Featured Post



Saturday, December 1, 2018

"The Green Book" movie and an earlier,1962 integrated road trip in South

To All,  I went to a movie last night and saw one I heartily recommend, The Green Book.  It is "based" on a true story.  I assume there were many, stronger, bitter words between the 2 main characters that are not mentioned in the film.  I suspect it is sanitized.  BUT IT IS STILL A GOOD FILM.  No special effects.  But the basics are there; the basics are true.  If you can, see "The Green Book."
     All that reminded me of a car trip I took in the South.  The Green Book takes place in 1962; my trip was 1960.  Hugh Murray

Hugh Murray
 In August 1960 the Congress of Racial Equality, which had been involved in student sit-ins that had begun earlier that year, decided to hold a training institute in Miami, Florida.  I desperately wanted to go, and the newly formed CORE chapter in New Orleans was preparing to send some people.  I assumed there would be about 1,000 people from all over the nation who would meet in Miami.  I was living with my parents who were not enthusiastic.  Would I be the only white going?  They asked.  I told them another white from Loyola U. of the South (a Jesuit institution) would be going.  He probably made it easier with his parents by telling them I was going.
8 from the NO area were finally set to go - one who was not an activist but he had a car, Marvin Robinson, a student at Southern U. (in Baton Rouge, which was then the largest Black university in the world).  I think he had been arrested in some of the SU protests in the spring of 1960, and he also had a car.  Ruth Dispenza, a young Black woman (though physically very light), from New Orleans; another young Black woman, I think it was Joyce Taylor; Rudy Lombard, leader of NO CORE, and a student at Xavier U. in NO (a Black Roman Catholic univ.), Archie Allen, a Black student at Dillard U. in NO (a Black Protestant univ.), and the 2 whites.
We were to depart from NO early in the morning.  I did not want the car to come to my parents home, where a possible argument and scene might erupt.  Oliver and I decided to stay the night NOT at our homes, but renting a room at the Negro YMCA.  He did not stay the night, but went out the the French Quarter with friends for a drinking session.  I stayed but got little sleep.  The room had a large window, it was hot, humid summer night in NO, and no air con or fan.  Just outside my window was the big lighted sign for the YMCA, the light filling my room.  Far worse, there was no screen on the window, and mosquitoes buzzed all night.  I got little sleep.
Oliver would not be driving (I learned later he was legally blind).  He would be in the car with the 2 young women and the driver (who may have been related to one of the women.  So in that car was Oliver (white), Ruth (looking, most would think who was white, though she was not), and Joyce (Black) and the driver.  I was in the car with Marvin, Archie, and Rudy (they were all Black).
In those days one could travel rather comfortably in an American car. There were 3 seats in the front, 3 in the back, and one did not worry with the discomfort and hassle of seat belts and other tortures imposed on the modern riders. In our car, Archie had brought an over-sized trunk that was too big for the automobiles boot or trunk, so it lay on the back seat, occupying what would normally be the seats of 2 people. So we only had room to seat 4 people. Archie did not drive, and since his trunk made it impossible for anyone to sleep in the back seat, he volunteered to sit in the middle front seat, least comfortable on the 22-hour journey.
I was not driving when we first had to stop for gas (petrol) in the very conservative state of Mississippi. In those days a gas station was a “service” station, and a young man would first come out to wipe the windshield, before asking how much gas to pump into your car. Before he came, I rushed out to the restroom (toilet), hoping he would not realize we were a mixed (racial) group. The others then followed. I tried to reenter the car only after the clerk was returning to the cash area of the station. We ate in Tallahassee, a diner operation, and perhaps Marvin knew of it through the Green Book, so it was mainly a Black eatery. I was driving deep into the night going south down into Florida. I went to sleep at the wheel. Happily, the car veered slightly to the right, we went only slightly off the paved highway and the right tires hit gravel, which caused noise and the car to jostle a bit waking all the occupants. Someone else decided to drive after that.
We arrived safely at the Negro motel where we would be staying and where CORE had scheduled its conference. It took 22 hours for our road trip. Not much happened to make it a topic for a movie – happily. The conference was nothing like I expected, for instead of a thousand participants, there were only about 50. It was a 3-week training session in non-violence. Most of our session were held during the day in the motel's cocktail lounge. One day our teacher was baseball legend Jackie Robinson, who was also promoting the cause of Richard Nixon and the Republicans (August of 1960 was a presidential election year). On another day, the teacher was Martin Luther King, Jr., who at that time was only quietly for John Kennedy and the Democrats. His father, an influential minister in Atlanta, had been for Nixon, as he was worried about a possible Catholic president. However, once his son was jailed and the Kennedy's made phone calls to help him, the elder King openly supported the Democratic candidate.
Part of our learning was testing. In Miami there was a major supermarket with a restaurant inside. The restaurant was segregated. We were divided into groups and entered the restaurant and took seats. Most of the CORE groups sat at tables to integrate the eatery. Police were called, and many of our group were arrested. Only 2 were at our table, Ruth and me, but as most assumed she was white, we were not arrested (though, in fact, we were integrating the restaurant).
A few Miamians joined the CORE institute, including the son of A D Moore, who was a student at Dillard in NO, and Bob Kunst, who in the 1970s would lead the campaign against Anita Bryant and for gay rights. One organization very sympathetic to ours was the Jewish Culture Society, which lent us their main room for a dance. You could easily distinguish between the 2 groups, their youngest member was about 60, while most of ours were early 20s. I do remember learning how to do the twist from Ruth at that dance.
I recall little of the return trip. I think we had more in the car, so perhaps Archie's trunk went in the other car. Coming with us was a white young woman from NY, Dottie Miller, who would later marry southern white Bob Zellner. The Zellners were leaders in the early days of the civil rights movement in SNCC and in the Mississippi Freedom Summer efforts of 1964.
Back in New Orleans, Rudy Lombard continued to lead NO CORE. NO, the largest city in the South for over a century, was soon to lose it place with the upcoming census. NO had had no sit-in. In early September 1960, Ruth was the chosen leader, as 7 of us were arrested after being read the law, literally, by the then DA of NO Dowling. Archie Allen, Joyce Taylor, me, another white from Tulane Bill Harrell, and 2 others were arrested. The local NAACP opposed us and our sit-in. But soon the Youth NAACP supported us, and more people joined CORE.
We 7 were convicted of a felony. During the trial, we had all sat together with our attorneys, who were Black. When the judge saw this, he threatened us with contempt of court for race mixing his courtroom. So Bill Harrell and I moved away from the others and from our attorneys. Our convictions were upheld on the local an state levels, but eventually, after some years, the US Supreme Court made a decision in our favor.
       In 1961 CORE would originate the Freedom Rides of the 1960s, in which integrated buses from the North were sent south to end in New Orleans, but often they were attacked along the way in Alabama or Mississippi when they sought to integrate bus terminal facilities along the way.  CORE National leader James Farmer beginning in 1961 would eventually furn for Congress in Brooklyn as a Republican, but he lost.  He then had an office in the Administration of Republican Richard Nixon.
This summary of events is written 58 years after the events, so there may be some errors.

Wednesday, November 28, 2018


My comment on Yahoo re a news story.
The :eft is upset because likely Muslim Brotherhood member, Jamal Khashoggi, was apparently brutally murdered in the Saudi Embassy in Turkey with the approval of Prince Mohammad bin Salmam. Democrats and pro-Iranian Republicans (Flake) are basically demanding the US cut relations with the Saudis, a most important ally. But the Left screams, Prince MbS is a murderer- we cannot be an ally of him or his nation. Turkey's Pres. Erdogan says he has a tape of the murder. But Turkey has at least 20,000 political prisoners now jailed. And Turkey is an esteemed member of NATO! Almost in the EU! In 1941 Winston Churchill said he would make a deal with the devil to defeat Hitler. He made the deal with Stalin, who murdered millions more than Hitler. And America's great liberal FDR? He called Stalin "Uncle Joe," and at least one in the White House during the war was making sure uranium was being transferred to Stalin's USSR.
There are few democratic nations in the Middle East. The most democratic, Israel, is denounced and boycotted bu the Left and many Democrats.
Trump is correct in not wanting to alter American foreign policy because of the murder of one man. Stalin killed about 20 million and FDR and most Democrats were happy to have him as an ally. Obama was making deals on behalf of Iran, sending millions of dollars in unmarked bills to its leaders. Trump rejects Iran whose leaders chant "Death to America."
The US should stay the course under Trump with Israel and the Saudis.
     Before the elections, the Republicans hoped to repeal Obamacare and set up an alternative.  The Republicans had only a 1-vote edge in the Senate, so every vote was needed.  With great publicity, at around 1am McCain would appear in the Senate to cast his vote, which would make it a tie, and Vice-President Pence could then cast a deciding vote to repeal Obamacare.  McCain arrived, and voted.  But he voted to save Obamacare.  Since there was not tie vote, VP Pence did not vote.  The US was stuck with Obamacare.
     The Mid=term elections are 531 Congressional elections, with many local issues in terrains from ocean-side to mountainous, snowy to semi-tropical.  But everywhere the Democrats had one powerful isssue,  Obamacare provides insurance to those with pre-existing conditions.  Democrats had their other usual issues - global warmin (what I call a hoax), pro=crime, reduce size of prisons, more money for schools, but the hot issue in all their ads, the issue that resonated with those who were ill, or with those who had a relative who was, or those who thought they or their loved ones might become ill, that issue was pre-existing conditions.  McCain prevented the Republicans from enacting an alternative to Obamacare.  McCain, who had voted several times to repeal Obamacare earlier, who had campaigned on repealing Obamacare, but whose ego had been tarnished by a comment by Pres. Trump, McCain took his hatred out on Trump and voted to keep Obamacare.  All Americans must now suffer because of McCain's reveng against Trump.  That is McCain's vindictive legacy.

Wednesday, November 21, 2018


To All, I forgot to mention that in English, the phrase "behind the 8 ball" refers to the game of pool, when it's your turn and the cue ball (the white one) is behind the black ball (#8) and thus restricts your range for a good shot.  My comment was a play on that using my age of 80.
     In my reflection on my birthday, I forgot something very important.  I added it here in bold print.  Hugh

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: "hu.murray@netzero.com" <hu.murray@netzero.com>
Subject: Behind the 80 ball?
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 06:48:33 GMT

To All,  Wednesday morning I received a phone call from a cousin in Louisiana.  She told me Jim, another cousin had just died.  He was 80.  I told her that tomorrow (today) was my birthday, and I would turn 80.  We chatted some, and when we hung up (a strange term for the mobile phones), I thought about the contrasts between Jim and myself.  He was a good Roman Catholic; I was not.  He attended Jesuit High School in New Orleans; I attended public schools.  He had been a marine;  I had not.  He had been a successful business man; I not.  He even ran for a seat on the New Orleans school board; I was more "run out of town" with some of my political activities.  After a police helicopter followed my car, and when I let out a passenger, the police swooped down and arrested him (and planned to deport him), I thought it about time to get outta Dodge (a phrase from old, US Western movies).
     Don't misunderstand - I am not jealous of Jim's success.  I am happy he was successful.  He and I were different, and we had different goals, different talents, etc.  Basically, I do not judge myself against others, I judge myself against me, against what I might have done.  I was a rebel, and that can bring problems.  I have had a few terrific days and many painful ones.  Most days were so-so, like those of most people most of the time.
     Jim died at 80 and today I AM 80.  When writing something, there is often a deadline, but Jim reminds me now of a real deadline, the deadline we all face.  For me, time is running out.  At 80, some of you might ask, display some of your wisdom of age.  In reality, I am older, but no wiser.  If I could live my life again, I might try to avoid some mistakes, but if I did so, I might make others just as bad if not worse.  I am as flawed at 80 as I was a 8.  As are we all.  Rarely, are our choices black and white - more often this gray or that gray.  But we can still try to choose the best of the grays.
     Overall, I have been fortunate to have met some wonderful people along the way.  Many of those friends are now dead; they were kind to me and most.  (I was remiss, forgetting something obvious, which I now add to the letter.  I owe much to my family who had to endure some of the painful consequences of my rebelliousness, my "criminal" actions.  Even tho they did not agree with me, they were often supportive in important ways.)  I have been lucky with health, even tho I now have eye problems.  Sure, I still have a deadline, but how much can I do before night falls?
     All the best,  Hugh Murray

Dear Professor Hugh,

I still remember the days when we together played the tennis. Hope you are well. 

Best regards,
Mr. Kang Zhenguo,   Deputy Director, 
Division of International Cooperation & Exchange
...Shijiazhuang, (China)

From Tony Flood, an old friend. (We met in the early 1970s doing research for the editor of the W E B Du Bois Correspondence and reprints of many of his works funded by U. of Massachusetts and Kraus-Thompson Publishers.  We had lost contact for decades and when we re-met, discovered, that he. like me, had moved from Left to Right politically.):

A poignant birthday reflection, one that hits home. A milestone. You've been blessed with life and have blessed others with yours. Happy Birthday, Hugh. May you have many more in good health, pain-free. I'll give you a call midday. Tony 
From Irwin L. (he and his wife were co-workers when we were young and began teaching in elementary school in New Orleans. We went on strike together.)

Hi Hugh

I appreciate what you just put together. I am just a bit older than you and in the process of losing an old friend of about 50 years. Getting older is not fun. Nevertheless, i have produced a booklet i call Hebrew Pronunciation Guide, containing everything significant that i have been able to find on that subject. I am working on my third edition. It is a never ending task but i want to leave something hopefully useful behind to make it easier for others to obtain what i have taken in without my struggle. It keeps my mind busy. I would like to think that my being here was not only to partake but to give something back. If you can find the time and energy i suggest you put something together showing where you were and where you now are. I believe that yours is a very interesting story, much better than most of the stuff that comes out today. Furthermore, i believe that you are honest and anything you put out would be spin free, something uncommon nowadays. Keep on trucking. Irwin

From Pat Conery, a co-worker at the court and union representative at the court in Milwauakee.

Happy Birthday, Hugh!!!!
That was a good reflection of life.  Although I am not 80, I'm trailing you by 11 years and reflect on my life and think about my expiration date as well - maybe more than I should. There are mistakes I've made during my life and a few that still slaps me in the face when I think about them.  The key I guess is to let those thoughts go and go forward.

You should be a writer.  Your emails are very interesting and informative and the books would be best sellers.  Just think there are some people that did great things at 80!  I just pray I can make it to 80 and still take care of myself and have my sound mind.

Enjoy your day whatever you decide to do.  Who knows, with all the walking you do, you might live to be 100! Have a happy birthday!

From Huy (I met him in a free tourist-helping group in Saigon, and he was my tour guide in Thailand. Now he has been awarded a scholarship and is a grad student at World Maritime U. in Sweden.)


You called me Mr.28! Now you are Mr.80! 80 is a nice number with a lot of experiences in life! I still remember about your story with Luther King! I admire you And keep a lot of memories with you in Thailand, Vietnam! Enjoy your life!

I wish you a a happy day, better health and beautiful trip...!

From my Cousin Merle (though the name can be ambiguous, she is a very feminine lady, like her mother and sister with a flair for art and beauty.)

Happy 80th birthday. Been there- done that. We are fortunate we have the abilities to stay active both physically and mentally. Slowing down a bit-yes, forgetting some things-yes but it's okay. Enjoy the day. ‚Merle

From Cousin Debi D.

I  am proud of many of your accomplishments: Woolworth-standing ground for what you believed in the 60s. Taught at Tulane [no, only studied and received a BA and MA at Tulane but was there long enough to help force the Board to change the rules of the university; I did teach], in Germany, China, and other places abroad (I'm sure). I believe you were a large influence when the World
Trade Center got lighting in the stairwells.  You saved many people in 9/11. You are very intelligent/ you still review novels today and share your viewpoint. Not counting all your published works. You are accomplished world traveler who shares his adventures with all. I could go on & on. All of us are flawed . There are many things we all wished didn't happen in our lives. All things good & bad make us who we are today. I'm so glad I got to share many of your travels, novels, stories, reviews, and visits to New Orleans. I am excited you are family.
Thanks for being you-Hugh 
Love, Debi 

From Mollie G., a friend

Happy 80th birthday, Mr. Hugh!! What an insightful, thought-provoking reflection. Hope there are many more before night falls.
Can't wait to see you next Thursday for Thanksgiving!...
Mollie G
Some of the emails included photos and composite pictures, but I don't know how to paste them on this properly, so I didn't. A friend took a photo of me with a phone on 14 November, and I had hoped to include that, but don't know how. Perhaps in future. ANYWAY ALL THE BEST TO ALL OF YOU! hugh murray

Friday, October 26, 2018


(Litchfield, CT.: VDARE.com Books, 2018)
Rev. by Hugh Murray

This book is an over-view, a barely filled in outline. Yet, one can learn from it, especially in areas where one is unfamiliar. Thus, in his section on America's Golden Age, he lists the many inventions by Americans, and when some items were not invented here – such as the automobile, the production process of the assembly line was streamlined by Henry Ford so that the auto became cheaper and more accessible to many more people in America than elsewhere. Many of us are old enough to recall the names of Edison, McCormick, the Wright Brothers, but text books in modern public schools tend to skip over such important contributors by Americans to mankind. I wonder if these inventors are even taught in many public schools today. The reason their accomplishments are de-emphasized and their names possibly omitted is because they were mostly white men, and the educational establishment, infused with multiculturalism and political correctness, seeks to spotlight the inventions of minorities and women, even if they be far less consequential.

In a short summary work, inevitably there will be omissions and differences of what is important. I will include some of the statements I found questionable. Hart utterly fails to evaluate the implications of the Louisiana Purchase.(pp. 57 & 63) To examine this properly he would have to discuss some ramifications of the French Revolution, especially the Jacobins, the Rights of Man, and the push of the French anti-Christian radicals to abolish slavery in the colony of Haiti, then one of the richest areas of the New World. With the guillotining of Robespierre, the Jacobin “Reign of Terror” sliced to a close in France, but in Haiti the Jacobin ideals had already spread and soon a slave uprising was upon the island.

When Napoleon rose to become Emperor of France, he dreamt of an empire in the New World, based in Louisiana (since the conclusion of the 7 Years War, a Spanish colony, but Napoleon had placed one of his brothers upon the Spanish throne and could easily demand the return of the large New World territory). However, before such a project could begin, Napoleon would have to reconquer Haiti from the slaves. An army of 13,000 French troops was dispatched to the island, but between warring with the Black slaves, yellow fever and other tropical diseases, the French Army disintegrated; and it failed to wrest the island from the slaves.

Thus, if France could not reconquer an island, how could it establish an empire in the center of North America? So Napoleon, to prevent Louisiana from falling to his English rivals in another war, - Napoleon was willing to sell the whole vast territory to the new American nation.
The US bought all of Louisiana; Spain transferred it to the French, who presented it to the Americans. Hart utterly fails to note another most salient aspect of this transfer – the US promised not to mistreat the French colonials. It should be stressed that in 1803, there was not a single, legal Protestant church in the whole Louisiana Territory, from New Orleans to Montana, to Minnesota. No synagogues either. By contrast, the new American states were overwhelmingly Protestant (even Maryland, originally established for Catholics, had passed legislation restricting them). At the time of the purchase, many Americans began moving across the Appalachian Mountains, and found it necessary to sell their produce down the rivers, down the Ohio to the Mississippi, and thence to New Orleans. There, they sold their goods and enjoyed some of the delights of a different culture. Making matters even more complex, there was a huge influx of immigrants to New Orleans and Louisiana , but not what one expected. About a fourth of the New Orleans population was suddenly composed of refugees, Black and white, from Haiti.

Because this point is taken for granted, it should be stressed all the more – at a time when in the Western world there was little to no religious toleration, America was embarking on a great experiment. Religious wars had decimated Europe following Luther's nailing his 95 theses to the church door in 1517. In Europe, nations, provinces, free towns, cantons, were either Roman Catholic or Protestant. Those who dissented faced discrimination, or they had to be very discreet, or in some places, they would be exiled or killed. The Netherlands and a few other areas were more tolerant, but they were much the exception; the rule was legal intolerance against religious minorities. This was true, too, of South and Central America. Even during the French and Indian War (7 Years War) French colonists from Acadia (today's Maritime Provinces of Canada) were ethnically cleansed in the 1750s and distributed among the 13 English colonies. The French Catholics, treated as a subversive element, disliked this, and many soon departed for Louisiana (where they became Cajuns). So even as late as the 1750s, an attempt to have Catholics and Protestants live together in the soon-to-be American states did not fare well.

The Louisiana Purchase nearly doubled the size of the US, and though the European population of Louisiana was much smaller than that of the US, it was all Catholic. How would this work out? Once Louisiana was American territory, Americans came to settle too; Protestants and even a wealthy Jewish businessman, Judah Touro. So began the experiment – unusual for that era – of trying to have Protestants and Catholics (and others) live in relative harmony.
Of course, there was natural friction among many different groups, and elsewhere the religious differences had caused injury, death, and wars. Even in 1950s New Orleans, I recall being teased by other neighborhood kids because I attended public rather than Catholic school. In that same era, in most of the South, the Bible Belt, Catholics endured a suspicious, minority status. But the thrust of American history was to overcome religious prejudice. Staunch Protestant Andrew Jackson asked for the help of all New Orleanians in winter 1814-15, as the British prepared to capture the city, and Jackson received the help, even from the Ursuline nuns. A few decades later, as President of the US, Jackson appointed the first Roman Catholic to his Cabinet, and later appointed Catholic Roger Taney to be Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. A short time after, the State of Louisiana elected Judah Benjamin, the first practicing Jew, to the US Senate. In the early 1860s Benjamin would serve several positions in the Cabinet of Pres. Jefferson Davis of the CSA. The Irish fleeing the famine of the 1840s came to the US, but they tended to be poorer, remained in cities rather than purchasing lands to farm, and quickly became known for drinking. In the North, they tended to support the Democrats, and some Irish perceived the possibility of abolition of slavery as a threat to their status and jobs. Some partook in the NYC anti-draft (and anti-Black) riots during the Civil War. In time, the Irish generally assimilated; to be followed by other immigrants – many of whom were Catholic. The Italian immigrants were often poor too, from Sicily and southern Italy. There were accusations about a “Black Hand” secret society (probably Mafia) that roused such hostility that in New Orleans 7 Italians were lynched in the 1890s. However, by the mid-20th century, entertainers Bing Crosby (Irish) might sing White Christmas compoased by Irving Berlin (Jewish), while Frank Sinatra (Italian) and Louis Armstrong (Black) waited to appear next on stage. All were popular. Surely, in having 2 very powerful religious groups live in relative peace for so long over a continent is a great accomplishment of the United States.

Hart raises a point not usually considered – in most of the Spanish colonies, gradual emancipation of the slaves allowed them to achieve full freedom with less bloodshed and before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.(64) But what Hart asserts about the Spanish, was also achieved in America's North. Originally, all the English colonies permitted slavery. With the American Revolution, and passage of the Northwest Ordinance, and then some states enacted immediate or gradual abolition, and by 1860, slavery, without bloodshed, had been abolished in the North. However, 80% of the Blacks resided in the South, and most were slaves; abolition was not debatable in the South. Indeed, many Southerners sought to expand slavery, not only to the North, but to Cuba and possibly parts of Central America. Lincoln completely rejected those Southern demands, and bloodshed on a massive scale did ensue. So did Northern victory and Emancipation. Portuguese Brazil did not free its slaves until some 2 decades after Lincoln.
In a short paragraph Hart presents a good defense of Pres. Buchanan who was a lame-duck Commander-in-Chief when some southern states began to secede.(50-51) His assessment of Lincoln is also concise and accurate.(77-78)

Hart summarizes the achievement of the US during its Golden Age: “During that interval the United States stood out for its wealth, for its military might, and for its unprecedented set of practical inventions and scientific discoveries. We became a beacon of freedom ... In addition, we defeated or outlasted two of the most powerful menacing tyrannies in history...
“Our skyscrapers and superhighways impressed even our adversaries, and they were widely copied. Our music and our motion pictures were wildly popular: not just locally, but in many foreign countries as well. Sports that had originated in the United States – such as basketball, volleyball, and baseball - spread to many other countries. Never in history has a single country so dominated the world on so many different levels.”(82) Incredibly, when Hart discusses culture in American, he neglects to mention jazz!

Why was the US so inventive? Hart posits: patent laws favored inventors, free market economy, low taxes, few regulations, and a large territory and large population in a single custom union.(94)
Hart contends that FDR won his 4th term in office in 1944 because his doctor “deliberately lied to the press and public concerning Roosevelt's poor health.”(129) But is this not what personal physicians of politicians are expected to do? Did JFK's doctor tell the public about the young senator's many infirmaries and the “pain killers” he was taking? Or did Bill Clinton's private physician reveal any previous STDs of the young candidate for the presidency? We know what happened when Democratic Party nominee for president in 1972, George McGovern's running mate, Missouri Sen. Thomas Eagleton, revealed he had undergone electric shock treatment for depression. McGovern initially backed Eagleton 1,000% when the Missourian's medical history came to light, but the media and opponents joked about a nut occupying the White House, and McGovern quickly replaced his vice-presidential running mate. Dropping Eagleton from the ticket did not help McGovern, for he lost 49 of the 50 states to Republican Richard Nixon.

Hart writes that JFK strongly supported civil rights legislation “at that time.”(147) The phrase is ambiguous – Kennedy did little for such legislation during his first 2 years in office, and even during the March on Washington in 1963, he would not have pressed for legislation as far-reaching as that eventually passed after his assassination. Indeed, some contend it was Kennedy's assassination that finally assured passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hart follows the official line in identifying Lee Harvey Oswald as Kennedy's assassin,(174) though, even with the US intelligence agencies' continued determination to prevent release of files on the murder after all these years, I think enough has been revealed so that we can conclude that a plot resulted in the assassination of JFK in Dallas.

Hart's most controversial statement, and one which infuses his work is “By 1972 all legal restriction on blacks had been eliminated. But average black income and wealth was still low, and has remained much lower than whites. Liberals usually assert that this is entirely due to white racism; but it seems far more probable that it is due in significant part to the many lower average natural intelligence of blacks.”(149) Scientifically, this may, or may not be the case. However, since the mid-1960s the media have encouraged Blacks to act and be “angry.” Who would want to interview a Black nerd – or a white one, for that matter? Erkel was good for laughs, but not to be imitated. Black Panthers with their weapons, Leroy Jones, Angela Davis, H. Rap Brown, et al,…, showed the model for the New Blacks, angry, violent if necessary, and defenders always found it necessary. For the leaders, it may have been posturing, theater, but for many, violence was not merely verbal. Even before he was assassinated, Martin Luther King was mocked by the militant Blacks, with the support of white radicals and the media. Malcolm X, who had been assassinated by Black Muslims in 1965, was hoisted as the new model. The pictures of Martin Luther King, with his advocacy of non-violence, had almost faded to white when his murder resurrected his reputation as martyr. The riots throughout American cities in the wake of King's killing shattered the American image round the world. LBJ chose not to run for re-election; the Democrats lost nearly 10 million votes to segregationist candidate Alabama's George Wallace. Nixon's law and order campaign squeaked through over Hubert Humphrey's waffling over Vietnam, race, and most issues. Four years later Nixon carried 49 of 50 states.

Hart provides evidence of America's decline: we don't win wars any more (207), the end of free speech (208), rejection of the presumption of innocent until proven guilty (210), quotas, diversity, and presidential over-reach (212). And the most important causes of the decline – racial antagonism (221) and our loss of price and confidence (236).
In his last chapters Hart outlines possible (often improbable) ways in which America can fall – military defeat, division on racial lines, ethnic lines, political lines, absorption into larger units – North America, an Anglo-sphere, world government, etc. Few people predicted the collapse of the USSR and its east European satellite states. Of course, Communist Parties continue to rule in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and there are wannabe “socialist” states like Venezuela and some African nations. Yet, the most Stalinist of all these, North Korea is now engaged Ina strange dance with Donald Trump's America.

And the latter is a major factor not considered by Hart. The people of Rome, slowly, changed their empire, denying their gods, spurning their sports, rejecting their traditions to adopt an alien religion from the Middle East that elevated a convicted criminal to godhood. In the decisive military battle of that Roman civil war between tradition and the new, the defender of the new religion defeated the old, and rather quickly, the Roman Empire emerged as a Christian Empire. Constantine's empire resembled the old Roman one less and less. Part of the “Roman” Empire in the West would disintegrate in a century, but the eastern part would endure as a Christian empire for a millennium until 1453 AD.

The people of America still have a say in whether our nation lives or dies or morphs into something detached from our history. There are forces today that seek to destroy our traditional past, like the Red Guard of China's Cultural Revolution, statues of Robert E. Lee and P. T. G. Beauregard are removed, but founders of this nation Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are also under attack, and the man who most made this enterprise possible, Christopher Columbus, is often denounced. Many do want to rip America from its wonderful history. This is why the election of Donald Trump was so crucial, especially with his slogans – America First (a phrase repellent to liberals), Make America Great Again, build a wall (to prevent further invasion). The “deplorables” still have a voice and may be able to restore faith and pride in America, and end racial, ethnic, and sexual quotas, destroy diversity (anti-white discrimination), and treat all citizens equally, hiring and promoting the best qualified candidates to make America more inventive, more productive, more powerful; in sum, to make America great again. America can climb up from our fall, 1965-2016, ready to rise and soar again.

Monday, October 15, 2018


    On American public television, there is now a series aimed to encourage reading, The Great American Read.  100 novels by authors from all over the world were chosen, and the general public can vote on their favorite.  On the weekly program, some of the novels are discussed by fans of those novels nominated.
   When I was young, many considered Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn as the great American novel.  In recent decades, it has been banned in schools and even some libraries because one of the main characters in the novel is N_____ Jim, and for decades now, whites and polite society are not permitted to use the n word to describe Black people.  Just last week in a suburb of Milwaukee, Shorewood, the high school theater department had to cancel, on opening day, a production of "To Kill a Mocking Bird" because of the n word, which some found offensive, and they threatened protest!  So even if ten people out of 1,000 are offended, the school caves in, and the play is canceled!  I suspect they found the play "racist"!  BREAKING NEWS.  Shorewood High had planned to present the play based on "To Kill a Mockingbird" today, 17 Oct. 2018, just for the parents of the players and staff, but last night a threat was received.  Today, this limited-audience production of the play was also cancelled.  The 17-year-old who threatened the theater was arrested, but the school board seems to cave again.  Perhaps they can perform it next week under a different title - "To Kill a Play," or "To Kill American Culture!"
     Angry about how pc is destroying American culture, I just posted the following on the PBS Great American Read's website discussion/comments;  I tried to copy my comment and wasted half an hour trying to paste it on my blog, so I will rewrite a comment, which may not be exactly as the one I posted:  Mark Twain's Adventures of Tom Sawyer is on the list of the 100 for which you can vote, but NOT Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.  I suspect the reason that Huck Finn is not included is because one of the main characters is "N____r Jim" and though it is a funny and fabulous novel, the pc police will not consider its greatness.  It is often banned in schools now.  Apparently the word Injun is still allowed according to the pc crowd, as Injun Joe is a major character in Tom Sawyer.  Injun is ok, for now, anyway.
   The irony is that one book discussed on the program and among the 100 is Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None," published in the US in the early 1940s.  What goes unmentioned is that the same novel was first published in the UK under the title "Ten Little N____rs," and I saw paperbacks of the novel in British Woolworths with that title displayed on the metal, turnable racks, in the late 1960s.  But few Americans are aware of that fact.  So Christie's fine mystery novel is allowed, but Twain's great classic is barred.  PC is destroying American culture, and history, and thought.  Even the well-meaning attempt to promote reading, restricts thought and appreciation of our great culture.

Thursday, September 20, 2018


(2018) Kindle edition
Rev. by Hugh Murray

In his latest book on the JFK assassination, Jerry Kroth tries to include as much as possible of the most recent downloads of Kennedy documents by the Trump Administration. Originally, they were to be kept secret for 75 years, and then the law was changed so many records could be released earlier. Some were, but each time various agencies like the CIA urge continued secrecy. While the major media has generally ignored the most recent opening of files in spring 2018, Kroth read as many as he could and includes some of the surprising findings in his kindle book.

1. Thanks to Kroth, we now know that there were 2 American servicemen stationed in Europe in the fall of 1963 when they overheard electronic chatter. In late October and early November, one stationed in Metz, the other in Scotland, unknown to each other, both heard encrypted chatter about the forthcoming assassination of Pres. Kennedy. One heard that it would occur in Texas in late November, and the accused murderer would be either a Negro or a communist. One of the soldiers heard reference to Guy Banister, then in New Orleans, with ties to the FBI, CIA, and other agencies. (In the summer of 1963 in New Orleans Oswald ran his Fair Play for Cuba outfit from Banister's office.) The two soldiers did not know each other. When both, in different ways, sought to warn higher-ups of what they had heard, both were taken to mental hospitals where they remained for the following 6 months.

2. Kroth's detective work. A letter allegedly written by Oswald in early November 1963 to a Mr. Hunt, asked Hunt about Oswald's role in the operation. Some questioned the authenticity of the letter. However, by finding Oswald's previous unusual misspelling of a word, Kroth is convinced the letter is genuine, and later discusses who the Mr. Hunt might be and Oswald's connection to him.

3. Kroth notes that Oilman H. L.. Hunt's security chief had warned him there might be some trouble along the presidential parade route in Dallas. Kroth thinks that this would make little sense if Hunt were involved in the assassination plot.
4. Kroth believes the Oswald letter was sent to E. Howard Hunt, a man later to be arrested in the Watergate operation.

5. Kroth weaves the deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt with that of James Files, whom Kroth has often interviewed. Files maintains he was the shooter on the grassy knoll. Kroth also presents a list of the likely assassins in Dallas on the 22 November. Interestingly, he does not include Malcolm Wallace, who some believe was a sniper on the 6th floor of the Texas State School Depository Building, and was a known henchman of Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson.
6. In one long paragraph, Kroth indicates how Lyndon Johnson intervened in planning the parade route and in disposing of the limousine following the murder. I shall quote that paragraph near the conclusion of the review.

7. Important for us all in the days of Trump and the media – Kroth indicates how NBC and Dan Rather (CBS), and major media worked to bolster the official line on Oswald, the lone, nut, communist, assassin. Rather, one of the few permitted to view the Zapruder film of the assassination, told America how Kennedy's head was thrust forward with Rather bringing his head down to his chin to illustrate what he had “seen” (visually emphasizing how the shot had come from behind). Years later, 1975, when the American public could see the Zapruder film for themselves, they could also understand how Rather had lied (if they would have remembered).

8. It was not merely the media that may have been pressured to follow the official line. LBJ wanted the special commission to be the final authority on the investigation of the assassination. When he asked Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Earl Warren to lead the commission, Warren declined and wanted nothing to do with it. LBJ demanded that they meet. Before that meeting, Johnson, from his next-door neighbor FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, received a file on Warren. When Warren arrived and again refused to head the commission, LBJ reminded the Chief Justice of a little incident in Mexico City, described in the file. Warren began to cry and conceded, I will do whatever you want. The black-robed justice yielded to Lyndon's black mail. Apparently Lyndon told this story to Sen. Richard Russell on a taped telephone conversation. We still refer to it as the Warren Commission. Kroth adds that the conclusion of the Commission, while officially endorsed by most political leaders of that time, was often questioned by them off-the-record, such as Representative Hale Boggs (father of Cokie Roberts) and Sen. Richard Russell (the Senate Bldg. Is named for him). Kroth adds that the American public, when polled, also reject the official version of the Oswald, lone-nut, communist assassin. Indeed, he notes that the public usually rejects the Warren Commission version by wide margins.

9. When New Orleans District Atty. Jim Garrison sought to reopen the case and prosecute conspirators involved in the assassination, the FBI sent agents to trail Garrison and his detectives, while the CIA sought to infiltrate Garrison's investigation and sabotage it. On his YouTube discussion, Kroth asserts that many of Garrison's files have still NOT been released by Trump.

10. Kroth provides examples of the media colluding with the federal government to discredit Garrison and even to bribe and turn his witnesses. He could have added that GOP Governors Ronald Reagan of California and James Rhodes of Ohio refused to extradite witnesses Garrison sought for his trial against the conspirators in Louisiana.
11. I am 20th century and had never before used a kindle. Buying a devise and then borrowing a library book on how to read a book, I found frustrating and expensive. I also felt like a 3rd grader. Buying a book to learn how to read at my age and such a price! This book should be in paperback.

12. There are numerous errors of grammar where a word or 2 is missing. On 2 occasions, Kroth identifies George de Mohrenschildt as Oswald's friend in New Orleans. The successful, white Russian had befriended the poor Oswald in Texas, not New Orleans. Because this is an electronic book, there are no page numbers to cite. I also feel that it was rushed to publication, perhaps because of the importance of the newly revealed documents. But is this book that much more informative than Kroth's YouTube discussion of the same material?

Bottom line, this would be an essential book for all interested in the assassination of President John Kennedy, showing how the US government has manipulated the media to cover up questions and accept the official line of the Warren Commission, the FBI, and the CIA. This should be a paperback. As a kindle, its impact is restricted.

Kroth's interesting long paragraph on Lyndon Johnson's activities around the case, can be found at 62%.
“There are still a few academics that believe Johnson should be held above suspicion, but it is hard to develop empathy for their position. When we have such a long history of redacted, censored, and destroyed documents which began in earnest under his watch; when we recall the unsolved execution style murder of Mary Meyer ten months after the assassination – who was about to go public, or Dorothy Kilgallen who planned to do the same; when we learn attempts were made to bribe individuals so they would testify they saw Oswald in Mexico City; when we think of the plethora of witnesses (n=61) who said the shots came from the grassy knoll whom the Warren Commission generally ignored;61 when we recall the suspicious motorcade route which forced the presidential limousine to enter a triangulated killing zone and slow to an almost complete stop; when we reflect on the instantaneous removal of the limousine to Detroit and destruction of evidence of the crime scene, and when we review abject paranoia – every last soul who might have dissented from the Warren Commission conclusions, like Jim Garrison or Mark Lane, it is impossible to see the man who presided over all these events – and who gained so much from them- should be held blameless.”

In his YouTube discussion, Kroth criticizes various mainstream historians. Thus Arthur Schlesinger wrote hundreds of pages about “John Kennedy's Thousand Days” in the White House, and never discussed the President's many trysts with women. Schlesinger contended, they were not important. Kroth retorted that when JFK was bedding a woman who at the same time was mistress to a powerful Mafia boss, that is important. (And J. Edgar Hoover thought it important that Kennedy had a fling with a woman thought to be an East German spy.) Helen Kearns Goodwin, another “court” historian who used to frequent PBS and other television newscasts, may have been too close to some of the subjects of her biographies to be objective. Indeed, like most popular historians, they treat presidents with great respect if not awe.

It is unlikely that the mainstream historians will recognize that in 1963 America experienced a coup d'etat, killing President John Kennedy and covering up the crime with the patsy of Oswald. A Deep State – intelligence officials, high military figures, the Mafia, and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson, with varied motivations, were all in on the plot.

A counter-coup occurred beginning in June 1972 with the arrest of the Watergate burglars at the offices of the Democratic National Committee. The robbery, in itself, meant little. However, those arrested included some linked to the White House and some whose names had already been heard in connection to Dallas. Soon the Deep State was on the defensive; was its lawlessness indicative of utter contempt for law. Democrats began investigating this, probing that. Now, the media took the side of the counter-coup. It seemed that the President was involved in the cover up. Support for Nixon, who had been reelected with an overwhelming majority in 1972, plummeted. Finally, Republican Senators informed him, they did not have enough votes in the Senate to stave off an impeachment vote to remove him from office. In August 1974 Nixon resigned. The counter-coup had partially succeeded.  Nixon was removed, but he was replaced by Gerald Ford, a former member of the Warren Commission.

In the 21st century there were changes – in the world, in America, and in the Deep State. In 1990 the Soviet Union unraveled, defeated by Pres. Reagan's hard-line policies against “the evil empire.” While one academic proclaimed “the end of history,” Pres. George H. W. Bush had a chance to restart history with unrivaled power. The Bush family had CIA connections going back decades. He would lead America into a new global era, the New World Order, making alliances of an expanded NATO in both western and eastern Europe, and, following an alliance against the Soviets in Afghanistan with the Muslim Mujaheddin, new possibilities opened. But some of those Muslims also saw new opportunities; they defeated the Soviet Communists in Afghanistan, and beyond. Now they would attack the decadent West. Several illegal aliens flew passenger planes into the World Trade Center, demolishing them, and into the Pentagon, destroying part of it. Another target was spared when passengers fought with the hijackers, leading to the death of all on that plane. But Pres. George W. Bush did not blame Islam. He even walked, hand-in-hand (meaning friendship) with a Saudi prince. On the other hand, Bush led the US into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

With the election of Pres. Barack Hussein Obama, the pro-Muslim aspects of the new era continued. An Arab Spring led to changes in governments, which brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt. The Obama Administration overthrew Libya's government, had subrosa intervention in Syria, helped overthrow Ukraine's pro-Russian leadership, and sought rapprochement with Iran. Obama also tried to defeat Israel's Netanyahu at the polls. Obama had been a boy in a Muslim country, in Hawaii had been mentored by a Black who was a member of the Communist Party, USA, and when he resided in Chicago, was befriended by former terrorists from the Weather Underground. It is not so surprising that under Obama, John Brennan, was promoted to CIA chief, even though (or because) he had voted in 1976 for Gus Hall, candidate of the CPUSA. Indeed, by the close of the Obama Administration, the new Deep State was composed of the old Left, Brennan, anti-Vietnam War veteran John Kerry, and other high officials in the State Dept., FBI, and military.

This Deep State is the enemy of Donald Trump. They went after his advisor, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, to destroy someone who would contribute to dismantling their New World Order. They would use a story of Trump hiring prostitutes to piss on the bed where the Obamas had slept in Moscow to promote media reaction against Trump and stories of Russian collusion. I need not go on, as it is a continuing story. The new Deep State is determined to sabotage the nationalist, populist administration of Pres. Trump. The question is, how far will they go to prevent him from changing course, from withdrawing from global warming treaties, from opposing Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and such groups while supporting Israel and other Muslim groups. From closing the borders to invaders. Will the new Left Deep State and its media minions merely obstruct, merely “resist?” Or will it redefine resist?

Wednesday, September 19, 2018


     Christine Blasy Ford is not alone! The woman who has accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct may have support from other victims.
     Democrats are in luck. More women are coming forth to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. First, there is Crystal Mangum, whom you may recall from the incident at Duke University. She maintained she was assaulted by members of the Duke U. men's lacrosse team. Because of her, the team was disqualified for the rest of the season and members of the team were charged under various forms of sexual misconduct. Surely, she is a credible witness. She is courageous enough to add her voice against nominee Kavanaugh.
     Second, Tawana Brawley has resurfaced to say she seems to recall an incident in a trash bag in some state some years ago; her memory is fuzzy about the details, but she is sure the attacker was Brett Kavenaugh. She is willing to testify, and thinks that civil rights activist Al Sharpton, and host on CNN, will again be beside her when she makes her charges.
     A surprise note came from the elderly Victoria Price. She said she was raped on a freight train in 1931 near Scottsboro, Alabama, by several Blacks, and after the first trials, 8 were sentenced to death. (Those verdicts were overturned and the cases went on for years). Price is older now, but is certain the man who accosted her about 20 years ago in some state was Kavanaugh.  The details she "disremembers."
     And when visiting Washington, DC a few years ago, Anita Hill ordered a can of Coke in a restaurant. She spotted a pubic hair on the can. She is certain the hair was that of Judge Kavanaugh's. He was humiliating her in a sexual way, even though he was not visible at the restaurant at that time.
     Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Dem., Cal.) is urging a delay in the Judiciary Committee hearings until testimony can be heard from these courageous women to tell how they were victimized.
     By Hugh Murray
For those outside of the US who may not be familiar with the back stories, this is satire.  In these cases the charges made by the women proved to be lies (or at best, unsubstantiated) and the men were the victimes.