"

I'm not following Dennis' logic here. The reference entirely supports the information in the National alliance article (and by the way, that newspaper is at least a worthy enough source as the defunct obscure newspaper where Redwood's letter to the editor appeared that is quoted at length. This is what the Friedman article says:

He also suggested consulting with Political Research Associates (PRA), a left-liberal investigative outfit with deep roots in the counterintelligence movement. Among its top researchers is former Public Eye editor Chip Berlet. PRA has been funded, in large part, by Richard Denis-a multi-millionaire Chicago commodities trader who was also one of the largest individual contributors to the Democratic Party in 1993. Bragging that he and researchers had worked with PRA ""for many years,"" King said: ""They have the best files in the country on political cults.""
.........
Berlet, like King, has suspiciously changed his public views on NAP over the years. In 1984, when he first took over as editor of Public Eye, Berlet told Newman in a phone interview set up at Berlet's request to set the record straight regarding the Public Eye's 1977 accusation that Newman was a cultist and a LaRouchite, ""I'm the new kid on the block at Public Eye. I'm the new editor as opposed to the old editor, and if there was some way I could avoid having to write articles about this ongoing topic [NAP], I would. Our analysis of your group has changed over the past few years, drastically with my assumption to editor."" The next issue of Public Eye contained the following editor's note: ""As you will learn from a forthcoming article on Fred Newman and the IWP [International Workers Party, a group that Newman had headed up in the mid seventies], the Public Eye no longer feels it is accurate to call Newman's political network a cult.""
That ""forthcoming"" article, however, never appeared. Instead, three years later, right after Democratic Party high roller Denis contributed $75,000 to PRA, Berlet's Clouds Blur the Rainbow did.
The article clearly cites this in a NPOV manner as a claim that was made in a Newman publication, not as  fact, just like the claims of Redwood and every other critic and self-styled ""expert"" whose opinions permeate this article to a ridiculous extent already.  "