Paul Trejo

Evan, I myself don't emphasize all aspects of Harry Dean's memoirs. I emphasize only what he saw with his own eyes, i.e. that he witnessed General Walker, Congressman Rousselot, Guy Gabaldon, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and himself in a meeting, making a pact to make Lee Harvey Oswald into the patsy for a plot involving select John Birch Society leaders and Minutemen. That, to me, is a handful to work with. As for Harry's animus regarding the LDS, I personally avoid it because of a lack of evidence. It is well known that in 1963, the thirteenth President of the LDS was Ezra Taft Benson, and it is also accepted that Mr. Benson was a member -- and an ouspoken public supporter -- of the John Birch Society in 1963. Now, one might try to generalize based on those facts, but I won't generalize. Harry Dean doesn't claim that Ezra Taft Benson was present at that historical meeting which he describes in detail. It is probable, then, that Mr. Dean merely speculates that Mr. Benson participated -- and I won't work with mere speculation. So, I omit this clause from my appreciation of Harry Dean's valuable witness. I do regard the John Birch Society (JBS) to be un-American, although I admit that Robert Welch was crafty in his efforts to make the JBS appear to be super-American. It seems to me that both Harry Dean and Ezra Taft Benson were misguided into believing that the JBS members were super-patriots, rather than unpatriotic. For example, many JBS members had no idea that their famous slogan, "Impeach Earl Warren," had racist roots, shared with the White Citizens' Council in the South, which demanded a reversal of Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren's Brown decision to racially integrate US public schools. Harry Dean told me personally that this never dawned on him. Robert Welch had declared that the JBS was not racist, and that was taken as read. Harry Dean himself is not a racist and never was one. Nevertheless, the JBS demanded the repeal of the Brown decision longer than any other group in the USA (except for the KKK). Further, I believe Harry Dean failed to take into account that the leadership of the LDS was actually critical of Ezra Taft Benson's membership in the JBS. Furthermore, later Presidents of the LDS refused membership in the John Birch Society. That, to me, is strong evidence. Harry Dean -- whose eye-witness account is supremely valuable -- was not really an eye-witness to any participation of LDS leadership in the JFK assassination. So I personally discount that part of his account. Harry does say that he knew a number of LDS members in both the JBS and the Minutemen; however, that proves nothing about any leadership role. Also, I gather that plenty of LDS members opposed the policies of the JFK administration -- yet that also proves nothing about any leadership role in the JBS. I repeat -- the clause in which Harry Dean tries to blame the LDS for the sins of the JBS is not only removable, it is unimportant to Harry Dean's contribution to JFK research. I have advised Harry to remove that clause in future versions of CrossTrails, and he told me that he would seriously consider my request. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Paul B., I admit that your questions are well-considered and potent. I also agree that there are several possible explanations for Hoover's failure to identify the killers of JFK before the assassination. I have said before that the CIA didn't have to plot to kill JFK, all they had to do was look the other way and let other people do it, because there was a long line of people standing in a queue for a shot at JFK. Cuban Exiles probably led the pack -- and I suspect that no theory of the ground-crew (not even the Edwin Walker theory) can be complete without a few Cuban Exiles in the mix. The same might be said of the FBI. All they had to do was look away for a few days, and the situation would quickly worsen for JFK. And the FBI only did what J. Edgar Hoover did -- so we can extend the analogy to Hoover. Thus, Hoover's inaction is immediately suspicious -- as Sylvia Meagher rightly noted 48 years ago. She considered Hoover to be, if nothing else, an Accessory After the Fact. This folds in well with the notion of Hoover just waiting and hoping that somebody would kill JFK. You ask, Paul B., if we agree that Hoover hated JFK and RFK. Most accounts I have read are clear that he hated them, and they did not respect Hoover much in return. I find Gerry Patrick Hemming to be a tricky witness -- but sometimes he dropped some gems that cannot be discounted. There is a well-known story -- even told by Clint Eastwood's production of the life of J. Edgar Hoover (starring Leonardo DiCaprio) -- that J. Edgar Hoover spied on JFK and RFK, and allowed the FBI to photograph JFK having sex with Marilyn Monroe (and evidently there were photographs of RFK also having sex with her). In Gerry Patrick Hemming's version of that story, RFK hired a trusted government agent to find equal dirt on Hoover. That agent quickly called Hemming and Hemming took the job. Hemming received a lot of money for this work, and was told to work as fast as possible. He promptly bought a large shipment of marijuana to use to bribe people in the underworld. He told them what he was after, and in only a matter of days, several photographs appeared showing J. Edgar Hoover in homosexual activity. RFK dropped these photographs on Hoover's desk, and Hoover quickly turned over his compromising photographs of JFK (and RFK) and they were "even". Except -- says Gerry Patrick Hemming -- J. Edgar Hoover swore revenge; not only on the Kennedys, but also on Gerry Patrick Hemming and his team of mercenaries, Interpen. Gerry Patrick Hemming claimed that Hoover set up Interpen as a collective patsy in a foiled JFK assassination attempt. Here's the scenario (as I recall): It was at the Miami airport, and Hoover gave somebody a lot of money to give to Hemming so that Hemming and Interpen would be at the Miami airport, fully armed, when JFK flew in. Then, the FBI was on hand at the airport to surprise Interpen, and arrest them on charges of attempting to assassinate JFK. This would have been Hoover's revenge on Gerry Patry Hemming. However, says Hemming, he was one step ahead of Hoover, and knew what Hoover was thinking. So Hemming took the money, and ordered Interpen to go to Miami airport unarmed. They were indeed surprised by the FBI, but since they had no weapons, no arrests or charges could be made. So -- that's one side of the story. Many JFK researchers are keen to note that Hoover was nearly 70, and that was the mandatory retirement age for government officials, unless the Administration decreed otherwise. The Kennedys were very clear that they thought Hoover was old-fashioned, and that his persecution of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was a travesty of justice. They would not have prevented Hoover's standard retirement. Now, some JFK researchers noticed that LBJ later made J. Edgar Hoover the FBI DIrector for life. Based on this fact, they suggest that LBJ was rewarding Hoover for his role in killing JFK. I think that is a hasty conclusion. It is just as plausible that LBJ was rewarding Hoover for his role in preventing a US Civil War. But back to the idea of Hoover "fiddling while Rome burned," in other words, of doing nothing while JFK murder plots were abounding throughout the USA. Your best point in all of your good points, Paul B., is your question about whether Hoover kept RFK in the loop with all his investigations. It's a great question, and deserves a lot of attention -- more than I can offer in a single post. I will make some high-level observations, though. (1) It was equally the responsibility of RFK to stay on top of the FBI Director, and demand reports on a regular basis. (2) It was also the duty of RFK to hire spies to infiltrate the FBI to obtain reports that the FBI Director might be hiding. (3) Knowing that RFK was a smart politician, and knowing about the friction between RFK and Hoover, it would be amazing to me if RFK was naive enough to allow the FBI Director to hide reports. It seems plausible to me that all of the information that Hoover had, RFK also had, one way or another. The trouble is that there were too many (hundreds, or perhaps thousands) of FBI reports of possible or potential assassination attempts against JFK. The problem for anybody would be -- where do we begin? How do we evaluate these? How do we prioritize these? There is also the question about RFK himself -- that he was himself the head of Operation Mongoose, and that Operation Mongoose was controlled in New Orleans by Guy Banister. There are reports that RFK himself called Guy Banister's offices nearly every day, demanding updates for Operation Mongoose. There is also speculation that RFK was himself aware of the participation of Lee Harvey Oswald with Guy Banister in New Orleans. In other words, there is a possibility that RFK knew more about the dangers to JFK than Hoover himself did. In my theory -- based on eye-witness reports from selected writers -- the killing of JFK was done with a two-team strategy -- a New Orleans team and a Dallas team. Lee Harvey Oswald was the common link to both teams. In my theory, J. Edgar Hoover did not have resigned General Walker on his top suspect list. Neither did RFK, I'm afraid. The stature of Edwin Walker as a heroic General of World War Two cast a blinding shadow over their suspicions. Even with Harry Dean's detailed reports -- the scenario sounded like "wishful thinking" to most people in 1963. In my humble opinion, the resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker, and Guy Gabaldon, the Pied Piper of Saipan, caught both Hoover and RFK off-guard. Nobody in the US government expected that they, of all people, would draft Interpen, a few Cuban Exiles and assorted Southern MInutemen to commit the crime of the 20th century. Of course, I could be mistaken. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Completely aside from the question of J. Edgar Hoover, is the curious case of Guy Gabaldon, the famed Pied Piper of Saipan. According to Harry Dean, Guy Gabaldon was a central figure in the assassination of JFK. It is difficult for Americans to consider war heroes like General Edwin Walker and Guy Gabaldon to be traitors of the USA and involved in a plot to assassinate the US President. Moreover, it has become easier to regard General Edwin Walker as a turn-coat after a careful examination of his case -- i.e. he was the only US General to resign in the 20th century -- he was truly an odd bird. (Resignation is not retirement -- it is an act of defiance, and when one resigns from the US Army, one gives up one's pension. It is the fool-hardy act of a bitter man -- or it is a political act.) Walker did not resign from the Army once -- he resigned twice; once in late 1959 and once in late 1961. The difference is that the Eisenhower administration refused to honor Walker's first resignation; and JFK chose to honor his second. This harsh verdict on Edwin Walker was born out in late 1962 when ex-General Walker led a race riot at Ole Miss University in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed. It was an open defiance against JFK and his politics of supporting Martin Luther King, the NAACP and the Civil Rights movement. In revenge, JFK and RFK committed Walker to an insane asylum for six days. Walker lost the battle for Ole Miss, and he was humiliated nationally. He swore revenge. Yet matters are very different when we look upon PFC Guy Gabaldon, who, at 18 years of age, earned the Navy Cross Medal for single-handedly capturing 1,500 Japanese soldiers in Saipan during World War Two. Guy Gabaldon was a Mexican-American from Los Angeles who came from a broken home and was raised by kind Japanese neighbors; from whom he learned to speak Japanese and to respect other cultures. It was Gabaldon's respect and persuasive personality than enabled him to capture (or persuade to surrender) 1,500 Japanese soldiers at Saipan. The moving story of Guy Gabaldon's heroic achievement can be seen today in a old B&W movie, From Hell to Eternity (1960) starring Jeffery Hunter, David Janssen and Vic Damon. Nor did Guy "Gabby" Gabaldon resign his post in protest of the US government. He was honorably discharged, and went about his civilian life normally. At one point he thought of running for public office -- Congressman from Southern California -- but he lost that bid of office, partly, perhaps, because of Loran Hall. (But that's another story.) The fall from grace suffered by Gabby, however, was exactly the same fall from grace suffered by Edwin Walker, namely, he fell victim to the pernicious infection of the John Birch Society doctrine that every US President since FDR was a Communist traitor. Gabby truly believed this -- and he was a war hero -- so he was willing to put his life on the line to save his country. Guy Gabaldon became convinced -- as every member of the Birchers (and of the WCC) and every Minuteman was convinced, that JFK was a Communist. Robert Welch was quite willing to exploit military men in this way. Edwin Walker, for example, was no great intellect. He finished in the bottom 10% of his West Point class. He was great with ballistics and special operations -- but when it came to intellectual achievement, the writings of Robert Welch formed the highest summit that Edwin Walker's intellect would ever hope to attain. Sadly, the same fate befell the great war hero, Guy Gabaldon. Late in life, Gabby eventually published his own book, America Betrayed (1990) which explained his political views and opinions. These are personal memoirs that include some mean-spirited attacks on JFK and RFK, and show clearly that Gabaldon believed them to be supporting the Communists, because of their refusal to engage in open war to take back Cuba. (Those who wonder why Gabaldon was overlooked for the Congressional Medal of Honor need look no further than this book.) According to Harry Dean, it was not only Edwin Walker, it was also Guy Gabaldon who were the military leaders of the Dallas arm of the plot to assassinate JFK. Loran (Lorenzo) Hall and Larry (Alonzo) Howard, two more Chicanos from East L.A., were major fans of Gabby Gabaldon. Whatever he wanted done, they would do. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Ray, I still maintain it wasn't about money. H.L. Hunt was asked this same question in his 1966 Playboy interview, and he denied that his opposition to JFK was over the oil depletion allowance. Hunt gave two reasons: (1) the Kennedys had made a lot of money in oil, too; and (2) Congress, not the President, makes the laws regarding oil production. As for debates about the gold-standard, the silver-standard, the Fed-standard and what not, they are never-ending, and they continue to this very day. While Alexander Hamilton was arguably shot over his position on this, Aaron Burr was the metal-standard advocate, and was the killing party. It's a long shot to guess, on a mere hunch, that Fed-standard advocates were the ones who killed JFK. Most of the Mob were smart enough to know that JFK didn't love Castro -- and JFK did his part to keep secret plots to kill Fidel going underground. (Only the hot-heads were dumb enough to believe that a secret CIA plot to overthrow Fidel Castro at the Bay of Pigs would "expect" to receive the publicly visible help of the US Air Force!) JFK was a rich man in a rich man's world. He had it all. His one mistake, according to the Southern politicians, was that he opposed the South on the topic of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement. We are far too hesitant to look at the South squarely in the eye. This is possibly because many of us Northerners remain prejudiced to some degree, and so would prefer to hedge our bets. But JFK was forced to make a decision for or against Martin Luther King -- and he made his decision: FOR. That's how I see it. The night of JFK's 11 June 1963 Civil Rights Speech, Medgar Evers was killed in cold blood on his own driveway in Mississippi by a long-time member of the KKK and the White Citizens' Council, namely, Byron de la Beckwith. If Byron de la Backwith hadn't been in prison on 22 November 1963, he would've been my suspect #1 for the assassination of JFK. As it turned out, in early February of 1964, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett and ex-General Edwin Walker paid a friendly, encouraging visit to Byron de la Beckwith at his first of many courtroom trials. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

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

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

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>

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

John, the FBI activities against the KKK go back to 1918. In 1922 the Louisiana governor John Parker asked for FBI help in controlling Louisiana's escalating Klan activity. Evidently local authorities in Louisiana had become thoroughly intimidated by the Klan, which was even interfering with the governor's mail, telephone and telegraph. Murder was a part of the KKK activities, and the FBI brought the culprits to justice, though the KKK interfered with the trial, with the witnesses and so on. Although such FBI activity did not stop KKK activity, the rapid rise of KKK membership did wane due to the publicity of FBI reports about atrocities. During the 1950's the FBI responded to a fresh escalation of KKK activity by using female informers and increasing their pool of police informers. The FBI obtained convictions of KKK criminals in Selma AL, Jackson MS and Atlanta GA -- which was impossible without the FBI because of the KKK's tight control of local police and politicians. In 1963 the FBI led the investigation into the bombing at the 16th Street Baptist Church in which four Black children were murdered. In retrospect, one wishes that the FBI had done more against the KKK and less against the NAACP and CORE. It was probably this imbalance that led to the rise of the Black Panthers as a reaction to KKK violence. Yet like the KKK, the Black Panthers were openly violent and confrontational, and the FBI intended to suppress all domestic violence. It was a most progressive act, therefore, when JFK came out in his June 1963 speech advocating the Black Civil Rights movement. One might argue that even J. Edgar Hoover was caught off guard by this official advocacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., whom Hoover had targeted for special persecution. Yet I find no convincing evidence to the charge that J. Edgar Hoover sought to kill MLK. MLK was outspokenly nonviolent, while the Black Panthers were outspokenly violent. The FBI violently clashed with the Black Panthers, but they did not (until proven otherwise) violently clash with the NAACP or MLK. The main reason that the KKK continued so strongly, despite FBI suppression, is that at their peak the KKK had hundreds of thousands of members nationwide (vastly outnumberng the FBI) while the Black Panther Party, for example, had a few thousand members scattered in inner cities. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

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

John, it is well-documented that the FBI conducted COINTELPRO to suppress domestic political organizations that it perceived as disruptive of 'law and order.' It is also documented that certain members of the Black Panther Party were killed as a result of clashes resulting from COINTELPRO. It is also documented that J. Edgar Hoover had a particular grudge against Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and that he battled the Civil Rights leaders of the NAACP and CORE, accusing them of collaboration with the Communist Party. Yet it would be a mistake, IMHO, to simply accuse J. Edgar Hoover of White racism. That is not the case, in my view, because the COINTELPRO also targeted White people, too, i.e. in the KKK, in Cuban Exile movements, in the National States Rights Party, in the Minutemen, as well as in the Communist Party and "New Left" and so on. J. Edgar Hoover primarily acted to prevent violence - as he saw it. When the FBI stooped to individual violence, it was in order to prevent massive violence, in his own opinion. (That he himself required oversight is today obvious in hindsight.) It is also true that J. Edgar Hoover was getting old -- had passed the age of retirement -- and he also believed that the Black role in the Civil Rights movement was potentially dangerous on a mass scale. He was old-fashioned enough to fall for the Southern propaganda that the Civil Rights movement was Communist. This strategy, invented by Southern Senators, brilliantly drafted Anticommunists in this completely separate battle against Black Civil Rights. Sadly, J. Edgar Hoover fell for it. Yet Hoover did not fall for the entire Southern program. He would label the John Birch Society as "unpatriotic," for example, and would infiltrate the Minutemen seeking informers. Sadly, most of COINTELPRO was used to suppress Civil Rights groups, and only about 15% was used to marginalize and subvert White hate groups. Nevertheless, Hoover meant well, IMHO. His stated objectives for COINTELPRO were to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of radical movements and their leaders.. It is a paradox of US history that although RFK himself was once a target of COINTELPRO, yet RFK himself personally authorized some of these programs. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Tom, I not only enjoy Jim Root's posts, but I've enjoyed a PM with Jim Root. We don't have to agree on everything to appreciate points in common -- and we still mind our manners. That's evidently where you could use some work. Tom, yet you're a Moderator! (I once tried to "ignore" all your messages, but found out the Forum won't let us "ignore" Moderator posts. Thank goodness other Moderators here are fair-minded.) Anyway, to respond to your implied nonsense that I must agree with everything Jim Root ever wrote in order to participate in his thread, I'll make a few point by point observations. (1) Walker's relationship with Four-star General Maxwell Taylor is notable, but it would be a mistake to make too much of it, because Maxwell Taylor was the one who recommended Major General Edwin Walker for his duty at Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, and in 1959 Edwin Walker submitted his first resignation to the US Army because of that very duty. It is one thing to note that Edwin Walker had a relationship with Maxwell Taylor, an Intelligence officer, and another thing to try to spin that into some clandestine CIA scenario -- when in reality Edwin Walker broke off his relationship with Maxwell Taylor when he resigned from the US Army in 1961 -- and actually, Edwin Walker attempted to resign from the US Army in 1959. Eisenhower's Administration would not permit it -- since resignation was a fool-hardy act -- Walker could have just as easily resigned with full benefits. But Walker was hot headed. Anyway, it is plausible that Walker wanted to break his relationship with Maxwell Taylor in 1959 -- precisely because Walker joined the John Birch Society (which is documented) and the John Birch Society idiotically preached in 1959 (also documented) that President Eisenhower was a Communist agent. In other words -- although Edwin Walker was well-connected to some of the best military minds in the USA and government Intelligence -- Walker threw it all away when he joined the John Birch Society and came to believe that the United Nations was a Communist plot -- and that the Supreme Court and Earl Warren were Communist agents. And that the racial integration of US public schools was a Communist plot. In other words -- it is well documented by history that Edwin Walker -- who was a highly decorated and loyal American General (two-star) went over the deep end, and lost all credibility among intelligent officers when he joined that absurd right-wing movement called the John Birch Society. (2) No FBI or CIA agent was permitted to be a member of the John Birch Society -- it was officially regarded as too unintelligent for intelligence officers. Walker broke the code of "brains" when he joined that ridiculous organization. This was made perfectly plain by Walker's performance before the Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness in April 1962. Walker became a laughing-stock among the mainstream at that point. (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. (5) Jim Root and I believe that Walker's story in the Deutsche Nationalzeitung is important -- but for different reasons. (6) Jim Root also believes that Walker had knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination (and by implication, charges Walker with perjury to the WC for denying any such knowledge). I also believe that -- but for different reasons. (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 will refer the reader to the Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness of 1962, to Walker's testimony, as strong evidence in my favor. I would also refer the reader to these two films found in the Citizens' Council Forum archives of Mississippi to see the folly of Walker, and to gauge the difficulty of ever making him appear "sophisticated." PART ONE: youtube.com/watch?v=ZeQKuJTJi48 PART TWO: youtube.com/watch?v=Y9yUW019xoA 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

Yes, Ian, that's precisely my point, too. The ground-crew is what matters most of all, ultimately. Now, it has taken 50 years to get to this point -- because before the ground-crew can be identified, the larger picture has to be brought into focus. For this reason I am grateful for John Dolva, who for years on this Forum has guided our attention to the White racist wing of politics in the USA. This is the big picture. I think history has confirmed this in its review of 1962-1963 and the crisis of Civil Rights during the JFK administration. Finally it is time to direct our attention to the ground-crew -- to the "men with rifles" as you say, Ian. And I believe that historical research now has enough material evidence on the political connections of Guy Banister and his political ambitions for racial segregation of US public schools. We also have enough material evidence on the poliical connections of ex-General Edwin Walker (the only US General to resign in the 20th century) and his political ambitions for racial segregation of US public schools (and especially Ole Miss University in 1962). With these two White racists, we have the leaders of the ground-crew, in my current theory. We must drill down, therefore, down into the personal and paramilitary connections of these two men in 1963 -- and discover which of these connections was a personal acquaintance of Lee Harvey Oswald. There, IMHO, we will find the ground crew -- the men with rifles -- who murdered JFK on 22 November 1963. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., there is a truly important dimension in what you say and imply here. I don't pretend to know the answers -- but I do believe we have only two broad choices if we are to encompass all the available evidence; either: (1) Hoover was blind-sighted by the JFK assassination and acted quickly to avoid a Civil War in the USA; or (2) Hoover was inside the plot with former FBI agent and segregationist, Guy Banister, and resigned General and segregationist Edwin Walker. The only way to dispute the evidence that readers put forward for choice #2 is to actively pursue choice #1. I also admit that if choice #1 cracks in any serious way, then we are immediately forced to choice #2. So, for purposes of conservatism, and to give J. Edgar Hoover the benefit of the doubt, I will argue for choice #1 until I am forced by material evidence to back down. I will emphasize here that I am willing to back down if the evidence is adequate. However, so far I can still argue for choice #1, even with my strong advocacy for the sincere claims of Harry Dean, whom I am pleased to consider my friend and ally. Here's my current argument: Yes, Harry Dean did tell the FBI in early September 1963 about a JFK assassination plot that invovled ex-General Walker, Congressman John Rousselot, mercenary Loran (Lorenzo) Hall, war-hero Guy 'Gabby' Gabaldon, mercenary Larry (Alonzo) Howard along with Harry Dean himself, JBS organizer and radical Minuteman. Harry Dean also says that after he made this announcement to the FBI, the immediate response of the SAC (Special Agent in Charge) was, "this is wishful thinking, Harry. We hear it all the time. Just forget about it." Now, this response from the SAC was given to Harry before the SAC sent this report to FBI headquarters and J. Edgar Hoover. Because of FBI protocol, we can be almost certain that the SAC did indeed send Harry's report to FBI headquarters. Yet we should also expect that the SAC added his personal notes to the FBI report -- and they probably included the exact words that the SAC told Harry in person: "this is wishful thinking." Thus, it is also plausible that when J. Edgar Hoover saw Harry Dean's report, he put it into a large stack of threats to JFK, including stacks involving Joseph Milteer, Santos Trafficante, Carlos Marcello, Frank Sturgis, Sam Giancana, Johnny Rosselli, Charles Nicoletti, the Mississippi KKK, the Lousiana KKK, the Alabama KKK, the South Carolina KKK, the DRE, Alpha 66, INCA etc. etc. It is a well-known, documented fact that Carlos Marcello put out a large contract on JFK in 1963, and this fact got back to the FBI, and the FBI evidently did not follow-up on that FBI report. This caused the famous JFK researcher, Sylvia Meagher, to exclaim that J. Edgar Hoover was at minimum "an Accessory after the Fact." Yet, to be as generous as possible to an old and tired J. Edgar Hoover, who had lived through both World War I and World War II, and was approaching 70 years of age -- it is possible that: (i) there were too many threats about JFK to stay on top of all of them; and (ii) the report by Harry Dean just didn't seem to J. Edgar Hoover to be realistic enough. Like the SAC, Hoover possibly believed that Harry's report merely reflected some more "wishful thinking" on the part of JFK's many, many enemies among the far right in the USA. I take this argument partly from Harry himself. Harry's manuscript, Crosstrails (1990) did not dare to discuss Harry's membership in the Minutemen, however, Harry Dean today is willing to talk about it. Harry's membership in the Minutemen was perhaps the main reason that he was trusted enough by Walker, Gabaldon and Hall to attend this secret meeting about Lee Harvey Oswald. Now, what Harry says about the Minutemen today, is that they spoke about killing JFK at all times of day and night. It was the main topic of conversation at their paramilitary training camps. Harry further adds that the ideological foundation for the Minutemen was the John Birch Society. Robert Welch preached through his JBS Members Bulletin that JFK (like Eisenhower, Truman and FDR before him) was a Communist traitor to the USA. That was their belief. They repeated it like a mantra. Because of their deep commitment to Anticommunism, and because of their sincere belief that Robert Welch was telling the truth, the Minutemen (who were in perpetual training to resist a Communist invasion of the USA) were convinced that JFK was a traitor, and therefore had to die. In other words, all over the USA, in every State in the Union, there were Minutemen groups reporting to the radical rightist, Robert De Pugh, who confirmed to each other every single day that JFK was a traitor to the USA and therefore had to die ASAP. Thousands of people all across the USA were saying this every single day! The FBI wanted to track the Minutemen. That is precisely why they asked Harry to give them information about Minutemen activities. The FBI had already studied the John Birch Society, and decided that they were self-serving and non-patriotic (because they called US Presidents "Communists"). The FBI had rules that no FBI agent could be a member of the John BIrch Society, the KKK or the Minutemen. And there, Paul B., is my core reason for defending J. Edgar Hoover in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald and JFK. If J. Edgar Hoover had been in open sympathy with the KKK or the John BIrch Society (or the Minutemen) then FBI agents would have been permitted to be members of these organizations -- but they weren't. So, giving Hoover the benefit of the doubt, I will argue (until proven wrong) that Hoover was simply overwhelmed by the thousands of reports about JFK haters from all over the USA, and could not be sure which one of these was going to be successful. He didn't have the resources to track every one. So -- actually -- since there were thousands upon thousands of plots to kill JFK current as of November 1963, how can we ourselves be certain that the one reported by Harry Dean was really the successful one? We can be sure, affirms Harry Dean, because the JFK plot by Walker, Rousselot, Gabaldon, Hall, Howard and Dean was the only one that specifically named Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy. That's how we know. So; to pin blame on J. Edgar Hoover for the JFK murder plot, we must necessarily link Hoover with Oswald in 1963. We can link Guy Banister with Oswald in 1963. We can link Edwin Walker with Oswald in 1963. We have the material evidence. But linking Oswald directly with J. Edgar Hoover in 1963 is a question that still requires material evidence. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Actually, John, I'm still on the fence when it comes to J. Edgar Hoover. My current strategy is to give Hoover the benefit of the doubt. But the evidence remains suspicious. On the positive side, I still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with the FBI at only the lowest levels of a stool pigeon. I strongly suspect that Oswald received $10 and $20 checks from the FBI on a semi-regular basis, for private detective work involving a Minolta mini-camera. This does not in any way make Lee Oswald into an "employee" of the FBI. He was a low-level asset, much like any stool pigeon for the FBI -- and that is my best opinion of Oswald's involvement with the FBI. Hoover denied any involvement at all, and I suspect that this was merely an expedient political position. On the negative side, Hoover knew far too much about Lee Harvey Oswald far too quickly for my comfort. He was very quick to name Oswald as the lone killer, and he convinced the FBI and LBJ to follow his lead in this approach to the JFK assassination. They marched with Hoover, and so did the Warren Commission. Hoover was the leader of making Lee Harvey Oswald the patsy in the eyes of the world. (We must inquire whether this reaches deeper into actual history.) On the positive side -- the best I can say for Hoover is that he meant well by this, insofar as he wanted to prevent Civil War from breaking out in the USA, which would certainly have occurred, IMHO. Hoover wasn't trying to protect the militant right -- he had no sympathy for the KKK, the Minutemen or the John Birch Society -- as we know from his personal writings. Instead, he was trying to protect National Security. On the negative side -- the suspicions run so high about Hoover in the JFK research literature that I don't need to repeat that here. However, Sylvia Meagher's judgment -- that Hoover was an "accomplice after the fact," loses its bite if we regard Hoover's "lone-nut killer" gambit as a sincere strategy to avoid Civil War. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

John, this is where our views diverge. Communism as a utopian dream, and especially in its form of the USSR, is a thing of the past. It was never viable, and of course JFK himself, being a favorite child of the very rich under Capitalism, had no interest in the Communist utopia. But more pointedly, the position at which you rest is to identify the killers of JFK as "the system." In other words, an abstraction; like saying, "the CIA did it," or "the Mafia did it," without getting down to the ground-crew. My task, from the start, has been to identify the specific ground-crew. We still agree that the militant right is a good candidate, and I presume that we still agree more specifically White racists were a direct force in the ground-crew. We apparently won't agree about the debatable value of Communism, which, for all intents and purposes in America and Europe, no longer exists as a viable political force. Your mention of Fascism is topical -- when Americans think of Fascism in the 20th century we often think of the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler. His movement was attractive to many because of his Anticommunism -- and I say that is where he got his numbers and power. However, his movement was bizarre to many because of his doctrine of White Supremacy, which became the ruin of his beloved Germany in 1945. He picked a fight with the whole wide world -- and we should not wonder that he lost miserably. Sic semper tyrannis. Guy Banister of New Orleans and Edwin Walker of Dallas attempted to advance that same strategy -- mixing racial hatred with Anticommunism. Some Americans were fooled by it, but most Americans were not. Their strategy worked to the moment of killing JFK. Their strategy ultimately failed to mobilize the USA in the direction they had envisioned as the outcome of killing JFK. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

This week I added photo images of Southern California Congressman of the 25th District, John Rousselot, onto another 1963 speech for the John Birch Society. I uploaded the speech to YouTube. It is entitled, THE THIRD COLOR -- RED, and it is in two parts, as follows: JOHN ROUSSELOT PART ONE: JOHN ROUSSELOT PART TWO: In this speech Congressman Rousselot (who was also an officer for the John BIrch Society) argues for the racial segregation of US public schools. Like all Birchers, Rousselot joined the call to Impeach Earl Warren, because of this Supreme Court Justice's ruling on Brown v. the Board of Education, which mandated the racial integration of US public schools. Like all Birchers, Rousselot claimed that the NAACP and the US Civil Rights movement was a Communist plot operated from Moscow, USSR. This was the Congressman's motivation for opposing President Kennedy with every ounce of energy he could muster. Thanks again to Harry Dean for contributing this artifact from his collection. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

The evidence mounts that White racism was the villain that assassinated JFK. We already have two prime suspects -- Guy Banister of New Orleans, and Edwin Walker of Dallas. Their interaction with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963 should be the subject of a global effort of JFK researchers on this, the 50th anniversary of the JFK murder. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

John, you can be fairly abstract when you want to be. However, your reference to MLK in the context of the JFK assassination is concrete and therefore useful. The solution to the JFK assassination will surely revolve around the Civil Rights struggles. JFK was not the only Civil Rights hero to be killed in the second half of 1963. The White Citizens' Councils had failed to Impeach Earl Warren; it had failed to roll back the Brown decision that mandated the racial integration of US public schools. Thus, as it appears to me, the KKK felt some pressure to become more directly involved. It is with the massive resistance to US Civil Rights, through the Louisiana States Rights Commission in particular, that we encounter an unholy alliance between ex-General Edwin Walker and former FBI agent, Guy Banister. There is one member of the Louisiana White racist movement that links them both, namely, Medford Evans, the university professor and valued editor of American Opinion, the journal of the John Birch Society, whose two principle slogan were, Impeach Earl Warren! as well as, US out of the UN! Medford Evans accompanied Edwin Walker before the Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness in 1962. Medford Evers later said about Guy Banister, that he is, "a friend of mine, as it happens." We have a match -- and we have a plausible JFK conspiracy. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

ANYWAY, continuing still further with this interesting thread on the JFK assassination and Edwin Walker's role in it, we should also consider the opinion by John Dolva who has been on the Forum for many years, and has carefully researched the White racist movement in the USA, and its probable support of the JFK assassination. JFK was a well-known supporter of Martin Luther King, Jr. as well as the Civil Rights movement in general, and of course the White racists in America hated JFK for that, just as they continue to hate Black Americans to this very day. In 1963 there were some very active White racists in the South that John Dolva researched, including the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission (MSSC), the Louisiana State Sovereignty Commission (LSSC), the White Citizens' Council (WCC), the Citizens' Council Forum (CCF), the South Carolina States' Rights Party (SCSRP), and the Conservative Society of America (CSA). One of the most interesting facts that John Dolva learned in his research, was that resigned General Edwin Walker was a frequent speaker at the MSSC, the WCC and the CCF. Tracing these leads, I found two films by the CCF featuring Edwin Walker. I posted them to YouTube at these URLs: Film One: youtube.com/watch?v=ZeQKuJTJi48 Film Two: youtube.com/watch?v=Y9yUW019xoA This is material evidence that Edwin Walker was a contributor to the White racist movement in the USA in 1962-1963. The WCC was the sworn enemy of the NAACP and Martin Luther King, Jr. and claimed that they were Communist organizations working for Moscow. They would do anything short of using KKK methods to slam down the NAACP (and when that didn't work, they called in the KKK, as has been amply documented). Ultimately, the KKK would get involved at the grass roots level in holding down the Civil Rights movement in 1963, as shown by the murder of Medgar Evers in his own driveway in Mississippi, and the burning of a Black Baptist Church with small schoolchildren still inside. That is the action of White racists in America, running amok shortly before JFK was assassinated. The KKK, furthermore, printed a bulletin in Louisiana declaring that JFK was a Communist, wanted for TREASON, because of his betrayal of Cuba and his support of Martin Luther King, Jr. (This artifact can be found in the Louisiana Department of Archives and History. (Notice how closely this KKK language matches the language of the "Wanted for Treason: JFK" handbills that circulated around Dallas on 22 November 1962.) White racists today do not like to hear that Edwin Walker was so close to the JFK assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963, although the evidence is piling up. White racists don't want to hear that historians are now smelling their foul odor close to the JFK assassination. (That's possibly one reason that some people here are attacking my posts.) I think that Edwin Walker research will show that White racism was the ultimate cause of the JFK assassination. Furthermore, I suspect that some White racists are running scared today. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

ANYWAY, continuing forward with this interesting thread on the JFK assassination and the role of Edwin Walker in it, we should reconsider the account given by Harry Dean, a long-time member of this Forum who has encouraged me and continues to encourage me in my free sharing of my research on this Forum. Harry Dean was a former member of Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement as well as a former Secretary of the FPCC. This was only because Harry was a successful fund-raiser for the Cuban cause in 1958-1959, when Fidel Castro was still regarded as a possible ally in the USA. But Harry also knows first hand how dangerous Communism can be, because even as a Secretary of the FPCC, he was subjected to a life-threatening interrogation in Cuba merely because he was an American. Harry went to the FBI to assist the USA in retailiation for Cuban excesses, and supplied the FBI with lots of useful information about the FPCC in the USA. When the FPCC ordered Harry to infiltrate a CIA group (shortly before the Bay of Pigs) and the FBI encouraged Harry to play this "triple-agent" role, Harry decided that this would be his final task. He'd had enough. So, Harry changed his name and moved his family to Southern California. He vowed to steer clear of leftist politics forever. In reaction, Harry joined a right-wing movement, the John Birch Society, which was extremely popular in Southern California in the early 1960's. Harry made many friends in the right-wing, and he gradually drifted so far to the right that he actually joined the Southern California Minutemen under Troy Houghton, who reported to Robert De Pugh. The Minutemen, as it turned out, were far more right-wing than Harry had expected. The most common conversation at Minuteman training camps was about the need and the methods to assassinate JFK. So, Harry should not have been too surprised when the FBI also caught up with Harry Dean in Southern California. They had been seeking information about the Minutemen, and they asked Harry to supply that information. Once again, Harry was happy to oblige for his country. Things came to a head in early September 1963, when the inner circle of the John Birch Society in Covina, California -- those who were also members of the Minutemen -- held an exclusive meeting with Congressman John Rousselot, war-hero Guy Gabaldon, and ex-General Edwin Walker. In that meeting, it was solemnly agreed that direct steps would be taken to frame a known FPCC touting Communist from New Orleans, namely, Lee Harvey Oswald, into their sacred cause to kill JFK. Harry Dean was in that meeting. Harry Dean had regarded all such talk as bluff and bluster -- but he took his report to the FBI anyway. The FBI confirmed his suspicions -- it was all bluff and bluster, and they advised Harry to forget about it. Harry was happy to forget about it until the afternoon 22 November 1963 -- when it was announced two hours after JFK was killed, that the suspect Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested. Harry Dean watched as all of his erstwhile friends in the John Birch Society and the Minutemen scattered. They never saw each other ever again. But he would never forget that fateful day in September, 1963, when Edwin Walker named Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy of their plot to kill JFK. In his sworn testimony to the Warren Commission, Edwin Walker insisted that he never heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald until 22 November 1963. Also, he swore, it never occurred to him that Lee Harvey Oswald had been his shooter on 10 April 1963, when Edwin Walker escaped death at his home at the hands of a late night assassin. HOWEVER -- the confirmation that Edwin Walker knew about Lee Harvey Oswald before Marina Oswald told the world on 2 December 1963 can be found among Walker's personal papers that are safely archived today at UT Austin. One of those papers is material evidence that, only 18 hours after JFK was killed, Edwin Walker told a German newspaper, the Deutsche Nationalzeitung, that Lee Harvey Oswald had been his 10 April 1963 shooter! Here is an English translation of the headline of that article. http://www.pet880.co...Deutsche_NZ.jpg The full article (and its English translation) can be found at the Mary Ferrell web site. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Thank you, Tom, I am confident that this is as close to a compliment as I will ever receive from you. So, I graciously accept. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

ANYWAY, let's move away from all those time-wasting personal attacks, and get back to the exciting topic of Jim Root's thread -- the role of resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker in the assassination of JFK. Allow me to recap. We now know that Edwin Walker officially resigned from the US Army after 30 years of service in 1959, during the Eisenhower Administration. From 1957 through 1959 General Walker served in Little Rock Arkansas, keeping the peace as nine Black American children attended the formerly all-white high school there. During those two years, Walker became the target of an intensive propaganda campaign by the segregationist and right-wing pundits from the White Citizens' Council, the State Sovereignty Commission, and the States Rights Party. Segregationists like Kent and Phoebe Courtney, Robert Welch, H.L. Hunt and Reverend Billy James Hargis made a big impact on Edwin Walker from 1957-1959. So, Walker resigned from the Army in 1959 in the same month that he joined the John Birch Society, because Robert Welch had personally told Walker that Eisenhower was a conscious, dedicated Communist agent -- and Edwin Walker was ignorant enough to believe him. However, the Eisenhower Administration denied Walker's resignation, and insisted that Walker accept his promotion as the Commander of the 24th Infantry Division in Augsburg, Germany, to, among other things, defend the Berlin Wall there. Walker took that job, but continued in his John Birch Society propaganda within the US Army from 1960-1961. When the scandal of Walker's speeches to his troops, e.g. calling President Truman "definitely pink," made the Army newspapers, the US Army in Europe dismissed Walker from his command and moved him to a desk job elsewhere. So Edwin Walker resigned a second time in November 1961, and this time the Administration (now under JFK) accepted his resignation. It is utterly bizarre that Edwin Walker would resign from the US Army, when it was just as easy for him to retire. With retirement Walker would have received full benefits of a General's rank and 30 years of service. (Adjusted for inflation it would be about $120,000 annually.) But with resignation that pension is forfeit. What could possibly lead Walker to make such a foolish choice? (About 20 years later Walker would plead for his Army retirement and the Army would eventually grant it.) The answer may be surmised in his immediate behavior -- he immediately moved to Dallas, into a large house in a nice neighborhood (Oak Lawn) not far from H.L. Hunt. Walker took a free office in an oil company building, and set about writing six copyrighted speeches. In mid-December 1961, Walker gave his first public speech in the Dallas Memorial Auditorium for the National Indignation Convention (NIC) and the auditorium was packed. Here is a snippet of that first speech: Walker gave his six speeches in rapid succession throughout Texas and the South, and his reception was spectacular. He received multiple standing ovations for every speech. Although there was no realistic comparision, his fanatic followers claimed he was just like General Douglas MacArthur who had been fired by President Truman. They wanted him to run for President. In February, 1962, H.L. Hunt decided it was time for Edwin Walker to enter politics, so he financed Walker's campaign to be the Governor of Texas. This would be his springboard to be President of the USA, if everything went according to plan. Well, things did not go according to plan. In April 1962, at the request of Walker and H.L. Hunt and many right-wingers of the period, the US Senate held Subcommittee hearing on Military Preparedness to rub the JFK Administration's nose in the scandal that a great patriot like Edwin Walker would be fired "for trying to teach his troops about the dangers of Communism." Yet in the course of his testimony before the Senate, Edwin Walker came across as a victim, and even paranoid. Gone were his chances of vindication over JFK. Gone were his chances at winning the Governor's mansion in Texas. Walker survived by giving his right-wing speeches throughout the South, especially to White Citizens' Council rallies and other segregationist groups and causes. The fanatical right wing still loved him, while Kent and Phoebe Courtney wrote a book about Walker, and still claimed that he should be the next President of the USA. But Walker's crowds were becoming smaller and smaller. Walker was fading away, until September of 1962, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Black American, James Meredith, should be allowed to register for class at Ole Miss college -- the first Black student in its history. Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett stood up and defied the Supreme Court and JFK, and said that he would never allow it. Barnett's popular support in Mississippi was fanatical, but James Meredith would not back down, so JFK was obliged to commit Federal troops to Ole Miss to protect Meredith's right to attend college there. This enraged Edwin Walker. Walker had protected the Black American high school students at Little Rock in 1957-1959, but he changed his mind in 1959, and now, in 1962, he felt he was called upon to prove the courage of his convictions. So, Edwin Walker got on public radio all over the South and called for a massive protest, "ten thousand strong from every State in the Union" to join him in Mississippi to stand up to JFK and his Federal Troops! "Will there be violence," Walker was asked? "That's up to Kennedy," responded Walker! As it turns out, on the night of 30 September 1962, there was massive violence. Despite roadblocks throughout Mississippi to confiscate guns, and to turn back out-of-state visitors with firearms, there were thousands of out of state protesters at Ole Miss, "mostly adults," said Bishop Duncan Gray. Hundreds were wounded and two were killed. At that point, JFK and RFK had endured enough of Edwin Walker, and they ordered him to be committed to an insane asylum at the Springfield military hospital in Missouri. However, psychiatrist Thomas Szasz and the ACLU promptly protested this travesty of justice and this hot-headed move by JFK and RFK as "political psychiatry," and within six days Edwin Walker was released. In January 1963, a Mississippi Grand Jury acquitted Edwin Walker of all charges relating to the Ole Miss riots of 1962. Walker flew back to Dallas to make his own plans for revenge against the Establishment for his treatment. Back in Dallas, however, there was a group of liberals that resented the fact that Edwin Walker could get away with starting massive riots in the USA. Among this group were people who knew Lee Harvey Oswald, foremostly, George De Mohrenschildt, and his young engineer friends, Voikmar Schmidt and Michael Paine. They would (according to George and Volkmar) work very hard in January 1963 to convince Lee Harvey Oswald that Edwin Walker should be the true target of his hostility. It worked. Soon afterwards, Lee Harvey Oswald ordered weapons through the mail, and took a photo of himself holding the weapons, and took photographs of Edwin Walker's house in Dallas. Marina Oswald told the FBI and the world on 2 December 1963 that Lee Harvey Oswald was Edwin Walker's shooter on 10 April 1963. However, only 18 hours after JFK was killed, Edwin Walker told exactly the same story to a German newspaper, the Deutsche Nationalzeitung, and this article is still available in Walker's personal papers. Here is an English translation of the headline of that article. http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg The full article can be found at the Mary Ferrell web site, and it is riveting. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Redoing the JFK pages? Read Tom again, Jim. What I was accused of on Wikipedia was annoying the dedicated fans of Friedrich Nietzsche. (I also edited the Hegel pages on Wikipedia, but I was welcomed there.) The only JFK-related pages on Wikipedia that I thoroughly revamped were those on ex-General Walker -- which I substantially edited; for which I was well-received. By referring to the Friedrich Nietzsche pages on Wikipedia to find dirt on me, Tom has gone far beyond the call of duty. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Tom, it just doesn't seem to me that a would-be "moderator" of a list should take this tone. ANYWAY, if you really want to find some dirt on me, you should look beyond Wikipedia and concentrate on the Hegel List on the Yahoo groups back in the 1990s. Though some professors encouraged me, there were a few who just had fits when I posted my carefully studied opinions about Hegel. If you dig, you'll find gold. Regards, --Paul Trejo