Paul Trejo

1. Ernie, you're right, you do repeat yourself a lot -- and that still doesn't convince me. Here's a hint -- logic and evidence will convince me, but repetition has no effect at all. Although I'm clearly not as familiar with FBI operating procedures as you are, Ernie, I continue to doubt that your knowledge of FBI SOP is equivalent to that of a senior FBI agent. That is, I believe there are still some things about the FBI that you don't know about. For example, does Top Secret National Security trump the so-called Mandatory Declassification policies that the FBI observes, or not? You seem to think not. I have no idea why you ask me to produce FBI records about the JBS, Ernie. I have only a fraction of what others have found, and I got mine from others. I've no doubt that you have more than I do -- however, I doubt that you have all of them PERIOD. As for the main players in the JFK assassination identified by Harry Dean in his latest true story, "Confessions," by far the major player is the resigned General Edwin Walker -- the only US General to resign in the 20th century. If you'd be willing to review what you have on Walker for us, Ernie, then that would buy a great deal of good will around here. 2/3. I'm very happy to concentrate on the EVIDENCE and stop the personal jabs. As for my claim that Harry's revelations to FBI SAC Wesley Grapp were so weighty that they had to be locked up for 75 years, I find that this follows logically from my premises: (i) that Harry Dean is telling the truth; and (ii) that nobody has been able to find Wesley Grapp's file on Hary Dean (to the best of my knowledge). If that file exists, and if Wesley Grapp reported something directly contrary to what Harry Dean told me -- then I will admit that this falsifies my theory. Until then, the jury is still out. Also, I never said that Grapp would "immediately dismiss Harry's comments as worthless speculation." Those are your words, not mine. My report, from Harry, was that Grapp TOLD HARRY to drop the story, and forget about it. This is different from saying that FBI SAC Wesley Grapp himself forgot about it. For all I know, Grapp might have written a 200 page report about it. (If so, I'd pay a lot of money to read that report.) So, Ernie, I'm saying that one of three scenarios is likely in the case of an FOIA request for a classfied JFK-assassination-related FBI document by Wesley Grapp involving Harry Dean: (i) the FBI will deny the FOIA request; (ii) the FBI will claim that such a file never existed; or (iii) the FBI will say that the file was destroyed. HARRY's NARRATIVE: I don't see why you find it "strange" that Harry kept no notes about these events, Ernie. Harry wrote poems, but as for historical records, Harry depended on other people to record the facts about history. Many people just don't keep journals, Ernie, but that doesn't make their behavior "strange." FD-71: It is relevant if Harry knows what an FD-71 is, but didn't tell me about it. I'm sure that every FBI SAC knows what it is -- but I didn't interview a single FBI agent in the course of my work with Harry. I only interviewed Harry. GRAPP RETURN TO OFFICE: Evidently, Ernie, you think that Grapp's report should have been cross-filed under the JBS files, and therefore there should be 'gaps' where they were later removed to be placed in a top secret classfied file. You see no gaps and you want an explanation. Well, if I were to imagine a plausible explanation, I'd say that the JFK assassination was a special case, and that all files relating to it -- and to the principals involved -- would never appear in an ordinary cross-file index of other files. Or, in cases where such cross-filing occurred after-the-fact, the records would be modified, possibly by substituting another document in its place. In short, the JFK assassination was unique in the entire history of FBI record keeping, and marks the unique exception to all subordinate FBI policies and procedures. HOOVER'S THEORY: Again, Ernie, I'm not claiming that FBI Agents would neglect or purge JFK-related information, but might plausibly treat JFK related files differently than other files. It might be simply Hollywood hype, but the recent movie about J. Edgar Hoover by Clint Eastwood portrayed that Hoover kept top secret files in his private office -- which were shredded on the day he died. I sort of doubt the shredding claim, but I find it plausible that Hoover kept top secret documents in his private office, and that the FBI had a super-secret procedure for dealing with such records. YEAR 2038: You mention a 2017 date -- so, am I behind the times? Are we to hope that all FBI and CIA files on Lee Harvey Oswald will be released in only four more years? If so, then my theory could be proven right or wrong at that time! FALSIFIABLE THEORY: Ernie, I've read Karl Popper and I was unimpressed. I'm a student of formal logic and I far prefer Bertrand Russell (who was also a JFK conspiracy buff). Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, there are several problems in the scenario you imagined. (I) Do you have any proof that the "serial number" methodology that you described was used in the case of JFK assassination files? Have you seen even one single example to back up your claim? Or are you continuing to rely on your presumptions and assumptions? I'll bet that you have no proof. The example you did share with us had nothing to do with the JFK assassination, so it really doesn't apply to this case. (II) Do you have any evidence from the FBI Rousselot files, or the FBI John Birch Society files, to suggest that you've accounted for all the gaps? I ask because you're citing the Rousselot and JBS files as if you've seen each and every single one of them, and that there's nothing about the FBI methods that you haven't observed. It seems that you believe that although the FBI did not show you their top secret files, however, they did allow you to see seams and stitches in their framework that would suggest to you which documents from which files were removed to a top secret file. Is this what you suggest? Because if that's not what you're suggesting, Ernie, then you're merely saying that you know the FBI record-keeping methods that they allow the public to see -- and as for top secret methods, you're only guessing that the FBI adheres to precisely the same methods, without the slightest variation. (III) Therefore, Ernie, I don't need to explain one single thing about gaps in the JBS-related files. The burden of proof remains on your shoulders to prove that FBI Top Secret classified procedures conform to the model that you've seen in less secure files. Nor do I need to INVENT anything; and actually you're making assumptions about FBI top secret methods that amount to your own INVENTION. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, 1. You should try to control your emotions, at least because they can interfere with your reasoning and logic. I did not deliberately lie -- I might (or might not) have made a mistake in my writing, but I didn't deliberately lie. (Your emotional outbursts might work against you in the long run.) My observation about your seeming denials that the FBI keeps secrets over 50 years old was appropriate and was based on your many posts citing example after example of the FBI declassifying this, that and the other. You also claim that there are "no documents in any JBS-related file...that are reports made by Harry." This suggests to any objective reader that you yourself have seen every JBS_related file in the FBI files. You seem to be prone to exaggeration. I do not lie -- these are your own words. Just admit that you yourself haven't seen any JBS-related file with reports made by Harry -- and there's no issue. 2/3. I don't doubt your skill and knowledge about FBI procedures, instructions, manuals, FOIA requests, or even your rather ordinary common sense. I do doubt that you can keep a cool head under questioning. You are right in noting that I do believe -- based on mounting evidence -- that Harry Dean provided JFK revelations to Wesley Grapp that were so weighty that they had to be locked up for 75 years. I also believe that these JFK revelations included names of individual JBS members. Nor does it impress me that other FBI files would mention these same individuals, because unless those files also included the connections that Harry made with his eye-witness experience, then there was no need to secure those records for 75 years. As for the narrative that I worked out for Harry's conversations with Wesley Grapp, they are not based on written documents or tape recordings -- they are based on my impressions from the memories by Harry Dean. I asked Harry if he could remember the 50-year old conversation word for word, and he could not -- he could only remember bits and pieces, and we did our best to reconstruct the conversation for the reader. If the narrative does not conform to FBI standards, that is not surprising to me. This eBook is not a work of fiction, but the real-life confessions of an eye-witness of an honest working man, Harry Dean. We did the best we could under the circumstances. Now, you ask, Ernie, why do I myself "think that the FBI would deny access to a routine memo or FD-71," and I will say that they might have produced a routine memo or FD-71 -- it simply didn't come up in my interviews with Harry Dean. It is entirely plausible that Harry Dean never heard of a "FD-71", or if he did, that he remembers what it stands for. It is also plausible that a routine memo of this weight would be classified. I do know for a fact that Harry Dean repeated this bit of Grapp's reply: "It is just wishful thinking" on the part of these JBS members, or words to that effect. So, Grapp told Harry to forget about it -- yet we have no knowledge, nor do we make any claim about what Grapp might have recorded after their conversation, once he returned to his FBI office. Aside from this, Ernie, I believe it is common knowledge that J. Edgar Hoover had begun leaking his "lone nut" theory to the press since December 1963. FBI agents were obliged to fall in line and walk in Hoover's footsteps. FBI agents were not likely to pursue any line of investigation on the JFK assassination without the express approval of J. Edgar Hoover, who was keen on presenting Lee Harvey Oswald as the "lone nut" killer of JFK. All FBI agents would be pulled into that whirlpool -- I firmly believe that. 6. You have some nerve to call me "irrational" Ernie, when your own emotions pour out of your replies. You misunderstood my theory to be non-falsifiable. On the contrary, I said that in the year 2038, when the FBI finally gives up all its top secret files on the JFK assassination, as mandated by Chief Justice Earl Warren, that my theory will be proven right or wrong at that time. My theory is falsifiable, but you haven't presented enough evidence to falsify it, Ernie. Nor have your emotional outbursts swayed my opinion one iota. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, You should back away from describing anybody as a xxxx, simply on social grounds, as it is unkind and unnecessary. You should also back away from calling someone a xxxx on ethical grounds in cases where you don't have all the data (which you don't). You should also back away on policy grounds on the EDUCATION FORUM, where John Simkin has a policy that nobody calls anybody else a xxxx on this Forum, or risks expulsion (based on the simple rules of politeness). If Harry assumed somebody was a JBS member when he was not, then I'm certain Harry would apologize if shown the true facts. Who was not a member? General Walker? Congressman Rousselot? Gabby Gabaldon? David Robinson? Loran Hall? Who? If you refer to Harry's assumption that LDS President Ezra Taft Benson was a JBS member, that is understandable based on Benson's many public statements supporting the JBS and Robert Welch. It would surprise me to learn that Benson was not a JBS member, but that would be secondary to the fact that Benson gave tremendous support to the JBS. I feel certain that Harry Dean would apologize for calling Ezra Taft Benson a member of the John Birch Society if somebody could produce conclusive proof that he was not -- and not merely speculation. Harry Dean has already retreated (in his eBook) from his position that the JBS was controlled by the LDS, even though in his honest opinion it truly appeared to him for many years that it was. I can understand why -- the racist element is present yet subdued in both -- white privilege was respected (as Benson ruled that Black Americans could not be leaders in the LDS Church). It was an honest mistake for friendly Harry to make. You keep repeating that "there is NO information emanating from Harry Dean in any JBS-related file," and yet it doesn't dawn on you that you haven't proven that you've seen each and every one of them. The logical fallacy is yours -- the supposed absence of data becomes your "proof." Further, your harsh attitude is not very inviting to Harry Dean to submit anything at all to anybody at all. I don't believe you're sincere in your request for Harry's affidavit to the FBI -- otherwise you'd be more polite about it. Your fantasy is that if Harry Dean requests his own files from the FBI, that the FBI will automatically give Harry all those documents -- even if they are classified top secret. You don't really see that the culprit here is the FBI. You can't seem to accept the fact that they might have withheld anything from you over the years. Yet you're clearly mistaken about that, because the FBI files about Lee Harvey Oswald are sealed from everybody. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, I reply as follows: 1. You keep denying that the FBI has classified documents about the JFK assassination that they refuse to release. You can't seem to adapt to that fact, Ernie. Obviously, those unreleased FBI documents are of tremendous importance. I don't know what they are, and you don't know what they are -- but you keep insisting that you know that Harry Dean's reports CANNOT possibly be in there. You are over-stating your case, Ernie, and that affects all your arguments. I encourage you to continue trying to get more information from the FBI about Harry Dean -- I think that you will find more in the future than you have found in the past. I also think you should reconcile yourself to the fact that SOME files will never be released to anybody until the year 2038. 2/3. You are "overstating" your knowledge about what CANNOT be classified. You are certain that nothing Harry Dean told the FBI can be classified. How can you be so certain if you haven't seen it with your own eyes? You can't. That's why I say you are "overstating" your case. Yes, some researchers have found some things -- but no researcher has ever found the material that Harry Dean has claimed he told them. You take that fact to mean that Harry is either lying or is a "lone nut." I say you're jumping to conclusions, and are not taking seriously enough all the vital information about ground-crew players in the JFK assassination that Harry's confessions link together. How did the Milteer documents become unclassified? Possibly because they don't mention General Walker or Loran Hall -- that's probably how, in my humble opinion. Why is Harry Dean so unique and special? Because his eye-witness knowledge identifies the ground-crew that the Warren Commission plainly knows about -- the one's they deliberately hid from the American People, blaming Lee Harvey Oswald as the "lone nut." I say that the US Government keeps top secret files about the JFK assassination 50 years after the crime because the decision was made 50 years ago to keep them locked up for 75 years. I say that the US Government knew very well who the accomplices were to Lee Harvey Oswald on 22 November 1963. It is precisely because they knew who these accomplices were that they insisted on keeping their identities secret. Harry Dean can identify many of those persons, and that is why key FBI documents about Harry Dean are locked up. This is my theory. It is not a delusion, it is not some marketing plan -- it has been my theory for years. I know enough to know that I can't claim this as TRUTH, simply because I have no PROOF -- yet. But all the data that I do accumulate continues to confirm my THEORY. And those many folks who have tried to debunk my THEORY have had weak arguments. Your arguments are not strong, Ernie -- you jump to conclusions based on limited data. You should keep a more open mind, and you should count to ten before you dismiss a valuable witness. 6. You have only recently begun to admit that Harry could have provided unsolicited information to Chicago or Los Angeles, Ernie. So, please don't play the victim here. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, I won't rain on your parade -- if you think you can sell this, by all means, go ahead and try. Yet it seems to me that you're asking to see FBI documents that pertain to the JFK assassination which are top secret classified. These FBI documents won't be released to any FOIA request from anybody, including Harry Dean and all his friends. Still, good luck with your experiment. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, The two options I noted in our correspondence were: (1) Harry Dean is telling the truth; or (2) Harry Dean is lying. Your so-called "third option," is "extreme confusion combined with exaggeration." So, at least you're now backing away from calling Harry Dean a xxxx. I take that as a positive first step. You now want to believe that Harry Dean called the FBI on the phone a couple of times, and told them what he believed, and the FBI agents thought he was a "nut" and patronized him two or three times. You want to believe that Harry then considered that he had "done his duty" and told the FBI what they needed to know, and deluded himself that he was an "FBI informer." Is that it? That would also conveniently explain why Ernie Lazar could not obtain more information about Harry Dean for so many years; it sure couldn't be that FBI files were classified. Isn't that so? Again, Ernie, you're REACHING. You're jumping to conclusions based on the argument of "might have" and "must have" and "maybe this". You just don't want to believe that you still lack all the data required to form a cogent conclusion. Yet the evidence is glaring Ernie -- you still lack data. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, once again you are over-confident in your claims. 1. I never claimed that all FBI documents about Harry Dean were classified -- only the ones that deal with Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination. Some will be released and some will not. Everybody knows that (except possibly yourself). 2/3. Even though this is a 62-series, non-sensitive number, there's no guarantee that all of Harry Dean's files and documents are in the 62-series. So, you're overstating your case again. 4/5. The rubber stamp (which was not part of the original memo, so I omitted it), which indicates this memo is Unclassified in 1985 (FOIA #211,326), is really to be expected. Otherwise, how could I have a copy? 6. Also, you over-dramatize the fact of the second rubber stamp, that the document was "RELEASED PER PUBLIC LAW 102-526 (JFK ACT)". Of course it was; otherwise, I could never get my hands on a copy. My argument still stands. Just because some FBI documents are Unclassified doesn't mean that all FBI documents are Unclassified. The real point, Ernie, is that you're evading the content of the Airtel that I provided. In this document the FBI is far from denying that Harry Dean provided information to them. You seem to have a blind-spot with regard to Harry Dean. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, let's take a closer look at the FBI document you posted on your web site: ------------------- Begin FBI Memo --------------------------- 11000 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90024 April 1, 1977 To: NAME WITHHELD Dear NAME WITHHELD I have read your column, "Between The Lines" which appeared in the March 16, 1977 edition of the Las Virgenes Independent Valley News. In the interest of accuracy, I must advise you that Harry Dean has never been an undercover operative of the FBI, has never been an informant of the Bureau, and has never been instructed to perform any act on behalf of the FBI. Furthermore, I can tell you that the FBI has never investigated the John Birch Society. I am bringing the above information to your attention. You might consider furnishing this informatino to the readers of your column. I would like to point out that had you contacted the FBI prior to publication of your column, the above information would have been available to you. Very truly yours, ROBERT E. GEBHARDT Assistant Director in Charge cc: James Kim Coffin, Publisher Las Virgenes Independent Valley News ------------------- End FBI Memo ------------------- What the reader sees here is a series of denials that remain amibiguous. There is some truth and some misdirection in this memo written to the writer, James Horwitz (whose name was withheld in the FOIA copy). First, GEBHARDT denies that Harry was an "undercover operative" in the formal sense, yet as we saw in the FBI airtel that I provided above, Harry himself denied that he ever claimed that. Secondly, GEBHARDT denies that Harry was ever "an informant for the Bureau," yet this contradicts the FBI airtel that I provided, which speaks plainly about Harry Dean's earlier reports to the FBI in Chicago. Thirdly, the idea that that FBI never "investigated" the JBS formally is evidently true, yet that claim evades the fact that FBI agents were not permitted to be members of the Birch Society -- and so some informal research on the JBS must be postulated to explain that fact. GEBHARDT's admonition to writer James Horwitz at the end of his memo insinuates that the FBI would have denied everything earlier if only the writer had been "patriotic" enough to contact them first. GEBHARDT includes a copy of this memo to newspaper publisher James Coffin, clearly to embarrass James Horwitz in the eyes of his publisher. After reading the story by James Horwitz, I find it to be sloppy -- deserving of criticism. Horwitz obviously took as much information from fiction writer W.R. Morris (whose book about Harry Dean came out in 1975) as from Harry himself. Horwitz was not careful with his facts, and so claimed more for Harry than Harry claimed. So, this FBI memo carries a middling weight, by my reading. Also, the fact that you have not been able to find very much information about Harry Dean in your own FOIA searches cannot be used to draw the blanket conclusions that you draw, i.e. that "There are NO documents" in this or that file about Harry Dean. I continue to maintain that you simply haven't seen all the FBI documents that exist, despite your years of effort. In that case you are in good company in this Forum, since many contributors here have also spent years attempting to obtain JFK-related documents from our Government, with middling results. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul B., the most direct way to resolve this is to present to the public any FBI document which NARA may have declassified since the year 2000. Here is a part of one that I know about. This is an FBI document dated 10 December 1963, from SAC Los Angeles (105-12933), which is about Harry Dean: --------------------- BEGIN FBI AIRTEL -------------------- TO: DIRECTOR FBI FROM: SAC, LOS ANGELES (105-12933) SUBJECT: HARRY DEAN La Puente, California RESEARCH (Correspondence and Tours) RE: Bureau airtel dated 12/2/63 HARRY DEAN was contacted at his residence 18109 Atina Drive, La Puente, California by Special Agents RICHARD L. CROMWELL and WILLIAM J. McCAULEY on 12/10/63. DEAN produced a receipt indicating he joined the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) in Chicago on 7/28/60, and was a member of the July 26th Movement in Chicago on 4/5/61. He said he had connections, however, with the July 26th Movement as early as 1958, visited Cuba in June, 1960, and on his return to Chicago had joined the FPCC at the instigation of one JUAN DEL ROSARIO and JOAQUIN FREIRE, then Cuban Council in Chicago (since defected). DEAN said he, shortly after he joined the FPCC and was elected secretary of the chapter in Chicago, discovered he was associated with Communists and Trotskyites, and that about early August, 1963 he contacted the FBI in Chicago. He said he thereafter furnished information concerning the FPCC and July 26th Movement orally to the FBI in Chicago until about July, 1961, when he moved with his family to California. DEAN said that he is fully aware that his association with the above organizations was initiated and continued on his own volition, that he had no intention of furnishing information to the FBI for money, but only out of patriotic interest. DEAN said that he has never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI, or is one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it. DEAN said that he was not so concerned over the fact that his name appeared in the Senate sub-committee report on the hearings of the FPCC in Chicago on July 13, 14, 1961, as that he was never called to testify as he feels he could have effectively exposed the whole matter from personal knowledge and helped to ruin the FPCC. ...It is understood that DEAN is in possession of considerable literature of an anti-Communist nature. Additional information relating to the FPCC and the July 26th Movement in Chicago furnished by DEAN will be made the subject of a separate communication. ---------------------- END FBI AIRTEL --------------------- However, Paul B,, although this document refers to "a separate communication" that will add more detail to this Airtel, I have not seen that "separate communication" and I wonder whether it remains classified by the FBI, along with a large body of other FBI documents that might somehow refer to the JFK assassination. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul B., I don't think Harry Dean was mistaken about the identities of those in the FBI about whom he shared information. I continue to believe that the FBI refuses to share its records of such exchanges with the public because of its relation to the JFK assassination. Therefore, I continue to believe that even an FOIA request by Harry Dean himself would make absolutely no difference to the FBI policy of withholding JFK assassination materials. The entire key to solving the JFK assassination mysteries is involved in the FBI (and CIA) classified records on the JFK assassination. Until those records are made public (in the year 2038) it is impossible for any JFK assassination theorist to be certain of his or her results. After those Government records are made public, then everybody will know which theories were correct and which weren't. I'm perfectly willing to admit that my theory might turn out to be wrong -- however, judging by the alternate theories that I've seen out there in the past 20 years or so, I'll stand by my theory and also by Harry Dean's confessions. That's why I advised Harry to name his confessions, "I Might Have Killed JFK." He has no proof -- only the US government has the proof -- and everybody knows it. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, I disagree entirely. You suggest that in effect there are no FBI documents from 50 years ago that remain "classified". I simply don't accept that to be true. I maintain -- with reason and not with emotion -- that the FBI continues to withhold documents about the JFK assassination, specifically about Lee Harvey Oswald. Further, it is precisely because a document refers to an important event prior to the JFK assassination that would make it a candidate to be classified. That should be clear. Nothing you have said in your long messages has demonstrated otherwise -- yet you keep repeating yourself. If you don't accept that the FBI classification of JFK assassination materials is a viable argument, then there's nothing I can say to help you. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, OK, Halloween is over and our Halloween discount is also over. Our price -- until at least 22 November 2013 -- will remain at $9.99. In the two weeks since we've published we're not even close to our goal of 50 copies sold. And that's OK. The idea is to make these 196 pages of Harry Dean's memoirs easily available to everybody over the Internet How does this eBook compare with Harry Dean's CROSSTRAILS manuscript which some of you already have (and which is available only from Harry Dean)? Basically, CROSSTRAILS included several pages of memoirs about the JFK assassination inside a larger context of Harry's family history, the tragic murder of his third son, York, and his personal poetry. The new eBook, Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK is an extended focus on the JFK assassination, with only enough background detail from Harry's biography to establish a context. In other words, there are far more details about the JFK assassination in this eBook than you'll find in Harry's CROSSTRAILS manuscript. I just thought y'all would like to know. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, Your evident animus against Harry Dean shows itself in bias and unkindness as well as jumping to conclusions. Here are some examples of your faulty arguments: 1a. You quoted a third party from 1977, the Las Virgenes (CA) Independent Valley newspaper, and you blame Harry Dean for their inaccuracy. That's entirely unfair. Clearly that newspaper was responding to the publications by W.R. Morris who first printed that Harry Dean was a professional operative for the FBI -- even John Simkin was misled by the W.R. Morris in his Spartacus site until just this year. Sensationalism sells newspapers -- but Harry Dean can't be blamed for the excesses of W.R. Morris or newspaper writers who get it all wrong. Harry's answer to John Simkin is correct as it stands. He stands by it and I find no contradiction in his statement, nor any valid reason to disbelieve him. 1b. You have tried to define Harry's relationship with the FBI entirely on your own research -- yet you have not completed your own project of collecting all available FBI documents available on Harry. You have tried through the FOIA to obtain these documents for A LONG TIME and have seen virtually nothing, causing you to draw conclusions about Harry which you must now defend, evidently. Yet this year you have seen more information about Harry Dean from the FBI, and this should and must become a part of this public discussion about Harry Dean. I give Harry Dean the benefit of the doubt, and you don't. It's as simple as that. I'm also waiting to see all the FBI information about Harry Dean as well as Lee Harvey Oswald. It seems self-evident to me that Harry Dean could easily be classified by the FBI as an "established source" or "confidential source". But let the FBI tell us -- let's not jump to conclusions. 1d. You seem to continually claim that "Harry's contention about his status" is the same as the claim by W.R. Morris and the "La Virgenes" newspaper story. That would be an error on your part, not Harry's. 2a. Also, you seem to presume that Harry's life was stable enough for the past 50 years that he kept copies and files of all paperwork he ever saw in his life (like the FBI). You make no allowance for the fact that many people cannot afford to keep fifty years worth of records around, or that people might get robbed or otherwise lose their belongings in a crisis. You presume a middle-class life for everybody, and I think this limits your reasoning in such matters. Regarding the paperwork that the FBI may or may not possess, I want to see it as earnestly as you do -- yet it is not the responsibility of Harry Dean to produce these papers -- Harry has done his job in claiming that they exist. And just because you haven't seen those papers yet cannot be taken as proof that they don't exist. 2b. Even if, arguendo, Harry Dean was an OFFICIAL INFORMANT, this is no guarantee that Ernie Lazar can walk up to the FBI offices and demand to see all the files on Harry Dean. Some information that was formerly classified is now available, but SOME IS STILL CLASSIFIED. Specifically, files related to the JFK assassination are still classified to this day, even after 50 years! You say that my argument about FBI classification is "absurd" yet you have been struggling for years to find information about Harry Dean and could not -- until only recently. Am I right? Your charge that I am a "shill" for Harry Dean is not only untrue, it is unkind. I honestly believe that Harry Dean is telling the truth. I know he's reading these exchanges on his thread, and I also know that he doesn't have the energy to respond to your incessant attacks on his credibility. So, out of kindness I speak up on his behalf. To call me a "shill" for my demand for logic and good manners is only evidence that my position is sound. Just because you are a self-made expert in the history of the procedures of the FBI, Ernie, does not allow you to jump to conclusions based on paperwork you've not seen yet. You should be more cautious in your conclusions until all the facts are in. They are not all in yet. 3a. You misunderstood me to say that Harry was part of a formal investigation on the JBS. I said exactly the opposite. 3b: You admit that "Hoover knew that no FBI employees were JBS members." This was no accident. Your blind spots with regard to the JBS are telling. 3c: You claim that there is NO RECORD of any such reports of Harry Dean reporting on specific individuals -- and yet you should also admit that you have not seen all the FBI records that are classified. This is the heart of my argument, Ernie, and cannot be dismissed. You don't have all the empirical data in your files, yet you are willing to make a conclusion? That's not right. 4a. Regarding Delmar Dennis, my simple point was that he was involved in KKK investigations, and although his files were originally classified, they are no longer classified -- HOWEVER, files relating to the JFK assassination are still classified and not available for you or any private citizen to view. It simply doesn't matter how many examples of formally classified FBI files you can now show us, Ernie -- if you can't produce all of the JFK assassination files that the FBI continues to keep top secret, then you should be more cautious about making conclusions. That's my simple point. 4c: As for Chicago, my comment meant that when he lived in Chicago, Harry was providing information about the FPCC to the Chicago FBI field office. I thought that was clear, but I'm happy to clarify that. IN CONCLUSION: If (and only if) the FBI has classified top secret documents naming Harry Dean with regard to the JFK assassination, then even an affidavit by Harry Dean himself would never release those files to the public. I personally expect all US government files about the JFK assassination to be released on the stated date that Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren established with the Warren Commission -- 75 years after the crime, i.e. the year 2038. Until then, opinions will run rampant, but CIVIL discourse should still be our modus operandi. We need to keep building on the available data from the FBI. An Assistant Director of the FBI totally rejected claims that Harry was an informant or was asked by the FBI to do anything for the Bureau. If there was information supporting that, it should be made public, and if there was information contradicting that, it should ALSO be made public. Harry has done his part -- he has told his story. What he says about the INDIVIDUAL members of the John Birch Society is plausible by my reading of John Birch Society materials -- enough to know that they inject POISON into the political arteries of the USA by spreading lies that US Presidents and other American heroes were Communists and Marxists. In my honest opinion, this JBS drum-beat was a major cause of the assassination of JFK (and MLK). Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, I think we have exhausted the topic about the ratio of racism within the John Birch Society. Officially it was none -- but in practical terms "white privilege" was expected and observed. You've admitted that much, so I'm willing to leave it at that. My main interest here is what you say about Harry Dean. To that end I'll review one of your posts on this thread - message #123: 1. It seems that you misunderstood Harry Dean to mean that the FBI asked Harry to infiltrate the JBS for them, and provide a report. Harry never claimed that. Harry claimed that the FBI was interested in some of the INDIVIDUALS that Harry knew who were connected with (i) the John Birch Society, JBS; (ii) the Minutemen; (iii) the FPCC; and (iv) Cuba activists. 2. It seems that you misunderstood Harry Hean to mean that he was a *paid* informant to the FBI when he supplied information about (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) above from 1959-1963. Harry never claimed that - rather, the reverse. It is my understanding that Harry acted out of patriotic concern rather than "time and materials". The Assistant Director of the FBI Los Angeles field office correctly stated that Harry Dean was never an FBI undercover operative -- that is, in the strictly formal sense of that term. Harry Dean never claimed to be a formal, official, paid undercover operative for the FBI. Harry did describe his activity of reporting to the FBI as 'undercover operations' in the informal sense, referring to the fact that his reports to the FBI were secrets kept from all others. As for the FBI report that the FBI in Los Angeles never called upon Harry Dean to provide any services to the FBI, this report should be weighed against rules and regulations about classified information. Naturally the FBI would not just give out classified information for the asking. 3. It seems you misunderstood Harry Dean to mean that the FBI held a formal investigation of the JBS, of which Harry was part. That is not what Harry claimed. First, we know that the FBI did investigate the JBS, at least informally, because J. Edgar Hoover published memoranda stating clearly that no FBI officer could be a member of the JBS. That would have been unthinkable without some level of investigation and research. Secondly, Harry Dean only claimed that he was asked by the FBI about specific INDIVIDUALS that Harry knew who were connected with (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) above from 1959-1963. 4. I doubt that the case of Delmar Dennis, an actual FBI informant, can shed light on the instance of Harry Dean whose case is arguably classified because his reports involved the JFK assassination, and named names. Delmar Dennis is not in the same category. So, it appears you may have been looking in the wrong places, Ernie. The JBS as a group was not Harry's concern -- only INDIVIDUALS in the group. Harry does say that the FBI asked him for information, both in Chicago and in Los Angeles. If those FBI reports are not readily available for public consumption, well, neither are the FBI reports on Lee Harvey Oswald, and Harry Dean used the name of Lee Harvey Oswald in some of his reports. We do possess *some* FBI records about Harry Dean, Ernie. I presume that in the course of your research you have seen them, too, and you know which ones I refer to. Again -- Harry Dean never claimed he was an official, paid, "undercover operative" for the FBI who infiltrated the JBS in Southern California. He always stated that he was first a dedicated member of the John Birch Society, until he witnessed events that he believed he should report to the FBI agents who had previously asked him about FPCC activities. Only in that informal sense was Harry an "undercover operative." Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., if you want a plausible story to explain why Oswald, a man who supported the Civil Rights movement in conversations with others, would bring a rifle to the TSBD that day, my favorite story on that topic is from Gerry Patrick Hemming. Hemming claims that he offered Lee Harvey Oswald double the asking price for his rifle if Oswald would bring it to the TSBD that day, for a secret buyer. Insofar as Hemming was also an associate of Loran Hall and Larry Howard, whom Harry Dean claims were manipulating Oswald since late September 1963 through the JFK assassination, I think that Gerry Patrick Hemming's story is the most plausible, as it identifies suspected street-level players. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, You say you have thousands of pages of documentation on topic of the White Citizens Councils, Ernie, and I won't try to compete with that. I have only some notes on the textbooks of Neil McMillen, Clive Webb, J.W.V. Zanden, Lothrop Stoddard, J.D. Sayers, Madison Grant, C.C. Josey, Adam Fairclough, Numan V. Bartley, "Judge" Tom Pickens Brady and a few others. In light of the plethora of documents you can produce, and of the paucity of my notes and the imperfection of my memory, I'll defer to your judgment on this minor point -- that the "original title" was not "White Citizens Council" but "Citizens Council," and that only a few of these groups in various States chose to incorporate under the name of "White Citizens Council." As for Medford Evans, I hope to read your paper on him one day. As for the Anti-Semitic element in American politics, you claim that the JBS was "not a hospitable environment for their sentiments," yet you also admit that Revilo P. Oliver, a strident Anti-Semite, was a long-time member of the JBS, and that he was not expelled, but rather quit on his own. I think this counts as a contradiction. You say that "Welch chose to ignore whatever he knew about Oliver as long as Oliver kept his bigotry to himself," yet that would be next to impossible unless Oliver was carefully monitored in the JBS cells he frequented. In other words, what really happened was that Oliver was allowed to circulate freely until and unless an open scandal broke out. You admit that there were no "background checks," and that "the JBS was a magnet" for these sorts of individuals. You claim that "if they revealed their personal bigotry, they were expelled," and yet you also say that "white privilege" was upheld throughout the JBS. I think that counts as another contradiction. I recognize that you aren't defending the JBS, Ernie, and that you're actually critical of them. You refuse to call them "rational" when they used examples of Communist infiltration of as "proof" that the infiltrated organizations were "Communist fronts" or "Communist controlled." So I will admit the same about the JBS -- they were infiltrated by racist elements (e.g. Revilo P. Oliver, General Edwin Walker and others), yet this cannot be any final proof that the JBS cells were "Nazi fronts" or "Nazi controlled." I recognize the logic of that. My only remaining point on this topic is that any tolerance of Evil is a slippery slope. Getting back to the topic at hand, Harry Dean's new eBook, Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK, also supports your point when he maintains that in all of his interactions with the JBS in Southern California, he was never presented with any racist element, statement, slur, epithet, joke or proposition. He would have quit in a huff if any of that had happened. Therefore, on the basis of all these observations, I'll stipulate that on the topic of the John Birch Society, Ernie, your work is more authoritative than mine. Insofar as you're willing to be critical of the JBS, and admit that they introduced political POISON into the American social body, I find your conclusions to be compatible with my own. Now, about Martin Luther King, Jr., the citations you cited about his alleged "Marxism" are weak and poorly argued. Was his father an expert on the topic of Marxism when he offered his opinion? I sincerely doubt it. Also, the quote you offered about MLK from Stanford is ambiguous. It says that MLK "first studied communism on his own while a student at Crozer Theological Seminary in 1949," and a biased person could conclude that MLK passively accepted whatever he studied. Yet actually J. Edgar Hoover also studied Communism, and this is solid proof that simply studying Communism cannot make a person a Communist. Further, that Stanford report admitted that MLK "rejected communism’s central tenets," which is clearly catastrophic to any claim that MLK was really a Marxist. It is strictly impossible for anybody to be a Marxist while rejecting Communism's "central tenets". Further, insofar as MLK was, "sympathetic to Marx’s critique of capitalism, finding the gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty that existed in the United States morally wrong," this cannot make anybody a Marxist, either. Actually, millions of patriotic Americans decry the increasing gulf between billionaires and the common working person in America. They aren't Marxists because of that. They don't call for open revolution, but they decry the moral outrage, based on an unprecedented disparity. To accuse such a person of Marxism is as irrational as accusing the average Bircher of Nazism. Further, MLK told Coretta Scott that he was, 'more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic,' and yet he immediately qualified this to add that he was, 'not so opposed to capitalism that I have failed to see its relative merits’. Anybody who accuses MLK of Marxism based on these weak arguments alone cannot be thinking objectively. Also, I maintain that anything published by J. Edgar Hoover about MLK will be politically biased. To the best of my knowledge, J. Edgar Hoover spied on MLK more than any other American in FBI history. This amounted to an obsession for which Hoover ought to be pitied. Of course, Hoover had to claim that MLK was a Marxist, a Marxist-Leninist, and a true-believer in Karl Marx, in order to justify his illegal spying and wire-tapping on MLK. Here is a concise definition: a real Marxist advocates the violent overthrow of the industrial bourgeoisie by the industrial proletariat. No other definition is good enough. Also -- you claim that General Walker "terminated the relationship he had" with Anti-Semites to please Welch, but that cannot be accurate because General Walker held a decade-long relationship with his publisher, Robert Allen Surrey, who was also a publisher for the American Nazi Party. Finally, Ernie, I hope we can turn this thread back toward the topic of Harry Dean, because as I recall you claimed over the years in this very Forum that the FBI had no records about any interaction with Harry Dean of any kind. In other words, you called Harry Dean a xxxx. Do you still maintain that position? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

First, Paul B., I want to thank you for reading Harry Dean's new eBook, Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK, since this answers many questions that keep arising among those who don't know Harry Dean's story. Secondly, you ask for my opinion about Judyth Vary Baker's story about Lee Harvey Oswald. I think that there is some truth in her story, as well as some "enhancement." In other words, I find it plausible that Judyth Vary Baker spent a few weeks with Oswald during the summer of 1963 (just as Ron Lewis spent a few weeks with Oswald during that period). I also find it plausible that they would develop a crush on each other in that time frame, and that their relationship would not last. I suspect that Baker thought more of their casual relationship than Oswald did -- but that is to be expected. I also believe that Oswald was involved in a plot to kill Castro, just as Baker says. I find it plausible that she was also involved in the same plot. I also find it plausible that Guy Banister and David Ferrie played substantial roles in the lives of both youths. I tend to stop my agreements at this point. In my humble opinion, when Lee Harvey Oswald broke off their casual relationship, he broke it off cold -- he was a married man and this would have been a short-lived affair for him. Still, the main part of her story -- that both were involved in a right-wing plot to kill Fidel Castro and take Cuba back from the Communists -- I find plausible and even certain. To that degree her story is valuable -- that is, from the moment she met Lee harvey Oswald until they day they parted ways, Baker's story should be of historical interest to readers. What happened before and after that is less interesting to me, and I suspect it contains a fair amount of filler to keep her story moving. In summary, her claims involve a few weeks of Oswald's life. I can say the same for the writings of Ron Lewis in his 1996 book, FLASHBACK: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald, in which Lewis calls himself Oswald's "best friend." I find it plausible that they knew each other for a matter of weeks during the summer of 1963, yet I doubt the portrait of Oswald as otherwise lonely and friendless. Oswald kept lots of secrets -- even from Marina -- but he was not a lonely operator. He had many friends and many *accomplices*. So, the story by Judyth Vary Baker does indeed advance the claims of Harry Dean. Lee Harvey Oswald was a fake member of a fake FPCC in New Orleans, and he got involved in rightist political characters related to the Cuban reaction against Fidel Castro -- characters like Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier, Loran Hall and Larry Howard. Harry does not claim any eye-witness evidence about New Orleans, Ed Butler or Carlos Bringuier, but Harry does claim eye-witness evidence about Loran Hall and Larry Howard. These two characters were openly part of the anti-Castro movement in the USA, and would have killed Fidel Castro themselves if they could only get close enough. Thirdly, you ask about the 1987 book by WW2 sailor and LAPD cop, Gary Wean, namely, There's a Fish in the Courthouse. For our purposes, his key narrative is about "John" (whom he refused to further identify in the book) who in December 1963 allegedly told Audie Murphy, Sherrif Bill Decker and Gary Wean the truth about Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was all CIA, working for E. Howard Hunt since his early days at Atsugi. Hunt's obsession in 1963 was to kill Fidel Castro. E. Howard Hunt staged the Walker shooting to build Oswald's credentials, claimed "John," and then pulled Oswald into New Orleans to further build those credentials using a fake FPCC and a fake FPCC officer status recorded in newspapers, police reports, radio and television. Hunt also arranged a phony trip to Mexico to get Oswald close to the Cuban Embassy, which would further implicate Fidel Castro. According to "John," our hero E. Howard Hunt planned a "fake" assassination on JFK, in which Oswald was to shoot some bullets into the air. Then, after Oswald was arrested, all painted as a Communist, Fidel Castro would be blamed for this "attempt" on JFK's life, and the USA would invade Cuba, kill Castro and be done with it. According to "John," something went "horribly wrong." Somebody had intercepted the plan, killed JFK, and then killed Lee Harvey Oswald who never understood what went wrong. To prove his point, "John" gave Murphy, Decker and Weal a manila folder with documented proof -- but on their flight back to Los Angeles, they tore up the contents and threw them out of the airplane. So - we're expected to believe this? The story itself comes out in 1987, after Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher and many others had already composed dozens of plausible theories about Lee Harvey Oswald that included the CIA and H.L. Hunt. It's far more plausible -- in my opinion -- that the story is, at least in part, a clever invention. (If there is a more limited truth in the story, it would have been better to tell the limited truth than to try to embellish it, IMHO.) It helps very little that Wean claimed years later that "John" was Senator John Tower of Texas, since Tower died in 1991, and could not confirm, deny or discuss these allegations made in his name. Are the claims possible? Yes! Are they plausible? I can think of some aspects that I agree with -- for example, the conspirators who killed JFK wanted more than anything else to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro. So that part is plausible. Also, E. Howard Hunt, who was part of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, would probably have done anything to take Cuba back from Fidel Castro. That part is plausible. It is also plausible that Lee Harvey Oswald worked at some level for the CIA since his days at Atsugi -- well, sort of. This is where the model begins to break down. Lee Harvey Oswald was a broke ex-Marine who could not hold down a steady job. He struggled for money. This is not the profile of a person who had a well-situated CIA backer since 1958. Also, it doesn't match the sworn testimony we have about Oswald from either George De Mohrenschildt or the accounts from FBI agent James Hosty. One can try to use a crow-bar to make the plethora of Warren Commission testimony fit this story by "John" through Gary Wean, but it won't fit. So - without further confirmation I tend to doubt Wean's story. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

One final point. The reason that the John Birch Society (JBS) is relevant in this thread about Harry Dean, is that Harry Dean claims in his new eBook that he is an eye-witness to a deliberate plot against JFK by radical elements within the JBS. One of those JBS members was the resigned General Edwin Walker (the only US General to resign in the 20th century) who was also a favorite speaker of the Citizens Councils in the South, as well as of the States Rights parties and supporters in Mississippi and Louisiana. In this case, the JBS and the so-called Citizens Councils worked hand in glove. By making this specific link between the JBS and the so-called Citizens Councils, we bring General Walker into the foreground, along with (i) the Ole Miss racial riot of 30 September 1962 against James Meredith and Medgar Evers; (ii) the unjust acquittal of General Walker by an all-white Mississippi Grand Jury in January 1963; (iii) the attempted assassination of Walker on 10 April 1963; (iv) the Civil Rights Speech of JFK on the night of 11 June 1963; (v) the assassination of Medgar Evers on midnight that same night by Byron De La Beckwith, a Citizens Council and KKK supporter. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, (1) Since you never wrote nor believed that the JBS position on race relations in our country was politically or socially innocuous, then we seem to agree on that one point. Since you admit that the JBS falsely accused individuals and organizations involved in our civil rights movement, and that the JBS "injected POISON" into the US public discourse, then we seem to agree on that point. Yet we still differ on most points. (2) You seem to have missed my point that the White Citizens Councils CLEARLY tried to hide their racist features with one single move -- they dropped the word 'White' from their name. I admitted that their meetings and propaganda went on as before, with no change in priorities or agenda. Yet it is CLEAR to the objective observer that by removing the word, 'White' from their name, that they opened themselves to more liberal contributions. It became possible for the "Citizens Councils" to interject themselves in polite social conversations, and to solicit funds for support, based on a persona that was wiped clean of its basic KKK roots. They could publish in Northern newspapers that their main goal was "State's Rights," and that theirs was a "struggle in the matter of Constitutional government". On this basis the Citizens Councils would receive respect and support. Yet imagine if they had allowed their name to remain the same -- "White Citizens Councils". It is obvious to the impartial observer that they would not have received the same financial support in the North. Even their membership numbers would have suffered, since no Northerner could boast of membership in a group with that name, while it was comparatively easy to boast of membership in a group called, "Citizens Council." That was my specific example in my last post, Ernie, and remains my example in this post, since there is no other example -- however, this is a powerful example. I am being specific here -- it is the NAME CHANGE, dropping the word, 'White,' that concealed their true FACE to the world. Once an interested citizen attended their first meeting with them, however, all became crystal clear. As told by Neil McMillen in his book, "Citizens Council," these groups remained largest in the South. Further, in those Southern Counties where American Blacks amounted to 40%, 50% and even 60% of the population, "Citizens Council" activities were always accompanied by the KKK. Regarding Medford Evans, he is of special interest because he was also a well-known writer for the Bircher magazine, "American Opinion," and he was also a defender of General Walker during the time Walker called for a massive resistance to JFK sending thousands of troops to Ole Miss University in September, 1962. Also, Ernie, if you don't believe that the original title was "White Citizens Council," then you simply don't know the history. It was the original title when founded in Mississippi by Robert B. Patterson of Indianola, Mississipi in July, 1954, in response to two events. The first event, of course, was 17 May 1954 when Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren passed the Brown Decision, mandating the racial integration of public schools throughout the USA. The second event, which occurred only weeks later, was the publication of the racist creed, "Black Monday," by Judge Thomas Brady. Brady was waiting for this decision for a full year with his book already prepared for publication. When the book appeared in June, 1954, it stunned and converted Patterson, who immediately formed the White Citizens Council in response, and Brady's book became the backbone of his organization. Patterson quickly gathered citizens to help him draft by-laws to keep the KKK out of its ranks, yet within their second year of operation they decided to drop the name "White" from their name. The local groups in Tennesee and Arkansas chose to restore the original name. (6) While Robert Welch would expel open Nazi sympathizers from his organization, there was little or nothing he did (or could do) about the countless misguided Christians who were also Antisemitic because of the doctrines promoted by their local pastors (and sometimes by their governing church bodies). The story I told about the Jewish person seeking a racially open JBS cell near her home is a true one. Like the White Citizens Councils (who changed their name by dropping the word, 'White') who attempted to expel KKK elements from their rolls because they knew such affiliation would drive good people away, the Birchers also attempted to expel Nazi elements from their rolls for the same reason. Yet nuances were not observed -- that is why impartial observers can recognize the insincerity of the move. White privilege was still observed, still expected and still demanded. Naturally this would be confusing to intellectuals like Revilo P. Oliver (who also testified before the Warren Commission regarding the assassination of JFK). Oliver was an OVERT white supremacist, who had felt at home within the John Birch Society for years, until it became crystal clear to him that Third Reich principles were not really welcome - despite some appearances to the contrary. In other words, Revilo P. Oliver, a dedicated white supremacist, apparently held out some hope for the Birchers -- for years -- that they would respond more fully to their own implicit demand for white privilege. In no way am I seeking confirmation for my beliefs, Ernie. I'm responding to the facts before me in an objective manner. On the contrary, I find that your criticism of the JBS does not complete its agenda. (7) Regarding Martin Luther King Jr., I sincerely doubt that MLK "accepted Marxist doctrine." First, MLK's policy of non-violence itself transcends the Marxist call to revolt. Secondly, MLK did not advocate an uprising of the industrialised proletariat, but a protest on behalf of a racial minority. Only the bias of the times could make MLK into a "Marxist," in my honest opinion. Regarding the biased charge (possibly from the FBI, or even Hoover himself) that MLK "accepted advice and counsel from secret Communist Party members such as Stanley Levison," the charge itself is ambiguous. Accepted advice on what? On non-violent tactics? On what life was like in the 1960's for Black Americans in Mississippi and Alabama? On what shoes to buy? The charge is non-specific and therefore suspect. It isn't racist to point out these charges, Ernie, although I certainly would not call them "facts" until they are clearly spelled out. Finally, I have no doubt that one can find many false charges against MLK in many books, including those by J. Edgar Hoover himself. Yet history has been kinder to MLK than his critics have been. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, 1. Since I’m a baby boomer from Southern California, I know something about the John Birch Society simply by keeping my eyes open, long before I read their magazines and books. I know the people. While they weren’t Southern Klan folks, the Birchers I saw were clearly on the side of white privilege. To suggest that this is politically or socially innocuous is, IMHO, ingenuous. 2. As for the Citizens Councils COVERT racism, it should be crystal clear that they intended to hide their racist features – at least on the surface – by changing their name from “White Citizens Council” to simply “Citizens Council.” They increased their membership by doing so – not so much in the South as in the North. Within their by-laws they made an EXPLICIT plea to distance their membership from the KKK, which they openly recognized would damage or destroy their movement. 3. Although the Citizen’s Councils were OVERTLY racist in their aim of Segregating Public Schools, reversing the Brown Decision and Impeaching Earl Warren, they acted in a mildly COVERT manner by removing the term, ‘White,’ from their official, public-facing name. Now, some members of the KKK decided that the White Citizens Councils must therefore be Jewish-controlled – and they said so. I recognize that the same thing was charged against the John Birch Society by various rightist radicals. I’m aware of the so-called Christian racist movement in the USA, and I believe that scholars can trace their roots back to the Civil War and beyond. The novum of racist Christianity arose in defense of American Southern Slavery which retained some smoldering embers after the Civil War. It was not entirely extinguished – it merely moved underground. 4. So I agree that the Citizens Councils were OVERT racists in their meetings, but I still maintain that they were COVERTLY racist in their public face; outside their meetings. The key American political groups that remain OVERT racists without any COVERT tricks are the KKK the American Nazi Party who will refuse to hide the word, ‘White.’ For the radical right, it was wrong for the White Citizens Councils to change their name by dropping the word, ‘White,’ It was a sneaky trick to gain more members. Actually, it worked. By minimizing the racist element, and emphasizing the doctrine that the Civil Rights Movement was actually Communist, the Citizens Councils gained lots of members, lots of money and lots of influence. Congressmen supported them. Here is a video of General Edwin Walker speaking for a so-called Citizens’ Council television program in 1962. Notice the ‘Dixieland’ theme song and the Sarah Palin ‘wink’ by the moderator at the beginning. youtube.com/watch?v=ZeQKuJTJi48 5. Neil McMillen’s book on the Citizens Councils is thorough and objective. The FBI did recognize that the Citizens Councils were non-violent – they chose to enlist bankers and employers to penalize Black Civil Rights and NAACP supporters by firing them from their jobs and calling in their home loans. The Citizens Councils argued that this was far more effective than letting the KKK handle it. But the truth is that where the Citizens Councils had little clout in the South, the KKK would move right in. 6. You claim, Ernie, that “any overt expression of racist sentiments by a JBS member resulted in their prompt expulsion from the Society." Yet I’ve read that anti-Semitism was well-known within the cells of the JBS. Perhaps a person might argue that the anti-Semitism in the JBS was hush-hush, but that would strengthen my argument that there was COVERT racism in the JBS, instead of OVERT racism. I recognize, too, that Robert Welch didn’t want to deal with this problem – when a Jewish person complained that she was not welcome in her local JBS cell, Welch reportedly told her to “find another JBS cell.” There was no expulsion – there was tolerance. The real enemy, allegedly, was Communism, so these petty arguments about racism were simply unimportant, evidently. Welch wanted the alliance of the South against the Communist Enemy -- and Southern racists were a part of that formula. It would be naive to imagine that Robert Welch did not recognize this. I’m aware that offices like the HUAC concluded that the JBS was not anti-Semitic, but that is an official position based on Robert Welch’s policies – it does not necessarily reflect the behavior of the Bircher rank-and-file. Furthermore, there were plenty of Congressmen who were members of the JBS – who also demanded the Segregation of Public Schools and the Impeachment of Earl Warren. Congressman John Rousselot was one of them. We both recognize that Harry Dean perceived zero racism among the JBS members in Southern California when he was a member – however, I interpret this to mean that there was no OVERT racism. Harry Dean also shared with me a vinyl LP of a speech by Congressman John Rousselot, namely, “The Third Color – Red,” in which Rousselot plainly argues for the racial segregation of US public schools, and plainly accuses Martin Luther King Jr. of being a Communist. Here is the first part of that speech: youtube.com/watch?v=OoC2lNw113k Also, Ernie, you yourself admitted that the support of white privilege was an open feature of the John Birch Society, so it is really me who should be surprised at your position about the Birchers that, “nobody has ever accused any of them of harboring any racist sentiments (covert or overt).” As for the argument that no Jews would ever join or promote a bigoted racist organization, one need only refer to the history of the Third Reich and form a list of its misguided Jewish supporters. Such people have existed. Finally, to imagine that the enduring Bircher slogan, ‘Impeach Earl Warren,’ was somehow tangental in Warren’s Brown Decision, one need only listen to the full speech by Congressman John Rousselot that I posted above to settle that argument. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, it's good to learn more about you. I take your point that not every JBS member was a racist. I also take your point that Robert Welch, who chose to expand his organization as far as possible, could not use OVERT racism as a tactic. He would have failed. Instead, he used COVERT racism. You yourself admitted that "the JBS did defend white privilege," so we are not far apart in opinion on this point. This was not a unique situation. The White Citizens' Councils (WCC) that started up in 1954 in Mississippi in reaction to Earl Warren's Brown Decision, openly stated in their by-laws that KKK members and tactics would be excluded, because they saw clearly that America would no longer tolerate the KKK (although the KKK still flourished in the South, just as they still flourish in some Southern counties to this very day). To that end, the WCC changed their name to Citizen Councils. They had the same platform -- to reverse the Brown Decision -- but they deliberately concealed their OVERT racism, and promoted a COVERT racism. The strategy worked -- they expanded their membership exponentially -- almost overnight (c.f. The Citizens Council, by Neil R. McMillen, 1994). It would be a mistake to underestimate the widespread influence of this pre-Dixiecrat movement in the 1950's -- it was massive throughout America. Their main message was that the Brown Decision was COMMUNISM. They advocated the impeachment of Earl Warren. Robert Welch openly said that he welcomed all forms of Anticommunists. He was probably aware of the fact that the Southern variety of Anticommunism had already been organized in "Citizens Councils." They formed a strong wing within the JBS. I do agree with you that they did not dictate policy to Robert Welch -- but they were welcomed with open eyes. I realize that because of these facts, one cannot say that the JBS was "racist," simply because they rejected any semblance of OPEN and OVERT racism (just as the WCC's did). Still, as you said, Ernie, "the JBS did defend white privilege." It remains a paradox that a Black intellectual would ever join a group that defended white privilege, but we know it does happen (just as homosexuals will join the Republican Party or some other political party that refuses to recognize full civil rights for homosexuals). I do recognize that nuances must be openly viewed -- and that is what I want to do with regard to the JBS -- their stand on the racial question in the USA is nuanced -- it is not easy to define. Most importantly, for purposes of this thread, I would point out that "Harry Dean's Confessions" clearly state that Harry himself saw no racism of any kind among Southern California JBS members. None. Zero. Zip. I accept Harry's account. The main US political focus in 1961-1963 was on Cuba -- and not on the Negro question -- although Martin Luther King made some of his greatest strides in 1963, and frightened many Father-Knows-Best Americans. This was simply viewed as COMMUNISM by the JBS (and by Harry). Racism was COVERT in the JBS, that is my point, and I think your comment is a concession to my point. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Right! And today Harry Dean and I decided to promote our new eBook this Halloween by chopping the price in *half* for EF readers. Start with this URL: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/367550 When you click to buy it, use this Smashwords Coupon Code: TV42T Then, the price of our eBook will be only $4.99 instead of $9.99. For those Forum readers who wanted to read what Harry said about the JFK assassination in his "Crosstrails" manuscript, and were willing to pay $10 a copy, we can say that our new eBook (Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK) contains all the JFK related information of Crosstrails, and much more. Now you can read more than 190 pages of Harry Dean's confessions for $4.99. This offer expires on Halloween - one week from today. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, the racist element in the John Birch Society was encrypted in its most enduring slogan, "Impeach Earl Warren." That slogan -- which persisted for decades -- is code-speak for "Reverse the Brown v. the Board of Education decision." When decrypted, that message means, "Re-segregate our Public Schools." This slogan was not news to Southern folks or Dixiecrats -- in fact the JBS borrowed that strategy from the pre-Dixiecrat politicians. The enduring Southern slogan that "Race mixing is Communism" is politically inherent within the JBS slogan, "Impeach Earl Warren." It is unfortunate that many Northerners -- even Black intellectual Northerners -- did not understand the implicit meaning of this enduring attack on Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren -- the man who gave America the "Brown decision" back in 1954, sparking a massive resistance to US Public Schools, especially in the South (a resistance that still has aftershocks today with Tea Party rants against US Public Schools). By the way -- Harry Dean and I decided to promote our new eBook by chopping the price in half for Halloween. Start with this URL: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/367550 When you click to buy it, use this Smashwords Coupon Code: TV42T Then, the price of our eBook will be only $4.99 instead of $9.99. For those Forum readers who wanted to read what Harry said about the JFK assassination in his "Crosstrails" manuscript, and were willing to pay $10 a copy, we can say that our new eBook (Harry Dean's Confessions: I Might Have Killed JFK) contains all the JFK related information of Crosstrails, and much more. Now you can read more than 190 pages of Harry Dean's confessions for $4.99. This offer expires on Halloween - one week from today. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, I agree with you, and I want to point out that Harry changed his long-standing position about the Mormons this year after discussions with me. Aside from the fact that we have no proof that Ezra Taft Benson was a card-carrying member of the JBS, we surely have evidence that he was an outspoken advocate of the JBS, and for a person of that social stature to publicly advocate a political organization -- that is more powerful than donating a few dollars and carrying a card in one's wallet. If Benson was not actually a member of the JBS, that does not change his public advocacy. What Harry finally agreed about this year, was the fact that Benson was officially the *only* Mormon leader to advocate the JBS and all other official leaders of the Mormons publicly deplored the JBS. Thus Harry has withdrawn his position that the Mormons were the driving, spiritual force behind the John Birch Society. It was only his opinion, based on his personal observations, anyway. IMHO, Harry was justified in his opinions by the fact that Benson advocated racial inequality in the Mormon Church, just as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society in general called to "Impeach Earl Warren" which is code-speak for "Repeal the Brown Decision" which is code-speak for "Reverse Racial Integration of Public Schools." In other words, this political feature -- which successfully and unfortunately passed itself off as Anticommunism -- was a feature held in common by Ezra Taft Benson and Robert Welch. So, Harry Dean's opinions on the topic of Mormonism did not rest on official evidence -- but his intuition was keen, and there were relationships that still bear review after fifty years. Thanks for continuing this discussion, Ernie. I would point out here that Harry Dean and I have published his latest Confessions in an eBook through Smashwords. It can be found at this URL: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/367550 Best regards, --Paul Trejo