Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

We need a post on Ron Paul’s connections to the John Birch Society

Posted by Charles II on January 4, 2012

Just sayin’.

Figuring out what politicians will do in office is very difficult. Most of them are masters of disguise and deception. Tens of millions of people imagined that Bush would be a compassionate conservative (despite the fact that he was well known to be personally sadistic). Tens of millions imagined that Obama would not get involved in all sorts of optional wars, even though he told people ahead of time he would have American troops cross Pakistani borders whether they gave permission or not.

A very important part of anticipating what politicians will do is understanding where they get their ideas. Obama’s close ties with guys like Austan Goolsbee was a warning sign that he wasn’t an economic liberal. An economic liberal would have aligned himself with guys like Joe Stiglitz (for the record, there were some liberal economists like Jamie Galbraith and Bob Reich among his advisors. They just were not in any clear majority or among his personal associates). Understanding which wells or sewers a candidate drinks from in forming his ideas is a much better predictor of what he’ll do than what he says.

So, Ron Paul’s links to the John Birch Society, which are much more recent than his survivalist newsletter should be a focus for those who want to understand what Ron Paul would actually do. American Opinion, the JBS newsletter, gives Paul a 100% rating on 20 recent votes. Now, the JBS is a very strict grader. In the House, I count only 4 South Carolina Republicans, 1 North Carolina Republican, and Ron Paul who meet their exacting standards. In the Senate, there are none. The JBS is remarkably mainstream in Republican circles, considering they were once drummed out of the Republican Party. They sponsored a recent CPAC meeting.

Since there is no clear distinction between the John Birch Society and the conservative movement, one may wonder what the special interest in them should be. The answer is that the JBS is, in effect, the Bolshevik Party of the right. They are intensely conspiratorial, use deception routinely, and–because they have pre-determined that the world governments are all in the hands of the communists–have completed the process of dehumanization that is necessary for the use of ruthless means. For the latter, see for example this article, which includes such interesting lines as:

But now there appears to be another secret cabal, known as the Shadow Party, controlled by radical billionaire George Soros who operates secretly to influence the direction our government is going in. He has boldly proclaimed his intentions, so they are not secret. But how he controls events in Washington is another story. We suspect that he is behind Barack Obama’s presidency…
John Dewey and his colleagues were all socialists and made no secret of their intent to take over the public schools and use them as the means of converting America from an individualist society to a socialist one….Most readers of The New American are familiar with the Illuminati conspiracy that was launched by Adam Weishaupt on May 1, 1776, at Ingolstadt, Germany….The earliest conspiracy I know of in the United States was created by the Owenite socialists who wanted to convert America into an anti-Christian communist society.

So, let me speculate on what a couple of Ron Paul’s positions which are so attractive to the left might actually mean:
* does withdrawal of American forces from wars mean that we will use nuclear weapons when our interests are threatened?
* would legalization of drugs without any compensating effort to help people get off and stay off drugs mean that drugs would effectively become a means of medicating and controlling the population?

What does the John Birch Society say about these things? I’d really like to know. There’s been a lot of talk about how the Republican Party will never let Paul gain the nomination. I don’t see why not, not when some of the biggest money in the GOP comes from corporate libertarian/John Birchers like the Koch brothers.

20 Responses to “We need a post on Ron Paul’s connections to the John Birch Society”

  1. There are a lot of lefties who see Ron Paul as a means to leach votes away from Romney, and therefore won’t criticize him too loudly, if at all. But, yes, there are all too many people who would back Paul who don’t realize — or care — that he’s not “anti-war” because he hates war. He’s “anti-war” for the same reason Pat Buchanan is “anti-war”: He doesn’t like seeing white people risk getting killed by nonwhite people, or (even worse in his view) risk their lives to save those of nonwhite people.

  2. Kevin McCashion said

    John Birch Society on national security: http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/national-security

    John Birch Society was opposed to fluoridation on the basis that it was forced medication.

    They probably largely oppose the war on drugs as well, because it empowers the federal government and violates the Bill of Rights too often.

    The Koch Brothers hate Ron Paul because he is anti-Federal Reserve.

    I would be glad to discuss any of these issues further.

    The JBS is putting up opposition to the NDAA bill. They are very pro-Bill of Rights and anti-war on terror.

    Kevin

    • Charles II said

      Kevin, let me start with your assertion that the John Birch Society is ” very pro-Bill of Rights and anti-war on terror.”

      1. The John Birch Society labels the protests in Tahrir Square and in Moscow– and on Wall Street– as communist. Given the John Birch Society’s origins and past, this is the same as labeling these protesters as being unworthy of having any rights whatsoever. They are the enemy.

      Now, there’s no question that there are a fair number of pro-communist elements in the Moscow protest. This is because capitalism has screwed up so badly in Russia that even Brezhnev is starting to look good. There’s no giant conspiracy. There are people who are angry about what is being done to them.

      In Cairo and in the Occupy protests, there are also some–not many, but some– communists. There are a larger number of Eurostyle socialists. And they are also out there because capitalism does not work for them. There is no giant conspiracy.

      Sane capitalists, like myself, understand that the way to deal with discontent is to make the system deliver on its promises. The John Birch Society thinks that the way to deal with discontent is to label protesters as enemies. The American system is failing because it is not delivering a livelihood to a large majority of its citizens. Without a decent livelihood, what meaning does the promise of the Declaration to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” have? Increasingly, we offer our citizens poverty, debt slavery, and prison.

      Protesters around the world are doing exactly what the Bill of Rights tells them they should do: petitioning for redress of grievances. The John Birch Society, in the words of William F. Buckley, “comprised a series of cells, no more than twenty people per cell. It was said that its members were directed to run in secret for local offices and to harass school boards and librarians” Harassing people is not covered by the Bill of Rights. Running for office under false pretenses is dishonorable and deserves nothing but contempt.

      So, no, the John Birch Society does not support the Bill of Rights.

      2. David Koch was an early donor to Ron Paul’s political career. Both David and Charles donated to Rand Paul in 2010. Because of the laundering of money through PACs, it is not possible to determine whether they support Ron Paul or not; he’s in a safe district, so there’s no reason for them to do so. Nor do I see any evidence the Kochs are particularly in favor of the Federal Reserve. According to Wikipedia, ” The Clark–Koch ticket promising to abolish …the Federal Reserve Board…,” so at least at one point in his life, David Koch was right in line with Ron Paul on the Fed. In any case, I don’t think one can say the Kochs “hate” Ron Paul without providing some evidence. Well, one can. But one is likely to be ignored.

      3. I’m interested in why you happened to bring up fluoridation.

      4. If you think the JBS oppose the war on drugs, provide a link. I find their website remarkably slippery. The national defense link says essentially nothing about what they stand for. To understand that, one must spend many hours reading their magazine.

      • Kevin McCashion said

        “1. The John Birch Society labels the protests in Tahrir Square and in Moscow– and on Wall Street– as communist. Given the John Birch Society’s origins and past, this is the same as labeling these protesters as being unworthy of having any rights whatsoever. They are the enemy.”

        How is the John Birch Society label of communist elements denying them rights?? That’s a leap. If I say that Occupy Wall Street had specific origins in leftist organization and there are communist elements, how is that a denial of their rights?

      • Kevin McCashion said

        2. William F Buckley turned hard against the John Birch Society when they opposed the war on Vietnam. The Birchers are anti-war, did you know that? In fact, they have been opposed to every war and most military actions since WWII since that was the last time the Constitution was followed and the Congress actually declared war. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co73TDl_F7E

        There is a much longer history on Buckley and how the neoconservatives took over the “conservative” movement, a good read if you are actually interested in challenging your worldview. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6462-neocon-control-

      • Kevin McCashion said

        The Kochs hate Ron Paul and his intellectual counterparts like Lew Rockwell at Mises.org and Murray Rothbard. Here’s the short take: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mer09FiICow

        Just google lewrockwell.com and koch and you will learn more about the hatred of the Koch Brothers for Ron Paul, Rothbard and Mises. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=ieb&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#sclient=psy-ab&fhp=1&hl=en&safe=off&site=webhp&source=hp&q=lewrockwell.com%20koch&pbx=1&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&fp=a832e4bee034e5be&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1280&bih=649&jeck=D68IT8-PDore0QHL-YHvCw

        You really, really have no idea what you are talking about and even worse, you are arrogant about it, “Charles II”.

      • Kevin McCashion said

        “4. If you think the JBS oppose the war on drugs, provide a link. I find their website remarkably slippery. The national defense link says essentially nothing about what they stand for. To understand that, one must spend many hours reading their magazine.”

        “In his weekly views on the news, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses the new banking restraints, the failed war on drugs, ObamaCare and much more while describing how these government interventions are working against our best interests.” http://www.jbs.org/news/today-s-government-working-against-our-best-interests

      • Charles II said

        Kevin asks, “How is the John Birch Society label of communist elements denying them rights??”

        As a libertarian so concerned about the individual that you assert that no racist could be a libertarian, this should come easy to you, Kevin.

        The people protesting around the world have a mixture of beliefs. If one communist joined the Tea Party, would that make it a communist movement?

        Well, of course not.

        So, why is it important to label a movement of millions of people as communist led?

        Because it dehumanizes them, smearing all of them with the brush of Mao and Stalin. A true libertarian would be incensed.

        Kevin says, “William F Buckley turned hard against the John Birch Society when they opposed the war on Vietnam. The Birchers are anti-war, did you know that?”

        Supporters of the German-American Bund were part of the anti-war movement in 1940. Did you know that?

        Being pro- or anti-war is irrelevant without context. The context in the 1960s involved a number of paleocon right-wing figures like Curtis LeMay who wanted to conduct a massive first strike against the USSR instead of using combat forces.

        Furthermore, you ask me to dismiss Buckley’s own explanation for why he turned against the JBS, namely that he thought they were bringing the conservative movement into discredit. He dates his break with them to 1962, before the US was at war with North Vietnam.

        McManus is engaging in historical revisionism, which is a polite name for “delusion.” No neutral source interprets Buckley’s break with the JBS as being due to him joining a neoconservative conspiracy.

        Kevin says, “The Kochs hate Ron Paul and his intellectual counterparts like Lew Rockwell at Mises.org and Murray Rothbard.”

        There is nothing in your link to indicate that the Kochs hate Paul. They had a squabble with him over founding the Mises Institute.

        However, there is a big, fat lie in the link: the claim that Al Gore claimed to have “invented” the Internet. Some people lie as easily as they breathe.

        Kevin says, “Just google lewrockwell.com and koch and you will learn more about the hatred of the Koch Brothers for Ron Paul”

        What I find is a claim by Lew Rockwell that Paul and the Koch Brothers “hate” one another. Perhaps they do. Politics is a lot more complicated than relying on such a claim.

        If the election is Paul vs. Obama, I have no doubt about where the Koch money will go.

        So, now on to fluoridation.

  3. Kevin McCashion said

    “He doesn’t like seeing white people risk getting killed by nonwhite people, or (even worse in his view) risk their lives to save those of nonwhite people.”

    This statement is complete nonsense.

    Here’s Ron Paul’s position on how big government impacts minorities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY

    The same is true of the economic draft.

    • Charles II said

      “libertarians are incapable of racism, because racism is a collectivist concept.”

      This is one of the weirdee and slipperier comments I have heard from a politician. Racism has been with the world since the beginning. It was also in Ron Paul’s newsletter. If he would just say that he was wrong, people would write it off.

      But he’s not being honest about his past, and in the comment quoted from the video you linked, he’s not being honest about racism in the present. It is not a “collectivist” concept.

      • Charles II said

        And in a timely fashion, we discover that Ron Paul’s NH supporters are not libertarians, because they sure are racists.

        Interesting that as the facts roll in, the gentleman claiming to be interested in discussing them is not to be seen.

      • Kevin McCashion said

        Racism is about a collective, i.e. about a particular race or group. Individuals have rights, not groups, in the libertarian perspective. There is no such thing as “society” or a particular group, rather it would be looked upon as individuals.

      • Charles II said

        Yes, Kevin, and any Scotsman who would do such a thing is No True Scotsman.

        This is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

      • Kevin McCashion said

        Does logical fallacy = hypocrisy?

        The point was if we have a libertarian society, there is discrimination against an individual human rather than a collective group, therefore the violation of rights would be taken on a case by case basis rather than empowering federal overreach into private contracts and private property. People are treated as individuals rather than groups. It gets past racism, but I suppose that wouldn’t benefit anyone, would it?

      • Kevin McCashion said

        Charles, do you just accept the story on it’s face, that it was definitely a Ron Paul supporter that made the video? The history of the video says otherwise: http://www.theendrun.com/huntsman-complicit-in-false-flag-style-dirty-trick-against-paul

      • Kevin McCashion said

        Many in the media like you, “Charles II”, are ignorant and silly and really lack the integrity to do impartial research, rather than just being clever for your internet friends like the cat lady, you have no interest in truth, rather you prefer to stay in your comfortable little box with your “witty” friends, occupying a webblog.

        Here’s the Paul campaign responding to the Huntsman video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QybEm7Bey8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

      • Charles II said

        Kevin says, “Many in the media like you, “Charles II”, are ignorant and silly and really lack the integrity to do impartial research, rather than just being clever for your internet friends like the cat lady, you have no interest in truth, rather you prefer to stay in your comfortable little box with your “witty” friends, occupying a webblog.”

        Since I’m obviously not worth wasting your time on, Kevin, you’ll have no problem taking your show elsewhere.

        This is a formal warning: 1) We do not tolerate abusiveness, 2) We do not tolerate spamming numerous posts where one will do, 3) We do require genuine documentation, not the quality of material you provide.

        I will answer your questions one more time, and no more:

        1. People who use logical fallacies are trolls, and get banned.
        2. It is hypocrisy to claim that it’s impossible to be a libertarian and a racist when one has a history, like Ron Paul, of publishing racist material.
        3. Is it possible that the Huntsman campaign is responsible for the xenophobic ad? Sure. But the only evidence that you’ve presented is that the ad was uploaded to YouTube by a first time uploader. This is not evidence. The fact that you don’t recognize it as evidence is very telling.
        4. I’m sure the Paul campaign is embarrassed by the xenophobic video. But the support of well-known racists like Don Black for the Paul campaign is a well-established pattern. Paul says that he isn’t responsible for the views of his supporters, which is to some degree true. But somehow, he has not managed to communicate to a large number of his supporters his distaste for racism.
        5. I believe the reason you raised the issue of fluoridation when there is not even the slightest reason to have done so is that you are obsessed with certain issues to a hallucinatory point. Again, this is a signal to me that you’re a troll and, as I say, we do not tolerate trolling.

        You think I’m just a silly dishonest person. Fine: spend your time on someone else’s private property.

  4. “Interesting that as the facts roll in, the gentleman claiming to be interested in discussing them is not to be seen.”

    Indeed. :-)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: