Edwin Walker

[David Andrews]

What was the sexual dimension of Overseas Weekly?

Edited September 10, 2014 by David Andrews

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - why do you think that the mole hunt instituted by Angleton was his attempt to figure out who impersonated Oswald and Duran? He spent decades looking for Soviet double agents, destroyed Careers in the CIA, and if my reading of this is correct, he separated Oswald's files well before the impersonations in MC. I think you are conflating two things - the idea that someone in the CIA wanted to find out what someone else in the CIA was up to, and the hunt for soviet moles in US intelligence. If I am correct, Angleton was already using Oswald as a dangle before he ever went to MC. Maybe I misread something in Simpich's book, but that is the way I remember it.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - why do you think that the mole hunt instituted by Angleton was his attempt to figure out who impersonated Oswald and Duran?

Because, Paul B., that's what Bill Simpich demonstrated very well.

He spent decades looking for Soviet double agents, destroyed Careers in the CIA, and if my reading of this is correct, he separated Oswald's files well before the impersonations in MC.

But that is irrelevant to the *impersonation* of Duran and Oswald, and it is irrelevant to the mole-hunt.

I think you are conflating two things - the idea that someone in the CIA wanted to find out what someone else in the CIA was up to, and the hunt for soviet moles in US intelligence.

No, Paul B., because nobody said it was a Soviet mole. it was only a mole who *impersonated* Duran and Oswald. That's all the CIA high-command had to work with.

They knew it was a mole because whoever did it knew a lot about CIA operations in Mexico City.

If I am correct, Angleton was already using Oswald as a dangle before he ever went to MC. Maybe I misread something in Simpich's book, but that is the way I remember it.

Yes, the CIA exploited Oswald as a low-paid dangle before Mexico City, but again, that is irrelevant to the *impersonation* and the mole-hunt.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 11, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

What was the sexual dimension of Overseas Weekly?

Great question, David; thanks for pursuing this with me.

Walker was a homosexual -- I think that's fairly well known. Now, in 1961, it was a felony to be a homosexual in the US Army. The homosexual faced not only court-martial, but also prison time in Leavenworth. It was a serious matter in the 1961 US Army.

A major question was how a homosexual could rise to the level of Major General in the US Army, and never be detected.

One reason was that 1961 was very naive when it came to authority. For example, JFK was perhaps the most sexually promiscuous US President in history -- up to 1963. Other US Presidents had the occasional affair -- but JFK had a new affair every month, according to some reports.

Now -- why didn't this make the newspapers? President's Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky made headlines for a solid year. But although many people in high places -- including the Secret Service -- knew about JFK's many sexual liaisons, it was never, ever reported by the mainstream US Press.

Also, J. Edgar Hoover was (probably) a homosexual. He never married, and he lived with another gentleman (Clyde Tolson). Yet he kept his post as FBI Director for life, with never a sexual scandal in his long, long career.

The answer, IMHO, was simply the culture of the times. Until 1963, the US culture was largely the culture of the 1950's -- Happy Days and very naive. We didn't want to know these scandals.

So, that's why Edwin Walker might rise as high as Major General in the US Army. He was a victorious warrior of WW2, so everybody kept looking the other way. Edwin Walker got used to this, and kept exploiting it. He became a master of deceit in this regard.

Now -- that's the way things were in the USA. That isn't the way things were in Europe after WW2. Europe after WW2 was cynical and bitter. To hell with naivete -- the newspapers were going to print every scandal they could get their hands on.

What we know from the personal papers of Edwin Walker is that he ran into conflict with the Overseas Weekly during his very first week in Augsburg, Germany.

Walker complained and complained about the Overseas Weekly at the Senate Hearings on 'Military Muzzling,' but he never got down to brass tacks -- he never told us the real reason why they hated each other so much.

We did find out that Walker sued the Overseas Weekly editor and a reporter in a Civil court in Germany, and he won. But he shared very few details about that, so that we're left wondering what was going on. He charged the paper with harassment -- but this only made the newspaper editor more angry.

We know only that Overseas Weekly reporters started following Edwin Walker around -- and when Edwin Walker tried to get away from them, they pursued him that much more fervently. One reporter went snooping through Walker's desk in Augsburg (and evidently that's why he was sued). Walker banned that reporter from the US base, but the Overseas Weekly editor just called a few higher Generals and got the reporter back on the beat.

One gets the notion that the enmity began in December 1959, when Walker began his duty there, and ended in April 1961, when Walker was kicked out of his command post. That's almost a year and a half of hatred.

One of the many fights they had was over medical issues -- claims Walker. Walker claims that he had to go off-base several times to see medical specialists about a possible brain tumor. None was found, but that was his reason for absenteeism at the base. The Overseas Weekly reporters tried to check this out, because apparently they didn't believe Walker's story.

From the Overseas Weekly articles themselves, one can get only hints -- no true sexual scandal shows forth, but there are hints.

Here's my speculation: Walker was probably spotted as a homosexual soon after he arrived in Germany, by reporters of the Overseas Weekly. That would be a big story, so the editor chose to pursue it. Walker noticed he was being followed, so he threatened the reporters. The editor then decided to spy on Walker even more.

The rumors evidently increased -- Walker never fraternized with the married officers -- and that was most of them. Instead, when they were having barbeques and other events, Walker would simply leave the base and find his own, private entertainment around this active German city of Augsburg.

Suspicion arose that Walker was unmarried because he was homosexual. The Overseas Weekly was compiling a dossier on Walker. We know this because Walker said they were -- and he told the Senate Subcommittee that the Overseas Weekly planned to "blackmail" him with the dossier.

"Blackmail?" He was asked? "What were the contents of this dossier that somebody could blackmail you?" "Well, uh, it was about my health -- about my possible brain tumor."

Yeah -- right. Pardon my skepticism.

The enmity didn't stop. Walker kept taking the Overseas Weekly to court, and was preparing a super-large lawsuit against them when the editor simply decided to let out all the stops and force the Top Brass to sit up and take notice of this maverick. They knew that a scandal about the John Birch Society would embarrass the Top Brass in Europe, and raise eyebrows among the Joint Chiefs in Washington DC as well.

They were right. The Overseas Weekly articles about General Walker came out on 16 April 1961, and the very next day General Walker was relieved of duty. It wasn't JFK that made that snap decision -- it was the Joint Chiefs. The last thing they wanted was a scandal as they were trying to defend the Berlin Wall against the USSR. Just get rid of him.

JFK didn't want a domestic scandal. If Walker resigned, he would be the first (and only) US General to resign in the 20th century. So JFK quickly offered General Walker another position -- this time in Hawaii (also overseeing troop training, as it happens). But Walker was fed up.

Walker had tried to resign under President Eisenhower, but Eisenhower decided instead to reward General Walker with his own command in Germany. Walker commanded 10,000 troops and supervised all their dependents there in Augsburg. It was the biggest command of his career.

But Walker was miserable there. He just wanted to be free to be himself -- to be homosexual -- and yet he had to live in the closet every day of his life, because of the US Army rules against homosexuals. He was living a lie. He decided for the second time to quit.

To the Senate Subcommittee, Walker blamed the Overseas Weekly for his failure in Augsburg Germany. Many, perhaps most of Walker's fans were disappointed, because they were looking for a Joseph McCarthy style of Communist scandal in his firing. But instead they had to hear about how "subversive" this US Army newspaper was.

It was a big let-down to most of Walker's fans. If he had made a strong showing in these Senate hearings, it is virtually guaranteed that Walker would have won the election for Governor of Texas in May. But the results were dismal, and the reports were terrible, and Walker ended the race in last place.

Walker said many times to the Senate that the Overseas Weekly should be called the "Oversexed Weekly" because they sported bikini girls on every third page. Well, this was a fine old US Army tradition -- if one was heterosexual. But Walker found nothing redeeming in it -- all this sex was for Walker "subversive." Walker claimed that "many men" in his command also called the paper the "Oversexed Weekly," although it was never seen in print before Walker used the term. More likely it was men close to Walker who pleased him by repeating his term.

This, as I see it, was the sub-text of the Overseas Weekly, and the role it played in Walker's dismissal from his post. It wasn't the John Bircher thing so much as it was the fact that General Walker made almost no friends among the Top Brass in Germany. He was a loner. He was a homosexual who didn't belong in the US Army in 1961 -- and although they never said so, everybody knew it -- especially Edwin A. Walker.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

The covert culture of young male fascists around Walker in Dallas is politically suspect to say the least - suspect in the sense that you can't imagine how the Hunts and the Birchers could back Walker for president with so much potential scandal roiling behind him - on top of the political heat he drew. (The culture of the times, however, demanded that Walker's enemies could not reveal this without their own peccadillos coming under threat of exposure.) It speaks to the fervor of the extreme right that it could risk Walker as a figurehead, compared, say to the conservative right later backing Reagan, another limited intellect with only a few, manageable starlet scandals to cover.

Since like tends to call unto like in this world, was there a Walker connection to a young, male fascist coterie in Germany? What can be said about Oswald's connections to Walker's stateside eroto-fascist group?

[Paul Trejo]

The covert culture of young male fascists around Walker in Dallas is politically suspect to say the least - suspect in the sense that you can't imagine how the Hunts and the Birchers could back Walker for president with so much potential scandal roiling behind him - on top of the political heat he drew. (The culture of the times, however, demanded that Walker's enemies could not reveal this without their own peccadillos coming under threat of exposure.) It speaks to the fervor of the extreme right that it could risk Walker as a figurehead, compared, say to the conservative right later backing Reagan, another limited intellect with only a few, manageable starlet scandals to cover.

Since like tends to call unto like in this world, was there a Walker connection to a young, male fascist coterie in Germany? What can be said about Oswald's connections to Walker's stateside eroto-fascist group?

Well, Andrew, your doubts make more sense in 2014 than they would have made in 1963. As I tried to show, there was a culture of mandatory naivete in America in the 1950's through 1963. We just looked the other way.

I'm aware of what you mean by "young male fascists around Walker in Dallas." First and foremost you refer to his younger business partner and publisher, Robert Allen Surrey, who was a member of the ANP (American Nazi Party), and he also published material for the ANP as well as for Ex-General Walker.

Also, you may also refer to the fact that the ANP leader, George Lincoln Rockwell, attended the 1962 Senate Hearings in support of Edwin Walker, AND HE WORE HIS FULL NAZI UNIFORM AT THE HEARINGS (and of course was escorted out when he shouted out loud and made a ruckus). Yet Walker expressed his displeasure with Rockwell's comportment.

Aside from that, it's debated how many other young "fascists" there were surrounding Walker.

If you simply mean "extreme right-wingers" then yes, there were many more, because we can count the Minutemen in his circle, who trained in paramilitary camps on a regular basis.

But it may be unfair to call them "fascists" just because they were extreme right-wingers who believed in the John Birch Society doctrine that all US Presidents since FDR have been Communists. That is extreme -- but it does fall short of "fascism" as such.

For another ambiguous example, I was fortunate enough to interview Larrie Schmidt for several months in 2012. (He broke it off when he discovered I wasn't going to support Willard Mitt Romney for US President.)

Some people have called Larrie Schmidt a fascist, but I must disagree, based on the evidence I see. Larrie, along with his CUSA (Conservatism USA) group, was an avid supporter of Barry Goldwater for President. That's farther right than I like to travel, but it's still far away from "fascism" properly defined (as Nazi as or a follower of Hitler or Mussolini).

Larrie Schmidt's older brother, Robbie, worked for Edwin Walker in his home in Dallas -- but as far as I could determine, Robbie was apolitical -- he followed orders, though he preferred drinking beer to reading books. This is just what disappointed Bernie Weissman, another member of CUSA.

CUSA folks were not fascists, but young hopefuls who wanted to capitalize on the New Right in the USA and especially in Dallas. They wanted to use their youth and enthusiasm to rise to the top of literally all the American Rightist Parties, and take them all over. At least, that's what Larrie Schmidt wanted.

But Larrie Schmidt told me -- and he told LIFE magazine back in 1965 -- that he would gladly shoot either Gus Hall (CPUSA) or George Rockwell (ANP) any day of the week, if that's what it took to show his hatred of the extremes of left and right.

Was Larrie deceiving me? Perhaps. Perhaps he was more right-wing than he admitted to me. Perhaps his brother Robbie was more politically active than he admitted to me. Perhaps his brother knew more about the JFK: WANTED FOR TREASON handbills than he admitted to me (which handbills Bernie Weissman saw in the back seat of the car that Robbie Schmidt drove for Ex-General Edwin Walker). I don't know -- but I say innocent until proven guilty.

So -- I can't use the word Fascist as such to describe Walker. He was a rightist extremist, but the best way to characterize his politics and his ideology is just to say that he led his own chapter of the John Birch Society in Dallas. His entire ideology was wrapped up in their twisted belief that all US Presidents since FDR had been real Communists.

This isn't Fascist as such -- but I admit that it's very close.

Now, you ask, how could H.L. Hunt and the Birchers back Walker with all his baggage. First of all, they only backed him from November 1961 until September 1962.

If Walker would have been successful in keeping the first Black American, James Meredith, from attending Ole Miss college on 30 September 1962, then I'm sure the JBS would have backed Edwin Walker for US President. I have no doubt in my mind about that.

However, Walker failed miserably in that regard -- and the Birchers stopped rooting for Walker on that weekend.

As I recall, after JFK and RFK sent Walker to an insane asylum the next morning, Congressman and Bircher Bruce Alger demanded that the JBS expel Walker from their rolls. However, three days later, after psychiatrist Thomas Szasz and the ACLU successfully won Walker's release from the insane asylum (instead of the full 90 day examination), Bruce Alger changed his tune, and welcomed Walker back into the Bircher fold.

It's true that Walker was sullied by his failure at Ole Miss. He was down -- but he was not out of the game -- not as far as the extreme right-wing was concerned. The John Birch Society's star writer, Earl Lively, wrote a booklet in early 1963 entitled, "The Invasion of Mississippi," in which he blamed JFK for the riots, and made Edwin Walker appear to be an innocent martyr.

More to the point, two members of the John Birch Society who were also attorneys, namely, Clyde Watts and Robert Morris, who got Walker acquitted by a Grand Jury in Mississippi for his role in those deadly riots, also then began suing all the American newspapers that had printed the TRUTH about Walker's fomenting and encouragement of the riots.

They won $3 million in suits over the next five years (which is $30 million in today's dollars, after inflation) and until 1967 Walker truly believed he would be a millionaire because of this. (Mercenaries like Gerry Patrick Hemming would cozy up to Walker to remember him in his political donations when "his ship came in.") If Earl Warren hadn't reversed those winnings, then Walker might have actually emerged as a more dangerous political figure in 1967. But Earl Warren knew the real truth.

So, David, if not for his failures at Ole Miss, the Birchers would have backed Walker all the way. They simply looked the other way with regard to his homosexuality (as they did for J. Edgar Hoover) because Walker was clever enough in 1963 to successfully remain "in the closet."

The reason I'm sure of this is because Walker's politics were NOTHING MORE OR LESS than the Bircher politics. Walker was not a creative thinker. He was not a creative writer. His speeches follow the John Birch Society line from 1960 through 1967, without changing a word.

Look at the JFK: WANTED FOR TREASON handbill, and compare it with the full-page, black-bordered advertisement, WELCOME, MR. PRESIDENT, TO DALLAS, in the DMN on 11/22/1963. The wording is very similar -- and the wording is taken from the pages of the John Birch Society.

As for Germany -- any homosexual secrets about Walker probably died with the reporters of the Oversees Weekly newspaper. Now -- I'm deliberately being conservative here -- and I refuse to move Walker farther to the extreme right-wing without material evidence.

That said, I will keep an open mind about it, because I do find it interesting that Walker make a friend of the newspaper editor, Dr. Gerhard Frey, who edited the Deutsche Nationalzeitung in 1963, and during WW2 was an active Nazi newspaper editor. Mae Brussell tries to make more out of this than I can make -- but I might wind up being too conservative on this score.

Finally, David, about Lee Oswald's connections to Walker and his homosexual/political lifestyle -- I don't see a connection on the surface. It is true that Clay Shaw and David Ferrie were both known homosexuals, and Lee Oswald associated with them almost continually from May 1963 to September 1963. It's true that they were also right-wing extremists.

However, their boss was Guy Banister, and Oswald ultimately reported to Guy Banister, not to Shaw (the money man) or to Ferrie (the errand runner). Guy Banister was an extreme rightist and a racist, but he was married and had a mistress on the side, i.e. he wasn't homosexual.

The connection I see between Lee Harvey Oswald and Edwin Walker is based on the historical record: (1) Oswald tried to kill Walker because George De Mohrenschildt and his pals hated Walker; and (2) Oswald found Walker's politics mildly interesting, based on Oswald's few words about him in his notes, and the fact that Oswald attended Walker's US-Day meeting on 10/23/1963 in which the sabotage of Adlai Stevenson's UN-Day speech the following evening was planned.

Those are the only connections that I can see at present, from the viewpoint of Lee Oswald. Walker's connection with Oswald was deeper, because as Walker admitted throughout his life, he knew that Oswald had been his shooter on 10 April 1963 -- and Walker tracked Lee Harvey Oswald from April 1963 all the way through November 1963.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

The use of the word mole should be restricted to Soviet in my opinion. Angleton's hunt for Soviet moles predates the assassination, and he was already using Oswald as a dangle in this search for a Soviet mole, which is why his CI unit separated Oswald's files two years earlier.

[Paul Trejo]

The use of the word mole should be restricted to Soviet in my opinion. Angleton's hunt for Soviet moles predates the assassination, and he was already using Oswald as a dangle in this search for a Soviet mole, which is why his CI unit separated Oswald's files two years earlier.

All right, Paul B., let's follow your line of argumentation.

In that case, Bill Simpich should not have used the word "mole" when he noted that the CIA high-command started a mole-hunt in search of those who *impersonated* Lee Oswald and Sylvia Duran in Mexico City on 28 September 1963.

In my reading of Bill Simpich's book, State Secret (2014), the CIA high-command was startled by this *impersonation*. Here are the facts as I recall that chapter:

(1) All calls in the Mexico City consulate compound were always wire-tapped.

(2) Any calls between the Cuban consulate and the USSR consulate in Mexico City had to be interpreted and set on the desk of the CIA Chief within 15 minutes, along with the names AND photographs of the parties on the line.

(3) The wire-tapping interpreters at the Mexico City compound were world-class experts at their jobs.

(4) The interpreters knew that Lee Harvey Oswald was already being watched that weekend

(5) The interpreters of this *impersonation* phone call realized instantly that the voices were not Lee Harvey Oswald or Sylvia Duran

(6) There were two calls, actually. The first call was just a message from the Cuban consulate that Lee Oswald was coming over to the USSR consulate. The second call was a confirmation and a request for names of USSR clerks, fishing for the name of KGB Agent Valery Kostikov.

(7) The interpreters realized that the Russian language was very poor. Lee Oswald spoke Russian very well.

(8) The interpreters realized that the Spanish language was very good. Lee Oswald spoke almost no Spanish.

(9) The interpreters realized that the English language was spoken with a thick Spanish accent.

(10) The interpreters reported that whoever claimed to be Lee Harvey Oswald and Sylvia Duran in these phone calls were not really Lee Harvey Oswald or Sylvia Duran.

(11) The CIA Chief scratched his head and could not understand why somebody would want to *impersonate* Lee Harvey Oswald.

(12) The CIA Chief reported this instantly to the top. Then Lee Oswald's CIA 201 File was quickly modified in order to catch the mole. The photo of Oswald was replaced by this large Russian dude. The middle name of Lee Oswald was changed to "Henry." The names of Oswald's parents were also changed.

Now, why in the world would a Soviet "mole" want to *impersonate* Lee Harvey Oswald?

No -- it was evidently plain at the time that whoever was *impersonating* Lee Oswald over the Cuban consulate telephone was trying to link Lee Harvey Oswald with KGB Agent Valery Kostikov.

But it was clearly a FAKE. It was a FAKE linking between Oswald and Kostikov. SOMEBODY wanted to link Oswald with the Communists. But who?

For years this mole-hunt went forward, and nobody ever found the mole.

Both Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich have suggested that CIA Agent David Morales was the mole behind the *impersonation* phone call. I tend to agree with them.

But clearly Morales was never a Soviet mole.

So -- what kind of mole was Morales? I say David Morales was a "right-wing mole".

It may be hard for some people to imagine that somebody in America could be more right-wing than the CIA, but it's really possible. If that person is so right-wing that he doesn't care about the US Constitution, and is willing to break the US Constitution to further his political aims -- then that person is what we call the "extreme" right-wing.

The "extreme" right-wing has always been just as dangerous to the US Government as the extreme left-wing (e.g. Communists). So, the CIA had to be careful of "moles" on both the right and the left.

I believe that CIA high-command considered that they were looking for an "extreme right-wing mole."

This right-wing mole was part of a Conspiracy to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist. Jim Garrison showed exactly how Guy Banister, Clay Shaw and David Ferrie, along with Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier, worked to FRAME Lee Oswald as a officer of the FPCC -- with Oswald's own cooperation -- in New Orleans during the summer of 1963.

Therefore, this Mexico City *impersonation* was just the final phase of the New Orleans FRAMING. It was the icing on the cake. It was the cherry on top. It tried to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist working with the KGB.

It actually proved that David Morales had jumped ship in the CIA, and joined these John Birch Society wackos to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald -- and it also proved that the CIA high-command knew nothing about it!

So, Paul B., if you say that Bill Simpich can't use the word, "mole" except in the sense of a "Soviet mole", then please come up with another name to call David Morales, who was no Soviet mole, but was still an INSIDER in the CIA who acted WITHOUT the knowledge of the CIA high-command to try to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Steven Gaal]

THE FTR # 188 program must be put in context with red post below RE: Buckley

+++++++++++++++++++++++

FTR #188 American Gladio?

Posted by FTR ⋅ January 9, 2000

--

Lis­ten: Side 1 | Side 2

==

This broad­cast presents long excerpts of a man­u­script by researcher Kevin Coogan, the bril­liant author of Dreamer of the Day: Fran­cis Parker Yockey and the Post­war Fas­cist Inter­na­tional (Autono­me­dia, copy­right 1999.)

--==--

Spec­u­la­tive in nature, this pro­gram high­lights infor­ma­tion that sug­gests the dis­tinct pos­si­bil­ity of a domes­tic ver­sion of “Oper­a­tion Stay Behind” and its Ital­ian com­po­nent, “Oper­a­tion Gladio”. The above were NATO oper­a­tions that uti­lized extreme right and fas­cist ele­ments as poten­tial guerilla forces to fight against com­mu­nists in the event of either a suc­cess­ful Soviet takeover of West­ern Europe (an extreme improb­a­bil­ity), or the greater like­li­hood of a pop­u­lar Com­mu­nist takeover of a major West­ern Euro­pean coun­try. In prac­tice, Gladio resulted in a pro­gram of ter­ror­ist acts (bomb­ings, kid­nap­pings and assas­si­na­tions) directed against the left. (Many of those acts were actu­ally blamed on the left, in order to dis­credit it in the eyes of the public.)

Dis­turbed by the alleged lack of “back­bone” demon­strated by Amer­i­can mil­i­tary per­son­nel dur­ing the Korean War, Amer­i­can strate­gic thinkers under­took to indoc­tri­nate the Amer­i­can pub­lic with a prac­ti­cally mil­i­tant, anti-Communist per­spec­tive. These lead­ers feared that, in the event of a pro­tracted nuclear face-off with the Sovi­ets, lack of Amer­i­can polit­i­cal resolve could result in the United States “blink­ing” and back­ing down in such a confrontation.

In 1958, the Eisen­hower admin­is­tra­tion issued a National Secu­rity Coun­cil direc­tive autho­riz­ing the mil­i­tary to engage in a pro­gram of polit­i­cal indoc­tri­na­tion of mil­i­tary per­son­nel and (more impor­tantly) the civil­ian pop­u­la­tion as well. The goal of this direc­tive was to alter the polit­i­cal views of the Amer­i­can peo­ple. The con­sti­tu­tional impli­ca­tions of this direc­tive could not be exag­ger­ated. The bulk of the broad­cast exam­ines evi­dence that sug­gests that, as a result of this NSC direc­tive, the national secu­rity estab­lish­ment began uti­liz­ing far-right and fas­cist groups in order to real­ize the desired ide­o­log­i­cal trans­for­ma­tion. Mr. Emory sug­gests that these net­works may very well have been uti­lized in the Amer­i­can polit­i­cal assas­si­na­tions of the 1960s and early 1970s, as well as domes­tic intel­li­gence oper­a­tions against the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: con­nec­tions between Kennedy assas­si­na­tion fig­ure Guy Ban­nis­ter and Amer­i­can Nazi Party leader George Lin­coln Rock­well; Bannister’s con­nec­tions to both the national secu­rity estab­lish­ment and overtly fas­cist ele­ments; intel­li­gence net­works and polit­i­cal fronts in the United States estab­lished by the Ger­man Rein­hard Gehlen spy orga­ni­za­tion; the use of Nazi ele­ments by a Ger­man com­po­nent of “Oper­a­tion Stay Behind;” the estab­lish­ment of the Ger­man Nazi paper DNZ by U.S. intel­li­gence as a com­po­nent of the Ger­man “Stay Behind;” con­nec­tions between Robert Sur­rey (an aide to Kennedy assas­si­na­tion fig­ure Gen­eral Edwin Walker) and George Lin­coln Rock­well; evi­dence sug­gest­ing that Surrey’s financ­ing of Walker’s Amer­i­can Mer­cury news­pa­per may have been financed by either Ger­man intel­li­gence or U.S. intel­li­gence (the paper was later taken over by Willis Carto, head of the Lib­erty Lobby); con­nec­tions between Sur­rey and the Schmidt broth­ers (appar­ently involved in the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion); indi­ca­tions that the Schmidt broth­ers CUSA orga­ni­za­tion may also have resulted from the ’58 NSC directive,“Stay Behind;” the Schmidts’ Nazi ide­ol­ogy; the polit­i­cal assault on lib­eral Amer­i­can anti-Communists by far-right ele­ments; the pos­si­bil­ity that the DNZ’s pub­li­ca­tion of the alle­ga­tion that Lee Har­vey Oswald tried to kill Gen­eral Walker was used by the BND (Ger­man intel­li­gence) to pres­sure the CIA. (Recorded on 1/9/2000.)++++++++++

============================

John Geraghty, on Jul 11 2006, 03:26 AM, said:

I found this information on the YAF provided by Mae Brussell very interesting. Mr.Caddy of course gets a mention.

1960: Young Americans for Freedom

President Harry Truman warned about the CIA "Gestapo" he had created.
President Eisenhower left the White House fearing the new "military-industrial complex" he handed to us.
In 1960 candidate Richard Nixon was qualified for the job of President. A lot of influential people were sure he was the only choice.
Nixon was familiar with every red scare tactic. From his first campaign against Jerry Voorhis in 1946 for the House seat, or vs. Helen Douglas in the Senate, and working with Sen. Joe McCarthy, he knew it well. The prosecution of Alger Hiss, with such flimsy evidence, proved his value alone.
But Nixon had also accumulated strong connections with members of the crime syndicate, the Vatican hierarchy, defense industries and known nazis. He knew them all.
What if he lost after those seventeen years of preparation? Would there be a back-up team for the future? Could the Pentagon or Reinhard Gehlen visualize leaving the entire United States presidency to chance elections?
Remember what happened to Senator Robert Kennedy on the eve of his primary election in June, 1968? They can't get that close to losing it again, you know. With both Kennedy's gone, Nixon finally made it.
September, 1960, two months before the elections, William F. Buckley Jr. launched his YAF, Young Americans for Freedom, from the grounds on his Connecticut estate.
Prior to that date, Buckley's career was one of the most conservative in the U.S. Following his graduation at Yale, mentor Frank Chodorov grabbed him for purposes related to his job with McCormick's Chicago Tribune.
Buckley served the CIA in Japan from 1950 to 1954.
He also did a stint with CIA in Mexico with E. Howard Hunt.
Co-founder of YAF was Douglas Caddy, whose offices were used by the CIA and Howard Hughes organization, at the time of Watergate illegal entries and other dirty tricks.
After the CIA in Japan, Buckley was ready to publish his own magazine, The National Review. This was an unusual opportunity to bring together the world's most conservative writers for publication and much propaganda accompanied by Buckley's glib innuendos.
Once the publication was going, Buckley decided to bring Young Americans for Freedom to the campus; old ideas, old money, and young minds to mold. Behind the project were always the well-funded military masters, such as the YAF's Tom Charles Huston and the Cointel-Program Nixon cooked up.
The selected advisory board for YAF was a Who's Who of oldies even then: Senator Strom Thurmond, Senator John Tower, Mr. Ronald Reagan, Professor Lev Dobriansky, General Charles Willoughby, and Mr. Robert Morris are a sample.
Robert Morris may not be a household name. But William Buckley knew him well, and Morris, Nixon, and Senator Joe McCarthy were team players. Senator Joe McCarthy's two strongest supporters for him to represent Wisconsin were Frank Seusenbrenner and Walter Harnisfeger. Both admired Adolf Hitler and made continuous trips to Germany.
Senator McCarthy obliged fast enough. Before he went after the Commies in the State Department, he had to release a few of Hitler's elite nazis lingering in the Dachau prison camp. McCarthy beat John McCloy by about three years.
In 1949, during congressional hearings on the Malmedy Massacre, the bloody Battle of the Bulge, McCarthy invited himself to take over the entire testimony. He wasn't satisfied until the prison doors flew open. The most detestable and ugly battle of World War II, an assault upon Americans and civilians in Belgium, was ignored. Hitler's precious Generals Fritz Kraemer and Sepp Dietrick, along with Hermann Priess and many others, were free.
With that business finished, McCarthy took on Robert Morris as Chief Counsel for the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. Morris' earlier training in Navy Intelligence in charge of USSR counter-intelligence and psychological warfare could be utilized well by Senator Joe. Particularly the psychological warfare part.
After McCarthy died, Morris moved to Dallas, Texas. He was a judge, and became president of Dallas University.
In 1961, a year after Buckley founded YAF, another conservative organization was formed in Munich, Germany, calling itself CUSA, Conservatism USA. These were not students, but members of the U.S. army, soon to be mustered out, then to appear in Dallas, Texas, by November 1963. The host would be Robert Morris.
A correspondence between Larry Schmidt in Dallas, to Bernie Weissman in Munich, Germany, in preparation for their arrival, was published in the Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. XVIII.
Segments of the letters are as follows:

November 2, 1962: Dallas to Munich, Larry Schmidt:

"Gentlemen we got everything we wanted."

"It saved the trouble of infiltration."

"Met with Frank McGee ... (president of the Dallas Council of World Affairs.)"

"Suggest Bernie convert to Christianity and I mean it."

(Bernard Weissman, the only Jew, was brought all the way to Dallas on November 22, 1963, to lend his name to the "Wanted for Treason" fliers handed out to welcome JFK. He testified that the John Birch Society paid for the ads and "wanted a Jewish name at the bottom.")

"We must all return to the church."

"These people are religious bugs."

"I think in terms of 300,000 members, $3,000,000."

"The John Birch Society has a million members. Look for us to merge with them in 1964."

"Arrangements are being made for me to meet the heads of the Dallas John Birch, General Walker, and H.L. Hunt, Texas oil millionaire."

(General Walker had been retired from the military by John Kennedy for his compulsory Pro-Blud indoctrination.)

"I have already met the top editors of the Dallas Morning News, the country's most conservative newspaper."

"These people are radicals but there is a method in their madness. You see, they're all after exactly what we're after."

"No liberal talk whatsoever, none."

"Down here a Negro is a n."

"I mean, no one is ever to say one kind word about niggers."

"Liberals are our enemies."

"The conservative isn't against the Niggers, he just wants to keep him in his place for his own good."

(Pres. John Kennedy and Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy had waged a bitter battle from Sept. 30 to Oct. 3, 1962, at the University of Mississippi. The integration of one black student brought in the U.S. Army and caused Gen. Edwin Walker to be confined.)

January 4, 1963, Larry Schmidt to B. Weissman, Munich:

"I want big men ... believe me if I had a dozen such men I can conquer the world."

"I will go down in the history books as a great and noble man, or a tyrant."

"I expect to see you here in Dallas, especially Norman and Larry."

"If Jim Mosely is not here by Feb. 15, he is finished."

"One thing had best be understood, I am not playing games here in Dallas and expect you not to play games in Munich."

"I am not here in Dallas for my health or because I think Dallas is a wonderful place."

"Continue to have regular meetings and try to get things back in order in preparation for the big meetings."

February 2, 1963, Larry Schmidt:

"We have succeeded, the mission with which I was charged in Dallas has been achieved."

"Friday night I attended a gathering of the top conservatives in Dallas."

"The meeting was at the home of Dr. Robert Morris, President of the Defenders of American Liberty."

"Present were Mr. George Ward, Detective for Dallas City Police, Mr. Ken Thompson, editorial writer for the Dallas Morning News, Mr. Clyde Moore, former PR man for H.L. Hunt, former UPI writer. (Eight others)."

"I told them exactly what I wanted."

"Others suggested using an already existing movement, named the Young Americans for Freedom, with already 50,000 members."

"CUSA, as set up in Munich, is now an established fact in Dallas, only we are calling it YAF. I think you catch on."

"We are starting Munich chapters of YAF. To spread to Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Heidelberg, Berlin, Kaiserslautern."

"We are getting every top name in business, education, politics, and religion to endorse YAF."

"The advisory board includes 37 congressmen . . . including Sen. Strom Thurmond, Sen. John Tower, and Sen. Barry Goldwater. There is Ronald Reagan, Gen. Mark Clark, Gen. Charles Willoughby, John Wayne, etc."

"Change all your records to read YAF."

"All those months in Munich were not wasted. I accomplished my task in Dallas. I need you here soon. I sold these people on each of you and they are expecting you to come to Dallas and play an important role."

"The days of leisure are over."

"We want to see you, Norman, Jim and Bill Burley back here in Dallas."

"Sheila and my brother will be here in August; Ken Glazebrook in Sept."

June 13, 1963, Larry Schmidt to B. Weissman in Munich, Germany:

"Warren Carroll, our only other recruit to CUSA, is already a PhD and two MS's. Warren is a scriptwriter for Lifeline, the H.L. Hunt television and radio series. Hunt is the millionaire oilman."

"Warren is 32, former CIA man. Don't worry, he has been checked out."

"Hunt checked him out."

(This appears to be a military action, DIA. They have to check out the CIA man, using Hunt's security).

After Jack Ruby was arrested for killing Oswald inside the Dallas jail, there were copies of Warren Carroll's Lifeline on the seat of his car. The section was on "Heroism," on how to become a "hero." This is interesting because one of the first reasons Ruby gave for killing Oswald was, "I wanted to show them a Jew had guts."

"We want to get Norman into the Republic National Bank ... where we are building our credit like crazy for the day we need ready cash."

(The Dallas Republic National Bank was identified by the Washington Post, February 26, 1967, as a conduit of CIA funds since 1958.)

(Connie Trammel, who worked at the Republic National Bank, accompanied Jack Ruby to the office of Lamar Hunt, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 1963, two days before Kennedy was assassinated.)

October 1, 1963, Larry Schmidt to Munich, Germany:

"I have a lot of contacts, bankers, insurance men, realtors."

"My brother began working as an aide to General Walker. Paid full time."

"National Indignation Committee will merge in the Fall of 1963, as soon as Bernie and Norman are in Dallas."

"This is a top secret merger and is not to be discussed outside the movement."

October 29, 1963, Larry Schmidt to Munich Germany:

"This town is a battleground and that is no joke. I am a hero to the right, a stormtrooper to the left."

"I have worked out a deal with the chairman of YAF. The arrangements are always delicate, very delicate. If I don't produce the bodies it is likely Dale (Davenport) will think me a phoney."

"He needs our help now. Adlai Stevenson is scheduled here on the 24th."

"Kennedy is scheduled in Dallas on November 24."

"All big things are happening now."

John

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Creole Petroleum (employer George de Mohrenschildt ) was later to provide cover for

operations run by the Dulles brothers in the Caribbean,

working hand-in-glove with the United Fruit Company

to orchestrate the 1953 Arbenz coup in Guatamala and

the 1963 Bay of Pigs invasion. Coudert Brothers, the

law firm for the Buckleys' estimated $110 million miniature

oil empire, also had a fascist pedigree as. the legal

counsel to Vichy France. Sol M. Linowitz, a senior

partner in the Coudert law firm, was also on the board

of directors of United Brands (formerly United Fruit),

in which Allen Dulles was a major stockholder at the

time he was CIA Director.

William Buckley, Sr.'s children were brought directly

under Dulles' wing when three of them joined the

CIA at the height of Allen Dulles' cold-war deployment

of the old Nazi networks as part of his "liberation

rollback" policy in Eastern Europe and a string of

coups d'etat in the Middle East and Latin America.

William F. Buckley worked directly under E. Howard

Hunt, then CIA station chief in Mexico, helping to

weave elements of the Malmo International into the

U.S. intelligence establishment.

(http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1982/eirv09n15-19820420/eirv09n15-19820420_028-allen_dulles_william_buckley_and.pdf)

===========

===========

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_issue/rmblr_frwrd.html

===

In 1950, Burnham recruited a Yale student, William F. Buckley, Jr., and introduced him to CIA agent E. Howard Hunt. Hunt was a favorite of CIA Director Allen Dulles. Buckley's father also knew the Dulles family, having shared foreign-policy adventures in Mexico with Dulles' uncle, Robert Lansing, when Lansing was President Wilson's secretary of state.

Buckley, as Hunt's advance man, went to Mexico City to recruit informants for the CIA's soon-to-be Mexico City station. There, Buckley met and recruited a 28-year-old Spanish student from Philadelphia, George Gordon Wing, as an informant among the left-wing student groups at Mexico City College. Hunt arrived soon thereafter and arranged for Wing's CIA payment, which was disguised as a student grant. Wing was an older student because his studies had been interrupted by World War II. He served as a Naval aviation bomb-sight technician, fire controlman and ordnance specialist.

##############################

John Simkin

For evidence that William Buckley was a long-time member of the CIA and that the National Review was/is a CIA front see the article by George Will's article in the Washington Post on 29th January, 1975. Will was actually the National Review’s Washington columnist. He explained that most senior members of staff knew that the National Review was a CIA operation. He revealed that the journal had four CIA agents on its staff. He claimed that he had evidence that the National Review had been receiving funds from the CIA. He also revealed that Buckley was very close to E. Howard Hunt and had been raising funds for him. (The article was published during the Watergate Scandal). Will lost his job in the National Review but was never prosecuted for outing Buckley. In fact, the article received very little attention at the time and Buckley was pleased to let the subject drop. As this thread is linked to my very popular page on William Buckley, I don't think you will have pleased your idol by raising this issue.
((( http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5078&p=44262 )))

Edited September 13, 2014 by Steven Gaal

[Paul Brancato]

So Paul, by your interpretation the CIA knew that JFK was killed by a right wing conspiracy, possibly in its own ranks, and rather than expose this conspiracy and murder they closed ranks in order to prevent a civil war with right wing extremists. Did LBJ know this? Clearly if all this were true, and in essence I think it is, why the kid glove treatment of the unpatriotic right wing extremists in their midst? Clearly it was not to avoid war with the Soviets. This is the place which is weakest in your theory. You apparently can think of only one reason why the CIA would avoid conflict with the JBS and southern racist extremists. Might there be another? Might it have been because Angleton and Dulles and Helms actually agreed that JFK had to go, one way or another, because in their minds he was a left wing commie sympathizer?

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - do you not think that there is enough evidence to suggest that Oswald was a part of the CIA, or FBI (both were doing this) operation to discredit the FPCC? I think Banister et al were part of that, and not part of a separate operation to frame Oswald.

[Paul Trejo]

So Paul, by your interpretation the CIA knew that JFK was killed by a right wing conspiracy, possibly in its own ranks, and rather than expose this conspiracy and murder they closed ranks in order to prevent a civil war with right wing extremists. Did LBJ know this? Clearly if all this were true, and in essence I think it is, why the kid glove treatment of the unpatriotic right wing extremists in their midst? Clearly it was not to avoid war with the Soviets. This is the place which is weakest in your theory. You apparently can think of only one reason why the CIA would avoid conflict with the JBS and southern racist extremists. Might there be another? Might it have been because Angleton and Dulles and Helms actually agreed that JFK had to go, one way or another, because in their minds he was a left wing commie sympathizer?

Well, Paul B., it's a good and challenging question.

In my opinion, the CIA uncharacteristically allowed the FBI to take the lead on this issue.

Although ordinarily the CIA and the FBI were in competition with each other regarding Intelligence cases -- the general consensus was that the CIA should work on International cases, while the FBI should work on domestic cases.

It was decided very early in the JFK murder case, that this was a domestic case. If there had been clear and present evidence of an International plot to murder JFK, the CIA would have jumped to duty. They did not. I take this as more evidence that the JFK murder was a domestic issue.

The FBI handled domestic issues of this magnitude. I believe that the CIA recognized their juridiction on the JFK murder, so they followed the FBI lead on the question.

Now -- what was the FBI position? I say (following Professor David R. Wrone) that J. Edgar Hoover decided only ONE HOUR after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested, that the FBI response must be that Lee Harvey Oswald was NEVER acting on Communist orders, or under Communist influence, but that he acted completely ALONE, as the Lone Shooter or Lone Nut.

That is, Oswald arrived at DPD headquarters at about 2pm CST on 11/22/1963, and by 3pm CST the FBI Director decided that the FBI response was that Oswald was a Lone Shooter.

At that point, all FBI Agents involved with the JFK murder case (and it was a lot of them) were ordered to hide any and all evidence that suggested more than one shooter, shooting a maximum of three shots from the TSBD building.

This has been called the Cover-up of the JFK murder. Actually, it was a Counter-Terrorist strategy intended to foil the plans of the JFK Kill-Team -- because the JFK Kill-Team insisted that JFK was killed by the Communists through their pawn, Lee Harvey Oswald.

J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, John McCone and Allen Dulles knew this to be a lie. They all followed Hoover's strategy -- insist that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Lone Shooter, and devil take the hindmost.

At this point, the CIA top-command knew that the right-wing had killed JFK. The CIA didn't know that there was a rightist mole inside the CIA who had taken part in this murder. They had no clue that David Morales was their Mexico City *impersonator* of Lee Harvey Oswald, and they still had not yet connected the dots -- that the Mexico City *impersonation* was definitely linked with the JFK murder.

Yet the CIA knew that the murder of JFK was done by the radical right-wing in the USA. So it was not their jurisdiction -- it was under the jurisdiction of the FBI, and the CIA followed the FBI lead on this.

The FBI lied to the American People, telling us for fifty years that Lee Harvey Oswald acted ALONE on that day. It has been so long, and it has been so habitual, that perhaps to this day most Americans still believe it, and most FBI people have no recollection that this was a political strategy, and not the truth. It is simply taken as read by most Americans and most modern FBI agents today.

Also, I have tried to imagine why the US Government would refuse to punish the radical right-wing on this murder case. IMHO, it wasn't because they agreed with the right-wing in any way, shape or form.

While Hoover disliked JFK and RFK, Hoover also had pride, honor and respect for Law and Order.

The ONLY rational reason for refusing to identify the JFK Killers was that same reason they openly stated in 1964 -- National Security. The FBI continues to repeat this today as their reason for refusing to release their Top Secret files about JFK.

There was no other reason a half-century ago; it was National Security. There is no other reason today.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 13, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - do you not think that there is enough evidence to suggest that Oswald was a part of the CIA, or FBI (both were doing this) operation to discredit the FPCC? I think Banister et al were part of that, and not part of a separate operation to frame Oswald.

Well, Paul B., I cannot find enough evidence to suggest that Oswald was an official part of the CIA. Oswald wasn't a full-time employee of the CIA, otherwise he wouldn't have been as poor as a church-mouse.

We have evidence from Richard Case Nagell to the effect that some people inside the CIA would hand Oswald a little bit of money from time to time, probably for spying piece-work with his Minox camera.

The FBI was giving Oswald $200 monthly for information -- said Dallas DA Henry Wade. That was far from a regular salary from the FBI, but it was like a promise of more to come. (In my theory, the FRAMERS of Oswald used Oswald's zeal to get a regular job with the FBI or CIA as leverage to fool him into being their Patsy.)

As for Guy Banister, he was a hot-head with a terrible temper. He was also an outspoken racist, and when he ran for public office in Lousiana, he openly ran on a racist ticket -- "keep our schools lily white."

As such, Guy Banister had broken with the FBI. Guy Banister was working directly with Mafia leader Carlos Marcello during the summer of 1963.

I cannot find any connection linking Carlos Marcello to the FBI during the summer of 1963. I know enemies of Hoover claim that there were -- but those are politically motivated accusations. Therefore, I conclude that Guy Banister was acting ON HIS OWN when he set up his fake FPCC in New Orleans, with Lee Harvey Oswald at the helm. It was Guy's own work.

The reason Guy was doing it was to find a way to assassinate Fidel Castro. That's why Guy Banister was so close to Operation Mongoose, as well. The FBI wasn't involved in Operation Mongoose, but on the contrary, were under orders to shut down all paramilitary training camps supporting Cuban Exile counter-revolutionary armies.

Guy Banister was far more radical than J. Edgar Hoover during the summer of 1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 13, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - we know that both FBI and CIA, possibly together but possibly separate, were officially running antiFPCC operations right at the same time that Oswald was sojourning in NO and MC doing everything he could to discredit the FPCC. We know that the FBI 'lost' LHO from his arrival in NO until after the street scene with Bringuier. Its logical to assume that Oswald, and possibly Banister and Ferrie, were part of that operation. But you will not find documents to prove it.

As for the CIA taking aback seat to the FBI because it was a domestic situation, I don't buy it. We know that when the first CIA investigator got too nosy about MC Angleton replaced him and took over himself.

Once again I will point out that when FBI doesn't release documents that really prove Dean's statements you think its because they are simply hiding the good stuff, or have destroyed it. I distinctly remember you pointing out that FBI docs about Dean's past were most likely deliberate attempts to discredit Dean, rather than simply truthful. Yet when the CIA doesn't come forward with documents you assert that its because there aren't any. You do this by referring to the lack of CIA documentation as being some kind of proof in itself. But as you well know, whether its the FBI or the CIA, deniability is built into the system. It has taken a lot of work for decades by dedicated researchers to sift through and parse together real history, as opposed to the false history we have been fed.

The CIA is hiding much more than their own mistakes. Even Blakey was upset when he discovered that the CIA agent assigned to liase with the HSCA, Joannides, would have been deposed if HSCA had known who he actually was and what he was up to in 1963, working with Cuban exiles like Bringuier and operating out of the Miami station under Shackley. That fact is incredibly damning to the CIA. No use calling Morales a rogue - he was the best operational CIA officer of his day, and was hands on, part of a chain of command.

How many times have you said that Dulles, and Hoover, were much too patriotic not to accept being fired. Nonsense in my opinion. The two were at the very center of power in the National security state, and had been so for decades by 1963. How can you doubt that they seethed with hatred for this upstart president? Its well known that they, and many others including LBJ, hated the Kennedys.

[Paul Brancato]

And your last sentence - that Banister was far more radical than JEH - does not ring true. Hoover dogged MLK and did all he could against his movement. There are open racists, and there are secret racists. That is the difference here - one of style, not substance.