Talk:John Birch Society/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Ultraconservative

The most recent discussion, in Archive 7, seemed to be against inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It is normal for all political groups to indicate what their political orientation is. The way the lead is write could just as easily describe any political group that is not totalitarian, although "anti-communist" tends to imply an extreme attitude. How do you think they should be described? Do you think that their views are indistinguishable from more mainstream political groups such as the DNC and RNC? Ultraconservative appears to be misleading though because it normally refers to supporters of Charles X and supporters of the Corn Laws. TFD (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-communist" is not "extreme" in places which are not communist - the term would definitely indicate an "extremist" in a communist society. Just as an "anti-capitalist" might be considered "extreme" in a capitalist society. But that is true of any belief system whatsoever, TFD. JFK was an "anti-Communist" - ergo he was an "extremist" in your Weltanschauung? Collect (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin apparently did not review the archived discussions very carefully. WIth the exception of one very vocal opponent, there was general acknowledgement of the ineluctable fact that most scholarly sources describe the JBS as "ultraconservative" or "radical right", although some writers describe them as far right, extreme right, etc. (See for example Clive Webb's Rabble rousers: "Radical right is commonly, but not completely, used to describe anticommunist organizations such as the Christian Crusade and John Birch Society...." (p. 10)[9] There are many other readily-available examples.

Indeed, how else would you describe an organization that claims that Eisenhower was a Communist agent, and the U.S. government is controlled by Communists? Does that not sound like an ultraconservative view? If it is anything less, then what would an ultraconservative view be?

It's difficult to justify removing that descriptor, against both consensus AND a preponderance of scholarly sources. Unless someone can do it convincingly in the near future, I'm going to put it back. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the discussions. Although I, personally agree, that it is untraconservative, the discussion clearly indicates consensus against inclusion. Consensus can change, but you have presented no evidence that it has changed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion comes up often and there is no reason why a discussion from one year ago should determine what we decide now. The "consensus" of this discussion is for change. Personally I prefer Peter Viereck's description of "pseudo-conservative" to "ultraconservative", but prefer radical right, since that is the term coined by American sociologists to describe them, and the description most commonly used. What would an ultraconservative view be? The form of conservatism popular in right-wing Latin American dictatorships that overtly rejects constitutionality, republicanism, separation of church and state, equality before the law. TFD (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide cites for your claims about what that organization believes? IIRC, some of the postulating about Ike being a "communist dupe" etc. was done by Welch personally and never part of that organization's beliefs or claims. Collect (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Their website is brief on what they believe, but they recommend Welch's book, The Politician.[1] In fairness, Welch did not call Eisenhower a Communist, but merely said he was put in power by Communists, appointed Communists and his government was run by Communists. TFD (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

An organisation may recommend a slew of books - but that does not make every statement in those books part of the organisation's beliefs. In fact, a great many of Welch's statements may well not be part of any current beliefs of such an organisation, any more than anyone could ascribe all of Stalin's statements to anyone who favours communism, or all of Adam Smith's statements to anyone favouring capitalism. Further, I think the "first private edition" (as Lipset refers to it) is not necessarily as the current edition of a book. Indeed, it appears that the "quote" you proffer is not from the actual book -- is there a reason for the misuse of a cite? [2] purports to give a PDF of the book from which you "quote." Welch appeared to hate Ike with a passion - mainly as being "unprincipled" per the PDF - but making false statements here does not bolter your cause. What is in the book are such explosive statements as mentioned—I had specifically stated in the document itself that I had no quarrel with those who attributed the Communist-aiding actions of Eisenhower simply to political opportunism. and It is the province of this treatise to show the part played in these treasonous developments, however unwittingly or unwillingly, by Dwight Eisenhower; and how, as the most completely opportunistic and unprincipled politician America has ever raised to high office, he was so supremely fitted for the part. Welch sure hated the guy -- but I found nothing in the JBS site to indicate that Eisenhower is a major part of their current positions. And again - recommending a book does not add every quote into a canon for an organisation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So -- first you request "...cites for your claims about what that organization believes" -- then you say, in essence, that you will reject those cites as soon as they are provided. The job of an encyclopedia is to objectively characterize a political organization so that readers who don't know will get an idea of what that organization stands for. "Ultraconservative" is not an epithet -- the few Birchers I know call *themselves* "ultraconservatives -- so I don't really understand your objection -- especially when the least pejorative descriptor used by most objective sources is "ultraconservative -- and the most popular, as TFD pointed out, is "radical right". I would favor the most widely-used descriptor. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 17:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wondrous Straw Man argumentation there. Using claims from Welch's private letter and ascribing them to his book is bad enough. Then saying that the JBS perforce, because it recommends reading that book, therefore endorses everything' therein, is fatuous. Terms about a group which the group does not use about itself typically are called "opinions" and therefore should be ascribed as opinions to the people who hold those opinions. That is how Wikipedia works. We do not say "We know the Gnarph Society" is "ultra radical center" - we can only use reliable sources and ascribe such an opinion to those sources. See WP:RS and WP:V and note also that for some people mentioned in the article WP:BLP also applies, not to mention WP:NPOV. It is not the job of this encyclopedia to "characterize" anyone or anything at all - it is the task at Wikipedia to rely only on what reliable sources state, and to distinguish between facts and opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is, of course what *objective* characterization is! (You conveniently left out "objective".) Talk about a Straw Man! Reliable sources use the terms "ultraconservative" and "radical right", among others, and you haven't yet explained why we should not rely on those reliable sources -- other than the implication that you simply disagree -- which, as you have said yourself, is not a valid reason in the land of Wikipedia. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And the body of the article does, indeed, list what it has been described as. And I find that wording to be accurate. You seem to wish the description to be made as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice - whch is what Wikipedia policies and guidelines appear to discourage. Collect (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

We are allowed to state "facts" in Wikipedia's voice, Obama was born in Hawaii, for example, even if many of these facts are disputed by you or the JBS. We do not provide parity between your opinions and the consensus of academics. If you do not like that then get Wikipedia to change its policies. TFD (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes -- again this is a Straw Man. The lead is SUPPOSED to duplicate content in the body of the article; in short, summarize the article. If you have no objection to the wording within the body, why do you object to summarizing it in the lead? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 01:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The current wording in the body of the article is proper. The wording you wish to have IN WIKIPEDIA'S VOICE is improper. We use sources properly now. Using sources to make assertions in Wikipedia's voice is contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Is that clear for once and for all? A proper summary in the lede would be essentially in the same wording as in the body - which is reasonable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect, is there any reason why you always object for calling radical right wing groups what they are yet insist on calling their opponents left wing or far left with inadequate sourcing? TFD (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Show me where I have ever proposed any edit in Wikipedia's voice calling any group "radical left" or "far left". I am sick and tired of you making utterly unsupportable claims about my positions on Wikipedia. Since you have not a bat's chance in hell of finding such a position taken by me, I would ask you most politely to stop making the statements which I have told you again and again are false concerning my edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, gentlemen -- may we please stick to the topic at hand? Collect, you said, "A proper summary in the lede would be essentially in the same wording as in the body - which is reasonable." The wording in the body is as follows: "It has been described as 'ultraconservative', 'far right', and 'extremist'." (All 3 of those descriptors are sourced.) The wording in the lede was, "It has been called 'ultraconservative' " (also sourced). So am I correct in concluding that you're agreeing that the wording in the lede was reasonable, and should be reinstated? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 02:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note [3] and who made that edit. I would suggest that using the wording which I first suggested well over a year ago is something I supported <g>. I would also note that edit belies a claim about me made by another editor here, in spades. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That wording (and its sources) was as follows: "</ref> It has been described as radical right-wing" I agreed with that compromise at the time, as did, IIRC, everyone else. Do we have a consensus, then? Does anyone object to my restoring that objective and well-sourced sentence to the lead? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do so. I have not the foggiest idea why some here seem to dislike that wording. Collect (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Me neither. Thank you! I will make the change. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Clean it up

This entire article reads like harsh judgmental propaganda, entirely unlike anything I'd expect to find in any real encyclopedia. I see application of derogatory labels without any unbiased measurable criteria for such application. Surely we should stick to facts and not controversial and derogatory labeling. 72.234.110.47 (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We cover the subject as the representative of how the reliable sources cover it. When the vast vast vast majority of the reliable sources cover something in a particular way with a particular judgement, than Wikipedia does so too. If you have a specific piece of information or section that you wish to discuss, please point it out. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What? Do you care to elaborate? An encyclopedia is not supposed to side with anybody. It is supposed to be neutral. Your statement goes against Wikipedia's purpose. If a lot of sources cover something with a certain tone, you eliminate the tone and provide the cited facts. This is not a persuasive encyclopedia. You are supposed to get rid of tone. 68.50.119.13 (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"It has been describe as a . . . "

I removed the part in the beginning that read "it has been described as a far right wing . . . "

This statement is out of place. Regardless of what some people describe it as, has no bearing on the article. Maybe if it was in a section about controversy or something. No reason for this statement other than an ignorant statement about partisan politics.

68.50.119.13 (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Also to somehow cloud the society's principles by placing them with a massive glob of "far right wing" whatevers. 68.50.119.13 (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Also the phrase can be used to describe anything by anyone, the phrase has no definition. It the group is radical right wing, shouldn't it be on their webpage. Made up term that adds headache and contention

68.50.119.13 (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

t says they have been described as "radical right", not far right. It is described that way in most sources, beginning with the seminal work, The Radical Right.[4] TFD (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I dispute your reference. Are you implying these accusations do not carry a negative tone? What does the inclusion of "right wing" contribute to the article other than implication into a larger negatively labeled group?

Right wing, left wing, these phrases have no contribution other than to confuse.

68.50.119.13 (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you dispute the reference? TFD (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation seems to not meet standards

The citation (currently #47 "^ Bryant, John. "The John Birch Society — Exposed!". Retrieved 2008-07-18." doesn't seem to meet standards. Also, there's nothing in the citations I can find to back up the sentence they're attached to. 174.62.68.53 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It is one of three sources used to support the sentences, "Antisemitic, racist, anti-Mormon, anti-Masonic, and various religious groups criticized the group's acceptance of Jews, non-whites, Masons, and Mormons. These opponents accused Welch of harboring feminist, ecumenical, and evolutionary ideas." The link is now dead. Do you question the accuracy of that statement? TFD (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Headquarters

The article states that their current headquarters is in Grand Chute, Wisconsin. Yet the table lists it as Appleton. Which is it? Concchambers (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to Grand Chute as listed in the source cited for the headquarters. Concchambers (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The actual street address for the organization is 770 N Westhill Blvd., Appleton, WI 54914.Rewritinghistory (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Segregation flyer

Another editor deleted this....

"The DESEGREGATION DECISION, which aids and abets the of the Communist Conspiracy to (A) create tension between Negroes and White; (B) to transform the South in to a BLACK SOVIET REPUBLIC; (C) to legalize and encourage intermarriage between Negroes and Whites ad this mongrelize the American White Race! John Birch Society mass mailing, 1961

What is the problem here? It is a good quote from a good source with a good cite. Why is it not relevant? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1. It is marginal in relevance to the section.
2. The papers are not a "reliable secondary source".
3. The papers are not accessible for verification by this editor.
4. "Juicy quotes" which do not fit into the premise of a section do not belong in a section.
5. Extended block quotes are deprecated on Wikipedia.
6. It does not aid the Wikipedia reader.
7. Use of ALL CAPS unless we have a strong basis for such shouting in the reliable secondary source is deprecated
8. [5] shows the origins of the "juicy quote" to be the Cinema Educational Guild run by Myron Fagin in December 1957. Not the JBS.

Clear? Collect (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1. I cannot see how an article on the JBS cannot point out its racist nature.

1. The cite can be fixed to: Dallas 1963, by Bill Minutaglio and Steven L Davis, 2013, Hachette book Group, kindle location 1151
2. Fixed w/ changing the citation
3. Fixed w/ changing the citation
4. The quote goes where it goes due to chronological order
5. Really? I did not know that. Is there a rule somewhere? In any case, I hold this is a good way for the group to speak for itself.
6. I think it is quite helpful, but am willing to be corrected.
7. The all caps is in the original, as it the funky punctuation. (Remember typewriters? Word processors really helped everyone's punctuation.)
8. The flyer was sent out by the JBS. Perhaps they swiped it, but they sent it out.

So, no I do not agree with your deletion. What say we leave it here for a week and see what other editors say? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say leave it in if it were actually an "official" JBS publication; as just a piece of trash they distributed, it's less illuminating and probably should be omitted. --jpgordon^{::==( o )}

The flyer was produced in September 1957, making it chronologically impossible for the JBS to use it then. No online source makes the claim that this was a JBS flyer. No book found through Google makes the claim. No website found through Google (other than from Wikipedia - and Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia)makes the claim. No reliable secondary source states it is a JBS flyer. As it was not and could not have been a JBS flyer in September 1957, then Wikipedia can not assert that it is a JBS flyer. Not even for a week. Wikipedia does not condone fraudulent claims where the claim is actually impossible. Collect (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I cited a published secondary source. I do not follow your certainty that the source is not reliable. I am eager to learn more. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The flyer is dated in your new source to January 1961. The source specifically states that the slogan was used "This is a republic, not a democracy" but does not assert that the JBS sent out the flyer. Which is nice as the flyer dated to September 1957. More than a year before the JBS existed. The slogan appears to date to 1937 [6]. Its use has nothing to do with the JBS per se, and the source does not so claim. Collect (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(I moved your reply down a notch, I hope that is OK. ) I await your explanation of why the book I cited is not reliable. Turning now to your next objection, the source I cited says "Envelopes carrying the letters are stamped with the john Birch Society's slogan, This is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. Let's keep it that way. Many of the mailings include an incendiary tract depicting the chief justice on an WANTED poster. Among the charges against him:" (Then the text quoted above.) It seems to quite clearly claim the flyer came from the JBS. Seems quite clear to me. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The connection appears to be that whoever filed Bruce Alger's papers decided to put Myron Coureval Fagan's pamphlet in a box labeled "The John Birch Society - correspondence, bulletins, clippings."[7] That is not sufficient to mention in this article. TFD (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sure you are quite right. But how do you know that what you say is true? The cite I provided says it was mailed out under the JBS's cover. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The source (Dallas 1963) makes no such claim - the slogan dates at least back to 1937, and thus is not evidence of anything - nor does Dallas 1963 allege it was printed or sent by the JBS, only that it had that old slogan on it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I replied to this claim above, the first time you made it. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The secondary source says that some of the letters sent by JBS supporters included copies of the pamphlet. TFD (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A far cry from asserting that the JBS made a "mass mailing" of the old pamphlet, to be sure. And mailings from "some supporters" != mailings from the JBS. And using the P-B postage meter pretty much proves zilch AFAICT. Collect (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have asked my Media Advisor and Spiritual Guide if I am being a WIki-Jerk on this. He advises me that I am wrong and you folks are right. I am sorry for the trouble.Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL - it is not a matter of being "right" or "wrong" - the source you used in good faith had a problem, and we were able to trace back to where the flyer originated. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Dylan

I am not familiar how to do this but I wanted to add that Bob Dylan had a song called Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues ==== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbootguy (talk • contribs) 00:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Added it to "popular culture" section, with source. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Characterizations

Should be titled “Negative Characterizations.” Not one person has ever characterized the organization positively? This is obvious bias. Nicmart (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, per WP:NPOV, it is not up to us to decide whether the characterizations listed in the article are "positive" or "negative". Second, we can only use descriptions that have been cited in reliable sources. If you have neutral source material that characterizes this group differently, by all means add it and cite the source. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Calling it "negative characterizations" implies that there are "positive characterizations" that have been left out. If there are any in reliable sources, please list them. TFD (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Article states some JBS members supported Nixon. I find that difficult to believe

This article states, "In 1964 Welch favored Barry Goldwater for the Republican presidential nomination, but the membership split, with two-thirds supporting Goldwater and one-third supporting Richard Nixon, who did not run." I find it difficult to believe that 1/3 of JBS supported Nixon. Nixon was one of the most liberal Republican presidents of the 1900s, perhaps the most liberal, the only Republican president who possibly was more liberal than Nixon was Theodore Roosevelt. Although Nixon was not as far to the left as Nelson Rockefeller, his political views and policies were much closer to Rockefeller's than Goldwater's. The JBS was opposed to both President Bush I and President Bush II because they perceived them as liberal Republicans, Nixon was far less conservative than either of the Bushes, so it doesn't make sense to me that anyone in JBS would support Nixon. I think we should look at the sources more and consider possibly changing that statement. RandomScholar30 (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

JBS never thought fluoridation was a Communist conspiracy

The cited source on this seems to be hearsay. JBS themselves categorically deny that they ever said it was a Communist plot. http://www.jbs.org/about-jbs/myths-vs-facts I can't find a first hand source on the Communist conspiracy mongering, so I suggest we remove it. 38.104.236.242 (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory pre-dates the Society and the source says it was embraced by some members. I don't think any sources have been found that the Society ever claimed it was true. TFD (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We can't take the JBS website as proof of this. They have a vested interest in not looking like a bunch of lunatics. Without an independent source one way or another, the best we can do is say that the JBS claims it never held this position. Krychek (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I said: "the source says it was embraced by some members." Your edit says "but the JBS website now claims that it never purported fluoridation was a communist conspiracy." That implies that at some time they claimed it was, although no sources say that. I now note that the original source was a column not a news report and hence fails rs. I will remove it and of course the JBS comment. TFD (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Birch Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223214212/http://www.jbs.org/about to http://www.jbs.org/about
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100112151401/http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/1375-glenn-beck-talks-with-jbs-president-john-f-mcmanus to http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/1375-glenn-beck-talks-with-jbs-president-john-f-mcmanus

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request 1-FEB-2018¹

When it claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center lists The John Birch Society as a hate group, that information is incorrect. Not only is JBS not a hate group, but if you look at the SPLC website, specifically their "hate map," they do not list JBS as one of their hate groups. Wisco55 (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Reply¹

The template appears to straddle two post entries, and it's unknown whether this covers the one above it or the one below it. In any event, there is no actionable request that can be deciphered amongst either of them. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 18:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request 1-FEB-2018²

There is a sentence in the post "The Southern Poverty Law Center, for example, lists the society as a 'Patriot' Group while including it in the national, combined number of Hate Groups. [25]" However, it is untrue that The Southern Poverty Law Center lists JBS at a "Hate Group." So please remove the mention of JBS being listed as a Hate Group, there is nothing that needs to replace it. Wisco55 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply²

While their hatred is of the government, according to SPLC's own narrow designations it doesnt fall under hate group, rather, it lists them as an antigovernment patriot group. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 22:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

"Opposes fascism"?

Given that their views could arguably be considered kissing cousins with fascism, there needs to be some serious citations if we're to let the article say, with no qualifications, that the Birchers oppose it. If reliable third party sources can be found where they CLAIM that they oppose fascism, it should be included with severe caveats, i.e. make it clear that this is what they CLAIM about themselves, and that others would seriously contest this. PenitentWhaler (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Should not be in there and I will remove it. TFD (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The John Birch Society promotes a "Constitutional Republic" and opposes Socialism, Communism, and Fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitacore (talk • contribs) 04:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The onus is on those who claim JBS views "could arguably be considered kissing cousins with fascism" to cite examples to support their accusation. While the silence in response to this challenge should be loud and clear enough to end the discussion, let’s put the matter to bed for good. The motto they have used since their founding in the 50’s should be enough - “Less government, more responsibility, and — with God’s help — a better world.” Fascism relies on the steel fist of government.

In addition, here are just a few of the plethora of specific examples proving their long commitment to opposing fascism, with url’s to the source:

“At any rate, the Western economy has long been an unsavory mixture of government and business, which some call corporatism and others call fascism. Indeed, it is essentially the economic system introduced by Mussolini, with the difference that Mussolini did not use it to harm banks or businesses.” Source: http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/one-nation-under-materialism

“Since its founding, The John Birch Society has always opposed racism, anti-Semitism, communism, socialism, fascism, and Nazism — all of which are forms of collectivism that seek to deny the God-given rights of a person based on group traits of race, color, creed, or socio-economic class. Members of the Birch Society are staunch individualists and believe in judging each person as an individual based on his or her character, not according to collectivist notions of "groupthink" and judging people according to benign group characteristics.” Source: http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/media-jump-to-smear-right-with-extremist-label

“But Welch and the organization he created have always targeted any form of total government, including not only communism but socialism, fascism, Nazism, and total government under any label.” Source: http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/happy-anniversary-john-birch-society

“Whether it is fascism or full-blown socialism, the stated objective is to control the economy. But, the basic problem is that an economy can not be managed or controlled. Call it whatever you will, but what government intervention in the economy ends up controlling is the people themselves.” Source: http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/real-solutions-for-the-economy 67.189.166.173 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should not try to operate with labels. Read yesterday that they ask people to contact members of Congress to prevent the "NAFTA-like TTIP and TPP trade proposals". These proposals take legislative powers away from Congress (and the other nations' parliamentarians) through enabling companies to sue the governments in secret tribunals for compensation, which of course means that legislators buckle and enact the legislation that the corporation wants. This shrinks government alright, but the individual loses all power to influence anything. This proposal to transfer all powers to the corporations through this mechanism doesn't fit to any label, I don't think, so it may not be appropriate to find one single label for them. 121.209.56.81 (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The label it fits is "neoliberalism", although the JBS does not use that term. TFD (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The JBS is very conservative, that is the antithesis of fascism or far right politics - which like the far left are inherently radical and revolutionary. It would surprise me if any objective non communist observer would call the JBS either fascist or far right.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The JBS certainly is NOT fascist or Nazi. However it is far right, and it appears to have Anti-Jewish tendencies. So I would still say its far right although Anti-Nazi and Anti-Fascist. RandomScholar30 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It is an incorrect statement to claim that JBS has anti-jewish tendencies. They have members of their board along with members who are Jewish and they make that well known in various Youtube videos and on their website. In 1965 the California Senate conducted an investigation into JBS to see if it had racist tendencies or was anti-jewish and found that it is not. Wisco55 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That was 53 years ago and only applies to the JBS in California, something I presume you know because it says that on your link. So that really doesn't prove anything. And did you really not see the expressed concern about a "dangerous increase of anti-Semitism among a minority of the membership." Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there any accurate source that says JBS is currently anti-jewish? No there is not because JBS has Jewish members including members of leadership who are Jewish. JBS does does not discriminate against any race or religion, all of the "evidence" saying otherwise are opinion pieces that are meant to smear the JBS name. Wisco55 (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I was talking about the 60s and the way you presented that report. The SPLC and the ADL do not say that today's JBS is anti-semitic.[8][9] Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 19:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"Far Right"? No, Anti Totalitarian

JBS recognizes that Right and Left are both Totalitarian and stand in opposition to American principles of Liberty.

Fascism and Communism share the same philosophical roots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C1:300:F1E:6834:6ACD:6DAF:EA73 (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the Birch Society falsely asserts that nazism or fascism are LEFT-wing phenomenons even though neo-nazis and Hitler-admirers often promote and favor RIGHT-WING objectives and extreme right political figures.

For example:

(A) In the U.S., neo-nazis typically choose to run for political office as right-wing Republicans AND they seek support or recruits from RIGHT-WING adherents not the left-wing. [See, for example, the candidacy of nazi Arthur Jones---currently running as a GOP candidate for the Illinois 3rd Congressional District seat representing parts of Chicago and nearby suburbs.]

(B) That is why someone like George Lincoln Rockwell (founder of the American Nazi Party) effusively praised Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy.

(C) That is also why Rockwell tried to recruit JBS members into the American Nazi Party. As Rockwell stated in 1964:

"The Birch Society is sort of a kindergarten for the Nazi Party. In the last year we have taken over a majority of Birchers in three cities.”

(D) THAT is also why so many neo-nazis and/or Hitler-admirers joined or endorsed the John Birch Society. Examples include: Kevin Strom, Ben Klassen, David E. Lane, Mary M. Davison, George Deatherage, Robert and Mary Surrey, Gerald R. Carlson, William Potter Gale, James Oviatt, Wilma Oswolt, J.T Ready, George P. Dietz, Revilo P.Oliver, William L. Pierce, and Tom Metzger

(E) THAT is why the neo-nazi National Socialist Liberation Front AND the American Nazi Party both recommended and sold John Stormer's 1964 book, "None Dare Call It Treason" -- which was also heavily promoted by the JBS and sold in ALL of the Birch Society's American Opinion bookstores. Ernie1241 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Some serious errors of fact

I recognize that discussing the John Birch Society factually is very difficult primarily because the Society does NOT allow outside independent researchers to have access to its historical records and archives so that a factual history can be written about the JBS and about its membership. In addition, JBS members rarely are willing to acknowledge the truth about their own history.

However, there are some factual errors in this article which deserve comment.

1. FOUNDING MEMBERS OF JBS

(A) First of all, "twelve" men did not attend the founding meeting. Twelve were invited, but only 11 attended (see below).

(B) Harry Lynde Bradley was not a "founding member" of the JBS. The founding members who travelled to the home of Marguerite Dice in Indianapolis in December 1958 to listen to Robert Welch's long speech about the need for creating the John Birch Society did NOT include Harry Bradley.

The ten founding members are shown below. Harry Bradley attended the second recruitment meeting which Welch held in Milwaukee WI in January 1959. My "Documentary History of the JBS" webpages contain corroboration regarding who attended the first meeting in Indianapolis. https://sites.google.com/site/ernie1241/

The asterisked names are the men who later accepted positions on the JBS National Council.

• T. Coleman Andrews (Richmond VA)
• Laurence E. Bunker (Wellesley Hills MA)
• William J. Grede (Milwaukee WI)

William R. Kent (Memphis TN) -- Kent attended the founding meeting but he did NOT agree to become a founding member

• Fred C. Koch (Wichita KS)
• W.B. McMillan (St. Louis, MO) – McMillan was the first person to become a JBS member after founder Robert Welch
• Revilo P. Oliver (Urbana IL)
• Louis Ruthenburg (Evansville IN)

Fitzhugh Scott, Jr. (Milwaukee, WI)

• Robert W. Stoddard (Worcester, MA)
• Ernest W. Swigert (Portland OR)

2. JBS MEMBERSHIP

The JBS never had anything remotely close to "60,000 to 100,000 members in 1961" -- as reported in this article.

(A) As of September 1960 the JBS had 324 chapters and 5,300 members according to private comments made by Welch to the JBS National Council members AND Welch declared that the JBS was growing by about 1325 members per month. Consequently, one could reasonably estimate that the JBS had about 13,250 members in March 1961.

(B) Based upon dues paid by JBS members in 1964 (reported by the JBS to Massachusetts and shown on the financial statement by the Birch Society's CPA firm, the JBS only had about 29,809 members in 1964. The Birch Society's CPA firm (Spark, Mann and Company) reported that the JBS received $536,566.35 in member dues in 1964 which would calculate to about 29,809 members using the average of $18 per member (men paid $24, and women paid $12 for annual dues, so average dues payment would be $18 per member).

(C) In 1968, a JBS publication stated: “In fact, we have not yet climbed out of the 60,000-100,000 bracket which we have publicly acknowledged for about 2 years."

(D) In September 1968, Robert Welch declared that there were 4000 JBS chapter leaders in the U.S. Since the average JBS chapter was usually 15-20 members, one could reasonably assume that JBS membership in 1968 was between 60,000 and 80,000 (its high point).

3. THE EISENHOWER ISSUE

Your summary is VERY misleading.

The Politician was originally written in 1954 as a typewritten unbound manuscript and it was periodically revised by Welch and then loaned to people Welch thought could be trusted to keep it confidential. The last unpublished (loaned) revision was produced in June 1958 and it was circulated starting in August 1958.

In that original manuscript, Welch made it very explicit that he considered Eisenhower to be a Communist traitor. That is why Welch entitled Chapter 17, "The Word Is Treason".

In that original manuscript, Welch declared:

"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." [The Politician, unpublished version, page 266]

and

"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." [The Politician, unpublished version, page 267]

However, one does not need to rely upon just those passages. Here are some other passages which reveal Welch's actual position re: Eisenhower:

In discussing Eisenhowers appointment of Philip C. Jessup, Robert Welch refers to Eisenhower as "he and his fellow Communists" [The Politician, unpublished version, page 214]

In discussing Eisenhowers appointment of James B. Conant, Robert Welch refers to the appointment of Conant "made by a Communist President" [The Politician, unpublished version, page 221]

and

"In my opinion the chances are very strong that Milton Eisenhower is actually Dwight Eisenhowers superior and boss within the Communist Party." [The Politician, unpublished version, page 210]

and

"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." [The Politician, unpublished version, page 239]

and

"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." [The Politician, unpublished version, page 238-239]

Welch also refers to Eisenhower's actions in Europe "which show his sympathies with the Communist cause and friendship for the Kremlin tyrants." [The Politician, unpublished version, page 263]

Additional documentation is available from [email protected] Ernie1241 (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Membership - this appears to be a reliable source, see p. 55 as well as footnotes 87 and 88 on p. 324.[10] Doug Weller talk 14:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Doug but your comment about JBS membership is completely mistaken. Sara Diamond (like most authors) just repeats unsubstantiated information used by previous authors. None of these folks used internal JBS documents (such as JBS National Council meeting minutes or the annual statements prepared by the Birch Society's CPA firm). I HAVE used those primary sources.

Here is what Robert Welch reported to his National Council regarding JBS membership:

01/60 = 75 chapters and 1500 members

04/60 = 150 chapters and 2800 members

09/60 = 324 chapters and 5300 members (and growing by about 1300 members per month)

This is a very common problem with articles that discuss the Birch Society. Author #1 produces something false or exaggerated and then author #2 comes along and repeats that same information in his or her footnotes and bibliography (citing whatever author #1 presents). THEN authors #3 thru #10 come along over a period of time and they reproduce the original mistaken data and that process continues for decades afterward. Meanwhile, Wikipedia (and others) use the original author or the subsequent authors to "document" their article assertions and, suddenly, the original false information becomes "reliable" because a dozen or more authors repeat the original falsehoods!

Incidentally, this article still repeats the falsehood that Harry Lynde Bradley was a founding member of the JBS. For anybody who wants to see the PRIMARY SOURCE documentary evidence which establishes that Bradley was NOT a founding member who attended the December 1958 meeting in Indianapolis, see the following document which is on my "Documentary History of the JBS" webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie1241/Home/JBS-27.JPG?attredirects=0

In addition, this article falsely claims that the Birch Society advocated getting out of Vietnam. In May 1968, JBS National Council members Charles Koch and Robert Love were asked to resign from the Council. They were contacted by fellow Council member William J. Grede at the request of JBS leader Robert Welch. What was their offense? Both Koch and Love had purchased an advertisement in their local Wichita KS newspaper which advocated withdrawal from Vietnam. Welch was offended because he thought that advertisement undermined the official JBS position which was to achieve total victory and then withdraw. I was the first person to discover the correspondence between and among Koch, Love, Grede and Welch which led to the resignations. That correspondence has been uploaded onto my Internet Archive webpage.

There are other falsehoods contained in this Wikipedia article but, unfortunately, nobody with serious knowledge about JBS history is writing these articles. Ernie1241 (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly favors secondary sources over primary documents. Additionally, Wikipedia isn't a platform for publishing original research, and we are not qualified to assess your credentials as a researcher. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia must reflect reliable, published sources. To put it another way, this talk page is not the place to share these findings. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Your comment is absolutely astonishing. EVERY historian (or other scholar) will confirm that the most reliable sources of information are always PRIMARY SOURCES -- not secondary ones because secondary sources merely repeat what they have read or heard from some source of unknown reliability and which typically are never confirmed as accurate and truthful. That is why Wikipedia is NOT presenting accurate information in its article about the Birch Society. [Incidentally, over the past 10-15 years, Wikipedia's articles have frequently been revised (especially including its JBS article) because they contain so many falsehoods.]

You don't have to "assess" anything about me. All you have to do is review the actual primary source documentation I have cited. For example: I included a link to a document which was circulated BY the Birch Society itself shortly after its December 1958 founding meeting in Indianapolis. That document identifies exactly who attended the Indianapolis meeting in December 1958 and then it identifies the names of other people who attended subsequent recruitment meetings. Some of the guys who attended the first meeting also attended subsequent recruitment meetings.

In addition, my comments regarding actual JBS membership are easily verifiable because I have uploaded into Internet Archive the actual financial statements by the Birch Society's CPA firm (Spark Mann and Company) which explicitly identify the amount of annual member dues income received by the JBS in 1964, 1967, and 1971. The dues income from earlier years was required to be reported annually to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and that information may be found in numerous newspaper articles around the country. By using the average dues payment ($18) one can come very close to accurate membership stats and that data makes it obvious that Wikipedia's estimate of "60,000 to 100,000 in 1961" is absolutely preposterous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernie1241 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:verifiability, WP:reliable sources, wp:original research, wp:synthesis and wp:primary sources, among other mandatory policies. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and relies for the most part on reliable secondary sources, because our contributors are not subject experts, they are anonymous and pseudonymous people whose credentials we cannot verify. An actual historian, writing a book or a paper, is putting his or her reputation on the line -- that cannot be the case here, so we limit the use of primary sources and rely instead on how those sources are interpreted by subject experts that we can verify have a reputation for reliability.

If you wish to edit Wikipedia, you will have to follow these policies. If you prefer not to, then I suggest you write a book, a paper or a journal article and publish it under your own name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, you've been editing here since 2005. Are you saying that no one ever pointed you to these policies in the last 13 years? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing your contribution history, I see that you've posted screeds very similiar to the one above on Talk:Eustace Mullins [11], Talk:Meir Kahane [12], and Talk:Myron Coureval Fagan [13]. From reading these, I conclude that you are in no respect a unbiased and neutral "historian", what you are is a John Birch Society crank. I'm about to go through your article edits, and I will be removing anything and everything that is not properly sourced, or has even a hint of OR about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You are clearly not an unbiased source, so any external links which pointed to your collections of FBI files have been removed per WP:ELNO. Links which have previously been replaced with links pointing to FBI files hosted by the Internet Archive have been retained. Do not add any links to your FBI file collections, as your bias means they cannot be trusted not to have been altered or edited. Further, do not use FBI files in any of your collections as a reference to add or subtract anything from articles, the material will be removed as not being supported by a reliable source. FBI files from the FBI Vault or from the Internet Archive are fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Well, perhaps these findings would be useful to some historian who is willing to follow up on them, and these primary sources are invaluable to that hypothetical historian... but this ain't the place, and it ain't going to become the place.

I certainly would't be surprised in the least if the JBS inflated their membership number, just like the KKK did before them. These kinds of stats are prone to error even reported in good faith, also. A reliable source for any of this would be welcome, but interpreting the number based on an average cost of dues is WP:SYNTH. We need a reliable source to get there for us.

These points are difficult to parse, and so confrontationally written that it's hard to even attempt, but I'm not seeing any direct JBS apologetics here. This editor specifically acknowledges (above) that the JBS was wrong about the Nazis being far-left, and in the archives has posted supporting sources for them being far-right extremists. Grayfell (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

If you haven't already, go through their article contribution history. There are not all that many edits, and they're illuminating. In whatever way he's biased, it's clear he's an amateur historian pursuing his own theories, and is not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Ken, I regret that you think I am "biased". If you perform a search on "Google Books", then you will discover literally DOZENS of references to my name [Ernie Lazar] by well-known and respected historians, journalists, and researchers who have used material I sent to them which they included in their books, newspaper and magazine articles, doctoral dissertations, and academic conference papers. Dr. John Earl Haynes (formerly the Library of Congress's 20th Century Chief Historian) has used his "History of American Communism" H-HOAC Network to publicize my FBI files collection. Because of my research into FBI files on the Communist Party USA, I was the first person to discover the actual number of live FBI informants inside the CPUSA! That resulted in praise from such historians as Dr. David J. Garrow as well as Dr. Haynes and Dr. Harvey Klehr (who are among our more famous and respected Cold War historians).

The Center for Right Wing Studies at the University of California-Berkeley can also confirm my contributions to indisputable factual knowledge. In fact, the Center is currently converting a large portion of my paper FBI files (obtained over a period of 37 years) into PDF files which I then upload into Internet Archive's website. Here is the Center's description of this project:

https://crws.berkeley.edu/research

"FBI FOIA Digitization Project" - Dr. Christine Trost, Academic Coordinator, CRWS, and Hollis Potts, UC Berkeley Undergraduate Research Apprentice

This project involves digitizing an extensive collection of materials released by the FBI in response to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act. This unique and rare collection concerns radical right-wing groups and individuals that the FBI was monitoring. The material includes memos, reports and correspondence, along with newsletters, pamphlets, and booklets. The project is a collaboration between CRWS, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Internet Archive. The materials were collected by Ernie Lazar over the course of more than three decades. Scans of the documents, along with a finding aid, will be made available to scholars when the project is completed.

Here is another reference by UC-Berkeley to my research: https://crws.berkeley.edu/theses-and-dissertations

Here is yet another reference by UC Berkeley to my research: https://crws.berkeley.edu/fbi-foia-archive

As of today, more than one million people have accessed my FBI files collection on Internet Archive AND there are numerous links to my files which third parties have added into their own webpages (often without even asking me). In fact, there are Wikipedia articles which include links to my FBI files which nobody ever told me that they were adding!

It is quite ironic that you mention files which appear in the "FBI Vault" because what you may not know is the process by which those files are selected to appear online. What happens is this: When the FBI receives FOIA requests about some subject matter considered to be historically significant (such as about a famous person or organization), then the FBI adds those files to their online Vault. MANY of those Vault files were added online because of requests received by the FBI FROM ME!

In addition, many universities around the U.S. have received copies of my FBI files and they are listed in their library catalogs -- including New York University's Tammiment Library, University of Mississippi, and University of Kansas.

As I write this, there are several doctoral candidates in U.S. history who are finishing their dissertations and those dissertations will cite documents and files which those individuals obtained from me. Numerous master's theses and doctoral dissertations from previous years also reference material which those authors received from me. There are also journalists in the U.S. and the U.K. who are currently writing articles or books which will cite material they obtained from me.

Lastly, as a point of personal privilege, I think you should define what you consider to be a "crank". Apparently, you just do not want to admit that you are ignorant about any subject matter -- so you prefer to attack and defame someone who has spent over 50 years of research into a particular subject and whose online reports have been seen (and referenced by) numerous scholars, journalists, and graduate students (not to mention relatives of persons whose FBI files I obtained). Shame on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernie1241 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "point of personal privilege" on Wikipedia, this isn't the U.S. Senate. The bottom line is: you write like a crank, you complain like a crank, you boast like a crank, you obsess like a crank, you title everything you write IN CAPITAL LETTERS because everything you have to say is so very, very important (I changed the title of this section to regular non-crank text), you protest like a crank, and pretty much everything about you is crank-like. Hence, you're a crank. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Again (and again and again) Wikipedia goes by published, reliable sources, not original research. If and when these numerous works are published, we could consider summarizing them briefly in proportion to due weight. We cannot interpret primary sources to come to original conclusions. This is a core part of how Wikipedia works. Grayfell (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to reflect the facts reported in reliable secondary sources, such as Sara Diamond's books, whether those facts are accurate or not. What you can do is communicate with those authors you know and persuade them to correct their facts or have your own findings published by an academic journal, and then we can revise the article based on new reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

A few important edits

I would like to propose a few very important edits to this page, because as it stands it leaves readers with several incorrect impressions that could have important implications for all Americans.

1) The idea that the JBS is a "fringe element" of the conservative movement is no longer true and helps the JBS stay under the radar and in the shadows, when we need to be having a national discussion on the extent of its influence. In fact according to many very prominent analysts, including liberals, the JBS now dominates the conservative movement and has had a huge role in creating Trump.

Here are a few examples that I think would be worth including at least some of.

-From Mother Jones' Jeet Heer: “Far from belonging merely to the lunatic fringe, the Birchers were important precursors to what is now the governing ideology of the Republican Party: Trumpism.... Far from being drummed out of conservatism, it has become the dominant strain.” Here is the link to this: https://newrepublic.com/article/134257/donald-trumps-united-states-conspiracy

-From Salon's Daniel Denvir: “These sorts of conspiracies are not limited to immigration: the far right that has taken over the Republican Party incorporates a whole range of extreme theories rooted in the Cold War paranoia of the John Birch Society ..."

-From Huffington Post's Robert McElvaine: “The Trump candidacy is the culmination of the long campaign begun by McCarthyism and the John Birch Society in the 1950s and aimed at discrediting virtually every institution in the United States.” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-s-mcelvaine/the-anti-american_b_11836982.html

-From Huffington Post's Andrew Reinbach: “Most Americans don’t realize that the right wing’s main ideas have been pushed for 50 years by the John Birch Society (JBS), a group Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley Jr. once thought too extreme, but which has since become the intellectual seed bank of the right.” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/john-birch-society_b_958207.html

-From Infowars' Alex Jones, who is close to Trump: "Trump is more John Birch Society than the John Birch Society": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUt7tqsLtW0&lc=z22bgrgqtlbcuxjtzacdp43apepn34z4ogdrgquxqslw03c010c

-We also know that at least one of Trump's cabinet members has been very friendly with JBS and spoke to their meetings and secret recordings reveal they are on the same page ideologically: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mick-mulvaney-john-birch-society

-We also know from Trump advisor Roger Stone that Trump's father was a major financial contributor to the society and a close friend of JBS founder Robert Welch: "People don't know it, but Trump comes from a long line of anti-communists. His father was a quiet funder of the John Birch Society, his father was a personal friend of Billy Graham, a personal friend of [JBS founder] Robert Welch, a supporter of Dr. Fred Schwarz's [Christian] Anti-Communism Crusade, and had been a major, major fundraiser and donor for Barry Goldwater." https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/27847-deep-state-plan-c-is-to-kill-trump-advisor-roger-stone-warns

2) I think we need to make it more clear why the John Birch Society opposed the civil rights movement. As it stands, readers could easily come away with an incorrect understanding. That is why I proposed a small edit noting that many black members of JBS helped in the campaign to discredit the civil rights movement. George Schuyler and Julia Brown were two of the better known examples. Please see my proposed edit here: The society, including its prominent black members such as George Schuyler , opposed the 1960s civil rights movement and claimed the movement had Communists in important positions. For some reason my edit was removed, but I think it's important for people to understand. If Americans are going to understand the influence of the JBS, they have to know the facts, otherwise it allows JBS to discredit all their critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulaFernandez92 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR.

Paula Fernandez has made assertions which are not factually accurate. For example, she refers to a statement which Roger Stone made during his interview in the JBS magazine in January 2018, i.e. that Fred Trump was a "major financial contributor" to the Birch Society. However, the actual comment made by Stone was that Fred Trump was a "quiet funder of the John Birch Society". Nothing was said about being a "major" funder. Even more problematic, when the former President and Public Relations Director of the JBS (John F. McManus) was contacted about this claim earlier this year, he stated that the JBS has no record of any financial contributions from Fred Trump. Paula also refers to African American members of the JBS who opposed the civil rights movement. It should be noted that (1) According to JBS founder Robert Welch, the Birch Society was never able to attract any significant number of black members. During an :interview in the Washington Post on 11/5/65 Welch stated that 1/10 of 1% of JBS members were black AND he claimed that the JBS had 80,000-100,000 members which would calculate to 80-100 black JBS members. (2) However, the actual JBS membership was not as large as Welch claimed, so the number of black JBS members was also fewer if his estimated percentage is accurate. (3) Furthermore, it should be noted that Julia Brown (whom Paula mentions) was, at one time, an informant inside the CPUSA for the FBI. However, her FBI files present a devastating critique of her post-FBI activities because the Bureau believed that she was presenting false information after she became associated with the Birch Society. (4) Furthermore, the FBI falsified almost every major predicate of JBS ideology--particularly with respect to JBS claims about our civil rights movement. (See next paragraph). The Birch Society position about our civil rights movement was as follows (and these assertions were repeatedly made by the black members of the JBS who were paid speakers for the JBS such as Julia Brown, Lola Belle Holmes, Rev. E. Freeman Yearling, Charles E. Smith, and Leonard Patterson. "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." [Robert Welch, 7/65, JBS Bulletin] FBI POSITION: "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 - speech before Pennsylvania Society and the Society of Pennsylvania Women; bold emphasis on “not” and “never” in original document]. Overwhelming majority?? The Birch Society could not identify EVEN ONE national civil rights leader or national civil rights organization which it believed was NOT compromised by Communist influence and control and domination. Furthermore, FBI investigative files falsified many of the assertions made by the JBS which originated with white supremacist individuals and organizations such as its accusation that Martin Luther King Jr. "attended a Communist training school" which is a reference to Highlander Folk School in Monteagle TN. In reality, (a) HFS was NOT a "Communist training school" and (b) MLK Jr. only attended one 1957 Labor Day event at the School during which he gave a speech regarding voter registration activities by HFS. Apparently, the JBS thinks voter registration is a "Communist" enterprise! The "Communist training school" characterization was originally made by Edwin H. Friend as a result of his "investigation" conducted into HFS when he was employed by the Georgia Commission on Education (GCE). The GCE was created to preserve segregation in Georgia public schools. Edwin Friend was the official photographer for the KKK in Georgia -- something which the JBS never tells its members or supporters! Ernie1241 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I removed your edit for multiple reasons.

For one, Townhall.com isn't a reliable source. It should only be used for directly attributed opinions in limited cases, such as when the opinion is established as significant by other, reliable sources.

For another, it was clear from your edit (and now also your comments above) that you added this content as a rebuttal to the unstated accusation that JBS was racist. This is a form of editorializing, which is not appropriate on Wikipedia. If a reliable source says that the JBS is or isn't racist, let's discuss that source on its own merits. If it then goes on to say that it was less racist because they had a "black friend", so be it. Using a source that merely mentions Shuyler's blackness and his membership as part of the same sentence discussing their opposition to civil rights is WP:SYNTH. Find a WP:RS which discusses these issues exactly, and we can go from there.

As for the many other sources you've presented, opinion pieces are only of limited usefulness on Wikipedia, and several of those sources are not reliable at all. Searching for sources which support a prior assumption is not the best approach, because it leads to cherry-picking, among other problems. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly true that some of the extreme views held by the Birchers are still held by some people today, but you would need a source that specifically talks about that, we cannot make the connections ourselves, per no original research. Your mention that one of their members who opposed the Civil Rights Act was black is implicit synthesis. It implies that the Society could not possibly have been racist because they had black members. That argument is frequently made by defenders of the KKK, another group btw that Fred Trump supported. As you are a new editor, I would like to point out that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on article content, which dictates how articles are constructed. They are not supposed to advocate or disparage, but to reflect informed opinion. That can be frustrating if you find those opinions ill-founded. TFD (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Response to Grayfell:

Townhall is certainly a reliable source as defined on the page you linked, and there is no dispute on any of the facts. It is well known that George Schuyler was a prominent John Birch Society member and a writer for its magazine, and that in this magazine he published many critiques of the civil rights movement. Here is what Wikipedia says about sources: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

In any case, if you prefer another source, we can list NPR: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/30/581795960/3-harlem-renaissance-novels-deliver-an-ingenious-take-on-race You wrote: "such as when the opinion is established as significant by other, reliable sources." Obviously, if NPR and Townhall are still talking about Schuyler and his role in JBS to this day, his opinions on JBS and the civil rights movement are established as significant. Or am I missing something?

It's interesting you acknowledge "the unstated accusation that JBS was racist." Because it is objectively true that the JBS was not racist and is not today, one would think that if there are going to be unstated accusations of racism, it should be firmly rebutted so that nobody gets the wrong idea. Unstated accusations are just as much a form of editorializing as stated rebuttals to unstated accusations, so again I believe my point should remain in the article.

Either way, there are plenty of reliable sources that point out that the JBS is not and never has been racist. Here is a report from the California Senate Fact-Finding Committee in 1963: “The organ­ization is open to people of all religions, all races, all political persuasions except those deemed subversive.... At any rate, our investigations have disclosed no evidence of anti-Semitism on the part of anyone connected with the John Birch Society in California, and much evidence to the effect that it opposes racism in all forms.”

We clearly don't want inaccurate unstated accusations to remain unrebutted, lest people become misinformed and Wikipedia lose credibility. One simple way to ensure that is to point out that many leading black JBS members were at the forefront of the Society's rejection of what came to be known as the civil rights movement. Here is the link to the California report: https://archive.org/stream/reportofsenatefa1963cali/reportofsenatefa1963cali_djvu.txt

As for the wide array of comments on JBS influence in the conservative movement, many of them are not opinion pieces but news articles. Additionally, the notion of JBS being identified as a "fringe element" of the conservative movement is certainly the opinion of Alfred Regnery and Roger Chapman, the two sources cited. Incidentally, their opinions are outdated, and no longer reflect conventional wisdom. If nothing else, it makes sense to offer more recent opinions by commentators on various points of the political spectrum on this issue. Finally, even Politico has highlighted the resurgence of JBS influence in recent years: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/16/the-john-birch-society-is-alive-and-well-in-the-lone-star-state-215377 I think it is important that readers receive objective information, and claiming the JBS was identified as a "fringe element" and then refusing to highlight the JBS being identified as the dominant force behind modern-day conservatism is the very essence of cherry-picking.

To The Four Deuces: A few things. 1) It was not simply that one JBS member who was black opposed the civil rights movement. The JBS actually produced a documentary that contains many black JBS members explaining the problems with racism in the south, but then arguing that the civil rights movement should be rejected due to communist infiltration among leadership, subversive goals, etc. The documentary can be viewed here on C-Span: https://www.c-span.org/video/?420311-1/anarchy-usa

Since we're on this subject, it might be prudent to point out that recently declassified FBI documents about Martin Luther King confirm everything the JBS said about him, including the fact that his lead advisor, speechwriter, and ghost writer for his books (Stanley Levison) was a known Communist Party operative. The full FBI document from 1968 is available here in the government's archives: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10125-10133.pdf

The JBS was always very clear in its reasons for opposing the civil rights act and the voting rights act: the Constitution does not delegate those powers to the federal government. The Supreme Court recently upheld this view when it struck down part of the VRA. If we're going to get into these things in the article on JBS, I think it's important and only fair to note that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the JBS view on this important legislation. Here is an article on the Court's ruling in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html

It seems to me that at least some of the writers/editors on this page have a blatant anti-JBS bias. For example, the Four Deuces talks about the JBS' "extreme" opinions. I may agree with that statement too, but it illustrates an extreme bias. How does one define extreme vis a vis political viewpoints? What is the reference point? Is the U.S. Constitution extreme? Is the JBS understanding of it extreme? In what way? Certainly plenty of Americans believe your views are extreme. As I see it, whether I agree with JBS or not, they seem to have articulated practically the same things as Trump, so if they are extreme, that means America is extreme for voting in Trump.

Another example: Why is "liberal/progressive historian" Richard Perlstein's understanding of JBS given so much weight that it is included in the second paragraph, but not the opinion of somebody who is conservative/libertarian? This strikes me a unfair and I think a neutral editor should review this. Is there a way to summon one? Why is the section on "values" dominated by the civil rights topic, when the JBS has not even talked about this issue in decades and especially when Greyfell acknowledges that it represents an unstated accusation (that is demonstrably false)? Shouldn't something more contemporary be included at least? Why in characterizations are there only negative opinions by others about JBS, but no opinions by somebody who supports JBS? Are the opinions of JBS supporters not as valuable as those of JBS critics? This comes across as obviously biased to anyone reading it, and it discredits the entire Wikipedia entry.

Perhaps we could meet in the middle somehow? As somebody who was misled by a previous version of this Wikipedia article in college research prior to conducting my own in-depth research, I think it's important that we ensure that readers are getting the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth. Is there some way we can find the right balance? Since I'm new here, I would very much appreciate further guidance in improving this entry and others in the future, especially because I intend to stick around. Thanks in advance for any help anyone can offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulaFernandez92 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There is not way to say this without being rude. It would be helpful it, as a courtesy to other editors, you could make your posts much sorter and to the point. When you make posts this long, don't be surprised if other people decide not to read them.

Townhall.com's opinion pieces, such as this one, are not reliable for statements of fact, even if they are sometimes reliable for opinions. The site has also republished news from reliable outlets, such as the Associated Press, but those are obviously treated differently. This is my assessment of the site, and is supported by past discussions of other Wikipedia editors, such as at WP:RSN and elsewhere. Townhall's opinions don't have the reputation for accuracy and fact-checking required of reliable sources. Opinions (political or not) rarely do. That this particular one is also biased doesn't help, but that's not the reason it's unreliable.

It is not an objective truth that the JBS is not racist. It is not an objective truth that they are racist, either, because that's not really what "objective" means. To the extent this could be considered an objective fact at all, reliable sources are divided on how racist the organization was (and still is). The facts speak for themselves, and "state's rights" are regarded by reliable sources as arbitrarily applied at best, and an untenable justification for segregation at worst, and this has been understood since George Wallace at least. The California State Senate is a primary source of historical significance, but Wikipedia aims to reflect the modern academic consensus on the subject. Primary sources are of limited value.

The NPR source is a good example of one of the problems with this proposal. It does not mention the phrase "civil rights", nor anything at all about Schuyler's position on Civil Rights, nor on the JBS's position on Civil rights. The article isn't about any of those things, it's about three fiction writers, specifically a work of fiction Schuyler wrote in 1931, decades before the JBS was formed. Using a passing mention of Schuyler's membership to include him in a sentence about civil rights is original research. It is using a source to imply something not explicitly stated by that source. The implication is that Schuyler's membership is vitally significant to understanding the JBS's position on civil rights. If you have a reliable source specifically saying that, let's see it.

This is one example of the problem, but not by any stretch the only issue that needs to be addressed here. This does, however, bring up an important issue that should be addressed, which is the over-reliance on the JBS's own documents. Wikipedia isn't a platform for disseminating an organization's materials, it is a place to summarize reliable coverage, with a strong emphasis on independent coverage. Put another way, we do not treat the JBS as an organization, we treat it as a topic. If sources on the topic treat it as an organization, we reflect how they treat it. Does that make sense?

So, to answer your question: No, the opinions of JBS supporters are not necessarily as valuable as critic ones. We reflect sources in proportion to due weight and coverage. We do not use false balance. Grayfell (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not that I have a bias against the JBS, but that they are seen in reliable sources as extremists. As long as this article resembles what a similar article in a reliable source says, it meets the criteria of content policy. Whether or not the mainstream assessment is fair or accurate is entirely irrelevant to how the article should be constructed. Incidentally, doesn't the JBS claim that mainstream sources are controlled by the globalists? TFD (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Chad Mitchell Trio

Someone please add to the In popular culture paragraph the following.

In 1962 The Chad Mitchell Trio recorded a satirical song The John Birch Society which made its way to no. 99 in the Billboard Hot 100.

62.145.202.22 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

WITH RESPECT TO "SECONDARY SOURCES" BEING PREFERRED BY WIKIPEDIA

For anybody following the dispute I have had with Wikipedia concerning falsehoods in their articles (especially with regard to the subject of John Birch Society), may I suggest (respectfully) that you google my name (Ernie Lazar).

After you perform that search, please re-read the above defamatory comments about me posted by "Grayfell" and then re-read the final comment by "The Four Deuces" concerning "reliable secondary sources".

The Google search on my name will produce hundreds of "hits" and you will notice that:

(1) dozens of authors use documentary evidence they obtained from me in their books, academic journal articles, website articles, academic conference papers, doctoral dissertations, master's theses,

(2) there are numerous references to my collection of government agency records. Those records currently appearing on Internet Archive website pages have been seen by more than 1.5 million people and they have been cited in all types of publications--including in publications by some of our nation's most prominent and respected historians and journalists [A few months ago, I was told by two U.S. historians that an article which the New York Times published in 2019 concerning new revelations about Soviet espionage in the U.S. was based, in part, on records which those historians found in MY collection of FBI files!]

(3) there are even Wikipedia articles which include links that direct Wiki readers to records appearing on MY Internet Archive webpages!

One has to wonder, therefore ...

(A) by what warped "logic", is it permissible to post articles on Wikipedia which contain absolute falsehoods that can EASILY be verified as FALSEHOODS

AND

(B) there are many examples of "reliable secondary sources" that provide bibliographic footnotes in their writings that cite ME as their source for data, conclusions, and judgments made in their publications

BUT

(C) according to Wiki, it is impermissible to reference anything which my research has discovered even though so many scholars, journalists, and researchers (i.e. the "reliable secondary sources") base their judgments and conclusions in their publications upon material they obtained from ME! ??

Lastly, I receive scores of emails every year from all sorts of people who have either seen material I have posted online OR they have been referred to me by prominent academics or by well-known organizations. Sometimes, I later learn about what they have published which references something they got from me. But in many other cases, I don't even know about it until months later.

Today, for example, I found this article (apparently written in early 2020) by Dr. Irwin Collier--an economic historian: http://www.irwincollier.com/m-i-t-wingnut-inspiration-for-du-ponts-crusade-against-paul-samuelsons-textbook-1947/ ---- Dr. Collier extensively uses material in his article about Merwin K. Hart that he obtained from documents I obtained during my research! Ernie1241 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ernie1241: This talk page is not a forum for airing complaints, and this talk page isn't the place to demonstrate your bona fides. This talk page is for discussing actionable improvements to the article, based on Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines.

Wikipedia has many expert contributors, including multiple Nobel-prize winners. All of us need to follow WP:OR and WP:V. It isn't meant to be an insult, it's just how Wikipedia works.

Relatively few people are watching this page, and none of us have the power to change Wikipedia's policies regarding original research- or at least not by ourselves.

Defamation is a serious allegation which has legal connotations. I sincerely do not understand what I could've said that could be defamatory, but regardless, you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia. If you believe I have said anything that it inappropriate about you, feel free to take it to a noticeboard, such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I mean no disrespect, but please be aware that your own conduct will be scrutinized, there is no immunity for reporting bad behavior, and you may find patience for this kind of thing among the larger community is very thin. Grayfell (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell:, the new partial blocks allow me to block editors from using article talk pages, which I've done. This has been going on too long. You might want to hat some of these discussions. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Please evaluate changes by IP

An IP editor is attempting to change the article with this material. I don't believe it is an improvement, as it is based on an opinion piece by historian Max Boot, and is also badly and not neutrally written. Thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Globalism"

I added the word globalism into the list of things the society opposes, and for some reason this was removed as a "buzzword." I would like some others to take a look. The JBS has been talking about globalism, using this term, for many decades. While it may have been less relevant years ago when people were not talking about it, this term has become a household name today. As such, I believe this should be added back there to provide more clarity about the JBS' positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA1:1012:817A:F91E:2590:372:A19F (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

"Globalism" is is closely associated by reliable sources with antisemitic canards and conspiracy theories, and this has been noted for decades.[14][15][16][17] This isn't always the case, but it is obviously a concern here. Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for WP:FRINGE theories, we cannot pass along this "opposition" as a simple fact, because it's not that simple. This would only belong with context provided by reliable, independent sources.

So yes, it's a buzzword, and if it's a household name, that still doesn't mean it necessarily belongs. If sources describe what "globalist" actually means, and if they explain this in relation to the JBS, than this might be explained according to those sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That would be like saying we are not allowed to say that Hitler was an anti-Semite who believed in the Protocolls of the Elders of Zion, simply because anti-Semitism is wrong and the Protocolls are an anti-Semitic forgery. Of course the Protocolls are a hoax and of course anti-Semitism is wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't point out anti-Semitism. Just because the term "globalism" is known from anti-Semitic conspiracy theories is not a reason to ignore the fact that it plays an important role in the many conspiracy theories peddled by the JBS. Basically, this is an instance of the fallacy to believe that racism would go away if people would just stop talking about it. --2003:EF:13CE:6A41:F966:4672:F026:6E58 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

"Globalism" does not belong in a list with things that actually exist. Maybe we could add a sentence about mythical things they oppose, such as the New World Order. Anyway, any additions should be sourced. TFD (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

They oppose ""attempts to understand all the inter-connections of the modern world — and to highlight patterns that underlie (and explain) them."? Really? See Globalism. As the word has a number of meanings, we can't simply include it. We might find secondary sources explaining their use of the word, I don't know. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)