Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

← FTR #960 Update on the High Profile Hacks   |   FTR #962 Watergate and the Assassination of President Kennedy, Part 2 →

FTR #961 Watergate and the Assassination of President Kennedy, Part 1

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ June 19, 2017Post a comment Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post
Tags  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE.

This broad­cast was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

jfkandtheunspeakableIntro­duc­tion: With Water­gate being bruit­ed about by our media in con­junc­tion with the “inves­ti­ga­tions” into Trump and “Rus­sia-gate,” we are tak­ing time to dig into the archives and recap infor­ma­tion about one of the fac­tors that under­lay the Water­gate scandal–the assas­si­na­tion of JFK.

The first of the pro­grams excerpts The Guns of Novem­ber, Part 3 (record­ed on 11/15/1983) at length. From the descrip­tion for the pro­gram:

Richard Nixon’s polit­i­cal demise came through the Water­gate scan­dal. Nixon ini­ti­at­ed the Water­gate cov­er-up because he feared that “the whole Bay of Pigs thing” would come out. In his polit­i­cal mem­oir The Ends of Pow­er, Nixon aide H.R. Halde­man wrote that the phrase “Bay of Pigs” was a code-word with­in the Nixon White House for the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion.

The pro­gram doc­u­ments many of the areas of over­lap between the Water­gate and Kennedy inves­ti­ga­tions.

Nixon him­self was in Dal­las on Novem­ber 22, 1963, as a lawyer for Pep­si­co (the par­ent com­pa­ny of Pep­si Cola.) Fly­ing out of Dal­las rough­ly two hours before Kennedy was slain, Nixon told the FBI in Feb­ru­ary of 1964 that the only time he had been in Dal­las in 1963 had been “two days pri­or to the assas­si­na­tion.” This bla­tant lie is negat­ed by a wire ser­vice inter­view Nixon gave in Dal­las on Novem­ber 21. Text of the inter­view ran in the New York Times and oth­er major news­pa­pers.

(A Pep­si Cola exec­u­tive said that Nixon was present in Dal­las at a com­pa­ny meet­ing when the announce­ment came that Pres­i­dent Kennedy had been killed.)

Water­gate Spe­cial Pros­e­cu­tor Leon Jawors­ki was select­ed by Nixon to replace the ille­gal­ly fired Archibald Cox. Jawors­ki had pre­vi­ous­ly served as a War­ren Com­mis­sion Coun­sel, while at the same time serv­ing as direc­tor of a CIA domes­tic fund­ing con­duit.

Nixon named for­mer War­ren Com­mis­sion mem­ber Ger­ald Ford to replace Vice Pres­i­dent Agnew. Ford then replaced Nixon as Pres­i­dent and par­doned him of all crimes he may have com­mit­ted. . . .

. . . . The pro­gram dis­cuss­es evi­den­tiary trib­u­taries con­nect­ing numer­ous oth­er fig­ures to the both inves­ti­ga­tions, includ­ing Water­gate Judge John Sir­i­ca and Water­gate bur­glar Frank Stur­gis.

To attempt selec­tive era­sure of the all-impor­tant Water­gate tapes, Nixon sought the assis­tance of Gor­don Nov­el, a vet­er­an intel­li­gence agent, elec­tron­ics expert, anti-Cas­tro vet­er­an and a fig­ure in Jim Gar­rison’s inves­ti­ga­tion in New Orleans. At least one key tape was par­tial­ly erased (the famous 18 1/2 minute gap), though no cul­prit was ever iden­ti­fied.

Pro­gram High­lights Include:

  1. Leon Jaworski’s role as Kore­a­gate Spe­cial Pros­e­cu­tor, which per­mit­ted the eclips­ing of the Moon orga­ni­za­tion’s links to the CIA.
  2. Jaworski’s role as one of two heads of the Texas Court of Inquiry, the body formed by the state of Texas in order to inves­ti­gate the assas­si­na­tion.
  3. The role of the Uni­fi­ca­tion Church–the Moon organization–in gen­er­at­ing sup­port for Nixon dur­ing Water­gate.
  4. Jude Sarah Hugh­es’s involve­ment with a CIA domes­tic fund­ing con­duit.
  5. Hugh­es’s admin­is­tra­tion of the oath of office to LBJ on the plane fly­ing back to Wash­ing­ton DC.
  6. Judge Sir­i­ca’s elec­toral sup­port for Richard Nixon (“Max­i­mum John” Sir­i­ca was the Judge in the Water­gate case.)
  7. The fact that the suit by JFK researcher Harold Weis­berg and attor­ney James Lesar sought infor­ma­tion from the War­ren Com­mis­sion, part of the exec­u­tive branch of gov­ern­ment. That body was a Pres­i­den­tial fact-find­ing com­mis­sion with no legal sta­tus what­so­ev­er. Sir­i­ca’s rul­ing against the plain­tiffs was a con­tra­ven­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tion.
  8. “Ex” CIA offi­cer James McCord’s deci­sive role in both betray­ing the Water­gate bur­glars and in see­ing to it that the inves­ti­ga­tion would go for­ward.
  9. Frank Stur­gis and his role (as Frank Fior­i­ni) in run­ning the Mob’s casi­nos in Cuba pre-Cas­tro.
  10. Stur­gis’s role in gen­er­at­ing dis­in­for­ma­tion point­ing toward Cas­tro as the archi­tect of the assas­si­na­tion.
  11. An arti­cle from a 1983 tech­nol­o­gy pub­li­ca­tion in which Gor­don Nov­el dis­cuss­es his ultra high-tech­nol­o­gy role “to erase the Water­gate tapes.” This will be dis­cussed at greater length in future pro­grams.

Discussion

One comment for “FTR #961 Watergate and the Assassination of President Kennedy, Part 1”

  1. With all the echoes of Water­gate in the air these days, thanks to some new­ly pub­lished mem­os from the Water­gate Spe­cial Pros­e­cu­tion Force we can now unfor­tu­nate­ly report on a new echo: you know how Don­ald Trump fre­quent­ly pro­mot­ed polit­i­cal vio­lence through­out the 2016 cam­paign. Well, it turns out that has some unpleas­ant Water­gate echoes:

    NBC News

    NBC News Exclu­sive: Memo Shows Water­gate Pros­e­cu­tors Had Evi­dence Nixon White House Plot­ted Vio­lence

    by Ari Mel­ber, Noel Hart­man and Liz John­stone

    Jun 18 2017, 9:24 pm ET

    Water­gate pros­e­cu­tors had evi­dence that oper­a­tives for then-Pres­i­dent Richard Nixon planned an assault on anti-war demon­stra­tors in 1972, includ­ing poten­tial­ly phys­i­cal­ly attack­ing Viet­nam whistle­blow­er Daniel Ells­berg, accord­ing to a nev­er-before-pub­lished memo obtained by NBC News.

    The doc­u­ment, an 18-page 1973 inves­tiga­tive mem­o­ran­dum from the Water­gate Spe­cial Pros­e­cu­tion Force, sheds new light on how pros­e­cu­tors were inves­ti­gat­ing attempts at domes­tic polit­i­cal vio­lence by Nixon aides, an extreme­ly seri­ous charge.

    NBC News is pub­lish­ing the memo, and an accom­pa­ny­ing memo about an inter­view pros­e­cu­tors con­duct­ed with GOP oper­a­tive Roger Stone, as part of spe­cial cov­er­age for the 45th anniver­sary of the Water­gate break-in.

    A plot to phys­i­cal­ly attack Ells­berg is notable because the for­mer Pen­ta­gon offi­cial has long alleged that Nixon oper­a­tives did more than steal his med­ical files, the most well-known effort to dis­cred­it him.

    In his mem­oirs, Ells­berg wrote that in May 1972, the White House had flown “Cuban-Amer­i­can CIA ‘assets’ from Mia­mi to Wash­ing­ton to dis­rupt a ral­ly that I and oth­ers were address­ing on the steps of the Capi­tol,” with orders “to inca­pac­i­tate [me] total­ly.”

    Nixon offi­cials denied that account, how­ev­er, and there were nev­er any indict­ments relat­ed to the accu­sa­tion.

    The memo, writ­ten on June 5, 1975, by Water­gate spe­cial pros­e­cu­tor Nick Aker­man, pro­vides some con­tem­po­ra­ne­ous sup­port for Ells­berg’s alle­ga­tion that he was tar­get­ed.

    It states that “an exten­sive inves­ti­ga­tion” found evi­dence that Nixon oper­a­tives plot­ted an “assault on anti­war demon­stra­tors” at a ral­ly at the U.S. Capi­tol fea­tur­ing Ells­berg and oth­er anti-war “nota­bles.” The anti-war demon­stra­tion occurred near a view­ing of recent­ly deceased FBI Direc­tor J. Edgar Hoover. An accom­pa­ny­ing memo by Aker­man sum­ma­rizes his inter­view with Stone, who said he helped orga­nize young Repub­li­cans to join the counter-demon­stra­tion but who had no appar­ent knowl­edge of the White House plot on Ells­berg.

    The attack would be on “long-haired demon­stra­tors, in par­tic­u­lar Ells­berg,” the pros­e­cu­tors’ memo states, with the objec­tives of impugn­ing Ells­berg for protest­ing near to Hoover lying in state and “sim­ply hav­ing Ells­berg beat­en up.”

    Aker­man, appear­ing on Ari Mel­ber’s MSNBC show “The Point” on Sun­day night moments after the doc­u­ments were revealed, said Ells­berg emerged unscathed that day. “They were unable to reach him for some rea­son,” Aker­man told Mel­ber, say­ing the rea­sons remained unclear.

    Pros­e­cu­tors con­clud­ed that White House coun­sel Charles Col­son had direct­ed the oper­a­tion, which Col­son denied.

    Pros­e­cu­tors ini­tial­ly respond­ed to news­pa­per reports that Bernard Bark­er, a Cuba-born Water­gate bur­glar, and a group of nine Mia­mi asso­ciates “had engaged anti­war demon­stra­tors in a fight” and that Col­son was behind it.

    Col­son plead­ed guilty to obstruc­tion of jus­tice relat­ed to steal­ing Ellsberg’s med­ical files, but was nev­er charged for con­duct relat­ed to this plot. The memo address­es that dis­tinc­tion, not­ing that while pros­e­cu­tors con­clud­ed Col­son was involved, the evi­dence they had “would not be suf­fi­cient to indict Col­son.”

    “There is still no clear way to link Col­son to the assault which is mud­dled by his efforts to orga­nize a law­ful coun­ter­demon­stra­tion,” the memo con­cludes. “This meld­ing of the coun­ter­demon­stra­tion and the assault had been a prob­lem through­out this inves­ti­ga­tion in charg­ing any­body with a crime.”

    Aker­man told Mel­ber that “it was the release of the Pen­ta­gon Papers that real­ly set him (Nixon) off.”

    Stone, who also appeared on “The Point” Sun­day night, insist­ed it was Hen­ry Kissinger who had been ril­ing up Nixon against Ells­berg — a point Aker­man heat­ed­ly reject­ed.

    “The Nixon administration’s para­noia about Daniel Ells­berg is dri­ven by Hen­ry Kissinger,” Stone said. “You can hear him in the tapes: ‘He’s a per­vert, Mr. Pres­i­dent. He must be dealt with, Mr. Pres­i­dent.’ ”

    Aker­man’s memo also sug­gests that Nixon was briefed on aspects of the plot, because aides John Ehrlich­man and Bob Halde­man said the sto­ry “might some­day hurt the pres­i­dent” if links to Nixon oper­a­tives were revealed. Ehrlich­man had dis­cussed “bring­ing the Cubans up to rough-up the demon­stra­tors,” and Nixon respond­ed, “Cam­paign activ­i­ties — I got that.”

    The con­ver­sa­tion, cap­tured on the Water­gate tapes, con­tin­ues as the talk turns to how the inci­dent might ulti­mate­ly be han­dled by Con­gres­sion­al inves­ti­ga­tors and the Water­gate pros­e­cu­tors.

    “Prob­a­bly, [it] will get in some way logged into the grand jury busi­ness because of the mon­ey,” Halde­man says.

    While that pos­si­bil­i­ty appar­ent­ly con­cerned the White House, the doc­u­ment shows pros­e­cu­tors nev­er had quite enough evi­dence to build the plot against the anti­war pro­tes­tors into their case against Nixon and his oper­a­tives.

    ...

    ———-

    “NBC News Exclu­sive: Memo Shows Water­gate Pros­e­cu­tors Had Evi­dence Nixon White House Plot­ted Vio­lence” by Ari Mel­ber, Noel Hart­man and Liz John­stone; NBC News; 06/18/2017

    “It states that “an exten­sive inves­ti­ga­tion” found evi­dence that Nixon oper­a­tives plot­ted an “assault on anti­war demon­stra­tors” at a ral­ly at the U.S. Capi­tol fea­tur­ing Ells­berg and oth­er anti-war “nota­bles.” The anti-war demon­stra­tion occurred near a view­ing of recent­ly deceased FBI Direc­tor J. Edgar Hoover. An accom­pa­ny­ing memo by Aker­man sum­ma­rizes his inter­view with Stone, who said he helped orga­nize young Repub­li­cans to join the counter-demon­stra­tion but who had no appar­ent knowl­edge of the White House plot on Ells­berg.”

    Yep, it was none oth­er than Roger Stone who helped orga­nized the young Repub­li­can ‘counter-demon­stra­tion’ that was sup­posed to result in Ells­berg’s beat­ing. But Stone assures us he was just orga­niz­ing the counter-demon­stra­tion of Cuban-Amer­i­can CIA ‘assets’ and had no idea about the planned vio­lence and his polit­i­cal opponents...because, you know, that would have been so unchar­ac­ter­is­tic of Stone.

    And note what it was that pre­vent­ed the inves­ti­ga­tors for pros­e­cut­ing Chuck Col­son for his lead­er­ship role in this plot: the plan­ning of the counter-protests was legal, and dis­en­tan­gling the legal counter-protest plans from the ille­gal vio­lence plans became an impos­si­bil­i­ty from a legal stand­point:

    ...
    Pros­e­cu­tors con­clud­ed that White House coun­sel Charles Col­son had direct­ed the oper­a­tion, which Col­son denied.

    Pros­e­cu­tors ini­tial­ly respond­ed to news­pa­per reports that Bernard Bark­er, a Cuba-born Water­gate bur­glar, and a group of nine Mia­mi asso­ciates “had engaged anti­war demon­stra­tors in a fight” and that Col­son was behind it.

    Col­son plead­ed guilty to obstruc­tion of jus­tice relat­ed to steal­ing Ellsberg’s med­ical files, but was nev­er charged for con­duct relat­ed to this plot. The memo address­es that dis­tinc­tion, not­ing that while pros­e­cu­tors con­clud­ed Col­son was involved, the evi­dence they had “would not be suf­fi­cient to indict Col­son.”

    “There is still no clear way to link Col­son to the assault which is mud­dled by his efforts to orga­nize a law­ful coun­ter­demon­stra­tion,” the memo con­cludes. “This meld­ing of the coun­ter­demon­stra­tion and the assault had been a prob­lem through­out this inves­ti­ga­tion in charg­ing any­body with a crime.”
    ...

    And what do we find today? An abun­dance of ‘Alt-Right’ groups ded­i­cat­ed to attend­ing demonstrations/counterdemonstrations with the expressed intent on fight­ing ‘left-wing vio­lence’ (which is almost exclu­sive­ly the domain Black Bloc anar­chists):

    The New York Times

    Fringe Groups Rev­el as Protests Turn Vio­lent

    By ALAN FEUER and JEREMY W. PETERS
    JUNE 2, 2017

    Kyle Chap­man expect­ed he might find a fight. And he did — with a teenage girl.

    The girl was wav­ing an anti-fas­cist plac­ard last week at a protest against Shari­ah law in Mid­town Man­hat­tan when a scuf­fle broke out and she knocked an old­er woman to the ground.

    “Assault­ing our peo­ple?” Mr. Chap­man shout­ed as he reached across the bar­ri­cades and ripped her sign apart. “Your days are num­bered, Com­mie!” he called after her as the police escort­ed her away. “The Amer­i­can peo­ple are ris­ing up against you!”

    As the founder of a group of right-wing vig­i­lantes called the Fra­ter­nal Order of Alt-Knights, Mr. Chap­man, a 6‑foot‑2, 240-pound com­mer­cial div­er, is part of a grow­ing move­ment that experts on polit­i­cal extrem­ism say has inject­ed a new ele­ment of vio­lence into street demon­stra­tions across the coun­try.

    Part fight club, part West­ern-pride fra­ter­ni­ty, the Alt-Knights and sim­i­lar groups recruit bat­tal­ions of main­ly young white men for one-off con­fronta­tions with their ide­o­log­i­cal ene­mies — the black-clad left-wing mil­i­tants who dis­rupt­ed Pres­i­dent Trump’s inau­gu­ra­tion and have protest­ed against the appear­ances of con­ser­v­a­tive speak­ers on col­lege cam­pus­es.

    Along with like-mind­ed groups like the the Proud Boys, a clan of young con­ser­v­a­tive nation­al­ists, and the Oath Keep­ers, an orga­ni­za­tion of cur­rent and for­mer law-enforce­ment offi­cers and mil­i­tary vet­er­ans, they mobi­lized on social media to fight in New Orleans over the removal of Con­fed­er­ate mon­u­ments; on the streets of Berke­ley, Calif., where clash­es between the left and right have increas­ing­ly become a threat for law enforce­ment; and at a rau­cous May Day ral­ly in Los Ange­les.

    Both sides have issued a call to arms this week­end for an event being billed as a “Trump Free Speech Ral­ly” in Port­land, Ore., which is already on edge after a man was charged in the mur­der of two peo­ple who tried to inter­cede last week as he hurled anti-Islam­ic insults at two women on a train. “This is a war,” declared the Proud Boys’ founder, Gavin McInnes, in a col­umn this week.

    ‘Like a Rum­ble’

    Law enforce­ment has tak­en notice. At the protest last week at the City Uni­ver­si­ty of New York, which had been heav­i­ly pro­mot­ed on social media, throngs of police offi­cers lined the side­walk before it began. In Port­land, the police said they were mobi­liz­ing a robust pres­ence because of what they have seen online. “It’s almost like a street fight, like a rum­ble, the way it’s being adver­tised,” said Sgt. Pete Simp­son, a spokesman.

    Many in the move­ment, like Mr. Chap­man and Mr. McInnes, say they are sup­port­ers of Mr. Trump’s agen­da to tight­en immi­gra­tion and fight polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness. While Mr. Trump has recent­ly tak­en steps to denounce hate speech and vio­lence, the pro­lif­er­a­tion of mil­i­tant groups on both the left and the right is part of the new real­i­ty of polit­i­cal expres­sion. Advo­cates who track extrem­ism say the pres­i­dent, who egged on vio­lent sup­port­ers dur­ing his cam­paign, has played a role in embold­en­ing the groups.

    To Mr. Chap­man, 41, who on social media goes by the nom de guerre Based Stick­man — “based” is slang for not car­ing what oth­ers think, and “stick­man” refers to the clos­et dow­el he wield­ed this spring at his first polit­i­cal skir­mish — the Alt-Knights are a frus­trat­ed broth­er­hood of right-lean­ing sol­diers con­script­ed to do bat­tle with the left and devot­ed, as he put it in a Face­book post in April, to “defense and con­fronta­tion.”

    “There’s been a lot of orga­nized vio­lence on the part of the left against the right, so we have to orga­nize,” Mr. Chap­man said. “The pur­pose is to have a peace­ful event. But if peo­ple are attacked, you have to be ready and will­ing to defend your­self and your right-wing broth­ers and sis­ters.”

    This form of aggres­sion is some­thing researchers say they have not seen on such a scale before on the far right, where the cho­sen method of provo­ca­tion for groups like neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is to demand the use of pub­lic space for ral­lies where they can spew racist and offen­sive lan­guage that is nonethe­less pro­tect­ed as free speech.

    “These are new peo­ple to us,” said Hei­di Beirich, the Intel­li­gence Project direc­tor for the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter, which tracks extrem­ist move­ments.

    “But say­ing, ‘We’re going to show up and we’re intend­ing to get in fights,’ that’s a new thing,” Ms. Beirich said.

    Some groups like the Proud Boys have ini­ti­a­tion rit­u­als that include vio­lent haz­ing and require an oath of feal­ty to West­ern cul­ture. Their fol­low­ers thrive on hyper-mas­culin­i­ty and cel­e­brate when one of their brethren hits a left­ist agi­ta­tor. They mock Islam and pur­port to be sol­diers against a “war on Whites,” while being mind­ful not to embrace overt white suprema­cy. Roger J. Stone Jr., a long­time asso­ciate of Mr. Trump’s, has tak­en the Proud Boy oath.

    The Alt-Knights were ini­tial­ly con­ceived as a para­mil­i­tary wing of the Proud Boys, designed to pro­vide pro­tec­tion for audi­ences lis­ten­ing to con­ser­v­a­tive speak­ers like Ann Coul­ter and Milo Yiannopou­los, whose pub­lic events have been can­celed because of threats of vio­lence.

    The groups open­ly post on Face­book and Twit­ter to spout Islam­o­pho­bic and anti-immi­grant speech, recruit new mem­bers and mobi­lize fol­low­ers to go to demon­stra­tions where vio­lence might erupt, tak­ing advan­tage of the porous stan­dards that social media com­pa­nies set for offen­sive and vio­lent speech.

    ...

    ———-

    “Fringe Groups Rev­el as Protests Turn Vio­lent” by ALAN FEUER and JEREMY W. PETERS; The New York Times; 06/02/2017

    “This form of aggres­sion is some­thing researchers say they have not seen on such a scale before on the far right, where the cho­sen method of provo­ca­tion for groups like neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is to demand the use of pub­lic space for ral­lies where they can spew racist and offen­sive lan­guage that is nonethe­less pro­tect­ed as free speech.”

    March­ing around chant­i­ng Nazi slo­gans is so yes­ter­day. Today’s neo-Nazis show up to pro­voke vio­lent con­flicts. And that includes Kyle Chap­man, founder of the Fra­ter­nal Order of Alt-Knights, a group ini­tial­ly con­ceived of as a paramil­i­ty wing of the “Proud Boys”. And who do we find in the mem­ber­ship of the Alt-Right trolling group the “Proud Boys”? Roger Stone. And Ann Coul­ter. And a lot of oth­er unpleas­ant peo­ple:

    ...
    As the founder of a group of right-wing vig­i­lantes called the Fra­ter­nal Order of Alt-Knights, Mr. Chap­man, a 6‑foot‑2, 240-pound com­mer­cial div­er, is part of a grow­ing move­ment that experts on polit­i­cal extrem­ism say has inject­ed a new ele­ment of vio­lence into street demon­stra­tions across the coun­try.

    Part fight club, part West­ern-pride fra­ter­ni­ty, the Alt-Knights and sim­i­lar groups recruit bat­tal­ions of main­ly young white men for one-off con­fronta­tions with their ide­o­log­i­cal ene­mies — the black-clad left-wing mil­i­tants who dis­rupt­ed Pres­i­dent Trump’s inau­gu­ra­tion and have protest­ed against the appear­ances of con­ser­v­a­tive speak­ers on col­lege cam­pus­es.

    ...

    Some groups like the Proud Boys have ini­ti­a­tion rit­u­als that include vio­lent haz­ing and require an oath of feal­ty to West­ern cul­ture. Their fol­low­ers thrive on hyper-mas­culin­i­ty and cel­e­brate when one of their brethren hits a left­ist agi­ta­tor. They mock Islam and pur­port to be sol­diers against a “war on Whites,” while being mind­ful not to embrace overt white suprema­cy. Roger J. Stone Jr., a long­time asso­ciate of Mr. Trump’s, has tak­en the Proud Boy oath.

    The Alt-Knights were ini­tial­ly con­ceived as a para­mil­i­tary wing of the Proud Boys, designed to pro­vide pro­tec­tion for audi­ences lis­ten­ing to con­ser­v­a­tive speak­ers like Ann Coul­ter and Milo Yiannopou­los, whose pub­lic events have been can­celed because of threats of vio­lence.
    ...

    So the Cuban-Amer­i­can CIA assets of yes­ter­year are replaced with con­tem­po­rary hip­ster neo-Nazis and their less-hip­ster-ish neo-Nazi brethren. It’s just one more unpleas­ant con­tem­po­rary echo with the Water­gate era. One of many. Too many.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | June 19, 2017, 3:56 pm

Post a comment

Recommended Reading

Jihad and Jew-Hatred Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 Read more »