Talk:John Birch Society

What do we mean by "front groups" here?

Here's some information we may be able to use, however it's not worked upto a full fledged organization yet.

Fronts and cutouts

A front organization in espionage functions within a system of "cutouts". A "cutout" is intended to shield or isolate a higher level infiltrator who has "penetrated" the target organization (government bureau, for example). Once the Department penetration has been made, the higher level infiltrator may have any of three jobs: (1) to bring within the government agency, and to protect, lower level appointees who are also infiltrators; (2) to provide information from within the penetrated target organization to an outside intelligence organization; or (3) a combination of both.

A "ring" within a penetrated bureau consists of several collectors of information from different areas within the penetrated bureau. The most valuable source must be protected; so often the least "productive" infiltrator, i.e. the person lowest on the totem pole within the penetrated target, whose knowledge and ability to collect information is second or third hand, functions as the head of the group. He carries the information from higher level gatherers to outside persons, so as to "cutout" contact between a high level infiltrator and a foreign intelligence organization.

So the most valuable and productive members of the ring are isolated from contact with foreign Agent case officers, which is safest for both. One member gathers all the collected material from all infiltrators, then will pass the information to another cutout outside the government. That second cutout likewise is usually a natural citizen, though not employed by the target government, but who then can transmit the information directly to the foreign intelligence service.

The extensive use of cutouts, so long as they are trusted and reliable persons, can become a long chain of individuals. This performs another purpose, similiar to the extensive use of "front organizations"; by their sheer number, it becomes a shell game with counterintelligence investigators, who have finite and limited resources. When suspicion arises, the large number of persons and organizations connected to the conspiracy can devour endless hours and cost, which has the effect of slowing down the process of exposing an espionage ring. RobS 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Splitting hairs

the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy

What's the difference? --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:44, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Democracy as a form of government implies direct democracy, or something closer to direct democracy. The USA isn't that... in fact, no modern country is... when we use the word "Democracy" to refer to the United States, it refers to the genus, if you will, of elected governments, of which a constitutional republic is a subset... in that it's a non-monarchy government that vests autonomy in the people to elect officials which must stay within constitutional lines. I'll double-check with my polisci textbooks....-MexMax 17:55, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Right. In a 'true' democracy, citizens would vote on the bills that become laws. In our republic, we elect the lawmakers who vote on the laws. Maestro 09:24, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Both are wrong. Direct democracy is a form of democracy: dude, the adjective direct modifies the noun democracy, indicating what KIND of democracy it is.

It is usually leftist critics of American democracy who trot out the old "not a democracy" canard.

Our form of democracy is not majority rule like a New Hampshire town meeting, because it has federal and state components (each states have local components!). --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:38, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Okay, I get it now: I did some googling and found out that "not a democracy" is a slogan meant to emphasize the "republican" nature of American democracy;

Modern American democracy is in the form of a democratic republic or a representative democracy. [1]

So, translated into plain English the slogan means that America's form of government is a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy - which everyone here knew all along. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:45, 11 November 2007 (EST)

--Ed Poor ^Talk 21:45, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Conspiracy theories

There should be a fact tag on the mention of JBS being conspiracy theorists. I've never seen this charge and it seems unfounded. We certainly do call a spade a spade when it comes to outing people with troubling ideologies. JamesonD 14:20, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

SOME MAJOR ERRORS

(1) It should be noted that the most potent opposition to the John Birch Society did not originate with "liberals" or even "establishment Republicans". Actually, it came from major conservative organizations and institutions. JBS critics have included prominent conservative Americans such as:

Sen. Barry Goldwater, Cong. Walter Judd, Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer, Russell Kirk, Eugene Lyons, Willmoore Kendall, James Burnham, Robert Bork, J. Edgar Hoover, Herbert Philbrick, Frank S. Meyer, Cong. Gordon H. Scherer, William F. Buckley Jr., Patrick Buchanan, Fred Schwarz, Lee Edwards, the editors of the conservative newspaper, Human Events, William Loeb, George Sokolsky, Roy Cohn, Anthony Bouscaren, plus even many former Birchers such as: Alan Stang, Gary Allen, Fred Koch, Milorad Draskovich, Don Fotheringham, John Rees, William Norman Grigg, Mrs. Robert Welch --- and many many more.

(2) There is no factual basis for claiming (as this article does) that: "At its peak in 1964, the Society claimed to have hundreds of chapters throughout the country, 100,000 members..."

According to the Birch Society's CPA firm (Spark, Mann and Company), dues income from JBS members during 1964 amounted to: $536,566. Since men paid $24 year and women paid $12 year, we can use an $18 average to calculate that the JBS had approximately 29,809 members in 1964. Even if ALL JBS members during 1964 were women paying $12 annually (in order to maximize the number of members), the total would be only 44,713!

(3) With respect to "subversive infiltration of the United States" -- it should be kept in mind that every major official of the Birch Society during the 1960's emphatically declared that former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was our nation's most knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative source of fact-based information about the Communist movement in the United States AND about what constituted effective anti-Communist activities. For example, see the October 1966 issue of the JBS magazine, American Opinion, for its article entitled "The Wisdom and Warning of J. Edgar Hoover".

In fact, Robert Welch instructed subordinates to contact the FBI in order to get Hoover's permission for the JBS to publish a book containing Hoover's statements under the title "J. Edgar Hoover On Communism".

FBI memos summarize their contacts with the JBS: "Mr. Welch advised he had the greatest admiration for the Director and that the captioned book was intended as an instrument against communism. He said he felt the statements on the subject from Mr. Hoover would be taken as statements from the world's greatest authority on the matter of communism..." [FBI HQ main file 62-104401, serials 3146, 3148, 3149, and 3151].

One clear way to evaluate the conclusions and assertions made by Robert Welch and the JBS concerning "subversive infiltration of the United States" is revealed below.

According to Robert Welch:

"…we believe that there are not more than 300,000 to 500,000 Communists in our country (or about ¼ of 1% of our population) and not more than a million allies, dupes, and sympathizers whom they can count on for any conscious support…” [JBS Bulletin, July 1961, page 14]

By contrast, in July 1961, the actual number of CP members in the United States according to the FBI was 5262 --i.e. nothing remotely close to Welch's perception of 300,000 to 500,000! [See FBI New York field file 100-80638, serial #1882, which is a 6/30/61 FBI Chart of CPUSA Membership, by state, by FBI field divisions and by CPUSA Districts.]

BTW--the actual peak membership of the CPUSA was in 1944 -- when it had 80,000 members during our wartime alliance with Russia.

Missing the correct number of CPUSA members by a factor of 60 to 100 -- reveals a HUGE deficiency in Welch's understanding of internal security matters and even brings into question what methodology he used to identify a "Communist" or a "Communist sympathizer".

Similarly, when Welch then stated that there were not more than a million "allies, dupes, and sympathizers" which Communists could count on for "any conscious support" (the operative word there being "conscious") also flies in the face of statistical summaries prepared by the FBI and updated on a monthly basis in its "Security Index" file (100-358086).

The FBI's Security Index was a monthly report designed to track all persons considered actually or potentially dangerous to U.S. internal security. It included known and suspected Communist Party members plus Communist sympathizers, financial contributors to radical organizations, leaders in Communist fronts, radicals and anarchists, fascists, and anyone else whom the Bureau considered a potential security risk. In fact, during time of national emergency, Security Index subjects were scheduled to be apprehended and detained.

At the time Welch made his statement in July 1961, the FBI's July 1961 Security Index report listed a total of 11,833 persons of which 9899 were in the "Communist" category--which included all the various types of individuals mentioned above. Thus, while Welch perceived more than a million Communist operatives or sympathizers, the FBI concluded that only 9899 Americans were a potential security concern. [HQ 100-358086, serial #2939].

The following Report on the JBS is based, primarily, upon documents in various FBI investigative files -- and the Report addresses most of the major arguments of the JBS during its formative years. JBS REPORT BASED UPON FBI FILES Ernie1241 (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2019 (EDT)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2019 (EDT)

You added essentially the same information at Talk:William F. Buckley, Jr. -- you clearly strongly oppose the JBS, and your arguments are eerily similar to those used by so-called "conservative" never-Trumpers in that they focus on some small issue long ago in its history to discredit the entire organization rather than mention its beliefs, and they cite RINOs and other inconsistent conservatives as being authoritative critics. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2019 (EDT)

Facts exist independent of my or your personal opinions. I never focus upon "some small issue". Obviously, if the JBS declares that "X" is true but a source whom the JBS recommends as authoritative and reliable states "X" is totally false, that is NOT "some small issue"

It is self-evident that if someone claims to present authoritative, reliable information about a subject -- such as the number of CPUSA members in our country -- and the number they present is not remotely accurate, then the methodology they used is gravely mistaken and cannot be trusted.

I never cited any "RINOs". Every person I mentioned was recommended by the Birch Society itself as an authoritative source and, in fact, the JBS recommended and sold the publications of those individuals in its American Opinion bookstores! Furthermore, a substantial portion of my information originated with both current and former JBS members and supporters!

Lastly, when the JBS or its surrogates have been sued for libel, more often than not, they have LOST those cases because facts still matter in a courtroom environment---as opposed to hearsay, gossip, rumor, or biased person opinions. ANYBODY can review the tens of thousands of pages of FBI investigative files to establish that senior FBI officials (including former Director Hoover) falsified every major JBS argument. Keep in mind that every senior JBS official (including Robert Welch) effusively praised Hoover and the FBI as our nation's most reliable source of factual information --- so for someone like yourself to NOT recognize the obvious falsehoods and absurdities circulated by Welch and the JBS brings into question YOUR understanding of, and respect for, facts and logic. Ernie1241 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2019 (EDT)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2019 (EDT)

Communists did infiltrate the Deep state in the 1950s, and no one credibly denies that. As to litigation, it is not surprising that courts ruled against JBS just as they ruled against pro-lifers, Richard Nixon, Jerry Falwell, General William Westmoreland, Donald J. Trump, and so on.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2019 (EDT)