Birch Society "Experts"

OK Eastbound...I understand now. ANYTHING which differs from your personal political preferences is what you consider "Communist", "socialist" "liberal" or "leftist".

In your scheme of things, Americans have only SINGLE options from which to choose, and those single options just happen to conform to what you currently believe.

Are you familiar with Albert Canwell? He was the first Chairman of the Washington State UnAmerican Activities Committee. He was an ardent supporter of Sen. Joe McCarthy and, in later years, he was a speaker for the Birch Society's American Opinion Speakers Bureau plus wrote articles for American Opinion at the specific request of its editor, Scott Stanley.

I am copying below an excerpt from Canwell's Oral Interview about his career which can be found online at:

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/oralhistory/canwell.pdf

Since you are anti-socialist and anti-Communist and anti-leftist, let's see if you agree with Canwell's assessment of Robert Welch?

Mr. Canwell: The issues were that Robert Welch was not an anti-Communist. He was an opportunist, a world socialist actually, and he was doing a very dishonest job. He would gather some very fine people about him. He was a member of the National Manufacturers Association. So he sold them the idea that he was anti-Communist and that he had this program going and then he got quite a number of them to join his group. But what he was actually doing was getting people who were well identified as anti-Communist and able Americans, he’d get them to go along in his society and then he would smear them, destroy them. And that was what his object was.

Mr. Frederick: Why was he doing that?

Mr. Canwell: Because he was an international socialist. I went to work in looking into his background when I began to have trouble with him. And I found that he had attended the London School of Economics, the top socialist school in the world. It became very obvious to me that he was able to acquire this leadership position by moving into the anti-Communist movement and pretending to be something that he was not. And then some of his own kind of people helped him do that: Drew Pearson, and others, who all of
a sudden were attacking Robert Welch and giving him reams of free publicity. And the so-called Americans or anti-Communists thought, “Well, if Drew Pearson is against him, he must be all right.” Actually Pearson and Welch were hand-in-glove.

Another phase of this that I turned up was that Robert Welch was a long-time member of the American Civil Liberties Union, which would and did surprise a lot of people when I released that information. They denied it and he eventually made the statement that he belonged merely to get their publications, but that wasn’t the case. There was friction on that level....

...They got Westbrook Pegler to write for them for awhile and then they started the damnedest smear on him that you could imagine. I could see the pattern and I became acquainted with some of the national members of his board, Dan Draskovich and others, and Welch did the same thing to all of them. He’d get them to identify with the Birch Society either on the speakers bureau or on their board or on the writing level and then he’d circulate information about them, derogatory information that was damaging to them. You talk about a sophisticated espionage operation, that was it. I would say that ninety percent, ninety-five percent of the Birch Society members were just downright good Americans, nothing wrong with them at all.

Mr. Frederick: Was he a head case?

Mr. Canwell: A head case? I don’t know. I suspected that he was on drugs, and I say that from having observed him in two or three meetings where he was talking and he’d leave the meeting and take some pills. I don’t know what kind or what for but I suspected that might be the case.

Are these international socialists psychopathic or what? You know they just aren’t pro-Americans. They aren’t supportive of our system. This is all news to you, I imagine. You may think I’m psychotic, but on this I’m not. I have correspondence. I told him that because of his activity he couldn’t get his name in the paper any more and that I was going to put him back on the front page. But I just didn’t have time to work on him properly.

"The FBI did not "cast aside" any of its informants due to Washington, D.C. politics."

By "cast aside", I meant that the Directors were/are not foolish men who are willing to put their careers on the line when the party in power actually is promoting socialist dogma. Therefore the reports from the spies and counter spies lost value in the daily reports to the White house.

Just another small question.
Due you believe that you are receiving your full FOIA requests from the Bureau?

The Pentagon still understood the value even when the White House didn't want to see the report.
That is not to say the Bureau didn't continue to use some of these men, they just had to be more careful who saw their reports.

The Bureau may designate myself as a "professional anti-Communist" because I have long understood the goals of communism and believe me it has nothing to do with democracy.

May I repeat these three questions;
Have you noticed that the growth of the various United Nations ideas sprouted during the mid 1960's? Do you comprehend the intentions of the United Nations? Do you believe they are pro or anti democracy.

Sinkspur: Thanks for your favorable comments. However, I would like to go on record as opposing "weeding out" any JBS members or supporters from this site unless they egregiously violate rules of etiquette -- and even then I would be extremely cautious.

Unorthodox opinions deserve to be aired fully. As our founding fathers realized, ideas cannot be suppressed without running the risk of purging good and true (but unorthodox) thoughts.

Also, you have to understand the utter shock produced by evidence I cite in my messages. Most Birchers have never confronted ANY data from sources they heretofore approved, (such as FBI under Hoover).

Even though the JBS describes itself as an "educational" organization, it has been meticuously careful about NOT bringing to members attention any data which contradicts their dogma...including
(1) the fact that the JBS paid $400,000 to Elmer Gertz in a historical libel case that took 14 years of litigation and appeals to resolve.

(2) that Robert Welch's wife, Marian, terminated her relationship with the JBS because of disagreement over the direction the Society was taking under its new leadership

Ernie

However, I would like to go on record as opposing "weeding out" any JBS members or supporters from this site unless they egregiously violate rules of etiquette -- and even then I would be extremely cautious.

Well, as is typical of JBS followers, they had extreme views in other areas that caused our proprietor to look askance at them; such things as "the moon walk in 1969 was staged"; the whole Bilderberger-Illuminati nonsense; and, most especially, the insistence on the existence of razor-wire-enclosed UN internment camps for anyone who disagrees with the "socialist line."

Jim simply didn't want FR to become another whatreallyhappened.com, which is, BTW, run by a former FReeper, Michael Rivero, who has his own special brand of tinfoil.

Oh, and the other, primary reason Jim keeps his antennae up about the conspiracy types is that a sizeable number of them are blatantly anti-semitic.

The JBS is full of tin-foil hat conspiracy freaks...

I know this to be true because back when I was active in the "Patriot" movement back in the 90s (work closely with Dr. Eugene Schroder) I was in constant contact with JBSers.

People like the JBS folk convinced me it was a waste of time to endeavor to work for the restoration of the Republic when it became apparent that there weren't enough rational, non-compromised citizens left to make a dent. ;-)

"In your scheme of things, Americans have only SINGLE options from which to choose, and those single options just happen to conform to what you currently believe."

Well, yes. It took me a long time to conclude that AMERICANS have only a single option, and that option is to protect and preserve their birthright and to pass it on to the next generation un-scathed and un-diluted. Alas, we are failing, it seems.

For the record, I don't know the difference between a Bircher and a Cedarist. I've learned more about the Birchers than I ever knew on this thread. If the Birchers did good, fine. If they believe what I believe, much the better.

Thank you for your diligence and search for truth.

I only know about the JBS by reading about the Kennedy assassination. MG Edwin A. Walker was relieved of command of the 24th ID in April 61 because he was preaching "pro blue" to his troops. Pro Blue, as I've learned, was anti-communist, JBS material. Of course, Walker was the one Oswald supposedly took a shot at, I believe, exactly 41 years ago today while he was doing his taxes in his Dallas home. I've always thought that Walker was somehow connected to the assassination because he hated JFK so much.

Thoughts?

It seems that now the JBS is into :

Stopping FTAA

Getting us out of the UN

Providing Americans with non-partisan reports of their Representative's voting records

Preserving the Constitution

Calling for support for local police

Reclaiming the Panama Canal.

The ba$tards. What an agenda. Who could theese people be?

FREEPERS?

EM2VN:

Do you actually mean that only persons with degrees, certificates, etc. have "credentials" for speaking on some matter of interest?

If so, what were Robert Welch's "credentials" for speaking about Communism and our nation's internal security? (He was a retired candy manufacturer!)

What are the credentials of the Birch Society National Council members or JBS authors?

And why do YOU dismiss the "credentials" of our nation's primary resource on internal security matters? (the FBI during J. Edgar Hoover's tenure?). Is it your judgment that the Bureau's agents and analysts were ALL, without exception, incompetent?

Recently, a doctoral candidate from Brown University visited me for 2 days to peruse my FBI documents and look at other materials I have accumulated.

I mentioned to him that I have purchased or photocopied dozens of masters theses and doctoral dissertations pertaining to the Birch Society and similar groups.

I've always wondered, however, why it is that no JBS member/supporter has written a masters thesis or doctoral dissertation to prove their point of view about some matter of interest---not even a history or analysis of JBS chapters in their area or some controversy the JBS was involved in.

You have any ideas about that? (I've only come across ONE masters thesis written by someone who had a favorable view of the JBS).

I know this is difficult for you. None of us like to be confronted with information that disputes what we believe, especially long-held beliefs.

I am willing to listen carefully to whatever you have to say and I also am willing to present factual evidence to document the assertions in my messages.

Isn't that fair? Why do insist on attacking me just because I present data you don't like?

Ernie

B4:

Sorry, but I may still not understand what you are trying to say. I'll try to address each of your points and questions. Let me know if I miss anything.

FBI INVESTIGATIONS AND USE OF INFORMANTS:
FBI investigations and analyses existed independent of whatever "socialist dogma" you might imagine to be in operation within the U.S. government.

I'm not sure what you mean by "daily reports" by "spies and counterspies" to the White House. There were no such "daily reports". Keep in mind that reports from informants are like taking a snapshot with a camera. One report by informant "A" is compared to information in other reports by informants "B", "C", "D", etc.

It was not uncommon for informants to contradict each other and the Bureau then had to analyze and evaluate the data to determine whether or not one informant was more reliable than another (based upon whether or not they were in a position to obtain accurate info and then form reliable conclusions.)

Let me give you one quick example: For many months, the Bureau was convinced (because of reports from several informants that were considered reliable) that Gen. Edwin A. Walker in conjunction with the KKK intended to lead an "insurrection" if Goldwater was defeated for President in 1964. There is a very large FBI file devoted to the Walker-KKK "insurrection plot" --- but, eventually, the Bureau determined that the information they received was not accurate or was just hearsay comments.

DEROGATORY INFORMATION IN FBI DOCUMENTS:
When FBI HQ or FBI field offices commenced an investigation of a particular person or group (or just monitored persons or organizations without commencing an official investigation) their summary reports routinely reported derogatory information.

Derogatory information included everything from poor credit ratings, to criminal records, to drug/alcohol problems, to associations with persons or organizations that the Bureau considered noxious.

Bureau reports cite Communist affiliations or associations. But saying that does NOT answer the more important questions concerning

* the person's motivation for their involvement,
* the period of time of such "associations",
* the degree of involvement (for example: financial contributor, leader, petition signer, attending a speech or meeting, etc)
* what other data was available reflecting a person's anti-Communist activities

Thus, for example, Harry Overstreet's file has a lot of material concerning his Communist front "associations" but nevertheless the Bureau had a close personal relationship with Harry and his wife and the Bureau assisted the Overstreets with several of their books--including books which the JBS denounced!

Many FBI summary memos or reports present data which was embarrassing to the then-current Administration (whether Democrat or Republican) but that certainly didn't prevent the Bureau from compiling the info or putting it in reports.

MY FOIA REQUESTS
You ask if I am receiving my full FOIA requests. Documents are sometimes denied or heavily excised for a variety of law-enforcement and privacy-related reasons.

On some subjects I receive the entire file without excisions or denials, but on other subjects I may receive only a few pages that are not excised. However, when I provide proof-of-death on an individual, the documents released are usually with minimal excisions/denials. Every FOIA release is accompanied by a listing of all the reasons for excision or denial.

YOUR UNITED NATIONS QUESTIONS:
Frankly, B4, I don't think those questions are relevant to the topic I originally posted---except as yet another avenue where I can report what is contained in FBI files on such JBS bogey-men as, for example, UNESCO and UNICEF and top UN officials during the 1950's and 1960's.

You won't like the info contained in FBI files because there is no mention whatsoever of any "plot" to convert the U.S. into a one-world socialist state under the guidance of the UN.

Hope that covers everything to your satisfaction.

Now I have one question for YOU!

Please explain, as precisely as you can, how you go about determining whether information presented by the JBS is accurate.

For example, when a book or pamphlet has lots of footnotes, do you go to the library and attempt to verify the accuracy of Birch info in those footnotes? Do you genuinely consider alternative theories or explanations for whatever matter is under discussion?

In fact, how do you establish to your own satisfaction, that the JBS conspiratorial theory is the MOST RELIABLE explanation available? I presume you know that there are LOTS of ALTERNATIVE conspiratorial theories---some of which originated with Birch Society members? For example, see:

http://watch.pair.com/belmont.html

Can YOU disprove the "Belmont Brotherhood" conspiratorial theory which originated with former JBS members including top officials?

That is exactly what I mean.Credentials are bestowed upon one by others not by oneself.
I was not addressing anyone other than you. I have no interest in the JBS or those who speak for them. You are the one who began this thread, therefore, I am challenging your lack of credentials and your positions, not those who you are speaking of in your post.

Well, leadpenny, there are numerous books and articles which report on the motivation and opportunity of "extreme rightists" who might be involved in JFK's assassination.

Some of the reports develop very interesting information but I haven't seen anything to establish that Gen. Walker was connected in any way to JFK's assassination.

Of course, it is accurate, as you state, that Walker hated JFK and his Administration. A local group in Dallas called "Friends of General Walker" consisted of many JBS members. One of them, Cora Fredrickson, was the person who hit UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson with her anti-UN sign during his October 1963 speech in Dallas. Another person, a male, spit on Stevenson. He was an aide to Gen. Walker.

Here's a couple things I bet you did not know.

* At one time, Walker was offered the position of Grand Dragon of the KKK in Texas---which he seriously considered but ultimately declined. He did, however, continue to make speeches before white supremacist organizations.

* Robert Welch confidentially told Birch Society National Council members that Walker was associating with, and taking counsel from, people who were bigots.

Before I start, Ernie.cal, if you feeeeeeeeel you must reply keep it public -- no emails this time please.

Here are some facts on just one of the disparaged Americans, Matt Cvetic.

Matt Cvetic had knowledge of the Slav languages. In the early 1940s when he was contacted by the FBI that was a big plus because that meant he was well qualified to infiltrate the higher echelon of the Soviet apparatus in the U.S.

Mr. Cvetic could not get into the armed services at just 5'4" according to his friend George Putnam. The service he was to perform for his country would be unpaid the FBI told him until he reached the goal of becoming a Communist Party member. His personal sacrifice for America would be as great as most uniformed service members in terms of putting everything behind including his family. He kept his employment at the United States Employment Service in Pittsburgh.

As the 1940s passed Mr. Cvetic paid a heavy price in terms of being under constant watch by CPUSA and becoming despised by Americans for being a CPUSA member. (His family and friends weren't in the self-described "intellectual" class, they were Americans, they didn't "understand" how harmless and good Uncle Joe Stalin was.) Described by some as "a hard-drinking lout" but unlike the fat drunk, pickled-brained Ted Kennedy super rich liberals of America Mr. Cvetic's drinking disqualifies his accomplishments because he is "on the wrong side." That's the spin.

He was never a FBI agent. Over time he provided tons of information on the CPUSA and its members. Thus he is an enemy of America's chattering class and their fringe elements.

His major crime, beyond being anti-communist, was being the inspiration for radio and movie dramas. A no-no, reaches too many people. Bad for the silly twits and self-described "intellectuals."

Americans like Herb Philbrick and Mr. Cvetic, real-life volunteer undercover agents for America's FBI throughout most of the forties, had an inside view of characters straight out of a Monty Python movie swooning over Uncle Joe Stalin. Yes, people love Uncle Joe's quest for a workers' paradise to this day. As silly as they are some of them are dangerous.

Eastbound:

Several scholars have pointed out that the extreme left and extreme right are not polar opposites.

Instead, for many radicals, it is but a short jump across a fevered street.

What all radicals share in common is their peculiar notion that we always have only SINGLE options....i.e. the ones they identify as legitimate, good, decent, honorable, and patriotic.

Now how can they ALWAYS know WHICH proposals or ideas are legitimate, good, decent, honorable, patriotic?

Since they cannot tolerate the underlying values of a pluralistic, free society---namely choice among competing ideas---they eliminate the problem by boldly announcing
that there is only ONE option available---THEIRS!

Genuine choice implies that one's personal favorite options might not be chosen by other people in elections and public policy debates. Consequently---just eliminate the problem by eliminating choice. At first, it's just rhetorical elimination (in debates such as exchanges on FR) but let us all beware...if Eastbound and others who share his/her views prevail, all of us will live by a different definition of what constitutes Americanism.

"Please explain, as precisely as you can, how you go about determining whether information presented by the JBS is accurate."

Ernie, you will have to go a long way to find someone as skeptical as I am about anything printed, televised or broadcast for public consumption.

I have had too many government officials and others flat out lie to my face. Reporters today generally are working for a left leaning editor and therefore that is the angle presented. The same with televise and radio.

The few who do appear to be leaning to the right many times are simply putting out disinformation. I wish I could remember the outfit I came across that was fueling from both sides. It had something to do with gun magazine publishing, in fact owned by an anti-gun conglomerate. They saw the cold cash available and got in line.

My questions regarding the UN are so that I can get a feeling of your regard for them. They are not an organization that broadcasts their intentions to the public unless they are looking for cash/support votes.

Following the money has done me well in my private research.

Ernie, if you are looking for the truth remember what Gustave Le Bon said;
“The masses live by, and are ruled by, subconscious and emotional thought process. The crowd has never thirsted for the truth. It turns aside from evidence that is not to its taste, preferring to glorify and to follow error, if the way of error appears attractive enough, and seduces them. Whoever can supply the crowd with attractive emotional illusions may easily become their master; and whoever attempts to destroy such firmly entrenched illusions of the crowd is almost sure to be rejected.”

Just attempting to get someone to view a topic without their inbred prejudices is very difficult. They don't want to stand on the other side of the fence and look in at themselves. "Too difficult" is the short phrase I hear every time I suggest it.

Keep your mind open to the idea that ex FBI employees can be very dangerous to the Bureau's upper management and that may be why the Bureau took the time and money to publicly defame them. Or perhaps there was some prodding from Congressional memebers.

Philetus:

IF, as your message states, the Birchers were only promoting the ideas you mention there would be no problem whatsoever --- and none of us would have anything to complain about. They would simply be offering some alternative ideas about public policy matters.

HOWEVER, your message is totally disingenuous. In 1979, Robert Welch wrote a series of articles in the JBS Bulletin wherein he called for the immediate impeachment of President Carter for "treason".

Now, let's get serious, Philetus. We ALL know the prescribed punishment for "treason".

Any student of the JBS knows that the Birch Society believes MOST of our national leaders since President Wilson's time have been (at best) dupes or tools of a Communist (and later, "Insider") conspiracy to rule the world.

Many Birch Society supporters/endorsers have never confronted the unvarnished version of Robert Welch's beliefs about the extent of treason and disloyalty within the top echelons of American government.

Excerpted below are some of the statements made by Robert Welch at the first JBS National Council meeting held at the Union League Club in Chicago on January 9, 1960.

"Communist influences are now in almost complete working control of our government."

"Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind, that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists."

"In our two states with the largest population, New York and California...already the two present Governors are almost certainly actual Communists...Our Congress now contains a number of men like Adam Clayton Powell of New York and Charles Porter of Oregon, who are certainly actual Communists, and plenty more who are sympathetic
to Communist purposes for either ideological or opportunistic reasons."

"In the Senate, there are men like Stephen Young of Ohio, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, McNamara of Michigan, and Clifford Case of New Jersey and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whom it is utter
folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference..."

"Our State Department is loaded with Communists from top to bottom, to the extent that our roll call of Ambassadors almost sounds like a list somebody has put together to start a Communist front."

"It is estimated from many reliable sources that from 70% to 90% of the responsible personnel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are Communists."

"Our Central Intelligence Agency under Allen Dulles is nothing more or less than an agency to promote Communism throughout the world...Almost all the other Departments are loaded with Communists and Communist sympathizers. And this generalization most specifically does include our whole Defense Department."

"Genuine choice implies that one's personal favorite options might not be chosen by other people in elections and public policy debates. Consequently---just eliminate the problem by eliminating choice. At first, it's just rhetorical elimination (in debates such as exchanges on FR) but let us all beware...if Eastbound and others who share his/her views prevail, all of us will live by a different definition of what constitutes Americanism."

I really hate to be mis-characterized. My view of Americanism was clearly stated above. I and others who share that view will be the only ones standing after the final battle against those who would trade our Republic for a bowl of porridge. Count on it.

Thank you for outing yourself. Saves me the trouble.

EM2VN:

Perhaps I misunderstand your point. If you make a statement or conclusion, doesn't that statement or conclusion stand or fall based upon its merits i.e. the factual evidence you present and the way you put facts together to form an argument?

If a reader disagrees with you and has compelling factual evidence to demonstrate that your conclusion is incorrect, doesn't that compelling evidence merit your consideration?

Perhaps I mean something different by "credentials" than you? I am asking FR readers to accept certain statements contained in my postings. However, that information is NOT simply wild surmise, idle chatter, or unsupported personal opinion.

The statements I have made are based upon 20 years of research and the acquisition, by me, of over 200,000 pages of documents in FBI files as well as documents from military intelligence and other sources.

You objected to my information. But you still have not provided ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to indicate what research YOU have done on this topic.

If you cannot or will not specify what research you have done into FBI files or in the private papers of prominent JBS members and officials---then everything you have written thus far is kind of silly, isn't it?

Finally, just as an aside, I have been cited in several books and doctoral dissertations as a source of information. In addition, I have sent material to numerous newspaper reporters as well as organizations who have inquired about my research. However, I do NOT expect anyone to accept anything I write simply because of this--because, frankly, I think it's irrelevant.

Ernie

The term "professional anti-Communists" is a pejorative term used to disparage any opponent of Communism. Though I am sure you have "an official FBI document" that states that the term is never used that way.

For example, arguing that the belief that CPUSA was little more than a projection of Soviet policy, especially espionage, was false and "is an extremist position which had been largely debunked" the author (below) refers to the professional anti-Communists who are trying to revive the Cold War anti-Communist suspicion using their Soviet archives research.

Just thought you might want to know what your fellow researchers are going through from your side.

Reference Center for Marxist Studies, http://www.libr.org/rcms/interview.html

There is no doubt that "professional" federal informants cause problems, however. IMO the worst example is what happened to the Weaver family and we taxpayers paid millions as a result. The Weaver family paid with the lives of the mother and a son. The U.S. Marshalls paid with the loss of an agent and of course his family paid also.

BTW, during the Congressional hearings on Ruby Ridge informants identified other informants as members of so-called white supremacist groups. Informants virtually outnumbered real members.