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 ...
The Tampa Bay Tribune site at the link
Troll bashing is kind of amusing sometimes, but reading the nonsense spouted by what appears to be a leftist lover is even more amusing. And you still are either unable or unwilling to understand what others post.
You have noted in this thread that you think "that during our entire history as an independent nation, it has often been “leftists” who first proposed the reforms which we now take for granted as being essential to a free society" and "we are more concerned about what works and what produces the greatest good for the greatest number of our people rather than focusing upon the pedigree of the ideas or policy proposals we adopt".
You are welcome to accept, promote, like, honor, and whatever else you want to do with leftists. But I have a different opinion. Personally, I have no respect for tyrants and an ideological system which supports and promotes tyranny, and whose leaders worldwide are responsible for the deaths of millions of people. And you can follow the Marxist idea of doing what is best (by the Marxist's own view) for the largest group of people if you want. After all that's what Mao was doing, that's what Stalin was doing, that's what Pol Pot was doing, and that's what the Castro brothers and the Kim family are doing today.
But don't expect some kind of free pass because those leftists lived or live overseas. You apparently still share a mindset with them.
Does your comment mean you think that no reform idea in American history which we adopted has ever originated with the American left?
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.”
Have you read anything about the major figures within the American civil rights movement during the 1930’s, 1940’s and 1950’s?
Well, we share one viewpoint. I also have no respect for tyrants or any ideological system which supports and promotes tyranny or oppression — which is one reason why I oppose political extremists of all stripes.
You cannot be serious when you claim that Mao or Pol Pot or Stalin et al were motivated by any desire to do what was best for the greatest number of people. If you want your views to be taken seriously, then don’t conflate murderers and dictators with people who adhere to democratic values and a free society.
And, again, I am NOT a leftist. My political views are predominantly libertarian populist but I also believe that we are all part of an American family. I subscribe to catholic social justice values so if your position is that Catholics and for that matter all religious belief systems are “leftist” — then I am happy to be associated with those purported “leftists”.
Well, I am not familiar with the Tampa Bay Tribune but I am familiar with Claire Conner — the daughter of one of the founding members of the JBS. Her father created the first JBS chapter in Chicago and he also served on the JBS National Council for many years.
Back in the 1960s Lazar as a teenager was a liberal--if not a radical--and would have political discussions with a police relative over the issues of police brutality, drug use, and police corruption.[4] One day he obtained a copy of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin from the same relative containing J. Edgar Hoover’s comments on a particular subversive organization. Lazar decided to write a letter to the editor of his local paper concerning Hoover’s remarks. Lazar took offense when a member of the John Birch Society challenge his letter and replied, "Is it just coincidence that Ernie’s words so arty, sound just like the Communist Party?"[5]
He soon began his lifelong research--some calling it an obsession--on the John Birch Society and by 1980 started requesting files from the FBI seeking to obtain personal information on members of the organization. He eventually obtained the entire file on the John Birch Society, all 12,000 pages from the FBI. From there he branched off into investigating other conservative and nationalist organizations.
As someone who apparently grew up as a "liberal - if not a radical" hearing others denounce leftist ideas must grate on you.
No, the Metapedia article is NOT correct. Nobody at Metapedia contacted me to ask a single question. So, instead, they just INVENTED a narrative about me so that they could express their Jew-hatred (I am not Jewish either but that did not prevent Metapedia from making anti-Semitic comments about me). Here is another webpage on me (by a neo-nazi) which is even more disgusting — since YOU seem to prefer these kinds of sources: http://jewonstormfront.blogspot.com/
What I find most interesting about fools like yourself, is that you search for ANYTHING to discredit and demonize someone you perceive as a critic and you are perfectly willing to accept false information posted online by BIGOTS because, apparently, that is the kind of information that appeals to you.
I did not “grow up” as a liberal. Like most young people, I grew up idealistic. I wanted to do correct social injustices. But do you even perceive the inherent contradiction of your own thought process? A teenager in the 1960’s who supposedly was “a liberal, if not a radical” nevertheless was in the habit of QUOTING comments made by J. Edgar Hoover (another “liberal”??) and comments appearing in reports by the California Senate Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities.
AND that same “liberal - if not radical” voted for the most conservative politicians in every election after 1964 — including, of course, those other famous “liberals”, Nixon and Reagan.
If THAT is an indication of the quality of your intellect, then your problem is much more serious than silly messages posted in this forum.
You hate Michael C. Denmar, age 36, from Newcastle, Rhode Island.
You hate him with the brilliance of 1000 suns, with a crystalline pure hatred unsurpassed in the collective experience of all mankind.
You’re on attack with nothing!
You hate freedom and anyone that loves it.
We’ve seen the original; you’re just another clone.
That’s pure Laz.
A day late on Merry Christmas, but better late than never brother.
So lets compare that text to the text posted on the site you identify as yours. You posted a link to your site in this thread:
"When you have a few moments, check out my Documentary History of the JBS webpages and let me know how many of these documents you have seen or even know about?"
https://sites.google.com/site/ernie1241/
And I presume you believe what is written at that site is true. It seems like you wrote it yourself. It says:
I am a “conspiracy buff” and a freelance researcher. I am not connected to any organization.
My interest in this subject matter began in the early 1960’s. A relative of mine (who was a police officer) had a subscription to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin which I read regularly. Every issue had an “Introductory Message” authored by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. One day while reading one of Hoover’s messages, I noticed that he made a comment which flatly contradicted a statement which, coincidentally, had just been published in a letter-to-the-editor to my local newspaper. So I responded to that person’s letter. I quoted Hoover’s comment and I added some additional material from a recent report by the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities.
After my reply was published, I received several hostile anonymous phone calls and one individual (whom I later discovered was a John Birch Society member) replied in the form of a poem which was published in my local paper. One part of her poem inquired: “Is it just coincidence that Ernie’s words so arty, sound just like the Communist Party?”
I never understood (then or now) how quoting Hoover or our state un-American activities committee could put me in the company of the CPUSA --- and thus began my life-long interest in right-wing conspiracy theories and their adherents.
The Metapedia text, which you claim was written by someone to express their "Jew-hatred" says:
Back in the 1960s Lazar as a teenager was a liberal--if not a radical--and would have political discussions with a police relative over the issues of police brutality, drug use, and police corruption.[4] One day he obtained a copy of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin from the same relative containing J. Edgar Hoover’s comments on a particular subversive organization. Lazar decided to write a letter to the editor of his local paper concerning Hoover’s remarks. Lazar took offense when a member of the John Birch Society challenge his letter and replied, "Is it just coincidence that Ernie’s words so arty, sound just like the Communist Party?"[5]
He soon began his lifelong research--some calling it an obsession--on the John Birch Society and by 1980 started requesting files from the FBI seeking to obtain personal information on members of the organization. He eventually obtained the entire file on the John Birch Society, all 12,000 pages from the FBI. From there he branched off into investigating other conservative and nationalist organizations.
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, although I'll note that you characterize yourself today more as an "idealist" growing up than a "liberal". I don't see anything anti-Semitic in the text I quoted, and I would condemn anyone who would suggest that your description of how you became interested in the JBS and other groups reflected anything other than your own personal interest.
I understand now that you have a lifelong interest, and perhaps an obsession with certain aspects of American history, and an obvious sensitivity to what, in your mind, is probably a part of the conspiracies you study. Good luck with your research, the documents you have archived may be of interest to other researchers.
I will respond in detail to your current message later today. However, if you check out the Metapedia “discussion” page on their article about me — you will see some of my initial comments.
For now let me just say this: No decent human being goes to a bigoted source to discover anything factual or truthful about another human being. Furthermore, anybody who is genuinely interested in biographical information or background information regarding why someone began a major research project is obligated to contact the subject of their interest to ask questions.
Significantly, nobody at Metapedia contacted me to ask me anything which is why there are so many factual errors in their article.
I suspect that you are NOT genuinely curious but when I return from an appointment later this morning I will respond in depth to the “comparison” in your message.
I've already read your own postings in the very article about which you claim "nobody at Metapedia contacted me to ask me anything". I have no position one way or another about what is posted on wikis like Metapedia, but you apparently are a user there, and post there, not me. So if you aren't happy with what is posted there, you could edit it, or seek changes in it from the other users.
You've done a lot of interesting research, but you should recognize that most people, including me, have little interest in you or the obscure topics you have devoted so much time to. So don't feel compelled to write up a research paper on the semantic differences between whether articles - all of which you have apparently either written or edited - that state you were a "liberal" "libertarian" "radical-liberal" or whatever in the 1960s are accurate or not.
If you want to do something worthwhile I would suggest a nice walk outside, but if you really must write something how about a definitive statement on what motivated you to begin your research?
So whose “concepts and projections” should I possess if not from my own mind? Are you suggesting that I should have some sort of out-of-body experience before you are willing to consider what I write?
With respect to your question regarding my motivation, I answer that in my critique below.
OK, freeandfreezing, let’s critique your message. First, by way of preface so that we all are operating with the same understanding:
There are many websites, like Metapedia, which mimic the format and content of Wikipedia. In fact, many of those other websites copy all the Wikipedia articles verbatim and then just present them under a different website name. What all these websites have in common is that they are constructed to appear like encyclopedias-—but nothing could be further from reality.
Websites like Wikipedia and Metapedia and the others are not peer-reviewed. They do not employ experts in the subject matters discussed who then write or review the content of what is posted on their websites.
That is why, for example, Wikipedia has a section in each article which provides the revision history of every article – and it is not uncommon for articles to be revised dozens or even hundreds of times because of numerous egregious errors and falsehoods contained in the articles. But all of that is dependent upon someone knowledgeable recognizing the falsehoods, the misrepresentations and the honest mistakes.
I am going to present a lot of information below (more than you probably want to read) because it will conclusively establish that most or all of the honest errors, dishonest fabrications and misrepresentations in the Metapedia article about me could have been avoided if someone had performed due diligence and contacted me to ask questions. But since Metapedia is NOT interested in facts-—you get, instead, a gravely flawed result produced by a bigot.
If you look at the Metapedia “history” link on their article which purports to be about me, you will see that their article was created by “NatAll75” on March 10, 2013. “NatAll” is a contraction for the organization name “National Alliance”.
Bear with me for a few moments while I give you some important background info about National Alliance so you will understand whom you are relying upon.
In case you are not familiar with the National Alliance, it is a racist anti-semitic Hitler-admiring organization that was created in 1969 by William Pierce. In the summer of 1965 Pierce joined the American Nazi Party (subsequently known as National Socialist White People’s Party). Later, it changed its name again to “The New Order”.
The New Order described itself as follows on its website:
“We are the Movement of Adolf Hitler. We are His heirs. He has given us a commission, which it is our duty to discharge”.
Pierce became editor of the journal published by the American Nazi Party entitled “National Socialist World”.
After ANP founder and leader, George Lincoln Rockwell, was murdered in 1967, Pierce continued to work within the ANP as Assistant Executive Officer to Matt Koehl (the new leader of the ANP), and Pierce also functioned as the ANP “Ideological Officer”.
In 1970, Pierce left Koehl’s group and affiliated himself with the National Youth Alliance. Pierce changed the name of the NYA to National Alliance and he became editor of its monthly magazine, “National Vanguard”. Among the publications recommended and sold by the National Alliance are Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and Henry Ford’s “The International Jew”.
The Alliance also sells a book which Pierce wrote under the pseudonym of Andrew Macdonald, entitled “The Turner Diaries”. The Turner Diaries is a novel about guerrilla warfare and violence against Jews and others in our nation whom Turner (i.e. Pierce) hoped would be held accountable via what he termed “the Day of the Rope” – when “Jews, blacks, or mongrels of various sorts…” would arrive at their final day of reckoning.
The Alliance also recommended and sold books by one of its most ardent supporters, former JBS National Council member Revilo P. Oliver. One example is a revolting book by Oliver entitled “The Jewish Strategy”.
Oliver’s racist and anti-semitic and atheist anti-Christian sentiments became so obnoxious to Robert Welch that Oliver ultimately resigned from the Birch Society with a blast at Welch. Oliver also claimed that at least three members of the JBS National Council were “Communist agents”.
At one point, Oliver wrote articles and gave speeches stating that he received information from former FBI informant Herbert Philbrick (of “I Led Three Lives” fame) regarding Communist penetration of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Philbrick was contacted by the FBI to determine what he supposedly told Oliver. The FBI memo about the matter reported that:
“Herbert A. Philbrick...advised this date he has met Dr. Revilo P. Oliver on two occasions at Urbana IL in late 1959 or early 1960 when Philbrick delivered lectures there. Oliver has written Philbrick on one or two occasions. Philbrick stated he has never given Dr. Oliver any information concerning Communist infiltration of DHEW, stating he knows no one in this Department and has had no information concerning Communist Party activity in the U.S. Government since at least 1944. Philbrick approximately one half year ago heard statements attributed to him that DHEW was infiltrated with CP members...He denied emphatically that he ever made such statements orally or in writing. He considers Dr. Oliver to be an extremist in anti-Communist feelings and violently anti-Semitic.”
After leaving the Birch Society, Oliver became a regular contributor to George P. Dietz’s neo-nazi magazines, “Liberty Bell” and “White Power Report”. In the 1930’s, Dietz was in the Hitler Youth. Dietz is on record declaring that, “I and my associates live and breathe National Socialism every waking moment (and sometimes sleeping for that matter) of our lives.” In the November 1990 issue of “Liberty Bell”, Revilo Oliver wrote an article entitled “A Cringing Lord” which described Christianity as “spiritual syphilis”.
I presented this extensive background information because of your pretense in message #82 where you wrote:
“Personally, I have no respect for tyrants and an ideological system which supports and promotes tyranny, and whose leaders worldwide are responsible for the deaths of millions of people.”
Your alleged abhorrence of any “ideological system which supports and promotes tyranny” did not prevent you from accepting, wholesale, everything which a neo-nazi bigot wrote about me, apparently, because you think neo-nazis are reliable sources of information.
THE METAPEDIA ARTICLE WHICH PURPORTS TO BE ABOUT ME:
This article was originally created on March 10, 2013. The first time I saw it was the May 2013 version. The “history” link of the article reveals that there were revisions on March 11, March 12, May 2, May 5, May 6, June 7, and November 19.
For example the several revisions on March 12th were to insert comments identified in the history as “”His Jewishness” and “Jewish connection” – because the author of the Metapedia article whom YOU rely upon (NatAll75) is a bigot who uses every opportunity to slime people whom he considers “Jewish”.
I will now discuss, in depth, the specific content of the Metapedia article. I am willing to do this just to illustrate how unkind, un-Christian, massively gullible, and low-information (or worse) people like yourself are willing to accept ANYTHING posted online regardless of the source and regardless of whether or not the information presented is factual, fiction, or defamatory.
My comments will be in the order in which the subjects discussed appear in the Metapedia article.
1. MY RESEARCH: The very first sentence of the Metapedia article is totally inaccurate. My FOIA research project is not now, and was never, limited to only “American nationalist and anti-communist organizations and individuals”. Anybody with even the most modest intellectual honesty would immediately recognize that falsehood simply by consulting my list of FOIA requests here: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/foia Just use a search command for “CPUSA” or “Communist” and “FBI Monographs” to see the subjects of my requests. In addition, search for just about any major liberal organization and you will see that I submitted scores of FOIA requests on them – such as: ACLU, Americans For Democratic Action, Council on Foreign Relations, NAACP, National Council of Churches. I also submitted dozens of requests on major left-wing personalities.
2. GEORGE SOKOLSKY “WAS AN INFORMANT FOR THE FBI”
You will notice that this statement by NatAll75 has no footnote – for obvious reasons. Because NatAll just invented that statement from whole cloth. I have never written anything about George Sokolsky in my lifetime other than to quote a statement he made about the Birch Society, which appears on my “conservative critics of the JBS” webpage here: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/jbs-4
3. “LEFTIST OPED NEWS”: I do not decide whether to post comments on a website by investigating its political views. I post messages that respond to specific subjects. NatAll75 could have just as accurately stated that “Lazar has posted messages on the extreme right John Birch Society website” or the conservative “Free Republic” website. But he chose not to accurately describe my postings because it would not conform to the narrative which he wanted readers to believe about me – i.e. that I am some dangerous Jewish, Communist, pinko.
4. “JOHN BIRCH OBSESSION”: What I have discovered is that anybody who decides to specialize in a particular subject and, therefore, has considerable factual knowledge about that subject matter is then described as “obsessed” by political extremists. They use such dog whistles to prejudice readers against the person whom they want to demonize. Many of our most prominent and respected and award-winning historians and political scientists and general authors have spent decades researching a particular subject and then writing numerous articles and books about that particular subject. Taylor Branch, for example, spent 20 years researching and writing his multi-volume history of our civil rights movement. Was he “obsessed”? Should we take away his Pulitzer Prize because of his “obsession” with the history of our civil rights movement?
There is a larger point here. Most political extremists (including NatAll75) are anti-intellectual. This is because they do not believe that anybody other than a devout adherent of their own political sentiments can understand or accurately write about their history and beliefs and values.
I copy below a comment I wrote in the Introduction to my “Documentary History of the John Birch Society” webpages. It is relevant to the Metapedia article about me – because like all political extremists, they are hostile toward independent researchers whom they cannot control.
“It should be noted that the Birch Society does not allow outside independent researchers or scholars to have access to its archives for historical research purposes. In addition, during its formative period, the Birch Society deliberately avoided publicity and it often was hostile toward media attention. Consequently, much of JBS history (particularly its internal disputes and documents concerning its policy-making decisions) has never been publicly available. Like the Communist Party, the JBS wants to control the substance of whatever narrative is written about itself. “Fact” (from the JBS perspective) consists of data which it believes reflects favorably upon its membership, activities, and objectives. Adverse or inconvenient information is suppressed or de-valued in order to manipulate readers into believing the most positive perceptions about itself as an “educational” organization.
5. “LIBERAL, IF NOT RADICAL”: By ripping a comment I made out of context, NatAll75 wants to convince readers that I am some sort of leftist. As previously mentioned, “leftist” teenagers in the 1960’s were not in the habit of quoting J. Edgar Hoover as an authoritative or reliable source of information. Nor did they usually pour over copies of bi-annual reports published by the California Senate Subcommittee on Un-American Activities. As I pointed out on Metapedia on the “discussion” page, I voted for Ronald Reagan twice for Governor of California and twice for President. In addition,when I was a teenager I wrote articles which were published in southern California liberal magazines and newsletters which excoriated liberals who claimed that Reagan was some sort of “right wing extremist”. I have also written comparable contemporary defenses of the Tea Party Movement, Cong. Ron Paul, Patrick Buchanan, and I have even defended the John Birch Society against its most rabid critics who are circulating false information about the JBS.
6. “LIFELONG RESEARCH”: NatAll75 invents yet another accusation against me. He claims that my research project, starting in 1980, had the objective of “seeking to obtain personal information on members of the organization” – referring to the JBS. Totally false and stupid. All genuine research begins with a neutral question. The question I began with in 1980 was this:
“What did J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI think about Robert Welch and the John Birch Society and their statements/assertions”?
The reason why this was of such interest to me is because nobody in our country had ever made an FOIA request to the FBI about the JBS or about related subjects. I stumbled onto something which presented a unique opportunity to advance our knowledge. By 1980, I had read every book ever published on the JBS and nobody had obtained FBI files on the JBS or on its key figures or on the assertions which they made. So, this subject was entirely virgin territory—a researchers wet dream! I originally assumed (mistakenly) that FBI files would reveal that the Hoover and the FBI often agreed with the JBS analysis or conclusions about our history and prominent political figures. Imagine my utter shock, therefore, when I discovered the exact OPPOSITE!
7. “HIGHLANDER FOLK SCHOOL, #1”: Once again NatAll fabricates a total falsehood when he wrote that I “defended Martin Luther King and the so-called Civil Rights Movement implying there was no communist connection to the movement.” First of all, my HFS article is not a “defense” per se. It is simply an accurate summary of what appears in FBI files. I quoted verbatim from FBI summary memos about Highlander Folk School. The memos summarized the information developed by FBI investigation of HFS beginning in the 1940’s and then I presented the conclusion reached by the FBI in the 1950’s when they received inquiries about HFS from (among others) a Tennessee State Senator and in the 1960’s when the Birch Society resurrected their canards about HFS. The information I presented is identical to what was presented by Dr. David J. Garrow in his Pulitzer Prize winning 1981 book, “The FBI and Martin Luther King Jr.” In fact, BEFORE I wrote my article on HFS, I had contacted Garrow to obtain his input about HFS so I could be sure that I was not overlooking anything important.
8. “HIGHLANDER FOLK SCHOOL, #2”: Notice that NatAll75 claims that I “released selective memos” from the FBI file on HFS, but he does not present ANY evidence to refute what I provided. This is a typical ploy used by political extremists, i.e. falsely accuse someone and then refuse to provide any evidence to support your contention. Incidentally, I posted the entire HFS file online (via Internet Archive) so everybody can read the entire file for themselves and see that I correctly and accurately and truthfully summarized the FBI position on HFS.
9. “JEWISH CONTROVERSY”: NatAll75 wrote that “It has been suggested Ernie Lazar is Jewish and is an operative of the ADL”. Any fiction writer can “suggest” or fabricate anything they want. But Metapedia pretends to be a factual resource. It describes itself as “an electronic encyclopedia” so one wonders why they rely upon “suggestions”? Notice, also, that there is no reference to whom made the original “suggestion”. It was a neo-nazi whose webpage on me is here: http://jewonstormfront.blogspot.com/ A more revealing comment is made by Metapedia on its homepage: “Metapedia has a metapolitical purpose, to influence the mainstream debate, culture and historical view.” This one statement makes it self-evident that Metapedia is NOT an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not an advocate for one particular point of view. Its purpose is not to “influence debate”. The real purpose of a genuine encyclopedia is to present fact-checked authoritative articles which are not biased or slanted toward one point of view.
AND….For the record, I am NOT “Jewish” nor does it matter if I were.
10. “PERSONNEL” (sic): The illiterate moron who wrote this article meant to use the caption “Personal”. The closing comment in this section is that I am “an avid gambler”. Notice, however, that there is no footnote for that comment because, once again, it is a total fabrication.
11. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
In the “discussion” section of Metapedia’s article about me, another bigot decided that my religious heritage is the most important information to be discovered about me. He wrote: “Lazar is a Jewish name.” I pointed out that even a cursory review of Ancestry.com reveals that there are many Christian families in Poland, Hungary and elsewhere whose last name is Lazar. I then copied the Ancestry.com discussion about “Lazar” which is as follows:
“Jewish, German, Hungarian (Lázár), Slovenian, and Polish: from a personal name of Aramaic origin, a reduced form of the Hebrew male personal name Elazar, composed of the elements El ‘God’ + azar ‘help’, and meaning ‘may God help him’ or ‘God has helped (i.e., by granting a son)’. This was well established in central Europe as a Jewish name, but was also popular among Christians because it is recorded in the New Testament. Lazaros is the New Testament Greek form of the name of the brother of Martha and Mary, who was restored to life by Christ (John 11: 1–44). As a non-Jewish name it was also used as a nickname for a beggar or an outcast leper; this use arises from the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16: 19–31). HH; AB, AC It may also be Greek, a shortened form of a patronymic based on this name, for example Lazarakis, Lazaridis, Lazaroglou, Lazaropoulos.Slovenian: topographic name for someone who lived in a area of cleared woodland, from laz ‘cleared woodland’ + the agent noun suffix -ar.
I guess what can be gleaned from all this is: the neo-nazis who write articles for Metapedia are “obsessed” with Jews.
And you apparently can't resist writing lengthy expositions on topics of no interest to anyone but yourself. And you have trouble keeping your story straight:
Your posting on Metapedia:
"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. I voted for Ronald Reagan twice for Governor of California -- and I wrote letters-to-the-editor which were published in liberal magazines and newsletters which condemned liberals who claimed that Reagan was an "extremist". Source: edits to the Metapedia page by you.
And also in your FR posting today:
" As previously mentioned, “leftist” teenagers in the 1960’s were not in the habit of quoting J. Edgar Hoover as an authoritative or reliable source of information. Nor did they usually pour over copies of bi-annual reports published by the California Senate Subcommittee on Un-American Activities. As I pointed out on Metapedia on the “discussion” page, I voted for Ronald Reagan twice for Governor of California and twice for President. In addition,when I was a teenager I wrote articles which were published in southern California liberal magazines and newsletters which excoriated liberals who claimed that Reagan was some sort of “right wing extremist”.
So you voted for Kennedy in 1960, but imply you were a teenager in the 1960s, and you were a teenager when you were writing articles in support of Reagan. So why were you writing articles in support of Reagan in the 1950s?
I suggest a nice walk outside.
Well, Mountain, you are certainly entitled to your personal opinion.
Just keep in mind, however, that it has NOT been shared by virtually the entire postwar conservative movement in the U.S. Instead, most conservative political activists and political leaders and conservative publications have accepted as accurate the 1960’s evaluation made by the FBI about Robert Welch and the JBS as “extremist”, “irrresponsible”, and “irrational”.
FBI investigative files reveal that the FBI falsified virtually every major predicate which the JBS has disseminated for the past 55+ years.
That is also why the JBS and its surrogates have lost so many libel lawsuits. In a courtroom environment you cannot rely upon assumptions, hearsay, prejudice, falsehoods, gossip, rumor, or half-truths.
As one Appeals Court commented in its decision involving a libel action against the JBS which came about because of an false and defamatory article published by the JBS
“There was more than enough evidence for the jury to conclude that this article was published with utter disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements contained in the article about Gertz.” [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 81-2483, Elmer Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 6/16/82, page 20].
The JBS then paid the plaintiff $100,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. Punitive damages are only permissible when “malice” can be proven. In legalese, malice is “reckless disregard for truth” arising from evil intent and a desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering.
So-—if you want to accept information from such an organization — just don’t complain when you discover how often they circulate FALSE information because of their “reckless disregard for truth”.
1. I am not a member of Metapedia
2. I am listed in the “edit history” simply because I posted a reply (on the discussion page of the article about me).
3. I should have said I voted for LBJ (not Kennedy) because November 1964 was my first election (JFK was President until his November 22nd, 1963 assassination) — but I would have voted for Kennedy in 1964 had he lived. I made a simple mistake in dating just as YOU did when you wrote (mistakenly) that I was writing articles in support of Reagan in the “1950’s”. [My articles were published in the 1960’s in such liberal magazines as “The Reporter” in Los Angeles and “The Progressive” in the midwest and in a southern California newsletter “The Dixon Line” — where I defended the JBS against the publisher’s claim that the JBS was a “fascist” organization. I also wrote articles for Dixon Line which challenged the prevailing liberal meme regarding what “extremism” meant.
In addition, I wrote many letters-to-the-editor published in my local newspaper (I can send you copies) in the mid-1960’s which reflect my conservative or libertarian values.
BOTTOM-LINE:
1. There are literally DOZENS of websites which have references to me and my research — but YOU CHOSE to rely upon a Hitler-admiring source despite your previous phony pretense that you abhore all forms of tyranny and oppression
2. NO serious, honorable, decent person cites or believes what is posted on a bigoted website — but YOU did!
3. WHAT DOES THAT TELL US ABOUT YOU AND YOUR VALUES? Shall I now post an article on Metapedia about YOU?
It just occurred to me that readers of this thread might not understand the timeline which your message confuses so let me be very specific so that everyone understands how vapid your intellect is:
1. November 1964 = LBJ election (my first vote)
2. November 1966 = First Reagan election as Gov. of California
3. November 1970 = Second Reagan election as Gov. of California
Just after I voted for Reagan for Governor in 11/66, I wrote a letter to the editor which was published in my local newspaper. I copy the text below. I also sent a copy of my letter to my County Democratic Party HQ:
“Editor: When, on Sept. 21, ex-Governor Brown
asked that crime, the courts, the Rumford Act
and the University of California be removed
as issues of the campaign, I began to realize
the extent of his misunderstanding of the political
climate of this state.
When Mr. Reagan spoke out candidly on
these issues, and ex-Governor Brown responded
only with name-calling (the “extremist” baloney)
I as a Democrat, decided to vote for Reagan.
If the Democratic Party hopes to regain my
confidence, it is essential that it reject the kind
of disgusting campaign strategy which ignores
issues and, instead, suggests that ordinary citizens
have no place in politics, i.e., only the
“professionals” deserve to be elected.
I do not agree with Mr. Reagan on all issues, but I am sickened by the Brown camp’s deliberate attempt to portray Reagan as something which he clearly isn’t, while distorting
Reagan’s past conservative (but not extremist) record.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Much earlier (August 1963 to be exact) I wrote the following letter which was published in my local newspaper which they captioned “Fluorishing Weed”.
Does it seem to you that this reflects my “liberal—if not radical” political convictions when I was 18 years old?
“Flourishing Weed
Editor: Castro’s Cuba represents a weed in our hemispheric
garden. Unfortunately, the United States has persistently
and consistently refuse to take the necessary steps to
rid our garden of its first weed (from the species—Communista).
Instead, the United States, with a naive hope that the
weed will wither away, has built a picket fence around the
weed, and has denied access to those who would seek to
immobilize and destroy it.
Consequently, the weed flourishes and threatens multiplication while Russia and her satellites continue to provide the weed with excessive sunshine, water, and fertilizer (Soviet troops, supplies and training).
Ultimately, the weed will multiply and spread its own
particular poison, and because of disastrous U.S. gardening
procedures, the single Cuban weed may soon overtake the
entire hemispheric garden.”
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.