Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Book!

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Ernie Lazar said:


...NOBODY believes anything you write and why NOBODY thinks you are a serious person.


Actually, I get lots of compliments on this Forum.   To make a simple case, the member who started this very thread, "New Book," whose name is William O'Neil, has sent me numerous encouraging messages.

So has Dr. Jeffrey Caufield.   So have many others.    The reason William and Jeffrey don't post here is because they don't like the continual insults from writers like yourself.

So, anyway, Ernie, I've caught you now in a second lie.  And here it is:

...NOBODY believes anything you write and why NOBODY thinks you are a serious person. 

I have just shown that SOMEBODY believes what I write, and SOMEBODY thinks I am a serious person.   So, your sentence lied again.   

Now, why don't I say that you just made a mistake by contradicting the facts?   Well, the difference between a mistake and a lie, is that a lie has as "mean streak" inside it.  I think it is clear to everybody that your false sentences have a "mean streak."   So, they merit the moniker of a "lie".

With utmost sincerity,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

16 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:


Actually, I get lots of compliments on this Forum.   To make a simple case, the member who started this very thread, "New Book," whose name is William O'Neil, has sent me numerous encouraging messages.

So has Dr. Jeffrey Caufield.   So have many others.    The reason William and Jeffrey don't post here is because they don't like the continual insults from writers like yourself.

So, anyway, Ernie, I've caught you now in a second lie.  And here it is:

...NOBODY believes anything you write and why NOBODY thinks you are a serious person. 

I have just shown that SOMEBODY believes what I write, and SOMEBODY thinks I am a serious person.   So, your sentence lied again.   

Now, why don't I say that you just made a mistake by contradicting the facts?   Well, the difference between a mistake and a lie, is that a lie has as "mean streak" inside it.  I think it is clear to everybody that your false sentences have a "mean streak."   So, they merit the moniker of a "lie".

With utmost sincerity,
--Paul Trejo

1.  Caufield and O'Neill are hardly neutral or independent sources Paul.  Obviously, authors or co-authors of publications will thank anybody who praises or publicizes or recommends their writings!

2.   Nothing which I previously wrote has anything whatsoever to do with asking O'Neill or Caufield to post anything here. 

AGAIN -- this is another example of how you deliberately create straw-man arguments to divert attention from the REAL issues being raised

My actual point, which was very clearly stated, was that no serious JFK scholars or academic journals, publications, or conferences, or websites discuss what Caufield has written nor do they discuss Harry Dean.

For example I have previously quoted what Joan Mellon wrote to me when I asked for her evaluation of Harry's narrative.  There are also very acerbic comments from other JFK researchers over the years.

3.  HOWEVER, since your mind functions like a small child, in the future I will respond to your messages in the manner which is required for a small child -- because I now recognize your need for literalism. 

This is quite funny because I just finished writing an article about the John Birch Society where I made the exact same point about their typical debate tactics. 

When debating a JBS member or sympathizer, a critic must NEVER assume that the plain ordinary meaning of words or thoughts are understood (or used) by Birchers AND one must NEVER leave out even the most picayune or irrelevant detail because if a critic DOES that, Birchers seize upon every such "omission" as a means to discredit EVERYTHING which the critic writes -- even though the specific detail might be totally irrelevant to the larger point being made.

4.  Consequently, from now on, I will change my method of responding to your messages.  I will start from the correct premise that you are mentally deficient and, therefore, you require that every single detail or nuance must be spelled out in child-like terms.

5.  BOTTOM-LINE  (using the new debate formula required when addressing your deficient intellect)

(a)  Human beings have many different opinions.  An opinion is not the same thing as something which is factually true.  Example:  "I prefer strawberry ice cream, because it is the BEST flavor of ice cream" is a personal opinion.  It reflects your personal preference and, consequently, it is NOT an argument which can be refuted or falsified.

(b)  There are some human beings on Planet Earth who have read Dr. Caufield's book and they have a positive OPINION about its content. 

However, that unknown number of human beings has not (up to now) included any currently known academic journals, or prominent historians or political scientists, or any prominent investigative journalists, OR anybody known and widely respected within the JFK (or American history) research community. 

The proof for those statements may be ascertained by simply reviewing the various library databases which capture articles, books, book reviews, newspaper articles, doctoral dissertations, master's theses, conference papers, audio/visual recordings, and other types of research materials.  When searching those sources for Caufield's name OR for the title of Caufield's book OR for general discussions of JFK assassination theories -- one cannot find references to Caufield or his book -- nor can you find references to Harry Dean's "recollections" -- other than (perhaps) a couple sentences or a paragraph which just summarizes his unverifiable assertions.  However, I should point out that any such references are almost always many years old and have not produced any sustained interest -- other than when they were first made many years ago.

(c)  The same evaluation (i.e. "b" above) can be made about Harry Dean's publication "Crosstrails" and about Paul Trejo's Ebook pertaining to Harry's narrative.  However, as is the case in ALL matters of human OPINION, it is entirely possible that on a planet with 7,632,000,000 living human beings, one might find 10 or 20, or perhaps even 100 or 200 people who believe Harry's narrative or Dr. Caufield's narrative OR even (as hard as this is to believe), Paul Trejo's narrative.

(d)  What does the word "NOBODY" mean when used figuratively in conversation?

(1)  First, "figuratively" means "use of words or expressions with a meaning that is different from the literal interpretation"

Since Paul Trejo has a child-like mentality, we must now define/describe "figurative language"

(2)  Why do human beings use "figurative" language?   

Answer:  To emphasize certain concepts or ideas AND to convey something which is symbolic of a larger point.  Often, for example, figurative language uses metaphors or hyperbole to emphasize a specific point.


One of the standard definitions of the word "nobody" when it is used figuratively is:  "a person of no importance, influence or power"

Most NORMAL human beings understand that the word "nobody" is rarely (and probably never) used literally for a self-evident reason (i.e. self-evident to people who have normal brain function).   That reason is because no single human being can ever know every thought or idea or opinion which exists in every human mind on Planet Earth.

Consequently, if an author writes something like this:   

"Nobody believes the conspiracy theory which claims that Bill and Hillary Clinton arranged for the murder of Vincent Foster."

THAT use of the word "nobody" is not meant to be taken LITERALLY, i.e. that no human being on Planet Earth believes that conspiracy theory.   Instead, the word "nobody" in this context is used to emphasize that no rational person of importance, influence, or power believes that conspiracy theory.


Because Paul Trejo...

  • has such enormous difficulty understanding the normal usage of the English language AND
  • he seizes upon everything he can use to divert attention from the ACTUAL meaning of what is being written AND
  • he ROUTINELY uses mis-direction, straw-man arguments, circular reasoning, and deliberate FALSEHOODS to advance his personal opinions AND
  • he can never acknowledge his personal mistakes AND
  • he routinely attributes his own worst personal qualities to other people


  • ALL future replies to Paul Trejo's messages will be handled in the same manner as above.   Which means every word will be defined.  Every concept or thought will be explained at the 3rd or 4th grade level of discussion so that there can be no future misunderstandings or mis-representations OR false accusations of "lying".
Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a postscript to my previous message, I need to point out (for the record) that Paul never addresses whatever actual EVIDENCE is presented.  Normally, when there is some dispute over something, the parties involved address the specific evidence presented by their opponents.

However, Paul NEVER does that.  Instead, he routinely uses mis-direction in an attempt to SHIFT discussion off the most relevant points.

What are those "relevant points"?    Let's quickly summarize them -- because it is stunning to notice that Paul never addresses ANY of them:

(1)  PROPER CONTEXT must ALWAYS be acknowledged when any criticisms are being made.  In other words, one cannot ACCURATELY summarize or paraphrase or dispute whatever argument is being made UNLESS, FIRST, the correct CONTEXT is taken into account.

(2)  WHAT WAS THE CONTEXT FOR ALL MY PREVIOUS REMARKS?   I quote the relevant points again:

"NOBODY heard of Dr. Caufield before his book was published and NOBODY has heard of him since.   NOBODY refers to his book or debates its content.  He is NOT part of any informed discussion -- as proven by review of JFK websites or by a review of scores of books and articles which have been published since 2015 when Caufield's book was published.  The current Amazon ranking of Caufield's book is #1,129,944 in total sales.  Nor is his book discussed in academic journals or conferences.  What OTHER metric is applicable? 

(3)  Notice that Paul does not even attempt to address ANY of those points.

(A)  Does Paul claim that Dr. Caufield was known within the JFK research community BEFORE 2015?

(B)  Does Paul claim that Dr. Caufield's book has been repeatedly reviewed or discussed in academic journals or in JFK conferences after 2015?

(C)  Does Paul claim that any of the major JFK-assassination websites have discussed Caufield's book?  EXAMPLE:  How many references to Caufield are on Mary Ferrell's website?

(4)  What other points did I make? (i.e. THE CONTEXT for this dispute -- which Paul REFUSES to address because he cannot refute what I presented)

(A).  It is NOT relevant if historians AGREE upon one conclusion.  All that matters is the point you don't understand, namely, that historians and political scientists and journalists DON'T EVEN DISCUSS Harry Dean (or Caufield) as a relevant or credible narrative

(B)   With respect to:  "THAT HAPPENS TO BE A LIE"

(1)  Caufield is NOT a "serious JFK scholar".   

(2)   Caufield is a medical doctor who wrote something which NO serious person or publication has even bothered to review and it contains numerous factual errors.  Plus MANY of Caufield's footnotes are not even checkable because Caufield does NOT use standard bibliographic methods.  That is another reason why NO serious scholar or researcher bothers to consider it relevant.

[NOTE:  Does Paul dispute any of this?  Has Caufield's book been reviewed by any serious publication or website (other than Jim DiEugenio's detailed critique--which Paul has never refuted?)  Does Paul dispute that Caufield's book contains numerous factual errors?  Does Paul dispute that many of Caufield's footnotes are NOT checkable because he does not provide the relevant bibliographic information?]

(C)  Similarly, NOBODY even bothered to review your Ebook because it also was NOT a serious or even a well-documented publication

[NOTE:  Does Paul dispute this? If I recall correctly, Paul has written that he only sold about 20 copies of his Ebook!]

(D)  Serious historical narratives are always discussed in academic publications or at academic conferences or in other pertinent venues.  Their conclusions do NOT have to be "proven" BUT they must present something new which is widely recognized as a worthwhile contribution to the ongoing conversation about whatever matter is under scrutiny.  Caufield's book cannot even meet that lowest-standard of what constitutes something relevant.

[NOTE:  Does Paul dispute any of this?  Isn't it accurate and truthful to point out that serious historical narratives are ALWAYS discussed in academic and other venues AND serious narratives are routinely referenced in ongoing conversations about any historical controversy BUT Caufield's book is NOT discussed in these venues?]

(E)  Consequently, your statement that I lied is, in itself, a deliberate lie because you saw the context, you understood the context, and you deliberately chose to ignore the context.

(F)  IF you wanted to "prove" that I was not correct then you would have produced EVIDENCE to show that serious scholars and JFK websites routinely discuss or refer to Harry Dean's narrative OR that Dr. Caufield's book IS actually CURRENTLY discussed and referenced in online debates, in academic journals, in recent conferences devoted to discussing JFK assassination -- BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT, CAN YOU?

[NOTE:  Has Paul even attempted to address these points?  If not -- then why should we even consider him a serious, honest, or principled participant in this debate?]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have written numerous times, Dr. Caufield should be commended and praised for putting together so much information concerning the post-World War II history of the extreme right in the U.S.  There are very few comparable efforts and despite errors made by Caufield, he made a noteworthy contribution to our historical knowledge.

HOWEVER --  Caufield's contribution to JFK-assassination scholarship is an entirely separate matter.

(1)  Just FYI:  I just did a search for Caufield's name in the "Google Books" database.   I found a grand total of TWO references:

(A)  Page 616 of a 1998 book entitled "Live By the Sword" by Gus Russo -- where Caufield's name is listed among about 30 other names.  Apparently Caufield sent the book's author something.

(B)  A 1995 issue of "The Fourth Decade" newsletter (published by Jerry Rose).  Caufield is acknowledged as having sent some photos to Mr. Rose.

This tends to support my previous contention regarding the lack of interest by scholars and researchers in Caufield's Walker book.

(2)  My first awareness about Dr. Caufield (although at this time I did NOT associate him with JFK-research) was when I asked the FBI to send me a list of previous FOIA requesters on numerous subject matters.   

So, for example, I discovered that on October 28, 2005, Caufield was sent 602 pages of FBI documents pertaining to Edwin Walker. 

I also noticed that he made requests in 1999 on William Potter Gale and in 2006 he made an FOIA request on Pedro A. Del Valle and in 2004 he made an FOIA request on Kenneth Goff.

Insofar as Dr. Caufield received FBI files or documents in response to those requests, he probably received files and documents which the FBI had previously processed FOR ME -- because my requests preceded his requests by many years.   

For example: 

Caufield received his 602 pages of Walker documents in 2005 whereas I received 2629 pages on Edwin Walker in March 1995. 

Apparently, to reduce its workload, the FBI decided to NOT process a substantial portion of responsive records on Walker when they replied to the more recent FOIA requests.  In particular, the FBI decided to NOT process Walker-related documents arising from the 1962 University of Mississippi-Oxford controversy and there were also a couple other HQ files which are now no longer available.  One of them has always been of interest to me (HQ 97-3813) which contains serials regarding Walker's involvement (circa November 1965) with an attempt to overthrow the government of Costa Rica --- and there was also some discussion about Walker and the Dominican Republic.

Caufield's request on William Potter Gale was made in July 1999 whereas my request was made in June 1988 and his request on Del Valle was made in May 2006 whereas mine was made in October 1998 and his request on Kenneth Goff was made in August 2004 whereas mine was made in March 1988.

(3)  There ARE very brief references to Harry Dean in some JFK assassination books.  However, most of them are either one or two sentences OR sometimes only a paragraph.  Most of those references clearly express skepticism or outright hostility re: Harry's story and many append the word "claim" to Harry's assertions -- i.e. they don't take his comments seriously. 

As one prominent British conspiracy theorist pointed out in his JFK book:   "A man using the name Harry Dean, a self-styled former CIA and FBI agent, has claimed that he had infiltrated such a plot by members of the far right John Birch Society.  Dean has never been taken seriously by the Kennedy researchers..."

The newer the JFK-assassination book, the LESS likely that Dean's narrative is even mentioned.  And a review of JBS-assassination websites clearly reveals that Dean's narrative is just ignored.

(3)  So, bottom-line is this: 

Regardless of Paul Trejo's personal opinions -- it is simply INDISPUTABLE that my original comments regarding Caufield (and Harry Dean) were accurate and truthful.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

(3)  So, bottom-line is this: 

Regardless of Paul Trejo's personal opinions -- it is simply INDISPUTABLE that my original comments regarding Caufield (and Harry Dean) were accurate and truthful.

Yes Ernie, I was appalled by the cowardly expediency to which Paul Trejo resorted when he characterized your observation as "a lie".He had no choice though because it was impossible to refute your observation with any examples that might demonstrate that you were incorrect. 

The irony is glaringly evident.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...


Michael Paine, debated politics with JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, dies at 89


THE PRESS DEMOCRAT | March 15, 2018, 7:43PM

| Updated 1 hour ago.

Michael Paine of Sebastopol was a civil libertarian and retired aeronautical engineer who, while living outside Dallas in 1963, engaged in occasional political discussions with a self-identified Marxist named Lee Harvey Oswald.

Following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, he immediately thought of Oswald when he heard of the shooting “but dismissed him because I didn’t think he was that irrational,” Paine later told an interviewer.

In testimony before the Warren Commission, created to investigate the assassination of JFK, Paine said he did not regard Oswald as someone likely to kill a president.

“I saw he was a bitter person … very little charity in his view toward anybody, but I thought he was harmless,” he told the commission.

Through much of the 55 years since JFK’s murder, some conspiracy narratives have alleged that both Paine and his former wife, Santa Rosa resident Ruth Paine, were CIA operatives and framed Oswald.

Both rejected the scenario as ridiculous, declaring that their observations and knowledge of Oswald persuaded them that the killing of Kennedy was the work of him alone.

Michael Paine told an interviewer not long after the shooting, “I think it’s a lone wolf thing. The opportunity presented itself to him and he probably wanted to make a mark on society.”

Paine died March 1 in Sebastopol, where he had lived with or near his son the past 14 years. He was 89.

He was born in New York City on June 25, 1928, to architect and left-wing activist G. Lyman Paine and Ruth Forbes Young, founder of the International Peace Academy.

Michael Paine studied at Harvard and Swarthmore and was living in Pennsylvania when, in 1957, he married Ruth Avery Hyde. Two years later, Michael Hyde took a job with Bell Helicopter that required a relocation to Texas.

The couple settled in Irving, a suburb of Dallas. They had two children, Tamarin and Chris, when they separated amicably in the fall of 1962, then continued to spend time together as a family.

The children lived with Ruth Paine, a Quaker who has said she studied the Russian language in order to counter Cold War tensions by seeking out dialogue with Russian people.

In February 1963, she heard of a Russian woman who spoke no English, having recently moved to the U.S. with her young daughter and her husband, Lee Harvey Oswald. Ruth, now a retired teacher and school counselor living in Rincon Valley, has said she liked the idea of having someone with whom to practice her Russian.

So she reached out to the Oswalds. She invited her ex-husband, too, when she had 21-year-old Marina and Lee Oswald, 23, and baby June over for dinner. Ruth and Marina became friends.

That friendship on occasion brought Michael Paine and Lee Oswald together, and three or four times they engaged in political discussions. Paine, a liberal and longtime member of the American Civil Liberties Union, would later describe Oswald as a “pipsqueak,” but one whose politics he tried to understand.

“He told me he became a Marxist in this country by reading books and without having ever having met a communist,” Paine said in an interview following the assassination.

“With me he spoke very freely and he complained that with other people he couldn’t … they wouldn’t talk about political subjects. He would talk about nothing else.”

In interviews and in testimony before the Warren Commission, Paine described Oswald as a lonely man who seemed to like very few people. But in their conversations he never revealed hostility toward Kennedy.

“I expressed my appreciation of President Kennedy and he didn’t ever argue with me on that point,” Paine said in an interview.

In a 2013 essay he titled, “My Experience with Lee Harvey Oswald,” Paine recalled that Oswald once declared emphatically that “change only comes through violence.”

“I’d also heard him say that President Kennedy was the best president he had in his lifetime. Looking back on what happened, these two statements seem impossibly contradictory … how could a man want to kill a president whom he thought was the best president he’d had in his lifetime?”

Though Michael Paine remained no more than an acquaintance to the Oswalds, Ruth took Marina Oswald under her wing and tried to be helpful to her struggling family.

Ruth, who became a key witness to the Warren Commission, has said she was hoping to bring a degree of stability to the Oswalds when, in the fall of 1963, she told Lee Oswald about a job opening she’d heard of — at the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas.

Oswald was hired. He rented a room near the job. In late September, Marina accepted an invitation by Ruth live with her and her children in Irving, about a 20-minute drive from Dallas

Ruth Paine allowed the Oswalds to store most of their belongings in her garage. For weeks, Lee Oswald, who had no car or drivers license, hitched a ride to Ruth’s house after work on Fridays, then spent the weekend there with his family.

It surprised Ruth Paine when Oswald appeared at her home unannounced on a Thursday — Nov. 21, 1963. Later that night, she walked into the garage and found the light was on, causing her to wonder who’d been in there.

When she arose the next morning, Lee Oswald was already up and gone. He’d left a coffee cup in the kitchen sink.

At 12:30 that afternoon, gunshots killed JFK as he sat beside his wife, Jacqueline, in the back of a convertible Cadillac just after the presidential motorcade passed by the book depository.

It would soon dawn on the Paines that Lee Harvey Oswald had hidden his scoped, bolt-action rifle in Ruth’s garage.

In the 9,400-word “My Experience with Lee Harvey Oswald,” Michael Paine wrote that he believed the assassin acted alone and decided only shortly before Nov. 22, 1963, to do something that would make himself infamous.

“The nation would remember him as the one who had shot the president of the strongest capitalist nation of the world,” Paine wrote. “He wanted to be important — not inconsequential. He would be in the history books now, and that is what he wanted.”

Both of the Paines testified before the Warren Commission in 1964, Ruth more extensively because of her nearly yearlong friendship with Marina Oswald and her many encounters with Marina’s controlling husband.

In time, the Paines left Texas. Michael Paine lived and worked in Concord, Massachusetts, and was active in coastal conservation and supported Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. He moved to Sonoma County in 2004.

He and his son, Chris Panym, founded near Sebastopol a “multi-household, multi-age, multi-enterprise community” they called Green Valley Village. They were unable to bring it to fruition.

Chris Panym said that as his father approached aged 90 he lost his memory but all his life was committed to championing the environment and civil liberty.

In addition to his son in Sebastopol and his former wife in Santa Rosa, Paine is survived by his daughter, Tamarin Laurel-Paine of Middlefield, Massachusetts.

There will be a memorial service at 1 p.m. on April 14 in the library at Friends House in Rincon Valley. Panym asks people interested in attending to RSVP to him at 707-861-1169.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 11/11/2015 at 10:50 AM, Gary Buell said:

I am about 400 pages into this massive book. One minor quibble. He writes that the Milteer-Touchstone correspondence, including the "top gun" memo, is first revealed in his book, when actually i had posted it here and in my blog ten years ago. http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/search?q=touchstone I had come across it following up a lead from Joan Mellon's book, and attained it from the Louisiana library at Shreveport.

Also, from what i have read so far, he disposes of David Atlee Phillips in a paragraph, and suggests that Veciana mistook de Morenschildt for Phillips, which is ludicrous.

Hi Gary, I was hoping you could give us more of your take on this book?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

New Group of JFK Assassination Documents Available to the Public
Press Release ·Thursday, April 26, 2018


In accordance with President Trump’s direction on October 26, 2017, the National Archives today posted 19,045 documents subject to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act).   Released documents are available for download.  The versions released today were processed by agencies in accordance with the President’s direction that agency heads be extremely circumspect in recommending any further postponement.  

The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection, established by the National Archives in November 1992, consists of approximately five million pages.  The vast majority of the collection has been publicly available without any restrictions since the late 1990s.  As permitted by the JFK Act, agencies appealed to the President to continue postponement of certain information beyond October 26, 2017.  The President provided agencies with a temporary certification until April 26, 2018 to allow for a re-review of all documents withheld in full or in part under section 5 of the JFK Act and directed agencies to “identify as much as possible that may be publicly disclosed” and to be “extremely circumspect in recommending any further postponement.”

Based on reviews conducted by agencies in accordance with the President’s direction, the National Archives released 3,539 documents on Dec. 15, 10,744 documents on Nov. 17, 13,213 documents on Nov. 9, and 676 documents on Nov. 3 of last year.  The 19,045 documents released today represent the final release of documents in accordance with the President’s direction on October 26, 2017.

All documents subject to section 5 of the JFK Act have been released in full or in part.  No documents subject to section 5 of the JFK Act remain withheld in full.  The President has determined that all information that remains withheld under section 5 must be reviewed again before October 26, 2021 to determine whether continued withholding from disclosure is necessary. 


Online Resources:
The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection
Documenting the Death of a President
JFK Assassination Records Review Board
The work of the Kennedy Assassination Records Collection
JFK Assassination Records FAQs
Warren Commission Report

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who might be interested:

My following paper FBI files have now been converted into PDF files by the Center for Right Wing Studies at University of California—Berkeley through the generous donation of Southern Poverty Law Center. 

These files have been uploaded onto my Internet Archive webpage (link below)


NOTE:  The searchable version of each file is often the one captioned “PDF with text”.   If there is no such listing, then the plain “PDF” option might be searchable.

Americans for the Preservation of the White Race (Jackson 157-347)

Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (Boston 61-189)

APP, Austin J. (HQ 100-210108)

BARNETT, Ross R. (Jackson 157-1019)

California Senate Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities (HQ 62-2017)

Christian Educational Association (HQ 105-9621)

Christian Educational Association/Conde J. McGinley Sr. (New York City 105-6188)

Christian Educational Association/Conde J. McGinley Sr. (Newark 105-1910)

Christian Educational Association/Conde J. McGinley Sr. (Philadelphia 105-1646)

Christian Educational Association/Conde J. McGinley Sr. (San Francisco 105-1997)

Columbian Workers Movement aka The Columbians (Atlanta 105-74)

Conservative Society of America/Kent and Phoebe Courtney (HQ 62-107722)

DIES JR., Martin (HQ 62-101944)

DONNER, Robert Newsom (Denver 62-557)

GOFF, Kenneth (HQ 62-80382)

HOLLIS, Louis W. (Jackson 157-3265)

JOSEPHSON, Emmanuel Mann (HQ 100-302583)

LEWIS JR., Fulton (HQ 62-105261)

MCGINLEY Sr., Conde Joseph/Christian Educational Association (Newark 100-12252)

National Citizens Protective Association (HQ 105-16510)

National Citizens Protective Association (Salt Lake City 105-231)

National Law Enforcement Committee/Millard Dee Grubbs (HQ 105-69012)

National Patrick Henry Organization/Jessie Welch Jenkins (HQ 105-10101)

Nationalist Conservative Party/William B. Wernecke (Chicago 105-2790)

Nationalist White Party/Ben Klassen (Miami 157-4180)

RICAU, Jackson G./South Louisiana Citizens Council (HQ 105-115345)

Washington State Joint Legislative Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities (Seattle 100-18606)

WILLIAMS, Robert Henry (Major)/Williams Intelligence Summary (HQ 105-10091)

WILLIAMS, Robert Henry (Major)/Williams Intelligence Summary (HQ 105-10091, serials #55-#92)

WILLIAMS, Robert Henry (Major)/Williams Intelligence Summary (Los Angeles 105-666)

Young Americans For Freedom (San Francisco 100-47991)


The following files are scheduled to be uploaded into my Internet Archive webpage during June or July 2018

Alford, Thomas Dale (Little Rock 80-380)

American Nationalist, The (newsletter)/Frank L. Britton (San Diego 100-9218)

American Nazi Party (HQ 105-70374 misc. serials)

Americans for the Preservation of the White Race (New Orleans 157-36)

Bombings With Racial or Religious Bias (San Francisco 100-44426)

Brown, Julia (HQ 100-382107, Los Angeles—misc serials)

Byers, Louis T. (Baltimore 157-4865 and WFO 157-3239)

Christian Anti-Jewish Party (San Francisco 100-44438)

Christian Defense League (HQ 62-105253)

Christian Educational Association/Conde J. McGinley Sr. (HQ 105-9621, misc serials)

Christian Nationalist Party/Gerald L.K. Smith (Boston 100-23897)

Christian Youth for America/Kenneth Goff (HQ 105-7231)

Citizens Councils and States’ Rights Movement (HQ 105-34237)

Citizens Councils of West Alabama (Birmingham 105-299)

COINTELPRO: White Hate Groups (Jacksonville 157-863)

Congress of Freedom (HQ 105-18057)

Constitution Party (Indianapolis 105-3292 and New York City 105-10119)

Crommelin, John G. (HQ 62-91575 and HQ 100-441764)

Defenders of State Sovereignty and Individual Liberties (Norfolk 105-236)

Freedman, Benjamin Harrison (NYC 105-13716, HQ 62-102412)

Gale, William Potter (San Diego 100-13121)

Identity Group/Posse Comitatus (Cleveland 157-6060)

Klan-Type Organizations and Hate Groups (HQ 157-7)

Ku Klux Klan (Philadelphia 61-142)

Let Freedom Ring (New York City 100-153164)

Liberty and Property/Willis Carto/”Right” newsletter (San Francisco 105-3824, San Francisco 105-4222 HQ 105-47766)

Maryland Petition Committee (WFO 100-32942)

National Alliance (HQ 157-12589 and HQ 100-487473 and WFO 157-6371)

National Association for the Advancement of White People (HQ 105-18867)

National Renaissance Party/James H. Madole (New York City 105-6112)

National Socialist Movement (HQ 157-34518)

National States Rights Party (Jackson 105-12, San Francisco 100-44218)

National Youth Alliance (NYC 157-3447, WFO 157-2278, Detroit 157-4114, and Dallas 157-2059)

New Christian Crusade Church/James K. Warner (Los Angeles 157-6864)

Oliver, Revilo P. (Springfield 157-4307, Office of Personnel Mgmt, HQ 65-45027 and Dallas x-refs)

Philbrick, Herbert Arthur (HQ 100-365248)

Pierce, William Luther (Los Angeles 100-73026, WFO 157-2396)

Schuyler, George (New York City 100-24048)

Sensing, Thurman (HQ x-refs)

Shelton, Robert Marvin (HQ 157-552)

Silent Guardians Inc. (HQ 62-106826 and Los Angeles 65-5323)

Soldiers of the Cross/Kenneth Goff (Denver 105-123)

Stoner, J.B. (HQ 56-4720 and HQ 157-97 and HQ 56-4720)

Swift, Wesley Albert (HQ 157-355454, San Diego 105-134)

Synon, John J. (HQ 62-109151)

Truth About Civil Turmoil/John Birch Society front group (11 field offices x-refs)

Volunteers for Alabama and Wallace (HQ 157-822)

We, The People!/Harry Everingham (Chicago 105-2857, HQ 105-50496)

White Citizens Council of Dallas (Dallas 105-484)

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Enemies of the State: The Radical Right in America from FDR to Trump


The rise of the alt-right alongside Donald Trump’s candidacy may be seem unprecedented events in the history of the United States, but D. J. Mulloy shows us that the radical right has been a long and active part of American politics during the twentieth century. From the German-American Bund to the modern militia movement, D. J. Mulloy provides a guide for anyone interested in examining the roots of the radical right in the U.S.—in all its many varied forms—going back to the days of the Great Depression, the New Deal and the extraordinary political achievements of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Enemies of the State offers an informative and highly readable introduction to some of the key developments and events of recent American history including: the fear of the Communist subversion of American society in the aftermath of the Second World War; the rise of the civil rights movement and the “white backlash” this elicited; the apparent decline of liberalism and the ascendancy of conservatism during the economic malaise of the 1970s; Ronald Reagan’s triumphant presidential victory in 1980; and the Great Recession of 2007-08 and subsequent election of President Obama



Political Extremism & Radicalism in the Twentieth Century: Far-Right and Left Political Groups in the U.S., Europe, and Australia combines content on far-right and fascist movements, alongside significant coverage of radical left groups, allowing researchers to access material from both sides, and providing points for comparison.  By providing primary source material from both sides in one comprehensive, meticulously indexed resource, Gale makes it possible for researchers to make connections not previously discoverable. Researchers in contemporary topics will also find value in the content, allowing them to explore the origins and development of present-day issues, including the resurgence of right-wing politics, evolution of various civil rights movements and the nature of extreme or radical political thought.


As one of the first digital archives on far-right and far-left political groups, Political Extremism & Radicalism in the Twentieth Century: Far-Right and Left Political Groups in the U.S., Europe, and Australiacontains over 600,000 pages of content and 42 oral histories making it the most extensive resource of its kind.  Political Extremism & Radicalism in the Twentieth Century: Far-Right and Left Political Groups in the U.S., Europe, and Australia offers researchers a diverse range of content, including campaign materials, propaganda, government records, and various ephemera that when combined with the Gale Primary Sources technology, enable researchers to explore extremism and radicalism in new and innovative ways. 

A deeper look at the sub-collections:

Since 1970, the American Radicalism Collection at Michigan State University has been collecting ephemera on radical political groups, across a range of extremist movements including those involved in religion, race, gender, the environment, and equal rights. The collection covers four general categories , each with a different focus: leftist politics and anti-war movements; religion and the radical right; race, gender and equal rights; and social, economic and environmental movements. The collection also includes materials on such topics as survivalism, Holocaust denial, creationism, and anti-Catholicism from groups like John Birch Society and the Black Panther Party. 

The Hall-Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed Propaganda, from Brown University, includes printed propaganda from US anti-integrationist, anti-Semitic and racist groups from the post-World War II period to the present. The collection began when Gordon Hall, a young veteran of the Pacific Theatre during the war, first encountered the printed propaganda issued by domestic hate-your-neighbor organizations/groups in the late 1940's. Includes publications of Anti-Abortion organizations; Anti-Integrationist organizations; Anti-Semitic and Racist political parties; Christian Identity organizations; Communist organizations;  Congressional investigating committees; Cults and Alternative religions; Extreme Left-Wing publishers; Ku Klux Klan organizations; LaRouche organizations; Militant Anti-Communist organizations; Militant Populist organizations; Neo-Nazi organizations; Pacifist organizations; Racial and Ethnic Consciousness organizations; Right-Wing Christian religious organizations; and Right-Wing publishers. 

The Searchlight Archive, held at the University of Northampton in the UK, consists of documents from Searchlight Associates, an information service founded in 1967 that aimed to expose racist and fascist groups. In 1975 it launched a magazine, Searchlight, intended to promote intelligence on the far-right from around the world. This archive includes oral histories from activists who acted as undercover informants on far-right organisations or members of anti-fascist groups.  The interviews are available within the platform both as audio recordings as well as searchable transcripts. This archive also includes various ephemera including booklets, leaflets and posters.

Working with the National Archives in the UK, Gale has digitized government documents relating to inter- and post-war British extremist movements. These include Security Service personal files on right-wing extremists, suspected communists and terrorists as well as Home Office papers on detainees, such as Oswald Mosley, who were related to far-right groups including the British Union of Fascists, British National Party, Imperial Fascist League, the Nordic League and The Link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

the Gale link is not working at this time.

Ya---they probably will correct it within a few hours.  The link is not operating in any webpage that discusses it.  There is, however, a YouTube video which discusses their new database:  


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...