New Book!

[Paul Trejo]

There are those in the homosexual persuasion that would tell you that they are perfectly normal and that homosexuality is not a medical condition. I'm not sure why some of those, if they read some of the comments on this thread, would not say that being homosexual does not make you an 'anti-communist' or a 'right winger'. I wouldn't make the argument either way as I've not studied the subject and am not a psychiatrist. Uh, another point. Why would being homosexual make someone a 'target'?

Again, Kenneth, according to Freud, homosexuality itself isn't a medical condition -- however closeted homosexuality can lead to cases of paranoia, which is a medical condition, according to Freud.

As for the problem of homophobia in the USA in the 1960's, I think that is already well-documented by sociologists. Although I feel certain that the resigned General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder, and so I condemn him for that -- nevertheless I also regard Walker as a victim of mass homophobia for his entire life, and so I pity him for that. I don't excuse Walker's (alleged) murder of JFK -- but I do regard mass homophobia in the USA in the 1960's as an extenuating circumstance of Walker's behavior.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Kenneth Drew]

Paul - do you personally, after years of Walker research, think that RFK sent Oswald to kill Walker?

No, Paul B., in my personal opinion, RFK did not send Lee Harvey Oswald to kill the resigned Major General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963.

IMHO, George De Mohrenschildt convinced Oswald to hate and despise the resigned General Walker, and this was common knowledge in Dallas in 1963 by Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Marina Oswald, Volkmar Schmidt, Everett Glover and Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin -- and probably several other yuppie Dallas oil engineers in their circle. (It was the best kept secret of the WC witnesses, IMHO.)

Yet the resigned General Edwin Walker was a complex character -- a shrewd and victorious US General on the one hand, and a man suffering from a homosexual conflict with his US Army oath on the other hand.

Sigmund Freud's analysis of paranoia in the early 20th century concluded that classical paranoia begins as closeted homosexuality. The psychological reversal, according to Freud, goes something like this -- "Step 1: I love this man; Step 2: No, that is taboo, so, I obsessively hate this man; Step 3: No, that is taboo, so instead, this man hates me and continually wants to kill me." So, the sexual attraction of the closeted homosexual, said Freud, would transform a continual homosexual passion into a continual fear of being stalked. (It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.)

This seems to be the case with the resigned General Edwin Walker. As a military man, he would respect and admire people of great political power. That would include JFK and RFK. As a homosexual, that would necessarily lead to homosexual fantasies in Walker's mind. Evidence of this is found in Walker's personal papers, where we find a cartoon published by the John Birch Society, showing JFK in a wedding gown. Walker preserved that cartoon separately from all other literature. I take this to refer to Walker's fantasy life.

Yet for social purposes in Dallas polite society, all homosexual feelings, thoughts and fantasies must have been forcefully suppressed. This suppression, said Freud, leads to paranoia and its transformation of passion into continual fear.

In my personal opinion, the resigned General Walker lived in at least a mild state of paranoia for his entire Military career, and perhaps even before, going back to childhood. Jim Root once wrote in this FORUM that he interviewed the neighbors of Edwin Walker near Kerrville, Texas, and they believed that Walker's father sent him to military school because he feared young Edwin was gay. That fits the pattern I see.

When the resigned General Edwin Walker faced a Grand Jury for his role in the 1962 racial riots of Ole Miss University, two psychiatrists testified that they believed on the basis of Walker's testimony at the April 1962 Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness (called by Senators John Stennis and Strom Thurmond) that Walker showed signs of "mild paranoia", e.g. in his referring all major world events to himself. Two other psychiatrists testified, on the contrary, that Walker was fit as a fiddle -- and the Grand Jury believed the latter. I think this Grand Jury was wrong in all its decisions that day.

So, in conclusion, Paul B., I think that the resigned Walker was at least mildly paranoid -- and that his medical condition played a key role in the JFK assassination there in Dallas.

I also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did try to kill the resigned General Walker, as persuaded by George De Mohrenschildt, Michael Paine and Volkmar Schmidt, among others. (I think the sworn testimony, and the material evidence for this view is overwhelming.) I also believe that George suspected Oswald as soon as the news hit the streets, and that he told his suspicions to Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin four days later, who told the FBI that same day -- and the FBI told officials in Dallas, and one of those officials told Walker on that same day. That would explain Walker's letter to Senator Frank Church in 1975 -- as well as Walker's claims to the Deutsche Nationalzeitung newspaper in Germany less than 24 hours after the JFK murder. Oswald tried to kill Walker.

Walker took this shooting at him at his home in Dallas as a direct threat from Communism. The JBS had told Walker that JFK and RFK were Communists. Therefore, in the paranoid mind of the resigned General Walker, RFK and JFK were continually trying to kill him. Therefore, Walker's plans to assassinate JFK would have been, on this paranoid logic, simple self-defense.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.) Interesting, so no more in the closet, no more paranoia.

This leap in logic brings back my If, Then proposal and your more-than-minor difficulties with it. (Freud's quote is analog - with gray areas, varying degrees of severity, and your oversimplification of it is digital, black or white, ON or OFF, 1 or 0 - it's just a comment, no insult intended.) so, NO, not, "so no more closet, no more paranoia." it's not that simple. the closeted condition - suggesting a lesser or greater degree of being closeted rather than a solidified state of it - "leads to", again implying degrees, and not a simple state of paranoia. And I'm certain that he did not mean, "no one who is in a closeted condition will suffer from paranoia, and everyone who is in the condition of being closeted will suffer from it." it's not that simple.

you will possibly want to accuse me of splitting hairs or taking your words too literally or too seriously; if so, I'd say nonsense. on subjects like mental health and a person's periodic persecution for his sexual "self," and as these may or may not play a role in the possible (I italicized it so that Paul won't think, "yay, he's coming 'round!") involvement in an assassination of a head of state, I kinda think word choice - and the understanding of them - is pretty important.

which reminds me; i have my most fantastic laptop back (i'm now a converted HP loyalist from the ankles up after what they did for me!) so i can type again, and am STILL eager to throw together some observations from my position as onlooker on what was just meant to be a quaint little exercise at which hopefully a few people might take a stab and then forget - in my born fascination with how humans think I was no question blown away at the many different ways various people viewed and then thought about an identical situation. I didn't ultimately see it so much as right or wrong as I did, wow, now isn't THAT interesting! ya'll forgive me, but it really was much more than I thought it was going to be.

can't wait to go through that stuff and write about it. [Cheshire Cat Smile]

proposal and your more-than-minor difficulties with it. Unfortunately for your side, the problem was not the answer. The problem was that one question was asked, a different question was answered. So the question was the problem, not the answer. Once I determined that, I haven't been back to that thread so don't know of any subsequent discussion.

Okay now to your response to this thread just above. The main error you're making is that you are stating the situation as if I had made the statement: "(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.) " when, in fact, it was Freud that made that statement. My statement is only that "if that is true and now it doesn't exist anymore then the resulting condition, which was dependent on the assumed situation, would not exist any longer. Notice that I didn't make the statement that 'it is true and ......" So you read into Freud's statement that it is analog and has a whole lot of 'if's, and's, and but's.

Seems as if you would have to actually know what he had on his mind when he wrote that and then that you would have to actually be able to prove that he had that in mind. So diagram his simple sentence and show me all the if's and then's that have to be satisfied to make it either true, neutral or false.

Take it easy on the HP keys until they get fully broken in.

[Kenneth Drew]

There are those in the homosexual persuasion that would tell you that they are perfectly normal and that homosexuality is not a medical condition. I'm not sure why some of those, if they read some of the comments on this thread, would not say that being homosexual does not make you an 'anti-communist' or a 'right winger'. I wouldn't make the argument either way as I've not studied the subject and am not a psychiatrist. Uh, another point. Why would being homosexual make someone a 'target'?

Again, Kenneth, according to Freud, homosexuality itself isn't a medical condition -- however closeted homosexuality can lead to cases of paranoia, which is a medical condition, according to Freud.

As for the problem of homophobia in the USA in the 1960's, I think that is already well-documented by sociologists. Although I feel certain that the resigned General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder, and so I condemn him for that -- nevertheless I also regard Walker as a victim of mass homophobia for his entire life, and so I pity him for that. I don't excuse Walker's (alleged) murder of JFK -- but I do regard mass homophobia in the USA in the 1960's as an extenuating circumstance of Walker's behavior.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I understood Freud's comment and believe I understand his intent. I have no problem with his assessment. I'm not a fan (nor a non-fan) of Edwin Walker and did not know until recently that he was either a homosexual, or was assumed to be a homosexual. (Do you know, in fact, whether it is true or not) So I'm sure that bit of information has not altered my opinion of whether he was involved with the JFK assassination. I have never seen any evidence that absolutely links him to any aspect of the assassination so I remain skeptical.

[Kenneth Drew]

yep, VA 105, NAS Cecil Field. Jacksonville, FL. America's navel. LCdr Scott Speicher was the very first american casualty of the first Gulf War when his F18 was shot down by an incredibly lucky Iraqi when Scott made an error on his turnback (the story is told in a book called Bogeys and Bandits, about the training and fighting capabilities of a few special F18 pilots). Lt Speicher was a Corsair pilot in VA 105 and i remembered him well when i saw his name on the casualty list Jan 16, 1991.

He was never recovered - when we went back into Iraq our illustrious govt didn't want to mess with finding his him until an iraqi showed someone the downed plane and an intact flight-suit. meaning of course that he'd survived the down and ... who knows ... it was in the news periodically because his family were trying to get attention drawn to the govt's apathy in order to find him, but to no avail.

anyway, i don't know why i went into that. one of those things that connects you to something so otherwise foreign and terrible.

The Forrestal was unable to sell to scrap metal companies, so it eventually sold to the highest bidder for an entire dollar (the truth, as you're probably aware). Even the Coast Guard didn't want it.

It's at that scrap metal company All Star Metals on the channel near Brownsville Tx, being chopped up at the present time. I was hoping some city would want it because it was the first Supercarrier and had a history. But we all go back to 'dust to dust'. eventually.

Brownsville, TX, huh... how suspicious... how close to Dallas is that...? smells suspiciously like part of a conspiracy to me... and Adm Forestal was active at the time, right? wasn't he on the cabinet then?

I think this needs to be investigated.

Ex Sec of Defense, James Vincent Forrestal committed suicide in 1949. But I do think that the Forrestal being salvaged in Texas is related to the JFK assassination. I'm looking into the details and if I come up with something concrete, I will certainly publish it. So, rest assured, no stone unturned.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Kenneth Drew]

(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.) Interesting, so no more in the closet, no more paranoia.

Yes, Kenneth, that is my reading of Sigmund Freud. In a society which is less oppressive to homosexuals, we will see fewer cases of paranoia -- that was Freud's clear conclusion in 1915. It's part of his psychoanalytic theory. Although it is widely disputed -- IMHO Freud was entirely correct.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I agree with his theory, I think. Though I'm kinda surprised to learn that homosexuals were so much in 'the closet' in and before 1915. When you watch movies of the old Romans, Greeks, and others, seems as if they valued homosexuals highly. It was rampant in the old Legions that were at war for years at a time. So I wonder when and why they went 'into the closet'.

[William O'Neil]

For those looking to see Walker in filmed speeches, I'm afraid you'll have to go as we did, to the Mississippi State Archives in Jackson Miss. They will not release these on loan or copy said films. We stumbled upon them by accident as I recall, among other newsreel material of the period. We were there twice,4 years apart.... and the second time I could not find some of this stuff again in the index of materials I remembered they were in.The Archivist was not in that day, so I was SOL. Unfortunately, I did not make detailed notes as to where exactly they were filed the previous time, so I may have missed them. Frankly, I thought they would be easily re -found, but not so...my mistake! I hope they weren't removed as some of the other Mississippi Sovereignty Commission stuff was. Purging goes on all the time , don't think it doesn't!.

Always make notes of everything you may want to revisit when doing research!

One film that I clearly recall was Surrey driving Walker onto Oxford campus in a station wagon, with the National Guard and police standing in the background watching him enter campus.

Incidentally, Oxford (University of Miss) is a beautiful campus and town. We were there last in May 2014, to look at the Senator James O. Eastland papers.

Bill

Edited August 23, 2015 by William O'Neil

[Paul Trejo]

I understood Freud's comment and believe I understand his intent. I have no problem with his assessment. I'm not a fan (nor a non-fan) of Edwin Walker and did not know until recently that he was either a homosexual, or was assumed to be a homosexual. (Do you know, in fact, whether it is true or not) So I'm sure that bit of information has not altered my opinion of whether he was involved with the JFK assassination. I have never seen any evidence that absolutely links him to any aspect of the assassination so I remain skeptical.

The evidence that the resigned General Walker was homosexual involves two DPD arrests of Walker in Dallas for homosexual behavior in a public place.

Further, Walker never married, nor was ever known to have had a girlfriend at any time in his life, though he lived to be 83.

Of course, Walker's alleged homosexuality has no direct correlation at all to the JFK assassination.

Harrison Livingstone once wrote, however, that nearly all of his suspects in the JFK assassination had been homosexual -- including Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Jack Ruby, the resigned General Walker and several others. Jim Garrison himself once called the JFK assassination "a homosexual thrill killing."

I think Livingstone and Garrison made much ado over nothing -- yet homophobia remained strong in the USA throughout the 20th century. Actually, it's not evidence of anything on its own.

The point here, IMHO, is not whether Walker was gay, but whether Walker was paranoid -- and whether such paranoia played a role in the JFK murder.

As for Walker's role in the JFK murder, there is a very small but growing literature about it -- because Walker played a key role in the Ole Miss riots of 1962, and in the Dallas humiliation of Adlai Stevenson in October, as well as in the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbills circulating in October and November, and the "black-bordered ad" of November in Dallas -- as well as newer evidence.

This is one reason why this new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, is interesting to many.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Kenneth Drew]

I understood Freud's comment and believe I understand his intent. I have no problem with his assessment. I'm not a fan (nor a non-fan) of Edwin Walker and did not know until recently that he was either a homosexual, or was assumed to be a homosexual. (Do you know, in fact, whether it is true or not) So I'm sure that bit of information has not altered my opinion of whether he was involved with the JFK assassination. I have never seen any evidence that absolutely links him to any aspect of the assassination so I remain skeptical.

The evidence that the resigned General Walker was homosexual involves two DPD arrests of Walker in Dallas for homosexual behavior in a public place.

Further, Walker never married, nor was ever known to have had a girlfriend at any time in his life, though he lived to be 83.

Of course, Walker's alleged homosexuality has no direct correlation at all to the JFK assassination.

Harrison Livingstone once wrote, however, that nearly all of his suspects in the JFK assassination had been homosexual -- including Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Jack Ruby, the resigned General Walker and several others. Jim Garrison himself once called the JFK assassination "a homosexual thrill killing."

I think Livingstone and Garrison made much ado over nothing -- yet homophobia remained strong in the USA throughout the 20th century. Actually, it's not evidence of anything on its own.

The point here, IMHO, is not whether Walker was gay, but whether Walker was paranoid -- and whether such paranoia played a role in the JFK murder.

As for Walker's role in the JFK murder, there is a very small but growing literature about it -- because Walker played a key role in the Ole Miss riots of 1962, and in the Dallas humiliation of Adlai Stevenson in October, as well as in the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbills circulating in October and November, and the "black-bordered ad" of November in Dallas -- as well as newer evidence.

This is one reason why this new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, is interesting to many.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Thanks for that info.

[Glenn Nall]

Paul - do you personally, after years of Walker research, think that RFK sent Oswald to kill Walker?

No, Paul B., in my personal opinion, RFK did not send Lee Harvey Oswald to kill the resigned Major General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963.

IMHO, George De Mohrenschildt convinced Oswald to hate and despise the resigned General Walker, and this was common knowledge in Dallas in 1963 by Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Marina Oswald, Volkmar Schmidt, Everett Glover and Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin -- and probably several other yuppie Dallas oil engineers in their circle. (It was the best kept secret of the WC witnesses, IMHO.)

Yet the resigned General Edwin Walker was a complex character -- a shrewd and victorious US General on the one hand, and a man suffering from a homosexual conflict with his US Army oath on the other hand.

Sigmund Freud's analysis of paranoia in the early 20th century concluded that classical paranoia begins as closeted homosexuality. The psychological reversal, according to Freud, goes something like this -- "Step 1: I love this man; Step 2: No, that is taboo, so, I obsessively hate this man; Step 3: No, that is taboo, so instead, this man hates me and continually wants to kill me." So, the sexual attraction of the closeted homosexual, said Freud, would transform a continual homosexual passion into a continual fear of being stalked. (It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.)

This seems to be the case with the resigned General Edwin Walker. As a military man, he would respect and admire people of great political power. That would include JFK and RFK. As a homosexual, that would necessarily lead to homosexual fantasies in Walker's mind. Evidence of this is found in Walker's personal papers, where we find a cartoon published by the John Birch Society, showing JFK in a wedding gown. Walker preserved that cartoon separately from all other literature. I take this to refer to Walker's fantasy life.

Yet for social purposes in Dallas polite society, all homosexual feelings, thoughts and fantasies must have been forcefully suppressed. This suppression, said Freud, leads to paranoia and its transformation of passion into continual fear.

In my personal opinion, the resigned General Walker lived in at least a mild state of paranoia for his entire Military career, and perhaps even before, going back to childhood. Jim Root once wrote in this FORUM that he interviewed the neighbors of Edwin Walker near Kerrville, Texas, and they believed that Walker's father sent him to military school because he feared young Edwin was gay. That fits the pattern I see.

When the resigned General Edwin Walker faced a Grand Jury for his role in the 1962 racial riots of Ole Miss University, two psychiatrists testified that they believed on the basis of Walker's testimony at the April 1962 Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness (called by Senators John Stennis and Strom Thurmond) that Walker showed signs of "mild paranoia", e.g. in his referring all major world events to himself. Two other psychiatrists testified, on the contrary, that Walker was fit as a fiddle -- and the Grand Jury believed the latter. I think this Grand Jury was wrong in all its decisions that day.

So, in conclusion, Paul B., I think that the resigned Walker was at least mildly paranoid -- and that his medical condition played a key role in the JFK assassination there in Dallas.

I also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did try to kill the resigned General Walker, as persuaded by George De Mohrenschildt, Michael Paine and Volkmar Schmidt, among others. (I think the sworn testimony, and the material evidence for this view is overwhelming.) I also believe that George suspected Oswald as soon as the news hit the streets, and that he told his suspicions to Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin four days later, who told the FBI that same day -- and the FBI told officials in Dallas, and one of those officials told Walker on that same day. That would explain Walker's letter to Senator Frank Church in 1975 -- as well as Walker's claims to the Deutsche Nationalzeitung newspaper in Germany less than 24 hours after the JFK murder. Oswald tried to kill Walker.

Walker took this shooting at him at his home in Dallas as a direct threat from Communism. The JBS had told Walker that JFK and RFK were Communists. Therefore, in the paranoid mind of the resigned General Walker, RFK and JFK were continually trying to kill him. Therefore, Walker's plans to assassinate JFK would have been, on this paranoid logic, simple self-defense.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.) Interesting, so no more in the closet, no more paranoia.

This leap in logic brings back my If, Then proposal and your more-than-minor difficulties with it. (Freud's quote is analog - with gray areas, varying degrees of severity, and your oversimplification of it is digital, black or white, ON or OFF, 1 or 0 - it's just a comment, no insult intended.) so, NO, not, "so no more closet, no more paranoia." it's not that simple. the closeted condition - suggesting a lesser or greater degree of being closeted rather than a solidified state of it - "leads to", again implying degrees, and not a simple state of paranoia. And I'm certain that he did not mean, "no one who is in a closeted condition will suffer from paranoia, and everyone who is in the condition of being closeted will suffer from it." it's not that simple.

you will possibly want to accuse me of splitting hairs or taking your words too literally or too seriously; if so, I'd say nonsense. on subjects like mental health and a person's periodic persecution for his sexual "self," and as these may or may not play a role in the possible (I italicized it so that Paul won't think, "yay, he's coming 'round!") involvement in an assassination of a head of state, I kinda think word choice - and the understanding of them - is pretty important.

which reminds me; i have my most fantastic laptop back (i'm now a converted HP loyalist from the ankles up after what they did for me!) so i can type again, and am STILL eager to throw together some observations from my position as onlooker on what was just meant to be a quaint little exercise at which hopefully a few people might take a stab and then forget - in my born fascination with how humans think I was no question blown away at the many different ways various people viewed and then thought about an identical situation. I didn't ultimately see it so much as right or wrong as I did, wow, now isn't THAT interesting! ya'll forgive me, but it really was much more than I thought it was going to be.

can't wait to go through that stuff and write about it. [Cheshire Cat Smile]

proposal and your more-than-minor difficulties with it. Unfortunately for your side, the problem was not the answer. The problem was that one question was asked, a different question was answered. So the question was the problem, not the answer. Once I determined that, I haven't been back to that thread so don't know of any subsequent discussion.

Okay now to your response to this thread just above. The main error you're making is that you are stating the situation as if I had made the statement: "(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.) " when, in fact, it was Freud that made that statement. My statement is only that "if that is true and now it doesn't exist anymore then the resulting condition, which was dependent on the assumed situation, would not exist any longer. Notice that I didn't make the statement that 'it is true and ......" So you read into Freud's statement that it is analog and has a whole lot of 'if's, and's, and but's.

Seems as if you would have to actually know what he had on his mind when he wrote that and then that you would have to actually be able to prove that he had that in mind. So diagram his simple sentence and show me all the if's and then's that have to be satisfied to make it either true, neutral or false.

Take it easy on the HP keys until they get fully broken in.

you're so funny.

"you are stating the situation as if I had made the statement" - you must think i'm an idiot.

i stated very clearly that Freud's statement is analog. I did not in any way attribute it to you.

i stated very clearly that you leaped from analog (with gray areas) to digital (black and white) which does not work. and then i gave you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps it was just poor word choice. this sentence: "Interesting, so no more in the closet, no more paranoia" leaves no room for gray area. it's black and white - "no more" means just that. NONE. and there's no room for misunderstanding those particular words, either. that sentence gets nowhere close to "if that is true and now it doesn't exist anymore then the resulting condition, which was dependent on the assumed situation, would not exist any longer."

Freud spoke of variation. You spoke of All or None. No one has to know or prove what was in his mind when he said that. don't be childish. all one has to do is have more than a fundamental understanding of English as expressed with nuance, context, circumstance.

hell you don't even need that with that sentence. there's no way it means anything other than variations of paranoia and variations of being closeted. he respects his reader enough to know that most people will know this so he doesn't have to clarify. and neither does he resort to oversimplification by using shorter, more concise words for effect. like you do.

Mark Twain, in my opinion the best sentence stucturist this world has ever seen, said: "The difference between the right word and almost the right word is like the difference between lightning and a lightning bug."

this is why "no more in the closet, no more paranoia" is wrong. that's not what he said.

and as far as the conditional reasoning problem, you exhibited your skill in totally evading the correct meaning of certain relevant terms, like 'conditional' and 'reasoning', so what you determined is of absolutely no consequence to what I got out of the exercise.

unfortunately for my side? what the hell is my side?

[Ernie Lazar]

Having no professional skills in analyzing the mental health of a subject, I will not venture to declare a diagnosis on Walker. However, I will say he definitely suffered from some sort of (or several) maladies or afflictions.

After studying his speeches visually on film, it seems he had bouts of stage-fright and or drug induced type lapses. His hands would shake, his lips would quiver, he would stutter and stammer over simple words as if he were distracted by some unseen affliction. In the next minute he would seemingly be able to compose himself and speak with authority as if the moment had passed. Was he just a poor speaker in general? Yes, yet not always! I think it went deeper than that on some other level that I can't pinpoint. I think a psychologist could have field day watching this man, in some ways he reminded me of Hitler, and his up and down speech cadence, and bursts of venom.

Bill

Your assessment is not only entirely reasonable, it is a judgment that was made by friends and allies and observers of Walker -- as I attempted to point out in a previous message.

[Ernie Lazar]

There are those in the homosexual persuasion that would tell you that they are perfectly normal and that homosexuality is not a medical condition. I'm not sure why some of those, if they read some of the comments on this thread, would not say that being homosexual does not make you an 'anti-communist' or a 'right winger'. I wouldn't make the argument either way as I've not studied the subject and am not a psychiatrist. Uh, another point. Why would being homosexual make someone a 'target'?

Again, Kenneth, according to Freud, homosexuality itself isn't a medical condition -- however closeted homosexuality can lead to cases of paranoia, which is a medical condition, according to Freud.

As for the problem of homophobia in the USA in the 1960's, I think that is already well-documented by sociologists. Although I feel certain that the resigned General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder, and so I condemn him for that -- nevertheless I also regard Walker as a victim of mass homophobia for his entire life, and so I pity him for that. I don't excuse Walker's (alleged) murder of JFK -- but I do regard mass homophobia in the USA in the 1960's as an extenuating circumstance of Walker's behavior.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

For a very insightful discussion about homosexuality and the ways in which it has been perceived over the past 2000+ years, see Ronald Bayer's book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry.

With respect to Walker, it is important to understand that apart from religious judgments that being gay amounted to a grievous sin resulting in famine, earthquakes and pestilence being visited upon societies that failed to properly expiate it, the professional medical community (i.e. psychiatrists) considered homosexuality to be a mental disease. In the U.S. that position was not changed until 1973 when the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

One can make obvious conclusions regarding how such societal perceptions would affect an individual whose entire livelihood and reputation and sense of self-worth depended upon keeping his sexuality secret for his entire life.

[Ernie Lazar]

For those looking to see Walker in filmed speeches, I'm afraid you'll have to go as we did, to the Mississippi State Archives in Jackson Miss. They will not release these on loan or copy said films. We stumbled upon them by accident as I recall, among other newsreel material of the period. We were there twice,4 years apart.... and the second time I could not find some of this stuff again in the index of materials I remembered they were in.The Archivist was not in that day, so I was SOL. Unfortunately, I did not make detailed notes as to where exactly they were filed the previous time, so I may have missed them. Frankly, I thought they would be easily re -found, but not so...my mistake! I hope they weren't removed as some of the other Mississippi Sovereignty Commission stuff was. Purging goes on all the time , don't think it doesn't!.

Always make notes of everything you may want to revisit when doing research!

One film that I clearly recall was Surrey driving Walker onto Oxford campus in a station wagon, with the National Guard and police standing in the background watching him enter campus.

Incidentally, Oxford (University of Miss) is a beautiful campus and town. We were there last in May 2014, to look at the Senator James O. Eastland papers.

Bill

The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission has copies of films showing Walker speeches.

Reel Number: 001 Edate: 00/00/0000

Speech by Major General Edwin Walker in the Jackson, Mississippi city auditorium. From Citizens Council Forum, 'Project Understanding', 'The General They Couldn't Muzzle'. Walker speaks about the Communist Movement in the state of Mississippi and the rest of the country. Also shown is Ross Barnett, John Bell Williams, Allen Thompson and Paul B. Johnson.

Reel Number: 018 Edate: 00/00/1962

Major General Edwin Walker discusses the need for public awareness of the communist threat and the communist style of war.

Reel Number: 030 Edate: 00/00/1962

Major General Edwin Walker discusses the communist plan and how it relates to forced integration at Little Rock.

[Paul Trejo]

_{There are more videos of Walker's speeches available from the Mississippi Department of Archives and History. I obtained three such videos in 2012 and posted them on YouTube, until the State of Mississippi contacted me with an order to remove them from YouTube.}

_{Two of those speeches were formatted as interviews by the Citizen's Council in Mississippi, so that the introduction to the speeches displayed a Confederate Flag, and played the tune, "I Wish I Was in Dixie," along with the slogan: "States Rights -- Racial Integrity".}

_{The two-part slogan had a one-part meaning, that is, "States Rights" referred to the Right of any US State to choose whether or not to obey the Supreme Court Brown Decision to integrate the races in all Public schools. Also, "Racial Integrity" referred to the purity of the White Race (as well as the alleged purity of the Black Race) enforced by segregation of the races, which would be based on the choice to disobey the Supreme Court Brown Decision.}

_{It's too bad that the Mississippi Department of Archives and History will only allow the viewing of these videos to folks who go through their bureaucratic hoops to obtain a copy -- because that restricts 99% of viewers, in my estimation. For the short period in which these videos of the resigned General Edwin Walker were shown on YouTube, I received plenty of feedback and comments, both favorable and critical. History is important in its own right.}

_{We do poorly, IMHO, if we fail to appreciate the power of the Extreme Right in the USA in 1963 -- especially in the South. It's a matter of US History.}

_Regards,

_{--Paul Trejo}

Edited August 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Kenneth Drew]

There are those in the homosexual persuasion that would tell you that they are perfectly normal and that homosexuality is not a medical condition. I'm not sure why some of those, if they read some of the comments on this thread, would not say that being homosexual does not make you an 'anti-communist' or a 'right winger'. I wouldn't make the argument either way as I've not studied the subject and am not a psychiatrist. Uh, another point. Why would being homosexual make someone a 'target'?

Again, Kenneth, according to Freud, homosexuality itself isn't a medical condition -- however closeted homosexuality can lead to cases of paranoia, which is a medical condition, according to Freud.

As for the problem of homophobia in the USA in the 1960's, I think that is already well-documented by sociologists. Although I feel certain that the resigned General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder, and so I condemn him for that -- nevertheless I also regard Walker as a victim of mass homophobia for his entire life, and so I pity him for that. I don't excuse Walker's (alleged) murder of JFK -- but I do regard mass homophobia in the USA in the 1960's as an extenuating circumstance of Walker's behavior.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

For a very insightful discussion about homosexuality and the ways in which it has been perceived over the past 2000+ years, see Ronald Bayer's book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry.

With respect to Walker, it is important to understand that apart from religious judgments that being gay amounted to a grievous sin resulting in famine, earthquakes and pestilence being visited upon societies that failed to properly expiate it, the professional medical community (i.e. psychiatrists) considered homosexuality to be a mental disease. In the U.S. that position was not changed until 1973 when the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

One can make obvious conclusions regarding how such societal perceptions would affect an individual whose entire livelihood and reputation and sense of self-worth depended upon keeping his sexuality secret for his entire life.

Homosexuality and American Psychiatry. I'm not sure why anyone would want to read this book in relation to the JFK assassination. I'm sure no one needs to study the history of homosexuality to understand why JFK was killed. And I'm gonna bet the book, as most books are, written with an agenda.

I have serious doubts that the fact that the psychiatric organization changed their definition of homosexuality had much impact on the way homosexuals felt about themselves.

[Kenneth Drew]

proposal and your more-than-minor difficulties with it. Unfortunately for your side, the problem was not the answer. The problem was that one question was asked, a different question was answered. So the question was the problem, not the answer. Once I determined that, I haven't been back to that thread so don't know of any subsequent discussion.

Okay now to your response to this thread just above. The main error you're making is that you are stating the situation as if I had made the statement: "(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.) " when, in fact, it was Freud that made that statement. My statement is only that "if that is true and now it doesn't exist anymore then the resulting condition, which was dependent on the assumed situation, would not exist any longer. Notice that I didn't make the statement that 'it is true and ......" So you read into Freud's statement that it is analog and has a whole lot of 'if's, and's, and but's.

Seems as if you would have to actually know what he had on his mind when he wrote that and then that you would have to actually be able to prove that he had that in mind. So diagram his simple sentence and show me all the if's and then's that have to be satisfied to make it either true, neutral or false.

Take it easy on the HP keys until they get fully broken in.

you're so funny. That was partly my intent

"you are stating the situation as if I had made the statement" - you must think i'm an idiot. Do you consider what I 'think' important?

i stated very clearly that Freud's statement is analog. I did not in any way attribute it to you. Yes, but, where did you get the info to determine that it was analog?

i stated very clearly that you leaped from analog (with gray areas)(but you didn't tell us how you determined it to be analog, I didn't see that in Freud's statement) to digital (black and white)(and I see nothing to change it from just black and white) which does not work. and then i gave you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps it was just poor word choice. this sentence: "Interesting, so no more in the closet, no more paranoia" leaves no room for gray area. it's black and white -(and from Freud's statement, that is still all that I can deduce) "no more" means just that. NONE. and there's no room for misunderstanding those particular words, either. that sentence gets nowhere close to "if that is true and now it doesn't exist anymore then the resulting condition, which was dependent on the assumed situation, would not exist any longer." An analogy: the paint is red because it has red pigment in it, remove the red pigment, no more red color in that paint.

Freud spoke of variation. Give me the statement that he made that has the word 'variation' in it, or just the implication of variation in it from this statement:(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.)
You spoke of All or None.I can't find any reference by me to "All or none". No one has to know or prove what was in his mind when he said that. don't be childish. childish? Keep that up and I'll accuse you of being DVP in disguise. all one has to do is have more than a fundamental understanding of English as expressed with nuance, context, circumstance. Hmmm, fundamental understanding of English....

hell you don't even need that with that sentence. there's no way it means anything other than variations of paranoia tell me where, within that sentence that anything about 'variations of paranoia are mentioned and variations of being closeted.and where does he speak of 'variations in closeted'? he respects his reader enough to know that most people will know this so he doesn't have to clarify. and neither does he resort to oversimplification by using shorter, more concise words for effect. like you do.

Mark Twain, in my opinion the best sentence stucturist this world has ever seen, said: "The difference between the right word and almost the right word is like the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." Would that be kinda, sorta like the difference in "paranoia" and "variations of paranoia"?

this is why "no more in the closet, no more paranoia" is wrong. that's not what he said.Now that's where you're correct: he actually said: (It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.)

and as far as the conditional reasoning problem, you exhibited your skill in totally evading the correct meaning of certain relevant terms, like 'conditional' and 'reasoning', so what you determined is of absolutely no consequence to what I got out of the exercise. As I said I didn't go back to see how you wrapped all that up, but once I had proven that the original question that was asked was changed to fit the answer that had been given incorrectly, I had no further need to discuss it. And still don't.

unfortunately for my side? what the hell is my side? Actually my statement was "Unfortunately for your side" which is only southern colloquial for 'your position on the issue'. I thought you were a southerner.

So this is what you do as exercise for your HP keyboard.