And I put my "faith" in neither the state, nor ghosts, but rather, in myself.
John Birch Society - How are we different?
- Thread starter FrankRep
- Start date
And I put my "faith" in neither the state, nor ghosts, but rather, in myself.
I'm expressing my opinion just like they are.
Why are you sinking to calling me names?
Bill: While I certainly can agree with some of your comments, it is, however, incorrect to propose that readers should think that my statements amount to only my personal opinion or conclusions. Facts are facts Bill--even when unpleasant or inconvenient.
Robert Welch certainly was aware of the bigotry of many of the people who joined the JBS. In fact he asked some of them to join. [Examples: Verne P. Kaub and Revilo Oliver -- both of whom were explicit anti-semites.]
Similarly, the JBS asked bigots like Eric Butler and Sheriff Jim Clark to speak under the auspices of the AO Speakers Bureau! And the JBS published or recommended books which contained themes that originated with bigots. For example, when the JBS went all-out to promote Gary Allen's classic, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, William Loeb, the ultra-conservative publisher of the Manchester NH Union-Leader newspaper ran an editorial (5/5/72) describing Gary's book as "anti-semitic nonsense" - whereupon the paper received numerous hostile replies.
One of those replies was from a local Bircher who denied that the JBS was anti-semitic but she declared that "to deny that the Conspiracy is being directed by international bankers--Jews mainly...is being naïve in the extreme, as well as totally ignorant of the depth and extent of the REAL conspiracy." [Marguerite M. Woodman letter to editor, 6/29/72].
And how is it possible to explain Mr. Welch's effusive praise for Revilo Oliver in the March 1965 issue of American Opinion??
Mr. Welch described Oliver as “an authentic genius of the first water, and quite possibly the world’s greatest living scholar.”
When Oliver ultimately resigned from the JBS in 1966, Welch expressed regret: "...we have accepted his resignation from the Council with a considerable and natural reluctance. For he is an earnest anti-communist, as well as one of the world’s greatest scholars in the fields of classical languages and literature.” An "earnest anti-communist"?
By contrast, consider this evaluation of Oliver which was made by former FBI informant Herbert Philbrick based upon his contacts with Oliver in 1959 and 1960 as reported in a 1961 FBI memo. This memo concerned Oliver's claim that he relied upon information provided to him by Philbrick which Oliver included in an article he wrote for American Opinion in 1959 and in his speeches which discussed alleged communist infiltration of the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare:
"Herbert A. Philbrick...advised this date he has met Dr. Revilo P. Oliver on two occasions at Urbana IL in late 1959 or early 1960 when Philbrick delivered lectures there. Oliver has written Philbrick on one or two occasions. Philbrick stated he has never given Dr. Oliver any information concerning Communist infiltration of DHEW, stating he knows no one in this Department and has had no information concerning Communist Party activity in the U.S. Government since at least 1944. Philbrick approximately one half year ago heard statements attributed to him that DHEW was infiltrated with CP members...He denied emphatically that he ever made such statements orally or in writing. He considers Dr. Oliver to be an extremist in anti-Communist feelings and violently anti-Semitic."
How was it possible for Philbrick to determine in 1961 that Oliver was "violently anti-semitic" but it was not possible for Mr. Welch to recognize Oliver's racism and anti-semitism until 1966?
As Oliver correctly pointed out to JBS National Council members in a memo concerning the 1966 speech which resulted in his resignation from the JBS:
“There was no significant statement in that speech that I had not made, months or years before, in the pages of American Opinion, without eliciting the slightest objection or adverse criticism from Mr. Welch.”
Many prominent JBS members were well-known officials of, or writers/speakers for, the White Citizens Council movement (such as Medford Evans, Louis Hollis, W.J. Simmons, Ferrell Griswold).
JBS members frequently spoke at white supremacist rallies and events or had their articles published in white supremacist publications. Birchers played a very significant role in the formation of the American Party and American Independent Party both of which were organized to support the Presidential aspirations of Gov. George Wallace.
One of your most famous members, Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, wrote the following comment which was published in Conde McGinley's racist and anti-semitic newspaper, Common Sense, 11/15/65, p5:
“I’ll bet you will find more good Americans in the Ku Klux Klan than in the Americans For Democratic Action.”
The fundamental question which the JBS has never bothered to address is this:
WHY were so many indisputable virulent racists and anti-semites attracted to the JBS?
They became members, endorsers, writers, and speakers for the JBS. Some of them "graduated" from the JBS and associated themselves with, or created their own, neo-nazi, anti-semitic, and/or racist organizations.
For example, see list below. Can anyone come up with a comparable list for any other self-described right-wing or conservative "educational" organization?
Dean Kennedy (Citizens Law Enforcement and Research Committee aka Posse Comitatus; Hitler admirer)
Ferrell Griswold (White Citizens Council speaker)
Jim Kernodle (Kansas City Citizens Council)
Paul B. Hurley (National Society for the Preservation of the White Race and National States Rights Party)
Willis Carto (Liberty Lobby and about 2 dozen other groups; pro-nazi)
Michael Collins Piper (Liberty Lobby and other Carto enterprises)
William Potter Gale (Ministry of Christ Church / Christian Defense League / Posse Comitatus)
Gerda Koch (Christian Research Inc)
George E. Deatherage (Knights of the White Camellia)
Thomas Metzger (White Aryan Resistance / California Knights of the KKK)
Gordon Kahl (Posse Comitatus)
Ardie McBrearty (Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, and U.S. National Taxpayers Association)
Bernard Klassen (Nationalist White Party / Church of the Creator)
Gordon D. (Jack) Mohr (Christian Identity movement)
Kevin Strom (National Alliance / Stormfront)
Kent and Phoebe Courtney (States Rights Party of Louisiana)
Eric D. Butler (Australian League of Rights / published Protocols-like material)
William Pierce (National Alliance)
Speros Lagoulis (Joe McCarthy Bookstore--Boston)
Robert A. Surrey (American Nazi Party)
Verne P. Kaub (American Council of Christian Laymen)
Sheldon Emry (America's Promise Ministries / Christian Research Inc)
Louis T. Byers (National Youth Alliance)
David E. Lane (The Order)
Robert Mathews (The Order)
Revilo P. Oliver (National Youth Alliance / George P. Dietz's Liberty Bell magazine)
George P. Dietz (Liberty Bell Publications)
Richard B. Cotten (Cotten Conservative Viewpoint newsletter)
Frank R. Purinton (New York Anti-Communist League)
One can facilitate racism or be an enabler without being explicitly racist. YES--the Birch Society was never an explicitly racist organization as "official policy".
It never published any statements which stated or hinted that minorities should be mistreated. It never used racially abhorrent language such as the n-word. It never praised violence committed by white supremacists, etc.
But the JBS PASSIVELY accepted the horrific conditions which George Schuyler described and it allowed the facilitators and enablers of racism to USE the JBS, and the JBS DID welcome into its chapters and into leadership positions as well as welcoming writers and speakers --- persons who devoutly believed in white supremacy doctrines.
As my previous message pointed out, the JBS adopted many of the arguments used by racist organizations and it promoted/praised racist politicians such as Gov. George Wallace (AL), Sen. James Eastland (MS) and Gov. Ross Barnett (MS), Lester Maddox (GA), Sen. Strom Thurmond (SC), -- many of whom had KKK or White Citizens Councils connections.
How has the Birch Society evaluated evidence when organizations welcomed Communists as members, officials, writers, and speakers? Shouldn't we hold the JBS to the SAME standard when we discuss THEIR connections to racists and racist organizations plus the arguments which originated exclusively with racists?
IF the JBS had devoted some significant space and attention in JBS Bulletins or American Opinion magazine to accurately describing the horrific state of affairs in our southern states -- then I am certain more skeptics or critics would be willing to give the JBS the benefit of the doubt.
But, INSTEAD, it kept telling the American people that our ENTIRE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT -- was merely a device created and led by subversives and which served only their purposes!
I do not mean to offend you Bill --- but I again ask you to consider the "official policy" of the CPUSA regarding racism or anti-semitism and then compare their "official position" to what your own members who were FBI informants (such as Julia Brown) stated about, for example, the rampant racist practices within the senior echelons of the Communist Party in our country.
With respect to this portion of your message:
I cannot correctly answer as to where our resources came from regarding decisions made over 40 years ago. I can only tell you from personal experience what JBS is like in the three years I have been working for them. In my travels, I have met a number of members and staff around the country (many who have been with the Society for decades) and I have yet to meet anyone who has shared any type of hate. It's our love for independence, self reliance, and God and family that unites us and pushes us forward in the JBS mission. The day that we adopt hate as a tool is the day I resign. And I suspect and expect the rest of the staff to do so, as well as all members.
I am certain that you are totally honest and sincere about this.
But my previous (and current) comments ask that you consider the ARGUMENTS which the JBS has circulated over the past 50+ years. Keep in mind that the JBS has NEVER retracted any derogatory conclusion or assertion it has made.
JBS members, in effect, apparently are STILL being asked to accept this JBS statement as accurate and truthful:
“For the civil rights movement in the United States with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps toward the appearance of civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than thirty years."
And when the JBS slimed ALL of our national civil rights movement organizations and leaders, it conveyed the idea that the entire movement was illegitimate and facilitating subversion and treason.
Or as Mr. Welch put it when he recommended Alan Stang's JBS-published book, It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights:
"This book, because of its thoroughness, its comprehensive coverage of the whole 'civil rights' story, and its meticulous documentation, is the best single searchlight we have for exposing the 'civil rights' fraud."
According to Alan Stang, the “civil rights movement was not only planned by the Communists, but was begun, is staffed, and is conducted by the Communists—and has only one real purpose: the destruction and communization of America.”
In May 1965, the Special Agent in Charge of the Boston FBI Field Office forwarded proof sheets of the Stang book to FBI Headquarters, two months before its scheduled publication. An evaluation of the book was prepared for Assistant Director W.C. Sullivan by F.J. Baumgardner:
"It's Very Simple is an attempt to rationalize today's civil rights movement in this country as primarily a communist operation...Practically all his documentation is to public source material and there is no significant information in the book which appears to be new and previously unknown to the Bureau. Stang makes frequent use of literary license and importantly fails to include documentation for key passages (examples appear on pages 101 and 185). An entire chapter (14) is devoted to an attack on civil rights legislation and the book, in general, is critical of all Administration and other efforts aimed at improving the lot of the Negro." [HQ 100-106670-1412, May 28, 1965, and 100-106670-1525, June 24, 1965, both F.J. Baumgardner to W.C. Sullivan].
The concluding "Observations" paragraph states:
"The details of the book do not support the strong conclusions reached by the author. We have had available to us all the material which Stang has plus considerable additional data from our investigations and we could not arrive at such conclusions. The impression is received that Stang may have well started with his conclusions and then developed the information and manner of presentation which he hoped would prove his point. This work must be viewed in the light of the author's apparent close connections with Robert Welch and the John Birch Society." [Ibid]
With respect to this portion of your message:
"What are you doing today to preserve freedom for future generations? Isn't this of some importance to those who personally label themselves libertarian? Spending copious amounts of time, sweat and good money chasing JBS mentions online and unloading FBI files onto readers is an interesting and consuming pastime, but is it a fruitful tactic that will contribute to restoring the Republic? Or is that not a goal for you? While libertarians and the JBS don't see eye-to-eye on all matters, the common ground is one of limiting government involvement in personal lives. It's not my place to judge, as I believe free men should be able to do whatever they want within certain legal, moral and ethical limitations of course, but I am interested in your motives and your goals."
(1) Is there some Committee or Commission which you want all Americans to submit their credentials to in order to be validated as genuinely working "to preserve freedom" or "restore the Republic"?
(2) What happens if that Committee decides that I do not meet their standards? Or that YOU don't?
What do you want done to those persons who fail to satisfy whatever test you propose? Do their views no longer deserve consideration? Perhaps you propose that we eliminate their right to vote or to write or to speak? After all -- who wants to facilitate anybody who is NOT "working to preserve freedom" according to your interpretation?
The JBS was never particularly upset about the depredations of our Constitution which routinely were visited upon our African American countrymen. In fact, the JBS allied itself with the very forces which were responsible for those depredations! So what do you propose we conclude regarding the "motives" and "goals" of the JBS?
(3) How does disseminating FALSE, libelous, or grossly exaggerated information help us to "preserve freedom"??
(4) How does believing (and acting upon) the assertions and conclusions which the JBS has disseminated over the past 5 decades -- which J. Edgar Hoover and top officials of the FBI characterized in terms such as "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible", "fanatics" and "lunatic fringe" --- help us "preserve freedom" and "restore the Republic"?
Or as a giant within the conservative movement (Russell Kirk) stated:
"Nothing could do more to discredit all conservatives than the violent language and unreal views regularly found in American Opinion. As several conservatively-inclined gentlemen have remarked to me...they would be sorely tempted to believe that the leaders of the Birch Society are agents of the Kremlin subtly working to discredit all opposition to Communism by reducing anti-Communism to absurdity. All Americans of a conservative bent should be warned against associating themselves with an organization which is totally ineffectual in resisting Communism and socialism..."
Robert Welch certainly was aware of the bigotry of many of the people who joined the JBS. In fact he asked some of them to join. [Examples: Verne P. Kaub and Revilo Oliver -- both of whom were explicit anti-semites.]
Similarly, the JBS asked bigots like Eric Butler and Sheriff Jim Clark to speak under the auspices of the AO Speakers Bureau! And the JBS published or recommended books which contained themes that originated with bigots. For example, when the JBS went all-out to promote Gary Allen's classic, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, William Loeb, the ultra-conservative publisher of the Manchester NH Union-Leader newspaper ran an editorial (5/5/72) describing Gary's book as "anti-semitic nonsense" - whereupon the paper received numerous hostile replies.
One of those replies was from a local Bircher who denied that the JBS was anti-semitic but she declared that "to deny that the Conspiracy is being directed by international bankers--Jews mainly...is being naïve in the extreme, as well as totally ignorant of the depth and extent of the REAL conspiracy." [Marguerite M. Woodman letter to editor, 6/29/72].
And how is it possible to explain Mr. Welch's effusive praise for Revilo Oliver in the March 1965 issue of American Opinion??
Mr. Welch described Oliver as “an authentic genius of the first water, and quite possibly the world’s greatest living scholar.”
When Oliver ultimately resigned from the JBS in 1966, Welch expressed regret: "...we have accepted his resignation from the Council with a considerable and natural reluctance. For he is an earnest anti-communist, as well as one of the world’s greatest scholars in the fields of classical languages and literature.” An "earnest anti-communist"?
By contrast, consider this evaluation of Oliver which was made by former FBI informant Herbert Philbrick based upon his contacts with Oliver in 1959 and 1960 as reported in a 1961 FBI memo. This memo concerned Oliver's claim that he relied upon information provided to him by Philbrick which Oliver included in an article he wrote for American Opinion in 1959 and in his speeches which discussed alleged communist infiltration of the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare:
"Herbert A. Philbrick...advised this date he has met Dr. Revilo P. Oliver on two occasions at Urbana IL in late 1959 or early 1960 when Philbrick delivered lectures there. Oliver has written Philbrick on one or two occasions. Philbrick stated he has never given Dr. Oliver any information concerning Communist infiltration of DHEW, stating he knows no one in this Department and has had no information concerning Communist Party activity in the U.S. Government since at least 1944. Philbrick approximately one half year ago heard statements attributed to him that DHEW was infiltrated with CP members...He denied emphatically that he ever made such statements orally or in writing. He considers Dr. Oliver to be an extremist in anti-Communist feelings and violently anti-Semitic."
How was it possible for Philbrick to determine in 1961 that Oliver was "violently anti-semitic" but it was not possible for Mr. Welch to recognize Oliver's racism and anti-semitism until 1966?
As Oliver correctly pointed out to JBS National Council members in a memo concerning the 1966 speech which resulted in his resignation from the JBS:
“There was no significant statement in that speech that I had not made, months or years before, in the pages of American Opinion, without eliciting the slightest objection or adverse criticism from Mr. Welch.”
Many prominent JBS members were well-known officials of, or writers/speakers for, the White Citizens Council movement (such as Medford Evans, Louis Hollis, W.J. Simmons, Ferrell Griswold).
JBS members frequently spoke at white supremacist rallies and events or had their articles published in white supremacist publications. Birchers played a very significant role in the formation of the American Party and American Independent Party both of which were organized to support the Presidential aspirations of Gov. George Wallace.
One of your most famous members, Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, wrote the following comment which was published in Conde McGinley's racist and anti-semitic newspaper, Common Sense, 11/15/65, p5:
“I’ll bet you will find more good Americans in the Ku Klux Klan than in the Americans For Democratic Action.”
The fundamental question which the JBS has never bothered to address is this:
WHY were so many indisputable virulent racists and anti-semites attracted to the JBS?
They became members, endorsers, writers, and speakers for the JBS. Some of them "graduated" from the JBS and associated themselves with, or created their own, neo-nazi, anti-semitic, and/or racist organizations.
For example, see list below. Can anyone come up with a comparable list for any other self-described right-wing or conservative "educational" organization?
Dean Kennedy (Citizens Law Enforcement and Research Committee aka Posse Comitatus; Hitler admirer)
Ferrell Griswold (White Citizens Council speaker)
Jim Kernodle (Kansas City Citizens Council)
Paul B. Hurley (National Society for the Preservation of the White Race and National States Rights Party)
Willis Carto (Liberty Lobby and about 2 dozen other groups; pro-nazi)
Michael Collins Piper (Liberty Lobby and other Carto enterprises)
William Potter Gale (Ministry of Christ Church / Christian Defense League / Posse Comitatus)
Gerda Koch (Christian Research Inc)
George E. Deatherage (Knights of the White Camellia)
Thomas Metzger (White Aryan Resistance / California Knights of the KKK)
Gordon Kahl (Posse Comitatus)
Ardie McBrearty (Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, and U.S. National Taxpayers Association)
Bernard Klassen (Nationalist White Party / Church of the Creator)
Gordon D. (Jack) Mohr (Christian Identity movement)
Kevin Strom (National Alliance / Stormfront)
Kent and Phoebe Courtney (States Rights Party of Louisiana)
Eric D. Butler (Australian League of Rights / published Protocols-like material)
William Pierce (National Alliance)
Speros Lagoulis (Joe McCarthy Bookstore--Boston)
Robert A. Surrey (American Nazi Party)
Verne P. Kaub (American Council of Christian Laymen)
Sheldon Emry (America's Promise Ministries / Christian Research Inc)
Louis T. Byers (National Youth Alliance)
David E. Lane (The Order)
Robert Mathews (The Order)
Revilo P. Oliver (National Youth Alliance / George P. Dietz's Liberty Bell magazine)
George P. Dietz (Liberty Bell Publications)
Richard B. Cotten (Cotten Conservative Viewpoint newsletter)
Frank R. Purinton (New York Anti-Communist League)
One can facilitate racism or be an enabler without being explicitly racist. YES--the Birch Society was never an explicitly racist organization as "official policy".
It never published any statements which stated or hinted that minorities should be mistreated. It never used racially abhorrent language such as the n-word. It never praised violence committed by white supremacists, etc.
But the JBS PASSIVELY accepted the horrific conditions which George Schuyler described and it allowed the facilitators and enablers of racism to USE the JBS, and the JBS DID welcome into its chapters and into leadership positions as well as welcoming writers and speakers --- persons who devoutly believed in white supremacy doctrines.
As my previous message pointed out, the JBS adopted many of the arguments used by racist organizations and it promoted/praised racist politicians such as Gov. George Wallace (AL), Sen. James Eastland (MS) and Gov. Ross Barnett (MS), Lester Maddox (GA), Sen. Strom Thurmond (SC), -- many of whom had KKK or White Citizens Councils connections.
How has the Birch Society evaluated evidence when organizations welcomed Communists as members, officials, writers, and speakers? Shouldn't we hold the JBS to the SAME standard when we discuss THEIR connections to racists and racist organizations plus the arguments which originated exclusively with racists?
IF the JBS had devoted some significant space and attention in JBS Bulletins or American Opinion magazine to accurately describing the horrific state of affairs in our southern states -- then I am certain more skeptics or critics would be willing to give the JBS the benefit of the doubt.
But, INSTEAD, it kept telling the American people that our ENTIRE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT -- was merely a device created and led by subversives and which served only their purposes!
I do not mean to offend you Bill --- but I again ask you to consider the "official policy" of the CPUSA regarding racism or anti-semitism and then compare their "official position" to what your own members who were FBI informants (such as Julia Brown) stated about, for example, the rampant racist practices within the senior echelons of the Communist Party in our country.
With respect to this portion of your message:
I cannot correctly answer as to where our resources came from regarding decisions made over 40 years ago. I can only tell you from personal experience what JBS is like in the three years I have been working for them. In my travels, I have met a number of members and staff around the country (many who have been with the Society for decades) and I have yet to meet anyone who has shared any type of hate. It's our love for independence, self reliance, and God and family that unites us and pushes us forward in the JBS mission. The day that we adopt hate as a tool is the day I resign. And I suspect and expect the rest of the staff to do so, as well as all members.
I am certain that you are totally honest and sincere about this.
But my previous (and current) comments ask that you consider the ARGUMENTS which the JBS has circulated over the past 50+ years. Keep in mind that the JBS has NEVER retracted any derogatory conclusion or assertion it has made.
JBS members, in effect, apparently are STILL being asked to accept this JBS statement as accurate and truthful:
“For the civil rights movement in the United States with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps toward the appearance of civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than thirty years."
And when the JBS slimed ALL of our national civil rights movement organizations and leaders, it conveyed the idea that the entire movement was illegitimate and facilitating subversion and treason.
Or as Mr. Welch put it when he recommended Alan Stang's JBS-published book, It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights:
"This book, because of its thoroughness, its comprehensive coverage of the whole 'civil rights' story, and its meticulous documentation, is the best single searchlight we have for exposing the 'civil rights' fraud."
According to Alan Stang, the “civil rights movement was not only planned by the Communists, but was begun, is staffed, and is conducted by the Communists—and has only one real purpose: the destruction and communization of America.”
In May 1965, the Special Agent in Charge of the Boston FBI Field Office forwarded proof sheets of the Stang book to FBI Headquarters, two months before its scheduled publication. An evaluation of the book was prepared for Assistant Director W.C. Sullivan by F.J. Baumgardner:
"It's Very Simple is an attempt to rationalize today's civil rights movement in this country as primarily a communist operation...Practically all his documentation is to public source material and there is no significant information in the book which appears to be new and previously unknown to the Bureau. Stang makes frequent use of literary license and importantly fails to include documentation for key passages (examples appear on pages 101 and 185). An entire chapter (14) is devoted to an attack on civil rights legislation and the book, in general, is critical of all Administration and other efforts aimed at improving the lot of the Negro." [HQ 100-106670-1412, May 28, 1965, and 100-106670-1525, June 24, 1965, both F.J. Baumgardner to W.C. Sullivan].
The concluding "Observations" paragraph states:
"The details of the book do not support the strong conclusions reached by the author. We have had available to us all the material which Stang has plus considerable additional data from our investigations and we could not arrive at such conclusions. The impression is received that Stang may have well started with his conclusions and then developed the information and manner of presentation which he hoped would prove his point. This work must be viewed in the light of the author's apparent close connections with Robert Welch and the John Birch Society." [Ibid]
With respect to this portion of your message:
"What are you doing today to preserve freedom for future generations? Isn't this of some importance to those who personally label themselves libertarian? Spending copious amounts of time, sweat and good money chasing JBS mentions online and unloading FBI files onto readers is an interesting and consuming pastime, but is it a fruitful tactic that will contribute to restoring the Republic? Or is that not a goal for you? While libertarians and the JBS don't see eye-to-eye on all matters, the common ground is one of limiting government involvement in personal lives. It's not my place to judge, as I believe free men should be able to do whatever they want within certain legal, moral and ethical limitations of course, but I am interested in your motives and your goals."
(1) Is there some Committee or Commission which you want all Americans to submit their credentials to in order to be validated as genuinely working "to preserve freedom" or "restore the Republic"?
(2) What happens if that Committee decides that I do not meet their standards? Or that YOU don't?
What do you want done to those persons who fail to satisfy whatever test you propose? Do their views no longer deserve consideration? Perhaps you propose that we eliminate their right to vote or to write or to speak? After all -- who wants to facilitate anybody who is NOT "working to preserve freedom" according to your interpretation?
The JBS was never particularly upset about the depredations of our Constitution which routinely were visited upon our African American countrymen. In fact, the JBS allied itself with the very forces which were responsible for those depredations! So what do you propose we conclude regarding the "motives" and "goals" of the JBS?
(3) How does disseminating FALSE, libelous, or grossly exaggerated information help us to "preserve freedom"??
(4) How does believing (and acting upon) the assertions and conclusions which the JBS has disseminated over the past 5 decades -- which J. Edgar Hoover and top officials of the FBI characterized in terms such as "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible", "fanatics" and "lunatic fringe" --- help us "preserve freedom" and "restore the Republic"?
Or as a giant within the conservative movement (Russell Kirk) stated:
"Nothing could do more to discredit all conservatives than the violent language and unreal views regularly found in American Opinion. As several conservatively-inclined gentlemen have remarked to me...they would be sorely tempted to believe that the leaders of the Birch Society are agents of the Kremlin subtly working to discredit all opposition to Communism by reducing anti-Communism to absurdity. All Americans of a conservative bent should be warned against associating themselves with an organization which is totally ineffectual in resisting Communism and socialism..."
The John Birch Society doesn't support racism or anti-semitism. The JBS has many Black and Jewish members in the society, including JBS writers like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell.
David Eisenberg is on the National Council of the John Birch Society and he's Jewish.
-----
Black JBS writers:
Thomas Sowell
Walter Williams
David Eisenberg - The JBS Jewish National Council Member
The John Birch Society Speakers Bureau:
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
Reverend Steven L. Craft
Wilton Alston
John Birch Society denounces Racism:
Racism and the John Birch Society
Dennis Behreandt | John Birch Society
Thursday, 29 May 2008
The John Birch Society was falsely accused of racism and anti-Semitism by an Associated Press reporter, who offers no proof. The article appeared in 125+ news outlets over the 2008 Memorial Day weekend.
It is often suggested in the media that the John Birch Society harbors some elements of racism and anti-Semitism. That's a curious thing, particularly since the John Birch Society is always likewise noted as staunchly ultraconservative and anti-Communist.
A case in point comes from a recent Associated Press article by Shelia Byrd entitled "AP engages pastors, parishoners about racism in US." Midway through the article, discussing a church located in the Los Angeles suburb of San Marino, Byrd writes: "Before the 1960s, it was common for properties in San Marino to have a legal stipulation banning sales to blacks and Jews, and until 1989 the city was national headquarters to the ultraconservative, anti-communist John Birch Society."
Byrd and the Associated Press clearly want readers to take away one thought from this sentence: San Marino is a racist community, the anti-Communist John Birch Society had a headquarters (actually, it was just a regional office) there, therfore, the John Birch Society, like anti-communists generally, is racist.
There is more than one fallacy at work in this type of propagandistic construction. First, though two indicators, in a general sense, may be seen as rising in tandem, it is not necessarily the case that there is a causal relationship between the two. This is elementary logic. Consider the following syllogism as an example: Fish swim. Scuba divers swim. Ergo, scuba divers are fish.
Obviously, scuba divers are not fish, and anyone using such an argument to claim that they are is a fool. And yet, this is exactly the type of specious reasoning employed by Byrd in attempting to impute racism to the John Birch Society by leveling an ugly insult at the community in which the organization's headquarters were once located. By that standard, every resident and every business in that community is also racist, according to Byrd.
But the fallacious reasoning does not end there. Byrd implies that anti-communists are racists. On the contrary, anyone who knows anything about communism would know immediately that real anti-communists can never be racists.
Communism, like any other variant of socialism, is by its very nature collectivist. That means that communists, and communist theory, consider people at the level of the group. To a communist there are only groups of people like the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But committed communists don't stop at those two classifications. The communist dialectic requires groups to pit against each other in order to form an ultimate synthesis. Thus, wherever communists are active, they seek to define victim groups and oppressors. These are arbitrary and are as often based on ethnicities and religions as on economics. In simple terms, communist rhetoric and theory is little more than an embrace of crude tribalism.
To be anti-communist, then, is to be opposed to the brute classification of individuals by group. Because racism is nothing more than an arbitrary classification of individuals, real anti-communists must invariably oppose racism. As such, the John Birch Society has always held that racism and anti-Semitism are not only morally repugnant, but are the tools used by communists to sow discord and rancor amongst the citizens of a nation.
Byrd and the Associated Press, it should be noted, also use the label "ultraconservative" in an attempt to discredit the John Birch Society. In the context of the United States of America, however, "ultraconservative" is not a pejorative. In fact, it should be viewed as a form of praise.
To be a conservative in any nation is to desire to respect and, if necessary, to conserve those institutions that have proven their worth over time. Consequently, the word "conservative" can mean many different things in different places. An ultraconservative in London might conceivably be a strong advocate of British imperial ambition and monarchical power. In Moscow during the Gorbachev era (and even today), a conservative will likely be a supporter of Soviet-style secular tyranny.
In the United States, however, a conservative is one who seeks to support and retain the traditional institutions of the U.S. government, including the rule of law under the Constitution, and the political doctrines of individual rights and freedom as espoused by the Founding Fathers.
In celebrating and upholding the latter, The John Birch Society, as the Associated Press notes, is both anti-communist and ultraconservative. As a natural consequence, the Society both opposes collectivism in all its forms, including racism and anti-Semitism, and strongly supports the doctrines of individual freedom that have made this nation the greatest on Earth. Anyone who doubts this can ask any of our members, speakers and writers, including those who are African American and Jewish.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/1717-racism-and-the-john-birch-society
constituent
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 13,724
...to save them from immigration.
Frank:
The Communist Party has "many Black and Jewish members" too---in fact, 10 or 20 times as many as the JBS ever had!
Unlike the JBS, however, numerous senior CPUSA officials (e.g. on their National Executive Committee) were Black or Jewish.
So what?
Surely, you do not propose that we should accept the proposition that the CPUSA was an organization devoted to protecting our Constitution, protecting our freedoms, and protecting our way of life --- correct?
Then why do you propose that we should make evaluations/decisions about the JBS based solely upon some organizational chart reflecting some demographic info about its leaders or members?
Let me ask you this question FrankRep:
What is YOUR definition of "support"?
Do you accept the customary definitions of "support" which are as follows?
"aiding the cause or policy or interests of"
" to keep from weakening or failing; strengthen"
" to give something greater credibility by being consistent with it or providing further evidence for it"
If you do accept those definitions, then I ask you to carefully review my two previous messages and tell me clearly and specifically why the JBS associated itself with racists and segregationists (and gave racist politicians high scores on the JBS Conservative Index) -- and why the JBS validated and disseminated their arguments (see Highlander Folk School excerpt for example) -- BUT -- then why you do NOT consider that as evidence of "support"?
Lastly, has the Birch Society ever retracted its statements and conclusions (previously quoted) regarding our civil rights movement?
OR
Does the JBS STILL maintain that our civil rights movement was (as racists insisted even before the JBS came into existence) "not only planned by the Communists, but was begun, is staffed, and is conducted by the Communists—and has only one real purpose: the destruction and communization of America.”
Since that is the fundamental core belief which unites the entire racist movement in our country -- how can you maintain that the JBS did not "support racism"?
Sen. Barry Goldwater did not believe that.
Giants within the conservative intellectual community did not believe that. For example, as Frank Meyer pointed out:
“It is true that here (as everywhere it profits them) Communist groups are active, seeking to take advantage of the turmoil and are sometimes successful in penetrating sections of the leadership of the movement. But the movement is not a Communist movement, as the John Birch Society implies with every device of rhetoric, with pictures, with innuendo, and often with straight-forward statement. There is, of course, much in the civil rights movement that conservatives should oppose, but when it is attacked in the Birch manner, on the basis of an obsessed insistence on conspiracy (’it’s all a Communist plot’) sober opposition is discredited and great positive harm done the conservative cause.”
The former East Coast PR Director for the JBS (Tom Davis) did not believe that. He stated in answer to a question posed by a TV interviewer about Welch's views on the civil rights movement:
"I know his thinking on the subject of the civil rights movement. I know that Mr. Welch feels that the Communists were perhaps totally responsible for instigating the trouble which exists in our southern states today, and we might say all over the country; to the degree that he believes that, I disagree with him…I think it was an example of his saying something in a way which was not salable to the American people. It was salable to Birchers because Birchers generally agreed with him anyway.”
The FBI did not believe that. For example, J. Edgar Hoover stated:
"Let me emphasize that the American civil rights movement is not, and has never been dominated by the communists--because the overwhelming majority of civil rights leaders in this country, both Negro and white, have recognized and rejected communism as a menace to the freedoms of all."
[J. Edgar Hoover speech, 12/12/64, Our Heritage of Greatness, pg 7 - bold emphasis in original document].
So why did the JBS believe that FALSE argument? WHERE did they get it from?
The Communist Party has "many Black and Jewish members" too---in fact, 10 or 20 times as many as the JBS ever had!
Unlike the JBS, however, numerous senior CPUSA officials (e.g. on their National Executive Committee) were Black or Jewish.
So what?
Surely, you do not propose that we should accept the proposition that the CPUSA was an organization devoted to protecting our Constitution, protecting our freedoms, and protecting our way of life --- correct?
Then why do you propose that we should make evaluations/decisions about the JBS based solely upon some organizational chart reflecting some demographic info about its leaders or members?
Let me ask you this question FrankRep:
What is YOUR definition of "support"?
Do you accept the customary definitions of "support" which are as follows?
"aiding the cause or policy or interests of"
" to keep from weakening or failing; strengthen"
" to give something greater credibility by being consistent with it or providing further evidence for it"
If you do accept those definitions, then I ask you to carefully review my two previous messages and tell me clearly and specifically why the JBS associated itself with racists and segregationists (and gave racist politicians high scores on the JBS Conservative Index) -- and why the JBS validated and disseminated their arguments (see Highlander Folk School excerpt for example) -- BUT -- then why you do NOT consider that as evidence of "support"?
Lastly, has the Birch Society ever retracted its statements and conclusions (previously quoted) regarding our civil rights movement?
OR
Does the JBS STILL maintain that our civil rights movement was (as racists insisted even before the JBS came into existence) "not only planned by the Communists, but was begun, is staffed, and is conducted by the Communists—and has only one real purpose: the destruction and communization of America.”
Since that is the fundamental core belief which unites the entire racist movement in our country -- how can you maintain that the JBS did not "support racism"?
Sen. Barry Goldwater did not believe that.
Giants within the conservative intellectual community did not believe that. For example, as Frank Meyer pointed out:
“It is true that here (as everywhere it profits them) Communist groups are active, seeking to take advantage of the turmoil and are sometimes successful in penetrating sections of the leadership of the movement. But the movement is not a Communist movement, as the John Birch Society implies with every device of rhetoric, with pictures, with innuendo, and often with straight-forward statement. There is, of course, much in the civil rights movement that conservatives should oppose, but when it is attacked in the Birch manner, on the basis of an obsessed insistence on conspiracy (’it’s all a Communist plot’) sober opposition is discredited and great positive harm done the conservative cause.”
The former East Coast PR Director for the JBS (Tom Davis) did not believe that. He stated in answer to a question posed by a TV interviewer about Welch's views on the civil rights movement:
"I know his thinking on the subject of the civil rights movement. I know that Mr. Welch feels that the Communists were perhaps totally responsible for instigating the trouble which exists in our southern states today, and we might say all over the country; to the degree that he believes that, I disagree with him…I think it was an example of his saying something in a way which was not salable to the American people. It was salable to Birchers because Birchers generally agreed with him anyway.”
The FBI did not believe that. For example, J. Edgar Hoover stated:
"Let me emphasize that the American civil rights movement is not, and has never been dominated by the communists--because the overwhelming majority of civil rights leaders in this country, both Negro and white, have recognized and rejected communism as a menace to the freedoms of all."
[J. Edgar Hoover speech, 12/12/64, Our Heritage of Greatness, pg 7 - bold emphasis in original document].
So why did the JBS believe that FALSE argument? WHERE did they get it from?
The John Birch Society doesn't support racism or anti-semitism. The JBS has many Black and Jewish members in the society, including JBS writers like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell.
David Eisenberg is on the National Council of the John Birch Society and he's Jewish.
-----
Black JBS writers:
Thomas Sowell
Walter Williams
David Eisenberg - The JBS Jewish National Council Member
The John Birch Society Speakers Bureau:
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
Reverend Steven L. Craft
Wilton Alston
John Birch Society denounces Racism:
Racism and the John Birch Society
Dennis Behreandt | John Birch Society
Thursday, 29 May 2008
The John Birch Society was falsely accused of racism and anti-Semitism by an Associated Press reporter, who offers no proof. The article appeared in 125+ news outlets over the 2008 Memorial Day weekend.
It is often suggested in the media that the John Birch Society harbors some elements of racism and anti-Semitism. That's a curious thing, particularly since the John Birch Society is always likewise noted as staunchly ultraconservative and anti-Communist.
A case in point comes from a recent Associated Press article by Shelia Byrd entitled "AP engages pastors, parishoners about racism in US." Midway through the article, discussing a church located in the Los Angeles suburb of San Marino, Byrd writes: "Before the 1960s, it was common for properties in San Marino to have a legal stipulation banning sales to blacks and Jews, and until 1989 the city was national headquarters to the ultraconservative, anti-communist John Birch Society."
Byrd and the Associated Press clearly want readers to take away one thought from this sentence: San Marino is a racist community, the anti-Communist John Birch Society had a headquarters (actually, it was just a regional office) there, therfore, the John Birch Society, like anti-communists generally, is racist.
There is more than one fallacy at work in this type of propagandistic construction. First, though two indicators, in a general sense, may be seen as rising in tandem, it is not necessarily the case that there is a causal relationship between the two. This is elementary logic. Consider the following syllogism as an example: Fish swim. Scuba divers swim. Ergo, scuba divers are fish.
Obviously, scuba divers are not fish, and anyone using such an argument to claim that they are is a fool. And yet, this is exactly the type of specious reasoning employed by Byrd in attempting to impute racism to the John Birch Society by leveling an ugly insult at the community in which the organization's headquarters were once located. By that standard, every resident and every business in that community is also racist, according to Byrd.
But the fallacious reasoning does not end there. Byrd implies that anti-communists are racists. On the contrary, anyone who knows anything about communism would know immediately that real anti-communists can never be racists.
Communism, like any other variant of socialism, is by its very nature collectivist. That means that communists, and communist theory, consider people at the level of the group. To a communist there are only groups of people like the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But committed communists don't stop at those two classifications. The communist dialectic requires groups to pit against each other in order to form an ultimate synthesis. Thus, wherever communists are active, they seek to define victim groups and oppressors. These are arbitrary and are as often based on ethnicities and religions as on economics. In simple terms, communist rhetoric and theory is little more than an embrace of crude tribalism.
To be anti-communist, then, is to be opposed to the brute classification of individuals by group. Because racism is nothing more than an arbitrary classification of individuals, real anti-communists must invariably oppose racism. As such, the John Birch Society has always held that racism and anti-Semitism are not only morally repugnant, but are the tools used by communists to sow discord and rancor amongst the citizens of a nation.
Byrd and the Associated Press, it should be noted, also use the label "ultraconservative" in an attempt to discredit the John Birch Society. In the context of the United States of America, however, "ultraconservative" is not a pejorative. In fact, it should be viewed as a form of praise.
To be a conservative in any nation is to desire to respect and, if necessary, to conserve those institutions that have proven their worth over time. Consequently, the word "conservative" can mean many different things in different places. An ultraconservative in London might conceivably be a strong advocate of British imperial ambition and monarchical power. In Moscow during the Gorbachev era (and even today), a conservative will likely be a supporter of Soviet-style secular tyranny.
In the United States, however, a conservative is one who seeks to support and retain the traditional institutions of the U.S. government, including the rule of law under the Constitution, and the political doctrines of individual rights and freedom as espoused by the Founding Fathers.
In celebrating and upholding the latter, The John Birch Society, as the Associated Press notes, is both anti-communist and ultraconservative. As a natural consequence, the Society both opposes collectivism in all its forms, including racism and anti-Semitism, and strongly supports the doctrines of individual freedom that have made this nation the greatest on Earth. Anyone who doubts this can ask any of our members, speakers and writers, including those who are African American and Jewish.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/1717-racism-and-the-john-birch-society
Last edited:
Thomas Sowell (a Black man) and Tom Woods (Mises Institute) BOTH oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it violates the CONSTITUTION.
Is Thomas Sowell Racist?
Thomas Sowell and Tom Woods Jr. are BOTH against the Civil Rights Movement. They both say it's Unconstitutional and it failed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Which Only Wicked Oppressors Could Oppose, and For No Good Reason)
Tom Woods.com
May 21st, 2010
In light of the hysteria in recent days, here’s some valuable information from Thomas Sowell, from his indispensable book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?
Thomas Sowell
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Rhetoric-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688062695
Sowell notes that champions of the Official Version of History ignore already existing trends in black employment, well under way long before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from which we are taught all blessings flowed. Writes Sowell: “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s — when there was little or no civil rights policy — than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday.
“The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act). If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years. The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964 — and 1960. Nor did the institution of ‘goals and timetables’ at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations. True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators.”
Sowell further notes that Asians and Hispanics show similar long-term upward trends that had begun years before the passage of the 1964 Act, and which were not accelerated either by the Act itself or by the “affirmative action” programs that (inevitably) followed. Mexican-Americans’ incomes rose in relation to those of whites between 1959 and 1969, but not at a greater rate than between 1949 and 1959. Chinese and Japanese-American households had matched their white counterparts in income by 1959 (in spite of the fact that Japanese-Americans had been interned in concentration camps less than two decades before, and countless Americans blamed Japan for the loss of their sons).
SOURCE:
http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/th...pressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/
=====
Thomas E. Woods Jr: The Civil Rights Act was Unconstitutional, Statist, and a Failure
Lecture by Thomas E. Woods Jr. presented at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's "History of Liberty" seminar held at the Institute in Auburn, Alabama, June 24-30, 2001. This Instructional Seminar of 23 lectures is modeled on the Mises University and presents a reinterpretation of the history of liberty from the ancient world--an ambitious agenda but a wonderfully successful conference.
http://www.mises.org/
YouTube - Civil Rights and Statism [Thomas E. Woods, Jr.]
Back at you Ernie...
A rather interesting rebuttal Ernie. Your opinions most certainly are included in a number of your exchanges, although you usually wait until somebody responds to your initial FBI files post. And again, I cannot go back and forth with you regarding connections and what people that have been dead for decades knew and when they knew it. I don't have the time to check. I’m sure you realize that back in the 50s even before the Society was founded, Robert Welch was a large figure in the conservative, anti-Communist movement. Once the organization was founded, it took off by leaps and bounds. By the time the smear campaign against it was in full-swing in the early to mid 1960s, the response to the negative publicity overwhelmed the staff, as in they couldn’t keep up with the requests to join. Most wanted to learn for themselves what JBS was all about. When they learned, many joined. Others were indeed attracted to the Society because they thought that JBS was racist. When they learned the truth, some left, and others had to be weeded out. In fact, there are some parts of this country today that we are very careful about recruiting from because we know of supremacist elements in the area.
When folks join JBS, they join to push the JBS mission and follow the agenda. JBS does not adopt the agenda of members. Chapters are not allowed to deviate, so it should come as no surprise that many left the organization over the years to start their own organizations with their own agenda. Given the short list you produced, the agenda for many of them is quite despicable (if indeed they actually are members…that hasn’t been verified against our records, but I do recognize some). Realize that out of the huge number of members that have come and gone throughout the Society’s 50-plus years, there are bound to be a certain percentage that will be interested in working their own agenda and leave to do so.
This should help to answer the question that you say we haven’t answered. Why are these sorts attracted to JBS? They are attracted when these types of folks think we share the same agenda as them and when JBS is painted to be racist. If I’m interested in shooting and preserving the right to do so, I’m going to be interested in those types of organizations. If someone is racist and thinks that JBS is as well, they will be attracted to it.
I am happy to see you publicly state that JBS “was never an explicitly racist organization.” And we never will be ... explicit or otherwise. Determining what’s best for an individual based on the color of one’s skin is collectivism at best and racism at its worst. Neither of those “isms” we support. JBS has particular viewpoints that many do not agree with, but viewpoints and agenda items are based on what is best for an individual, as far as self-reliance, responsibility, and liberty and how to educate others on the principles of freedom in order to keep the Republic as envisioned by the founders to facilitate the prosperity for all Americans and future generations (regardless of skin color or creed).
This is why I ask about your goals and motives. What you want to do with the time that God has granted you is your own business. No one has to like it and you certainly don’t need to meet any of my or anyone else’s standards as you tried to assert. If you want to spend your time tearing things down rather than building them up (in my opinion), then so be it. If you’re happy doing what you’re doing, good for you. But I would have to disagree with your labeling yourself a libertarian. As I stated before and have seen on the postings on this forum, libertarians and JBS don’t always see eye-to-eye. But many can point to what they are doing as promoting limited government, which is part of the JBS mission. However, you couldn’t even get that far in your answer. You turned it around to make it seem that the Kremlin would have to ok your answer. But that’s what you like to do best, it seems. Your spin on the JBS mission and goals in the later part of your post is quite creative. Wrong and grossly misleading, but quite creative. I’ll offer the same advice that I do to anyone doubting the mission or goals of JBS. If you want to learn about JBS, just join and find out for yourself. Don't take my or anyone else's word for it. Experience it for yourself.
We've already chewed up more time and effort on this thread than most people would deem effective, so I won't be responding again. I simply have too much to do. I'm sure our paths will cross again and my offer for a visit here in Appleton is still open.
Take care,
Bill Hahn
JBS PR Manager
A rather interesting rebuttal Ernie. Your opinions most certainly are included in a number of your exchanges, although you usually wait until somebody responds to your initial FBI files post. And again, I cannot go back and forth with you regarding connections and what people that have been dead for decades knew and when they knew it. I don't have the time to check. I’m sure you realize that back in the 50s even before the Society was founded, Robert Welch was a large figure in the conservative, anti-Communist movement. Once the organization was founded, it took off by leaps and bounds. By the time the smear campaign against it was in full-swing in the early to mid 1960s, the response to the negative publicity overwhelmed the staff, as in they couldn’t keep up with the requests to join. Most wanted to learn for themselves what JBS was all about. When they learned, many joined. Others were indeed attracted to the Society because they thought that JBS was racist. When they learned the truth, some left, and others had to be weeded out. In fact, there are some parts of this country today that we are very careful about recruiting from because we know of supremacist elements in the area.
When folks join JBS, they join to push the JBS mission and follow the agenda. JBS does not adopt the agenda of members. Chapters are not allowed to deviate, so it should come as no surprise that many left the organization over the years to start their own organizations with their own agenda. Given the short list you produced, the agenda for many of them is quite despicable (if indeed they actually are members…that hasn’t been verified against our records, but I do recognize some). Realize that out of the huge number of members that have come and gone throughout the Society’s 50-plus years, there are bound to be a certain percentage that will be interested in working their own agenda and leave to do so.
This should help to answer the question that you say we haven’t answered. Why are these sorts attracted to JBS? They are attracted when these types of folks think we share the same agenda as them and when JBS is painted to be racist. If I’m interested in shooting and preserving the right to do so, I’m going to be interested in those types of organizations. If someone is racist and thinks that JBS is as well, they will be attracted to it.
I am happy to see you publicly state that JBS “was never an explicitly racist organization.” And we never will be ... explicit or otherwise. Determining what’s best for an individual based on the color of one’s skin is collectivism at best and racism at its worst. Neither of those “isms” we support. JBS has particular viewpoints that many do not agree with, but viewpoints and agenda items are based on what is best for an individual, as far as self-reliance, responsibility, and liberty and how to educate others on the principles of freedom in order to keep the Republic as envisioned by the founders to facilitate the prosperity for all Americans and future generations (regardless of skin color or creed).
This is why I ask about your goals and motives. What you want to do with the time that God has granted you is your own business. No one has to like it and you certainly don’t need to meet any of my or anyone else’s standards as you tried to assert. If you want to spend your time tearing things down rather than building them up (in my opinion), then so be it. If you’re happy doing what you’re doing, good for you. But I would have to disagree with your labeling yourself a libertarian. As I stated before and have seen on the postings on this forum, libertarians and JBS don’t always see eye-to-eye. But many can point to what they are doing as promoting limited government, which is part of the JBS mission. However, you couldn’t even get that far in your answer. You turned it around to make it seem that the Kremlin would have to ok your answer. But that’s what you like to do best, it seems. Your spin on the JBS mission and goals in the later part of your post is quite creative. Wrong and grossly misleading, but quite creative. I’ll offer the same advice that I do to anyone doubting the mission or goals of JBS. If you want to learn about JBS, just join and find out for yourself. Don't take my or anyone else's word for it. Experience it for yourself.
We've already chewed up more time and effort on this thread than most people would deem effective, so I won't be responding again. I simply have too much to do. I'm sure our paths will cross again and my offer for a visit here in Appleton is still open.
Take care,
Bill Hahn
JBS PR Manager
Frank - The answer to your question is OF COURSE NOT. Just as Sen. Barry Goldwater's opposition to that legislation was NOT racist.
But the key difference (which you continue to ignore) is that Sen. Goldwater (and others) did NOT associate themselves with the white supremacy movement in our country. He (and others) did not characterize our ENTIRE civil rights movement as Communist created, controlled, and dominated. He (and others) did not speak at or write for white supremacist organizations. He (and others) did not deny that grave injustices were being visited upon our countrymen --- and I am not referring merely to violent incidents (bombings, lynchings, murders, castrations etc). I am referring to the much more common and pervasive NON-VIOLENT depredations which Bircher George Schuyler wrote about.
But the key difference (which you continue to ignore) is that Sen. Goldwater (and others) did NOT associate themselves with the white supremacy movement in our country. He (and others) did not characterize our ENTIRE civil rights movement as Communist created, controlled, and dominated. He (and others) did not speak at or write for white supremacist organizations. He (and others) did not deny that grave injustices were being visited upon our countrymen --- and I am not referring merely to violent incidents (bombings, lynchings, murders, castrations etc). I am referring to the much more common and pervasive NON-VIOLENT depredations which Bircher George Schuyler wrote about.
Thomas Sowell (a Black man) and Tom Woods (Mises Institute) BOTH oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it violates the CONSTITUTION.
Is Thomas Sowell Racist?
Thomas Sowell and Tom Woods Jr. are BOTH against the Civil Rights Movement. They both say it's Unconstitutional and it failed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Which Only Wicked Oppressors Could Oppose, and For No Good Reason)
Tom Woods.com
May 21st, 2010
In light of the hysteria in recent days, here’s some valuable information from Thomas Sowell, from his indispensable book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?
Thomas Sowell
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Rhetoric-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688062695
Sowell notes that champions of the Official Version of History ignore already existing trends in black employment, well under way long before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from which we are taught all blessings flowed. Writes Sowell: “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s — when there was little or no civil rights policy — than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday.
“The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act). If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years. The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964 — and 1960. Nor did the institution of ‘goals and timetables’ at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations. True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators.”
Sowell further notes that Asians and Hispanics show similar long-term upward trends that had begun years before the passage of the 1964 Act, and which were not accelerated either by the Act itself or by the “affirmative action” programs that (inevitably) followed. Mexican-Americans’ incomes rose in relation to those of whites between 1959 and 1969, but not at a greater rate than between 1949 and 1959. Chinese and Japanese-American households had matched their white counterparts in income by 1959 (in spite of the fact that Japanese-Americans had been interned in concentration camps less than two decades before, and countless Americans blamed Japan for the loss of their sons).
SOURCE:
http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/th...pressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/
=====
Thomas E. Woods Jr: The Civil Rights Act was Unconstitutional, Statist, and a Failure
Lecture by Thomas E. Woods Jr. presented at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's "History of Liberty" seminar held at the Institute in Auburn, Alabama, June 24-30, 2001. This Instructional Seminar of 23 lectures is modeled on the Mises University and presents a reinterpretation of the history of liberty from the ancient world--an ambitious agenda but a wonderfully successful conference.
http://www.mises.org/
YouTube - Civil Rights and Statism [Thomas E. Woods, Jr.]
Distinguished Gentleman
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2009
- Messages
- 287
I remember at the Rally for the Republic, they (JBS) were handing out pamphlets with Ron on the cover. While I think accusations against the JBS are largely inaccurate, It made me uncomfortable. Guilt by association is the name of the game in politics. I hope we continue the trend of spontaneous organizing for candidates or associating with P.R. conscious PACS. The tea party, viewed as a monolithic group, is easy to smear. Groups of individuals working for a common cause are harder to lump together if they aren't branded.
Ron Paul supports the John Birch Society. The media tried to smear the JBS the same way they tried to smear Ron Paul with lies.
Ron Paul At the 50th Anniversary of John Birch Society
Viddler.com - Ron Paul At the 50th Anniversary of JBS - Uploaded by jbirch
Last edited:
Similar threads
