Ernie Lazar Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) Paul -- one last point You may recall my previous messages where I have mentioned that FBI "Correlation Summaries" are exceptionally important tools for researchers to discover the existence of FBI files and documents. A long time ago, I posted Walker's 1964 and 1967 Correlation Summaries here in EF -- and I reviewed them again this morning. I can now report that (contrary to what you thought) the FBI-Dallas field file on Walker (which is now at NARA) almost certainly will have documents revealing contacts between FBI and Secret Service. Walker's Correlation Summary mentions that the 11/4/61 issue of the Dallas Morning News (i.e. the day that Walker resigned from the Army) contains an article captioned "Indignation Group Tells Plan To Bring Walker To Dallas". Since NIC wanted Walker to speak at its November 22-24, 1961 rally (to be broadcast nationally), the probability is that Dallas-FBI was keeping Secret Service informed about all large anti-JFK events -- particularly those which inflamed emotions against elected officials, including the President and Cabinet officers. In addition, the 11/7/61 issue of the Miami FL Herald also published an article which announced that Walker planned to attend another NIC protest meeting in Miami Beach on 11/14/61. So I'm sure that Miami's FBI office was in contact with Miami's Secret Service office. All of this was occurring only THREE days (not four) after Walker's resignation -- and I would not be surprised to find other documentation, At some point, I will probably contact NARA to purchase Walker's Dallas field file on a CD but that will have to wait for awhile since that will be a very expensive project. Edited November 2, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) ...Walker's Correlation Summary mentions that the 11/4/61 issue of the Dallas Morning News (i.e. the day that Walker resigned from the Army) contains an article captioned "Indignation Group Tells Plan To Bring Walker To Dallas". Since NIC wanted Walker to speak at its November 22-24, 1961 rally (to be broadcast nationally), the probability is that Dallas-FBI was keeping Secret Service informed about all large anti-JFK events -- particularly those which inflamed emotions against elected officials, including the President and Cabinet officers. In addition, the 11/7/61 issue of the Miami FL Herald also published an article which announced that Walker planned to attend another NIC protest meeting in Miami Beach on 11/14/61. So I'm sure that Miami's FBI office was in contact with Miami's Secret Service office... At some point, I will probably contact NARA to purchase Walker's Dallas field file on a CD but that will have to wait for awhile since that will be a very expensive project. Actually, Ernie, this is valuable information -- both from the perspective of history and for JFK assassination research. The context is JFK's speech against right-wing ideology at the Hollywood Palladium on 11/18/1961. As we know, the John Birch Society picketed that speech in Hollywood, and we even have film of that event and of the picket outside. What is less-well known is that Ex-General Edwin Walker was the leader of that picket. What is most interesting for history is that Edwin Walker led that picket only 14 days after he became the only 20th century US General to resign from the Army. What is equally interesting -- and amply demonstrated by the FBI documents you provided -- is that Walker had planned to picket JFK's speech around the same time that he resigned from the Army, so that the FBI had the time to collect that information, and send it in a report to the Secret Service. One might be tempted to guess that the John Birch Society plan to picket JFK's speech against the right-wing was the very occasion which prompted General Edwin Walker to resign from the Army precisely when he did! If this is the case, one might wonder how the John Birch Society learned that JFK was going to slam them in public -- so far in advance. For those who may be in the dark about JFK's "Fluoride" speech, it was very short and is easy to read. Here's the full text: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-conspiracy/ That fund-raiser in Hollywood was very successful for JFK, and it was one of the reasons that the John Birch Society and the right-wing in general suffered a new crisis of credibility. JFK was very articulate in that speech. So, your research helps connect the dots in our case against Ex-General Edwin Walker, who, along with the JBS, was responsible for the JFK murder (according to Jack Ruby and Harry Dean, and a growing number of researchers). Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited November 2, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) ...Walker's Correlation Summary mentions that the 11/4/61 issue of the Dallas Morning News (i.e. the day that Walker resigned from the Army) contains an article captioned "Indignation Group Tells Plan To Bring Walker To Dallas". Since NIC wanted Walker to speak at its November 22-24, 1961 rally (to be broadcast nationally), the probability is that Dallas-FBI was keeping Secret Service informed about all large anti-JFK events -- particularly those which inflamed emotions against elected officials, including the President and Cabinet officers. In addition, the 11/7/61 issue of the Miami FL Herald also published an article which announced that Walker planned to attend another NIC protest meeting in Miami Beach on 11/14/61. So I'm sure that Miami's FBI office was in contact with Miami's Secret Service office... At some point, I will probably contact NARA to purchase Walker's Dallas field file on a CD but that will have to wait for awhile since that will be a very expensive project. Actually, Ernie, this is valuable information -- both from the perspective of history and for JFK assassination research. The context is JFK's speech against right-wing ideology at the Hollywood Palladium on 11/18/1961. As we know, the John Birch Society picketed that speech in Hollywood, and we even have film of that event and of the picket outside. What is less-well known is that Ex-General Edwin Walker was the leader of that picket. What is most interesting for history is that Edwin Walker led that picket only 14 days after he became the only 20th century US General to resign from the Army. What is equally interesting -- and amply demonstrated by the FBI documents you provided -- is that Walker had planned to picket JFK's speech around the same time that he resigned from the Army, so that the FBI had the time to collect that information, and send it in a report to the Secret Service. One might be tempted to guess that the John Birch Society plan to picket JFK's speech against the right-wing was the very occasion which prompted General Edwin Walker to resign from the Army precisely when he did! If this is the case, one might wonder how the John Birch Society learned that JFK was going to slam them in public -- so far in advance. For those who may be in the dark about JFK's "Fluoride" speech, it was very short and is easy to read. Here's the full text: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-conspiracy/ That fund-raiser in Hollywood was very successful for JFK, and it was one of the reasons that the John Birch Society and the right-wing in general suffered a new crisis of credibility. JFK was very articulate in that speech. So, your research helps connect the dots in our case against Ex-General Edwin Walker, who, along with the JBS, was responsible for the JFK murder (according to Jack Ruby and Harry Dean, and a growing number of researchers). Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> The Associated Press in Dallas reported on November 10th that Walker had announced he was planning a nationwide speaking tour. The previous day, FBI HQ Special Agent Fred Baumgardner was informed about Walker's plans. Significantly, Baumgardner was a Section Chief within the Domestic Intelligence Division's Internal Security Section. In other words, Walker's plans and activities were on the radar at the highest levels of the FBI food chain in Washington DC and Baumgardner instructed the Los Angeles field office to keep him apprised of any new developments involving Walker. About two weeks later (11/23/61), the FBI received information that Walker's friends and political allies (including Sen. Strom Thurmond, Cong. Bruce Alger) were advising him to make no public appearances and make no comments about public issues before his scheduled testimony before the U.S. Senate. He rejected their advice. Walker accepted a speaking engagement from the "Project Alert Anti-Communism Seminar" in southern California which was sponsored by the Navy League and Southern California Freedom Forum among others. In January 1962, Walker was the featured speaker at the Los Angeles Sports Arena (14,000 people capacity) for an event sponsored by the Freedom Forum of First Congregational Church. He also appeared on the George Putnam television interview program. Of course there was extensive media coverage about Walker in all southern California newspapers (and TV). Last year, I arranged for the FBI-HQ and FBI-Dallas field files on National indignation Convention to be posted online (on Internet Archive and Building Democracy websites). In the very near future, those websites will post my copies of Walker's FBI-HQ and Los Angeles and Philadelphia field files -- for all interested parties. Edited November 2, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) The Associated Press in Dallas reported on November 10th that Walker had announced he was planning a nationwide speaking tour. The previous day, FBI HQ Special Agent Fred Baumgardner was informed about Walker's plans. Significantly, Baumgardner was a Section Chief within the Domestic Intelligence Division's Internal Security Section. In other words, Walker's plans and activities were on the radar at the highest levels of the FBI food chain in Washington DC and Baumgardner instructed the Los Angeles field office to keep him apprised of any new developments involving Walker. About two weeks later (11/23/61), the FBI received information that Walker's friends and political allies (including Sen. Strom Thurmond, Cong. Bruce Alger) were advising him to make no public appearances and make no comments about public issues before his scheduled testimony before the U.S. Senate. He rejected their advice. Walker accepted a speaking engagement from the "Project Alert Anti-Communism Seminar" in southern California which was sponsored by the Navy League and Southern California Freedom Forum among others. In January 1962, Walker was the featured speaker at the Los Angeles Sports Arena (14,000 people capacity) for an event sponsored by the Freedom Forum of First Congregational Church. He also appeared on the George Putnam television interview program. Of course there was extensive media coverage about Walker in all southern California newspapers (and TV)... Excellent, Ernie -- just look at how much history is being revealed in this short space of time. If the AP in Dallas knew on 11/10/1961 that Edwin Walker had planned a coast-to-coast speaking tour, and yet Walker had only resigned from the Army six days prior to that, then it should be obvious that Walker was making many plans BEFORE he resigned from the Army. Further, those weren't secret plans. Further, the John Birch Society was probably central to those plans. It was not even two weeks past his resignation from the Army that Edwin Walker would lead a mob of two thousand Birchers from Hollywood High School to the Hollywood Palladium to protest the "Fluoride" speech of JFK on 11/18/1961. The FBI and Secret Service went on alert because of this very protest -- much of which was caught on film. Therefore, we are justified in supposing that the John Birch Society was at the root of Edwin Walker's resignation from the US Army, and also his interest to the FBI. FBI HQ Special Agent Fred Baumgardner himself, a Section Chief in the FBI Domestic Intelligence Division's Internal Security Section, was informed about Walker's plans. Why? Was a John Birch Society protest considered a National Security threat even before the end of JFK's first year in office? Further, Baumgardner ordered the FBI in Los Angeles to keep him informed of every move that Walker made! WHY? Edwin Walker was a decorated World War Two General! What could possibly be the issue here? Is it possible that his John Birch Society connection was the only oddity on his record? As for Walker's supporters in Washington DC, supporters like Senator John Stennis and Senator Strom Thurmond, advised him to keep a low profile until the April 1962 Senate Subcommittee Hearings on Military Preparedness, which were calculated to make great hay on the alleged "firing" of Edwin Walker from the Army, and the alleged "Muzzling of the Military." But they only wanted to use this as propaganda to get votes for their own parties, and they didn't want Walker to get involved in politics -- because that would weaken their own support. They tried like the Dickens to keep Edwin Walker out of politics -- for one reason, Walker would have run as a Democrat (of the Dixiecrat variety) while Thurmond was a Republican. Yet beyond that, they sincerely hoped that Walker would avoid making a fool of himself in national politics, which can play rough == and Walker was an unmarried man in his fifties. Walker did reject their advice, but not on his own. No less a Presidential campaign backer than H.L. Hunt put up tens of thousands of dollars to enable Edwin Walker to run for Governor of Texas in the upcoming May 1962 Election. Was any of this the business of the FBI? I don't think so. Why, then, were they so involved? The only oddity in all this was the participation of the John Birch Society in Walker's life, and their ridiculous claims that sitting US Presidents like FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK had really been COMMUNISTS. Perhaps the FBI, following Hoover, saw the disloyalty in this pernicious doctrine. In any case -- one would think that the FBI would have welcomed and supported Walker's speaking out against Communism in every State in the Union. Why spy on him? It was enough to make some Anti-communists feel paranoid about their own government! In December of 1961, Edwin Walker finished writing and copyrighting his first speech, which he delivered to the National Indignation Convention in mid-December. Here is a snippet of his first speech, available on Youtube: []https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYyONwsHqbw] Notice that even at this early date, Walker's objections to the Cuban Crisis and the government of Fidel Castro are front and center. Walker's first speech was very warmly received with numerous standing ovations and a thunderous standing ovation at the end. Even as early as December 1961, Walker was so notorious that he appeared on the cover of Newsweek magazine, as seen here: http://www.pet880.com/images/19611204_Newsweek_Cover.JPG After that great start, Walker would copyright five new speeches, and would deliver them all over the South, including Southern California. Walker continued to get wild, standing ovations from his rightist audiences all over the South. JFK did sit up and take notice of him. When the JFK Administration considered Edwin Walker, they didn't think of him in terms of the character, General Jack D. Ripper in the movie, Dr. Strangelove (1964); instead, they thought of Walker in terms of the character, General James Mattoon Scott (played by Burt Lancaster) in the movie, Seven Days in May (1964). We know this because JFK and RFK gave personal support to the making of this latter movie. It was the image of Burt Lancaster making quasi-patriotic speeches to massive crowds going wild that most accurately pictured General Edwin Walker in late 1961 and early 1962. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited November 2, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) Delete Edited November 2, 2014 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) The Associated Press in Dallas reported on November 10th that Walker had announced he was planning a nationwide speaking tour. The previous day, FBI HQ Special Agent Fred Baumgardner was informed about Walker's plans. Significantly, Baumgardner was a Section Chief within the Domestic Intelligence Division's Internal Security Section. In other words, Walker's plans and activities were on the radar at the highest levels of the FBI food chain in Washington DC and Baumgardner instructed the Los Angeles field office to keep him apprised of any new developments involving Walker. About two weeks later (11/23/61), the FBI received information that Walker's friends and political allies (including Sen. Strom Thurmond, Cong. Bruce Alger) were advising him to make no public appearances and make no comments about public issues before his scheduled testimony before the U.S. Senate. He rejected their advice. Walker accepted a speaking engagement from the "Project Alert Anti-Communism Seminar" in southern California which was sponsored by the Navy League and Southern California Freedom Forum among others. In January 1962, Walker was the featured speaker at the Los Angeles Sports Arena (14,000 people capacity) for an event sponsored by the Freedom Forum of First Congregational Church. He also appeared on the George Putnam television interview program. Of course there was extensive media coverage about Walker in all southern California newspapers (and TV)... Excellent, Ernie -- just look at how much history is being revealed in this short space of time. If the AP in Dallas knew on 11/10/1961 that Edwin Walker had planned a coast-to-coast speaking tour, and yet Walker had only resigned from the Army six days prior to that, then it should be obvious that Walker was making many plans BEFORE he resigned from the Army. Further, those weren't secret plans. Further, the John Birch Society was probably central to those plans. It was not even two weeks past his resignation from the Army that Edwin Walker would lead a mob of two thousand Birchers from Hollywood High School to the Hollywood Palladium to protest the "Fluoride" speech of JFK on 11/18/1961. The FBI and Secret Service went on alert because of this very protest -- much of which was caught on film. Therefore, we are justified in supposing that the John Birch Society was at the root of Edwin Walker's resignation from the US Army, and also his interest to the FBI. FBI HQ Special Agent Fred Baumgardner himself, a Section Chief in the FBI Domestic Intelligence Division's Internal Security Section, was informed about Walker's plans. Why? Was a John Birch Society protest considered a National Security threat even before the end of JFK's first year in office? Further, Baumgardner ordered the FBI in Los Angeles to keep him informed of every move that Walker made! WHY? Edwin Walker was a decorated World War Two General! What could possibly be the issue here? Is it possible that his John Birch Society connection was the only oddity on his record? As for Walker's supporters in Washington DC, supporters like Senator John Stennis and Senator Strom Thurmond, advised him to keep a low profile until the April 1962 Senate Subcommittee Hearings on Military Preparedness, which were calculated to make great hay on the alleged "firing" of Edwin Walker from the Army, and the alleged "Muzzling of the Military." But they only wanted to use this as propaganda to get votes for their own parties, and they didn't want Walker to get involved in politics -- because that would weaken their own support. They tried like the Dickens to keep Edwin Walker out of politics -- for one reason, Walker would have run as a Democrat (of the Dixiecrat variety) while Thurmond was a Republican. Yet beyond that, they sincerely hoped that Walker would avoid making a fool of himself in national politics, which can play rough == and Walker was an unmarried man in his fifties. Walker did reject their advice, but not on his own. No less a Presidential campaign backer than H.L. Hunt put up tens of thousands of dollars to enable Edwin Walker to run for Governor of Texas in the upcoming May 1962 Election. Was any of this the business of the FBI? I don't think so. Why, then, were they so involved? The only oddity in all this was the participation of the John Birch Society in Walker's life, and their ridiculous claims that sitting US Presidents like FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK had really been COMMUNISTS. Perhaps the FBI, following Hoover, saw the disloyalty in this pernicious doctrine. In any case -- one would think that the FBI would have welcomed and supported Walker's speaking out against Communism in every State in the Union. Why spy on him? It was enough to make some Anti-communists feel paranoid about their own government! In December of 1961, Edwin Walker finished writing and copyrighting his first speech, which he delivered to the National Indignation Convention in mid-December. Here is a snippet of his first speech, available on Youtube: []https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYyONwsHqbw] Notice that even at this early date, Walker's objections to the Cuban Crisis and the government of Fidel Castro are front and center. Walker's first speech was very warmly received with numerous standing ovations and a thunderous standing ovation at the end. Even as early as December 1961, Walker was so notorious that he appeared on the cover of Newsweek magazine, as seen here: http://www.pet880.com/images/19611204_Newsweek_Cover.JPG After that great start, Walker would copyright five new speeches, and would deliver them all over the South, including Southern California. Walker continued to get wild, standing ovations from his rightist audiences all over the South. JFK did sit up and take notice of him. When the JFK Administration considered Edwin Walker, they didn't think of him in terms of the character, General Jack D. Ripper in the movie, Dr. Strangelove (1964); instead, they thought of Walker in terms of the character, General James Mattoon Scott (played by Burt Lancaster) in the movie, Seven Days in May (1964). We know this because JFK and RFK gave personal support to the making of this latter movie. It was the image of Burt Lancaster making quasi-patriotic speeches to massive crowds going wild that most accurately pictured General Edwin Walker in late 1961 and early 1962. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> You put 2+2 together and got 6. And you mis-stated what I presented. 1. First of all, there is no way to apportion exactly how much influence any one person or group had upon Walker's "plans" just prior to (or just after) his resignation. We do know, however, that the entire right-wing apparatus in our country was energized by what they interpreted as the Kennedy Administration's unfair treatment of Walker along with their perceived "muzzling" of our senior military officers. 2. Second, the NIC protest demonstration in Los Angeles surely attracted many JBS members but it is wild hyperbole to describe all of them as "a mob of 2000 Birchers". 3. There is nothing in any FBI file to support your contention that the primary reason the FBI became interested in Walker was due to his JBS membership. The primary reason the FBI became interested in Walker is because of his capacity for what, in later years, the FBI described as "rabble rousers" -- and they created a new Index for just that type of person (left and right). The FBI's original description of Rabble Rouser was disseminated to all field offices by SAC Letters in 1967. Their description was a person of national prominence who tried to arouse people by appealing to their emotions, prejudices etc in some way which had a bearing on national security. In other words a demagogue or agitator. In particular, the FBI was concerned about people who traveled extensively. 4. Baumgardner was not involved in this matter because of the JBS. He became involved because of concerns over JFK's security due to the fact that the NIC/Walker were going to march to the Palladium to protest JFK's policies while a group whose leader was a Communist Party member was going to be in the same area at the same time. 5. In 1960, the FBI had seen the potential for what happens when polar opposite ideological groups both are protesting at the same location at the same time. See, for example: http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_House_Un-American_Activities_Committee_(HUAC)_Hearing_and_Riot_of_1960 6. Baumgardner did not order Los Angeles to (as you wrote) "keep him informed of every move that Walker made". Instead, he instructed Los Angeles to keep him apprised of any new developments with respect to the planned NIC protest demonstration against JFK. 7. The "oddity" you refer to was not the JBS. It was the normal concern about potential consequences (intended or unintended) which law enforcement always perceives as a possibility when crowds of people are subjected to inflammatory rhetoric. In this case, the NIC was forming chapters all over the country and many of their spokespersons described JFK's policies as "treasonous". The NIC was attracting support from across the spectrum of right-wing luminaries -- including from many prominent conservative politicians and pundits (including William F. Buckley Jr.). 8. You again are falsely attributing believes to the Birch Society which were not part of their official dogma. The JBS did not claim that FDR, Truman, Eisenhower or JFK were "Communists". In fact, not even Robert Welch made those assertions regarding three of the four Presidents you cite. With respect to FDR and Truman, Welch stated in an April 1961 interview that "they were being used by the Communists--I never said they were Communists and I don't say it now." A Massachusetts newspaper reporter summarized another statement which Welch made: "Welch said in the statement he does not think Truman and Roosevelt were Communists or 'sympathizers in any way with ultimate Communist aims'. " Nor is there any specific comment in JBS literature in 1961 which described JFK as "Communist". 9. Paul -- it is difficult enough to accurately present and interpret evidence without having to constantly correct distortions or misrepresentations. You often chastise other people for having simplistic black/white views and for not recognizing "nuances" -- but you don't seem able to recognize how your own statements often present hyperbolic over-statements which do not help us understand reality. Edited November 3, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) You put 2+2 together and got 6. And you mis-stated what I presented. 1. First of all, there is no way to apportion exactly how much influence any one person or group had upon Walker's "plans" just prior to (or just after) his resignation. We do know, however, that the entire right-wing apparatus in our country was energized by what they interpreted as the Kennedy Administration's unfair treatment of Walker along with their perceived "muzzling" of our senior military officers. 2. Second, the NIC protest demonstration in Los Angeles surely attracted many JBS members but it is wild hyperbole to describe all of them as "a mob of 2000 Birchers". 3. There is nothing in any FBI file to support your contention that the primary reason the FBI became interested in Walker was due to his JBS membership. The primary reason the FBI became interested in Walker is because of his capacity for what, in later years, the FBI described as "rabble rousers" -- and they created a new Index for just that type of person (left and right). The FBI's original description of Rabble Rouser was disseminated to all field offices by SAC Letters in 1967. Their description was a person of national prominence who tried to arouse people by appealing to their emotions, prejudices etc in some way which had a bearing on national security. In other words a demagogue or agitator. In particular, the FBI was concerned about people who traveled extensively. 4. Baumgardner was not involved in this matter because of the JBS. He became involved because of concerns over JFK's security due to the fact that the NIC/Walker were going to march to the Palladium to protest JFK's policies while a group whose leader was a Communist Party member was going to be in the same area at the same time. 5. In 1960, the FBI had seen the potential for what happens when polar opposite ideological groups both are protesting at the same location at the same time. See, for example: http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_House_Un-American_Activities_Committee_(HUAC)_Hearing_and_Riot_of_1960 6. Baumgardner did not order Los Angeles to (as you wrote) "keep him informed of every move that Walker made". Instead, he instructed Los Angeles to keep him apprised of any new developments with respect to the planned NIC protest demonstration against JFK. 7. The "oddity" you refer to was not the JBS. It was the normal concern about potential consequences (intended or unintended) which law enforcement always perceives as a possibility when crowds of people are subjected to inflammatory rhetoric. In this case, the NIC was forming chapters all over the country and many of their spokespersons described JFK's policies as "treasonous". The NIC was attracting support from across the spectrum of right-wing luminaries -- including from many prominent conservative politicians and pundits (including William F. Buckley Jr.). 8. You again are falsely attributing believes to the Birch Society which were not part of their official dogma. The JBS did not claim that FDR, Truman, Eisenhower or JFK were "Communists". In fact, not even Robert Welch made those assertions regarding three of the four Presidents you cite. With respect to FDR and Truman, Welch stated in an April 1961 interview that "they were being used by the Communists--I never said they were Communists and I don't say it now." A Massachusetts newspaper reporter summarized another statement which Welch made: "Welch said in the statement he does not think Truman and Roosevelt were Communists or 'sympathizers in any way with ultimate Communist aims'. " Nor is there any specific comment in JBS literature in 1961 which described JFK as "Communist". 9. Paul -- it is difficult enough to accurately present and interpret evidence without having to constantly correct distortions or misrepresentations. You often chastise other people for having simplistic black/white views and for not recognizing "nuances" -- but you don't seem able to recognize how your own statements often present hyperbolic over-statements which do not help us understand reality. Ernie, it seems to me that you're putting 2+2 together and getting 22. Let's take it by the numbers. 1. Walker, a US General, resigned on 11/4/1961, and on 11/8/1961 the FBI sent the Secret Service their inside information that Walker was going to lead a picket against JFK's speech at the Hollywood Palladium. This was observed by the highest levels of Washington DC officials. That shows an unusual interest in the immediate plans of a former US General with very little provocation. Nor was the FBI at all interested in the "muzzling" of the US Military. 2. It might be hyperbole, but one can still characterize that picket as a "mob of 2,000 Birchers". 3. My contention was raised as a QUESTION. Why, why, why in the world would the FBI and the Secret Service trace the plans of a US General who had just resigned days ago -- when those plans were merely those of leading a peaceful protest of John Birch Society members against a JFK speech in Hollywood? Your intepretation, Ernie, that "the FBI became interested in Walker is because of his capacity for what, in later years, the FBI described as rabble rousers" is clearly mistaken, since it projects their opinion of "later years" onto 1961. It's poor logic. Edwin Walker was a US General on 11/1/1961. He resigned on 11/4/1961. On 11/8/1961 the FBI alerted the Secret Service that Edwin Walker was going to picket JFK. WHAT IN THE WORLD IS THAT ABOUT?? 4. You claim, Ernie, that Baumgardner was only involved with the FBI report on Edwin Walker because "a group whose leader was a Communist Party member was going to be in the same area at the same time." That makes no sense. If the FBI wanted to track that Communist Party member and his group, then the FBI report would have been about that Communist Party member and his group -- not about the resigned US General Edwin Walker. 5. You claim, Ernie, that the FBI worry was that the JBS/NIC would possibly clash with the Communist Party in the streets of Hollywood -- but you're just guessing, because that WASN'T THE CONTENT of that FBI report that you shared about Edwin Walker. 6. Baumgardner's instructions to the LAX FBI amount to a continual observation on the actions of Edwin Walker, a leader of the JBS and their NIC lackeys. 7. It was well-known that the JBS was guilty of "inflammatory rhetoric" since they claimed that FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK were all COMMUNISTS. Thus my statement stands. 8. You try, Ernie, to backpedal the JBS claims about these four Presidents -- and to do that you remove all their literature except that written by Robert Welch PERSONALLY. Yet even that ploy ultimately fails, because you cannot deny that Robert Welch PERSONALLY wrote that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a 'conscious, deliberate agent of the Communist Party.' Aside from that historical fact, other leading writers of the JBS repeatedly wrote that FDR, Truman and JFK were Communists, Communist inspired, Communist Dupes, and so on and on ad nauseum. The obvious sedition of the John Birch Society was plain to every American who read the pages of American Opinion in the 1960's -- including yours truly. 9. Ernie -- it is important to tell the truth about the JBS. It confuses readers when you sometimes say that you're a critic of the JBS, and yet you sometimes defend the JBS against very clear charges of their unpatriotic language -- which even made J. Edgar Hoover wince. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited November 3, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) You put 2+2 together and got 6. And you mis-stated what I presented. 1. First of all, there is no way to apportion exactly how much influence any one person or group had upon Walker's "plans" just prior to (or just after) his resignation. We do know, however, that the entire right-wing apparatus in our country was energized by what they interpreted as the Kennedy Administration's unfair treatment of Walker along with their perceived "muzzling" of our senior military officers. 2. Second, the NIC protest demonstration in Los Angeles surely attracted many JBS members but it is wild hyperbole to describe all of them as "a mob of 2000 Birchers". 3. There is nothing in any FBI file to support your contention that the primary reason the FBI became interested in Walker was due to his JBS membership. The primary reason the FBI became interested in Walker is because of his capacity for what, in later years, the FBI described as "rabble rousers" -- and they created a new Index for just that type of person (left and right). The FBI's original description of Rabble Rouser was disseminated to all field offices by SAC Letters in 1967. Their description was a person of national prominence who tried to arouse people by appealing to their emotions, prejudices etc in some way which had a bearing on national security. In other words a demagogue or agitator. In particular, the FBI was concerned about people who traveled extensively. 4. Baumgardner was not involved in this matter because of the JBS. He became involved because of concerns over JFK's security due to the fact that the NIC/Walker were going to march to the Palladium to protest JFK's policies while a group whose leader was a Communist Party member was going to be in the same area at the same time. 5. In 1960, the FBI had seen the potential for what happens when polar opposite ideological groups both are protesting at the same location at the same time. See, for example: http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_House_Un-American_Activities_Committee_(HUAC)_Hearing_and_Riot_of_1960 6. Baumgardner did not order Los Angeles to (as you wrote) "keep him informed of every move that Walker made". Instead, he instructed Los Angeles to keep him apprised of any new developments with respect to the planned NIC protest demonstration against JFK. 7. The "oddity" you refer to was not the JBS. It was the normal concern about potential consequences (intended or unintended) which law enforcement always perceives as a possibility when crowds of people are subjected to inflammatory rhetoric. In this case, the NIC was forming chapters all over the country and many of their spokespersons described JFK's policies as "treasonous". The NIC was attracting support from across the spectrum of right-wing luminaries -- including from many prominent conservative politicians and pundits (including William F. Buckley Jr.). 8. You again are falsely attributing believes to the Birch Society which were not part of their official dogma. The JBS did not claim that FDR, Truman, Eisenhower or JFK were "Communists". In fact, not even Robert Welch made those assertions regarding three of the four Presidents you cite. With respect to FDR and Truman, Welch stated in an April 1961 interview that "they were being used by the Communists--I never said they were Communists and I don't say it now." A Massachusetts newspaper reporter summarized another statement which Welch made: "Welch said in the statement he does not think Truman and Roosevelt were Communists or 'sympathizers in any way with ultimate Communist aims'. " Nor is there any specific comment in JBS literature in 1961 which described JFK as "Communist". 9. Paul -- it is difficult enough to accurately present and interpret evidence without having to constantly correct distortions or misrepresentations. You often chastise other people for having simplistic black/white views and for not recognizing "nuances" -- but you don't seem able to recognize how your own statements often present hyperbolic over-statements which do not help us understand reality. Ernie, it seems to me that you're putting 2+2 together and getting 22. Let's take it by the numbers. 1. Walker, a US General, resigned on 11/4/1961, and on 11/8/1961 the FBI sent the Secret Service their inside information that Walker was going to lead a picket against JFK's speech at the Hollywood Palladium. This was observed by the highest levels of Washington DC officials. That shows an unusual interest in the immediate plans of a former US General with very little provocation. Nor was the FBI at all interested in the "muzzling" of the US Military. Actually, the FBI responded to a telephone inquiry from the Secret Service on 11/7/61. Nor did the FBI tell the Secret Service that Walker was going "to lead a picket against JFK's speech". Instead, the FBI told the Secret Service that an informant they considered reliable told the FBI that "Walker has been invited to appear in Los Angeles in connection with a forum on anticommunism which is to be conducted at the auditorium of Hollywood High School...on November 18, 1961." The FBI also informed Secret Service that the organization sponsoring the anti-communism forum had obtained police permission to march to where JFK was giving his speech. There was no mention of Walker "leading" anything. Like i said Paul, it would be helpful if you could at least get basic facts correct and not embellish them. 2. It might be hyperbole, but one can still characterize that picket as a "mob of 2,000 Birchers". Suppose, just for sake of argument, that of the crowd that attended the anticommunism forum and subsequently marched to the Palladium, only 650 were JBS members. Would you still stand by your description? Incidentally, the Los Angeles Times article on the event may be seen here: 2,000 Pickets Protest Aid to Red Nations MASS PICKETING Date: Nov 19, 1961 Start Page: A Pages: 2 Section: A There were no arrests. The "mob" (as you describe them), sang God Bless America and they carried signs like "No Aid For Tito" and "Get The Reds Out of the State Department" and "Clean out the CIA" and "Thank God For Right-Wing Patriots". There are no memos in the FBI file which report any violence nor any reference to some "mob" nor anything that refers to them as "Birchers". The LA Times article reported a single instance when a police officer "forcibly pushed one protester back into line when he attempted to enter the peace marchers line..." So much for your "mob" So, again, it would help if you could get your basic facts straight. 3. My contention was raised as a QUESTION. Why, why, why in the world would the FBI and the Secret Service trace the plans of a US General who had just resigned days ago -- when those plans were merely those of leading a peaceful protest of John Birch Society members against a JFK speech in Hollywood? I already answered you about that. They weren't worried about Walker. They were worried about the potential for some sort of clash between polar opposite highly ideological groups --- even if not intended. The FBI probably suspected that having Walker as the featured speaker would increase the number of persons who would attend the NIC anticommunism forum. They probably also suspected that speakers at that forum (including Walker) would use inflammatory blow-torch rhetoric which might convince some people to take actions that in other circumstances would not occur-- whether it was from the NIC crowd or from the other crowd marching across the street. Many times what start out as "peaceful protests" turn rapidly into something else which is very ugly. If you doubt me, then check out the recent events in Ferguson MO. The FBI and Secret Service became involved in all this because JFK was in town and the marchers (from both sides) were planning to march to the Palladium. Your intepretation, Ernie, that "the FBI became interested in Walker is because of his capacity for what, in later years, the FBI described as rabble rousers" is clearly mistaken, since it projects their opinion of "later years" onto 1961. It's poor logic. Edwin Walker was a US General on 11/1/1961. He resigned on 11/4/1961. On 11/8/1961 the FBI alerted the Secret Service that Edwin Walker was going to picket JFK. WHAT IN THE WORLD IS THAT ABOUT?? You miss the point. Both the FBI and the Secret Service were familiar with Walker's recent history and they knew the political passions which recent events involving Walker had unleashed (i.e. being relieved of command in April 1961). From the day when the first news reports were published regarding Walker's troop indoctrination program (4/14/61) to November 1961, the Los Angeles Times published 147 articles containing some sort of reference to the JBS and its views. Almost every article described the JBS in some derogatory manner and as some sort of extremist group. There were constant denunciations of the JBS by clergy and by national religious organizations, and by very prominent Americans (including former Presidents), and by Governors and state Attorneys General, and by leaders of civil rights and civil liberties organizations and even by Republican leaders in state legislatures as well as the U.S. Congress Internally, within the FBI, its Chief Inspector had described Birchers in summary memos as "fanatics" and the FBI as an institution had concluded (long before November 1961) that the Birch Society was "irrational" and "irresponsible". Obviously, when someone very prominent associates himself with such an organization AND that person suddenly announces that he is going to make a national speaking tour under the auspices of an organization (NIC) which was created by Birchers AND those organizations (JBS, NIC) use exceptionally inflammatory rhetoric to describe the character, motives and intentions of virtually every senior official of the U.S. Government -- including the President [appeasement - soft on communism -- treasonous, etc] -- THAT rings alarm bells big-time within the institutions responsible for the security of our President. WHY do you think Kennedy's Los Angeles speech focused upon the damage which political extremists could do to our society? There was nothing in JFK's speech which had not already been concluded, independently, and months earlier, within the FBI. 4. You claim, Ernie, that Baumgardner was only involved with the FBI report on Edwin Walker because "a group whose leader was a Communist Party member was going to be in the same area at the same time." That makes no sense. If the FBI wanted to track that Communist Party member and his group, then the FBI report would have been about that Communist Party member and his group -- not about the resigned US General Edwin Walker. Once again, you misrepresent what I previously wrote. The 11/8/61 FBI memo addresses the CP member who headed the HELP group [Norman Lavet]. I can assure you that if you obtain the FBI's file on the Communist Party in southern California, you will see numerous serials cross-referenced in various CP-related files regarding the Party member [Norman Lavet] AND his new organization [HELP = Help Establish Lasting Peace], AND in other relevant files. In fact, there are notations at bottom of serial #3 (11/6/61) concerning the file numbers of Lavet and HELP and Los Angeles told HQ that "Matter is being followed on continuing basis and Bureau will be promptly advised of pertinent developments..." and "Los Angeles alert for other evidence, activity this group." 5. You claim, Ernie, that the FBI worry was that the JBS/NIC would possibly clash with the Communist Party in the streets of Hollywood -- but you're just guessing, because that WASN'T THE CONTENT of that FBI report that you shared about Edwin Walker. When the FBI sends information to the Secret Service -- that is their reason for doing so -- i.e. potential security concerns. That also is the reason why the Secret Service contacts the FBI i.e. to inquire about anything falling into their wheelhouse. You can attempt to diminish such activity by calling it "guessing" but I doubt anybody shares your interpretation. 6. Baumgardner's instructions to the LAX FBI amount to a continual observation on the actions of Edwin Walker, a leader of the JBS and their NIC lackeys. Nope -- that is you "guessing" despite having no evidence to support your speculation. If the FBI had "continual observation" on ANYBODY -- there would be daily reports about that person in their file -- including, for example, what the FBI calls "FISUR" (physical surveillance). There are no such reports in Walker's file. 7. It was well-known that the JBS was guilty of "inflammatory rhetoric" since they claimed that FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK were all COMMUNISTS. Thus my statement stands. Wrong. You are confusing and conflating what Robert Welch wrote about Eisenhower in his 1954 manuscript, The Politician -- with what the JBS, as an organization, believed. 8. You try, Ernie, to backpedal the JBS claims about these four Presidents -- and to do that you remove all their literature except that written by Robert Welch PERSONALLY. Yet even that ploy ultimately fails, because you cannot deny that Robert Welch PERSONALLY wrote that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a 'conscious, deliberate agent of the Communist Party.' Yes, Welch wrote that about Eisenhower in 1954 (BUT 5 years before the JBS was founded). Why do you describe this as "a ploy"? Is every opinion you wrote in a private letter 5 or 10 years ago -- automatically ascribable to EVERY organization you subsequently join or create? When the JBS was founded, its founding members stated explicitly that Welch's personal views were NOT the beliefs of the JBS. And as I previously have explained to you -- many of the founding members of the JBS were major contributors to Eisenhower's campaigns and/or they worked with their state GOP organizations to elect and re-elect Eisenhower. And several of them served in the Eisenhower Administration. And many of them explicitly stated after Welch's private comments became public, that they totally rejected his analysis re: Eisenhower. In particular, Clarence Manion was adamant in his personal correspondence and in his public statements about that. IN FACT -- as you may know, there was an early effort to replace Welch as the leader of the JBS (by JBS National Council members) precisely because they did not want the JBS to be further associated with Welch's personal views in a private letter he wrote in 1954. The Council did not force Welch out -- but several Council members resigned when it became clear that Welch would not agree to step down and let some new face become the public face of the Society. Aside from that historical fact, other leading writers of the JBS repeatedly wrote that FDR, Truman and JFK were Communists, Communist inspired, Communist Dupes, and so on and on ad nauseum. The obvious sedition of the John Birch Society was plain to every American who read the pages of American Opinion in the 1960's -- including yours truly. Give us some examples of "other leading writers of the JBS" who wrote in 1959, 1960, 1961, or 1962 [in JBS publications] that FDR, Truman and JFK were Communists. One of your recurring problems Paul is that you seem unwilling to distinguish between the official position of an organization (as clearly spelled out in its formative documents) versus the private opinions of individuals who decide (for whatever reasons) to join or endorse that organization. I can find you a comment made by George Lincoln Rockwell which was generally favorable about Welch and the JBS. Does that mean that all, or a majority of, Birchers were Nazis? OR that most Birchers had a favorable opinion of national socialism and of Hitler? 9. Ernie -- it is important to tell the truth about the JBS. It confuses readers when you sometimes say that you're a critic of the JBS, and yet you sometimes defend the JBS against very clear charges of their unpatriotic language -- which even made J. Edgar Hoover wince. You still have problems distinguishing between "defend" vs. "correct the record" for factual errors. If you prefer to do so, I suggest you contact ANY historian or scholar of your choice who has done extensive research into the history of the JBS and ask them if my statements are in any way mistaken. This summer I told you about the most recent book written about the JBS by an historian (Dr. Darren Malloy]. http://www.vanderbilt.edu/university-press/book/9780826519818 There is also the massive 2009 doctoral dissertation by Dr. Samuel Brenner which is available online. Or, you can read the extensive material about the JBS in historian Jonathan M. Schoenwald's 2001 well-researched book, A Time For Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism OR how about Dr. Donald Critchlow's 2011 book, "The Conservative Ascendancy: How The Republican Right Rose to Power in Modern America". [Note: The Journal of American Studies described Critchlow's book at "the definitive general history of the conservative movement"] All of these authors have very detailed knowledge because they spent a lot of time and effort researching archives of personal papers as well as studying JBS literature. So why don't you contact one of them and ask them if any of your speculations are accurate---and then let us know the result? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo My replies are underneath your comments. Edited November 3, 2014 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 (edited) Ernie,You are far too interested in defending the John Birch Society for my taste.I've personally read countless issues of American Opinion magazine, as well as several books published by the JBS, and I saw for myself that their Neo-McCarthyism survived well into the 1980's.Then I lost interest in their bone-headed version of Anti-communism.There is no way I'm going to revisit their truly stupid documents to cite chapter and verse on them. I know what I read, and many readers here have read the same thing. The JBS claimed that US Presidents were cooperating with the Communists. They really said that; that's not my theory; that's not my speculation.And no -- I'm not going to descend to the level of nit-picking individual sentences with you.Your defense of the John Birch Society is politically incorrect, IMHO, not just in this Forum, but anywhere in the USA, because IMHO the John Birch Society has always been a seditious organization.The tactic of accusing sitting US Presidents of Communist cooperation was not to weaken the Democrats to favor the Republicans as Harry Dean once claimed, because President Eisenhower, a Republican, was also named by Robert Welch himself as a 'conscious, deliberate agent of the Communists.'That tactic was intended only to weaken the US Government. It worked. It led to the murder of JFK. IMHO, the JBS was partly responsible for the murder of JFK, and new documentation is being found every month now to strengthen this case for the whole world to see.I don't say this only because Jack Ruby said so -- Jack Ruby was emotionally challenged, as is quite obvious. Yet Jack Ruby was also very close to the events, and his opinion matters. Harry Dean also has his own soft spots -- but again, Harry Dean was very close to the events (in Southern California, with General Walker) and his opinion matters, too.That is only the tip of the iceberg. Whenever we find Ex-General Edwin Walker arising within the context of the JFK murder, we should IMMEDIATELY think of the John Birch Society. It's a one to one correspondence.Finally, for those who are on the fence, and wonder if Ernie Lazar might be right in his emotional defense of the John Birch Society, consider the FBI HQ main file on the JBS, which is #62-104401, in which J. Edgar Hoover and his top agents continually refer to the JBS as "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible" and "lunatic fringe".It was JBS claims about US Presidents that tipped the scales. All this nice talk about patriotism fizzles when somebody accuses US Presidents of TREASON -- decade after decade.But if they don't like the USA, and they don't like the Communists, then what was the original source of their ideas? We can get an idea from their incessant attacks on International Bankers and the Civil Rights Movement -- the key to the JBS can be traced to German criticism of World War Two. That's right -- the Third Reich.Now, I'm not saying that the JBS were Nazis. Not by a long shot. As evil as they were, Nazi's were bold and honest. The evil of the JBS is concealed by sneaky and cowardly behavior -- their wide smiles and waving the American flag as they SMASH a US President and then run away like mice.Remember that the Warren Report held a separate section of the Report about the John Birch Society. The WANTED FOR TREASON handbill, and the black-bordered Ad in the DMN, "Welcome Mister Kennedy to Dallas," were attributed to the John Birch Society by the Warren Commission itself.If not for J. Edgar Hoover's doctrine of the "Lone Nut" in the JFK murder, the John Birch Society would have been brought to justice in the case -- I have no doubt about that.It's saddening to me that we let the JBS get away with murder in 1964, and that they still exist down to this very day, and continue to influence the Tea Parties on the right-wing, and the lost-souls of the left-wing, down to this very day.Sincerely,--Paul Trejo<edit typos> Edited November 6, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 I don't believe that Ernie is "defending" the JBS. Nice try. You committed multiple fallacies in a single sentence by both "Poisoning the Well" and employing a "Straw Man" argument. Then there was this: There is no way I'm going to revisit their truly stupid documents to cite chapter and verse on them. I know what I read, and many readers here have read the same thing. How many "readers here" have read the same thing as you, Paul? How do you know? Are they the "reading only" type of members, who will remain faceless and nameless at your convenience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Ernie, You are far too interested in defending the John Birch Society for my taste. I've personally read countless issues of American Opinion magazine, as well as several books published by the JBS, and I saw for myself that their Neo-McCarthyism survived well into the 1980's. Then I lost interest in their bone-headed version of Anti-communism. There is no way I'm going to revisit their truly stupid documents to cite chapter and verse on them. I know what I read, and many readers here have read the same thing. The JBS claimed that US Presidents were cooperating with the Communists. They really said that; that's not my theory; that's not my speculation. And no -- I'm not going to descend to the level of nit-picking individual sentences with you. Your defense of the John Birch Society is politically incorrect, IMHO, not just in this Forum, but anywhere in the USA, because IMHO the John Birch Society has always been a seditious organization. The tactic of accusing sitting US Presidents of Communist cooperation was not to weaken the Democrats to favor the Republicans as Harry Dean once claimed, because President Eisenhower, a Republican, was also named by Robert Welch himself as a 'conscious, deliberate agents of the Communists.' That tactic was intended only to weaken the US Government. It worked. It led to the murder of JFK. IMHO, the JBS was partly responsible for the murder of JFK, and new documentation is being found every month now to strengthen this case for the whole world to see. I don't say this only because Jack Ruby said so -- Jack Ruby was emotionally challenged, as is quite obvious. Yet Jack Ruby was also very close to the events, and his opinion matters. Harry Dean also has his own soft spots -- but again, Harry Dean was very close to the events (in Southern California, with General Walker) and his opinion matters, too. That is only the tip of the iceberg. Whenever we find Ex-General Edwin Walker arising within the context of the JFK murder, we should IMMEDIATELY think of the John Birch Society. It's a one to one correspondence. Finally, for those who are on the fence, and wonder if Ernie Lazar might be right in his emotional defense of the John Birch Society, consider the FBI HQ main file on the JBS, which is #62-104401, in which J. Edgar Hoover and his top agents continually refer to the JBS as "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible" and "lunatic fringe". It was JBS claims about US Presidents that tipped the scales. All this nice talk about patriotism fizzles when somebody accuses US Presidents of TREASON -- decade after decade. But if they don't like the USA, and they don't like the Communists, then what was the original source of their ideas? We can get an idea from their incessant attacks on International Bankers and the Civil Rights Movement -- the key to the JBS can be traced to German criticism of World War Two. That's right -- the Third Reich. Now, I'm not saying that the JBS were Nazis. Not by a long shot. As evil as they were, Nazi's were bold and honest. The evil of the JBS is concealed by sneaky and cowardly behavior -- their wide smiles and waving the American flag as they SMASH a US President and then run away like mice. Remember that the Warren Report held a separate section of the Report about the John Birch Society. The WANTED FOR TREASON handbill, and the black-bordered Ad in the DMN, "Welcome Mister Kennedy to Dallas," were attributed to the John Birch Society by the Warren Commission itself. If not for J. Edgar Hoover's doctrine of the "Lone Nut" in the JFK murder, the John Birch Society would have been brought to justice in the case -- I have no doubt about that. It's saddening to me that we let the JBS get away with murder in 1964, and that they still exist down to this very day, and continue to influence the Tea Parties on the right-wing, and the lost-souls of the left-wing, down to this very day. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Well, Paul, unfortunately you have created another flawless circular argument. Essentially what you are saying is that you are infallible when you discuss the history of the JBS (as an organization) or what it believed. And, furthermore, you make no distinctions whatsoever between what individual members thought or did versus what the organization thought or did. This is very convenient because it allows you to perpetually attribute everything you don't like or you do not understand (without exception or qualification) to the JBS. Why you do bother to dissociate yourself from claiming that Birchers were Nazis? You can easily find many prominent examples of individuals who joined the JBS who actually were neo-nazis (including, for example, Walker's aide, Robert A. Surrey). So why are you so fastidious about that but you don't want to make careful distinctions about anything else involving the beliefs or behavior of the JBS? You mention the "Wanted For Treason" handbill and the "Welcome to Dallas" advertisement in the DMN. I suppose (in your scheme of things) it does not matter whether or not the JBS as an organization knew about those projects beforehand? It does not matter whether the JBS approved them or instructed their members to create them? All that ever matters (to you) is finding some sort of link, no matter how tenuous, to either a JBS member or somebody who "sounds like" a JBS member -- right? THAT is what YOU call "connecting the dots" -- RIGHT? Consequently, when an organization has 40,000 or 60,000 members -- then that organization is responsible for EVERYTHING done or said by persons who claim to be members-- right? You apparently believe in the Robot Syndrome i.e. nobody ever does anything on their own (for their own reasons) and nobody ever does anything against the wishes of whatever organization(s) they belong to - right? Obviously -- the JBS, like every other "educational" organization (right-wing or left-wing) has a core ideology and the individuals who joined the JBS as dues-paying members (or those who were just state-of-mind members without joining the JBS) were influenced by and receptive to some portion of that core ideological perspective. But it is also true that human beings have free will and they also interpret data through their own personal lens. They can (and often do) behave in ways which contradict the preferences or the agenda of the organizations they belong to. Sometimes, for example, overzealous members say or do things which embarrass the groups they belong to. Sometimes, members claim to be speaking FOR the organization they belong to but they make utterly absurd statements -- including statements which are perceived as prejudiced or bigoted or just plain rude. You may not know this, but during Welch's lifetime, there were only FIVE individuals who were designated as official spokespersons for the JBS -- i.e. those five individuals were the only persons chosen to present the official JBS position about any subject matter. Those five individuals were: Robert Welch, John McManus, G. Edward Griffin, John Rousselot and after Rousselot left the JBS, then Reed Benson became the JBS National PR Director. Not even JBS National Council members were considered by Welch to be "official" spokespersons for the Society. The Council was a purely advisory body (despite its description in JBS literature). Welch appointed every person to the Council and he could, at will, fire them (which he sometimes did). Welch could (and often did) ignore their counsel. For over two decades, Welch wrote every word of the monthly JBS Bulletin -- hundreds of thousands of words. Not even American Opinion magazine always presented the "official" position of the JBS. Like many ideological magazines, the JBS identified its "contributing editors". These were persons who submitted articles for consideration of publication but, sometimes, their commentaries did not conform to JBS ideology. THAT is why (for example) Westbrook Pegler was dropped as a "contributing editor". There is a fascinating history of correspondence between Welch and Pegler which would give you a clear understanding about the boundaries which Welch enforced. I have no clue why you describe my comments as "an emotional defense" of the JBS. But it is painfully obvious that you never want your obvious errors to be corrected by me -- so that is why I have repeatedly suggested that you contact any historians or scholars of your choice who have studied JBS history to ask THEM if your premises and conclusions are accurate and then let us know the result. Unfortunately, you prefer the cartoon caricature approach to historical research. You prefer creating villains and bad guys so that you can attribute everything you despise to them exclusively. Which, oddly, is EXACTLY the methodology employed by the Birch Society! You would be right at home inside the JBS because your mental processes are identical. [That also explains, whether or not you want to admit it -- why Harry jumped immediately from extreme left to extreme right and skipped everything in between.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 I don't believe that Ernie is "defending" the JBS. Nice try. You committed multiple fallacies in a single sentence by both "Poisoning the Well" and employing a "Straw Man" argument. Then there was this: There is no way I'm going to revisit their truly stupid documents to cite chapter and verse on them. I know what I read, and many readers here have read the same thing. How many "readers here" have read the same thing as you, Paul? How do you know? Are they the "reading only" type of members, who will remain faceless and nameless at your convenience? Greg - while I appreciate your attempt to correct Paul's understanding, you should recognize by now that Paul does not comprehend the meaning of the word "fallacy" in terms of logical argument. He thinks everything he presents is, ipso facto, "truth" and "reality" and should never be challenged. In short order, Paul will tell you that you are "biased" and "emotional" and do not understand "nuances". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 (edited) FTR #188 American Gladio?Posted by FTR ⋅ January 9, 2000 Listen: Side 1 | Side 2 )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) This broadcast presents long excerpts of a manuscript by researcher Kevin Coogan, the brilliant author of Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International (Autonomedia, copyright 1999.) Speculative in nature, this program highlights information that suggests the distinct possibility of a domestic version of “Operation Stay Behind” and its Italian component, “Operation Gladio”. The above were NATO operations that utilized extreme right and fascist elements as potential guerilla forces to fight against communists in the event of either a successful Soviet takeover of Western Europe (an extreme improbability), or the greater likelihood of a popular Communist takeover of a major Western European country. In practice, Gladio resulted in a program of terrorist acts (bombings, kidnappings and assassinations) directed against the left. (Many of those acts were actually blamed on the left, in order to discredit it in the eyes of the public.) Disturbed by the alleged lack of “backbone” demonstrated by American military personnel during the Korean War, American strategic thinkers undertook to indoctrinate the American public with a practically militant, anti-Communist perspective. These leaders feared that, in the event of a protracted nuclear face-off with the Soviets, lack of American political resolve could result in the United States “blinking” and backing down in such a confrontation. In 1958, the Eisenhower administration issued a National Security Council directive authorizing the military to engage in a program of political indoctrination of military personnel and (more importantly) the civilian population as well. The goal of this directive was to alter the political views of the American people. The constitutional implications of this directive could not be exaggerated. The bulk of the broadcast examines evidence that suggests that, as a result of this NSC directive, the national security establishment began utilizing far-right and fascist groups in order to realize the desired ideological transformation. Mr. Emory suggests that these networks may very well have been utilized in the American political assassinations of the 1960s and early 1970s, as well as domestic intelligence operations against the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. Program Highlights Include: connections between Kennedy assassination figure Guy Bannister and American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell; Bannister’s connections to both the national security establishment and overtly fascist elements; intelligence networks and political fronts in the United States established by the German Reinhard Gehlen spy organization; the use of Nazi elements by a German component of “Operation Stay Behind;” the establishment of the German Nazi paper DNZ by U.S. intelligence as a component of the German “Stay Behind;” connections between Robert Surrey (an aide to Kennedy assassination figure General Edwin Walker) and George Lincoln Rockwell; evidence suggesting that Surrey’s financing of Walker’s American Mercury newspaper may have been financed by either German intelligence or U.S. intelligence (the paper was later taken over by Willis Carto, head of the Liberty Lobby); connections between Surrey and the Schmidt brothers (apparently involved in the Kennedy assassination); indications that the Schmidt brothers CUSA organization may also have resulted from the ’58 NSC directive,“Stay Behind;” the Schmidts’ Nazi ideology; the political assault on liberal American anti-Communists by far-right elements; the possibility that the DNZ’s publication of the allegation that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill General Walker was used by the BND (German intelligence) to pressure the CIA. (Recorded on 1/9/2000.) ************************************************************************************ Walker financed by U.S. intelligence ???????????????????? via Robert A. Surrey........... !!?!! NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (no its someone else saying the NO !!!!!!!!!! ,yup bet you, you ....you can you guess who is saying NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ) word to wise...things are not as simple as they seem. ################################# http://judythbaker.blogspot.com/2012/09/lee-harvey-oswald-didnt-shoot-at.html ======== The discussion continues (misspellings corrected): ROOT writes: "On the 29th of November 1963 the Deutsche National und Soldaten-Zeitung published an article that accused Lee Harvey Oswald of having been the person who had shot at General Edwin A. Walker on April 10, 1963. When Walker was questioned by Mr. Liebeler of the Warren Commission on July 23, 1964 he was asked about a phone call he received at the Captain Shreve Hotel in Shreveport, Louisiana on November 23, 1963 at about 7:00 a.m.Mr. Liebeler: "Did you talk to him on a transatlantic telephone call in which you told him about the alleged fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person who made an attempt on your life?"Gen. Walker: "I don't recall that name. Did he speak English? I don't speak German."Needless to say, the Testimony of Edwin A. Walker is interesting to say the least, perhaps misleading for a purpose. I find it interesting that the same day this article appeared in Germany the Warren Commission was established. (And that the information in the article mirrors the Warren Reports conclusions dealing with the Walker shooting)The FBI did not suspect the connection between the Walker shooting and the Kennedy assassination until "the weekend of November 30, 1963." (CE 2524) The FBI interviewed Marina Oswald about her husband's invovement in the attempt to assassinate General Walker on December 2, 1963. (CE 2545)How did Hasso Thorsten know that Edwin Walker would be at the Captain Shreve Hotel at 7:00 a.m. on the morning of Nov 24th and from whom did Mr. Thorsten get the telephone number of the hotel that Walker was staying in? Walker lived in Dallas, Texas and had been traveling around the country on speaking engagements. He, to my knowledge, had no plans to speak in Shreveport on the two days that he stayed there (Nights of Nov. 23 and 24).Is it possible that Walker, after seeing Oswald's picture on the television news, recognized him? How would Walker, an outspoken critic of Kennedy, react to the assassination if he did in fact recognize Oswald?Beginning in 1951, while Warren Commissioner John J. McCloy was the High Commissioner for Germany, till 1959, this same German paper had been published under the name, Die Deutsche Soldaten-Zeitung. The creation of this publication in 1951 was reportedly funded by the CIA." ROOT THEN ASKS SOME IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: "Walker did another interview with a Canadian paper in the days after Oswald was shot and no mention of the attempt on his life or the connection between the two was made. The only thing that I see that changed was that Oswald was now dead and dead men tell no tales (Walker mentions something to that effect in his testimony before the Warren Commission).While this may sound a little odd, check out when Walker took command of the 24th Infantry Division, October of 1959. He left Little Rock, Arkansas and traveled to Germany early in October. Was he perhaps on a flight out of London on the 9th or even at the airport in London. Just a strange coincidence of timing I guess.The connection of Frey to a CIA financed newpaper (created while McCloy was High Commissioner of Germany and a person who pardoned many Nazi's during his tenure as High Commissioner) and Gehlen makes Walker's story, if initiated by Walker all the more intriguing, but only if Walker would have some connection to the CIA or some sort of covert opps (like running the Greek desk at the Pentagon during the Greek Civil War) that would put a person like him in contact with a person like Oswald.If the question about who initiated the call and why could be answered it would be very helpful to me. Perhaps also, who made the connection that (according to Thorsten and the Warren Commission) Oswald had shot at Walker?" +++++++++++++++++++++The rogue CIA agent put the article in the paper ?????????? THINK NOT ==================== word to wise...things are not as simple as they seem. Edited November 4, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 (edited) FTR #188 American Gladio? Posted by FTR ⋅ January 9, 2000 Listen: Side 1 | Side 2 ... word to wise...things are not as simple as they seem. Well, Steven, at least you're on the right track, although facing the wrong way. In fact, when Edwin Walker testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness in April 1962 (led by Senators John Stennis and Strom Thurmond) he cited SPECIFICALLY that same NSC directive started in 1958 during the Eisenhower Administration as his justification for setting up his Pro-Blue propaganda campaign that used far-right literature to train his 10,000 Troops in Augsburg, Germany, 1960-1961. Edwin Walker also cited the loss of morale in the Korean War when several American GI's fell for the Communist propaganda and joined the other side. Propaganda, said Walker, was the "fourth dimension" of war, beyond the traditional three dimensions of land, sea and air. Edwin Walker tried to win public sympathy, claiming that JFK had fired him from his job because of his John Birch Society loyalties. It was a lie. First, Walker wasn't dismissed from his command because of John Birch Society materials, nor was he dismissed by JFK. The truth is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff dismissed Edwin Walker from his command in Augsburg because of a speech given to his Troops which was "unbecoming an officer." In that speech Walker called President Harry Truman, "definitely pink", and was even more insulting to former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. After a very long legal investigation, resulting in hundreds of pages of testimony and interviews, Walker was told that his main flaw was that he tried to influence the votes of his troops in 1960, by using Kent and Phoebe Courtney's conservative "ACA Voting Index," complete with a telephone hot-line. This was a violation of the Hatch Act in the Army. JFK, for his part, didn't want the scandal of a US General resigning from the Army, so JFK offered General Walker a post -- even a new TRAINING post -- in Hawaii. Edwin Walker turned him down flat. This would be the SECOND time that Edwin Walker would resign from the Army, and he wasn't going to weaken this time. Now -- there was certainly a Communist paranoia that gripped the USA in 1960-1963, and Fidel Castro was at the center of that nightmare for millions of Americans. (For others, thanks to Hoover, MLK was their nightmare "Commie" figure). But for the John Birch Society, and especially for their Minutemen paramilitary contingent, JFK was the BIGGEST COMMUNIST OF THEM ALL. As for the relationships between Guy Banister, George Lincoln Rockwell, Robert Allen Surrey and Edwin Walker, I repeat -- your source is on the right track. These are my prime suspects in the murder of JFK. Now, one can make too much of Reinhard Gehlen in all this -- after all, the Nazi Party lost their control over Germany. Nor would the USA wish to revive the Third Reich in Germany or in the USA. HOWEVER -- insofar as COMMUNISM was now the big Fear in the USA, the exploitation of the caponized, former Nazi spies who knew a lot about COMMUNIST individuals in the West, would be supremely valuable to the US Government. So -- I won't discount the Gehlen contacts, either. I only want to point out that their wings and claws were surely clipped. By the way, your source really missed one point -- Edwin Walker's publishing company wasn't the "American Mercury," rather it was the "American Eagle." As for the Schmidt brothers, I don't think we've heard the last of them. Larrie Schmidt told LIFE magazine that he would gladly shoot George Lincoln Rockwell AND Gus Hall in public in order to show how "middle of the road" he was. This was a typical John Birch Society thing to say, IMHO. They sought to please, but their fangs still showed through without them noticing. As for the DNZ allegation that Oswald was also Walker's shooter -- what in the world would the BND (the German FBI) hope to "pressure the CIA" to do in the light of the JFK murder? Your source's insinuation makes no sense. But at least you're getting WARMER, Steven. Keep trying. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited November 7, 2014 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 How did Hasso Thorsten know that Edwin Walker would be at the Captain Shreve Hotel at 7:00 a.m. on the morning of Nov 24th and from whom did Mr. Thorsten get the telephone number of the hotel that Walker was staying in?++++++++++++++Surrey monitors Walker then reports to CIA. CIA contact their assets at German newspaper. Walker being played...Walker the Patsy. HE is outside looking in.But at least you're getting WARMER, Paul Keep trying !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now