![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The neutral point of view which was here before seems to have been slightly tilted. RickK 02:27 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The anonymous user who states the John Birch Society (an organization which I have heard and know briefly about) I know is NOT a paleoconservative organization. Its ultraconservative. Most of the information in the JBS information page that states its a ultraconservative organization is the more correct form of the two editing pages. "Dr. Grant"
They opposed the Civil Rights movement WHEELER. AndyL 16:02, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I reverted the changes by anonymous user 200.85.34.114. Most of the changes consisted of typos (turning quotation marks into question marks, for example), along with a change to the lead that made it ungrammatical and incoherent. The other change by 200.85.34.114 consists of a claim that Fred Schwarz denied that early "Birchers shared a common ideology and some overlapping membership" with Schwarz's organization. While it is clear that Schwarz has denied being personally affiliated with the JBS, I've been able to find no example of him denying that the two groups shared a common ideology (anti-Communism) and some overlapping membership. I've done a Google search of the entire Internet, a search of the Nexis news database, and a Google search of Schwarz's own website, and haven't found any instance in which he denies an overlap of members and ideology between his group and the Birchers. On a couple of occasions, he claimed that he didn't know much about the Birchers, but that's it. And one of his newsletters quotes (without attempting to refute) the following statement:
This statement seems to support the article's claims. In order to accept the change made by 200.85.34.114, I would need to see some statement by Schwarz in which he expressly states that there was not shared membership or ideology with the JBS.
For interested parties, the FBI HQ main file on the JBS is 62-104401 and consists of about 12,000 pages. J. Edgar Hoover or his top subordinates referred to the JBS in FBI memos and reports as "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible" and "lunatic fringe".
Unknown to most students of the JBS is the fact that Robert Welch blamed Fred Schwarz for the controversy that erupted over his unpublished manuscript entitled, "The Politician". It described President Eisenhower as a "conscious, dedicated agent" of the Communist conspiracy. According to Welch, an employee of Schwarz provided a copy of "The Politician" to a Chicago newspaperman (Jack Mabley) and it was Mabley's articles in the Chicago Daily News (published at the time the GOP Convention was in Chicago during July 1960) which triggered the controversy over Welch's comments.
Anyone wishing additional information may contact me at Ernie1241@aol.com.
In addition, I have posted a 60-page JBS Report at: http://birchers.blogspot.com/
It is based primarily upon FBI files and documents. Chapter titles are as follows:
1. FBI Evaluations of Robert Welch and the John Birch Society
2. FBI vs. JBS on Internal Security Status of the 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
5. FBI vs. JBS on Dr. Harry A. Overstreet as a Communist sympathizer or dupe
6. FBI vs. JBS on civil rights movement [Alan Stang's 1965 book It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights published by the Birch Society; and Highlander Folk School described by the JBS as a "Communist Training School".]
7. FBI vs. JBS on Persons JBS Claims To Be “Experts” on Communism.
In addition, I recently completed a revised 26-page report on former FBI Special Agent Dan Smoot which includes a discussion of subjects raised by the Birch Society. See Smoot report at: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/smoot
In an early paragraph the article mentions that the Birch Society supports "immigration reform." That term strikes me as unfortunate, since it is positive and bland without describing any particular viewpoint or direction. Anyone but a crank would presumably support "reform."
One can fairly well guess that the Birch Society would like to raise barriers against immigration in general, lowering them only for refugees from oppressions that they choose to recognize. However, I'd rather read what someone has actually found out, not merely guessed.
Best regards, David S.
P.S.: Very definitely, the Birch Society opposed Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s. More than that, they attacked the legitimacy of the movement itself, or tried to. Birch Society bulletins proclaimed that most "American Negroes" didn't want trouble, were content with slow, peaceful progress, and that the Civil Rights movement had been instigated by "the Communist Conspiracy" and was under its control. Much play was given to a photograph purporting to show Dr. Martin Luther King at a "Communist training school"--this image was enlarged and put up on numerous billboards especially across the South.
[tin foil hat]
damn moonbats
[/tin foil hat]
An anonymous person using the prefix 63.134.129.xxx continues to insert POV and factually false information into this article (not to mention messing up grammar and adding typos). Does anyone else want to join in seeking an attempt to have this person banned for 30 days?-- Cberlet 17:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Birchers also elaborate on earlier Illuminati Freemason conspiracy theories,"
"Many mainstream journalists and politicians also view the JBS as an extremist organization of conspiracy theorists" sounds one-sided (bias) and is too general. Please be specific.
"are members of the so called "
"more disaffected with the "Birchers" after Welch" -- improper name for members of the JBS. Perhaps "with the Society" would be better.
"more pragmatic members realized that the group's conspiracism..." -- perhaps replace "realized" with "felt that"?
-- 65.19.220.219 01:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The attempt to insert POV and factually dubious material is not appropriate. If the anonymous users who insist on reverting the page without discussion continue, I will seek to have this page locked down until they are willing to enter into a discussion.-- Cberlet 22:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As of this comment this article is mangled fairly badly, with spelling errors and a repeated "block" of text.
OK, it was mangled. hope I fixed some things. Still could use some editing.-- Cberlet 03:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We don't usually put "The" on the front of organisation names: witness Conservative Party, Republican Party, Society of Friends. The only exception is for book movie and song titles, e.g The Commitments. We should move this back. DJ Clayworth 19:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
To the anon who made recent changes. Some of the things you wrote are not really neutral enough for Wikipedia. To refer to the founders of the JBS as "patriotic and public spirited" implies a level of approval that we should not be giving. It is enough to say that they claimed to be patriotic and public spirited, because that is undeniably true. Otherwise someone with a different point of view could (reasonably) change the description of them to something else. Please make sure we stay neutral. DJ Clayworth 16:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I've protected this page until the anon IPs get fed up or come to this page with their concerns. However, if any of the other editors wants to edit it, just drop me a line and I'll unprotect. If I don't hear from any of you, I'll unprotect in a day or two. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:23, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
The JBS has always been a controversial group, and there is no doubt that some descriptions of the group have been biased against it. But I thought we had a relatively even-handed treatment here. There is always room for improvement, so let's hope the anonymous editors join us here for a discussion.-- Cberlet 18:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
[Copied from above - see note about new discussions at bottom of page]-- Cberlet 15:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Would this be suitable for "U.S. history of anti-Communism" category?
Little has been said about Phyllis Schlafly, ultra-conservative writer and chief spokesperson for anti-ERA forces. Schlafly, originally a member in good standing of the JBS according to Welsh, later denied any affliation with the organization despite the similarities in political and social beliefs. Why would a woman who enjoyed the support of JBS choose to disassociate herself?
I reverted a major re-write by an unregistered user. This article is the product of consensus by many editors. Please don't change the whole thing without explanation or discussion. Thanks, - Willmcw 17:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
It is not quite true that Dwight Eisenhower was described as a “conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy.” Welsh said he was either that or a 'damn fool'.
Willmcw's position regarding what Robert Welch wrote in The Politician is gravely flawed.
PREFACE:
First, by way of preface, let's begin with a comment made by Robert Welch in The Politician, Chapter 16, which discusses Eisenhower "associates and appointments". (pages 227-228 of the unpublished version.)
Even Welch acknowledges the cumulative effect of all his statements, innuendos, and insinuations in Chapter 16:
"So we appear to be calling almost everybody a Communist, merely because we have no reason to be mentioning the good men in Washington, in all branches of the government, who have no Communist sympathies whatever."
As we keep that in mind, let's also remember that the title of the next chapter clarifies Welch's intent with respect to the thrust of his argument as contained in the first 16 chapters.
Chapter 17 is entitled: "The Word Is Treason".
Finally, let's keep in mind Welch's admission to his National Council in January 1960, that, in his scheme of things, "it makes no practical difference" to distinguish between
(a) "an actual Communist" (b) "a Communist sympathizer" (c) "a Communist agent"
With that preface in mind, now let's consider how Welch describes President Eisenhower. First, let us quickly dispose of the falsehood that Welch proposed a benign interpretation of Ike's motives. On page 278 of The Politician, Welch summarizes the only two possible interpretations from his perspective:
"The role he has played, as described in all the pages above, would fit just as well into one theory as the other; that he is a mere stooge, or that he is Communist assigned the specific job of being a political front man."
On page 279, Welch discusses the 3 stages by which Communists came to control the U.S. Presidency. In stages 1 and 2, FDR and Truman were "used" by Communists. In Truman's case, according to Welch, he was used "with his knowledge and acquiescence, as the price he consciously paid for their making him President."
Then, with respect to Ike,
"In the third stage the Communists have installed in the Presidency a man who, for whatever reasons, appears intentionally to be carrying forward Communist aims...With regard to this third man, Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason." ... [See the original formulation of this comment from the unpublished version of The Politician at the end of this summary.]
There are many other passages in both the published and unpublished versions of The Politician wherein Welch makes clear that he considered Eisenhower a traitor. Below I quote a few examples. I have used bold type on certain portions to emphasize how Welch characterized Eisenhower.
"In my opinion the chances are very strong that Milton Eisenhower is actually Dwight Eisenhower's superior and boss within the Communist Party." [The Politician, unpublished version, page 210]
OVERALL SUMMARY OF EISENHOWER APPOINTMENTS AND ASSOCIATES
"We think that an objective survey of Eisenhower's associates and appointments shows clever Communist brains, aided by willing Communist hands, always at work to give the Communists more power, and to weaken the anti-Communist resistance." [Politician, unpublished version, page 239]
In discussing Eisenhower's appointment of Philip C. Jessup, Robert Welch refers to Ike as "he and his fellow Communists" [Politician, unpublished version, page 214]
In discussing Eisenhower's appointment of James B. Conant, Robert Welch refers to "the appointment of Conant...made by a Communist President..." [Politician, unpublished version, page 221]
"For Eisenhower and his Communist bosses and their pro-Communist appointees are gradually taking over our whole government right under the noses of the American people. [Politician, unpublished version, page 238-239]
Welch refers to Eisenhower's actions in Europe which "show his sympathies with the Communist cause and friendship for the Kremlin tyrants..." [Politician, unpublished version, page 263]
"For the sake of honesty, however, I want to confess here my own conviction that Eisenhower's motivation is more ideological than opportunistic. Or, to put it bluntly, I personally think that he has been sympathetic to ultimate Communist aims, realistically willing to use Communist means to help them achieve their goals, knowingly accepting and abiding by Communist orders, and consciously serving the Communist conspiracy for all of his adult life." [Politician, unpublished version, page 266]
"But my firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt." [Politician, unpublished version, page 267]
"In the third stage, in my own firm opinion, the Communists have one of their own actually in the Presidency. For this third man, Eisenhower, there is only one possible word to describe his purposes and his actions. That word is treason." [Politician, unpublished version, page 268].
For more details, contact: Ernie1241@aol.com
12/13/05 Ernie1241 sez: Sorry--I thought you were arguing that Welch never referred to Ike as a Communist. Mea culpa.
I just removed the {{NPOV}} tag; it really shouldn't be there unless there is an ongoing NPOV dispute under discussion, and it was put in by the same anon that blanked comments on this talk page a couple weeks ago (and discussed nothing). I also removed a bogus {{protected}} tag; the article is not protected. Antandrus (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
There's currently a line that says
It is also anti-globalization and anti-immigration reform.
with anti-immigration as a link. If the point of the phrase is that they're opposed to immigration reform, then the link is in the wrong context. If the claim is that they are opposed to immigration (and therefore that the link makes sense), then the word reform is extraneous and misleading. Which is it?
Welch retired from the candy business and had an office in Belmont, MA when he went to Indianapolis to found the JBS. The JBS then set up offices in Belmont, MA. No conflict with Welch bio page.-- Cberlet 02:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I reverted these additions to the list of Birchers:
Robert Stoddard William J. Grede Floyd Paxton Nelson Bunker Hunt Tom Anderson (syndicated Journalist) Talyor Caldwell (author) G. Edward Griffin (author) Dr. Medford Evans, author of The Secret War for the A-Bomb, General Andrew Gatsis General Edwin Shull General Robert Lee Scott (author of "God is my Co-pilot" Professor E. Merrill Root, the great poet and essayist,
At the least this needs to be edited for style; I think it's obvious, too, that every single name must be verified. We can't just run around saying so-and-so is a Bircher without a source. John Reid 21:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
7/13/06 by Ernie1241@aol.com
John Reid raises a valid point about verifying who actually is a JBS member.
With respect to the persons listed above, the following were, at various times, members of the Birch Society National Council: Tom Anderson, William J. Grede, Nelson Bunker Hunt, Floyd Paxton, John Schmitz, Robert W. Stoddard, Meldrim Thomson Jr.
Medford Evans was a JBS Coordinator in Texas/Louisiana. At one time, G. Edward Griffin was a JBS Coordinator in California and one of only four persons authorized as an official spokesperson for the JBS. Taylor Caldwell and E. Merrill Root were self-acknowledged JBS members and they both wrote for the JBS magazine, American Opinion.
Actors John Wayne, Adolphe Menjou, Ward Bond, and Walter Brennan were all members of the JBS but they seem to have terminated their membership rather quickly as they became more aware of the premises upon which Birch dogma was based. Adolphe Menjou was briefly a JBS National Council member.
In the period from the 1930's thru 1950's liberals innocently joined what they later discovered were organizations infiltrated and/or controlled by Communists and Communist sympathizers. They then withdrew from those organizations or fought to defeat the Communists. Similarly, many conservatives joined the Birch Society but realized fairly quickly that the JBS was not a genuinely conservative group. Phyllis Schlafly and her husband, Fred, also fall into this category.
Over the years, the Birch Society also experienced severe attrition because of major internal disputes. Prominent JBS National Council members and Coordinators have often resigned with a blast at JBS founder Robert Welch or subsequent JBS leadership. For example: National Council members Slobodan Draskovich, Revilo P. Oliver, Adolphe Menjou and in later years, Joseph Maurer--a 40+ year member as well as JBS Coordinator Bryton Barron, a former State Department Historian.
In many instances, however, it is not known (for certain) whether or not a person actually joined the Birch Society. However, there is data to reflect that persons endorsed the JBS. See, for example, the 1963 Report of the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities which contains a listing of endorsers nationwide -- which includes numerous prominent personalities.
I'm a little disconcerted by the POV in this article. It seems reasonably balanced at some points, but at others it feels like a pamphlet for the John Birch Society. Most other comparable movements have a criticism section, whereas this one does not. I would say that a spot checking over the history here shows that most users have done a good job expanding and balancing this article. I'm not suggesting that criticisms have been suppressed or removed, merely that we seem to be missing some. I noticed some criticisms did exist within the article, but they were rather embedded. I guess I'd like to see some more directed criticisms and scale down some of the overly positive language, but I don't want to do a major article overhaul without consulting a few people interested/knowledgable in the matter.
Revolution within the form is up for deletion. I ask for a vote for transwiki. Thanks. WHEELER 00:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The JBS claims that collectivist conspiracies throughout the world have significantly shaped history, and it seeks to expose and eliminate their claimed control in government in the modern era. This degree of conspiracism has isolated the Society from many other conservative groups. This is a pretty bold statement as such, because it can be explained as pejorative against the JBS. What exactly does JBS think is the conspiracy? If it is actually a term the Birchers have used, it needs explaining what -they- think about what the term means. For all I know, as currently stated, the Birchers might as well believe in UFOs or aliens... Intangible 17:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
<------The JBS already has a website. The critics have already published their books and articles. Your suggestion defeats the entire purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to summarize.-- Cberlet 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss calling Oliver a founder of the JBS and calling him a fascist. I have restored the NPOV text:
Welch was the founder of the JBS, not Oliver.-- Cberlet 18:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
7/13/06 by Ernie1241@aol.com:
The discussion about Revilo P. Oliver needs revision. I have copies of 1966 letters between Oliver and Robert Welch which indicate that Oliver's membership was not "revoked". Oliver resigned. In fact, Welch travelled to Oliver's home in Urbana IL to resolve their differences because Welch wanted Oliver to remain in the JBS. Keep in mind that Welch once described Oliver as "perhaps the world's greatest living scholar" and didn't want to lose him.
After he left the JBS, Oliver associated himself with blatantly anti-semitic and neo-nazi organizations and publications. His writings are now preserved and made available on Kevin Strom's National Vanguard website.
See the following:
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/index.html and
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Audio/Audio.html
With respect to Revilo Oliver being described as a "fascist" -- I recommend a careful reading of Oliver's many articles published in Liberty Bell magazine. Below is an excerpt from a September 1973 article that gives Oliver's interpretation of the "Mass Sedition Trial" of the 1940's:
You may read the entire article at: http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/No_Escape.html
"The Sedition Trial in 1944 made it obvious, and indubitable to anyone willing to think critically about it, that the United States had been surreptitiously captured by the Jews and their Communist barbarians. At that time, the Americans, or a tiny but determined minority of them, amounting perhaps to one-tenth of one percent of the population, could have retaken their country. Instead, for forty-four years, the Americans watched in idiotic apathy the dismantling of their industry, the confiscation of money and its replacement by trading stamps of no intrinsic value, the sabotage and defilement of their culture, the use of their schools to abort children's minds and destroy innate character, their ever increasing subjugation to a ruthless bureaucracy, the gradual elimination of every right their ancestors had enjoyed as freemen, and the wholesale importation into their country of both anthropoid garbage and shrewd racial enemies by the Judaeo-Communist conspiracy. (3)
(3. One of the most important articles ever published in Liberty Bell is Ivor Benson's "The Immigration Riddle Unwrapped" in the issue for April 1988, which makes it clear that the importation of niggers and wogs into Britain was organized and financed by a conspiracy. It is clear that the Jews, having found it impractical to carry out the plan to exterminate all Germans, which was prematurely announced by Kaufmann in Germany Must Perish! (reprint available from Liberty Bell Publications, $4.00 + postage), have resorted to the more gradual method of exterminating the Aryans in all of their countries by running in hordes of sub-humans and eventually dissolving Aryan blood in a fetid mass of mindless mongrels. Aryans, their minds rotted by Christianity, grin idiotically as they see prepared the biological graves to which their children are destined. The present influx of Chinese and Japanese, who are buying up large parts of the United States and Canada, is, of course, an entirely different phenomenon. They belong to a highly intelligent and civilized race, and they, of course, feel only contempt for the Aryan idiots who have, in effect, given away their property by sabotaging their own industrial capacity; they will not debase their own blood by marrying Aryan fools. The influx of Mongolians is encouraged by the Jews, since it hastens the liquidation of the Aryan nation; what will happen when the interests of the two intelligent races no longer coincide is anyone's guess.)"
In the "History" section, the third paragraph, the second sentence, the word "Americanists" is used. I have never seen this word before. Is it a JBS idea? or a typo that should read "Americans"? If not a typo but a JBS idea, then could someone please add something explaining this concept? Thanks! Dveej 16:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The term Americanist is used for academics whose field is American studies. 195.73.22.130 19:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
See above for all the whatnot.
The weird, clearly biased text gave me the decision to tag the templates. I know that they are (somewhat) messed up, but the article could be kept clean and NPOV. hello, i'm a member | talk to me!
I agree that the page regarding the Birch Society is fair and evenhanded at some points, and at others, it seems that it is highly favoring the view of the Society. I have tried to make some modifications which I think would have made the page more informative (for example, I have elaborated on the concept of Americanism, [by the way, I hope that helps Dveej!), and less biased, but what I have done, is clearly not enough. If there is any bias seen in the page, I say don't complain or tag it; I say "Fix it!" Take the information given (however biased it is), and change it to the formal third person tone of the Wikipedia. I also believe that, if information is still unclear, then do some third party research on the subject/topic. And to finally air my grieveances on a personal note; I am a member of the JBS, and it pains me to see that this article is biased. If it is, it will only deter people from taking an interest in the JBS. So, I implore those of you (probably members) who have (most likely unwittingly) made some parts of the article (to quote the Onward NPOV Soldiers post) like "a pamphlet for the John Birch Society", not to make mistakes like that anymore. I hope that what I have said has given some constructive criticism, Thank you! -- Unregistered User Matthias
I removed references to Steve Symms, Helen Chenoweth, and Ron Paul being members of the JBS. All have spoken in support of the organization, but I can find no evidence that any were actual members. MKilMKil
Is calling Political Research Associates a "leftist watchdog group" a POV issue? I propose "liberal" may be a less loaded term. Vulpin 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Vulpin Vulpin 06:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
If some editors thing the article is POV in favour of the JBS, and others that it is POV against the JBS, wouldn't that be reason enough to drop the NPOv-tag? Replacing with a cleanup-tag, maybe?
Otherwise please list specific points which are so heavily POV, that the tag has to remain in the article.
Pjacobi 19:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is getting a little long. Does anyone think something should be done? I was going to add something on American Opinion Book Services, but maybe there should be a JBS publications page. Would anyone object to having a "Criticisms" section on this page and a link to JBS publications (The New American, AOBS, &c.)? (I know, I know, do I really need to ask that question?) "Criticisms" is a common section in WP articles of this type.
"Americanist" at the beginning of the article currently redirects to the "Americanism" disambig page, but the "Americanist" in this article appears to refer to "American Exceptionalism" rather than either "Americanism". Who wants to play Solomon and figure out another general term for the Society's views at the beginning of the article. "American Exceptionalist" is awkward, so I won't make that edit. Can we fairly and accurately describe the JBS' views as some form of U.S. conservatism?
.s
X ile 23:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I knew it wouldn't take long to get an objection. That's a fair objection, too. I was just noting that it's common on this encyclopedia and that it was a way to trim the article length. Maybe there's an article name that would encompass all the publications (pro, con, and other) or maybe something else can be moved into another article. Any thoughts?
.s
X ile 07:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Talk
I think i agree with the first person here - i found this article a bit on the long side which put me off, - and to be honest the talk page also seems to me to need a bit of an archiving session. - it has 40 discussion points - i am sure some are like 2 or 3 years old.
-- Wideofthemark ( talk) 11:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me say that this is a decent and relatively fair article. I was actually expecting to find a real mess considering some of the other articles I've come across in Wikipedia but this seems well put together. I'll read it a bit closer in a final analysis to see if anything could be added or modified in an effort to make the article better, however I did think that perhaps the over-analysis of the book, "The Politician" doesn't really add much to the article and perhaps better deserves its' own page. That book would be relevant if the formation of the JBS somehow hinged on it but it was written years before the JBS came into existence and holds no prominent position within the JBS. In fact, it was really just a long letter written by Robert Welch and given to close associates and friends (contrary to some claims made otherwise by his opponents) and then modified to become a book. It was not a founding document of the JBS and giving a 1950's book such a prominent role in the main article does little to give the reader a better understanding of the JBS. It also did nothing to promote membership to the JBS or even to discount the organzation. Again, it's merely the writing of one man, who has been dead since 1985, had serious issues with Eisenhower, who he himself campaigned for president as a conservative but after his election played the role of an "Establishment Liberal". The Welch book was pretty brazen (ignoring the enormous amount of footnoting) at a time when Eisenhower was revered as a great hero but now with much more information coming to light regarding his role in "Operation: Keelhaul" and other WWII decisions [3] and presidential matters, Eisenhower is not held in the same esteem to which the general consensus was at the time. I have spoken with JBS members who give the book little to no value as anything beyond a claim by Robert Welch and his personal opinions. A number of the members I've spoken to state that they haven't even read the book. The JBS is an organization that is not in some sort of solidarity regarding quite a few things other than being struct adherents to the U.S. Constitution.
The only things I removed were in the "See Also" section. The first item was "reactionary". This term does not in any way describe the JBS. It is actually a term that I have only found applied by communist-front groups to attack the JBS. Reactionary suggests that the subject is attempting to radically change what is the normal state of being of the main item. The JBS does not fit that description since it is essentially a conservative educational group that is as harsh on Republicans as it is on Democrats. Also I removed from that same section, "Separation of church and state". The argument of church and state would not enhance anyone's understanding of the JBS. As the Founding Fathers agreed, no such separation exists (setting aside Jefferson's passing comment on a related issue) and (considering that various original States had their own official Christian faith and the use of Judeo-Christian imagies and devices utilized in such blatant manner, would only bring to question an issue that is really not relevant to this article. If someone really feels that the article would benefit by restoring this "See Also" link on that item, I have no objection to retaining it but it still wouldn't help the reader better under the JBS. Jtpaladin 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I added, "anti-authoritarism" as a belief of the JBS considering their official positions regarding this political idealogy.
I also added what has been confirmed in the Venona documents and other Soviet archive information regarding the fact that communists were no longer a "perceived" threat and that they were a very real threat and had in fact achieved infiltration of the U.S. govt.
Lastly, I better explained the concerns that the JBS had regarding the Civil Rights Movement and both Robert Kennedy's and John Kennedy's concerns about communist penetration and manipulation of the Civil Rights Movement. Jtpaladin 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This is interesting article, but I could not understand the following. It says that JBS "promotes a conspiracy theory of history". What is "a conspiracy theory of history"? Any links or references? "One World Government" conspiracy - what exactly does it mean? Honestly, I have no idea. Is any explanation in Wikipedia or elsewhere? I looked through conspiracy and other related articles and could not find anything about "One World Government" conspiracy. If JBS promotes some conspiracy theories right now (I am less interested in the past), it would be very helpful to provide a list of such conspiracy theories with explanations. Any ideas? Biophys 01:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC) I just found it: New World Order (conspiracy) and made a reference in the article. Do they really mean this? (I looked briefly through their "New American" but did not find it). Is that "a conspiracy theory of history"? Sorry for stupid questions. Biophys 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Surely the post-Welch section of the article should mention the dramatic and incredibly ironic death of the successor to Robert Welch, Congressman Larry McDonald. Here we have an organization that is staunchly anti-communist and prone to believe in a conspiratorial view of history and their leader is openly (although likely incidentially) killed by the Soviet government. While Larry McDonald is listed out of the main text of the article his death is a hugely important event in the history of the society and if it is coincidental then it is an astounding coincidence worth mentioning if for no more than it's incredible irony. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uwharries ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
I HAVE ADDED SOMETHING ABOUT THE TO THE "DEATH" SECTION - 89.138.147.180Bert Schlossberg 89.138.147.180
I just cut a section that had whole phrases lifted from my published writings (in real life I am Chip Berlet). I don't mind folks quoting and citing my stuff here on Wikipedia, but I do object to plagiarism.-- Cberlet 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The neutral point of view which was here before seems to have been slightly tilted. RickK 02:27 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The anonymous user who states the John Birch Society (an organization which I have heard and know briefly about) I know is NOT a paleoconservative organization. Its ultraconservative. Most of the information in the JBS information page that states its a ultraconservative organization is the more correct form of the two editing pages. "Dr. Grant"
They opposed the Civil Rights movement WHEELER. AndyL 16:02, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I reverted the changes by anonymous user 200.85.34.114. Most of the changes consisted of typos (turning quotation marks into question marks, for example), along with a change to the lead that made it ungrammatical and incoherent. The other change by 200.85.34.114 consists of a claim that Fred Schwarz denied that early "Birchers shared a common ideology and some overlapping membership" with Schwarz's organization. While it is clear that Schwarz has denied being personally affiliated with the JBS, I've been able to find no example of him denying that the two groups shared a common ideology (anti-Communism) and some overlapping membership. I've done a Google search of the entire Internet, a search of the Nexis news database, and a Google search of Schwarz's own website, and haven't found any instance in which he denies an overlap of members and ideology between his group and the Birchers. On a couple of occasions, he claimed that he didn't know much about the Birchers, but that's it. And one of his newsletters quotes (without attempting to refute) the following statement:
This statement seems to support the article's claims. In order to accept the change made by 200.85.34.114, I would need to see some statement by Schwarz in which he expressly states that there was not shared membership or ideology with the JBS.
For interested parties, the FBI HQ main file on the JBS is 62-104401 and consists of about 12,000 pages. J. Edgar Hoover or his top subordinates referred to the JBS in FBI memos and reports as "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible" and "lunatic fringe".
Unknown to most students of the JBS is the fact that Robert Welch blamed Fred Schwarz for the controversy that erupted over his unpublished manuscript entitled, "The Politician". It described President Eisenhower as a "conscious, dedicated agent" of the Communist conspiracy. According to Welch, an employee of Schwarz provided a copy of "The Politician" to a Chicago newspaperman (Jack Mabley) and it was Mabley's articles in the Chicago Daily News (published at the time the GOP Convention was in Chicago during July 1960) which triggered the controversy over Welch's comments.
Anyone wishing additional information may contact me at Ernie1241@aol.com.
In addition, I have posted a 60-page JBS Report at: http://birchers.blogspot.com/
It is based primarily upon FBI files and documents. Chapter titles are as follows:
1. FBI Evaluations of Robert Welch and the John Birch Society
2. FBI vs. JBS on Internal Security Status of the 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
5. FBI vs. JBS on Dr. Harry A. Overstreet as a Communist sympathizer or dupe
6. FBI vs. JBS on civil rights movement [Alan Stang's 1965 book It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights published by the Birch Society; and Highlander Folk School described by the JBS as a "Communist Training School".]
7. FBI vs. JBS on Persons JBS Claims To Be “Experts” on Communism.
In addition, I recently completed a revised 26-page report on former FBI Special Agent Dan Smoot which includes a discussion of subjects raised by the Birch Society. See Smoot report at: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/smoot
In an early paragraph the article mentions that the Birch Society supports "immigration reform." That term strikes me as unfortunate, since it is positive and bland without describing any particular viewpoint or direction. Anyone but a crank would presumably support "reform."
One can fairly well guess that the Birch Society would like to raise barriers against immigration in general, lowering them only for refugees from oppressions that they choose to recognize. However, I'd rather read what someone has actually found out, not merely guessed.
Best regards, David S.
P.S.: Very definitely, the Birch Society opposed Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s. More than that, they attacked the legitimacy of the movement itself, or tried to. Birch Society bulletins proclaimed that most "American Negroes" didn't want trouble, were content with slow, peaceful progress, and that the Civil Rights movement had been instigated by "the Communist Conspiracy" and was under its control. Much play was given to a photograph purporting to show Dr. Martin Luther King at a "Communist training school"--this image was enlarged and put up on numerous billboards especially across the South.
[tin foil hat]
damn moonbats
[/tin foil hat]
An anonymous person using the prefix 63.134.129.xxx continues to insert POV and factually false information into this article (not to mention messing up grammar and adding typos). Does anyone else want to join in seeking an attempt to have this person banned for 30 days?-- Cberlet 17:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Birchers also elaborate on earlier Illuminati Freemason conspiracy theories,"
"Many mainstream journalists and politicians also view the JBS as an extremist organization of conspiracy theorists" sounds one-sided (bias) and is too general. Please be specific.
"are members of the so called "
"more disaffected with the "Birchers" after Welch" -- improper name for members of the JBS. Perhaps "with the Society" would be better.
"more pragmatic members realized that the group's conspiracism..." -- perhaps replace "realized" with "felt that"?
-- 65.19.220.219 01:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The attempt to insert POV and factually dubious material is not appropriate. If the anonymous users who insist on reverting the page without discussion continue, I will seek to have this page locked down until they are willing to enter into a discussion.-- Cberlet 22:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As of this comment this article is mangled fairly badly, with spelling errors and a repeated "block" of text.
OK, it was mangled. hope I fixed some things. Still could use some editing.-- Cberlet 03:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We don't usually put "The" on the front of organisation names: witness Conservative Party, Republican Party, Society of Friends. The only exception is for book movie and song titles, e.g The Commitments. We should move this back. DJ Clayworth 19:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
To the anon who made recent changes. Some of the things you wrote are not really neutral enough for Wikipedia. To refer to the founders of the JBS as "patriotic and public spirited" implies a level of approval that we should not be giving. It is enough to say that they claimed to be patriotic and public spirited, because that is undeniably true. Otherwise someone with a different point of view could (reasonably) change the description of them to something else. Please make sure we stay neutral. DJ Clayworth 16:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I've protected this page until the anon IPs get fed up or come to this page with their concerns. However, if any of the other editors wants to edit it, just drop me a line and I'll unprotect. If I don't hear from any of you, I'll unprotect in a day or two. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:23, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
The JBS has always been a controversial group, and there is no doubt that some descriptions of the group have been biased against it. But I thought we had a relatively even-handed treatment here. There is always room for improvement, so let's hope the anonymous editors join us here for a discussion.-- Cberlet 18:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
[Copied from above - see note about new discussions at bottom of page]-- Cberlet 15:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Would this be suitable for "U.S. history of anti-Communism" category?
Little has been said about Phyllis Schlafly, ultra-conservative writer and chief spokesperson for anti-ERA forces. Schlafly, originally a member in good standing of the JBS according to Welsh, later denied any affliation with the organization despite the similarities in political and social beliefs. Why would a woman who enjoyed the support of JBS choose to disassociate herself?
I reverted a major re-write by an unregistered user. This article is the product of consensus by many editors. Please don't change the whole thing without explanation or discussion. Thanks, - Willmcw 17:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
It is not quite true that Dwight Eisenhower was described as a “conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy.” Welsh said he was either that or a 'damn fool'.
Willmcw's position regarding what Robert Welch wrote in The Politician is gravely flawed.
PREFACE:
First, by way of preface, let's begin with a comment made by Robert Welch in The Politician, Chapter 16, which discusses Eisenhower "associates and appointments". (pages 227-228 of the unpublished version.)
Even Welch acknowledges the cumulative effect of all his statements, innuendos, and insinuations in Chapter 16:
"So we appear to be calling almost everybody a Communist, merely because we have no reason to be mentioning the good men in Washington, in all branches of the government, who have no Communist sympathies whatever."
As we keep that in mind, let's also remember that the title of the next chapter clarifies Welch's intent with respect to the thrust of his argument as contained in the first 16 chapters.
Chapter 17 is entitled: "The Word Is Treason".
Finally, let's keep in mind Welch's admission to his National Council in January 1960, that, in his scheme of things, "it makes no practical difference" to distinguish between
(a) "an actual Communist" (b) "a Communist sympathizer" (c) "a Communist agent"
With that preface in mind, now let's consider how Welch describes President Eisenhower. First, let us quickly dispose of the falsehood that Welch proposed a benign interpretation of Ike's motives. On page 278 of The Politician, Welch summarizes the only two possible interpretations from his perspective:
"The role he has played, as described in all the pages above, would fit just as well into one theory as the other; that he is a mere stooge, or that he is Communist assigned the specific job of being a political front man."
On page 279, Welch discusses the 3 stages by which Communists came to control the U.S. Presidency. In stages 1 and 2, FDR and Truman were "used" by Communists. In Truman's case, according to Welch, he was used "with his knowledge and acquiescence, as the price he consciously paid for their making him President."
Then, with respect to Ike,
"In the third stage the Communists have installed in the Presidency a man who, for whatever reasons, appears intentionally to be carrying forward Communist aims...With regard to this third man, Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason." ... [See the original formulation of this comment from the unpublished version of The Politician at the end of this summary.]
There are many other passages in both the published and unpublished versions of The Politician wherein Welch makes clear that he considered Eisenhower a traitor. Below I quote a few examples. I have used bold type on certain portions to emphasize how Welch characterized Eisenhower.
"In my opinion the chances are very strong that Milton Eisenhower is actually Dwight Eisenhower's superior and boss within the Communist Party." [The Politician, unpublished version, page 210]
OVERALL SUMMARY OF EISENHOWER APPOINTMENTS AND ASSOCIATES
"We think that an objective survey of Eisenhower's associates and appointments shows clever Communist brains, aided by willing Communist hands, always at work to give the Communists more power, and to weaken the anti-Communist resistance." [Politician, unpublished version, page 239]
In discussing Eisenhower's appointment of Philip C. Jessup, Robert Welch refers to Ike as "he and his fellow Communists" [Politician, unpublished version, page 214]
In discussing Eisenhower's appointment of James B. Conant, Robert Welch refers to "the appointment of Conant...made by a Communist President..." [Politician, unpublished version, page 221]
"For Eisenhower and his Communist bosses and their pro-Communist appointees are gradually taking over our whole government right under the noses of the American people. [Politician, unpublished version, page 238-239]
Welch refers to Eisenhower's actions in Europe which "show his sympathies with the Communist cause and friendship for the Kremlin tyrants..." [Politician, unpublished version, page 263]
"For the sake of honesty, however, I want to confess here my own conviction that Eisenhower's motivation is more ideological than opportunistic. Or, to put it bluntly, I personally think that he has been sympathetic to ultimate Communist aims, realistically willing to use Communist means to help them achieve their goals, knowingly accepting and abiding by Communist orders, and consciously serving the Communist conspiracy for all of his adult life." [Politician, unpublished version, page 266]
"But my firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt." [Politician, unpublished version, page 267]
"In the third stage, in my own firm opinion, the Communists have one of their own actually in the Presidency. For this third man, Eisenhower, there is only one possible word to describe his purposes and his actions. That word is treason." [Politician, unpublished version, page 268].
For more details, contact: Ernie1241@aol.com
12/13/05 Ernie1241 sez: Sorry--I thought you were arguing that Welch never referred to Ike as a Communist. Mea culpa.
I just removed the {{NPOV}} tag; it really shouldn't be there unless there is an ongoing NPOV dispute under discussion, and it was put in by the same anon that blanked comments on this talk page a couple weeks ago (and discussed nothing). I also removed a bogus {{protected}} tag; the article is not protected. Antandrus (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
There's currently a line that says
It is also anti-globalization and anti-immigration reform.
with anti-immigration as a link. If the point of the phrase is that they're opposed to immigration reform, then the link is in the wrong context. If the claim is that they are opposed to immigration (and therefore that the link makes sense), then the word reform is extraneous and misleading. Which is it?
Welch retired from the candy business and had an office in Belmont, MA when he went to Indianapolis to found the JBS. The JBS then set up offices in Belmont, MA. No conflict with Welch bio page.-- Cberlet 02:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I reverted these additions to the list of Birchers:
Robert Stoddard William J. Grede Floyd Paxton Nelson Bunker Hunt Tom Anderson (syndicated Journalist) Talyor Caldwell (author) G. Edward Griffin (author) Dr. Medford Evans, author of The Secret War for the A-Bomb, General Andrew Gatsis General Edwin Shull General Robert Lee Scott (author of "God is my Co-pilot" Professor E. Merrill Root, the great poet and essayist,
At the least this needs to be edited for style; I think it's obvious, too, that every single name must be verified. We can't just run around saying so-and-so is a Bircher without a source. John Reid 21:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
7/13/06 by Ernie1241@aol.com
John Reid raises a valid point about verifying who actually is a JBS member.
With respect to the persons listed above, the following were, at various times, members of the Birch Society National Council: Tom Anderson, William J. Grede, Nelson Bunker Hunt, Floyd Paxton, John Schmitz, Robert W. Stoddard, Meldrim Thomson Jr.
Medford Evans was a JBS Coordinator in Texas/Louisiana. At one time, G. Edward Griffin was a JBS Coordinator in California and one of only four persons authorized as an official spokesperson for the JBS. Taylor Caldwell and E. Merrill Root were self-acknowledged JBS members and they both wrote for the JBS magazine, American Opinion.
Actors John Wayne, Adolphe Menjou, Ward Bond, and Walter Brennan were all members of the JBS but they seem to have terminated their membership rather quickly as they became more aware of the premises upon which Birch dogma was based. Adolphe Menjou was briefly a JBS National Council member.
In the period from the 1930's thru 1950's liberals innocently joined what they later discovered were organizations infiltrated and/or controlled by Communists and Communist sympathizers. They then withdrew from those organizations or fought to defeat the Communists. Similarly, many conservatives joined the Birch Society but realized fairly quickly that the JBS was not a genuinely conservative group. Phyllis Schlafly and her husband, Fred, also fall into this category.
Over the years, the Birch Society also experienced severe attrition because of major internal disputes. Prominent JBS National Council members and Coordinators have often resigned with a blast at JBS founder Robert Welch or subsequent JBS leadership. For example: National Council members Slobodan Draskovich, Revilo P. Oliver, Adolphe Menjou and in later years, Joseph Maurer--a 40+ year member as well as JBS Coordinator Bryton Barron, a former State Department Historian.
In many instances, however, it is not known (for certain) whether or not a person actually joined the Birch Society. However, there is data to reflect that persons endorsed the JBS. See, for example, the 1963 Report of the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities which contains a listing of endorsers nationwide -- which includes numerous prominent personalities.
I'm a little disconcerted by the POV in this article. It seems reasonably balanced at some points, but at others it feels like a pamphlet for the John Birch Society. Most other comparable movements have a criticism section, whereas this one does not. I would say that a spot checking over the history here shows that most users have done a good job expanding and balancing this article. I'm not suggesting that criticisms have been suppressed or removed, merely that we seem to be missing some. I noticed some criticisms did exist within the article, but they were rather embedded. I guess I'd like to see some more directed criticisms and scale down some of the overly positive language, but I don't want to do a major article overhaul without consulting a few people interested/knowledgable in the matter.
Revolution within the form is up for deletion. I ask for a vote for transwiki. Thanks. WHEELER 00:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The JBS claims that collectivist conspiracies throughout the world have significantly shaped history, and it seeks to expose and eliminate their claimed control in government in the modern era. This degree of conspiracism has isolated the Society from many other conservative groups. This is a pretty bold statement as such, because it can be explained as pejorative against the JBS. What exactly does JBS think is the conspiracy? If it is actually a term the Birchers have used, it needs explaining what -they- think about what the term means. For all I know, as currently stated, the Birchers might as well believe in UFOs or aliens... Intangible 17:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
<------The JBS already has a website. The critics have already published their books and articles. Your suggestion defeats the entire purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to summarize.-- Cberlet 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss calling Oliver a founder of the JBS and calling him a fascist. I have restored the NPOV text:
Welch was the founder of the JBS, not Oliver.-- Cberlet 18:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
7/13/06 by Ernie1241@aol.com:
The discussion about Revilo P. Oliver needs revision. I have copies of 1966 letters between Oliver and Robert Welch which indicate that Oliver's membership was not "revoked". Oliver resigned. In fact, Welch travelled to Oliver's home in Urbana IL to resolve their differences because Welch wanted Oliver to remain in the JBS. Keep in mind that Welch once described Oliver as "perhaps the world's greatest living scholar" and didn't want to lose him.
After he left the JBS, Oliver associated himself with blatantly anti-semitic and neo-nazi organizations and publications. His writings are now preserved and made available on Kevin Strom's National Vanguard website.
See the following:
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/index.html and
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Audio/Audio.html
With respect to Revilo Oliver being described as a "fascist" -- I recommend a careful reading of Oliver's many articles published in Liberty Bell magazine. Below is an excerpt from a September 1973 article that gives Oliver's interpretation of the "Mass Sedition Trial" of the 1940's:
You may read the entire article at: http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/No_Escape.html
"The Sedition Trial in 1944 made it obvious, and indubitable to anyone willing to think critically about it, that the United States had been surreptitiously captured by the Jews and their Communist barbarians. At that time, the Americans, or a tiny but determined minority of them, amounting perhaps to one-tenth of one percent of the population, could have retaken their country. Instead, for forty-four years, the Americans watched in idiotic apathy the dismantling of their industry, the confiscation of money and its replacement by trading stamps of no intrinsic value, the sabotage and defilement of their culture, the use of their schools to abort children's minds and destroy innate character, their ever increasing subjugation to a ruthless bureaucracy, the gradual elimination of every right their ancestors had enjoyed as freemen, and the wholesale importation into their country of both anthropoid garbage and shrewd racial enemies by the Judaeo-Communist conspiracy. (3)
(3. One of the most important articles ever published in Liberty Bell is Ivor Benson's "The Immigration Riddle Unwrapped" in the issue for April 1988, which makes it clear that the importation of niggers and wogs into Britain was organized and financed by a conspiracy. It is clear that the Jews, having found it impractical to carry out the plan to exterminate all Germans, which was prematurely announced by Kaufmann in Germany Must Perish! (reprint available from Liberty Bell Publications, $4.00 + postage), have resorted to the more gradual method of exterminating the Aryans in all of their countries by running in hordes of sub-humans and eventually dissolving Aryan blood in a fetid mass of mindless mongrels. Aryans, their minds rotted by Christianity, grin idiotically as they see prepared the biological graves to which their children are destined. The present influx of Chinese and Japanese, who are buying up large parts of the United States and Canada, is, of course, an entirely different phenomenon. They belong to a highly intelligent and civilized race, and they, of course, feel only contempt for the Aryan idiots who have, in effect, given away their property by sabotaging their own industrial capacity; they will not debase their own blood by marrying Aryan fools. The influx of Mongolians is encouraged by the Jews, since it hastens the liquidation of the Aryan nation; what will happen when the interests of the two intelligent races no longer coincide is anyone's guess.)"
In the "History" section, the third paragraph, the second sentence, the word "Americanists" is used. I have never seen this word before. Is it a JBS idea? or a typo that should read "Americans"? If not a typo but a JBS idea, then could someone please add something explaining this concept? Thanks! Dveej 16:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The term Americanist is used for academics whose field is American studies. 195.73.22.130 19:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
See above for all the whatnot.
The weird, clearly biased text gave me the decision to tag the templates. I know that they are (somewhat) messed up, but the article could be kept clean and NPOV. hello, i'm a member | talk to me!
I agree that the page regarding the Birch Society is fair and evenhanded at some points, and at others, it seems that it is highly favoring the view of the Society. I have tried to make some modifications which I think would have made the page more informative (for example, I have elaborated on the concept of Americanism, [by the way, I hope that helps Dveej!), and less biased, but what I have done, is clearly not enough. If there is any bias seen in the page, I say don't complain or tag it; I say "Fix it!" Take the information given (however biased it is), and change it to the formal third person tone of the Wikipedia. I also believe that, if information is still unclear, then do some third party research on the subject/topic. And to finally air my grieveances on a personal note; I am a member of the JBS, and it pains me to see that this article is biased. If it is, it will only deter people from taking an interest in the JBS. So, I implore those of you (probably members) who have (most likely unwittingly) made some parts of the article (to quote the Onward NPOV Soldiers post) like "a pamphlet for the John Birch Society", not to make mistakes like that anymore. I hope that what I have said has given some constructive criticism, Thank you! -- Unregistered User Matthias
I removed references to Steve Symms, Helen Chenoweth, and Ron Paul being members of the JBS. All have spoken in support of the organization, but I can find no evidence that any were actual members. MKilMKil
Is calling Political Research Associates a "leftist watchdog group" a POV issue? I propose "liberal" may be a less loaded term. Vulpin 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Vulpin Vulpin 06:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
If some editors thing the article is POV in favour of the JBS, and others that it is POV against the JBS, wouldn't that be reason enough to drop the NPOv-tag? Replacing with a cleanup-tag, maybe?
Otherwise please list specific points which are so heavily POV, that the tag has to remain in the article.
Pjacobi 19:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is getting a little long. Does anyone think something should be done? I was going to add something on American Opinion Book Services, but maybe there should be a JBS publications page. Would anyone object to having a "Criticisms" section on this page and a link to JBS publications (The New American, AOBS, &c.)? (I know, I know, do I really need to ask that question?) "Criticisms" is a common section in WP articles of this type.
"Americanist" at the beginning of the article currently redirects to the "Americanism" disambig page, but the "Americanist" in this article appears to refer to "American Exceptionalism" rather than either "Americanism". Who wants to play Solomon and figure out another general term for the Society's views at the beginning of the article. "American Exceptionalist" is awkward, so I won't make that edit. Can we fairly and accurately describe the JBS' views as some form of U.S. conservatism?
.s
X ile 23:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I knew it wouldn't take long to get an objection. That's a fair objection, too. I was just noting that it's common on this encyclopedia and that it was a way to trim the article length. Maybe there's an article name that would encompass all the publications (pro, con, and other) or maybe something else can be moved into another article. Any thoughts?
.s
X ile 07:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Talk
I think i agree with the first person here - i found this article a bit on the long side which put me off, - and to be honest the talk page also seems to me to need a bit of an archiving session. - it has 40 discussion points - i am sure some are like 2 or 3 years old.
-- Wideofthemark ( talk) 11:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me say that this is a decent and relatively fair article. I was actually expecting to find a real mess considering some of the other articles I've come across in Wikipedia but this seems well put together. I'll read it a bit closer in a final analysis to see if anything could be added or modified in an effort to make the article better, however I did think that perhaps the over-analysis of the book, "The Politician" doesn't really add much to the article and perhaps better deserves its' own page. That book would be relevant if the formation of the JBS somehow hinged on it but it was written years before the JBS came into existence and holds no prominent position within the JBS. In fact, it was really just a long letter written by Robert Welch and given to close associates and friends (contrary to some claims made otherwise by his opponents) and then modified to become a book. It was not a founding document of the JBS and giving a 1950's book such a prominent role in the main article does little to give the reader a better understanding of the JBS. It also did nothing to promote membership to the JBS or even to discount the organzation. Again, it's merely the writing of one man, who has been dead since 1985, had serious issues with Eisenhower, who he himself campaigned for president as a conservative but after his election played the role of an "Establishment Liberal". The Welch book was pretty brazen (ignoring the enormous amount of footnoting) at a time when Eisenhower was revered as a great hero but now with much more information coming to light regarding his role in "Operation: Keelhaul" and other WWII decisions [3] and presidential matters, Eisenhower is not held in the same esteem to which the general consensus was at the time. I have spoken with JBS members who give the book little to no value as anything beyond a claim by Robert Welch and his personal opinions. A number of the members I've spoken to state that they haven't even read the book. The JBS is an organization that is not in some sort of solidarity regarding quite a few things other than being struct adherents to the U.S. Constitution.
The only things I removed were in the "See Also" section. The first item was "reactionary". This term does not in any way describe the JBS. It is actually a term that I have only found applied by communist-front groups to attack the JBS. Reactionary suggests that the subject is attempting to radically change what is the normal state of being of the main item. The JBS does not fit that description since it is essentially a conservative educational group that is as harsh on Republicans as it is on Democrats. Also I removed from that same section, "Separation of church and state". The argument of church and state would not enhance anyone's understanding of the JBS. As the Founding Fathers agreed, no such separation exists (setting aside Jefferson's passing comment on a related issue) and (considering that various original States had their own official Christian faith and the use of Judeo-Christian imagies and devices utilized in such blatant manner, would only bring to question an issue that is really not relevant to this article. If someone really feels that the article would benefit by restoring this "See Also" link on that item, I have no objection to retaining it but it still wouldn't help the reader better under the JBS. Jtpaladin 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I added, "anti-authoritarism" as a belief of the JBS considering their official positions regarding this political idealogy.
I also added what has been confirmed in the Venona documents and other Soviet archive information regarding the fact that communists were no longer a "perceived" threat and that they were a very real threat and had in fact achieved infiltration of the U.S. govt.
Lastly, I better explained the concerns that the JBS had regarding the Civil Rights Movement and both Robert Kennedy's and John Kennedy's concerns about communist penetration and manipulation of the Civil Rights Movement. Jtpaladin 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This is interesting article, but I could not understand the following. It says that JBS "promotes a conspiracy theory of history". What is "a conspiracy theory of history"? Any links or references? "One World Government" conspiracy - what exactly does it mean? Honestly, I have no idea. Is any explanation in Wikipedia or elsewhere? I looked through conspiracy and other related articles and could not find anything about "One World Government" conspiracy. If JBS promotes some conspiracy theories right now (I am less interested in the past), it would be very helpful to provide a list of such conspiracy theories with explanations. Any ideas? Biophys 01:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC) I just found it: New World Order (conspiracy) and made a reference in the article. Do they really mean this? (I looked briefly through their "New American" but did not find it). Is that "a conspiracy theory of history"? Sorry for stupid questions. Biophys 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Surely the post-Welch section of the article should mention the dramatic and incredibly ironic death of the successor to Robert Welch, Congressman Larry McDonald. Here we have an organization that is staunchly anti-communist and prone to believe in a conspiratorial view of history and their leader is openly (although likely incidentially) killed by the Soviet government. While Larry McDonald is listed out of the main text of the article his death is a hugely important event in the history of the society and if it is coincidental then it is an astounding coincidence worth mentioning if for no more than it's incredible irony. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uwharries ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
I HAVE ADDED SOMETHING ABOUT THE TO THE "DEATH" SECTION - 89.138.147.180Bert Schlossberg 89.138.147.180
I just cut a section that had whole phrases lifted from my published writings (in real life I am Chip Berlet). I don't mind folks quoting and citing my stuff here on Wikipedia, but I do object to plagiarism.-- Cberlet 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)