Featured Post



Monday, January 11, 2021


On November 6, 2020, I posted an article about the Biden Election and Its Predecessors. I compared his election to that of the Nazis in March 1933, in which the majority of voters, nearly 2 thirds, voted against democracy and in favor of totalitarianism, Nazi, Nazi allies, and Communists. Here I want to reconsider the comparison.

When I wrote immediately after the November 3 election in the US, I assumed that Biden had won the popular vote by several millions, and the Electoral vote by a substantial majority. However, the more I considered the objections to the electoral results, the more I questioned my initial acceptance of the major media narrative. I reside in Wisconsin, a state which in my youth was synonymous with clean government. But was that still true? I thought of my anger when in Wisconsin we had a state-wide election in April 2020. The Democrats were already promoting vote-by-mail, and the day before the election, the Governor, a left-wing Democrat, canceled the election day polling. A last minute judicial ruling said the governor could not do that. We would go on with the in-person voting as scheduled. So then Mayor Tom Barrett of Milwaukee, another liberal Democrat, reduced the number of polling places for a city of over half a million, from 180 to a mere 5 polling places. I suddenly did not know where to vote, had to take a bus to a different neighborhood, a find where to enter the place, etc. At some of these polls, the wait was 2 and ½ hours to vote. Other Democrat Mayors also cut the polling places. Yet, Democrats always proclaim that it is Republicans who seek to suppress the vote!

I learned that in September and October 2020, before the Wisconsin law permitted early voting, there were vote parties in parks in Madison and other areas, advertised by the Wisconsin Election Commission and the Democratic Party, in which many young people could vote, early, and their ballots were collected by election officials. A Republican official demaned that these ballots be kept separate, as the GOP would contest this violation of the law. The election officials immediately went about to integrate these ballots with the uncontested. Election officials defied the law also stating that because of the virus, people who were not permanently impaired, could sign saying they were, and get mail-in ballots for which they would not have to show the required photo ID. Wisconsin law states that if a mail-in vote lacks a signature, or that of a withness, or the address of a witness, it should be returned to the voter for correction, OR NOT BE COUNTED, AS IT WOULD BE AN ILLEGAL VOTE. But election officials defied the law, especially in Democratic Party areas, allowing clerks to correct and count these defective ballots. And so on. It is estimated that over 200,000 Biden ballots were illegally cast in Wisconsin. The official tally is that Biden won the state by 20,000 over Trump. Delete the 200,000 illegal votes, and Trump should have won Wisconsin by 180,000.

What happened in Wisconsin happened in many other states. The major contested states were Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada, but there was probably fraud and Democratic Party cheating in most states. It got less publicity and less perusal because the other states were less crucial – if Trump could show that he had really won more legitimate votes in those contested states, then he would be the winner and should be inaugurated January 20, 2021 for his 2nd term. But court after court was unwilling to look at the evidence – they preferred to turn a blind eye to the cheating. It is possible they kept a wide eye to what happened all summer long, the violence of the Democratic Party mobs burnding down parts of cities. The culprits were rarely punished, and the organizations who sponsored these terrorist tactics earned millions from frightened corporations. Whatever the reasons, the courts refused to hear the evidence.

On January 6, 2021 Congress was to meet to count and certify the votes of the Electoral College. Pres. Trump had urged his followers to come to Washington, DC, so he could give an account of the voter fraud essential to Biden's alleged victory. At the conclusion, he urged a peacable march on the Congress. Not all who marched were peaceful? Some stormed into the Congress, fighting with police, overwhelming the authorities by their numbers. A policeman was killed by demonstrators; one unarmed female demonstrator was killed by the police.

The media was outraged. Congress under attack; our democracy at risk! Congress, the people's chamber interrupted by invaders. Foreign nations are laughing at us; China compares the anti-Beijing protestors in Hong Kong (who invaded the city's chamber) to those in DC. The problem with the media and the Democrats outrage is that it was hypocritical. In the summer of 2020 mobs of Democrats, bearing Black Lives Matter and Anti-Fa banners had cause great destruction in many cities, including Washington, DC. The AP story of 31 May 2020 relates:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secret Service agents rushed President Donald Trump to a White House bunker on Friday night as hundreds of protesters gathered outside the executive mansion, some of them throwing rocks and tugging at police barricades.

The US Govt., has 3 basic divisions: legislative, executive, and judicial. While the media went over the top with the invasion of Congress, it's treatment of the attacks on the executive were quite different. It failed to see that as an attack on democracy; and some mocked Trump for hiding in the basement. Next night, when Trump cleared Lafayette Park of the mob, media and the Democrats (I'm being repetitious) complained that the peaceful demonstrators were being deprived of their civil liberties. After the clearing, Trump walked through the cleared part ot an ancient church that, the previous night the “peaceful protestors” sought to torch. (If given a chance, would they have also set fire to the White House?) There, Trump waved a Bible in triumph; the church was still there. Even last week Biden belittled Trump for using the Bible. If the invasion of the Capitol was an assault on democracy; then so was the assault on the White House that the Secret Service found threatening enough to bring the Trumps to the bunker. Why do the media and Democrats make so much of the attack on the Capitol, and so little about the attacks on the White House, for it was not just one, but guests leaving the White House were often subjected to harassment and threats by the Dem allies BLM and Anti-Fa.

On 30 January 1933 Pres. Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler Chancelor of Germany. Hitler asked that a new parliament (Reichstag) be elected, and the date was set for 5 March. However, on 27 February the Reichstag building was set ablaze, and a Dutch Communist was found in the building and was probably the arsonist. Hitler then asked Pres. Hindenburg to suspend civil liberties while the govt. sought to prevent further Communist terrorism. The election gave the Nazis 44%, their allies 8%, and the Communists, 16%. The parliament then passed an empowering act, giving Hitler special powers to handle the crisis. The Communists were then expelled from the Reichstag; with their exit, the Nazis suddenly had a majority in the Reichstag.

1 April 1933 the Nazis conduct a national boycott of Jewish stores and businesses.

Shortly before European Labor Day, 1 May 1933, union offices raided, those of Communists, Socialsists, and Catholic unions. The govt. announces hereafter there will be but one German Labor Front organization under leadership of the Nazis, and the Nazis conduct the May Day celebrations. Meanwhile, freedom of speech, of the press, and so on was quickly evaporating in Germany.

The media and Democrats are using the Capitol invasion as their Reichstag moment. There is such hatred of Trump and those who support him. A Senator who dared speak up in Congress to denounce voter fraud, just lost a contract with a major publisher (now a subsidiary of CBS) in which he would expose the big tech monopolies and how they are a danger to free speech. To prove their danger, and more, their power, the big techs colluded to ban Parler from the internet! Since big tech supported Biden, even banning the expose by the NY Post of Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's corrupt dealings in China and elsewhere. Do not expect a Biden administration to crack down on big tech.

Biden talks of unity, but simultaneously sounds quite vindictive, not only against Trump, but against all who voted for him. Hitler moved quickly to destroy freedom in Germany. How quickly is Biden moving? And Biden is not yet President!-------------Hugh Murray

Friday, December 11, 2020




by Hugh Murray

Nearly four score years ago President Franklin Roosevelt announced that December 7 would live in infamy. He was referring to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. With news of today, one must sadly conclude: move over December 7 to make room for December 11. On this day the United States Supreme Court made a decision in the tradition of that court, in the tradition of the Dred Scott decision of 1857, in which Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that Scott, a Black slave suing for his freedom, had no right that a white man need respect, and had no right to be freed. The High Court ruled 7-2 supporting Taney. Today's decision continues the heinous precedent of Dred Scott.

On November 3, 2020 the US conducted its Presidential election. Because of allegations of wide-spread fraud in many states, and of obvious defiance of state laws in several states, there were serious questions if Democrat Joseph Biden really did win the popular vote in many states. Also, in several states, election officials had ignored state laws and constitutions, or simply revised them by proclamation, consent decrees, or bureaucratic re-interpretations. Critics alleged that a consequence of the many changes was to give Biden and the Democrats sometimes hundreds of thousands of what should be deemed “illegal” votes, that is votes that should never have been counted. Worse, by permitting illegal votes to sway the final election results in 4 key, swing states, the “cheat” were sufficient to determined the entire election for the nation. Thus, the cheats, would determine the final results, not merely in those states, but nationally, giving the Presidency to Biden; whereas if only legal votes had been counted, Pres. Donald Trump would have been handily re-elected. To rephrase, the cheating by the Democrats in 4 swing states was sufficient to elect as president Biden over Trump, whereas Trump was the man who had really won all 4 contested states if you only count “legal” votes.

Because the cheating by the Democrats resulted in changing the winner from Trump to Biden, this cheating discounted the electorate in states which did not cheat. If not stopped, it would enslave all of Americans to the leadership of an obviously corrupt Biden family, beholden to Chinese Communists for millions of dollars, and prepared to yield American policies to benefit the national interests of the Peoples Republic of China.

Americans do not want to be enslaved – by cheating Democratic Party machines, by a corrupt Joe Biden, or by his buyers in Beijing. Today, December 11, 2020, the US Supreme Court chose not to even hear the evidence. It closed the door on, not merely the good people of Texas, but all those who reject voter fraud in all the states and in all its forms. The US Supreme Court, in effect, gave the American people no remedy. It refused to hear the case, by a vote of 7-2. The majority voted to enslave not only the voters of those 4 states where the cheating most blatantly occurred, but of all 50 states and territories. This is why December 11, 2020, will also live in infamy.

Wednesday, December 9, 2020

DR. FAUCI - The Medicrat OR . . .?

 As Dr. Fauci was raised to celebrity status in the spring of 2020 by Pres. Trump, few realized how powerful the doctor would become.  Trump, who had been know as something of a germaphobe, was clearly worried about the Wuhan virus, which has now gone through many names: Corona, Covid 19, etc.  The daily tv reports on the virus that featured several medical authorities, including Dr. Fauci, and the President, raised the immunologist to national attention.  Though Fauci had made some bad predictions early in the virus era, that we did not have to worry about it, in time the rift between Fauci and Trump grew.  Fauci became more of a lock-down advocate, thinking basically about the virus and how it might spread.  Trump also had to consider the repercussions of lock-down - closing schools and what that would mean for youth, and for their parents who might not be able to work if the children had to remain home.  Closed factories and stores.  Unemployment.  Social distancing brought social isolation for many.  Drug abuse rose, and drug deaths.  Spouse abuse rose, and child abuse too.  Depression, economic and mental.  Rise in suicides.  And since the only permissable outdoor assembly was left-wing protest, riots, arsons, lootings, crime rose.  But to prevent the spread of the virus in prisons and jails, many convicts were released, and some of them quickly returned to crime.  Murder rates in large cities rose.

     Pres. Trump sought to open up society; Dr. Fauci  gave Democratic Mayors and Governors the green light for ever more crack downs.  He rarely implied they would be long.  After a month or so, there would be relaxation, people would gather, drink, eat, celebrate, and the virus would spread.  Though the death rate was mainly among the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions, the major media (pro-Democrat) would stress the case rate.  And since hospitals would earn more if a patient died of the virus, almost any death would be inspected looking for the virus, and be classified as cause of death.  The infamous Minneapolis criminal George Floyd also had the virus when he died as police sought to arrest him.  But he would not be classified as dying from the virus, because then the liberal authorities could not charge the police with murder.

      When front-line medical workers asserted that combinations of cheap drugs could cure the virus, Dr Fauci attacked them.  He demanded orthodoxy, and soon the dissenters were banned from major media and social media.  Fauci, earlier in his career, had demanded the opponenets of the HIV theory of AIDS be silenced, and he succeeded.  Free speech is not one of his values, nor free inquiry.

     Dr. Fauci seems to favor lock down, a slight loosen up, lock down, loosen, and so on for years.  Wear the mask.  You must obey.  Dr. Fauci, a carreer beaurocrat, is undoubtedly a Democrat, and "President Elect" Joe Biden will make him a chief advisor.  A frew months ago Fauci was diverting US funds to a laboratory in Wuhan, and he has friends in large pharmeceutical corporations.

     Because Dr. Fauci is so important today, and better known than the fabled Dr. Faustus, I suggest a word to summarize his views - FAUCISM.  This would be pronounced fauchism, to distinguish it from fascism.  Though they may be closer than one realizes.


Friday, November 20, 2020


  The election for US President in 2020 indicates some states are in dispute.  In Wisconsin, where I live, Pres. Trump has paid $3 million for a recount of the vote in the 2 largest counties encompassing Milwaukee and Madison, both Democratic Party strongholds.  Below is a comment I sought to place on the comment area of the Milw. Journal Sentinel, on line.  It may or may not be approved for posting.  Hugh Murray 

The big question is were massive numbers of illegal ballots counted as valid?  The law says that for mail-in ballots the voter and his witness must correct the errors.  In 2016 with relatively few mail-ins, clerks were allowed to correct the ballots.  It was illegal, but probably few ballots were involved.  In 2020 with massive mail-ins, corrections became massive in some areas, and so did corrections in Democratic dominated areas.  These votes were ILLEGAL, and enough to change the winner.  Such votes should not be added in the recount.  Then there were the summer voting parties in the parks of Madison, jointly sponsored by the official election organization AND the Biden organization.  Picknickers were allowed to vote early - before the legal date for early voting.  These ballots were illegaly cast and harvested.  Add to these thousands of illegal votes, regular fraud, and the sleazy way the Greens and Kanye West were barred from the ballot, denying voters their first choice for president to please the Democratic machine in Wisconsin and nation-wide (as they had fought against the Nader ballot earlier this century), one sees the Democrats in a different view.  They accuse the GOP of trying to suppress the vote, but in April 2020 in Milwaukee the polling places was cut from 180 to a mere 5; that is voter suppression by the Democrats, and this type of suppression occurred in other Dem run cities.  Finally, now for the re-count, the Dems are at it again, trying to obstruct a fair recount.

     The sooner this case gets to the courts, the better.  Republican poll workers  were not really allowed to observe the regular count, being held back 30 feet or at best 6 feet from the counters.  In effect, the observers were denied the right to observe.  Will this be repeated during the costly recount.  The courts will most likely have to resolve all these questions.

Thursday, November 19, 2020


      The American media were shocked during the Helsinki Conference when Pres. Trump asserted that he believed Pres. Putin of Russia when he said there was no Russian interference in the American election of 2016, directly contradicting reports of American intelligence.  (Of course, the leaders of the FBI and CIA had conspired to place spies in the Trump campaign during 2016 and derail his Presidency after he won the election.  Never the less, it was interesting to hear a major Democrat politician soon after Helsinki declare that when you attack the American intelligence agencies, they can do things to harm you.  (At that moment, I thought about John Kennedy in Dallas in November 1963.)  I worried that so much of the Trump movement depended on one man.

     On a seemingly different issue, for some time NGOs (non-governmental organizations), social media, and out government, and major players like George Soros have played roles in various types of "color revolutions" in different nations.  There might be an unpopular president or dictator, an election with disputed results, mobilization of masses in protests, and with effort, the overthrow of the government.  Thus, the pro-Russian president of the Ukraine was overthrown and replaced by an un-elected government in Kiev, which led to the Russian seizure of Crimea and support of unofficial pro-Russian rebel forces in eastern Ukraine.
     But that was not all.  Recall the Arab spring?  First a rebellion in Tunisia, which was rapid and successful.  More important was the overthrow of American backed Mubarak in Egypt.  Though the beautiful CBS correspondent was sexually molested in the mass crowd in Cairo, the American media still portrayed the rebellion positively.  After Mubarak's fall, the new president of Egypt was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, often associated with Muslim terrorism.  But Obama was pleased with the change.  Sec. of State Hillary Clinton then pushed the buttons and Libya's dictator fell; but choas replaced him.  The American Ambassador and several American guards were murdered by Islamist terrorists in Benghazi, but Hillary and Obama blamed this on a Christian Egyptian then living in California who had made a video mocking Mohammad.  Then the US intelligence agencies decided to bring the revolution to Syria.  When alliance with the Kurdish minority proved insufficient, the US may have helped ISIS, to help destabilize the Asad regime, but Syria had Russian help, and it did not fall.  Instead, in time the Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt was overthrown.
     The question now, did the American intelligence agencies, working again with George Soros (important in financing the paramilitary groups of the Democratic Party, Black Lives Matter and Anti-Fa), the big tech social media that now censors more and more, the hate-Trump major media, conspire to bring an anti-Mr Orange Man revoluion to the USA?
     The blatant use of mail-in ballots to steal the election, the possible use of soft wear and tech voting machines that switched masses of votes from Trump to Biden, counted illegal votes for Biden, voted the dead and the mentally lost in nursing homes, refused to allow Republican poll watchers observe - except from 6 feet away or even 30 feet away.  The greatest stealing of an election in American history.  It is possible Trump even won the national popular vote.  It seems most likely he won the electoral vote.  If the courts do nothing, America's democratic republic is dead.  We will then join Athens as an historic example of failure.  The legislatures and courts have to reject all the illegal votes, and then Trump wins 4 more years as president.  If they fail, America will never have a fair election again, and the great experiment in freedom will come to a close.

Friday, November 6, 2020



By Hugh Murray

In the last multi-party election of the Weimar Republic, 5 March 1933, the Nazis won 44% of the vote; their allies, the German National People's Party, won 8%, giving their alliance 52%, a majority of the vote. Their vocal opponents, the Communists won 12%. So the people voted 64% to reject democracy. The supporters of the republic were in decline; the Social Democrats won only 18%, the Catholic Center Party down to 11%. The rest were scattered in numerous small parties. The point is, only about a third of the voters supported the democratic republic; and nearly two- thirds voted for totalitarianism of one form or another.

A few decades ago I did some research for Richard Plant, who was born in 1910 in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. His grandfather had been an Jewish Rabbi, his father a non-religious, Social Democrat physician. Richard was studying German Studies at university, but was interested in the humanities. He was an extra in the film, “Three Penny Opera,” and knew when his professor began coming to class in a silk, brown shirt, that he might not have a future in that field. Richard was also gay. When Hitler came to power, what should he do? What should his father and mother and sister do? Richard was determined to get out, but his dad assured him, “Es wird nicht so schlimm,” - It won't be that bad. Richard left for Switzerland in February 1933. Occasionally, he heard from friends who had been taken to concentration camps in the early years. His father kept his medical practice, and among his patients were important locals, some of whom were NSDAP members. Finally, in 1934, his parents left for California.

It was a difficult adjustment. America was experiencing the Great Depression. By contrast, Germany was recovering from it. Hitler may have imposed discriminatory laws against Jews, but there was a new prosperity in the land. California might be described in part by the Joads, whose trek from Oklahoma to the golden state, brought new poverty and oppression in The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. That novel revealed that not everyone found gold in California. How would Richard's dad start all over again? He would have to pass exams, in English, to begin a new practice. In the Depression. As Bill Clinton stated, “It's the economy, stupid.” The Plants decided to return to the familiar, to the prosperous land they knew. Es wird nicht so schlimm. They returned to the Reich.

Richard was still stuck in Switzerland, but facing new troubles as his German passport was expiring. He was shocked to hear that his parents had returned to Germany, while he was making every effort to get to America. Eventually, with help from Protestant groups, Richard made it. During WWII, he even did some broadcasting to Germany against the Nazi regime. Meanwhile, his mother died, his dad remarried, and in November 1938, Kristall Nacht shattered not only glass shop-windows, but also hopes that Jews might be included in the “new” Germany. This was the first major Nazi sponsored pogrom in Germany, when most synagogues were burnt, and many Jewish men arrested. Soon after, Richard's dad and step-mom committed suicide. His sister made it to the Netherlands, was hidden, and unlike Anne Frank, survived the war.

In the American Presidential election of 2020. the majority of voters rejected the incumbent, President Trump, and voted for his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden. The 2020 Democratic Party platform, over 100 pages, is radical, somewhat socialist. One might call the new Democratic Party National Socialist. More important, left wing thugs, similar to the paramilitary arm of the Nazis, the Storm Troopers, have formed throughout the nation, funded by some of the super rich. They call themselves Black Lives Matter and Anti-Fa (allegedly tracing its origins to the founding of the Antifaschistische Bewegung in Berlin in a building of the German Communist Party [KPD] in 1932). These two organizations, BLM and Anti-Fa, work together to insure that “peaceful protests” become violent, where they can smash windows, intimidate store owners, extort money from them, loot stores, torch buildings, cars, beat innocents who pass by or try to drive by, or who take videos, or who are conservatives. This new Storm Trooper group is connected to the Democratic Party, on local levels, and probably, secretly at higher levels. They intimidate and bully the opponents of the Democrats. In this sense, they are like the Ku Klux Klan, which was the military arm of the Democrats following the defeat of the Confederacy after 1865. The KKK insured that Republicans in the South (mainly Blacks) did not vote, using threats, beatings, burnings, and murder. Today, BLM and AntiFa are the replacement troops for the new era, but they serve the same old purpose, to support the Democrats, and not just in the South – but in cities throughout the nation.

In the summer of 2020 during the virtual Democratic Convention there were riots, but not one of the Democratic speakers dared denounce BLM or AntiFa. Finally, in the first debate with Trump, Joe Biden, when challenged to denounce Antifa, denied its existence, it was merely “an idea.” Eventually, Biden was pushed to issue a mild denunciation of these violent organizations.

The Democrats also seem to have developed a racial policy similar to that of the Nazis. In public schools, BLM has helped developed some curricula, and the Critical Race Theorists add to it. All whites are racists, and only whites can be racists. People of Color are all victims, oppressed, and must have special preferences. We have heard too much from whites, especially white males. Teachers should not call upon them. History is too much the stories of dead white men; it must be re-written, revised; revolutionized. The 1619 Project must replace old-fashioned history books. All must learn: whites are oppressors, whites are privileged, and those privileges must be stripped from them. Just as an Einstein was unfit to teach German students in Nazi Germany, so whites should not teach PoC in Democratic Party America. The arrogant Jew in Hitler's Germany has morphed into the privileged white in Biden's America. The Jews had to be shorn of their “superiority” in Germany, humiliated, insulted, ostracized, deported; and now in Biden's America, the whites must lose – they must be humiliated (as when BLMers insult diners, drink their beer, demand that they pledge allegiance to BLM, and in corporations whites must confess to their privileges and racist thoughts, must apologize to their co-workers of color, grovel, beg forgiveness, and the same occurs in schools and universities. But whites must lose more than their self respect, they must lose their cushions, their inflated incomes, their comfortable lives, their suburbs, their yachts, their golf clubs, their country clubs – let BLM and AntiFa march through the burbs and “discuss” new reparations. And once the white oppressors have yielded all as part of their reparations and reconciliations, then what? Make no mistake, what the Democrats call “anti-racism” is in reality racism, overt, vicious racism, racism against white people. After some years of the Biden-Harris Democratic programs, national socialist programs at home and globalist entanglements abroad (UN, WTO, WHO, Paris Accords, WB,etc.), what will happen to the whites in America? What happened to the whites of Zimbabwe? What is happening now to the Boer farmers in South Africa? What happened to the Jews of German?

This is exaggeration, you say! Don't worry about Biden, BLM chants, or the rare AntiFa beatings. Don't worry about possible new restrictive laws. Don't worry. Es wird nicht so schlimm.

Thursday, November 5, 2020




By John H. Stibbs; Ed. With Annotations by John Edgar Browning

(Donaldsonville, La.: Margaret Media, Inc., 2013)

Rev. by Hugh Murray

The editor of this work writes in the Preface that this memoir is important because Dean Stibbs presents “an authoritative account with interesting personal anecdotes...an engaging insider's look at some of Tulane's most complex and controversial moments in its history;...that saw cultural upheaval, student unrest, ethnic division, anti-war demonstrations...”(p. Xiii) Is it really? Or is it a biased view, which omits significant material? One reason Dean Stibbs is important during this period is that as Dean of Students, “When disciplinary measures are necessary, the action taken by the Dean of Students will generally - except for review by the President of the university – be final.”(14)

Of course, there were problems that landed on the Dean's desk in his early years at Tulane, years he remembers fondly. For example, in 1950, the night before a major football game against its chief state rival, Louisiana State U., some green wave supporters stole the caged “Mike the Tiger” that was the mascot of the Baton Rouge school. The tiger-napping caused great consternation, but the Dean was able to negotiate with the culprits, and prior to the game, a parade with police escort and the tiger, but now lounging in a cage decorated in the green and blue colors of Tulane, entered the stadium to massive cheers from both sides.(16) Tulane, like most major universities of that era, had a separate liberal arts division for women, Newcomb College. Following WWII, Tulane constructed more dormitories, and in 1954, several hundred Tulanians marched from their dorms to those of Newcomb for the first pantyraid. Police were called, and four students were arrested, three convicted. Browning includes newspaper clippings in his appendix of what today seems a quaint fad.(126-29) After another homecoming and football game, the Dean had heard of a problem, and purposely drove along nearby Broadway Ave. As expected, a couple of drunken SAE fraternity men were hurling empty beer bottles in front of cars passing their frat house. They did it now in front of his vehicle. Stibbs stopped, jumped from his car, raced up the steps to courageously confront the frat brothers. When they recognized him, they were shocked and embarrassed, as he ordered them to stop an told them they would be disciplined. He then returned to his drive.(37-38) Stibbs could reflect on Tulane in the 1950s: “Campus life was happy and lively, sometimes too much so.”(37) Were the 50s really such halcyon days? Or has his memory played tricks?

One fraternity prank evoked disgust and terrible publicity for Tulane and the fraternity community. As part of their initiation, several pledges were ordered to steal from a news stand. They took only a small sum of money, but the man managing the stand was blind. The culprits were caught. The news of privileged frat boys stealing from a blind man trying to earn a living through his news stand did not read well in most New Orleans homes. This incident is not mentioned in the book.

One area for which Dean Stibbs deserves considerable credit is in planning a new university center, which would open in 1958. Students, faculty, almost everyone was able to have input in what they thought the new center should contain. Raising funds was essential to its success. The Dean, close to student government, and many student organizations, faculty, staff, the planning paid off. Stibbs contended that once opened, it became perhaps the most used university center in the nation.(35) I cannot compare other university centers, but I do think it changed the character of Tulane. I entered Tulane as a freshman in 1956, and recall the old student center. I did not reside in the dorms, but was a scholarship student living with my parents. Tulane, for me was a commuter school. Arrive, attend classes (hopefully clustered together) and return home. The old student center was on the 2nd floor of an older building. One could hang out there, usually with a few other New Orleanians, but other than sit on comfortable chairs, there was nothing to do except learn to and play bridge. With the new university center, locals could meet students from Dallas, Mobile, Tennessee, Brooklyn, North Carolina. I began to feel more like a part of Tulane with the new center. And Dean Stibbs deserves credit for this change, which was not only in my attitude, but in that of many others. Before the opening of the new student center, one almost had to join a fraternity to feel a part of Tulane.

My freshman year, I took a course in American History. There were about 80 students, and the professor gave out 4 As, after the first term. I received one, and another A in that class was a fellow Unitarian, from Houston, Tom. He had a friend from Latin America, Alberto, and the 3 of us began to hang out during the second semester. Being a native, I showed them some places they might not have encountered. I remember we went swimming in one of the city's park swimming pools, spring 1957. This would have been unnecessary a year or so later because the new university center would boast a large swimming pool of its own.

September 1957 we took different classes and went our own ways. Tom had been and remained a Beta frat member, and I heard that Al joined the Pikes, I remained Gamma Delta Iota (God Damned Independent). Months, a year went by. On Monday 29 September 1958, I chanced upon Al walking on campus, and feeling that I should have done more to salvage the friendship, decided I would now try to renew it. “Where are you going?” “To my dorm.” “I'll walk with you.” I tried to stir up a conversation, but he replied in simple monosyllables, almost not wanting to speak. We arrived at his room, we both entered, and were soon joined by one of his frat brothers too. Al went to a corner to whisper to the frat student, while I just stood by on the other side of the room. I thought it strange, but not really rude. Then he approached me and said, “Would you mind leaving?” I was shocked. I felt, I made the effort to renew; next time, if there is to be a next time, must come from him.

Was it Tuesday's or Wednesday's newspaper, I don't recall. Suddenly, I was reading in a major article what had been discussed in Al's room with his fraternity brothers: how to dispose of a wallet! Over the weekend, 3 Pikes, Al and two others, had gone to the French Quarter to roll a queer. One Pike entered a gay bar, while the others waited outside and were to stay close. When John F. (Pike), seated at the bar, was soon joined by a Mexican tour guide, Fernando Rios, they conversed and relaxed. Rios invited John to his home. Taxis avoided picking up passengers from that area, so they walked. John led Rios to an alley between the Cabildo and St. Louis Cathedral. While James D. suddenly blocked the exit, John was joined by Al in beating the queer and knocking him to the ground. Al took the wallet from Rios' back pocket, and the 3 left, satisfied with their adventure. Next morning, a grounds keeper discovered the badly beaten Rios still on the pavement; police were called and Rios taken to hospital, where he died without regaining consciousness. Meanwhile, when the Pike 3 discovered Rios had died, they were unsure what to do. They gave the American money in the wallet to the church; burnt the Mexican and Canadian bills. Unsure, they finally called the Dean of Students, Stibbs, who “called the boys a defense attorney and the police to get their statements.”[Jelisa Thompson, “You Make Me Feel: A Study of the Gay Rights Movement in New Orleans, p. 17, Honors Thesis, U. of Southern Mississippi, Fall, 2011].

I was strolling along the super-wide Canal Street during the day in late January 1959, when behind me I heard a loud raucous. I turned to see – 3 or 4 blocks away there was a motorcade crossing out of the French Quarter [headed toward Tulane U.] The boys had been charged with murder, and the courtroom was located in the Quarter. The jury's verdict had just been announced, not guilty. The Pikes, parents, and friends were celebrating the verdict, and to make sure the message was heard, as the motorcade rolled through the streets, they were shouting “Open season on queers!” “Kill all the queers.” No one doubted they were guilty, but a doctor testified that Rios had an unusually thin skull. It was also said that he was wearing female panties for underwear when killed. DA Richard Dowling was criticized for even bringing murder charges against the students in such a case.

This case was big news, with international implications. Dean Stibbs was indirectly involved. Not a word about this case in his memoir. However, when writing about the attempt to gain recognition for a Tulane Gay Students group in the 1970s, Stibbs writes he delayed recognition for 2 years, until the majority of the Senate voted approval.(94) The 1950s were a happy time.

In August 1960 I was one of 7 New Orleanians attending a 3-week training institute conducted by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). Oliver St. Pe and I were the only whites from the area to go, and I did not know him well as he was a student at Loyola U. of the South. Though it was physically next to Tulane, before Pope John Paul's reforms, there seemed to be an enormous intellectual gulf between these two universities. Others came from Dillard and Xavier (historically Black universities in New Orleans), and some were in the work force. We were trained in methods of non-violent change, going to places to test if they were segregated, negotiations, and if that failed, boycott and picketing. We also trained for sitting in, and how to respond non-violently if segregationists sought to punch or hurt us in other ways. We stayed in a Black motel in Miami, integrating the rooms, and during the day we took over the lounge for our training sessions. One day, out teacher was Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who at the time was “off the record” supporting Sen. John Kennedy and the Democrats for President. Another day, our teacher was baseball legend Jackie Robinson, who was openly for VP Richard Nixon and the Republicans. Fewer than 50 partook in the CORE conclave, including several Miami natives. The supermarket Shell's City had a restaurant in its building, and we went in mixed groups to test it. About half our CORE group was arrested, including St. Pe. (St. Pe, who was legally blind, would later become a leader in promoting solutions for the blind and other disabled people in New Orleans.) I sat at a table with Ruth Dispenza, a young Black woman from New Orleans, who was quite light-skinned. The authorities assumed we were a white couple, so neither of us was arrested.

We returned to New Orleans at the end of August 1960, just as Tulane and most universities were about to begin their fall semesters. I had received my BA in the spring and was to continue at Tulane as a graduate student in history. I also had a part-time job at the Tulane library on weekends. But like the other CORE trainees, I was determined to bring the first sit-in to New Orleans, which according to the 1950 census (the last one available), was still the largest city in the South – larger than Miami, Houston, Atlanta, Dallas. Moreover, the sit-in movement had begun in North Carolina in February 1960 and spread to many places, but not to New Orleans.

Tulane was aware that some of its students were preparing to partake in some action with CORE. Dean Stibbs sent a few students to talk to us. He may have done so in person, but my memory is hazy. I do remember that we were informed of the university's rules if we were arrested – we would be suspended until we were found innocent. Was this intended as a threat? Just hearing the consequences was chilling. We were aware that we would not be found innocent in local courts, and if appealed, there was no certainty. If we went to the US Supreme Court, we might win, but there was no guaranty that our case would be accepted for review by the high court, or that we would have the resources to appeal. Even if we won, it would probably take several years, so we would be suspended from Tulane for a long time. I would also lose my job. If arrested, I planned to move from my parents' home, for if I remained, they would become a target. So, as an individual, I was facing the abyss. But I had trained for this, talk is cheap, and wanted to “put my body on the line.” With the gloomy news from the Dean's emissaries, only 2 of us from Tulane decided to go ahead with the plan. Bill Harrell, a grad student in sociology and a few years older that I, Bill was to be my cell mate a few days after the Dean's info session.

On Friday 9 September 1960 New Orleans had its first lunch-counter sit-in, at the large Woolworths across from the Saenger Theater on the corner of Canal and North Rampart streets. All 7 of us, led by Ruth Dispenza, were arrested and charged with criminal mischief, a felony. Then, the unexpected happened. Tulane's Board changed the rules! The Board determined that these charges were of a political, not a criminal nature, and the threatened suspensions did not occur. I would be a graduate student and retain my job after all. I moved out, but my parents nevertheless received many threatening phone calls at all hours. I did not get them because I did not have a phone. MOST IMPORTANT – this change meant that the dam had broken, dozens more Tulane/Newcomb students would become involved with CORE and the integration movement, numbers from the Jewish fraternity AEPi, and GDI's from both North and South, freshmen and women. The surge in Tulane/Newcomb support was a result of the change in Tulane U. policy; students knew now that they would not be suspended from the university for years if arrested in picketing or sitting-in in the Canal St. shopping area. During that year, CORE meetings often had a majority of whites attending where we met at the Negro YMCA on Dryades St. In the 3 January 1961 issue of the popular, national picture magazine, Look, there was an article, “Introduction to a Sit-In,” describing the arrest of the 19-year-old Newcomb blond gal from Atlanta and her arrest in New Orleans. This was national news, and a result of the change in policy by the Tulane Board in September 1960. Dean Stibbs clearly knew of this. However, he omits all mention of it in the book. Was he sympathetic to the changed policy? Opposed? The memoir is silent.

In the text (46) and in more detail among the newspaper clippings (131), there is discussion of the 1962 suspension of Tulanian Ed Clark, a white from Tennessee, a member of CORE, who brought Black friends to the university cafeteria. They were served, but Dean Stibbs admonished him for violating univ. policies, and he was suspended. Ed married another activist, Connie Bradford, a white Newcomb student from Birmingham, and also a CORE member. She attended Newcomb on a work-scholarship. Her job was telephone operator; however, part of her duties were to listen in to the conversations of the radicals. As an incoming fresher, Connie would have been too new to be listening about the events of September 1960, but what about the others who worked the phones? Is this how Dean Stibbs knew whom to contact about trying to prevent any sit-ins in September 1960? The liberal university was listening in on private phone calls.

Stibbs writes of the “winter of our discontent,” when students showed more interest in social problems.(50) “Gradually, an indifference developed to the old and honorable areas of student interests – fraternities, football, and student government.”(50) In 1967 a major fraternity folded and new pledges declined from 500 to 300. He notes that in 1965 the Liberals Club was recognized at Tulane, but fails to mention that it's official recognition was delayed a year because somehow the Liberals Club application had been “lost.” Later, Dean Stibbs admitted to confiscating some photographs(59-63); was he responsible for the lost application?

The Drama department provided drama. Stibbs found Richard Schechner's request for increased funds an “impossible amount,”(53) though Schechner had raised the Tulane Drama Review to become the leading such publication. When he was criticized for having long hair, Schechner went to the French Quarter and posed beside the statue of General Andrew Jackson, the hero of New Orleans in the battle of 1815, stressing that the general had longer hair than he did. Eventually, Schechner left Tulane and took the review with him, with a new title, TDR - The Drama Review.

Dean Stibbs was a traditionalist, clearly more at home with football, frats, tiger napping, and student government, that social change. Some of his winter of discontent was part of a national trend – many young people did not want to risk their lives in the jungles of Vietnam. Civil Rights was a national issue. Drugs, female visitation to male dormitories, co-ed dormitories, these were part of national trends against older traditions.

However, Stibbs' greatest successes – the planning and building of the new student center, gave students a place to feel at home without joining a fraternity, a place to discuss issues in addition to the next party or football scores. Stibbs' own University Center provided a center to meet and organize activities beyond frats, football, and traditions. In that sense, Stibbs was more of a modernizer than he realized.

To clarify my position, I think one can acquire many excellent character traits through athletics. I think fraternities and sororities can and have often fostered emotional growth and friendships for most members. And I think participation in student government can provide experience in management, compromise, and how to accomplish certain ends. But I think there can be issues beyond those, unfashionable ones, unpopular ones, even illegal ones, that might also be considered.

When one Tulane publication on art and nudity planned to publish an article, including nude photos of 2 professors, Stibbs confiscated the pictures to prevent publication. He contended the pictures were immoral.(60-61, 63) He also invoked morality in delaying recognition of the gay student organization.(94) But overall, he fails to present major arguments against many of the trends he disapproved. In many important cases, he makes no case – he is silent, and the issues are ignored, swept under the carpets, omitted. Stibbs' memoir is defensive, deceptive, and disappointing. There should be a good book on the conservative reaction to the changes in universities following WWII. Unfortunately, Stibbs' account is not that book.