Jump to content

JOACHIM JOESTEN How Kennedy Was...


John Dolva
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes, that's the guy. John Sullivan.

Trecking through documents following connected names paints a picture,

One can sense the doc as a memo being in a way 'instructions'. A lot of other MSC documents is them(the MSC) giving instructions and providing information. Hence I've gotten a pic of the LSSC as being organisationally central.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, that's the guy. John Sullivan.

Trecking through documents following connected names paints a picture,

One can sense the doc as a memo being in a way 'instructions'. A lot of other MSC documents is them(the MSC) giving instructions and providing information. Hence I've gotten a pic of the LSSC as being organisationally central.

By the way, I still find very little about ex-General Edwin Walker in the MSC files. What I find shows he made speeches to their groups, and the speeches seem to be variations on his six copyrighted speeches (late 1961 to early 1962). He never makes direct racist remarks.

Walker tries to bend everything to the cause of Anticommunism -- and he seems clueless than in the context which he speaks, his audience is twisting every sentence about Anticommunism into a sentence against Civil Rights for Blacks. One is therefore not surprised to learn that Walker graduated in the bottom 10% of his class at West Point. (He was not a scholar like General Douglas MacArthur.)

So, Walker can be relied upon to make rousing speeches and rally the paramilitary troops. But he does little beyond this, evidently. This would tend to make Guy Bannister appear to be the brains of the outfit. Bannister is more official, more like the FBI, and attends to his paperwork.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's an important point. What makes him seem clueless to me is just a sign of him speaking their language. The general atmosphere that people lived in was things like MLK was a communist etc. I think the two fitted nicelky together for people who somehow needed their fundamental racism assuaged by that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's an important point. What makes him seem clueless to me is just a sign of him speaking their language. The general atmosphere that people lived in was things like MLK was a communist etc. I think the two fitted nicely together for people who somehow needed their fundamental racism assuaged by that.

Well, John, you seem to see Walker as 'crazy like a fox,' and perhaps you're right. I'm still undecided. Walker seems to me to resist being pulled into a value system that was so contrary to the US Army in which he had just recently spent most of his life.

He wanted to fight Communism -- and he was dim-witted enough to believe Robert Welch's tripe that every US President since FDR was a raving Communist. When Walker taught that crap to his troops in Germany in 1961 -- it caused a scandal. But he remained unphased. Perhaps Walker was simply unintelligent -- he continued to believe that he was dismissed from his command in Germany because of a Communist conspiracy -- he really thought he was that important.

This fed his paranoia -- the Communists were after him, personally. All this became crystal clear in his 1962 testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness (aka. Military Muzzling). He thought people were after him.

Although H.L. Hunt was funding Walker's run for Governor of Texas in early 1962, Walker's pitiful performance before the Senate Subcommittee ruined any chance he ever had in politics. He was trounced.

Therefore -- the only people who looked up to Walker after May, 1962, were in the radical right wing and the White Citizens' Councils. These are the people that Walker would try to impress from that moment on. They were Walker's bread and butter.

Robert Allen Surrey, leader of the Dallas Nazi underground, attached himself to Walker in May, 1962, and accompanied Walker to the race riots at Ole Miss in September 1962.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

"Although H.L. Hunt was funding Walker's run for Governor of Texas in early 1962, Walker's pitiful performance before the Senate Subcommittee ruined any chance he ever had in politics. He was trounced."

You do know that H.L. Hunt, a very key inner circle LBJ supporter, was in Los Angeles at the 1960 Democratic convention? According to John Currington, a Hunt aide, H.L. Hunt was encouraging LBJ to go for the VP spot.

After Gen.Curtis Lemay retired H.L. Hunt gave him $1,000,000 and I do believe Hunt was one of the folks who insisted that George Wallace put LeMay on the ticket as VP.

It is a possibility that H.L. Hunt, Lyndon Johnson and Gen. Edwin Walker were ALL involved in the JFK assassination. I think Air Force Gen. Edward Lansdale, photographed at TSBD and identified by Prouty and Krulak, was involved.

I am unsure about Gen. Edwin Walker but he definitely would know the right wing military radicals who were involved even if he was or was not.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, your mind works in mysterious ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, your mind works in mysterious ways.

If there's any mystery, John, it's because my exploration into the history of General Walker continues to evolve. He was a great hero of World War Two. I refuse to take that away from him. Yet he became a zealous gadfly to the JFK Civil Rights movement, and he began to associate with Cuban Exiles of the most desperate sort -- and their wealthy supporters. He was the only US General to resign in the 20th century. Where there's smoke there's fire.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes. However there is an unresolved matter re whether he should truly be considered a hero. I have yet to find any information that confirms conclusively whether he was near Cassino at the time of the Anzio landing. Further Is there any reason he had any thing in any way to do with the msterious miscommunication between Rome and the front. Further, did he ever have anything untoward to do with not only Angleton but also the Black Prince. This leads directly to Gladio, Stay Behinds, the Stategy of Tension, the Cairo Bureau. the Eastern Raten Lines and related matters. I wouldn't call him a hero unless I knew that his possible involvement in any of this was entirely benign.

Is there fire in this smoke?

edit typos and add : did he process Ewald Peters? Which SS guy held EP in high regard? (exactly who trained EP?)

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes. However there is an unresolved matter re whether he should truly be considered a hero. I have yet to find any information that confirms conclusively whether he was near Cassino at the time of the Anzio landing. Further Is there any reason he had any thing in any way to do with the msterious miscommunication between Rome and the front. Further, did he ever have anything untoward to do with not only Angleton but also the Black Prince. This leads directly to Gladio, Stay Behinds, the Stategy of Tension, the Cairo Bureau. the Eastern Raten Lines and related matters. I wouldn't call him a hero unless I knew that his possible involvement in any of this was entirely benign.

Is there fire in this smoke?

edit typos and add : did he process Ewald Peters? Which SS guy held EP in high regard? (exactly who trained EP?)

John, these are all questions that I still cannot answer. I'm still digging as fast as I can.

I will say this, however. Walker was very chummy with Nazi types in Germany during his command in Augsburg (11/1959 to 11/1961). He made good friends with the editor of the Deutsche Nationalzeitung newspaper, formerly a Nazi newspaper and still a right-wing journal in 1963, That editor, Dr. Gerhard Frey, was connected with Joseph Goebbels during the Nazi era.

I will give ex-General Edwin Walker the benefit of the doubt -- until actual facts are presented. My current theory (always evolving) is that Walker was a conformist all his life -- but the Cold War was confusing to him. He led the racial integration of Little Rock High School in Arkansas in 1957, but by late 1959 he tendered his first resignation from the Army to President Eisenhower, citing a "conspiracy".

In late 1959 Walker personally met Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society (JBS) and came to believe that President Eisenhower was a Communist (as Robert Welch taught). When Eisenhower rejected Walker's resignation, but instead gave him a command over thousands of troops in Augsburg, Germany, Walker accepted the position -- his biggest promotion ever -- on the secret condition that he would promote JBS literature to his troops.

Along with Major Archibald E. Roberts, Walker began his Pro-Blue program the very first day that he arrived in Germany. He spent most of his time on this project, and he influenced thousands of young soldiers with the JBS doctrine -- similar to the doctrine of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy -- that the US Government was filled with Communists.

This treasonous talk, laughingly called Anticommunism, was really Anti-American. This is what Robert Welch and his followers had always wanted. They objected to WW2, because as they said, the USA joined the Communists to defeat Germany, while they should have supported Germany to defeat Communism.

While in Germany, Walker evidently increased his communication with the new German Anticommunists like Dr. Gerhard Frey, Hasso Thorsten and others, and they evidently impressed him very much. For example, only 18 hours after the JFK assassination, Walker called the Deutsche Nationalzeitung to boast that the same shooter who killed JFK (Lee Harvey Oswald) was the same shooter who shot at him on 10 April 1963.

This was several days before Marina Oswald announced this allegation to the FBI and the world. There is plenty of smoke there, I say.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
On 10/4/2012 at 9:26 PM, John Dolva said:

192 pages

contents

foreword

prologue

chapter

when cops are the culprits

the minutemen

caught in the act

the weird case of gordon novel

case history of a 'psychotic' millionaire

oswald, ruby and 'oswald'

ruby's last chance - 'the most fantastic story you ever heard'

whodunit

the dealey plaza ambush

how kennedy was lured into the death trap

what garrison has up his sleve

was tippit the man in the window?

the guilt of the secret service

operation 'overkill'

covering up the tracks

appendix

(letter to reagan)

--------------

edit add

JJ mentions Garrisons interview with Playboy a lot, so:

http://www.maebrussell.com/Garrison/Garrison%20Playboy%20Intvw%201.html

excerpt

''GARRISON: That's a question I've asked myself frequently, especially since this investigation started and I found myself in an incongruous and disillusioning battle with agencies of my own Government. I can't just sit down and add up my political beliefs like a mathematical sum, but I think, in balance, I'd turn up somewhere around the middle. Over the years, I guess I've developed a somewhat conservative attitude -- in the traditional libertarian sense of conservatism, as opposed to the thumbscrew-and-rack conservatism of the paramilitary right -- particularly in regard to the importance of the individual as opposed to the state and the individual's own responsibilities to humanity. I don't think I've ever tried to formulate this into a coherent political philosophy, but at the root of my concern is the conviction that a human being is not a digit; he's not a digit in regard to the state and he's not a digit in the sense that he can ignore his fellow men and his obligations to society. I was with the artillery supporting the division that took Dachau; I arrived there the day after it was taken, when bulldozers were making pyramids of human bodies outside the camp. What I saw there has haunted me ever since. Because the law is my profession, I've always wondered about the judges throughout Germany who sentenced men to jail for picking pockets at a time when their own government was jerking gold from the teeth of men murdered in gas chambers. I'm concerned about all of this because it isn't a German phenomenon; it's a human phenomenon. It can happen here, because there has been no change and there has been no progress and there has been no increase of understanding on the part of men for their fellow man. What worries me deeply, and I have seen it exemplified in this case, is that we in America are in great danger of slowly evolving into a proto-fascist state. It will be a different kind of fascist state from the one of the Germans evolved; theirs grew out of depression and promised bread and work, while ours, curiously enough, seems to be emerging from prosperity. But in the final analysis, it's based on power and on the inability to put human goals and human conscience above the dictates of the state. Its origins can be traced in the tremendous war machine we've built since 1945, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower vainly warned us about, which now dominates every aspect of our life. The power of the states and Congress has gradually been abandoned to the Executive Department, because of war conditions; and we've seen the creation of an arrogant, swollen bureaucratic complex totally unfettered by the checks and balances of the Constitution. In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here, the process is more subtle, but the end results can be the same. I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the state and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism." I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.'' my underline

Did Jim Garrison say the above in the interview as printed?

I wonder what percentage of Garrison critics could ever compare to, understand or let alone even imagine anything close to the full measure of Garrison's intellect, his grasp and perceptions of the realities of the real world around us including the precariousness of the individual versus the state, the powerful versus the powerless and the abuse of these rights and tenents and where it is taking us.  And the courage and integrity to risk his life in exposing these abuses as much as the national media would allow him coverage to do so?

I doubt if it's 1%.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Did Jim Garrison say the above in the interview as printed?

I wonder what percentage of Garrison critics could ever compare to, understand or let alone even imagine anything close to the full measure of Garrison's intellect, his grasp and perceptions of the realities of the real world around us including the precariousness of the individual versus the state, the powerful versus the powerless and the abuse of these rights and tenents and where it is taking us.  And the courage and integrity to risk his life in exposing these abuses as much as the national media would allow him coverage to do so?

I doubt if it's 1%.  

 

Joe, Thanks for highlighting that passage. The character assassination that started when he took-up the challenge of the Kennedy case and it has never ceased. He was truly a great and supremely courageous American, and a visionary.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 10:58 AM, Michael Clark said:

[Regarding Jim Garrison...] The character assassination that started when he took-up the challenge of the Kennedy case and it has never ceased. He was truly a great and supremely courageous American, and a visionary.

Cheers,

Michael

I agree with this -- and yet Jim Garrison lost the Clay Shaw trial.  

Even Jim Garrison's closest friends say that Jim was his worst enemy -- a very emotional man.

Dr. Jeff Caufield's take on Jim Garrison is interesting.   Caufield says that Jim Garrison began to investigate the Radical Right in Dallas, and got burned badly.  He kept hoping somebody in Dallas would rise up from the depths to help Garrison dig deeper into Dallas, but nobody did.  On the contrary -- there was only fire.

Jim Garrison gave us the best portrait of New Orleans in 1963 than anybody else did, or could have.  But what was needed to solve the JFK murder was an equally good portrait of Dallas in 1963.  Yet people were terrified to step forward.  Witnesses in Dallas who stepped up were regularly found dead the next day.

Even Deputy Roger Craig -- perhaps the most outspoken of them all -- was eventually beaten down to an apparent suicide after many years of cooperation with Penn Jones, Jr.

Jim Garrison almost solved the JFK case in 1968 -- and he would have solved it if he had more help from Dallas.  He got none. 

Most of the blows to Jim Garrison, however, came from the FBI.  J. Edgar Hoover had laid down the US Dogma of a "Lone Nut" Oswald, and Jim Garrison refused to accept it.  So the FBI rained down very hard on Jim Garrison.

This wasn't because J. Edgar Hoover was part of the JFK murder plot -- but Jim Garrison didn't know that.  It was because J. Edgar Hoover had figured out the whole plot on 11/22/1963 -- the players and everything -- but he refused to share this data with Jim Garrison or anybody except LBJ, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...