Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Book!


Recommended Posts

Holy mackerel Paul, this caught my eye: "As for the word Fascist, according to most authorities, a Fascist is a Radical Right winger, not a Left winger."

Wow,

Simple Definition of fascism
  • : a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

  • : very harsh control or authority

Full Definition of fascism

  1. 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

fascism

The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.

1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.

2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.

3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.

I could go on and on, but it is very clear that fascism is 'exactly' the opposite of 'patritotic American' (your definiton of Radical Right Wing)

So strange that someone could make such a simple semantic mistake.

I don't have time now, but i'll comment more on the rest of your comments later, but this one just blew me out of the water. Fascism is a lot closer to Democrats than to Patriotic Americans.

Kenneth, again, I'm making a careful distinction between the Right Wing and the Radical Right Wing.

I admitted that while General Walker was a US General, that he was a Patriotic American.

I allege that when General Walker resigned from the US Army, forfeiting his 30-year Pension, he became the only US General in the 20th century to do so. I also allege that General Walker resigned because of his 1959 membership in the John Birch Society, because Robert Welch had printed that President Eisenhower was a "dedicated member of the Communist Conspiracy" who was guilty of "treason."

I showed that fact with quotations from Robert Welch's own book, "The Politician" (1959).

I made this distinction, Kenneth, that any Patriotic American who becomes converted to the doctrine that the President of the United States is a TRAITOR, can no longer qualify as a Patriotic American, but has now chosen to become a member of the Radical Right.

To be Radical in any direction -- Left or Right -- exceeds the boundaries of Patriotism. That's my position. I hope that's clear.

Ok, I can accept that, but with the distinction that even if he were 'radical' right, that still wouldn't put him into the fascist category as that is reserved for the radical left which believes in dictatorship, etc. Exactly the opposite of the thinking of Walker. I'm not sure that criticism of the President is not an American Constitutional right. I certainly spend some part of my time criticizing Obama and accusing him of being a Muslim and doing all he can do to destroy America (Something no one would ever accuse Walker of) and I certainly can't believe anyone could or would ever think of my politics as anything other than 'The American Way".

When we follow the Radical nature of Ex-General Walker's positions in 1961, 1962 and 1963, and we trace his political associations during that period, and the statements that he made, IMHO it becomes easier to solve the JFK assassination. My position is supported by this new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

I hope my position is now clearer to you.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kenneth,

I believe I've dealt objectively with the history of Ex-General Edwin Walker in my three-part Smashwords offering, at these URLs:

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501625

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501629

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501646

Since I made a certain percentage of these books free to any viewer, I gather you've skimmed through a few pages of them. At only 99 cents each, I think they're accessible to most folks -- and they took me the better part of two years to pull together.

Yet if you request it, I'll post a 24-hour coupon for viewers like you to obtain a FREE copy -- one at a time.

I consider you a courteous gentleman of the old school -- firm in your opinions and yet respectful of others. I value your opinion and I'd like to know what you think of my histories of Edwin Walker -- whom I regard as one of the most important men in US history.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I appreciate your offer of a free coupon for those books, but hold off on that a little. I don't mind paying the 99cent, and I will attempt to read them. Much political stuff is hard to read though, especially when it disagrees with my thinking, however a tremendous amount about the JFK deal differs from my thinking and I read it anyhow. I will attempt to start one of the books this weekend, but I'm announcer for a huge State Baseball Tournament and it will occupy most of this weekend. I will certainly give my opinion. I owe you several other comments also but this tournament has taken a lot of prep time. I'll be back to normal after next Tuesday. I'll still read your comments. Again, thanks for the offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made this distinction, Kenneth, that any Patriotic American who becomes converted to the doctrine that the President of the United States is a TRAITOR, can no longer qualify as a Patriotic American, but has now chosen to become a member of the Radical Right.

what if the president is a traitor?

To be Radical in any direction -- Left or Right -- exceeds the boundaries of Patriotism. That's my position. I hope that's clear.

Ok, I can accept that, but with the distinction that even if he were 'radical' right, that still wouldn't put him into the fascist category as that is reserved for the radical left which believes in dictatorship, etc. Exactly the opposite of the thinking of Walker. I'm not sure that criticism of the President is not an American Constitutional right. I certainly spend some part of my time criticizing Obama and accusing him of being a Muslim and doing all he can do to destroy America (Something no one would ever accuse Walker of) and I certainly can't believe anyone could or would ever think of my politics as anything other than 'The American Way".

your position is as clear as the ignorance that formed it. fascism is radical right. there was private ownership in germany under old uncle adolf. hitler was not a leftist. ye gods man why do you think he hated russia so much. it was the bolsheviks and jews who stabbed germany in the back causing it to lose ww i he believed. criticizing the president is free speech protected by the first amendment. you can't libel or threaten him though. your statement that he is a moslem is patently untrue (even mccain had the decency to correct that nutty old woman during the election) as is your remark that he is doing everything he can to destroy america. i accuse walker and all other similar nut jobs to seeking the destruction of america and our rights. dictatorships are not exclusive to the right anymore than they are to the left. your politics are the ramblings of someone who is unlearned. what the hell is the american way anyway. what is patriotism? do you support bringing back huac and mccarthy,.

Edited by Martin Blank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...To be Radical in any direction -- Left or Right -- exceeds the boundaries of Patriotism. That's my position. I hope that's clear...

Ok, I can accept that, but with the distinction that even if he were 'radical' right, that still wouldn't put him into the fascist category as that is reserved for the radical left which believes in dictatorship, etc. Exactly the opposite of the thinking of Walker. I'm not sure that criticism of the President is not an American Constitutional right. I certainly spend some part of my time criticizing Obama and accusing him of being a Muslim and doing all he can do to destroy America (Something no one would ever accuse Walker of) and I certainly can't believe anyone could or would ever think of my politics as anything other than 'The American Way".

Kenneth, it's my understanding of our US history books that there are Dictators on both the Left and the Right extremes.

Hitler was a Right-wing dictator. Mussolini was another Right-wing dictator. Stalin was a Left-wing dictator.

One major complexity of World War Two was that England, France and the USA regarded Hitler as more dangerous than Stalin, and so we even included Russia among our Allies in order to defeat Hitler and Mussolini.

However -- England, France and the USA also despise Left-wing Radicals, and so immediately after the defeat of Hitler, the former Allies, England, France and the USA sharply broke with Russia and started the Cold War.

In other words -- we hate Left-wing dictators, but we hate Right-wing dictators even more. So, we held our nose to include Stalin with the Allies against Hitler, but as soon as Hitler was defeated, we broke with Stalin immediately.

The difference between Left-wing dictators and Right-wing dictators can be easily defined, IMHO.

(1) Right-wing Fascism is based on rabid Nationalism that feeds on ancient Racism (which explains why the Germans tried to exterminate the Jews during World War Two). It's a wildfire that can run wild.

(2) Left-wing Dictators tend to be Internationalist, and they claim this is superior, and yet their methods are despotic, tyrannical, and they choose to slaughter everybody with success and property and call this Democracy.

(It's the Right Wing dictators that our history books call Fascists, because Mussolini boasted of that title. Yet I can see the logic of calling ANY dictator a Fascist. But that's just a matter of semantics at that point.)

Both Right-wing and Left-wing dictators are vicious criminals and must be stopped at all costs. But dictators exist on both extremes of the political spectrum -- and this, in modern politics, is called RADICAL. That's the definition I'm working with, and IMHO Dr. Jeffrey Caufield is working with that same definition in his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Naturally, cussing the President is a good old-fashioned American custom. It's Free Speech. Yet to accuse the President of Treason isn't just a break with the President -- it is also a break with the Pentagon. Notice that the Pentagon doesn't agree with the charge of Treason. Nor does the Supreme Court. Nor does the Senate. (If they did, there are very specific legal procedures they would follow.)

IMHO, President Obama is no Muslim. Leaving Iraq too soon was probably a mistake, but it was an honest mistake -- it was never intended to give power to ISIS. President Obama acts against ISIS every day, and has made many advances against ISIS.

I tend to agree with Donald Trump on this point -- that President George Bush, Jr. made more mistakes in the Middle East than any other President, and got us in over our heads in the first place.

This modern political debate is topical when speaking about the JFK assassination, by the way, because it was just this sort of high-stakes, high-tension political scene that inspired the Radical Right Wing to kill JFK, because of two situations they thought were out of control, namely, Communist Cuba and the Civil Rights Movement.

It is significant that the Radical Right Wing, even today, regards the Civil Rights Movement as COMMUNIST.

I will admit this -- that if I really and truly believed that the Civil Rights Movement was Communist, then I would also have to regard JFK as a Traitor because of his June 1963 speech in support of MLK. Also, the fact that JFK prevented the Pentagon from invading Communist Cuba -- that would have added to my conviction.

I realize this sounds odd to the leftist reader, but I can see the honor of Ex-General Edwin Walker for acting on his convictions -- for boldly acting on his sincere Faith that JFK was a Communist Traitor. It wasn't a ploy. It was a genuine, bold military move according to his training. Sadly, Walker's Commander In Chief at that point was Robert Welch (because had Walker quit the Army in a huff, breaking with the Pentagon).

The shooters that Edwin Walker obtained for the job were not mercenaries -- they were also True Believers, and they took no money at all. That's my opinion.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...To be Radical in any direction -- Left or Right -- exceeds the boundaries of Patriotism. That's my position. I hope that's clear...

Ok, I can accept that, but with the distinction that even if he were 'radical' right, that still wouldn't put him into the fascist category as that is reserved for the radical left which believes in dictatorship, etc. Exactly the opposite of the thinking of Walker. I'm not sure that criticism of the President is not an American Constitutional right. I certainly spend some part of my time criticizing Obama and accusing him of being a Muslim and doing all he can do to destroy America (Something no one would ever accuse Walker of) and I certainly can't believe anyone could or would ever think of my politics as anything other than 'The American Way".

Kenneth, it's my understanding of our US history books that there are Dictators on both the Left and the Right extremes.

Hitler was a Right-wing dictator. Mussolini was another Right-wing dictator. Stalin was a Left-wing dictator.

One major complexity of World War Two was that England, France and the USA regarded Hitler as more dangerous than Stalin, and so we even included Russia among our Allies in order to defeat Hitler and Mussolini.

However -- England, France and the USA also despise Left-wing Radicals, and so immediately after the defeat of Hitler, the former Allies, England, France and the USA sharply broke with Russia and started the Cold War.

In other words -- we hate Left-wing dictators, but we hate Right-wing dictators even more. So, we held our nose to include Stalin with the Allies against Hitler, but as soon as Hitler was defeated, we broke with Stalin immediately.

The difference between Left-wing dictators and Right-wing dictators can be easily defined, IMHO.

(1) Right-wing Fascism is based on rabid Nationalism that feeds on ancient Racism (which explains why the Germans tried to exterminate the Jews during World War Two). It's a wildfire that can run wild.

(2) Left-wing Dictators tend to be Internationalist, and they claim this is superior, and yet their methods are despotic, tyrannical, and they choose to slaughter everybody with success and property and call this Democracy.

(It's the Right Wing dictators that our history books call Fascists, because Mussolini boasted of that title. Yet I can see the logic of calling ANY dictator a Fascist. But that's just a matter of semantics at that point.)

Both Right-wing and Left-wing dictators are vicious criminals and must be stopped at all costs. But dictators exist on both extremes of the political spectrum -- and this, in modern politics, is called RADICAL. That's the definition I'm working with, and IMHO Dr. Jeffrey Caufield is working with that same definition in his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Naturally, cussing the President is a good old-fashioned American custom. It's Free Speech. Yet to accuse the President of Treason isn't just a break with the President -- it is also a break with the Pentagon. Notice that the Pentagon doesn't agree with the charge of Treason. Nor does the Supreme Court. Nor does the Senate. (If they did, there are very specific legal procedures they would follow.)

IMHO, President Obama is no Muslim. Leaving Iraq too soon was probably a mistake, but it was an honest mistake -- it was never intended to give power to ISIS. President Obama acts against ISIS every day, and has made many advances against ISIS.

I tend to agree with Donald Trump on this point -- that President GW Bush made more mistakes in the Middle East than any other President, and got us in over our heads in the first place.

This modern political debate is topical when speaking about the JFK assassination, by the way, because it was just this sort of high-stakes, high-tension political scene that inspired the Radical Right Wing to kill JFK, because of two situations they thought were out of control, namely, Communist Cuba and the Civil Rights Movement.

It is significant that the Radical Right Wing, even today, regards the Civil Rights Movement as COMMUNIST.

I will admit this -- that if I really and truly believed that the Civil Rights Movement was Communist, then I would also have to regard JFK as a Traitor because of his June 1963 speech in support of MLK. Also, the fact that JFK prevented the Pentagon from invading Communist Cuba -- that would have added to my conviction.

I realize this sounds odd to the leftist reader, but I can see the honor of Ex-General Edwin Walker for acting on his convictions -- for boldly acting on his sincere Faith that JFK was a Communist Traitor. It wasn't a ploy. It was a genuine, bold military move according to his training. Sadly, Walker's Commander In Chief at that point was Robert Welch (because had Walker quit the Army in a huff, breaking with the Pentagon).

The shooters that Edwin Walker obtained for the job were not mercenaries -- they were also True Believers, and they took no money at all. That's my opinion.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

This comment by Paul is truly stunning in its implications:

"I will admit this -- that if I really and truly believed that the Civil Rights Movement was Communist, then I would also have to regard JFK as a Traitor because of his June 1963 speech in support of MLK. Also, the fact that JFK prevented the Pentagon from invading Communist Cuba -- that would have added to my conviction."

1. What, exactly, makes a proposal or a movement or a position "Communist"? Do we just take everything a Communist Party member states (at face value) and conclude we must then oppose whatever that is?

2. For example: if the CPUSA currently supports increasing our federal minimum wage to $15.00 hour, does that mean it is a "Communist" idea or that, if we adopt that proposed legislation, THEN that would become a "pro-Communist" act and everybody who voted for it or who approved the idea becomes, ipso facto, "pro-Communist" or a Communist dupe?

3. Does Paul seriously believe that a President becomes a traitor simply because he makes one specific decision that Paul might not agree with? So, keeping us out of war becomes a "traitorous" activity?

4. WHERE DOES ALL THIS END? Are we supposed to go back to McCarthyism as our template for making decisions about the patriotism and loyalty of American citizens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...To be Radical in any direction -- Left or Right -- exceeds the boundaries of Patriotism. That's my position. I hope that's clear...

Ok, I can accept that, but with the distinction that even if he were 'radical' right, that still wouldn't put him into the fascist category as that is reserved for the radical left which believes in dictatorship, etc. Exactly the opposite of the thinking of Walker. I'm not sure that criticism of the President is not an American Constitutional right. I certainly spend some part of my time criticizing Obama and accusing him of being a Muslim and doing all he can do to destroy America (Something no one would ever accuse Walker of) and I certainly can't believe anyone could or would ever think of my politics as anything other than 'The American Way".

Kenneth, it's my understanding of our US history books that there are Dictators on both the Left and the Right extremes.

Hitler was a Right-wing dictator. Mussolini was another Right-wing dictator. Stalin was a Left-wing dictator.

One major complexity of World War Two was that England, France and the USA regarded Hitler as more dangerous than Stalin, and so we even included Russia among our Allies in order to defeat Hitler and Mussolini.

However -- England, France and the USA also despise Left-wing Radicals, and so immediately after the defeat of Hitler, the former Allies, England, France and the USA sharply broke with Russia and started the Cold War.

In other words -- we hate Left-wing dictators, but we hate Right-wing dictators even more. So, we held our nose to include Stalin with the Allies against Hitler, but as soon as Hitler was defeated, we broke with Stalin immediately.

The difference between Left-wing dictators and Right-wing dictators can be easily defined, IMHO.

(1) Right-wing Fascism is based on rabid Nationalism that feeds on ancient Racism (which explains why the Germans tried to exterminate the Jews during World War Two). It's a wildfire that can run wild.

(2) Left-wing Dictators tend to be Internationalist, and they claim this is superior, and yet their methods are despotic, tyrannical, and they choose to slaughter everybody with success and property and call this Democracy.

(It's the Right Wing dictators that our history books call Fascists, because Mussolini boasted of that title. Yet I can see the logic of calling ANY dictator a Fascist. But that's just a matter of semantics at that point.)

Both Right-wing and Left-wing dictators are vicious criminals and must be stopped at all costs. But dictators exist on both extremes of the political spectrum -- and this, in modern politics, is called RADICAL. That's the definition I'm working with, and IMHO Dr. Jeffrey Caufield is working with that same definition in his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Naturally, cussing the President is a good old-fashioned American custom. It's Free Speech. Yet to accuse the President of Treason isn't just a break with the President -- it is also a break with the Pentagon. Notice that the Pentagon doesn't agree with the charge of Treason. Nor does the Supreme Court. Nor does the Senate. (If they did, there are very specific legal procedures they would follow.)

IMHO, President Obama is no Muslim. Leaving Iraq too soon was probably a mistake, but it was an honest mistake -- it was never intended to give power to ISIS. President Obama acts against ISIS every day, and has made many advances against ISIS.

I tend to agree with Donald Trump on this point -- that President GW Bush made more mistakes in the Middle East than any other President, and got us in over our heads in the first place.

This modern political debate is topical when speaking about the JFK assassination, by the way, because it was just this sort of high-stakes, high-tension political scene that inspired the Radical Right Wing to kill JFK, because of two situations they thought were out of control, namely, Communist Cuba and the Civil Rights Movement.

It is significant that the Radical Right Wing, even today, regards the Civil Rights Movement as COMMUNIST.

I will admit this -- that if I really and truly believed that the Civil Rights Movement was Communist, then I would also have to regard JFK as a Traitor because of his June 1963 speech in support of MLK. Also, the fact that JFK prevented the Pentagon from invading Communist Cuba -- that would have added to my conviction.

I realize this sounds odd to the leftist reader, but I can see the honor of Ex-General Edwin Walker for acting on his convictions -- for boldly acting on his sincere Faith that JFK was a Communist Traitor. It wasn't a ploy. It was a genuine, bold military move according to his training. Sadly, Walker's Commander In Chief at that point was Robert Welch (because had Walker quit the Army in a huff, breaking with the Pentagon).

The shooters that Edwin Walker obtained for the job were not mercenaries -- they were also True Believers, and they took no money at all. That's my opinion.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

With respect to "fascism" or "nazism" and where they properly belong upon a political spectrum --- I have already addressed that in a previous message.

However -- here is the most salient question which serious people must address:

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A POLITICAL SPECTRUM?

(1) What are we attempting to accomplish by placing people upon a political spectrum? Why even bother to create one?

(2) Isn't one major purpose of a political spectrum, its predictive value, i.e. being able, over time, to make rational fact-based evaluations of what a person believes and how he will behave in terms of whether or not he/she will approve or disapprove, support or reject, defend or attack specific ideas, public policies, legislation and/or political candidates?

In other words, for example, IF we WRONGLY place someone on the "right" or "left" side of the proposed spectrum -- then won't the inevitable result be that we cannot accurately predict what positions or evaluations they will make -- as new issues or proposals are made or as new prospective candidates are being considered for elective or appointed offices?

(3) The extreme right and the extreme left subscribe to specific ideological precepts. Those ideas are designed to appeal to certain socio-economic groups within society. Those socio-economic groups are usually composed of individuals who share common beliefs and interpret their world in a common fashion.

Examples:

(3a) What is the position of the extreme right and extreme left with respect to the United Nations? or, more broadly, with respect to "internationalism" vs "isolationism" or "America First"?

(3b) What is the position of the extreme right and extreme left with respect to personal and corporate income taxation?

(3c) Let's use Paul's comment.....Historically, what was the position of the extreme right and extreme left with respect to voting rights for African-Americans in the U.S.?

(3d) Historically, what was the position of the extreme right and extreme left with respect to their evaluation of these major public figures?

* Senator Joseph McCarthy (WI)

* Senator William Knowland (CA)

* Senator William Fulbright (AR)

* Governor George Wallace (AL)

* Governor Lester Maddox (GA)

* Governor Ross Barnett (MS)

* Governor Nelson Rockefeller (NY)

* President Harry Truman

* President Dwight D. Eisenhower

* Walter Reuther (UAW leader)

* U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren

* FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover

(4) ALL political extremists may share common attitudes and suffer from the same type of intellectual deficiencies -- but they have unique distinguishing features and, often, irreconcilable differences which render them incompatible with each other.

Consequently, they cannot be grouped together upon a political spectrum if you want to truly understand what motivates people to gravitate toward them and why people will be likely to be RECEPTIVE to their ideas and proposals.

(5) A political spectrum reflects the social, economic, and political values of like-minded individuals.

Of course, that doesn't mean everyone always marches in lock-step. There will always be specific issues which result in exceptions to the general rule. For example, some predominantly "left-wing" individuals may take a position normally associated with the "right-wing" and, vice-versa.
But the consistent PATTERN is the compelling data -- by which I mean NOBODY in our country denies (for example) that someone like John Kerry (MA) or Senator Barbara Boxer (CA) or President Obama appropriately belong on the LEFT side of a political spectrum, and NOBODY in our country denies (for example) that someone like Senator John McCain (AZ) or Senator McConnell (KY) or former Cong. John Boehner (OH) or former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (GA) and current House Speaker Paul Ryan (WI) appropriately belong on the RIGHT side of a political spectrum.
(6) As I previously pointed out, for a very long time, the extreme right in our country has sought to re-invent our understanding of what a political spectrum should signify or convey.
The fundamental underlying premise of their new proposed spectrum is that ALL government is our mortal enemy. Furthermore, they contend that history proves indisputably that government is evil and dangerous and it always diminishes freedom and facilitates tyranny.
Therefore, the more government activism or intervention within a society -- the less freedom exists within society.
This conception of a political spectrum posits a continuous sequence of government activist ideologies (i.e. “statism” or “collectivism”) in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other.
Consequently, the new proposed spectrum places anarchy [no government] on the extreme right and totalitarian dictatorships [total government] on the extreme left.
But the real key to understanding this proposed spectrum is that all forms of statism are placed on the left because they are considered exclusively the result of left-wing sentiments and impulses.
Seen from this perspective, the more government involvement in our lives, the more that government controls or regulates human affairs, the less freedom exists and, consequently, the more opportunity for tyranny to flourish.
Since the worst violators of human freedom and dignity in all of history have been those governments which maximized government intervention, (i.e. totalitarian dictatorships), advocates of this spectrum don’t see much point in distinguishing between nazi, fascist, or communist ideology since they ALL resulted in horrific crimes against humanity.
The new "middle" or "center" of the proposed new political spectrum consists of those who consider liberalism, socialism, progressivism, communism, fascism, and nazism to be forms of "collectivism" or "statism" (aka PRO-government activism). ALL of them are thought to inevitably produce or lead toward tyranny – so not much point in making fastidious distinctions between or among them.
Groups whose ideology we currently consider “extreme right” (such as the John Birch Society) place themselves in the CENTER of the new spectrum because they claim to be ANTI-statist since they favor "limited government".
In essence, the new spectrum is a rather transparent attempt to pretend that everything despicable, dishonorable, frightening and dangerous originates exclusively from the LEFT side of the spectrum whereas everything decent, honorable, moral, and desirable may be found exclusively in the center and center-right side of the spectrum.
Thus the REAL purpose behind this proposed new idea of a political spectrum is to create an “enemies list”. Collectivists/statists of all kinds (i.e. anyone who advocates utilizing the instrumentalities of government to accomplish anything within society) are considered “the enemy” of human freedom.
Individuals/groups which subscribe to this political spectrum are very hostile toward current "establishment Republicans" such as George Bush, Rudy Guliani, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, etc. because these guys are considered facilitators of "big government" while they PRETEND to subscribe to Constitutional limitations upon government activism. For example, Bush II, is excoriated for the Patriot Act, the new Medicare drug entitlement, "globalism" and undeclared wars.
During the 1950's, there was an equivalent movement that reviled President Eisenhower. Not normally remembered now -- but there was a protest during the 1950's against the Eisenhower Administration which also utilized tea bags -- sort of the precursor to the current Tea Party Movement.
Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This comment by Paul is truly stunning in its implications:

"I will admit this -- that if I really and truly believed that the Civil Rights Movement was Communist, then I would also have to regard JFK as a Traitor because of his June 1963 speech in support of MLK. Also, the fact that JFK prevented the Pentagon from invading Communist Cuba -- that would have added to my conviction."

1. What, exactly, makes a proposal or a movement or a position "Communist"? Do we just take everything a Communist Party member states (at face value) and conclude we must then oppose whatever that is?

2. For example: if the CPUSA currently supports increasing our federal minimum wage to $15.00 hour, does that mean it is a "Communist" idea or that, if we adopt that proposed legislation, THEN that would become a "pro-Communist" act and everybody who voted for it or who approved the idea becomes, ipso facto, "pro-Communist" or a Communist dupe?

3. Does Paul seriously believe that a President becomes a traitor simply because he makes one specific decision that Paul might not agree with? So, keeping us out of war becomes a "traitorous" activity?

4. WHERE DOES ALL THIS END? Are we supposed to go back to McCarthyism as our template for making decisions about the patriotism and loyalty of American citizens?

Well, Ernie, I'm only voicing my perception of what the John Birch Society voiced in the early 1960's.

I myself was 11 years old when JFK was assassinated, but even then I'd been exposed to the John Birch Society in my hometown of Duarte, California. We had neighbors who were Birchers.

Our Congressman in those days was John Rousselot -- a notorious and outspoken Bircher. There were lots of Birchers in Duarte, Monrovia, Arcadia and Pasadena in those days -- parents of my school chums. I'd see the American Opinion magazine in so many homes, that I mistakenly assumed it was as popular as Life magazine, or Time magazine.

It's not my own opinion -- but I'm citing what these Birchers thought in 1963 -- the big news at school was about the Bomb Shelters which many of my friends' families were building. It was the talk of the school yard.

JFK was considered a Red by some of their parents. My own parents, being Jehovah's Witnesses, never voted or became involved in politics -- so I got all my information about politics from the school playground.

I liked my friends, and I liked their parents. They were good, conservative Americans. Yet many hated and despised JFK. When JFK was finally assassinated, there was something understandable about it -- because he was really and truly hated by so many Americans.

Later I learned that JFK was blamed for the Bay of Pigs failure (even though it had been originally planned to be Covert, that is, without any US Military support).

Another issue that was big in my elementary school when I was 11 years old, was the Civil Rights movement. In my neighborhood, this was a terrifying thing -- not exactly the Black American marches, but the idea that it was Communist -- that the USSR which had the nuclear bomb aimed at our heads, was really behind MLK.

Our Congressman John Rousselot banged his desk about this. He even made an LP record on the topic, which some of my friends' parents had. MLK was a Communist, he insisted. This made it part of the Cold War USSR threat which required all these new Bomb Shelters.

In a way, my parents were blessed to remain ignorant of US politics, because the Cold War was Anxiety on steroids. When it became too much for me, I just joined my family in prayer and hope for the New World. Things looked really bad.

So, I'm just saying -- as a personal observation -- if Ex-General Walker, like many Americans, really and truly believed that JFK was a "deliberate, conscious member of the Communist Conspiracy" who was secretly supporting the USSR, our sworn enemy, then by ordinary logic Walker would have concluded that JFK was a traitor.

Being, in his own mind, a True Patriot, then Ex-General Walker would have sought to punish this traitor as all traitors should be punished according to military code -- by a firing squad.

The logic of it is simple. Now -- I do believe that Walker plotted to kill JFK. I also say that Walker believed in his heart of hearts that he was doing the right thing -- the truly Patriotic thing. The fact that the Joint Chiefs of the Pentagon did not believe the same doctrine that Walker believed should have been a warning sign to this former US General.

Yet by submitting his first resignation to the US Army and joining the John Birch Society in 1959, General Walker had already broken with the Pentagon. Evidently Walker lost faith in the Pentagon itself, and had put all his faith in Robert Welch.

I take this to be the realistic background of Dr. Jeff Caufield's new book: General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Both Right-wing and Left-wing dictators are vicious criminals and must be stopped at all costs."

why then does the united states support so many right wing dictators?

​does this mean the state department, the cia, the jcs and even the president are guilty of treason for helping these criminals take and hold on to power?

please ask ask batista, trujillo, ky, chiang, allende, the shah, the contras, kermit roosevelt, and on and on.

please make answer as non-convoluted as possible

Edited by Martin Blank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This comment by Paul is truly stunning in its implications:

"I will admit this -- that if I really and truly believed that the Civil Rights Movement was Communist, then I would also have to regard JFK as a Traitor because of his June 1963 speech in support of MLK. Also, the fact that JFK prevented the Pentagon from invading Communist Cuba -- that would have added to my conviction."

1. What, exactly, makes a proposal or a movement or a position "Communist"? Do we just take everything a Communist Party member states (at face value) and conclude we must then oppose whatever that is?

2. For example: if the CPUSA currently supports increasing our federal minimum wage to $15.00 hour, does that mean it is a "Communist" idea or that, if we adopt that proposed legislation, THEN that would become a "pro-Communist" act and everybody who voted for it or who approved the idea becomes, ipso facto, "pro-Communist" or a Communist dupe?

3. Does Paul seriously believe that a President becomes a traitor simply because he makes one specific decision that Paul might not agree with? So, keeping us out of war becomes a "traitorous" activity?

4. WHERE DOES ALL THIS END? Are we supposed to go back to McCarthyism as our template for making decisions about the patriotism and loyalty of American citizens?

Well, Ernie, I'm only voicing my perception of what the John Birch Society voiced in the early 1960's.

I myself was 11 years old when JFK was assassinated, but even then I'd been exposed to the John Birch Society in my hometown of Duarte, California. We had neighbors who were Birchers.

Our Congressman in those days was John Rousselot -- a notorious and outspoken Bircher. There were lots of Birchers in Duarte, Monrovia, Arcadia and Pasadena in those days -- parents of my school chums. I'd see the American Opinion magazine in so many homes, that I mistakenly assumed it was as popular as Life magazine, or Time magazine.

It's not my own opinion -- but I'm citing what these Birchers thought in 1963 -- the big news at school was about the Bomb Shelters which many of my friends' families were building. It was the talk of the school yard.

JFK was considered a Red by some of their parents. My own parents, being Jehovah's Witnesses, never voted or became involved in politics -- so I got all my information about politics from the school playground.

I liked my friends, and I liked their parents. They were good, conservative Americans. Yet many hated and despised JFK. When JFK was finally assassinated, there was something understandable about it -- because he was really and truly hated by so many Americans.

Later I learned that JFK was blamed for the Bay of Pigs failure (even though it had been originally planned as Covert, that is, without any US Military support).

Another issue that was big in my elementary school when I was 11 years old, was the Civil Rights movement. In my neighborhood, this was a terrifying thing -- not exactly the Black American marches, but the idea that it was Communist -- that the USSR which had the nuclear bomb aimed at our heads, was really behind MLK.

Our Congressman John Rousselot banged his desk about this. He even made an LP record on the topic, which some of my friends' parents had. MLK was a Communist, he insisted. This made it part of the Cold War USSR threat which required all these new Bomb Shelters.

In a way, my parents were blessed to remain ignorant of US politics, because the Cold War was Anxiety on steroids. When it became too much for me, I just joined my family in prayer and hope for the New World. Things looked really bad.

So, I'm just saying -- as a personal observation -- if Ex-General Walker, like many Americans, really and truly believed that JFK was a "deliberate, conscious member of the Communist Conspiracy" who was secretly supporting the USSR, our sworn enemy, then by ordinary logic Walker would have concluded that JFK was a traitor.

Being, in his own mind, a True Patriot, then Ex-General Walker would have sought to punish this traitor as all traitors should be punished according to military code -- by a firing squad.

The logic of it is simple. Now -- I do believe that Walker plotted to kill JFK. I also say that Walker believed in his heart of hearts that he was doing the right thing -- the truly Patriotic thing. The fact that the Joint Chiefs of the Pentagon did not believe the same doctrine that Walker believed should have been a warning sign to this former US General.

Yet by submitting his first resignation to the US Army and joining the John Birch Society in 1959, General Walker had already broken with the Pentagon. Evidently Walker lost faith in the Pentagon itself, and had put all his faith in Robert Welch.

I take this to be the realistic background of Dr. Jeff Caufield's new book: General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Rousselot never publicly made the comment that MLK was "a Communist" -- "in the early 1960's". That is another figment of your imagination.

In any event, your reply ignores all of my substantive questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your offer of a free coupon for those books, but hold off on that a little. I don't mind paying the 99cent, and I will attempt to read them. Much political stuff is hard to read though, especially when it disagrees with my thinking, however a tremendous amount about the JFK deal differs from my thinking and I read it anyhow. I will attempt to start one of the books this weekend, but I'm announcer for a huge State Baseball Tournament and it will occupy most of this weekend. I will certainly give my opinion. I owe you several other comments also but this tournament has taken a lot of prep time. I'll be back to normal after next Tuesday. I'll still read your comments. Again, thanks for the offer.

Kenneth,

I look forward to reading your candid comments about my collegiate work on the history of Ex-General Edwin Walker.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501625

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501629

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501646

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

Paul, I've started your first book. I'm doing commenting as I go along. Please don't take my comments as 'criticism'. Only opinion, as I don't think Walker was involved with the assassination, but then I'm not sure anyone has the plot put together correctly, in print. would those comments be appropriate on this thread, since it is about the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made this distinction, Kenneth, that any Patriotic American who becomes converted to the doctrine that the President of the United States is a TRAITOR, can no longer qualify as a Patriotic American, but has now chosen to become a member of the Radical Right.

what if the president is a traitor?

To be Radical in any direction -- Left or Right -- exceeds the boundaries of Patriotism. That's my position. I hope that's clear.

Ok, I can accept that, but with the distinction that even if he were 'radical' right, that still wouldn't put him into the fascist category as that is reserved for the radical left which believes in dictatorship, etc. Exactly the opposite of the thinking of Walker. I'm not sure that criticism of the President is not an American Constitutional right. I certainly spend some part of my time criticizing Obama and accusing him of being a Muslim and doing all he can do to destroy America (Something no one would ever accuse Walker of) and I certainly can't believe anyone could or would ever think of my politics as anything other than 'The American Way".

your position is as clear as the ignorance that formed it. fascism is radical right. there was private ownership in germany under old uncle adolf. hitler was not a leftist. ye gods man why do you think he hated russia so much. it was the bolsheviks and jews who stabbed germany in the back causing it to lose ww i he believed. criticizing the president is free speech protected by the first amendment. you can't libel or threaten him though. your statement that he is a moslem is patently untrue (even mccain had the decency to correct that nutty old woman during the election) as is your remark that he is doing everything he can to destroy america. i accuse walker and all other similar nut jobs to seeking the destruction of america and our rights. dictatorships are not exclusive to the right anymore than they are to the left. your politics are the ramblings of someone who is unlearned. what the hell is the american way anyway. what is patriotism? do you support bringing back huac and mccarthy,.

Martin, if you would like a comment from me, you could use a little civility. With your first comment to me being about my ignorance and being unlearned. If you need to resort to name calling, please communicate with those on your level. If you would like civil comments from me, I will after I read your apology. Respectfully, K. Drew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...To be Radical in any direction -- Left or Right -- exceeds the boundaries of Patriotism. That's my position. I hope that's clear...

Ok, I can accept that, but with the distinction that even if he were 'radical' right, that still wouldn't put him into the fascist category as that is reserved for the radical left which believes in dictatorship, etc. Exactly the opposite of the thinking of Walker. I'm not sure that criticism of the President is not an American Constitutional right. I certainly spend some part of my time criticizing Obama and accusing him of being a Muslim and doing all he can do to destroy America (Something no one would ever accuse Walker of) and I certainly can't believe anyone could or would ever think of my politics as anything other than 'The American Way".

Kenneth, it's my understanding of our US history books that there are Dictators on both the Left and the Right extremes.

Hitler was a Right-wing dictator. Mussolini was another Right-wing dictator. Stalin was a Left-wing dictator.

I agree with both of those comments

One major complexity of World War Two was that England, France and the USA regarded Hitler as more dangerous than Stalin, and so we even included Russia among our Allies in order to defeat Hitler and Mussolini.

That seemed to be necessary at the time. I don't think many Americans were ever comfortable with the alliance with the Soviets, but certainly more uncomfortable with Hitler

However -- England, France and the USA also despise Left-wing Radicals, and so immediately after the defeat of Hitler, the former Allies, England, France and the USA sharply broke with Russia and started the Cold War.

In other words -- we hate Left-wing dictators, but we hate Right-wing dictators even more. So, we held our nose to include Stalin with the Allies against Hitler, but as soon as Hitler was defeated, we broke with Stalin immediately.

I'm not so sure that it was a matter of hating Right wing dictators more, I think it was that the largest fire needed to be put out first. I don't think many Americans were excited about having to deal with either of the two large enemies.

The difference between Left-wing dictators and Right-wing dictators can be easily defined, IMHO.

I'm gonna guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, I don't see any real difference in dictators. Neither is preferred.

(1) Right-wing Fascism is based on rabid Nationalism that feeds on ancient Racism (which explains why the Germans tried to exterminate the Jews during World War Two). It's a wildfire that can run wild.

Very interesting, do you think the Germans wanted to exterminate ALL of the Jews? the Rothschilds, for example? Surely not. So why did they limit the extermination to lower class jews?

(2) Left-wing Dictators tend to be Internationalist, and they claim this is superior, and yet their methods are despotic, tyrannical, and they choose to slaughter everybody with success and property and call this Democracy.

(It's the Right Wing dictators that our history books call Fascists, because Mussolini boasted of that title. Yet I can see the logic of calling ANY dictator a Fascist. But that's just a matter of semantics at that point.)

Both Right-wing and Left-wing dictators are vicious criminals and must be stopped at all costs. But dictators exist on both extremes of the political spectrum -- and this, in modern politics, is called RADICAL. That's the definition I'm working with, and IMHO Dr. Jeffrey Caufield is working with that same definition in his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

This may be part of my disagreement because I don't believe anyone in America in 1963 wanted to remove JFK because he was a dictator.

Naturally, cussing the President is a good old-fashioned American custom. It's Free Speech. Yet to accuse the President of Treason isn't just a break with the President -- it is also a break with the Pentagon. Notice that the Pentagon doesn't agree with the charge of Treason. Nor does the Supreme Court. Nor does the Senate. (If they did, there are very specific legal procedures they would follow.)

I have not 'yet' accused Obama of treason. He certainly has some persons representing him that I would, John Kerry, for example. I do think Obama is not working in the best interests of this country and his speeding up the flow of unvetted muslims into the country is certainly not in our interests. His unilateral attempt to legitimize illegal aliens with the stroke of a pen is illegal at least and should not be allowed from a legal standpoint.

IMHO, President Obama is no Muslim. Leaving Iraq too soon was probably a mistake, but it was an honest mistake -- it was never intended to give power to ISIS. President Obama acts against ISIS every day, and has made many advances against ISIS.

Obama has made no advance against ISIS, in fact, he's never said those letters in that combination. Whether Obama is muslim or not is certainly debatable, though he was born and raised through childhood as muslim, leopards rarely change their spots. I certainly have seen no evidence that he is any religion other than muslim, but he may have given that up also.

I tend to agree with Donald Trump on this point -- that President GW Bush made more mistakes in the Middle East than any other President, and got us in over our heads in the first place.

While I agree mistakes were made, I doubt Bush made more than Obama has. Obama is doing all he can, it seems, to increase the muslim positions in the middle east.

This modern political debate is topical when speaking about the JFK assassination, by the way, because it was just this sort of high-stakes, high-tension political scene that inspired the Radical Right Wing to kill JFK, because of two situations they thought were out of control, namely, Communist Cuba and the Civil Rights Movement.

I can certainly agree that Cuba may have been part of the excuse used as reasoning against JFK, but I don't see anything happening in the Civil Rights movement that could legitimately be used as an excuse. I think JFK's position on the Viet Nam war was the reason he died. Anyone that would fake something such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident would do something such as kill a president. I don't think Walker was associated with the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

It is significant that the Radical Right Wing, even today, regards the Civil Rights Movement as COMMUNIST.

I can't speak of that. I don't know anyone in the radical right wing. I've never heard anyone accuse anyone in the CRM of being communist. Influenced by communists, yes but not of being a communist. As you well know, the Communists in the country did all they could via using several different movements and causes to aid them in their progressing communism.

I will admit this -- that if I really and truly believed that the Civil Rights Movement was Communist, then I would also have to regard JFK as a Traitor because of his June 1963 speech in support of MLK. Also, the fact that JFK prevented the Pentagon from invading Communist Cuba -- that would have added to my conviction.

I can see your reasoning, but I don't think any of it applies to reality. I don't believe MLK or JFK were traitors or communists. I think it is/was politics.

I realize this sounds odd to the leftist reader, but I can see the honor of Ex-General Edwin Walker for acting on his convictions -- for boldly acting on his sincere Faith that JFK was a Communist Traitor. It wasn't a ploy. It was a genuine, bold military move according to his training. Sadly, Walker's Commander In Chief at that point was Robert Welch (because had Walker quit the Army in a huff, breaking with the Pentagon).

I've not seen anyone claim that Walker accused JFK of being a communist.

The shooters that Edwin Walker obtained for the job were not mercenaries -- they were also True Believers, and they took no money at all. That's my opinion.

Paul, you've said previously that you don't know who the shooters were. have you changed your mind?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

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...