Posted on 02/23/2010 5:34:09 PM PST by searching123
At the recent CPAC conference, Birch Society President John McManus and the Senior Editor of the Birch Society magazine, The New American, spoke with Rachel Maddow of MSNBC when she dropped by their CPAC booth.
Video of Maddow at JBS-CPAC booth:
http://www.libertynewsnetwork.tv/?p=101
Since December 2009, Rachel has devoted three segments of her TV program to the Birch Society. During two of those segments, Rachel discussed the Birch Society position on the fluoridation of water supplies. The Birch Society subsequently dismissed her comments as a typical "left-wing smear" of the JBS.
It is totally understandable that JBS President John McManus now wants to revise history and pretend that the Birch Society opposed fluoridation only because it amounted to "mass medication" -- but that is not historically accurate. [See McManus’s "mass medication" comment to Rachel Maddow beginning at 4:35 of the CPAC video link above].
What McManus does not address is why the JBS linked water fluoridation to communists and communism in the March 1960 issue of the JBS Bulletin.
Why, for example, did that issue of the Bulletin warn JBS members about "Communists [who] have been able to beguile a sufficiently large enough, powerful enough, and determined enough clique into supporting fluoridation" -- as if fluoridation of water had no legitimate basis in medical research nor any support by principled dentists but, instead, was simply part of a conspiratorial plot?
Why, also, did Robert Welch state in the JBS Bulletin of December 1959 (page 8) that he was sending to all JBS chapter leaders sufficient copies of the September 28, 1959 issue of the Dan Smoot Report newsletter so that every JBS member could read Smoot's anti-fluoridation argument which also referred to the "communist plot" aspect of water fluoridation?
Furthermore, let's consider two letters that were written by self-identified dentists to J. Edgar Hoover.
The first letter to Hoover is dated April 4, 1960:
"I have been delegated to ask your opinion on several matters. Since we are resolved to fight the conspiracy in the most effective manner, it is essential that we KNOW we are supporting a cause which has the best interests of the United States as its prime objective. We want to know, therefore, if you would endorse the John Birch Society...Recently, American Opinion, edited and published by Mr. Welch, has claimed strongly that fluoridation of municipal water supplies was promoted by and is a part of the communist conspiracy. Since I am a dentist and have supported fluoridation strongly, I find this almost inconceivable. Can you throw some light on this matter please?" [FBI HQ 62-104401- #75; 4/4/60 incoming inquiry to J. Edgar Hoover.]
The second letter is dated December 19, 1960:
"Several months ago we became acquainted with the John Birch Society. We were very impressed with the Blue Book of the Society and wish to become active against Communism through its membership. However, Mr. Welch strongly recommends The Dan Smoot Report and we would like to know more about Mr. Smoot...As dentists we are strong proponents of fluoridation of water supplies...Consequently, we were more than amazed when someone told us that Communists were for fluoridation while anti-communists were against it. To prove his point the man brought us the September 28, 1959 Dan Smoot Report, "Facts on Fluoridation" as well as articles from The American Mercury magazine."[FBI HQ 62-104401, #558; 12/19/60 inquiry to Hoover]
It should be noted that the "fluoridation-as-communist-plot" argument presented by Smoot and the Birch Society was also promoted by many other individuals and organizations --- particularly as a consequence of an "affidavit" by Kenneth Goff.
In March 1963, a Congressman contacted the FBI to inquire into Goff’s assertion that fluoridation of water supplies was part of a communist plot. A Bureau memo discussing the matter states:
“Our files do not indicate evidence substantiating the charges that fluoridation is part of a communist plot…Of course, the fluoridation controversy has been nationwide and the communist element has often been injected into it principally by right wing extremists.” [FBI HQ 62-80382, #149, page 2; 3/13/63 memo from D.C. Morrell to Mr. DeLoach].
The same FBI serial states: “Bufiles indicate that in 1952 Goff was considered to be a borderline psychopathic case.”
Doctor Rima E. Laibow(MD) says that flouridation was used in the Soviet gulag and in Hitler’s concentration camps to help keep prisoners docile and compliant. She mentions it in her talk about Codex Alimentarius.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8MM3mLbd24
About 30 years ago I met a left wing environmentalist who was against flouridation, based on a supposed cancer risk.
Thirty years ago was a trip, wasn’t it? I still brush with Lifebuoy.
Florine is a by product of the aluminum refining process. It is another poison. The way it works in the body is to modify the way the body allocates calcium. It forces calcium out of the bone formation process--in minuscule quantities but every time you drink a glass of water.
It is fair to speculate that it may have something to do with Alzheimer, contributing to the build up in aluminum in the brain.
But the primary sufferers are women. The calcium balance in a woman's body is much more fragile than in a man's body because the woman is designed to leech calcium to feed a fetus.
On the available data, it is more than fair to speculate given the introduction dates and explosion of the condition that Florine in the water is one of if not the single cause of the explosion of osteoporosis.
This could help explain our calcium deficiency problems across all races and all age groups.
Donna —that may be your opinion — but the objection of the Birch Society (contrary to current revisionist history presented by JBS President McManus) was that water fluoridation was a “communist” idea — and had no real basis in science. That’s the difference my article attempted to make.
It is one thing to argue against government involvement in some matter.
It is entirely a different matter to argue that your opponents or critics are functioning as agents of an evil criminal conspiracy. De-legitimizing and demonizing alternative ideas is NOT healthy for a free society.
Jack: So if fluoridation is used to keep people docile and compliant, how do we explain that the most volatile (i.e. NON-docile and NON-compliant and NON-conformist) period in modern American history occurred PRECISELY during the time period when fluoridation was being widely introduced into American city water supplies?
Examples:
1. the anti-Vietnam war movement / protest demonstrations
2. the “sit-ins” and civil rights marches in the south
3. the violent 1968 demonstrations at the Democratic Convention in Chicago
4. the women’s liberation movement
5. the Black Panther Party / Nation of Islam movement
6. the upheavals on numerous college and university campuses
7. the anti-establishment themes in American music (Rolling Stones, Beatles, Grateful Dead, Bob Dylan)
8. the radical themes in American literature and in movies and throughout American culture
9. the sexual revolution, recreational drug use, hippies, contempt for all authority
10. the “God is dead” movement
All of this occurred precisely when water was being fluoridated in most of the U.S. (1950’s-1970’s)
Good question. The one thing that drives the left is unjust hatred and anger of anything they disagree with to the point of being irrational and literally foaming at the mouth. (Lenin stopped playing chess because it brought joy to his heart.)
When you have basically rabid people going nuts to move America more to the left driven by irrational hatred and anger I think that alone can overcome any effects of what flouridation might have been doing.
On the other hand I have heard a large number of complaints by American patriots about the apathy in this country. Could it be because the rational, happy people of this country have been affected more by flouridation? It’s possible. If you are the kind of person who doesn’t get angry easily the effects of flouridation might be a bit more pronounced.
Sorry, Jack, your answer doesn’t make much sense to me. If hundreds of thousands or millions of non-political and anti-political beings can escape from the alleged affects of fluoridation, such a development invalidates the entire predicate which you originally presented.
And precisely whom who determines what constitutes “unjust hatred and anger”? Anybody with a vested interest in the status quo would be susceptible to thinking that ANY critic or opponent was “unjustly” angry.
For example: the premise of white supremacists in the south was that only “outside agitators” “troublemakers” and “subversives” objected to the status quo in southern states.
From drugs in our water to Obama prescribing pain pills - the Birch Society was prescient.
If the Soviets and the Nazis used it in their prison camps there must have been a reason for it.
Not true — but frequently claimed by extreme right
Even if it is not true we don’t need that crap in the water.
Well, most of our dental health experts have endorsed fluoridation - including, of course, professional dental organizations.
I respect anybody whose personal opinion is like yours. I just object to the demonization of anybody who supports something which you or others might oppose. It is not healthy for a free society when it is proposed that there is always only ONE correct interpretation or ONE correct public polioy option. That is the prevailing attitude within authoritarian and totalitarian systems.
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.