View Full Version : John Birch Society - How are we different?
FrankRep
07-04-2010, 08:30 AM
http://www.votervoice.net/Files/JBS/Images/JBSemailheader.jpg (http://www.jbs.org/)
John Birch Society - How are we different?
by Arthur R. Thompson, JBS (http://www.jbs.org/) CEO
July 2010
Our members are often asked how we are different from other organizations when they are trying to recruit new members into our educational army.
It is the differences that set us apart from the rest of the field of constitutional and morally-centered organizations. These differences are what have invited Insider attacks on The John Birch Society, and the more subtle, constant propaganda attack on us within the conservative movement injected by agents of the Insiders.
Our Society cannot be successful without members; it is that simple. So the attacks leveled at us must discourage membership by any means possible if the Insiders are to succeed. One of the most successful lies injected into the conservative movement has been that people will be more effective without Society membership.
Since it is organization that will win out in the long run, the exact opposite of the above is true.
Some good people feel that they can be more effective by staying out of The John Birch Society in the face of controversy. They have fallen for the oldest trick of the Insiders. There is no comfort zone for true opposition to the collectivist onslaught.
Let us enumerate the basic differences that set us apart.
Leadership
We provide more services and programs than other organizations simply because we are an umbrella organization. We were not formed to be a single-issue organization. We were formed to give the entire movement leadership and direction which it did not have prior to Robert Welch.
When Robert Welch formed The John Birch Society there were approximately 4,000 so-called conservative organizations, each doing its own thing, rarely uniting in a common cause and when they did it was without real organization with active local units working with a central plan and leadership. It remains the same today.
Individualists remain individualists while collectivists organize.
In fact, the history of fighting evil and collectivism over the centuries by the lovers of liberty has been a record of disorganization on the part of patriots. Good and individualism triumphed usually due to evil and collectivism’s mistakes, infighting, and the exhaustion of the particular civilization and collectivism’s subsequent collapse due to the inevitable results of such a system.
Since we were founded by Robert Welch to give leadership and direction to the entire movement, we have to look at everything. This does not mean we get involved in everything. We have to take a look at what is the most important and dwell on those things as activities. Likewise, we look at the weaknesses in the programs and organization of those who wish to drive a dagger through the Constitution and focus our efforts there.
In this manner, we can concentrate our small forces at a point of the other side’s weakness which will give us a better chance for ultimately routing them with an important defeat in their agenda.
We also need to focus on the long term rather than the short term. In other words, we need to work on things that will have a decisive effect down the road, and will be a major roadblock to the Insider agenda. Just as the Insiders plan out years in advance, we need to do likewise.
While it is true that we have and will continue to address a wide multitude of current issues and news in our media outlets, it will be for informational purposes and temporary activity, such as constituent pressure on a particular issue. Organizational and action programs will be something else and will be handled in the manner outlined above.
No other organization on our side is really what one could call an organization in the fullest sense. We mean no criticism of others; we simply are trying to point out weaknesses that have caused the movement to be less effective and why the Society had to be formed in the first place to fill a vacuum that existed — and still would without our existence.
The Americanist movement has never really studied the conspiratorial organizations of the one-world socialists and why they are successful. Everyone assumes that they are successful simply due to their secrecy and the deliberate dumbing down of the people. While these things benefit them, they are not the reason for their success. Their success comes about primarily because they are organized right down to the neighborhood level and are monolithic in their leadership.
They have a central command, if you will. They all work on the same thing at the same time. In this manner they are concentrating their efforts all across the broad landscape of the country, indeed the world, on the same thing at the same time. This creates a synergy and seeming widespread agreement in their program even though it emanates from a very small group of people, albeit a more and more influential group, since they have created a myriad of front groups.
The Society does likewise, except for the secrecy aspect and the fact that we stand for the Constitution and the liberal arts underpinning of that document which we refer to as Americanism: the American system of liberty.
Organization
The John Birch Society is organized with members who engage in group activity through a network of chapters.
Members, working in unison with a national program and leadership, create a dynamic synergy in local communities through concerted action as they work both as individuals and together on our programs.
To be able to build this style of organization, finance it, and run it, entails a great deal of effort and not a little frustration when having to deal with individualists who all know the best ways in which to attack the enemy, educate the people, formulate the websites, what colors to use in the magazine, and a multitude of other differences.
Most other leaders do not want this level of labor, stress, financial, and personal burden.
Social networking and with it a proliferation of new services online providing instant communications among huge numbers of people is an astonishing development in our lifetime. The upside is the ability to disseminate information outside of the insider-controlled media to millions; also, to coordinate any number of people into some form of action. The downside is that the Internet could be used in a vacuum, in exclusion of the boots on the ground that are a prerequisite for saving our freedom. Yet, the Internet, properly used as a communications and organizational tool, can facilitate and orchestrate far more boots-on-the-ground activity than otherwise would be possible.
The Internet can give the semblance of organization, but while it is no substitute for personal interaction, it may be used to set the stage for personal interaction. Recent studies of the desires of people who are online indicate that they wish to deal with people in a personal manner rather than online.
We must utilize the web but build personal relationships in our local areas at the same time. The reasons are:
1. Trust. Only through trust can we rely on our neighbors and they in us. In a system of freedom, this is absolutely necessary.
2. Reliance. This is built on trust. In times of crisis, you will rely on those you know, have worked with, and have depended on.
3. Respect. You respect those with whom you have a personal relationship. During times of crisis, people will look to those they know and respect for leadership and advice, and work with them.
4. Local governance. Local government requires the idea of neighborhoods rather than a nebulous community. Local control and rights will deteriorate the more people in their local community are strangers who do not work together to maintain local control and rights.
Paul Revere would be a failure in today’s fractured society. He built up trust by working with people in the outlying communities of Boston so that on the night of his famous ride, the people didn’t say it’s some nut yelling something about the British, and then roll over and go back to sleep. They said, “Oh, it’s Paul, we have to muster” — because they knew and trusted him.
The same applies to the dissemination of information, particularly in a situation where the information is conflicting. Who do you listen to and take advice from, a stranger or someone you know and trust?
Why do we need social networking online? Except in rural America, we live in a socially fractured society. We need networking to make social connections within a fractured society. We can either allow the social online community to further fracture our local communities, or we can use it as a tool to make the necessary contacts to rebuild relationships. It is not an “either-or” world.
So while we will be using the Internet, we must at the same time promote as much as possible the interaction of people in their neighborhoods and cities, particularly through our chapters.
Our members are asked to plan local outreach programs to family, peers, and opinion molders. Too often, we see other organizations hold events but not spend the time, energy, and money in building a broad base of understanding through a true outreach program. We mean no disrespect in our remarks, it is usually due to the fact that they have never studied what it takes to really achieve victory through the use of organization and what outreach really means.
It is difficult to build understanding in a community unless you have local units of organization.
Morally Based
To preserve our heritage means engaging in moral responsibility and this is not well understood in today’s society.
Our motto, “Less Government, More Responsibility, and —with God’s Help — a Better World,” embodies what we stand for. The responsibility aspect means responsibility across a broad spectrum, not just individual responsibility. More often than not, individual responsibility is carried out through group action: your family, church, business, civic club, social clubs, local government, etc.
Now to state that we are morally based as a reason that we stand apart can sometimes raise eyebrows since there are many morally based organizations in existence. But the vast majority of them are tax-deductible entities which cannot engage in action. They can educate, but cannot participate or they will lose their tax deductible status.
This is why Robert Welch founded The John Birch Society as a not-for-profit, but not tax-deductible, corporation. In this manner we can engage in action and as a private corporation, keep our membership and donors confidential.
Some groups are quite large when judged by the membership and supporters. This makes them look more successful than they really are. While these organizations stand for much of what we stand for, the difference is that large groups can readily grow when their membership is asked to do very little in the way of outreach. It is again, that comfort zone. Our whole process is based on outreach, constantly building the base of understanding.
Moral responsibility includes taking responsibility to pass on our heritage to our children, to get involved, as well as preserving a moral community.
Robert Welch often quoted James Anthony Froude, who said, “Morality, when vigorously alive, sees farther than intellect, and provides unconsciously for intellectual difficulties.” Robert Welch often pointed out that the decline in morality was the worst danger that we face as a nation.
We see a dangerous development within some of the younger organizations that seem to eschew the notion of a moral basis for our battle. Another is that too many while professing a love of the Constitution are embracing New Age ideas that will ultimately call into question the very foundations of the Constitution.
We could win the fight to get rid of the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and myriad economically based problems and in the end still lose if we did not
address moral issues at the same time. For John Adams said it well when he stated, “The Constitution is for a moral people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
We must have people who understand that our rights come from God and that it is the primary purpose of our government to protect those rights. And, quite simply, if there is a God, and we firmly affirm that there is, then God must have his standards. This is where everyone gets into trouble, for no two men fully agree what they are anymore than spouses always agree.
We, in The John Birch Society, have drawn a circle of faith to protect these God-given rights, wide enough for almost all of us to step inside — encompassing the Ten Commandments — and work together. For if we do not work together, we surely will hang together.
As a result of this faith, we steadfastly oppose abortion, and many other moral problems that, in the long run, destroy civilization.
And there can be no doubt that the deterioration of our civilization would be much slower than it has been if it was not being pushed in that direction by a Master Conspiracy.
Exposing Conspiracy
When it comes to conspiracy, the Insiders have done a fair job of trying to get people to do one of two things: pooh-pooh any thought of conspiracy, or to think that everything is a conspiracy. The latter helps feed the outlook of the former by the outrageous ideas of some conspiracy-exposing groups. We will not go into what I am addressing here other than to say that when it is obvious to all but a handful that some conspiracies simply do not exist, the promotion of such ideas hurts the exposure of the real conspiracy.
Likewise, the communist infiltration into conservative circles to promote unproven conspiracies is damaging the whole idea of exposing the real conspiracy.
The exposure of the Master Conspiracy in a responsible manner is very important to the future understanding of our citizens. What we see happening is not as the result of ignorance or mistakes on the part of our politicians, academics, generals, and others. It is the result of a secret organization that has created a systematic web of groups and parties to bring about a power structure that they believe they will rule.
People have been fooled into thinking that the march toward socialism is for the benefit of the people. Surely, one would think that the examples of socialism under Hitler and Stalin would suffice to show this error.
The problem is that on the way toward total power, some of the people benefit by programs designed to accumulate that power, such as the welfare, government retirement, and healthcare programs. They do not understand that once total power is in place, all will be forced to work for the state or die, either through mass starvation or by shorter means. People cannot believe that those coming into power are as cruel as they are — until it is too late.
Even if they do not intend to become cruel, the cardinal rule is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Hitler and Stalin were always shown to be men of the people, posing with little children bearing flowers, even while they were actually recluses and standoffish from the common man. Their image was projected through propaganda machines which we call, in our case, the establishment media. Once total power was established, the velvet gloves came off.
Hitler and Stalin were only singular men. How did they come to power? By organizing, and hiding their evil purpose. Even when they wrote books and published exactly what they were going to do, it was done in language designed to hide the horror of their intentions.
People want to believe the best of their leaders. We have to educate them into believing more in the Constitution and how Jefferson explained, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Experience
And this is where experience pays off. We know the players. We know their strategy. We know the wiles of seemingly good solutions that lead either to dead ends or the destruction of the Constitution. We have dealt with
these things for over 50 years.
There is plenty of “experience” available if one thinks only in terms of the issues. Down through the ages, great men have left us a vast legacy of common sense and sound philosophy in books, in addition to Scripture. It should be obvious that the promotion of unsound policies and programs that lead ultimately to totalitarianism are wrong. Why then are these unsound policies promoted if the reason is for the good of the people?
It cannot be that it is due to the lack of education on the part of those promoting such policies. It cannot be that the wisdom of the ages has not been provided to them, either through their education or on the part of people who do understand and have sent these works to them to educate them away from their “mistakes.” Power-hungry men have decided the course they will take.
We are not dealing with issues, what we are dealing with are people. Evil people conspire together to organize themselves into positions of power. It has always been so. Over the centuries, just as good people have written down sound philosophy, the evil of the world have written how to accumulate power and sell it as something good to an unsuspecting populace.
Human nature does not change, but each new generation believes itself to be different, that they will not repeat the “mistakes” of the past. People have a hard time believing that their generation can produce the evil they only see in the history books and not before their very eyes.
In addition, much has been written over time on how to infiltrate whatever group, government, or publication that may stand in the way of the accumulation of power and misdirect them, subtly or overtly. This too, requires organization.
To recognize these problems and to deal with them takes a particular mindset and years of accumulated experience to recognize the players, especially those who ingratiate themselves into conservative groups, then take them off target. In the last two years, we have seen three notable instances of people professing conservative values but having a history of leftist involvement trying to move into positions of influence within constitutionalist groups. In only one of these cases was the attempt completely thwarted — an attempt to infiltrate The John Birch Society.
Experience counts
And so does the manner in which we are organized. For we also have another very important reason that we keep our chapters small. The reason is if something does get by us and we are infiltrated, the only damage they can do is minimal based in the size of the unit they are able to influence.
Experience will continue to count more and more now that a close confidant of Obama in the administration, Cass Sunstein, head of an Orwellian sounding agency, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has written a paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — and others — which advocate that we are victims of a conspiracy within the government.
It will take all the differences we see between ourselves and other groups to enable us to provide leadership and direction to the entire movement. Not only as to the problems we face, but more importantly, their solutions.
This is why Robert Welch formed us as a very different style of organization. One that can get the job done, provided we mean business every step of the way.
SOURCE:
John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/
ernie1241
07-05-2010, 07:00 AM
Mr. Thompson neglected to mention the single most important "difference" between the JBS and most other right-wing organizations.
Very few right wing organizations were created from the predicate that most of our national leaders and government officials have been traitors consciously working for our demise as a free society. Or as JBS founder Robert Welch declared:
“From a careful and realistic study of the mountainous pile of evidence that is there for all to see, certain terrifying conclusions are objectively inescapable. Among them are:
(1) The Communists are winning their large victories, as they always have, through the cumulative effect of small gains;
(2) They make these gains chiefly through the conniving assistance of many of the very diplomats and officials who are supposed to be opposing them;
(3) Communist influences are now in almost complete working control of our government;
(4) And hence, the United States Government is today, as it has been for many years, the most important and powerful single force promoting the world-wide Communist advance.” [A Confidential Report To Members Of The Council of The John Birch Society – minutes of 1/9/60 meeting held at Union League Club in Chicago IL, page 1-2; minutes signed by Robert Welch.]
Furthermore, according to the minutes of this meeting, Robert Welch stated:
"Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists." [Ibid, page 2]
"In our two states with the largest population, New York and California ...already the two present Governors are almost certainly actual Communists...Our Congress now contains a number of men like Adam Clayton Powell of New York and Charles Porter of Oregon, who are certainly actual Communists, and plenty more who are sympathetic to Communist purposes for either ideological or opportunistic reasons." [Ibid, page 7] [Note: the reference to Governors refers to Edmund G. Brown of California and Nelson Rockefeller of New York.]
"In the Senate, there are men like Stephen Young of Ohio, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, McNamara of Michigan, and Clifford Case of New Jersey and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whom it is utter folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference..." [Ibid, page 8]
“Our Supreme Court, dominated by Earl Warren and Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black, is so visibly pro-Communist that no argument is even needed…And our federal courts below that level…are in many cases just as bad.” [Ibid, page 8]
"Our State Department is loaded with Communists from top to bottom, to the extent that our roll call of Ambassadors almost sounds like a list somebody has put together to start a Communist front." ... [Ibid, page 8]
"It is estimated from many reliable sources that from 70% to 90% of the responsible personnel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are Communists. Our Central Intelligence Agency under Allen Dulles is nothing more or less than an agency to promote Communism throughout the world...Almost all the other Departments are loaded with Communists and Communist sympathizers. And this generalization most specifically does include our whole Defense Department." [Ibid, page 8]
http://www.votervoice.net/Files/JBS/Images/JBSemailheader.jpg (http://www.jbs.org/)
John Birch Society - How are we different?
by Arthur R. Thompson, JBS (http://www.jbs.org/) CEO
July 2010
Our members are often asked how we are different from other organizations when they are trying to recruit new members into our educational army.
It is the differences that set us apart from the rest of the field of constitutional and morally-centered organizations. These differences are what have invited Insider attacks on The John Birch Society, and the more subtle, constant propaganda attack on us within the conservative movement injected by agents of the Insiders.
Our Society cannot be successful without members; it is that simple. So the attacks leveled at us must discourage membership by any means possible if the Insiders are to succeed. One of the most successful lies injected into the conservative movement has been that people will be more effective without Society membership.
Since it is organization that will win out in the long run, the exact opposite of the above is true.
Some good people feel that they can be more effective by staying out of The John Birch Society in the face of controversy. They have fallen for the oldest trick of the Insiders. There is no comfort zone for true opposition to the collectivist onslaught.
Let us enumerate the basic differences that set us apart.
Leadership
We provide more services and programs than other organizations simply because we are an umbrella organization. We were not formed to be a single-issue organization. We were formed to give the entire movement leadership and direction which it did not have prior to Robert Welch.
When Robert Welch formed The John Birch Society there were approximately 4,000 so-called conservative organizations, each doing its own thing, rarely uniting in a common cause and when they did it was without real organization with active local units working with a central plan and leadership. It remains the same today.
Individualists remain individualists while collectivists organize.
In fact, the history of fighting evil and collectivism over the centuries by the lovers of liberty has been a record of disorganization on the part of patriots. Good and individualism triumphed usually due to evil and collectivism’s mistakes, infighting, and the exhaustion of the particular civilization and collectivism’s subsequent collapse due to the inevitable results of such a system.
Since we were founded by Robert Welch to give leadership and direction to the entire movement, we have to look at everything. This does not mean we get involved in everything. We have to take a look at what is the most important and dwell on those things as activities. Likewise, we look at the weaknesses in the programs and organization of those who wish to drive a dagger through the Constitution and focus our efforts there.
In this manner, we can concentrate our small forces at a point of the other side’s weakness which will give us a better chance for ultimately routing them with an important defeat in their agenda.
We also need to focus on the long term rather than the short term. In other words, we need to work on things that will have a decisive effect down the road, and will be a major roadblock to the Insider agenda. Just as the Insiders plan out years in advance, we need to do likewise.
While it is true that we have and will continue to address a wide multitude of current issues and news in our media outlets, it will be for informational purposes and temporary activity, such as constituent pressure on a particular issue. Organizational and action programs will be something else and will be handled in the manner outlined above.
No other organization on our side is really what one could call an organization in the fullest sense. We mean no criticism of others; we simply are trying to point out weaknesses that have caused the movement to be less effective and why the Society had to be formed in the first place to fill a vacuum that existed — and still would without our existence.
The Americanist movement has never really studied the conspiratorial organizations of the one-world socialists and why they are successful. Everyone assumes that they are successful simply due to their secrecy and the deliberate dumbing down of the people. While these things benefit them, they are not the reason for their success. Their success comes about primarily because they are organized right down to the neighborhood level and are monolithic in their leadership.
They have a central command, if you will. They all work on the same thing at the same time. In this manner they are concentrating their efforts all across the broad landscape of the country, indeed the world, on the same thing at the same time. This creates a synergy and seeming widespread agreement in their program even though it emanates from a very small group of people, albeit a more and more influential group, since they have created a myriad of front groups.
The Society does likewise, except for the secrecy aspect and the fact that we stand for the Constitution and the liberal arts underpinning of that document which we refer to as Americanism: the American system of liberty.
Organization
The John Birch Society is organized with members who engage in group activity through a network of chapters.
Members, working in unison with a national program and leadership, create a dynamic synergy in local communities through concerted action as they work both as individuals and together on our programs.
To be able to build this style of organization, finance it, and run it, entails a great deal of effort and not a little frustration when having to deal with individualists who all know the best ways in which to attack the enemy, educate the people, formulate the websites, what colors to use in the magazine, and a multitude of other differences.
Most other leaders do not want this level of labor, stress, financial, and personal burden.
Social networking and with it a proliferation of new services online providing instant communications among huge numbers of people is an astonishing development in our lifetime. The upside is the ability to disseminate information outside of the insider-controlled media to millions; also, to coordinate any number of people into some form of action. The downside is that the Internet could be used in a vacuum, in exclusion of the boots on the ground that are a prerequisite for saving our freedom. Yet, the Internet, properly used as a communications and organizational tool, can facilitate and orchestrate far more boots-on-the-ground activity than otherwise would be possible.
The Internet can give the semblance of organization, but while it is no substitute for personal interaction, it may be used to set the stage for personal interaction. Recent studies of the desires of people who are online indicate that they wish to deal with people in a personal manner rather than online.
We must utilize the web but build personal relationships in our local areas at the same time. The reasons are:
1. Trust. Only through trust can we rely on our neighbors and they in us. In a system of freedom, this is absolutely necessary.
2. Reliance. This is built on trust. In times of crisis, you will rely on those you know, have worked with, and have depended on.
3. Respect. You respect those with whom you have a personal relationship. During times of crisis, people will look to those they know and respect for leadership and advice, and work with them.
4. Local governance. Local government requires the idea of neighborhoods rather than a nebulous community. Local control and rights will deteriorate the more people in their local community are strangers who do not work together to maintain local control and rights.
Paul Revere would be a failure in today’s fractured society. He built up trust by working with people in the outlying communities of Boston so that on the night of his famous ride, the people didn’t say it’s some nut yelling something about the British, and then roll over and go back to sleep. They said, “Oh, it’s Paul, we have to muster” — because they knew and trusted him.
The same applies to the dissemination of information, particularly in a situation where the information is conflicting. Who do you listen to and take advice from, a stranger or someone you know and trust?
Why do we need social networking online? Except in rural America, we live in a socially fractured society. We need networking to make social connections within a fractured society. We can either allow the social online community to further fracture our local communities, or we can use it as a tool to make the necessary contacts to rebuild relationships. It is not an “either-or” world.
So while we will be using the Internet, we must at the same time promote as much as possible the interaction of people in their neighborhoods and cities, particularly through our chapters.
Our members are asked to plan local outreach programs to family, peers, and opinion molders. Too often, we see other organizations hold events but not spend the time, energy, and money in building a broad base of understanding through a true outreach program. We mean no disrespect in our remarks, it is usually due to the fact that they have never studied what it takes to really achieve victory through the use of organization and what outreach really means.
It is difficult to build understanding in a community unless you have local units of organization.
Morally Based
To preserve our heritage means engaging in moral responsibility and this is not well understood in today’s society.
Our motto, “Less Government, More Responsibility, and —with God’s Help — a Better World,” embodies what we stand for. The responsibility aspect means responsibility across a broad spectrum, not just individual responsibility. More often than not, individual responsibility is carried out through group action: your family, church, business, civic club, social clubs, local government, etc.
Now to state that we are morally based as a reason that we stand apart can sometimes raise eyebrows since there are many morally based organizations in existence. But the vast majority of them are tax-deductible entities which cannot engage in action. They can educate, but cannot participate or they will lose their tax deductible status.
This is why Robert Welch founded The John Birch Society as a not-for-profit, but not tax-deductible, corporation. In this manner we can engage in action and as a private corporation, keep our membership and donors confidential.
Some groups are quite large when judged by the membership and supporters. This makes them look more successful than they really are. While these organizations stand for much of what we stand for, the difference is that large groups can readily grow when their membership is asked to do very little in the way of outreach. It is again, that comfort zone. Our whole process is based on outreach, constantly building the base of understanding.
Moral responsibility includes taking responsibility to pass on our heritage to our children, to get involved, as well as preserving a moral community.
Robert Welch often quoted James Anthony Froude, who said, “Morality, when vigorously alive, sees farther than intellect, and provides unconsciously for intellectual difficulties.” Robert Welch often pointed out that the decline in morality was the worst danger that we face as a nation.
We see a dangerous development within some of the younger organizations that seem to eschew the notion of a moral basis for our battle. Another is that too many while professing a love of the Constitution are embracing New Age ideas that will ultimately call into question the very foundations of the Constitution.
We could win the fight to get rid of the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and myriad economically based problems and in the end still lose if we did not
address moral issues at the same time. For John Adams said it well when he stated, “The Constitution is for a moral people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
We must have people who understand that our rights come from God and that it is the primary purpose of our government to protect those rights. And, quite simply, if there is a God, and we firmly affirm that there is, then God must have his standards. This is where everyone gets into trouble, for no two men fully agree what they are anymore than spouses always agree.
We, in The John Birch Society, have drawn a circle of faith to protect these God-given rights, wide enough for almost all of us to step inside — encompassing the Ten Commandments — and work together. For if we do not work together, we surely will hang together.
As a result of this faith, we steadfastly oppose abortion, and many other moral problems that, in the long run, destroy civilization.
And there can be no doubt that the deterioration of our civilization would be much slower than it has been if it was not being pushed in that direction by a Master Conspiracy.
Exposing Conspiracy
When it comes to conspiracy, the Insiders have done a fair job of trying to get people to do one of two things: pooh-pooh any thought of conspiracy, or to think that everything is a conspiracy. The latter helps feed the outlook of the former by the outrageous ideas of some conspiracy-exposing groups. We will not go into what I am addressing here other than to say that when it is obvious to all but a handful that some conspiracies simply do not exist, the promotion of such ideas hurts the exposure of the real conspiracy.
Likewise, the communist infiltration into conservative circles to promote unproven conspiracies is damaging the whole idea of exposing the real conspiracy.
The exposure of the Master Conspiracy in a responsible manner is very important to the future understanding of our citizens. What we see happening is not as the result of ignorance or mistakes on the part of our politicians, academics, generals, and others. It is the result of a secret organization that has created a systematic web of groups and parties to bring about a power structure that they believe they will rule.
People have been fooled into thinking that the march toward socialism is for the benefit of the people. Surely, one would think that the examples of socialism under Hitler and Stalin would suffice to show this error.
The problem is that on the way toward total power, some of the people benefit by programs designed to accumulate that power, such as the welfare, government retirement, and healthcare programs. They do not understand that once total power is in place, all will be forced to work for the state or die, either through mass starvation or by shorter means. People cannot believe that those coming into power are as cruel as they are — until it is too late.
Even if they do not intend to become cruel, the cardinal rule is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Hitler and Stalin were always shown to be men of the people, posing with little children bearing flowers, even while they were actually recluses and standoffish from the common man. Their image was projected through propaganda machines which we call, in our case, the establishment media. Once total power was established, the velvet gloves came off.
Hitler and Stalin were only singular men. How did they come to power? By organizing, and hiding their evil purpose. Even when they wrote books and published exactly what they were going to do, it was done in language designed to hide the horror of their intentions.
People want to believe the best of their leaders. We have to educate them into believing more in the Constitution and how Jefferson explained, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Experience
And this is where experience pays off. We know the players. We know their strategy. We know the wiles of seemingly good solutions that lead either to dead ends or the destruction of the Constitution. We have dealt with
these things for over 50 years.
There is plenty of “experience” available if one thinks only in terms of the issues. Down through the ages, great men have left us a vast legacy of common sense and sound philosophy in books, in addition to Scripture. It should be obvious that the promotion of unsound policies and programs that lead ultimately to totalitarianism are wrong. Why then are these unsound policies promoted if the reason is for the good of the people?
It cannot be that it is due to the lack of education on the part of those promoting such policies. It cannot be that the wisdom of the ages has not been provided to them, either through their education or on the part of people who do understand and have sent these works to them to educate them away from their “mistakes.” Power-hungry men have decided the course they will take.
We are not dealing with issues, what we are dealing with are people. Evil people conspire together to organize themselves into positions of power. It has always been so. Over the centuries, just as good people have written down sound philosophy, the evil of the world have written how to accumulate power and sell it as something good to an unsuspecting populace.
Human nature does not change, but each new generation believes itself to be different, that they will not repeat the “mistakes” of the past. People have a hard time believing that their generation can produce the evil they only see in the history books and not before their very eyes.
In addition, much has been written over time on how to infiltrate whatever group, government, or publication that may stand in the way of the accumulation of power and misdirect them, subtly or overtly. This too, requires organization.
To recognize these problems and to deal with them takes a particular mindset and years of accumulated experience to recognize the players, especially those who ingratiate themselves into conservative groups, then take them off target. In the last two years, we have seen three notable instances of people professing conservative values but having a history of leftist involvement trying to move into positions of influence within constitutionalist groups. In only one of these cases was the attempt completely thwarted — an attempt to infiltrate The John Birch Society.
Experience counts
And so does the manner in which we are organized. For we also have another very important reason that we keep our chapters small. The reason is if something does get by us and we are infiltrated, the only damage they can do is minimal based in the size of the unit they are able to influence.
Experience will continue to count more and more now that a close confidant of Obama in the administration, Cass Sunstein, head of an Orwellian sounding agency, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has written a paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — and others — which advocate that we are victims of a conspiracy within the government.
It will take all the differences we see between ourselves and other groups to enable us to provide leadership and direction to the entire movement. Not only as to the problems we face, but more importantly, their solutions.
This is why Robert Welch formed us as a very different style of organization. One that can get the job done, provided we mean business every step of the way.
SOURCE:
John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/
FrankRep
07-05-2010, 05:12 PM
History is proving the John Birch Society correct.
----
On his June 24, 2010 TV show, Glenn Beck presented a history of communism in America featuring M. Stanton Evans and Ezra Taft Benson, which paralleled how The John Birch Society (JBS) has been presenting the history of communism in America for over 50 years; Robert Welch, founder of the JBS, was a forerunner of Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement. by Larry Greenley
Glenn Beck Recapitulates The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6372-glenn-beck-recapitulates-the-john-birch-society)
Larry Greenley | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
Friday, 25 June 2010
As a longtime member of The John Birch Society (JBS), I’ve been watching the Glenn Beck TV Show closely since he moved over to Fox News in 2008. I’ve been fascinated to see how Beck has been getting progressively (sorry for the bad word choice) closer to presenting American history in the way that The John Birch Society has been doing it for over 50 years.
Last night’s show, June 24, which was an overview of communism in America, was the ultimate in complete agreement between the Beck and JBS presentations of American history. In case you missed Beck’s show, here’s the YouTube video for Segment A of the show:
YouTube - Glenn Beck 06-24-10-A.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9gtwyrjaNw)
Here are the links for segments B, C, and D of last night’s show:
B: http://bit.ly/cNrriJ
C: http://bit.ly/adYqEF
D: http://bit.ly/9qJbIG
There’s so much that could be said, but I’ll settle for just a couple of the most interesting bits of Beck/JBS overlap from last night’s show.
First of all, there was Beck’s wholehearted endorsement of Senator Joe McCarthy’s crusade to expose Communists in government in the 1950s. Beck’s featured guest was M. Stanton Evans, who published the definitive book vindicating McCarthy, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies (http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/1400081068/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277562228&sr=1-1), in 2007. At one point Beck held the book up and said that his viewers must read it. And we all know that this endorsement will automatically make this book skyrocket up in sales. Here's the video for Segment D of the show, which provides a photo of M. Stanton Evans:
YouTube - Glenn Beck 06-24-10-D.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DN3tdQZNks)
Just as Beck did on his show last night, The John Birch Society has always stood up for McCarthy. For example, our magazine, The New American, published a glowing review of Blacklisted by History back in 2008 which was titled, “A Reputation Rescued (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/reviews/books/3872-a-reputation-rescued).” Of course, both the JBS and McCarthy have been treated horribly by the mainstream media. Robert Welch, founder of The John Birch Society, once said that the top priority of the Communist movement worldwide in the 1950s was to destroy Joe McCarthy and the top priority in the 1960s was to destroy the JBS. The mainstream media certainly got on board with both of these priorities.
Another interesting connection is that M. Stanton Evan’s father, Medford Evans, was one of the leading writers for the Society’s earlier magazine, American Opinion, during the 1960s and 70s.
Now let’s look at a second interesting connection. One of the highlights of last night’s show was Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture under President Eisenhower and later the leader of the LDS Church, and his statements in the 1960s about the Communist threat to America. It turns out that Benson was a good friend of Robert Welch in the 1960s. Furthermore, Benson’s son Reed became an employee of the JBS in 1962, and eventually worked in the Washington, DC office of the JBS in the late 1960s and early 70s.
Ezra Taft Benson gave a solid endorsement of The John Birch Society in his major speech, "Stand Up for Freedom" (online video of speech (http://bit.ly/9LG0e1)), in 1966 as he explained how he had encouraged his son, Reed, to work for the JBS. Here’s a 53-second video clip from that part of the speech:
Ezra Taft Benson on the John Birch Society (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1852839295044795373)
We still sell a DVD of Ezra Taft Benson’s excellent 1968 speech on the proper role of government, Man, Freedom, and Government (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/videos/man-freedom-government-public-service-version.html). Here it is as an online video also:
Video: Man, Freedom & Government
Man, Freedom, and Government (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6275877672927472992)
I certainly hope Glenn Beck gives us many more shows like last night’s. He is providing the vital historical understanding that Americans need for making sound choices in electing state and federal legislators and other officials.
Finally, here’s a nine-minute video of Robert Welch giving two speeches at a JBS Council Dinner in 1974. In the first speech he quotes from his two-day speech in 1958 at the founding meeting of the JBS. The ten predictions he made about our nation in that speech still amaze people with their accuracy. In the next speech Welch provides the five policies that political candidates in 1974 should promote. Again, it is amazing how well these policies fit today’s conditions.
Although this video has been available since our 50th Anniversary celebrations in 2008, we’ve changed the title to “The John Birch Society in 1958, Forerunner of the Tea Party Movement?” Take a look and see how appropriate the new title is. I believe the inclusion of this video in this article will help you see just how close the worldview of the JBS is to that of Glenn Beck in particular and the Tea Party movement in general.
YouTube - The John Birch Society in 1958, Forerunner of the Tea Party Movement? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lecAy-3Qtxk)
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6372-glenn-beck-recapitulates-the-john-birch-society
FrankRep
07-05-2010, 05:14 PM
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/US-3-2010/joseph-mccarthy-loc.001.jpg
Fox News host Glenn Beck aired an extraordinary program June 24 explaining how author M. Stanton Evans exposed how the facts released from the files of the FBI and the World War II-era Office of Strategic Services over the past two decades have vindicated the controversial charges of communism in the U.S. State Department by Senator Joseph McCarthy. by Thomas R. Eddlem
Glenn Beck: History Vindicated Joe McCarthy (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/37-history/3876-glenn-beck-history-vindicated-joe-mccarthy)
Thomas R. Eddlem | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Friday, 25 June 2010
YouTube - Glenn Beck 06-24-10-C.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7oMhE72A6Q)
Fox News host Glenn Beck aired an extraordinary program (http://bit.ly/ajoCI4) June 24 explaining how the facts released from the files of the FBI and the World War II-era Office of Strategic Services over the past two decades have vindicated the controversial charges of communism in the U.S. State Department by Senator Joseph McCarthy.
The Wisconsin Republican's name has been transformed into an epithet, “McCarthyism,” by much of the political Left that is intended to mean smearing political opponents with unfounded charges. While the Left and much of the Right accepted as gospel that McCarthy's charges were false, many conservatives (including the late William F. Buckley (http://www.amazon.com/McCarthy-His-Enemies-William-Buckley/dp/0895264722)) have defended McCarthy as essentially correct on the facts and the specific cases he mentioned publicly. But in an interview with author M. Stanton Evans, Beck gave a fair summary of Soviet penetration of U.S. government after the Second World War that has only become known since the mid-1990s with the release of the Venona Papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project), FBI files, and other primary source documents.
Beck asked (http://bit.ly/cJAHDr): “The question is, was Joseph McCarthy right? Was he right?” And the inescapable conclusion he came to after reading Evans' Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1400081068?tag=s00cb-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=1400081068&adid=0B0NGXFD9TY2NJ0S6TMS&) was that McCarthy had told the truth. (The book was reviewed by The New American here (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/reviews/books/3872-a-reputation-rescued).) “I don't want to believe this,” Beck told Evans of his reaction when Evans' book was first published in 2007. “I put it down and I went 'I'm not ready to hear that. I can't handle that.'" But Beck later finished the book anyway and asked the audience, "Okay. Please, America, read this book.”
M. Stanton Evans told Beck (http://bit.ly/cJAHDr) of his research on McCarthy that “I found a lot of stuff missing, a lot of stuff had been censored, a lot of stuff that was in the records in one place but blacked out in another place. Mostly what I found was that the FBI files, which backed up what McCarthy was saying, had been withheld for 50 years. And we now have them, or many of them, and they show essentially that he was right in general. There was a massive penetration of the government, and that it was covered up, and that he threatened that cover-up. And that's why he was isolated, demonized, and destroyed. That's the technique.”
Beck pointed out that the “Red Scare” of the 1950s had more to do with ensuring employees of the U.S. government were loyal to their employer and not to a rival nation rather than a mere battle against a particular political or philosophical opinion. “If you were a Marxist then, you were a Soviet sympathizer. You were a traitor to our country," Beck noted of the Stalinist era. "You've got to put that into perspective.” Nevertheless, leftists are apoplectic (http://mediamatters.org/research/201006240076) about the content of Beck's program, while conservative organizations like The John Birch Society have trumpeted (http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6372-glenn-beck-recapitulates-the-john-birch-society) this first salvo in the mainstream media to resurrect the legacy of America's most famous anti-communist Senator.
SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/37-history/3876-glenn-beck-history-vindicated-joe-mccarthy
FrankRep
07-05-2010, 05:27 PM
Glenn Beck: John Birch Society Makes Sense. Interviewed JBS spokesman Sam Antonio
Glenn Beck and JBS spokesman Sam Antonio talk about the SPP.gov (http://www.SPP.gov/) Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. July 25, 2007
YouTube - Glenn Beck: John Birch Society Makes Sense. Interviewed JBS spokesman Sam Antonio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qENCbmysnAQ)
ernie1241
07-08-2010, 09:35 AM
History has proven the JBS "correct"?? Frank, your capacity for self-delusion is apparently limitless.
According to Robert Welch and the JBS, the most knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable source of factual data about internal security related matters (including the communist movement) was J. Edgar Hoover.
However, neither Hoover or the FBI concluded that the JBS was "correct".
Aside from Hoover's explicit denunciation of Robert Welch and the JBS as "extremist", there is this general observation by Hoover:
"The Communist Party in this country has attempted to infiltrate and subvert every segment of our society, but its continuing efforts have not achieved success of any substance. Too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified factual data regarding the inner workings of the conspiracy, have engaged in rumor-mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against persons whose views differ from their own. This is dangerous business. It is divisive and unintelligent, and makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator." [Hoover statement in February 5, 1962 letter HQ 94-1-369, #1676 to Mrs. W.R. Brown of Bountiful Utah; also published as letter-to-editor in Tri-Cities Daily newspaper of Sheffield, Alabama on Sunday March 31, 1963.]
CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
JBS position:
"Our task must be simply to make clear that the movement known as 'civil rights' is Communist-plotted, Communist-controlled, and in fact...serves only Communist purposes." [Robert Welch, 7/65, JBS Bulletin]
FBI position:
"Let me emphasize that the American civil rights movement is not, and has never been dominated by the communists--because the overwhelming majority of civil rights leaders in this country, both Negro and white, have recognized and rejected communism as a menace to the freedoms of all." [J. Edgar Hoover speech, 12/12/64, Our Heritage of Greatness, pg 7 - speech before Pennsylvania Society and the Society of Pennsylvania Women; bold emphasis in original document].
CLERGY AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
JBS position:
"...the largest single group supporting the Communist apparatus in the United States is composed of members of the Protestant clergy" [Robert Welch, 4/60 JBS Bulletin) and
"...there are, as the leading students of the subject all agree -- more than seven thousand Protestant clergymen actively helping the Communists to make dangerous propaganda and pressure weapons out of the National Council of Churches and some other church organizations. Now is the time to bring this whole issue into the open, in every way possible; and to start a determined drive to eliminate Communist influences from control over Christian churches." [JBS Bulletin, April 1960, pages 18-19]
and
with respect to Protestant ministers, “the estimates I have seen which appeared most trustworthy indicate that about 7000 of them could fairly be called Comsymps…A Comsymp is a man who is either a Communist or a sympathizer with Communist purposes. So the number of Comsymps in the whole Protestant ministry would thus come out as about three percent.” [Robert Welch, Through All The Days To Be, reprinted in The New Americanism And Other Speeches and Essays by Robert Welch, Western Islands Publishers, 1966, page 79.]
FBI position:
“To recapitulate, it can be stated factually and without equivocation that any allegation is false which holds that there has been and is, on a national scale, an extensive or substantial communist infiltration of the American clergy, in particular the Protestant clergy." [FBI Assistant Director William C. Sullivan, Communism and Religion in The United States, Highland Park Methodist Church, Dallas Texas, October 19, 1961, page 18]
and
"There can be no doubt, of course, that the communists' aim is to penetrate and control all mass-type organizations of our society, including our churches. Their efforts in this regard have been thwarted by our internal security program...Regrettably, numerous charges have been made concerning the extent and success of communist influence among our Nation's religious leaders and institutions. Actually, the Communist Party USA has had no appreciable success in influencing, controlling, or dominating America's clergymen or religious organizations. These facts, based on our investigative results in the internal security field, have been the basis of the FBI's stand on this subject when it arises." [J. Edgar Hoover reply to inquiry; HQ 100-403529-432, July 19, 1963.]
RE: 1958 book, What We Must Know About Communism by Harry Overstreet
JBS POSITION
"visibly designed to get your confidence with the first three quarters of its contents, and then in the last quarter to sell you the exact current Communist line." [Robert Welch: What Is The John Birch Society?, 1970, page 18].
AND
"Another generation--if we are still free--may well remember the Overstreets' 'What We Know About Communism', as a stupendous attempt that was designed to soften us at the very hour of our crisis...because the book attempts to make palatable certain notions which would, if accepted by large numbers of Americans, render us helpless in the face of the onslaught of World Communism." [Edward Janisch, "What We Must Know About Overstreet", American Opinion, October 1959, pg 44].
FBI POSITION:
"I do hope that your fine book 'What We Must Know About Communism' will enjoy excellent sales and wide reading throughout 1959. We need more and more people like yourselves who will devote their nationally recognized academic talents to the exposure and ultimate defeat of the menace of world communism." [J. Edgar Hoover letter to Harry Overstreet, 01/21/59; HQ 100-114575-95].
ON HARRY OVERSTREET:
JBS POSITION:
Robert Welch observed that the JBS article on Overstreet in October 1959 issue of American Opinion "showed the blatant falsehoods to which Harry Overstreet has resorted in connection with his earlier and continuing close affiliations with Communists and support of Communist purposes." [Robert Welch: What Is The John Birch Society?, 1970, page 18].
FBI POSITION
"I have seen the interesting article about Mrs. Overstreet and you which appeared in the December 3, 1958 issue of the 'Northern Virginia Sun'. It is always a pleasure to read about good friends because it serves as a reminder of happy associations. It is good to see your fine work recognized in this fitting manner, and your many friends in the FBI join me in sending our best wishes." [J. Edgar Hoover letter to Overstreet 12/5/58; HQ 100-114575-93]
and
"I was deeply saddened to learn of Dr. Overstreet's passing and want you to know you have my deepest sympathy. Words certainly are inadequate at a time like this but I hope you will derive some measure of comfort from knowing that others share your sorrow...You can be justifiably proud of the many contributions which he made to his country and the high esteem in which he is held." [J. Edgar Hoover telegram to Bonaro Overstreet; HQ 100-114575-195, August 19, 1970, ]
With respect to Sen. Joseph McCarthy:
One of our nation’s foremost scholars about the McCarthy period (Dr. John Earl Haynes) has written several articles which compare McCarthy’s assertions to newly available data including, for example, the Venona papers and material in KGB archives.
See for example:
(1) Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html
(2) Exchange with Arthur Herman and Venona book talk
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page58.html
With respect to Joe McCarthy:
Whittaker Chambers summed it up pretty well in his 1/14/54 letter about McCarthy to conservative book publisher Henry Regnery, when Chambers observed that....
"All of us, to one degree or another, have slowly come to question his judgment and to fear acutely that his flair for the sensational, his inaccuracies and distortions, his tendency to sacrifice the greater objective for the momentary effect, will lead him and us into trouble. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that we live in terror that Senator McCarthy will one day make some irreparable blunder which will play directly into the hands of our common enemy and discredit the whole anti-Communist effort for a long while to come."
FBI security informant Herbert Philbrick told a Boston newspaper reporter that:
"He [McCarthy] harmed the cause of anti-communism more than anybody I know."
And in 1952, Philbrick observed:
"According to the Communist leaders, McCarthy has helped them a great deal. McCarthy's kind of attacks add greatly to the confusion, putting up a smokescreen for the Party and making it more difficult than ever for people to discern who is a communist and who is not."
FBI Supervisor, Robert J. Lamphere, supervised the investigations of some of the biggest espionage cases of the cold war, including those of the Rosenbergs, Klaus Fuchs and Kim Philby plus he was intimately involved, in conjunction with Meredith Knox Gardner of the Army Security Agency, in using deciphered Soviet cables to build espionage cases.
Lamphere wrote on pages 136-137 of his 1968 book The FBI-KGB War: A Special Agent's Story that:
"Senator McCarthy's crusade which was to last for the next several years, was always anathema to me. McCarthy’s approach and tactics hurt the anti-Communist cause and turned many liberals against legitimate efforts to curtail Communist activities in the United States, particularly in regard to government employment of known Communists…McCarthy's star chamber proceedings, his lies and overstatements hurt our counterintelligence efforts."
History is proving the John Birch Society correct.
----
Glenn Beck Recapitulates The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6372-glenn-beck-recapitulates-the-john-birch-society)
Larry Greenley | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
Friday, 25 June 2010
As a longtime member of The John Birch Society (JBS), I’ve been watching the Glenn Beck TV Show closely since he moved over to Fox News in 2008. I’ve been fascinated to see how Beck has been getting progressively (sorry for the bad word choice) closer to presenting American history in the way that The John Birch Society has been doing it for over 50 years.
Last night’s show, June 24, which was an overview of communism in America, was the ultimate in complete agreement between the Beck and JBS presentations of American history. In case you missed Beck’s show, here’s the YouTube video for Segment A of the show:
YouTube - Glenn Beck 06-24-10-A.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9gtwyrjaNw)
Here are the links for segments B, C, and D of last night’s show:
B: http://bit.ly/cNrriJ
C: http://bit.ly/adYqEF
D: http://bit.ly/9qJbIG
There’s so much that could be said, but I’ll settle for just a couple of the most interesting bits of Beck/JBS overlap from last night’s show.
First of all, there was Beck’s wholehearted endorsement of Senator Joe McCarthy’s crusade to expose Communists in government in the 1950s. Beck’s featured guest was M. Stanton Evans, who published the definitive book vindicating McCarthy, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies (http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/1400081068/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277562228&sr=1-1), in 2007. At one point Beck held the book up and said that his viewers must read it. And we all know that this endorsement will automatically make this book skyrocket up in sales. Here's the video for Segment D of the show, which provides a photo of M. Stanton Evans:
YouTube - Glenn Beck 06-24-10-D.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DN3tdQZNks)
Just as Beck did on his show last night, The John Birch Society has always stood up for McCarthy. For example, our magazine, The New American, published a glowing review of Blacklisted by History back in 2008 which was titled, “A Reputation Rescued (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/reviews/books/3872-a-reputation-rescued).” Of course, both the JBS and McCarthy have been treated horribly by the mainstream media. Robert Welch, founder of The John Birch Society, once said that the top priority of the Communist movement worldwide in the 1950s was to destroy Joe McCarthy and the top priority in the 1960s was to destroy the JBS. The mainstream media certainly got on board with both of these priorities.
Another interesting connection is that M. Stanton Evan’s father, Medford Evans, was one of the leading writers for the Society’s earlier magazine, American Opinion, during the 1960s and 70s.
Now let’s look at a second interesting connection. One of the highlights of last night’s show was Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture under President Eisenhower and later the leader of the LDS Church, and his statements in the 1960s about the Communist threat to America. It turns out that Benson was a good friend of Robert Welch in the 1960s. Furthermore, Benson’s son Reed became an employee of the JBS in 1962, and eventually worked in the Washington, DC office of the JBS in the late 1960s and early 70s.
Ezra Taft Benson gave a solid endorsement of The John Birch Society in his major speech, "Stand Up for Freedom" (online video of speech (http://bit.ly/9LG0e1)), in 1966 as he explained how he had encouraged his son, Reed, to work for the JBS. Here’s a 53-second video clip from that part of the speech:
Ezra Taft Benson on the John Birch Society (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1852839295044795373)
We still sell a DVD of Ezra Taft Benson’s excellent 1968 speech on the proper role of government, Man, Freedom, and Government (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/videos/man-freedom-government-public-service-version.html). Here it is as an online video also:
Video: Man, Freedom & Government
Man, Freedom, and Government (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6275877672927472992)
I certainly hope Glenn Beck gives us many more shows like last night’s. He is providing the vital historical understanding that Americans need for making sound choices in electing state and federal legislators and other officials.
Finally, here’s a nine-minute video of Robert Welch giving two speeches at a JBS Council Dinner in 1974. In the first speech he quotes from his two-day speech in 1958 at the founding meeting of the JBS. The ten predictions he made about our nation in that speech still amaze people with their accuracy. In the next speech Welch provides the five policies that political candidates in 1974 should promote. Again, it is amazing how well these policies fit today’s conditions.
Although this video has been available since our 50th Anniversary celebrations in 2008, we’ve changed the title to “The John Birch Society in 1958, Forerunner of the Tea Party Movement?” Take a look and see how appropriate the new title is. I believe the inclusion of this video in this article will help you see just how close the worldview of the JBS is to that of Glenn Beck in particular and the Tea Party movement in general.
YouTube - The John Birch Society in 1958, Forerunner of the Tea Party Movement? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lecAy-3Qtxk)
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6372-glenn-beck-recapitulates-the-john-birch-society
ernie1241
07-08-2010, 10:04 AM
For those gullible enough to believe everything Glenn Beck writes or says, the following recent article from Reason magazine may be helpful:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/07/beck-u
Beck U
The excitable Fox News host goes to college
Michael C. Moynihan | July 7, 2010
Glenn Beck never went to university, though that hasn’t prevented him from creating his own. Today Beck, the weepy, blackboard-scribbling Fox News host, launches his eponymous institute for online learning, Glenn Beck University, available to the curious and undereducated for $79 a year. Subscribers will receive access to online lectures on the subjects of “faith, hope, and charity”—the pedagogical approach is as yet unclear, though it seems to be pro-Mormon and pro-McCarthy—and are offered a forum to discuss the course material with other “students.”
Beck, who recently received an honorary degree from Liberty University, the Christian college founded by Jerry Falwell, believes that if the American people only read more history books—specifically, the books that Glenn Beck reads, many of which are infused with a paranoid brand of Mormonism—they would arrive at a collective Kronstadt moment; the zombified products of American public education realizing that the revolution of Adams, Jefferson, and Washington was long ago betrayed by a cabal of progressives-communists-Marxists-socialists (to Beck, the four groups are interchangeable).
Indeed, Beck’s reading drive has made him the Oprah of the right. His recent obsession with vindicating Sen. Joe McCarthy’s crusade against communism (which was more effective in derailing the honorable cause of anti-communism than anything Victor Navasky could have ever dreamt up) led him to praise the conservative ideologue M. Stanton Evans, author of the revisionist book Blacklisted by History, a breathless defense of McCarthy. Evans book, published to largely negative reviews in 2007 (including mine in Reason and Ron Radosh’s in National Review), then shot to the top of Amazon’s bestseller lists, occupying both the number one (paperback) and number 11 (hardcover) slots.
When parents, publishers, and J.K. Rowling suggested gleefully that the Harry Potter craze was having the positive effect of luring kids away from the Xbox and towards literature, Yale University professor Harold Bloom grumbled that there was rather significant difference between reading and reading. "Harry Potter,” Bloom wrote in The Boston Globe, “will not lead our children on to Kipling's Just So Stories or his Jungle Book. It will not lead them to Thurber's Thirteen Clocks or Kenneth Grahame's Wind in the Willows or Lewis Carroll's Alice.
It would be easy to dismiss Bloom as engaging in literary snobbery, though he is surely right that reading the right books is more important than merely reading books. While Beck launched The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek’s classic treatise on the superiority of the free market, to the number one spot on the Amazon bestseller list, the classical liberal message is being subsumed by Beck's other recommendations, which include the conspiracies of Cleon Skousen and Carol Quigley and a reading of American history that's something like a right-wing version of Howard Zinn—popular, ideological, and wrong.
In recent months, Beck has beseeched his viewers “to know history,” and promised that his show will attempt to “restore history” of the religious components of American’s founding and establish the unmitigated “evil” of Woodrow Wilson. "Please, please," he pleads with his viewers, "Learn from history. Please."
There is no unifying feature of Beck’s “historiography”; he darts from subject to subject, riffing on whatever pops into his head. To get an idea of the curriculum at Glenn Beck U., I watched a few of his recent programs on communism, McCarthy, and 20th century totalitarianism. It wasn’t pretty. In no particular order, a few corrections to Professor Beck’s riffs on the history we “need to know”:
The Communist Party of the United States didn’t start as the “Communist Working Party” in 1917.
It is not true that “if you were a Marxist” in 1960s, you were a “Soviet sympathizer,” as former members of the International Socialists can attest.
The Nazis did not “learn propaganda” from Woodrow Wilson.
Beck says that “Most of Europe was preparing for war in 1917.” Europe had been at war since 1914; the Americans joined in in 1917.
The Venona decrypts were not “released in the 1980s,” when the Soviet Union was still in business, but in 1995. Nor was Venona “compiled” by the KGB; Venona was the codename given by United States intelligence services to the collection of intercepts. Incidentally, Beck, demonstrating his lack of familiarity with the subject matter, stumbles when identifying Venona, first calling them the “Verona papers.”
No one claims Castro was “democratically-elected,” except, perhaps, the brothers Castro themselves.
Obama’s mother, who grew up in Kansas, did not attend the Elisabeth Irwin School (“The Little Red Schoolhouse”) in New York City.
Beck’s history of late Weimar Germany manages to be both totally incoherent and completely wrong, such as this comparison of the German Communist Party (KPD) and the Nazis: “The National Socialists, the Nazis, did round up the communists. OK? But the communists, they rounded up the store owners first. Nazis, number two. The old and infirm. Number two on communist's list, farmers and landowners. Three, I think it was Jewish on both sides.”
A list of “1963 communist goals from the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)” Beck presented on his television show (and available here on his website) are not from the CPUSA, but reprinted from The Naked Communist, a bizarre book of conspiracy authored by John Birch Society lunatic Cleon Skousen.
In the aftermath of the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla, Beck argued that anti-Semitism is the inevitable byproduct of socialism. “Socialism and anti-Semitism have complemented each other throughout history.” “How many [Jews] have to die,” Beck asks, “to remember who keeps killing them?” The idea that anti-Semitism flourishes under left-wing regimes because Jews are associated with capitalism is certainly true, though it ignores the long history of far-right anti-Semitism and the Tsarist-era pogroms and blood libels. In far-right circles, Jews, like Bela Kun and Leon Trotsky, were associated with communism and the revolutionary left.
It is apparent that Beck the history preacher isn’t terribly familiar with the very material that so fascinates him, as demonstrated by his difficulty keeping names straight. The former FSB agent poisoned in 2006 was Alexander Litvinenko, not Alexander Lavinko. The Soviet agent accused of “losing China” was Lauchlin Currie, not “Laurie” Currie. His fellow agent in the Silvermaster group was Harry Dexter White, not “Harry Dexter.” During a brief digression into the activities of the Baader-Meinhof groups, Beck received a little help from off-camera: “In the 1970s, the left wing German terrorist, Ulrike Meinhof, he sounds friendly. He said—oh, it's a she?”
Or how about this laughable summation of the Holocaust: “It was the emergency propaganda in Germany that led the Jews, eventually, to the ovens, because Jews were causing the problem, Jews that were just too many in Europe.”
It is unclear what Beck means by “emergency propaganda,” but this reductionist view of history—Wilson was a clever propagandist, which informed Josef Goebbels, and hence the Final Solution—hurts more than it helps, leaving viewers with the impression that Germany was under the spell of Wilsonian propaganda, thus ignoring centuries of anti-Semitic conditioning. Perhaps Beck will modify this view as he reads more (I recommend Christopher Browning on how "ordinary men" become genocidaires, not, as the previous sentence suggests, Daniel Goldhagen's award-winning disaster, Hitler's Willing Executioners), as he recently told viewers that he was "researching the Holocaust of Germany (sic)."
This sort of thing isn't uncommon. Take this bizarre exchange between Beck and M. Stanton Evans, on FDR’s performance at the Yalta Conference:
EVANS: It's about Roosevelt saying to Stalin and Churchill that he is going to meet with the king of Saudi Arabia, after this conference, King Saud. And Stalin asked him, does he intend to make any concessions to the King Saud of Saudi Arabia. I'll let you read what the answer is for the Arabs.
BECK: "The president replied that there was only one concession he thought he might offer, and that was to give him the six million Jews in the United States.
EVANS: Yes.
BECK: This is a collection—where is this from?
EVANS: That is from the papers of Edward Stettinius, who was the secretary of state at the time of Yalta. Those papers are at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. That paragraph—
BECK: What does he mean by he'd give—
EVANS: Well, one might think that he was closet anti-Semite. But I think it also suggests that maybe he was a little bit gaga.
Evans continues, saying that this outburst of mad anti-Semitism was expunged from the historical record, thanks to the Roosevelt hagiographers who control the past. So the Beck viewer, having never heard this hidden history of FDR, shuts off the television set thinking that the president was either mad or harbored a deep animus towards Jews (possibly both), and that a circle of progressive historians have kept this fact from the rest of us, lest we find out the truth about a liberal icon.
Roosevelt and his defenders have, Evans and Beck are quite right to notice, won the battle for history; to the victor go the spoils, after all. Indeed, rarely are students aware of the New Deal’s major failures or defects, nor are they typically told the successful constitutional challenges of, for instance, the National Recovery Administration and FDR’s deeply undemocratic attempt to pack the Supreme Court. But the suggestion, made by Evans and lapped up by Beck, that the president seriously entertained trading Jews to Saudi Arabia is not only well known to historians, but it is also understood that Roosevelt was attempting, lamely for sure, to make a joke.
A tiny bit of knowledge (no, McCarthy wasn’t completely wrong), combined with an enormous Fox News constituency and an unflappable trust in one’s own wisdom, is a dangerous thing. Beck doesn’t demonstrate the perils of autodidacticism, but the perils of learning the subject while at the same time attempting to teach it.
Woodrow Wilson was an imperial president who cared little for civil liberties; the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression; the anti-communists were on the right side of history. Yes, yes, and yes. But these stories can be told without exaggeration, without relying on conspiracy, without the rehabilitation of a heavy-drinking senator who believed that Gen. George Marshall was a Soviet agent.
All things to consider when dispatching your application (and $79) to Glenn Beck University.
Glenn Beck: John Birch Society Makes Sense. Interviewed JBS spokesman Sam Antonio
Glenn Beck and JBS spokesman Sam Antonio talk about the SPP.gov (http://www.SPP.gov/) Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. July 25, 2007
YouTube - Glenn Beck: John Birch Society Makes Sense. Interviewed JBS spokesman Sam Antonio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qENCbmysnAQ)
FrankRep
07-08-2010, 10:11 AM
According to Robert Welch and the JBS, the most knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable source of factual data about internal security related matters (including the communist movement) was J. Edgar Hoover.
However, neither Hoover or the FBI concluded that the JBS was "correct".
Proving once again the Stupidity of the Government. :) We need to make it as small as possible.
CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
JBS position:
"Our task must be simply to make clear that the movement known as 'civil rights' is Communist-plotted, Communist-controlled, and in fact...serves only Communist purposes." [Robert Welch, 7/65, JBS Bulletin]
FBI position:
"Let me emphasize that the American civil rights movement is not, and has never been dominated by the communists--because the overwhelming majority of civil rights leaders in this country, both Negro and white, have recognized and rejected communism as a menace to the freedoms of all." [J. Edgar Hoover speech, 12/12/64, Our Heritage of Greatness, pg 7 - speech before Pennsylvania Society and the Society of Pennsylvania Women; bold emphasis in original document].
Thomas Sowell and Tom Woods Jr. are BOTH against the Civil Rights Movement. They both say it's Unconstitutional and it failed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Which Only Wicked Oppressors Could Oppose, and For No Good Reason) (http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/)
Tom Woods.com
May 21st, 2010
In light of the hysteria in recent days, here’s some valuable information from Thomas Sowell, from his indispensable book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688062695?ie=UTF8&tag=thomacom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0688062695)?
http://s3.mediamatters.org/static/images/tv_clips/people/thomas-sowell.jpg
Thomas Sowell
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0688062695.01._SX140_SY225_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Rhetoric-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688062695
Sowell notes that champions of the Official Version of History ignore already existing trends in black employment, well under way long before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from which we are taught all blessings flowed. Writes Sowell: “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s — when there was little or no civil rights policy — than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday.
“The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act). If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years. The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964 — and 1960. Nor did the institution of ‘goals and timetables’ at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations. True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators.”
Sowell further notes that Asians and Hispanics show similar long-term upward trends that had begun years before the passage of the 1964 Act, and which were not accelerated either by the Act itself or by the “affirmative action” programs that (inevitably) followed. Mexican-Americans’ incomes rose in relation to those of whites between 1959 and 1969, but not at a greater rate than between 1949 and 1959. Chinese and Japanese-American households had matched their white counterparts in income by 1959 (in spite of the fact that Japanese-Americans had been interned in concentration camps less than two decades before, and countless Americans blamed Japan for the loss of their sons).
SOURCE:
http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/
=====
Thomas E. Woods Jr: The Civil Rights Act was Unconstitutional, Statist, and a Failure
Lecture by Thomas E. Woods Jr. presented at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's "History of Liberty" seminar held at the Institute in Auburn, Alabama, June 24-30, 2001. This Instructional Seminar of 23 lectures is modeled on the Mises University and presents a reinterpretation of the history of liberty from the ancient world--an ambitious agenda but a wonderfully successful conference.
http://www.mises.org/
YouTube - Civil Rights and Statism [Thomas E. Woods, Jr.] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH52tkt0C1A)
ernie1241
07-09-2010, 09:02 AM
Frank, your comments below may be YOUR personal opinion, but it certainly DOES NOT reflect the considered judgment of either Robert Welch, the JBS, or virtually the entire conservative movement in the United States.
JBS Bulletin, July 1961, p 11
“But we have been equally emphatic at all times in expressing our confidence in J. Edgar Hoover and in the FBI under his direction.”
Robert Welch 11/20/64 letter to J. Edgar Hoover after seeing Boston newspaper article regarding Hoover’s criticisms of Welch at an 11/18/64 press conference:
"I can only hope that in time I may still earn your respect, simply by continuing to put all that I am and that I have into the same fight as your own. With all good wishes to you in the meantime, for your continued great service to our country, I am, Sincerely, Robert Welch" [FBI HQ file 62-104401, serial #2381, 11/20/64 letter by Welch]
Hattiesburg MS American, 5/5/65, p4 “John Birch Society Representative Discusses Talk He Will Make Tonight” re Reed Benson:
“Benson praised the dedication of J. Edgar Hoover who he said is the foremost authority on Communism. ‘I fear and tremble at thought of the day when he will be out of the FBI’ Benson said.”
Tom Davis, JBS Public Relations Regional Manager, 10/26/65 letter to J. Edgar Hoover. Davis was formerly a JBS Major Coordinator in New York:
“I continue to look upon the Bureau and its work with tremendous pride and admiration. Its efforts, under your direction, have so obviously been instrumental in preserving the security of the United States of America. God bless you and keep you strong.”
Albuquerque NM Journal, 3/22/66, p1, “John Birch Lecturer” re Julia Brown comment on Hoover (she was a former FBI informant within CPUSA):
“We must demand full support for the great American, J. Edgar Hoover.”
JBS magazine, American Opinion, October 1966: “The Wisdom and Warning of J. Edgar Hoover”:
Hoover is described as "the government's top authority on Communism. His patriotism, integrity, devotion to duty, and consistent efficiency are well known...Had we been wise enough to heed his clear words of warning over the years, we would not now be faced with such a monstrous conspiracy...God bless J. Edgar Hoover!"
Robert Welch letter to Hoover asking for permission to publish book with Hoover comments on communism:
“Mr. Welch advised he had the greatest admiration for the Director and that the captioned book was intended as an instrument against communism. He said he felt the statements on the subject from Mr. Hoover would be taken as statements from the world’s greatest authority on the matter of communism.” [FBI HQ file 62-104401, #3148; 6/28/67 airtel from SAC Boston to J. Edgar Hoover concerning contact made by Douglas C. Morse, Managing Editor of Western Islands Publishers.]
John Birch Society Website 8/19/93: Robert W. Lee: “Assassinating J. Edgar Hoover”
“If it is true that a person's character can be judged as precisely by the enemies he earns as by the friends he makes, the character of former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover must be rated high indeed…J. Edgar Hoover had, and obviously still has, the right enemies. They continue to stand, in their own peculiar way, as a special tribute to his character, his patriotism, and those ‘social values of home’ which he espoused.”
Furthermore, two former FBI Special Agents (Cleon Skousen and Dan Smoot) who supported the JBS and whose writings and speeches were highly recommended by the JBS both stated categorically that the effusive praise of Hoover and the FBI by Welch and the JBS were justified.
Lastly, no one cares about the uninformed personal opinions of Thomas Sowell or Tom Woods Jr. Neither one of them had access to confidential data in FBI files or FBI investigations re: persons/groups comprising the civil rights movement. One can disagree with proposed or enacted legislation without characterizing the civil rights movement as "communist controlled". Even the Birch Society's own members who had been FBI informants inside the CPUSA (Lola Belle Holmes and Julia Brown) contradicted and refuted many standard premises of JBS propaganda.
Another Bircher who also was a very prominent African-American intellectual and author (George S. Schuyler) made the following observation in 1961:
Schuyler wrote:
"The White Citizens Council which has branches or cells everywhere, controls by terror such states as Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and to a lesser extent, Virginia...It has defied and disrupted the operation of the laws of the land. It has used threats and vicious economic reprisals...It has become a legal arm of Mississippi's Government.” [4/22/61 Schuyler column in Pittsburgh PA Courier]
Furthermore, let’s also consider a comment made by JBS member (and FBI informant within the White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi), Rev. Delmar Dennis:
"The Klan in Mississippi has completely infiltrated every phase of the legal, political, social and economic system in Mississippi. The membership in the Klan ranges from common laborers and criminals, to judges, lawyers, doctors and political leaders. While they may not be active members, they are secret members who use their influence to further Klan efforts and aid Klan activities, for example, it is generally known in Klan circles that supervisors who pick juries use their influence to get Klan members on the jury panel."
What did the JBS advocate to address the grave state of affairs described by Schuyler and Dennis? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
In fact, the JBS never even brought the attention of its membership to this horrific situation described by Schuyler and Dennis.
Instead, the JBS adopted the arguments authored and promoted by segregationists and white supremacists and in fact, the JBS welcomed segregationists or White Citizens Councils officials into the JBS as members, as writers, as speakers, and as National Council members!
Proving once again the Stupidity of the Government. :) We need to make it as small as possible.
Thomas Sowell and Tom Woods Jr. are BOTH against the Civil Rights Movement. They both say it's Unconstitutional and it failed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Which Only Wicked Oppressors Could Oppose, and For No Good Reason) (http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/)
Tom Woods.com
May 21st, 2010
In light of the hysteria in recent days, here’s some valuable information from Thomas Sowell, from his indispensable book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688062695?ie=UTF8&tag=thomacom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0688062695)?
http://s3.mediamatters.org/static/images/tv_clips/people/thomas-sowell.jpg
Thomas Sowell
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0688062695.01._SX140_SY225_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Rhetoric-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688062695
Sowell notes that champions of the Official Version of History ignore already existing trends in black employment, well under way long before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from which we are taught all blessings flowed. Writes Sowell: “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s — when there was little or no civil rights policy — than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday.
“The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act). If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years. The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964 — and 1960. Nor did the institution of ‘goals and timetables’ at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations. True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators.”
Sowell further notes that Asians and Hispanics show similar long-term upward trends that had begun years before the passage of the 1964 Act, and which were not accelerated either by the Act itself or by the “affirmative action” programs that (inevitably) followed. Mexican-Americans’ incomes rose in relation to those of whites between 1959 and 1969, but not at a greater rate than between 1949 and 1959. Chinese and Japanese-American households had matched their white counterparts in income by 1959 (in spite of the fact that Japanese-Americans had been interned in concentration camps less than two decades before, and countless Americans blamed Japan for the loss of their sons).
SOURCE:
http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/
=====
Thomas E. Woods Jr: The Civil Rights Act was Unconstitutional, Statist, and a Failure
Lecture by Thomas E. Woods Jr. presented at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's "History of Liberty" seminar held at the Institute in Auburn, Alabama, June 24-30, 2001. This Instructional Seminar of 23 lectures is modeled on the Mises University and presents a reinterpretation of the history of liberty from the ancient world--an ambitious agenda but a wonderfully successful conference.
http://www.mises.org/
YouTube - Civil Rights and Statism [Thomas E. Woods, Jr.] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH52tkt0C1A)
FrankRep
07-09-2010, 09:14 AM
Frank, your comments below may be YOUR personal opinion, but it certainly DOES NOT reflect the considered judgment of either Robert Welch, the JBS, or virtually the entire conservative movement in the United States.
Last time I checked the date is 2010, not the 1960s.
The JBS has New leadership, New ideas, and New Perspectives.
FrankRep
07-09-2010, 09:34 AM
Instead, the JBS adopted the arguments authored and promoted by segregationists and white supremacists and in fact, the JBS welcomed segregationists or White Citizens Councils officials into the JBS as members, as writers, as speakers, and as National Council members!
JBS Racist? Wrong!
Rev Steven Craft at the John Birch Society
YouTube - Rev Steven Craft At John Birch Society Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsL6NJQUucE)
JBS_PR
07-09-2010, 04:24 PM
What did the JBS advocate to address the grave state of affairs described by Schuyler and Dennis? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
In fact, the JBS never even brought the attention of its membership to this horrific situation described by Schuyler and Dennis.
Instead, the JBS adopted the arguments authored and promoted by segregationists and white supremacists and in fact, the JBS welcomed segregationists or White Citizens Councils officials into the JBS as members, as writers, as speakers, and as National Council members!
Ernie,
How can you even make that conclusion when you have stated that JBS had employed Delmar Dennis to put him on a speaking tour to make these very wrongs known?
You easily dismiss the opinions of those that bolster JBS' positions yet you have no problem using the opinions of those that bolster your position of which we dismiss. And you publicly wonder why JBS members and supporters do the same to you. In fact you seem to enjoy broadbrushing all JBS members and supporters, regardless of their level of involvement. You claim to be a libertarian. We have many, many members who are libertarians. While not all members or supporters see eye-to-eye on all issues with JBS, there is common ground that we find and work from.
After following your comments for quite some time, I can sometimes see the common ground with you, but quite recently your tone seems to have changed substantially. It seems that no matter what JBS says, writes, posts, etc., it seems to be an invitation for you to attack the organization and its members while calling them names, degrading them and belittling them. Lately, you seem to have branched out further to include more of the "right-wing."
I'm not going to make any conclusions regarding how healthy your obsession with this is, but I have to ask how this actually helps preserve the liberty that you and I hold so dear. What are you doing to preserve and pass along to the next generation the freedom that continues to slip away with each passing administration in the name of security?
If you're ever in Wisconsin, stop into our office in Appleton. We can certainly discuss in depth the avenues that members and supporters are currently taking to help protect and restore our God-given rights. That would certainly make for an interesting conversation.
Bill Hahn
JBS PR Manager
ernie1241
07-12-2010, 06:20 PM
Bill -- Thanks for your message.
To respond appropriately to your question regarding Delmar Dennis is a very complex matter Bill.
First of all, the Birch Society never presented to its members an accurate account of Delmar Dennis or of the prevailing conditions which existed in his community or his state or in the south generally.
Naturally, one has to ask the question WHY is that the case--particularly since the JBS certainly was in a position to know the truth about this matter??
Rev. Dennis was opposed to KKK violence -- but he did NOT oppose the racist arguments which suffused the thinking of the KKK and White Citizens Councils and other racist pro-segregation groups. Even AFTER he surfaced as an FBI informant, he made the following comment to a newspaper in 1967:
“I am doing nothing now but am going on a speaking tour with the American Opinion Speakers Bureau. I will be telling Americans everywhere the truth about what goes on inside the klan…I am definitely a segregationist and I also believe in obeying the laws of the land.”
I am going to copy something below which I wrote in reply to another person who, like yourself, asked me to comment about Rev. Dennis.
Please bear with me for a while so I can set the stage for my subsequent comments:
"Yes, Delmar Dennis was a JBS member. However, long BEFORE he became an FBI informant, and while he was a JBS member, Delmar joined the Meridian Mississippi chapter of the Ku Klux Klan and he became Chaplain, of Unit 1, of the Lauderdale MS Ku Klux Klan Klavern. Prior to actual membership he attended KKK meetings.
He joined the KKK (and he previously attended meetings) because he was a product of his small town Mississippi upbringing and he accepted the claims made by white supremacists about the inherent inferiority of African Americans and the need to keep them segregated second-class citizens within southern communities.
For example:
(1) Delmar was a member of Americans for the Preservation of the White Race.
(2) In 1964, he wrote a pro-segregation pamphlet entitled “The Unconquerable Land”.
(3) He founded a whites-only church in his community.
(4) He was Chairman of the White Citizens Council in Lauderdale County MS and he was also Chairman of the Public Affairs Committee of the White Citizens Council chapter in Meridian MS.
(5) Delmar also served on the Board of Directors of the White Christian Protective and Legal Defense Fund. The JBS member who authored the book, Klandestine, correctly described the Defense Fund as a "KKK-fundraising front". And in November 1965 Rev. Dennis attempted to organize a pro-segregation group, called the Patrick Henry Society, in his community.
In 1967, after he surfaced as an FBI informant, Dennis told the Special Agent in Charge of the Jackson MS field office that "numerous members" of the John Birch Society resigned from the JBS in protest -- because, obviously, they were were hostile toward what Delmar did for the FBI.
In 1968, the JBS Coordinator for the State of Mississippi, [J. Vernon Pace] contacted the Jackson MS office of the FBI and reported the following information:
“Mr. Pace further stated that he understood that various klansmen in the Meridian area nominated JBS members for officers in the White Citizens Council at Meridian MS which Pace felt was an effort to use the JBS as a front for the klansmen who would feel they could influence the JBS members that they had helped place in positions within the White Citizens Council.
Pace stated that when this effort was brought to his attention, he immediately instructed the JBS members to resign their positions from the White Citizens Council; however, all did not do so. He stated this was also a contributing factor in the revocation of the JBS charter in Meridian MS.”
Incidentally, Bill, if you would like to see one of the FBI summaries regarding Delmar's background, I recently scanned and posted two memos here:
http://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/dennis
Notice that the FBI states that Dennis was a well known "ardent segregationist"
In November 1964, Delmar made the following report to his FBI contact:
"...I have learned that the Klan uses meetings of the John Birch Society, Masons, and Americans For The Preservation of the White Race to solicit members for the Klan. The Auxiliary Police in Neshoba County is a front for Klan membership in Neshoba County."
Suppose, Bill, you and I were discussing a liberal organization which the JBS despises. How about ACLU for example? What would be YOUR reaction if a JBS member who was also an FBI informant within the CPUSA stated:
"I have learned that the CPUSA uses meetings of the ACLU to solicit members for the CPUSA."?? Would you consider that irrelevant or worthless data?
In November 1966, Rev. Dennis reported the following information concerning Sen. James Eastland of MS and prosecution of the murderers of civil rights workers.
Keep in mind as you read this info that the JBS scored Eastland as 96% on its Conservative Index -- i.e. according to the JBS, Eastland truly understood and applied "Constitutional" principles of government.
Dennis is the person referred to as "confidential source" in this FBI memo:
“On 10/20/66, the confidential source advised that Klan circles in the Meridian MS area were abuzz with the knowledge that Senator James O. Eastland has been taking credit for the Federal Government dropping charges against those indicted in the Neshoba County slayings. Eastland, according to the source, had made his efforts in behalf of those indicted known to (name deleted) Neshoba County Attorney, and other attorneys for the defendants in the Neshoba County case. Source also related that (name deleted) prominent Klan member in the Meridian area, advised that all of the defendants are working earnestly in behalf of Senator Eastland’s campaign for re-election and (name deleted) felt that if Eastland is re-elected he will keep the MIBURN defendants out of jail.”
“On 10/20/66, confidential source also advised (name deleted) also related that Senator James O. Eastland recently appeared at a political rally held in Forest MS and that Eastland had invited Sam Bowers, Imperial Wizard of the White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi, to occupy the speaker’s stand with him. Source also related that Eastland stated that he has been ‘pulling strings for them’ and that Eastland ‘has enough seniority to help them’. “
Now, again, let's substitute "Communist" for KKK-references in this memo.
What would be the JBS interpretation of information provided by an FBI informant inside the CPUSA if that informant stated that a U.S. Senator was assisting persons indicted for serious crimes and those people were members or supporters of the CPUSA?
Would the JBS rate that Senator 96%? Of course not.
Nevertheless, the KKK is on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations -- but that did not stop Eastland from soliciting support from Klan leaders, groups, and members nor did it stop him from using his powerful position to influence legal proceedings against the murderers of civil rights workers in Mississippi.
Nor did Eastland's background prevent the JBS from recommending him as a role model for anyone interested in "Constitutional" government. Furthermore, the JBS praised Eastland, and reprinted some of his speeches which contained his bigoted arguments against the NAACP and other civil rights organizations.
Now, let's turn our attention to the famous photo of Martin Luther King Jr. attending what the Birch Society described as "a Communist training school". That is a reference, as you know Bill, to Highlander Folk School.
So, Bill, please tell us WHOM was responsible for describing HFS as a "Communist training school"???
HFS does not appear on the AG List of Subversive Organizations; it was not listed in the HUAC "Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications". Nor was HFS considered a subversive front organization by the Subversive Activities Control Board or the Loyalty Review Board.
So, Bill, WHOM did the JBS rely upon for its characterization of HFS?
The answer: an "investigator" for the Georgia Commission on Education by the name of Edwin H. Friend.
Now, Bill, was Edwin Friend an impartial and fair-minded person who genuinely was seeking the truth about the HFS?
Apparently the JBS thought so because they relied upon his "report" and the JBS used his "photos" to make its case against HFS.
What did Edwin Friend think his assignment was -- from his employer, the Georgia Commission on Education (GCE)?
Friend’s answer to that question may be found in a deposition he submitted in November 1959 for Tennessee court proceedings. Friend said that his assignment as a Georgia “undercover agent” was “to go to Monteagle, Tennessee to the Highlander Folk School and find out whether that malignancy of the NAACP and Communism was leaking out over Georgia.” [John Edgerton, The Trial of the Highlander Folk School, Southern Exposure, Spring 1978, p 86.]
So, Bill, WHO WAS EDWIN H. FRIEND?
Aside from being described as a “GCE investigator”, Ed Friend was also described as the “official state photographer for Georgia”.
But Ed Friend had an even more compelling position title – he was the official photographer for the Georgia Ku Klux Klan!
Atlanta FBI file 80-1138, serial #3 is a 9/30/67 SAC Atlanta memo to J. Edgar Hoover which contains the following data:
Pg 1: “Friend was not interviewed in view of his reported close association with Calvin F. Craig, Grand Dragon United Klans of America, Realm of GA, and with Robert Shelton, Imperial Wizard UKA...In May of 1962, (name deleted) reported that on 5/7/62 Calvin Craig, Robert Shelton, and (name deleted) all of whom are Klansmen, Shelton the Imperial Wizard, and Craig the UKA Grand Dragon, Realm of GA, proceeded to the Georgia State Capitol where they contacted a photographer named Ed Friend.”
Pg 2: “Friend then took Craig, Shelton, and (name deleted) into Attorney General Eugene Cook’s office at the State Capitol. The conversation that ensued related to the coming elections, the County Unit system, and school segregation.”
“In October 1957, Ed Friend was described as an undercover agent for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and in this capacity had covered an assignment at Monteagle TN Labor Day 1957. Friend…subsequently testified before the Georgia Education Commission 10/4/57 regarding inter-racial meetings held at the Highlander Folk School, Monteagle TN and also the attendance of certain CP functionaries at this conference.”
“In March of 1960 (name deleted) reported that Ed Friend was in touch with Calvin F. Craig and asked to borrow a Klan robe from him so that the daughter of the Attorney General, Eugene Cook, who was then in attendance at a school in Connecticut, could use the Klan robe in conjunction with some school activity.”
Pg 3: “In September 1960, the Klan proposed a rally at Stone Mountain GA for 9/24/60 and during the planning stages Calvin F. Craig indicated he would have Ed Friend take pictures at this function. In view of the above cited close association on the part of Friend with the Ku Klux Klan, Calvin F. Craig, and Robert Shelton, leaders in the Klan, it is considered inadvisable to interview Ed Friend, as if the opportunity presents itself, he will capitalize on any contacts had with the FBI.”
When the GCE published its pamphlet on Highlander, accompanied by a picture of a group of individuals seated in an auditorium (one of whom was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) it described the HFS seminar as being "held to discuss methods and tactics for precipitating racial strife and disturbances."
Subsequently, Edwin Friend testified before a Tennessee legislative hearing concerning what he "learned" during his "investigation" of Highlander. The excerpt appearing below, reveals his underlying motivation and the basis for him describing Highlander as a "Communist Training School".
"Q: Mr. Friend, was that a subversive meeting there at that time?
A: It was subversive, sir, to the way that I have been taught to live in America.
Q: Explain that to the committee.
A: I have been taught by southern tradition to keep the races separate. I was taught to go to Sunday school and Church. I was taught to respect the other fellow's habitat, and that is what I have always tried to do. Up here it seems like all of those things weren't even considered. It is the primary motive of this group to tear down the forces that were trying to keep the races separate in the South." [Joint Legislative Investigating Committee, State of Tennessee: Investigation of Highlander Folk School, Grundy County Tennessee, 3/4/59, p447.]
Friend was asked another question which produced a revealing answer:
“Q. Do you believe that anyone that espouses the things that you have just said to promote integration for that kind of motive, could possibly be a good Tennessean, a good Southerner, or a good American?”
A. I can guarantee you he is not what I would call a good American, Sir.”
So, here again, the JBS relied upon a bigoted white supremacist for its conclusion regarding HFS.
Now, Bill, what was the FBI conclusion regarding the HFS?
A July 1963 FBI memo summarizes the FBI file on Highlander Folk School:
"Due to the interracial character of the School, it has been the subject of numerous allegations that it represented the headquarters of communism in east Tennessee. An extensive investigation was conducted in 1941 and 1942 as a result of the allegations. These allegations have never been substantiated and much of the information of a subversive derogatory nature concerning this School was later repudiated by the individuals who previously furnished the information...This organization has continuously been involved in the integration movement and as a result charges are being continuously made that it is 'communist'. These charges are based mainly on the opinion of the individuals making the charges that being pro-integration is being pro-communist." [HQ 64-7511, #286, July 26, 1963, F.J. Baumgardner to W.C. Sullivan].
So, Bill, let's sum up:
1. The JBS allowed racists and segregationists to become members, speakers, and writers for the JBS and even included them on its National Council.
2. The JBS featured racists and segregationists on the American Opinion Speakers Bureau. For example -- Delmar Dennis and Jim Clark (Sheriff Selma AL)
3. The JBS adopted the arguments and evidence used by racists and segregationists in their unrelenting attempt to maintain the status quo in our southern communities. (For example: the JBS disseminated the "communist training school" argument concocted by Ed Friend -- the Georgia Klan photographer. And Friend was hired by the then-Governor of Georgia (Marvin Griffin).
SO WHO IS MARVIN GRIFFIN AND WHAT EXPERTISE DOES HE BRING TO THIS MATTER?
Governor Marvin Griffin was a life-long segregationist and co-founder, in 1955, of the State’s Rights Council of Georgia. The Council, like the GCE, was devoted to maintaining school segregation in Georgia. Toward that end, Governor Griffin was warmly welcomed as a featured speaker at White Citizens Councils and State’s Rights Council functions.
Incidentally, the President of the State’s Rights Council of Georgia (R. Carter Pittman--a JBS endorser) told the [I]Atlanta Constitution on 10/22/55 that: “…the South has no racial problem and has had none for a half century. Its racial problems were solved by segregation.”
Marvin Griffin served as Governor of Georgia from 1955-1959 and he previously served as Lt. Governor as well as being in the Georgia State Legislature. He also was publisher and editor of the weekly Bainbridge GA Post-Searchlight newspaper, which served as another vehicle to express his racist sentiments.
In May 1956, Griffin made the following observations in a speech before the Southern Regional Citizens’ Council in New Orleans:
“Let me say to you tonight as we counsel together, do not be concerned by what is said by the Communists, the pinkos, the radicals, the NAACP, the ADA, the one-worlders and all that motley group of crackpots who are clamoring for desegregation and mongrelization. These groups of organized minorities are chanting a chorus that opposition to the fraudulent order of the Supreme Court is defiance of law. Of course, that is not true. The decision of May 17, 1954 is not law. It is an attempt to make law where none existed before by a non law-making body.” …
“You may take the map of the world today and look at all of the countries. Wherever you find a country that is populated by a black race, a colored race, or a mongrel race, the Christian religion has not been able to survive…I say without fear of contradiction, that the white race is the only race of people in history who have been able to perpetuate the Christian religion. Mongrelization of our people here in America will follow integration of the races in school and on the social level. When mongrelization of the races occurs---and God grant that it never will occur---it will bring with it the destruction of the Christian religion.” …
“There are obvious and well-known differences between whites and blacks which no amount of glossing-over and covering up by subversive so-called anthropologists and pseudo-scientists can hide…There are many reasons why the white people object to their children having this close association with ****** children. Among them are: health; the Nigra’s high crime rate and disrespect for law; the lower mentality level; and the high rate of illegitimacy among Nigras.” …
“I would like to, for just a moment, if you please, tell you very briefly what we are attempting to do in our State of Georgia. First, in Georgia, the Constitution and the laws of our state prevent the expenditure of state tax funds for the operation of mixed schools. Also, our General Assembly will never appropriate one dime for mixed schools. And let me say to you definitely and unequivocally, Georgia will have separate public schools or no public schools.” [Transcript of May 1956 Griffin speech before Southern Regional Citizens Council in New Orleans, pages 3-4; copy in my possession; Also see: Highlander Folk School papers microfilm, Roll 4, Slide 85 – State Historical Society of Wisconsin.]
So, Bill, I hope this background will help you understand why I stated in my earlier message that:
What did the JBS advocate to address the grave state of affairs described by Schuyler and Dennis? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
In fact, the JBS never even brought the attention of its membership to this horrific situation described by Schuyler and Dennis.
Instead, the JBS adopted the arguments authored and promoted by segregationists and white supremacists and in fact, the JBS welcomed segregationists or White Citizens Councils officials into the JBS as members, as writers, as speakers, and as National Council members!
Ernie,
How can you even make that conclusion when you have stated that JBS had employed Delmar Dennis to put him on a speaking tour to make these very wrongs known?
You easily dismiss the opinions of those that bolster JBS' positions yet you have no problem using the opinions of those that bolster your position of which we dismiss. And you publicly wonder why JBS members and supporters do the same to you. In fact you seem to enjoy broadbrushing all JBS members and supporters, regardless of their level of involvement. You claim to be a libertarian. We have many, many members who are libertarians. While not all members or supporters see eye-to-eye on all issues with JBS, there is common ground that we find and work from.
After following your comments for quite some time, I can sometimes see the common ground with you, but quite recently your tone seems to have changed substantially. It seems that no matter what JBS says, writes, posts, etc., it seems to be an invitation for you to attack the organization and its members while calling them names, degrading them and belittling them. Lately, you seem to have branched out further to include more of the "right-wing."
I'm not going to make any conclusions regarding how healthy your obsession with this is, but I have to ask how this actually helps preserve the liberty that you and I hold so dear. What are you doing to preserve and pass along to the next generation the freedom that continues to slip away with each passing administration in the name of security?
If you're ever in Wisconsin, stop into our office in Appleton. We can certainly discuss in depth the avenues that members and supporters are currently taking to help protect and restore our God-given rights. That would certainly make for an interesting conversation.
Bill Hahn
JBS PR Manager
00_Pete
07-12-2010, 06:36 PM
JBS are heroes of Western Civilization. God willing, History books will say they were right after all. Im a great fan of all things anti-communist (including the conspiracy perspective) and the more i study this monstrous International Communist Conspiracy the more i realise how far-seeing JBS and the likes of McCarthy were.
ernie1241
07-12-2010, 06:58 PM
Frank -- I don't understand the significance of your comment. For example, as you know, the current 2010 editions of the JBS Bulletin often reprint comments made by Robert Welch in JBS Bulletins written/published decades ago.
Furthermore, the JBS has never retracted even one derogatory statement or conclusion it first published during the 1960's or 1970's. Indeed, the JBS still recommends and sells publications that were originally published in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's.
And in 2002, the JBS published a new edition of Mr. Welch's so-called "private letter", written in the 1950's, entitled The Politician. The JBS blurb on the back cover of the new edition concludes with this comment:
"But most importantly The Politician exposes that 'conspiracy of gangsters' which even now is setting America's foreign and domestic policy."
As you probably know, the reference to "conspiracy of gangsters" is from a comment by Mr. Welch made in Chapter 18 of The Politician.
So one can easily and fairly conclude (contrary to what you wrote here), that the JBS is merely recycling and re-packaging all of the ideas, premises, and conclusions that both it and Mr. Welch first disseminated 52 or more years ago!
Last time I checked the date is 2010, not the 1960s.
The JBS has New leadership, New ideas, and New Perspectives.
JBS_PR
07-13-2010, 04:02 PM
Ernie,
I appreciate the civility here. But what would you like me to say to that? I have neither the time nor resources to address everything here. It's apparent that you have made a number of conclusions regarding JBS allowing in racists. From what I understand, the official policy has been and will always be that racists are not allowed into JBS. We cannot deny that many have come and gone from our ranks who were racists due to the negative and false publicity, they actually thought the organization was racist. But as they begin to work with other members and interact with staff, their true self is known. And when that happens, they are turned in and kicked out indefinitely. I have personally seen our policy work that way several times.
Many times we don't have a clue that someone is racist until they exhibit it in some way. I've heard and read stories from ex-members who joined and then left after learning that JBS is not the place for racists.
Racism is not taken lightly here. That's the main reason we alerted the Oklahoma City media recently regarding the racist letter that was falsely sent out with our contact info. We filed reports with the Postal Inspectors and the OKC Police. We do not tolerate it.
I cannot correctly answer as to where our resources came from regarding decisions made over 40 years ago. I can only tell you from personal experience what JBS is like in the three years I have been working for them. In my travels, I have met a number of members and staff around the country (many who have been with the Society for decades) and I have yet to meet anyone who has shared any type of hate. It's our love for independence, self reliance, and God and family that unites us and pushes us forward in the JBS mission. The day that we adopt hate as a tool is the day I resign. And I suspect and expect the rest of the staff to do so, as well as all members.
Now, you've responded to one of my questions, even though you insist that it is a complex manner, with what I would call many loose connections, I'm not satisfied that you're being consistent. Over the years you have defended JBS on the question of racism. You have just done this within the last 2 weeks when a blogger erroneously concluded that the JBS=the KKK. You can't have it both ways. Which will it be?
And as I wrote, you've only responded to one of my questions. In fact you answered the question that is a hot button for you, yet you conveniently decided against answering the other questions, of which I would call more important. What are you doing today to preserve freedom for future generations? Isn't this of some importance to those who personally label themselves libertarian? Spending copious amounts of time, sweat and good money chasing JBS mentions online and unloading FBI files onto readers is an interesting and consuming pastime, but is it a fruitful tactic that will contribute to restoring the Republic? Or is that not a goal for you? While libertarians and the JBS don't see eye-to-eye on all matters, the common ground is one of limiting government involvement in personal lives. It's not my place to judge, as I believe free men should be able to do whatever they want within certain legal, moral and ethical limitations of course, but I am interested in your motives and your goals.
Bill Hahn
JBS PR Manager
Bill -- Thanks for your message.
To respond appropriately to your question regarding Delmar Dennis is a very complex matter Bill.
First of all, the Birch Society never presented to its members an accurate account of Delmar Dennis or of the prevailing conditions which existed in his community or his state or in the south generally.
Naturally, one has to ask the question WHY is that the case--particularly since the JBS certainly was in a position to know the truth about this matter??
Rev. Dennis was opposed to KKK violence -- but he did NOT oppose the racist arguments which suffused the thinking of the KKK and White Citizens Councils and other racist pro-segregation groups. Even AFTER he surfaced as an FBI informant, he made the following comment to a newspaper in 1967:
“I am doing nothing now but am going on a speaking tour with the American Opinion Speakers Bureau. I will be telling Americans everywhere the truth about what goes on inside the klan…I am definitely a segregationist and I also believe in obeying the laws of the land.”
I am going to copy something below which I wrote in reply to another person who, like yourself, asked me to comment about Rev. Dennis.
Please bear with me for a while so I can set the stage for my subsequent comments:
"Yes, Delmar Dennis was a JBS member. However, long BEFORE he became an FBI informant, and while he was a JBS member, Delmar joined the Meridian Mississippi chapter of the Ku Klux Klan and he became Chaplain, of Unit 1, of the Lauderdale MS Ku Klux Klan Klavern. Prior to actual membership he attended KKK meetings.
He joined the KKK (and he previously attended meetings) because he was a product of his small town Mississippi upbringing and he accepted the claims made by white supremacists about the inherent inferiority of African Americans and the need to keep them segregated second-class citizens within southern communities.
For example:
(1) Delmar was a member of Americans for the Preservation of the White Race.
(2) In 1964, he wrote a pro-segregation pamphlet entitled “The Unconquerable Land”.
(3) He founded a whites-only church in his community.
(4) He was Chairman of the White Citizens Council in Lauderdale County MS and he was also Chairman of the Public Affairs Committee of the White Citizens Council chapter in Meridian MS.
(5) Delmar also served on the Board of Directors of the White Christian Protective and Legal Defense Fund. The JBS member who authored the book, Klandestine, correctly described the Defense Fund as a "KKK-fundraising front". And in November 1965 Rev. Dennis attempted to organize a pro-segregation group, called the Patrick Henry Society, in his community.
In 1967, after he surfaced as an FBI informant, Dennis told the Special Agent in Charge of the Jackson MS field office that "numerous members" of the John Birch Society resigned from the JBS in protest -- because, obviously, they were were hostile toward what Delmar did for the FBI.
In 1968, the JBS Coordinator for the State of Mississippi, [J. Vernon Pace] contacted the Jackson MS office of the FBI and reported the following information:
“Mr. Pace further stated that he understood that various klansmen in the Meridian area nominated JBS members for officers in the White Citizens Council at Meridian MS which Pace felt was an effort to use the JBS as a front for the klansmen who would feel they could influence the JBS members that they had helped place in positions within the White Citizens Council.
Pace stated that when this effort was brought to his attention, he immediately instructed the JBS members to resign their positions from the White Citizens Council; however, all did not do so. He stated this was also a contributing factor in the revocation of the JBS charter in Meridian MS.”
Incidentally, Bill, if you would like to see one of the FBI summaries regarding Delmar's background, I recently scanned and posted two memos here:
http://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/dennis
Notice that the FBI states that Dennis was a well known "ardent segregationist"
In November 1964, Delmar made the following report to his FBI contact:
"...I have learned that the Klan uses meetings of the John Birch Society, Masons, and Americans For The Preservation of the White Race to solicit members for the Klan. The Auxiliary Police in Neshoba County is a front for Klan membership in Neshoba County."
Suppose, Bill, you and I were discussing a liberal organization which the JBS despises. How about ACLU for example? What would be YOUR reaction if a JBS member who was also an FBI informant within the CPUSA stated:
"I have learned that the CPUSA uses meetings of the ACLU to solicit members for the CPUSA."?? Would you consider that irrelevant or worthless data?
In November 1966, Rev. Dennis reported the following information concerning Sen. James Eastland of MS and prosecution of the murderers of civil rights workers.
Keep in mind as you read this info that the JBS scored Eastland as 96% on its Conservative Index -- i.e. according to the JBS, Eastland truly understood and applied "Constitutional" principles of government.
Dennis is the person referred to as "confidential source" in this FBI memo:
“On 10/20/66, the confidential source advised that Klan circles in the Meridian MS area were abuzz with the knowledge that Senator James O. Eastland has been taking credit for the Federal Government dropping charges against those indicted in the Neshoba County slayings. Eastland, according to the source, had made his efforts in behalf of those indicted known to (name deleted) Neshoba County Attorney, and other attorneys for the defendants in the Neshoba County case. Source also related that (name deleted) prominent Klan member in the Meridian area, advised that all of the defendants are working earnestly in behalf of Senator Eastland’s campaign for re-election and (name deleted) felt that if Eastland is re-elected he will keep the MIBURN defendants out of jail.”
“On 10/20/66, confidential source also advised (name deleted) also related that Senator James O. Eastland recently appeared at a political rally held in Forest MS and that Eastland had invited Sam Bowers, Imperial Wizard of the White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi, to occupy the speaker’s stand with him. Source also related that Eastland stated that he has been ‘pulling strings for them’ and that Eastland ‘has enough seniority to help them’. “
Now, again, let's substitute "Communist" for KKK-references in this memo.
What would be the JBS interpretation of information provided by an FBI informant inside the CPUSA if that informant stated that a U.S. Senator was assisting persons indicted for serious crimes and those people were members or supporters of the CPUSA?
Would the JBS rate that Senator 96%? Of course not.
Nevertheless, the KKK is on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations -- but that did not stop Eastland from soliciting support from Klan leaders, groups, and members nor did it stop him from using his powerful position to influence legal proceedings against the murderers of civil rights workers in Mississippi.
Nor did Eastland's background prevent the JBS from recommending him as a role model for anyone interested in "Constitutional" government. Furthermore, the JBS praised Eastland, and reprinted some of his speeches which contained his bigoted arguments against the NAACP and other civil rights organizations.
Now, let's turn our attention to the famous photo of Martin Luther King Jr. attending what the Birch Society described as "a Communist training school". That is a reference, as you know Bill, to Highlander Folk School.
So, Bill, please tell us WHOM was responsible for describing HFS as a "Communist training school"???
HFS does not appear on the AG List of Subversive Organizations; it was not listed in the HUAC "Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications". Nor was HFS considered a subversive front organization by the Subversive Activities Control Board or the Loyalty Review Board.
So, Bill, WHOM did the JBS rely upon for its characterization of HFS?
The answer: an "investigator" for the Georgia Commission on Education by the name of Edwin H. Friend.
Now, Bill, was Edwin Friend an impartial and fair-minded person who genuinely was seeking the truth about the HFS?
Apparently the JBS thought so because they relied upon his "report" and the JBS used his "photos" to make its case against HFS.
What did Edwin Friend think his assignment was -- from his employer, the Georgia Commission on Education (GCE)?
Friend’s answer to that question may be found in a deposition he submitted in November 1959 for Tennessee court proceedings. Friend said that his assignment as a Georgia “undercover agent” was “to go to Monteagle, Tennessee to the Highlander Folk School and find out whether that malignancy of the NAACP and Communism was leaking out over Georgia.” [John Edgerton, The Trial of the Highlander Folk School, Southern Exposure, Spring 1978, p 86.]
So, Bill, WHO WAS EDWIN H. FRIEND?
Aside from being described as a “GCE investigator”, Ed Friend was also described as the “official state photographer for Georgia”.
But Ed Friend had an even more compelling position title – he was the official photographer for the Georgia Ku Klux Klan!
Atlanta FBI file 80-1138, serial #3 is a 9/30/67 SAC Atlanta memo to J. Edgar Hoover which contains the following data:
Pg 1: “Friend was not interviewed in view of his reported close association with Calvin F. Craig, Grand Dragon United Klans of America, Realm of GA, and with Robert Shelton, Imperial Wizard UKA...In May of 1962, (name deleted) reported that on 5/7/62 Calvin Craig, Robert Shelton, and (name deleted) all of whom are Klansmen, Shelton the Imperial Wizard, and Craig the UKA Grand Dragon, Realm of GA, proceeded to the Georgia State Capitol where they contacted a photographer named Ed Friend.”
Pg 2: “Friend then took Craig, Shelton, and (name deleted) into Attorney General Eugene Cook’s office at the State Capitol. The conversation that ensued related to the coming elections, the County Unit system, and school segregation.”
“In October 1957, Ed Friend was described as an undercover agent for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and in this capacity had covered an assignment at Monteagle TN Labor Day 1957. Friend…subsequently testified before the Georgia Education Commission 10/4/57 regarding inter-racial meetings held at the Highlander Folk School, Monteagle TN and also the attendance of certain CP functionaries at this conference.”
“In March of 1960 (name deleted) reported that Ed Friend was in touch with Calvin F. Craig and asked to borrow a Klan robe from him so that the daughter of the Attorney General, Eugene Cook, who was then in attendance at a school in Connecticut, could use the Klan robe in conjunction with some school activity.”
Pg 3: “In September 1960, the Klan proposed a rally at Stone Mountain GA for 9/24/60 and during the planning stages Calvin F. Craig indicated he would have Ed Friend take pictures at this function. In view of the above cited close association on the part of Friend with the Ku Klux Klan, Calvin F. Craig, and Robert Shelton, leaders in the Klan, it is considered inadvisable to interview Ed Friend, as if the opportunity presents itself, he will capitalize on any contacts had with the FBI.”
When the GCE published its pamphlet on Highlander, accompanied by a picture of a group of individuals seated in an auditorium (one of whom was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) it described the HFS seminar as being "held to discuss methods and tactics for precipitating racial strife and disturbances."
Subsequently, Edwin Friend testified before a Tennessee legislative hearing concerning what he "learned" during his "investigation" of Highlander. The excerpt appearing below, reveals his underlying motivation and the basis for him describing Highlander as a "Communist Training School".
"Q: Mr. Friend, was that a subversive meeting there at that time?
A: It was subversive, sir, to the way that I have been taught to live in America.
Q: Explain that to the committee.
A: I have been taught by southern tradition to keep the races separate. I was taught to go to Sunday school and Church. I was taught to respect the other fellow's habitat, and that is what I have always tried to do. Up here it seems like all of those things weren't even considered. It is the primary motive of this group to tear down the forces that were trying to keep the races separate in the South." [Joint Legislative Investigating Committee, State of Tennessee: Investigation of Highlander Folk School, Grundy County Tennessee, 3/4/59, p447.]
Friend was asked another question which produced a revealing answer:
“Q. Do you believe that anyone that espouses the things that you have just said to promote integration for that kind of motive, could possibly be a good Tennessean, a good Southerner, or a good American?”
A. I can guarantee you he is not what I would call a good American, Sir.”
So, here again, the JBS relied upon a bigoted white supremacist for its conclusion regarding HFS.
Now, Bill, what was the FBI conclusion regarding the HFS?
A July 1963 FBI memo summarizes the FBI file on Highlander Folk School:
"Due to the interracial character of the School, it has been the subject of numerous allegations that it represented the headquarters of communism in east Tennessee. An extensive investigation was conducted in 1941 and 1942 as a result of the allegations. These allegations have never been substantiated and much of the information of a subversive derogatory nature concerning this School was later repudiated by the individuals who previously furnished the information...This organization has continuously been involved in the integration movement and as a result charges are being continuously made that it is 'communist'. These charges are based mainly on the opinion of the individuals making the charges that being pro-integration is being pro-communist." [HQ 64-7511, #286, July 26, 1963, F.J. Baumgardner to W.C. Sullivan].
So, Bill, let's sum up:
1. The JBS allowed racists and segregationists to become members, speakers, and writers for the JBS and even included them on its National Council.
2. The JBS featured racists and segregationists on the American Opinion Speakers Bureau. For example -- Delmar Dennis and Jim Clark (Sheriff Selma AL)
3. The JBS adopted the arguments and evidence used by racists and segregationists in their unrelenting attempt to maintain the status quo in our southern communities. (For example: the JBS disseminated the "communist training school" argument concocted by Ed Friend -- the Georgia Klan photographer. And Friend was hired by the then-Governor of Georgia (Marvin Griffin).
SO WHO IS MARVIN GRIFFIN AND WHAT EXPERTISE DOES HE BRING TO THIS MATTER?
Governor Marvin Griffin was a life-long segregationist and co-founder, in 1955, of the State’s Rights Council of Georgia. The Council, like the GCE, was devoted to maintaining school segregation in Georgia. Toward that end, Governor Griffin was warmly welcomed as a featured speaker at White Citizens Councils and State’s Rights Council functions.
Incidentally, the President of the State’s Rights Council of Georgia (R. Carter Pittman--a JBS endorser) told the [I]Atlanta Constitution on 10/22/55 that: “…the South has no racial problem and has had none for a half century. Its racial problems were solved by segregation.”
Marvin Griffin served as Governor of Georgia from 1955-1959 and he previously served as Lt. Governor as well as being in the Georgia State Legislature. He also was publisher and editor of the weekly Bainbridge GA Post-Searchlight newspaper, which served as another vehicle to express his racist sentiments.
In May 1956, Griffin made the following observations in a speech before the Southern Regional Citizens’ Council in New Orleans:
“Let me say to you tonight as we counsel together, do not be concerned by what is said by the Communists, the pinkos, the radicals, the NAACP, the ADA, the one-worlders and all that motley group of crackpots who are clamoring for desegregation and mongrelization. These groups of organized minorities are chanting a chorus that opposition to the fraudulent order of the Supreme Court is defiance of law. Of course, that is not true. The decision of May 17, 1954 is not law. It is an attempt to make law where none existed before by a non law-making body.” …
“You may take the map of the world today and look at all of the countries. Wherever you find a country that is populated by a black race, a colored race, or a mongrel race, the Christian religion has not been able to survive…I say without fear of contradiction, that the white race is the only race of people in history who have been able to perpetuate the Christian religion. Mongrelization of our people here in America will follow integration of the races in school and on the social level. When mongrelization of the races occurs---and God grant that it never will occur---it will bring with it the destruction of the Christian religion.” …
“There are obvious and well-known differences between whites and blacks which no amount of glossing-over and covering up by subversive so-called anthropologists and pseudo-scientists can hide…There are many reasons why the white people object to their children having this close association with ****** children. Among them are: health; the Nigra’s high crime rate and disrespect for law; the lower mentality level; and the high rate of illegitimacy among Nigras.” …
“I would like to, for just a moment, if you please, tell you very briefly what we are attempting to do in our State of Georgia. First, in Georgia, the Constitution and the laws of our state prevent the expenditure of state tax funds for the operation of mixed schools. Also, our General Assembly will never appropriate one dime for mixed schools. And let me say to you definitely and unequivocally, Georgia will have separate public schools or no public schools.” [Transcript of May 1956 Griffin speech before Southern Regional Citizens Council in New Orleans, pages 3-4; copy in my possession; Also see: Highlander Folk School papers microfilm, Roll 4, Slide 85 – State Historical Society of Wisconsin.]
So, Bill, I hope this background will help you understand why I stated in my earlier message that:
What did the JBS advocate to address the grave state of affairs described by Schuyler and Dennis? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
In fact, the JBS never even brought the attention of its membership to this horrific situation described by Schuyler and Dennis.
Instead, the JBS adopted the arguments authored and promoted by segregationists and white supremacists and in fact, the JBS welcomed segregationists or White Citizens Councils officials into the JBS as members, as writers, as speakers, and as National Council members!
Fredom101
07-13-2010, 04:25 PM
When did this turn into JBS Forums?
I don't believe in Gods or Goblins, and want nothing to do with JBS and their religiosity and intolerance.
Lord Xar
07-13-2010, 04:29 PM
When did this turn into JBS Forums?
I don't believe in Gods or Goblins, and want nothing to do with JBS and their religiosity and intolerance.
Big government liberals tend to put their faith in the state.
00_Pete
07-13-2010, 04:52 PM
When did this turn into JBS Forums?
I don't believe in Gods or Goblins, and want nothing to do with JBS and their religiosity and intolerance.
They are free to post here just like angry ****-facists are free to post here...
Dont like JBS? What are you doing in this thread (a tiny drop of water in the middle of a sea of threads)? Thats one of the major problems with you homosexuals, you think the world must roll around you.
Dr.3D
07-13-2010, 05:12 PM
When did this turn into JBS Forums?
I don't believe in Gods or Goblins, and want nothing to do with JBS and their religiosity and intolerance.
Then quit being religiously intolerant of them.
Fredom101
07-13-2010, 05:24 PM
Big government liberals tend to put their faith in the state.
And I put my "faith" in neither the state, nor ghosts, but rather, in myself.
Fredom101
07-13-2010, 05:26 PM
They are free to post here just like angry ****-facists are free to post here...
Dont like JBS? What are you doing in this thread (a tiny drop of water in the middle of a sea of threads)? Thats one of the major problems with you homosexuals, you think the world must roll around you.
I'm expressing my opinion just like they are.
Why are you sinking to calling me names?
ernie1241
07-14-2010, 05:26 PM
Bill: While I certainly can agree with some of your comments, it is, however, incorrect to propose that readers should think that my statements amount to only my personal opinion or conclusions. Facts are facts Bill--even when unpleasant or inconvenient.
Robert Welch certainly was aware of the bigotry of many of the people who joined the JBS. In fact he asked some of them to join. [Examples: Verne P. Kaub and Revilo Oliver -- both of whom were explicit anti-semites.]
Similarly, the JBS asked bigots like Eric Butler and Sheriff Jim Clark to speak under the auspices of the AO Speakers Bureau! And the JBS published or recommended books which contained themes that originated with bigots. For example, when the JBS went all-out to promote Gary Allen's classic, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, William Loeb, the ultra-conservative publisher of the Manchester NH Union-Leader newspaper ran an editorial (5/5/72) describing Gary's book as "anti-semitic nonsense" - whereupon the paper received numerous hostile replies.
One of those replies was from a local Bircher who denied that the JBS was anti-semitic but she declared that "to deny that the Conspiracy is being directed by international bankers--Jews mainly...is being naïve in the extreme, as well as totally ignorant of the depth and extent of the REAL conspiracy." [Marguerite M. Woodman letter to editor, 6/29/72].
And how is it possible to explain Mr. Welch's effusive praise for Revilo Oliver in the March 1965 issue of American Opinion??
Mr. Welch described Oliver as “an authentic genius of the first water, and quite possibly the world’s greatest living scholar.”
When Oliver ultimately resigned from the JBS in 1966, Welch expressed regret: "...we have accepted his resignation from the Council with a considerable and natural reluctance. For he is an earnest anti-communist, as well as one of the world’s greatest scholars in the fields of classical languages and literature.” An "earnest anti-communist"?
By contrast, consider this evaluation of Oliver which was made by former FBI informant Herbert Philbrick based upon his contacts with Oliver in 1959 and 1960 as reported in a 1961 FBI memo. This memo concerned Oliver's claim that he relied upon information provided to him by Philbrick which Oliver included in an article he wrote for American Opinion in 1959 and in his speeches which discussed alleged communist infiltration of the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare:
"Herbert A. Philbrick...advised this date he has met Dr. Revilo P. Oliver on two occasions at Urbana IL in late 1959 or early 1960 when Philbrick delivered lectures there. Oliver has written Philbrick on one or two occasions. Philbrick stated he has never given Dr. Oliver any information concerning Communist infiltration of DHEW, stating he knows no one in this Department and has had no information concerning Communist Party activity in the U.S. Government since at least 1944. Philbrick approximately one half year ago heard statements attributed to him that DHEW was infiltrated with CP members...He denied emphatically that he ever made such statements orally or in writing. He considers Dr. Oliver to be an extremist in anti-Communist feelings and violently anti-Semitic."
How was it possible for Philbrick to determine in 1961 that Oliver was "violently anti-semitic" but it was not possible for Mr. Welch to recognize Oliver's racism and anti-semitism until 1966?
As Oliver correctly pointed out to JBS National Council members in a memo concerning the 1966 speech which resulted in his resignation from the JBS:
“There was no significant statement in that speech that I had not made, months or years before, in the pages of American Opinion, without eliciting the slightest objection or adverse criticism from Mr. Welch.”
Many prominent JBS members were well-known officials of, or writers/speakers for, the White Citizens Council movement (such as Medford Evans, Louis Hollis, W.J. Simmons, Ferrell Griswold).
JBS members frequently spoke at white supremacist rallies and events or had their articles published in white supremacist publications. Birchers played a very significant role in the formation of the American Party and American Independent Party both of which were organized to support the Presidential aspirations of Gov. George Wallace.
One of your most famous members, Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, wrote the following comment which was published in Conde McGinley's racist and anti-semitic newspaper, Common Sense, 11/15/65, p5:
“I’ll bet you will find more good Americans in the Ku Klux Klan than in the Americans For Democratic Action.”
The fundamental question which the JBS has never bothered to address is this:
WHY were so many indisputable virulent racists and anti-semites attracted to the JBS?
They became members, endorsers, writers, and speakers for the JBS. Some of them "graduated" from the JBS and associated themselves with, or created their own, neo-nazi, anti-semitic, and/or racist organizations.
For example, see list below. Can anyone come up with a comparable list for any other self-described right-wing or conservative "educational" organization?
Dean Kennedy (Citizens Law Enforcement and Research Committee aka Posse Comitatus; Hitler admirer)
Ferrell Griswold (White Citizens Council speaker)
Jim Kernodle (Kansas City Citizens Council)
Paul B. Hurley (National Society for the Preservation of the White Race and National States Rights Party)
Willis Carto (Liberty Lobby and about 2 dozen other groups; pro-nazi)
Michael Collins Piper (Liberty Lobby and other Carto enterprises)
William Potter Gale (Ministry of Christ Church / Christian Defense League / Posse Comitatus)
Gerda Koch (Christian Research Inc)
George E. Deatherage (Knights of the White Camellia)
Thomas Metzger (White Aryan Resistance / California Knights of the KKK)
Gordon Kahl (Posse Comitatus)
Ardie McBrearty (Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, and U.S. National Taxpayers Association)
Bernard Klassen (Nationalist White Party / Church of the Creator)
Gordon D. (Jack) Mohr (Christian Identity movement)
Kevin Strom (National Alliance / Stormfront)
Kent and Phoebe Courtney (States Rights Party of Louisiana)
Eric D. Butler (Australian League of Rights / published Protocols-like material)
William Pierce (National Alliance)
Speros Lagoulis (Joe McCarthy Bookstore--Boston)
Robert A. Surrey (American Nazi Party)
Verne P. Kaub (American Council of Christian Laymen)
Sheldon Emry (America's Promise Ministries / Christian Research Inc)
Louis T. Byers (National Youth Alliance)
David E. Lane (The Order)
Robert Mathews (The Order)
Revilo P. Oliver (National Youth Alliance / George P. Dietz's Liberty Bell magazine)
George P. Dietz (Liberty Bell Publications)
Richard B. Cotten (Cotten Conservative Viewpoint newsletter)
Frank R. Purinton (New York Anti-Communist League)
One can facilitate racism or be an enabler without being explicitly racist. YES--the Birch Society was never an explicitly racist organization as "official policy".
It never published any statements which stated or hinted that minorities should be mistreated. It never used racially abhorrent language such as the n-word. It never praised violence committed by white supremacists, etc.
But the JBS PASSIVELY accepted the horrific conditions which George Schuyler described and it allowed the facilitators and enablers of racism to USE the JBS, and the JBS DID welcome into its chapters and into leadership positions as well as welcoming writers and speakers --- persons who devoutly believed in white supremacy doctrines.
As my previous message pointed out, the JBS adopted many of the arguments used by racist organizations and it promoted/praised racist politicians such as Gov. George Wallace (AL), Sen. James Eastland (MS) and Gov. Ross Barnett (MS), Lester Maddox (GA), Sen. Strom Thurmond (SC), -- many of whom had KKK or White Citizens Councils connections.
How has the Birch Society evaluated evidence when organizations welcomed Communists as members, officials, writers, and speakers? Shouldn't we hold the JBS to the SAME standard when we discuss THEIR connections to racists and racist organizations plus the arguments which originated exclusively with racists?
IF the JBS had devoted some significant space and attention in JBS Bulletins or American Opinion magazine to accurately describing the horrific state of affairs in our southern states -- then I am certain more skeptics or critics would be willing to give the JBS the benefit of the doubt.
But, INSTEAD, it kept telling the American people that our ENTIRE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT -- was merely a device created and led by subversives and which served only their purposes!
I do not mean to offend you Bill --- but I again ask you to consider the "official policy" of the CPUSA regarding racism or anti-semitism and then compare their "official position" to what your own members who were FBI informants (such as Julia Brown) stated about, for example, the rampant racist practices within the senior echelons of the Communist Party in our country.
With respect to this portion of your message:
I cannot correctly answer as to where our resources came from regarding decisions made over 40 years ago. I can only tell you from personal experience what JBS is like in the three years I have been working for them. In my travels, I have met a number of members and staff around the country (many who have been with the Society for decades) and I have yet to meet anyone who has shared any type of hate. It's our love for independence, self reliance, and God and family that unites us and pushes us forward in the JBS mission. The day that we adopt hate as a tool is the day I resign. And I suspect and expect the rest of the staff to do so, as well as all members.
I am certain that you are totally honest and sincere about this.
But my previous (and current) comments ask that you consider the ARGUMENTS which the JBS has circulated over the past 50+ years. Keep in mind that the JBS has NEVER retracted any derogatory conclusion or assertion it has made.
JBS members, in effect, apparently are STILL being asked to accept this JBS statement as accurate and truthful:
“For the civil rights movement in the United States with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps toward the appearance of civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than thirty years."
And when the JBS slimed ALL of our national civil rights movement organizations and leaders, it conveyed the idea that the entire movement was illegitimate and facilitating subversion and treason.
Or as Mr. Welch put it when he recommended Alan Stang's JBS-published book, It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights:
"This book, because of its thoroughness, its comprehensive coverage of the whole 'civil rights' story, and its meticulous documentation, is the best single searchlight we have for exposing the 'civil rights' fraud."
According to Alan Stang, the “civil rights movement was not only planned by the Communists, but was begun, is staffed, and is conducted by the Communists—and has only one real purpose: the destruction and communization of America.”
In May 1965, the Special Agent in Charge of the Boston FBI Field Office forwarded proof sheets of the Stang book to FBI Headquarters, two months before its scheduled publication. An evaluation of the book was prepared for Assistant Director W.C. Sullivan by F.J. Baumgardner:
"It's Very Simple is an attempt to rationalize today's civil rights movement in this country as primarily a communist operation...Practically all his documentation is to public source material and there is no significant information in the book which appears to be new and previously unknown to the Bureau. Stang makes frequent use of literary license and importantly fails to include documentation for key passages (examples appear on pages 101 and 185). An entire chapter (14) is devoted to an attack on civil rights legislation and the book, in general, is critical of all Administration and other efforts aimed at improving the lot of the Negro." [HQ 100-106670-1412, May 28, 1965, and 100-106670-1525, June 24, 1965, both F.J. Baumgardner to W.C. Sullivan].
The concluding "Observations" paragraph states:
"The details of the book do not support the strong conclusions reached by the author. We have had available to us all the material which Stang has plus considerable additional data from our investigations and we could not arrive at such conclusions. The impression is received that Stang may have well started with his conclusions and then developed the information and manner of presentation which he hoped would prove his point. This work must be viewed in the light of the author's apparent close connections with Robert Welch and the John Birch Society."
With respect to this portion of your message:
"What are you doing today to preserve freedom for future generations? Isn't this of some importance to those who personally label themselves libertarian? Spending copious amounts of time, sweat and good money chasing JBS mentions online and unloading FBI files onto readers is an interesting and consuming pastime, but is it a fruitful tactic that will contribute to restoring the Republic? Or is that not a goal for you? While libertarians and the JBS don't see eye-to-eye on all matters, the common ground is one of limiting government involvement in personal lives. It's not my place to judge, as I believe free men should be able to do whatever they want within certain legal, moral and ethical limitations of course, but I am interested in your motives and your goals."
(1) Is there some Committee or Commission which you want all Americans to submit their credentials to in order to be validated as genuinely working "to preserve freedom" or "restore the Republic"?
(2) What happens if that Committee decides that I do not meet their standards? Or that YOU don't?
What do you want done to those persons who fail to satisfy whatever test you propose? Do their views no longer deserve consideration? Perhaps you propose that we eliminate their right to vote or to write or to speak? After all -- who wants to facilitate anybody who is NOT "working to preserve freedom" according to your interpretation?
The JBS was never particularly upset about the depredations of our Constitution which routinely were visited upon our African American countrymen. In fact, the JBS allied itself with the very forces which were responsible for those depredations! So what do you propose we conclude regarding the "[I]motives" and "goals" of the JBS?
(3) How does disseminating FALSE, libelous, or grossly exaggerated information help us to "preserve freedom"??
(4) How does believing (and acting upon) the assertions and conclusions which the JBS has disseminated over the past 5 decades -- which J. Edgar Hoover and top officials of the FBI characterized in terms such as "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible", "fanatics" and "lunatic fringe" --- help us "preserve freedom" and "restore the Republic"?
Or as a giant within the conservative movement (Russell Kirk) stated:
"Nothing could do more to discredit all conservatives than the violent language and unreal views regularly found in American Opinion. As several conservatively-inclined gentlemen have remarked to me...they would be sorely tempted to believe that the leaders of the Birch Society are agents of the Kremlin subtly working to discredit all opposition to Communism by reducing anti-Communism to absurdity. All Americans of a conservative bent should be warned against associating themselves with an organization which is totally ineffectual in resisting Communism and socialism..."
Ernie,
I appreciate the civility here. But what would you like me to say to that? I have neither the time nor resources to address everything here. It's apparent that you have made a number of conclusions regarding JBS allowing in racists. From what I understand, the official policy has been and will always be that racists are not allowed into JBS. We cannot deny that many have come and gone from our ranks who were racists due to the negative and false publicity, they actually thought the organization was racist. But as they begin to work with other members and interact with staff, their true self is known. And when that happens, they are turned in and kicked out indefinitely. I have personally seen our policy work that way several times.
Many times we don't have a clue that someone is racist until they exhibit it in some way. I've heard and read stories from ex-members who joined and then left after learning that JBS is not the place for racists.
Racism is not taken lightly here. That's the main reason we alerted the Oklahoma City media recently regarding the racist letter that was falsely sent out with our contact info. We filed reports with the Postal Inspectors and the OKC Police. We do not tolerate it.
I cannot correctly answer as to where our resources came from regarding decisions made over 40 years ago. I can only tell you from personal experience what JBS is like in the three years I have been working for them. In my travels, I have met a number of members and staff around the country (many who have been with the Society for decades) and I have yet to meet anyone who has shared any type of hate. It's our love for independence, self reliance, and God and family that unites us and pushes us forward in the JBS mission. The day that we adopt hate as a tool is the day I resign. And I suspect and expect the rest of the staff to do so, as well as all members.
Now, you've responded to one of my questions, even though you insist that it is a complex manner, with what I would call many loose connections, I'm not satisfied that you're being consistent. Over the years you have defended JBS on the question of racism. You have just done this within the last 2 weeks when a blogger erroneously concluded that the JBS=the KKK. You can't have it both ways. Which will it be?
And as I wrote, you've only responded to one of my questions. In fact you answered the question that is a hot button for you, yet you conveniently decided against answering the other questions, of which I would call more important. What are you doing today to preserve freedom for future generations? Isn't this of some importance to those who personally label themselves libertarian? Spending copious amounts of time, sweat and good money chasing JBS mentions online and unloading FBI files onto readers is an interesting and consuming pastime, but is it a fruitful tactic that will contribute to restoring the Republic? Or is that not a goal for you? While libertarians and the JBS don't see eye-to-eye on all matters, the common ground is one of limiting government involvement in personal lives. It's not my place to judge, as I believe free men should be able to do whatever they want within certain legal, moral and ethical limitations of course, but I am interested in your motives and your goals.
Bill Hahn
JBS PR Manager
FrankRep
07-14-2010, 06:45 PM
WHY were so many indisputable virulent racists and anti-semites attracted to the JBS?
The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) doesn't support racism or anti-semitism. The JBS has many Black and Jewish members in the society, including JBS writers like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell.
David Eisenberg is on the National Council of the John Birch Society and he's Jewish.
-----
Black JBS writers:
Thomas Sowell (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/6014-too-many-apologies-)
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/columnists/sowell.001.jpg
Walter Williams (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/walter-williams/2912-black-opportunity-destruction)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/columnists/walterwilliams.001.jpg
David Eisenberg - The JBS Jewish National Council Member (http://www.jbs.org/john-birch-society-national-council)
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Article_Images/JBS_Leaders/eisenberg_sm.jpg
David Eisenberg was born in Detroit, Michigan, in 1926. After his family relocated to southern California, he received his early education in Los Angeles schools. He served in the U.S. Army during the latter stages of World War II.
Dave graduated from Inglewood, California’s Northrop University with a degree in aeronautical engineering in 1948. The specialized training he received enabled him to obtain employment in one of our nation’s up-and-coming industries. Upon graduation, he began a brilliant 40-year career as a project engineer for the Hughes Aircraft Company at a southern California plant and later transferred to its Tucson, Arizona, facility in 1956. He retired in 1988.
In the early 1960s, Dave, who is Jewish, launched a determined personal effort to combat the work of The John Birch Society, having been assured by many that it was anti-Semitic. He carefully examined many of the Society’s materials and eventually met with some members. Upon learning the truth, he became a proud member and has since been a fearless and effective voice against false charges hurled at our organization. Appointed to the JBS Council in 1995, he resides with his wife, Natalie, in Tucson, Arizona.
The John Birch Society Speakers Bureau:
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson (http://www.jbs.org/action/speakers-bureau/1745)
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Speakers_Bureau/rev.jessepeterson.001-001.jpg
Reverend Steven L. Craft (http://www.jbs.org/action/speakers-bureau/1742)
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Speakers_Bureau/rev.stevencraft.001-001.jpg
Wilton Alston (http://www.jbs.org/action/speakers-bureau/1756)
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Speakers_Bureau/wiltalston.001-001.jpg
John Birch Society denounces Racism:
The associated press ran an article falsely claiming that the john birch society (JBS) harbored racism and anti-Semitism. Article by Dennis Behreandt
Racism and the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/1717-racism-and-the-john-birch-society)
Dennis Behreandt | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
Thursday, 29 May 2008
The John Birch Society was falsely accused of racism and anti-Semitism by an Associated Press reporter, who offers no proof. The article appeared in 125+ news outlets over the 2008 Memorial Day weekend.
It is often suggested in the media that the John Birch Society harbors some elements of racism and anti-Semitism. That's a curious thing, particularly since the John Birch Society is always likewise noted as staunchly ultraconservative and anti-Communist.
A case in point comes from a recent Associated Press article by Shelia Byrd entitled "AP engages pastors, parishoners about racism in US." Midway through the article, discussing a church located in the Los Angeles suburb of San Marino, Byrd writes: "Before the 1960s, it was common for properties in San Marino to have a legal stipulation banning sales to blacks and Jews, and until 1989 the city was national headquarters to the ultraconservative, anti-communist John Birch Society."
Byrd and the Associated Press clearly want readers to take away one thought from this sentence: San Marino is a racist community, the anti-Communist John Birch Society had a headquarters (actually, it was just a regional office) there, therfore, the John Birch Society, like anti-communists generally, is racist.
There is more than one fallacy at work in this type of propagandistic construction. First, though two indicators, in a general sense, may be seen as rising in tandem, it is not necessarily the case that there is a causal relationship between the two. This is elementary logic. Consider the following syllogism as an example: Fish swim. Scuba divers swim. Ergo, scuba divers are fish.
Obviously, scuba divers are not fish, and anyone using such an argument to claim that they are is a fool. And yet, this is exactly the type of specious reasoning employed by Byrd in attempting to impute racism to the John Birch Society by leveling an ugly insult at the community in which the organization's headquarters were once located. By that standard, every resident and every business in that community is also racist, according to Byrd.
But the fallacious reasoning does not end there. Byrd implies that anti-communists are racists. On the contrary, anyone who knows anything about communism would know immediately that real anti-communists can never be racists.
Communism, like any other variant of socialism, is by its very nature collectivist. That means that communists, and communist theory, consider people at the level of the group. To a communist there are only groups of people like the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But committed communists don't stop at those two classifications. The communist dialectic requires groups to pit against each other in order to form an ultimate synthesis. Thus, wherever communists are active, they seek to define victim groups and oppressors. These are arbitrary and are as often based on ethnicities and religions as on economics. In simple terms, communist rhetoric and theory is little more than an embrace of crude tribalism.
To be anti-communist, then, is to be opposed to the brute classification of individuals by group. Because racism is nothing more than an arbitrary classification of individuals, real anti-communists must invariably oppose racism. As such, the John Birch Society has always held that racism and anti-Semitism are not only morally repugnant, but are the tools used by communists to sow discord and rancor amongst the citizens of a nation.
Byrd and the Associated Press, it should be noted, also use the label "ultraconservative" in an attempt to discredit the John Birch Society. In the context of the United States of America, however, "ultraconservative" is not a pejorative. In fact, it should be viewed as a form of praise.
To be a conservative in any nation is to desire to respect and, if necessary, to conserve those institutions that have proven their worth over time. Consequently, the word "conservative" can mean many different things in different places. An ultraconservative in London might conceivably be a strong advocate of British imperial ambition and monarchical power. In Moscow during the Gorbachev era (and even today), a conservative will likely be a supporter of Soviet-style secular tyranny.
In the United States, however, a conservative is one who seeks to support and retain the traditional institutions of the U.S. government, including the rule of law under the Constitution, and the political doctrines of individual rights and freedom as espoused by the Founding Fathers.
In celebrating and upholding the latter, The John Birch Society, as the Associated Press notes, is both anti-communist and ultraconservative. As a natural consequence, the Society both opposes collectivism in all its forms, including racism and anti-Semitism, and strongly supports the doctrines of individual freedom that have made this nation the greatest on Earth. Anyone who doubts this can ask any of our members, speakers and writers, including those who are African American and Jewish.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/1717-racism-and-the-john-birch-society
constituent
07-14-2010, 06:58 PM
Big government liberals tend to put their faith in the state.
...to save them from immigration.
ernie1241
07-15-2010, 08:04 AM
Frank:
The Communist Party has "many Black and Jewish members" too---in fact, 10 or 20 times as many as the JBS ever had!
Unlike the JBS, however, numerous senior CPUSA officials (e.g. on their National Executive Committee) were Black or Jewish.
So what?
Surely, you do not propose that we should accept the proposition that the CPUSA was an organization devoted to protecting our Constitution, protecting our freedoms, and protecting our way of life --- correct?
Then why do you propose that we should make evaluations/decisions about the JBS based solely upon some organizational chart reflecting some demographic info about its leaders or members?
Let me ask you this question FrankRep:
What is YOUR definition of "support"?
Do you accept the customary definitions of "support" which are as follows?
"aiding the cause or policy or interests of"
" to keep from weakening or failing; strengthen"
" to give something greater credibility by being consistent with it or providing further evidence for it"
If you do accept those definitions, then I ask you to carefully review my two previous messages and tell me clearly and specifically why the JBS associated itself with racists and segregationists (and gave racist politicians high scores on the JBS Conservative Index) -- and why the JBS validated and disseminated their arguments (see Highlander Folk School excerpt for example) -- BUT -- then why you do NOT consider that as evidence of "support"?
Lastly, has the Birch Society ever retracted its statements and conclusions (previously quoted) regarding our civil rights movement?
OR
Does the JBS STILL maintain that our civil rights movement was (as racists insisted even before the JBS came into existence) "not only planned by the Communists, but was begun, is staffed, and is conducted by the Communists—and has only one real purpose: the destruction and communization of America.”
Since that is the fundamental core belief which unites the entire racist movement in our country -- how can you maintain that the JBS did not "support racism"?
Sen. Barry Goldwater did not believe that.
Giants within the conservative intellectual community did not believe that. For example, as Frank Meyer pointed out:
“It is true that here (as everywhere it profits them) Communist groups are active, seeking to take advantage of the turmoil and are sometimes successful in penetrating sections of the leadership of the movement. But the movement is not a Communist movement, as the John Birch Society implies with every device of rhetoric, with pictures, with innuendo, and often with straight-forward statement. There is, of course, much in the civil rights movement that conservatives should oppose, but when it is attacked in the Birch manner, on the basis of an obsessed insistence on conspiracy (’it’s all a Communist plot’) sober opposition is discredited and great positive harm done the conservative cause.”
The former East Coast PR Director for the JBS (Tom Davis) did not believe that. He stated in answer to a question posed by a TV interviewer about Welch's views on the civil rights movement:
"I know his thinking on the subject of the civil rights movement. I know that Mr. Welch feels that the Communists were perhaps totally responsible for instigating the trouble which exists in our southern states today, and we might say all over the country; to the degree that he believes that, I disagree with him…I think it was an example of his saying something in a way which was not salable to the American people. It was salable to Birchers because Birchers generally agreed with him anyway.”
The FBI did not believe that. For example, J. Edgar Hoover stated:
"Let me emphasize that the American civil rights movement is not, and has never been dominated by the communists--because the overwhelming majority of civil rights leaders in this country, both Negro and white, have recognized and rejected communism as a menace to the freedoms of all."
[J. Edgar Hoover speech, 12/12/64, Our Heritage of Greatness, pg 7 - bold emphasis in original document].
So why did the JBS believe that FALSE argument? WHERE did they get it from?
The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) doesn't support racism or anti-semitism. The JBS has many Black and Jewish members in the society, including JBS writers like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell.
David Eisenberg is on the National Council of the John Birch Society and he's Jewish.
-----
Black JBS writers:
Thomas Sowell (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/6014-too-many-apologies-)
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/columnists/sowell.001.jpg
Walter Williams (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/walter-williams/2912-black-opportunity-destruction)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/columnists/walterwilliams.001.jpg
David Eisenberg - The JBS Jewish National Council Member (http://www.jbs.org/john-birch-society-national-council)
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Article_Images/JBS_Leaders/eisenberg_sm.jpg
The John Birch Society Speakers Bureau:
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson (http://www.jbs.org/action/speakers-bureau/1745)
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Speakers_Bureau/rev.jessepeterson.001-001.jpg
Reverend Steven L. Craft (http://www.jbs.org/action/speakers-bureau/1742)
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Speakers_Bureau/rev.stevencraft.001-001.jpg
Wilton Alston (http://www.jbs.org/action/speakers-bureau/1756)
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Speakers_Bureau/wiltalston.001-001.jpg
John Birch Society denounces Racism:
Racism and the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/1717-racism-and-the-john-birch-society)
Dennis Behreandt | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
Thursday, 29 May 2008
The John Birch Society was falsely accused of racism and anti-Semitism by an Associated Press reporter, who offers no proof. The article appeared in 125+ news outlets over the 2008 Memorial Day weekend.
It is often suggested in the media that the John Birch Society harbors some elements of racism and anti-Semitism. That's a curious thing, particularly since the John Birch Society is always likewise noted as staunchly ultraconservative and anti-Communist.
A case in point comes from a recent Associated Press article by Shelia Byrd entitled "AP engages pastors, parishoners about racism in US." Midway through the article, discussing a church located in the Los Angeles suburb of San Marino, Byrd writes: "Before the 1960s, it was common for properties in San Marino to have a legal stipulation banning sales to blacks and Jews, and until 1989 the city was national headquarters to the ultraconservative, anti-communist John Birch Society."
Byrd and the Associated Press clearly want readers to take away one thought from this sentence: San Marino is a racist community, the anti-Communist John Birch Society had a headquarters (actually, it was just a regional office) there, therfore, the John Birch Society, like anti-communists generally, is racist.
There is more than one fallacy at work in this type of propagandistic construction. First, though two indicators, in a general sense, may be seen as rising in tandem, it is not necessarily the case that there is a causal relationship between the two. This is elementary logic. Consider the following syllogism as an example: Fish swim. Scuba divers swim. Ergo, scuba divers are fish.
Obviously, scuba divers are not fish, and anyone using such an argument to claim that they are is a fool. And yet, this is exactly the type of specious reasoning employed by Byrd in attempting to impute racism to the John Birch Society by leveling an ugly insult at the community in which the organization's headquarters were once located. By that standard, every resident and every business in that community is also racist, according to Byrd.
But the fallacious reasoning does not end there. Byrd implies that anti-communists are racists. On the contrary, anyone who knows anything about communism would know immediately that real anti-communists can never be racists.
Communism, like any other variant of socialism, is by its very nature collectivist. That means that communists, and communist theory, consider people at the level of the group. To a communist there are only groups of people like the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But committed communists don't stop at those two classifications. The communist dialectic requires groups to pit against each other in order to form an ultimate synthesis. Thus, wherever communists are active, they seek to define victim groups and oppressors. These are arbitrary and are as often based on ethnicities and religions as on economics. In simple terms, communist rhetoric and theory is little more than an embrace of crude tribalism.
To be anti-communist, then, is to be opposed to the brute classification of individuals by group. Because racism is nothing more than an arbitrary classification of individuals, real anti-communists must invariably oppose racism. As such, the John Birch Society has always held that racism and anti-Semitism are not only morally repugnant, but are the tools used by communists to sow discord and rancor amongst the citizens of a nation.
Byrd and the Associated Press, it should be noted, also use the label "ultraconservative" in an attempt to discredit the John Birch Society. In the context of the United States of America, however, "ultraconservative" is not a pejorative. In fact, it should be viewed as a form of praise.
To be a conservative in any nation is to desire to respect and, if necessary, to conserve those institutions that have proven their worth over time. Consequently, the word "conservative" can mean many different things in different places. An ultraconservative in London might conceivably be a strong advocate of British imperial ambition and monarchical power. In Moscow during the Gorbachev era (and even today), a conservative will likely be a supporter of Soviet-style secular tyranny.
In the United States, however, a conservative is one who seeks to support and retain the traditional institutions of the U.S. government, including the rule of law under the Constitution, and the political doctrines of individual rights and freedom as espoused by the Founding Fathers.
In celebrating and upholding the latter, The John Birch Society, as the Associated Press notes, is both anti-communist and ultraconservative. As a natural consequence, the Society both opposes collectivism in all its forms, including racism and anti-Semitism, and strongly supports the doctrines of individual freedom that have made this nation the greatest on Earth. Anyone who doubts this can ask any of our members, speakers and writers, including those who are African American and Jewish.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/1717-racism-and-the-john-birch-society
FrankRep
07-15-2010, 08:17 AM
Does the JBS STILL maintain that our civil rights movement was (as racists insisted even before the JBS came into existence) "not only planned by the Communists, but was begun, is staffed, and is conducted by the Communists—and has only one real purpose: the destruction and communization of America.”
Since that is the fundamental core belief which unites the entire racist movement in our country -- how can you maintain that the JBS did not "support racism"? Sen. Barry Goldwater did not believe that. Giants within the conservative intellectual community did not believe that. So why did the JBS?
Thomas Sowell (a Black man) and Tom Woods (Mises Institute) BOTH oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it violates the CONSTITUTION.
Is Thomas Sowell Racist?
Thomas Sowell and Tom Woods Jr. are BOTH against the Civil Rights Movement. They both say it's Unconstitutional and it failed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Which Only Wicked Oppressors Could Oppose, and For No Good Reason) (http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/)
Tom Woods.com
May 21st, 2010
In light of the hysteria in recent days, here’s some valuable information from Thomas Sowell, from his indispensable book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688062695?ie=UTF8&tag=thomacom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0688062695)?
http://s3.mediamatters.org/static/images/tv_clips/people/thomas-sowell.jpg
Thomas Sowell
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0688062695.01._SX140_SY225_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Rhetoric-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688062695
Sowell notes that champions of the Official Version of History ignore already existing trends in black employment, well under way long before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from which we are taught all blessings flowed. Writes Sowell: “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s — when there was little or no civil rights policy — than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday.
“The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act). If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years. The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964 — and 1960. Nor did the institution of ‘goals and timetables’ at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations. True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators.”
Sowell further notes that Asians and Hispanics show similar long-term upward trends that had begun years before the passage of the 1964 Act, and which were not accelerated either by the Act itself or by the “affirmative action” programs that (inevitably) followed. Mexican-Americans’ incomes rose in relation to those of whites between 1959 and 1969, but not at a greater rate than between 1949 and 1959. Chinese and Japanese-American households had matched their white counterparts in income by 1959 (in spite of the fact that Japanese-Americans had been interned in concentration camps less than two decades before, and countless Americans blamed Japan for the loss of their sons).
SOURCE:
http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/
=====
Thomas E. Woods Jr: The Civil Rights Act was Unconstitutional, Statist, and a Failure
Lecture by Thomas E. Woods Jr. presented at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's "History of Liberty" seminar held at the Institute in Auburn, Alabama, June 24-30, 2001. This Instructional Seminar of 23 lectures is modeled on the Mises University and presents a reinterpretation of the history of liberty from the ancient world--an ambitious agenda but a wonderfully successful conference.
http://www.mises.org/
YouTube - Civil Rights and Statism [Thomas E. Woods, Jr.] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH52tkt0C1A)
JBS_PR
07-15-2010, 11:59 AM
A rather interesting rebuttal Ernie. Your opinions most certainly are included in a number of your exchanges, although you usually wait until somebody responds to your initial FBI files post. And again, I cannot go back and forth with you regarding connections and what people that have been dead for decades knew and when they knew it. I don't have the time to check. I’m sure you realize that back in the 50s even before the Society was founded, Robert Welch was a large figure in the conservative, anti-Communist movement. Once the organization was founded, it took off by leaps and bounds. By the time the smear campaign against it was in full-swing in the early to mid 1960s, the response to the negative publicity overwhelmed the staff, as in they couldn’t keep up with the requests to join. Most wanted to learn for themselves what JBS was all about. When they learned, many joined. Others were indeed attracted to the Society because they thought that JBS was racist. When they learned the truth, some left, and others had to be weeded out. In fact, there are some parts of this country today that we are very careful about recruiting from because we know of supremacist elements in the area.
When folks join JBS, they join to push the JBS mission and follow the agenda. JBS does not adopt the agenda of members. Chapters are not allowed to deviate, so it should come as no surprise that many left the organization over the years to start their own organizations with their own agenda. Given the short list you produced, the agenda for many of them is quite despicable (if indeed they actually are members…that hasn’t been verified against our records, but I do recognize some). Realize that out of the huge number of members that have come and gone throughout the Society’s 50-plus years, there are bound to be a certain percentage that will be interested in working their own agenda and leave to do so.
This should help to answer the question that you say we haven’t answered. Why are these sorts attracted to JBS? They are attracted when these types of folks think we share the same agenda as them and when JBS is painted to be racist. If I’m interested in shooting and preserving the right to do so, I’m going to be interested in those types of organizations. If someone is racist and thinks that JBS is as well, they will be attracted to it.
I am happy to see you publicly state that JBS “was never an explicitly racist organization.” And we never will be ... explicit or otherwise. Determining what’s best for an individual based on the color of one’s skin is collectivism at best and racism at its worst. Neither of those “isms” we support. JBS has particular viewpoints that many do not agree with, but viewpoints and agenda items are based on what is best for an individual, as far as self-reliance, responsibility, and liberty and how to educate others on the principles of freedom in order to keep the Republic as envisioned by the founders to facilitate the prosperity for all Americans and future generations (regardless of skin color or creed).
This is why I ask about your goals and motives. What you want to do with the time that God has granted you is your own business. No one has to like it and you certainly don’t need to meet any of my or anyone else’s standards as you tried to assert. If you want to spend your time tearing things down rather than building them up (in my opinion), then so be it. If you’re happy doing what you’re doing, good for you. But I would have to disagree with your labeling yourself a libertarian. As I stated before and have seen on the postings on this forum, libertarians and JBS don’t always see eye-to-eye. But many can point to what they are doing as promoting limited government, which is part of the JBS mission. However, you couldn’t even get that far in your answer. You turned it around to make it seem that the Kremlin would have to ok your answer. But that’s what you like to do best, it seems. Your spin on the JBS mission and goals in the later part of your post is quite creative. Wrong and grossly misleading, but quite creative. I’ll offer the same advice that I do to anyone doubting the mission or goals of JBS. If you want to learn about JBS, just join and find out for yourself. Don't take my or anyone else's word for it. Experience it for yourself.
We've already chewed up more time and effort on this thread than most people would deem effective, so I won't be responding again. I simply have too much to do. I'm sure our paths will cross again and my offer for a visit here in Appleton is still open.
Take care,
Bill Hahn
JBS PR Manager
Bill: While I certainly can agree with some of your comments, it is, however, incorrect to propose that readers should think that my statements amount to only my personal opinion or conclusions. Facts are facts Bill--even when unpleasant or inconvenient.
Robert Welch certainly was aware of the bigotry of many of the people who joined the JBS. In fact he asked some of them to join. [Examples: Verne P. Kaub and Revilo Oliver -- both of whom were explicit anti-semites.]
Similarly, the JBS asked bigots like Eric Butler and Sheriff Jim Clark to speak under the auspices of the AO Speakers Bureau! And the JBS published or recommended books which contained themes that originated with bigots. For example, when the JBS went all-out to promote Gary Allen's classic, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, William Loeb, the ultra-conservative publisher of the Manchester NH Union-Leader newspaper ran an editorial (5/5/72) describing Gary's book as "anti-semitic nonsense" - whereupon the paper received numerous hostile replies.
One of those replies was from a local Bircher who denied that the JBS was anti-semitic but she declared that "to deny that the Conspiracy is being directed by international bankers--Jews mainly...is being naïve in the extreme, as well as totally ignorant of the depth and extent of the REAL conspiracy." [Marguerite M. Woodman letter to editor, 6/29/72].
And how is it possible to explain Mr. Welch's effusive praise for Revilo Oliver in the March 1965 issue of American Opinion??
Mr. Welch described Oliver as “an authentic genius of the first water, and quite possibly the world’s greatest living scholar.”
When Oliver ultimately resigned from the JBS in 1966, Welch expressed regret: "...we have accepted his resignation from the Council with a considerable and natural reluctance. For he is an earnest anti-communist, as well as one of the world’s greatest scholars in the fields of classical languages and literature.” An "earnest anti-communist"?
By contrast, consider this evaluation of Oliver which was made by former FBI informant Herbert Philbrick based upon his contacts with Oliver in 1959 and 1960 as reported in a 1961 FBI memo. This memo concerned Oliver's claim that he relied upon information provided to him by Philbrick which Oliver included in an article he wrote for American Opinion in 1959 and in his speeches which discussed alleged communist infiltration of the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare:
"Herbert A. Philbrick...advised this date he has met Dr. Revilo P. Oliver on two occasions at Urbana IL in late 1959 or early 1960 when Philbrick delivered lectures there. Oliver has written Philbrick on one or two occasions. Philbrick stated he has never given Dr. Oliver any information concerning Communist infiltration of DHEW, stating he knows no one in this Department and has had no information concerning Communist Party activity in the U.S. Government since at least 1944. Philbrick approximately one half year ago heard statements attributed to him that DHEW was infiltrated with CP members...He denied emphatically that he ever made such statements orally or in writing. He considers Dr. Oliver to be an extremist in anti-Communist feelings and violently anti-Semitic."
How was it possible for Philbrick to determine in 1961 that Oliver was "violently anti-semitic" but it was not possible for Mr. Welch to recognize Oliver's racism and anti-semitism until 1966?
As Oliver correctly pointed out to JBS National Council members in a memo concerning the 1966 speech which resulted in his resignation from the JBS:
“There was no significant statement in that speech that I had not made, months or years before, in the pages of American Opinion, without eliciting the slightest objection or adverse criticism from Mr. Welch.”
Many prominent JBS members were well-known officials of, or writers/speakers for, the White Citizens Council movement (such as Medford Evans, Louis Hollis, W.J. Simmons, Ferrell Griswold).
JBS members frequently spoke at white supremacist rallies and events or had their articles published in white supremacist publications. Birchers played a very significant role in the formation of the American Party and American Independent Party both of which were organized to support the Presidential aspirations of Gov. George Wallace.
One of your most famous members, Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, wrote the following comment which was published in Conde McGinley's racist and anti-semitic newspaper, Common Sense, 11/15/65, p5:
“I’ll bet you will find more good Americans in the Ku Klux Klan than in the Americans For Democratic Action.”
The fundamental question which the JBS has never bothered to address is this:
WHY were so many indisputable virulent racists and anti-semites attracted to the JBS?
They became members, endorsers, writers, and speakers for the JBS. Some of them "graduated" from the JBS and associated themselves with, or created their own, neo-nazi, anti-semitic, and/or racist organizations.
For example, see list below. Can anyone come up with a comparable list for any other self-described right-wing or conservative "educational" organization?
Dean Kennedy (Citizens Law Enforcement and Research Committee aka Posse Comitatus; Hitler admirer)
Ferrell Griswold (White Citizens Council speaker)
Jim Kernodle (Kansas City Citizens Council)
Paul B. Hurley (National Society for the Preservation of the White Race and National States Rights Party)
Willis Carto (Liberty Lobby and about 2 dozen other groups; pro-nazi)
Michael Collins Piper (Liberty Lobby and other Carto enterprises)
William Potter Gale (Ministry of Christ Church / Christian Defense League / Posse Comitatus)
Gerda Koch (Christian Research Inc)
George E. Deatherage (Knights of the White Camellia)
Thomas Metzger (White Aryan Resistance / California Knights of the KKK)
Gordon Kahl (Posse Comitatus)
Ardie McBrearty (Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, and U.S. National Taxpayers Association)
Bernard Klassen (Nationalist White Party / Church of the Creator)
Gordon D. (Jack) Mohr (Christian Identity movement)
Kevin Strom (National Alliance / Stormfront)
Kent and Phoebe Courtney (States Rights Party of Louisiana)
Eric D. Butler (Australian League of Rights / published Protocols-like material)
William Pierce (National Alliance)
Speros Lagoulis (Joe McCarthy Bookstore--Boston)
Robert A. Surrey (American Nazi Party)
Verne P. Kaub (American Council of Christian Laymen)
Sheldon Emry (America's Promise Ministries / Christian Research Inc)
Louis T. Byers (National Youth Alliance)
David E. Lane (The Order)
Robert Mathews (The Order)
Revilo P. Oliver (National Youth Alliance / George P. Dietz's Liberty Bell magazine)
George P. Dietz (Liberty Bell Publications)
Richard B. Cotten (Cotten Conservative Viewpoint newsletter)
Frank R. Purinton (New York Anti-Communist League)
One can facilitate racism or be an enabler without being explicitly racist. YES--the Birch Society was never an explicitly racist organization as "official policy".
It never published any statements which stated or hinted that minorities should be mistreated. It never used racially abhorrent language such as the n-word. It never praised violence committed by white supremacists, etc.
But the JBS PASSIVELY accepted the horrific conditions which George Schuyler described and it allowed the facilitators and enablers of racism to USE the JBS, and the JBS DID welcome into its chapters and into leadership positions as well as welcoming writers and speakers --- persons who devoutly believed in white supremacy doctrines.
As my previous message pointed out, the JBS adopted many of the arguments used by racist organizations and it promoted/praised racist politicians such as Gov. George Wallace (AL), Sen. James Eastland (MS) and Gov. Ross Barnett (MS), Lester Maddox (GA), Sen. Strom Thurmond (SC), -- many of whom had KKK or White Citizens Councils connections.
How has the Birch Society evaluated evidence when organizations welcomed Communists as members, officials, writers, and speakers? Shouldn't we hold the JBS to the SAME standard when we discuss THEIR connections to racists and racist organizations plus the arguments which originated exclusively with racists?
IF the JBS had devoted some significant space and attention in JBS Bulletins or American Opinion magazine to accurately describing the horrific state of affairs in our southern states -- then I am certain more skeptics or critics would be willing to give the JBS the benefit of the doubt.
But, INSTEAD, it kept telling the American people that our ENTIRE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT -- was merely a device created and led by subversives and which served only their purposes!
I do not mean to offend you Bill --- but I again ask you to consider the "official policy" of the CPUSA regarding racism or anti-semitism and then compare their "official position" to what your own members who were FBI informants (such as Julia Brown) stated about, for example, the rampant racist practices within the senior echelons of the Communist Party in our country.
With respect to this portion of your message:
I cannot correctly answer as to where our resources came from regarding decisions made over 40 years ago. I can only tell you from personal experience what JBS is like in the three years I have been working for them. In my travels, I have met a number of members and staff around the country (many who have been with the Society for decades) and I have yet to meet anyone who has shared any type of hate. It's our love for independence, self reliance, and God and family that unites us and pushes us forward in the JBS mission. The day that we adopt hate as a tool is the day I resign. And I suspect and expect the rest of the staff to do so, as well as all members.
I am certain that you are totally honest and sincere about this.
But my previous (and current) comments ask that you consider the ARGUMENTS which the JBS has circulated over the past 50+ years. Keep in mind that the JBS has NEVER retracted any derogatory conclusion or assertion it has made.
JBS members, in effect, apparently are STILL being asked to accept this JBS statement as accurate and truthful:
“For the civil rights movement in the United States with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps toward the appearance of civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than thirty years."
And when the JBS slimed ALL of our national civil rights movement organizations and leaders, it conveyed the idea that the entire movement was illegitimate and facilitating subversion and treason.
Or as Mr. Welch put it when he recommended Alan Stang's JBS-published book, It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights:
"This book, because of its thoroughness, its comprehensive coverage of the whole 'civil rights' story, and its meticulous documentation, is the best single searchlight we have for exposing the 'civil rights' fraud."
According to Alan Stang, the “civil rights movement was not only planned by the Communists, but was begun, is staffed, and is conducted by the Communists—and has only one real purpose: the destruction and communization of America.”
In May 1965, the Special Agent in Charge of the Boston FBI Field Office forwarded proof sheets of the Stang book to FBI Headquarters, two months before its scheduled publication. An evaluation of the book was prepared for Assistant Director W.C. Sullivan by F.J. Baumgardner:
"It's Very Simple is an attempt to rationalize today's civil rights movement in this country as primarily a communist operation...Practically all his documentation is to public source material and there is no significant information in the book which appears to be new and previously unknown to the Bureau. Stang makes frequent use of literary license and importantly fails to include documentation for key passages (examples appear on pages 101 and 185). An entire chapter (14) is devoted to an attack on civil rights legislation and the book, in general, is critical of all Administration and other efforts aimed at improving the lot of the Negro." [HQ 100-106670-1412, May 28, 1965, and 100-106670-1525, June 24, 1965, both F.J. Baumgardner to W.C. Sullivan].
The concluding "Observations" paragraph states:
"The details of the book do not support the strong conclusions reached by the author. We have had available to us all the material which Stang has plus considerable additional data from our investigations and we could not arrive at such conclusions. The impression is received that Stang may have well started with his conclusions and then developed the information and manner of presentation which he hoped would prove his point. This work must be viewed in the light of the author's apparent close connections with Robert Welch and the John Birch Society."
With respect to this portion of your message:
"What are you doing today to preserve freedom for future generations? Isn't this of some importance to those who personally label themselves libertarian? Spending copious amounts of time, sweat and good money chasing JBS mentions online and unloading FBI files onto readers is an interesting and consuming pastime, but is it a fruitful tactic that will contribute to restoring the Republic? Or is that not a goal for you? While libertarians and the JBS don't see eye-to-eye on all matters, the common ground is one of limiting government involvement in personal lives. It's not my place to judge, as I believe free men should be able to do whatever they want within certain legal, moral and ethical limitations of course, but I am interested in your motives and your goals."
(1) Is there some Committee or Commission which you want all Americans to submit their credentials to in order to be validated as genuinely working "to preserve freedom" or "restore the Republic"?
(2) What happens if that Committee decides that I do not meet their standards? Or that YOU don't?
What do you want done to those persons who fail to satisfy whatever test you propose? Do their views no longer deserve consideration? Perhaps you propose that we eliminate their right to vote or to write or to speak? After all -- who wants to facilitate anybody who is NOT "working to preserve freedom" according to your interpretation?
The JBS was never particularly upset about the depredations of our Constitution which routinely were visited upon our African American countrymen. In fact, the JBS allied itself with the very forces which were responsible for those depredations! So what do you propose we conclude regarding the "[I]motives" and "goals" of the JBS?
(3) How does disseminating FALSE, libelous, or grossly exaggerated information help us to "preserve freedom"??
(4) How does believing (and acting upon) the assertions and conclusions which the JBS has disseminated over the past 5 decades -- which J. Edgar Hoover and top officials of the FBI characterized in terms such as "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible", "fanatics" and "lunatic fringe" --- help us "preserve freedom" and "restore the Republic"?
Or as a giant within the conservative movement (Russell Kirk) stated:
"Nothing could do more to discredit all conservatives than the violent language and unreal views regularly found in American Opinion. As several conservatively-inclined gentlemen have remarked to me...they would be sorely tempted to believe that the leaders of the Birch Society are agents of the Kremlin subtly working to discredit all opposition to Communism by reducing anti-Communism to absurdity. All Americans of a conservative bent should be warned against associating themselves with an organization which is totally ineffectual in resisting Communism and socialism..."
ernie1241
07-15-2010, 05:45 PM
Frank - The answer to your question is OF COURSE NOT. Just as Sen. Barry Goldwater's opposition to that legislation was NOT racist.
But the key difference (which you continue to ignore) is that Sen. Goldwater (and others) did NOT associate themselves with the white supremacy movement in our country. He (and others) did not characterize our ENTIRE civil rights movement as Communist created, controlled, and dominated. He (and others) did not speak at or write for white supremacist organizations. He (and others) did not deny that grave injustices were being visited upon our countrymen --- and I am not referring merely to violent incidents (bombings, lynchings, murders, castrations etc). I am referring to the much more common and pervasive NON-VIOLENT depredations which Bircher George Schuyler wrote about.
Thomas Sowell (a Black man) and Tom Woods (Mises Institute) BOTH oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it violates the CONSTITUTION.
Is Thomas Sowell Racist?
Thomas Sowell and Tom Woods Jr. are BOTH against the Civil Rights Movement. They both say it's Unconstitutional and it failed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Which Only Wicked Oppressors Could Oppose, and For No Good Reason) (http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/)
Tom Woods.com
May 21st, 2010
In light of the hysteria in recent days, here’s some valuable information from Thomas Sowell, from his indispensable book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688062695?ie=UTF8&tag=thomacom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0688062695)?
http://s3.mediamatters.org/static/images/tv_clips/people/thomas-sowell.jpg
Thomas Sowell
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0688062695.01._SX140_SY225_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Rhetoric-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688062695
Sowell notes that champions of the Official Version of History ignore already existing trends in black employment, well under way long before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from which we are taught all blessings flowed. Writes Sowell: “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s — when there was little or no civil rights policy — than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday.
“The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act). If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years. The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964 — and 1960. Nor did the institution of ‘goals and timetables’ at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations. True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators.”
Sowell further notes that Asians and Hispanics show similar long-term upward trends that had begun years before the passage of the 1964 Act, and which were not accelerated either by the Act itself or by the “affirmative action” programs that (inevitably) followed. Mexican-Americans’ incomes rose in relation to those of whites between 1959 and 1969, but not at a greater rate than between 1949 and 1959. Chinese and Japanese-American households had matched their white counterparts in income by 1959 (in spite of the fact that Japanese-Americans had been interned in concentration camps less than two decades before, and countless Americans blamed Japan for the loss of their sons).
SOURCE:
http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/
=====
Thomas E. Woods Jr: The Civil Rights Act was Unconstitutional, Statist, and a Failure
Lecture by Thomas E. Woods Jr. presented at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's "History of Liberty" seminar held at the Institute in Auburn, Alabama, June 24-30, 2001. This Instructional Seminar of 23 lectures is modeled on the Mises University and presents a reinterpretation of the history of liberty from the ancient world--an ambitious agenda but a wonderfully successful conference.
http://www.mises.org/
YouTube - Civil Rights and Statism [Thomas E. Woods, Jr.] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH52tkt0C1A)
Distinguished Gentleman
07-15-2010, 07:12 PM
I remember at the Rally for the Republic, they (JBS) were handing out pamphlets with Ron on the cover. While I think accusations against the JBS are largely inaccurate, It made me uncomfortable. Guilt by association is the name of the game in politics. I hope we continue the trend of spontaneous organizing for candidates or associating with P.R. conscious PACS. The tea party, viewed as a monolithic group, is easy to smear. Groups of individuals working for a common cause are harder to lump together if they aren't branded.
FrankRep
07-15-2010, 07:24 PM
I remember at the Rally for the Republic, they (JBS) were handing out pamphlets with Ron on the cover. While I think accusations against the JBS are largely inaccurate, It made me uncomfortable.
Ron Paul supports the John Birch Society. The media tried to smear the JBS the same way they tried to smear Ron Paul with lies.
Ron Paul At the 50th Anniversary of John Birch Society
Viddler.com - Ron Paul At the 50th Anniversary of JBS - Uploaded by jbirch (http://www.viddler.com/explore/jbirch/videos/1/?advanced=fa23b1da?advanced=fa23b1da)
ernie1241
07-15-2010, 07:39 PM
Bill -- see my replies to your comments in BLUE FONT.
A rather interesting rebuttal Ernie. Your opinions most certainly are included in a number of your exchanges, although you usually wait until somebody responds to your initial FBI files post.
Since you do not specify what you mean, I cannot respond appropriately except to state that I have provided you with considerable substantiation for each of my comments --- often by quoting JBS publications or JBS members --- not my personal opinions.
And again, I cannot go back and forth with you regarding connections and what people that have been dead for decades knew and when they knew it. I don't have the time to check.
I realize that you are a fairly young man (about 40yo?) so, obviously, you are not familiar with a lot of JBS history --- particularly in its formative years.
I’m sure you realize that back in the 50s even before the Society was founded, Robert Welch was a large figure in the conservative, anti-Communist movement.
I don't think I would characterize him as "a large figure" Bill. He certainly was not someone whom many people outside Massachusetts knew (except for his business contacts from his days in the candy industry).
Once the organization was founded, it took off by leaps and bounds. By the time the smear campaign against it was in full-swing in the early to mid 1960s, the response to the negative publicity overwhelmed the staff, as in they couldn’t keep up with the requests to join.
In January 1960, the JBS had 82 chapters (about 1400 members) plus about 300 Home Chapter members.
By April 1960, the JBS had 150 chapters and 2800 members.
In September 1960, the JBS had 324 chapters and 5300 members.
By January 1961, the JBS had about 11,000 members and according to Mr. Welch, the JBS was "doubling in size approximately every 4 months."
Most wanted to learn for themselves what JBS was all about. When they learned, many joined. Others were indeed attracted to the Society because they thought that JBS was racist.
Bill, I doubt that many joined because they thought the JBS, as an organization, was racist.
However, I think a significant number of prospective members (especially in the south) were familiar with prominent JBS members, endorsers, and leaders who were known for their strong pro-segregation views (such as T. Coleman Andrews, Tom Anderson and A.G. Heinsohn -- all of whom were well known southerners who had been active in the so-called States Rights movement) so prospective members ASSUMED that the JBS might be a hospitable environment to make common cause with other people who shared their world-view. In some cases, they probably believed they could mold their local JBS chapters in ways which would accommodate a racist agenda -- and they certainly had some success.
When they learned the truth, some left, and others had to be weeded out. In fact, there are some parts of this country today that we are very careful about recruiting from because we know of supremacist elements in the area.
Some of the more vicious racists did leave but many remained and just kept a low profile.
As Rev. Dennis pointed out, groups like the KKK and Americans For The Preservation of the White Race thought that the JBS represented a very fertile recruitment ground.
You may recall that Robert Welch stated repeatedly that for every actual CP member there were at least 10 Comsymps or fellow-travelers. That formula probably applies to the JBS as well. For every genuine racist, there probably were 10 persons who believed the arguments which racists concocted -- without knowing the actual intellectual origins of those arguments.
That is why I brought your attention to the comments made by Robert Welch and Alan Stang concerning the alleged "Communist" origins of our civil rights movement. Their position was not a racist argument -- but it was music to the ears of the entire racist movement in our country -- which explains why JBS literature was often sold or recommended at events organized or sponsored by explicitly racist groups.
In fact, your Mississippi Coordinator told the FBI that the KKK in Mississippi was showing your filmstrip, Anarchy USA, but the KKK edited out derogatory references to the KKK! And every racist group and racist publication in our country reprinted some version of the Highlander Folk School ("Communist training school") argument because it served their purposes--even if the majority of people who believed it were NOT racist.
When folks join JBS, they join to push the JBS mission and follow the agenda. JBS does not adopt the agenda of members. Chapters are not allowed to deviate, so it should come as no surprise that many left the organization over the years to start their own organizations with their own agenda. Given the short list you produced, the agenda for many of them is quite despicable (if indeed they actually are members…that hasn’t been verified against our records, but I do recognize some). Realize that out of the huge number of members that have come and gone throughout the Society’s 50-plus years, there are bound to be a certain percentage that will be interested in working their own agenda and leave to do so.
I agree. But my challenge to you was can you think of any OTHER right-wing "educational" organization that was populated by the type of persons I listed?? In other words, what was so unique about the JBS? I have my own opinion -- but I would be interested in yours.
This should help to answer the question that you say we haven’t answered. Why are these sorts attracted to JBS? They are attracted when these types of folks think we share the same agenda as them and when JBS is painted to be racist.
So why doesn't your explanation apply to other prominent right-wing groups such as, for example, Fred Schwarz's Christian Anti-Communism Crusade -- which actually came into existence BEFORE the JBS? Or how about, Americans For Constitutional Action? or Young Americans For Freedom? or Church League of America?
If I’m interested in shooting and preserving the right to do so, I’m going to be interested in those types of organizations. If someone is racist and thinks that JBS is as well, they will be attracted to it.
But here is the problem with your theory Bill. The persons I listed did not join the JBS for just a few months and then leave because they quickly realized that they were mistaken about the JBS. They could have quickly determined that actual racists were generally unwelcome so they should have realized early that the JBS did not "share the same agenda" to use your phrase. Consequently, why did they stick around -- often for many years?
I am happy to see you publicly state that JBS “was never an explicitly racist organization.” And we never will be ... explicit or otherwise. Determining what’s best for an individual based on the color of one’s skin is collectivism at best and racism at its worst. Neither of those “isms” we support. JBS has particular viewpoints that many do not agree with, but viewpoints and agenda items are based on what is best for an individual, as far as self-reliance, responsibility, and liberty and how to educate others on the principles of freedom in order to keep the Republic as envisioned by the founders to facilitate the prosperity for all Americans and future generations (regardless of skin color or creed).
Do you think that if YOU were an African American living in Mississippi in, say, 1961-1962, that you would interpret the JBS "viewpoint" as being "what is best for an individual"??.
Do you think that a typical African American living in Mississippi would interpret the JBS "viewpoint" as enhancing "self-reliance, responsibility and liberty" -- when they discovered that the JBS supported/praised politicians such as Gov. George Wallace, Sen. Strom Thurmond, Gov. Ross Barnett, Sen. James Eastland, Gov. Lester Maddox??
If you were an African American and you knew that your local politicians (mayor, city council, police and sheriff, judges), newspaper editors, clergymen and businessmen were HOSTILE to you because of the color of your skin -- and you knew that the phrases "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and "equal protection of the law" were cruel jokes at your expense --- and you knew that the prevailing customs, laws, and practices of your community were what George Schuyler described (I copy his comments again below) -- and you knew that JBS members (such as Rev. Dennis) supported the politicians who constructed, defended, and maintained those customs, laws, and practices --- do you think you would believe JBS declarations about its supposed interest in "self-reliance, responsibility and liberty"??
GEORGE SCHUYLER:
"The White Citizens Council which has branches or cells everywhere, controls by terror such states as Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and to a lesser extent, Virginia...It has defied and disrupted the operation of the laws of the land. It has used threats and vicious economic reprisals...It has become a legal arm of Mississippi's Government."
If you were an African-American who thought the NAACP was working on your behalf to challenge injustice in your community and improve the quality of your life (see Bircher George Schuyler comment below, for example) -- BUT, you learned that Birch Society speakers constantly sought to discredit the NAACP as a "communist front" -- would you believe that the JBS understood the conditions of your life and was GENUINELY interested in your liberty and pursuit of happiness?
SCHUYLER:
“These evils have to be combated with skill and intelligence and the NAACP is the only sincere and capable organization prepared to do it. Unlike such organizations as the National Negro Congress, it is not connected with any foreign ideology or power, and it shies far away from the Communist Party line which is the way to group suicide…no one can deny that the NAACP is THE great champion and defender of our rights in this civilization and its long and remarkable record in this connection obligates every libertarian, regardless of color or creed, to give it his fullest support year in and year out.” [Schuyler column “Views and Reviews”, Pittsburgh (PA) Courier, 2/15/47].
This is why I ask about your goals and motives. What you want to do with the time that God has granted you is your own business. No one has to like it and you certainly don’t need to meet any of my or anyone else’s standards as you tried to assert.
But Bill you declared that I needed to explain myself to you. Notice that I made no such demand of you -- nor would I ever do so. Jim Capo and other Birchers have made identical comments to me along the lines you did. Why does ANY American have to meet some sort of litmus test concocted by the JBS? Since when do we have to provide evidence of what we are doing to preserve freedom?
If you want to spend your time tearing things down rather than building them up (in my opinion), then so be it.
That is such an incredibly odd comment coming from a JBS spokesman Bill.
For 52+ years the JBS has attacked and defamed virtually ALL of our national leaders and government officials. More often than not, these people have been described as "traitors" or highly suspect with respect to their patriotism.
Let me quote Mr. Welch's comments to the first meeting of the JBS National Council. I presume you don't consider this type of commentary to be "tearing things down"? Nor do you think the JBS 4-volume "Biographical Dictionary of the Left" is tearing anything down? It is all just fair commentary--right?
WELCH to NATIONAL COUNCIL:
“From a careful and realistic study of the mountainous pile of evidence that is there for all to see, certain terrifying conclusions are objectively inescapable. Among them are:
(1) The Communists are winning their large victories, as they always have, through the cumulative effect of small gains;
(2) They make these gains chiefly through the conniving assistance of many of the very diplomats and officials who are supposed to be opposing them;
(3) Communist influences are now in almost complete working control of our government;
(4) And hence, the United States Government is today, as it has been for many years, the most important and powerful single force promoting the world-wide Communist advance.”
[A Confidential Report To Members Of The Council of The John Birch Society – minutes of 1/9/60 meeting held at Union League Club in Chicago IL, page 1-2; minutes signed by Robert Welch.]
Furthermore, according to Robert Welch:
"Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists."
"In our two states with the largest population, New York and California...already the two present Governors are almost certainly actual Communists...Our Congress now contains a number of men like Adam Clayton Powell of New York and Charles Porter of Oregon, who are certainly actual Communists, and plenty more who are sympathetic to Communist purposes for either ideological or opportunistic reasons."
[Note: the reference to Governors refers to Edmund G. Brown of California and Nelson Rockefeller of New York.]
"In the Senate, there are men like Stephen Young of Ohio, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, McNamara of Michigan, and Clifford Case of New Jersey and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whom it is utter folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference..." [Ibid, page 8]
“Our Supreme Court, dominated by Earl Warren and Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black, is so visibly pro-Communist that no argument is even needed…And our federal courts below that level…are in many cases just as bad.” [Ibid, page 8]
"Our State Department is loaded with Communists from top to bottom, to the extent that our roll call of Ambassadors almost sounds like a list somebody has put together to start a Communist front." ... [Ibid, page 8]
"It is estimated from many reliable sources that from 70% to 90% of the responsible personnel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are Communists. Our Central Intelligence Agency under Allen Dulles is nothing more or less than an agency to promote Communism throughout the world...Almost all the other Departments are loaded with Communists and Communist sympathizers. And this generalization most specifically does include our whole Defense Department." [Ibid, page 8]
Eventually, I will be writing a report which will be devoted to quoting numerous letters sent to J. Edgar Hoover from people all across our country who were scared out of their minds by statements they heard from JBS speakers or which they read in JBS literature.
The JBS has done more in its history to [I]"tear things down" than any other organization (other than perhaps the CPUSA) -- which is one of the reasons senior FBI officials characterized the JBS as an "extremist"organization.
As J. Edgar Hoover testified before the Warren Commission (Vol #5, pg 101):
"I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some of these so-called extreme right societies. "
"Now, I have felt, and I have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, at either end of the spectrum. They don't deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has something wrong with him. A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man."
Or consider Hoover's handwritten comment on one FBI internal memo discussing Cong. Claude Pepper:
"I would no more give a boost to Pepper than I would to the Birchites. They are two extremes and equally bad." [HQ 62-104401, no serial #, April 27, 1962, D.C. Morrell to C.D. DeLoach].
If you’re happy doing what you’re doing, good for you. But I would have to disagree with your labeling yourself a libertarian. As I stated before and have seen on the postings on this forum, libertarians and JBS don’t always see eye-to-eye. But many can point to what they are doing as promoting limited government, which is part of the JBS mission. However, you couldn’t even get that far in your answer.
This may shock you -- so please make sure you are seated.
First: the contemporary person whose viewpoints most closely resemble my own is Pat Buchanan.
Second: there are many issues where my position is essentially the same as the JBS --although for different reasons. For example: I think we should withdraw from the UN and demand that they move their HQ to another country; I believe we should dismantle several cabinet agencies --such as the Dept. of Education; I oppose our involvement in Afghanistan (as I did in Iraq).
Third: Although I would not vote for Cong. Ron Paul for President, I would be happy to see him confirmed as Secretary of State.
Last: I agree with Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano's recent comment that George Bush and Dick Cheney should have been indicted because:
"They should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrants. I'd like to say they should be indicted for lying but believe it or not, unless you're under oath, lying is not a crime. At least not an indictable crime. It's a moral crime."
You turned it around to make it seem that the Kremlin would have to ok your answer.
WHAT???? Quote something I wrote!
But that’s what you like to do best, it seems. Your spin on the JBS mission and goals in the later part of your post is quite creative. Wrong and grossly misleading, but quite creative.
But you have not refuted anything I have written -- i.e. you do not dispute that my quotations of JBS positions are accurate and truthful.
I’ll offer the same advice that I do to anyone doubting the mission or goals of JBS. If you want to learn about JBS, just join and find out for yourself. Don't take my or anyone else's word for it. Experience it for yourself.
We've already chewed up more time and effort on this thread than most people would deem effective, so I won't be responding again. I simply have too much to do. I'm sure our paths will cross again and my offer for a visit here in Appleton is still open.
Sorry you don't want to continue.
P.S. With respect to your comment that:
"Determining what’s best for an individual based on the color of one’s skin is collectivism at best and racism at its worst. Neither of those “isms” we support."
(1) Isn't being in favor of segregation a form of collectivism? In other words, a judgment is made about an entire category of human beings based not upon their individual character and behavior -- but solely upon the color of their skin --- something they have no control over whatsoever --- and then coercion through the instrumentalities of government is used to enforce that policy.
(2) If you agree that being pro-segregation is a form of collectivism because it was a policy designed to determine what's best for ALL individuals based solely upon skin color --- then how can you claim that the JBS did not support collectivism -- when it welcomed segregationists into its ranks and even employed them as writers and speakers and then parroted/distributed their arguments? Furthermore, segregationist politicians were rated very high in every issue of the [I]JBS Conservative Index --- doesn't that constitute "support" in your scheme of things?
Take care,
Bill Hahn
JBS PR Manager
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.