David Talbot's posting today from Italy

[Ernie Lazar]

On 6/26/2017 at 5:30 AM, Larry Hancock said:

Ron, first its Ernie Lazar who just posted after I had messaged him for information.  I consider Ernie our resident expert on the FBI. As  you can see from his post Division 5 is probably best described as domestic intelligence focused on national security issues including espionage, subversion and sabotage - and at times also tasked with "loyalty issues".  I suspect they are the ones who also do background checks for security clearances such as the early AEC Q clearances and individual clearances for the military, government personnel etc.

My reference to counter intelligence in regard to the CIA was to the CIA CIA groups, not just Angleton's mole hunting people but CI information that would come from the various geographic "desks" of the Agency such as the Russian desks. I do know that Angleton was a liaison on that but its unclear how active he was, he appears to have done nothing on Tumbleweed (which is mentioned in SWHT 2010 but not sure where off the top of my head),

Since I'm in this thread now I would also toss in that if one is looking at Underhill and mysterious Golden Triangle connections Henry Hecksher had far more time and clout in the Golden Triangle than Lucian Conein, being assigned there for some very special activities after being essentially forced out as Station Chief in Laos over his conflicts with State there. Given that he had worked in MC during the Cuba project and had been assigned to head AM/WORLD, in direct charge of Artime and his people - including Felix Rodriquez - that's a very interesting  place to look.  And he is in SWHT and also Shadow Warfare. 

 

The 'security clearances" were originally the responsibility of the Investigative Division (Division 1 of the FBI) but there were several re-organizations within the FBI which changed the responsibility for clearances.  

Also, it depends what you mean by "security clearances".  Sometimes, the FBI was not involved because another agency (such as Defense Department) did their own investigations (such as through ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence later known as Naval Intelligence Section) or the Army's G-2 Section or the Air Force's OSI).

In 1958, George Scatterday became Section Chief of newly re-organized "Name Check Section" in the FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division.  This was a merger of the Special Memoranda Unit of the Liaison Section of DID with the Name Check Unit of the Investigative Division to form the new Name Check Section effective 10/21/58.  However, a couple years later, the Name Check Unit transferred again from Domestic Intelligence to the General Investigative Division.

Another complicating factor:  Almost always, cabinet-level appointments plus heads of departments and Supreme Court appointments (i.e. positions that required Senate confirmation) would trigger a full FBI field office investigation.  Such field investigations would look into just about everything:  education, military service, credit history, marital history, local law enforcement interactions (parking tickets to arrests or convictions) family background (brothers, sisters, sometimes even aunts/uncles and cousins) reputation in neighborhood, employment history, political activities, etc.  BUT, sometimes the White House (or a federal agency) would instruct the FBI to just perform a cursory investigation without going into all the detail just listed.

Also--keep in mind that, in the final analysis, the requesting agency or department would make the final determination regarding whether or not to authorize a security clearance.  In fact, there are instances when the FBI discovered significant derogatory background information but the originating agency decided to grant a security clearance anyway.  [It appears we may have experienced a recent situation like this with respect to General Mike Flynn and, perhaps, Jared Kushner.]

 

[David Andrews]

Ernie, can I put to you the question I asked Larry Hancock?  What, in your opinion, are the best books on the FBI 1980-present?  Counterterrorism a special interest.

[Paul Brancato]

21 hours ago, Ernie Lazar said:

One has to distinguish between three types of books (or doctoral dissertations) pertaining to the FBI

(1)  The sensationalist crap written by people like Anthony Summers -- who regurgitate every rumor, every bit of gossip, and voluminous hearsay about Hoover and/or the FBI.  

These books rarely (if ever) uncover any NEW information because the authors have done no fact-based independent research into FBI files, nor have they visited archives at colleges and universities and other institutions, and they rarely (if ever) interview any living FBI officials.  Sometimes, however, they credulously quote disgruntled former FBI Special Agents (without verifying their assertions and accusations).

A sub-set of this genre are the books and articles authored by former FBI employees who are best described as malcontents.  This would include former Agents like Jack Levine and William W. Turner.  However, when careful research is undertaken about these folks, you will usually discover that they worked at the FBI for very short periods of time and/or they never had extensive exposure to the type of cases about which they claim to be an expert.

My favorite example of this type is Jack Levine.

In 1962, former FBI Agent Jack Levine made comments (after he resigned from the FBI) which were widely repeated in books and articles (see for example, the October 20, 1962 issue of The Nation magazine for Levine's article entitled "Hoover and the Red Scare").

Some very well-known and respected scholars repeated Levine's comments regarding the number of FBI informants inside the CPUSA.  Levine declared that 1500 of the 8500 members of the CPUSA were paid FBI informants and, consequently, the FBI was the single largest financial contributor (from dues payments) to the Communist Party in our country.
 
Domestic Intelligence Division Inspection Reports (and the NYC field file on CPUSA membership) establish that there were only 401 FBI informants inside the CPUSA in 1962 and the Party had only 5164 members at that time.  
 
Levine was employed by the FBI from September 12, 1960 through August 4, 1961 and then he resigned.  

Since FBI Agents usually have a minimum of 13 or 14 weeks of "New Agent" training classes before being assigned to a field office, that means Levine had a maximum of EIGHT MONTHS work experience within the FBI.  Typically, a new Special Agent is assigned to work on what is known as "applicant cases" and bankruptcy cases and perhaps some general criminal cases during his first 2 or 3 field office assignments.  In addition, most new Special Agents are often transferred from their first field office assignment within 8-12 weeks.  I have often seen examples where a new Agent was literally transferred 5 or 6 times within a 2-3 year period.

Jack Levine never worked at FBI HQ in Division 5 (where Agents had access to classified information regarding CPUSA membership numbers and the actual number of FBI informants inside the Party.)

Pulitzer-Prize winning historian (David J. Garrow) sent me an email making the following observations about this matter after I sent him data which falsified what Levine wrote:

Hi--This is superb--thank you tremendously for e-mailing me! First off, I'm not at all surprised by the informant numbers. On present-day reflection those make *much* more sense than the Levine #, and Levine of course was not a Division 5 HQ guy who would have been in any informed position to know the overall total--what he knew was no doubt street agent chatter. I've seen tens of thousands of pages of FBI docs, but I've never before seen unredacted inspection reports, and filing for inspection reports was a brilliant FOIA idea, and one neither I (nor anyone else that I'm aware of) ever thought of. 

(2)   The uncritical or hagiographic publications written by people who were favored by the FBI (such as by journalists like Don Whitehead or even Dr. Harry Overstreet).

Sometimes, these publications are fairly good summaries re: FBI history but they often avoid discussing (or they trivialize and de-value) any critical information regarding FBI behavior.

(3)   The serious academic studies written after extensive seminal research into FBI files and FBI-related archives at various institutions plus oral history interviews with former FBI officials and FBI Agents. (Dr. Athan Theoharis is arguably our nation's foremost scholar about the FBI.  Most of the adverse information we now know regarding illegal and unethical activities by senior FBI employees was uncovered by Theoharis).

Ernie - I wonder if you could answer the following question regarding FBI informants. You point out on this post that, even though reported numbers were changed later, in 1962 there were about 400 paid informants in CPUSA, which had a bit over 5000 members at that time. Do you have equivalent figures for numbers of FBI informants in other 'subversive' organizations? I suppose the definition of 'subversive' comes into play. I'm thinking about the John Birch Society, the Minutemen, numerous white power groups, etc. 

 

[Ernie Lazar]

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ernie - I wonder if you could answer the following question regarding FBI informants. You point out on this post that, even though reported numbers were changed later, in 1962 there were about 400 paid informants in CPUSA, which had a bit over 5000 members at that time. Do you have equivalent figures for numbers of FBI informants in other 'subversive' organizations? I suppose the definition of 'subversive' comes into play. I'm thinking about the John Birch Society, the Minutemen, numerous white power groups, etc. 

 

1.  First of all, not all FBI informants were "paid".  I should have pointed that out in my original message because Jack Levine had no way of even knowing what percentage of FBI informants inside the CPUSA were either paid for services or expenses OR whether or not the FBI even paid their CPUSA dues.

2.  There were no FBI informants inside the JBS (paid or otherwise).  

There were very strict guidelines regarding IF and when an informant would be authorized -- and then whether or not such individuals might be paid (and even that raises other questions such as was a field office SAC asking for recurring payment or a one-time payment).

3.  If you want to review the general guidelines for payments to informants, check out Section 137 of the FBI's Manual which I recently posted online in my Internet Archive collection.  https://archive.org/stream/FBIMIOGSec137Informants_201706/FBI MIOG- Sec 137- Informants#page/n39/mode/2up

There were differences in the 1960's (compared to the current guidelines which is what I uploaded onto Internet Archive) but the general principles remain the same.  The key questions here are:  

(1)  what information did the FBI allegedly want about a person or organization which it could NOT obtain without paying an informant for it?  and

(2)  Did the FBI have means to obtain that same information without even using an informant -- including through mail covers, trash covers, electronic surveillance, assistance from "established sources" or other methods --even including surreptitious entry?

4.  Off the top of my head, I don't recall if the FBI had any "paid informants" inside the Minutemen.  They did have access to MM membership lists from at least 3 different sources but I don't recall seeing any documents requesting any sort of payments to them.

5.  With respect to white supremacist groups, the FBI did pay informants for their services and for expenses.  For example: the most violent Klan in our nation's history (White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi) was infiltrated by Rev. Delmar Dennis and he was paid.  I uploaded some relevant documents about his informant status here:

https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/dennis

See the 5th page for the field office SAC request to HQ for authorization to pay Dennis $75 week for services and $25 week for expenses.

Generally speaking -- the FBI was only interested in paying IF and WHEN there was some clear or suspected violation of federal law falling under its jurisdiction -- and, consequently, the FBI wanted records which could be used in court proceedings to convict people of actual crimes.  That did NOT apply to the JBS or to most "right wing extremist" organizations--even though the FBI recognized them as extremist groups.

[Ernie Lazar]

3 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Ernie, can I put to you the question I asked Larry Hancock?  What, in your opinion, are the best books on the FBI 1980-present?  Counterterrorism a special interest.

That is a hard one for me to answer because the answer depends upon several factors.  The first thing I look for is whether or not an author has any significant record of research into FBI history--particularly if they discovered new previously unknown information?  

(1)  Suppose, for example, that you check all the usual library databases and you discover that a specific author has written ONE book about the FBI during his career but he has never had any articles about the FBI published in peer-reviewed academic journals.  In other words, his FBI-interest was very limited.  

Example: New York Times journalist (and Pulitzer Prize winner) Tim Weiner wrote a very well-received book published in 2012 about the FBI ["Enemies: A History of the FBI"] but that was his only publication about the FBI.

(2)  By contrast, consider historian Dr. Athan Theoharis.  He has spent his entire career studying our intelligence agencies.  He has written at least 10 books about FBI history and he has published many articles in both popular and academic journals.  

The Church Committee hired Theoharis during its investigation into our intelligence agencies.  Theoharis examined Presidential records about the FBI's interactions with the White House at the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson Presidential libraries. Theoharis also was given a security clearance in order to examine some FBI records at FBI headquarters.  

Theoharis has served as the faculty adviser to other historians who specialized in FBI history at Marquette University.  For example:  his graduate students included two PhD students (Kenneth O'Reilly who wrote "The FBI and HUAC" and Christopher Gerard who wrote "The FBI and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee").

Several of his Master's students also studied the FBI with him while obtaining their PhD at another university -- such as: David Williams (University of New Hampshire) studied the early history of the FBI; Francis MacDonnell (Harvard University) studied the FBI and the Fifth Column; Douglas M. Charles (University of Edinburgh) studied the FBI and the anti-interventionist movement of 1939–45, and the FBI's Obscene File. Charles R. Gallagher, (Boston College) states that Theoharis helped him develop his narrative about the FBI and Vatican diplomatic relations.

(3)  Sometimes, the most interesting and useful writing about FBI history is not even in published books but, rather, in Doctoral Dissertations and Master's Theses.  You can see many of those titles (some of which did become books) in section 101 of my Bibliography of Academic Theses and Dissertations here:

https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/biblio-2

Edited June 27, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - the obvious point here is that the FBI went overboard to keep tabs on the CPUSA, a relatively harmless bunch of largely idealistic intellectuals, while paying little heed to extremist rightwingers.

[Ernie Lazar]

35 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ernie - the obvious point here is that the FBI went overboard to keep tabs on the CPUSA, a relatively harmless bunch of largely idealistic intellectuals, while paying little heed to extremist rightwingers.

As I've mentioned before, I disagree with your predicate.  

Some of the largest HQ files created by the FBI were on right-wing extremist groups including the non-violent ones.  As I have mentioned several times, I was the first person to obtain the FBI HQ main file on the JBS (HQ 62-104401 =12,000 pages) but if you include all the other JBS-related files at the FBI, the grand total for just the HQ files is probably more like 40000-50000 pages.  And that was on a right-wing extremist organization which was never officially investigated AND which was never even suspected of committing any illegal or subversive activities.

If you review the FBI files which I have uploaded onto Internet Archive in the "Extreme Right" section, many of them consist of thousands or tens of thousands of pages!  And, again, most of them are just the HQ main files -- not even the field office files.  I plan to submit an FOIA request on National States Rights Party because it attracted so many of the major extreme right figures in our country (particularly racists and anti-semites).  The NSRP HQ main file is 22,500 pages.

Here is what IS true however:  

Our historians, political scientists, journalists, and other researchers have never spent remotely as much attention doing research into right-wing extremist individuals and groups as they have spent on left-wing personalities and organizations.  Very often when I asked the FBI to tell me how many previous requesters there had been on the subjects which I inquired about, I was informed that I was the ONLY person who had submitted a request on those subject matters.

Consequently, people like yourself, can claim the FBI "paid little heed" to the right-wing -- because (apparently) you have not seen many books or articles or other types of discussions concerning the FBI files on right-wing groups.  

There is another aspect to consider:  If you review the Index to Dr. Caufield's book on the JFK-assassination, you will see scores of personal and organizational names which are right-wing but I suspect that 90% (or more) of the people reading this message have never even heard of many (perhaps even most) of those named people or groups OR they have only very vague and superficial knowledge about them.  

This also applies to our academic research community.  So, in other words, there has not previously been much interest in pursuing such individuals and groups.

In 2017 (for the very first time), one author (Michael Newton) published a history of the National States Rights Party -- and it is one of the better-known extremist groups!!

There has been only ONE book written by an historian about the Birch Society during the past 30 years!  And he did not consult any FBI files for his narrative!

In summary:  your conclusion is flawed because almost nobody has any significant knowledge concerning the extent of FBI interest in right-wing persons and organizations.  Even worse, the FBI is destroying files at a very rapid rate OR they are transferring them to NARA -- which will make it almost impossible for interested researchers to obtain copies of those files because NARA charges 80 cents per page (!!) for documents.  [Thus: if you want the FBI HQ main file on the JBS and it is at NARA, you would have to be prepared to spend $9600 for just that ONE file AND you must be prepared to wait 2-3 years for NARA to process your request!

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ernie - the obvious point here is that the FBI went overboard to keep tabs on the CPUSA, a relatively harmless bunch of largely idealistic intellectuals, while paying little heed to extremist rightwingers.

One other point to consider:  As you may know, there are academic journals devoted exclusively to the history of Communist Party in the United States -- such as "American Communist History". (ACH) It has been published since 2002.  Here is their current issue content:   http://tandfonline.com/toc/rach20/current

Many of our nation's most respected historians and political scientists are contributors to ACH and many also serve on its Editorial Advisory Board (see list below).

BY CONTRAST:  Can you find any academic journal devoted exclusively to research and writing on the extreme right?  or even on the right-wing generally?

IF you wanted to create an Editorial Advisory Committee for such an academic journal on the right-wing (comparable to the one below for American Communist History), do you think you could even find just 10 historians or political scientists in our country who have devoted their academic careers to studying and writing about the right-wing?

Let me give you the answer:  NO!

Consequently, it should NOT be surprising to discover that there has been very little research into FBI files pertaining to the right-wing, or even research into archives about the right-wing at our colleges and universities and state historical societies (with the limited exception of KKK groups and perhaps the American Nazi Party).

Editorial Advisory Board of American Communist History: 
Eric Arnesen -George Washington University, USA  
Wlodzimierz Jan Batog - Kielce Pedagogical Academy, Poland
Bernhard H. Bayerlein - University of Mannheim, Germany
Phillip Deery - Victoria University, Australia
Thomas Devine - California State University, USA
Melvyn Dubofsky - SUNY, Binghamton, USA
Norbert Finzsch - University of Cologne, Germany
John E. Haynes -   Independent Scholar, Santa Fe, NM, USA
Walter T. Howard - Bloomsburg University, USA
Maurice Isserman - Hamilton College, USA
Edward P. Johanningsmeier - University of Delaware, USA 
Harvey Klehr -  Emory University, USA     
Robert Lichtman - Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, USA 
Alex Lichtenstein - Indiana University, USA
Bryan D. Palmer - Trent University, Canada
Victoria Phillips - Columbia University, USA
Jason Roberts - Quincy College,USA  
Steven Rosswurm - Lake Forest College, USA
James G. Ryan - Texas A&M University, USA   
Katherine A. S. Sibley - St. Joseph's University, USA
Randi Storch -  SUNY, Cortlandt, USA  
Alan Wald - University of Michigan, USA
Stephen Whitfield - Brandeis University, USA 

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[David Andrews]

Thank you, Ernie, for the research recommendations.  I think the history of FBI counterterrorism, c.1980-present, is underexamined, and too often presented in empty puffery that lists some players and a slew of organizational structure, without presenting any of the process, only the judgment that the results have been heroic, but the resources and internal support lacking.  Time for more and better.  Peter Lance has been a start, but some of his conclusions are questionable, as is his small industry of creating a shelf of books around the same, repeated core of information.

Edited June 28, 2017 by David Andrews

[Paul Brancato]

Agree - thank you Ernie. All of your points on the lack of media and academic attention paid to right wing orgs is to me worrisome. I don't have the time or inclination (or money and expertise) to answer my own questions, which is why I put them to you.

How is it that the FBI has so many pages on right wings organizations, yet so few informants? Is the quality of information on the JBS equal to that on CPUSA? My own family history makes it clear that the FBI went to great lengths to identify and follow CPUSA members. Would I have had the same perspective if I was brought up in a Bircher household? If my father had been a Bircher, or member of the NSRP, would he have had to sign a loyalty oath to get a civil service job? Would I have found a file on his desk with a several page summary of the reasons his application was being denied? I'm sure you get my point. And believe me, I'm not intending my questions to be confrontational. I'm genuinely curious about this.

[Ernie Lazar]

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Agree - thank you Ernie. All of your points on the lack of media and academic attention paid to right wing orgs is to me worrisome. I don't have the time or inclination (or money and expertise) to answer my own questions, which is why I put them to you.

How is it that the FBI has so many pages on right wings organizations, yet so few informants? Is the quality of information on the JBS equal to that on CPUSA? My own family history makes it clear that the FBI went to great lengths to identify and follow CPUSA members. Would I have had the same perspective if I was brought up in a Bircher household? If my father had been a Bircher, or member of the NSRP, would he have had to sign a loyalty oath to get a civil service job? Would I have found a file on his desk with a several page summary of the reasons his application was being denied? I'm sure you get my point. And believe me, I'm not intending my questions to be confrontational. I'm genuinely curious about this.

PART ONE of TWO PART REPLY

Your message raises several distinct points -- which I will attempt to address.  Some of what follows is merely me repeating what I have presented before.

1.  FBI:  SO FEW INFORMANTS?

Paul, I think you need to ask yourself a first-principles question -- namely, why would any intelligence agency want to find and develop "an informant"?  

In other words, what information would any intelligence agency want to obtain that was NOT available except by developing, using, and regularly de-briefing an informant?

Keep in mind, that the FBI used many different types of information sources.  I think I may have copied the following information before -- so I apologize if I am repeating myself. The FBI used:

Established Sources = Any source with which the FBI has developed a relationship over time. Usually refers to a confidential source rather than a paid informant.

Panel Sources = Panel sources are defined as individuals who are not involved with an investigated group but who "will attend its public gatherings on behalf of FBI for intelligence purposes or as potential witnesses."

Panel sources were first developed to meet the need for witnesses in the course of Smith Act trials of Communist Party members in the 1950s. In those trials, it was necessary to prove, for example, simple facts as to the existence of the Communist Party, the dates and places of public meetings held by the Party, and similar matters. To avoid surfacing regular informants within the Party to establish such facts, panel sources were developed. Panel sources are used for similar purposes today.

Confidential Sources = Individuals who furnish the FBI information available to them through their employment or their position in the community. The FBI Manual of Instructions, cited the following examples of confidential sources: "bankers, telephone company employees, and landlords."

The definitions for “Panel Sources” and “Confidential Sources” comes from a Church Committee staff report titled “The Use of Informants in FBI Domestic Intelligence Investigations.”

Office Contacts = Each field office had a contact program whereby they would establish liaison with local groups and enterprises in the community. These were mostly goodwill efforts, but they did provide venues for the Bureau to talk about issues that might affect that group or its members, and to solicit help in the form of confidential sources or panel sources.

One of the more successful Contact Programs used by the FBI was its decades-long liaison with the American Legion.  Dr. Athan Theoharis obtained the entire FBI HQ file on the Legion Contact Program.  

I have uploaded a separate HQ file which pertains to the American Legion's National Americanism Commission which was routinely used by the FBI to shape public understanding about all kinds of matters.  Several FBI officials were heavily involved in the Legion's Americanism Commission--including functioning as editor of its monthly newsletter (Firing Line).  

One FBI memo makes the following observations:

“As you know, we have been very close to the Americanism Commission.  At one time, I served as a Vice Chairman of the Commission and at the present time Special Agent Hanning is the Commander’s Personal Representative to the Commission and sits in on all their deliberations…Through their publication, ‘The Firing Line’, we have been able to get just about anything in it that we wanted when the Bureau has been under attack in the past.  The Commission also has done everything possible to push ‘Masters of Deceit’ as a textbook and many of the members as individuals in their home states have personally seen to it that a copy of this book is in every high school in their respective states.” [HQ 94-1-17998, serial #1546 is 2/5/62 memo from Assistant Director Cartha D. DeLoach to John Mohr.]

As a result of FBI requests, the Legion added certain individuals to their recommended speakers list.  In particular, the FBI helped Dr. Harry Overstreet neutralize the attacks upon Overstreet and his 1958 book (What We Must Know About Communism) which were the result of a major defamation campaign by Robert Welch and the Birch Society.

Another major Contact Program used by the FBI arose from its relationship with the American Bar Association and its various Committees.  A lot of proposed legislation which the FBI hoped would be enacted, was recommended by the ABA because of FBI suggestions.  In addition, FBI employees often wrote speeches for ABA officials.

THEN there is the matter of other methods to obtain information such as mail covers, trash covers, physical surveillance, technical devices (including wiretaps), surreptitious entry, and other comparable methods -- none of which necessarily involved finding or using an informant.

2.   JBS

There was nothing which the FBI wanted to know about the JBS which it could not obtain through public information sources such as newspaper and magazine articles, press releases, incorporation documents on the Society and its publishing arm, plus unsolicited information received in letters sent to the FBI from politicians, former FBI Special Agents who attended JBS events, alarmed citizens who were exposed to JBS speakers or literature, reports from other intelligence units (such as military intelligence) AND local or state law enforcement agencies (such as Sheriff Departments, State Police, major city Police Department "subversive squads").  Other sources included: state legislative committees (such as the California State Senate Subcommittee on Un-American Activities which completed a 2-year study on the JBS) and, of course, the Society's own literature.  

The FBI discovered the existence of the JBS six weeks after its founding meeting.  

The main thing which the FBI wanted to know about the JBS, it was able to discover very quickly after they opened a "preliminary inquiry" into the JBS.   They wanted to know if the JBS was engaged in (or facilitating) any illegal activity OR if the JBS was attracting radical individuals who might incite violence or perhaps violate some federal statute under the jurisdiction of the FBI.  

Within a very short period of time, the FBI discovered the type of individuals joining or endorsing the JBS --- and, consequently, the FBI concluded that the JBS (regardless of its political extremist viewpoints) was NOT advocating or condoning or facilitating any sort of illegal or subversive behavior.  [To be continued.]
 

Edited June 29, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - got that. Do you think the CPUSA was full of dangerous subversives? Or is this just a reflection of Hoover's bias? What info could the FBI not have gotten about CPUSA without using informants? I fail to understand, even with your detailed responses as to methods.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Ernie Lazar]

1 hour ago, Ernie Lazar said:

If my father had been a Bircher, or member of the NSRP, would he have had to sign a loyalty oath to get a civil service job? Would I have found a file on his desk with a several page summary of the reasons his application was being denied? I'm sure you get my point. And believe me, I'm not intending my questions to be confrontational. I'm genuinely curious about this.

PART TWO OF REPLY TO PAUL

1.   YOUR FATHER / LOYALTY OATH

Requiring a prospective civil service employee to sign a loyalty oath was fairly routine practice in most government agencies (local, state, and national) during the 1950's and 1960's.  

In addition, federal government employees had to complete a standard form which required them to affirm (under penalty of perjury) that they were NOT members of any subversive organization.  

Usually, federal and state agencies attached a copy of the U.S. Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations to employment applications so that prospective employees would know which organizations were listed as subversive.

The 1955 Attorney General's List is here:  http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/US_Attorney_General’s_list_of_subversive_organizations_(1955)

2.  There were some additions made in 1959.  At no time was either the Birch Society or NSRP listed.

3.   Was the CPUSA "subversive" or any kind of genuine threat?

A fair answer to this question requires a much lengthier answer than what I can present in this forum.  

Very briefly:  First, you need to become familiar with Communist ideology as explained by Marx, Lenin, and Stalin.  Standard Communist Party dogma asserts that capitalist societies are incapable of genuine reform.  Consequently, violent revolution would, at some point, be required to overthrow existing governments and institutions.

Lenin argued that a communist revolution had to be created by a vanguard of "professional revolutionaries", i.e. men and women who would form the nucleus of the revolutionary movement.  Nor was this just some intellectual abstraction.  You can perform a search on google to discover revolutions organized or incited by Communist Party members which have occurred throughout history.  The list includes Communist revolutions in:  Finland, Germany, Bavaria, Mongolia, Spain, China, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Cuba -- along with many others.

Then there is the separate matter of espionage:  I will leave it up to you to research the Golos and Browder espionage networks within the United States along with the Silvermaster and Jack Soble and Harold Ware spy rings -- along with what Venona documents have revealed.  There is also the testimony of Elizabeth Bentley.  Soviet agents within the U.S. government have included:  Frank Coe, Harold Glasser, Victor Perlo, and Harry Dexter White.

Two of our nation's foremost scholars about Soviet espionage and subversive activities are Dr. John Earl Haynes and Dr. Harvey Klehr.  They have co-authored numerous books concerning Soviet espionage and subversion within our government.  

4.  Back to this comment by you:

1 hour ago, Ernie Lazar said:

How is it that the FBI has so many pages on right wings organizations, yet so few informants

As previously mentioned, there is no relevant correlation between the size of an FBI file and whether or not the FBI needed informants to obtain that volume or type of information.

In most cases, right-wing extremist organizations which were monitored by the FBI (such as Minutemen, KKK groups, American Nazi Party, National States Rights Party) were of interest because there had been so many instances where members of these groups had committed illegal activities (including murder) or they advocated or condoned violence and explicit hatred toward racial and religious minorities. NSRP members alone were involved in numerous bombings, arsons, and murders.  So were many members of the most violent Klan in our nation's history (White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi).

In these cases, the FBI knew it needed to acquire indisputable factual evidence which would stand up in a courtroom environment.  In addition, these groups were often very secretive.  THAT is why informants were considered mandatory and indispensable.   Ditto with respect to informants within organized crime families.

5.  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JBS and CPUSA

(a)  There is no example of a JBS member committing murder, or arson, or a lynching, or a bombing, or a robbery or an assault because of what the JBS tells its members to do or because of the literature which the JBS has published or recommended.  The JBS never advocates or condones violence.  The JBS is incorporated as an "educational" organization because its founder (Robert Welch) believed that it would never be possible to change the voting behavior of the American electorate UNLESS there was first a massive change in public opinion and public attitudes with respect to the proper role of government (and the limitations which should be always in effect).

(b)  The JBS believes that all authoritarian and totalitarian systems belong on the LEFT side of the political spectrum because they all believe in varying degrees of government coercion and government oppression to accomplish their objectives.  They also believe that all "collectivist" ideologies belong on the left side of a political spectrum and that includes:  liberalism, socialism, fabianism, communism, national socialism/nazism, fascism.  From the standpoint of Birchers, big corporate interests and Communists are actually soul-mates which all Americans should fear.

By contrast, the JBS wants the least amount of government intervention in public life that is possible.  In addition, the JBS wants to dismantle most of the government bureaucracy which has been created since the FDR years because they sincerely believe that virtually everything done by our government during the past 65 years has been un-Constitutional.  Example:  Birchers argue that there is NOTHING in our Constitution which permits our government to give foreign aid to another country AND there is absolutely NOTHING in our Constitution which permits our government to use our military in a foreign country without a declaration of war by Congress.

(c)  The FBI determined within a couple months that the JBS was attracting as members and endorsers some of the most prominent and respected conservative members of their local communities -- including:

(1) very prominent political leaders (Mayors, Governors, state legislators, current and former U.S. Congressmen, former U.S. cabinet officials)

(2) major law enforcement figures and Constitutional scholars - including:  former FBI Special Agents, the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, the Dean of the Notre Dame Law School, as well as Police Chiefs and rank-and-file police officers, and former FBI informants

(3) famous Hollywood personalities and famous sports figures

(4)  prominent religious leaders (including priests, pastors, and religious scholars)

(5)  senior retired military officers (Generals and Admirals from all the military branches)

(6)  very wealthy individuals including leaders of many large corporations (several were billionaires)

I list below just a brief representative sample of JBS members or endorsers.   

After seeing the stature of many of these people, the FBI quickly concluded that, regardless of how irrational JBS beliefs might be, it was, nevertheless, not even remotely connected to subversive or radical individuals or objectives.  The FBI also knew that it would be suicidal for the Bureau to attack the JBS as some sort of "un-American" group.

Actor Adolphe Menjou

Actor Walter Brennan

Actor Zasu Pitts

Archibald B. Roosevelt (Teddy Roosevelt’s grandson)

Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice M.T. Phelps

Clarence E. Manion (former Dean of Notre Dame Law School)

Author Taylor Caldwell

Cong. Ron Paul (TX)

Cong. Thomas H. Werdel (CA)

Cong. Wint Smith (KS)

Cardinal Richard Cushing (Boston)

Cong. Edgar Hiestand (CA)

Cong. James B. Utt (CA)

Cong. James Simpson (IL)

Cong. John G. Schmitz (CA)

Cong. John Rousselot (CA)

Cong. Kit Clardy (MI)

Cong. Larry McDonald (GA)

D.B. Lewis (Dr. Ross Pet Foods)

Dave Dravecky (San Diego Padres pitcher)

Eric Snow (San Diego Padres pitcher)

James C. Quayle (father of former VP Dan Quayle; Chairman, Huntington Newspapers, Inc.)

Ezola B. Foster (2000 VP nominee, Reform Party)

Ezra Taft Benson (Mormon Church and former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture)

Former FBI Special Agent Dan Smoot

Former FBI Special Agent W. Cleon Skousen

Fred and Charles Koch

George S. Schuyler

Gov. Charles Edison (former Secretary of Navy and Governor of NJ)

Gov. Meldrim Thompson (NH)

Hedda Hopper

Lt. Gen. Sumter L. Lowry

Lt. Gen. Charles B. Stone

Lt. Gen. Edward M. Almond

Maj. Gen. Robert Blake

Mark Thurmond (San Diego Padres pitcher)

Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum, Stop ERA movement)

Rear Adm. Paulus P. Powell

Rev. Francis E. Fenton

Robert W. Stoddard (publisher, Worcester MA Telegram & Gazette)

Phillip Chandler (publisher, Los Angeles Times)

T. Coleman Andrews (former IRS Commissioner)

U.S. Ambassador Spruille Braden

U.S. State Dept historian Bryton Barron

Utah Governor J. Bracken Lee (and former Mayor of Salt Lake City)

Vice Admiral C.S. Freeman

Vice Admiral T.G.W. Settle

Westbrook Pegler

Nelson Bunker Hunt (billionaire)

Harry L. Bradley (co-founder Allen-Bradley Co.)

Edited June 29, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Ron Bulman]

Ernie, given your knowledge regarding the FBI I wonder if you might share any thoughts regarding the deaths of the (?) six upper level agents in (?) 6 months shortly before the HSCA.  I Think I've read some of them at least, had connections to the investigation of the JFK assassination.  A experienced kayaker drowned in still water?  One shot by a neighbor's son in a hunting accident?  Two heart attacks. A fall at home.  Is any of that close to right?   All just coincidence?   

[Ernie Lazar]

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Ernie, given your knowledge regarding the FBI I wonder if you might share any thoughts regarding the deaths of the (?) six upper level agents in (?) 6 months shortly before the HSCA.  I Think I've read some of them at least, had connections to the investigation of the JFK assassination.  A experienced kayaker drowned in still water?  One shot by a neighbor's son in a hunting accident?  Two heart attacks. A fall at home.  Is any of that close to right?   All just coincidence?   

Well, Ron, I defer to what John McAdams has posted here:  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm