New Book!

[Paul Trejo]

It strikes me Marina and Ruth have only opinions to offer, not facts.

Why do you say that, Jon, in the face of the "Russian letter" and the Backyard Photographs, and the photos of the resigned General Walker's home?

Do you deny Marina's sworn testimony that Lee Harvey Oswald confessed to the shooting on 10 April 1963? Yet that's not an opinion by Marina -- it's either historical fact or it's perjury -- and there's no legal middle-term to that proposition.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

I'm talking about Marina and Ruth today.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

I'm talking about Marina and Ruth today.

Well, Jon, you're a man of too few words!

Marina's position today is consistent with her position in 1964 -- because she openly complained in 1964 that the WC was restricting the evidence she was allowed to see.

Ruth's position today is consistent with her position in 1964 -- because she still maintains the "Russian letter" is authentic.

So, again -- what are you talking about, please?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, sorry but I think my meaning was very literal. During the initial inquiry Marina did not defend Lee nor proclaim his innocence. In addition, she offered nothing that would explain his action or motive. She allowed him to be presented as a killer, indeed offering points such as the Nixon threat and the Walker story which supported the lone nut image of him as highly emotional and a potential killer. I've seen her say that now she says Lee is innocent of the JFK murder, without offering much explanation other than that her opinion has changed from information provided to her...by researchers. To me this simply indicates that Marina's statements have been "situational", made to her and her children's best interest at the time they were offered. That would hardly be surprising. However it also suggests that there is a fundamental problem with her position that Lee attempted to kill Walker, wanted to kill Nixon and yet could not have killed JFK.

Actually I agree with you that at present she may be using the Walker letter simply as a filter to keep away anyone who would question her remarks or become challenging in talking with her.

I know her position on Walker is integral to your view and I've said many times I won't try to move you from that - you have demonstrated enormous energy in maintaining and promoting that view in the face any counter dialog and I'm happy to leave you with it. In regard to your question on the letter, I would have to dig far back into the issue of the letter to do justice to its pros and cons, not something I would do off the top of my head and I will leave that to someone else.

[Ernie Lazar]

One example from Caufield's new book which can easily be disputed:

On page 60, Caufield describes Kent Courtney as follows:

"Courtney, unlike Banister, tried to maintain a veneer of mainstream respectability. He avoided being associated with the various far right fringe groups like the Klan or the Nazis..."

Not sure why Caufield arrived at that conclusion. First of all, Courtney was always involved with fringe groups including the JBS, Citizens Councils, and racist groups like the Louisiana States Rights Party. He was the Louisiana State Chairman of Willis Stone's National Committee for Economic Freedom (which promoted the so-called Liberty Amendment), and he ran for Governor of Louisiana on the States Rights Party ticket which was pro-segregation and pro-white supremacy..

With respect to Courtney "avoiding" the Klan -- one FBI document points out that his name was "obtained from Klan correspondence". In 1961, Courtney sent a letter to the FBI in which he requested that he be added to the Bureau's mailing list for press releases which he could publish in his newspaper, Independent American.

An FBI memo about his request observed: "Courtney's paper indicates he is a rabble-rouser and a hate monger...It is strongly felt that the Bureau should in no way either by implication or direct action be associated with this individual."

[Greg Parker]

One example from Caufield's new book which can easily be disputed:

On page 60, Caufield describes Kent Courtney as follows:

"Courtney, unlike Banister, tried to maintain a veneer of mainstream respectability. He avoided being associated with the various far right fringe groups like the Klan or the Nazis..."

Not sure why Caufield arrived at that conclusion. First of all, Courtney was always involved with fringe groups including the JBS, Citizens Councils, and racist groups like the Louisiana States Rights Party. He was the Louisiana State Chairman of Willis Stone's National Committee for Economic Freedom (which promoted the so-called Liberty Amendment), and he ran for Governor of Louisiana on the States Rights Party ticket which was pro-segregation and pro-white supremacy..

With respect to Courtney "avoiding" the Klan -- one FBI document points out that his name was "obtained from Klan correspondence". In 1961, Courtney sent a letter to the FBI in which he requested that he be added to the Bureau's mailing list for press releases which he could publish in his newspaper, Independent American.

An FBI memo about his request observed: "Courtney's paper indicates he is a rabble-rouser and a hate monger...It is strongly felt that the Bureau should in no way either by implication or direct action be associated with this individual."

Grasping at straws, Ernie.

The States Rights Party for example, was a registered political party. They may have been extreme to the north, but not in the South. Caulfield seems to be specifically talking about Nazis and the KKK. You provide ONE example of any possible association with one of those - to wit -his name being "obtained from Klan correspondence". What does that prove, exactly in your mind? All it means to me is that he wrote to them at least once, or they wrote to him at least once. You don't even know the nature of the correspondence. Maybe they were inviting him to talk at a meeting? Maybe he declined? Who knows? Not you, apparently... gruel doesn't get any thinner...

[William O'Neil]

Greg, That is correct. Courtney was considered a moderate in some circles and he was never a member of NSRP or KKK. Him and Banister were friends and cohorts, but Kent was nowhere near as radically or racially inclined as Guy, and at times this caused friction between them.This is well documented in the book...noticed he said "veneer of mainstream respectability"

I have read almost all issues of Courtney's "The Independent American" and I have many of his broadcast tapes from his radio show. I would hardly describe them as "hate mongering" Courtney's thing was starting a 3rd Party for conservatives, to support as an alternative to the Dem's and Repub's. He was constantly reaching out to various groups and individuals to help build this movement.

Coming soon @

http://jeffreycaufield.com/and other outlets like Amazon.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, sorry but I think my meaning was very literal. During the initial inquiry Marina did not defend Lee nor proclaim his innocence. In addition, she offered nothing that would explain his action or motive. She allowed him to be presented as a killer, indeed offering points such as the Nixon threat and the Walker story which supported the lone nut image of him as highly emotional and a potential killer. I've seen her say that now she says Lee is innocent of the JFK murder, without offering much explanation other than that her opinion has changed from information provided to her...by researchers. To me this simply indicates that Marina's statements have been "situational", made to her and her children's best interest at the time they were offered. That would hardly be surprising. However it also suggests that there is a fundamental problem with her position that Lee attempted to kill Walker, wanted to kill Nixon and yet could not have killed JFK.

Actually I agree with you that at present she may be using the Walker letter simply as a filter to keep away anyone who would question her remarks or become challenging in talking with her.

I know her position on Walker is integral to your view and I've said many times I won't try to move you from that - you have demonstrated enormous energy in maintaining and promoting that view in the face any counter dialog and I'm happy to leave you with it. In regard to your question on the letter, I would have to dig far back into the issue of the letter to do justice to its pros and cons, not something I would do off the top of my head and I will leave that to someone else.

Well, Larry, what I said was that Ruth Paine (not Marina) is the one who uses the Walker letter as a filter to keep away anyone who challenges her.

I've read your works, and I realize that you disbelieve that the resigned General Edwin Walker played a leading role in the JFK murder.

(I also take a milder approach to Marina's testimony -- for example, I regard her story of the Nixon threat to be honest, although I believe that LHO was only teasing her. She was asked for full disclosure, so she told the truth. I also believe that teasing her about assassination was in character for LHO -- who was a complex character -- neither saintly nor evil, but a victim of George De Mohrenschildt in the Walker shooting, and a victim of Walker in the JFK shooting. Yet that is not what I'm currently asking about.)

.

My question is solely and only about the "Walker letter" which both Ruth and Marina claim was written by Lee Harvey Oswald. Do you believe that it's bogus? If so, would you please say why?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 16, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, I believe there was a letter, who, when and where it was written remains an open question to me as to whether or not it connects to the Walker incident or was written for some entirely different purpose. Its not a question I could address properly without revisiting the issue in depth and that's just not a priority for me at this time. Perhaps someone else will engage with you on it.

[Paul Trejo]

BUMP

Edited August 16, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Greg, That is correct. Courtney was considered a moderate in some circles and he was never a member of NSRP or KKK. Him and Banister were friends and cohorts, but Kent was nowhere near as radically or racially inclined as Guy, and at times this caused friction between them.This is well documented in the book...noticed he said "veneer of mainstream respectability"

I have read almost all issues of Courtney's "The Independent American" and I have many of his broadcast tapes from his radio show. I would hardly describe them as "hate mongering" Courtney's thing was starting a 3rd Party for conservatives, to support as an alternative to the Dem's and Repub's. He was constantly reaching out to various groups and individuals to help build this movement.

Coming soon @

http://jeffreycaufield.com/and other outlets like Amazon.

Bill:

Can you be more specific? Whom, exactly, considered Courtney to be "a moderate"?

You mention NSRP/KKK but certainly you must be aware that Courtney supported every Louisiana (and southern) politician whom the KKK and NSRP supported -- including, for example, Cong. John Rarick, Cong. John Bell Williams, Sen. Strom Thurmond, Gov. George Wallace (Courtney was state chairman of the Wallace campaign for President) and Louisiana State Senator Willie Rainach.

As you must know, Rainach was a life-long racist who led Louisiana's defense of segregation. He was Chairman of the Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee to Maintain Segregation and President of the Association of Citizens Councils of Louisiana. He organized the first Louisiana chapter of the Citizens Council movement in Homer LA in April 1955. [incidentally, Courtney's P.O. Box address -- PO Box 4223 - New Orleans -- was also the address of the Citizens Councils of New Orleans.]

In 1959, Rainach ran for Governor of Louisiana and he stated: "I love the n, but I know he can't run this country. The breeding in him does not allow him to run a civilization, and I won't let our civilization go to ruin." Courtney endorsed Rainach's candidacy. Like fellow segregationist, Leander Perez, Rainach equated integration with communism and so did Courtney in his original newsletter, The Solid South.

And, of course, Courtney wrote a lengthy full-throated defense of the John Birch Society in April 1961 which was published in Independent American plus on 4/7/61 he sent a letter to all subscribers captioned "The Communist-Inspired Smear of the John Birch Society". The first major activity of Courtney's new group, Conservative Society of America, was the publication of the pro-Walker book, The Case of General Edwin A. Walker.

So---when we attempt to distinguish between "moderates" or "mainstream" figures versus extremists -- should we limit ourselves exclusively to what organizations they join and endorse OR should we also focus attention upon what such individuals believe and what politicians they support and what arguments they promote?

ADDENDUM:

One more thing, since you mention KKK/NSRP and you state that Courtney was not as radically or racially-inclined as Banister:

In 1967, Courtney endorsed Ned O. Touchstone for LA State Superintendent of Education. How would YOU characterize Touchstone?

Would any "moderate" be inclined to support Touchstone -- given his long record of virulent racism and anti-semitism?

As I'm sure you know, Touchstone was a KKK member AND during the time when he was editor of The Councilor (the official journal of the Citizens Council of Louisiana), the NSRP printed and distributed it. From his home, Touchstone sold racist and anti-semitic literature through the National Biographic Society--which he owned.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[David Andrews]

... Let me say that I'm finding Caulfield's research into the background of the southern segregationist right well worth considering, and his contention that only the right was involved in the assassination well worth contradicting. I haven't finished the excerpted material yet, but so far this seems a mixed bag worth emptying on the table. Put the onions aside - they're still good.

I'm glad, David, that you're enjoying Jeff Caufield's concentration on the resigned General Walker.

Well, I'm enjoying the background on anti-communist and anti-integration groups. I'm always for throwing out the baby if the bath water's drinkable. And I know the lees of the cess should be strained through my teeth.

It's a book that should be discussed, though perhaps not for the reasons you might prefer.

Edited August 16, 2015 by David Andrews

[Greg Parker]

Greg, That is correct. Courtney was considered a moderate in some circles and he was never a member of NSRP or KKK. Him and Banister were friends and cohorts, but Kent was nowhere near as radically or racially inclined as Guy, and at times this caused friction between them.This is well documented in the book...noticed he said "veneer of mainstream respectability"

I have read almost all issues of Courtney's "The Independent American" and I have many of his broadcast tapes from his radio show. I would hardly describe them as "hate mongering" Courtney's thing was starting a 3rd Party for conservatives, to support as an alternative to the Dem's and Repub's. He was constantly reaching out to various groups and individuals to help build this movement.

Coming soon @

http://jeffreycaufield.com/and other outlets like Amazon.

Bill:

Can you be more specific? Whom, exactly, considered Courtney to be "a moderate"?

You mention NSRP/KKK but certainly you must be aware that Courtney supported every Louisiana (and southern) politician whom the KKK and NSRP supported -- including, for example, Cong. John Rarick, Cong. John Bell Williams, Sen. Strom Thurmond, Gov. George Wallace (Courtney was state chairman of the Wallace campaign for President) and Louisiana State Senator Willie Rainach.

As you must know, Rainach was a life-long racist who led Louisiana's defense of segregation. He was Chairman of the Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee to Maintain Segregation and President of the Association of Citizens Councils of Louisiana. He organized the first Louisiana chapter of the Citizens Council movement in Homer LA in April 1955. [incidentally, Courtney's P.O. Box address -- PO Box 4223 - New Orleans -- was also the address of the Citizens Councils of New Orleans.]

In 1959, Rainach ran for Governor of Louisiana and he stated: "I love the n, but I know he can't run this country. The breeding in him does not allow him to run a civilization, and I won't let our civilization go to ruin." Courtney endorsed Rainach's candidacy. Like fellow segregationist, Leander Perez, Rainach equated integration with communism and so did Courtney in his original newsletter, The Solid South.

And, of course, Courtney wrote a lengthy full-throated defense of the John Birch Society in April 1961 which was published in Independent American plus on 4/7/61 he sent a letter to all subscribers captioned "The Communist-Inspired Smear of the John Birch Society". The first major activity of Courtney's new group, Conservative Society of America, was the publication of the pro-Walker book, The Case of General Edwin A. Walker.

So---when we attempt to distinguish between "moderates" or "mainstream" figures versus extremists -- should we limit ourselves exclusively to what organizations they join and endorse OR should we also focus attention upon what such individuals believe and what politicians they support and what arguments they promote?

ADDENDUM:

One more thing, since you mention KKK/NSRP and you state that Courtney was not as radically or racially-inclined as Banister:

In 1967, Courtney endorsed Ned O. Touchstone for LA State Superintendent of Education. How would YOU characterize Touchstone?

Would any "moderate" be inclined to support Touchstone -- given his long record of virulent racism and anti-semitism?

As I'm sure you know, Touchstone was a KKK member AND during the time when he was editor of The Councilor (the official journal of the Citizens Council of Louisiana), the NSRP printed and distributed it. From his home, Touchstone sold racist and anti-semitic literature through the National Biographic Society--which he owned.

You are viewing this through modern eyes.

[Paul Trejo]

Well, I'm enjoying the background on anti-communist and anti-integration groups. I'm always for throwing out the baby if the bath water's drinkable. And I know the lees of the cess should be strained through my teeth.

It's a book that should be discussed, though perhaps not for the reasons you might prefer.

Well, David, I gather that you're a writer or poet yourself, since you knew so much about Don DeLillo's work -- in such great detail. Also, you have a way with words.

In any case, I agree with you 100%, that this new book by Jeff Caufield is worthy of discussion -- even beyond my own theory of the resigned General Walker as the mastermind of the JFK murder as motivated by the DeMohrenschildt-Schimdt-Paine-Oswald attempt on Walker's life..

I look forward to your own comments on this NEW AND EXCITING APPROACH TO THE JFK MURDER, after 50 years of failed (and boring) CIA-did-it theories.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 16, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Greg, That is correct. Courtney was considered a moderate in some circles and he was never a member of NSRP or KKK. Him and Banister were friends and cohorts, but Kent was nowhere near as radically or racially inclined as Guy, and at times this caused friction between them.This is well documented in the book...noticed he said "veneer of mainstream respectability"

I have read almost all issues of Courtney's "The Independent American" and I have many of his broadcast tapes from his radio show. I would hardly describe them as "hate mongering" Courtney's thing was starting a 3rd Party for conservatives, to support as an alternative to the Dem's and Repub's. He was constantly reaching out to various groups and individuals to help build this movement.

Coming soon @

http://jeffreycaufield.com/and other outlets like Amazon.

Bill:

Can you be more specific? Whom, exactly, considered Courtney to be "a moderate"?

You mention NSRP/KKK but certainly you must be aware that Courtney supported every Louisiana (and southern) politician whom the KKK and NSRP supported -- including, for example, Cong. John Rarick, Cong. John Bell Williams, Sen. Strom Thurmond, Gov. George Wallace (Courtney was state chairman of the Wallace campaign for President) and Louisiana State Senator Willie Rainach.

As you must know, Rainach was a life-long racist who led Louisiana's defense of segregation. He was Chairman of the Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee to Maintain Segregation and President of the Association of Citizens Councils of Louisiana. He organized the first Louisiana chapter of the Citizens Council movement in Homer LA in April 1955. [incidentally, Courtney's P.O. Box address -- PO Box 4223 - New Orleans -- was also the address of the Citizens Councils of New Orleans.]

In 1959, Rainach ran for Governor of Louisiana and he stated: "I love the n, but I know he can't run this country. The breeding in him does not allow him to run a civilization, and I won't let our civilization go to ruin." Courtney endorsed Rainach's candidacy. Like fellow segregationist, Leander Perez, Rainach equated integration with communism and so did Courtney in his original newsletter, The Solid South.

And, of course, Courtney wrote a lengthy full-throated defense of the John Birch Society in April 1961 which was published in Independent American plus on 4/7/61 he sent a letter to all subscribers captioned "The Communist-Inspired Smear of the John Birch Society". The first major activity of Courtney's new group, Conservative Society of America, was the publication of the pro-Walker book, The Case of General Edwin A. Walker.

So---when we attempt to distinguish between "moderates" or "mainstream" figures versus extremists -- should we limit ourselves exclusively to what organizations they join and endorse OR should we also focus attention upon what such individuals believe and what politicians they support and what arguments they promote?

ADDENDUM:

One more thing, since you mention KKK/NSRP and you state that Courtney was not as radically or racially-inclined as Banister:

In 1967, Courtney endorsed Ned O. Touchstone for LA State Superintendent of Education. How would YOU characterize Touchstone?

Would any "moderate" be inclined to support Touchstone -- given his long record of virulent racism and anti-semitism?

As I'm sure you know, Touchstone was a KKK member AND during the time when he was editor of The Councilor (the official journal of the Citizens Council of Louisiana), the NSRP printed and distributed it. From his home, Touchstone sold racist and anti-semitic literature through the National Biographic Society--which he owned.

You are viewing this through modern eyes.

No, I am trying to understand the standards which were used to suggest that Banister belongs on one side a ledger whereas someone like Courtney belongs on a materially different side.

Or, to put it slightly differently, what exactly were the differences between Banister and Courtney in terms of:

• the people they considered friends and allies
• the arguments they made which were intended to shape public perceptions about public policy issues and
• their objectives in terms of their public policy preferences and the persons whom they thought should occupy positions of political power

If, for example, you read issues of Banister's publication "Louisiana Intelligence Digest" -- is there any substantive difference between it and what Courtney published in his publications such as The Solid South, or Independent American, or in his Tax Fax pamphlets? OR

If you compare Banister's March 1957 testimony before the Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee on Segregation (published by Committee under title "Subversion in Racial Unrest") and if you read Banister's December 1958 testimony before the Special Education Committee of the Arkansas Legislative Council --- is there any substantive difference between Banister's analysis and conclusions compared to what Courtney believed and wrote in his publications?

Edited August 16, 2015 by Ernie Lazar