I do not defend anybody being a member of the Klan, but I do understand what things were like in that era.  A lot of people were fooled into thinking the Klan was different then it had been a generation before.  Luckily, that movement only lasted about 10 years.


I get the idea that most people think of the KKK only as a "southern thing". As you've suggested, this was not the case during the early parts of the 20th century. Some of the biggest and most active Klan groups in the 1920s were in northeast Ohio.  :o There's a great book about 'em called "Steel Valley Klan", written by a history professor at my alma mater. 

The explanation of the "public face" versus "underground" elements of groups is an interesting one, though I'm not sure I completely understand why they exist. Is it all an effort by one side to confuse the public?   

The explanation of the "public face" versus "underground" elements of groups is an interesting one, though I'm not sure I completely understand why they exist. Is it all an effort by one side to confuse the public?   


Actually, they were quite seperate for the most part.

The rebirth of the Klan in the beginning of the 20th Century was at a time where Fraternal Organizations were popular.  It also fed off of the "Isolationist" viewpoint that most Americans had at the time.  No Immigration, Distrust of Catholics (and anybody not Protestant), Sobriety, and Isolationism were key beliefs of the "New KKK".

For the most part, they stepped into the nitch filled by the old "Know Nothing" party.  The "New Klan" in the south was largely a coat of pain on the "Old Klan".  In the rest of the nation, they mostly protrayed themselves as Pro-American, Anti-European, and Pro-Family.  And the activities they are mostly known for almost never happened outside of the "Old South".

If you were a member of the Klan in California or Missouri, it would not have been much different then being a member of the Elks, Masons, Eagles, Knights Of Columbus, Shriners, Oddfellows, or Loyal Order Of Water Buffalo.  For the most part the members (and organizers) of chapters outside of the South were not the violent sort that composed Klan membership in the 19th Century (or today).  And most Fraternal Organizations of the era used mummery, secret codes and handshakes, and other such props to feed the mystique of being a member of a Semi-Secret Fraternal Brotherhood.

But in the South, you had members who were "Peacefull Klan Members" by day, and then once night fell they would continue to do the same things they had done for decades. 

You're quite a smart and informed man, Sr. Mushroom  :).

I like checking out the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) about hate groups by state. Actually, I'm pretty sure my home state of New Jersey (probably mostly in S. New Jersey) was one of the more "active" northern Klan areas, with a measure of the "Old Klan" added into the fraternal group-like "New Klan."

In fact, the SPLC shows two branches of the Jersey KKK now, Newark (I'm guessing this is a symbolic branch) and Gibbsboro, a depressed South Jersey industrial city, so I'm guessing it was eradicated. I do know at one point 40% of white Protestant males in the city of Indianapolis were members of the KKK, and there was the death of a young woman (Madge Oberlitzer, I think) that was related to the Indianapolis KKK of the 1920s in one way or another. So I'm guessing in some areas even the "fraternal organization" KKK had its sinister side. Also, there were lots of disenfranchised Southern workers living in the Indianapolis area at that time, which may have had something to do with it.

Jersey is a center of racist skinheads, though, particularly the "South/Central Jersey" shore areas. Atlantic County, Brick, Garfield, Livingston (about 60% Jewish town, a symbolic headquarters), Newark, Old Bridge, Toms River (three different groups...), Tuckerton, and Wallington.

You're quite a smart and informed man, Sr. Mushroom  :).


Thank you.  I made the change, because this is more of information then intelligence.

You have to realize a few things about me.  For one, I am an information sponge.  I am forever watching things like History Chanel, and when I have some dead time at work, I browse through entries at sites like Wikipedia.org.  I also have a constant thirst for knowledge, and try to understand things in context (as opposed to how I would like to see them).

I first learned about the Klan from my Grandfather.  One of the reasons he left Alabama in the 1930's was to get away from people like that.  To most people these days he would be considered a raving racist.  But in that era, he was rather enlightened for a man born and raised in the South.

My active interest in the Klan started in 1988, when I did some work for my Regiment's S-2 (Intelligence) section.  I was tasked with helping a Lieutenant create a report on future terrorist threats.  In 1988, he stated that the threat in the next decade may well be form Domestic Terrorist groups.  Among them he listed the KKK, NeoNazis, and Survivalists/Isolationists.  And within 5 years, this is exactly who started to attack us the most.  The Left-Wing domestic terrorists (SLA, Wethermen, The Move) was replaced with Aryan Nation, Branch Davidian, The Order, and Tim McVei.

And since I moved to Alabama myself, I have taken an even larger interest in "knowing my enemy".  Yes, I know people who are in the Klan.  Yes, I have been asked to become a member of the Klan.

And no, I never told them what I thought of them.  If they knew that I thought of them all as a bunch of inbred  klukkers, I would be in for a world of trouble.  In fact, if some of them ever found out I posted in here, I would be in trouble when they read my constant attacks on them.  But Remember, I work in a computer store.  Most of them would be unable to find this site because it is not titled mudpeoplemustdie.com.

Of course, if they knew that my ex-wife is from South America and my son is of Hispanic descent, they would probably be burning their crosses on my front yard.  Sometimes, it is all I can do to prevent myself from telling them what I really think.  The closest I came was last year when I had to do a backup of a customer's hard drive.

During the backup, I discovered a huge gallery of pictures from Klan rally's.  They included pictures of Klaverns, Midnight Rallys, Cross Burnings, and even Baptisms.  Somehow, their computer got a virus that deleted everything on it, and the pictures could not be recovered.  Oh was I heartbroken.  ;D

Thank you.  I made the change, because this is more of information then intelligence.

You have to realize a few things about me.  For one, I am an information sponge.  I am forever watching things like History Chanel, and when I have some dead time at work, I browse through entries at sites like Wikipedia.org.  I also have a constant thirst for knowledge, and try to understand things in context (as opposed to how I would like to see them).

I first learned about the Klan from my Grandfather.  One of the reasons he left Alabama in the 1930's was to get away from people like that.  To most people these days he would be considered a raving racist.  But in that era, he was rather enlightened for a man born and raised in the South.

My active interest in the Klan started in 1988, when I did some work for my Regiment's S-2 (Intelligence) section.  I was tasked with helping a Lieutenant create a report on future terrorist threats.  In 1988, he stated that the threat in the next decade may well be form Domestic Terrorist groups.  Among them he listed the KKK, NeoNazis, and Survivalists/Isolationists.  And within 5 years, this is exactly who started to attack us the most.  The Left-Wing domestic terrorists (SLA, Wethermen, The Move) was replaced with Aryan Nation, Branch Davidian, The Order, and Tim McVei.

And since I moved to Alabama myself, I have taken an even larger interest in "knowing my enemy".  Yes, I know people who are in the Klan.  Yes, I have been asked to become a member of the Klan.

And no, I never told them what I thought of them.  If they knew that I thought of them all as a bunch of inbred  klukkers, I would be in for a world of trouble.  In fact, if some of them ever found out I posted in here, I would be in trouble when they read my constant attacks on them.  But Remember, I work in a computer store.  Most of them would be unable to find this site because it is not titled mudpeoplemustdie.com.

Of course, if they knew that my ex-wife is from South America and my son is of Hispanic descent, they would probably be burning their crosses on my front yard.  Sometimes, it is all I can do to prevent myself from telling them what I really think.  The closest I came was last year when I had to do a backup of a customer's hard drive.

During the backup, I discovered a huge gallery of pictures from Klan rally's.  They included pictures of Klaverns, Midnight Rallys, Cross Burnings, and even Baptisms.  Somehow, their computer got a virus that deleted everything on it, and the pictures could not be recovered.  Oh was I heartbroken.  ;D



I'm also something of an information sponge, I spend alot of time researching sociology, the dynamics and economies of various metropolitan areas, etc. I can name companies headquartered by major cities, for example. I'm pretty actively interested in cults and hate groups, I suppose. I've never encountered one living in the north, but there's a chapter of the "National Liberation Front", an unidentified white supremacy group in a nearby Jewish town where alot of my relatives live, nearby, and a club in a nearby town is a hangout for disgruntled Polish skinheads.

I have a hard time thinking that this country will ever elect someone other than a white, wealthy male who is from a non-Christian denomination.  We thought a Catholic president was an oddity......and that was some 46 years ago. 

I have a hard time thinking that this country will ever elect someone other than a white, wealthy male who is from a non-Christian denomination.  We thought a Catholic president was an oddity......and that was some 46 years ago. 


Myself, I think that for the most part, the people in this country do not care if their President is White, Male, Christian, or rich.  However, that tends to be the description of the majority of people who choose to enter politics.

The problem with the majority of "Minority" candidates (I include females and non-christians in this) is that a lot of them tend to be antagonists to one degree or another.  Most are blatently partaisan, and some are almost blatently racial or sexist in their comments.  This is what keeps them out of higher office.  The most they can hope for is to be voted into the Senat eor House, where it is their local constituants that make the difference.

Would I vote for a female, Jew, Athiest, or Minorty?  Yes.  I have in the past, and I will probably do so in the future if I think they are the best for the job.

Would I vote for a Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Hillary Clinton?  Not on your life.  To them, Politics is an "Us Vs. Them" game, and everybody who opposes them in any little thing is the enemy.  And I do not even care that Al Sharpton endorsed George Bush in the last election.  I would still never vote for the man.

I thought one of the most ironic campaigns I took part in was when I lived in Inglewood in 2000.  I did some volunteer work for a man who was a lawyer, and ran for the State Assembly seat for Inglewood.  He was a moderate conservative, and lived in the area most of his life.  He still lived there, and his law office was there.  He ran for office when the local Assemblyman retired.

The campaign was rather ugly, and the opponant did not even live in the neighborhood.  He was from the San Fernando Valley, and the apartment he rented in the area was simply to qualify him to run.  He never lived in it.

On election night, we saw the majority of voters vote for this man, who never lived there, and only used Inglewood as a step into politics.  So this "carpetbagger" white man beat an African-American who had lived in the district his entire life, simply because he was a "Democrat".  Although we could tell that the message had gotten out to a degree, because the Republican candidate had recieved more votes then any other Republican in over 30 years.

This campaign is what started my current stance against partaisan politics.  To me, there is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to people having an opinion.  However, most "Minority Candidates" use partaisan politics to make their name.  And I refuse to vote for somebody if they insist to me that anybody who things or believes differently is "The Enemy".  We have enough problems in this country, without people like that trying to set us at each other's throats.

Actually I believe there was quite an uproar when JFK was running for President as he was the first Roman Catholic to have a shot at the White House.  People were afraid that he would be a puppet of the Pope, since a great number of Americans are WASPs.


That is very true( as one of the resident dinosaurs who can remember back that far)  There was preaching from the pulpits to not vote
for him or to vote for him, depending on what church you were sitting in.  My grandmother the , Irish-Catholic hating, African American,Protestant, Republican, was absolutely beside herself during the campaign, and then when he won!!!! Mama Mia, you cannot
imagine. 

But let's face it, we have had quite a lot of idiots sitting in that seat, qualifications and integrity are not what wins the position. We will
have a something other than a white male when the PR gets tuned up. 

That is very true( as one of the resident dinosaurs who can remember back that far)  There was preaching from the pulpits to not vote
for him or to vote for him, depending on what church you were sitting in.  My grandmother the , Irish-Catholic hating, African American,Protestant, Republican, was absolutely beside herself during the campaign, and then when he won!!!! Mama Mia, you cannot
imagine. 

But let's face it, we have had quite a lot of idiots sitting in that seat, qualifications and integrity are not what wins the position. We will
have a something other than a white male when the PR gets tuned up. 


It is entirely arguable that JFK had more core "conservative" values than the Republicans today, even though he was a Democrat.  A far cry from his brother the Senator eh?

It is entirely arguable that JFK had more core "conservative" values than the Republicans today, even though he was a Democrat.  A far cry from his brother the Senator eh?


I like Teddy.

It is entirely arguable that JFK had more core "conservative" values than the Republicans today, even though he was a Democrat.  A far cry from his brother the Senator eh?


JFK was actually a very Conservative Democrat.

And ironically, one of his best friends was a very Liberal Republican.

These unlikely friends had offices right across the hall from each other when they were freshman Congressmen.  For 14 years they would stick up for each other, even when it brought them under fire from their own party.

Myself, I never had much use for Teddy.  JFK I do respect.

I like Teddy.


Ted has done right by his constituents.  I for one applaud him and all he has done for me, my friends, my family,
and my neighbors, my city, my state, and my country.

Ted has done right by his constituents.  I for one applaud him and all he has done for me, my friends, my family,
and my neighbors, my city, my state, and my country.


Here, here!  He also has a lot more guts when it comes to criticizing the Republicans than alot of the other Democrats in Congress.

Hmm, seems like the discussion died out...

Wait up, I believe the "non-Christian" milestone was passed during the early years of the country.  Thomas Jefferson was a deist.

I agree, probably once one that is strong enough who is not devisive runs.  Hillary is such an agitator, half of the population would never vote for her.

The problem with most women in politics is that they tend to come in 2 forms.  One one hand you have the Mary Bono's, who are so low keyed, they are almost invisible.  The other extreme is the Hillary Clinton-Dianne Feinstein, who is so agressive and partaisan, that they would alienate the majority of voters on the other side.

The same as above.  So far, most of those who have run tend to be like Jessie Jackson and the like.  Very devisive individuals, who would never he electable.  My guess is that the first minority candidate will be Hispanic. 

Somehow white men don't take much notice when other white men are partisan, aggressive, and divisive in politics (you cannot get more divisive than Karl Rove), but let a woman or a person of color take the same approach? Heaven forefend! And Hilary, divisive? She does everything she knows how to placate the "red state" sheeple, including talking about her "faith," which she obviously doesn't have! OK, she gave the sheeple too much credit when she was promoting so-called "Hilary Care." She didn't realize Reagan, Gingrich, and Limbaugh had completely talked them out of their own interests and brainwashed them to say knee-jerk "I hate the fuggin' govuhment!"
::)

Somehow white men don't take much notice when other white men are partisan, aggressive, and divisive in politics (you cannot get more divisive than Karl Rove), but let a woman or a person of color take the same approach? Heaven forefend! And Hilary, divisive? She does everything she knows how to placate the "red state" sheeple, including talking about her "faith," which she obviously doesn't have! OK, she gave the sheeple too much credit when she was promoting so-called "Hilary Care." She didn't realize Reagan, Gingrich, and Limbaugh had completely talked them out of their own interests and brainwashed them to say knee-jerk "I hate the fuggin' govuhment!"
::)


Gender is a barrier which possesses illogical and mysterious obstructions between reason, rationality and pure ignorance.

Myself, I think that for the most part, the people in this country do not care if their President is White, Male, Christian, or rich.  However, that tends to be the description of the majority of people who choose to enter politics.

The problem with the majority of "Minority" candidates (I include females and non-christians in this) is that a lot of them tend to be antagonists to one degree or another.  Most are blatently partaisan, and some are almost blatently racial or sexist in their comments.  This is what keeps them out of higher office.  The most they can hope for is to be voted into the Senat eor House, where it is their local constituants that make the difference.

Would I vote for a female, Jew, Athiest, or Minorty?  Yes.  I have in the past, and I will probably do so in the future if I think they are the best for the job.

Would I vote for a Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Hillary Clinton?  Not on your life.  .


I've just started reading this thread.  This post was very long so I won't quote it all.  Just want to say thanks for taking the time to write it.  Now I don't have to.  I completely agree with everything you said here.