HARRY J. DEAN

[Ernie Lazar]

John: Former FBI Special Agent Zack Van Landingham was not a "Hoover assistant" -- if you mean that he was someone who communicated frequently with Hoover or received specific assignments from Hoover.

After his retirement from the FBI in September 1958, Van Landingham became Chief Investigator for the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission. In a 5/18/59 speech before Northside Civitan Club in Jackson MS he said:

“To begin with, I would like to say that there is nothing political in what I have to say. I am not a politician and seeking no office. I am first, last, and always a Mississippian. I yield to no one a more passionate desire to maintain our way of life, and in order that I may not be misunderstood, I mean by that, total and complete segregation of the races. I believe that all responsible Mississippians feel that way. We may differ on the methods of achieving this end.”

With respect to your comment about the Bureau's COINTELPRO programs: the Bureau did devote considerable time and resources to their COINTELPRO program "Disruption of White Hate Groups". [WHG]. The FBI HQ file on this is about 6000 pages. A friend of mine who wrote his doctoral dissertation on this FBI program against WHG has published many articles in academic journals concerning this subject and he is working on a book which will be published in the future.

The Bureau did concern itself with "right wing extremists" but its main focus was upon individuals and groups who violated laws or were perceived as inciting or facilitating illegal activities.

There was a major increase in Bureau attention as a result of the October 1958 Atlanta Temple Bombing case. A new HQ and field office file was created under the caption "Bombings and Attempted Bombings Having Racial or Religious Basis" and virtually every field office was asked by HQ to produce updated reports on all "hate groups" in their territory.

Among the groups or topics discussed in this new file:

American Committee For Advancement of Western Culture

American Nazi Party

Christian Anti-Jewish Party

Christian Educational Association (Conde McGinley)

Christian Nationalist Crusade (Gerald LK Smith)

Christian Patriots Crusade

Confederate Underground

Liberty and Property, Inc.

National Citizens Protective Association

National Renaissance Party

National States Rights Party

Nationalist Party

Nationalist Conservative Party

Silver Shirt Legion of America

White Citizens Council of D.C. aka Seaboard White Citizens Councils

Williams Intelligence Summary (newsletter)

I am in the process of obtaining both the HQ and Birmingham field files on the National States Rights Party (which attracted numerous right wing extremists from across the country). The Birmingham file is over 15,000 pages and the HQ file is estimated at 21,750 pages. I already have most of the other files on the subjects listed above.

One thinf to conaider is that a number of ex fbi, including Hoover assistants (Such as Zach Van Landringham of the MSC) were in a way ''seeded'' into the south. Also on a number of issues the FBI tended to be accepting of a situation where they didn't get much real help from southern agencies in instances, that didn't seem to faze them all that much. Their cointelpro progs very heavily focused on blacks, the socialist workers party, and others and little on roght wing extremists.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[John Dolva]

John: Former FBI Special Agent Zack Van Landingham was not a "Hoover assistant" -- if you mean that he was someone who communicated frequently with Hoover or received specific assignments from Hoover.

After his retirement from the FBI in September 1958, Van Landingham became Chief Investigator for the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission. In a 5/18/59 speech before Northside Civitan Club in Jackson MS he said:

“To begin with, I would like to say that there is nothing political in what I have to say. I am not a politician and seeking no office. I am first, last, and always a Mississippian. I yield to no one a more passionate desire to maintain our way of life, and in order that I may not be misunderstood, I mean by that, total and complete segregation of the races. I believe that all responsible Mississippians feel that way. We may differ on the methods of achieving this end.”

With respect to your comment about the Bureau's COINTELPRO programs: the Bureau did devote considerable time and resources to their COINTELPRO program "Disruption of White Hate Groups". [WHG]. The FBI HQ file on this is about 6000 pages. A friend of mine who wrote his doctoral dissertation on this FBI program against WHG has published many articles in academic journals concerning this subject and he is working on a book which will be published in the future.

The Bureau did concern itself with "right wing extremists" but its main focus was upon individuals and groups who violated laws or were perceived as inciting or facilitating illegal activities.

There was a major increase in Bureau attention as a result of the October 1958 Atlanta Temple Bombing case. A new HQ and field office file was created under the caption "Bombings and Attempted Bombings Having Racial or Religious Basis" and virtually every field office was asked by HQ to produce updated reports on all "hate groups" in their territory.

Among the groups or topics discussed in this new file:

American Committee For Advancement of Western Culture

American Nazi Party

Christian Anti-Jewish Party

Christian Educational Association (Conde McGinley)

Christian Nationalist Crusade (Gerald LK Smith)

Christian Patriots Crusade

Confederate Underground

Liberty and Property, Inc.

National Citizens Protective Association

National Renaissance Party

National States Rights Party

Nationalist Party

Nationalist Conservative Party

Silver Shirt Legion of America

White Citizens Council of D.C. aka Seaboard White Citizens Councils

Williams Intelligence Summary (newsletter)

I am in the process of obtaining both the HQ and Birmingham field files on the National States Rights Party (which attracted numerous right wing extremists from across the country). The Birmingham file is over 15,000 pages and the HQ file is estimated at 21,750 pages. I already have most of the other files on the subjects listed above.

One thinf to conaider is that a number of ex fbi, including Hoover assistants (Such as Zach Van Landringham of the MSC) were in a way ''seeded'' into the south. Also on a number of issues the FBI tended to be accepting of a situation where they didn't get much real help from southern agencies in instances, that didn't seem to faze them all that much. Their cointelpro progs very heavily focused on blacks, the socialist workers party, and others and little on roght wing extremists.

Ok, Ernie. I have Zack as an assistant during WWII. True that doesn't mean he had much to do with Hoover.

I did a statistical analysis some time ago (havent got the results on hand) and while the FBI (cointelpro) did spend time on WHG's they spent far more on what they percieved as left. At one time they were the major fund source for the CPUSA with a large portion of due paying members being FBI informants.

The States Rights Party docs should be interesting. Have you got much Alabama info?

[Harry J.Dean]

Hi Ernie,

Harry was most certainly an FBI informant in regards to the Chicago FPCC and a CIA operative in Cuba as there are many documents and records released under the JFK Act that certify those roles, and he is very knowledgeable about the JBS and recently started a thread about it on this forum, as he is a member.

I'm sure Harry will answer any questions if you are polite and honest.

It's hard to believe that the FBI would recruit half of the active KKK members as informants, and target the FPCC, Communist Party and other subversive groups, but not the JBS.

I'm sure we can find out more about this.

BK

THERE CERTAINLY ARE MANY DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO HARRY, AND YES BILL HE IS VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE, HOPEFULLY HE WILL JOIN IN,AND PUT MATTERS RIGHT...B

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_HSCA_Mugbook_-_p1

HE'S IN THE HSCA MUG BOOK ALSO...

Hey Lazar the Bureau always denies Any claim of association with them, a two purpose security measure, Especially after one quits then blabs

about it. Such is policy. I once believed it was for my protection as well as for the Bureau. Haw Haw.

In any case having been a 'Fink for the Feds' in Chicago and Los Angeles,the following:

Outlined in this thread a reprint of Memoirs. My labor for the FBI, southern California, dealt specifically with Intelligence in exposing

pro-Castro activities as mentioned.

Also clearly stated, it was not until September 1963 that I informed my Los Angeles FBI contact{s} of plans underway by some of my fellow

Birch Society associates of arrangements to kill the president.

I had become a sincere believer in and follower of The John Birch Society philosophy and ideals in 1962. It is certain that I quite early-on

became aware of the subverting 'ultimate goal' by the Society and it's allies aimed at a final takeover of the entire US. political

apparatus which I was then in total agreement, upon the actual death of Kennedy I labored to openly expose all details. Publicly exposing

my association with the Los Angeles Bureau caused trouble for me, for the Bureau embarrassment and denial.

No amount of the note writing, record keeping people, is reliable when some of it is beyond our present view.

[Greg Parker]

GREG: In answer to your questions/comments:

1. Did any FBI Special Agents ever violate Bureau rules?

Of course and, in fact, my on-line report concerning Dan Smoot documents in great detail what led to Smoots censure and being placed on probation and being transferred to a small insignificant field office. [During his relatively brief FBI career, Smoot was censured 3 times.]

That was not my question , Ernie. This was it: So no one to your knowledge deliberately flouted procedure? Is that it? I asked because you keep harping about the horrible fate of those with poor grammar, while I have been discussing the deliberate flouting of regs involving informants.

But the fact remains that Bureau Agents were accountable to their superiors for even the smallest infractions of Bureau policies---including, as previously mentioned, grammatical mistakes in their reports or failure to follow Bureau policies. Even the scholars who are among the Bureaus most severe critics have reported in great detail on this culture within the FBI.

Even critics noted the insanity of Hoover's cultural Wonderland? And they are scholars? Amazing. Now I can see why you are so impressed with them. Their powers of perception are unmatched; their gallantry in reporting, beyond epic. I mean, where do we go from here, now that we have reached the pinnacle of critics being well... er...critical!

So, the real question is: what happened to Bureau employees who deliberately flouted procedure? Were they routinely praised and promoted? Is that YOUR contention?

As much as you may wish that was my contention, I have not so much as remotely hinted that was the case.

2. Do I place trust in the efficacy of FBI procedural guidelines?

It depends upon what specific matters we are discussing. Yes, in the real world, people are creative in getting around unworkable policies but inside the FBI it was VERY dangerous to do so IF one planned upon staying in the Bureau and building a career.

Hoover and Tolson were hyper-sensitive to anything which would cause embarrassment to the Bureau or which could be used by politicians to question the integrity of the Bureau.

On those issues, we agree.

Nothing which I have written should be interpreted to mean that Hoover did not understand how to play the bureaucratic game. For example, when he was instructed to terminate certain programs, he often re-created them under different names so that he could truthfully answer superiors if they asked if program x had ended.

Yes, he was a master at that type of thing.

3. Swearingen book and verifying accuracy of material

The famous philosopher, Karl Popper, pointed out that one can always prove something if one looks only for confirmations because in the universe of available data, there are ALWAYS confirmations.

And the historian, David Iredale pointed out"Original material may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be." This would be particularly true of intelligence agency files from the likes of the CIA, KGB, MI5, FBI etc

You ask me how I verify the accuracy of FBI reports I rely upon because I appear to take them at face value. First, your predicate is mistaken. I do not take them at face value.

But, perhaps, here is the difference between you and I?

I have acquired over 500,000 pages of FBI files and documents on hundreds of persons, organizations, and publications.

I have copies of many internal memos circulated among senior Bureau officials which discuss Bureau policies --- including many documents and files which reveal adverse information about Bureau practices or the most sensitive Bureau programs -- such as "JUNE" mail and the various indexes used by the Bureau to capture data about "subversives" or security risks who were to be apprehended during times of national crisis.

Furthermore, I have made it a point to read numerous scholarly books, articles, doctoral dissertations, conference papers, legislative hearings/reports, and court cases concerning the Bureaus history and its internal practices.

So contrary to your false assumption, I do not rely upon the face value of everything contained in Bureau documents. But the fact remains that I rely upon PRIMARY SOURCE evidence not secondary sources or sources which are wedded to a particular point of view.

Could I be mistaken about something of material importance? Of course! But whoever wants to dispute something I write needs to rely upon PRIMARY SOURCE evidence and demonstrate that he/she has familiarity with the subject matter that goes way beyond reading one or two books or memoirs -- particularly if they are not even documented with verifiable footnotes or bibliographic citations.

Memoirs are primary sources, too, Ernie. I realise you might not like that notion, but maybe one day, you'll get over your intellectual snottiness.

The fact is, I have presented two authors independantly saying that the FBI had a quota for informants, the difficulties in meeting that quota, and ways in which they met it i.e. inventing informants. If you want, I can also point you too a New York Magazine article from 1975 which again verifies the informant quota for agents and the difficulty in meeting it. Whilst it does not mention faking informants to meet the quota, the article does deal with the corruction of the Chicago office.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

GREG: In reply to this comment by you:

"And there is really no need to apologise for taking around 20 paragraphs in which to try and blur the fact that the quote I provided from an FBI report in Goldwater's file was correct. Bureau regs prohibited investigation of Citizen's Councils."

You could not be more mistaken Greg. But your confusion stems from what the Bureau considered an official "investigation" as opposed to a preliminary inquiry or other term of art.

As my previous message clearly documented, there WERE "investigations" of numerous White Citizens Councils groups as even the Assistant Director in charge of the Domestic Intelligence Division acknowledged in his memo.

In addition, I previously mentioned the March 1957 10-page memo in the Citizens Councils movement file (HQ 105-34237) which was devoted entirely to listing the FBI headquarters file numbers, alphabetically by state, of all files then opened by the Bureau on the Citizens Councils and other pro-segregation groups. (There are about 400 groups listed--along with their FBI HQ file numbers.]

I happen to have copies of many of those files (both HQ and field office), for example: Citizens Councils of West Alabama, Seaboard White Citizens Council, Citizens Council of Greater New Orleans, Greater Los Angeles Citizens Council, Citizens Councils of Kentucky, Citizens Council of Georgia, Association of Citizens Councils of Mississippi, and on and on.

In addition, I have many of the investigative files on major figures within the Citizens Councils movement.

So, Greg, what do you prefer that I believe? ---> The primary source documents and FBI files (both HQ and field office) in my possession or your speculations?

Postscript:

FYI: The Bureau never opened an official "investigation" on the John Birch Society.

Nevertheless, the FBI HQ file on the JBS (62-104401) is 12,000 pages! and every FBI field office also opened a main file on the JBS.

Those field files (such as Boston and Los Angeles) often also were several thousand pages!

So, Greg, is it YOUR contention that the Bureau amassed 12,000 pages on the JBS in its HQ file -- but it did not amount to an actual "investigation"?

Please enlighten us Greg.

Tell us SPECIFICALLY what constitutes an "FBI investigation" in your opinion?

What type of data exists exclusively in a FBI "investigative" file which is NOT present in other types of files?

You declare above that "Bureau regs prohibited investigation of Citizens Councils".

So please tell us from your vast experience with reviewing ACTUAL FBI FILES -- what type of data is MISSING from (for example) the Seaboard White Citizens Council file -- which illustrates why it is NOT (in your judgment) an "investigative" file.

I'm sure all of us will be fascinated to discover your answer to this question!

Ernie,

So, Greg, what do you prefer that I believe?[/b] ---> The primary source documents and FBI files (both HQ and field office) in my possession or your speculations?

Your comprehension needs some work. I was not speculating. I gave a direct quote from an FBI document. Here it is again: however the membership of this organization is not known to this office, DUE TO BUREAU REGULATIONS PROHIBITING ACTIVE INVESTIGATION OF CITIZENS COUNCILS You have shown that there was some investigative work done on Citizen's Councils in the 1950s. What I quoted was written in 1963 - which is the the period under discussion here.

So please tell us from your vast experience with reviewing ACTUAL FBI FILES -- what type of data is MISSING from (for example) the Seaboard White Citizens Council file -- which illustrates why it is NOT (in your judgment) an "investigative" file.

You are again refering to the 1950s. If you want to dispute the accuracy of the quote I provided, that is your call, but you really need to take it up with the FBI --- or better still, just provide examples from 1963 which shows it to be a lie concocted by the FBI author of the document.

[Ernie Lazar]

I'm not sure what you mean by the statement "the Bureau always denies any claim of association with them".

By "them" do you mean their former informants?

If that is what you meant -- then you simply are wrong. I have DOZENS of informant files which include inquiries received from the media and/or from citizens who asked the Bureau to confirm whether or not someone was actually one of their informants. The Bureau routinely acknowledged the basic facts of their informant status, i.e. dates when they provided information. I list some of those persons below. Incidentally, just for clarity, the Bureau acknowledged the informant status of these individuals while they were still living.

Julia Brown, Louis Budenz, Paul Crouch, Matt Cvetic, Delmar Dennis, Bella Dodd, Martha Edmiston, Barbara Hartle, Lola Belle Holmes, Manning Johnson, Joseph Kornfeder, John Lautner, Maurice Malkin, Mary Markward, Leonard Patterson, Armand Penha, Herbert Philbrick, Karl Prussion.

With respect to your statement below about the Birch Society: The wording is quite ambiguous. In previous statements you stated that the Bureau asked you to infiltrate and inform on the JBS but in your comment below, it appears that you are saying that you were involved in pro-Castro activities and you mentioned the Birch Society to your "contacts" within the FBI.

So please take this opportunity to clarify once and for all:

1. Did anyone within the FBI ever instruct you to infiltrate and inform on the Birch Society? If so, what was the name of the person who gave you that instruction?

2. If you did infiltrate/inform on the JBS at the instruction of the FBI, please identify the name(s) of your FBI control agents -- i.e. the person(s) you reported to.

3. What was your FBI code name?

4. During your time as a JBS member, approximately how many reports did you make on the JBS to the FBI? Were they verbal or written or both?

Hey Lazar the Bureau always denies Any claim of association with them, a two purpose security measure, Especially after one quits then blabs about it. Such is policy. I once believed it was for my protection as well as for the Bureau. Haw Haw. In any case having been a 'Fink for the Feds' in Chicago and Los Angeles,the following:

Outlined in this thread a reprint of Memoirs. My labor for the FBI, southern California, dealt specifically with Intelligence in exposing pro-Castro activities as mentioned. Also clearly stated, it was not until September 1963 that I informed my Los Angeles FBI contact{s} of plans underway by some of my fellow

Birch Society associates of arrangements to kill the president.

I had become a sincere believer in and follower of The John Birch Society philosophy and ideals in 1962. It is certain that I quite early-on became aware of the subverting 'ultimate goal' by the Society and it's allies aimed at a final takeover of the entire US. political apparatus which I was then in total agreement, upon the actual death of Kennedy I labored to openly expose all details. Publicly exposing

my association with the Los Angeles Bureau caused trouble for me, for the Bureau embarrassment and denial.

No amount of the note writing, record keeping people, is reliable when some of it is beyond our present view.

[Ernie Lazar]

GREG:

I will try to answer all your questions, comments, and concerns. But first, I do not understand why you consider my previous comments to betoken “intellectual snottiness”. I have taken your comments seriously and I have tried to specifically address your comments and questions.

But I note for the record that there is a major difference between you and I. Apparently, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) – you have NOT reviewed actual FBI files – i.e. the primary source evidence? -- correct?

So you are relying exclusively upon interpretations made in secondary sources. And if you find two secondary sources that seem to agree with one another – then THAT is what you consider compelling factual truth – correct?

Now with respect to your specific comments. I bold type your comments; my replies are in blue font.

Did any FBI Special Agents ever violate Bureau rules?

Of course and, in fact, my on-line report concerning Dan Smoot documents in great detail what led to Smoot’s censure and being placed on probation and being transferred to a small insignificant field office. [During his relatively brief FBI career, Smoot was censured 3 times.]

That was not my question , Ernie. This was it: So no one to your knowledge deliberately flouted procedure? Is that it? I asked because you keep harping about the horrible fate of those with poor grammar, while I have been discussing the deliberate flouting of regs involving informants.

Of course there may have been individuals who “deliberately flouted [bureau] procedure” but with respect to deliberately flouting “regs involving informants” – I would have to address the specific evidence for each specific case you want to present. It certainly was not a widespread practice---if that is what you are getting at.

Even critics noted the insanity of Hoover's cultural Wonderland? And they are scholars? Amazing. Now I can see why you are so impressed with them. Their powers of perception are unmatched; their gallantry in reporting, beyond epic. I mean, where do we go from here, now that we have reached the pinnacle of critics being well... er...critical!

I don’t know what your purpose is in attempting to discredit, wholesale, all of our nation’s most knowledgeable scholars about FBI history. Everything which you think you know about Bureau improprieties was discovered largely as a result of their research. Scholars like Dr. Athan Theoharis have devoted their entire careers to unearthing factual data about the FBI as an institution. Theoharis has forgotten more about the FBI than you will ever know.

Swearingen book and “verifying accuracy” of material

The famous philosopher, Karl Popper, pointed out that one can always “prove” something if one looks only for “confirmations” because in the universe of available data, there are ALWAYS “confirmations”.

And the historian, David Iredale pointed out "Original material may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be." This would be particularly true of intelligence agency files from the likes of the CIA, KGB, MI5, FBI etc

I have never heard of David Iredale. What “history” has he written about? What has been his exposure to FBI files/documents? Broad generalizations can’t really help us deal with specific matters we are discussing here.

Memoirs are primary sources, too, Ernie. I realise you might not like that notion, but maybe one day, you'll get over your intellectual snottiness.

Memoirs are subjective and often self-serving. Many times they are written to excuse or defend or divert attention from behavior which would reflect unfavorably upon the author. They are primary sources only in the sense that they reveal the thoughts of the person writing them.

The fact is, I have presented two authors independantly saying that the FBI had a quota for informants, the difficulties in meeting that quota, and ways in which they met it i.e. inventing informants. If you want, I can also point you too a New York Magazine article from 1975 which again verifies the informant quota for agents and the difficulty in meeting it. Whilst it does not mention faking informants to meet the quota, the article does deal with the corruction of the Chicago office.

Greg: This is very difficult to discuss as an abstraction – and, in any event, I’m not sure how it pertains to our original discussion.

Periodically, field offices were instructed by HQ to increase their informant coverage in certain groups as a result of specific events --- but that does not obviate the fact that informants were subject to certain protocols which were spelled out in the Bureau’s Manual of Instructions.

I think I understand where we are headed here. It is what I describe as “Argument By Anomaly”, i.e. find a few exceptions to a general practice and then pretend that the exceptions were the general practice or, at a minimum, use the exceptions to de-value, dismiss, or ignore more voluminous and more compelling factual evidence.

Greg – the problem we have here is that you want this to be a philosophical discussion. I prefer we deal with specific cases. But the problem is that you have no first-hand knowledge of FBI files – and specifically with FBI informant files – correct?

So how do we address that? As previously mentioned, anybody can search internet and find a universe of data which will always provide “confirmations” for anything whatsoever that one wants to believe. This puts me at a great disadvantage because you can always come up with something which contradicts a statement I make -- and then I have to continually refute your "evidence" but you are not required to present any primary source evidence of your own because you have never reviewed the actual FBI files we are discussing.

So, Greg, what do you prefer that I believe? ---> The primary source documents and FBI files (both HQ and field office) in my possession or your speculations?

Your comprehension needs some work. I was not speculating. I gave a direct quote from an FBI document. Here it is again: however the membership of this organization is not known to this office, DUE TO BUREAU REGULATIONS PROHIBITING ACTIVE INVESTIGATION OF CITIZENS COUNCILS You have shown that there was some investigative work done on Citizen's Councils in the 1950s. What I quoted was written in 1963 - which is the the period under discussion here.

Greg: I note for the record that you did not answer my questions. In order to answer you intelligently, please define your terms:

(1) What do YOU think constitutes an “active investigation”? Please give us the specific elements which you believe comprises an "active investigation"

(2) What type of information exists in an “investigative file” that does NOT exist in other types of FBI files?

(3) Why do you want to limit the discussion to one particular year – 1963?

I thought we were discussing your original comment in message #11 that the Bureau never investigated the White Citizens Councils movement? Your original comment never limited the discussion to one particular year. You then introduced a single document which you state exists in the FBI file on Goldwater and apparently you want everyone to accept that one document as definitive – even though you have never seen any of the 400+ FBI HQ files or the hundreds of field office files on the White Citizens Councils movement – correct? (It just occurred to me that I could, if you like, introduce the idea that it is YOU that is accepting "at face value" whatever documentation you think will advance your argument.)

You are again refering to the 1950s. If you want to dispute the accuracy of the quote I provided, that is your call, but you really need to take it up with the FBI --- or better still, just provide examples from 1963 which shows it to be a lie concocted by the FBI author of the document.

Greg, one does not have to “lie” in order to recognize that there are different instructions at different periods of time or unique instructions which apply to specific locations for some period of time. I am troubled by the way you attempt to use evidence. I think the problem here (once again) is that you have never seen any FBI file and, more importantly, you have never bothered to provide us with YOUR definition of what constitutes an “investigation”. Until you answer that question – we cannot proceed to discuss this matter intelligently. And, again, I wonder if you are proposing that we "accept at face value" every document you introduce simply because you think it advances your argument?

Edited June 11, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

JOHN:

1. You are correct that most of the COINTELPRO operations were concerned with left-wing individuals and groups. If you want to know the extent of the paper trail created here is the breakdown:

Cointelpro (12 Programs) -- 52,680 pages

a. Black Extremist Hate Groups -- 6,106 pages

b. Cointelpro-Espionage Programs -- 482 pages

c. CPUSA -- 30,743 pages

d. Cuban Matters (Pro Castro) -- 59 pages

e. Disruption of White Hate Groups -- 5,457 pages

f. Hoodwink (To Cause Dispute Between CPUSA and "LCN ") -- 60 pages

g. Mexican CP Matter (Border Coverage Program) -- 122 pages

h. New Left -- 6,244 pages

i. Puerto Rican (Groups Seeking Puerto Rican Independence) -- 1,190 pages

j. Socialist Workers Party -- 688 pages

k. Special Operations (Nationalities Intelligence) -- 1,450 pages

l. Yugoslav (Violence Prone Yugoslav Emigres in U. S. ) -- 84 pages

2. The Bureau was not "the major fund source for the CPUSA" -- not even remotely.

Many millions of dollars were smuggled into the U.S. by Soviet agents to finance CPUSA operations. We have a general idea about how much money was involved because the FBI had two moles inside the CPUSA (Morris and Jack Childs) who reported on this in great detail. Morris Childs is particularly important because of his frequent trips to the Soviet Union and his senior leadership position within the Party. Here is one brief CNN summary about Childs:

OPERATION SOLO

"Few people have heard of Morris Childs or "Operation Solo." But "Solo" -- in which Childs infiltrated the Communist Party of the United States and through it the international communist hierarchy -- was one of the greatest intelligence coups in U.S. Cold War history.

Childs, a communist in his youth, traveled to Moscow in 1929 to study revolutionary tactics at the Lenin School, where his classmates included future Eastern bloc leaders Walter Ulbricht (East Germany) and Josip Tito (Yugoslavia). When he returned home, he became a leader of the Communist Party of the United States in Wisconsin, then Chicago. He was a rising red star. But in a return trip to Moscow in 1947 he became disillusioned, finding the Soviet Union in the throes of Stalinist repression, corruption and anti-Semitism. Upon returning home, he inwardly rejected the cause and volunteered his services to the FBI.

Childs became a key mole inside CPUSA, informing on American communists and their contacts with Moscow. Childs himself made 52 trips to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to meet with Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov and other top Soviet leaders.

For more than 30 years, he and his brother Jack provided the FBI with detailed and valuable information on Soviet affairs, including crucial perspective on the Sino-Soviet split and inside information on Soviet attitudes toward U.S. Cold War policy. His story largely unknown, Childs died in 1991 at the age of 89. “

3. ALABAMA INFO: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Please clarify what info you are seeking?

Ok, Ernie. I have Zack as an assistant during WWII. True that doesn't mean he had much to do with Hoover.

I did a statistical analysis some time ago (havent got the results on hand) and while the FBI (cointelpro) did spend time on WHG's they spent far more on what they percieved as left. At one time they were the major fund source for the CPUSA with a large portion of due paying members being FBI informants.

The States Rights Party docs should be interesting. Have you got much Alabama info?

[Michael Hogan]

Hello Ernie, welcome to the Forum. Do you have any thoughts on R. Andrew Kiel's book on Hoover? Thanks.

http://www.amazon.com/J-Edgar-Hoover-Father-Cold/dp/076181762X

[Ernie Lazar]

I haven't read Kiel's book. I'll add it to my list for future reading. There are also doctoral dissertations pertaining to Hoover and the FBI which are quite helpful for understanding the history of the institution and its key players -- but which most people know nothing about. I compiled a bibliography which includes many of them and posted a link to it on-line. For anyone interested it is at:

BIBLIO

Hello Ernie, welcome to the Forum. Do you have any thoughts on R. Andrew Kiel's book on Hoover? Thanks.

http://www.amazon.com/J-Edgar-Hoover-Father-Cold/dp/076181762X

[John Dolva]

Ernie. Lets leave the Alabama bit for now.

The funding bit is a bit of a joke. It just used to be a bit of a joke in cartoons andf stuff when the extent of FBI infiltration of the CPUSA became known.

The answer is very enlightening.

I wonder about that SWP thing because quite frankly the Trotskyist fourth international was putting forth what is the most dangerous weapon against capitalism, a deep entry vanguard program that sought to position it for maximum effect should circumstances arise. A proper understanding of this by the Coint op should really show far more interest than it appears.

edit:format

Edited June 12, 2010 by John Dolva

[William Kelly]

I thought it a little suspicious that you show up here shortly after Harry posted:

Jack Ruby {LHO assassin} testified to Chief Justice Warren... "there is an organization here Chief Justice Warren, if it takes my life to say it, there is a John Birch Society {JBS} a very powerful organization right now in activity, and {General} Edwin Walker is one of the top men in this organization..."

The black bordered ad " Welcome Mr. Kennedy, to Dallas" was a creation of the John Birch Society through JBS Schmidt and Grinnan, who maintained they were acting "solely as individuals" Grinnan, was a Dallas independent oil operator and John Birch Society coordinator in the Dallas area.

The WANTED FOR TREASON ad handbill, Robert A. Surrey was eventually identified by FBI as the author. Surrey a 38 year old printing salesman employed by Johnson Printing Co. in Dallas,Tex has been closely associated with General Walker for several years in his political and business activities.

Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit at the time of the JFK assassination was working weekends in a Dallas restaurant owned by a member of The John Birch Society

Check out Jack Ruby's testimony to Warren and Rep. {later US. President} Gerald Ford

Is that what sparked you to join the forum?

[Ernie Lazar]

Nope -- I attempted to join the Forum for two years but I constantly received a message stating that no new registrations were accepted so I contacted John Simkin to inquire when registrations would be open and he added me. I detect more than just "suspicion" on your part. I detect hostility because you are uncomfortable with critics or skeptics or persons who present data which contradicts something you prefer to believe.

You keep copying the info about Grinnan/Surrey as if it has some significance to what I have posted in this thread when, obviously, it does not. Simply repeating the same info over and over doesn't address the points I have raised here. Try focusing on what I have written instead of your talking points.

I thought it a little suspicious that you show up here shortly after Harry posted:

Jack Ruby {LHO assassin} testified to Chief Justice Warren... "there is an organization here Chief Justice Warren, if it takes my life to say it, there is a John Birch Society {JBS} a very powerful organization right now in activity, and {General} Edwin Walker is one of the top men in this organization..."

The black bordered ad " Welcome Mr. Kennedy, to Dallas" was a creation of the John Birch Society through JBS Schmidt and Grinnan, who maintained they were acting "solely as individuals" Grinnan, was a Dallas independent oil operator and John Birch Society coordinator in the Dallas area.

The WANTED FOR TREASON ad handbill, Robert A. Surrey was eventually identified by FBI as the author. Surrey a 38 year old printing salesman employed by Johnson Printing Co. in Dallas,Tex has been closely associated with General Walker for several years in his political and business activities.

Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit at the time of the JFK assassination was working weekends in a Dallas restaurant owned by a member of The John Birch Society

Check out Jack Ruby's testimony to Warren and Rep. {later US. President} Gerald Ford

Is that what sparked you to join the forum?

[William Kelly]

Nope -- I attempted to join the Forum for two years but I constantly received a message stating that no new registrations were accepted so I contacted John Simkin to inquire when registrations would be open and he added me. I detect more than just "suspicion" on your part. I detect hostility because you are uncomfortable with critics or skeptics or persons who present data which contradicts something you prefer to believe.

You keep copying the info about Grinnan/Surrey as if it has some significance to what I have posted in this thread when, obviously, it does not. Simply repeating the same info over and over doesn't address the points I have raised here. Try focusing on what I have written instead of your talking points.

Hey, Ernie, You detect right. Okay, I'll read your stuff and see if there's anything there, but like you said, we all have our own interests, and you don't care about FPCC et al, and are focused strictly on JBS, which I had little interest in until now, though my friends Bill Turner and Peter Noyes have investigated and written extensively about them, and Harry points out a few direct connections to Dealey Plaza.

Have you read Turner and Noyes on JBS?

Since I didn't think JBS significant I didn't pay much attention to them, so there's nothing about them that I prefer to believe, other than they aren't responsible for putting the Dealey Plaza Operation together, though they might have been swimming in the same pool.

I automatically put a red flag next to anything anyone says is of no signifance, and now have files on Grinnan and Surrey, thanks. (Gary Mack just emailed me to say Larry Ronco has no signifance or connection to the assassination so he's got a flag now too).

And what about the guy who owned the Barbeque joint where Tippit moonlighted? Does him being a JBS member have anything to do with it?

BK

I thought it a little suspicious that you show up here shortly after Harry posted:

Jack Ruby {LHO assassin} testified to Chief Justice Warren... "there is an organization here Chief Justice Warren, if it takes my life to say it, there is a John Birch Society {JBS} a very powerful organization right now in activity, and {General} Edwin Walker is one of the top men in this organization..."

The black bordered ad " Welcome Mr. Kennedy, to Dallas" was a creation of the John Birch Society through JBS Schmidt and Grinnan, who maintained they were acting "solely as individuals" Grinnan, was a Dallas independent oil operator and John Birch Society coordinator in the Dallas area.

The WANTED FOR TREASON ad handbill, Robert A. Surrey was eventually identified by FBI as the author. Surrey a 38 year old printing salesman employed by Johnson Printing Co. in Dallas,Tex has been closely associated with General Walker for several years in his political and business activities.

Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit at the time of the JFK assassination was working weekends in a Dallas restaurant owned by a member of The John Birch Society

Check out Jack Ruby's testimony to Warren and Rep. {later US. President} Gerald Ford

Is that what sparked you to join the forum?

[Ernie Lazar]

I've read Turner but not Noyes. Conspiracy theories, by their very nature, are not falsifiable -- which means they really are not "theories" at all since every genuine theory must have the potential for being falsified.

In fact, I have a challenge for you.

Every conspiracy theorist that I have confronted in my lifetime insists that they have superior and unique analytical skills (i.e. they unearth data and connect dots which escapes 99.9% of the rest of humanity).

So my challenge to you is this:

(1) Choose ANY theory which YOU think is totally mistaken.

(2) Contact the author(s) of that theory (or a sampling of the most devout adherents of the theory)

(3) Present to the authors/adherents your best factual evidence which you think refutes their theory

(4) Then come back and let us know how many times you are successful in getting the authors/adherents to agree with you that their theory is gravely mistaken

(5) Repeat that process several times with several different conspiracy theories

(6) If the end result is that nobody is willing to discard their theory by admitting it was false to begin with -- then what does that tell you about the very nature of conspiracy theories?

Nope -- I attempted to join the Forum for two years but I constantly received a message stating that no new registrations were accepted so I contacted John Simkin to inquire when registrations would be open and he added me. I detect more than just "suspicion" on your part. I detect hostility because you are uncomfortable with critics or skeptics or persons who present data which contradicts something you prefer to believe.

You keep copying the info about Grinnan/Surrey as if it has some significance to what I have posted in this thread when, obviously, it does not. Simply repeating the same info over and over doesn't address the points I have raised here. Try focusing on what I have written instead of your talking points.

Hey, Ernie, You detect right. Okay, I'll read your stuff and see if there's anything there, but like you said, we all have our own interests, and you don't care about FPCC et al, and are focused strictly on JBS, which I had little interest in until now, though my friends Bill Turner and Peter Noyes have investigated and written extensively about them, and Harry points out a few direct connections to Dealey Plaza.

Have you read Turner and Noyes on JBS?

Since I didn't think JBS significant I didn't pay much attention to them, so there's nothing about them that I prefer to believe, other than they aren't responsible for putting the Dealey Plaza Operation together, though they might have been swimming in the same pool.

I automatically put a red flag next to anything anyone says is of no signifance, and now have files on Grinnan and Surrey, thanks. (Gary Mack just emailed me to say Larry Ronco has no signifance or connection to the assassination so he's got a flag now too).

And what about the guy who owned the Barbeque joint where Tippit moonlighted? Does him being a JBS member have anything to do with it?

BK

I thought it a little suspicious that you show up here shortly after Harry posted:

Jack Ruby {LHO assassin} testified to Chief Justice Warren... "there is an organization here Chief Justice Warren, if it takes my life to say it, there is a John Birch Society {JBS} a very powerful organization right now in activity, and {General} Edwin Walker is one of the top men in this organization..."

The black bordered ad " Welcome Mr. Kennedy, to Dallas" was a creation of the John Birch Society through JBS Schmidt and Grinnan, who maintained they were acting "solely as individuals" Grinnan, was a Dallas independent oil operator and John Birch Society coordinator in the Dallas area.

The WANTED FOR TREASON ad handbill, Robert A. Surrey was eventually identified by FBI as the author. Surrey a 38 year old printing salesman employed by Johnson Printing Co. in Dallas,Tex has been closely associated with General Walker for several years in his political and business activities.

Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit at the time of the JFK assassination was working weekends in a Dallas restaurant owned by a member of The John Birch Society

Check out Jack Ruby's testimony to Warren and Rep. {later US. President} Gerald Ford

Is that what sparked you to join the forum?