instead it was a series of Supreme Court decisions regarding Communist Party--a concern BTW which was shared by the American Bar Association. However, after the Impeach Warren campaign was announced, Welch and the JBS did use the Brown decision to attract southern support.

3. Still awaiting your answer to my previous 3 questions regarding Caufield's book. If he has not discovered any compelling new factual evidence to support the conclusions I listed ---then how will that affect your judgments regarding Walker and the JBS -- in terms of their supposed involvement or interest in JFK's assassination?

Postscript:

A couple months ago I responded to an inquiry I received from a Yale University history professor regarding the books released under Hoover's name. Here is one except from the information I sent to that professor:

10/23/57 L.B. Nichols memo to FBI Associate Director Clyde Tolson on book entitled “Communism in the United States” which later became Masters of Deceit:

“Fern C. Stukenbroeker assigned to the Crime Records Section has worked exceedingly hard on the book and did most of the first draft in 1954, which I later tried to work into final form and was subsequently worked over by Bill Nichols. Mr. Stukenbroeker did considerable revision work…William C. Sullivan…conducted considerable research which was later used as a basis in the preparation of the book…Supervisor Herman Bly of the Domestic Intelligence Division was of considerable assistance in making suggestions, providing research material and in reading the manuscript.” [HQ 67-38609, #509,10/23/57 from Leland Boardman personnel file.]

Similarly with respect to Hoover's subsequent 1962 book, "A Study of Communism" -- Assistant Director William C. Sullivan was the primary ghostwriter.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Hoover never published any books. His 3 books on anti-communism were actually written by FBI employees but released under his name.

2. The impetus for the "Impeach Warren" campaign was not primarily the Brown decision. Instead it was a series of Supreme Court decisions regarding Communist Party--a concern BTW which was shared by the American Bar Association. However, after the Impeach Warren campaign was announced, Welch and the JBS did use the Brown decision to attract southern support.

3. Still awaiting your answer to my previous 3 questions regarding Caufield's book. If he has not discovered any compelling new factual evidence to support the conclusions I listed ---then how will that affect your judgments regarding Walker and the JBS -- in terms of their supposed involvement or interest in JFK's assassination?

Well, Ernie, by the numbers:

(1) It's a minor point that Hoover hired ghost writers to write his three books on Anticommunism.

(2) Thanks for admitting that Robert Welch used his "Impeach Earl Warren" slogan to attract support from Southern racists who proudly waved the Confederate Flag.

(3) I suppose, Ernie, that if Dr. Jeffrey Caufield fails to absolutely prove the leadership of JBS dupe, Edwin Walker, in the murder of JFK, that I'll probably take up my pick and shovel and resume digging myself. In that event, I expect to expand upon the clues that Dr. Caufield presents -- just as I've been doing privately for years.

In any case, the ARRB is scheduled to release all JFK Top Secret documents by Thursday 26 October 2017. I'll keep a hopeful attitude for that great day.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue which Paul Trejo and I have debated is whether or not Robert Welch or the JBS supported anyone who planned or facilitated murder or any other illegal activity. We know that when the JBS discovered neo-nazis, Klan members, and Minutemen in its ranks -- it terminated their membership.

A lot of things are done for show. A lot of groups on both sides of politics are presented as the "cleanskin" public face of the left or the right. The dirty stuff is done by other groups. That's how it works. The IRA carried out the bombings, Sinn Fein carried out the politics. We see similar things in the Middle East.

The two demonstrators who were involved in Stevenson incidents were expelled from several groups - including Walker's! Yet DPD intelligence had quoted talk at a Walker meeting that they planned on "dragging his (Kennedy's) dick in the dirt when he comes to Dallas." That is a euphemism for dragging a dead body away from the scene of a gun fight or ambush.

Do you honestly believe that Hatfield and Fredrickson were expelled by any groups for any reason other than public show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Hoover never published any books. His 3 books on anti-communism were actually written by FBI employees but released under his name.

2. The impetus for the "Impeach Warren" campaign was not primarily the Brown decision. Instead it was a series of Supreme Court decisions regarding Communist Party--a concern BTW which was shared by the American Bar Association. However, after the Impeach Warren campaign was announced, Welch and the JBS did use the Brown decision to attract southern support.

3. Still awaiting your answer to my previous 3 questions regarding Caufield's book. If he has not discovered any compelling new factual evidence to support the conclusions I listed ---then how will that affect your judgments regarding Walker and the JBS -- in terms of their supposed involvement or interest in JFK's assassination?

Well, Ernie, by the numbers:

(1) It's a minor point that Hoover hired ghost writers to write his three books on Anticommunism.

(2) Thanks for admitting that Robert Welch used his "Impeach Earl Warren" slogan to attract support from Southern racists who proudly waved the Confederate Flag.

(3) I suppose, Ernie, that if Dr. Jeffrey Caufield fails to absolutely prove the leadership of JBS quisling Edwin Walker in the murder of JFK, that I might join a Seminary and take vows of silence.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Sorry Paul I disagree with your comments:

1. Not a "minor point" to learn that someone never wrote a word of the text of a book published under his name.

Nor did Hoover "hire" anybody. He never even selected the FBI employees who produced his books. Instead, he knew that the Bureau's most knowledgeable experts about the communist movement within the Bureau's Domestic Intelligence Division (Herman Bly and William Sullivan) and within the Bureau's public relations unit (Fern Stukenbroker and Louis Nichols of the Crime Records Section) would do ALL the research, write ALL the first drafts, and then proof-read the final result for errors (factual and grammatical) and make suggestions for improvements.

2. Your characterization of what I supposedly "admitted" re: the Impeach Warren campaign is your typically false and malicious silliness. Welch was not attempting to appeal to racists. He was attempting to appeal to states rights advocates who believed that the federal government had no legitimate role to play in local educational matters and who believed (along with the American Bar Association) that the Supreme Court had made numerous unwise decisions which were not properly grounded in Constitutional law or precedents. Obviously, however, that argument also appealed to racists but the way we separate rational from irrational beliefs is by making careful distinctions---a habit which is foreign to you.

3. It is possible that Caufield's new book will present a lot of circumstantial evidence or evidence which is subject to multiple interpretations by entirely honorable people and/or he might just present a more comprehensive and up-to-date summary of what is already generally known. In that case, our discussion will not move significantly forward. In that case---as I have previously suggested (and you have derided me for doing so) we are still left with the fundamental unanswered question of WHERE can ANY researcher find NEW previously unknown factual evidence regarding Walker, the JBS, and the assassination? If Walker's personal papers have been exhausted and if there are no living persons willing to present new verifiable first-hand knowledge regarding "the plot" -- then the evidence trail comes to an end and all that remains is speculation. [i hasten to add that it is not likely that you are going to find the "secret" FBI documents which you think exist but are currently being withheld until 2017 for forever.]

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue which Paul Trejo and I have debated is whether or not Robert Welch or the JBS supported anyone who planned or facilitated murder or any other illegal activity. We know that when the JBS discovered neo-nazis, Klan members, and Minutemen in its ranks -- it terminated their membership.

A lot of things are done for show. A lot of groups on both sides of politics are presented as the "cleanskin" public face of the left or the right. The dirty stuff is done by other groups. That's how it works. The IRA carried out the bombings, Sinn Fein carried out the politics. We see similar things in the Middle East.

The two demonstrators who were involved in Stevenson incidents were expelled from several groups - including Walker's! Yet DPD intelligence had quoted talk at a Walker meeting that they planned on "dragging his (Kennedy's) dick in the dirt when he comes to Dallas." That is a euphemism for dragging a dead body away from the scene of a gun fight or ambush.

Do you honestly believe that Hatfield and Fredrickson were expelled by any groups for any reason other than public show?

There is no way to answer your question to your satisfaction because there is no factual evidence upon which to base a conclusion. If you have some documentary evidence which establishes that Hatfield and Fredrickson were not dropped but, instead, continued to be members -- I certainly would like to see it. OR if you have some other evidence which proves that the JBS (as an organization) encouraged or directed Hatfield or Fredrickson to assault Stevenson -- I would be happy to see that too.

Perhaps you have statements by other members of the Friends of Walker group to support your innuendo?? Do you have anything from:

William Drew Fitzwilliams, Bill Waller, William Ivan Snodgrass, Pat Brady, Michael Ray Bowlin, Bill Calhoun, Leslie Tooker, Ronnie Beall and Rusty Williford, William McCune Duff, Mrs. Beth Rachel, Cliff Roberts, William Keester, or Julia Knecht??

OR

Maybe you have some statements or other evidence from members of the Indignant White Citizens Council such as Bob or William Joiner, Claude Binder, Earl Thornton. L.M. Edmunds, Roy Davis Jr., or Mrs. Addie Frazier??

OR perhaps something else?

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue which Paul Trejo and I have debated is whether or not Robert Welch or the JBS supported anyone who planned or facilitated murder or any other illegal activity. We know that when the JBS discovered neo-nazis, Klan members, and Minutemen in its ranks -- it terminated their membership.

A lot of things are done for show. A lot of groups on both sides of politics are presented as the "cleanskin" public face of the left or the right. The dirty stuff is done by other groups. That's how it works. The IRA carried out the bombings, Sinn Fein carried out the politics. We see similar things in the Middle East.

The two demonstrators who were involved in Stevenson incidents were expelled from several groups - including Walker's! Yet DPD intelligence had quoted talk at a Walker meeting that they planned on "dragging his (Kennedy's) dick in the dirt when he comes to Dallas." That is a euphemism for dragging a dead body away from the scene of a gun fight or ambush.

Do you honestly believe that Hatfield and Fredrickson were expelled by any groups for any reason other than public show?

There is no way to answer your question to your satisfaction because there is no factual evidence upon which to base a conclusion. If you have some documentary evidence which establishes that Hatfield and Fredrickson were not dropped but, instead, continued to be members -- I certainly would like to see it. OR if you have some other evidence which proves that the JBS (as an organization) encouraged or directed Hatfield or Fredrickson to assault Stevenson -- I would be happy to see that too.

Perhaps you have statements by other members of the Friends of Walker group to support your innuendo?? Do you have anything from:

William Drew Fitzwilliams, Bill Waller, William Ivan Snodgrass, Pat Brady, Michael Ray Bowlin, Bill Calhoun, Leslie Tooker, Ronnie Beall and Rusty Williford, William McCune Duff, Mrs. Beth Rachel, Cliff Roberts, William Keester, or Julia Knecht??

OR

Maybe you have some statements or other evidence from members of the Indignant White Citizens Council such as Bob or William Joiner, Claude Binder, Earl Thornton. L.M. Edmunds, Roy Davis Jr., or Mrs. Addie Frazier??

OR perhaps something else?

Of course they were dropped. Why would Walker's group drop someone for spitting when they were all talking privately about dragging Kennedy's lifeless body through the dirt? Adverse publicity is the only reason.

I will add that Larrie Schmidt was writing letters after the Stevenson incident claiming everyone involved was being feted as heroes by the Right. But that would be behind closed doors, not publicly. You do understand the difference between public and private faces?

Innuendo? What innuendo?

I say in your endo, pal!

Fitzwilliams btw, was the one who made the "dick dragging" comment - per DPD intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue which Paul Trejo and I have debated is whether or not Robert Welch or the JBS supported anyone who planned or facilitated murder or any other illegal activity. We know that when the JBS discovered neo-nazis, Klan members, and Minutemen in its ranks -- it terminated their membership.

A lot of things are done for show. A lot of groups on both sides of politics are presented as the "cleanskin" public face of the left or the right. The dirty stuff is done by other groups. That's how it works. The IRA carried out the bombings, Sinn Fein carried out the politics. We see similar things in the Middle East.

The two demonstrators who were involved in Stevenson incidents were expelled from several groups - including Walker's! Yet DPD intelligence had quoted talk at a Walker meeting that they planned on "dragging his (Kennedy's) dick in the dirt when he comes to Dallas." That is a euphemism for dragging a dead body away from the scene of a gun fight or ambush.

Do you honestly believe that Hatfield and Fredrickson were expelled by any groups for any reason other than public show?

There is no way to answer your question to your satisfaction because there is no factual evidence upon which to base a conclusion. If you have some documentary evidence which establishes that Hatfield and Fredrickson were not dropped but, instead, continued to be members -- I certainly would like to see it. OR if you have some other evidence which proves that the JBS (as an organization) encouraged or directed Hatfield or Fredrickson to assault Stevenson -- I would be happy to see that too.

Perhaps you have statements by other members of the Friends of Walker group to support your innuendo?? Do you have anything from:

William Drew Fitzwilliams, Bill Waller, William Ivan Snodgrass, Pat Brady, Michael Ray Bowlin, Bill Calhoun, Leslie Tooker, Ronnie Beall and Rusty Williford, William McCune Duff, Mrs. Beth Rachel, Cliff Roberts, William Keester, or Julia Knecht??

OR

Maybe you have some statements or other evidence from members of the Indignant White Citizens Council such as Bob or William Joiner, Claude Binder, Earl Thornton. L.M. Edmunds, Roy Davis Jr., or Mrs. Addie Frazier??

OR perhaps something else?

Of course they were dropped. Why would Walker's group drop someone for spitting when they were all talking privately about dragging Kennedy's lifeless body through the dirt? Adverse publicity is the only reason.

I will add that Larrie Schmidt was writing letters after the Stevenson incident claiming everyone involved was being feted as heroes by the Right. But that would be behind closed doors, not publicly. You do understand the difference between public and private faces?

Innuendo? What innuendo?

I say in your endo, pal!

Fitzwilliams btw, was the one who made the "dick dragging" comment - per DPD intelligence.

So what is your point? Spit it out. Are you saying that several Friends of Walker members knew about a plot to murder JFK and they participated in it? And, furthermore, Friends of Walker made their sentiments and plans known to the Birch Society officials in both Dallas and at JBS HQ in Belmont?

When you refer to "adverse publicity" -- one has to remember that what you and I might consider "adverse publicity" is not necessarily anything which would bother true believers who have nothing but contempt for "mainstream" politicians, media, etc. In other words, they don't care what outsiders think.

Whom, specifically, do you include in your comment "they were all talking privately" and what exactly is their connection to the JBS (as an organization), i.e. did they keep JBS officials apprised re: their talks? And, if so, how did JBS officials respond? Where, precisely, is the documentary evidence you are relying upon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You claim xyz about the Birch society - specifically in regard to eschewing violence and violent rhetoric.

I say I agree with you. They were the "nice" public face of the extreme right.

They were the Sinn Fein to the Minutemen's IRA.

They were Hamas to Walker's Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades

Throughout the Cold War, certain politicians didn't publicly support the overthrow of foreign leaders, either.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert Welch, by this time frame (late 62’ and early 63’), had managed to alienate all but his closest allies, by making extreme claims about government officials including former and current Presidents. His rank and file JBS membership were dividing into factions or deserting him for several reasons. His viewpoints differed on many key points with that of his radical members, which had given him a broad based coalition in the past. He had failed the controversial racial issues including the ‘Jewish question’, which had become a key tenant of radical belief, which held that the “Jews” were the founders and propagators of communism. Many former adherent’s to the JBS, no longer considered Welch relevant to the then current and evolving mind set, of politics on the “Right” They left to join other more hard core orgs, which embraced their agenda. Yet they were nonetheless, spawned by some of the original precepts of Welch’s dogma.


In essence, Welch had neutered his own political potency. In fact he was no longer considered a “good reference” or endorsement among many of his former followers…..especially the radical ones we are considering. The JBS as an organization did not officially condone violence or criminal activity in the name of its goals, but there were those in its membership rolls that did. Some were purged, while others were smart enough not to openly state their true beliefs, while others simply left the fold.


The radical right didn’t need or want Welch; they were headed off to their own horizon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×