Posted on 11/23/2013 3:19:50 AM PST by defeat_the_dem_igods
Conner contends that today's tea party is the modern-day rebirth of the John Birch Society. They share a worldview, she says. The same paranoid distrust of government. The same desire to protect the rich. The same cruel streak that blames the poor for their poverty and seeks to deny government help on that basis. The same willingness to believe all manner of bizarre claims against political leaders they don't like.
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
Well, I think there is some common ground there, especially with this administration. BO seems to like his global government Sharia flavored.
That is absurd and you know it. I imagine you probably post comparable derogatory messages about every left-of-center politician.
5.56mm
The JBS is much more PR-savvy now than in the past. Their magazine (The New American) is sanitized so that it appeals to the widest possible audience. In this respect, the JBS operates in a manner comparable to the way the Communist Party operated during the 1940’s-1960’s, i.e. minimizing or euphemizing the underlying predicates of Communist ideology in order to attract as many supporters as possible into their web.
Significantly, the Birch Society has never retracted one word of anything it believed or published during its formative years. Below (for example) I copy the comments made by JBS founder, Robert Welch, to the first meeting of the JBS National Council in January 1960 — which the JBS has never retracted or modified:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“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.” [Note: the reference to Governors refers to Edmund G. Brown of California and Nelson Rockefeller of New York.]
“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 Supreme Court, dominated by Earl Warren and Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black, is so visibly pro-Communist that no argument is even needed…And our federal courts below that level…are in many cases just as bad.”
“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.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In May 2008, the JBS told its membership that “the John Birch Society showed in the 1960’s that the communists basically ran both the civil rights movement and the KKK... You cannot get a really good conflict started unless you control both sides of the argument.”
I doubt that many Americans (and especially Tea Party Movement adherents) would accept such nonsense. No significant conservative believes this crap.
And the Birch Society believed that Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks were, at a minimum, Communist dupes and tools. By contrast, former Cong. Ron Paul declared that Parks and King are among his heroes. In fact, Cong. Paul voted in 1979 to make MLK’s birthday a national holiday — while JBS speakers and writers attempt to make American believe that MLK Jr was a subversive enemy of our country.
The Birch Society’s “Freedom Index” — scores the voting behavior of all members of Congress based upon what the JBS considered “their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.”
The most recent cumulative JBS scores for Tea Party favorites reveals that the Birch Society thinks they are total failures. In the JBS scheme of things, a score of less than 60% is like an “F” (failure) in school, 60-69% is “D” (poor), 70-74% would be equivalent to a C- (below average and therefore highly suspect about genuine commitment to conservative/constitutionalist principles)’
Here, then, are some of their current cumulative scores:
ALABAMA
Sen. Richard Shelby = 63%
ARIZONA
Sen. John McCain = 64%
CALIFORNIA
Cong. Darryl Issa = 53%
GEORGIA
Sen. Saxby Chambliss = 58%
KENTUCKY
Sen. Mitch McConnell = 61%
MISSISSIPPI
Sen. Thad Cochran = 53%
OHIO
Sen. Rob Portman = 50%
SOUTH CAROLINA
Sen. Lindsey Graham = 63%
TENNESSEE
Sen. Bob Corker = 67%
Cong. Marsha Blackburn = 63%
TEXAS
Sen. John Cornyn = 68%
Cong. Louie Gohmert =74%
UTAH
Sen. Orrin Hatch = 59%
VIRGINIA
Cong. Eric Cantor = 57%
WISCONSIN
Cong. Paul Ryan = 58%
WYOMING
Sen. Mike Enzi = 70%
Medicare? Medicaid? food stamps for the poor, obamaphones, the ACA, any of those just having their funding reduced might seem like a victory, but it is a dismal failure. None of the programs are Constitutional. If you use original intent as a standard, the surprise is that anyone on the Hill gets a passing grade.
Aside from that, I'll go by what I have read the past 10+ years, rather than what someone said back in the '60s. Consider one thing, however: If Communists in our government are/were primarily Democrats, and the KKK has been (traditionally) primarily Democrats, it sure looks like the same Party is calling the shots.
You seem to entirely miss the point, Smokin Joe. ALL political extremist groups exploit targets of opportunity and they seek the protective coloration which comes from sanitizing their basic predicates.
I am certain that if you and I were to read publications authored by Hitler, Stalin, Fidel Castro, white supremacists, and even Al Qaeda adherents — we could find individual isolated statements or conclusions which we might agree with — but neither of us would be interested in associating ourselves with the larger narrative which those individuals or groups promote.
Ditto for the JBS.
Since the founding of the JBS in 1958, the Birch Society (and its founder Robert Welch) effusively praised the FBI during J. Edgar Hoover’s tenure as our nation’s most indisputably knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable source of factual information about the communist movement and about internal security matters generally.
Significantly, the FBI falsified every major predicate of JBS ideology. And senior FBI officials explicitly described the Birch Society in internal memos as extremist and irresponsible because it was circulating FALSE information and causing unfounded alarm among the American people.
It is interesting that you want to dismiss or de-value the historical record of the JBS. One wonders if you feel the same way about left-of-center individuals and organizations, i.e. we can just ignore whatever they wrote or said 40-50 years ago?
The past is prologue. If you begin your analysis with FALSE predicates and you continue to disseminate those falsehoods for DECADES — then, obviously, your contemporary statements and conclusions will be DEFECTIVE.
The JBS declared that our country was 60-80% “under Communist influence and control”.
BY CONTRAST, J. Edgar Hoover observed:
“The Communist Party in this country has attempted to infiltrate and subvert every segment of our society, but its continuing efforts have not achieved success of any substance. Too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified factual data regarding the inner workings of the conspiracy, have engaged in rumor-mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against persons whose views differ from their own. This is dangerous business. It is divisive and unintelligent, and makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator.” [Hoover statement in February 5, 1962 letter to Mrs. W.R. Brown of Bountiful Utah; also published as letter-to-editor in Tri-Cities Daily newspaper of Sheffield, Alabama on Sunday March 31, 1963. Copy of Hoover letter in FBI HQ file 94-1-369, serial #1676]
The Birch Society declared that:
“Our task must be simply to make clear that the movement known as ‘civil rights’ is Communist-plotted, Communist-controlled, and in fact...serves only Communist purposes.” (JBS Bulletin, June 1965).
—AND—
“We have said many times, and we repeat now, that if you can fully expose the civil rights fraud, you will break the back of the Communist conspiracy. But the word ‘fully’ is important in that sentence. It calls for bringing a preponderant majority of our fellow citizens really to grasp the fact that the ‘civil rights’ program has been designed by Communists, is controlled by Communists, and will be used by the Communists as a vital part of their total strategy for taking over our country.”
BY CONTRAST, J. Edgar Hoover declared:
“Let me emphasize that the American civil rights movement is not, and has never been dominated by the communists–because the overwhelming majority of civil rights leaders in this country, both Negro and white, have recognized and rejected communism as a menace to the freedoms of all.”
[J. Edgar Hoover speech, 12/12/64, Our Heritage of Greatness, pg 7 - Hoover speech before Pennsylvania Society and the Society of Pennsylvania Women; bold emphasis on “not” and “never” appears in original document].
The JBS position on the 1958 book by Harry Overstreet entitled, “What We Must Know About Communism”, was (according to JBS founder Robert Welch) that Overstreet’s book was nothing more than “pro-Communist doubletalk”.
BY CONTRAST:
What Welch did not know is that the FBI’s Chief Inspector at that time (their expert on the communist movement inside the U.S. — and he later became Assistant Director of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division) personally assisted Overstreet with writing his book. The Chief Inspector spent hours every week reviewing first drafts of what Overstreet proposed to write and he made suggestions for revising the text. The Inspector also provided Overstreet with public source materials from FBI files. After the book was published, Overstreet sent a copy to J. Edgar Hoover and he asked Hoover if he would like to visit Overstreet’s home some evening for dinner.
Hoover declined the dinner invitation, but he wrote to Overstreet:
“I do hope that your fine book ‘What We Must Know About Communism’ will enjoy excellent sales and wide reading throughout 1959. We need more and more people like yourselves who will devote their nationally recognized academic talents to the exposure and ultimate defeat of the menace of world communism.” [HQ 100-114575-95, January 21, 1959, J. Edgar Hoover to Harry Overstreet].
Then the FBI asked the American Legion to add Overstreet’s book to their recommended reading list — which the Legion did.
AND, the American Bar Association’s Special Committee on Communist Tactics, Strategy and Objectives ALSO recommended Overstreet’s book.
These few examples give you an idea of how gravely mistaken the JBS has been in the past. MORE IMPORTANTLY, the JBS still circulates these false assertions and conclusions.
But, since then, MLK jr's ties to Communism have been exposed, as well as the New Left, which eventually hijacked the Democrat Party.
Of course, the people who were 'rejecting' communism were publicly rejecting communism. They'd have been run off otherwise.
But, by their fruits ye shall know them.
After all, "Communism is dead", was a later mantra, but it has never been so alive, nor allowed (encouraged?) to proceed at such a pace as it has once it was declared no longer a threat.
Pray tell, why does the Communist mass murderer Che still adorn the T-shirts, posters, and banners of the Left?
The sanitized version of the Civil Rights battle was that it was over Civil Rights. While that was a legitimate cause, the eventuality was widespread civil unrest in times of war, not just at home, but among some of our troops as well. The effect was the disruption, not of old ways which needed to change, but the social fabric of Black culture in America, which coupled with concessions like LBJ's "great society" doomed the black family to decay (not all, but statistically speaking). That was one of the Communist goals from 1963, to disrupt the family as the basic social unit and by doing so disrupt continuity of culture in America. It worked marvelously well, as did the later KGB seed money to some environmental organizations for the (ulterior) purpose of disrupting Western Industry. That worked well, also, and turned out to be a tremendous investment--one which has paid dividends in Asia.
Every Communist act of subterfuge has a bright and shiny face in front, a prima facie cause all can rally for, be it clean air, clean water, safer streets, better food, whatever, but the means of achieving those alleged goals, the things which bring in the 'true believers' as a front, often end up being totalitarian or overly statist in nature.
Safer highways have been touted, and now we have laws to require you under threat of penalty to wear a seat belt, we have DUI checkpoints which search and seize at random, and the excuse for maintaining those onerous programs is that despite the continued slaughter, 'it would have been so much worse...'.
Hoover wasn't beyond taking extraConstitutional actions to retain his grip on power, either, so I am not enthusiastic about using him as an authoritative source.
Consider someone quoting the DOJ or DHS comments of today in reference to the TEA Party or the Christian right of today in 50 years, and you will have my perspective on J Edgar as a source.
Smokin: You are confusing and conflating two different issues. Nobody disputes that some prominent civil rights activists had connections to individuals who were Communist Party members or sympathizers. But what FBI investigative files reveal is the inability of the CPUSA to influence or control our civil rights leaders and their organizations.
Nor is that merely a conclusion reached by the FBI. The House Committee on Un-American Activities also reached the same conclusion.
MLK Jr’s “ties to communism” were very minor. His religious values and beliefs made it impossible for him to accept Communist Party ideology or discipline. No serious student of MLK Jr believes otherwise. It is true, however, that MLK Jr. accepted Marxist economic theory (i.e. he thought that Marxist analysis of capitalist systems had a lot of worthwhile ideas which should be acknowledged) but, once again, King’s religious values precluded his acceptance of any Party dogma regarding the need for revolutionary violence OR for creation of a Negro Soviet Republic in our southern states. MLK did not want a separate black entity within the United States (as was the prevailing Communist doctrine); he wanted full integration of blacks into American society — all of which was to be accomplished through persuasion and enforcement of equal protection laws.
With respect to your question re: “Che” — most of the radicals who admire Che do so for reasons unrelated to “murder” or “revolution”. Resistance to injustice is a value which is shared by many individuals regardless of their religious or political or economic viewpoints.
Lastly, I suggest you review FBI investigative files regarding our national civil rights organizations and, in particular, the comments made at secret, closed meetings of senior Communist Party officials at their HQ in New York City as well as the Party’s state leadership. You will discover very quickly that the Party DESPISED most of our civil rights leaders.
For more details see the chapter of my online report which discusses the falsehoods circulated by the JBS re: our civil rights movement and its leaders. I incorporated into that chapter very detailed excerpts from FBI investigative files-—including comments made at CPUSA National Executive Committee meetings.
https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/jbs-3
NO, I haven't read the investigative files from the FBI. Instead, I was on the ground, so to speak during the era, in the DC metro area.
Whatever the FBI Files say, my personal observations were what they were. You can break the civil rights movement down and say the front men were squeaky clean. Most Communist or criminal enterprises are that way.
However, at ground level, the movement was about more than who rode where on the bus or drank out of what water fountain or sat at the counter in Woolworth's. Even LBJ's redistributionist policies, AKA: "The Great Society" smacked of Communism, with the government seizing the assets and using them to make a segment of the population dependent on handouts.
However, there was within the movement at the grass roots level a strong push toward not just equal rights, but social disruption. You speak of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., I speak of H. Rap Brown, Stokeley Carmichael, and Eldridge Cleaver--and know of an associate of theirs who was arrested by the FBI. Yes, Virginia, the movement was infested with Communists, who, as such infiltrates often do, influenced, but did not necessarily lead. They later reared their heads as affiliates of such organizations as the SDS, the Weathermen, and were involved in major riots and destruction in a number of US Cities--a paradigm that just won't go away whenever a particular group of people take offense.
The disruptions may have occurred without the express approval of the leadership, but they occurred nonetheless.
As for Che, it is ironic that a murderer of peasant farmers is held up as an icon of resisting injustice.
from your link: "The Negro resolution adopted by the convention discarded the party's historic position advocating 'self-determination' meaning that Negroes should be given the right to form a separate nation in the Southern States...", the statement indicates that that was the plan, or a plan, otherwise it would not have been discarded. Obviously, any such plan would be flawed if the ultimate goal was the destruction of the United States. While a portion might be carved off, it would be then left to its own devices to sink or swim. That would likely mean that it would become capitalist, not communist, because the best examples of success were capitalist ones in the experience of those who would be taking over such a republic.
In the end, it would be far more destructive to create a perceived underclass, encourage economic dependence, excuse underachievement, and promote class rivalry, and blame that on past events rather than present actions (or the lack thereof). Rather than isolate this force, keep it widespread within the whole of the nation to foment unrest whenever needed.
By accident or design, this is what happened, and the decay of race relations in this country can be attributed largely to the State sponsored destruction of the family, enabling through entitlements (Welfare), and Socialist programs which encourage underachievement by the masses.
To continue the quote: The 1959 convention resolution hence represents a party admission that its position concerning Negroes is bankrupt. Time itself has shown that the party is not interested in the welfare of the Negro, but only in using him as a tool to advance party interests.
While the idea of a separate republic may have been bankrupt, the latter still prevailed within the Communist ranks, and still does. It is no accident that many of the CBC are also Socialists.
Smokin: You are overlaying your personal political opinions, beliefs, assumptions, and preferences over factual information which can be ascertained from historical records.
Here is the way this works:
1. You have a personal subjective OPINION.
2. You then artfully select any bit of “evidence” which seems to conform to your personal opinion
3. Then, that “evidence” becomes a “fact” which controls all of your subsequent analysis and conclusions
This is precisely what the Birch Society did.
1. The JBS arrived at horrific subjective personal opinions about the character, integrity, and loyalty of many prominent Americans.
2. It based its judgments and evaluations upon its unproven predicates and subjective assumptions.
3. Many of its judgments, evaluations, predicates, and assumptions were FACTUALLY FALSE — but, nevertheless, they controlled all subsequent JBS discussions about the matters under scrutiny.
4. As a result, JBS founder Robert Welch declared that most of our Presidents and prominent political figures in the 20th century were Communist traitors or Communist “agents” — simply because those individuals expressed viewpoints or adopted policies which did not conform to the personal preferences of Robert Welch.
5. Robert Welch would then make his argument based upon the premise that “By their fruits ye shall know them” -— and he (and the JBS) would immediately discard, de-value, or dismiss any contradictory evidence.
As the famous philosopher of science (Karl Popper) observed, in the universe of available data one can ALWAYS find “confirmations” for whatever ideas one wants to believe. However, factual truth can only be discovered by acknowledging and falsifying CONTRADICTORY evidence.
Your approach to this subject matter is entirely consistent with how the Birch Society arrived at its conclusions. It is, therefore, VERY significant that when the JBS (and its surrogates) were put into a courtroom environment (as a result of defamation lawsuits), they almost always LOST — because in the courtroom, subjective opinions, hearsay, gossip, rumor, unproven predicates, derogatory assumptions, and rank speculation are NOT permissible.
The most famous example of your (and JBS) methodology was revealed in the historic precedent-setting libel lawsuit brought by Chicago lawyer Elmer Gertz whom the JBS described in an article it published in its monthly magazine as “a Communist fronter” and a “Leninist” engaged in a “conspiracy” against Chicago police.
The JBS employed your “By their fruits ye shall know them” methodology and your “accident or design” arguments against Gertz.
After 14 years of litigation, including 2 different jury trials, numerous appeals, and review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the JBS paid Gertz $100,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages for malice. As you may know, punitive damages are only allowed when “malice” can be shown. Malice, in legalese, refers to “reckless disregard for truth” arising from evil intent and a desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering.
As one Appeals Court commented about the JBS article on Gertz observed:
“There was more than enough evidence for the jury to conclude that this article was published with utter disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements contained in the article about Gertz.” [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 81-2483, Elmer Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 6/16/82, page 20].
BOTTOM-LINE
1. The Negro Soviet Republic strategy of the Communist Party NEVER appealed to any significant number of black Americans (not even black Communist Party members) because black Americans did not want a separate black entity inside the U.S. Instead, they wanted full participation and integration INTO the United States.
2. The Communist Party was never able to attract any significant number of black Americans into its ranks.
The FBI “Security Index” was created to track all suspected or known Communist Party members, Party sympathizers, Party financial contributors, as well as any radicals whom the FBI concluded might be a potential danger to our national security. EVEN WHEN an individual was “cleared” via administrative proceedings by the Loyalty Review Board or Subversive Activities Control Board — the FBI continued to list those individuals on its Security Index!
The Security Index had a column which identified the race of the persons listed. At its peak, there were less than 1800 black Americans on the Security Index and the overwhelming majority of those individuals lived in just 4 states.
3. The “Negro Commission” of the CPUSA frequently lamented how much difficulty the Party had in trying to recruit black Americans and in trying to infiltrate civil rights organizations.
4. In July 1963, J. Edgar Hoover sent a memo to all FBI field offices which advised them of the creation of a new HQ file (100-3-116) which was to be used to capture information regarding “Communist Influence In Racial Matters” as a consequence of the Party’s renewed interest in exploiting opportunities presented by the civil rights movement.
Hoover’s memo portrayed the CPUSA as outsiders seeking to exert influence within legitimate civil rights organizations and it quoted comments by CP leaders lamenting the lack of CP involvement within the civil rights movement. One pertinent excerpt of Hoover’s memo follows:
“In recent weeks functionaries of the CPUSA have made statements which indicate their concern over the lack of Party participation in the current Negro movement. Benjamin J. Davis Jr. remarked on 6/19/63 while attending a meeting of leading CPUSA functionaries...
‘We are witnessing a revolutionary movement in our country, but we are just not in it…’
Irving Potash, on this same date, remarked that ‘we’ are not coming forward. Not writing and not giving leadership. The leadership of the Party, according to Potash, should explore all ways and means for the purpose of playing a bigger role in the struggle.” [Chicago 100-46624, #1; 7/18/63 J. Edgar Hoover memo to all Special Agents in Charge of FBI field offices.]
A few days later, the Chicago FBI field office sent its first report to headquarters on the status of CPUSA efforts at infiltrating civil rights groups. Chicago reported that one CP member had infiltrated NAACP’s Illinois state headquarters, “however he has not influenced the organization in any specific direction as far as Party policy is concerned.” [Chicago 100-46624, #2, 7/24/63 SAC Chicago memo to J. Edgar Hoover]
On February 13-14, 1960, there was a meeting of senior Communist Party officials in the midwest.
Twenty five Party officials representing Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, and Wisconsin attended this closed meeting. Claude Lightfoot, Vice-Chairman of the Illinois CPUSA, chaired the meeting.
Each representative present gave a summary of their attempts to infiltrate the NAACP. The following comments are from an FBI informant who attended the meeting and he may have tape recorded it. The page numbers shown below reflect the page numbers of the FBI summary memo where the comments cited are made. Although this pertains to the NAACP it reflects what FBI files show about the failure of Party members to influence or control our civil rights organizations generally:
Pg.9, Cleveland rep:
“He referred to a period of the late 40’s and said at that time the CP had five members on the Executive Board of the NAACP. Now the CP has no members on the Executive Board of the NAACP in Cleveland.” Rep also referred to the “constant red-baiting of local NAACP leaders.”
Page 11: Chicago rep:
“The problem confronting the CP is how to work now in an organization in which it is very difficult to get on a committee and in which the committees do not function.”
Page 11-12: Detroit rep:
“He said it is hard to work in the NAACP in Detroit...He stated that the big problem as far as he is concerned is that the CP says that members should work in the NAACP, but how do you do it? Every time we make a move, we are stopped and stifled. As a result, we are demoralized...In regard to the role of the CP in the NAACP (name deleted) feels that it is correct to work in the NAACP, but it is necessary to do so from a position of strength. But the CP does not have strength at the present time.”
Page 13: St. Louis rep:
“He stated that the CP has no one consistently working in the NAACP in St. Louis.” (NYC 100-80640, unrecorded; 2/17/60 SAC Chicago to J. Edgar Hoover re: 2/13-14/60 CP meeting).
Project much?
Have a Merry Christmas. Apparently you have the day off.
There is no “projection” involved on my part. I am responding to YOUR thought pattern. What you seem to be missing (IMHO) is that regardless of your or my personal opinion, FBI investigative files reveal the attitudes and beliefs of senior Communist Party officials (at HQ in New York City and in various states).
My previous point is very simple: YOU may have a personal OPINION about the nature of our society and what has developed from the 1950’s forward. But, if you review FBI investigative files, you will discover that your OPINIONS are falsified by data in FBI files.
In the context of our debate, you can believe whatever you want about the purported “accuracy” of what the Birch Society believed and disseminated but the bottom-line is very clear: The FBI falsified virtually every major predicate of JBS ideology — whether it be about the leaders of our civil rights movement, or about JBS allegations regarding our clergy and religious institutions, or about JBS defamatory accusations regarding the loyalty and patriotism of numerous prominent Americans, or about the overall status of our nation’s internal security.
If I had to present a single statement which illustrates the irreconcilable differences between the JBS interpretation of our postwar history and the conclusions reached by the FBI it would be this:
In the early 1960’s, Robert Welch told his membership that the United States was 50-70% under “Communist influence and control”.
BY CONTRAST, the conclusion reached by our FBI was stated by J. Edgar Hoover as follows:
“The Communist Party in this country has attempted to infiltrate and subvert every segment of our society, but its continuing efforts have not achieved success of any substance. Too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified factual data regarding the inner workings of the conspiracy, have engaged in rumor-mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against persons whose views differ from their own. This is dangerous business. It is divisive and unintelligent, and makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator.” [Hoover statement in February 5, 1962 letter to Mrs. W.R. Brown of Bountiful Utah; also published as letter-to-editor in Tri-Cities Daily newspaper of Sheffield, Alabama on Sunday March 31, 1963. Copy of Hoover letter in FBI HQ file 94-1-369, serial #1676]
The reason that this conclusion is particularly significant is because both Robert Welch and the JBS went on record numerous times to effusively praise the competence, knowledge and patriotism of both Hoover and the FBI under his direction-—(as did virtually every major postwar conservative figure in our country-—including JBS endorsers like former FBI Special Agents W. Cleon Skousen and Dan Smoot; and JBS members who had been informants for the FBI inside the CPUSA such as Lola Belle Holmes and Julia Brown.
So you are left with a major dilemma.
On the one hand, the JBS instructed its membership to believe that Hoover’s FBI was our nation’s most knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative source of factual information about the communist movement (and what constituted effective anti-communism) BUT on the other hand, the FBI falsified virtually every predicate which the JBS disseminated regarding our internal security status.
Obviously, the JBS could only SPECULATE about internal security matters based upon their OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS.
BY CONTRAST, the FBI had available to it the full scope of knowledge from its investigations, its hundreds of informants inside legitimate and subversive organizations, and from information it received from SCORES of outside independent sources — including, for example, our military intelligence agencies (G-2, ONI, OSI), the CIA, plus our city, county, state law enforcement agencies (Police Chiefs, Police Department “red squads”, County Sheriffs, State Police, etc.) and from legislative or other investigative entities (such as House Committee on Un-American Activities and Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and Loyalty Review Board and Subversive Activities Control Board——plus many state un-American Activities committees just to name a few sources.
By contrast, the JBS had the personal opinions of its retired candy company executive.
Do we really care about condemnation coming from people who want to kill babies, promote and defend sexual perversion, hate anyone more successful that they are, prevent good people from protecting themselves, persecute those who intimidate them, slander those who argue with them, and imprison those who act like them?
I think much of that sort of nonsense is by design.
When repeated by idiots in the presence of sympathetic listeners, it's never challenged. When said idiot is dumb enough to spout such drivel in the presence of those who will challenge it, they get so thoroughly shamed, they're left with little choice but admit their stupidity, or double down.
And of course, we know what choice usually gets made by people unaccustomed to being told they're wrong: particularly when the dispute is not subject to empirical verification.
I grew up in the 70s —and heard from TV talking heads about
how the JBS was “extremists” ..... Past several years since
the worldwideweb , i have viewed them as more mainstream.
Real mainstream -(not what the media calls “mainstream”).
Appreciate the posting defeat !
The Communists didn't need to infiltrate the Civil Rights Movement, just influence it. So tell the then residents of Newark, NJ, Cambridge MD, or even Washington D.C. but don't bullsh*t those of us whose tender High School years were not "American Graffiti" but race riots. We know who wanted what then, we knew they'd adapted Socialist (Recall, "Socialism exists to bring about Communism"--Lenin) idealogies, and we knew they didn't need (or want) anyone who wasn't a 'brotha' in on it.
It wasn't about a slice of the pie, it was about the pie, period.
Sure, they weren't going to let the Communists take over the movement. Instead of being the Communists useful idiots, they picked their brains and pushed them out.
So, if you are so bright, read the list at this link. http://www.communistgoals.com/goals/goals.htm
How many of those have come about at least partly because the Civil Rights movement was hijacked?
27, 30, 40, 41, and 42 might ring a bell.
Wittingly or otherwise, the movement (not the shiny faces in front of the microphone in the clip on Huntley and Brinkley, but the seamier aspects behind the facade) helped the Communists accomplish what they wanted, and often to the detriment of not just the Black community, but us all.
But from first hand experience I can tell you that assumption is not true. There were and are many dedicated leftists, who were and are fully committed to a Marxist society who were or are not members of the CPUSA. In fact there are many competing socialist groups, and many individuals who while communists, are not aligned with CPUSA. Some of those groups appeared, when I was familiar with their day to day activities, to accept input from the Soviet Union, and perhaps were even under their control.
I don't have any particular position on what the JBS may have said over time, but your contention that just because CPUSA wasn't involved, someone, or some group is not communist is just wrong.
I do not rely upon “my” definition of “Communist”. I rely upon the determinations made by the FBI, the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, the Loyalty Review Board, the Subversive Activities Control Board.
Furthermore, your premise is totally wrong. The FBI’s Security Index was devised to track all radicals who were judged to be a security concern whether or not they belonged to the Communist Party. A CPUSA sympathizer (or fellow-traveler) was also listed along with anybody who had the resources or potential to impact our national security in time of national emergency (such as through sabotage or espionage).
And, yes, there were “socialists” listed who were not formerly affiliated with the Party.
With respect to your last paragraph, you have deliberately misrepresented what I have written. While I certainly understand your reluctance to acknowledge the profound and grave errors made by the Birch Society and similar organizations, their errors were, ultimately, dependent upon their false circular arguments which were created to be self-sealing so that no contradictory evidence could ever penetrate them.
In American law, describing someone as “Communist” is libelous.
See, for example:
Joopanenko v. Gavagan (FL 1953, 67 S2d, 434)
Solosko v. Paxton (PA 1956, 119A, 2d, 230)
Remington v. Bentley ( (SDNY 1949, 88 F Supp 166)
Lightfoot v Jennings (MO 1953, 254 SW2d, 596)
Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath (341 U.S. 123 (1951)
The accusation of communism is an imputation of crime due to violation of at least 3 Federal statutes (for now, let’s leave aside numerous state laws). The Federal statutes are: Seditious Conspiracy Act, the Smith Act, and the Internal Security Act of 1950.
Apparently, you want to dramatically expand the application of that term so that many NON-Communists will, in the future, be considered “Communist” in their values and objectives. Shame on you!
For further reference, see:
1.Libel and Slander: Charge of Communism as Libel by Robert L. Cardon
Michigan Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 4. (Feb., 1947), pp. 518-519.
2. Torts. Libel Per Se. Liability for False Designation of Attorney as Nazi and Communist
The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 4. (Jun., 1941), pp. 799-802.
3. Libel Actions by Political Organizations: Freedom from Smear vs. Freedom to Criticise
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 98, No. 6. (May, 1950), pp. 865-884.
4. Libel and Slander. Use of Action in Ideological Conflict. Designating One as Communist Libelous Per Se
The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 14, No. 4. (Jun., 1947), pp. 697-705.
5. Imputation of Communist Support to Political Candidate Is Libel: Libel and Slander. Defamation by Implication. Actionable Words. Special Damages Stanford Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 3. (May, 1960), pp. 685-691.
6. The Accusation of Communism as Slander per se by Frank E. Booker
Duke Bar Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1. (Winter, 1954), pp. 1-15.
7. Democracy and Defamation: Control of Group Libel by David Riesman
Columbia Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 5. (May, 1942), pp. 727-780.
8. Torts: Libel and Slander: Calling a Person a Communist as Slander Per Se by Ross Kipka
Michigan Law Review, Vol. 55, No. 1. (Nov., 1956), pp. 146-148.
9. The Fact-Opinion Determination in Defamation by Eileen Finan
Columbia Law Review, Vol. 88, No. 4. (May, 1988), pp. 809-840.
What was wrong with the ‘old’ one ?
Your absurd comments reveal more about you than about me or any critic of yours.
1. First of all, Hoover was not a cross-dresser. Many of our nation’s most prominent and respected scholars about FBI history (all of whom have been profoundly hostile toward Hoover) nevertheless recognized that the “cross-dressing” accusation was false. It was originally presented by a convicted perjurer who was married to a mob figure.
2. Of course the FBI has been “wrong” about many issues. The agency has always been populated by ordinary human beings. However, it is also true that virtually every prominent conservative in our country endorsed Hoover and the FBI during his tenure. For sake of argument, let’s say the FBI error rate was 22%. That still leaves 78% of all FBI investigations which produced accurate, truthful, factual conclusions. Also, keep in mind that the raw data appearing in FBI files came from SCORES of outside independent sources. SO...unless YOUR position is that our entire law enforcement and national security apparatus has been totally incompetent and corrupt — there is no reason to accept your evaluation. It is, of course, easier to deal in broad derogatory generalities rather than carefully examine individual cases.
What is striking to me about your argument (including the “cross-dresser” accusation) is that your comments are IDENTICAL to those circulated by the Soviet KGB and American Communists!!
3. McCarthy was NOT “right”. See, for example, Dr. John Earl Haynes article which discusses the list of names brought to attention by Sen. McCarthy and then compares that list to Venona documents and other relevant material.
(a) Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html
(b) Exchange with Arthur Herman re: Venona
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page58.html
One FBI Supervisor, Robert J. Lamphere, was the FBI liaison to the U.S. Army’s Signal Intelligence Service’s Venona program, which intercepted secret Soviet communications. Lamphere supervised the investigations of some of the biggest espionage cases of the cold war, including those of Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, David Greenglass, and Kim Philby plus he was intimately involved, in conjunction with Meredith Knox Gardner of the Army Security Agency, in using deciphered Soviet cables to build espionage cases.
Lamphere wrote on pages 136-137 of his 1968 book “The FBI-KGB War: A Special Agent’s Story” that:
“Senator McCarthy’s crusade which was to last for the next several years, was always anathema to me. McCarthy’s approach and tactics hurt the anti-Communist cause and turned many liberals against legitimate efforts to curtail Communist activities in the United States, particularly in regard to government employment of known Communists…McCarthy’s star chamber proceedings, his lies and overstatements hurt our counterintelligence efforts.”
In one interview, Lamphere made the following observation:
“The problem was that McCarthy lied about his information and figures. He made charges against people that weren’t true. McCarthyism harmed the counterintelligence effort against the Soviet threat because of the revulsion it caused.” [The Real Joe McCarthy, Wall Street Journal, 4/22/08, pA25]
Whittaker Chambers wrote a letter dated 1/14/54 about McCarthy to conservative book publisher Henry Regnery. Chambers observed that....
“All of us, to one degree or another, have slowly come to question his judgment and to fear acutely that his flair for the sensational, his inaccuracies and distortions, his tendency to sacrifice the greater objective for the momentary effect, will lead him and us into trouble. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that we live in terror that Senator McCarthy will one day make some irreparable blunder which will play directly into the hands of our common enemy and discredit the whole anti-Communist effort for a long while to come.”
The FBI created a main file on McCarthy’s accusations about “Communists” working in the U.S. State Department. I have arranged to post a major portion of that file online on Internet Archive. The remainder of the file will be posted online within the next few months. As you can see from the details in that investigative file, the FBI falsified most of McCarthy’s allegations:
https://archive.org/search.php?query=FOIA%3A%20Alleged%20Communists
The FBI’s Chief Inspector (their expert about the communist movement in the U.S. — and he later became Assistant Director of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division) made the following observations in his memoir about McCarthy’s claim about “57 Communists” working in the State Department:
“We didn’t have enough evidence to show there was a single Communist in the State Department, let alone fifty-seven cases.”
He also wrote in his 1979 memoir “The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover’s FBI” (see pages 45 and 267)
“During the Eisenhower years the FBI kept Joe McCarthy in business. Senator McCarthy stated publicly that there were Communists working for the State Department. We gave McCarthy all we had, but all we had were fragments, nothing could prove his allegations. For a while, though, the allegations were enough to keep McCarthy in the headlines.”
4. “Communist Influence” on the Civil Rights Movement:
You obviously are totally ignorant about the actual Communist position regarding our civil rights movement. The Party wanted to use the movement as part of its larger “class struggle” argument which was supposed to ultimately result in a violent revolution that would overthrow our government. Instead, what is indisputably clear from comments made by senior Party officials at their closed, secret meetings at CPUSA HQ in New York City and at their Negro Commission meetings around the country — the Party bitterly complained that they could not get our civil rights leaders to adopt the Communist Party interpretation or the Party recommendations....which is why Party officials were so hostile toward what they considered “reformists” who believed the “Jim Crow” system could be peacefully changed through protests and lawsuits and political pressure and moral persuasion.
As J. Edgar Hoover pointed out:
“It would be absurd to suggest that the aspirations of Negroes for equality are communist inspired. This is demonstrably not true…” [J. Edgar Hoover speech, Faith In Freedom, 12/4/63, page 6].
“In general, legitimate civil rights organizations have been successful in excluding Communists, although a few have received covert counseling from them and have even accepted them as members…The CP is not satisfied with this situation and is continually striving to infiltrate the civil rights movement at every level. “ [J. Edgar Hoover, U.S. News and World Report, 11/1/65, page 46].
“It is no secret that one of the bitterest disappointments to communistic efforts in this Nation has been their failure to lure our Negro citizens into the party. Despite every type of propaganda boomed at our Nation’s Negro citizens, they have never succumbed to the party’s saccharine promises of a Communist ‘Utopia’. This generation and generations to come for many years owe a tremendous debt to our Negro citizens who have consistently refused to surrender their freedoms for the tyranny of communism.” J. Edgar Hoover testimony before U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, 01/17/60, reprinted in March 1960 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, page 7]
Hoover and the FBI saw Communists as OUTSIDERS seeking ways to exert influence and control within the civil rights movement whereas the JBS portrayed them as INSIDERS who created and controlled the movement from the beginning.
Your “Communist Goals” link has been floating around in extreme right circles for decades and has been copied/pasted several times here in FR. It is largely FICTIONAL or consists of generalized statements which have no relevance for Americans because, in a free society, our people decide through elections what policies best serve their personal and community interests.
There is a difference between the Communist Party line (which is sanitized so that it would appeal to a broad audience-—particularly non-Communists) versus what the Party actually believed and wanted to accomplish.
Many years ago I addressed these purported “Communist Goals” in a message posted elsewhere. Below I copy my previous message.
By way of preface, one brief comment is in order regarding Cleon Skousen (the original author of the “Communist Goals”). Skousen’s career within the FBI predominantly consisted of administrative assignments along with police training schools on matters such as juvenile delinquency. his actual experience with internal security related matters was very modest.
For example, Skousen never worked in the FBI Division (Division 5) which was where the FBI’s Agents who specialized in internal security-related cases worked. He was never even recommended for promotion to that Division — according to his annual performance reports. Furthermore, the FBI’s Associate Director (Clyde Tolson) instructed subordinates to prepare a detailed summary of Skousen’s assignments during his FBI service — and it is clear from that summary that Skousen had very little exposure to “Communist” cases. In short — he had virtually no exposure to secret classified information regarding CPUSA strategy, tactics, and objectives. See comment below about Skousen for more info.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some people have posted a list of 45 “Current Communist Goals” which originally appeared in former FBI Special Agent W. Cleon Skousen’s 1958 book entitled, The Naked Communist.
This list was then inserted into the Congressional Record in 1963 (see link below) and this list has been circulating constantly since that time. Similarly, many people claim that the United States has adopted 9 of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto!
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
Glenn Beck’s 2003 memoir entitled “The Enemy Within” reprinted Skousen’s “Communist Goals of 1963” and Beck has frequently recommended Skousen’s writings.
However, what is missing from every account is WHERE did Cleon Skousen obtain his understanding of what he claimed were “Communist goals”?
There is a profound difference between what ideas or policy proposals Communists endorsed, for tactical purposes, (i.e. the Communist Party Line), versus what they ACTUALLY believed in and wanted to achieve.
The FBI’s primary expert on the communist movement (their Chief Inspector who later became an FBI Assistant Director) made speeches around the country during the 1960’s in which he gave a list of “Do’s and Don’ts” for well-informed anti-communists.
In those speeches he often quoted comments made by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Here are some of the key “don’ts”
“1. Do not speak or act in any manner that would create fear, hysteria, and confusion. These are the ‘ingredients for Communist coups in nations which have fallen under its spell’ says J. Edgar Hoover…
2. Do not make false charges of communism against other citizens or sow seeds of suspicion, distrust, and alarmism.
3. Do not use, unless you are capable of accurately defining such ambiguous and misleading words and expressions as ‘red’, ‘radical’, ‘leftist’. ‘left wing’, ‘left wing supporter’, ‘socialist’, ‘collectivist’, ‘self-styled liberal’, ‘rightist’, ‘right-wing’, ‘right-wing supporter’, ‘radical right’, ‘reactionary’, and ‘fascist’. Such vague and obscure terms having nothing to contribute to a clear, intelligent and objective understanding of difficult and complex social problems. Their use in the past has given rise to much of the current confusion in the field of communism and religion.
4. Do not confuse legitimate dissent with communism. Hoover gives this warning: ‘Knowing what communism really is and how it operates will also help us to avoid the danger of confusing communism with legitimate dissent on controversial issues. Communism feeds on social ferment. On both the local and national levels, the CPUSA is continually exploiting social, economic, and political grievances for its own tactical purposes. For this reason, the ‘party line’ will frequently coincide with the view of many noncommunists on specific issues. We must not, therefore, indiscriminately label as Communists those whose opinions on a particular question may, on occasion, parallel the official party position. We must also guard against the tendency to characterize as Communists those who merely disagree with us or who advocate unorthodox or unpopular beliefs. When anyone is erroneously branded a Communist, it not only constitutes an injustice to the individual, but also helps communism by diffusing the strength of anti-communist forces.
Given this as a preface, why does anyone think that Cleon Skousen had a correct understanding of “Communist goals” — particularly when you factor in the highly derogatory judgments made by senior FBI officials regarding Skousen’s post-FBI endeavors??
For example, one FBI memo makes the following observation about Skousen’s FBI career:
“As you know, we frequently receive inquiries from the public regarding Skousen’s qualifications to speak with authority on the subject of communism. In view of his obvious efforts to capitalize on his former Bureau association, I feel that it would be well for us to take positive measures to clarify the Bureau’s position in regard to Skousen whenever we receive public inquiries concerning him. I feel, for example, that in addition to stating that his views are his own, that we should also add in correspondence concerning him that he was not regarded as any authority on communism while employed with the FBI. That is certainly a true statement and it might serve in some measure to prevent Skousen from using the FBI’s name for his own personal gain.” [HQ 67-69602, #338; 1/2/63 memo from W.C. Sullivan to A.H. Belmont.]
Insofar as somebody correctly identifies a “Communist goal” — what, precisely, is that supposed to mean for Americans?
Are we to make ALL of our decisions based upon what Communists think or propose or favor?
For example:
** if the official CPUSA position is in favor of an increase in minimum wage laws, -— does that mean that every patriotic American must OPPOSE an increase?
** if the official CPUSA position is in favor of enforcement of civil rights and voting rights and equal protection laws -— does that mean that every patriotic American must OPPOSE such enforcement?
** if the official CPUSA position is against outlawing the Communist Party in the U.S. -— does that mean that every patriotic American must FAVOR outlawing the Communist Party?
** if the official CPUSA position is against the existence of the House Committee on Un-American Activities -— does that mean that every patriotic American must FAVOR its existence?
** if the official CPUSA position is in favor of providing humanitarian assistance to nations which have experienced a natural disaster (earthquake, widespread flooding, etc), does that mean that all patriotic Americans must OPPOSE such assistance?
** if the official CPUSA position is that conflicts in the Middle East (such as Syria or Lebanon) should be resolved peacefully through negotiation, does that mean patriotic Americans must favor continued slaughter instead?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.