# Think Tank > History >  Before They Hated Ron Paul, They Hated Barry Goldwater

## FrankRep

*The Naked Capitalist*; 
a Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley's Book: Tragedy and Hope
- W. Cleon Skousen (1970)


*Election Background*


When Congress convened in 1964, President Johnson obliged the Left-wing elements of his party by exploiting the emotional climate resulting from the President’s death and demanded that the Congress pass the Kennedy bills which they had rejected the previous spring. Almost blindly the Congress went to work and frequently, without any serious attempt to debate many important aspects of these bills, they began to be passed.

At the grassroots, observing citizens of both political parties became increasingly alarmed with what they could see happening. They began scouring the political field for a candidate who could rally the American people and re-direct the course of the nation before it as too late.

 Foremost among the conservative candidates, of course, was Barry Goldwater, the Senator from Arizona. For several years he had been saying that America was off the track and had to go back. History was catching up with the American people and what he had been saying began to make more and more sense. This was bound to reflect itself politically so it was not long before the Goldwater-for-President campaign started to roll. All across the country delegates to the Republican National Convention began announcing to advance that they had made an iron-clad commitment to support Goldwater for ONLY Goldwater.


*The 1964 Republican Convention and the Goldwater Campaign*


The political climate of 1964 was such that a capable conservative candidate had an excellent chance of winning, and the Establishment knew it. Money and manpower was thrown into the primaries and individual state organizations to try to stop Goldwater before he ever got to San Francisco, but the Goldwater bandwagon continued rolling along. The next step was to try to stop him at San Francisco.

*The Establishment forces at the Republican National Convention were represented by the Rockefeller-Scranton contingents. They used every political weapon in their well-furbished arsenal to embarrass or discredit Goldwater.* To veteran political observers it was amazing how strong the locked-in Goldwater delegates stood up under the pressure. Goldwater was nominated.

The Establishment then turned to its own locked-in sources to power. The media (press, radio, and TV) were turned on Goldwater with a blasting vengeance. In retrospect it was an amazing demonstration of what a controlled press can do in a free republic. The tactic was to divert the attention of the people away from the real issues and use whatever circumstances became available to frighten the American people away from Goldwater.

In Stephen Shadegg’s book, “What Happened to Goldwater?” (1965) there is a valuable summary of factors which determined the ultimate outcome of the Goldwater campaign. *Shadegg points out that it was impossible for Goldwater to be heard on the issues when the press, the magazines, the radio and TV were all pounding out a subtle (and sometimes blatant) message of “Extremist,” “Racist,”, “Atomic-bomber,” “Trigger Happy,” “War monger,” “Psychologically unfit,” and “He will scrap Social Security.”*

Television advertising against Goldwater was also shrewdly prepared along the same theme. It included two powerful little Madison Avenue gems, one showing an atomic explosion and the other showing a Social Security card being torn in two.

Shadegg writes, “A part of the answer to the question “What happened to Goldwater?” must be found in the violence of those who opposed him. The election did not hinge on the popularity of ability of Lyndon Johnson. He was a secondary figure, and the “great mandate” became his inheritance. It was not a testament to his wisdom or leadership, but rather an indication of the violent dislike for Goldwater generated largely by the hundreds of magazine articles, the derogatory remarks of the columnists, the unexplained errors (such as the UPI report of Goldwater’s statement on the Howard Smith ABC television appearance), and the scathing attacks of people such as William Stringfellow, Ralph Gingsberg, and Fred Cook.”

Dean Burch said:


“ I think most of the reporters, if they would ever let their defenses down, would agree that taken as a whole the press was so violently antagonistic to Goldwater that even if they had wanted to be honest about it, it was impossible to them to be honest because they were so busy looking for weaknesses. In other words, the press in this particular campaign performed the function of the opposition. They took a look at what Goldwater advocated and them they looked for whatever was the weakest link in that chain and that became the issue.

“On the other hand, with Johnson, anything that was against him they ignored. For example, if Senator Goldwater during his twelve years in the U.S. Senate has accumulated $14 million as a personal fortune I am sure that the press in a period of three months could have made his name synonymous with Benedict Arnold, whereas with Johnson it was just one of those “Well boys will be boys things and everyone is entitled to make a living.”

“Secondly, if I or someone close to Senator Goldwater has been called before the Senate Rules Committee and them taken the Fifth Amendment, that subject would never have been dropped. At every press conference Goldwater would have been asked to explain in detail what my role was, what the planned to do about it, whereas the Bobby Baker case was stressed Only By Goldwater. The Press Never Discussed It With The President.

“Thirdly, if I had been picked up in the men’s room of the YMCA, [like LBJ’s man, Jenkins] the stories that would have been written on it would have lasted for two or three months and the conclusion would have been that obviously Goldwater knew about it and obviously, possibly, he was a little bit peculiar.” 
- *What Happened to Goldwater?*, pp. 263-264)

In assessing the Gold water campaign, some criticism must rest on certain members of the Goldwater team. Unfortunately for the conservative cause he represented. Goldwater operated under the special handicap of having two or three man immediately around him who were extremely inept. If Stephen Shadegg, who had run all of Goldwater’s successful campaigns from 1952 to 1962, had been in charge, and Ronald Reagan had been presenting the Goldwater issues at regular intervals on coast-to-coast TV (as John Kilroy and his committee had the money and begged for permission to do), the propaganda of the Establishment-controlled media Might have been overcome. As it was, a citizen had to be a strong independent thinker to survive the barrage of frightening headlines and slogans which the secret society and it power complex poured out against Goldwater. 

Nevertheless, some 27,000,000 stood up against the barrage.


*Books to Read:*

*- The Naked Capitalist; a Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley's Book: Tragedy and Hope, W. Cleon Skousen*
*
- What happened to Goldwater?: The Inside Story of the 1964 Republican Campaign, Stephen C Shadegg*

*- With no apologies: The personal and political memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater*

*- The Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater*

----------


## AuH20

If Goldwater was elected president in 1964, this country would look incredibly different, assuming he wouldn't have been assassinated. Barry would have brought the war to a very quick resolution. In contrast, LBJ did incredible damage with his expansion of the Vietnam War and his Great Society Initiative which future Republican presidents Nixon and Ford later augmented & added to.

----------


## malkusm

They also hated Reagan at first.

----------


## AuH20

> They also hated Reagan at first.


True. George H.W. Bush and Reagan were mortal enemies, but that still didn't stop Reagan from being saddled with him. It was a forced arrangement by the Rockefeller portion of the GOP:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_339147.html




> MG: ... By the way, in 1987, after my first visit to the United States, Vice President Bush accompanied me to the airport, and told me:* "Reagan is a conservative. An extreme conservative. All the blockheads and dummies are for him, and when he says that something is necessary, they trust him. But if some Democrat had proposed what Reagan did, with you, they might not have trusted him."*

----------


## Travlyr

What they hated at the time was anyone who exposed their shenanigans, and that's what they hate now. But the cats are out-of-the-bag.

----------


## Zippyjuan

You can't be certain how a person will be as president until they actually take the job.  Nixon too promised to end the war in Vietnam. In both of his election campaigns. Reagan said the government was the problem and that he would reduce it.  Instead government grew significantly.  He cut taxes but raised them by more.  HW Bush said no new taxes but faced with fiscal reality also raised them. Clinton was elected as a liberal but in reality turned out to be more conservative than Reagan was as far as legislation passed and reducing government spending (he had the smallest increase in government spending in dollars and not just percentages than any of them). Things would have been differently if Goldwater had been elected- we just don't know for certain in what way it would have been different. Who would have thought that GW Bush- who went AWOL from his National Guard trianing-  would lead us to two wars? No- we can't judge what Goldwater might have done as president.

----------


## FrankRep

> You can't be certain how a person will be as president until they actually take the job.


The fact is that the Establishment declared war on Barry Goldwater. We can't be "certain" of Ron Paul either by your logic.

----------


## Zippyjuan

You are right. We can't.  A president is subject to the events he faces and the Congress he has to deal with.  A president may have great goals but Congress ultimately has to write and pass legislation before he can enact anything.

----------


## White Bear Lake

Still, the parallels between what he faced and what we faced are striking.

But we got one thing he and his supporters never could have dreamed of at the time: The internet.

----------


## White Bear Lake

http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/1...tial-field-chu





> Does this mean Paul is a hopeless cause? A candidate widely reviled as insanely extreme in the cause of shrinking government has risen to lead the Republican Party before—remember Barry Goldwater? Goldwater’s progress from 1960 to 1964, when he won the nomination, lost the election, and still defined the shape of his party for decades down the line, should deliver both hope and despair to Ron Paul's fan.
> 
> Reading about Goldwater’s status and fans during that era brings to mind Paul’s situation far more than it does that of any other candidate today. Life magazine wrote in 1963 of “Goldwater zealots” who “lauded their man as Meccans must have lauded Mohammed,” emulating many comments I’ve heard about the near-religious dedication of Paul’s fans. And the position of the Goldwater movement before he won the nomination in the minds of the “serious” was no stronger than Ron Paul’s is now. As political scientist Matthew Dallek rightly summed up in a review of Mary C. Brennan’s 1995 book Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the GOP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> ...

----------


## anaconda

The economy is far worse now than in 1964.

----------


## FrankRep

*Barry Goldwater Predicts Ron Paul*


Lew Rockwell.com
November 29, 2007


"The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to the men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: 'I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel the old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is needed before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.'

Barry Goldwater, *The Conscience of a Conservative*, (1960) p. 17.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The Establishment forces at the Republican National Convention were represented by the Rockefeller-Scranton contingents. They used every political weapon in their well-furbished arsenal to embarrass or discredit Goldwater. To veteran political observers *it was amazing how strong the locked-in Goldwater delegates stood up under the pressure. Goldwater was nominated.*


When push comes to shove, it's all about the delegates.  Everything else is secondary.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> "The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to the men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: 'I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel the old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.'”
> 
> Barry Goldwater, *The Conscience of a Conservative*, (1960) p. 17.


That man sure had a way with words.

----------


## FrankRep

> When push comes to shove, it's all about the delegates.  Everything else is secondary.


Yes, delegates.

----------


## ChaosControl

> If Goldwater was elected president in 1964, this country would look incredibly different, assuming he wouldn't have been assassinated. Barry would have brought the war to a very quick resolution. In contrast, LBJ did incredible damage with his expansion of the Vietnam War and his Great Society Initiative which future Republican presidents Nixon and Ford later augmented & added to.


I think it'd also look a lot different socially as well. A lot of the hippie movement anti-war stuff with the Vietnam War being ended early would have potentially changed the entire social era of the 60s.

Imagine more social freedom, but at the same time not the complete irresponsible libertine lifestyle influence of the 60s. That appeals to me as much as getting rid of the "Great Society" nonsense.

----------


## cindy25

before they hated Goldwater they hated Bob Taft.  Imagine if Taft had been the nominee in 1952 (anyone could have beaten Stevenson)

there would have been no Vietnam, no Warren court, the draft would have ended in the 50s instead of the 70s...........

no Republican could have beaten LBJ in 1964, he was just too new to dump.  I think the establishment allowed Goldwater to run as sacrificial lamb.

----------


## FrankRep

> I think the establishment allowed Goldwater to run as sacrificial lamb.


If you study history, the Establishment fought bitterly against Goldwater using every means they had to smear and demonize him.

----------


## Working Poor

My dad voted for Goldwater. I remember listening to the news and my dad would get mad about what was being said about him.

I learned just recently that Goldwater and JFK were very close friends and looked forward to running against each other and both were intrigued by the debate that they would be able to bring to the public forum. I think Goldwater would have been assassinated if he had been elected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxnecmOWI-s

----------


## AuH20

At the tail end of Goldwater's career he voiced his concerns about the hidden power structure. Notice that few in the media ever talk about his controversial memoirs when they bring up his legacy:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...r/blog-111693/




> "From that day forward, the Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in policy-making positions with the State Department and other federal agencies. EVERY SECRETARY OF STATE SINCE 1944, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF JAMES F. BYRNES, HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL.
> 
> "Almost without exception, its members are united by a congeniality of birth, economic status and educational background. The organization itself began in 1919 in Paris when scholars turned their attention to foreign affairs after the end of World War I. It remains a non-governmental private grouping of specialists in foreign affairs.
> 
> "A NUMBER OF WRITERS, disturbed by the influential role that this organization has played in determining foreign policy, have concluded that the council and its members are an active part of the communist conspiracy for world domination.
> 
> "Their syllogistic argument goes like this: THE COUNCIL HAS DOMINATED AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY SINCE 1945. ALL AMERICAN POLICY DECISIONS HAVE RESULTED IN LOSSES TO THE COMMUNISTS. Therefore, all members of the council are communist sympathizers.
> 
> "Many of the policies advocated by the council have been damaging to the cause of freedom and particularly to the United States. But this is not because the members are communists or communist sympathizers. This explanation of our foreign policy reversals is too pat, too simplistic.
> ...





> "When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four Democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy direction.
> 
> "THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT TURNOVER IN PERSONNEL. BUT NO CHANGE IN POLICY. Example: DURING THE NIXON YEARS, HENRY KISSINGER, A COUNCIL MEMBER AND NELSON ROCKEFELLER PROTEGE, WAS IN CHARGE OF FOREIGN POLICY. WHEN JIMMY CARTER WAS ELECTED, KISSINGER WAS REPLACED BY ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, A COUNCIL MEMBER AND DAVID ROCKEFELLER PROTEGE.





> "DAVID ROCKEFELLER AND ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI FOUND JIMMY CARTER TO BE AN IDEAL CANDIDATE, FOR EXAMPLE. THEY HELPED HIM WIN THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION AND THE PRESIDENCY.
> 
> *"TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR purpose, THEY MOBILIZED THE MONEY POWER OF THE WALL STREET BANKERS, THE INTELLECTUAL INFLUENCE OF THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY - WHICH IS SUBSERVIENT TO THE WEALTHY OF THE GREAT TAX-FREE FOUNDATIONS - AND THE MEDIA CONTROLLERS REPRESENTED IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION.*

----------


## cindy25

> They also hated Reagan at first.


until the co-opted him

----------


## FrankRep

> until the co-opted him


Yep. Full covered here:

*The Real Ronald Reagan - Exposing the Myth* 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...osing-the-Myth

----------


## cindy25

> The economy is far worse now than in 1964.


true, but people are also far more dependent on govt handouts.

----------


## cindy25

> Yep. Full covered here:
> 
> *The Real Ronald Reagan - Exposing the Myth* 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...osing-the-Myth


Carter reinstated draft registration (after Ford had ended it) in 1980, and it was a huge 1980 issue.  Reagan promised he would end it on day 1.  he never did, because Weinburger and the neo-cons co-opted him/

----------


## White Bear Lake

First they hated Taft. Then Goldwater.  Then Reagan.  Then Buchanan.  Now it's Paul.

----------


## FrankRep

> First they hated Taft. Then Goldwater.  Then Reagan.  Then Buchanan.  Now it's Paul.


 Yep.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

history repeats




> *William F. Buckley: Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me*
> 
>    In the early months of l962, there was restiveness in certain  political quarters of the Right. The concern was primarily the growing  strength of the Soviet Union, and the reiteration by its leaders of  their designs on the free world. Some of the actors keenly concerned  felt that Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona was a natural leader in the  days ahead. 
> But it seemed inconceivable that an  anti-establishment gadfly like Goldwater could be nominated as the  spokesman-head of a political party. And it was embarrassing that the  only political organization in town that dared suggest this radical  proposal—the GOP’s nominating Goldwater for President—was the John Birch  Society.
> The society had been founded in 1958 by an earnest and  capable entrepreneur named Robert Welch, a candy man, who brought  together little clusters of American conservatives, most of them  businessmen. He demanded two undistracted days in exchange for his  willingness to give his seminar on the Communist menace to the United  States, which he believed was more thoroughgoing and far-reaching than  anyone else in America could have conceived. His influence was  near-hypnotic, and his ideas wild. He said Dwight D. Eisenhower was a  “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy,” and that the  government of the United States was “under operational control of the  Communist party.” It was, he said in the summer of 1961, “50-70 percent”  Communist-controlled.
> Welch refused to divulge the size of the  society’s membership, though he suggested it was as high as 100,000 and  could reach a million. His method of organization caused general alarm.  The society comprised a series of cells, no more than twenty people per  cell. It was said that its members were directed to run in secret for  local offices and to harass school boards and librarians on the matter  of the Communist nature of the textbooks and other materials they used.
> The society became a national _cause célèbre_—so  much so, that a few of those anxious to universalize a draft-Goldwater  movement aiming at a nomination for President in 1964 thought it best to  do a little conspiratorial organizing of their own against it.
> _____________ 
> In  January of that year I had a telephone call from William Baroody. It  was, he said, a matter of great national importance that I spend Tuesday  and Wednesday of the following week with Senator Goldwater in Palm  Beach, Florida. I would be one of three—along with Russell Kirk, the  philosopher and author of the seminal 1953 text _The Conservative Mind_,  and public-relations man Jay Hall, who had represented General Motors  in Washington. I said I could be there up until 5 p.m. on day one and  all of day two. I had a speaking date in St. Augustine on the first  night. Baroody simply repeated that the meeting was very important.
> ...

----------


## FrankRep

*Murray Rothbard: Was the National Review a CIA operation? | William Buckley Jr* 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...iam-Buckley-Jr




*William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment*



*Neoconservatism Explained:

William F. Buckley Jr.: the Establishment’s “House Conservative”*
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/457...e-conservative

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

not this time around...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein11.html

 


> * Buckley                Fiction*





> *by                Marcus Epstein* Both                critics and admirers of William F. Buckley credit him with sanitizing                the Right. By writing many dissenting voices out of polite society,                they say that Buckley made the modern respectable conservative movement                possible. His fans will say that this was necessary to make the                conservative message acceptable to the public and made the Reagan                and Gingrich "revolutions" possible, while his foes will                say that he kept the conservative movement from truly conserving                anything. While Buckley also excommunicated libertarians, isolationists,                and many other dissenters the two most famous cases were that of                the John Birch Society and Ayn Rand. Buckleys                latest novel, _Getting                It Right_, takes a look at these two movements and implicitly                shows why it was necessary for the excommunication of the Randians                and Birchers. _Getting It Right_ chronicles the ideological                journeys of two young anti-communist lovers who met at the famous                Sharon Summit where Young Americans for Freedom was founded. Leonora                Goldstein was a young Randian who went to work as a secretary for                Barbara Branden, and Woodroe Raynor who works for the John Birch                Society and follows the eccentric General Ed Walker. Walker was                a World War II hero who led the federal troops that forcibly integrated                Little Rock. He was later forced out of the army for making speeches                to troops in Germany that accused many major American politicians                and media figures of being Communist. He then went on to protest                the federal governments attempt to integrate Ole Miss. The                two figures argue amongst each other showing flaws in both systems                and they of course end up getting engaged as respectable _National                Review_ conservatives. Unfortunately, their intellectual odyssey                to get there was largely uninteresting. Woodrow never buys the more                extreme conspiracy theories harbored by Birchers, and Leonora seems                always uneasy with Objectivists authoritarian and overly ideological                stances. Woodrow ends up quitting the Society after reading Revilo                Olivers piece                on the JFK assassination which essentially says Kennedy was as much                a criminal as was Oswald. Leonora quits after Nathaniel and Barbara                Branden are excommunicated from Rands inner circle.      Buckley                of course focuses on the least pleasant aspects of the John Birch                Society and Rands Collective. The main focus on Rand is her affair                with Branden. When dealing with the John Birch Society, he spends                more time on General Walker and Revilo Oliver, a man who was eventually                forced out of the Society for his anti-Semitism, than on Robert                Welch. Interestingly enough, Oliver originally wrote for _National                Review_ and was a close friend of Buckleys, indeed a member                of his wedding party. _National Review_ also editorialized                in defense of Walker after he was arrested for his protest. They                hoped "that all civil libertarians in the United States will                take on the General Walker case, and that President Kennedy will                telephone his condolences to him in jail, that being his habit when                people involved in racial entanglements are abused by local courts,                proving that Mr. Kennedy is willing to intercede on behalf of the                victimized, irrespective of race, color, or creed." Obviously                if someone wrote anything like that today, the mini-cons at _National                Review_ would call for their head.  More                importantly is the fact that this book only touches on Buckleys                excommunication of the Randians and Birchers. While I dont think                Buckley should have written either group out of the conservative                movement, the book still accurately shows the absurdities of some                of the John Birch Societys conspiracy theories, and the cult-like                atmosphere of the Objectivists.  In                fact it was not really the kookiness of the John Birch Society that                led to their excommunication. By Buckleys own account the final                straw in writing out the Birchers was Robert Welchs editorial opposing                the Vietnam War.  The                book does not talk about the outrageous purges of people like John                T. Flynn and Murray Rothbard. In fact the only mention of Rothbard                is in the context of him being forced out of the Rands inner circle.                We are told that the major differences between Rothbard and Rand                was that Rothbard did not support the Goldwater campaign because                "he says political action doesnt work in a statist society."                Of course Rothbard supported Thurmond, Taft, and a host of other                political campaigns. The reason he opposed Goldwaters campaign                was clearly stated. He believed that while Goldwater was better                than Johnson on domestic issues, he would not be capable of making                any real reforms with a Democratic Congress and he didnt wish to                make radical changes on many fronts (like abolishing the income                tax, anti-trust laws, or social security.) On foreign policy, where                the president unfortunately can do quite a bit of damage without                Congress, Rothbard thought that Goldwater was more warmongering                and interventionist than Johnson.  George                Orwell famously wrote, "who controls the past controls the                future," and this book will surely be used to justify future                purges by _National Review_. So using the precedent of Buckleys                purges, David Frum wrote a cover                story in _National Review_ calling for National Reviewians                to "turn their backs" on paleos. The next day, he printed                a letter                by an ex-paleo who wrote that "[i]ts time that [paleos] went                the way of Objectivism and The John Birch Society."   Unfortunately                for Frum and his cohorts, this parallel is not completely accurate.                For one, as Paul Gottfried has observed,                the conservative wars described in _Getting It Right_ were                waged among parties who agreed on most issues and claimed a common                legacy. Paleoconservatives and neocons have absolutely nothing in                common. More importantly, regardless of what David Frum and Jonah                Goldberg claim, the anti-war right is a diverse group of intellectuals                who are dissatisfied with the status quo of the Right. That _National                Review_ feels obliged to try to write them out of the movement                time and time again testifies to their endurance. _March                25, 2003_

----------


## FrankRep

> By Buckley’s own account the final straw in writing out the Birchers was Robert Welch’s editorial opposing the Vietnam War.


The evil John Birch Society *opposed* the Vietnam War! Kick them out!

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

There are coalition builders and coalition destroyers and I personally am damn tired of the coalition destroyers.  This is not a one sided thing.  There are two sides that have been going at each others throats for years.  The Rothbardians aren't even in it because it has been between Randians and Birchers.

----------


## FrankRep

> There are coalition builders and coalition destroyers and I personally am damn tired of the coalition destroyers.  This is not a one sided thing.  There are two sides that have been going at each others throats for years.  The Rothbardians aren't even in it because it has been between Randians and Birchers.


The Conservatives will reject the Rothbardians because of the whole anarchist, open border, abortion, gay marriage stuff.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The Conservatives will reject the Rothbardians because of the whole anarchist, open border, abortion, gay marriage stuff.


There is the purity BS again. News flash... all the candidates in the GOP field are reborn libertarians... not reborn Birchers... or reborn conservatives...

News flash... conservatives are going to lose the borders and abortion argument on the original intent of the constitution alone.  They have already lost the economic argument on protectionism and libertarians have the superior moral arguments of Block on abortion.  And if conservatives decide to attempt to purge libertarians the left is going to take up the Constitution because the left is starting to figure out the right is not the only benefactors of using the Constitution. 

And if some of these younger people ever become more familiar with Bircher conspiracy theories and people JBS has attacked over the years I doubt the ranks are going to be flooded with new drones.  You just seen what happened when you tried to use good ol JBS tactics attacking Kokesh to divide and discredit.  That crap isn't gonna work.

----------


## White Bear Lake

Instead of fighting amongst ourselves, we need to get all the libertarian sects and all the paleocon sects on board and we might actually start winning something.

----------


## Travlyr

> Instead of fighting amongst ourselves, we need to get all the libertarian sects and all the paleocon sects on board and we might actually start winning something.


Isn't that pretty much what Live_Free_Or_Die has been saying? It is time for coalition builders and to expose the coalition destroyers for their shenanigans.

----------


## AuH20

> The Conservatives will reject the Rothbardians because of the whole anarchist, open border, abortion, gay marriage stuff.


I think you're overreacting. I have minor qualms with Rothbardians. I may have philosophical disagreements here and there but I still consider them kinsmen.

----------


## scrosnoe

Moral values matter in a free society -- it simply does not work any other way!  The question is where to draw lines and where to build coalitions.  

I say raise the standard of truth high and let all that agree repair to it.  If we have wounded along the way, stop and pick them up and help them to recover and see the standard bearer again.  

Thank God we have someone who has moral values at the head of our movement; someone who to the best of his ability lives them out before us and works tirelessly to protect the rights of others as well.

His success will depend not on how 'good' he is or even his message, but how well we are able to do what he has done in our own way in our own spheres of influence.  

*Lead on grassroots.* 

It matters how we treat one another and our opponents too!  We are all ambassadors for truth and liberty in our land~

Blessings all~

----------


## FrankRep

> I think you're overreacting. I have minor qualms with Rothbardians. I may have philosophical disagreements here and there but I still consider them kinsmen.


Overreacting? 

Look at how the general conservatives are treating Ron Paul.. Any hint of going leftist/open border on immigration and they're really to attack. Rothbardians take open borders idea to the extreme.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> There is the purity BS again. News flash... all the candidates in the GOP field are reborn libertarians... not reborn Birchers... or reborn conservatives...
> 
> News flash... conservatives are going to lose the borders and abortion argument on the original intent of the constitution alone.  They have already lost the economic argument on protectionism and libertarians have the superior moral arguments of Block on abortion.  And if conservatives decide to attempt to purge libertarians the left is going to take up the Constitution because the left is starting to figure out the right is not the only benefactors of using the Constitution. 
> 
> And if some of these younger people ever become more familiar with Bircher conspiracy theories and people JBS has attacked over the years I doubt the ranks are going to be flooded with new drones.  You just seen what happened when you tried to use good ol JBS tactics attacking Kokesh to divide and discredit.  That crap isn't gonna work.


Doesn't this post above of yours make you guilty of the same divide and discredit that you accuse Frankrep of doing?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I think you're overreacting. I have minor qualms with Rothbardians. I may have philosophical disagreements here and there but I still consider them kinsmen.


Yes, they are kinsmen, but I also think FrankRep is correct in saying that traditional conservatives are not going to react too well to what is considered leftist positions of open borders, or for that matter, the notion that the border around our country is some kind of fictitious, arbitrary line.  

Conservatives do not want to "bring down the government" and any suggestion wrongly claiming that this is what Dr. Paul stands for, is going to have definite blowback.

I think we just need to all remember that we are Dr. Paul's ambassadors and do our best to support HIS platform.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Isn't that pretty much what Live_Free_Or_Die has been saying? It is time for coalition builders and to expose the coalition destroyers for their shenanigans.


The post above by him is not exactly coalition-building.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> not this time around...
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein11.html


That's neat and all that you found an article, but I'm not sure how it makes the point you are trying to make.  You seem to be trying to smear the entire JBS because of one bad apple, Revilo Oliver.  You may be interested in knowing that he was booted from the JBS.  Every once in awhile, as in all organizations, you get a bad apple or two.  When you find out what they are, you get rid of them as quickly as you can.  

I'm not even a frickin' member of the JBS, but I'm not going to sit here and let you smear them, either.

----------


## acptulsa

I've seen the mainstream media discredit this as the lying propaganda it is:




But it didn't happen until after Barry Goldwater was dead.

----------


## Travlyr

> The post above by him is not exactly coalition-building.


Yes, it is. The John Birch Society has worked both sides as a policy for some reason. Sometimes they have helped defend constitutional principles, and sometimes they have undermined liberty. I don't know why they do it, but it is obvious. 

The most recent example, starting a thread on RPF calling Adam Kokesh, who is a true liberty fighter, a Marxist-Anarchist is not only completely ignorant of the meaning of the words, but it is an effective divisive tool to promote the crazies to the "established conservatives" whatever the hell that even means.

Do the "conservatives" read? _"Liberty Defined"_ clearly provides any literate human with a clear understanding of where Ron Paul stands on the issues.

Do the "conservatives" like to be felt up at the airport? That's not freedom.

Fencing the borders is fencing people in not out.

----------


## Travlyr

> That's neat and all that you found an article, but I'm not sure how it makes the point you are trying to make.  You seem to be trying to smear the entire JBS because of one bad apple, Revilo Oliver.  You may be interested in knowing that he was booted from the JBS.  Every once in awhile, as in all organizations, you get a bad apple or two.  When you find out what they are, you get rid of them as quickly as you can.  
> 
> I'm not even a frickin' member of the JBS, but I'm not going to sit here and let you smear them, either.


Liberty Eagle sounds like a watchful eye for liberty not a gatekeeper. JBS has presided over the greatest power grab in human history all the while pretending to stand-up for the constitution. They did not let people read books by Eustace Mullins for years which would have exposed the globalist agenda far sooner. JBS appears more and more like a gatekeeper too.

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm not even sure we want the "conservatives" on our side if they don't want liberty, peace, and prosperity.


We want anyone on our side that we can get.  That said, there certainly is a reason many of us are working harder to build a 'peace coalition' with 'The Left'.

----------


## Travlyr

> We want anyone on our side that we can get.  That said, there certainly is a reason many of us are working harder to build a 'peace coalition' with 'The Left'.


True.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> JBS has presided over the greatest power grab in human history all the while pretending to stand-up for the constitution.


Where on earth are you getting this from?  JBS members have been fighting what we see going on now long before most members on this forum were even born.  I've never met one who wasn't an extremely patriotic American.  




> They did not let people read books by Eustace Mullins for years which would have exposed the globalist agenda far sooner. JBS appears more and more like a gatekeeper too.


I hate to tell ya, but I was given a copy of Eustace Mullins' book on the Federal Reserve when I was a teenager.  My Mother bought it from the JBS bookstore.  

You are barking up the wrong tree.  Remember that Larry Patton MacDonald, Georgia Congressman, and good friend of Dr. Paul's was the President of the JBS until he was killed on KAL007.  He got his middle name honestly, as he was related to General Patton.  Are you so sure they are anti-Constitution?  I don't think so.





> Yes, it is. The John Birch Society has worked both sides as a policy for some reason. Sometimes they have helped defend constitutional principles, and sometimes they have undermined liberty. I don't know why they do it, but it is obvious. 
> 
> The most recent example, starting a thread on RPF calling Adam Kokesh, who is a true liberty fighter, a Marxist-Anarchist is not only completely ignorant of the meaning of the words, but it is an effective divisive tool to promote the crazies to the "established conservatives" whatever the hell that even means.


First of all, FrankRep is not "the JBS".  He is an individual.  Secondly, in my opinion, some of Adam's comments were dumber than dirt and I personally am none too pleased with him right now.  No one made him proclaim that "we can bring down the government".  It was all him.  I doubt he is a Marxist, but his choice of words when being interviewed by Clifford Kincaid, Editor of Accuracy in Media, were at the very least, ill-chosen.




> Do the "conservatives" read? _"Liberty Defined"_ clearly provides any literate human with a clear understanding of where Ron Paul stands on the issues.
> 
> Do the "conservatives" like to be felt up at the airport? That's not freedom.
> 
> Fencing the borders is fencing people in not out.


Now you seem to be inferring all conservatives are members of the JBS.  I wish that were true, but nope.  Not even close.

But, yes, I'm quite sure JBS members well know Ron Paul's positions on the issues as they have been supporting him since he first became a Congressman in the 1970's.  

But, like I posted in another thread, members of the JBS understand the motivations behind what we see going on all around us.  The problems are not all based on economics.  If you do not understand that, you are missing part of the picture.

----------


## Travlyr

> We want anyone on our side that we can get.  That said, there certainly is a reason many of us are working harder to build a 'peace coalition' with 'The Left'.


 Now that for sure wasn't coalition building on my part. Pre-coffee posting. I edited it out of my post after you pointed out my error. Perhaps you could do the same.

----------


## Working Poor

Concerning morals it is immoral to try and control someone's private behavior. Good neighbors build good fences

----------


## FrankRep

> Yes, it is. The John Birch Society has worked both sides as a policy for some reason. Sometimes they have helped defend constitutional principles, and sometimes they have undermined liberty. I don't know why they do it, but it is obvious.


Give me explicit examples because I know JBS history fairly well.  I've never seen the JBS deviate from the Constitution.




> Liberty Eagle sounds like a watchful eye for liberty not a gatekeeper. JBS has presided over the greatest power grab in human history all the while pretending to stand-up for the constitution.


You do realize how powerful these globalists are -- Rockfellers, Morgans, Rothschilds, etc? How the earth can you blame the JBS for "letting" this power grab happen? That would be like blaming Ron Paul for "letting" the Patriot Act happen. It's ridiculous.

----------


## Travlyr

> Where on earth are you getting this from?


Straight from Eustace Mullins. 



> In the United States, the Rockefeller interests continue to play the major political role. Old John D. Rockefeller's treasurer at Standard Oil, Charles Pratt, bequeathed his New York mansion to the Council on Foreign Relations as its world headquarters. His grandson, George Pratt Shultz, is now Secretary of State. The Rockefellers also wielded a crucial role through their financing of the Trotskyite Communist group in the United States, the League for Industrial Democracy, whose directors include such staunch "anti-communists" as Jeane Kirkpatrick and Sidney Hook. The Rockefellers were also active on the "right-wing" front through their sponsorship of the John Birch Society. To enable Robert Welch, a 32nd degree Mason, to devote all of his time to the John Birch Society, Nelson Rockefeller purchased his family firm, the Welch Candy Company, from him at a handsome price. Welch chose the principal officers of the John Birch Society from his acquaintances at the Council On Foreign Relations. For years afterwards, American patriots were puzzled by the consistent inability of the John Birch Society to move forward on any of its well-advertised "anti-Communist" goals. The fact that the society had been set up at the behest of the backers of the world Communist revolution may have played some role in this development. *Other patriots wondered why most American conservative writers, including the present writer, were steadily blacklisted by the John Birch Society for some thirty years. Despite thousands of requests from would be book buyers, the John Birch Society refused to review or list any of my books. After several decades of futility, the Society was totally discredited by its own record.* In a desperate effort to restore its image, William Buckley, the CIA propagandist, launched a "fierce" attack against the John Birch Society in the pages of his magazine, the National Review. This free publicity campaign also did little to revive the moribund organization.





> JBS members have been fighting what we see going on now long before most members on this forum were even born.  I've never met one who wasn't an extremely patriotic American.


I don't have a problem with the members, but the leadership is suspect. 
Kind of like I have no problem with Ron Paul (R) Texas, but the Republican leadership are globalists. 




> I hate to tell ya, but I was given a copy of Eustace Mullins' book on the Federal Reserve when I was a teenager.  My Mother bought it from the JBS bookstore.


When?



> You are barking up the wrong tree.


So you think it is fine for the premier JBS RPF's member to post stupid nonsense about one of our own? Adam Kokesh has been waking people up for several years now. He did not deserve to be smeared here.



> Remember that Larry Patton MacDonald, Georgia Congressman, and good friend of Dr. Paul's was the President of the JBS until he was killed on KAL007.  He got his middle name honestly, as he was related to General Patton.  Are you so sure they are anti-Constitution?  I don't think so.


I said sometimes they seem to help, and sometimes they harm.  The harmful stuff is not coalition building.

----------


## Travlyr

> Give me explicit examples because I know JBS history fairly well.  I've never seen the JBS deviate from the Constitution.


Post what JBS thinks of Income Tax protesters.

----------


## FrankRep

> The most recent example, starting a thread on RPF calling Adam Kokesh, who is a true liberty fighter, a Marxist-Anarchist is not only completely ignorant of the meaning of the words, but it is an effective divisive tool to promote the crazies to the "established conservatives" whatever the hell that even means.


That was *Robert Butler, Former Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Ohio* and *FrankRep*. The JBS had Nothing to do with this.

----------


## FrankRep

> Post what JBS thinks of Income Tax protesters.


I agree with the JBS on this. *Ron Paul agrees.* Going to Jail doesn't help the cause. They're being smart.

----------


## FrankRep

...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> When?


She gave it to me when I was in college.  I can't give you a specific date.




> I don't have a problem with the members, but the leadership is suspect. 
> Kind of like I have no problem with Ron Paul (R) Texas, but the Republican leadership are globalists.


Dude, you still keep implying that the JBS and the Republican party are one in the same.  They are not.  And yes, we all know that the Republican leadership are globalists; just like the Democratic leadership. By the way, the JBS hates globalism.

There have been many different leaders since Robert Welch died and you should sometime read his Blue Book.  Perhaps I have been hoodwinked, but I think he was a very fine patriot.  As far as Mullins goes, he wasn't perfect, by far.  Ezra Pound trusted him to give him the information about the FED, but that does not make Mullins some kind of god.  He had his failings and especially back then, the JBS tried very hard to keep out people who were racists, anti-semitics or anything of the sort.  You have to understand that back then they were growing wildly.. people were listening to them.  So, there were huge efforts to bring them down.  They had to be very cautious.





> So you think it is fine for the premier JBS RPF's member to post stupid nonsense about one of our own? Adam Kokesh has been waking people up for several years now. He did not deserve to be smeared here. 
> 
> I said sometimes they seem to help, and sometimes they harm.  The harmful stuff is not coalition building.


FrankRep is an individual.  He is no more representing the JBS, than are you representing all of Mises.  That said, I think what Adam said during that deal was stupid as all hell and has the potential to do great harm to Ron Paul's campaign.  You will recall that Paul endorsed Kokesh when he was running for office.  We will have to wait and hope that it doesn't.  As far as him being "one of our own", I am not related to the man and if he wants to "bring down the government", then he most certainly is not on MY team.  I am suspecting that was a bit of over-exuberance on his part.

----------


## outspoken

'Know that before they hated you, they hated me.'  ~Jesus

This thing goes waaaaay further back than Goldwater......

----------


## Travlyr

> But, like I posted in another thread, members of the JBS understand the motivations behind what we see going on all around us.


Elaborate please.




> The problems are not all based on economics.  If you do not understand that, you are missing part of the picture.


The fact is that central banking is counterfeiting which is dishonest. It is a big deal and at the root of our problems. An honest society would be peaceful and prosperous for the masses.

----------


## FrankRep

> Straight from Eustace Mullins.


Eustace Mullins is not a reliable source of information. Mullins attacked the John Birch Society because he thought the JBS was secretly controlled by the Jews. Mullins got his information from Revilo P. Oliver, who was formerly with the JBS, Revilo P. Oliver quit the JBS and got involved in the Racist anti-Jewish White Nationalist Movement. Eustace Mullins and Revilo P. Oliver were friends and both believed the Jews Controlled the world.

Again, Eustace Mullins is not a reliable source of information.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Post what JBS thinks of Income Tax protesters.


February 6, 1995 issue of _The New American_, William F. Jasper 



> Those who think they are somehow striking a blow for freedom by not using driver's licenses, marriage certificates, or zip codes, or by sitting in a courtroom or jail cell for not paying taxes - the so-called "patriots" and "tax-protestors" - will not attract the people needed to win this struggle. The responsible people we need have no time for such nonsense and will avoid these misguided would-be patriots like the plague.

----------


## FrankRep

> Post what JBS thinks of Income Tax protesters.






> February 6, 1995 issue of The New American, William F. Jasper offered this significant assessment of the independent militia:
> 
> Those who think they are somehow striking a blow for freedom by not using driver's licenses, marriage certificates, or zip codes, or by sitting in a courtroom or jail cell for not paying taxes - the so-called "patriots" and "tax-protestors" - will not attract the people needed to win this struggle. The responsible people we need have no time for such nonsense and will avoid these misguided would-be patriots like the plague.





> I agree with the JBS on this. *Ron Paul agrees.* Going to Jail doesn't help the cause. They're being smart.


Here's a challenge. Show me where Ron Paul says: *Don't Pay Your Taxes*.

----------


## Travlyr

> February 6, 1995 issue of _The New American_, William F. Jasper


Thank you. The John Birch Society promoting Karl Marx's doctrines.

----------


## FrankRep

> Thank you. The John Birch Society promoting Karl Marx's doctrines.


Stop the Propaganda. John Birch Society is against Taxes. 

I agree with the JBS on this. *Ron Paul agrees.* Going to Jail doesn't help the cause. They're being smart.

----------


## Travlyr

> Here's a challenge. Show me where Ron Paul says: *Don't Pay Your Taxes*.


"Get Rid of The Income Tax" --- Ron Paul

----------


## Travlyr

> I agree with the JBS on this. *Ron Paul agrees.* Going to Jail doesn't help the cause. They're being smart.


Cool.  Even though it is unconstitutional, JBS supports it.

----------


## Travlyr

Now can we get to coalition building?

----------


## FrankRep

> "Get Rid of The Income Tax" --- Ron Paul


Show me where Ron Paul says: *Don't Pay Your Taxes.*

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Thank you. The John Birch Society promoting Karl Marx's doctrines.


Only if you prefer secret organizations.

excerpted from same article as above...



> It is easy to see from the foregoing that a particularly dangerous trap is to allow the wrong people into our organization.  All applications for membership have to be approved by an appropriate member of our staff or a volunteer leader trained to be discriminating.

----------


## FrankRep

> Cool.  Even though it is unconstitutional, JBS supports it.


Going to Jail doesn't help the cause. You're a liar.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Show me where Ron Paul says: *Don't Pay Your Taxes.*


Give me a few to dig up Congressman Paul's speech talking about Civil Disobedience in the very congressional halls of the beast....

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Eustace Mullins is not a reliable source of information. Mullins attacked the John Birch Society because he thought the JBS was secretly controlled by the Jews. Mullins got his information from Revilo P. Oliver, who was formerly with the JBS, Revilo P. Oliver quit the JBS and got involved in the Racist anti-Jewish White Nationalist Movement. Eustace Mullins and Revilo P. Oliver were friends and both believed the Jews Controlled the world.
> 
> Again, Eustace Mullins is not a reliable source of information.


Have you read his book on the Federal Reserve?  It is quite good.

----------


## Travlyr

> There have been many different leaders since Robert Welch died and you should sometime read his Blue Book.  Perhaps I have been hoodwinked, but I think he was a very fine patriot.  As far as Mullins goes, he wasn't perfect, by far.  Ezra Pound trusted him to give him the information about the FED, but that does not make Mullins some kind of god.  He had his failings and especially back then, the JBS tried very hard to keep out people who were racists, anti-semitics or anything of the sort.  You have to understand that back then they were growing wildly.. people were listening to them.  So, there were huge efforts to bring them down.  They had to be very cautious.


According to Eustace Mullins, Paul Warburg, the architect of the Federal Reserve, had a brother Max Warburg that worked for the German secret service during WWI. The international bankers funded both sides of the war for profit.

The John Birch Society, by Eustace's own words would not review or list his books for 30 years. Don't you think that if Americans would have known about the Federal Reserve shannigans in the 40's or 50's that people would have rebelled sooner?

The John Birch Society was the gatekeeper.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Give me a few to dig up Congressman Paul's speech talking about Civil Disobedience in the very congressional halls of the beast....


Yes, but there are also quotes of him saying that if we want to turn this thing around, then we have to get involved in politics and change it that way.  I posted it numerous times over the years.

----------


## Travlyr

> Going to Jail doesn't help the cause. You're a liar.


Now come on Frank. The only reason I would have to go to jail for not paying my Income Tax is because they subverted the constitution with Marx's doctrine.

Calling me a liar is not coalition building either. Let's move toward that.

----------


## FrankRep

> Have you read his book on the Federal Reserve?  It is quite good.


Eustace Mullins thought the gold standard was a Rothschild tool and anyone who supports the gold standard is a Rothschild Agent.  


*Eustace Mullins: Ron Paul is a Rothschild Agent*

----------


## Travlyr

> Have you read his book on the Federal Reserve?  It is quite good.


Thank you LibertyEagle. It is fully documented as well. And straight from the Library of Congress.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> According to Eustace Mullins, Paul Warburg, the architect of the Federal Reserve, had a brother Max Warburg that worked for the German secret service during WWI. The international bankers funded both sides of the war for profit.
> 
> The John Birch Society, by Eustace's own words would not review or list his books for 30 years. Don't you think that if Americans would have known about the Federal Reserve shannigans in the 40's or 50's that people would have rebelled sooner?
> 
> The John Birch Society was the gatekeeper.


Oh bull$#@!!  How was the JBS the gatekeeper?  Anymore than Mises is the gatekeeper for people not knowing about the forces who are intentionally trying to bring our country down.  

A whole lot of us have been yelling about this crap for more years than most people on this forum have been alive.  Guess what?  PEOPLE DID NOT CARE!  Until they could see the impact on them personally, they didn't give a rat's behind.  That is the sad truth.  Heck, Ron Paul has been talking about this stuff for 30 years.  Why hasn't anyone listened to HIM?  He has known about the Federal Reserve all that time.  Is HE a gatekeeper too?

Give me a frickin' break.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Yes, but there are also quotes of him saying that if we want to turn this thing around, then we have to get involved in politics and change it that way.  I posted it numerous times over the years.


Ron Paul absolutely says he believes the better solution is for everyone to join the GOP and vote.  But Ron Paul doesn't brow beat the $#@! out of and demonize people in dissent either.  Ron Paul at least has the intellectual integrity to respect a principled position and only takes a position people should be prepared for any consequences.  And people support Ron Paul for it...

----------


## FrankRep

> Now come on Frank. The only reason I would have to go to jail for not paying my Income Tax is because they subverted the constitution with Marx's doctrine.
> 
> Calling me a liar is not coalition building either. Let's move toward that.


How is Wesley Snipes and Irwin Schiff doing these days?

*Peter Schiff* agrees with the JBS on this. Going to jail doesn't help the cause. He knows, his dad is in jail.

----------


## Travlyr

> Eustace Mullins thought the gold standard was a Rothschild tool and anyone who supports the gold standard is a Rothschild Agent.  
> *Eustace Mullins: Ron Paul is a Rothschild Agent*


Wow! Talk about disingenuous, Frank.

"So who the HELL does Ron Paul work for?"
Eustace - "He works for anybody that'll hire him." lulz...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Eustace Mullins thought the gold standard was a Rothschild tool and anyone who supports the gold standard is a Rothschild Agent.  
> 
> 
> *Eustace Mullins: Ron Paul is a Rothschild Agent*


I don't remember that part.  But, it's been years since I've read it.  I guess I need to read it again, eh?

----------


## FrankRep

> Give me a few to dig up Congressman Paul's speech talking about Civil Disobedience in the very congressional halls of the beast....


*Show me where Ron Paul says: Don't Pay Your Taxes.*

----------


## Travlyr

> Oh bull$#@!!  How was the JBS the gatekeeper?  Anymore than Mises is the gatekeeper for people not knowing about the forces who are intentionally trying to bring our country down.  
> 
> A whole lot of us have been yelling about this crap for more years than most people on this forum have been alive.  Guess what?  PEOPLE DID NOT CARE!  Until they could see the impact on them personally, they didn't give a rat's behind.  That is the sad truth.  Heck, Ron Paul has been talking about this stuff for 30 years.  Why hasn't anyone listened to HIM?  He has known about the Federal Reserve all that time.  Is HE a gatekeeper too?
> 
> Give me a frickin' break.


The Mises Institute publishes information. The John Birch Society hid information.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> How is Wesley Snipes and Irwin Schiff doing these days?


How has the membership of JBS stacked up against the membership of militias and tax protestors the past decade?

----------


## FrankRep

> Eustace Mullins thought the gold standard was a Rothschild tool and anyone who supports the gold standard is a Rothschild Agent.  
> 
> *Eustace Mullins: Ron Paul is a Rothschild Agent*






> I don't remember that part.  But, it's been years since I've read it.  I guess I need to read it again, eh?


Yep, you missed that part.


*Eustace Mullins' Last Interview - on False Leaders* 

Excerpts from Jan Irvin interview of Mullins in Sep 2009.

** Gold & Silver Standard is another form of control*
* Patriot movement is full of False Leaders
* They have Full Spectrum Control
* The Want to Dump the Federal Reserve System

----------


## FrankRep

> Wow! Talk about disingenuous, Frank.
> 
> "So who the HELL does Ron Paul work for?"
> Eustace - "He works for anybody that'll hire him." lulz...


*Eustace Mullins is anti-Ron Paul.* Thank you for pointing that out.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Ron Paul absolutely says he believes the better solution is for everyone to join the GOP and vote.  But Ron Paul doesn't brow beat the $#@! out of and demonize people in dissent either.  Ron Paul at least has the intellectual integrity to respect a principled position and only takes a position people should be prepared for any consequences.  And people support Ron Paul for it...


Agreed.  But, he doesn't sign on to their actions either.  I don't recall him hailing the Browns, the Liberty dollar guy, or mentioning Adam's deal.  Do you?

If your comment about "brow beating" has to do with Kokesh, I would imagine the only reason it was mentioned at all by Frank was because of Kokesh's behavior when he was doing it.  If you go back and read through the thread, there were other people besides Frank who were not applauding Kokesh's choice of words.  Maybe it's just me, but I think when you ask to be endorsed by someone like Dr. Paul and receive that endorsement that you owe both he and the movement some sense of responsibility for your actions.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> *Show me where Ron Paul says: Don't Pay Your Taxes.*


Patriotism by Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul388.html

Now, show me where Ron Paul brow beats the $#@! out of people?

-or-

Show me where Ron Paul advocates elitist wise overlords?



> They assert that America's Founding Fathers wanted "citizen legislators," each taking their turn in Congress, not "lifetime professionals." False. Our Founders, the authors of the Constitution, spent most of their lifetimes in public service. (See the February 1996 JBS _Bulletin_ for a few examples.)

----------


## LibertyEagle

I'm done with this.  People should read through this thread from the beginning.  I just did.  What I saw, was LFoD claiming he was a coalition-builder out of one side of his mouth, while attacking the JBS and its membership, out of the other.

It's pretty clear to me that this is because LFoD has his panties in a knot over what FrankRep said about Kokesh, so he decided he would strike back.

Thing is, LFoD, you are only taking stabs at Dr. Paul when you try to get the retribution you are seeking.  As he has said numerous times that he is a long-time supporter of the JBS.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The Mises Institute publishes information. The John Birch Society hid information.


ROFL.  

Get real.

----------


## Travlyr

> I don't remember that part.  But, it's been years since I've read it.  I guess I need to read it again, eh?


That's because it is not in there. Frank is taking you for a ride. Read it. 
Eustace was not an economist. Eustace was a historian. That interview is trash talk.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> There are coalition builders and  coalition destroyers and I personally am damn tired of the coalition  destroyers.  This is not a one sided thing.  There are two sides that  have been going at each others throats for years.  The Rothbardians  aren't even in it because it has been between Randians and  Birchers.


Take that post to mean I am not sitting on the sidelines of secret elitist bull$#@! anymore... 

I am now taking a side and if there is dirt I won't hesitate to fling it.  I am going to take the same attitude JBS does.  I am going to use the EXACT same tactics to a T.  Capital T.  We must route out people who are not good for the liberty movement which includes people attacking libertarians or suggesting Dr. Paul should take on MLK this election.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That's because it is not in there. Frank is taking you for a ride. Read it. 
> Eustace was not an economist. Eustace was a historian. That interview is trash talk.


Trash talk? It was an interview with Mullins.  Clearly Mullins doesn't agree with Rothbard or Paul about gold and silver.

----------


## FrankRep

> That's because it is not in there. Frank is taking you for a ride. Read it. Eustace was not an economist. Eustace was a historian. That interview is trash talk.


*Wikipedia: Eustace Mullins > Antisemitism*


Many of Mullins' writings show a preoccupation with the idea that the Jews of the world are in a state of war with Christianity and Western civilization, and that Communism, Zionism, and International finance were Jewish tools to subjugate gentile populations. He also believed that in general the interaction between Jews and gentiles was parasitic. He believed that gentiles like the Rockefellers were also parasitic, but that ultimately the World Order was controlled by Jews and that the end goal of this Jewish oligarchy is "World Zionism."

He believed that the French Revolution and the Congress of Vienna were key events in which Jews, via conspiratorial mechanations, overpowered Gentile governments.

He believed that other key moments in the establishment of Jewish power were the creation of the Federal Reserve, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the establishment of the state of Israel.

Like Pound, he had sympathy for Fascism, because of its apparent anti-Usury and anti-Communist measures, though he later withdrew that sympathy, as he came to believe that without the Nazis, Zionism would never have been a powerful force, and that the Nazis were puppets of Jewish bankers, specifically Max Warburg, who he claimed financed them to build up the Nazi war machine, as well as the leaders of the J. Henry Schroeder Bank, who were facilitated by the Dulles brothers, and that Nazi opposition to these bankers, insofar as it went beyond rhetoric, occurred only well after they had ascended to power. In his book Secrets of the Federal Reserve, he also claimed that World War One was contrived and managed by a triumvirate consisting of Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch, Eugene Meyer, and to a lesser extent, the leaders of Morgan banks, in the United States, and men like Max Warburg in Germany, so that they might increase their profit and power. He also claimed that these individuals would play a key role in financing the Bolshevik Revolution.

His October, 1952 article "Adolf Hitler: An Appreciation" was mentioned in a report by the House Un-American Activities Committee

In it, he espoused anti-Semitic views and expressed the belief that America owes a debt to Hitler.

Though Mullins would later relinquish his support of Nazism, he still defended the Romanov dynasty as if they were the saviors of mankind. His book The World Order frames them as the major force that stood in the way of the ambitions of the international finance oligarchs he spoke of.

In a tract called The Secret Holocaust, Mullins stated that the account of the Nazi extermination of the Jews is implausible, and that it is a cover story for the Soviet massacres of Christians, which he believed was led by a conspiracy of "international Jews" and instigated for the purpose of killing Gentiles.

In 1968, Mullins authored the tract, The Biological Jew, which he claimed was an "objective" analysis of the forces behind the "decline" of Western Culture. He claimed that the main influence that people were overlooking in their analysis of world affairs was "parasitism". He began by describing parasitism in the animal kingdom. He then commented on the work of the macro-historians Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee (who he said was a ripoff of Spengler and a "shabbez-goi historian"), and proposed that if we look at society as if it were an organism, then the Jews would be equivalent to parasites overtaking that organism. He states that Jews "instinctively" want to control the world. He spent the rest of the book attacking Americans for their supposed docility, ranting about America's subservience to the Jews, and predicting that America would be in total cultural decline by the 1980s.

Mullins also was a devout Jeffersonian Constitutionalist, writing a defense of Constitutionalism called The Great Betrayal. He believed, during the time that he supported Hitler, that fascism was the only means of stopping the spread of Communism. He later rescinded his support of Hitler, and his later works show a critical position towards Nazism.

In some of his lectures, Mullins claimed that the Nazis were simply tools controlled by the leaders of "World Zionism", that without them, the Zionist movement would be very weak, and that Hitler, ostensibly against international bankers, was in reality under their control.

He somehow believed that he wasn't anti-Semitic, but that he was merely warning the world of a supposed Jewish "drive" towards World domination. He said in an interview before his death that "the Jewish people feel that the can be safe only if they control the entire world, because they have developed a mythology that no matter where a Jew goes, he's going to be killed by somebody".[citation needed] He also stated that "I have no reason to hate Jews .. they hate us because we stand in the way of their world power". He furthermore alleged that the leaders of "World Zionism" desired 3 world wars, that the first two had already occurred, but that by the end of the third, "the Jews would control the entire world". He claimed that Christians were being manipulated into fighting Muslims, and that Israelis desire to "exterminate the entire Arab-Muslim population".

In 1987, Mullins authored The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History, in which he set forth the theory that behind the oligarchical system he described in his other writings was a Judeo-Masonic "Satanic" conspiracy founded in ancient Babylon, evidence of which he found in the Bible, Masonic texts, and Talmudic and Kabbalistic literature. Updating the claims of the conspiracist Nesta Webster, he asserted that the French Revolution was a culmination of years of intrigue by occult personages, and that it marked the beginning of a program of world revolution that would later manifest in the Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet Communist regime. He proposed that the purpose of these revolutions was to kill Gentiles, who he referred to as the "real Semites", as opposed to the "cursed Cannanites". He claimed that for thousands of years, Gentiles had been the victims of "anti-Semitic persecution".

----------


## Travlyr

> Take that post to mean I am not sitting on the sidelines of secret elitist bull$#@! anymore... 
> 
> I am now taking a side and if there is dirt I won't hesitate to fling it.  I am going to take the same attitude JBS does.  I am going to use the EXACT same tactics to a T.  Capital T.  We must route out people who are not good for the liberty movement which includes people attacking libertarians or suggesting Dr. Paul should take on MLK this election.


Same here. No more bull$#@! from members dividing the liberty movement.

And this is total bull$#@!.



> Eustace Mullins thought the gold standard was a Rothschild tool and anyone who supports the gold standard is a Rothschild Agent.  
> 
> 
> *Eustace Mullins: Ron Paul is a Rothschild Agent*


It is the interviewers who are obfuscating the truth in this video.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Take that post to mean I am not sitting on the sidelines of secret elitist bull$#@! anymore... 
> 
> I am now taking a side and if there is dirt I won't hesitate to fling it.


Ya know, there is nasty stuff out there about most every organization that exists.  The hard part is discerning whether it has merit or not.  There is also plenty of dirt out there about the Mises Institute too, you know.

I sincerely suggest you stop this crap.




> I am going to take the same attitude JBS does.  I am going to use the EXACT same tactics to a T.  Capital T.  We must route out people who are not good for the liberty movement which includes people attacking libertarians or suggesting Dr. Paul should take on MLK this election.


"The JBS" did nothing.  You are mad at Frank.  Grow up and discuss what you are pissed off about with him directly and honestly.  Stop trying to cause huge divides in Paul's support.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Who thinks Dr. Paul should take on MLK???  And who are you suggesting is "not good for the liberty movement"?


a little owl told me the good doctor thinks liberty is good for such birds as milk is to cows

----------


## LibertyEagle

> a little owl told me the good doctor thinks liberty is good for such birds as milk is to cows


what?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The Mises Institute publishes information. The John Birch Society hid information.


The JBS had no more responsiblity to carry all of Mullins' books anymore than The Mises Institute.

----------


## Travlyr

> Trash talk? It was an interview with Mullins.  Clearly Mullins doesn't agree with Rothbard or Paul about gold and silver.


Really?!?

Eustace never said anything of the sort. The interviewers do, but Eustace never said anything about the gold or silver standard, nor did he agree with them.

----------


## FrankRep

> I am now taking a side and if there is dirt I won't hesitate to fling it.  I am going to take the same attitude JBS does.  I am going to use the EXACT same tactics to a T.  Capital T.  We must route out people who are not good for the liberty movement which includes people attacking libertarians or suggesting Dr. Paul should take on MLK this election.


You're mad *at me*, stop being so collectivist and being a group.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Really?!?
> 
> Eustace never said anything of the sort. The interviewers do, but Eustace never said anything about the gold or silver standard, nor did he agree with them.


It sounded like that to me.  But, it was hard to tell who was who in that interview.

----------


## Travlyr

> The JBS had no more responsiblity to carry all of Mullins' books anymore than The Mises Institute.


If they were a truthful organization, then they would not have hid the truth for 30 years.

You are going to have to do your own research LE. I've tried to point you to the truth, but you don't believe me. FrankRep is your man, fine. You can believe his lies if you like... makes no difference to me. Re-read _"The Secrets of the Federal Reserve"_ for yourself it is fully documented.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Ya know, there is nasty stuff out there about most every organization that exists.  The hard part is discerning whether it has merit or not.  There is also plenty of dirt out there about the Mises Institute too, you know.


1. I am not ticked, you are perceiving some kind of emotion in my posts where none exists.  I sit here calmly as clay typing this.
2. Dirt has been likely flying for quite a while between every possible faction that has ever existed among anyone who supports anything resembling a liberty position.  It is absurdly ridiculous.  
3. With any luck, younger generations will perceive all of the dirt flying for what it is... poop... and teach adults who have been arguing for years how to act like grown ups and sit at the same table.

----------


## FrankRep

> If they were a truthful organization, then they would not have hid the truth for 30 years.
> 
> You are going to have to do your own research LE. I've tried to point you to the truth, but you don't believe me. FrankRep is your man, fine. You can believe his lies if you like... makes no difference to me. Re-read _"The Secrets of the Federal Reserve"_ for yourself it is fully documented.


What "truth" are you talking about?

----------


## Jim Casey

> what?


What?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If they were a truthful organization, then they would not have hid the truth for 30 years.
> 
> You are going to have to do your own research LE. I've tried to point you to the truth, but you don't believe me. FrankRep is your man, fine. You can believe his lies if you like... makes no difference to me. Re-read _"The Secrets of the Federal Reserve"_ for yourself it is fully documented.


Uh, again, you do not have one single clue what you are talking about.  I don't know Frank from squat.

My Mother was a member of the JBS for years and years.  I grew up with this stuff.  She also read tons of books from the Mises Institute, in addition to a couple other organizations.  Oh, and tons of old history books, autobiographies by the $#@!s who have been subverting our country, UN documents, you name it.  

I've read the JBS blue book and a great deal of their other stuff and I have read it for YEARS.  I have not always agreed with them.  In fact, on occasion, they have downright pissed me off.  I even kicked one of their regional leaders out of my home, he ticked me off so badly.  That said, I never once thought they were traitors.  They have had a couple of presidents that I was not too fond of, but they usually did not last long.  JBS members usually know their stuff and root out the bad apples pretty fast.  I will tell you this, when push comes to shove, there is no one else that you'd rather have in the foxhole beside you.

Now, if you want to go on and flap your gums about something you know very little about, go ahead.  But, you are doing damage to Ron Paul and this movement.  If you don't care about that, then go right ahead.  But, everyone will see very clearly what you are all about.

----------


## acptulsa

> What "truth" are you talking about?


I believe there's only one of those, Frank.

I've been looking at this thread all morning, and being amused to see all the ancient divide and conquer tactics far outliving their usefulness and displayed in living color.  Everything they ever threw at the Birchers over the last half century seems to still be stuck to them.  But this black-or-white business is a false paradigm.  The Libertarian Party of Ron Paul was not quite the same thing as the Libertarian Party of Bob Barr.  Infiltrators come and infiltrators go.  Just like on this forum.

And, eleven pages later, you've been in so many circles you've made me dizzy.  So, even if you won't agree to disagree, I'm certainly willing to let you disagree...

All I can add is that I wish I had met LE's mother...

----------


## Travlyr

> What "truth" are you talking about?


Eustace Mullins wrote _"The Secrets of the Federal Reserve"_ which points to the fact that the Federal Reserve was established at Jekyll Island by a conspiracy of bankers and politicians in order to take control of the money supply and debase the currency through fiat money. 

The John Birch Society leadership knew about this criminal conspiracy undermining the constitution from their inception, but they did not make that information available for their members for thirty years.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Eustace Mullins wrote _"The Secrets of the Federal Reserve"_ which points to the fact that the Federal Reserve was established at Jekyll Island by a conspiracy of bankers and politicians in order to take control of the money supply and debase the currency through fiat money. 
> 
> The John Birch Society leadership knew about this criminal conspiracy undermining the constitution from their inception, but they did not make that information available for their members for thirty years.


That is a bold-faced lie and I have already told you that.

----------


## Travlyr

> That is a bold-faced lie and I have already told you that.


About what year did your mother buy a copy for you?
I'm not lying. I am using Eustace's own testimony to back my statement.

----------


## Aratus

the sluggish economy is making possible this AuH2o revival
even though the irony is, had we all budgetted better and
backed the gov't in south vietnam more indirectly as well as
competantly insted of bloating our budget with payola and
then some that squandered any budgetary surplus LBJ had, we
could have ended dire poverty and had a stable foreign policy.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> About what year did your mother buy a copy for you?


  I don't know.  As I recall, I was in college.  Since I went to grad school too, there are quite a few years there to pick from.




> I'm not lying. I am using Eustace's own testimony to back my statement.


It sounded to me like he was talking about the totality of all of his books.

Talk about a conspiracy theorist.  Sheesh.  You're badmouthing  an organization that Ron Paul has backed for years on end.

----------


## Travlyr

> I don't know.  As I recall, I was in college.  Since I went to grad school too, there are quite a few years there to pick from.


How about a decade? Which decade?

----------


## LibertyEagle

//

You know what, I'm not playing this game with you any longer.

Believe what you want.  I couldn't care less.

----------


## FrankRep

> Eustace Mullins wrote _"The Secrets of the Federal Reserve"_ which points to the fact that the Federal Reserve was established at Jekyll Island by a conspiracy of bankers and politicians in order to take control of the money supply and debase the currency through fiat money. 
> 
> The John Birch Society leadership knew about this criminal conspiracy undermining the constitution from their inception, but they did not make that information available for their members for thirty years.



You're lying again. The John Birch Society rejected Eustace Mullins because of the anti-Semitic statements he wrote and talked about.  

G. Edward Griffin and Gary Allen popularized the anti-Federal Reserve especially in the 1970s. Remember the book: None Dare Call It Conspiracy (1976)?


*Wikipedia: G. Edward Griffin*

*Since the 1960s, G. Edward Griffin has spoken and written at length about* the Society's theory of history involving "communist and capitalist conspiracies" over *banking systems (including the Federal Reserve System)*, American foreign policy, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the United Nations.

**

*None Dare Call It Conspiracy*
- Gary Allen (JBS, 1976)

----------


## Travlyr

> Latter part of the 70's and early 80's.


I'm pointing to the truth. The JBS was started in the 50's.

----------


## LibertyEagle

That was a goody.  And there was the one titled, "None Dare Call it Treason".  I'm not sure if that was from the JBS or not.  I remember we had box after box of them.  My Mother handed one out to everyone she met.  lolol

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm pointing to the truth. The JBS was started in the 50's.


Yes, I know.  What is your point?  What does that have to do with the years I was in college?

----------


## Travlyr

> Yes, I know.  What is your point?  What does that have to do with the years I was in college?


It proves that Eustace was telling the truth when he said that,



> "Other patriots wondered why most American conservative writers, including the present writer, were steadily blacklisted by the John Birch Society for some thirty years. Despite thousands of requests from would be book buyers, the John Birch Society refused to review or list any of my books."


Gary Allen, 1976. So, it was nearly 20 years before JBS allowed for any published information on the truth about the Fed.

----------


## FrankRep

> It proves that Eustace was telling the truth when he said that, ..
> "Other patriots wondered why most American conservative writers, including the present writer, were steadily blacklisted by the John Birch Society for some thirty years. Despite thousands of requests from would be book buyers, the John Birch Society refused to review or list any of my books."



The John Birch Society rejected Eustace Mullins because of the anti-Semitic statements he wrote and talked about.

----------


## FrankRep

*Eustace Mullins, Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theorist, Dies at Age 86*


Anti-Defamation League
February 4, 2010


Eustace Mullins, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist for over half a century, died on February 2, 2010, a month short of his 87th birthday. Throughout his life, Mullins produced numerous books, essays and articles and delivered scores of speeches and lectures with a common bigoted theme: that Jews are allegedly responsible for many of the problems and evils that have confronted the modern world. Ezra Pound, the well-known anti-Semitic poet, was reportedly Mullins's mentor and teacher, starting in the late 1940s.

Throughout his long career as a propagandist, Mullins wrote numerous anti-Semitic works, including Secrets of the Federal Reserve, a re-hash of his anti-Semitic theories about the origins of the Federal Reserve and The Curse of Canaan, Mullins's biblical "analysis" asserting that an ages-long conflict has taken place between the builders of civilization and the Canaanites (i.e., the Jews), who sought to destroy civilized life on earth.

Mullins also had a long history of being a contributing writer or editor to various extremist publications. From October 2001 until November 2006, he served on the Southeastern and Eastern Regional Bureaus of the anti-Semitic conspiracy-oriented newspaper American Free Press (AFP), as well as its predecessor, The Spotlight.  From at least 1993 through 2009, Mullins was a contributing editor to Criminal Politics, an anti-Semitic conspiracy-oriented magazine....

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It proves that Eustace was telling the truth when he said that,
> 
> 
> Gary Allen, 1976. So, it was nearly 20 years before JBS allowed for any published information on the truth about the Fed.




Dude, the date she gave me the book proves nothing.  You have no idea whatsoever the number and types of books that we were suggested to read.  One can only read so many at one time, you know.

What's your deal anyway?  In your mind was the JBS the sole organization in existence who you think had the responsibility to disseminate Mullins' writings?  There were others you know.  For example, this one.  It was a good one too.  Maybe still is, but I liked it much better when Leonard Read was alive.  http://www.fee.org/

Note:  One last time, you are really barking up the wrong tree here.  I had heard about the Federal Reserve from my parents LONG before I read Mullins' book.  The information was out there.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Ugh, Frank, why post something from the ADL?  They have about as much credibility as the Southern Poverty Law Center.

----------


## FrankRep

> Ugh, Frank, why post something from the ADL?  They have about as much credibility as the Southern Poverty Law Center.


The ADL is right about Eustace Mullins being Anti-Semitic, however.

----------


## Travlyr

> The John Birch Society rejected Eustace Mullins because of the anti-Semitic statements he wrote and talked about.


The power elite smeared Eustace Mullins just like the power elite smears Ron Paul. Eustace may not have been as principled as Ron Paul, but Eustace spent his entire life working to show that the truth was being hidden. 

The John Birch Society perpetuating those smears is suspect, imo.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The power elite smeared Eustace Mullins just like the power elite smears Ron Paul. Eustace may not have been as principled as Ron Paul, but Eustace spent his entire life working to show that the truth was being hidden. 
> 
> The John Birch Society perpetuating those smears is suspect, imo.


Well goody.  You and LFoD can have your opinion of the JBS and Ron Paul and I will have ours.

----------


## Travlyr

> What's your deal anyway?


Coalition building to end the tyranny of the central bankers around the world, ASAP.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Coalition building to end the tyranny of the central bankers around the world, ASAP.


You have an interesting approach to building coalitions.  

What is it?  Attack, attack, smear, BUILD?

rofl

----------


## Travlyr

> *Eustace Mullins, Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theorist, Dies at Age 86*
> 
> 
> Anti-Defamation League
> February 4, 2010
> 
> 
> Eustace Mullins, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist for over half a century, died on February 2, 2010, a month short of his 87th birthday. Throughout his life, Mullins produced numerous books, essays and articles and delivered scores of speeches and lectures with a common bigoted theme: that Jews are allegedly responsible for many of the problems and evils that have confronted the modern world. Ezra Pound, the well-known anti-Semitic poet, was reportedly Mullins's mentor and teacher, starting in the late 1940s.
> 
> ...


Nice Frank,

*"He's Racist, Man"*

Where have we heard that before?

----------


## FrankRep

> The power elite smeared Eustace Mullins just like the power elite smears Ron Paul. Eustace may not have been as principled as Ron Paul, but Eustace spent his entire life working to show that the truth was being hidden. 
> 
> The John Birch Society perpetuating those smears is suspect, imo.



Eustace Mullins wrote anti-Jewish stuff. Just look:


*Eustace Mullins: Books and Pamphlets and other works*

- Mullins' New History of the Jews, The International Institute of Jewish Studies

- Boycott: The Jewish Weapon
- The Holocaust Explained
- Jesse Jackson And The Jews'', corner-stapled report, 7 pages
- Jewish TV: Sick, Sick, Sick
- Jewish War Against The Western World
- New Israel

----------


## Travlyr

> You have an interesting approach to building coalitions.  
> 
> What is it?  Attack, attack, smear, BUILD?
> 
> rofl


As do you.

Adam Kokesh was arrested for dancing in America and gets smeared on a liberty forum. And that's your idea of coalition building?

----------


## Travlyr

> Eustace Mullins wrote anti-Jewish stuff. Just look:
> 
> 
> *Eustace Mullins: Books and Pamphlets and other works*
> 
> - Mullins' New History of the Jews, The International Institute of Jewish Studies
> 
> - Boycott: The Jewish Weapon
> - The Holocaust Explained
> ...


And he hates da Joos.

You know what Frank? Attempting to destroy the credibility of a man who spent most of his life researching the Library of Congress, writing his findings, and documenting his sources is something I would expect from the central banking power elite... that is certain.

Why are you doing it?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> As do you.
> 
> Adam Kokesh was arrested for dancing in America and gets smeared on a liberty forum. And that's your idea of coalition building?


I did no smearing.  I called him out for what he said that day.  He deserved it.  Do you realize how that could be used to hurt Ron Paul's chances of receiving the Republican nomination?  Do you?

I didn't agree with calling him a Marxist and I stated that.  However, I can certainly understand how someone might have gotten that impression from what he said. 

I think we should let this go.  If it is more than Adam's exuberance getting the best of him, we will know in good time.

Note:  To be honest, until this election cycle is over, I'm not too interested in building any kind of coalition with Mr. Kokesh.  He stuck his foot in it and I hope he's not within 10 miles of Ron Paul until this is all over.

----------


## Travlyr

Then let's build a coalition for liberty, peace, and prosperity. And call out the people who smear people who are working for liberty.

Deal?

----------


## FrankRep

> Adam Kokesh was arrested for dancing in America and gets smeared on a liberty forum. And that's your idea of coalition building?


Adam Kokesh is going to get people hurt and/or arrested by his reckless civil disobedience.

I made reference to the idea that these type of activities will lead to a Egypt-style Revolution.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Then let's build a coalition for liberty, peace, and prosperity. And call out the people who smear people who are working for liberty.
> 
> Deal?


Nope.

You already buried the axe in a lot of people's backs this morning.  I won't be forgetting that anytime soon.

I don't know what you are here for, but I am here to get Ron Paul elected President.  I'm only interested in building coalitions with people who also have that at the forefront of all their actions.

----------


## FrankRep

> And he hates da Joos.
> 
> You know what Frank? Attempting to destroy the credibility of a man who spent most of his life researching the Library of Congress, writing his findings, and documenting his sources is something I would expect from the central banking power elite... that is certain.
> 
> Why are you doing it?


You can't hide from the truth, Travlyr. Eustace Mullins blamed the Jews for all the ills of the world.


*Eustace Mullins: Books and Pamphlets and other works*

- Mullins' New History of the Jews, The International Institute of Jewish Studies

- Boycott: The Jewish Weapon
- The Holocaust Explained
- Jesse Jackson And The Jews'', corner-stapled report, 7 pages
- Jewish TV: Sick, Sick, Sick
- Jewish War Against The Western World
- New Israel

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Adam Kokesh is going to get people hurt and/or arrested by his reckless civil disobedience.
> 
> I made reference to the idea that these type of activities will lead to a Egypt-style Revolution.


Frank, he has the right to do what he wants and he also has to bear the responsibilities for his actions.  

I'm not against peaceful civil disobedience at all, but I am becoming increasingly worried that there will be people out there inciting something akin to a French Revolution and we don't want that at all.  While I don't think this will come from our camp, it is likely something we will have to deal with.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I said I was done about 10 posts ago and now, I really am.  I should have stopped back then.  

Have a nice day, you guys.

----------


## Travlyr

> You can't hide from the truth, Travlyr. Eustace Mullins blamed the Jews for all the ills of the world.


Actually, he blamed the Rothschild Dynasty which happened to be Jewish.

----------


## FrankRep

> Actually, he blamed the Rothschild Dynasty which happened to be Jewish.


Explain this: 

- Jewish TV: Sick, Sick, Sick
- Jewish War Against The Western World


Eustace Mullins blamed more than just the Rothschilds.

----------


## Travlyr

> Explain this: 
> 
> - Jewish TV: Sick, Sick, Sick
> - Jewish War Against The Western World
> 
> 
> Eustace Mullins blamed more than just the Rothschilds.


No, I have no quarrel with the Jews.

Have a nice day, Frank.

----------


## Aratus

james jesus angleton was a very close 
friend of eustace mullins. just saying...

----------


## FrankRep

> No, I have no quarrel with the Jews.
> 
> Have a nice day, Frank.


Eustace Mullins did.

----------


## Aratus

LBJ knew how to mudsling and was very happy
when barry goldwater dipped in the gallup polls.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

In your heart, you know he's right.

I picked up some Taft and some Goldwater campaign buttons at CPAC last time...

----------


## FrankRep

> In your heart, you know he's right.
> 
> I picked up some Taft and some Goldwater campaign buttons at CPAC last time...


I want to get a Goldwater bumper sticker. Just for kicks.

----------


## AuH20

I've never heard this before tonight. Debate between noted socialist Norman Thomas and Barry Goldwater! 

http://vimeo.com/8220401

----------


## Aratus

in the years after the passing of FDR we have seen
the Democratic Party taking over even more of the causes
that Norman Thomas was brilliantly advocating in the early 1930s!!!

----------


## FrankRep

Goldwater got the nomination, we can get Ron Paul the nomination too!

----------


## thoughtomator

> You are right. We can't.  A president is subject to the events he faces and the Congress he has to deal with.  A president may have great goals but Congress ultimately has to write and pass legislation before he can enact anything.


that's so last century

----------


## FrankRep

History lesson bump.

----------

