Birch Society "Experts"

Ernie1241@aol.com | 04-11-04 | Enrie1241

[Ernie.cal]

MTG: Welcome to this discussion.

Hmmm---your report is news to me. Might I ask you for some additional information? What was the stated purpose for asking you whether or not you belonged to any of the organizations listed?

Was it suggested or even explicitly stated that if you belonged to an organization like the JBS, you would NOT be acceptable material for the U.S. Marines?

The FBI used a pre-printed form to distribute information
on persons whom it considered subversive, potentially violent, or otherwise worrisome from a security standpoint and that form included a category devoted to "ultrarightists".

This form was used to share information with the Secret Service, G-2 (Army Intelligence), ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) and OSI (Air Force Office of Special Investigations).

The Bureau also maintained a Rabble Rouser Index---although organizations listed did not include the JBS.

[Ernie.cal]

Forgot to mention one more thing about your comment that "JBS and Joe McCarthy were generally correct in identifying the fact that the socialists/communists were present in positions of power and influence."

Since you claim to be interested in facts and and you claim to be rational and objective....consider this tidbit.

The FBI maintained a Security Index (SI). It was a very elaborate mechanism (with subcategories) to keep track of all persons the Bureau considered subversive and worrisome from a security standpoint.

As you might expect, the overwhelming majority of names listed were Communists and it included persons in positions of influence and power who were thought to be likely to assist Communists in a time of national emergency.

The Bureau's file on the SI contains numerous memos to explain to their field offices what criteria should be used to include a name, and, how and when, each office should submit summary memos concerning the status of their SI listings.

According to the Bureau's Security Index, the total number of people working in the Federal Government who were considered either outright Communists OR persons considered to be a security problem in the event of national emergency was as shown below, in the years specified.

This is the first time I have released this data in any forum.

Compare it to the HALLUCINATIONS of the JBS and please comment on it.

1958 (year JBS was founded)...........15 1959..................................19 1960..................................20 1961..................................24 1962..................................23 1963..................................25 1964..................................19 1965..................................28 1966..................................36

[headsonpikes]

I must thank you for one of the most illuminating threads I've ever read.

As a teenager in the early '60s, I was in contact with many 'anti-communist' organizations, the JBS being one of them. Your many posts capture almost exactly the atmosphere of Mr. Welch's perfervid writings.

OTOH, his references in the Blue Book lead me to read Spengler, and I'm appreciative of that!

To fanciers of international communist conspiracies, I would say this: All socialist regimes are national socialist regimes. Each of these regimes requires an enemy with both internal and external manifestations.

Orwell had it right in '1984', but apparently, he might as well have saved his breath.

The chief and over-arching threat to Americans and American political liberty is American Socialism, not Russian, or Cuban, or Chinese, or European socialism.

And American Socialism is in a triumphalist frame of mind. After all, who seriously questions Medicare, Social Security, and State schooling?

Socialism continues until it collapses - that's the historical path, I'm afraid.

[Ernie.cal]

Headsonpikes:

Thanks for your contribution and welcome to our discussion. As I have written on many occasions, I would have no problem whatsoever with the JBS if they merely were offering alternative public policy ideas and did so in an amicable manner....much like you have done in this discussion.

I have a few questions for you.

(1) Many folks that I have debated have referred to what they perceive as "socialism" having triumphed in our country. Could you provide to me your own definition of socialism?

(2) Many American socialists have written extensively on the topic of why they think, socialism NEVER triumphed in America! They often refer to how socialist regimes took hold in European countries and why, by contrast, the U.S. never elected comparable political leaders. Do you have any thoughts about that? Are these U.S. socialists just being modest---because they actually have succeeded but don't want to admit it?

(3) Conservative research organizations like Heritage Foundation compile information on what they consider pro-statist, pro-collectivist policies and programs which work against economic freedom. That data is then put into their annual Index of Economic Freedom. However, instead of confirming your point -- and revealing that the United States is in the company of socialist regimes around the globe -- the Heritage score for the United States has always been at the OTHER end of the scale. How do you explain that?

(4) Many of the commentaries I've read on various websites by persons who describe themselves as anti-socialist seem to share the belief that socialism, by definition, leads to tyranny. Is that your belief also?

And if so, could you give your thoughts about why socialist regimes in Italy, Sweden, France, Israel, etc. all have in place robust laws and customs which defend what we might call a Bill of Rights for their citizens so that they are not in danger of degenerating into tyranny?

5. Finally, in your judgment, can a socialist society be a prosperous society? (Maybe less prosperous than a capitalist one, but prosperous nonetheless?)

[headsonpikes]

Great questions - I'll respond tomorrow.

Gotta get back to the hockey game. ;^)

[headsonpikes]

Upon reflection, answering your well-crafted questions properly would require a thickish volume.

Or two.

Answering your queries would require more time than I have available for this forum, but I will tell you what direction I would travel in response.

Firstly, the use of the term 'socialism' to refer only to systems in which the State formally has ownership of productive property is unhistorical - the core of 'socialism' as a historical force is the notion that 'the people' can and should directly pursue the good of society as a whole, rather than have societal goods be furthered by the unintended consequences of self-interested acts.

In this regard, the National Socialism of Germany and various other non-Communist totalitarian projects ought to be warning enough to those of us who live in what is still a liberal(in the old sense) civilization.

It is my contention that every historical instance of socialism is a peculiarly national instance. This should not be surprising, as the idea of 'nation' was created out of the same French/German intellectual goo as socialism. I refer you to the writings of Jacob Talmon for a thorough explication of the development of contemporary totalitarianism from its 19th Century Idealist roots.

Should America descend further along the socialist road, it will be in a peculiarly American way - IMO many patriots miss the boat when they look to condign foreign influences as the worm corrupting the American dream. Lawyers and public-school administrators are a bigger threat to American liberty than are the commissars of ragtag Commie regimes. Not to mention Alphabet agencies.

As to the question as to whether socialism inevitably leads to tyranny, I can only refer to the works of Orwell and Koestler, and counsel patience. Tyranny will come.

As to the current prosperity of several smallish semi-socialist countries, I would only say that they are parasitic off the international capitalist pricing system, and off the capacity of the USA to protect them from enemies.

I repeat that your questions are excellent, and that I only wish I had the time to adequately answer them.

[Ernie.cal]

My pro-Birch opponents have understandably decided to exit from this debate.

This message is intended to summarize the flaws in JBS debate techniques---based upon the contributions made to this thread.

CLOSED-MIND
Most of us enter into a debate recognizing that new information may cause us to adjust (or even reject) our previous conclusions.

When new evidence is presented, an open-minded person usually asks questions or seeks clarification of specific points and then requests specifics regarding the sources of the new information (such as bibliographic details so the new information can be pursued further).

However, as you follow this thread, notice that Birch partisans almost never ask for clarification of evidence presented and never ask for any specifics regarding the sources I used. Notice, too, that in the one or two instances where a question IS asked, it is couched in extremely hostile language. Obviously, the person asking the question is not genuinely interested in a pertinent answer.

The reason for this singular lack of curiosity, is because they START with a FINAL conclusion which is NOT open to new data--so they AUTOMATICALLY reject as "irrelevant" or "false" any new information which contradicts what they currently believe.

LOWEST-COMMON-DENOMINATOR REASONING
What all adherents of extreme political views seem to share in common is an inability (and unwillingness) to consider the possibility that legitimate alternative ideas exist in competition with their own personal preferences.

Typically, one of the mechanisms used to de-legitimize alternative ideas is grouping perceived opponents together and then characterizing them all as sinister, evil, unAmerican, or otherwise sharing common adverse qualities deserving of perjorative description.

See, for example, postings in this thread which equate everything-left-of-center (socialism, liberalism, communism).

This technique accomplishes two objectives:
(1) It eliminates from consideration any ideas which
are in competition
(2) It groups together persons and organizations who
are considered "enemies" (not just mistaken).

Thus---the "debate" merely becomes an effort to thwart an enemy...not genuinely consider the merits of any data or arguments presented.

LANGUAGE:
JBS partisans use language differently than most folks engaged in debate. Instead of seeking to clarify some matter under discussion, or be more precise about something in dispute, their use of language is intended to confuse the matter under consideration.

See, for example, NMC EXP's repeated questions about my "motivation" for engaging in this debate.

He repeatedly described ALL my answers as unresponsive...no matter how many times I replied and no matter how much detail I presented.

Also, NMC's submissions reveal lowest-common-denominator reasoning. He was totally unwilling to acknowledge that one should consider differences between ill-informed and inept anti-Communism versus rational and effective anti-Communism. Consequently, he boldly asserted that ANY criticism of ANY person or group he considered anti-Communist made the critic's motives suspect.

Finally, NMC never responded to my questions and examples used to illustrate a point. Someone GENUINELY interested in discovering the truth about any matter under discussion would engage in the give-and-take of debate because such is a necessary method of discovery. For NMC, however, no "discovery" methodology is relevant because he, too, thinks he already HAS discovered an Ultimate Final Truth.

INABILITY TO FOCUS ON PRIMARY DATA
See, for example, post #8 by Fish Hawk. In this instance, Fish Hawk engages lowest-common-denominator reasoning by characterizing my messages as seeking to discredit ALL anti-communists instead of focusing in on the real primary issue--namely, whether or not persons cited as "expert" by the JBS are credible sources of information.

What is in operation here is quite transparent: Since Birchers and their sympathizers do not accept even the hypothetical possibility of their own fallibility on anything, they seek to discredit ALL critical inquiries for fear of having to admit a mistake in their long-held dogma.

Similarly, other persons posting messages often sought to change the subject so that attention would be diverted from the primary argument. (See, for example, repeated attempted by B4Ranch to introduce topics that had nothing whatsoever to do with JBS "experts".)

Finally, in this regard, notice that virtually everyone submitting rebuttals to my messages presented their negative comments as a put-down of me personally instead of dealing with the fact that I was summarizing judgments and evidence originating with top officials of the FBI.

INABILITY TO CANDIDLY ACKNOWLEDGE ERROR
On numerous occasions, I presented clear and decisive rejection by FBI officials of JBS conclusions and statements. However, at no time, did any of my critics acknowledge that the FBI judgments were worthy of serious consideration. Instead, critics either changed the subject or simply ignored the data.

When I submitted data from sources who were members of the Birch Society, or paid speakers employed by the Birch Society, or otherwise previously considered reliable and authoritative by the Birch Society --- my critics generally ignored ALL of that data and never once asked a follow-up question to clarify my information or to provide more corroboration. Again, the mental mechanisms at work are rather transparent: under no circumstances does a closed-mind wish to acknowledge the possibility of error.

[Wallace T.]

The key to understanding the John Birch Society is understanding Robert Welch. During his 25 year tenure in charge of the organization, he called himself the founder, not president, CEO, etc. His imprint remains on the organization even today.

(It is likely that, had Larry McDonald not died on KAL 007, the Birch Society would have gone in another direction, as the Congressman was Welch's heir apparent. Given McDonald's Reconstructionist leanings, the JBS may have shed its implicitly univeralist underpinnings and become a Calvinist version of the Christian Coalition or Moral Majority.)

To understand Robert Welch, we must analyze what he thought and how he derived his underlying principles.

What was Robert Welch’s Worldview?

Although Welch referred to himself and the John Birch Society as defenders of “Christian-style” civilization and he named the organization after an independent Baptist missionary turned intelligence officer (John Birch), Welch himself was a Unitarian, coming to that faith in adulthood after rejecting the Baptist faith of his family and childhood.

Several passages in Welch’s writings are revelatory of his worldview.

”We have to find something to live for, Gentlemen, that is greater than ourselves, or we surely fall back from the semi-civilized level of existence, which man has laboriously achieved, in to a moral jungle and its inevitably concomitant intellectual darkness . . . Before our very eyes lie all the incentives man needs to set him back on the road of striving towards moral perfection, true intellectual greatness, civilized relationships, and eternal hope for a still better and greater future, which seemed to him to be such natural goals a hundred years ago. Making those incentives understood, and giving contemporary man a renewed faith in himself, in his destiny and in a still greater God than was recognized and worshiped by his ancestors, is a task for myriads of dedicated individuals over generations of time.” (The Blue Book of The John Birch Society, 1961, 56-58.)

This statement stands at odds with Scripture and the teachings of historic and orthodox Christianity. One must wonder how the traditionalist Catholics and conservative Protestants who made up the majority of John Birch Society members reconciled their views with those of Welch. Scripture is replete with warnings against faith in one’s self or in humanity. It would appear that the impersonal, “watchmaker” God of Unitarianism is superior to the personal, omnipresent God of Welch’s Christian ancestors. Striving toward moral perfection is a desirable goal from a Christian standpoint, but it is one that cannot be accomplished apart from a relationship with Jesus Christ. Remember the apostle Paul’s relating of his previous “trusting in the flesh” as related in Philippians 3, which, in light of the excellence of his knowledge of Jesus Christ, he later regarded as “dung.” (Philippians 3:8) It is not our own righteousness, but the righteousness of God, which is by faith in Christ, that is effectual in obtaining personal salvation. Striving toward true intellectual greatness is again desirable, but again Scripture admonishes against metaphysical knowledge not grounded in divine revelation. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and before honor is humility.” (Proverbs 15:33) “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8) Welch’s views with regard to the perfectibility of man and the “tug or upward pull within humanity” are far closer to Carl Sagan or Ayn Rand than to Francis Schaefer or C. S. Lewis.

“Through many centuries Christianity, despite all of its splits and schisms, supplied the fabric of morality for the whole Western World - through its threats of punishment, promises of rewards, and the humanizing effect of its proffered love by and for a Divine Father. But despite all the billions of words that have been written to the contrary, that fabric is now pierced and torn and weakened beyond dependability. For a vast majority of those who proclaim themselves Christians today, and attend Church Services, do not really and literally believe in either the punishments, the rewards or even in the physical and biological existence of a Divine Father with any interest in their personal lives and actions. The momentum of a former belief, and the customs which grew out of it, still have great value. But the fabric is worn too thin to have its old effectiveness.” (The Blue Book of The John Birch Society, 1961,. 52)

According to Welch, the fabric of the Christian faith has worn too thin to be effective and is weakened beyond dependability. From a strictly secular standpoint, his statement that most Christians of the post-World War II era did not believe in the existence of Heaven or Hell, or a personal God, would contradict what we know of Americans’ beliefs at that time. After over 40 years of liberal, secular humanist dominance of public education and the mass media and more prominent aggressiveness of liberals within the mainline Protestant and Catholic churches since Welch penned these words, there is still widespread belief in the existence of Heaven, Hell, and a personal God. For example, per a 2003 Harris Survey, 90% of all Americans believe in the existence of God, 82% in heaven, and 68% in Hell. A Barna Poll in 2001 shows that 69% of all American adults believe that God is the all-powerful Creator. If there is inadequacy among Christian Americans, it is not a misunderstanding or disbelief in basic doctrine, but a failure to recognize the applicability of doctrine to their personal lives.

Welch’s words are also contradictory to the plain teachings of Scripture. To the Christian, the Bible is the Word of God, authoritative in all matters spiritual. John 1 identifies Jesus Christ as the Word. Hence, as II Timothy 3:16 states “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

*God’s Word is incorruptible. “Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” (Proverbs 30:5)
* God’s Word is ever penetrating of all human barriers. “For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12)
*God’s Word is superior to the traditions of men. “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” (Mark 7:13)
* God’s Word is the manner in which we come to understand the Christian faith. “So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17)
* Those that accept God’s Word are adopted into the family of Christ, i.e., the church. “And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.” (Luke 8:21)

Individuals may fail in “rightly dividing” Scripture and in applying its teachings to their lives. Whether or not Bromley Oxnam, Reinhold Niebuhr, Daniel Berrigan, et. al., were Communists* is not proven. They were, however, doubtlessly theological liberals who denied core Christian doctrines as expressed in the church creeds of the early ecumenical councils. They rejected those core doctrines as clearly as had Robert Welch himself. It is ironic that, respective to theology, Welch was more in line with the very theological liberals and political leftists whom he and his cohorts accused of being Communists than he was with the majority of the rank and file of the John Birch Society.

* I use “Communist” here in the sense the Birchers did in the 1959-65 period, i.e., not a member of the Communist Party, USA or other Marxist-Leninist groups like, say, the Socialist Workers Party (as might have J. Edgar Hoover or William Buckley) but as a member of a global conspiracy, operating on many fronts yet centrally coordinated, to impose totalitarian socialism on American and the rest of the world.

[headsonpikes]

Indeed, referencing my post #166, an outfit such as the JBS could well be the political vehicle of a future American Socialist regime.

Ideology is malleable - political power is fungible.

[Ernie.cal]

Wallace:

Not sure if you know this but some JBS-insiders claim that John McManus has stated that Welch converted on his death bed to Feeneyite Catholicism.

[Wallace T.]

There were a lot of Catholics on the staff of the Birch Society when it was located in Massachusetts, a heavily Catholic state, as well as the base of operations of Father Feeney, a forerunner of today's Catholic traditionalists. (One source claims about one-half of the JBS staff were Catholics.) John McManus is reportedly a traditionalist Catholic, and could have been a factor in converting Welch, if he did in fact convert. McManus was the publicity director of the organization, and did for the JBS what Robert Welch did for the Welch Candy Company. As president, he was presumably Welch's chosen successor after Larry McDonald's death. It would be fair to assume that, of the senior staff of the JBS, McManus was closest to Welch.

Given the humanist, rationalist, and determinist (remember the influence of Spengler) strains in Welch's writings like The Blue Book, it seems that a conversion to Catholicism, with its doctrines of original sin, a personal, all powerful, and omniscient God, and free will, would be out of character. However, men's minds can and do change. After twenty plus years of troubles and the rise and decay of his organization, Welch may have become more receptive to the message of traditional Catholicism, especially as he faced his own mortality.

It would be interesting to read McManus's memoirs on the matter, if he ever chooses to write them, or perhaps any correspondence from Robert Welch or his wife discussing conversion to traditional Catholicism.

[Ernie.cal]

In a May 1961 letter to Neil McCarthy, Welch wrote that approximately one-half of JBS membership was Catholic, one-half of JBS field staff was Catholic and 2/3 of JBS HQ staff (in Belmont) was Catholic.

McManus was not the heir apparent. Originally, Tom Hill was thought to be Welch's likely successor. (Incidentally, Hill died last October).

Several prominent Birchers have discussed the "conversion" claims. In the final weeks of his life, Welch was reportedly incoherent and, thus, incapable of converting but McManus claims he did convert---which is yet another reason for the rancorous internal disputes within the Society.

Other disputes have arisen concerning religious practices at JBS Youth Camps and the question of whether or not the JBS should welcome non-believers. The most serious controversies, however, concern the influence of Mormon officials within the JBS.

[Wallace T.]

Was Larry McDonald not designated as the president of the John Birch Society before his death in 1983? After his death, and that of Robert Welch, the Birchers had a schism, with several, including the founder's widow and Alan Stang, who boasts about his closeness to Robert Welch on his Web site, leaving the JBS and associating with The Welch Foundation. Was there anything other than personal power plays involved in the schism? Looking at the Welch Report Web site, there does not appear to be much difference between the groups ideologically.

The numbers cited in Welch's numbers were as of 1961. Did those percentage of Catholics vs. others hold up through the decades? At least two areas of Birch Society strength, Dallas and Salt Lake City, historically have had relatively small populations of white Catholics. Additionally, the theological liberalism promoted by the Second Vatican Council had its effects on the political and social views of Catholics, as evidenced by increasingly Democratic tendencies in the suburban counties surrounding Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and Baltimore after 1988. Many Northeastern and Great Lakes white Catholics of the G.I Generation, who listened to Charles Coughlin in their youth and admired Joseph McCarthy and Douglas MacArthur as young adults, produced Baby Boomer offspring who idealized Bobby Kennedy and George McGovern as young people and who voted in the Cuomos, the Ted Kennedys, the Kuciniches, the Bidens, and the Liebermans in the 1980s and thereafter.

OTOH, in the 1970s, white evangelical Protestants moved politically to the right, and reentered the arena of politics after a half century of exile after the failure of Prohibition and the humiliation of the Scopes trial. Before 1990, the South produced a substantial minority of white liberal politicians (though some were moderate by national standards): William Fulbright, the Gores, Lawton Chiles, Claude Pepper, Terry Sanford, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Ann Richards, Carl Albert, Bill Clinton. Such politicians were far rarer after 1990.

Thus, it would appear likely that the religious composition of the Birchers by, say, 1982, was more heavily weighted toward evangelical Protestants than it would have been in 1961.

If Welch were not lucid in his final weeks, one wonders how valid his conversion to Catholicism would have been. I'm not Catholic, but I would think that informed consent and an acceptance of at least the rudiments of the Catholic faith are necessary on the part of an adult before receiving baptism for that sacrament to be efficacious. Since traditionalist Catholics are separate from the mainstream of their church because of doctrinal issues, one would not think that John McManus would be involved in a bogus "conversion" of a terminally ill man.

[Ernie.cal]

Wallace:

Unfortunately, the material I need to answer you with some precision is in storage boxes, but I can offer these general thoughts...

WELCH SUCCESSOR
Yes, Larry McDonald was chosen as Welch's successor. However, within the upper echelons of the JBS, it had always been assumed that Welch would pass the baton to Tom Hill.

Unfortunately, since the JBS forbids outsiders from reviewing its internal documents AND since the JBS itself does not produce any in-house history, we cannot presently know how, when, and why McDonald was chosen over Hill.

CATHOLICS: You inquire if the "percentage of Catholics vs. others" in the JBS remained constant through the decades. I don't know. Aside from Welch's remarks in 1961 which I quoted, a 1965 JBS publication entitled "What Is The John Birch Society?" stated that "We estimate that about forty percent of our total membership is Catholic."

POST-WELCH SCHISM:
Aside from the material on Stang's website, I also have correspondence between and among several very prominent Birch officials---including several National Council members and Coordinators---which reveal a very bitter internal dispute.

Allegations include financial improprieties at HQ, top officials demanding absolute obedience to HQ instructions and thwarting any independent thinking or innovative local programs; accusations about a "hidden anti-Christian (primarily anti-Catholic) agenda" at HQ; allegations about top officials lining their own pockets, and engaging in dishonest conduct and orchestrating smear campaigns against critics who were JBS chapter leaders, section leaders, and Coordinators. 25-35 year veterans described JBS HQ edicts as "deliberately destroying" the organization which Welch created.

So much about the JBS is unknown (and perhaps unknowable). One major source of new information has hardly been scratched: private papers of prominent JBS officials. Hopefully, sometime in the future, scholars will be able to piece together the puzzle with some degree of accuracy as they peruse the private papers at various universities of such key figures as William Grede, Tom Anderson, J.B. Matthews, Clarence Manion, T. Coleman Andrews. Also would be fascinating to discover if persons like John Rousselot and Tom Hill left any private papers which would shed light on JBS history.

[Wallace T.]

One thought occurred to me that may be worth pursuing. Liberty Lobby folded several years ago, as the result of lawsuits or possible financial improprieties of its founder, Willis Carto. Liberty Lobby never made any attempt to become a grassroots organization, preferring to communicate via their newsletter and their periodical, The Spotlight. Carto and several men associated with the organization, such as Revilo Oliver, were Birch Society alumni. Oliver's side of his dispute with Robert Welch is available through the Web site of an admirer of his. However, the positions of Carto and other "right wing deviationists" (to borrow a Marxist term) in Liberty Lobby are not known.

The records of Liberty Lobby are presumably now in the hands of the bankruptcy court. Do you know if they are a matter of public record? If they are, they would probably provide some perspective, though likely tainted with sour grapes, of the John Birch Society and its operations.

[Ernie.cal]

The most comprehensive website on Carto's career, back-stabbing, and money-making schemes is at: http://homepage.mac.com/lsf/

Carto was employed by the JBS for a brief time but appears to have parted with Welch on amicable terms. I have a significant amount of Carto correspondence with his friend and business partner, Verne Kaub, wherein Carto reveals his racist and anti-Semitic beliefs, but he doesn't say much about the JBS or Welch.

I agree that whatever records Carto has accumulated during his lifetime would be a huge contribution to understanding the history of the modern conservative movement since Carto was intimately involved with so many of the movers and shakers in the post-World-War II conservative movement. His earliest publication "Right" (Liberty and Property, Inc.) is still an extremely valuable information source.

In the future, I will be posting a lot of material about Carto in my Yahoo group which is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FBIvsExtremeRight/

[GOP_1900AD]

Rope a dope? Or perhaps, an extreme form of projection - projection as a deception tool.

For example, if I wanted to have the most effective form of stealth, I might actually pretend to be exactly the opposite of who I really am. I might use many "examples" of the beliefs which I purportedly took issue with, precisely as a means of spreading them.

Certainly, I cannot prove this is the case here. But it is a very unusual circumstance, and this user is likely not 100% above board regarding true motivation or goals.

FReegards.