Controlled Opposition - A must read for everyone in the liberty movement

[InterestedParticipant]

And by taking this advice there will never be any resistance to TPTB.
Don't listen to any one.
Don't get involved with anyone
Don't do anything.

just passively accept what ever happens to you and your family with out resistance or complaint.

Sounds like a plan.
not mine though.

Perhaps someone here could tell me the significance of Herbert Markuse's work, and where he found solutions for the elite where Karl Marx failed. I think understanding the differences between their concepts of gaining social control can help explain and justify what it is that I am claiming. Who here amongst the doubters would like to engage in that research and learning? Who here has the courage to really learn something, something new and extremely important and applicable? Who here is willing to break from the "crowd"?

 

[pcosmar]

Promoting a Marxist now are we?
Ha,
I'll bet you are "Bert".
http://solari.com/blog/?p=3363

Bert
Jul 6th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

Angelo…. look, your are simply not able to determine what I think, so don’t put thoughts or words into my mouth here. I see the manufactured reality, and just because I call it out in one place does not mean I buy into elsewhere.

The point here is to point out the manufactured reality where ever it may occur and to refrain from taking sides in some fake dialectic. What I find disappointing is that because I simply call-out one example of a manufactured event, it is assumed that I must have the opposite position. The problem is, that the opposite position, in fact, the entire frame of both sides is manufactured. Once must see it all to protect themselves from the manipulation. Your entire line of thinking and discussion is within frames created for you by others, and I refuse to take part in this containment of thought and perspective as developed by social scientists.

Perhaps a study of Herbert Markuse, OSS member & Frankfurt Institute “academic,” is in order. Having found that Marx’s theory of social change through middle class revolution did not work, as the elite could not get the middle classes to revolt in order to provide an opportunity to “change” society to their liking through dialectics, Markuse developed “victims groups” who could be leveraged to create the desired outcomes by placing sufficient pressures on society. These same techniques are in-play here.

So, what I ask of this audience is to see the entire construct, to see that both side of each argument is manufactured, and to resist the urge to take sides but to look to the framework as a whole. The goal should be to figure out why these issues have been framed as such, and why the specific sides have been chosen. To fall into either side is to loose, as it is irrelevant what side one is on as long as they play the game by the rules set forth by social engineers. The public can ONLY win by recognizing the game, and by not playing it at all.

What I am arguing here, Angelo, that while you are capable, you are still within the framework of rules set forth by others, and therefore are just a better game player than others. It is when you can recognize the game, understand the desired outcome, and refuse to play is when you have transcended their mechanisms of control.

This is my hope by exposing the Cynthia McKinney cointel fraud.

 

[FrankRep]

And by taking this advice there will never be any resistance to TPTB.
Don't listen to any one.
Don't get involved with anyone
Don't do anything.

just passively accept what ever happens to you and your family with out resistance or complaint.

Sounds like a plan.
not mine though.

InterestedParticipant, is your shadow a cointel plot against yourself?
Seriously, you think everyone is cointel, including yourself.

 

[ScoutsHonor]

Be careful posting here and not showing the appropriate level of disdain for me, otherwise, you run the high risk of being attack by the RPF content police.

First, stop listening to ALL of it. It's highly vectored.

Jacques Attali wrote a book a few years ago about the Labyrinths in Society, which in some sense are basically webs of beliefs and thoughts that social controllers engineer into society to segment the population and maintain "order." The Patriot system is also engineered, and when I say system, I mean ALL of it. It's not about 1-bad apple, its a network that is under total control. Spats between various actors are merely staged to keep it believable and to further segment the public.

So, to answer your question, anyone with any traction is either highly vectored themselves, unknowingly, or is deliberatively manipulative. You are much better off using the brain the God gave you to evaluate and analyze various situations that occur. For once a Patriot actor has framed an issue, the frames (or vectors) become channels in your mind that develop into barriers that are difficult to break from. By shutting off their framing, you actually keep your mind more agile, and more able to objectively evaluate information as it develops.

These Patriot actors that everyone raves about are just about the worst thing to hit the libertarian community, as it is forming groupthink, segmenting populations, hampering our individuality and our ability to think independently, and turning us against each other.... just as we see here in this thread.

There are many many excellent books that clearly and methodically tell you what is going on and how the system was developed and why. They are written by the social planners and thinkers themselves... no koodies and no tin foil. You simply have to be willing to invest the money, the time, and the energy to read them and decipher the way they write (ie double speak). You don't need 3rd party interpreters, you just need to break from the conditioning and to do some independent reading. It's quite a rewarding experience, as you will no longer be reliant on anyone anymore for your thinking and analysis, you will be able to accurately assess all situations on your own, independently, as God had intended before Elite Men attempted to bend Nature.

I can handle it.
You haven't earned my disdain, so no disdain forthcoming.


I can't help but ask how you can be so sure that all of the patriot hosts are compromised. That's a pretty broad statement and I don't like the thought that I may be rejecting someone who may in actuality be a genuine patriot, I'm sure you see what I mean.

I'm having a problem with the message software so will have to try to continue this later.

 

[Conservative Christian]

IP, if everything is as controlled as you say, then we all may as well give up.

Which is PRECISELY what IP is attempting to do---convince as many people as possible that all organized opposition against the New World Order is "controlled" and "futile", thus everything is hopeless and we should just give up.

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I give up, so IP and his sock puppet can go take a hike.

If we don't hang together, we'll most certainly all be hanged separately!

.

 

[Conservative Christian]

Perhaps someone here could tell me the significance of Herbert Markuse's work, and where he found solutions for the elite where Karl Marx failed. I think understanding the differences between their concepts of gaining social control can help explain and justify what it is that I am claiming. Who here amongst the doubters would like to engage in that research and learning? Who here has the courage to really learn something, something new and extremely important and applicable? Who here is willing to break from the "crowd"?

It's a shame you can't even spell his name correctly, Mr. pseudointellectual.

The name is MARCUSE.

You're the biggest poseur on Ron Paul Forums.

And nobody is trying to discourage you from posting here. As long as you continue to post lies, pseudointellectual claptrap and pure BS---you'll continue to get a well-deserved intellectual beatdown.

.

 

[Conservative Christian]

Promoting a Marxist now are we?
Ha,
I'll bet you are "Bert".
http://solari.com/blog/?p=3363

DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

pcosmar has NAILED IP's sorry little hiney!

Please note that IP and his sock puppet "Bert" both misspelled Herbert Marcuse's name in an identical manner with a "k"---Markuse---which is incorrect.

The only real question left to be asked now, is which FedGov agency does IP work for?

GOOD JOB, pcosmar!

.

 

[Conservative Christian]

And by taking this advice there will never be any resistance to TPTB.
Don't listen to any one.
Don't get involved with anyone
Don't do anything.

just passively accept what ever happens to you and your family with out resistance or complaint.

Sounds like a plan.
not mine though.

BINGO!

pcosmar has PWNED InterestedParticipant.

.

 

[InterestedParticipant]

InterestedParticipant, is your shadow a cointel plot against yourself?
Seriously, you think everyone is cointel, including yourself.

Have you read any of the source materials that I have referred to in this thread or elsewhere in this forum?

Do you really understand what Full Spectrum Dominance is or means?

Have you ever operated within the Elite power structure or within the Political power structure, at high levels?

In other words, other than your JBS & public schooling inputs, what information do you have to confirm your view of the world is accurate? How do you even test your own hypothesis, what outputs do you test against?

 

[InterestedParticipant]

Perhaps a study of Herbert Markuse, OSS member & Frankfurt Institute “academic,” is in order. Having found that Marx’s theory of social change through middle class revolution did not work, as the elite could not get the middle classes to revolt in order to provide an opportunity to “change” society to their liking through dialectics, Markuse developed “victims groups” who could be leveraged to create the desired outcomes by placing sufficient pressures on society. These same techniques are in-play here.

http://solari.com/blog/?p=3363

Great answer, and great find.

This hits the nail on the head, and I'm impressed that someone here actually took the time to chase down and research something that I had said.

So, what this shows is that social planners moved from middle class revolution, to change society, to small groups as the instruments (ie wedges) of this change. This is one very powerful reason why groups are so dangerous, and why the people inside the group must be so tightly controlled, for the group has a specific purpose, and that is to modify society in some pre-determine way..... for this is what Markuse shows us.

 

[InterestedParticipant]

Here is insight into how the system works from French philosopher Jean Baudrillard ...

A simulation is a representation or imitation of something in reality. Simulacra don't try to imitate anything that precedes it, but create their own reality, or hyperreality (ie. a model built in reality).

Jean Baudrillard's (the philosopher behind these concepts) work was used by the Wachowski brothers in their development of the Matrix movies. More at this thread.

To what extent are we living in a Simulation versus a Simulacrum? Baudrillard claims we are living in a 3rd order Simulacrum, associated with the postmodern age, where the simulacrum precedes the original and the distinction between reality and representation breaks down.

YouTube - Simulacra

As promised, I will followup more information, but I realize that an understanding of Baudrillard's Simulacra is necessary to continue the conversation.

 

[InterestedParticipant]

More from Baudrillard, this time a brief interview on The Matrix movies...

The Matrix Decoded
Le Nouvel Observateur Interview With Jean Baudrillard
http://hive2.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/matrix-decoded-baudrillard/

Le Nouvel Observateur: Your reflections on reality and the virtual are some of the key references used by the makers of The Matrix. The first episode explicitly referred to you as the viewer clearly saw the cover of Simulacra and Simulation.3
Were you surprised by this?


Jean Baudrillard: Certainly there have been misinterpretations, which is why I have been hesitant until now to speak about The Matrix. The staff of the Wachowski brothers contacted me at various times following the release of the first episode in order to get me involved with the following ones, but this wasn’t really conceivable (laughter). Basically, a similar misunderstanding occurred in the 1980s when New York-based Simulationist4 artists contacted me. They took the hypothesis of the virtual for an irrefutable fact and transformed it into a visible phantasm. But it is precisely that we can no longer employ categories of the real in order to discuss the characteristics of the virtual.


Nouvel Observateur: The connection between the film and the vision you develop, for example, in The Perfect Crime, is, however, quite striking. In evoking a desert of the real, these totally virtualized spectral humans, who are no more than the energetic reserve of thinking objects… .


Baudrillard: Yes, but already there have been other films that treat the growing
indistinction between the real and the virtual: The Truman Show, Minority Report, or even Mulholland Drive, the masterpiece of David Lynch. The Matrix’s value is chiefly as a synthesis of all that. But there the set-up is cruder and does not truly evoke the problem. The actors are in the matrix, that is, in the digitized system of things; or, they are radically outside it, such as in Zion, the city of resistors. But what would be interesting is to show what happens when these two worlds collide. The most embarrassing part of the film is that the new problem posed by simulation is confused with its classical, Platonic treatment. This is a serious flaw. The radical illusion of the world is a problem faced by all great cultures, which they have solved through art and symbolization. What we have invented, in order to support this suffering, is a simulated real, which henceforth supplants the real and is its final solution, a virtual universe from which everything dangerous and negative has been expelled. And The Matrix is undeniably part of that. Everything belonging to the order of dream, utopia and phantasm is given expression, “realized.” We are in the uncut transparency. The Matrix is surely the kind of film about the matrix that the matrix would have been able to produce.


Nouvel Observateur: It is also a film that purports to denounce technicist alienation and, at the same time, plays entirely on the fascination exercised
by the digital universe and computer-generated images.


Baudrillard: What is notable about Matrix Reloaded is the absence of a glimmer of irony that would allow viewers to turn this gigantic special effect on its head. There is no sequence which would be the punctum about which Roland Barthes wrote, this striking mark that brings you face-to-face with a true image. Moreover, this is what makes the film an instructive symptom, and the actual fetish of this universe of technologies of the screen in which there is no longer a distinction between the real and the imaginary. The Matrix is considered to be an extravagant object, at once candid and perverse, where there is neither a here nor a there. The pseudo-Freud who speaks at the film’s conclusion puts it well: at a certain moment, we reprogrammed the matrix in order to integrate anomalies into the equation. And you, the resistors, comprise a part of it. Thus we are, it seems, within a total virtual circuit without an exterior. Here again I am in theoretical disagreement (laughter). The Matrix paints the picture of a monopolistic superpower, like we see today, and then collaborates in its refraction. Basically, its dissemination on a world scale is complicit with the film itself. On this point it is worth recalling Marshall McLuhan: the medium is the message. The message of The Matrix is its own diffusion by an uncontrollable and proliferating contamination.


Nouvel Observateur: It is rather shocking to see that, henceforth, all American
marketing successes, from The Matrix to Madonna’s new album, are presented as critiques of the system which massively promotes them.


Baudrillard: That is exactly what makes our times so oppressive. The system produces a negativity in trompe-l’oeil [a reference to illusion painting], which is integrated into products of the spectacle just as obsolescence is built into industrial products. It is the most efficient way of incorporating all genuine alternatives. There are no longer external Omega points or any antagonistic means available in order to analyze the world; there is nothing more than a fascinated adhesion. One must understand, however, that the more a system nears perfection, the more it approaches the total accident. It is a form of objective irony stipulating that nothing ever happened. September 11th participated in this. Terrorism is not an alternative power, it is nothing except the metaphor of this almost suicidal return of Western power on itself. That is what I said at the time, and it was not widely accepted. But it is not about being nihilistic or pessimistic in the face of all that. The system, the virtual, the matrix – all of these will perhaps return to the dustbin of history. For reversibility, challenge and seduction are indestructible.

Hence, this system that the elite are attempting to force on the public will fail, for reversibility, challenge and seduction are indestructible!

 

[InterestedParticipant]

I have posted "How Propaganda Effects Us - Jacques Ellul" in another thread. This discussion has relevance to this thread, so I am cross posting here. Here is a relevant clip from the thread....

...to produce this effect, propaganda restricts itself to utilizing, increasing, and reinforcing the individual's inclination to lose himself in something bigger than he is, to dissipate his individuality, to free his ego of all doubt, conflict, and suffering - through fusion with others; to devote himself to a great leader and a great cause. In large groups, man feels united with others and he therefore tries to free himself by blending with a large group. Indeed, propaganda offers him that possibility in an exceptionally easy and satisfying fashion. But it pushes the individual into the mass until he disappears entirely.

To begin with, what is it that propaganda makes disappear? Everything in the nature of critical and personal judgment. Obviously, propaganda limits the application of thought. It limits the propagandee's field of thought to the extent that it provides him with ready made (and moreover, unreal) thoughts and stereotypes. It orients him towards very limited ends and prevents him from using his mind or experimenting on his own. It determines the core from which all his thoughts must derive and draws from the beginning a sort of guideline that permits neither criticism nor imagination. More precisely, his imagination will lead only to a small digressions from the fixed line (ie vector) and to only slightly deviant, preliminary responses within the framework. In this fashion we see the progressives make some "variations" around the basic propaganda tenets of the Communist party. But the field of such variations is strictly limited.

The acceptance of this line (ie vector), of such ends and limitations, presupposes the suppression of all critical judgment, which in turn is a result of the crystallization of thoughts and attitudes and the creations of taboos. As Jules Monnerot ha accurately said: All individual passion leads to the suppression of all critical judgment with regard to the object of that passion. Beyond that, in the collective passion created by propaganda, critical judgment disappears altogether, for in no way can there ever be critical collective judgment. Man becomes incapable of "separation," of discernment (the word critical is derived from the Greek krino, separate). The individual can no longer judge for himself because he inescapably relates his thoughts to the entire complex of values and prejudices established by propaganda. With regard to political situations, he is given ready made value judgments invested with the power of truth by the number of supporters and the word of experts. The individual has no chance exercise his judgment either on principal questions or on their implication; this leads to the atrophy of a faculty not comfortably exercised under any conditions.

 

[ScoutsHonor]

More from Baudrillard, this time a brief interview on The Matrix movies...

This may be off-topic, to some extent, but I wonder whether you would view
"The Matrix" as a modern version of "Plato's Cave?"

As for the Baudrillard material, it looks wonderfully interesting but I need time to read, and understand, it.

So, will be back later.
(BBL)

 

[InterestedParticipant]

This may be off-topic, to some extent, but I wonder whether you would view
"The Matrix" as a modern version of "Plato's Cave?"

Yes, the Matrix is Platos Cave..... absolutely!

Now, what is essential is that people must see that there are various levels to this cave analogy. The obvious level is the virtual cities depicted in the movie. But what is applicable to this thread, and absolutely critical to understand (as referenced by another poster earlier in this thread [see below]) is that Zion, Neo and the cast of characters (thought of as being "outside" the Matrix) are not outside the Matrix at all, but rather are also inside the Matrix. They are just in another part of the cave, a part that is made to seem as if its participants are genuinely opposed to the system, but in fact are merely an outlet for fake opposition that is also controlled.

Is this kinda like The Matrix Reloaded where Neo finds out that what he thought was the free city of Zion is actually just a way to control those who would fight the matrix?

BTW, this thread rocks.

I'm not too sure about you, InterestedParticipant, but your point of view is very interesting and I'm enjoying watching this discussion. I've bookmarked those links you posted.

This is why it is so important to understand and think through this thread, irrespective of the myriad of attacks that the thread has endured. It is attacked because once someone understands this concept, and begins to evaluate all messages, thought leaders, etc. with skepticism, then the control systems break down almost immediately. You see, under the concept of Total Information Dominance, it is ok to support a set of opposition messages and actions, just as long as those do not impact the establishment's primary agenda. And by herding the public into opposition groups that are controlled, the establishment can give those groups and their participants fake and unimportant memes to chase until they are exhausted or until they attack other Cave dwellers.

So, yes, people must be in a Cave, it doesn't matter which one, just as long as they stay in one where they can be controlled. Someone who leaves all the caves and begins to act on their own direct perceptions (ie senses), using their own critical analysis, is one who cannot be controlled and is the most dangerous kind of individual. Please see the thread on Propaganda from Jacques Ellul (referenced in post #353 of this thread), as it explains the dynamic in more detail.

As for the Baudrillard material, it looks wonderfully interesting but I need time to read, and understand, it.

So, will be back later.
(BBL)

Baudrillard is basically explaining how a fake reality can be created, a reality based on nothing at all, just totally made up. What he calls a Simulacrum. It is really another way of looking at Platos Cave allegory.

He argues that this is what the establishment is trying to make the public live in today, and that people cannot see that they live in this fake reality. But he also argues that a Simulacrum cannot be successful, and humanity will not sustain this type of manipulation. He basically believes that the Tavistock assholes pushing the Matrix onto society did not really understand his philosophy, thinking that Simulacrum could be a long term "reality." Baudrillard says that seduction, human challenge and the notion of reversibility are indestructible, and therefore this whole Matrix Cave they are trying to install will eventually fall into "the dustbin of history."

I agree with Baudrillard, as we're already seeing signs of their system breaking down very quickly. I think this will disintegrate very quickly now, perhaps in the next decade.

So, the takeaway here is, that just because you are part of a community of opposition does not guarantee that you are NOT simply in another Cave....

"...propaganda restricts itself to utilizing, increasing, and reinforcing the individual's inclination to lose himself in something bigger than he is, to dissipate his individuality, to free his ego of all doubt, conflict, and suffering - through fusion with others; to devote himself to a great leader and a great cause. In large groups, man feels united with others and he therefore tries to free himself by blending with a large group. Indeed, propaganda offers him that possibility in an exceptionally easy and satisfying fashion. But it pushes the individual into the mass until he disappears entirely."

 

[InterestedParticipant]

I'm cross-posting the following from another thread...

I recently found this good overview of Platos Cave Allegory.... definitely watch it through to its ending.

YouTube - Plato - The Allegory of the Cave - (The Matrix) Animated

 

[ScoutsHonor]

Now, what is essential is that people must see that there are various levels to this cave analogy. The obvious level is the virtual cities depicted in the movie. But what is applicable to this thread, and absolutely critical to understand (as referenced by another poster earlier in this thread [see below]) is that Zion, Neo and the cast of characters (thought of as being "outside" the Matrix) are not outside the Matrix at all, but rather are also inside the Matrix. They are just in another part of the cave, a part that is made to seem as if its participants are genuinely opposed to the system, but in fact are merely an outlet for fake opposition that is also controlled.

This is why it is so important to understand and think through this thread, irrespective of the myriad of attacks that the thread has endured. It is attacked because once someone understands this concept, and begins to evaluate all messages, thought leaders, etc. with skepticism, then the control systems break down almost immediately. You see, under the concept of Total Information Dominance, it is ok to support a set of opposition messages and actions, just as long as those do not impact the establishment's primary agenda. And by herding the public into opposition groups that are controlled, the establishment can give those groups and their participants fake and unimportant memes to chase until they are exhausted or until they attack other Cave dwellers.

Someone who can do this would have to possess a heightened state of awareness (as Objectivism would describe it). It seems to me that most if not all of the trouble is that so many of us are only partially awake. In that condition, all kinds of ideas are snuck by us--the ad agencies LOVE that semi-conscious state.

Once a person realizes this, the next step is possible, such as seeing that some of the ideas you've accepted may be in conflict (contradict) with other ideas--so now you have "cognivitive dissonance." (Alas...)

This is all part of Objectivist "Principles of Efficient Thinking." Ayn Rand herself was nothing if not a brilliantly logical thinker.

But I don't want to change the subject to Objectivism. It just was very relevant to the evil we're discussing: being vulnerable to mind control. I strongly agree that skepticism is the most valuable tool we could have in this struggle to preserve control over our own minds. It amazes me that so many people seem to act from the belief that "most people are good" or something along those lines. This may be a 'sweet thought' but it's an open invitation to all the rogues in the world.

Next would be: noticing when one's ego has been "engaged".....so to speak.
This is a BIG ensnarement. BTW, does that venture into Bernays territory?

I'll stop here for now for your thoughts.
To be continued..

 

[ernie1241]

The quote stated that Nelson Rockefeller arranged for the purchase of the Welch Candy company at an inflated price so that the startup of JBS could be funded. According to Moody's Manual, two of [Nabisco's] directors were Roy E. Tomlinson and Don. G. Mitchell. [Both are] members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Further, they are a pair of Rockefeller's "professional directors. Does anyone here really believe that these directors would act on their own, without Nelson Rockefellers direction on a matter such as the acquisition of a company. The Welch brothers were given $10,800,000, when it is reported that the business was worth approximately $200,000.

Understandably, Interested Participant does not provide ANY substantiation for his assertions.

For example: WHOM "reported" that the James O. Welch Company was only worth $200,000?

Be specific. And how did IP verify that "report"?

IP also states that the "Welch brothers were given $10,800,000". A total lie.

The company was owned by James O. Welch. Robert Welch did not even own any stock in the company.

Robert was employed by his brother but James asked Robert to terminate his relationship with the company because he (James) did not want negative publicity regarding Robert's political views to be associated with the candy company. Robert agreed. He resigned.

IP also repeats the claim by Eustace Mullins that "Nelson Rockefeller arranged for the purchase of the Welch Candy company at an inflated price so that the startup of JBS could be funded."

There are four immediate problems with Mullins' (and IP's) claims about an alleged JBS-Rockefeller connection and about Revilo Oliver being the source for Mullins' contentions:

1. Mullins' time-line doesn't make any sense (see details below)

2. There are absolutely no documents, memos, reports, transcripts, correspondence, etc. to support the assertions made by Mullins

Oliver lived in Urbana, IL. He sometimes participated in JBS National Council meetings held at various locations around the country but there is no evidence that he had access to the type of factual data about JBS financial matters that Mullins claims Oliver was privy to.

Most significantly, Revilo Oliver's 1981 memoir, The Education of A Conservative, does NOT mention any Rockefeller connection to the founding or "startup" of the JBS.

3. Mullins gets so many basic factual details wrong, it really calls into question his veracity.

4. JBS President John McManus presents some information (copied below) which helps explain what may have motivated Mullins.

FACTS:

1. Robert Welch worked 22 years for the "James O. Welch Company" not the "Welch Candy Company" as Mullins writes.

2. Robert's brother's name was JAMES – not (as Mullins claims) "John"

3. Robert Welch did NOT own the candy company. In fact, he did not even own any stock in it.

4. In 1957, James and Robert had a conversation about Robert's political activities. James did not want his candy company associated with Robert's political views and activities. Robert agreed to retire from the company. James also gave interviews in which he explicitly stated that he disagreed with his brother's beliefs and did not want his company associated with those beliefs.

5. The Birch Society was founded (on paper) in December 1958. Its first chapters were formed circa February 1959. However, the sale of the "James O. Welch Company" to the Nabisco Biscuit Company was announced in June 1963 and completed in October 1963 so why does Mullins claim that the sale of the candy company financed the creation or "startup" of the JBS??

For details concerning the sale, see New York Times article, "Nabisco Enters The Candy Business" in the 10/1/63 issue of the Times. The article mentions that the company was acquired in exchange for 200,000 shares of Nabisco's common stock, then valued at $10,800,000.

Annual sales of the James O. Welch company at that time were $20 million. Consider the relevance of this with respect to Mullins' assertion that the company was sold "at a highly inflated price" or IP's absurdity that the company was only worth $200,000!

Mullins never explained the basis for his accusation and he certainly had no personal knowledge or expertise within the candy industry upon which he could base an informed judgment.

WHY WOULD WELCH NEED FUNDS FROM ROCKEFELLER?

6. Significantly, JBS financial statements prior to the sale of the James O. Welch Company in October 1963 reveal that the JBS had very substantial income and major increases in its income (50%-100% increases per year!) from member dues, contributions, and sale of publications, speech fees, National Council dinners, etc).

So why would Rockefeller money be necessary?

In addition, the JBS received significant sums from bequests of deceased persons such as D.B. Lewis (Dr. Ross Pet Foods) who bequeathed a million dollars to the JBS.

Some specifics from annual JBS financial reports submitted to Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

1959 income (first year of operation) = $129,844
1960 income = $198,719
1961 income = $595,000
1962 income = $826,100
1963 income = $1.6 million
1964 income = $3.2 million
1965 income = $4.0 million
1967 income = $4.2 million

The doubling of income between 1963 and 1964 is attributable to the 1964 election campaign and the concurrent dramatic growth of JBS membership.

In February 1964, Welch wrote to Westbrook Pegler that the JBS had:
• 150 employees
• a $22,000 weekly payroll
• a $12,000 weekly printing bill

In December 1965, the JBS had:
• approx 240 employees
• $35,000 weekly payroll
• $60,000 weekly printing bill

7. In addition, many JBS members and supporters (including JBS National Council members) were persons of very substantial means---including several millionaires.

Furthermore, Welch had numerous connections all over the country in business circles (NAM folks) so he surely had ready access to whatever funds he required without relying upon any alleged Rockefeller ploys.

8. JBS President (and former Director of Public Relations), John McManus has responded to numerous inquiries over the years concerning various statements made by Mullins.

Here are some noteworthy excerpts.

"RW" refers to Robert Welch:

"The only correct item in the Mullins interview is his mention of Revilo Oliver as one of the JBS Founders…Oliver was heavily involved in JBS (writing regularly for American Opinion magazine) until July 1966 when a speech he gave at the New England Rally for God, Family and Country disturbed RW to the degree that he traveled to Illinois to sit down with Oliver and discuss it. Oliver refused to let him in his home, told RW he wanted nothing more to do with JBS, and started a campaign to besmirch the Society. I never saw any evidence that Oliver was responsible for the Mullins' charges about Rockefeller although it's possible that he started that nonsense. The truth is completely opposite. Nelson Rockefeller had no part in the JBS - ever! RW separated himself from the Welch Candy Company before he started JBS because he expected retaliation and didn't want what he was about to do reflect negatively on the company. The sale of the company to Nabisco in 1963 was engineered by James O. Welch, RW's younger brother. ... There was no JBS bank account at Chase Manhattan - ever. "

In answer to inquiries concerning (a) whom might be the "second" person who attended the December 1958 founding meeting of the JBS that Mullins claims was his source, and another unrelated claim made by Mullins that his writings had been cited as a reliable source by Gary Allen in the first editions of None Dare Call It Conspiracy, but later editions expunged those comments at the direction of the JBS, McManus replied:

"I have no idea who the second Council member might be. What I suspect is that Mullins made this up just as he created a lot of other supposed facts."

"After I sent the most recent message to you, I recalled being approached by Mullins who hoped that we might help to market his books. This was long after he had published the claims about Rockefeller being the JBS patron. The response to him was simple: `Why would you want an organization that you believe is part of the Conspiracy's subversion to market your books? `

"I also recall meeting the man who financed the Mullins book on the Federal Reserve. He told me that he was very angry about having spent money for such a poor piece of work."

“Regarding None Dare Call It Conspiracy, I read the manuscript before it was published. Then, I read the book after it was published. There was never any mention of Eustace Mullins in either… It is simply amazing to have to refute such nonsense as has reached you. But I appreciate your wilingness to ask us for clarification. - John F. McManus."

And McManus also wrote in another communication:

"I'm pleased that you checked with us before responding to the inquiry you received. We wish others would do likewise when questions arise about our policies, statements, etc. There have always been several reasons why our American Opinion Bookstores were asked not to stock the works of some persons and organizations. One was their anti-Semitic content. Others included faulty research, unproven claims, nastiness toward JBS, racism, etc. [Mullins] works were placed in the `not recommended' category because they were deemed unreliable. After that decision was made, and probably in retaliation, Mullins issued a book entitled Murder By Injection in which he devoted several pages to making the most outrageous and ridiculous charges about our Society and Founder (Robert Welch) that have ever been made. We have frequently had to respond to his absurdities."

In February 1966, Donald Gray, (the Birch Society's Wholesale Book Division Business Manager) sent a memo to all American Opinion Bookstores. The purpose of the memo was to identify the type of material that should NOT be sold in, or recommended by, JBS bookstores.

Gray described such verboten material as:

"...most of the books and pamphlets with an anti-Semitic flavor which we omit from our booklist (that) are not of sufficient value in substance or scholarship to rise above the level of anti-Semitic invective or propaganda. Frankly, in our opinion, this applies to most of the books or pamphlets by Marilyn Allen, Richard Cotten, Myron Fagan, Kenneth Goff, Wickliffe Vennard, Eustace Mullins, Gerald L.K. Smith, Robert H. Williams, and Benjamin Freedman." [my emphasis in bold type.]

 

[ernie1241]

Nelson Rockefeller's Nabisco Company bought James O. Welch's Candy Company. James O. Welch is Robert Welch's brother.

Saying that Nelson Rockefeller funded or setup the John Birch Society is a complete lie.

Here's the story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Welch,_Jr.

Robert Welch decided to manufacture candy as a way to earn a living, describing it as "the one field in which it seemed least impossible to get started without either capital or experience." He founded the Oxford Candy Company in Brooklyn, New York, which was a one-man operation until he hired his brother James to assist him. James Welch left to start his own candy company in 1925.
...

The Oxford Candy Company went out of business during the Great Depression, but his brother's company, the James O. Welch Company, survived, and Robert was hired by his brother. The company began making caramel lollipops, renamed Sugar Daddies, and Welch developed other well known candies such as Sugar Babies, Junior Mints, and Pom Poms. Welch retired a wealthy man in 1956.​

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/01/us/james-o-welch-dies-at-79-founder-of-candy-company.html

In 1963 the National Biscuit Company, now Nabisco Brands Inc., bought Mr. Welch's company. Mr. Welch was a director of Nabisco from 1963 until his retirement in 1978. His son, James O. Welch Jr., of Short Hills, N.J., is president of Nabisco.​

---


Do you seriously think Revilo Oliver, a Racist White Nationalist, is credible? The JBS kicked him out for being a racist. Revilo Oliver is a big reason why the JBS got smeared as racist.

Revilo Oliver called the JBS "the Birch hoax" because he thought the JBS was secretly run by Jews. That's why he was attacking the JBS. Eustace Mullins is openly anti-Jewish and the JBS disowned him because of his views.

In the 1960s, Oliver supposedly broke with conventional American conservatism and, having become convinced that Welch had either cozened him from the start or sold out later, he even severed his connections with what he called "the Birch hoax." He thus came to openly embrace an essentially far-right worldview, and eventually to assist William Luther Pierce in forming the National Alliance, a White Nationalist organization, a significant portion of whose supporters and members would re-form under the name National Vanguard.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revilo_P._Oliver

FrankRep relies entirely upon Wikipedia articles to support his statements. As I have previously advised Frank, Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source because, usually, the people writing the articles are just regurgitating what has been presented in secondary sources and those secondary sources are NOT based upon primary source research.

Frank claims that Revilo Oliver was "kicked out" of the JBS for being a "racist". Not true! Oliver resigned from the JBS.

In fact, Robert Welch traveled to Urbana IL (Oliver's home) to ask him to reconsider his resignation.

Robert Welch sent a memo dated 8/8/66 to all JBS National Council members regarding Oliver’s resignation. The memo was addressed “To A Number of Friends Who Have Written Us About Dr. Oliver’s Speech” .

In his memo Welch stated that the July 4th 1966 New England Rally For God, Family and Country was not a function of the JBS even though about half the sponsors were Birchers. Welch claimed he didn’t even know Oliver would be a speaker at that event.

Then Welch observed:

“Dr. Oliver was speaking entirely on his own, and not in any way expressing the views of the John Birch Society…We do not subscribe at all to Dr. Oliver’s ‘racial superiority’ theories, nor to his views concerning the degeneracy of the human race.”

“We are quite proud of the brilliant (and extremely patriotic) Jewish writers who work full-time on the staff of the Society and of our several hundred Jewish members, many of whom are among our finest Chapter Leaders.”

“Despite our long and growing disagreement with Dr. Oliver over the subject matter of this letter, we have accepted his resignation from the Council with a considerable and natural reluctance. For he is an earnest anti-communist, as well as one of the world’s greatest scholars in the fields of classical languages and literature.”

Keep in mind that the year before Oliver's resignation, Robert Welch had described Oliver in the March 1965 issue of the JBS magazine, American Opinion, as “an authentic genius of the first water, and quite possibly the world’s greatest living scholar.”

Oliver's racist and anti-semitic sentiments were known LONG BEFORE the July 1966 speech which resulted in his resignation from the JBS but, nevertheless, Welch kept Oliver on the JBS National Council and as a major contributor to American Opinion magazine---including as editor of its annual Scoreboard issue.

As Oliver correctly pointed out in a letter he wrote to JBS National Council members about his July 1966 speech:

“There was no significant statement in that speech that I had not made, months or years before, in the pages of American Opinion, without eliciting the slightest objection or adverse criticism from Mr. Welch.”

Former FBI informant Herbert Philbrick (of I Led 3 Lives Fame) was initially a Home Chapter member of the JBS. Philbrick told the FBI as far back as February 1961 that Oliver was "an extremist in anticommunist feelings and violently anti-Semitic" and Philbrick based his conclusion upon his contacts with Oliver in 1959!

This is not the first or only case where Robert Welch accepted racists or anti-semites into the JBS -- as long as they kept their personal bigotry to themselves so it would not reflect adversely upon the JBS -- because Welch considered them "earnest anti-communists".

 

[InterestedParticipant]

Understandably, Interested Participant does not provide ANY substantiation for his assertions.

For example: WHOM "reported" that the James O. Welch Company was only worth $200,000?

Be specific. And how did IP verify that "report"?

IP also states that the "Welch brothers were given $10,800,000". A total lie.

The company was owned by James O. Welch. Robert Welch did not even own any stock in the company.

Robert was employed by his brother but James asked Robert to terminate his relationship with the company because he (James) did not want negative publicity regarding Robert's political views to be associated with the candy company. Robert agreed. He resigned.

IP also repeats the claim by Eustace Mullins that "Nelson Rockefeller arranged for the purchase of the Welch Candy company at an inflated price so that the startup of JBS could be funded."

There are four immediate problems with Mullins' (and IP's) claims about an alleged JBS-Rockefeller connection and about Revilo Oliver being the source for Mullins' contentions:

1. Mullins' time-line doesn't make any sense (see details below)

2. There are absolutely no documents, memos, reports, transcripts, correspondence, etc. to support the assertions made by Mullins

Oliver lived in Urbana, IL. He sometimes participated in JBS National Council meetings held at various locations around the country but there is no evidence that he had access to the type of factual data about JBS financial matters that Mullins claims Oliver was privy to.

Most significantly, Revilo Oliver's 1981 memoir, The Education of A Conservative, does NOT mention any Rockefeller connection to the founding or "startup" of the JBS.

3. Mullins gets so many basic factual details wrong, it really calls into question his veracity.

4. JBS President John McManus presents some information (copied below) which helps explain what may have motivated Mullins.

FACTS:

1. Robert Welch worked 22 years for the "James O. Welch Company" not the "Welch Candy Company" as Mullins writes.

2. Robert's brother's name was JAMES – not (as Mullins claims) "John"

3. Robert Welch did NOT own the candy company. In fact, he did not even own any stock in it.

4. In 1957, James and Robert had a conversation about Robert's political activities. James did not want his candy company associated with Robert's political views and activities. Robert agreed to retire from the company. James also gave interviews in which he explicitly stated that he disagreed with his brother's beliefs and did not want his company associated with those beliefs.

5. The Birch Society was founded (on paper) in December 1958. Its first chapters were formed circa February 1959. However, the sale of the "James O. Welch Company" to the Nabisco Biscuit Company was announced in June 1963 and completed in October 1963 so why does Mullins claim that the sale of the candy company financed the creation or "startup" of the JBS??

For details concerning the sale, see New York Times article, "Nabisco Enters The Candy Business" in the 10/1/63 issue of the Times. The article mentions that the company was acquired in exchange for 200,000 shares of Nabisco's common stock, then valued at $10,800,000.

Annual sales of the James O. Welch company at that time were $20 million. Consider the relevance of this with respect to Mullins' assertion that the company was sold "at a highly inflated price" or IP's absurdity that the company was only worth $200,000!

Mullins never explained the basis for his accusation and he certainly had no personal knowledge or expertise within the candy industry upon which he could base an informed judgment.

WHY WOULD WELCH NEED FUNDS FROM ROCKEFELLER?

6. Significantly, JBS financial statements prior to the sale of the James O. Welch Company in October 1963 reveal that the JBS had very substantial income and major increases in its income (50%-100% increases per year!) from member dues, contributions, and sale of publications, speech fees, National Council dinners, etc).

So why would Rockefeller money be necessary?

In addition, the JBS received significant sums from bequests of deceased persons such as D.B. Lewis (Dr. Ross Pet Foods) who bequeathed a million dollars to the JBS.

Some specifics from annual JBS financial reports submitted to Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

1959 income (first year of operation) = $129,844
1960 income = $198,719
1961 income = $595,000
1962 income = $826,100
1963 income = $1.6 million
1964 income = $3.2 million
1965 income = $4.0 million
1967 income = $4.2 million

The doubling of income between 1963 and 1964 is attributable to the 1964 election campaign and the concurrent dramatic growth of JBS membership.

In February 1964, Welch wrote to Westbrook Pegler that the JBS had:
• 150 employees
• a $22,000 weekly payroll
• a $12,000 weekly printing bill

In December 1965, the JBS had:
• approx 240 employees
• $35,000 weekly payroll
• $60,000 weekly printing bill

7. In addition, many JBS members and supporters (including JBS National Council members) were persons of very substantial means---including several millionaires.

Furthermore, Welch had numerous connections all over the country in business circles (NAM folks) so he surely had ready access to whatever funds he required without relying upon any alleged Rockefeller ploys.

8. JBS President (and former Director of Public Relations), John McManus has responded to numerous inquiries over the years concerning various statements made by Mullins.

Here are some noteworthy excerpts.

"RW" refers to Robert Welch:

"The only correct item in the Mullins interview is his mention of Revilo Oliver as one of the JBS Founders…Oliver was heavily involved in JBS (writing regularly for American Opinion magazine) until July 1966 when a speech he gave at the New England Rally for God, Family and Country disturbed RW to the degree that he traveled to Illinois to sit down with Oliver and discuss it. Oliver refused to let him in his home, told RW he wanted nothing more to do with JBS, and started a campaign to besmirch the Society. I never saw any evidence that Oliver was responsible for the Mullins' charges about Rockefeller although it's possible that he started that nonsense. The truth is completely opposite. Nelson Rockefeller had no part in the JBS - ever! RW separated himself from the Welch Candy Company before he started JBS because he expected retaliation and didn't want what he was about to do reflect negatively on the company. The sale of the company to Nabisco in 1963 was engineered by James O. Welch, RW's younger brother. ... There was no JBS bank account at Chase Manhattan - ever. "

In answer to inquiries concerning (a) whom might be the "second" person who attended the December 1958 founding meeting of the JBS that Mullins claims was his source, and another unrelated claim made by Mullins that his writings had been cited as a reliable source by Gary Allen in the first editions of None Dare Call It Conspiracy, but later editions expunged those comments at the direction of the JBS, McManus replied:

"I have no idea who the second Council member might be. What I suspect is that Mullins made this up just as he created a lot of other supposed facts."

"After I sent the most recent message to you, I recalled being approached by Mullins who hoped that we might help to market his books. This was long after he had published the claims about Rockefeller being the JBS patron. The response to him was simple: `Why would you want an organization that you believe is part of the Conspiracy's subversion to market your books? `

"I also recall meeting the man who financed the Mullins book on the Federal Reserve. He told me that he was very angry about having spent money for such a poor piece of work."

“Regarding None Dare Call It Conspiracy, I read the manuscript before it was published. Then, I read the book after it was published. There was never any mention of Eustace Mullins in either… It is simply amazing to have to refute such nonsense as has reached you. But I appreciate your wilingness to ask us for clarification. - John F. McManus."

And McManus also wrote in another communication:

"I'm pleased that you checked with us before responding to the inquiry you received. We wish others would do likewise when questions arise about our policies, statements, etc. There have always been several reasons why our American Opinion Bookstores were asked not to stock the works of some persons and organizations. One was their anti-Semitic content. Others included faulty research, unproven claims, nastiness toward JBS, racism, etc. [Mullins] works were placed in the `not recommended' category because they were deemed unreliable. After that decision was made, and probably in retaliation, Mullins issued a book entitled Murder By Injection in which he devoted several pages to making the most outrageous and ridiculous charges about our Society and Founder (Robert Welch) that have ever been made. We have frequently had to respond to his absurdities."

In February 1966, Donald Gray, (the Birch Society's Wholesale Book Division Business Manager) sent a memo to all American Opinion Bookstores. The purpose of the memo was to identify the type of material that should NOT be sold in, or recommended by, JBS bookstores.

Gray described such verboten material as:

"...most of the books and pamphlets with an anti-Semitic flavor which we omit from our booklist (that) are not of sufficient value in substance or scholarship to rise above the level of anti-Semitic invective or propaganda. Frankly, in our opinion, this applies to most of the books or pamphlets by Marilyn Allen, Richard Cotten, Myron Fagan, Kenneth Goff, Wickliffe Vennard, Eustace Mullins, Gerald L.K. Smith, Robert H. Williams, and Benjamin Freedman." [my emphasis in bold type.]

First, I referenced other's claims (ie. Moody's Manual, Candy Industry, Mulllins, et. al.), which I clearly stated in a previous post. Quoting another source is not a lie, as you insinuate.

Second, you are unable to validate any of your own claims, or disprove any of the claims that I reference.

Third, you rely on the absence of documentation to justify your hypothesis.

Fourth, you say, "IP also states that the "Welch brothers were given $10,800,000". A total lie." But then in your own post refer readers to a 10/1/63 New York Times article, that "mentions that the company was acquired in exchange for 200,000 shares of Nabisco's common stock, then valued at $10,800,000." What's the "total lie"? That it was stock instead of cash? That the paper transaction only had one brother's name on it? What, exactly?

Fifth, While I haven't verified the numbers that you post, if I were to rely upon them then one would conclude that JBS's revenues more that quadrupled from 1962-1965, after the sale to the Rockefellers. That's certainly an interesting relationship, and one that bears further investigation.

Sixth, and most importantly, you obviously did not read the entire thread, and have missed the larger point about how controlled opposition works and the techniques around it, and how JBS fits the dialectical profile.