Talk:John Birch Society

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What do we mean by "front groups" here?

Here's some information we may be able to use, however it's not worked upto a full fledged organization yet.
Fronts and cutouts
A front organization in espionage functions within a system of "cutouts". A "cutout" is intended to shield or isolate a higher level infiltrator who has "penetrated" the target organization (government bureau, for example). Once the Department penetration has been made, the higher level infiltrator may have any of three jobs: (1) to bring within the government agency, and to protect, lower level appointees who are also infiltrators; (2) to provide information from within the penetrated target organization to an outside intelligence organization; or (3) a combination of both.
A "ring" within a penetrated bureau consists of several collectors of information from different areas within the penetrated bureau. The most valuable source must be protected; so often the least "productive" infiltrator, i.e. the person lowest on the totem pole within the penetrated target, whose knowledge and ability to collect information is second or third hand, functions as the head of the group. He carries the information from higher level gatherers to outside persons, so as to "cutout" contact between a high level infiltrator and a foreign intelligence organization.
So the most valuable and productive members of the ring are isolated from contact with foreign Agent case officers, which is safest for both. One member gathers all the collected material from all infiltrators, then will pass the information to another cutout outside the government. That second cutout likewise is usually a natural citizen, though not employed by the target government, but who then can transmit the information directly to the foreign intelligence service.
The extensive use of cutouts, so long as they are trusted and reliable persons, can become a long chain of individuals. This performs another purpose, similiar to the extensive use of "front organizations"; by their sheer number, it becomes a shell game with counterintelligence investigators, who have finite and limited resources. When suspicion arises, the large number of persons and organizations connected to the conspiracy can devour endless hours and cost, which has the effect of slowing down the process of exposing an espionage ring. RobS 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Splitting hairs

the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy

What's the difference? --Ed Poor Talk 17:44, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Democracy as a form of government implies direct democracy, or something closer to direct democracy. The USA isn't that... in fact, no modern country is... when we use the word "Democracy" to refer to the United States, it refers to the genus, if you will, of elected governments, of which a constitutional republic is a subset... in that it's a non-monarchy government that vests autonomy in the people to elect officials which must stay within constitutional lines. I'll double-check with my polisci textbooks....-MexMax 17:55, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Right. In a 'true' democracy, citizens would vote on the bills that become laws. In our republic, we elect the lawmakers who vote on the laws. Maestro 09:24, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Both are wrong. Direct democracy is a form of democracy: dude, the adjective direct modifies the noun democracy, indicating what KIND of democracy it is.
It is usually leftist critics of American democracy who trot out the old "not a democracy" canard.
Our form of democracy is not majority rule like a New Hampshire town meeting, because it has federal and state components (each states have local components!). --Ed Poor Talk 21:38, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Okay, I get it now: I did some googling and found out that "not a democracy" is a slogan meant to emphasize the "republican" nature of American democracy;

Modern American democracy is in the form of a democratic republic or a representative democracy. [1]

So, translated into plain English the slogan means that America's form of government is a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy - which everyone here knew all along. --Ed Poor Talk 21:45, 11 November 2007 (EST)

--Ed Poor Talk 21:45, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Conspiracy theories

There should be a fact tag on the mention of JBS being conspiracy theorists. I've never seen this charge and it seems unfounded. We certainly do call a spade a spade when it comes to outing people with troubling ideologies. JamesonD 14:20, 8 July 2009 (EDT)


(1) It should be noted that the most potent opposition to the John Birch Society did not originate with "liberals" or even "establishment Republicans". Actually, it came from major conservative organizations and institutions. JBS critics have included prominent conservative Americans such as:

Sen. Barry Goldwater, Cong. Walter Judd, Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer, Russell Kirk, Eugene Lyons, Willmoore Kendall, James Burnham, Robert Bork, J. Edgar Hoover, Herbert Philbrick, Frank S. Meyer, Cong. Gordon H. Scherer, William F. Buckley Jr., Patrick Buchanan, Fred Schwarz, Lee Edwards, the editors of the conservative newspaper, Human Events, William Loeb, George Sokolsky, Roy Cohn, Anthony Bouscaren, plus even many former Birchers such as: Alan Stang, Gary Allen, Fred Koch, Milorad Draskovich, Don Fotheringham, John Rees, William Norman Grigg, Mrs. Robert Welch --- and many many more.

(2) There is no factual basis for claiming (as this article does) that: "At its peak in 1964, the Society claimed to have hundreds of chapters throughout the country, 100,000 members..."

According to the Birch Society's CPA firm (Spark, Mann and Company), dues income from JBS members during 1964 amounted to: $536,566. Since men paid $24 year and women paid $12 year, we can use an $18 average to calculate that the JBS had approximately 29,809 members in 1964. Even if ALL JBS members during 1964 were women paying $12 annually (in order to maximize the number of members), the total would be only 44,713!

(3) With respect to "subversive infiltration of the United States" -- it should be kept in mind that every major official of the Birch Society during the 1960's emphatically declared that former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was our nation's most knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative source of fact-based information about the Communist movement in the United States AND about what constituted effective anti-Communist activities. For example, see the October 1966 issue of the JBS magazine, American Opinion, for its article entitled "The Wisdom and Warning of J. Edgar Hoover".

In fact, Robert Welch instructed subordinates to contact the FBI in order to get Hoover's permission for the JBS to publish a book containing Hoover's statements under the title "J. Edgar Hoover On Communism".

FBI memos summarize their contacts with the JBS: "Mr. Welch advised he had the greatest admiration for the Director and that the captioned book was intended as an instrument against communism. He said he felt the statements on the subject from Mr. Hoover would be taken as statements from the world's greatest authority on the matter of communism..." [FBI HQ main file 62-104401, serials 3146, 3148, 3149, and 3151].

One clear way to evaluate the conclusions and assertions made by Robert Welch and the JBS concerning "subversive infiltration of the United States" is revealed below.

According to Robert Welch:

"…we believe that there are not more than 300,000 to 500,000 Communists in our country (or about ¼ of 1% of our population) and not more than a million allies, dupes, and sympathizers whom they can count on for any conscious support…” [JBS Bulletin, July 1961, page 14]

By contrast, in July 1961, the actual number of CP members in the United States according to the FBI was 5262 --i.e. nothing remotely close to Welch's perception of 300,000 to 500,000! [See FBI New York field file 100-80638, serial #1882, which is a 6/30/61 FBI Chart of CPUSA Membership, by state, by FBI field divisions and by CPUSA Districts.]

BTW--the actual peak membership of the CPUSA was in 1944 -- when it had 80,000 members during our wartime alliance with Russia.

Missing the correct number of CPUSA members by a factor of 60 to 100 -- reveals a HUGE deficiency in Welch's understanding of internal security matters and even brings into question what methodology he used to identify a "Communist" or a "Communist sympathizer".

Similarly, when Welch then stated that there were not more than a million "allies, dupes, and sympathizers" which Communists could count on for "any conscious support" (the operative word there being "conscious") also flies in the face of statistical summaries prepared by the FBI and updated on a monthly basis in its "Security Index" file (100-358086).

The FBI's Security Index was a monthly report designed to track all persons considered actually or potentially dangerous to U.S. internal security. It included known and suspected Communist Party members plus Communist sympathizers, financial contributors to radical organizations, leaders in Communist fronts, radicals and anarchists, fascists, and anyone else whom the Bureau considered a potential security risk. In fact, during time of national emergency, Security Index subjects were scheduled to be apprehended and detained.

At the time Welch made his statement in July 1961, the FBI's July 1961 Security Index report listed a total of 11,833 persons of which 9899 were in the "Communist" category--which included all the various types of individuals mentioned above. Thus, while Welch perceived more than a million Communist operatives or sympathizers, the FBI concluded that only 9899 Americans were a potential security concern. [HQ 100-358086, serial #2939].

The following Report on the JBS is based, primarily, upon documents in various FBI investigative files -- and the Report addresses most of the major arguments of the JBS during its formative years. JBS REPORT BASED UPON FBI FILES Ernie1241 (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2019 (EDT)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2019 (EDT)

You added essentially the same information at Talk:William F. Buckley, Jr. -- you clearly strongly oppose the JBS, and your arguments are eerily similar to those used by so-called "conservative" never-Trumpers in that they focus on some small issue long ago in its history to discredit the entire organization rather than mention its beliefs, and they cite RINOs and other inconsistent conservatives as being authoritative critics. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2019 (EDT)
Facts exist independent of my or your personal opinions. I never focus upon "some small issue". Obviously, if the JBS declares that "X" is true but a source whom the JBS recommends as authoritative and reliable states "X" is totally false, that is NOT "some small issue"
It is self-evident that if someone claims to present authoritative, reliable information about a subject -- such as the number of CPUSA members in our country -- and the number they present is not remotely accurate, then the methodology they used is gravely mistaken and cannot be trusted.
I never cited any "RINOs". Every person I mentioned was recommended by the Birch Society itself as an authoritative source and, in fact, the JBS recommended and sold the publications of those individuals in its American Opinion bookstores! Furthermore, a substantial portion of my information originated with both current and former JBS members and supporters!
Lastly, when the JBS or its surrogates have been sued for libel, more often than not, they have LOST those cases because facts still matter in a courtroom environment---as opposed to hearsay, gossip, rumor, or biased person opinions. ANYBODY can review the tens of thousands of pages of FBI investigative files to establish that senior FBI officials (including former Director Hoover) falsified every major JBS argument. Keep in mind that every senior JBS official (including Robert Welch) effusively praised Hoover and the FBI as our nation's most reliable source of factual information --- so for someone like yourself to NOT recognize the obvious falsehoods and absurdities circulated by Welch and the JBS brings into question YOUR understanding of, and respect for, facts and logic. Ernie1241 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2019 (EDT)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
Communists did infiltrate the Deep state in the 1950s, and no one credibly denies that. As to litigation, it is not surprising that courts ruled against JBS just as they ruled against pro-lifers, Richard Nixon, Jerry Falwell, General William Westmoreland, Donald J. Trump, and so on.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
Andy is spot-on that the courts often are biased against conservatives -- particularly in the liberal-dominated courts before conservatives even began taking serious action to counter judicial activism. Also, I wouldn't view the deep state as authoritative when it reports on left-wing influence within its own ranks. That's almost like an MSM news agency reporting on the level of bias within itself. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2019 (EDT)

REPLY TO ANDY SCHLAFLY and "1990'sguy"

ANDY: Nobody rational disputes the notion that there was infiltration into our society by Communists. But acknowledging that does NOT mean that we must accept EVERY lunatic assertion made by political extremists (right or left).

As previously mentioned, even Robert Welch and the Birch Society acknowledged repeatedly that Hoover's FBI was indisputably our nation's most knowledgeable and reliable source of FACTUAL information regarding the Communist movement. Consequently, one must compare Robert Welch's assertion that the U.S. was "60% to 80% under Communist influence and control" versus what FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover said when he was asked about that JBS assertion.

For example:

"The Communist Party in this country has attempted to infiltrate and subvert every segment of our society, but its continuing efforts have not achieved success of any substance. Too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified factual data regarding the inner workings of the conspiracy, have engaged in rumor-mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against persons whose views differ from their own. This is dangerous business. It is divisive and unintelligent, and makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator". [Hoover statement in February 5, 1962 letter to Mrs. W.R. Brown of Bountiful Utah; also published as letter-to-editor in Tri-Cities Daily newspaper of Sheffield, Alabama on Sunday March 31, 1963. Copy of Hoover letter in FBI HQ file 94-1-369, serial #1676]

Also see page 5 of Hoover speech, 12/7/61, "The Faith To Be Free"

Page 5: “The extent of the menace posed by the philosophy of communism is clear-cut and obvious. However, it is absolutely necessary that we attack and oppose it calmly, rationally, and objectively… The Communist Party in this country has attempted to infiltrate and subvert every segment of our society. The Party’s efforts have been thwarted in this country by the Government’s internal security programs, by investigation, arrest and prosecution of Party functionaries, and by widespread intelligent public opposition to the communist philosophy.”

EVERY major argument by the Birch Society (and endorsed by its supporters like your mother) was falsified by our FBI.

For example:

According to Robert Welch and the JBS:

In the June 1965 JBS Bulletin, Mr. Welch observed: "Our task must be simply to make clear that the movement known as civil rights is Communist-plotted, Communist-controlled, and in fact...serves only Communist purposes." In August 1965, the JBS ran a full-page ad in many U.S. newspapers entitled “What’s Wrong With Civil Rights?” One of the answers provided by the JBS was:

“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.” [FBI-HQ 62-104401, serial #2621, 8/31/65 airtel from SAC Birmingham to J. Edgar Hoover with attachment of ad from Sunday 8/29/65 Birmingham AL News.]

In the November 1965 JBS Bulletin, page 44, Robert Welch declared:

We have said many times, and we repeat now, that if you can fully expose the civil rights fraud, you will break the back of the Communist conspiracy. But the word ‘fully’ is important in that sentence. It calls for bringing a preponderant majority of our fellow citizens really to grasp the fact that the ‘civil rights’ program has been designed by Communists, is controlled by Communists, and will be used by the Communists as a vital part of their total strategy for taking over our country.”


In 1965, J. Edgar Hoover described the civil rights movement as "a great and too long neglected cause of human rights" in our country. [FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Introduction, April 1965].

Hoover observed in a December 1964 speech, that:

"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 - Hoover speech before Pennsylvania Society and the Society of Pennsylvania Women; bold emphasis on "not" and "never" in original document].

"OVERWHELMING MAJORITY"? -- The Birch Society could not identify EVEN ONE national civil rights organization or leader who was not supposedly compromised by Communists!

In November 1966, Hoover received an inquiry from a self-identified JBS member who saw the above quote in a letter-to-the-editor of his local newspaper and the Bircher wanted to know if the quote was an accurate reflection of Hoover’s judgment both in 1964 and 1966. Hoover replied affirmatively and concluded: “This position remains essentially unchanged today.” [FBI-HQ 62-104401-3021, 11/15/66 Hoover reply to incoming Bircher inquiry].

Also see following Hoover comments:

“Communist leaders have been complaining bitterly about the turnover of Negro members and of the Party’s inability to indoctrinate any large number of Negroes. Information we have received follows a regular pattern: Negroes are rejecting Communism.” [J. Edgar Hoover, Masters of Deceit, 1958, page 232]

It would be absurd to suggest that the aspirations of Negroes for equality are communist inspired. This is demonstrably not true…” [J. Edgar Hoover speech, Faith In Freedom, 12/4/63, page 6].

Significantly, the House Committee on Un-American Activities made the same conclusion.


“The Communist Party in this country has, from its inception, endeavored to attract Negroes to its ranks. At one stage of its existence the Party even undertook to establish a Negro nation in the deep South and through its Southern Conference for Human Welfare made an all-out effort to recruit large numbers of the Negro people. This attempt, like the Communist attempt to penetrate and control the N.A.A.C.P., resulted in failure.” [Eleventh Report of the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities, 1961, page 136].


Welch described U.S. Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee as one of a group of U.S. Senators whom it was "...utter folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference..." [Welch comments to first meeting of JBS National Council at Union League Club in Chicago IL, January 1960]


When Senator Kefauver passed away, J. Edgar Hoover sent the following telegram to Mrs. Estes Kefauver:

Please accept my deepest sympathy in the passing of your husband. This is a great shock to me and to his many friends throughout the nation and the world. While words are most inadequate on such an occasion, I hope you may gain some consolation from knowing that his outstanding contributions to the welfare of his country and his deep concern for his fellow man will long serve as a memorial to him. His achievements and devotion to duty as a public servant are a special tribute to his statesmanship. His passing creates a void which our nation can ill afford and is a great loss to all mankind. If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. J. Edgar Hoover” [HQ 62-77208, #108, 8/10/63 Hoover telegram to Mrs. Estes Kefauver, Washington DC]

A notation on Bureau file copy of the telegram text is as follows:

“Senator Kefauver was a very close friend of the Director and the FBI. He was on the Special Correspondents’ List on a first-name basis.”

ROBERT WELCH AND THE JBS ON DR. HARRY OVERSTREET -- author of 1958 book, "What We Must Know About Communism".

Welch described Harry Overstreet's book as "pro-Communist doubletalk".

Furthermore: Robert Welch discussed an article about Overstreet which the Birch Society published in the October 1959 issue of its magazine, American Opinion.

Welch stated that the JBS article "showed the blatant falsehoods to which Harry Overstreet has resorted in connection with his earlier and continuing close affiliations with Communists and support of Communist purposes." [Robert Welch: What Is The John Birch Society?, 1970, page 18].

What Welch did not know is that the FBI's Chief Inspector at that time (their expert on the communist movement inside the U.S.) personally assisted Overstreet with writing his book. The Chief Inspector spent hours every week reviewing first drafts of Overstreet chapters in his new book, and the Inspector made suggestions for revising the text. The Inspector also provided Overstreet with public source materials from FBI files.

After the book was published, Overstreet sent a copy to J. Edgar Hoover and he asked Hoover if he would like to visit Overstreet's home some evening for dinner.

Hoover declined the dinner invitation, but he wrote the following to Harry Overstreet and his wife Bonaro: "I do hope that your fine book 'What We Must Know About Communism' will enjoy excellent sales and wide reading throughout 1959. We need more and more people like yourselves who will devote their nationally recognized academic talents to the exposure and ultimate defeat of the menace of world communism." [FBI HQ file 100-114575-95, January 21, 1959, J. Edgar Hoover to Harry Overstreet].

A formal review of the Overstreet book was prepared at the Bureau in October 1958 after Harry sent a copy to Hoover inscribed from both him and his wife as follows:

"To J. Edgar Hoover -- With personal gratitude for what you have superbly done for all of us."

The review concluded that... "...this new book represents cogent advice to the thinking public. It reflects ideas common to the thinking which has gone on in the Bureau for many years."

Overstreet's book also was described as a "welcome new aid" in combating Communism. [HQ 100-114575-91, October 1, 1958, W.C. Sullivan to Alan H. Belmont]

In December 1958, Hoover wrote to Harry the following message after reading a newspaper article about him: "I have seen the interesting article about Mrs. Overstreet and you which appeared in the December 3, 1958 issue of the 'Northern Virginia Sun'. It is always a pleasure to read about good friends because it serves as a reminder of happy associations. It is good to see your fine work recognized in this fitting manner, and your many friends in the FBI join me in sending our best wishes." [HQ 100-114575-93, December 5, 1958, J. Edgar Hoover to Harry Overstreet]

When Harry died, J. Edgar Hoover sent the following telegram to Mrs. Overstreet: "I was deeply saddened to learn of Dr. Overstreet's passing and want you to know you have my deepest sympathy. Words certainly are inadequate at a time like this but I hope you will derive some measure of comfort from knowing that others share your sorrow...You can be justifiably proud of the many contributions which he made to his country and the high esteem in which he is held." [J. Edgar Hoover telegram to Bonaro Overstreet; HQ 100-114575, serial 195, August 19, 1970]

Andy Schlafly's comments should be evaluated in the context that both Andy's mom and dad (Phyllis and Fred) were JBS members.

J. Edgar Hoover grew so weary of the lies and misrepresentations and inflammatory comments circulated by the JBS (and its surrogates) that he finally had enough. He asked the American Legion to assist the FBI in countering the falsehoods disseminated by the Birch Society -- which they did. [One action the Legion took was to recommend Overstreet's book!].

Then, during his Warren Commission testimony (and afterward) Hoover made the following comments:

"I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some of these so-called extreme right societies."

"Now, I have felt, and I have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, at either end of the spectrum. They don't deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has something wrong with him. A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man." (Warren Commission, Volume 5, page 101)

AND, a year later, during a press conference Hoover was even more explicit:

"Personally, I have little respect for the head of the John Birch Society since he linked the names of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the late John Foster Dulles, and former CIA Director Allen Dulles with communism."

The Birch Society performed a flawless PRO-Communist service (in conjunction with the Communist Party USA) by trashing anti-Communist Americans and by making false accusations and conclusions about the status of our internal security.

In brief reply to "Sguy", the court decisions which the JBS and its surrogates have lost in libel actions were often made by conservative judges and Supreme Court justices because FACTS still matter. You cannot dismiss every adverse decision by pretending that the JBS is never gravely mistaken -- which is why virtually the entire conservative movement in our country denounced and rejected the JBS.

I agree with these comments which the JBS posted on its website many years ago:

"What is fact? What is fiction? How can you know? Conspiracy theories abound on the Internet. While some may be fairly accurate, others are not. Much of what is out there goes beyond the facts into wild conjecturing, and even outright fabrication of information. This has had an effect something like Gresham's Law (‘bad money drives out good money’), in which bad information drives out good information."

Unfortunately, the Birch Society has a very long history of presenting fabrications and endorsing fiction AND "bad information". Ernie1241 (talk)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk)

You're not going to prove your point through long-winded walls of text. Also, for the past several decades, the U.S. has been slowly creeping toward socialism and has steadily become more liberal in its politics and policy -- led by judicial activists and government bureaucrats (look at historical revisionist teachers in public schools, the left-wing policies advanced by presidential administrations even during Republican presidents, and the influence of organizations such as the CFR in them, as well as public comments of officials in the federal government such as the State Department). We also know that over 90% of federal employees support Democrats, based on info such as donations. Clearly, a strong left-wing influence exists in the federal government, supportive of regulations and globalism. I didn't even address or rely on the JBS in what I just stated (many conservatives believe this), so the JBS's arguments are not unreasonable.
Secondly, in response to your response to me, the Supreme Court had a 1-8 or 2-7 liberal majority (depending on whether you include Burger, who wasn't reliable) in the 1970s. By 2000, it still only had 3 conservative/originalist justices, though O'Connor and Kennedy were more moderate than liberal. Also, I would like to know which "conservative judges" you're referring to. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
I certainly understand why you do NOT respect arguments which present factual details (along with bibliographic references). You prefer to post ONLY your personal opinions. With respect to your "slowly creeping toward socialism" comment -- that has been standard extreme right rhetoric since the 1920's.
What you STILL do not comprehend is that the ENTIRE conservative movement in our country has rejected YOUR interpretation of the Birch Society. Even many former prominent JBS members left the Society in disgust at the dishonesty and corruption within it.
With respect to your comments about the Supreme Court (or lower courts), let's face the reality: In YOUR scheme of things, NO adverse court decision against the JBS is EVER acceptable because you believe that the JBS is infallible. There is NO factual information (even when it originates with sources that the JBS has historically praised and recommended) that you will accept as valid.
Conservatism is a continuum. It is NOT one single absolute truth. The ultimate fact is very simple: The range of people who denounced and rejected the JBS spans the entire spectrum of conservative thought -- including most conservative magazines and newspapers along with the most respected conservative intellectuals. Arguably the most famous conservative intellectual of the 20th century (Russell Kirk) pointed out that:
"Robert remarkably ignorant of the nature of the Communist conspiracy which he denounces; and the sound of his own words has led him to the verge of what Burke called ‘metaphysical madness’. Ever since he founded his society he has done more to injure the cause of responsible conservatism than to act effectively against communism…Many members of the Birch Society, I think,…got into the Society without knowing Mr. Welch’s drift, and might have left some time ago, had they not disliked seeming to desert under fire. Already some of the original abler members have drifted away or become inactive. This leaves the Society in the hands of the fanatic fringe of course…"


"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 preceding unsigned comment was added by Ernie1241 (talk)
I understand that factual reality is something you refuse to accept, but I'll still explain, once more. I have some questions:
  • 1) You falsely claim that the reality that the U.S. (and the West) is gradually becoming increasingly left-wing on political and cultural issues (sexuality, immigration, guns, bureaucracy, historical revisionism, etc.) is merely "standard extreme right rhetoric since the 1920's". How is this false, and explain why so many conservatives who have absolutely no connection to JBS (Daniel Horowitz, LifeSiteNews, The Epoch Times, etc.) believe the same thing? Do you seriously believe our society is more conservative/traditional than in the 1920s?
  • 2) You falsely claim that "the ENTIRE conservative movement in our country has rejected" JBS. If so, explain why so many conservatives with absolutely no connection with JBS (Daniel Horowitz, Breitbart News, LifeSiteNews, Virginia Thomas, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Human Events, etc.) have identical opinions on political and cultural issues as JBS? Also, I have only been reading TNA for less than two years, and before that, I regularly read/watched other conservatives such as Breitbart, LifeSite, and Tucker -- I found no ideological differences between them.
  • 3) You claim that "Conservatism is a continuum. It is NOT one single absolute truth" -- whatever that even means. I hope you aren't trying to claim that the Koch brothers, Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot (all of which don't even consider themselves conservative anymore), Angela Merkel, and Emmanuel Macron are somehow "conservative." Since when did conservatives support abortion, the homosexual/trans agenda, open borders, and a more powerful/centralized government? The principles of conservatism are found here: Conservative. Do you disagree with any of them? Does JBS disagree with any of them?
Not only are you trying to discredit the entire, modern JBS through a few selective quotes from the 1960s/1970s (I wonder if Larry McDonald, murdered by the USSR in 1983, was also some Soviet double agent as you claim?), but you're also trying to argue against several facts accepted by the broad majority of conservatives today, who have realized that "Conservative Inc.", found in the National Review and Weekly Standard, have been ineffective at promoting conservatism and have even allowed the Left to make gains. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2019 (EDT)
This was just posted today on youtube, a short clip of a Robert Welch speech from 1958. Prophetic. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:06, 4 July 2019 (EDT)


Your comment (quoted below) is so preposterous that it deserves its own separate section for a reply. You wrote:

"Not only are you trying to discredit the entire, modern JBS through a few selective quotes from the 1960s/1970s (I wonder if Larry McDonald, murdered by the USSR in 1983, was also some Soviet double agent as you claim?), but you're also trying to argue against several facts accepted by the broad majority of conservatives today, who have realized that "Conservative Inc.", found in the National Review and Weekly Standard, have been ineffective at promoting conservatism and have even allowed the Left to make gains". -
One of the reasons I devoted so much time to presenting factual rebuttals to many different JBS accusations was specifically because I wanted to demonstrate that the JBS has been gravely mistaken about numerous subject matters over the past 6 decades. Incidentally, it is significant that even though the JBS is incorporated as an "educational" organization, it has never once acknowledged serious materially important errors which it has made about any person or organization during its entire existence.
Oddly, my previous presentation was rejected by you as "You're not going to prove your point through long-winded walls of text" -- so, apparently, your position becomes a flawless self-sealing argument where heads you win and tails I lose. If I present detailed critiques about a range of subject matters along with specific bibliographic citations, THEN that is NOT acceptable evidence to you AND if I cite only a few representative quotations in support of my statements that ALSO is NOT acceptable (to you). Thus, no matter what is presented, (short or long) you supposedly win the argument?
BTW-- I'm not sure I know what you mean by "few selective quotes". As in the case in ANY debate, representative examples are used to make a point. By contrast, you presented your unsubstantiated personal opinions and then you expect me to just mindlessly accept whatever you present as accurate, truthful, and factual even though you have not provided one iota of actual evidence. For example: you never bothered to QUOTE what anybody you listed has said about the Birch Society. Instead, you used lowest-common-denominator (LCD) reasoning to make your point. LCD operates this way: (1) All cats have four legs (2) All elephants have 4 legs, so therefore (3) All cats must be elephants and vice-versa. YOU think that because someone like Rush Limbaugh or Tucker Carlson might share some viewpoint with the JBS, THAT means (ipso facto) that they also accept the JBS as a factual and reliable and authoritative source of conservative commentary or analysis.
BTW--you included the conservative newspaper, Human Events in your list. Unlike yourself, as part of my research, I wrote to Thomas S. Winter, the Editor of Human Events to inquire about the position of his newspaper re: the JBS. Just so you know his background, I copy the following info about him below:
"For more than four decades, Mr. Winter has been the guiding force behind Human Events. He joined the conservative weekly in 1961 at the age of 24 as an assistant editor after earning a bachelor’s degree (1959) and MBA (1961) from Harvard University. In 1964, he took over the paper as its editor, and in 1966 he became co-owner and president. He also serves as vice chairman of the American Conservative Union and treasurer of the Conservative Victory Fund. He assumed the title editor in chief in 1996." So does HE qualify (in your scheme of things as a genuine conservative?

This is what Mr. Winter wrote to me about the JBS:

We have never taken a ‘public position’ as such, on the John Birch Society or many other groups. We believe many well-meaning conservatives are members of the JBS, but that if they buy all the talk of ‘Insiders’ running everything, they get a distorted view of political reality and their effectiveness is reduced accordingly. ‘Conspiracy’ theories are convenient and they answer many people’s cravings for total explanations. They just happen to be false.”
More importantly, Human Events allied itself with numerous prominent conservative authors and columnists who rejected the Birch Society as an extremist organization which injured the conservative movement.
Lastly, when you read ANY history of the postwar conservative movement in our country, there are always chapters devoted to the important contributions made by conservative publications. Nobody EVER mentions the JBS magazines (i.e. American Opinion, Review of the News, or its current The New American) in those histories because the JBS has had no discernible positive impact upon our country.
This is also a function of circulation. Obviously, a magazine or newspaper which has hundreds of thousands of subscribers has more impact than one with less than 15,000. As I have mentioned previously, conservative magazines and newspapers such as National Review or Human Events or the American Spectator and many others were able to attract as contributors the best and brightest and most respected and accomplished conservative minds of the 20th century. BY CONTRAST: The Birch Society rarely published anybody who rose above third-or-fourth tier in terms of the conservative movement's most respected and accomplished authors and intellectuals. Most JBS magazine contributors were totally unknown outside the orbit of the JBS itself. In fact, even most JBS members never bothered to subscribe to the magazines published by the JBS! I won't even go into the JBS contributors who eventually were dropped because of their bigotry (such as Westbrook Pegler and Revilo Oliver. BTW, after Oliver left the JBS, he wrote articles for Liberty Bell magazine -- which was published by the neo-nazi George P. Dietz!!) Ernie1241 (talk)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk)


I will reply to your comments in the order you presented them:

(1) Everything depends upon what you consider to be evidence of "socialism". I'm sure that you know that many conservative organizations produce annual surveys which score every country in the world in terms of their quality of life and their respect and protection for economic freedom and basic human rights. For example, Heritage Foundation publishes an Index of Economic Freedom. If you review their 2019 Index, the top ten countries of the world include several countries which you would describe as "socialist". My previous point was simply to bring attention to the fact that conservatives in the U.S. have been warning about our imminent demise and descent into tyranny (aka a "one-world socialist dictatorship") since the 1920's but all those doom-shaped views have never come to pass in the U.S. Also, I don't agree with your assumption that changes in political or cultural issues should always be categorized as "left wing" developments. Perhaps you regard the abolition of slavery as "left wing"? When our country was founded, the majority of adults were NOT eligible to vote. I suppose you consider expanding our voting population to be a "left-wing" development? The majority of Americans support many policies which, apparently, YOU consider to be "left-wing" positions -- such as on gun control or same-sex marriage or abortion rights, etc. But surely you are not going to claim that the majority of Americans are left-wing? Do you consider former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to be "left-wing"? How about the late US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia? They both recognized that reasonable restrictions upon gun ownership were entirely acceptable.
(2) My description of the "entire conservative movement" as rejecting the Birch Society was simply meant to express the fact that JBS critics included a huge swath of the conservative movement. Please QUOTE the people you mentioned in terms of their statements about the Birch Society.
What, for example, is their position about our civil rights movement. Do they all believe (along with the JBS) what the JBS told its members even in May 2008? Here is the JBS position as stated in the JBS Bulletin: "Just as the John Birch Society showed in the 1960's that the communists basically ran both the civil rights movement and the KKK, the strategy was nothing new." Do those folks you mentioned also believe (as the Birch Society declared) that our civil rights movement "served only Communist purposes"? Please QUOTE their supposed agreement with the JBS on that.
Do the folks you mentioned also explicitly reject every statement and conclusion made by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover---when he (or the FBI) declared that JBS assertions were total falsehoods? Do the folks you mentioned agree with the core ideology of the JBS which has always been that the majority of our political leaders during the 20th century (both Republicans and Democrats) were either Communists, Communist sympathizers or "agents" of the Communist Conspiracy?
(3) Are you saying that you and the Birch Society are the sole legitimate arbiters of what constitutes genuine conservatism? So, you agree with the JBS that Ronald Reagan was a "phony conservative"? And you disagree with Mrs. Robert Welch who criticized the new leadership of the JBS when they used the JBS magazine to savage Reagan after her husband died? You may contact me directly if you would like to respond further:

Ernie1241 (talk)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk)