Talk:John Birch Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Birch Society article.

Comments at the bottom, please.

---

Contents

[edit] Discussion

The neutral point of view which was here before seems to have been slightly tilted. RickK 02:27 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There's an edit war going on here between two anonymous users. I'm not going to weigh in, because I've never heard of the John Birch Society before. Anyway, one user calls the society anti-communist and even anti-minority, the other treats the page as an extension of the JBS home page. -- Tim Starling 02:39 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I am new to this encyclopedia but am not new to the John Birch Society. I am a life member and second generation member of the organization, having joined in 1974. I added this comment: "The John Birch Society has always been open to all races and religions." based on personal experience and knowlege of the many statements issued by the organization. I have also personally known many well respected black members in the Society as well as people of all races and a multitude of religions short of Jehovah's Witnesses. They are also welcome but I just haven't met any in the organization. -- Boyd Weeks, 1 Oct 2005

The anonymous user who states the John Birch Society (an organization which I have heard and know briefly about) I know is NOT a paleoconservative organization. Its ultraconservative. Most of the information in the JBS information page that states its a ultraconservative organization is the more correct form of the two editing pages. "Dr. Grant"

I am not the anonymous user. Just got here today. but the JBS, is anti-communist and is not antiminority. It has quite a few minorities in it.WHEELER 15:21, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They opposed the Civil Rights movement WHEELER. AndyL 16:02, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let's be careful about the accusations regarding the Civil Rights movement. I don't know about the John Birch Society (they seem more ultra-nationalist than ultra-conservative to me), but plenty of people and groups were for Civil Rights but against certain aspects. For example, the article on Barry Goldwater says Goldwater co-founded the Arizona NAACP and supported the Civil Rights act of 1957 and 1960. So he clearly supported the movement. But he's best remembered for opposing the Civil Rights act of 1964 because he believed it to be an inappropriate extension of federal power. Don't forget that though the ACLU supported the KKK in some ways (the ACLU believes even the KKK has a right to free speech), the ACLU did not "oppose the Civil Rights movement". - James
Some homework will help. I have several books and numerous pamphlets from the John Birch Society, published in the 1960s and 1970s, where the JBS opposed the Civil Rights Movement on the basis that it was a communist plot. JBS supported Goldwater, but Goldwater was not in the JBS. As for the ACLU, supporing legal rights of free speech for the KKK is nothing like opposing or supporting the KKK itself.--Cberlet 04:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yep, JBS was opposed to the Civil Rights Movement because it was riddled with communists and was a vast expansion of federal power.However the JBS is absolutly not antiminorty. They have many minority members, and abhor racism as unamerican. Robert Welch purged Revilo P. Oliver from the JBS in the early 1960s for being an antisemitic kook. See also The Neutralizers which is Robert Welch's pamphlet about about people who try to sow division along racial and enthnic lines. Klonimus 08:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation for revert

I reverted the changes by anonymous user 200.85.34.114. Most of the changes consisted of typos (turning quotation marks into question marks, for example), along with a change to the lead that made it ungrammatical and incoherent. The other change by 200.85.34.114 consists of a claim that Fred Schwarz denied that early "Birchers shared a common ideology and some overlapping membership" with Schwarz's organization. While it is clear that Schwarz has denied being personally affiliated with the JBS, I've been able to find no example of him denying that the two groups shared a common ideology (anti-Communism) and some overlapping membership. I've done a Google search of the entire Internet, a search of the Nexis news database, and a Google search of Schwarz's own website, and haven't found any instance in which he denies an overlap of members and ideology between his group and the Birchers. On a couple of occasions, he claimed that he didn't know much about the Birchers, but that's it. And one of his newsletters quotes (without attempting to refute) the following statement:

While the connection between the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade and the John Birch Society is apparently not direct, Fred Schwarz had been quoted as saying: 'You know, I sometimes get the notion (Robert Welch) follows me around the country signing up people after I have worked them up.' Not unappreciatively, Robert Welch has said, 'The Fred Schwarz schools have already done a superb job of providing this preliminary education.' [1]

This statement seems to support the article's claims. In order to accept the change made by 200.85.34.114, I would need to see some statement by Schwarz in which he expressly states that there was not shared membership or ideology with the JBS.

Sheldon Rampton 05:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For interested parties, the FBI HQ main file on the JBS is 62-104401 and consists of about 12,000 pages. J. Edgar Hoover or his top subordinates referred to the JBS in FBI memos and reports as "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible" and "lunatic fringe".

Unknown to most students of the JBS is the fact that Robert Welch blamed Fred Schwarz for the controversy that erupted over his unpublished manuscript entitled, "The Politician". It described President Eisenhower as a "conscious, dedicated agent" of the Communist conspiracy. According to Welch, an employee of Schwarz provided a copy of "The Politician" to a Chicago newspaperman (Jack Mabley) and it was Mabley's articles in the Chicago Daily News (published at the time the GOP Convention was in Chicago during July 1960) which triggered the controversy over Welch's comments.

Anyone wishing additional information may contact me at Ernie1241@aol.com.

In addition, I have posted a 60-page JBS Report at: http://birchers.blogspot.com/

It is based primarily upon FBI files and documents. Chapter titles are as follows:

1. FBI Evaluations of Robert Welch and the John Birch Society

2. FBI vs. JBS on Internal Security Status of the U.S.

3. FBI vs. JBS on Communist Infiltration of Clergy and Religious Institutions

4. FBI vs. JBS on Communists in the Department of Health, Education & Welfare

5. FBI vs. JBS on Dr. Harry A. Overstreet as a Communist sympathizer or dupe

6. FBI vs. JBS on civil rights movement [Alan Stang's 1965 book It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights published by the Birch Society; and Highlander Folk School described by the JBS as a "Communist Training School".]

7. FBI vs. JBS on Persons JBS Claims To Be “Experts” on Communism.

In addition, I recently completed an 11-page report on former FBI Special Agent Dan Smoot which discusses subjects raised by the Birch Society. The Smoot report is available at: http://dan-smoot.blogspot.com/

[edit] The JBS supports "immigration reform"

In an early paragraph the article mentions that the Birch Society supports "immigration reform." That term strikes me as unfortunate, since it is positive and bland without describing any particular viewpoint or direction. Anyone but a crank would presumably support "reform."

One can fairly well guess that the Birch Society would like to raise barriers against immigration in general, lowering them only for refugees from oppressions that they choose to recognize. However, I'd rather read what someone has actually found out, not merely guessed.

Best regards, David S.

P.S.: Very definitely, the Birch Society opposed Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s. More than that, they attacked the legitimacy of the movement itself, or tried to. Birch Society bulletins proclaimed that most "American Negroes" didn't want trouble, were content with slow, peaceful progress, and that the Civil Rights movement had been instigated by "the Communist Conspiracy" and was under its control. Much play was given to a photograph purporting to show Dr. Martin Luther King at a "Communist training school"--this image was enlarged and put up on numerous billboards especially across the South.


[tin foil hat] damn moonbats [/tin foil hat]

[edit] Anonymous vandalism

An anonymous person using the prefix 63.134.129.xxx continues to insert POV and factually false information into this article (not to mention messing up grammar and adding typos). Does anyone else want to join in seeking an attempt to have this person banned for 30 days?--Cberlet 17:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV - disputing Nuetral Point of View

[edit] Examples of objectionable phrases I think ought to be edited:

"Birchers also elaborate on earlier Illuminati Freemason conspiracy theories,"

"Many mainstream journalists and politicians also view the JBS as an extremist organization of conspiracy theorists" sounds one-sided (bias) and is too general. Please be specific.

"are members of the so called "

"more disaffected with the "Birchers" after Welch" -- improper name for members of the JBS. Perhaps "with the Society" would be better.

"more pragmatic members realized that the group's conspiracism..." -- perhaps replace "realized" with "felt that"?

--65.19.220.219 01:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I agree these phrases are POV and should be edited.--Cberlet 03:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss changes

The attempt to insert POV and factually dubious material is not appropriate. If the anonymous users who insist on reverting the page without discussion continue, I will seek to have this page locked down until they are willing to enter into a discussion.--Cberlet 22:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone want to disuss changes in the text? So far I have one response from Ernie who wants to add an external link. Seems reasonable. Does anyone want to contest the membership figures?--Cberlet 13:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mangled Article

As of this comment this article is mangled fairly badly, with spelling errors and a repeated "block" of text.

OK, it was mangled. hope I fixed some things. Still could use some editing.--Cberlet 03:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We don't usually put "The" on the front of organisation names: witness Conservative Party, Republican Party, Society of Friends. The only exception is for book movie and song titles, e.g The Commitments. We should move this back. DJ Clayworth 19:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The name change does not conform to Wiki style, it should be changed back to conform.--Cberlet 19:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I've moved it back. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

To the anon who made recent changes. Some of the things you wrote are not really neutral enough for Wikipedia. To refer to the founders of the JBS as "patriotic and public spirited" implies a level of approval that we should not be giving. It is enough to say that they claimed to be patriotic and public spirited, because that is undeniably true. Otherwise someone with a different point of view could (reasonably) change the description of them to something else. Please make sure we stay neutral. DJ Clayworth 16:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I've protected this page until the anon IPs get fed up or come to this page with their concerns. However, if any of the other editors wants to edit it, just drop me a line and I'll unprotect. If I don't hear from any of you, I'll unprotect in a day or two. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:23, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Always room for improvement

The JBS has always been a controversial group, and there is no doubt that some descriptions of the group have been biased against it. But I thought we had a relatively even-handed treatment here. There is always room for improvement, so let's hope the anonymous editors join us here for a discussion.--Cberlet 18:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[Copied from above - see note about new discussions at bottom of page]--Cberlet 15:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep, JBS was opposed to the Civil Rights Movement because it was riddled with communists and was a vast expansion of federal power.However the JBS is absolutly not antiminorty. They have many minority members, and abhor racism as unamerican. Robert Welch purged Revilo P. Oliver from the JBS in the early 1960s for being an antisemitic kook. See also The Neutralizers which is Robert Welch's pamphlet about about people who try to sow division along racial and enthnic lines. Klonimus 08:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
It is true that many liberal groups tended to portray the JBS unfairly, and the JBS had an official line against racism and antisemitism. At the same time, the JBS contunually circulated book lists that promoted old antisemitic conspiracy theories, and their coverage of the civil rights movement was often riddled with a soft, patronizing form of white supremacy. To argue that the "Civil Rights Movement...was riddled with communists," is POV. To suggest we add to the text: "The JBS was opposed to the Civil Rights Movement because it claimed it was riddled with communists; and it also objected to civil rights laws as a vast expansion of federal power." But then it would be fair to add that state's rights has often been used as an excuse for white racism, and that to argue that there would not have been a Civil Rights movement without manipulation by communists tends to dismiss the intellect and agency of Black people, and to suggest that Blacks in the U.S. in the 1960s were otherwise happy campers.--Cberlet 15:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't writing for inclusion in the article. I have some family members in california who are old line birchers. Virtually impossible to talk to them about history or politics without the discussion quickly going off the rails. "The JBS was opposed to the Civil Rights Movement because it claimed it was riddled with communists; and it also objected to civil rights laws as a vast expansion of federal power." Is I think a good NPOV text.
However communists and people influenced by communism have always played important roles in pre-1960s civil rights activities. The CP-USA was quite popular among urban blacks in the 1930s. See Richard Wright, and Paul Robeson as examples. The best way to think of it I think, is that the JBS came to the same conclusions as racist anti-civil rights people, but they did so with different logic. However the JBS has always been a magnet for paranoid kooks and kookery, starting with Robert Welch himself.

[edit] New category?

Would this be suitable for "U.S. history of anti-Communism" category?

Totally a YES!--Cberlet 18:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Little has been said about Phyllis Schlafly, ultra-conservative writer and chief spokesperson for anti-ERA forces. Schlafly, originally a member in good standing of the JBS according to Welsh, later denied any affliation with the organization despite the similarities in political and social beliefs. Why would a woman who enjoyed the support of JBS choose to disassociate herself?

[edit] re-write

I reverted a major re-write by an unregistered user. This article is the product of consensus by many editors. Please don't change the whole thing without explanation or discussion. Thanks, -Willmcw 17:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

This guy isn't going to stop... he's been doing this for months. If you know how to go about getting him banned, I will support it. Even though I just came in this article originally to fix a link, heh. --W.marsh 04:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I reverted it, after comparing the two versions. There's a heavy (to my eye) POV in the anon version, for example in the first-paragraph implication that collectivism is a "threat" -- that kind of thing has to be sourced, and Wikipedia takes no sides. Antandrus (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Some of the information in the rewrite could be made into useful text, but the obvious POV promotion of the JBS gets in the way. I hope the pro-JBS folks pushing for the re-write text actually come to this talk page and disuss some of the additions, and how to go about properly citing sources.--Cberlet 11:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eisenhower

It is not quite true that Dwight Eisenhower was described as a “conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy.” Welsh said he was either that or a 'damn fool'.

I haven't found the whole quote, but Welch didn't just toss that off as an aside. He spent many words describing Eisenhower as a front man for the Communist Party, under the control of his brother Milton, etc. [2] -Willmcw 20:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
"Those John Birchers told us that the Communists were gonna "take over the world", huh. BUT GODDAMMIT IF THEM KOOKS WEREN'T RIGHT!!!" - Rev. Ivan Stang


Willmcw's position regarding what Robert Welch wrote in The Politician is gravely flawed.

PREFACE:

First, by way of preface, let's begin with a comment made by Robert Welch in The Politician, Chapter 16, which discusses Eisenhower "associates and appointments". (pages 227-228 of the unpublished version.)

Even Welch acknowledges the cumulative effect of all his statements, innuendos, and insinuations in Chapter 16:

"So we appear to be calling almost everybody a Communist, merely because we have no reason to be mentioning the good men in Washington, in all branches of the government, who have no Communist sympathies whatever."

As we keep that in mind, let's also remember that the title of the next chapter clarifies Welch's intent with respect to the thrust of his argument as contained in the first 16 chapters.

Chapter 17 is entitled: "The Word Is Treason".

Finally, let's keep in mind Welch's admission to his National Council in January 1960, that, in his scheme of things, "it makes no practical difference" to distinguish between

(a) "an actual Communist" (b) "a Communist sympathizer" (c) "a Communist agent"

With that preface in mind, now let's consider how Welch describes President Eisenhower. First, let us quickly dispose of the falsehood that Welch proposed a benign interpretation of Ike's motives. On page 278 of The Politician, Welch summarizes the only two possible interpretations from his perspective:

"The role he has played, as described in all the pages above, would fit just as well into one theory as the other; that he is a mere stooge, or that he is Communist assigned the specific job of being a political front man."

On page 279, Welch discusses the 3 stages by which Communists came to control the U.S. Presidency. In stages 1 and 2, FDR and Truman were "used" by Communists. In Truman's case, according to Welch, he was used "with his knowledge and acquiescence, as the price he consciously paid for their making him President."

Then, with respect to Ike,

"In the third stage the Communists have installed in the Presidency a man who, for whatever reasons, appears intentionally to be carrying forward Communist aims...With regard to this third man, Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason." ... [See the original formulation of this comment from the unpublished version of The Politician at the end of this summary.]

There are many other passages in both the published and unpublished versions of The Politician wherein Welch makes clear that he considered Eisenhower a traitor. Below I quote a few examples. I have used bold type on certain portions to emphasize how Welch characterized Eisenhower.

"In my opinion the chances are very strong that Milton Eisenhower is actually Dwight Eisenhower's superior and boss within the Communist Party." [The Politician, unpublished version, page 210]

OVERALL SUMMARY OF EISENHOWER APPOINTMENTS AND ASSOCIATES

"We think that an objective survey of Eisenhower's associates and appointments shows clever Communist brains, aided by willing Communist hands, always at work to give the Communists more power, and to weaken the anti-Communist resistance." [Politician, unpublished version, page 239]

In discussing Eisenhower's appointment of Philip C. Jessup, Robert Welch refers to Ike as "he and his fellow Communists" [Politician, unpublished version, page 214]

In discussing Eisenhower's appointment of James B. Conant, Robert Welch refers to "the appointment of Conant...made by a Communist President..." [Politician, unpublished version, page 221]

"For Eisenhower and his Communist bosses and their pro-Communist appointees are gradually taking over our whole government right under the noses of the American people. [Politician, unpublished version, page 238-239]

Welch refers to Eisenhower's actions in Europe which "show his sympathies with the Communist cause and friendship for the Kremlin tyrants..." [Politician, unpublished version, page 263]

"For the sake of honesty, however, I want to confess here my own conviction that Eisenhower's motivation is more ideological than opportunistic. Or, to put it bluntly, I personally think that he has been sympathetic to ultimate Communist aims, realistically willing to use Communist means to help them achieve their goals, knowingly accepting and abiding by Communist orders, and consciously serving the Communist conspiracy for all of his adult life." [Politician, unpublished version, page 266]

"But my firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt." [Politician, unpublished version, page 267]

"In the third stage, in my own firm opinion, the Communists have one of their own actually in the Presidency. For this third man, Eisenhower, there is only one possible word to describe his purposes and his actions. That word is treason." [Politician, unpublished version, page 268].

For more details, contact: Ernie1241@aol.com

I appreciate the input, but I don't see how my interpretation of Welch's comments is "gravely flawed". I'd say that I interpreted them the same way that Ernie1241 does: that he says Eisenhower sought to support communist goals in conjunction with his brother. I think we both agree that Welch did not mean to say that Eisenhower was merely a "damn fool". -Willmcw 08:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

12/13/05 Ernie1241 sez: Sorry--I thought you were arguing that Welch never referred to Ike as a Communist. Mea culpa.

[edit] NPOV tag

I just removed the {{NPOV}} tag; it really shouldn't be there unless there is an ongoing NPOV dispute under discussion, and it was put in by the same anon that blanked comments on this talk page a couple weeks ago (and discussed nothing). I also removed a bogus {{protected}} tag; the article is not protected. Antandrus (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-immigration or Anti-reform?

There's currently a line that says

It is also anti-globalization and anti-immigration reform.

with anti-immigration as a link. If the point of the phrase is that they're opposed to immigration reform, then the link is in the wrong context. If the claim is that they are opposed to immigration (and therefore that the link makes sense), then the word reform is extraneous and misleading. Which is it?

[edit] Welch

Welch retired from the candy business and had an office in Belmont, MA when he went to Indianapolis to found the JBS. The JBS then set up offices in Belmont, MA. No conflict with Welch bio page.--Cberlet 02:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birchers

I reverted these additions to the list of Birchers:

  • ((Congressman Steve Simms ))
  • ((Congressman John Schmitz ))
  • ((Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald))
  • ((Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth Hage))
  • ((John Wayne))
  • ((Walter Brennen- "Grandpa" on the "Real McCoys"))
  • ((Meldrin Thompson- FormerGovernor of New Hampshire))
  • ((Robert Welch- President of Welch's Candy company))

Robert Stoddard William J. Grede Floyd Paxton Nelson Bunker Hunt Tom Anderson (syndicated Journalist) Talyor Caldwell (author) G. Edward Griffin (author) Dr. Medford Evans, author of The Secret War for the A-Bomb, General Andrew Gatsis General Edwin Shull General Robert Lee Scott (author of "God is my Co-pilot" Professor E. Merrill Root, the great poet and essayist,

At the least this needs to be edited for style; I think it's obvious, too, that every single name must be verified. We can't just run around saying so-and-so is a Bircher without a source. John Reid 21:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, the list of so-called "notable" Birchers seems to contain a lot of redlinks. Perhaps the JBS fans need to write some articles. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is a Birch Society member?

7/13/06 by Ernie1241@aol.com

John Reid raises a valid point about verifying who actually is a JBS member.

With respect to the persons listed above, the following were, at various times, members of the Birch Society National Council: Tom Anderson, William J. Grede, Nelson Bunker Hunt, Floyd Paxton, John Schmitz, Robert W. Stoddard, Meldrim Thomson Jr.

Medford Evans was a JBS Coordinator in Texas/Louisiana. At one time, G. Edward Griffin was a JBS Coordinator in California and one of only four persons authorized as an official spokesperson for the JBS. Taylor Caldwell and E. Merrill Root were self-acknowledged JBS members and they both wrote for the JBS magazine, American Opinion.

Actors John Wayne, Adolphe Menjou, Ward Bond, and Walter Brennan were all members of the JBS but they seem to have terminated their membership rather quickly as they became more aware of the premises upon which Birch dogma was based. Adolphe Menjou was briefly a JBS National Council member.

In the period from the 1930's thru 1950's liberals innocently joined what they later discovered were organizations infiltrated and/or controlled by Communists and Communist sympathizers. They then withdrew from those organizations or fought to defeat the Communists. Similarly, many conservatives joined the Birch Society but realized fairly quickly that the JBS was not a genuinely conservative group. Phyllis Schlafly and her husband, Fred, also fall into this category.

Over the years, the Birch Society also experienced severe attrition because of major internal disputes. Prominent JBS National Council members and Coordinators have often resigned with a blast at JBS founder Robert Welch or subsequent JBS leadership. For example: National Council members Slobodan Draskovich, Revilo P. Oliver, Adolphe Menjou and in later years, Joseph Maurer--a 40+ year member as well as JBS Coordinator Bryton Barron, a former State Department Historian.

In many instances, however, it is not known (for certain) whether or not a person actually joined the Birch Society. However, there is data to reflect that persons endorsed the JBS. See, for example, the 1963 Report of the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities which contains a listing of endorsers nationwide -- which includes numerous prominent personalities.

[edit] Onward NPOV soldiers

I'm a little disconcerted by the POV in this article. It seems reasonably balanced at some points, but at others it feels like a pamphlet for the John Birch Society. Most other comparable movements have a criticism section, whereas this one does not. I would say that a spot checking over the history here shows that most users have done a good job expanding and balancing this article. I'm not suggesting that criticisms have been suppressed or removed, merely that we seem to be missing some. I noticed some criticisms did exist within the article, but they were rather embedded. I guess I'd like to see some more directed criticisms and scale down some of the overly positive language, but I don't want to do a major article overhaul without consulting a few people interested/knowledgable in the matter.

Good point, and this page faces constant attempts to insert bias that favors the group. The most recent edit is a perfect example. See: this version--Cberlet 03:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page up for deletion

Revolution within the form is up for deletion. I ask for a vote for transwiki. Thanks. WHEELER 00:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] conspiracies

The JBS claims that collectivist conspiracies throughout the world have significantly shaped history, and it seeks to expose and eliminate their claimed control in government in the modern era. This degree of conspiracism has isolated the Society from many other conservative groups. This is a pretty bold statement as such, because it can be explained as pejorative against the JBS. What exactly does JBS think is the conspiracy? If it is actually a term the Birchers have used, it needs explaining what -they- think about what the term means. For all I know, as currently stated, the Birchers might as well believe in UFOs or aliens... Intangible 17:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The JBS frequently (and for 45 years) has used the term "conspiracy" to describe its claims about power and control over society by elites. Please do some homework before posting this type of misplaced criticism.--Cberlet 13:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thus it needs explaining what the JBS think about what the term "conspiracy" means. There needs to be a definition given then in the start of the article. Intangible 00:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me, but are you serious? Much of the entry discusses the specifics of the JBS view of the alleged conpiracy -- in detail.--Cberlet 02:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
So how should I read it then? The work of the UN is pretty overt for example, likewise you can easily obtain a copy of the NAFTA agreements. Thus the "conspirators" are easily identifiable too: those are then the "collectivist" politicians and bureaucrats that work together in a "sinister plot" to produce these agreements. But if these people are so readily identifiable, you can't really talk about conspiracism or conspiracy theories anymore, can you? Intangible 21:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This page tries to represent the views of the JBS in an NPOV way, and to represent the views of critics of the JBS in an NPOV way. If you don't understand what the JBS means when it claims that the world is run by secret conspiracies, please feel free to write them a letter.--Cberlet 21:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Then I suggest using only direct quotations from the JBS and its opponents. "This degree of conspiracism" is not NPOV, you can agree with the definitions set forth in the conspiracism article or not. Intangible 22:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

<------The JBS already has a website. The critics have already published their books and articles. Your suggestion defeats the entire purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to summarize.--Cberlet 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver

Please discuss calling Oliver a founder of the JBS and calling him a fascist. I have restored the NPOV text:

Welch was the founder of the JBS, not Oliver.--Cberlet 18:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

7/13/06 by Ernie1241@aol.com:

The discussion about Revilo P. Oliver needs revision. I have copies of 1966 letters between Oliver and Robert Welch which indicate that Oliver's membership was not "revoked". Oliver resigned. In fact, Welch travelled to Oliver's home in Urbana IL to resolve their differences because Welch wanted Oliver to remain in the JBS. Keep in mind that Welch once described Oliver as "perhaps the world's greatest living scholar" and didn't want to lose him.

After he left the JBS, Oliver associated himself with blatantly anti-semitic and neo-nazi organizations and publications. His writings are now preserved and made available on Kevin Strom's National Vanguard website.

See the following:

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/index.html and

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Audio/Audio.html

With respect to Revilo Oliver being described as a "fascist" -- I recommend a careful reading of Oliver's many articles published in Liberty Bell magazine. Below is an excerpt from a September 1973 article that gives Oliver's interpretation of the "Mass Sedition Trial" of the 1940's:

You may read the entire article at: http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/No_Escape.html

"The Sedition Trial in 1944 made it obvious, and indubitable to anyone willing to think critically about it, that the United States had been surreptitiously captured by the Jews and their Communist barbarians. At that time, the Americans, or a tiny but determined minority of them, amounting perhaps to one-tenth of one percent of the population, could have retaken their country. Instead, for forty-four years, the Americans watched in idiotic apathy the dismantling of their industry, the confiscation of money and its replacement by trading stamps of no intrinsic value, the sabotage and defilement of their culture, the use of their schools to abort children's minds and destroy innate character, their ever increasing subjugation to a ruthless bureaucracy, the gradual elimination of every right their ancestors had enjoyed as freemen, and the wholesale importation into their country of both anthropoid garbage and shrewd racial enemies by the Judaeo-Communist conspiracy. (3)

(3. One of the most important articles ever published in Liberty Bell is Ivor Benson's "The Immigration Riddle Unwrapped" in the issue for April 1988, which makes it clear that the importation of niggers and wogs into Britain was organized and financed by a conspiracy. It is clear that the Jews, having found it impractical to carry out the plan to exterminate all Germans, which was prematurely announced by Kaufmann in Germany Must Perish! (reprint available from Liberty Bell Publications, $4.00 + postage), have resorted to the more gradual method of exterminating the Aryans in all of their countries by running in hordes of sub-humans and eventually dissolving Aryan blood in a fetid mass of mindless mongrels. Aryans, their minds rotted by Christianity, grin idiotically as they see prepared the biological graves to which their children are destined. The present influx of Chinese and Japanese, who are buying up large parts of the United States and Canada, is, of course, an entirely different phenomenon. They belong to a highly intelligent and civilized race, and they, of course, feel only contempt for the Aryan idiots who have, in effect, given away their property by sabotaging their own industrial capacity; they will not debase their own blood by marrying Aryan fools. The influx of Mongolians is encouraged by the Jews, since it hastens the liquidation of the Aryan nation; what will happen when the interests of the two intelligent races no longer coincide is anyone's guess.)"

[edit] What is an "Americanist"?

In the "History" section, the third paragraph, the second sentence, the word "Americanists" is used. I have never seen this word before. Is it a JBS idea? or a typo that should read "Americans"? If not a typo but a JBS idea, then could someone please add something explaining this concept? Thanks! Dveej 16:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Deej, Americanist is an actual term and even though it is merely a tag on Wikipedia, it has been a term used by those who hold to a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and other uniquely American conservative politcal thought. Jtpaladin 17:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messy, POV article

See above for all the whatnot.

The weird, clearly biased text gave me the decision to tag the templates. I know that they are (somewhat) messed up, but the article could be kept clean and NPOV. hello, i'm a member | talk to me!

[edit] Regarding the Point of View, and editing of the page

I agree that the page regarding the Birch Society is fair and evenhanded at some points, and at others, it seems that it is highly favoring the view of the Society. I have tried to make some modifications which I think would have made the page more informative (for example, I have elaborated on the concept of Americanism, [by the way, I hope that helps Dveej!), and less biased, but what I have done, is clearly not enough. If there is any bias seen in the page, I say don't complain or tag it; I say "Fix it!" Take the information given (however biased it is), and change it to the formal third person tone of the Wikipedia. I also believe that, if information is still unclear, then do some third party research on the subject/topic. And to finally air my grieveances on a personal note; I am a member of the JBS, and it pains me to see that this article is biased. If it is, it will only deter people from taking an interest in the JBS. So, I implore those of you (probably members) who have (most likely unwittingly) made some parts of the article (to quote the Onward NPOV Soldiers post) like "a pamphlet for the John Birch Society", not to make mistakes like that anymore. I hope that what I have said has given some constructive criticism, Thank you! -- Unregistered User Matthias

The material on Americanism needs to be directly cited to JBS publications, not be a personal essay without cites.--Cberlet 18:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The POV I see is actually against JBS. There isn't much referenced in the article (which needs to be changed), but most of it appears to have come from one source: publiceye.org. 66.109.99.18 22:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Some academic references would indeed be nice. Intangible 23:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Done.--Cberlet 01:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a further reading section. Quotes from peer-reviewed journal articles are still welcome. Intangible 16:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Peer review is not a requirement for use or citation in Wikiepdia articles. Grupp, Hardisty, and Moore are academic authors.--Cberlet 15:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Membership in the JBS

I removed references to Steve Symms, Helen Chenoweth, and Ron Paul being members of the JBS. All have spoken in support of the organization, but I can find no evidence that any were actual members. MKilMKil

[edit] Possible POV issue?

Is calling Political Research Associates a "leftist watchdog group" a POV issue? I propose "liberal" may be a less loaded term. Vulpin 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Vulpin Vulpin 06:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

PRA describes itself as "progressive," not liberal. Please do not simply paste in POV descriptions.--Cberlet 21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Public Eye itself is a biased source, so the question is moot. Yakuman 22:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Material from the Public Eye is regularly used on Wikipedia as a reliable source. Please do not delete again.--Cberlet 02:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with using the PRA quote about the JBS here. To PRA's credit, this description of Welch is accurate:
[He believed that] "both the US and Soviet governments are controlled by the same furtive conspiratorial cabal of internationalists, greedy bankers, and corrupt politicians. If left unexposed, the traitors inside the US government would betray the country's sovereignty to the United Nations for a collectivist New World Order managed by a 'one-world socialist government.'"'
That description is also a fairly accurate characterization of the JBS worldview today, except that there's no USSR anymore, and (amazingly!) the JBS is even nuttier than one might guess from the PRA quote. In fact, the JBS claims that "the conspiracy" controls not just the world's governments and banks, but also the media, and they believe that the conspiracy has existed since the late 18th century, and that it even threatened the lives of Presidents Washington and Adams.
However, the PRA is a lot like a stopped clock: as they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That is about how often the PRA is right. They're right about the JBS, and they're right about leftist nutcase Lyndon LaRouche. But the PRA's "Public Eye" web site is mostly dedicated to outrageous bashing of conservative Christians. Bizarrely, falsely and hypocritically, they characterize conservative Christians (which, by their standards, means most Christians) as "bigots" who seek "social oppression" and "undermine human rights." Their Executive Director, Katherine Ragsdale, used to be chairman of the board of the extreme pro-abortion Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which supports partial-birth abortion, and which opposes Informed-Consent laws that empower pregnant women with real choices.
Anyone who thinks the PRA is a "reliable source" must have blinders on. Most of their material ranges from severly biased to just plain dishonest. "Leftist" is a very understated descriptive term for the PRA. "Radical leftist" would be more accurate. The PRA and the JBS are both thoroughly unreliable soruces of information.
That said, however, as long as the quote from PRA's web site about the JBS is an accurate description of the JBS, I see no need for a digression in this article about the failings of the PRA. NCdave 17:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Cberlet, I was concerned with the fact that PRA describes itself as liberal, while the entry mentioning it in the JBS caled them "leftist," a very loaded term (to my thinking). However, as the reference was removed, my concern over that particular POV issue has been laid to rest. Thanks to everyone for their comments in response to mine. Vulpin 18:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

If some editors thing the article is POV in favour of the JBS, and others that it is POV against the JBS, wouldn't that be reason enough to drop the NPOv-tag? Replacing with a cleanup-tag, maybe?

Otherwise please list specific points which are so heavily POV, that the tag has to remain in the article.

Pjacobi 19:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generic Term For JBS Views/Article Length

This article is getting a little long. Does anyone think something should be done? I was going to add something on American Opinion Book Services, but maybe there should be a JBS publications page. Would anyone object to having a "Criticisms" section on this page and a link to JBS publications (The New American, AOBS, &c.)? (I know, I know, do I really need to ask that question?) "Criticisms" is a common section in WP articles of this type.

"Americanist" at the beginning of the article currently redirects to the "Americanism" disambig page, but the "Americanist" in this article appears to refer to "American Exceptionalism" rather than either "Americanism". Who wants to play Solomon and figure out another general term for the Society's views at the beginning of the article. "American Exceptionalist" is awkward, so I won't make that edit. Can we fairly and accurately describe the JBS' views as some form of U.S. conservatism?

.s

X ile 23:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I object. I think creating a criticism section is a failure of editing. A good encyclopedia melds the information into a coherent whole.--Cberlet 01:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I knew it wouldn't take long to get an objection. That's a fair objection, too. I was just noting that it's common on this encyclopedia and that it was a way to trim the article length. Maybe there's an article name that would encompass all the publications (pro, con, and other) or maybe something else can be moved into another article. Any thoughts?

.s

X ile 07:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Talk

Well, considering that members of the JBS actually do call themselves, Americanists, I think the article in that regard is fine. In fact, I think an expansion of the info in the Americanst section sorely needs more content. As for a criticism page, I garee with Cberlet that a good article articulates criticism within the body of the article and does not need a separate section. Also, the section that gives so much attention to a 1950's book called "The Politician" (I mentioned this in another discussion topic in this page) is given far too much analysis considering how very little to none this book plays in the function, role, history, or basis for the JBS. So, criticism in this subject exists and a separate section is unncessary unless it is for the book, "The Politician". Jtpaladin 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basic analysis of the article

Let me say that this is a decent and relatively fair article. I was actually expecting to find a real mess considering some of the other articles I've come across in Wikipedia but this seems well put together. I'll read it a bit closer in a final analysis to see if anything could be added or modified in an effort to make the article better, however I did think that perhaps the over-analysis of the book, "The Politician" doesn't really add much to the article and perhaps better deserves its' own page. That book would be relevant if the formation of the JBS somehow hinged on it but it was written years before the JBS came into existence and holds no prominent position within the JBS. In fact, it was really just a long letter written by Robert Welch and given to close associates and friends (contrary to some claims made otherwise by his opponents) and then modified to become a book. It was not a founding document of the JBS and giving a 1950's book such a prominent role in the main article does little to give the reader a better understanding of the JBS. It also did nothing to promote membership to the JBS or even to discount the organzation. Again, it's merely the writing of one man, who has been dead since 1985, had serious issues with Eisenhower, who he himself campaigned for president as a conservative but after his election played the role of an "Establishment Liberal". The Welch book was pretty brazen (ignoring the enormous amount of footnoting) at a time when Eisenhower was revered as a great hero but now with much more information coming to light regarding his role in "Operation: Keelhaul" and other WWII decisions[3] and presidential matters, Eisenhower is not held in the same esteem to which the general consensus was at the time. I have spoken with JBS members who give the book little to no value as anything beyond a claim by Robert Welch and his personal opinions. A number of the members I've spoken to state that they haven't even read the book. The JBS is an organization that is not in some sort of solidarity regarding quite a few things other than being struct adherents to the U.S. Constitution.

The only things I removed were in the "See Also" section. The first item was "reactionary". This term does not in any way describe the JBS. It is actually a term that I have only found applied by communist-front groups to attack the JBS. Reactionary suggests that the subject is attempting to radically change what is the normal state of being of the main item. The JBS does not fit that description since it is essentially a conservative educational group that is as harsh on Republicans as it is on Democrats. Also I removed from that same section, "Separation of church and state". The argument of church and state would not enhance anyone's understanding of the JBS. As the Founding Fathers agreed, no such separation exists (setting aside Jefferson's passing comment on a related issue) and (considering that various original States had their own official Christian faith and the use of Judeo-Christian imagies and devices utilized in such blatant manner, would only bring to question an issue that is really not relevant to this article. If someone really feels that the article would benefit by restoring this "See Also" link on that item, I have no objection to retaining it but it still wouldn't help the reader better under the JBS. Jtpaladin 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The claim that "Reactionary suggests that the subject is attempting to radically change what is the normal state of being of the main item. The JBS does not fit that description since it is essentially a conservative educational group that is as harsh on Republicans" is OR and POV. Many scholars call the group reactionary. I observe that the book Other Losses is widely considered to be linked to the Holocaust Revisionism movement. The claims about "Separation of church and state" are right-wing POV and no not reflect the majority view on the subject. All the edits are highly POV, no matter how polite the post above.--Cberlet 16:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Birch_Society_511f.html"