Jump to content
The Education Forum

Edwin Walker


Jim Root

Recommended Posts

I suppose one can make an argument that capitalism and fascism are ideals but only by ignoring better common usage of the word.

Follow the money.

John, in my humble opinion, JFK was not killed for money -- not even for big, big money.

Rather, JFK was killed because White racists resented JFK's support for MLK and for Earl Warren's Brown ruling to racially integrate US public schools and Universities.

Once this fact is made plain and explicit, we can kick-to-the-curb all the many theories about the CIA or the FBI or the Pentagon or the Military-Industrial-Complex being behind the assassination of JFK.

Guy Banister and Edwin Walker sat in the center of the White racist movements in New Orleans and Dallas. We should keep digging the ground around these two key figures.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why did they resent it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFK was killed because White racists resented JFK's support for MLK and for Earl Warren's Brown ruling to racially integrate US public schools and Universities.

Once this fact is made plain and explicit, we can kick-to-the-curb all the many theories about the CIA or the FBI or the Pentagon or the Military-Industrial-Complex being behind the assassination of JFK.

Guy Banister and Edwin Walker sat in the center of the White racist movements in New Orleans and Dallas. We should keep digging the ground around these two key figures.

Paul Trejo sees "White racists" everywhere. Even on this Forum:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=274567

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Paul, your reply is incoherent, sorry, but it is.:

(3) Now, Jim Root doesn't believe that Walker was involved in the JFK assassination. We disagree on that opinion.

(4) Yet, Jim Root does believe, firmly, that Walker knew who was involved in the JFK assassination. We agree on that opinion.

..............................................

(7) In Jim Root's opinon, Edwin Walker is not a JFK conspirator, however, Jim Root also wishes to ignore the material evidence we have that Edwin Walker was an active and even fanatical follower of Robert Welch and the John Birch Society.

It is unclear to me how Jim Root will ignore the well-documented fact that Edwin Walker led the race riots at Ole Miss on 30 September 1962 in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed.

It is unclear ot me how Jim Root will ignore the well-documented fact that the John Birch Society rushed to Edwin Walker's aid with propaganda that JFK was responsible for those riots.

Only if we can ignore the historical facts about Walker's right-wing follies can anybody attempt to re-construct a theory about Walker's role as a clandestine and "sophisticated tool of US intelligece at the highest level under John J. McCloy."

(8) Finally, Jim Root did investigate Walker's personal life in his home town -- some of the most valuable research ever done on Walker's biography -- and learned that Walker had a reputation for being gay even before he went to military school. (This will eventually become invaluable in a psychological profile of Edwin Walker.)

Jim Root has some of the most complete information about Walker -- but Jim Root does not present a conclusion about Walker. Further, without any straightforward prospects for divorcing Walker from his right-wing follies 1959-1969, any attempt to make Walker look "sophisticated" will be an uphill battle.

............................................

I would be pleased to hear Jim Root's opinion on these two films of Walker. Your opinion, Tom, seems perpetually biased.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Why would you be "interested." Paul? Jim Root's opinion influences you to not waiver in the least from your tiny (almost religious) believe system. Everything and everyone who disagrees with your beliefs (almost everyone who has been exposed to them, is unclear to you, Paul, and you would not know if Jim Root or anyone has "presented a conclusion about anything" unless it does not conflict with yours. Oh....I forgot, you only present "theories". Everyone else is required to present a conclusion you agree with.

Jim,

What a number of interesting approaches to the Walker-Oswald puzzle. I'm only beginning my research into this mess, but I believe I can contribute something to the discussion because I have access to the Briscoe Center for American History, which recently released its Edwin Walker Collection. With the timeline I have garnered so far, and with my impressions from covering about half of the 80 boxes of (mostly unprocessed) archived material at the Briscoe Center, along with biographical information, I would like to offer my current opinions of your five approaches:

Several years ago I was allowed access to the Walker Papers at the Univ. of Texas at Austin (Briscoe Center). At the time I was told that there was one box but learned that the collection was much more than I had been told. Would love to return and see more since my time was limited when I was last there. Perhaps we could correspond on some things that I have found in other collections which might be found in this one as well

(1.0) Oswald boards a plan to Helsinki on October 9, 1959. At this point in his career, Major General Edwin Walker is at the top of his game. He is flying high as a newly appointed Commander of the 24th Infantry Division - more responsibility than he ever had, and he loves it. A victorious war hero in World War Two, and a highly decorated artillery officer at Korea, he now had his own Command and he planned to implement his Pro-Blue program of rightist propaganda on his 2,000 or so Troops in Augsberg, Germany. Walker wasn't considering any plots against Government at this time, because he was happier with his prospects than ever before. So, even if Oswald and Walker were somehow on the same plane, I don't see any motive for a General to liaison with this ex-Marine at this time.

Pro Blue had been implimented for several years in places where Walker had independent command. I had the opportunity to interview a man who was incharge of the troop instruction for Pro Blue in Hawiaii. He made it clear that while the Pro Blue Program was a part of Walker's command and came under his jurisdiction and control his actual hands on oversight was very limited due to the vast responsibility of command that would limit the time that could be spent on any one program. When you get into the Walker papers you will find a great deal correspondence between Walker and others where he is trying to understand exactly what happened with the Pro Blue flare up. IMHO he understands that he is being "burned" by the CIA but has no understanding of why. This is the reason that I went into the background of the Overseas Weekly investigation and even interviewed a person involved for background. The fact that the investigation can be tied to Oswald's decision to return to the US provides a plausible explanation of why Walker would be "burned" (my word) by people in intelligence.

(1.1) Yes, it is remotely possible that, because Walker was rabidly Anticommunist, that he could have been involved in a plot to infiltrate the USSR using Oswald as a spy; but that theory is unnecessary to adequately explain the subsequent events.

My theory suggest nothing having to do with Walker's political beliefs. When you get into his military record you will find a man who follows orders with blind obedience. When he took command of the FSSF, 3rd Regiment, just prior to the Aluetion (sp) Island campaign he had to be jump qualitied. He had a soldier strap him into a parachute, boarded a plane and without any training jumped out. It is reported that he then told the soldier something to the effect, jump qualified, CHECK. he did not need to be involved only following orders as he did throughout his military career.

(2.0) I am increasingly impressed by Walker's accomplishments in World War Two. (I've formally requested his entire Service Record from the Military Records Office.) Walker was one of the first Commandos (before the Green Berets). That is, he was in Special Ops. He was given lots of responsibility because he was on the fast track to becoming a General. HOWEVER, he was widely known as a man of ACTION, rather than a man of LEARNING. In his West Point Class of 250-or-so students, Walker finished around 215. (Walker wasn't a valedictorian like General Douglas MacArthur.) His speech-writing skills show the spelling and grammar of an average high-school student, said one critic. His reading was almost entirely confined to right-wing pulp pamphlets. Also, Walker believed what he read from Dan Smoot, H.L. Hunt, Clarence E. Manion, Charles B. Hudson, Robert Welch, Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, Billy James Hargis and that lot. This was gospel for him. If they said that there are Communists in the US State Department, they by gawd they exist and so the American Public and Press must be utterly fooled, or conspirators in this Communist plot! This was not rhetoric for Walker. It was the Truth

The Cold War was a War against Communism and Walker was a foot soldier in that war that believed in what he was doing. As I stated before he was blindly obedient.

(3.0) I don't have enough information yet to confirm my suspicions, but I believe Walker's troubles with the Overseas Weekly began with his relationship with the segregationist Texas preacher, Billy James Hargis. Hargis recommended many books to Walker for his Pro-Blue program, and they both hoped to get rich when (and if) the USA chose to reproduce their program for the entire USA Military. But Walker was also very religious, in his own way, and he would get carried away with this. He referred to the Overseas Weekly as the Oversexed Weekly, mainly because that newspaper would feature bikini models on every other page. I believe this is what he referred to when he complained to the Army that the Overseas Weekly was "immoral".

I believe it began with Oswald's first letter requesting to return to the United States. The timing is factually perfect and must be considered when looking at the whole picture of defection, return, FBI tracking, assassination,
Raleigh Call, etc.


(3.1) Not in any kind of disrespectful manner, but in a purely psychological approach, I believe we should consider the fact that General Walker was a life-long bachelor, and that his archives show no evidence of any fiance or lady friend of any kind at any time. The only hint we have of his gender preferences (that I have been able to find so far) is gleaned from a couple of arrests, later in life, for public homosexual offenses.

Like you, I agree that Walker's gender preference played a major role in his life. I have found a reference of a West Point classmate that suggested that Walker was married for a least a brief period of time at some point but have never been able to comfirm that. The use of homosexuals in intelligence positions seems to be a normal aspect of intelligence and Walker may have very early in his career been identified as homosexual. I intereviewed a family friend in Kerrville, Texas that suggest that the reason Walker's father sent him to a military school for HS was to change his gender preference....I have more but would rather not discuss that here at this time.

(3.2) Remember, this was the Army in 1959. If we have problems with homosexuals in the Military in 2012, we can imagine the problems they had in 1959. It was not acceptable even in Civilian life to be a homosexual. It meant immediate Court Martial to be a homosexual in the Army. And a General?! It would have been an international scandal. His mother would possibly have died of shame.

I believe his mother did know! And can you imagine the power people would have over him if they knew his secret?

(3.3) Nevertheless, we probably have no choice over our gender preferences, and if so, then Walker was no exception. He may have had to "hide his love away" so to speak, but it would leak out in various ways. In such repressed conditions, a person may be likely to adapt by becoming a notable prude. I believe it leaked out with General Walker in his continual complaining about the Overseas Weekly being made available to the 24th Infantry Division in Germany -- which was supposed to be his Division!

(3.4) Walker made himself so annoying to the "regular guys" at the Overseas Weekly newspaper for nearly a year and a half, that they finally got fed up in 1961 and directed an attack on General Walker that was calculated to cause a scandal that would reach the White House.

Not sure he was there for a year and a half before the investigation began. From the person I interviewed the story is a little different...but we can differ.

(3.5) Dick Russell (TMWKTM) tells us that the elderly General Charles Willoughby, and his twenty-something protoge, Larrie Schmidt, were the active elements behind the scenes to remove Walker from his post. Willoughby was a rightist himself, but he wasn't a prude, and he wasn't a narrow-minded John Bircher, either. (I would like to confirm Russell's position on this if possible.)

(3.6) Anyway, under the influence of Billy Jame Hargis, and his own prudish tendencies, General Walker attacked the Overseas Weekly first for many months, before they finally shot back so effectively. Walker was moved to a harmless desk job the very next day to avoid an international scandal.

The timming is a little different than the very next day but I do believe Walker was "burned" by others and his days in command were numbered.

(3.7) This moment, April, 1961, was the moment when General Walker's world first came crashing down. He would never forget this moment for the rest of his life. He would write speech after speech, defending himself against the Overseas Weekly many years after the event, unable to let it go. He lost everything, really -- because he so much loved being in Command of the 24th Infantry Division; he finally felt he had a large family of his own, perhaps. Losing his Command over the 24th Division broke his heart - and it soured him for life.

Agreed...at least till the assassination occured and then I believe Walker understood a lot more!

(3.8) Walker's suspicion of Kennedy started with rightist propaganda. But Walker's hatred of Kennedy started with his removal from Command.

Hate is a strong word....read Walker's last interview.

(3.9) Therefore, Jim, because our evidence shows Walker spending almost all his time promoting his Pro-Blue propaganda program, and the possible fame and fortune that he might obtain through it, I find insufficient evidence to link General Walker with any plots of any kind at all until April, 1961. In April, 1961, Oswald was only now meeting Marina, and asking her to marry him.

Respectfully disagree with you that he spent "almost all his time promoting his Pro-Blue propaganda program...." He had many other issues to deal with while in command of the 24th ID.

(3.10) Finally, in this regard, the confession of Bob Schmidt to the FBI, that he and Larrie and Oswald tried to kill Walker on 4/10/1963, is more interesting because it brings Larrie Schmidt (and by proxy, General Charles Willoughby) back into the picture.

(3.11) But why would Oswald want to kill General Walker at all? The reason was already supplied by George DeMohrenschildt in his WC and HSCA testimonies, especially in his booklet, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy! in which George confesses that he and Volkmar Schmidt first made Oswald aware of General Walker in late 1962. George and Volkmar hated General Walker for his embarrasing role in the Oxford, Mississippi riots against racial integration. George confessed that he and Oswald started calling General Walker, "General Fokker," with a demeaning sneer.

George DeMohrenschildt's brother Demitri was a very close associate of Whitney Shepardson. Together they startedd Radio Free Europe (Radio Liberty)and Shepardson was a founder of Secret Intelligence (appointed by John J. McCloy). Shepardson and McCloys association was long and strong.....DeMohrenschild believed that Oswald had shot at Walker and soon after this event George leaves Dallas and the Richard Helms via the FBI begings monitoring the movement of Oswald. Helms was SI assigned to Stockholm during WWII and worked closely with Shepardson. I have some great coorespondence between Helms and Shepardson form June of 1959 when they were discussing what one person discribed as an off track mission that was being planed through Helsinki in the "near future."

(4.0) How did the Deutsche NationalZeitung know that Walker was staying at the Captain Shreve Hotel in Shereveport, LA at 7am on 11/24/1963?

alker(4.1) I am convinced, based on the FBI evidence, that General Walker first called the Deutsche NationalZeitung at 6:30 AM or earlier.

(4.2) The call from the Deutsche NationalZeitung which came at 7am wasn't from Helmut Muench, but from Haslo Thorsten, a reporter.

(4.3.) The FBI records, however, were from interviews with Helmut Muench, who suggests that Walker called him first, and they set up the interview. In that first call, said Muench, Walker blurted out that the same shooter at JFK was the same shooter at Walker on 4/10/1963. One gets the impression that Walker was very excited about it, and quite proud of it.

Agreed! Why did Walker want this story out so quickly....I suggest because he recognized Oswald and realized he was in a very difficult position....knee jerk reaction that is consistant with his getting the autograph of the airplane pilot to prove that he was on a plane rather than in Dallas.

(4.4) Your theory, Jim, has the advantage of showing how General Walker could immediately recognize Oswald from a past encounter.

(4.5) However, without that past encounter, we must somehow explain how Walker recognized Oswald so quickly - and also connected Oswald with the Walker shooting of 4/10/1963.

(4.6) My best guess comes from Warren Commission testimony of George DeMohrenschildt combined with Dick Russell's research. DeMohrenschilt admitted than when he obtained grounds (on the night of 4/13/1963) to suspect Oswald was the April shooter, he told his friends, Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin. They, in turn, immediately told the FBI.

(4.7) If so then the FBI would have immediately told General Walker. So, General Walker would have drawn his conclusions by that very week.

(4.8) This means that Walker would have known about Oswald's participation (and DeMohrenschildt's silent complicity) only a few days after the event.

My theory is much simpler....but we may differ and is supporte by one interesting detail....the passenger lists from Oswald's travel from London to Helsinki were never made public....what was intentionally being hidden? A question that must be asked...especially since Walker was also traveling in Europe in this time frame.

(4.9) Walker would have blamed the Kennedy Administration for all this. He would have thought this was a plot by RFK to kill him. That is in fact what Walker told the world for the rest of his life.

In my theory Walker would have had to say that he knew who was responsible for the assassination of JFK....doubt he would go there without implicating himself....especially with the McCloy letter in his Cullum File, in his papers at Austin and in McCloy's papers at Amhurst.

(4.10) I believe my theory has an edge, Jim, because I'm able to link up testimony from other witnesses to the Warren Commission. This is smooth and needs very little outside speculation.

I believe that I can link the downing of the U-2 and the failure of the Paris Summit, as Oswald mentioned in his own words at Spring Hill College, to an event that John J. McCloy wanted to happen. When Kennedy went for the Limited Test Ban Teaty of 1963...McCloy resigned....Kennedy is assassinated and McCloy is positioned to cover it up as a member of the Warren Commission and is also returned to the position of lead arms negotiator.McCloy had motive and achieved what he wanted with the assassination of JFK.


(5.0) So, if Hosty began his tracking of Oswald here, Jim, we know the FBI was lying when they told the Warren Commission that they never suspected Oswald as a Walker shooter until they were told about it from Marina Oswald in December, 1963.

Don't believe the FBI knew Oswald was the shooter....belive Richard Helms wanted Oswald tracked and that he knew via information supplied by George De.

(5.1) Yes, the CIA was interested in Oswald - but why and how is a closely guarded secret. We can only speculate upon the facts.

Agreed but if you believe G P Hemming....Oswald was inserted into the Soviet Union with the help of Gen. Walker which would make him of interest to the CIA....read Oswald and the CIA for more background.

(5.2) I speculate as follows: because Walker was an officer in DePugh's Minutemen organization of a US rightist militia, and furthermore, Guy Banister was also an officer in DePugh's Minutemen, it is no accident that Lee Harvey Oswald is rushed from Walker/Dallas to Banister/NewOrleans in just a few days time.

(5.3) The transfer of Oswald from Walker to Banister is the same as the transfer of Oswald from Dallas to New Orleans by April 25, 1963.

(5.4) The FBI would have known this, because Banister was also FBI.

(5.5) The CIA would have known this, because Banister was working with the Lake Pontchartrain training ground for Cuban Exiles, run by the CIA.

We differ on reasons

(5.6) Gerry Patrick Hemming claimed that he saw Lee Harvey Oswald at Lake Pontchartrain.

(5.7) Gerry Patrick Hemming claimed that he saw General Walker at Lake Pontchartrain.

Already stated my correspondence with Hemming

(5.8) In my opinion, Jim, tracing the whereabouts of General Walker from May, 1963, to October, 1963, is almost impossible in the archives I've seen so far.

Walker's earlier career is easier to track and much more interesting!

(5.9) I keenly seek all the Walker connections with Cuban Exiles and Minutemen and John Birch Society from May, 1963 to October, 1963. If there is a smoking gun here, Jim, I would not be surprised to find it in the briefcase of General Edwin A. Walker, but mainly in this time period.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo, MA
<edit typos>


Jim Root

Maybe one of these days Jim Root will stop beating around the bush and "present a conclusion". Good catch, Paul!

Been a long time since I logged into this site but I am happy to read that intelligent discssion still being delivered. Please excuse my spelling error in advance!

...........................
What is most interesting for myself is the connections that I found, beginning prior to WWII, that can be associated with the assassination of JFK. While at West Point Walker was a student of Maxwell Taylor. Their relationship would continue right up until, it seems, Walkers resignation from the Military......

But for me, despite this breif discription of Walker's career, I do not believe that Walker was actually involved in the assassination of JFK directly but I do firmly believe that he immedietly knew who was! .........

In my humble opinion Walker is not a conspirator but if we move beyond the presentation of Walker being as a Right Wing crackpot and look at him as a highly complicated and sophisticated tool of US intelligece at the highest level (under John J. McCloy) we can really start to unravel a conspiracy theory that does fit all the pieces!

Keep up the fine work all,

Jim Root

Paul, you have posted 150 times on this thread and Jim Root has posted 19 times. My comments to you in my last post still stand. You've invaded this thread and it is worse for the wear. Please start a new thread presenting what a "conclusion" would consist of, from you POV, since you do not recognize that Jim Root has posted conclusions about Edwin Walker. You remind everyone you have posted only "theories". Why do you demand more from others than you are willing to commit to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did they resent it?

John, White racists resented JFK's support of MLK and Earl Warren's Brown decision to racially integrate US public schools and Universities for the same reason they resent MLK holiday and integrated public schools to this very day.

It's quite simple, really. White racists want White schools. They don't want Black kids sitting next to their White kids. They want segregation in elementary schools, in middle schools, in high schools and in Universities.

It is partly economic -- that is, why should White people pay for Black people to be educated? Why support your own competition in the marketplace?

But that is really secondary. The primary reason for demanding segregated public schools (or the modern equivalent, private schools, charter schools, voucher systems and the like) is to keep their most precious resource -- their young children -- more firmly guided in the Protestant religious tradition.

Originally, Christianity was not racist. However, since the birth of Luther's Church, White people have interpreted Protestant religious tradition to be racially defined -- no Jews, first and foremost, and no Italians, French or Spanish, secondly, because they are Catholics. (There are still people in the USA today who object to sending their kids to school with Latinos and Irish and other Catholic influences.)

This is far more important to millions of American people than Earl Warren understood, IMHO. The resistance against racially integrated public schools still persists in the political arena, and is probably the underlying (or unconscious) reason that public school funding is continually slashed and cut, year after year.

It is possible that a return to racially segregated schools might cause millions of Americans to regain their faith in their government -- which may have eroded since the 1960's.

As for White segregation in US Universities, I think the dangers for White racists is obvious -- their daughters will often seek to marry a Black man in an integrated school. This has become fairly common since the 1960's, but in many American Communities it is still shunned. We must remember that in the South -- not long ago -- there were laws against miscegenation (race mixing) with severe penalties. Earl Warren's Brown ruling merely stomped all over those laws and traditions.

This is beyond economics. This hits people at home -- with their very offspring. Hatred of public schools for teaching Evolution and Sex Education -- this is only a reflection, IMHO, of the original hatred of public schools that began in 1954 with Earl Warren's Brown decision.

The KKK had almost died out -- the FBI suppression of the KKK was successful from 1918-1954 -- but after the Brown decision, the KKK rose again with incredible fury.

It is not an easy question -- and there is no easy answer. It is partly cultural. It is partly economic. White and Black Americans live in two different worlds, IMHO.

The USA is a motley of races -- and has been since the beginning -- with White, Black and Red (and a smattering of Yellow) from the very start. The co-existence of the races in North America has been ongoing for nearly 500 years -- and I think it may be possible that most Americans are mixed race -- but won't admit it. (I would like to see sociological reports, but if census figures are skewed because of responder embarrassment, this becomes increasingly difficult.)

Still, the resistance against race-mixing in public schools remains today -- and cannot be erased until it is confronted head-on.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Trejo's observations about racism in America are largely superficial and sophomoric and have next to nothing to do with President Kennedy's murder.

Paul has consistently failed to produce convincing evidence for his claims.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody would have talked , had they known who to tell!

Who had the gold then ?

Who still has the gold?

Follow the golden rule ,those that have the gold make the rules

History is written by the victors and they are paid with the gold.

I believe Mr Dolva is correct.

Old money

Old families

Just like here at home in the U.K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody would have talked , had they known who to tell!

Who had the gold then ?

Who still has the gold?

Follow the golden rule ,those that have the gold make the rules

History is written by the victors and they are paid with the gold.

I believe Mr Dolva is correct.

Old money

Old families

Just like here at home in the U.K.

Ian, the USA is very different from the UK. First, we don't really have old money here -- we have new money and newer money.

There is no rigid British class system, and our middle class stretches from the bankrupt to the jet set. There is no official religion in the USA. And while English is the "official" language of the USA, most Americans don't have British family roots anymore -- the English language is an expedient.

(English is the most practical language for Capitalism, and so it is accepted on its merits, not its pedigree. Also, more White Americans can trace their roots to Germany than to any other European nation.)

I see no reason to presume that the assassination of JFK was anything like Royalty smiting Royalty in the British Middle Ages.

Nor was the assassination of JFK a coup'd'etat as many widely claim -- because a proper coup'd'etat extols its new leaders and condemns the toppled regime. That never happened in the USA.

The people who killed JFK had far less power than the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service or the Pentagon. (If they bribed some officials here and there in these organizations, that remains to be proved).

The people who killed JFK yet had enough power to organize a secret movement. Thus a secret society with a secret membership is the best match for a culprit in the JFK assassination. Examples of secret societies in 1963 would be: (1) the Minutemen; and (2) the KKK.

The John Birch Society had an open membership, and was mostly composed of petite-bourgeois professional men and women. Yet they held their paramilitary arm fairly close -- the Minutemen -- who trained with each other on a secret basis. (Harry Dean is now willing to reveal all the inner-workings of the MInutemen secrecy.)

Nor were the Minutemen the "lumpenproletariat" or the "bribed tool of reactionary intrigue" as John Dolva has suggested.

Instead, the Minutemen were themselves of the middle class -- small property owners, with plenty of professional men and even women in their ranks; people who had become accustomed to weapons all their lives, who had hunted game since childhood. People with military experience, too, and lots of former and retired ranking officers in the US military, filled the ranks of the Minutemen.

Both JBS members and Minutemen shared the doctrine that all US Presidents since FDR were Communists. The main difference between the JBS and the Minutemen was a matter of degree of seriousness -- the Minutemen were ready to act on their beliefs, and they trained with guns in common camps on a regular basis.

To obtain an idea of the mindset of a Minuteman, watch the movie, Red Dawn (1984) starring Patrick Swayze. This movie portrays a Communist invasion of the USA by a Latin American Communist army -- this was the peculiar paranoia of the Minutemen and the JBS in the 1960's, and that is why the Cuban Crisis terrified them so much.

The JBS and the Minutemen wanted two broad results from the killing of JFK: (1) to invade Cuba, eliminating FIDEL CASTRO; and (2) to impeach Earl Warren and reverse the Brown decision.

Very often one would find rightists who insisted on #1 but didn't give a damn about #2 (e.g. the Cuban Exiles who didn't expect to remain in the USA very long anyway). More often one would find rightists who didn't much care about #1, but were obsessed with #2 -- e.g. Southern politicians engrossed in the battles against Black American rights. Yet in combination, they were a deadly force.

I don't think the United Kingdom knows much about such struggles. Nor did we in the USA have a Royal Family to lead the way for us. Our powerful families are entirely elected by The People -- and in the USA The People are a motley of races with continually changing demographics.

If there is any violently active White racism in the UK, it has a very different character than in the USA, as I perceive it. Y'all can't appreciate the nuances of power and threat between the races that we live with. Well -- even more -- people in New York and California really have a dim idea how people who live in the US Black Belt (e.g Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama) interact with Black Americans whenever Blacks form a majority in a given County.

The death of JFK occurred in the South -- because the South was suffering the most in 1963, under the perceived burden of Martin Luther King, Jr., the Civil Rights movement, and the humiliation that James Meredith, a black Air Force veteran, became the first Black student at Ole Miss University in late 1962.

Hundreds were wounded and two were killed on the night of 30 September 1962 for the right of James Meredith to attend school at Ole Miss. Edwin Walker was soundly defeated in that struggle -- he put his ego on the line -- and for his trouble he was tossed into an insane asylum for six days.

I don't think this is the sort of dynamic that the UK lives with, Ian. It's a different circus altogether.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul T - seriously you think that there is a divide across the Atlantic when it comes to money and families? No old money here? No ruling American families?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul T - seriously you think that there is a divide across the Atlantic when it comes to money and families? No old money here? No ruling American families?

Well, Paul B., note that Donald Trump does not come from "old money" or a ruling family. Bill Gates does not come from "old money" or a ruling family. Nor does Michael Dell. Warren Buffet does not come from "old money" or a ruling family. The Walton family is not "old money" nor do they owe their success to their "aristocratic" ancestors.

Michael Blomberg, Jeff Bezos, Sheldon Adelson, Sergey Brin, Larry Page and George Soros -- some of the most financially powerful Americans of all history -- they are not the heirs of ancient, aristocratic titles and "old money" in the British sense.

For that matter -- where are the families of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Frankin, today? Do they still rule America? Compared to England, all the rich in America are "new money," including the Rockefellers, the Morgans and the Vanderbilts. Yet even these rich families shrink in comparison to the "newer money" of the technological revolution of the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

Matters are very, very different in the UK, where people can trace their noble ancestors for centuries -- sometimes into the Middle Ages, or to the days of King Arthur (allegedly). The Royal Family of Great Britain is a stirling example. Nothing of the kind makes much difference to wealth in the USA.

The USA is very much a bourgeois culture, individualistic to the core. I will re-affirm it -- the UK is very, very different from the USA.

Now -- what has this to do with the assassination of JFK? Plenty! The dynamics that killed JFK were sociologically unique to the Cold War, Civil Rights era of 1963 in the USA. An assassination of a head of state in England would have had very different social dynamics.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

King Arthur?. Pure fiction old boy . http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Morte_d'Arthur

Suggest you read Burkes peerage ( before ze Germans get here) it reads like ...well one of Toms posts

Full of crooks ,lies and bastards.

Walt Disney did entertainment not history.

What will Bill Gates or Trump leave as their legacy ?. A poker hand and bad hair.

They do not fit in Paul and never will this is what you are not understanding.

Walker followed orders then Had a moment of clarity on the 22nd about 12:31

When he realised he had been had.

Edited by Ian Kingsbury
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump and Gates are paupers compared to this lot .

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family

There are even truer histories of the family but they prefer them not to

Be published.

Eventually the new Russian oligarchs will lose their grip on the money

As they continue to slaughter each other whilst others watch on waiting

To collect!.

How much of the worlds wealth is controlled by the 10%.

They own or control the media that's why you have a little

Teletype strip at the bottom of your TV screen to tell you how

Afraid you should be today.

With a bank rate of .5 percent and a lending rate for payday loans

Of 1774% almost charity?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

For the love of money is the root of all evil:

which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

They got smart and paid somebody else to do the piercing on others.

Which left them with clean hands and a heavy conscience..

And an even heavier bank balance.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Follow the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

For the love of money is the root of all evil:

which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

They got smart and paid somebody else to do the piercing on others.

Which left them with clean hands and a heavy conscience..

And an even heavier bank balance.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Follow the money.

Ian, it is certainly true that power corrupts, and all that. Yet in a bourgeois system, the rich trust each other to rule in the interests of the rich. The Kennedy family was super-rich, and as such JFK was a fitting representative of the rich in the USA.

JFK was not killed over money, or for any amount of money -- he was killed because he offended the reactionary majority in the South. JFK had so many enemies he could never count them.

One must know much about the history of the USA to grasp why JFK was killed. For example, in 19th century USA, Black Americans were not the only ethnic group without Civil RIghts -- Jews and Catholics were also deprived of Civil Rights, and the most conservative Protestant clerics gave their outspoken approval to this system.

Jews and Catholics were not allowed to purchase land in most States, nor allowed to run for public office, nor to teach in Universities. That was the USA in the 19th century.

The KKK is not only a white-supremacy group -- they are that, but also they reject Jews and Catholics with equal vehemence. The 19th century remains the KKK ideal -- that's why we call them reactionary.

One of JFK's greatest sins vis-a-vis the US South was the simple fact that JFK was a Catholic. JFK was the first and only Catholic President of the USA, and he was not allowed to finish one single term.

It is sociologically relevant that JFK was assassinated in the South.

It wasn't money, Ian. JFK was killed over power, and particularly over the power play of the Civil Rights movement, along with JFK's positive support of Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as James Meredith, Medgar Evers and the NAACP.

It is sociologically relevant, also, that Medgar Evers was assassinated only a few months before JFK was assassinated.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard L. Hunt stood to lose billions of dollars if the changes to the oil depletiation allowances had gone through as JFK wanted.

The Fed stood to lose the interest it charged on lending non existent money to the U.S. government as JFK wanted to issue money backed by silver.

The Mob were losing billiions because of Castro's takeover of Cuba.

And it wasn't about money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...