Birch Society "Experts"

For over 45 years the John Birch Society has disseminated poison into the American bloodstream by various methods:

This article is part of a series devoted to an in-depth analysis of the Birch Society. As a result of Freedom-Of-Information Act requests to the FBI and other agencies, much new data is becoming available for the first time from sources which, heretofore, even the Birch Society accepted as knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable.

Since the JBS purports to be an "educational" organization and an "army fighting with facts" -- it seems appropriate to consider the quality of mind and spirit underlying JBS premises and conclusions during the past 45 years.

Debating a John Birch Society (JBS) member or sympathizer can be very difficult because, to inflate their credentials as an organization relying upon carefully documented and factual material, the JBS often cites as "experts"...

* persons who had some connection to the FBI (either as former Special Agents or as Security Informants) --OR--

Subsequently these folks became JBS members, endorsers, speakers, or authors and they lent an aura of of authority and special "inside knowledge" to JBS assertions.

The FBI had very negative evaluations about the post-FBI endeavors of its former security informants or Agents who subsequently attached themselves to the JBS as members, endorsers, speakers, or authors. (Ditto for some police dept informants).

Examples include: Dan Smoot, W. Cleon Skousen, Julia Brown, David Gumaer, Gerald W. Kirk, Matt Cvetic, and Karl Prussion.

"As a matter of fact, the Bureau will not approve any individual for development as a confidential informant if he is a member of the John Birch Society." It is also clear from Bureau internal memos that a JBS member would not be considered desirable as a prospective FBI employee.

The FBI frequently used the description "professional anti-Communists" to characterize persons and organizations who exploited the genuine concerns of ordinary citizens about Communism primarily to generate income for themselves but (from the Bureau's perspective) without much regard for the accuracy of information they disseminated.

The FBI's list of such persons and organizations included the following who were associated with, or were recommended by, the JBS:

Billy James Hargis (Christian Crusade), Edgar Bundy (Church League of America), Fred Schwarz (Christian Anti-Communism Crusade), Dan Smoot (former FBI Special Agent and later publisher of Dan Smoot Reports) and Karl Prussion (former FBI security informant).

As reports came into the Bureau of statements made by former FBI security informants or Special Agents (such as Dan Smoot, Julia Brown, Karl Prussion, and Gerald Kirk)---it became apparent that these folks were presenting PERSONAL opinions which were not supported by data in FBI files or from FBI investigations and thus contradicted conclusions reached by the Bureau.

During a February 1967 appearance before the House Appropriations Committee, J. Edgar Hoover was asked if he approved of former FBI security informants (such as Julia Brown) speaking under the auspices of "extremist groups" such as the JBS-front group TACT (Truth About Civil Turmoil). Hoover accepted the premise that TACT was an extremist group and then said: "It is an improper attempt to capitalize on the name of the FBI."

Many FBI memos make clear that former FBI informants would often speak on matters about which they had no knowledge --OR-- where their knowledge was limited to a specific place or time frame.

But organizations such as the JBS never bothered to determine what, exactly, such persons did or did not know -- i.e. the extent or limits of their expertise.

DAN SMOOT, a former FBI Special Agent, is a unique star in the Birch Society stable of "experts". However, from the Bureau's perspective, Smoot's post-FBI endeavors wrongly sought to capitalize upon his relatively brief FBI career. The Bureau thought Smoot was in the habit of making "unfactual and inaccurate statements...concerning national and international problems."

In early 1964, the Bureau sent Dr. Harry Overstreet material to assist him and his wife with their forthcoming book entitled The Strange Tactics of Extremism.

One chapter of the book discussed Dan Smoot. When the Overstreets furnished advance excerpts of the book to the Bureau in the summer of 1964, the Bureau's Domestic Intelligence Division reviewed the excerpts and concluded: "...there does not appear to be anything objectionable." FBI Assistant Director C.D. DeLoach handwrote an observation on the review memo about the Overstreet's chapter on Dan Smoot: "I'm glad they're doing this. It's about time someone called his hand."

According to Bureau memos, shortly before his retirement Smoot was the subject of disciplinary action. One memo has the following summary:

"Howard D. Smoot was employed with the Bureau as an Agent from March 23, 1942 to June 15, 1951. Shortly before Smoot's resignation, he was censured, placed on probation, and transferred due to several unfounded charges against his SAC [Special Agent in Charge of a Field Office]. His attitude before and after resignation was extremely antagonistic, and he was not recommended for re-instatement."

With respect to Smoot's knowledge of communism and communist activities, it isn't clear how much experience Smoot actually had.

Smoot's 1993 autobiography states that he was assigned to the "communist squad" in Cleveland for 3 years but speaking engagements and training "took up much of my time during the remaining months of my tenure in the Cleveland office (and) gave me considerable relief from Communist duty..."

From Cleveland, Smoot transferred to Bureau HQ in Washington DC and became a desk supervisor for CIA applicants which he described as "doing clerks work on Agents salaries". Subsequently he was transferred to the Bureau's Crime Records Section "where I served as a ghost writer of magazine articles, newspaper guest columns, prefaces, patriotic endorsements and speeches for J. Edgar Hoover." Then he transferred back to Dallas for 31 months concentrating on "police schools and special assignments" but he worked on only 2 cases---neither of which was assigned to him. Shortly thereafter he resigned.

In May 1962, J. Edgar Hoover responded to an inquiry about Smoot's FBI background by stating:

"I welcome this opportunity to make it perfectly clear that former Special Agents of the FBI are not necessarily experts on communism. Some of them have sought to capitalize on their former employment with this Bureau for the purpose of establishing themselves as such authorities. I am firmly convinced there are too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified, factual data, who are engaging in rumormongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against people whose views differ from their own. Such activity makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator."

I am currently finishing a detailed summary about Dan Smoot, containing information never previously available, which will be posted as a separate message sometime in August.

W. CLEON SKOUSEN: In a November 1965 FBI memo discussing a JBS advertisement which lists several persons who endorsed the JBS, Cleon Skousen, a former FBI Special Agent, is described as someone "who has exploited his former Bureau career for personal gain."

Another source of Bureau irritation about Skousen was biographical material he distributed in which he described himself as an "Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover."

In October 1961, the Bureau sent out replies to several inquiries about Skousen and stated that "there is no position in the FBI entitled Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover". [Dan Smoot also used this title in his biographical sketches.]

Birch Society "experts" often could not get simple data about themselves correct. See Karl Prussion and Julia Brown below for more examples.

KARL PRUSSION attempted suicide and claimed he was a target for assassination by Communists. Prussion was terminated as an informant by the FBI because he publicly disclosed his status even though he promised never to do so without prior Bureau approval.

In December 1959, Robert Welch wrote to J. Edgar Hoover about the background of Karl Prussion. Welch stated that Prussion claimed he worked as an informant for the FBI for 12 years. Hoover's reply to Welch stated that Prussion was an informant for less than 9 years (November 1949 to July 1958).

MATT CVETIC was a chronic alcoholic who was dropped by the Bureau for various indiscretions. While initially useful in several court cases, Cvetic's handlers at the FBI and Dept. of Justice ultimately concluded he was "unreliable", "dishonest" and "neurotic".

J. Edgar Hoover advised subordinates that it would be "most unfortunate" to utilize Cvetic in future court proceedings.

DAVID GUMAER infiltrated Students For A Democratic Society and W.E. B. DuBois Clubs and was an undercover operative for the Chicago Police Department. Gumaer joined the JBS in 1964 and subsequently gave speeches under the auspices of American Opinion Speakers Bureau. He was also a Contributing Editor to the JBS weekly magazine, Review of the News.

In January 1967 Gumaer was arrested for battery. In May 1976 he was convicted of filing a false tax exemption certificate. During November 1985 he was under FBI surveillance because of his association with Arizona Patriots (AP) which the FBI described as "anti-tax, neo-Nazi, paramilitary organization whose philosophy resembles the Aryan Nations, Posse Comitatus and other right wing extremist groups..."

FBI HQ described Gumaer to its field offices as "armed and dangerous". He attended AP meetings where plans were discussed to rob an armored truck at a Laughlin NV casino and bomb a Phoenix synagogue plus the Ogden Utah IRS center. Subsequently, he became involved in illegal arms sales and securities fraud.

JULIA BROWN changed her opinions to conform to Birch dogma so as to derive monetary gain from her Birch-sponsored speaking tours.

The Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the FBI's Cleveland Field Office stated in a memo pertaining to Julia's desire to "go public" about her experiences as an FBI informant that:

(a) she was "financially ambitious" (i.e. she was primarily interested in prospects for speaking tours, articles for national publication, or a book) --and--

(b) Julia, with only a 10th grade education, was not (according to the SAC) intelligent enough to write for publication, as she originally proposed.

In her book "I Testify" (which actually was ghost-written by Carleton Young), Julia gives a fictitious account of her marital history as well as false details concerning joining and leaving the Communist Party. Other details in the book are also wrong.

According to Julia, she married her first husband (Edward Harris) while she was a teenager but he died. Her next mention of marriage is many years later to Curlee Brown of Cleveland.

In reality, however, Julia divorced Edward Harris, then married Jack Latimer and divorced him, then married Fred Brice and divorced him the same year she married him, and then married Curlee Brown but considered divorcing him as well.

When Carleton Young submitted two chapters of "I Testify" to Julia for review, she initally rejected the material. Julia told the Los Angeles FBI field office that Mr. Young was expressing HIS personal political views rather than her views and she described Young as an adherent of the "lunatic right" which she described as the "Birchers".

Julia's opinions about the civil rights movement, and prominent persons and organizations within it, underwent a stunning reversal after she associated herself with the Birch Society as a paid speaker.

In a March 1961 Ebony magazine interview, Julia stated that Communists had "little or no influence" within the NAACP and she concluded that:

"I'm 100 percent with the NAACP and I think they are doing a wonderful job and so does the FBI. They are aware that the NAACP is legal and is working in the American way for first class citizenship for all Americans."

However, AFTER associating with the Birch Society, Julia claimed that the NAACP was "badly infiltrated" by Communists and she routinely denounced the NAACP during her JBS-sponsored speeches.

FBI Headquarters received an advance copy of Julia's Ebony interview which it reviewed for errors. In a January 16, 1961 FBI memo, the Bureau stated that Julia should limit her comments to what she personally observed and experienced in Cleveland because "she is not qualified to assert herself as a spokesman for what is happening in the CP across the country."

Julia served as "Honorary Chairman" of the JBS-front group in Cleveland called TACTIC (Truth About Civil Turmoil in Cleveland). In August 1966, TACTIC sent a request to FBI HQ asking permission to reprint a Bureau poster entitled "What YOU Can Do To Fight Communism". Normally, the Bureau routinely approved such requests or even sent hundreds of copies to requesters.

However, in this case, the Bureau produced an "in-absence" reply. In-absence replies were used as a means of distancing the FBI from a person or group perceived as repugnant and not deserving a response with a signature by J. Edgar Hoover.

Hoover's secretary (Helen Gandy) signed in-absence replies. Gandy's response to TACTIC was curt "as a matter of policy, he [Hoover] would prefer you not reprint the poster..." Julia's past services to the Bureau were no longer considered deserving of either a direct Hoover reply nor permission to reprint a poster.

Here is the FBI's official description of Julia Brown in response to an April 1965 inquiry about her status: (HQ file 62-104401- serial #2499)

"Concerning Mrs. Julia Brown, she furnished information on subversive activities to the FBI on a confidential basis from 1951 to 1960. Although she was not an employee of this Bureau, she was compensated for her services. Her current views are strictly her own and do not represent the FBI in any way."

In November 1966 an attorney contacted the FBI about a reference by Julia in her book, I Testify, to a person Julia cited as a "founding member" of the Communist Party. The attorney represented the person Julia identified and he disputed Julia's description. A Bureau memo concluded that:

"It appears probable that the name (deleted for privacy)...is a misprint and that the person intended to be mentioned was actually (name deleted for privacy)."

There is also a major discrepancy between Julia's public accounts in her book and speeches about how she came to join the Communist Party (CP) versus what she told the FBI when she first contacted them in December 1950.

She told the FBI that she joined the CP in December 1947 because she thought the Party was the answer to racial discrimination. However, in subsequent accounts (including her book) she claims that she did not know she was joining the CP. Instead, she thought she was just joining a civil rights group.

You may have read my article so quickly that you didn't notice that I am not presenting my personal opinions...Instead, I am summarizing comments made by FBI officials from FBI documents.

Furthermore, reading "a couple copies" of a JBS magazine which is intended for a general audience is probably not the best information for making informed judgments.

Many prominent, respected anti-Communist conservatives have repudiated the Birch Society over the years including persons who initially were JBS endorsers or contributed articles to JBS magazines.

Among the conservatives who rejected the JBS as "extremist", "irresponsible" and "irrational" and causing harm to the anti-Communist movement in the U.S. are: Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer, James Burnham, John Chamberlain, Sen. Barry Goldwater, Sen. John Tower, Roy Cohn, the editors of Human Events, Gen. Albert Wedemeyer. Even Robert Welch's widow withdrew her support.

You might want to peruse Alan Stang's website (I presume you know that Stang was a major JBS author and confidant of Robert Welch).
http://www.alanstang.com/default1.htm

Numerous former Birchers (including prominent Chapter and Section Leaders, Coordinators, Major Coordinators, JBS HQ officials and JBS National Council members---including several "life members" who first joined in the 1960's)left the JBS and posted their horror stories about JBS leadership and direction on Stang's website. Some former Birchers have even concocted a conspiracy theory which "reveals" that many JBS National Council members were actually secret CFR/Illuminati/Freemason agents.
See, for example: http://watch.pair.com/belmont.html

You might also want to read the trial transcript of a historic and precedent-setting libel case (Elmer Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc). After 14 years of litigation, including arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, the JBS paid $400,000 to Gertz for their libel.

However, the JBS (which claims to be an "educational" organization) never bothered to inform its members that the article was published, as the court concluded, "with utter disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements contained in the article about Gertz."

Finally, if you would like a copy of my 22-page Report on the JBS which is based, primarily, upon FBI file documents, I'd be happy to send you a copy.

Enough of this technical junk. Sure, the JBS may have been a little extreme, but your continued attacks on that little, outdated organization as your entire Reason for Being on this site have made me a little suspicious of your intentions. You do know that Freerepublic is a site devoted to promoting the values of American conservatism, Democracy, and capitalism, right?

I've sent you a private post about this, but here it is point blank. Just answer *ONE* question for me, and I'll leave you be.

What was in the 50's, and today remains, the greater threat to the security of America's freedom: Communism or Anti-communism?

Do answer that as directly as possible. I don't need one of your patented 1000-letter posts.

1. Facts matter
2. Accurate history matters
3. Mistaken ideas usually have undesirable consequences.

Perhaps you consider the 3 points above "technical junk" but I don't.

I would be interested in learning what you mean by your comment that the JBS may have been "a little extreme".

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION:

It is very difficult to answer your question in the manner in which it is posed. However, I prefer to associate myself with the conclusions reached by the FBI (and other security agencies). To keep my answer brief, as you requested, I will quote J. Edgar Hoover:

"The Communist Party in this country has attempted to infiltrate and subvert every segment of our society, but its continuing efforts have not achieved success of any substance. Too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified factual data regarding the inner workings of the conspiracy, have engaged in rumor-mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against persons whose views differ from their own. This is dangerous business. It is divisive and unintelligent and makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator."

I believe (as Hoover did) that JBS was an organization that harmed the anti-Communist movement and, in the process, the JBS defamed good and decent Americans.

Hope that answers your question.

Now I have ONE question for you.

If, as a result of my research, I had discovered that senior FBI officials...

* AGREED with the John Birch Society's scheme of things and
* APPROVED of JBS "educational" efforts, then...

(1) WOULD YOU STILL OBJECT TO ME POSTING MESSAGES ON FR which discussed that agreement and approval?

(2) Would you be "suspicious" of my "intentions"?

Isn't it significant that while the JBS purports to be an "educational" organization and "an army fighting with facts", nevertheless both the JBS and its sympathizers express outright hostility toward anyone who does historical research to determine factual information?

NOTE: First off, I'd like to point out to anyone who may be reading this that Ernie.C DID NOT answer my question. Amazing! He couldn't even admit that communism is a far greater threat to American democracy than anti-communism. He dodged the question entirely, and posed another one as a straw man to throw me off his non-answer. It won't work.

I'll ask it again, bold as I can. DOES COMMUNISM OR ANTI-COMMUNISM POSE THE GREATER THREAT TO DEMOCRACY?

Now on with the show, Ernie.

You'll have to excuse me, but I don't belong to the JBS, as you seem to think that I do. I could care less about them to tell you the truth. The JBS didn't enslave or execute hundreds of millions of men, women, and children in the U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Zimbabwe, Angola, Nicaragua, Ghana, and dozens of other nations. The JBS isn't devoted to taking away my 1st and 2nd-Amendment Constitutional freedoms, abolishing God from the state and stealing my personal land and private property. No, I'd say that the Birchers should be beside the point here.

What I am concerned about is the disturbing possibility that you, ernie.c, are using the Freerepublic boards to wage a one-man war against an anti-communist organization when you have so far proven unable or unwilling to acknowledge the overall legitimacy of the anti-Communist cause. What do you tink of Sen. Goldwater? Pres. Reagan? PM Thatcher?

Pouring over your last 3 pages of posting history, I have not found you EVEN ONCE citing the proven atrocities of communism or it's inherent emphasis (admitted by no less than Karl Marx himself) on the *necessity* of ideological WORLD DOMINATION to it's cause. You have not ONCE admitted the threat that the corrupt, greedy, absolutely repressive "ideology" of communism posed once, and still poses, to the basic tenets of freedom in a human society (which are, among others, at least a heavy degree of Democracy in government and Capitalism in economics).

You are chicken little preaching that "the sky is falling" over what is essentially (Yes) a well-intentioned but excessive and often inaccurate organization while missing that the ground is really falling out from under you because of the very real and inherent threat of communism, the most insidious form of government yet devised by man (okay, equal with the Nazis for brutality and injustice).

At best, You have the worst kind of tunnel vision. At worst, you are a fool. Is that perfectly clear?

Rock:

Thanks for your calm, "friendly", and "rational" reply to my earlier comments.

Apparently, you have difficulty reading or understanding---so I'll spell it out for you more plainly.

(1) I DID answer your question about what constituted the greatest danger to our country. As Hoover pointed out in the comments I quoted, the Communists had not achieved success of any substance and the FBI and other security agencies were doing their job.

(2) The "straw man" in our exchange, is your attempt at forcing answers to loaded questions. As Hoover pointed out, we aren't faced with your phony "either-or" choices for an answer. According to Hoover's testimony before the Warren Commission:

"I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice...Now, I have felt and I have said publicly in speeches that they are just as much a danger at either end of the spectrum. They don't deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent has something wrong with him." ...

Apparently the root cause of your confusion is that you engage in lowest-common-denominator reasoning. Consequently, if someone presents evidence which is critical of ONE self-proclaimed anti-Communist organization, THEN one must be hostile to ALL anti-Communist organizations. I guess, in your scheme of things, inept and divisive anti-Communism is just as helpful as rational and effective anti-Communism.

You state that I am "unwilling to acknowledge the overall legitimacy of the anti-Communist cause." PLEASE BE SPECIFIC. When have I made such comments?

You then ask for my opinion regarding Goldwater, Reagan and Thatcher. FYI: I have favorable opinions of all 3. I voted for Reagan twice for Governor of California. I voted for him twice as President.

Incidentally, both Goldwater and Reagan repudiated the JBS as HARMFUL TO WHAT YOU TERM THE "ANTI-COMMUNIST CAUSE" More significantly, the Birch Society considers both Goldwater and Reagan as "phony" conservatives and the JBS lost numerous members because of the Society's vitrolic attacks upon them.

Finally, I think it is significant that you have not presented a single iota of evidence to dispute the accuracy of anything contained in my original message.

You also have not asked any questions pertaining to the content of my message. Apparently, you START with your conclusions and have no interest whatsoever in ANY data that contradicts what you currently believe....and, this, presumably, is what you consider an example of your "open mind".

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.