Posted on 11/23/2013 3:19:50 AM PST by defeat_the_dem_igods
Conner contends that today's tea party is the modern-day rebirth of the John Birch Society. They share a worldview, she says. The same paranoid distrust of government. The same desire to protect the rich. The same cruel streak that blames the poor for their poverty and seeks to deny government help on that basis. The same willingness to believe all manner of bizarre claims against political leaders they don't like.
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
I explicitly answered that question in my lengthy critique of Metapedia’s article. See item #6. In addition, my homepage which describes my research (which you read and quoted from) contains a similar explanation.
Because you have a severe reading comprehension problem, I will briefly summarize again:
The “motivation” of my research was based upon my discovery that nobody had previously made any FOIA request to the FBI on Robert Welch, the JBS, or the assertions which they made. As a result, I realized that I was in a unique position to advance knowledge about what our nation’s primary internal security agency thought about right-wing extremist groups like the JBS. In addition, anybody familiar with JBS ideology knows that the JBS has written about literally hundreds of subject matters in its formative years. During all those years (and even currently) the JBS has ALWAYS recommended Hoover’s FBI as our nation’s most knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative source of FACTUAL information about internal security matters generally and about the communist movement in the U.S. in particular. So, obviously, discovering what FBI investigative files revealed regarding JBS assertions and conclusions was extraordinarily important since the JBS did not dispute that the FBI was a reliable source.
I did not post any “false statements about (my) own history”. I made an honest mistake about a date — that’s all. Why don’t you think about this for one second ok? What advantage or benefit would presenting such a minor mistake in dating have for me? Does it change ANYTHING which is materially significant. The REAL issue was what was originally raised BY YOU in your message when you QUOTED from the Metapedia article — i.e. what were my political values and beliefs when I was a young man? I answered that question honestly and truthfully. The date mistake has NO BEARING upon my political beliefs and values. That was the original “POINT” — my beliefs and values — not the date when I first voted. So get over it! Have YOU never made a mistake in a date from 50+ years ago??
If you agree that the “other writers” wrote “anti-Semitic nonsense” — then WHY did you QUOTE from THEIR article as though it represented honest and truthful information about ME?
Again, in answer to your last paragraph, my “motivation” was to share what I discovered in FBI investigative files (released for the FIRST time) which, incidentally, includes data from other independent sources—ALSO recommended by the JBS—such as military intelligence (G-2, ONI, OSI), the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, various state un-American activities committees as well as other sources such as numerous informants inside legitimate and subversive organizations.
I truly do not understand your point. I WAS a teenager during a portion of the 1950’s. I was born in April 1945. So, obviously, I was a teenager starting in 1958.
I admitted my dating error after you pointed out that the law was changed in the 1970’s with respect to lowering the voting age. I honestly thought I voted in the 1964 election...it was a simple but honest mistake. Think about it for a moment. There is no advantage or benefit to me that derives from whether or not my first vote was 1964 or 1966.
I can provide you with copies of letters-to-the-editor and copies of articles which I wrote as a TEENAGER which reveal my CONSERVATIVE values and political sentiments. THAT is what is important, isn’t it? Because it falsifies the stupid comment by Metapedia (QUOTED BY YOU) that I “grew up liberal..if not radical” THAT was what originally produced your question — wasn’t it?
I want to note for the record that you conveniently ignored the substance of my first reply — in which I pointed out that you DELIBERATELY LIED when you claimed that I never answered your questions.
I listed and quoted each and every question you asked me.
I then provided the message number in which I answered your “questions” — or I should say nasty insinuations.
Significantly, you do not dispute the record here which ANYBODY can go back to verify, i.e. I did answer your questions and concerns.
Since you do not even have the decency to acknowledge the obvious fact that I answered each and every one of your insinuations and “questions” — why should anybody care about your unkind and untrue comments about me?
Here are some MORE examples of my political beliefs and values — which, obviously, falsify the insinuations made by Metapedia and by you:
1. I responded to an article in the September 1965 issue of the ultra-liberal magazine, The Progressive. I challenged their position that we should not do anything about the North Vietnamese attempt to takeover South Vietnam. You can see a snippet of my letter below — the final sentence of which gives you an idea of my position (although in later years, like most Americans, I became a critic of our Vietnam policy).
2. In April 1967 I wrote a lengthy critique of an article published in a very liberal southern California newsletter. My critique was published by the editor of that newsletter who was a journalism professor at a southern California State College. My critique was captioned “Reader Rebuts Blue Book Revisited” — referring to the professor’s article about the Birch Society’s Blue Book. At the beginning of my critique I wrote:
“From the outset there is an attempt on your part to link Birchism with fascism or nazism. Asserting that such a comparison is ‘inevitable’, you conclude that ‘whether one determines that the Society is fascistic or not is ultimately only a case of semantic hedging’. This is a remarkably flippant attitude—all too familiar to anyone who has read the pious qualifiers in rightist literature, which are added to near libelous comments about liberals.”
I then devoted about 10 paragraphs to explaining why the JBS had no connection whatsoever to either fascism or nazism. I also criticized the author’s contention that everything proposed by the JBS was unworthy of serious consideration and I wrote: “You seem to want to discredit anything which is in any way connected with the JBS. If the cause be just, why worry where the foment originates”?
Does that sound like a “liberal..if not radical” sentiment in 1967?
There are many more examples which establish, beyond dispute, what I believed in the 1960’s...which only goes to prove, yet again, that the Metapedia article which YOU quoted (and believed) is predicated upon a categorical falsehood about me.
I also want to note for the record, that YOU have never answered MY questions nor have you corrected your numerous errors of fact.
For example, in this message which I am responding to, you accuse me of “being caught writing fiction” because (in your scheme of things) I was supposedly not a teenager at any point in the 1950’s. But as I have pointed out, I was born in April 1945 - so, obviously, I WAS a teenager starting in 1958 (when I was 13 years old).
Your second mistake derived from your poor math skills. Since I mistakenly said I had voted for Presidents JFK and LBJ (which refers to the 1960 and 1964 elections), you concluded (mistakenly) that I could not have been a teenager in the 1960’s. But your assumption is wrong simply because I mistakenly thought I voted by the time I was 18 years old (in 1963).
But again, the critical point here is not the date when I first voted. That is not what started this discussion. What started this discussion was YOUR reliance upon the substantive content of the Metapedia article AND your apparent belief that Metapedia is a reliable source of information about anything they write about.
As I stated previously, nobody from Metapedia contacted me to ask me anything whatsoever. Does THAT seem like the behavior of an “encyclopedia” which is “fact-checked” so that it presents correct information?
And, lastly, the specific date when I first voted is not relevant to anything which has been discussed in this thread. Contrary to your falsehoods, the first posting in this thread referred to Claire Conner’s book which was reviewed in a Tampa FL Bay Times.
Claire’s book is a very detailed autobiographical account of what it was like for her growing up in an authoritarian environment. Claire’s father (Stillwell J. Conner) formed the first JBS chapter in Chicago. He also was a founding member of the JBS and he served on its National Council for many years.
Incidentally, Claire and I have argued publicly about her contention that the Tea Party Movement is virtually identical with the JBS. As I pointed out to Claire, only by using lowest-common-denominator reasoning is such a conclusion possible. When we dumb-down our criteria for making rational (and materially important) distinctions, we leave ourselves open to believing just about anything.
Thanks for the summary. Like most people reading that somebody had voted for Kennedy in 1960 and Johnson in 1964, I figured that you were 21 when you voted for Kennedy. That would of course be the logical conclusion to draw from your writings, since I assumed they were accurate. Now that I have seen that your writings may or may not be accurate, and will shift over time, I now know to not rely on their accuracy, or truthfulness.
My writings do not “shift over time” as can be established simply by reviewing what I have WRITTEN since I was a teenager. You are obsessed with the fact that I made a mistake about a DATE when I first voted.
I certainly understand why you want to focus upon an irrelevant secondary matter, i.e. because it detracts from your much more serious and embarrassing reliance upon a bigoted website for your assertions and conclusions about me — but nobody reading our exchange is fooled by your debate tactics.
Your essential point is that you have never made a mistake in your memory about an event which occurred 50+ years ago, but if you did make such a mistake, you should be considered a totally dishonest and unreliable person for the rest of your life and nothing you say or write thereafter should ever be given any credence or consideration. Obviously, this says much more about YOU than it does about me — because it reveals how you focus upon secondary matters instead of focusing upon critical issues.
If somebody libels you and your family, would you care if they got a date wrong in their written narrative, or would you instruct your lawyer to concentrate all the attention of the jury on the substantive libel? We now know, you would instruct your legal team to focus upon the irrelevant date instead of the despicable libel. Shame on you.
Searching123 is annoyed that he has been characterized as a liberal. He wrote and posted:
"I have never been a "radical" nor have I been much of a "liberal". I have always described myself as a libertarian populist. In the 1960's I voted for Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson but subsequently voted for every Republican who ran for U.S. President for the next 40 years."
But it turns out that he didn't really vote for Presidents Kennedy or Johnson since he wasn't old enough to do so at the time. Assuming the first two sentences are true, unlike the third, Searching123 has always described himself as a "libertarian populist", not a "liberal" although he has also written that he was "idealistic" and does "want to correct social injustices", and "subscrib(es) to catholic social justice values"
One of the most important criteria for distinguishing rational from irrational people is their ability to make careful and intelligent distinctions.
You, obviously, do not have that capacity.
For virtually this entire thread, you have been obsessed with an irrelevant mistake which I made regarding a date from 50 years ago. That date has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread. The only reason it was even introduced into this discussion is because I was attempting to respond to your use of false statements from Metapedia which purport to accurately characterize my political beliefs and values.
You now want to pretend that bringing attention to your irrational fixation upon an irrelevant date is somehow an “insult” to you and, furthermore, represents the single most important matter to be gleaned from the discussion in this thread.
Infinitely more significant and important is the still-unanswered question of why YOU chose to quote from and believe comments made about me in Metapedia’s article instead of relying upon any other source of information.
Also unanswered is why you decided to post snide statements and insinuations about me such as:
* describing me as a “leftist lover” (#82)
* suggesting that I follow “Marxist” ideas (#82)
* making the preposterous claim that “hearing others denounce leftist ideas must grate on you” (#86)
* Falsely claiming that “It seems like the material I quoted from Metapedia is very similar to your own writings. Just about every element of the text appears in other writings which appear to be yours as well..” (#92)
* claiming (falsely) that I am a “member of Metapedia” (#97)
* falsely claiming that “(you)write a lot of fiction about yourself, and are unwilling, or perhaps unable to answer simple questions” (#114)
* claiming that I am “annoyed” that I have “been characterized as a liberal” (#128)
What “annoys” me is charlatans like yourself who rely upon Jew-hating websites for their information.
Unlike yourself, I do not care if someone is liberal or conservative. Honorable men and women of all political persuasions can make valuable contributions to our national discourse and they should be able to do so without being demonized or libeled by snide insinuations and false statements or by use of language calculated to evoke fear, suspicion, contempt or revulsion.
Lastly, for emphasis, the dispute between us has never been about a precise date from the 1960’s.
Our dispute derives from your inability to focus upon what really matters. Insofar as you had any legitimate concerns or questions regarding my background or about my political beliefs and values, there are numerous published comments of mine from the early 1960’s forward which clearly reveal my beliefs and values.
There is nothing particularly “liberal” or “left-wing” about believing in catholic social justice precepts (which, incidentally, are shared by most religions) or about wanting to “correct social injustices”. Many of history’s most conservative politicians, political figures, and religious scholars and clergymen have written about such matters for centuries. So peddle your intolerance and ignorance somewhere else — or — go back to reading Metapedia (your preferred source of information).
Of course those published comments, as we have seen, may contain false statements.
How, exactly, do you know that you are the "first and only"?
No — only your obsession about an honest mistake in a date which has no relevance allows you to make such an unkind assumption — and ASSUMPTION is the operative word here.
Anybody could make exactly the same conclusion about you because of your phony statement earlier that you oppose all ideologies which enable tyranny and oppression — and yet your first and only source of information is a website devoted to defending and apologizing for Hitler and expressing Jew-hatred. Shame on you!
Brass Lamp:
Because on at least 4 separate occasions over the course of the past 30 years, I have asked the FBI to provide me with the names of all requesters who have made a request for either the HQ main file on the JBS (HQ 62-104401) or for FBI field office files on the JBS. I also asked for the date of such requests, and the number of pages released (if any).
FOIA statutes require agencies to notify requesters when the agency estimates that the total cost for responsive documents exceeds $25. Then the requester must explicitly agree to pay costs involved for making photocopies OR for copying documents onto CDROM’s.
100% of the individuals who made FOIA requests to the FBI for the HQ main file on the JBS, cancelled their request once they learned the estimated cost for 12,000+ pages, or they never responded to FBI correspondence asking that they guarantee to pay fees. Even the JBS itself had its request withdrawn once they learned about the total costs involved.
[Prior to about 4 years ago, the only option for requesters was to receive paper photocopies at 10 cents each page, so the total cost for the FBI’s HQ file on the JBS was about $1200. If a requester also wanted a sub-file which contained public source documents such as newspaper and magazine articles on the JBS) that added about $300 more.]
A handful of requesters narrowed the scope of their request to a few specific years, or, in some cases they only wanted one specific field office.
There are only four other persons (besides myself) who have received FBI documents on the JBS (HQ or field office documents).
The total pages released to each of those other persons, respectively, are shown below. Two requesters made separate requests and received documents on two different occasions. You may recognize their names because they subsequently wrote books which included chapters about the JBS (Lisa McGirr of Harvard University - and Jonathan Schoenwald of Princeton University).
Pages Released on JBS to other requesters:
131
134
664
683
1243
100
Incidentally, please identify specifically which of my published comments from the early 1960’s forward you are now claiming “may contain false statements”.
Give one clear example — OR admit you are deliberately lying.
As a postscript to my previous reply to your question:
1. About two years ago, I submitted a new FOIA request to the FBI for their HQ file on the JBS so that I could obtain it on CDROM — which would then allow me to post it online as I have done with many other FBI files in my collection (posted on Internet Archive).
2. At that time, I was informed that the FBI had transferred their HQ file on the JBS to NARA. NARA (at that time) did not offer the option of receiving files on CD or DVD so I never pursued that further.
3. About 3 weeks ago, I contacted NARA just to see if their policy might have changed with respect to giving requesters the option of receiving files on CD or DVD. I referenced the file on the JBS as one I would be interested in getting. To my amazement, NARA stated that the FBI never sent them that specific file-—so I recently submitted another FOIA request to the FBI for their HQ file on the JBS. It will be interesting to discover if they made a mistake 2 years ago.
4. If the FBI does still have the FBI HQ file on the JBS, I will again ask that they provide the names of all previous requesters, dates when documents were released, and number of pages released.
5. Lastly, when I finally received all 60 sections of the HQ main file on the JBS (it took about 9 years in total for the FBI to process the entire file), I went thru it, page by page, and made very detailed notes. My notes total 118 pages of single-spaced text.
I am seriously considering creating a webpage so that I can post online all of those notes for interested researchers.
"1. November 1964 = LBJ election (my first vote)"
and:
"I should have said I voted for LBJ (not Kennedy) because November 1964 was my first election"
and also:
"In the 1960's I voted for Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson..."
I'll save you the effort of responding - they aren't just "mistakes" but rather intentionally written statements which you have admitted are false.
Funny, I’ve never seen either JBS members or people aligned with the so called Tea Party stand around and say “we need to protect the rich”.
___________________
leftists lie. always.
I find a lot of the views expressed on that site repugnant, and would not re-post them. You seem to have a desire to re-post and cite that site repeatedly, thereby having the side effect of increasing its search engine reference counts. Why would you want to do that?
As I have noted previously, you are very sensitive to being characterized as someone who is "liberal", even though you consider yourself "a libertarian populist", believe "in catholic social justice precepts" and you apparently look favorably on Eugene Debs:
Have you heard of Eugene Debs, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton? Do you know anything about their tireless efforts with respect to women’s suffrage or the 8-hour work day or equal pay for women?
In 1917, Eugene Debs’ hometown newspaper in Terre Haute IN described him as “a man who had devoted more time and interest than any other man in the United States to bring about political freedom for women.”
As I presume you know, Eugene Debs ran for president on several occasions as the candidate of the Socialist party. He was a very well known socialist. You are the first person who claims to subscribe to conservative or libertarian values I have ever seen pick Eugene Debs as a positive example for anything.
You also use the common liberal tactic of insulting anyone who disagrees with you, or points out a fault in your logic or statements.
I'll leave it to others to figure out your motivations and beliefs.
The genesis of this is from an entirely honest mistake on my part, namely, that I thought I voted when I was 18 years old. There was no intent to deceive—which is the salient point you keep ignoring because of your obsession over an irrelevant date. That date is irrelevant because
(1) it does not pertain to anything being discussed in this thread and
(2) it does not speak to the issues raised in our dispute—namely my political values and beliefs.
I have no clue why you are so obsessed over a date. As previously noted, rational people make intelligent distinctions whereas irrational people (such as yourself) dwell upon data which is totally irrelevant.
Everything contained in your message is based upon your FALSE and UNKIND assumptions about me and disingenuous statements about your own beliefs.
1. You do NOT find Metapedia “repugnant”. Instead, you immediately decided to quote from it as a reliable source of information about me.
2. My “posting” in Metapedia consists SOLELY of my reply to their egregious falsehoods about my background. If you were intellectually honest (which you are not), you would have recognized that Metapedia is a bigoted website. If you had performed even minimal due diligence, you would have noticed their self-description on their homepage which made it obvious that they deliberately slant their articles to conform to their bigotry and Jew-hatred.
3. I am NOT “sensitive to being characterized as someone who is ‘liberal’ “ That is your FABRICATION. If I was a liberal, I would have no problem acknowledging that. My objection is to being FALSELY described on a bigoted website — which YOU then repeated.
4. I do not “look favorably” upon Eugene Debs — in terms of his socialist beliefs. I referred to him only in reply to your absurdity that people left-of-center have nothing valuable to contribute to our national discussions and to point out that many reforms which have been adopted in our country’s history originated with left-of-center individuals. Once again, this proves that you are INCAPABLE of making rational distinctions.
5. The “insults” in this thread began when YOU falsely attributed beliefs and values to me which are NOT who I am — and you chose to use sinister insinuations and snide or sarcastic remarks instead of obeying God’s 9th Commandment.
6. Insults are not the exclusive property of liberals or conservatives. Again, this reveals your ideological pre-supposition that anything left-of-center must always be condemned and ridiculed. Shame on you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.