New Book!

[John Dolva]

This is an understandable misunderstanding. If one looks deeper one finds that the Nazi Party originated with the right wing Freikorps that fought against Red Shirts*. Germany was on the cusp of communist revolution in 1918. Various wealthy anti communists financed the on the street confrontation with the communists. They took over the .../ and at this point I checked wiki to see the name of the party the Nazis took over under Hitler...


Wiki " The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: About this sound Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party (/ˈnɑːtsi/), was a political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945 that practised Nazism. Its predecessor, the German Workers' Party (DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920.

The party emerged from the German nationalist, racist and populist Freikorps paramilitary culture, which fought against the communist uprisings in post-World War I Germany.[6] The party was created as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[7] Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities, and in the 1930s the party's focus shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes."

So, the article makes the points I meant to make.

The analysis of the prior post is too simplistic as wel;l as furthering serious misunderstandings of the nature of Nazism and Communism.

There is far more to it, particularly in looking at the type of Communism under Stalin. Stalinism : this type of brutality did attract people like Goebbles. He admired Stalin in particular ways.

However a deeper understaning leads to a conclusion that Communism and Nazism are very different in very fundamental ways.

Fascism is basically a logical event in the crisis stage of Capital. Hence its deepest enemy is Communism as Marx explains it.

The choice of the working class in this stage is Communism or Fascism. If Fascism triumphs Capital reasserts itself. It took the extreme brutality of the Brownshirts to control the workers. The Communists inb Germany were not prepared and poorly led.

Of course none of this detracts from the conclusion that a right wing Oswald also moving in Socialist circles is not a contradiction.

edit : * correction. I remember wrongly. There were no Red Shirts. I'll check to see what the fighting groups of Communists in berlin called themselves. Anyway, the Communists were slow to respond to the Brownshirts organised Power Politics. Understandable as the brownshirts were relatively small in number. Efficiently organised though. When the communists did organise to confront the brownshirts, it was too late.

edit 2 add In response to post 769. Again a failure to do what I point out. Look deeper. : "The party emerged from the German nationalist, racist and populist Freikorps paramilitary culture, which fought against the communist uprisings in post-World War I Germany.[6] The party was created as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[7] Initially, Nazi political strateg....etc. - Any statements by Nazis are to be understood in that context.

Edited October 12, 2015 by John Dolva

[Ernie Lazar]

Recent Article on Politico:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197

Yes, the CIA Director Was Part of the JFK Assassination Cover-Up

John McCone was long suspected of withholding information from the Warren Commission. Now even the CIA says he did.

By Philip Shenon, October 06, 2015

John McCone came to the CIA as an outsider. An industrialist and an engineer by training, he replaced veteran spymaster Allen Dulles as director of central intelligence in November 1961, after John F. Kennedy had forced out Dulles following the CIA’s bungled operation to oust Fidel Castro by invading Cuba’s Bay of Pigs. McCone had one overriding mission: restore order at the besieged CIA. Kennedy hoped his management skills might prevent a future debacle, even if the Californian—mostly a stranger to the clubby, blue-blooded world of the men like Dulles who had always run the spy agency—faced a steep learning curve.

After JFK’s assassination in Dallas in November 1963, President Lyndon Johnson kept McCone in place at the CIA, and the CIA director became an important witness before the Warren Commission, the panel Johnson created to investigate Kennedy’s murder. McCone pledged full cooperation with the commission, which was led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, and testified that the CIA had no evidence to suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin, was part of any conspiracy, foreign or domestic. In its final report, the commission came to agree with McCone’s depiction of Oswald, a former Marine and self-proclaimed Marxist, as a delusional lone wolf.

But did McCone come close to perjury all those decades ago? Did the onetime Washington outsider in fact hide agency secrets that might still rewrite the history of the assassination? Even the CIA is now willing to raise these questions. Half a century after JFK’s death, in a once-secret report written in 2013 by the CIA’s top in-house historian and quietly declassified last fall, the spy agency acknowledges what others were convinced of long ago: that McCone and other senior CIA officials were “complicit” in keeping “incendiary” information from the Warren Commission.

According to the report by CIA historian David Robarge, McCone, who died in 1991, was at the heart of a “benign cover-up” at the spy agency, intended to keep the commission focused on “what the Agency believed at the time was the ‘best truth’—that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy.” The most important information that McCone withheld from the commission in its 1964 investigation, the report found, was the existence, for years, of CIA plots to assassinate Castro, some of which put the CIA in cahoots with the Mafia. Without this information, the commission never even knew to ask the question of whether Oswald had accomplices in Cuba or elsewhere who wanted Kennedy dead in retaliation for the Castro plots.

While raising no question about the essential findings of the Warren Commission, including that Oswald was the gunman in Dallas, the 2013 report is important because it comes close to an official CIA acknowledgement—half a century after the fact—of impropriety in the agency’s dealings with the commission. The coverup by McCone and others may have been “benign,” in the report’s words, but it was a cover-up nonetheless, denying information to the commission that might have prompted a more aggressive investigation of Oswald’s potential Cuba ties.

Initially stamped “SECRET/NOFORN,” meaning it was not to be shared outside the agency or with foreign governments, Robarge’s report was originally published as an article in the CIA’s classified internal magazine, Studies in Intelligence, in September 2013, to mark the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. The article, drawn from a still-classified 2005 biography of McCone written by Robarge, was declassified quietly last fall and is now available on the website of The George Washington University’s National Security Archive. In a statement to POLITICO, the CIA said it decided to declassify the report “to highlight misconceptions about the CIA’s connection to JFK’s assassination,” including the still-popular conspiracy theory that the spy agency was somehow behind the assassination. (Articles in the CIA magazine are routinely declassified without fanfare after internal review.)

Robarge’s article says that McCone, quickly convinced after the assassination that Oswald had acted alone and that there was no foreign conspiracy involving Cuba or the Soviet Union, directed the agency to provide only “passive, reactive and selective” assistance to the Warren Commission. This portrait of McCone suggests that he was much more hands-on in the CIA’s dealings with the commission—and in the agency’s post-assassination scrutiny of Oswald’s past—than had previously been known. The report quotes another senior CIA official, who heard McCone say that he intended to “handle the whole (commission) business myself, directly.”

The report offers no conclusion about McCone’s motivations, including why he would go to lengths to cover-up CIA activities that mostly predated his time at the agency. But it suggests that the Johnson White House might have directed McCone to hide the information. McCone “shared the administration’s interest in avoiding disclosures about covert actions that would circumstantially implicate [the] CIA in conspiracy theories and possibly lead to calls for a tough US response against the perpetrators of the assassination,” the article reads. “If the commission did not know to ask about covert operations about Cuba, he was not going to give them any suggestions about where to look.”

In an interview, David Slawson, who was the Warren Commission’s chief staff investigator in searching for evidence of a foreign conspiracy, said he was not surprised to learn that McCone had personally withheld so much information from the investigation in 1964, especially about the Castro plots.

“I always assumed McCone must have known, because I always believed that loyalty and discipline in the CIA made any large-scale operation without the consent of the director impossible,” says Slawson, now 84 and a retired University of Southern California law professor. He says he regrets that it had taken so long for the spy agency to acknowledge that McCone and others had seriously misled the commission. After half a century, Slawson says, “The world loses interest, because the assassination becomes just a matter of history to more and more people.”

The report identifies other tantalizing information that McCone did not reveal to the commission, including evidence that the CIA might somehow have been in communication with Oswald before 1963 and that the spy agency had secretly monitored Oswald’s mail after he attempted to defect to the Soviet Union in 1959. The CIA mail-opening program, which was later determined to have been blatantly illegal, had the code name HTLINGUAL. “It would be surprising if the DCI [director of central intelligence] were not told about the program” after the Kennedy assassination, the report reads. “If not, his subordinates deceived him. If he did know about HTLINGUAL reporting on Oswald, he was not being forthright with the commission—presumably to protect an operation that was highly compartmented and, if disclosed, sure to arouse much controversy.”

In the 1970s, when congressional investigations exposed the Castro plots, members of the Warren Commission and its staff expressed outrage that they had been denied the information in 1964. Had they known about the plots, they said, the commission would have been much more aggressive in trying to determine whether JFK’s murder was an act of retaliation by Castro or his supporters. Weeks before the assassination, Oswald traveled to Mexico City and met there with spies for the Cuban and Soviet governments—a trip that CIA and FBI officials have long acknowledged was never adequately investigated. (Even so, Warren Commission staffers remain convinced today that Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas, a view shared by ballistics experts who have studied the evidence.)

In congressional testimony in 1978, after public disclosures about the Castro plots, McCone claimed that he could not have shared information about the plots with the Warren Commission in 1964 because he was ignorant of the plots at the time. Other CIA officials “withheld the information from me,” he said. “I have never been satisfied as to why they withheld the information.” But the 2013 report concluded that “McCone’s testimony was neither frank nor accurate,” since it was later determined with certainty that he had been informed about the CIA-Mafia plots nine months before his appearance before the Warren Commission.

Robarge suggests the CIA is responsible for some of the harsh criticism commonly leveled at the Warren Commission for large gaps in its investigation of the president’s murder, including its failure to identify Oswald’s motive in the assassination and to pursue evidence that might have tied Oswald to accomplices outside the United States. For decades, opinion polls have shown that most Americans reject the commission’s findings and believe Oswald did not act alone. Four of the seven commissioners were members of Congress, and they spent the rest of their political careers badgered by accusations that they had been part of a coverup.

“The decision of McCone and Agency leaders in 1964 not to disclose information about CIA’s anti-Castro schemes might have done more to undermine the credibility of the commission than anything else that happened while it was conducting its investigation,” the report reads. “In that sense—and in that sense alone—McCone may be regarded as a ‘co-conspirator’ in the JFK assassination ‘cover-up.’”

If there was, indeed, a CIA “cover-up,” a member of the Warren Commission was apparently in on it: Allen Dulles, McCone’s predecessor, who ran the CIA when the spy agency hatched the plots to kill Castro. “McCone does not appear to have any explicit, special understanding with Allen Dulles,” the 2013 report says. Still, McCone could “rest assured that his predecessor would keep a dutiful watch over Agency equities and work to keep the commission from pursuing provocative lines of investigation, such as lethal anti-Castro covert actions.” (Johnson appointed Dulles to the commission at the recommendation of then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy.)

The 2013 report also draws attention to the contacts between McCone and Robert Kennedy in the days after the assassination. In the wake of the Bay of Pigs disaster in 1961, the attorney general was asked by his brother, the president, to direct the administration’s secret war against Castro, and Robert Kennedy’s friends and family acknowledged years later that he never stopped fearing that Castro was behind his brother’s death. “McCone had frequent contact with Robert Kennedy during the painful days after the assassination,” the report says. “Their communication appears to have been verbal, informal and, evidently in McCone’s estimation, highly personal; no memoranda or transcripts exist or are known to have been made.”

“Because Robert Kennedy had overseen the Agency’s anti-Castro covert actions—including some of the assassination plans—his dealings with McCone about his brother’s murder had a special gravity,” the report continues. “Did Castro kill the president because the president had tried to kill Castro? Had the administration’s obsession with Cuba inadvertently inspired a politicized sociopath to murder John Kennedy?”

The declassification of the bulk of the 2013 McCone report might suggest a new openness by the CIA in trying to resolve the lingering mysteries about the Kennedy assassination. At the same time, there are 15 places in the public version of the report where the CIA has deleted sensitive information—sometimes individual names, sometimes whole sentences. It is an acknowledgement, it seems, that there are still secrets about the Kennedy assassination hidden in the agency’s files.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197#ixzz3oHozXy5M

Edited October 11, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

The fact that the 1963 CIA Director, John McCone (appointed by JFK) was part of the JFK Cover-up should be no surprise, because the entire US Government was in agreement that the Truth about the JFK Murder was a matter of National Security, and had to be withheld from the People for at least one full lifetime.

The only question is whether to interpret that data cynically (i.e. presuming without further evidence that the CIA was therefore involved in the JFK Murder), or whether to interpret that data generously (i.e. granting that the US Government told us the Truth about withholding the Truth, namely, that the Truth would have jeopardized National Security).

I prefer the generous interpretation. Others are free to take the cynical interpretation, although I would demand more evidence from them. The advantage of the generous interpretation is that far less evidence is required to identify the JFK conspirators.

Because the Truth of the JFK Murder was covered up by the US Government, this very fact should give us plenty of clues about the real JFK Killers: (1) LHO wasn't a Lone Nut; (2) the Communists were not the JFK Killers; (3) therefore, the Radical Right are the logical choice as the JFK Killers.

This suggests that J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI considered that the Radical Right wing in America was too strong to arrest during 1963, the peak of the Cold War. Riots would have erupted. The USSR would have been tempted to get involved -- World War 3 could have erupted.

Well, in the past half-century the USSR fell in 1990, and President GHW Bush signed the JFK Records Act in 1992 (IMHO as a result), and the ARRB (Horne, 2009) has amply admitted that there were at least two shooters guaranteed by the authentic JFK autopsy.

Therefore, our only issue today is to decide from the evidence EXACTLY WHO the accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald really were. This is a historical problem, and perhaps Jeff Caufield offers a historical answer.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 11, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

This is an understandable misunderstanding. If one looks deeper one finds that the Nazi Party originated with the right wing Freikorps that fought against [Reds]. Germany was on the cusp of communist revolution in 1918. Various wealthy anti communists financed the on the street confrontation with the communists. They took over the .../ and at this point I checked wiki to see the name of the party the Nazis took over under Hitler...

Wiki: 'The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: ...Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei...abbreviated NSDAP), commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party (/ˈnɑːtsi/), was a political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945 that practiced Nazism. Its predecessor, the German Workers' Party (DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920. The party emerged from the German nationalist, racist and populist Freikorps paramilitary culture, which fought against the communist uprisings in post-World War I Germany.[6] The party was created as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[7] Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities, and in the 1930s the party's focus shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes."

So, the article makes the points I meant to make.

The analysis of the prior post is too simplistic as well as furthering serious misunderstandings of the nature of Nazism and Communism. There is far more to it, particularly in looking at the type of Communism under Stalin. Stalinism : this type of brutality did attract people like Goebbels. He admired Stalin in particular ways.

However a deeper understanding leads to a conclusion that Communism and Nazism are very different in very fundamental ways. Fascism is basically a logical event in the crisis stage of Capital. Hence its deepest enemy is Communism as Marx explains it.

The choice of the working class in this stage is Communism or Fascism. If Fascism triumphs Capital reasserts itself. It took the extreme brutality of the Brownshirts to control the workers. The Communists in Germany were not prepared and poorly led.

Of course none of this detracts from the conclusion that a right wing Oswald also moving in Socialist circles is not a contradiction...

Thanks for the detail John. Allow me to point out the key part of that Wiki text:

"Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities..."

My point was to emphasize the beginnings of the Nazi movement, as they initially began by using anti-Corporate, anti-Capitalist activists. For example:

(1) Benito Mussolini, the founder of Italian Fascism, was originally a member of the Italian Socialist Party.

(2) Joseph Goebbels explained the title, Nazi (National Socialist) as follows: "Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class...Socialism gains its true form only through...Nationalism. Without Nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With Nationalism, it is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!" (Goebbels, "Those Damned Nazis", 1929)

(3) Adolf Hitler explained the title, 'Nazi' (National Socialist) as follows: "We are Socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (John Toland, "Adolf Hitler", p224)

And the examples go on and on through almost every leading officer of the Nazi regime. They all started out as Socialists, and many started out as Marxists.

To be clear, John, I fully agree with the next phrase from that Wiki, namely: "...although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities, and in the 1930s the party's focus shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes."

That is entirely true, HOWEVER, the important theme in the JFK murder, regarding the Radical Right wing in the USA that was allegedly involved -- according to Jeff Caufield's new book -- is that the ANP was still at the *beginning* stages of organization. For example, the Hate Bus that Caufield described in Chapter 3 of his new book, describes the ANP as having only a dozen core members at this time -- still at the Brownshirt level of development.

This is (allegedly) when Lee Harvey Oswald was interested in them, and made friends with Dan Burros and Ray Leahart from the Hate Bus -- there at 544 Camp Street, where Guy Banister operated.

But I'm getting ahead of our quotations. I'll quote more from Chapter 3 right away.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 11, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Proceeding into Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, Chapter 3, Lee Harvey Oswald and the Nazis, we learn far more about ANP member Dan Burros -- whose name and contact info Lee Harvey Oswald had in his personal address book.

I was surprised to learn that we have film of Dan Burros at Little Rock High School in 1957, as a soldier serving under General Walker. Walker protested his orders to enforce Earl Warren's Brown Decision at Little Rock, but President Eisenhower pulled rank on him.

After the Little Rock episode, however, General Walker submitted his first resignation notice to the US Army in 1959, and Dan Burros also quit the US Army. Jeff Caufield writes:

Private Burros appeared on television escorting a black child to school. He later left the army over the Little Rock deployment, stating he didn't like "protecting niggers." Burros described Walker as "a man of destiny." Regarding the origins of his right-wing leanings, Burros stated, "I think Little Rock was the turning point." (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, 2015, p. 77)

After this, Caufield describes the disturbing fate of Dan Burros -- he drifted further and further into the Radical Right, until he joined the KKK, and was about to be named Grand Dragon of New York in 1965, when a Jewish journalist remembered attending Dan Burros' bar Mitzvah at the Temple Talmud Torah in 1949. A Jewish Grand Dragon? When this became public knowledge, Dan Burros committed suicide.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 11, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Proceeding further into Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, Chapter 3, Lee Harvey Oswald and the Nazis, we now turn to another member of the ANP Hate Bus, namely, Ray Leahart.

Jeff Caufield introduces this American Nazi Party member (who it turns out was a close associate of Joseph Milteer) by citing an FBI memo from New Orleans, dated 16 December 1963. The FBI Agent forwarded a report from MUNCY PERKINS, as follows:

"...Occasionally individuals have been observed by him at the Carrollton Avenue Station in the early morning hours waiting for RAY JAMES LEAHART. One of the bus drivers, MR. PERKINS thought that possibly LEE HARVEY OSWALD may have been among these persons waiting for LEAHART." (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, 2015, p. 79)

The FBI interviewed Leahart, who denied it, and the FBI dropped the issue. The HSCA also revived the report, but also dropped it as irrelevant.

Yet Caufield believes that the connection was probably true and correct. Caufield draws our notice to a magazine article that Ray Leahart wrote in 1961 for the NSRP (National States Rights Party) magazine, Thunderbolt, praising the segregationist Leander Perez for saying, "Zionist Jews are leaders in forcing communistic racial integration!" (Caufield, p. 80)

Ray Leahart was on a first-name basis with Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street, and he was a member of the ANP, the NSRP and the KKK. Leahart wasn't a professional journalist, he was a professional bus driver in New Orleans, but he was also fired for posting in his bus various posters from Nazi literature mocking and insulting Black Americans.

In Dallas, one of Ray Leahart's close associates was Robert Allen Surrey, the publisher for the ANP -- and also publisher for General Walker's "American Eagle."

In the 1970's, Leahart joined David Duke to form the "National Socialist White People's Party." (Caufield, p. 82).

I remember that when I lived in Monrovia, California in 1974 there was an 800-like number one could call to hear the latest announcement by the National Socialist White People's Party. I would call it every week, just to see how insane some of my neighbors really were. The announcements were always about the latest "Jewish businessmen or city officials who should be hung." This group was disturbingly widespread in the early 1970s in the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan area.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 11, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Regarding other members of the ANP Hate Bus in New Orleans in 1961, who had close relationships with Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street, Caufield names John Patler, the ANP member who ultimately killed George Lincoln Rockwell on 8 August 1967. Patler's method may sound familiar: firing a high-powered rifle from a tall building. (Caufield, p. 83)

Another frequenter of 544 Camp Street, and a comrade of Ray Leahart, was Roswell Thompson. J. Edgar Hoover personally placed Thompson on a watch list in 1967 for his KKK activities. Yet JFK researchers should be aware of Thompson for his relationship with Thomas Beckham in New Orleans. Beckham plays a key role in the CT of Joan Mellen (A Farewell to Justice, 1999).

The teenage Beckham was part of the 544 Camp Street in-crowd when Lee Harvey Oswald was seen at that address. Beckham claims to have spoken with Oswald on multiple occasions in 1963. Yet Beckham refused to come forward with his confession in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, precisely because Roswell Thompson continually threatened his life if he ever came forward. (Caufield, p. 84)

Another visitor of 544 Camp Street was George Lincoln Rockwell himself. Jeff Caufield reproduces a 27 November 1963 letter from Rockwell to J. Edgar Hoover, on ANP stationery, in which Rockwell emphasizes that the ANP did not advocate violence at this early stage of their development.

HOWEVER, admitted Rockwell, violent people were sadly attracted to the ANP, and had to be gotten rid of. These violent elements were on the "other side" of the genuine ANP goals, he insisted, which were strictly "legal." Rockwell wrote:

The assassination of the president was, I believe, the work of such a "nut" over on the other side from us. As vile and evil as I believe our Communist opponents to be, I do not think that they would be stupid enough to have shot the president as part of their filthy plans. (GL Rockwell, cited by Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy,p. 85)

To seal his opinion, George Lincoln Rockwell sent J. Edgar Hoover a list of 27 "Storm Troopers" that he thought could be that "nutty". (The list didn't include Burros or Leahart.)

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 11, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Doug Campbell]

Forum Members,

I humbly offer Part 2 of my conversations with Dr. Jeffery Caufield, "The Strange & Terrible Saga Of W. Guy Banister Pt.1."

Peace,

D

https://22novembernetwork.wordpress.com/2015/10/12/the-dallas-actionpt-74-the-strange-terrible-saga-of-w-guy-banister-pt-1-with-dr-jeffery-caufield/

Edited October 13, 2015 by Doug Campbell

[Paul Trejo]

Forum Members,

I humbly offer Part 2 of my conversations with Dr. Jeffery Caufield, "The Strange & Terrible Saga Of W. Guy Banister Pt.1."

Peace,

D

https://22novembernetwork.wordpress.com/2015/10/12/the-dallas-actionpt-74-the-strange-terrible-saga-of-w-guy-banister-pt-1-with-dr-jeffery-caufield/

Yeah! Here's another 45 minute interview with Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, who raises public awareness on the topic of Guy Banister.

Guy Banister as a figure in the JFK assassination was first raised by Jim Garrison -- but even Jim Garrison didn't dwell to a large enough extent on Guy Banister. Jeff Caufield seeks to correct that deficiency.

Guy Banister GROOMED Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963 -- or perhaps even EARLIER than that, as Jeff Caufield will surprise some in announcing.

Another great podcast, Doug!

All best,

--Paul

Edited October 13, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

We don't know that it was LHO that Hubie was referring to in this instance. However, it shows a definite proclivity and MO as to what these folks were up to at the time! The activities that LHO subsequently engaged in, fit the designed program to a tee. If it wasn't directed by Banister it definitely helped his cause, coincidence?

Bill

[Paul Brancato]

Everyone - the book is very interesting, a deep look at the rightwing in 1963 and its myriad connections. Yes, Oswald intersected with them in a few ways, like in his address book, and the FPCC literature. My question for those reading the book (I have it but find it physically difficult because of its size) is where is the written proof that any of these righties, new suspects, editors, nazis, mention Lee Harvey Oswald? Any address books returning Oswald's favor? Any membership lists? Proof of Oswald's presence at meetings?

Just because Oswald intersects doesn't make him a secret rightist. We are jumping to big conclusions that I am very leery of. Let's cut to the chase shall we? Mr. Caulfield - would you enumerate in one easy to read place the number of times Oswald's name comes up in the writings of any of these conspirators before the assassination of JFK?

[Paul Trejo]

Just to digress for a moment to a related subject, can anyone doubt J Edgar Hoover's hatred of MLK? Does anyone think that MLK's assassination was the work of James Earl Ray all on his own?

I bring this up because I am reading what in my mind are false dichotomies. The idea that there are sharp lines of distinction between heads of the FBI, CIA, ONI, SISS (members of the U.S. Senate such as James Eastland or attorneys such as Robert Morris or Sourwine) and the radical right or racist right is to me just more of the same obfuscation that has prevented us all these years from naming the guilty. The main difference between US government racists and private racists is that the former distance themselves from the latter because it is necessary for their survival. It is a form of plausible deniability.

I applaud Caulfield for his research. Garrison never struck me as racist. He suggests that Garrison was not intimidated, but rather in sympathy with the racist right. Hancock suggests it might have been intimidation. I suggest he was merely looking to go up the food chain to the top.

Well, Paul B., I think it may be too early to "cut to the chase" in Jeff Caufield's new book, but it is worthwhile to review your questions from last week on the topic of the Radical Right theory of the JFK assassination.

I don't think anybody doubts J. Edgar Hoover's hatred of MLK, because history shows its reality. Even the sympathetic treatment of Hoover by Clint Eastwood's movie, J. Edgar (2011), admitted as much. As for the assassination of MLK, it was enough that Hoover looked the other way for a few moments -- that's all it took for the countless enemies of MLK to accomplish their deed (for which James Earl Ray became their Patsy).

I think Ray was guilty, but like Oswald, had accomplices. Again, I think that J. Edgar Hoover lacked the will to go after the Radical Right in the USA. We tend to forget how powerful the Anti-segregationist forces were back in 1963. As Jeff Caufield said in Doug Campbell's new podcast, the Segregationist forces would have re-ignited the Civil War if they thought they had a chance. The Brown Decision became a rallying cry that revived the flying of the Confederate Flag in the USA.

Also, according to Jeff Caufield, it was precisely the Segregationists that killed JFK -- starting with Guy Banister, Joseph Milteer and General Walker.

The fact that Lee Harvey Oswald stamped "544 Camp Street" on his Fake FPCC fliers (as Jim Garrison heroically announced back in 1968) is the smoking gun. It is real proof.

If there were racists in the CIA, I wouldn't be surprised, but it was against the law to be a Segregationist in political office since Earl Warren's 1954 Brown Decision -- a landmark in US history. A racist CIA or FBI official would know he had to watch his behavior very carefully. It was mandatory to conceal one's racism under the banner of "Anti-Communism," (which again argues for the passive aggressive cowardice of the killers of Medgar Evers, JFK and MLK).

But the times were very clear -- Little Rock High School required *thousands* of US Troops to enforce the Brown Decision (and General Walker was there). Also, Ole Miss University required *thousands* of US Troops to enforce the Brown Decision (and General Walker was there).

This was the key issue of 1963, according to Jeff Caufield. I think we should give him some room to make his case -- which has been pretty well hushed up for the past 50 years.

As for Jim Garrison himself -- anybody in politics in the South in the 1960's had no choice but to compromise with the active and vocal Segregationists, who were often the majority (Supreme Court or not). However, Jim Garrison himself was a *Catholic* and that is a major difference between Garrison and people like Guy Banister.

This is because when the few racist Catholics in Louisiana started a movement against the Brown Decision in the late 1950's, the Catholic Bishop of Louisiana threatened them all with Excommunication! So, they disbanded right away!

Catholic doctrine insists that all races are equal under God. In the South, only some of the Protestant sects believed in the equality of races -- and some believed that Genesis 9:25 curses Black Americans to be servants forever. The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies many Christian sects still active in the South that believe that only white people are human beings. So, old Dixie still sputters on.

Jim Garrison wasn't one of the racists -- but he didn't want to get shot in the back in his driveway, either.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Doug Campbell]

Mr. Trejo,

Thanks for the kind words! (Although ALL credit must go to Dr. Caufield; I was very much "along for the ride".)

Part 2 of the Banister conversation will upload Monday 10/19. Next, a 2 parter focusing on the third of what we referred to as "The Unholy Triumvirate" in this show, Walker his-own-bad-self, in a few weeks.

Peace,

D.

[Ernie Lazar]

Anybody care to clarify this comment?

Milteer supposedly had a conversation on the morning of 11/24/63 at the Wade Hampton Hotel in Columbia, South Carolina, during which he declared that it wouldn't matter if LHO was caught because "he doesn't know anything" and "the right-wing is in the clear".

Then Milteer observed:

"The patriots have outsmarted the Communists and had infiltrated the Communist group in order that they could carry out the plan without the right wingers becoming involved." [my bold emphasis on "they"]

1. What is your understanding regarding whom Milteer intended to identity by "THEY" ?

2. Is "they" meant to refer to "patriots" (i.e. right-wingers) who carried out the murder without leaving footprints? OR

3. Does Milteer mean that "Communists" were manipulated into carrying out the plot?

[Paul Brancato]

Mr. Trejo - as I understand your pov, the government was afraid to properly investigate the JFK assassination and bring the killers to justice because they were afraid of the violence that would erupt, a new civil war, as you have stated. So, to put this in proper perspective, the Supreme Court was not afraid to make anti-segregation rulings, and the government was not afraid to use federal troops to put down the insurrections that resulted from forced integration. So Paul, why were they afraid to punish the guilty? They might have to use some federal troops to arrest Walker and Banister and Milteer or anyone else. Big deal. Get a few blacks into all white schools - we can do that. Arrest a few murderers who killed our leader? Too dangerous. Wow, what logic.

Hoover and Johnson and whoever else made the decisions to, as you put it, save the country from civil unrest, made fateful decisions that not only let the guilty off the hook, they perpetrated a wound in the body politic that is still with us today. It was the worst decision in our lifetimes. maybe they should have had the good faith, the intellectual honesty, and the Balls to finish what Abe Lincoln, likewise assassinated by racist reactionary bigots, started.

This in brief is where I think the theory breaks down. I cannot believe that the rationale you have stated is correct. The only possible reason for the deliberately weak investigation and false conclusion of the Warren Commission, and likewise the defanging of the HSCA with Joannides, who is still being protected legally, is that some of our own beloved leaders were involved.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Paul Brancato