Blogs

PBA has a pic of that sign on their website too. What's the point?

Gotta love that retro look. Does JBS have its own eyeware store or does it share Drew Carey's?

Speaking of intelligence, don't forget that Western Goals was active in anti-immigrant circles in the 1980s when the Sanctuary Movement was giving shelter to Hispanic political refugees from places like Guatemala and El Salvador. And don't forget that "Jack" Singlaub started his WACL chapter here in Phoenix in 1981.

So, it isn't all that surprising to those of us with knowledge of the historical background, to see a right-wing political nexus involving nativist groups, groups like the John Birch Society, and neo-Nazi groups -- among others.

Nativists seeking to recall Mayor Gordon may not have money and organizational power, decades of experience, and extensive professional connections, but some of the groups on the margin certainly do, and it pays to keep an eye on them insofar as they are quite capable of subverting local organizations to their own goals. "Money talks and bullshit walks" as they say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Goals_Foundation

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/6173/wacl.txt

http://books.google.com/books?id=IbFXs7_LutMC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=chip+berlet+singlaub+phoenix+arizona&source=web&ots=6HtB91YXgD&sig=1w1-TdiyUvVtVuy0K8IHaA5_-p4&hl=en#PPA81,M1

P.S. The Sanctuary Movement originated along the U.S. border with Mexico in Arizona.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_movement

Great job FB. Those people in the photos on the other hand look like poster children for birth control.

Man, these uh, "protesters" look like a buch of slothful toads. Don't these 50 people have anything else to do on a weekday during WORKING hours? Since they don't have teeth I guess a dentist appointment is out of the question. But they could sand down the craters on Crusty Childress's face.

This is from the front page of PatriotBorder Allience website:

"Several sources had indicated that there would be a huge march on the state capitol today and we wanted to show the American colors for the occasion. We arrived prior to 10 am since the marchers were supposed to arrive at the Capitol by 11. Had a nice time visiting and getting petitions signed. We had hoped that the Impeach Mayor Phil Gordon petitions would be available there for signature by Phoenix residents but a printing problem had delayed that happening.

As the morning progressed, we received word that the marchers had not obtained the proper permits necessary for such an event and that they now planned on having a small prayer vigil tonight in another location. About noon, many of us left. "

Kudos to the printers.
For the record, no March was planned and no permit was applyed for. If will tell them Lou Dobbs said the sky is falling will they all stay in underground bunkers for a while? ( You neverknow!)

This is from the front page of PatriotBorder Allience website:

"Several sources had indicated that there would be a huge march on the state capitol today and we wanted to show the American colors for the occasion. We arrived prior to 10 am since the marchers were supposed to arrive at the Capitol by 11. Had a nice time visiting and getting petitions signed. We had hoped that the Impeach Mayor Phil Gordon petitions would be available there for signature by Phoenix residents but a printing problem had delayed that happening.

As the morning progressed, we received word that the marchers had not obtained the proper permits necessary for such an event and that they now planned on having a small prayer vigil tonight in another location. About noon, many of us left. "

Kudos to the printers.
For the record, no March was planned and no permit was applyed for. If will tell them Lou Dobbs said the sky is falling will they all stay in underground bunkers for a while? ( You neverknow!)

There are no racist or Nazis in the Minuteman CDC or the Patriots Border Alliance Minutemen. They dont accept them. Minutemen are for the rule of law and stopping illegal immigration. What is the true point of this blog?

In following some of the imbedded links in the current blog article, I located the following prescient words of wisdom by the Feathered Bastard from roughly six months ago:

"Funny enough, the Birchers are anti-democratic too, but that's because they regard the U.S. as a republic, and reject the concept of "indirect democracy." I'd heard the Birchers were still very active in Arizona, so here was my chance to find out what they're all about these days. What threat replaced communism as the Bircher bugbear, I wondered?

"To judge by their booths (they had two in the "town square"), their main emphasis these days is on battling the chimera of the North American Union, the supposed plot to merge Mexico, the U.S. and Canada into one large superstate with its own currency, the Amero. . . ."

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2007/09/neonazis_john_birchers_and_ron.php

I quote this because it isn't, after all, such a big step from the idea that the great unwashed masses are incapable of rationally conducting direct democracy, to the idea that they are also incapable of competently electing representatives to conduct such activities on their behalf.

After all, if the public's knowledge and judgment is so poor as to be unable to decide issues directly, why should their knowledge and judgment be trusted to decide issues indirectly, by voting for politicians on the basis of their (actual or avowed) general tendencies or even on the basis of their specific positions? Incompetence once removed is still incompetence.

These musings lead naturally if insensibly to a conviction that fascism is the best and perhaps only path to rational governance.

The obvious flaw -- that support of fascist leaders and their political platforms requires some degree of mass support and therefore falls into the same logical trap -- does not seem to occur to adherents and sympathizers of fascism, perhaps because their thinking is dominated by their own personal biases and class interests, all of which are easily mistaken for objectivism, particularly when disguised by propaganda which makes fascist impulses more palatable (e.g., a return to original principles, fighting fire with fire, and so forth).

If freedom from tyranny requires suppression of the tyrant, and the "tyrant" consists of the masses acting in their own perceived class interests, then "freedom" requires suppression of the masses.

This in turn requires a combination of propaganda and force, and these in turn require the mechanisms of fascism, to insure that control of media and educational institutions (capable of disseminating "the right ideas"), and control of military and police institutions (capable of enforcing order), are concentrated in the hands of the wise rather than in the hands of the ignorant rabble.

To make the concentration of control in "the right hands" plausible to sufficient portions of the public at large (because, as noted above, even fascism ultimately relies on some degree of mass support for its power base), requires the existence of dangerous threats (external or internal, or both) which can be used to justify the expedient suspension (often in the form of piecemeal erosion) of traditional legal rights.

This, at least, is the theory of conventional fascism. Insidious forms of "friendly fascism" in which political control is effected through more subtle means than a truncheon to the head, are all the more dangerous to the public weal, if only because they are more difficult to detect and criticize, particularly to someone born into such a system and therefore conditioned from birth into accepting a narrow range of political discourse as natural and rejecting anything outside this as suspect or illegitimate.

Hey Mister Bird Eater,

The PBA site honors a NEONAZI, you butter-brained turd-eating MORON. That is the point of the blog entries, to show that the PBA honors a NEONAZI on its site. If you do not believe Elton Hall is a NEONAZI, go ask him. He will tell you all about it.

Who said anything about MCDC, fart-huffer? At least Chris Simcox is not fucking dumb enough to put a goddamn NEONAZI on the front page of the MCDC website.

My prediction: Watch PBA run scared and jerk the NEONAZI pic from their site. Assholes.

It appears to me the proof will lay in the authors hands....let him provide any proof that Elton Hall is a Nazi. Feathered Bastard? Show your cards. Will it appear as your 'proof' that Mrs Gaines is a hobbit?

didnt jt ready belong to simcox minutemen.

Did anyone catch the name of the bus company that brought in the illegal aliens to support mayor gorman for this thing? There was like 20 of them or more with signs supporting the mayor. I herd them on the radio going off in spanish.

Again here I am wondering why my comments never get posted but feeling compelled to write.After reading all of the posts I can only assume that the feathered bastard won't post my comments because it lacks third grade name calling and mispelled vulgarity.No one that reads the new times will understand it without their seven or eight mean words to keep them on track.Phil Gordon should be proud to get on these blogs and see the mentality of the people that support him.I don't know but if I were Phil I'd be nervous.

The Bastards already shown his cards:

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2008/02/longtime_az_neonazi_elton_hall.php

Talk to Unkkle Eltie, shithead. He wont mince words.

If you've tried to tell the truth and were looking for reasonable, level headed responses, then obviously this is not the blog to achieve that end result.

I read of Anna Gaines being called a Hobbit, and racists for not claiming pride in her Mexican heritage?

Wait, La Raza is all about promoting the Mexican race, and MeCha main objective is to "re concur" land that the Mexican government sold to the USA for 15 million well over 150 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo

So if a American citizen wants the immigration laws enforced, and there is over 20 million ILLEGAL ALIENS in this country to date, the majority of them Mexican, that justifies your racial acquisitions ???

Want to learn about racism, check out http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html

But not one of you liberal cry babies will begin to comprehend these facts.

I've made it a mission recently to empty every New Times stand into the nearest dumpster, to hopefully prevent young children from accessing the obscene material and lies embedded in this God awful rag.

The JBS' politics seem to be extreme libertarianism. If one wonders why they are around when there are no "Communist" states in existence anymore, it is quite simple: They believe that the fall of the East Bloc was some elaborate trick, that Communism is actually alive and well in the UN, and several international organizations.

As for the obvious contradiction in Fascism's view toward the masses, this is one of it's salient features, that is the idea that the masses are complete idiots, unless they line up behind some strong leader figure- then they're just fine apparently.

@Bird Eater: YES Elton Hall is a Nazi, I knew Hall, and he would most likely not deny it if asked.

Some of the comments posted regarding the John Birch Society are quite inaccurate and unfair characterizations of their beliefs.

But if anyone would like a more factual critique of the JBS, please see my 65-page report on the JBS based upon first-time released FBI files and documents, at:

JBS Report Chapters 1 thru 4: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1

(1) FBI Evaluations of Robert Welch and the John Birch Society including a brief introduction to the controversy of Robert Welch's book-length "private letter" entitled The Politician.

(2) FBI vs JBS on Internal Security Status of U.S.

(3) FBI vs JBS on Communist Infiltration of Clergy and Religious Institutions

(4) FBI vs JBS on Communists in the Department of Health, Education, Welfare

JBS Report, Chapter 5: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-2

(5) FBI vs JBS on Dr. Harry A. Overstreet as a Communist Sympathizer or Dupe

JBS Report, Chapters 6-7: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-3

(6) FBI vs. JBS on Civil Rights Movement -- including Alan Stang's 1965 book, "It's Very Simple", and, Highlander Folk School as an alleged "Communist Training School"

(7) FBI vs JBS on Persons JBS Claims To Be "Experts" on Communism

(includes discussion of Dan Smoot, W. Cleon Skousen, David Gumaer, Julia Brown, Lola Belle Holmes, among others)

Questions, criticisms, and comments may be directed to me at: Ernie1241@aol.com

Would Lemons tell us if he bathes, if asked?

I will have a look at that material. From what I remember, the JBS to this day is rife with conspiracy theories. However, they have been very critical about Fascism and any other form of government they see to be authoritarian. It is indeed true that they praised various anti-Communist dictators, but it is most likely that in many of these cases, they believed the indictments against such persons to be Communist or leftist propaganda.

Still the conspiratorial, never-trust-the-gubmint worldview of such groups has led to a lot of harm. Look up things like the "sovereign citizen" movement or "pure trusts" to see how this mindset has led many to needlessly get in trouble with the law, or in the latter case fall prey to scammers who promise methods of avoiding income tax.

Presumably "Ernesto" is another Todd Stallion alias.

Having met Mr. Lemons on half a dozen occasions under casual conditions, I never noticed anything suggesting substandard grooming habits, much less the Pigpen-like figure described by Stallion.

If you have a beef with something he's written, be a man and attack it instead of inventing slanders against the author and inserting them into the comments section of every other blog while hiding behind aliases. Cut the kinderspiel.

Ernesto...silly man...everyone knows that Turd does not bathe.....just look at him.....he is a disgusting looking subhuman species that sweats profusely and smells like old gym socks.

JBS couldn't possibly preach Facism, not the kind of Facism that Hardy Lloyd preaches here:

http://www.facistworld.org/Hardys-essays.html

Professor Lloyds Facism is a barbaric primitive way to fight Neo-Nazism/White Power!

The word from the cyber age is that the White Power Movement in the U.S. is falling apart. Sectarian conflicts between different hategroups have intensified to the point where its splitting promiment leaders to create their own chapters, hence leaving them with fewer members. The NSM for example is listed as one of the largest neo-nazi hategroup inside the U.S. but their numbers is declining rapidly.
Civil war between NSM and Ohio State Hooligans(a notorious skinhead group) is raging on. This is great news for every American like myself. It shows the age of White Supremacy is dying.......

Do not breathe easily yet, D.J., for while the organized movement has been floundering ever since the demise of the National Alliance, more and more WN memes are crossing into the mainstream. I would attribute this to two factors:

1. The anti-immigration movement has basically created a bubble of "acceptability" toward anti-Mexican rhetoric. No matter how much they try to pretend that they are not anti-Latino, it always comes out one way or another. They simply cannot conceal the real reason for their activism. An earlier manifestation is the acceptability of anti-Muslim, anti-Arab views post 9-11.

2. True to its nature, the mainstream media is allowing all manner of racial canards to be brought up in the Obama/Clinton race.

Of course the OSH vs. NSM war(believe me, it will be one-sided) will generate tons of internet drama and NSM will flood the net with massive amounts of butthurt. As such, I will be sitting back, eating popcorn, and laughing at the hilarious antics of the NSM.

For a taste of things to come, look up One People's Project report from last year about NSM members getting beat up by skins at Nordicfest. They saved some examples of NSM butthurt rants from forums which were absolutely hilarious. They were shocked and appalled that someone would dare attack them while they were wearing their precious uniforms.

Funny, but one of the links I provided no longer works. Here's another that does:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IbFXs7_LutMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=washington%27s+war+on+nicaragua&sig=QtgjE51fIye2GiVWc4UwTO1zUiE#PPA81,M1

As for Slavyanski's comment that the John Birch Society is essentially just a libertarian group, libertarians don't assemble their own extensive domestic spying apparatus to carry out "counter-intelligence" work, including domestic spying and smear campaigns against anyone fitting JBS' very broad notions of what it means to be a communist, a socialist, or a (witting or unwitting) tool of such groups.

"As investigative journalist Chip Berlet explains, Western Goals 'was essentially a cover for the continued domestic political spying of the John Birch Society'." (See page 82 of the book hyperlinked above.)

Libertarians also don't support things like racial apartheid in South Africa, which the JBS did. Nor would libertarians oppose the U.S. Civil Rights movement, as the JBS did. In both cases this was because the anti-apartheid and pro civil-rights forces were claimed by JBS to be communist, communist inspired, or communist manipulated (categories which tend to blend together pretty freely in JBS mythology).

Libertarians are also generally in favor of the free movement of persons without respect to political borders and without undue interference by governments. Libertarians believe that free labor is half of a free market and that an economic system which restricts the rights of labor to move from place to place (as opposed to the nearly unfettered rights of movement of international capital) is not a free market in any genuine sense.

So, "extreme libertarians" don't align themselves with nativist groups (as the JBS does), and certainly don't oppose the entry of political refugees such as those fleeing Central America during the Sanctuary Movement days (as JBS did). Nor do libertarians align themselves with military dictatorships and other right-wing authoritarian forces, as JBS commonly has, simply because these are perceived as anti-communist.

As far as I can see, the JBS is a kind of embodiment of the principles, tactics, and values of Joe McCarthy, and anyone (from presidents like Truman and Eisenhower, to school teachers, journalists and labor activists, to supporters of minority civil rights) who fails to toe the JBS line gets attacked as a commie (or whatever the current euphemism is in terms of "One World Government").

JBS ranks have historically provided a home to large numbers of racists and fascists, some of them quite prominent. A noted founding member of the JBS was Revilo Pendleton Oliver, a University of Illinois professor who would later co-found the racist National Alliance.

It's kind of interesting to compare Eisenhower's farewell address warning against the military-industrial complex (remember that these words were rather brave in the context of the Cold War atmosphere of 1961) with the crypto-fascist propaganda of the John Birch Society:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2007/09/more_fun_with_the_john_birch_s.php

While I do find all this information about the JBS fascinating, I should point out that it has been a long time since I have read anything from the JBS, and I can only judge them at this point based on their propaganda.

The idea that libertarians wouldn't support something like Apartheid is not wholly accurate. Such individuals have been known to morally support dictatorships when the opponent was viewed as "Communist".

Also if you followed the Ron Paul campaign you would see some examples of how libertarians find a back door to supporting types of segregation. Generally it involves states' rights, using terms like "freedom of association", and pointing out that multiculturalism is a failed government experiment.

That a group might preach one thing and do another is not exactly unheardof.

All that being said, it is amazing that the JBS is around at all these days.

Thanks for the links and thanks to Ernie for the 65 page report. Unfortunately I haven't had the time to start reading it.

BTW- For anyone who is wondering how entertaining it will be when NSM members start to get beat down by their own fellow travelers, here is a hilarious story from OPP about the last time this happened:

http://onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=977&Itemid=2

I'm a former JBS employee and spokesman (12 years on the staff, and a 15-year contributor to The New American) who was fired in October 2006 for ideological deviationism.

My "firing offense," apparently (JBS management has never specifically explained why I was kicked to the curb), was to object in public to the management's monomania about the "Brown Peril." With the Bush Regime eviscerating the Bill of Rights and destroying due process guarantees (such as habeas corpus) going back to Runnymede, I thought our priority should be to do whatever was within our admittedly limited power to impede and reverse that assault.

The official view of the JBS management was that we'd be better off living in an hermetically sealed police state -- a despotism with "secure borders" -- than restoring protection for civil liberties and allowing our nation to be "overrun" by dusky-skinned furriners from Mexico and points south.

Perhaps my views on this subject are colored, as it were, by the fact that I'm of Mexican ancestry, but I couldn't see how this was a good arrangement, let alone one compatible with the Birch Society's professed principles. I expressed my objections forcefully through internal channels, and obliquely in public. So at the earliest opportunity I was fired.

One complaint I received from my immediate supervisor shortly before I was canned was that pursuing the course I suggested might mean being on the same side of some issues as the demonic ACLU. We simply COULDN'T associate with people of THAT kind. But now we see the JBS snuggling up to vituperative bigots like Russell Pearce and his pal, the gelatinous Gruppenfuhrer JT Ready. THAT's the kind of "respectable" volk, er, folks whose company the JBS prefers.

I joined the JBS in the early 1990s in large measure because of the commendable stands it took against the first Gulf War and sundry assaults on individual liberties under the first President Bush.

Today, Bush fils has created the rudiments of a literal police state, gotten our country mired in two useless wars and lusts to start a third. And the current JBS management seems to think his most serious crime against our Constitution is his failure to "protect" our country from the scourge of poor brown people who come here to work without government permission.

I remember your name from New American; I used to read it when I was a teenager, as ironic as that might seem now looking back on things. I believe that the illegal immigration thing is just a scapegoat to get people to divert their focus from issues like a failing war, a failing economy, and numerous other social problems. Why the JBS would indulge in this, aside from the idiotic North American Union scare(I don't know if they talk about this or not), is not exactly clear. It seemed to me that JBS would appeal to libertarians and middle class white folks in general, and that group does seem to be getting swept up in the whole immigration mess these days.

Slavianski, libertarians would NOT support a system of government like Apartheid precisely because forced segregationism by means of government diktat (and the police-state necessary to enforce this) is inconsistent with the individual right of free association (and with other civil rights).

The John Birch Society, by constrast, not only condoned Apartheid in the name of anti-communism but regularly apologized for it.

I recall seeing one of their propaganda lectures on public access cable television in which they attempted to claim that black South Africans living under Apartheid had a high standard of living and were well taken care of, etc., and that all claims to the contrary were the lies of communists and their sympathizers and dupes.

Instead of depicting the poverty, degradation and violence visited upon the Black South African majority as a direct result of Apartheid, they gave a slide show of neat little houses in clean, safe neighborhoods and claimed that this was representative. Truly despicable.

As for so-called "states rights" advocates it is true that these often include a large number of bigots who simply want to use anti-federalism as a cover for racism: that term was a code-word for such interests when used by slave-owners before the U.S. Civil War, and was adopted thereafter by southern segregationists. But I don't see how using state rather than federal power to force segregationism can be described as being consistent with libertarianism.

Slavyanski wrote: "It seemed to me that JBS would appeal to libertarians and middle class white folks in general, and that group does seem to be getting swept up in the whole immigration mess these days."

Why am I not surprised that Slavyanski, in this and other recent comments, has been softpedaling the JBS?

You would think that a self-described Marxist-Leninist-Hoxhaist would be a little less indulgent and nostalgic about such a group, but apparently Slavyanski is saving his accusations of "social fascism" for social democrats and others on the left. Hmmm...

You seem to have a serious problem with there being any other left-wing poster on here besides yourself. Given the fact that the majority of posters on here tend to insinuate that their opponents engage in sexual relations with animals or close relatives, as well as threaten physical harm if not death in some cases, you could at least suffer me some common courtesy. Specifically in this case because while I admit that I am no expert on the JBS, I did read a great deal of their literature(i.e. New American) in my teenage years. They used to have an American Opinion bookstore right near my former residence, at Central and Camelback(North West corner of the intersection). It was sold and eventually became some kind of death metal shop or piercing studio. Mr. Welch must have turned in his grave.

First off, I see the JBS as an irrelevant, dying organization that cannot harm anyone. Therefore I don't see the need to go on an all-out attack against it here. My ideological opposition to it should be obvious.

Now as for libertarianism and the JBS, I feel you are making a "no true Scotsman" fallacy here, which is incidentally very common amongst libertarian apologists- THOUGH I am NOT accusing you of being a libertarian. To clarify, I am simply saying that there is in fact a spectrum of libertarians and while they might deny it, libertarian practice differs from theory.

Many people generally sympathetic to libertarianism and "minimal government" supported people like Ron Paul, who in fact WANTED the government to step in and block things like abortion. This is a clear contradiction of the "get the government off your back" philosophy that he was preaching, yet nobody in his camp seemed to notice that. There have been libertarian types like Charles Goyette who opposed the Iraq war, and there are those who were actually for it.

That libertarians of certain stripes might have some glaring contradictions of principle should not be surprising considering how idealistic a movement it is.

Some common factors between libertarianism in general(assuming we're not talking about anarchism) are:

-opposition to any kind of socialism
-Favoring local control over federal; minimal government
-belief that the market will better regulate things like environmental protection
-Tending to favor Christianity and looking down on abortion.
-conspiratorial beliefs
-opposition to the UN and other world organizations
-tendency to be against certain wars
-strong support for gun ownership
-concern with the alleged opinions of the founding fathers, original intent, etc.

These common features are significant enough to classify the JBS ideology as a sect of libertarianism. Keep in mind that some will classify anarchists as libertarians when in fact most anarchists and libertarians would not get along for the fact that traditional anarchists are anti-capitalist if not socialist while many self-described libertarians believe in the market.

Lastly you should not forget that many Americans of all different political stripes believe in "freedom" for themselves, while not caring if said freedom comes at the expense of the freedom of others, as it often does.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lD_gNuFWyeo&fmt=18

I don't know why I find this video so entertaining. It came out a year before the 1984 film The Terminator.

Slavyanski,

You seem to forget that I do not regard you as a "left-wing poster" but rather as a fraud posing as one. Furthermore, given your Stalinist blog rants at Eastern Star I see no reason to suffer you courtesy when it is clear that, were you sincere in what you say, you would use others on the Left like condoms before lining them up against the wall in the event of success. Either way, fuck you. I am not going to be a nicely behaved little member of your Popular Front.

I remember the little American Opinion bookstore, which is now home to something calling itself Red Hot Robot. That doesn't mean I regard JBS as something quaint, as you seem to.

It's clear that the JBS cannot in good faith be regarded as a "libertarian" organization for the reasons I have already enumerated. If you insist on dismissing these clearly defined and fundamental philosophical arguments on the basis of vague and nonsensical comments such as "idealism involves glaring contradictions of principle" then I see no reason to argue further with you.

As for libertarianism, outside the U.S. the term "libertarian socialism" is considered redundant. Here it is not, yet the JBS is clearly fascist and not libertarian in nature.

As for Christianity let's remember Acts 2:44-45, "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need", and Acts 4:32-35, "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."

Sadly for you, I am not concerned with your opinion of me, particularly your paranoid fantasies. Even if you don't agree with my beliefs, or what you think my beliefs actually are, you could at least respect the fact that in many of these discussions we are arguing on one side, and there is no reason to construct some idiotic fantasy about me just because I asked a few innocent questions. I can assure you that there will be no firing squads for you.

First, you misrepresented my argument as though I was defending the JBS as "just" a libertarian organization. I certainly do not find libertarianism as a whole to be a harmless movement. I find the JBS however to be a totally impotent organization, and its involvement in this mess is actually somewhat amusing.

Second, libertarianism is what libertarianism does. You are basically saying that something like Apartheid was bad, and against libertarian principles, so no libertarian group would support the South African regime. Granted, many libertarians who knew the truth would probably not on principle. But you are looking back on those times with hindsight, not considering the propaganda of the times and the bias anti-socialists would have in favor of a regime that claims to be besieged by Communists.

Even allowing for the usual hyperbole that accompanies most jermemiads that pass for "reasoned" commentary nowadays, it is maliciously false to characterize the JBS as "fascist" or sympathetic to any kind of "fascist" agenda.

In fact, the genuinely "fascist" or neo-nazi Hitler-lovers have, for many years, denounced the JBS and its leaders. One of them (Eustace Mullins) even goes so far as to claim that the JBS was set up as a "Rockefeller front" in order to neutralize genuine anti-communist opposition to collectivism!

I know it is always easier to believe (and to repeat) derogatory assumptions about persons and groups we dislike, but I have studied the JBS for more than 40 years.

YES, like any large organization, it attracts some weirdos and wackos.

YES, some of its members and sympathizers are overzealous and don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to distinguish between their subjective personal opinions versus verifiable facts.

YES, many JBS premises, conclusions and themes are repugnant.

But it is entirely (and maliciously) false to characterize the JBS or its membership as "fascist" ---- just like it was maliciously false for the JBS to characterize liberals as somehow identical to (or sympathetic toward) Communists.

There are plenty of VALID reasons for rejecting the JBS without fabricating falsehoods about their ideology, attitudes. or position on a political spectrum.

Anybody desiring more info may contact me at: Ernie1241@aol.com

Indeed, the JBS used to accuse the American Nazi party of being a secret Communist front used for agitation, while Nazis and their fellow travellers would regard the JBS as cowards.

The fact is, that in WORDS, the general line of the JBS was anti-authority, at least the authority of the state.

Got a link to this article through the Southern Poverty Law Center. Good writing. I'm always glad to see people in the midst of all this extremism keeping a level head. I live in MN so I can't get too actively involved in the counter-anti-immigration movement, but I support what they do.
Just as a side note, even though the Nazi party called themselves "National Socialists", they are polar opposites of socialists in America today, like Socialist Alternative. FYI.

Nearly every Fascist party tries to take on an element of socialism, often presenting their way as a "third way out" between Communism and capitalism. As you already know, practice ended up different, as socialism disappeared when a fascist party got in power. Often times, the more socialist element, that is the faction within the party in question who seriously believed the socialist rhetoric, had to be purged or suppressed somehow, either before(Falange Espanola)* or after(NSDAP) the seizure of power within the country.

*Technically Falange Espanola did not take over Spain, as the Civil War was led by the nationalists; Franco forced them to merge with the Carlists.

Well, let's take a closer look at libertarianism, especially of the U.S. variety (which, after all, is the proper context for examining the beliefs of a U.S. based movement like the John Birch Society), and compare it to the positions historically held by the JBS.

Libertarians: traditionally anti-authoritarian.

JBS: anti-communist, but traditionally supportive of authoritarian governments and measures which repress the political left, as long as the possibility for "socialist subversion" exists. Since that possibility always exists, the JBS creed is a recipe for permanent police-state interventionism -- provided that this interventionism is consistent with the JBS formula for right thinking. (Examples include JBS support of the South African government under Apartheid, and of the anti-Civil Rights movement in the U.S. in the 1960s.)

Libertarians: strongly in favor of the complete separation of church and state. Many libertarians today are agnostics or atheists.

JBS: Strongly influenced by right-wing fundamentalist Christianity.

Libtertarians: Strongly opposed to interventionist wars (i.e., those not in strict self-defense of the nation) and to standing armies in general.

JBS: Strongly supportive of wars conducted against foreign powers and movements regarded as communist or communist inspired. Strongly supportive of a permanent military-industrial complex (funded by public tax dollars, incidentally).

Libertarians: Opposed to political spying, since libertarians hold that criminal acts of fraud and violence (coercion), and not political beliefs, are the only basis for legal intervention by governments. The idea of Big Brother keeping tabs (whether or not with the assistance of private intelligence networks) is abhorrent to them.

JBS: Organized its own extensive domestic political spying networks; also passed information to federal, state, and local police authorities about peaceful political activities and about individuals engaged in them; was happy to act as proxy for government authorities hampered by civil-libertarian laws; engaged in public and private smear campaigns in which disinformation was used to persecute individuals for political or social positions regarded by the JBS as unsuitable.

Libertarians: in favor of the legalization of drugs and abortion under the theory that adults have the right to use their own bodies as they see fit.

JBS: Well, duh.

Libertarians: strongly supportive of the free movement of labor across national boundaries since they view this as half of the "free market" equation.

JBS: Aligns itself with nativist elements.

Libertarians: traditionally opposed to the idea that certain ethnic or religious groups require special treatment (whether affirmative or repressive).

JBS: traditionally includes strong undercurrents of anti-Semitic and anti-minority hysteria in its conspiracy theories, though distancing itself from high-profile (i.e. institutionally embarrassing), overt displays of racism and anti-semitism.

While it's true that JBS and many U.S. libertarians share such GENERAL views as support of unfettered 2nd Amendment rights (and a gun fetish in general), and suspicion of existing federal governments, it's also true that these views are not in themselves indicators of libertarianism, since many right-wing militia groups which could not rightly be described as libertarian also hold such views for reasons independent of libertarian philosophy.

JBS should be characterized not as libertarian but rather as a group embodying two distinct but related social currents: (a)ultraconservative business-nationalist critiques of international capitalism (many of which are also inconsistent with U.S. libertarianism's "free-market" tenets); (b) right-wing populism informed by Christian fundamentalism, including suspicion and hostility toward ethnic and religious minorities and toward liberal social ideas, and a fetish for guns and gun violence of the "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" variety.

These are also traditionally the social elements supporting many fascist movements.

The anti-democratic agenda of the JBS was outlined by Lester DeKoster (a conservative Christian, no less) in his monograph The Citizen and the John Birch Society.

Note: I suspect that the association between libertarianism and so-called free-market ideas which seems necessary to so many U.S. libertarians, is merely the result of their political and educational conditioning as U.S. citizens; and that with a deeper understanding of so-called free-markets they can understand the elements of fraud and coercion implicit in them.

One can cite JBS support for authoritarian regimes abroad, but then you can also see many criticisms of authoritarian governments, from Nazi Germany, to Mussolini's Italy, to the post-Communist states of Eastern Europe. When you think they should have been jumping for joy, they were claiming that this was all a big deception(there was an entire New American issue dedicated to this).This is all most likely explained by the the acceptance of certain mainstream propaganda memes about these regimes, such as the "besieged anti-Communist sanctuary of South Africa" image.

When it comes to any kind of government authority, the JBS has on occasions been absolutely rabid. A good example is found in an issue of New American where some federally supported volunteer and youth programs were likened to the Hitler Youth, chain gangs and slave labor.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/epublish/2/v13n12

Also let us not forget that the JBS were in many ways isolationist, which means that they did not care too much about people outside of the US- so long as the US wasn't losing ground to Communists. Do not forget that the JBS was part of that group which believed China was handed to Mao on a platter by traitors in the US, and that the UN and other traitors in the government tied the hands of the US in Korea and Vietnam in order to ensure a Communist victory.

Libertarians cannot be painted with the same brush, whether one supports them or opposes them. Even taking this into account, it should not be surprising that there are contradictions in the ideology, especially, as I said before, in such an idealistic one that is so tied up with this abstract concept of "freedom" or "liberty"(which for several centuries have been uttered so frequently, by so many with very little qualification or definition).

Plus let us not forget that in many ideological movements, there are often agreements on general principles, while adherents personal preferences may be different. Some libertarians for example, might be hardcore fundamentalist Christians, while at the same time not caring if others want to do hard drugs. It's the whole "stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours" philosophy.

I know I alluded to this earlier, but didn't have time to point out specifically that the JBS was in fact against many interventionalist wars. They were against intervention in Gulf War I, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and other places. In fact there was even an article(I believe in the 1996-7 "Conspiracy Issue) entitled "War: The first tool of Tyrants" or something to that effect.

These interventionalist wars have been characterized as plots to get the US military under UN command, and finally total control.

On your last paragraph I totally agree.

"When it comes to any kind of government authority, the JBS has on occasions been absolutely rabid. A good example is found in an issue of New American where some federally supported volunteer and youth programs were likened to the Hitler Youth, chain gangs and slave labor."

I don't see this as evidence of libertarianism on the part of the JBS, considering its record and attitudes. And, given the presumption that these volunteer/youth/work programs were weak versions of Roosevelt-era initiatives, one can only conclude from such rhetoric that the JBS (somewhat mockingly) sought to co-opt the language of its liberal detractors.

From this I conclude that even a right-wing, Apartheid supporting, Black civil-rights opposing, nativist embracing, police-state drumbeating group like the John Birch Society feels the need to supplement its anti-communist rhetoric with a limited quantity of anti-Nazi rhetoric, de rigueur, so as to teflon-coat itself against criticisms of its own fascist tendencies.

As for JBS conspiracy theories involving the United Nations, isn't it obvious that throughout the U.N.'s history, the United States has regularly frustrated the designs of the General Assembly by means of its veto power as a member of the Security Council, as well as by its role as a disproportionately large source of funding for the organization?

The U.N. is great as a finishing-school for professional government bureaucrats, but as a mechanism for enforcing the collective will of the world's nations it's a straw man. The idea that this weak, splintered, perpetually undercut and underfunded organization is able to carry out its explicit mandate is naive, but the idea that on top of this it is capable of some weird, conspiratorial take-over of the United States is just wacky.

The idea, however, was also was very popular among the right-wing militia movement before the Murrah Building bombing took the wind out of its sails. It would be interesting to see just how much of the propaganda of that movement derived from JBS ideology.

When it comes to any kind of government authority, the JBS has on occasions been absolutely rabid. A good example is found in an issue of New American where some federally supported volunteer and youth programs were likened to the Hitler Youth, chain gangs and slave labor.

As the author of that cover story, it appears I was the "rabid" canine in question.

My objection to "service" programs is that it is entirely wrong to make them government-mandated (I describe some examples in those stories) and federally subsidized.
My view is that anybody who does anything worthwhile for others -- whether as a volunteer, or in exchange for money -- is engaging in "service." There's nothing morally superior about "service" performed as a product of government coercion.

But this brings up a matter that illustrates the unstable libertarian/authoritarian bipolarity of the JBS: During my 15 years as a writer (and then senior editor) at The New American, I had free rein to condemn -- in language as intemperate as I thought appropriate -- the concept and practice of mandatory "community service" as a form of involuntary servitude. But I was forbidden to attack military conscription in the same terms.

The JBS position, as I angrily pointed out a few years ago, was approximately this: It is a crime against the Constitution for the government to force a teenager to rake leaves, but it's entirely all right to force that same teenager to rake down foreigners with machine-gun fire.

"...the JBS was in fact against many interventionalist wars. They were against intervention in Gulf War I, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and other places. In fact there was even an article(I believe in the 1996-7 "Conspiracy Issue) entitled "War: The first tool of Tyrants" or something to that effect.

These interventionalist wars have been characterized as plots to get the US military under UN command, and finally total control."

As I mentioned earlier, the JBS's opposition to the first Gulf War (as well as the invasion of Panama) is what attracted me to the group in the first place.

The article "The First Tool of Tyrants" took its name from an essay written by West Point professor named Riddle, if memory serves; I was the one who worked that element into the story, which was published under Jane Ingraham's by-line. I thought the material by Riddle would help expand the discussion beyond the standard JBS assumption that only "pro-UN" wars are engines of evil, misery, and tyranny.

During the Kosovo bombing in 1999 (a crime that made me physically ill), we actually published a piece by Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho denouncing the operation as an "illegal war."

In early 1996, TNA did a theme issue entitled "Bring 'Em Home!" calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I had been urging the organization to mount a campaign against the war for at least two years by that point.
I had hoped that the organization would embrace a principled anti-war, anti-interventionist position, irrespective of whether an overt connection to the UN was involved.

Well ...no.

The JBS Home Office got hundreds of angry e-mails denouncing that issue of TNA as "leftist" agitprop (all of the letters were forwarded to me, as if to say, "This is YOUR fault").

Rather than bearing down and clinging to principle, JBS management simply stopped criticizing the war and the "commander-in-chief," and began its ongoing crusade against the Brown Peril. By October 2006 -- when I was fired -- The New American was putting out thinly disguised calls for war with Iran, and the guy in charge of the group's agenda, Alan Scholl, was publicly calling for the nuclear annihilation of 70 million Iranians.

Ironically, JBS founder Robert Welch was always opposed to foreign war, military conscription, nuclear brinksmanship, and a foreign policy he described (in 1979) as "imperialism by the dollar, as a substitute for the sword." He was warning about terrorist "blowback" from Washington's foreign policy back then.

While Welch had his weaknesses, he was a damn sight better than the craven little boys running the outfit today. Instead of wrapping themselves in Welch's mantle (such as it is), those guys should be decked out in JT Ready's malodorous Nazi hand-me-downs.

"From his teenage years, Welch had been an opponent of Communism. He was a strong believer in various conspiracies in which he believed a wide range of individuals and organizations were part of an international Communist plot. In his own words, the American people consisted of four groups: 'Communists, communist dupes or sympathizers, the uninformed who have yet to be awakened to the communist danger, and the ignorant.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Welch%2C_Jr.

So I'm reading this, and wondering if Welsh might have forgotten a fifth group of the American people, or if not, which of the four listed groups John Birch Society members fall into. My guess is the fourth.

Also, after reading Will Grigg's remarks I decided to do a search at Reason Magazine to see if he had moved in that direction since then, and I came across the following (mildly amusing) bit o' fluff in the comments section:

joe | April 4, 2008, 4:35pm | #

Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue,
I didn't know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them Communists they wus comin' around,
They wus in the air,
They wus on the ground.
They wouldn't gimme no peace. . .

So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the John Birch Society,
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin' down the road.
Yee-hoo, I'm a real John Bircher now!
Look out you Commies!

Now we all agree with Hitlers' views,
Although he killed six million Jews.
It don't matter too much that he was a Fascist,
At least you can't say he was a Communist!
That's to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria.

Well, I wus lookin' everywhere for them gol-darned Reds.
I got up in the mornin' 'n' looked under my bed,
Looked in the sink, behind the door,
Looked in the glove compartment of my car.
Couldn't find 'em . . .

I wus lookin' high an' low for them Reds everywhere,
I wus lookin' in the sink an' underneath the chair.
I looked way up my chimney hole,
I even looked deep inside my toilet bowl.
They got away . . .

Well, I wus sittin' home alone an' started to sweat,
Figured they wus in my T.V. set.
Peeked behind the picture frame,
Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain.
Them Reds caused it!
I know they did . . . them hard-core ones.

Well, I quit my job so I could work alone,
Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes.
Followed some clues from my detective bag
And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!
That ol' Betty Ross . . .

Well, I investigated all the books in the library,
Ninety percent of 'em gotta be burned away.
I investigated all the people that I knowed,
Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go.
The other two percent are fellow Birchers . . . just like me.

Now Eisenhower, he's a Russian spy,
Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy.
To my knowledge there's just one man
That's really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell.
I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus.

Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight
When I run outa things to investigate.
Couldn't imagine doin' anything else,
So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself!
Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great God!

Speaking of conspiracy theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

Fascinating stuff.

I wouldn't call the Business Plot a conspiracy theory, seeing as how the Congressional Investigation seemed to support the idea that some kind of plot had taken place, which suggests that there was sufficient evidence beyond General Butler's testimony.

Emil's discussion of libertarianism is quite relevant to this thread. Everything seems to revolve (as usual) around how one chooses to define terminology.

One of the most fascinating (and frustrating) aspects of debating conspiracy adherents is their desire to dumb-down the English language OR develop their own personal idiosyncratic definitions of commonly used words or concepts such as what constitutes "democracy" or "socialism". I spent a considerable amount of time, on one occasion, trying to nail down a definition of "prosperous" with one conspiracy believer in a Yahoo group.

I have always described myself as

Emil's comments about the Birch Society are not entirely accurate. The JBS is not "strongly supportive of wars conducted against foreign powers and movements" nor is it generally "strongly supportive of a permanent military-industrial complex".

In many respects, the JBS position is comparable to Marxist interpretations of these topics. Birchers equate large corporations, international institutions (such as the UN), foreign alliances (NATO, SEATO, etc), tax-exempt foundations, and the military-industrial complex with "The Insiders" who they believe have been responsible for ALL our failures and setbacks during the past 80+ years.

They virulently attack both the patriotism and the motives of our establishment power-brokers. "Treason" is a word that often appears in JBS literature to describe the entire "pro-internationalist" position of both Republican and Democratic administrations since Woodrow Wilson!

In the mid-1960's JBS founder Robert Welch wrote the following comments which might help explain his (and the JBS) world-view:

"In 1945, for instance, the Communists contrived a plan for the U.S. to finance a great deal of their world wide progress. The American ‘foreign aid’ program was conceived by Communists, started and nourished by along by Communists, and built eventually by Communist influences and propaganda into gigantic proportions, as a means of helping the Communists and their socialist forerunners everywhere in taking over their respective countries. But it was sold to the American people, of course, as exactly the opposite; as a means of preventing the Communist advance.” ...

“Another manifestation of the same principle at work was the establishment in 1945 of the United Nations. This organization was conceived by Communists, has always been controlled by Communists, and has been used increasingly—and ever more brazenly—to carry out Communist purposes. But it was sold by propaganda and pretense to the American people, and to most of the rest of the world, as a means of maintaining peace and preventing Communist aggression.” ...

“Most important of all these gigantic reversals of the truth, however, has been the cruel pretense, all over the world and to the American people, that the United States was the one great enemy of Communism. The fact has been exactly the opposite. Since 1944 the most powerful single force in promoting Communism everywhere, and in turning one nation after another over to the Communist tyranny—as in Czechoslovakia and China and Cuba and the Congo—has been the help of the United States Government to that end. The record to support this statement (and those in the sections above), is absolutely clear to anybody who will give it objective study.”

“Although at least ninety-eight percent of all federal employees are, we believe, entirely loyal and patriotic, the Communists now have full working control over our government because of the prestige and position and influence of the other two percent.”

The pamphlet then describes the means by which the Communists plan to achieve their final objective—the subjugation of the U.S.

Two of the methods are described as follows:
“(i) ...steadily ‘escalating’ a completely phony foreign war (because the Communists are actually running both sides of it), as an excuse for gradually establishing more and tighter government controls over every detail of our daily lives; (j) and eventually bringing about ‘peace’ – a few years from now – by surrendering all American sovereignty to the United Nations, and enabling that Communist one-world government to ‘police’ our country with foreign troops and mercilessly suppress all opposition. If you cannot see all of these things happening right before your eyes, then you had better start looking around you with some much needed realism, understanding, and common sense.” ...

“We believe the JBS and it allies constitutes the one force capable of awakening enough of the American people in time to fact that not only ‘it can happen here’, but that it is happening here, and now. Our whole job is to create understanding, and our only weapon is the truth. But the truth is the one and only thing the Communists cannot stand. This is why we have been smeared and lied about, more extensively and more viciously, than any other organization if all American history.”

I apologize that I did not have enough time to expand. "Conspiracy theory" in modern parlance is not simply a theory or narrative that involves a literal conspiracy. It is in fact a highly unlikely alternative explanation for some event, particularly historical events.

By nature, they are unfalsifiable. Lack of evidence is blamed on a cover-up, and contrary evidence is said to be fabricated. As a result, the conspirators are never brought to justice.

Conspiracy theorists also tend not to produce their own alternative hypothesis in coherent form, choosing instead to disprove the "official story" by pointing out so-called "holes". This is similar to another great intellectual tradition of our time, Creationism or "Creation Science".

Note that 9-11 truthers seem to religiously use a small arsenal of tactics. Among those I have observed:

1. "I'm just some objective guy who wanted to hear both sides." This type claims to have done "research" for a long time and then finally came to the un-biased conclusion that it was an inside job. Yet somehow he only listens to conspiracy claims.

2. "I just have a few questions..." This is almost identical to the above tactic except this person pretends they haven't decided yet. Once again they will be pretending to be "doing research", but they only acknowledge conspiracy claims.

3. "Circular Firing Squad". Read enough 9-11 conspiracy sites and you will quickly realize that many of the claims they make are mutually exclusive. If the building was taken down by "Thermate", you couldn't have those "squibs", you couldn't have all those explosions going off all over the place as they claim. If you have all those things, you can't have your thermate claim.

A key thing I have realized after a lot of experience debating with these kooks is that even if they are advancing obviously contradicting claims or theories, 9-11 truthers on the same forum will never get in an argument over these details. The only thing they refuse to believe is whatever they deem the "official story." Also note that while groups of truthers disagree on the culprit(Jews/Illuminati, etc.), they don't factor this into what claims they will believe.

4. "Do you REALLY believe that 19 CAMEL-JOCKEYS and a guy living in a CAVE could do this?!" This ignorant, racist argument from incredulity is a common opener I noticed. The 19 hijackers were quite technically proficient, and Mohammed Atta was far more educated than most 9-11 truthers. In fact with some background in architectural engineering he would be more qualified to speak about what caused the towers to collapse than someone like Stephen Jones. Osama Bin Laden didn't spend all of his life in a cave. He coordinated a guerrilla war in Afghanistan, organized it internationally, all the while supervising public works programs there. He is described as highly intelligent and eloquent, which is more than can be said for any truther.

5. "The Official story is the conspiracy theory!!" This is the idea that because each "story" involves a conspiracy, they must be equal. It is a way to shift the burden of proof, and it also ignores the fact that there is far more evidence in favor of the official story, compiled by thousands of qualified investigators worldwide.

6. "You're obviously with the CIA/Mossad/NSA." I usually got this once per debate, usually with references to how much I was getting paid for this, etc. Spend enough time tackling these claims and will happen to you as well, I guarantee it.

7. "I'm just asking questions!" No no...you are making claims and accusations, and spitting this out whenever you can't back something up with evidence. And WHY oh WHY is it that in any 9-11 debate, truthers get to ask all the questions they want, demanding answers for every one, but they don't have to answer questions from the "official side"? Simple- it's a conspiracy theory.

8. "9-11 NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED!" It has been. It has been investigated by numerous agencies, and their findings have been looked over by other experts inside and outside of the US. Findings have been peer-reviewed. Now let us remember something: WHO THE HELL is supposed to investigate it? All those people investigated it, but the 9-11 truthers think that it was a complete sham. Who do the truthers want to investigate it, that would supposedly be impartial? And what if the new investigation panel rules in favor of the "official story" again? "INVESTIGATE 9-11 AGAIN!!!"

Anyway, that is just a few observations which focus on truthers. You will see similar arguments with Holocaust revisionists and other conspiracy theorists all the time.

GODDAMIT!!! I AM SORRY, I POSTED THE REPLY PRIOR TO THIS ONE THINKING I WAS ON A DIFFERENT ARTICLE(THE ONE ABOUT ALEX JONES).

That's what happens when you cook dinner in the middle of writing a post.

As a follow-up to Slavyanski's comments about conspiracy theories, I offer an article I wrote entitled "Purpose of Conspiracy Theories" which is here:

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/conspiracytheories

Most political conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable because they are self-sealing. No methodology could be employed to successfully refute the "theory". In fact, if you ask adherents of the theory to explain their methodology for determining what is truthful and accurate, they usually won't respond or they ridicule the question!

The actual narrative text of any conspiracy theory is usually irrelevant because one has to first understand the real underlying purpose of most political conspiracy theories. For my discussion of this, see article link above.

Actually, what I said was that the JBS is known to be "strongly supportive of wars conducted against foreign powers and movements regarded as communist or communist inspired".

I stand by that characterization, on the basis of its support for anti-communist interventions (whether military or by proxy as with the Contras) in Central and South America, Africa, the Caribbean, and Asia. One need only consider the activism and contributions of individuals such as John Rees, Congressman Larry McDonald, and Major General John K. Singlaub (the latter was relieved of duty as Chief of Staff of U.S. forces in South Korea when he publicly criticized then President Jimmy Carter's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from the Korean peninsula).

Generally, any criticisms of THESE KINDS of interventions rest on claims by JBS that they are not being fought properly but are using "treasonous" half-measures designed to enervate our military. For example, I believe the John Birch Society generally supported (after the fact, of course) MacArthur's attempts to draw China into the Korean War and his desire to resolve the war decisively by nuclear means. Similarly, the JBS seems to have wanted a "quick win and exit" (whatever that means) in the Vietnam conflict rather than a "simple losing pullout".

Regarding the Welch quote "Since 1944 the most powerful single force in promoting Communism everywhere, and in turning one nation after another over to the Communist tyranny—as in Czechoslovakia and China and Cuba and the Congo—has been the help of the United States Government to that end", it's clear in every case that the JBS critique includes INSUFFICIENT military intervention by U.S. armed forces.

I also stand by my remark that the JBS has been "strongly supportive of a permanent military-industrial complex" on the basis of its opposition to the nuclear freeze movement and other forms of anti-militarism, and on the basis of its continual calls for maintaining strong military readiness against the (never-ending) threat of World Communism. It isn't against the concept of a standing army: it's against the existence of a standing army which is "U.N. controlled", hence its calls for U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations.

As for the John Birch Society position on corporations, a noted founder of the JBS was Fred Koch of Koch Industries, which I believe is the largest private company in the United States. And as Sara Diamond points out in "The Road To Dominion: Right-wing movements and political power in the United States", JBS has enjoyed a longstanding, incestuous underwriting