New Book!

[William O'Neil]

The document I referred to was a 164 page Memorandum by Sen. Gale McGee called "Right Wing Movements and 1964" forwarded to JFK by WH assistant Myer (Mike) Feldman,on August 16 1963. It seems to be an lengthy addendum or update to the Ruether memo in regard to future needed actions in combating Right Wing tactics, especially in the upcoming 1964 elections.

Bill

[Ernie Lazar]

The document I referred to was a 164 page Memorandum by Sen. Gale McGee called "Right Wing Movements and 1964" forwarded to JFK by WH assistant Myer (Mike) Feldman,on August 16 1963. It seems to be an lengthy addendum or update to the Ruether memo in regard to future needed actions in combating Right Wing tactics, especially in the upcoming 1964 elections.

Bill

There were many such memos floating around within the Administration. Another one is "Confidential Report #6" dated 2/19/62 on "The Radical Right" which was prepared by WH aide, Lee C. White.

Many years ago I obtained copies of many of these memos from the JFK Library. I think they are in the boxes of my files which Internet Archive now has - but I don't think they will scan those and post them online.

In addition -- Wes McCune's organization, Group Research Inc. (GRI), prepared very detailed position papers about right-wing personalities, organizations, finances, etc. Those reports are archived in the GRI collection at Columbia University. http://findingaids.cul.columbia.edu/ead/nnc-rb/ldpd_5010936/summary

For anyone who wants to read the 8/16/63 Feldman memo to JFK and the accompanying report on the right-wing by Sen. Gale McGee -- the entire 193 page document is available here:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-106-013.aspx

Edited August 26, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Kenneth Drew]

Right, I gather that reporter for OW was Siegfried Naujocks, who Walker had banned from access to the base, after he was caught snooping around command HQ's, looking for dirt on Ted.

Bill

Yes, that's right, Bill. In fact, the Senate Subcommittee Hearings on Military Preparedness held in April 1962, were sponsored by Senators John Stennis and Strom Thurmond, planned months in advance specifically for the purpose of letting General Edwin Walker explain how the Communists in Washington DC had "fired" another great General (just like the "definitely pink" President Harry Truman had "fired" General Douglas MacArthur in 1951).

In those hearings, the Senate had to endure long tirades about this Overseas Weekly reporter, Seigfried Naujocks, and just how much he had annoyed General Walker throughout 1960. It's now a matter of US History -- anybody can look up these public hearings and read all they desire to know about Seigfried Naujocks. It would be funny if it wasn't so pitiful.

What is equally amusing is that JFK and RFK actually feared General Walker's fame. Between the months of November 1961 (when Walker resigned from the US Army) and April 1962 (when the Subcommittee was called to order) the resigned General Edwin Walker gave many speeches in Dallas and throughout the South -- and he attracted very large crowds.

Reports of those speeches say that Walker would get a standing ovation every 60 seconds on average -- and would enjoy a thunderous five-minute standing ovation at the end of his speeches. The press had portrayed Walker as a Media Wizard. Newsweek magazine put Walker on their front cover in December 1961, with the caption, "Thunder on the Right!" Walker was compared with MacArthur by some, and with McCarthy by others. No wonder that JFK and RFK were concerned.

So great was the concern on the part of JFK and RFK that they insisted that the Senate Subcommittee hearings be held behind closed doors -- with no TV or Radio allowed. After the end of the Hearings, however, they deeply regretted their decision, because the resigned General Walker gave such a pitiful performance that JFK and RFK then wished that the American People had been permitted to witness the fiasco live and uncut.

The resigned General Walker could perform very well in front of crowds of True Believers. (This was portrayed in the 1964 movie, Seven Days in May, by Burt Lancaster). But when Walker faced cross-examining Senators, he would lose his temper, bluster, stutter, ask his lawyers for help, and generally put his foot in his mouth. One of the saddest episodes of those Hearings was having to endure Walker complain on and on about that OW reporter, Siegfried Naujocks.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Never mind, my question was answered

Edited August 26, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Paul Trejo]

Paul -- as usual, you have your facts wrong.

It was not (as you wrote) "Kent and Phoebe Courtney's Conservative Voting Index" - or the Conservative Society of America.

Instead, it was the Americans For Constitutional Action voting index. The ACA was formed in 1958 to promote conservatism.

As Walker himself told the Subcommittee during his testimony: "The ACA Index has no partisan bias as far as I knew. Even if it has some bias,as most documents do have, the index was factual and educational, as far as I could tell." [Hearings Before Special Preparedness Subcommittee, part 4, page 1419.]

In addition, one could reasonably argue that the so-called Reuther Memorandum (December 1961) was more significant than Fulbright's observations.

With respect to your comment that Fulbright's Memorandum was "proof" to the JBS that Washington DC had become "fully Communist":

That is totally absurd. It would help if you took time to actually study history. The Fulbright Memorandum was drafted in July 1961. In January 1960, Robert Welch told the JBS National Council that:

"Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists."

Obviously Welch/JBS arrived at their conclusion regarding our government long before the Fulbright Memorandum was ever written...

Once again, Ernie, you over-react and overstate your case in your typical Either/Or fashion.

Actually, both the CSA Index and the ACA Index documents are found among the resigned General Walker's personal papers (as well as within the Bruce Alger personal papers). Both Indexes were promoted by Edwin Walker. (Kent and Phoebe Courtney had published a booklet about Walker, naming him as a candidate for President of the USA.)

Your correction, however, is accurate -- the ACA Index was specifically what got Walker into trouble with the Joint Chiefs, and so Walker had to address the ACA Index in the Senate Subcommittee Hearings about his "reprimand".

As for my comment that Fulbright's Memorandum was "proof" to the JBS that Washington DC had become "fully Communist", you again over-react. It was actually a "further proof" added to their already full baggage of opinions fixed by 1959, when Robert Welch accused President Eisenhower of being a Communist. So it was "a proof" -- and only your own bias read it as "the first proof" or "the only proof".

As for the Reuther Memorandum of late 1961, Walter and Victor Reuther wrote to JFK and RFK that, "The radical right or extreme right-wing, or however it may be designated, includes an unknown number of millions of Americans of viewpoints bounded on the left by Senator Goldwater and on the right by Robert Welch."

The Reuther Memorandum specifically names the resigned General Walker as a carrier of this viewpoint. It adds:

"New radical right organizations have sprung up like weeds in the last few years; it is estimated by the ADL that almost a hundred such organizations have been organized in 1961 alone. Welch's Birch Society, Schwarz' Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, and Hargis' Christian Crusade, are among the most powerful of the new groups..."

What modern readers may not recall about the 1960's, was that Right-wing "American Seminars" were promoted all over the USA, something like the EST seminars of the 1980's. These were not merely evening seminars of Right-wing speakers, these were full-weekend Seminars, and they had become a Fad in the early 1960's. But what alarmed the Reuther brothers was that this viewpoint showed signs of spreading inside the US Military.

In this context, Reuther Memorandum placed a key focus on the resigned General Walker, saying:

"What appears to support the position of widespread infiltration of the radical right into the Armed Services is the manner in which the Walker case was handled. Indeed, the shocking thing about the Walker case is not that his resignation was accepted in 1961, but that the Armed Services rejected his resignation in 1959 when he tried to resign because of "the fifth column conspiracy and influence in the United States" and the "conspiracy and its influences on the home front." Whether the resignation was rejected because Walker's superiors agreed with his views or simply were not shocked by them is not known; but in either event, the failure to accept his resignation constituted a dangerous tolerance of the radical right inside the Armed Services. Even worse was the action towards Walker in 1960 and early in 1961; the Army failed to act against Walker's [insubordination] and illegal acts of "radical right politics" until public notice of Walker's offenses (brought about by a newspaper exposé) forced the Pentagon's hand. Again, it is not important why this happened; what is important is the degree of tolerance of the radical right inside the Armed Services."

It is too easy for JFK researchers today to dismiss the resigned General Walker as just as "crazy old man" in 1963. He ran for Governor of Texas in 1962 -- so we must seriously ask -- how did he get a reputation as a "crazy old man" in 1963 -- when actually, among a minority of Right-Wing extremists in the USA, he was still a viable candidate for US President.

I refer the reader to this October 1962 photo of Edwin Walker as he returned from the insane asylum to which JFK and RFK sent him after the Ole Miss race riot, and from which the ACLU and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz removed him. Here at Love Field in Dallas, a crowd greets him, waving the Confederate Flag and holding up signs saying: "Walker for President."

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/explore/20130511-before-gunning-for-jfk-oswald-targeted-ex-gen.-edwin-a.-walker--and-missed.ece

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Right, I gather that reporter for OW was Siegfried Naujocks, who Walker had banned from access to the base, after he was caught snooping around command HQ's, looking for dirt on Ted.

Bill

Yes, that's right, Bill. In fact, the Senate Subcommittee Hearings on Military Preparedness held in April 1962, were sponsored by Senators John Stennis and Strom Thurmond, planned months in advance specifically for the purpose of letting General Edwin Walker explain how the Communists in Washington DC had "fired" another great General (just like the "definitely pink" President Harry Truman had "fired" General Douglas MacArthur in 1951).

In those hearings, the Senate had to endure long tirades about this Overseas Weekly reporter, Seigfried Naujocks, and just how much he had annoyed General Walker throughout 1960. It's now a matter of US History -- anybody can look up these public hearings and read all they desire to know about Seigfried Naujocks. It would be funny if it wasn't so pitiful.

What is equally amusing is that JFK and RFK actually feared General Walker's fame. Between the months of November 1961 (when Walker resigned from the US Army) and April 1962 (when the Subcommittee was called to order) the resigned General Edwin Walker gave many speeches in Dallas and throughout the South -- and he attracted very large crowds.

Reports of those speeches say that Walker would get a standing ovation every 60 seconds on average -- and would enjoy a thunderous five-minute standing ovation at the end of his speeches. The press had portrayed Walker as a Media Wizard. Newsweek magazine put Walker on their front cover in December 1961, with the caption, "Thunder on the Right!" Walker was compared with MacArthur by some, and with McCarthy by others. No wonder that JFK and RFK were concerned.

So great was the concern on the part of JFK and RFK that they insisted that the Senate Subcommittee hearings be held behind closed doors -- with no TV or Radio allowed. After the end of the Hearings, however, they deeply regretted their decision, because the resigned General Walker gave such a pitiful performance that JFK and RFK then wished that the American People had been permitted to witness the fiasco live and uncut.

The resigned General Walker could perform very well in front of crowds of True Believers. (This was portrayed in the 1964 movie, Seven Days in May, by Burt Lancaster). But when Walker faced cross-examining Senators, he would lose his temper, bluster, stutter, ask his lawyers for help, and generally put his foot in his mouth. One of the saddest episodes of those Hearings was having to endure Walker complain on and on about that OW reporter, Siegfried Naujocks.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Reports of those speeches say that Walker would get a standing ovation every 60 seconds on average -- and would enjoy a thunderous five-minute standing ovation at the end of his speeches. The press had portrayed Walker as a Media Wizard.

Isn't that contrary to the impression we are given earlier about Walker being a terrible public speaker, nervous twitches, not being able to put two coherent sentences together?

Everything depends upon what you research.

Going back as far as Walker's time as commanding officer of the so-called Devil's Brigade (First Special Services Force), soldiers under his command commented upon Walker's poor speaking voice and his excitability or other unattractive traits.

Walker replaced Brig. Gen. Robert T. Frederick as C.O. of the Devil's Brigade. Frederick described Walker as "an outstanding soldier" when Walker served under him.

However, during the 1960's, when Frederick was a private citizen, he attended several of Walker's speeches -- including a 1962 Walker speech at Stanford University. When interviewed by John Nadler (for his book, A Perfect Hell: The Forgotten Story of the Canadian Commandos of the Second World War) -- Frederick described the Walker speech "rambling on and on and on" and Frederick characterized Walker as "irrational".

Sgt. Bill Story who served under Walker in Germany, remembered Walker as someone “who under strain, spoke in the same high-pitched and garbled manner that years later he used before a Senate Investigative Committee”. Story also said Walker was “a dirty unshaven man in a G.I. raincoat and a pulled down knit cap who looked like a tramp and was an altogether miserable character.”

Another soldier (Gus Heilman) who served under Walker recounted an incident which should be considered because Paul Trejo is on record claiming (absurdly) that Walker was NOT a racist.

Heilman reported that when an African American Red Cross official was visiting and he entered the Officer’s Mess, “Walker sent over an orderly to tell him that he would not be allowed to eat there…that he must eat in the public rooms.”

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- as usual, you have your facts wrong.

It was not (as you wrote) "Kent and Phoebe Courtney's Conservative Voting Index" - or the Conservative Society of America.

Instead, it was the Americans For Constitutional Action voting index. The ACA was formed in 1958 to promote conservatism.

As Walker himself told the Subcommittee during his testimony: "The ACA Index has no partisan bias as far as I knew. Even if it has some bias,as most documents do have, the index was factual and educational, as far as I could tell." [Hearings Before Special Preparedness Subcommittee, part 4, page 1419.]

In addition, one could reasonably argue that the so-called Reuther Memorandum (December 1961) was more significant than Fulbright's observations.

With respect to your comment that Fulbright's Memorandum was "proof" to the JBS that Washington DC had become "fully Communist":

That is totally absurd. It would help if you took time to actually study history. The Fulbright Memorandum was drafted in July 1961. In January 1960, Robert Welch told the JBS National Council that:

"Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists."

Obviously Welch/JBS arrived at their conclusion regarding our government long before the Fulbright Memorandum was ever written...

Once again, Ernie, you over-react and overstate your case in your typical Either/Or fashion.

Actually, both the CSA Index and the ACA Index documents are found among the resigned General Walker's personal papers (as well as within the Bruce Alger personal papers). Both Indexes were promoted by Edwin Walker. (Kent and Phoebe Courtney had published a booklet about Walker, naming him as a candidate for President of the USA.)

Your correction, however, is accurate -- the ACA Index was specifically what got Walker into trouble with the Joint Chiefs, and what Walker had to address the ACA Index in the Senate Subcommittee Hearings about his "reprimand".

As for my comment that Fulbright's Memorandum was "proof" to the JBS that Washington DC had become "fully Communist", you again over-react. It was actually a "further proof" added to their already full baggage of opinions fixed by 1959, when Robert Welch accused President Eisenhower of being a Communist. So it was "a proof" -- and only your own bias read it as "the first proof" or "the only proof".

As for the Reuther Memorandum of late 1961, Walter and Victor Reuther wrote to JFK and RFK that, "The radical right or extreme right-wing, or however it may be designated, includes an unknown number of millions of Americans of viewpoints bounded on the left by Senator Goldwater and on the right by Robert Welch."

The Reuther Memorandum specifically names the resigned General Walker as a carrier of this viewpoint. It adds:

"New radical right organizations have sprung up like weeds in the last few years; it is estimated by the ADL that almost a hundred such organizations have been organized in 1961 alone. Welch's Birch Society, Schwarz' Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, and Hargis' Christian Crusade, are among the most powerful of the new groups..."

What modern readers may not recall about the 1960's, was that Right-wing "American Seminars" were promoted all over the USA, something like the EST seminars of the 1990's. These were not merely evening seminars of Right-wing speakers, these were full-weekend Seminars, and they had become a Fad in the early 1960's. But what alarmed the Reuther brothers was that this viewpoint showed signs of spreading inside the US Military.

In this context, Reuther Memorandum placed a key focus on the resigned General Walker, saying:

"What appears to support the position of widespread infiltration of the radical right into the Armed Services is the manner in which the Walker case was handled. Indeed, the shocking thing about the Walker case is not that his resignation was accepted in 1961, but that the Armed Services rejected his resignation in 1959 when he tried to resign because of "the fifth column conspiracy and influence in the United States" and the "conspiracy and its influences on the home front." Whether the resignation was rejected because Walker's superiors agreed with his views or simply were not shocked by them is not known; but in either event, the failure to accept his resignation constituted a dangerous tolerance of the radical right inside the Armed Services. Even worse was the action towards Walker in 1960 and early in 1961; the Army failed to act against Walker's [insubordination] and illegal acts of "radical right politics" until public notice of Walker's offenses (brought about by a newspaper exposé) forced the Pentagon's hand. Again, it is not important why this happened; what is important is the degree of tolerance of the radical right inside the Armed Services."

It is too easy for JFK researchers today to dismiss the resigned General Walker as just as "crazy old man" in 1963. He ran for Governor of Texas in 1962 -- so we must seriously ask -- how did he get a reputation as a "crazy old man" in 1963 -- when actually, among a minority of Right-Wing extremists in the USA, he was still a viable candidate for US President.

I refer the reader to this October 1962 photo of Edwin Walker as he returned from the insane asylum to which JFK and RFK sent him after the Ole Miss race riot, and from which the ACLU and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz removed him. Here at Love Field in Dallas, a crowd greets him, waving the Confederate Flag and holding up signs saying: "Walker for President."

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/explore/20130511-before-gunning-for-jfk-oswald-targeted-ex-gen.-edwin-a.-walker--and-missed.ece

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul: As usual, you attempt to weasel your way out of your own mistakes by changing the subject. I guess you think that nobody actually reads what you write -- so, consequently, you have permission to always refuse to admit your mistakes.

Your original message that I responded to was discussing Walker in the context of his Pro-Blue troop education program. Here is what you actually wrote:

Further, Walker interpreted this to mean that he could set-up a book-store in Germany, selling right-wing books, including those by the JBS and the favorite authors of Robert Welch, and using the military machinery for partisan politics. Things hit a peak with Walker's use of the "Conservative Society of America Voting Index" invented by Kent and Phoebe Courtney, including a telephone number one could call for advice on voting in the 1960 elections. Walker encouraged his troops to call that number.

Notice that YOU claimed "things hit a peak" (in Germany) when Walker used "the Conservative Society of America Voting Index"... Let's be VERY clear about this for everyone reading our exchange.

1. The CSA was founded in Chicago on 4/15/61.

2. The Voting Index which Walker endorsed and recommended during his command of the 24th Infantry Division in Germany was produced in 1960

3. As you now admit, you mistakenly identified the CSA Index as being the one used by Walker in Germany.

Now, with respect to the Fulbright Memorandum:

Your original statement was:

"The Fulbright Memorandum! Yes! This document was practically proof to the John Birch Society (JBS) that Washington DC had become fully Communist! Drafted in July 1961 by J. William Fulbright to Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense), its actual title was, Propaganda Activities of Military Personnel Directed at the Public. It really seems to be aimed directly at General Walker and his Pro-Blue Program in Germany."

According to YOUR theory (not my "overreaction"), July 1961 should be viewed as the operative period we should focus upon for understanding two things:

(1) what the JBS thought about the state of our national security, i.e. the extent to which Communists had influence and control of our government and

(2) understanding the intended target of the Fulbright Memorandum (i.e. "it really seems to aimed directly at Gen. Walker and his Pro-Blue Program in Germany")

You did NOT qualify or condition your statements upon anything. You used simple bold declarative sentences. And both are total absurdities because:

1. The Birch Society was created in 1958 because of Welch's underlying predicate regarding the very grave state of our national security.

Keep in mind that in 1958-1961, it was the official position of the JBS (according to you) that all of our Presidents since FDR were "Communists".

But let's give the floor to Robert Welch so he can speak for himself regarding what HE considered the state of our national security in JANUARY 1960 --- so we can then compare his beliefs to your original statement about when Welch thought our country had become "fully Communist". (whatever that means)

You think Welch's final conclusion was reached because of something written by Senator Fulbright. Welch thought differently -- as his grave evaluation below reveals. [incidentally, we can also QUANTIFY this matter in a metric measurement because, according to Welch and the JBS, at the beginning of 1961 the U.S. was "50-70% under Communist influence and control."

What did Welch and the JBS mean by "Communist influence and control" (aka CIC)? I doubt that Paul Trejo can answer that question.

According to the JBS, CIC is "due to the impact of all Communist pressures, direct and indirect, visible and undercover, working together."

Thus, when the JBS was founded in December 1958, according to Welch, “a dedicated conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy” was U.S President, and Communist “tools” or “dupes” or "sympathizers" headed major U.S. government Departments such as Allen Dulles (CIA), Neil McElroy (Defense Department) and John Foster Dulles (State Department) and Earl Warren (U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice).

Thus, according to the JBS paradigm, as explained by Robert Welch in his manuscript "The Politician" as well as in the annual Scoreboard issues of the Birch Society's American Opinion magazine --- the U.S., Great Britain, France, and Germany and most NATO countries were already being led by Communist agents and sympathizers and the major institutions of western countries were dominated and controlled by equally disloyal individuals.

The reason why the JBS was created based upon a totalitarian model is precisely because Welch believed that the "certain favorable conditions" did NOT exist for a different model.

ROBERT WELCH to first meeting of JBS National Council, January 9, 1960:

“Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists."

"In our two states with the largest population, New York and California...already the two present Governors are almost certainly actual Communists...Our Congress now contains a number of men like Adam Clayton Powell of New York and Charles Porter of Oregon, who are certainly actual Communists, and plenty more who are sympathetic to Communist purposes for either ideological or opportunistic reasons." [Note: the reference to Governors refers to Edmund G. Brown of California and Nelson Rockefeller of New York.]

"In the Senate, there are men like Stephen Young of Ohio, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, McNamara of Michigan, and Clifford Case of New Jersey and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whom it is utter folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference..."

“Our Supreme Court, dominated by Earl Warren and Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black, is so visibly pro-Communist that no argument is even needed…And our federal courts below that level…are in many cases just as bad.”

"Our State Department is loaded with Communists from top to bottom, to the extent that our roll call of Ambassadors almost sounds like a list somebody has put together to start a Communist front." ...

"It is estimated from many reliable sources that from 70% to 90% of the responsible personnel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are Communists. Our Central Intelligence Agency under Allen Dulles is nothing more or less than an agency to promote Communism throughout the world...Almost all the other Departments are loaded with Communists and Communist sympathizers. And this generalization most specifically does include our whole Defense Department."

2. You also cite 1959 as the date "when Robert Welch accused President Eisenhower of being a Communist". That is false. Welch made that conclusion in writing in 1954 when he authored the first edition of his "private letter" book-length manuscript.

3. OK -- let's now briefly recap:

(1) In 1954, Welch believed Eisenhower was a Communist traitor.

(2) In 1954, Welch believed that his conclusion about Eisenhower could be proven by the persons whom Eisenhower put into his Administration--particularly into senior cabinet positions.

(3) In 1958, Welch was so convinced about the grave situation our country faced that he felt he must start a new national organization to prevent our descent into outright tyranny.

(4) However, by January 1960, (11 months after the first JBS chapters were formed) Welch told his National Council that:

* our Federal Government was "literally in the hands of the Communists"

* our two largest states had Communists as Governors

* our House of Representatives contained many Communist sympathizers

* the U.S. Senate was filled with Communists posing as liberals -- including very senior and respected members

* our Supreme Court was pro-Communist

* our State Department was "loaded with Communists from top to bottom"

* our CIA was led by a Communist agent

* our Defense Department was "loaded with Communists and Communist sympathizers"

AND YOU want us to believe that something Arkansas Senator Fulbright wrote in July 1961 somehow materially changed Welch's perceptions?

[And for the record, I never said his memo represented "the first proof" or the "only proof" -- another example of how your bias causes you to deliberately FABRICATE falsehoods and attribute them to your opponents because you cannot handle what they actually write.

Oh---one last thought: How could the Fulbright Memo be (as you wrote) "aimed directly at General Walker and his Pro-Blue Program in Germany" -- when the Pro-Blue educational program had already been discontinued and even though our military had already approved such programs for troop education?

Edited August 26, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Another soldier (Gus Heilman) who served under Walker recounted an incident which should be considered because Paul Trejo is on record claiming (absurdly) that Walker was NOT a racist...

Once again you overreact and over-state your case, Ernie. What I said was that I scoured the speeches of Edwin Walker to find a clear instance of overt racial comment -- the sort which we found in the speeches of Governor George Wallace in the same period -- and I found none.

George Wallace even felt free to use the "N" word in public in 1960-1963 -- but not Edwin Walker.

There was one reporter who claimed he heard Walker say it once in Oklahoma -- but that is hearsay. It never appears in his official speeches -- even though Walker spoke mainly in the Southern States.

That's significant. Also, Walker refused to join the ANP and the KKK. That's also significant.

IMHO, the resigned General Walker wanted to be US President, and his model was the Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, who was President when Walker was a boy. Woodrow Wilson was famous in the South for keeping Princeton University an all-white campus.

This is one reason Walker chose to run as a Democrat --even though his main supporters in the Senate were Republicans. The Dixie Democrat was Walker's ideal.

I note also that Walker had plenty of opportunity to complain about Black Americans in the Korean War -- but he didn't.

Nevertheless, I always emphasized that Walker supported the Confederate Flag, and Dixie ideals, and that the Brown Decision was anathema to him. Yet Walker always framed that argument under the rubric of State's Rights. States should have the absolute Right whether to obey the Brown Decision to integrate public schools, according to Walker.

The Southern States didn't want to integrate -- and the Governors resisted it fiercely -- and only Federal Troops could force them to accept it. General Walker himself led Federal Troops to racially integrate Little Rock High School.

So -- no -- we're not looking at a career racist here -- we're looking at a political opportunist.

Edwin Walker used the race card to advance his political career -- and one is hard pressed to find overt racist slurs in his speeches. I never found one, though I searched high and low.

That said, one young politician (an elderly friend of FORUM member Robert Morrow) once said he met Edwin Walker after a speech in Mississippi (as I recall) and Walker warned him of a coming race riot in the USA that would overwhelm America until the American people begged the US Army to restore order. Then, said Walker, the US Army would initiate Martial Law and never again allow civilians to control the USA.

So, racial politics were a means to an end for Edwin Walker -- and not an end in themselves as they were for many of his followers and supporters. If you think I'm wrong, then kindly quote any public speech of Walker that sounds like George Wallace.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Another soldier (Gus Heilman) who served under Walker recounted an incident which should be considered because Paul Trejo is on record claiming (absurdly) that Walker was NOT a racist...

Once again you overreact and over-state your case, Ernie. What I said was that I scoured the speeches of Edwin Walker to find a clear instance of overt racial comment -- the sort which we found in the speeches of Governor George Wallace in the same period -- and I found none.

George Wallace even felt free to use the "N" word in public in 1960-1963 -- but not Edwin Walker.

There was one reporter who claimed he heard Walker say it once in Oklahoma -- but that is hearsay. It never appears in his official speeches -- even though Walker spoke mainly in the Southern States.

That's significant. Also, Walker refused to join the ANP and the KKK. That's also significant.

IMHO, the resigned General Walker wanted to be US President, and his model was the Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, who was President when Walker was a boy. Woodrow Wilson was famous in the South for keeping Princeton University an all-white campus.

This is one reason Walker chose to run as a Democrat --even though his main supporters in the Senate were Republicans. The Dixie Democrat was Walker's ideal.

I note also that Walker had plenty of opportunity to complain about Black Americans in the Korean War -- but he didn't.

Nevertheless, I always emphasized that Walker supported the Confederate Flag, and Dixie ideals, and that the Brown Decision was anathema to him. Yet Walker always framed that argument through the rubric of State's Rights. States should have the absolute Right whether to obey the Brown Decision to integrate public schools, according to Walker.

The Southern States didn't want to integrate -- and the Governors resisted it fiercely -- and only Federal Troops could force them to accept it. General Walker himself led Federal Troops to racially integrate Little Rock High School.

So -- no -- we're not looking at a career racist here -- we're looking at a political opportunist.

Edwin Walker used the race card to advance his political career -- and one is hard pressed to find overt racist slurs in his speeches. I never found one, though I searched high and low.

That said, one young politician (an elderly friend of FORUM member Robert Morrow) once said he met Edwin Walker after a speech in Mississippi (as I recall) and Walker warned him of a coming race riot in the USA that would overwhelm America until the American people begged the US Army to restore order. Then, said Walker, the US Army would initiate Martial Law and never again allow civilians to control the USA.

So, racial politics were a means to an end for Edwin Walker -- and not an end in themselves as they were for many of his followers and supporters. If you think I'm wrong, then kindly quote any public speech of Walker that sounds like George Wallace.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

No Paul, you previously definitively stated your judgment that Walker was not a racist. Your original judgment was not based upon his speeches but, rather, because you told us that he never joined the KKK or similar groups.

You also wrote: "Walker naively thought that colored people should all know their place in White Society, and keep that place."

I have no clue what you meant by "naively". He was a racist for his entire life! And he believed "integration is illegal".

Maybe there are two different Paul Trejo's who contribute messages in EF?

I also asked you for AFFIRMATIVE evidence to demonstrate Walker's NON-racist character, but you produced NONE.

I repeat my previous challenge:

• Does ANYBODY know of ANY local, state, or national civil rights organization or civil rights leader which Walker endorsed or praised?
• Did ANY civil rights organization EVER invite Walker to speak before their conventions?
• Did ANY civil rights organization or publication endorse Walker in Texas when he ran for Governor?
• Did Walker EVER state (in his entire lifetime) anything POSITIVE about civil rights groups OR
• Did Walker EVER make ANY financial contribution to a civil rights organization in Dallas, in Texas, or nationally?
• Did Walker EVER affirm or defend statements made by J. Edgar Hoover or by the FBI regarding our civil rights movement?
• Did Walker EVER refute or challenge racist comments made by his associates and friends or any of their defense-of-white-privilege arguments?

Edited August 26, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

No Paul, you previously definitively stated your judgment that Walker was not a racist. Your original judgment was not based upon his speeches but, rather, because you told us that he never joined the KKK or similar groups.

You also wrote: "Walker naively thought that colored people should all know their place in White Society, and keep that place."

I have no clue what you meant by "naively". He was a racist for his entire life! And he believed "integration is illegal".

Maybe there are two different Paul Trejo's who contribute messages in EF?

I also asked you for AFFIRMATIVE evidence to demonstrate Walker's NON-racist character, but you produced NONE.

I repeat my previous challenge:

• Does ANYBODY know of ANY local, state, or national civil rights organization or civil rights leader which Walker endorsed or praised?
• Did ANY civil rights organization EVER invite Walker to speak before their conventions?
• Did ANY civil rights organization or publication endorse Walker in Texas when he ran for Governor?
• Did Walker EVER state (in his entire lifetime) anything POSITIVE about civil rights groups OR
• Did Walker EVER make ANY financial contribution to a civil rights organization in Dallas, in Texas, or nationally?
• Did Walker EVER affirm or defend statements made by J. Edgar Hoover or by the FBI regarding our civil rights movement?
• Did Walker EVER refute or challenge racist comments made by his associates and friends or any of their defense-of-white-privilege arguments?

Your grandstanding is becoming silly, Ernie. Nobody doubts that the resigned General Walker, the man who led the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1962 would ever, ever, ever be a friend of the Civil Rights movement, or vice verse.

My point was simple -- Edwin Walker never used the "N" word. Edwin Walker wanted to be US President. Edwin Walker avoided intimate contact with the KKK and ANP -- precisely for that reason.

Edwin Walker deliberately preached to the White Citizens Councils all over the South -- yet never used the "N" word there.

Walker was "working his base" as they say in politics today. He did believe that colored people should stay in their place -- without power. That's racist in 2015, yet the truly outspoken racists in 1963 would use the "N" word in public speeches -- and would openly propose that all Black Americans should be shipped back to Africa. That's not a joke -- that's reality.

So -- one must know where to draw the line. Surely the NAACP always held Edwin Walker to be a nuisance. Yet George Wallace and the KKK were far more fearsome to them.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

No Paul, you previously definitively stated your judgment that Walker was not a racist. Your original judgment was not based upon his speeches but, rather, because you told us that he never joined the KKK or similar groups.

You also wrote: "Walker naively thought that colored people should all know their place in White Society, and keep that place."

I have no clue what you meant by "naively". He was a racist for his entire life! And he believed "integration is illegal".

Maybe there are two different Paul Trejo's who contribute messages in EF?

I also asked you for AFFIRMATIVE evidence to demonstrate Walker's NON-racist character, but you produced NONE.

I repeat my previous challenge:

• Does ANYBODY know of ANY local, state, or national civil rights organization or civil rights leader which Walker endorsed or praised?
• Did ANY civil rights organization EVER invite Walker to speak before their conventions?
• Did ANY civil rights organization or publication endorse Walker in Texas when he ran for Governor?
• Did Walker EVER state (in his entire lifetime) anything POSITIVE about civil rights groups OR
• Did Walker EVER make ANY financial contribution to a civil rights organization in Dallas, in Texas, or nationally?
• Did Walker EVER affirm or defend statements made by J. Edgar Hoover or by the FBI regarding our civil rights movement?
• Did Walker EVER refute or challenge racist comments made by his associates and friends or any of their defense-of-white-privilege arguments?

Your grandstanding is becoming silly, Ernie. Nobody doubts that the resigned General Walker, the man who led the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1962 would ever, ever, ever be a friend of the Civil Rights movement, or vice verse.

My point was simple -- Edwin Walker never used the "N" word. Edwin Walker wanted to be US President. Edwin Walker avoided intimate contact with the KKK and ANP -- precisely for that reason.

Edwin Walker deliberately preached to the White Citizens Councils all over the South -- yet never used the "N" word there.

Walker was "working his base" as they say in politics today. He did believe that colored people should stay in their place -- without power. That's racist in 2015, yet the truly outspoken racists in 1963 would use the "N" word in public speeches -- and would openly propose that all Black Americans should be shipped back to Africa. That's not a joke -- that's reality.

So -- one must know where to draw the line. Surely the NAACP always held Edwin Walker to be a nuisance. Yet George Wallace and the KKK were far more fearsome to them.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

If I understand your position regarding how to determine racist sentiments, it continues to be the following:

The most important criteria for making fair determinations are:

(1) does someone use the n-word in their writing or speeches? AND

(2) does someone belong to the KKK or ANP or similar explicitly racist organizations?

According to the Trejo Theory of Racism -- if the answer to questions 1 and 2 is "NO" -- then the subject under scrutiny CANNOT fairly be described as racist.

So I repeat my previous challenge to Paul:

I suggest giving a random scientific sample of black Americans copies of articles and speeches authored/published by Walker AND then also give them a list of the organizations which Walker helped to create or which he endorsed AND a list of organizations and publications which Walker associated himself with (as a speaker or contributor of articles in their publications).

THEN, let's ask 1000 black Americans what THEY think about Walker, i.e. ask THEM, "Was Edwin Walker a racist?" And let's see the result and compare that result to Paul's assurances.

[Paul Trejo]

To summarize all this -- I've ordered my copy of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, and I patiently await delivery.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Does anyone besides me think there is something particularly sleazy and offensive about Trejo's constant defense of Walker's character -- i.e. always trying to minimize the evidence of Walker's bigotry and characterizing Walker's behavior as nothing more than "working his base" as if there was nothing morally objectionable about what Walker said and believed during his entire lifetime?

As I wrote to Paul once before: racist sentiments can be expressed in many different virulent forms -- some of which can be "subtle" and some might use code words which targeted audiences certainly understand.

One of the things which most Citizens Councils attempted to do was dissociate themselves from the most extreme elements within anti-black and pro-segregation circles. This was supposed to represent the "kinder gentler" face of the "states rights movement" -- which was predicated upon a philosophical argument about the proper role of the federal government vs. state governments.

Significantly, this "kinder gentler" subterfuge did not impress or fool genuine conservatives like Sen. Barry Goldwater.

UNLIKE Walker:

Goldwater NEVER accepted a speaking invitation from ANY white supremacist organization

Goldwater NEVER endorsed a white supremacist organization or political leader

Goldwater NEVER accepted a request from an explicitly racist publication (such as Ned Touchstone's, The Councilor or Conde McGinley's Common Sense or Harry W. Pyle's Political Reporter) to write articles for their publications.

Goldwater NEVER sought or wanted the endorsement of groups like KKK or Americans For The Preservation of the White Race

INSTEAD -- Goldwater was a charter member of (and a financial contributor to) NAACP in Phoenix! [That is the type of AFFIRMATIVE evidence that is TOTALLY absent from Walker's record!]

Now, Paul,-- COMPARE THAT RECORD to Edwin Walker's and THEN tell us again (with a straight face) that Edwin Walker was NOT a racist or that he NEVER accepted arguments made by white supremacists, and he NEVER contributed articles to and letters-to-the-editor to racist newspapers, and he NEVER endorsed racist politicians or organizations.

MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY:

WHERE IS THE AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE RE: WALKER WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY PAUL'S EVALUATION?

Contrary to what Paul wrote, there is nothing remarkable about Walker never using the n-word in public. As previously noted, he had political ambitions. He knew that any explicit endorsement of or expression of bigotry would DOOM his chances and such expressions would be constantly used against him by his critics -- including moderate conservatives like Sen. Goldwater or Sen. John Tower (Texas).

Nor does Walker not "joining" the KKK have much significance because as he certainly knew from his Army days forward -- the KKK was on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations and had he become a KKK member, he would have been summarily kicked out of the Army and his political ambitions would be totally dead. In any event, Walker was a "state-of-mind" member of the KKK - which is just as valuable as an actual dues paying member.

Significantly, Walker endorsed and campaigned for Gov. Wallace in 1968. See: http://search.lib.vi...uva-lib:2220845

Significantly, Walker spoke at events which were sponsored by white supremacist organizations -- and many of them had KKK members or were endorsed by the KKK

From Paul's website: http://www.pet880.com/images/19650305_Walker_and_White_People.JPG

Significantly, Walker was friendly toward and often praised politicians who were endorsed by the KKK

PAUL: If you endorse and campaign for a bigot who DOES routinely use the n-word --- then what does that tell you about the values of the endorser?

"Technically speaking" and by every known metric for indisputable racist sentiments and values -- Edwin Walker WAS a racist.

Which is why he was so actively sought as a featured speaker by (and he accepted invitations from) explicitly racist organizations and that is also why the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America did not hesitate to offer Walker the job of Grand Dragon for the UKA in Texas---which Walker seriously considered accepting!

[Ernie Lazar]

As everyone here probably knows, Paul Trejo has posted over 2700 messages in many different threads here on EF.

As a public service, I want to begin sharing a glossary of Trejo-isms so that you can properly interpret Paul's messages because he uses certain words over and over again. So. let's begin with these:

BIAS = any statement made by someone which Paul disagrees with

GRANDSTANDING = A message which contains factual material that refutes something that Paul prefers to believe

OVERREACT = Clearly presented evidence of Paul's mistakes

OVERSTATE = Definitive falsification of something which Paul has written

[Paul Trejo]

Once again -- and for the final time, Ernie. Walker was the man who led the race riots at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1962.

Walker did that to prevent a Black American, James Meredith, from attending that college, though he was fully qualified.

Walker was an outspoken enemy of Civil Rights in the USA.

That said, Edwin Walker was NOT a Grand Dragon of the KKK. Edwin Walker was NOT a member of the America Nazi Party.

It is worthwhile to pinpoint exactly where Edwin Walker -- the outspoken enemy of Civil Rights in the USA -- truly stood on the wide political spectrum of US politics in 1963. That is, if we truly want to know US History.

Walker was on the Extreme Right. Yet his position was very specific. He was not a KKK member. He was not a Grand Dragon, and he turned that offer down (and you have no idea what went on in his mind when Walker turned it down, Ernie, so come off your high horse). He was not an American Nazi.

The question of the JFK assassination is about politics in 1963 -- not in 2015. In the context of 2015, yes, we all can say with clarity that Edwin Walker was a racist. In the year 1963, Edwin Walker was playing his cards to be nominated for US President (yes, this JBS buffoon truly was that arrogant).

If you can't see the nuance of that point, Ernie, then I'm finished with your posts on this thread. You're becoming a bore.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Once again -- and for the final time, Ernie. Walker was the man who led the race riots at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1962.

Walker did that to prevent a Black American, James Meredith, from attending that college, though he was fully qualified.

Walker was an outspoken enemy of Civil Rights in the USA.

That said, Edwin Walker was NOT a Grand Dragon of the KKK. Edwin Walker was NOT a member of the America Nazi Party.

It is worthwhile to pinpoint exactly where Edwin Walker -- the outspoken enemy of Civil Rights in the USA -- truly stood on the wide political spectrum of US politics in 1963. That is, if we truly want to know US History.

Walker was on the Extreme Right. Yet his position was very specific. He was not a KKK member. He was not a Grand Dragon, and he turned that offer down (and you have no idea what went on in his mind when Walker turned it down, Ernie, so come off your high horse). He was not an American Nazi.

The question is politics in 1963 -- not in 2015. In the context of 2015, yes, we all can say with clarity that Edwin Walker was a racist. In the year 1963, Edwin Walker was playing his cards to be nominated for US President (yes, he truly was that arrogant).

If you can't see the nuance of that point, then I'm finished with your posts on this thread, Ernie. You're becoming a bore.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Well, Paul, now you write that Walker WAS a racist but previously in the Edwin Walker thread you told me I was mistaken because I stated that Walker was a racist. You do not seem to understand how your own words are often extremely confusing -- particularly when you do not want anyone to consider their ultimate logical progression.

For example, you have previously written:

Technically speaking, Edwin Walker wasn't a racist -- however, in effective terms, he gave great support and comfort to racists, especially those who wanted to keep Ole Miss University all-white. He was willing to resort to violence to ensure that result -- and he knew what he was doing when he opposed JFK in September 1962 at Ole Miss.

and

Again I say -- Edwin Walker EXPLOITED racism for political opportunity. I don't deny that. Walker gave support and comfort to violent racists, specifically in his bizarre handling of the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1962 in Oxford, Mississippi.

and

Anybody who chooses to use violence and to violate the Constitution to pursue reactionary political goals is a radical reactionary. This is how I characterize Guy Banister (based on the evidence we have from Jim Garrison). This is also how I characterize the resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker, who fomented a deadly riot at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1962 to prevent one Black Student (James Meredith) from registering as a student there. Walker was also a radical reactionary.

I suggest that if someone declares that Walker....

1. gave great support and comfort to racists

2. was willing to resort to violence to prevent a qualified black student from enrolling in a university

3. exploited racism for his own political purposes

4. can be fairly described as a "radical reactionary"

5. wanted blacks to be kept in their proper place

THEN---there are certain inescapable conclusions that arise from those ideas. Chief among them is the conclusion that all of these characteristics have a common core, i.e. they arise from a set of values which is, in every respect, indicative of RACIST sentiments and beliefs.

The actual literal definition of racism is:

"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others."

and a racist is:

"showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another."

In every conceivable way, Walker exhibited racist sentiments and values and, more importantly, the complete absence of AFFIRMATIVE evidence to support a different conclusion is the most compelling argument.

Not using one particular racial slur or not belonging to one particular organization is totally irrelevant because, Walker accomplished through actions what the bigot made permissible or justifiable through words.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Ernie Lazar