Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Book!


Recommended Posts

...

10. In November 1964, Walker was the featured speaker at a meeting of Americans For Preservation of the White Race at Whitworth College in Brookhaven MS. Why do you think Walker would attend such an event AND agree to be its featured speaker?

As I repeatedly pointed out, Ernie, Ex-General Edwin Walker made his living as an ultra-Right wing speaker, especially in the Deep South.

Walker had been tempted into politics by the temper of the times. Governor George Wallace in 1963 was making public speeches in the South, and using the "N" word regularly. The South hated the Brown Decision. That's just obvious.

Yet Walker plainly said that it should be a decision left up to the States, whether to Integrate or not. If a State -- like Mississippi -- plainly refused to racially integrate its public schools in obedience to Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren's Brown Decision, then by the politics of States Rights, in Mississippi, Integration was ILLEGAL.

But it was a matter of State's Rights, and not a matter of Racism. Walker never used the "N" word in his speeches -- when he had every opportunity to do so. (Unless you believe one sole report by one biased newspaper writer.)

Furthermore, it is quite obvious that Edwin Walker spoke almost entirely at Right Wing rallies in the South, including speeches for the John Birch Society, for the White Citizen's Councils, for the States Rights Parties and even for the Ku Klux Klan.

That in itself didn't make Walker a member of the Klan. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Walker always avoided speaking for the American Nazi Party -- despite the fact that Walker would make statements calculated to raise Christian sentiment against Judaism.

Walker was invited to join these Racist institutions, including a high office in the Ku Klux Klan -- AND WALKER ALWAYS TURNED THEM DOWN. That's important.

Here's a note from Walker's personal papers on this -- it's from his personal desk -- it isn't dated and it's addressed to nobody -- perhaps it's a note to himself. It speaks volumes about Walker's personality:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19660606_Walker_Joins_Nothing.JPG

So, there was only one group to which Ex-General Walker belonged, namely, the John Birch Society, which was not a racist organization (despite exceptions here and there) and they had one key theme -- Anticommunism.

During the JFK administration, the key Anticommunist theme was Cuba and Fidel Castro. That was the real political obsession of General Walker. Everything else was just politics.

In 1963, the combination of Anticommunism with Racism turned out to be a true witches brew.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Nice try Paul -- but no cigar!

1. I could provide you with a list of DOZENS of people who made their living giving speeches to ultra-conservative audiences. However, significantly, they did NOT choose to associate themselves with either persons or organizations that espoused white supremacy arguments. You do not seem able to draw the obvious logical inference from the critical fact that Walker routinely CHOSE to associate himself with racists and anti-semites.

2. No, Walker's position on integration was not just a relatively benign "leave it up to the states". He stated emphatically that "integration is illegal". He made that statement years AFTER the U.S. Supreme Court made a unanimous decision stating the opposite. What you are choosing to ignore (deliberately) is Walker's underlying predicate -- i.e. the values and world-view which shaped his thought process.

3. As I have told you many times previously, hard-core conservatives (like Sen. Barry Goldwater and Sen. John Tower) never allowed their names to be associated with racist organizations or publications. They never agreed to accept an invitation to speak before KKK-affiliated groups or before Citizens Councils groups. They never praised or endorsed hate publications (like Conde McGinley's Common Sense)

Let me take this opportunity to provide background info about "Common Sense" --- and then you can tell us all (with a straight face) that Walker's association with McGinley's newspaper was NOT significant evidence of his own beliefs and values.

The House Committee on Un-American Activities described Conde McGinley's "Common Sense" newspaper as "almost exclusively a vehicle for the exploitation of ignorance, prejudice and fear" and as "a clearinghouse for hate propaganda throughout the country."
The HCUA report which discusses McGinley and his newspaper reports that:
Pages 11-12
“Beginning in 1948, however, Common Sense became increasingly outspoken in its statements of a pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic nature. It was soon almost exclusively a vehicle for the exploitation of ignorance, prejudice, and fear. The paper devoted considerable space in 1948 to the support of the late Robert H. Best, American newsman who was convicted of treason and sentenced to life imprisonment in that year as a result of his broadcasts for the Nazis in World War II. A eulogy of Best appearing in Common Sense for December 15, 1952, described him as a ‘patriot,’ ‘Paul Revere,’ and ‘true Christian American.’ “
Page 15
“Conde McGinley, Sr., has maintained a particularly cooperative relationship with two disseminators of anti-Semitic literature from Chicago: Mrs. Elizabeth Dilling and Mrs. Lyrl Clark Van Hyning.
Mrs. Dilling’s writings have been circulating since the 1930’s. Mrs. Van Hyning is the head of an organization known as We, The Mothers, Mobilize For America, Inc., and is editor of the publication, Women’s Voice
A number of individuals notorious for their efforts to create a nationwide fascist organization in the United States in the 1930’s are also propagandizing again through Common Sense. McGinley has printed articles and letters from Gen. George Van Horn Moseley (Ret.), Col. Eugene N. Sanctuary, and Charles B. Hudson. He has advertised for sale a new book by Robert Edward Edmondson. The Special Committee on Un-American Activities reported in 1940 that General Moseley was being seriously considered as a national leader of an attempted union of fascist and hate groups in the United States until the plans were exposed and Moseley was called as a witness before the committee. The special committee named Sanctuary, Hudson, and Edmondson as being among the individuals who took part in this unsuccessful attempt to create a united fascist movement.”
A typical 1962 article in Common Sense is an "expose" entitled: "Zionist Invisible Government Plotting To Establish a World Government Under A Red Dictatorship Led By Asiatic Marxist Jews". The American Legion's Americanism Commission denounced all of Conde McGinley's enterprises as hate-inspired bigotry.

4. It is NOT "important" to assert (as Paul does) that Walker "always turned down" invitations to "join racist institutions".

As I pointed out, Walker had political ambitions. He knew, with absolute metaphysical certainty, that he could NEVER obtain the support of real conservatives (and especially the political party apparatus he would need in order to run for ANY public office) if he "overtly joined" hate groups.

Here is your double-standard:

On MANY occasions you have written totally false statements about persons whom you claimed were "members" of the John Birch Society. In reality, they were NOT members (examples: Robert Morris, H.L. Hunt and Dan Smoot).

However, do YOU care whether or not they actually joined the JBS and paid the annual $24 JBS member dues and also attended JBS chapter meetings and/or participated in JBS-front groups and/or were paid speakers or writers for the JBS?

Experts about the Communist movement in our country have always pointed out that for every dues-paying CPUSA member (who at one time were given identification cards showing them as a CPUSA member) -- there were TEN TIMES that many state-of-mind members, i.e. people whom, for whatever reasons, chose NOT to formally join the CPUSA and pay dues -- but in every other respect thought and behaved like actual CPUSA members.

Do YOU or ANYBODY else reading this message dispute that factual reality, i.e. that many people choose NOT to join an organization but, nevertheless, lend their support to that organization and its activities and its arguments in every conceivable way possible?

EXAMPLE: W. Cleon Skousen and Dan Smoot never "joined" the Birch Society.

However, BOTH of them endorsed the JBS and BOTH of them wrote pro-JBS articles.

Furthermore, consider this:

4.1 Cleon Skousen was a paid speaker for several years with the Birch Society's "American Opinion Speakers Bureau"

4.2 Cleon Skousen wrote articles for the JBS magazine, American Opinion.

4.3 Cleon Skousen's books were recommended and sold by the Birch Society and were available in all of the Birch Society's American Opinion bookstore chain

4.4 Cleon Skousen wrote a pamphlet entitled "The Communist Attack on the John Birch Society" which is nothing more than a regurgitation of JBS press releases about itself.

4.5 Dan Smoot frequently praised Robert Welch and the JBS

4.6 Dan Smoot spoke at JBS National Council meetings -- as their featured speaker.

4.7 When Dan Smoot retired and he decided to stop publishing his newsletter, Dan Smoot Report -- he arranged with the Birch Society to accept his subscribers and transfer them to the Birch Society's weekly newsmagazine, "Review of the News" -- for the remainder of their Smoot subscription period

4.8 From its inception, the JBS sold the books authored by Smoot and Skousen and included them on its recommended "Reading List" and also included them in the Wholesale Catalog for American Opinion bookstores.

Given all of this information -- Paul Trejo would NEVER even think of defending Smoot or Skousen by claiming that they were not "Birchers". Instead, Paul's argument would be that in every possible way imaginable (save one), Smoot and Skousen were JBS activists, JBS sympathizers, JBS acolytes, JBS promoters, JBS defenders, JBS admirers, JBS enablers. The "one" exception -- they chose NOT to become an official JBS member.

So---given Edwin Walker's background -- why does Paul Trejo attempt to convince us that Walker was NOT a racist, NOT a white supremacist, NOT a sympathizer with indisputably white supremacist and often anti-semitic individuals and organizations around the United States?

5. Can Paul Trejo give us some clear examples of something that Smoot or Skousen believed -- which Walker did NOT believe?

6. Walker's indisputable racist sentiments is one reason why Robert Welch wrote the following to his National Council members in October 1962:

Welch stated that Walker began taking advice from racists J. Evetts Haley and Medford Evans and Welch observed:

"Not only does that advice seem to many of us to leave much to be desired in the matter of soundness; but much more recently Walker has also been listening to advice from another source and refusing to pay attention to those who have tried to caution him about this source, and it is one which we do not trust at all, even as to good intentions."

Welch described the potential for "very serious embarrassment to conservatives and the conservative cause in general if Walker continues to listen to that advice."

7. AFFIRMATIVE vs NEGATIVE EVIDENCE / DIRECT vs CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

What Paul always attempts to do is divert our attention away from the single most important salient fact with respect to Walker. In addition, Paul always demands that we accept and use ONLY the most severe and highest form of "proof" -- i.e. beyond any reasonable doubt.

There is an obvious reason why Paul does this. And, BTW, Paul never adopts this same standard for his own assertions. Instead, he only requires this standard from his critics! How convenient.

No serious scholar or historian would ever assert that no informed judgments or fair-minded and fact-based evaluations can be made about a person or about an event or about a controversy or public issue or about a movement UNLESS only the highest form of "proof" is used for every situation.

The highest and most severe evidence standards are intended for criminal matters where a person's life and freedom are at stake.

But making a fair judgment about Edwin Walker's personal values and political sentiments and his behavior do not require "beyond any reasonable doubt". If we adopted Paul's proposed standard -- we would strip our libraries of probably 95% of all non-fiction books!! And NOBODY could or would ever receive a Master's or Doctoral Degree.

8. What Paul never addresses (for obvious reasons) is the TOTAL absence of affirmative evidence which shows (beyond dispute) that Edwin Walker was NOT a racist bigot. I mentioned this once before a year ago when Paul wrote the following comment:

"Walker naively thought that colored people should all know their place in White Society, and keep that place."
Leaving aside the question of what you meant by the word "naively" -- I then asked you for AFFIRMATIVE evidence to demonstrate Walker's NON-racist character, but you produced NONE.
I repeat my previous challenge:
Does ANYBODY know of ANY local, state, or national civil rights organization or civil rights leader which Walker endorsed or praised?
Did ANY civil rights organization EVER invite Walker to speak before their conventions? OR
Did ANY civil rights organization or publication endorse Walker in Texas when he ran for Governor? OR
Did Walker EVER state (in his entire lifetime) anything POSITIVE about Texas or national civil rights groups OR
Did Walker EVER make ANY financial contribution to a civil rights organization in Dallas, in Texas, or nationally? OR
Did Walker EVER affirm or defend statements made by J. Edgar Hoover or by the FBI regarding our civil rights movement? OR
Did Walker EVER refute or challenge racist comments made by his associates and friends or any of their defense-of-white-privilege arguments?

Let me add a few more questions asking for AFFIRMATIVE evidence since Paul has, yet again, brought this up as though it represents something significant for our thought process:

Did Walker EVER state (in his entire lifetime) that the Ku Klux Klan was a subversive un-American organization?

What did Walker mean by his prediction that he could find "more good Americans" in the KKK than in liberal groups? What constituted a "good American" to Walker?

Did Walker EVER state (in his entire lifetime) that the leaders or members of the American Nazi Party (and other neo-nazi groups in our country) were bigots and should be rejected by all legitimate conservatives?

Did Walker EVER state (in his entire lifetime) that publications and organizations identified as hate-inspired bigotry by the American Legion and the FBI should be rejected by all legitimate conservatives?

Paul acknowledged in one of his comments that it was a "fact" that "Walker would make statements calculated to raise Christian sentiment against Judaism". What logical inference should be drawn from that "fact"?

Why is it "important" that Walker allegedly "turned down" invitations to join the KKK and ANP?

Does Paul think there is any significance to Walker agreeing to help form American Royal Rangers (ARR) in April 1965? Paul---please tell us as precisely as you can what the difference was between ARR and KKK??

In every conceivable way, Walker exhibited racist sentiments and values and, more importantly, the complete absence of AFFIRMATIVE evidence to support a different conclusion is the most compelling argument.
Not using one particular racial slur or not belonging to one particular organization is totally irrelevant because, Walker subscribed to ideas and values and arguments which were revealed through his actions and through the persons and organizations and arguments he chose to associate himself with.
HISTORICAL NOTE: Many holocaust deniers attempt to make the exact same type of argument which Paul is using here. The holocaust deniers demand that historians provide some document written by Hitler -- giving instructions to his subordinates and/or some recorded speech by Hitler which clearly and explicitly says something like this:
"Every Jew in Germany and Europe should be exterminated. The preferred method for extermination should be use of gas chambers. Provide me with a weekly summary of the number of Jews you have killed and how many you exterminated in gas chambers according to my orders."
WITHOUT such explicit documentary or recorded verbal evidence, the holocaust deniers proclaim that no adequate evidence exists to substantiate the contentions of virtually every historian on this planet -- which means (to the deniers) that the holocaust is essentially a hoax.
Similarly, Paul Trejo demands that we use a standard for "proof" which is NOT applicable to the evidence we already have. Paul wants a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard to be applied. ONLY Walker's own words (and organizational memberships) are permissible in the Trejo Scheme of Things.
BUT: Trejo knows that people who are engaged in nefarious or morally suspect or politically awkward or repugnant activities---rarely record in explicit terms and details precisely what they are attempting to accomplish AND they rarely boldly declare their innermost motivations and feelings -- because they want to create and maintain a public persona which attracts as much support as possible and, simultaneously, minimizes negative feedback.
Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

By referring to different speakers, Ernie, you fail to make your case specifically about Edwin Walker.

Further, your narrative merely detracts from the fact that future US history will regard Edwin Walker as one of the most important figures in history -- on the level of John Wilkes Booth.

Granted, John Wilkes Booth was captured for his role in the Lincoln assassination, while Edwin Walker successfully substituted a patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, who insisted to his dying day that he never shot JFK.

John Wilkes Booth, however, boasted of the fact of his shooting of Lincoln -- and every Presidential assassin in US History has boasted of the fact, and was always a part of a larger plot.

Ex-General Edwin Walker was undetected by the public in the JFK assassination, but IMHO some people knew he was guilty as sin -- especially Robert Allen Surrey, H.L. Hunt, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, David Morales, Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall -- even Lee Harvey Oswald himself.

More importantly, J. Edgar Hoover knew that General Walker was guilty -- and so did the LBJ, Allen Dulles and Earl Warren.

Even more importantly than that, General Walker always wanted to boast of the fact. The first time he showed his boastful profile was only 18 hours after the JFK assassination, when he called his friend in Germany, Dr. Gerhard Frey, and told him that the shooter of JFK had also been *his* shooter back in April, 1963. It was Walker who was boasting, because he was the source of this article:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg

Furthermore, Edwin Walker continued to publish this story in numerous variations over the years, including articles to the National Enquirer, some of which were considered by the Warren Commission.

Near the end of his life, Edwin Walker was still boasting of his connection to the JFK assassination, in this article for the Kerrville Times:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19920119_EAW_Oswald_arrested.pdf

The vital and central theme of Edwin Walker is his direct role in the JFK assassination -- rather than his association with George Wallace and his circles.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By referring to different speakers, Ernie, you fail to make your case specifically about Edwin Walker.

You missed the point (as usual). I referred to other speakers only in the context of the type of reasoning which YOU want us to accept. Re-read my message. You obviously missed the entire point! YOU would NEVER tell us that it was irrelevant or unimportant to notice the extensive connections with the JBS by persons like Smoot and Skousen. Instead, YOU would tell us (just like Dr. Caufield does in his book), that such associations reflect A PATTERN which cannot be ignored or de-valued.

Further, your narrative merely detracts from the fact that future US history will regard Edwin Walker as one of the most important figures in history -- on the level of John Wilkes Booth.

That is preposterous. Walker is merely a footnote. I do agree, however, that more research should be done --- and I have provided many links (in a previous message) to archives which contain Walker correspondence that should be reviewed.

Granted, John Wilkes Booth was captured for his role in the Lincoln assassination, while Edwin Walker successfully substituted a patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, who insisted to his dying day that he never shot JFK.

John Wilkes Booth, however, boasted of the fact of his shooting of Lincoln -- and every Presidential assassin in US History has boasted of the fact, and was always a part of a larger plot.

Ex-General Edwin Walker was undetected by the public in the JFK assassination, but IMHO some people knew he was guilty as sin -- especially Robert Allen Surrey, H.L. Hunt, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, David Morales, Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall -- even Lee Harvey Oswald himself.

More importantly, J. Edgar Hoover knew that General Walker was guilty -- and so did the LBJ, Allen Dulles and Earl Warren.

There is not a single iota of factual evidence to support your conclusion about what Hoover or LBJ/Dulles/Warren believed about Walker. THAT is the reason why you NEVER QUOTE anything to substantiate your broad conclusions.

Even more importantly than that, General Walker always wanted to boast of the fact. The first time he showed his boastful profile was only 18 hours after the JFK assassination, when he called his friend in Germany, Dr. Gerhard Frey, and told him that the shooter of JFK had also been *his* shooter back in April, 1963. It was Walker who was boasting, because he was the source of this article:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg

Furthermore, Edwin Walker continued to publish this story in numerous variations over the years, including articles to the National Enquirer, some of which were considered by the Warren Commission.

Near the end of his life, Edwin Walker was still boasting of his connection to the JFK assassination, in this article for the Kerrville Times:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19920119_EAW_Oswald_arrested.pdf

The vital and central theme of Edwin Walker is his direct role in the JFK assassination -- rather than his association with George Wallace and his circles.

MY CHALLENGE TO YOU: Send the above link to 1000 randomly-selected individuals. DO NOT provide ANY further details. Just ask those 1000 people to respond by summarizing what Walker was attempting to convey. Let's see how many of the respondents repeat your claim that Walker was "boasting of his connection to the JFK assassination" or "his direct role in the JFK assassination."

As usual -- you totally ignore all the other data which would serve to de-value or falsify your beliefs.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

My replies are underneath your comments in brown font.

I note, for the record, that you STILL cannot provide AFFIRMATIVE evidence to support your conclusions regarding Walker -- which NOBODY (but you) believes!

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By referring to different speakers, Ernie, you fail to make your case specifically about Edwin Walker.

Further, your narrative merely detracts from the fact that future US history will regard Edwin Walker as one of the most important figures in history -- on the level of John Wilkes Booth.

Granted, John Wilkes Booth was captured for his role in the Lincoln assassination, while Edwin Walker successfully substituted a patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, who insisted to his dying day that he never shot JFK.

John Wilkes Booth, however, boasted of the fact of his shooting of Lincoln -- and every Presidential assassin in US History has boasted of the fact, and was always a part of a larger plot.

Ex-General Edwin Walker was undetected by the public in the JFK assassination, but IMHO some people knew he was guilty as sin -- especially Robert Allen Surrey, H.L. Hunt, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, David Morales, Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall -- even Lee Harvey Oswald himself.

More importantly, J. Edgar Hoover knew that General Walker was guilty -- and so did the LBJ, Allen Dulles and Earl Warren.

Even more importantly than that, General Walker always wanted to boast of the fact. The first time he showed his boastful profile was only 18 hours after the JFK assassination, when he called his friend in Germany, Dr. Gerhard Frey, and told him that the shooter of JFK had also been *his* shooter back in April, 1963. It was Walker who was boasting, because he was the source of this article:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg

Furthermore, Edwin Walker continued to publish this story in numerous variations over the years, including articles to the National Enquirer, some of which were considered by the Warren Commission.

Near the end of his life, Edwin Walker was still boasting of his connection to the JFK assassination, in this article for the Kerrville Times:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19920119_EAW_Oswald_arrested.pdf

The vital and central theme of Edwin Walker is his direct role in the JFK assassination -- rather than his association with George Wallace and his circles.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

What is MOST important about your cult-like defense of Walker is the underlying principle of argument which you constantly resort to.

According to you: the ONLY acceptable evidence which establishes that someone is an indisputable racist or a bigot is:

(1) did they ever join the KKK or a similar organization? AND

(2) did they ever use the n-word in more than one speech or article?

So---according to the Trejo Historical School --- NOBODY in American history can legitimately be described as a racist unless they meet criterion #1 or #2.

This reveals more about YOU -- than anything about the person we are discussing.

You obviously have NEVER done any serious study about the history of racism in our country. Shame on you!

I need to repeat something I wrote in response to your nonsense previously:

YOU have previously written:

Technically speaking, Edwin Walker wasn't a racist -- however, in effective terms, he gave great support and comfort to racists, especially those who wanted to keep Ole Miss University all-white. He was willing to resort to violence to ensure that result -- and he knew what he was doing when he opposed JFK in September 1962 at Ole Miss.

and
Again I say -- Edwin Walker EXPLOITED racism for political opportunity. I don't deny that. Walker gave support and comfort to violent racists, specifically in his bizarre handling of the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1962 in Oxford, Mississippi.
and
Anybody who chooses to use violence and to violate the Constitution to pursue reactionary political goals is a radical reactionary. This is how I characterize Guy Banister (based on the evidence we have from Jim Garrison). This is also how I characterize the resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker, who fomented a deadly riot at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1962 to prevent one Black Student (James Meredith) from registering as a student there. Walker was also a radical reactionary.
I suggest that if someone declares that Walker....
1. gave great support and comfort to racists
2. was willing to resort to violence to prevent a qualified black student from enrolling in a university
3. exploited racism for his own political purposes
4. can be fairly described as a "radical reactionary"
5. wanted blacks to be kept in their proper place
THEN---there are certain inescapable conclusions that arise from those ideas. Chief among them is the conclusion that all of these characteristics have a common core, i.e. they arise from a set of values which is, in every respect, indicative of RACIST sentiments and beliefs.
Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note, for the record, that you STILL cannot provide AFFIRMATIVE evidence to support your conclusions regarding Walker -- which NOBODY (but you) believes!

Well, Ernie, I conclude that Ex-General Edwin Walker was the mastermind of the JFK assassination.

When I came onto this FORUM in 2010, it was certainly true that NOBODY but myself believed this.

However, today we have a new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), which conclusively proves that SOMEBODY agrees with my most important conclusion about Edwin Walker.

So, it's only a matter of time.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note, for the record, that you STILL cannot provide AFFIRMATIVE evidence to support your conclusions regarding Walker -- which NOBODY (but you) believes!

Well, Ernie, I conclude that Ex-General Edwin Walker was the mastermind of the JFK assassination.

When I came onto this FORUM in 2010, it was certainly true that NOBODY but myself believed this.

However, today we have a new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), which conclusively proves that SOMEBODY agrees with my most important conclusion about Edwin Walker.

So, it's only a matter of time.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- I do not believe that you are this obtuse. My request for affirmative evidence has ALWAYS been in the context which I previously indicated by numerous questions which you need to answer -- i.e. what affirmative evidence is there that Walker was NOT a bigoted racist?

Normally, when someone lives 7 or more decades, they can point to SOMETHING in their long history which reveals their commitment to tolerance and diversity and which also clearly reveals their rejection of racism, anti-semitism, and bigoted arguments.

In a previous message, I told Paul B. that by any contemporary definition, J. Edgar Hoover might correctly be described as racist BUT I also pointed out that one cannot conflate what might have been Hoover's personal views with the institutional behavior of the FBI. I then quoted statements made by Hoover in speeches and articles and during his public testimony before Congress which clearly and indisputably falsified arguments created by, circulated by, and promoted by many different racist figures and organizations and publications in our country.

BY CONTRAST: There is no equivalent AFFIRMATIVE evidence to demonstrate Walker's allegedly NON-racist beliefs and values and YOU refuse to answer the questions I posed because you know that you have NO credible factual evidence which substantiates your falsehoods about Walker being merely an honorable "states' rights" conservative.

In addition, you have no explanation of any kind which provides some plausible argument for why (unlike mainstream conservatives) Walker repeatedly CHOSE to associate himself for decades with prominent racists and anti-semites and their organizations and publications.

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Ernie, let's just agree to disagree. You want to make Edwin Walker into a rabid racist, when his actual copyrighted material, 1961-1964, never displays any of the racist rhetoric that is available in famous racist literature from 1961-1964.

He never uses the "N" word (unless one accepts a single, biased news reporter) in all his years of speaking -- and he never claims that the white race is superior to other races.

The fact that Walker made most of his speaking money by addressing Right-wing crowds, and promising that if elected he would Reverse the Brown Decision, may seem racist to most people -- but it just isn't enough.

Walker was an Opportunist -- but not a racist. He always said that if the States peacefully agreed to racially integrate their public schools, that was all right with him. His objection was always the Military Force used by Eisenhower in 1957 at Little Rock High School, and used by JFK in 1962 at Ole Miss University.

It was the Federal Government versus the State Governors -- and THAT is what Walker complained about with regard to the Brown Decision.

After that bit of politics, Edwin Walker was an outspoken Anticommunist on the order of Senator Joseph McCarthy, and for Edwin Walker the problem of Fidel Castro and Cuba was the most important political issue of 1962-1963.

It is quite true -- and I have said repeatedly -- that Edwin Walker made crooked deals with racists in his politics -- because politics make strange bedfellows -- and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So Anticommunists (like Robert Welch) often had Southern Racists in their crowds, cheering loudly for slogans like, "Impeach Earl Warren!"

I never denied that. But if you want to make Edwin Walker into a real racist, Ernie, then you must QUOTE WALKER HIMSELF.

This is what you have failed to do -- again and again. You attack me and my words -- but you never quote Walker.

And that's because YOU CAN'T FIND ANYTHING by Walker that supports your loud and obnoxious point.

Your accusations are groundless. You should just admit it and move on.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Ernie, let's just agree to disagree. You want to make Edwin Walker into a rabid racist, when his actual copyrighted material, 1961-1964, never displays any of the racist rhetoric that is available in famous racist literature from 1961-1964.

He never uses the "N" word (unless one accepts a single, biased news reporter) in all his years of speaking -- and he never claims that the white race is superior to other races.

The fact that Walker made most of his speaking money by addressing Right-wing crowds, and promising that if elected he would Reverse the Brown Decision, may seem racist to most people -- but it just isn't enough.

Walker was an Opportunist -- but not a racist. He always said that if the States peacefully agreed to racially integrate their public schools, that was all right with him. His objection was always the Military Force used by Eisenhower in 1957 at Little Rock High School, and used by JFK in 1962 at Ole Miss University.

It was the Federal Government versus the State Governors -- and THAT is what Walker complained about with regard to the Brown Decision.

After that bit of politics, Edwin Walker was an outspoken Anticommunist on the order of Senator Eugene McCarthy, and for Edwin Walker the problem of Fidel Castro and Cuba was the most important political issue of 1962-1963.

It is quite true -- and I have said repeatedly -- that Edwin Walker made crooked deals with racists in his politics -- because politics make strange bedfellows -- and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So Anticommunists (like Robert Welch) often had Southern Racists in their crowds, cheering loudly for slogans like, "Impeach Earl Warren!"

I never denied that. But if you want to make Edwin Walker into a real racist, Ernie, then you must QUOTE WALKER HIMSELF.

This is what you have failed to do -- again and again. You attack me and my words -- but you never quote Walker.

And that's because you CAN'T FIND ANYTHING by Walker that supports your loud and obnoxious point.

Your accusations are groundless. You should just admit it and move one.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

1. You first paragraph is entirely false. This has nothing to do with what "I want". This is simply a question of intellectual honesty.

2. You still do not understand my point about why Walker would have been circumspect with respect to language he used in public. Use of the n-word is not required to communicate bigoted sentiments.

[incidentally, I assume you are aware that historians have found many examples of private bigoted statements made by Presidents FDR, Truman, and Nixon -- but you will NOT find public statements of that type. Does that mean we should totally ignore their private statements and not acknowledge their bigotry? WHY did they choose to NOT publicly make such statements? Do you think Edwin Walker would behave any differently?]

3. In my lifetime, I have never found ANYBODY (except you) who attempts to define/describe racism by limiting the pertinent criteria to ONLY two factors. But do not take my word for it. Consult ANY standard text written by a sociologist, historian, or a political scientist, etc.

4. You want us to believe that the ONLY legitimate basis for making fact-based determinations regarding whether or not someone (like Walker) is a racist is if such an individual (1) can be shown to routinely use the most bigoted language in their speech and writings AND (2) if that person belongs to the most explicitly racist organizations.

In short -- you do not see racism as a complex and often coded phenomenon which its adherents often attempt to conceal or justify through semantic ploys.

Apparently, you do not even recognize the many different (and sometimes subtle) ways through which racism can be expressed and enabled -- i.e. social actions, political systems, law enforcement and judicial system, voting restrictions, conscious prejudice and discriminatory practices in employment, housing, etc, use of stereotypes, etc. Bigoted language is NOT required---particularly if someone wants to conceal their true beliefs and objectives.

5. The 1965 UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defines "racial discrimination" as any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
But according to your warped viewpoint, if an ultra-conservative southerner never used the n-word and did not join the KKK -- then he/she must not be a racist!!
6. You again repeat the falsehood that Walker "said that if the States peacefully agreed to racially integrate their public schools, that was all right with him."
That is false. Walker explicitly stated that integration was ILLEGAL -- regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court decided.
Furthermore, he accepted and he promoted the argument that racial integration was a "Communist" strategy to weaken our nation. Why do you think Walker was so eager to associate himself with the Citizens Councils movement AND why do you think he so readily accepted speaking engagements from white supremacist organizations? Obviously, it was because he AGREED with their arguments!
7. You keep demanding quotations of what Walker said or wrote as the ONLY acceptable evidence. So, I guess you believe that BEHAVIOR is not important?
8. The Georgia Commission on Education (GCE) was established in 1953 in order to preserve segregated public schools in Georgia. From its inception, the GCE was populated by life-long racists who were convinced (just like Edwin Walker) that integration was a “Communist plot”.
In the fall of 1954, the GCE’s Executive Director (Atlanta attorney Durwood T. Eye) lobbied for a state Constitutional amendment which would privatize Georgia’s schools in order to keep them segregated. The Constitutional amendment speedily passed in November 1954.
According to YOU -- since the n-word was NOT used in that amendment, this proposed Constitutional amendment is NOT evidence of racism!
Georgia's Governor (Marvin Griffin) was a life-long segregationist and co-founder, in 1955, of the State’s Rights Council of Georgia. That Council, like the GCE, was devoted to preventing integration in Georgia. Toward that end, Governor Griffin (like Edwin Walker) was warmly welcomed as a featured speaker at Citizens Councils and State’s Rights Council functions.
Incidentally, the President of the State’s Rights Council of Georgia (R. Carter Pittman--a JBS member) told the Atlanta Constitution on 10/22/55 that: “…the South has no racial problem and has had none for a half century. Its racial problems were solved by segregation.”
THAT was also Edwin Walker's position and, apparently is yours too!
9. In May 1956, Governor Griffin made the following observations in his speech before a Citizens’ Council in New Orleans. There is nothing in this speech by Griffin which Edwin Walker would disagree with.
"Let me say to you tonight as we counsel together, do not be concerned by what is said by the Communists, the pinkos, the radicals, the NAACP, the ADA, the one-worlders and all that motley group of crackpots who are clamoring for desegregation and mongrelization. These groups of organized minorities are chanting a chorus that opposition to the fraudulent order of the Supreme Court is defiance of law. Of course, that is not true. The decision of May 17, 1954 is not law. It is an attempt to make law where none existed before by a non law-making body.” …
“You may take the map of the world today and look at all of the countries. Wherever you find a country that is populated by a black race, a colored race, or a mongrel race, the Christian religion has not been able to survive…I say without fear of contradiction, that the white race is the only race of people in history who have been able to perpetuate the Christian religion. Mongrelization of our people here in America will follow integration of the races in school and on the social level. When mongrelization of the races occurs---and God grant that it never will occur---it will bring with it the destruction of the Christian religion.” …
“There are obvious and well-known differences between whites and blacks which no amount of glossing-over and covering up by subversive so-called anthropologists and pseudo-scientists can hide…There are many reasons why the white people object to their children having this close association with n children. Among them are: health; the Nigra’s high crime rate and disrespect for law; the lower mentality level; and the high rate of illegitimacy among Nigras.” …
“I would like to, for just a moment, if you please, tell you very briefly what we are attempting to do in our State of Georgia. First, in Georgia, the Constitution and the laws of our state prevent the expenditure of state tax funds for the operation of mixed schools. Also, our General Assembly will never appropriate one dime for mixed schools. And let me say to you definitely and unequivocally, Georgia will have separate public schools or no public schools.” [Transcript of May 1956 Griffin speech before Southern Regional Citizens Council in New Orleans, pages 3-4; Also see: Highlander Folk School papers microfilm, Roll 4, Slide 85 – State Historical Society of Wisconsin.]
10. BOTTOM LINE
As I have pointed out before -- language can be used dishonestly to conceal and to confuse and to justify the unjustifiable.
A word can be defined so broadly or so narrowly that it subverts and grossly distorts the actual intended meaning of the word.
That is your tactic, i.e. change the commonly-understood meanings of words in the English language so that all words mean ONLY what YOU want them to mean.
11. I NEVER QUOTE WALKER??
Do you honestly believe that personal values and motives, objectives sought, and underlying moral principles are always honestly expressed in public -- particularly by bigots?
So---when holocaust deniers state that they have no animus against Jews -- you believe them--right?
And prior to the 1965 Voting Rights Act when County Clerks or the Registrar of Voters in southern states stated that their voting or literacy "tests" were NOT intended to exclude African Americans--you believe them---right?
Literacy tests were used to keep people of color -- and, sometimes, poor whites -- from voting, and they were administered at the arbitrary discretion of the officials in charge of voter registration.
* They never needed to use the n-word!
* They probably never joined the KKK.
* You probably cannot find any "quotation" by these officials to prove any bigotry or discriminatory intent on their part.
So, according to the Trejo Theory of Racism -- NONE of these folks were racist--right?
EDWIN WALKER QUOTATIONS:
Since you are such a big fan of quotations from "Walker himself" -- THEN why do you refuse to answer my questions regarding AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE of his values and beliefs?
Why can't YOU provide direct quotations from Walker to support your contention that he was NOT racist?
[A] Surely, there must be correspondence, or speech texts, or recorded interviews, or newspaper articles where Walker explicitly DISAVOWED all white supremacist arguments and organizations and their leaders?
Surely, there must be correspondence, or speech texts, or recorded interviews, or newspaper articles where Walker explicitly DEFENDED or PRAISED national civil rights leaders or organizations AND where Walker AGREED with statements made by FBI officials (and Hoover) when they spoke or wrote about our civil rights movement?
IF you cannot provide us with one single example of either A or B above --- then how do you explain the TOTAL ABSENCE of such documentary evidence?
Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, Ernie, you have failed to produce any quotation from Ex-General Edwin Walker that is unambiguously racist.

You have failed.

You keep harping on me, but the truth is you keep failing to deliver the goods.

I say, on the contrary, that Edwin Walker was a COMPLEX character, who had both Good and Evil in his soul. When he was a younger man, he served America well as one of the victorious Generals of World War Two. He deserves respect.

However, as an older man, he quit the US Army in protest, and forfeited his pension. At that point he joined the Radical Right movement of Anticommunism -- beyond even the Anticommunism of J. Edgar Hoover and reasonable men.

This irrational movement into the JBS also led Walker into the Southern Politics of Racism -- but HE NEVER JOINED. He was even offered a position as a Grand Dragon of the KKK, and HE TURNED THEM DOWN.

So - I see a complex man -- a man of both Good and Evil -- a man, further, who masterminded the JFK assassination.

For 50 years people have failed to see General Walker as the true mastermind of the JFK assassination. The most common opinion of him -- even expressed by scholars -- is that he was just a "crazy old coot."

Just to dismiss General Walker as another crazy old racist coot cannot help us appreciate the complexity of the man who plotted to kill JFK -- and who will eventually become seen as one of the most important figures of US History -- on the order of John Wilkes Booth.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, Ernie, you have failed to produce any quotation from Ex-General Edwin Walker that is unambiguously racist.

You have failed.

You keep harping on me, but the truth is you keep failing to deliver the goods.

I say, on the contrary, that Edwin Walker was a COMPLEX character, who had both Good and Evil in his soul. When he was a younger man, he served America well as one of the victorious Generals of World War Two. He deserves respect.

However, as an older man, he quit the US Army in protest, and forfeited his pension. At that point he joined the Radical Right movement of Anticommunism -- beyond even the Anticommunism of J. Edgar Hoover and reasonable men.

This irrational movement into the JBS also led Walker into the Southern Politics of Racism -- but HE NEVER JOINED. He was even offered a position as a Grand Dragon of the KKK, and HE TURNED THEM DOWN.

So - I see a complex man -- a man of both Good and Evil -- a man, further, who masterminded the JFK assassination.

For 50 years people have failed to see General Walker as the true mastermind of the JFK assassination. The most common opinion of him -- even expressed by scholars -- is that he was just a "crazy old coot."

Just to dismiss General Walker as another crazy old racist coot cannot help us appreciate the complexity of the man who plotted to kill JFK -- and who will eventually become seen as one of the most important figures of US History -- on the order of John Wilkes Booth.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

1. First of all, you have a lot of nerve demanding quotations from me when you attribute all sorts of beliefs and motives to people without ever QUOTING anything they have written or said.

2. Second, I did provide a specific quotation from Dr. Caufield's book -- which up to now you have effusively praised as the new gold standard for understanding the radical right in our country. But in typical Trejo fashion you just immediately dismissed the source as a "biased" reporter.

3. Third, I note for the record, that you never answered my question about how YOU determined that the reporter was "biased" -- i.e. what is YOUR evidence to substantiate that claim? You refuse to provide any because this is your typical debate tactic--i.e. demand a quality of evidence from your critics which you NEVER apply to yourself.

4. Fourth, you always want to set the terms of debate based upon YOUR phony evidence standards. Determining whether or not someone is racist is NOT (repeat: NOT) based solely and exclusively upon what written or spoken record they choose to leave behind -- particularly in situations when somebody might wish to conceal their beliefs or behavior or values.

EXAMPLE: I am constantly attacked by admirers of Eustace Mullins because I pointed out he was a homosexual. Now someone like yourself would demand some kind of love letter written by Mullins in which he acknowledged his sexuality -- but there probably is none.

HOWEVER -- there are multiple friends and associates of Mullins who acknowledged his sexuality AND there is Mullin's military service records showing that he was hospitalized on two occasions (once for over 2 months) and the psychiatrists who treated Mullins discussed his homosexuality. There is also OTHER evidence. But no "quotations" that would satisfy you.

5. You keep repeating (over and over) that Walker was "offered" the position of Grand Dragon of Texas but he rejected the offer. But you never answer the obvious questions that arise from that fact -- namely:

5.1 WHY would the Imperial Wizard of the UKA even consider Walker? What did Shelton know about Walker that made Shelton believe that Walker might be interested in, and appropriate for, such a position? [Would a KKK official ever contact Paul Trejo and offer Paul such a position?]

5.2 WHY did Walker tell an associate that he was INTERESTED in that offer and was considering it? What does THAT tell you about Walker's beliefs and values?

6. It is precisely because I reject uni-dimensional analyses of human beings that I recognize one must consider MORE THAN just direct quotations one can find. One also must consider BEHAVIOR and ASSOCIATIONS.

I have NEVER done what YOU claim, i.e. "just dismiss Walker as another crazy old racist coot".

BY CONTRAST: It is YOU who wants to jettison EVERY bit of inconvenient data and it is YOU who wants us to just dismiss a mountain of evidence regarding Walker's beliefs and values and associations that any rational person would acknowledge and then carefully consider.

7. YOUR approach is anti-historical. You want history limited to "quotations". Well I hate to break this news to you Paul, but there are NO verifiable "quotations" in existence from numerous prominent persons in U.S. and world history.

I have spent decades researching right-wing and radical right personalities who had some kind of impact upon their local community, or their state, or nationally. MOST of the time, there is (at best) one or two newspaper articles that might mention their activities. SOME of these folks donate correspondence and publications to some institution BUT (as Dr. Caufield correctly points out in his book), there often are major gaps AND sometimes these activists choose to artfully select what documents they want others to see after their death, i.e. they remove correspondence or other evidence which would reveal their true beliefs and character.

Example: Eustace Mullins wrote an autobiographical memoir entitled "A Writ For Martyrs". In his book, Mullins tells his readers that he has reproduced key FBI documents from his file....and those documents reveal (Mullins said) the "persecution" he and his family dealt with as a result of FBI surveillance.

HOWEVER -- Mullins doctored several of the FBI memos which he reproduced. He blacked out portions which discuss his homosexuality, his associations with neo-nazis and other racists.

But there is NO possible way for anybody to know about the document edits UNLESS you purchase those FBI files -- which are now at NARA. They will cost you about $600 and it will take NARA about two years to process your request.

Do you know many people willing to pay that amount of money and then wait 2 years just to obtain documents (including Mullins correspondence) available from no other source?

How about all the other FBI files which have now been destroyed (such as Harry Dean's FBI-Chicago field file) or which are at NARA but which would cost an interested party many THOUSANDS of dollars plus require 2-3 years to process? Do you know many people who have the resources to be able to spend perhaps a total of $50,000 or $100,000 so that they might find the type of "quotations" you want to see?

I am paying NARA $462 for the FBI-Dallas field file on Edwin Walker. It took them 20 months to process my request. EVEN IF I find MORE evidence of Walker's racism -- you will still just dismiss it or de-value it because for some inexplicable reason, you cannot abide discovery of anything which challenges what you currently want to believe.

I repeat my original challenge to you. WHOM (besides yourself) believes that Walker was NOT a racist? Give us a list!

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions For Paul Trejo:

1. Do you dispute that Edwin Walker was a homosexual?

2. If you agree that Walker was gay then please tell us if you have ever found any written documents by Walker OR any verbal statements by Walker acknowledging that he was a homosexual.

3. If you DO NOT have any specific evidence (written or spoken by Walker) -- then what allows you to conclude that Walker was gay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this debate has become too personal -- and has wandered off the theme of the thread -- namely, the 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)

It's simply unimportant whether Walker minded his p's and q's with regard to racism in his bids for political office and political influence, or even whether or not he was gay.

What's vitally important is Walker's role in the JFK assassination. For this crucial topic, Ernie, you have nothing to offer. You have admitted that you don't read the CT literature, so you're not really sure of the issues.

Just so this important thread doesn't fall to the same fate as the much older thread called, "Edwin Walker," which was shut down by the Moderators because of such personal "T'is!" and "T'aint!" bickering which went on for months -- I will cease to respond to your posts on this thread, Ernie. In the interest of the reader.

Say anything you want. I'm only going to respond to contributors here who have something to say about the JFK assassination.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this debate has become too personal -- and has wandered off the theme of the thread -- namely, the 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)

It's simply unimportant whether Walker minded his p's and q's with regard to racism in his bids for political office and political influence, or even whether or not he was gay.

What's vitally important is Walker's role in the JFK assassination. For this crucial topic, Ernie, you have nothing to offer. You have admitted that you don't read the CT literature, so you're not really sure of the issues.

Just so this important thread doesn't fall to the same fate as the much older thread called, "Edwin Walker," which was shut down by the Moderators because of such personal "T'is!" and "T'aint!" bickering which went on for months -- I will cease to respond to your posts on this thread, Ernie. In the interest of the reader.

Say anything you want. I'm only going to respond to contributors here who have something to say about the JFK assassination.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

In other words, you refuse to answer obvious questions regarding what type of evidence you find compelling and credible.

Instead, you want all of us to mindlessly accept whatever you claim.

Lastly, I never wrote or said that I do not read CT literature. As usual -- you never QUOTE what I actually have written. Instead, you just falsely attribute beliefs to me and expect everyone to accept your falsehoods.

What I actually have said repeatedly (with respect to the JFK assassination literature) is that there is no conceivable way to falsify any or all of the 13 or so "theories" regarding "who done it and why".

The reason I made that comment is precisely because of people LIKE YOU who do not accept or use normal rules of evidence and logic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, here is a link to the beginnings of my opinions on book one. I'm enjoying reading it. I'm posting this link because it is about 6 pages as of now, a little lengthy to post here on this blog. If you think I should post it you can comment.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Cl13iUKLkDin3fZ7ApqenBS1C8p4rAmDx9rm2uVtJw/edit

I believe I have the settings correct to give you access.

Respectfully,

Kenneth Drew

Kenneth, I appreciate your respectful manner and your intelligent discourse. I do think you should post your opinions about the history of General Walker to this thread.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this debate has become too personal -- and has wandered off the theme of the thread -- namely, the 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)

It's simply unimportant whether Walker minded his p's and q's with regard to racism in his bids for political office and political influence, or even whether or not he was gay.

What's vitally important is Walker's role in the JFK assassination. For this crucial topic, Ernie, you have nothing to offer. You have admitted that you don't read the CT literature, so you're not really sure of the issues.

Just so this important thread doesn't fall to the same fate as the much older thread called, "Edwin Walker," which was shut down by the Moderators because of such personal "T'is!" and "T'aint!" bickering which went on for months -- I will cease to respond to your posts on this thread, Ernie. In the interest of the reader.

Say anything you want. I'm only going to respond to contributors here who have something to say about the JFK assassination.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I note, for the record, that the reason why Trejo does not want to answer my question regarding Walker's sexuality is because if he answered honestly, Paul would acknowledge that he has NO documentary or verbal evidence BY Walker to substantiate the assertion that Walker was a homosexual.

Nevertheless, a year ago Paul posted a message stating:

"IMHO the only significance of Walker's homosexuality would be the fact that he suppressed it, and lived in the closet, which, according to Freud is generally the first stage of clinical paranoia."

And Paul has posted other messages acknowledging Walker was gay.

So upon what basis did Paul conclude that Walker was a homosexual?

Obviously, Paul's conclusion was based upon Walker's BEHAVIOR.

BUT--- when I make precisely the same point with respect to Walker's behavior in the context of him CHOOSING to routinely associate with, and accept speaking engagements from, racists and anti-semites then, suddenly, Paul demands unambiguous "quotations" BY Walker to support my statements. Never mind that Paul has NO "quotations" BY Walker acknowledging his homosexuality!!

Nor does Paul limit himself to Walker. Paul has also described David Ferrie as a "known homosexual" -- even though Paul has presented no "quotations" BY Ferrie acknowledging his sexuality.

Edited by Ernie Lazar
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...