John Birch Society Part 3

The controversial paragraph was removed before final publication of The Politician.

The sensationalism of Welch’s charges against Eisenhower prompted several conservatives and Republicans, most prominently Goldwater and the intellectuals of William F. Buckley’s circle, to renounce outright or quietly shun the group. Buckley, an early friend and admirer of Welch, regarded his accusations against Eisenhower as “paranoid and idiotic libels” and attempted unsuccessfully to purge Welch from the Birch Society.

From then on Buckley, who was editor of National Review, became the leading intellectual spokesman and organizer of the anti-Bircher conservatives.Buckley’s biographer John B. Judis wrote that “Buckley was beginning to worry that with the John Birch Society growing so rapidly, the right-wing upsurge in the country would take an ugly, even Fascist turn rather than leading toward the kind of conservatism National Review had promoted.”

Businessman and founder Robert W. Welch Jr. (1899–1985) developed an organizational infrastructure in 1958 of chapters nationwide. After an early rise in membership and influence, efforts by those such as conservative William F. Buckley Jr. and National Review, critics of the Society, pushed for the JBS to be identified as a fringe element of the conservative movement, mostly in fear of the radicalization of the American right. More recently Jeet Heer has argued in

The New Republic that while the organization’s influence peaked in the 1970s, “Bircherism” and its legacy of conspiracy theories has become the dominant strain in the conservative movement.

Politico has asserted that the JBS began making a resurgence in the mid-2010s, and many political analysts from across the spectrum have argued that it shaped the modern conservative movement and especially the Trump administration. Writing in The Huffington Post, Andrew Reinbach called the JBS “the intellectual seed bank of the right.

Originally based in Belmont, Massachusetts, it is now headquartered in Grand Chute, Wisconsin a suburb of Appleton, Wisconsin with local chapters throughout the United States. The organization owns American Opinion Publishing, which publishes the magazine The New American

.

Rrrrrggggg

The society was established in Indianapolis, Indiana, on December 9, 1958, by a group of twelve led by Robert W. Welch Jr., a retired candy manufacturer from Belmont, Massachusetts. Welch named the new organization after John Birch, an American Baptist missionary and military intelligence officer who was killed by communist forces in China in August 1945, shortly after the conclusion of World War II.

Welch claimed that Birch was an unknown but dedicated anti-communist, and the first American casualty of the Cold War. Jimmy Doolittle, who met Birch after bailing out over China following the Tokyo Raid, said in his autobiography that he was certain that Birch “would not have approved” of that particular use of his name.

One of the first members of the John Birch Society was Fred C. Koch, who became one of its primary financial supporters. According to investigative journalist Jane Mayer, Koch’s sons, David and Charles Koch were also members of the John Birch Society. However, they left before the 1970s.

Harry Lynde Bradley, co-founder of the Allen Bradley Company and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Fred C. Koch, founder of Koch Industries and Robert Waring Stoddard, President of Wyman-Gordon, a major industrial enterprise, were among the founding members.

Another was Revilo P. Oliver, a University of Illinois professor who was later expelled from the Society and helped found the National Alliance. A transcript of Welch’s two-day presentation at the founding meeting was published as The Blue Book of the John Birch Society, and became a cornerstone of its beliefs, with each new member receiving a copy. According to Welch, “both the U.S. and Soviet governments are controlled by the same furtive conspiratorial cabal of internationalists, greedy bankers, and corrupt politicians.

If left unexposed, the traitors inside the U.S. government would betray the country’s sovereignty to the United Nations for a collectivist New World Order, managed by a ‘one-world socialist government.'”

Welch saw collectivism as the main threat to western culture, and American liberals as “secret communist traitors” who provided cover for the gradual process of collectivism, with the ultimate goal of replacing the nations of western civilization with a one-world socialist government.

“There are many stages of welfarism, socialism, and collectivism in general,” he wrote, “but Communism is the ultimate state of them all, and they all lead inevitably in that direction.”

The society’s activities include distributing literature, pamphlets, magazines, videos and other material; the society also sponsors a Speaker’s Bureau, which invites “speakers who are keenly aware of the motivations that drive political policy”.

One of the first public activities of the society was a “Get US Out!” (of membership in the UN) campaign, which claimed in 1959 that the “Real nature of [the] UN is to build a One World Government”.

In 1960, Welch advised JBS members to: “Join your local P.T.A. at the beginning of the school year, get your conservative friends to do likewise, and go to work to take it over.”[43] One Man’s Opinion, a magazine launched by Welch in 1956, was renamed American Opinion, and became the society’s official publication. The society publishes The New American, a biweekly magazine.

1960s

By March 1961 the society had 60,000 to 100,000 members and, according to Welch, “a staff of 28 people in the Home Office; about 30 Coordinators (or Major Coordinators) in the field, who are fully paid as to salary and expenses; and about 100 Coordinators (or Section Leaders as they are called in some areas), who work on a volunteer basis as to all or part of their salary, or expenses, or both”.

According to Political Research Associates (a non-profit research group that investigates the far right), the society “pioneered grassroots lobbying, combining educational meetings, petition drives and letter-writing campaigns. Rick Perlstein described its main activity in the 1960s as “monthly meetings to watch a film by Welch, followed by writing postcards or letters to government officials linking specific policies to the Communist menace”.

One early campaign against the second summit between the United States and the Soviet Union generated over 600,000 postcards and letters, according to the society. In 1961 Welch offered $2,300 in prizes to college students for the best essays on “grounds of impeachment” of Chief Justice Warren, a prime target of ultra-conservatives. A June 1964 society campaign to oppose Xerox corporate sponsorship of TV programs favorable to the UN produced 51,279 letters from 12,785 individuals.”

In 1962, William F. Buckley Jr., editor of the influential conservative magazine, the National Review, denounced Welch and the John Birch Society as “far removed from common sense” and urged the GOP to purge itself of Welch’s influence.

In the late 1960s Welch insisted that the Johnson administration’s fight against communism in Vietnam was part of a communist plot aimed at taking over the United States. Welch demanded that the United States get out of Vietnam, thus aligning the Society with the left. The society opposed water fluoridation, which it called “mass medicine”.

The JBS was moderately active in the 1960s with numerous chapters, but rarely engaged in coalition building with other conservatives. It was rejected by most conservatives because of Welch’s conspiracy theories.

The philosopher Ayn Rand said in a 1964 Playboy interview, “I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for capitalism but merely against communism … I gather they believe that the disastrous state of today’s world is caused by a communist conspiracy. This is childishly naïve and superficial. No country can be destroyed by a mere conspiracy, it can be destroyed only by ideas.”

Former Eisenhower cabinet member Ezra Taft Benson—a leading Mormon—spoke in favor of the John Birch Society, but in January 1963 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement distancing itself from the Society. Antisemitic, racist, anti-Mormon, anti-Masonic groups criticized the organization’s acceptance of Jews, non-whites, Masons, and Mormons as members.

These opponents accused Welch of harboring feminist, ecumenical, and evolutionary ideas. Welch rejected these accusations by his detractors: “All we are interested in here is opposing the advance of the Communists, and eventually destroying the whole Communist conspiracy, so that Jews and Christians alike, and Mohammedans and Buddhists, can again have a decent world in which to live.”

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. A number of Birch members and their allies were Goldwater supporters in 1964[49] and some were delegates at the 1964 Republican National Convention.

In April 1966, a New York Times article on New Jersey and the society voiced—in part—a concern for “the increasing tempo of radical right attacks on local government, libraries, school boards, parent-teacher associations, mental health programs, the Republican Party and, most recently, the ecumenical movement.”

It then characterized the society as “by far the most successful and ‘respectable’ radical right organization in the country. It operates alone or in support of other extremist organizations whose major preoccupation, like that of the Birchers, is the internal Communist conspiracy in the United States.”

The JBS also opposed the creation of the first sex education curricula in the US, through a division called the Movement to Restore Decency (MOTOREDE).Surviving MOTOREDE pamphlets date from 1967 to 1971.

Eisenhower issue

Welch wrote in a widely circulated statement, “The Politician”, “Could Eisenhower really be simply a smart politician, entirely without principles and hungry for glory, who is only the tool of the Communists? The answer is yes.” He went on. “With regard to … Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason.”

The controversial paragraph was removed before final publication of The Politician.

The sensationalism of Welch’s charges against Eisenhower prompted several conservatives and Republicans, most prominently Goldwater and the intellectuals of William F. Buckley’s circle, to renounce outright or quietly shun the group. Buckley, an early friend and admirer of Welch, regarded his accusations against Eisenhower as “paranoid and idiotic libels” and attempted unsuccessfully to purge Welch from the Birch Society.

From then on Buckley, who was editor of National Review, became the leading intellectual spokesman and organizer of the anti-Bircher conservatives.

Buckley’s biographer John B. Judis wrote that “Buckley was beginning to worry that with the John Birch Society growing so rapidly, the right-wing upsurge in the country would take an ugly, even Fascist turn rather than leading toward the kind of conservatism National Review had promoted.” Commons

Thoughts of the John Birch Society:

2 thoughts on “John Birch Society Part 3

  1. Neither Xtianity nor Islam possess any wisdom upon the defining concept of faith – tohor.  The Cohen Israel dietary laws, for example, do not prohibit the consumption of delicious foods because those animals qualify as “unclean”.  Tuma does not mean “unclean”.  Both opposing Torah concepts – tohor & tuma – refer to spirits breathing within our hearts.  The Torah dietary laws apply strictly and only to the Cohen Israel brit people alone.  Irregardless that the Catholic church dresses up as priests, similar to Islam’s slaughter of halal meat attempts to duplicate rabbinic kashrut laws, neither this nor that qualify as part of the brit Cohen nation.  Both alien religions worship foreign Gods.

    A Torah oath brit alliance – Life and Death – hangs upon the scales of Judgement.  The servant of Avraham, his name Eliezar, he met the family of Avraham who lived in Iraq.  Avram stood related to Sarah through their mutual father.  But Sarah’s mother – share no physical family inheritance with Avraham’s mother.  From here the sages interpreted the intent/k’vanna of the Torah that the mother determines the Jewishness of the all new born children for all generations.  This judgement ruling has received challenge, primarily the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.  They base the logic of their opposition upon the Torah which commands, that only the sons of Aaron can do avodat HaShem in the service of korbanot dedications.  The Torah refers to Klall Yisroel as the nation of Cohonim.  Therefore unto this day, the Reform Judaism opposition argues that the father determines the Jewishness of all new born children.

    The sages answer the challenge made by the Tzeddukim cohonim by teaching the Torah commandment-mussar which instructs Avram to heed the command of Sarah to expel both Ishmael together with his mother.  That only Yitzak, Sarah’s son, would inherit the oath brit Cohen “tohor” alliance.  The logic of the Tzeddukim collapsed on this refutation.  The sages who compiled the Gemara relied upon halacha taken from all 6 Orders of the Mishna, to established their common law legal style of difficulty/answer.  The Gemara commentary to the Mishna defines the discipline of common law, the sages of the Gemara bring, close precedents of halacha from any and all of the other 6 Orders of the Mishna; which includes the Order that the current Mishna currently under perview and discussion.  פשיטה – obvious.

    The style of the servant Eliezar, who sat before Avraham’s family in Iraq: the father, mother, and eldest brother of Rebekka, this “style”, comes to teach the mussar of how to cut a Torah oath brit.  A brit alliance, by definition excludes the enemy.  פשיטה – obvious.  A person who cuts an oath brit alliance, thereafter the allies sit together at a formal meal.  Like the three meal, which the halachot of Shabbot, establishes. The oath brit which Avraham compelled his servant Eliezar to swear: that he would never make a קידושין oath brit alliance with any of the “children” of Canaan.

    This judicial ruling, which Avraham made, learns from Lot.  The Book of Ruth, the Nasi of the Court – Boaz – interpreted the Torah prohibition not to cut a Torah alliance with the children of Lot: Moav and Ammon; consequent to Balak – who hired Bil’am – the betrayal by Bil’am – to curse Israel.  Bil’am, a descendent of La’van, profaned the sworn oath brit alliance which Yaacov and La’van swore, to cement the alliance which the servant Eliezar likewise swore a Torah oath unto Avraham – to travel to the family of Avraham, who live in Iraq, and to cut an oath brit alliance with members of Avraham’s immediate family in Iraq. 

    The קידושין [Jewish chuppah wedding] of this union did not violate the כרת din of ערוה that the daughters of Lot profaned.  The oath brit alliance of the children of Adam and Noach rests upon the four legs which prohibit acts of theft, oppression, ערוה, and courtroom injustice.  The Nasi Boaz ruled, as told through the Book of Ruth, that the daughters of Lot, that the Torah prohibition did not apply to them.  The “enemy” curse definition restrictively applied only to the sons of Lot.  The Tzeddukim sons of Aaron the Cohen could not logically respond to this difficulty from the Torah; their logic format had assimilated to embrace and accept the Greek logic philosophy.   The Talmudic Sages of the Mishna, also more popularly known by Greek New Testament translation – as pharisees.

    The tohor middah חנון affixes to the 5th middle blessing of the Shemone Esri רפאנו ה’ ונרפא.  A Torah oath brit – cut upon Life or Death/Blessing or Curse.  The case/din of the story of how the servant of Avraham – Eliezar cut an oath brit alliance with the family of Avraham living in Iraq logicly compares to the famine in the days of Ahav.  The prophet Eliyyahu judged king Ahav as a wicked king, who like Yerov’am, abandoned the oath brit alliance that establishes the Torah as the Written Constitution of the Tribal oath brit Republic alliance of 12 Tribes.  A similar logic analysis views a precedent comparison as both close and valid – Bil’am – the descendant of L’van – who profaned the oath brit alliance which Yaacov and La’van originally cut.

    King Sh’lomo in equal measure violated and profaned the oath brit Republic alliance when he failed to set, and establish the authority of the Great Sanhedrin lateral common law court system.  Justice functions as the נמשל to the משל of rain fall in its proper season.  Ahav assimilated and embraced foreign cultures and customs; he decreed the abandonment of the Torah Constitution.  The משל of famine – caused by no rain – the נמשל –  foreign enemy troops who scale the walls of Jerusalem and brutally conquer the nation’s Capital.

    Hitler as a point of comparison, he lacked the clarity of leadership to focus the Nazi invasion of the USSR — with the capture of Moscow.  Napoleon captured Moscow and likewise suffered total defeat in war.  A basic strategy of total war, to conquer the Capital City of the enemy; meaning capture its Government leaders.  Napoleon’s army failed to defeat the Czar of Russia, even though it physicky – militarily temporarily occupied Russia’s Capital city – Moscow.

    A second example of the tohor middah of  חנון – – the Haf-Torah of Parshat משפטים, located as ירמיה לד: ח – כב, לג: כה, כו.  There the Torah/government leaders/princes swore an oath brit alliance that HaShem would fight the Gods of Bavel, like as happened in the days of Moshe and also during the leadership of Yehoshua the servant of Moshe.  But these leaders profaned the 7th year oath brit which establishes Liberty for all slaves and the cancillation of debts.  Therefore the prophet ירמיה, as a consequence saw a vision whereby HaShem swore to bring g’lut, total military defeat upon the kingdom of David by the king of Bavil because the princes of the government embraced the tuma behavior practiced by Bil’am and his betrayal of the alliance cut by his fore father La’von.

    The order of Rashi tefillen remembers this double bladed oath brit alliance obligation  – – placed upon all generations of Israel, to all eternity.  The pursuit of tohor Justice defines the judicial rulings as codified through the arranged and edited Order of the Chumash Parshaot; which places the revelation of the Torah at Sinai adjacent to the judicial courtroom rulings which most essentially defines the entire Parsha of משפטים – which immediately follows the story of the Sinai Torah revelation.  The tohor middah of חנון weighs upon the scales of Justice: life vs. death.  Tefilla contrast prayer, in that the people of the Cohen nation dedicate Torah defined emotional middot unto HaShem as holy in how we walk before G-d.

    Do we keep faith to our oath sworn brit obligations which sanctify a Torah defined tohor middah unto HaShem as having the נמשל interpretation of how we do t’shuva and modify how our emotions affect both our thoughts and behavior in all future social interactions.  A holy dedication wherein we dedicate our lives to [a משל metaphor] “cook” and improve the quality of our emotional maturity.  חנון measures our commitment dedication to guard the backs of our oath brit allies, and not betray their oath alliance trust. 

    The curse of חנון destroys the Cohen nation when we profane and abandon our oath brit alliance dedication unto HaShem – whose Spirit lives within our hearts, when we accept the curses sworn by Bil’am, to cause the total military defeat of Israel at the hands of our enemies during the crisis military disaster.  Each and every tohor midda has its own unique blessing and its own unique curse.  Its this basic יסוד of middot, דאורייתא ודרבנן, which separates tohor middot as pronouns of the Name rather than adjectives of the Name.  An adjective carries no baggage of responsibility if a person fails to live up to the dedication of a midda unto HaShem.

    The acceptance of the brit faith carries with it responsibility. Each and every Oral Torah midda has its own blessing and curse. Grace, just for example, has the curse of total defeat in war. The total destruction of Nazi Germany serves as an example of the midda of Grace. The dedication of middot, learn from pronouncing a blessing. As the latter require שם ומלכות so too the dedication of middot require swearing a Torah oath. The Xtian Bible never once brings the Name of HaShem – the 1st commandment of Sinai. The church absolutely denies the Oral Torah logic system based upon the dedication of middot unto HaShem. The curse of all tohor middot, דאורייתא ודרבנן, a person swears an invalid oath and therein profanes the Name of their God. When Israel sanctifies tohor middot – victory and success.   But the enemy always destroys Israel when the Cohen nation profanes the dedication of tohor middot.

    In the name of clarity, this “sh’itta” of learning views the Written Torah as only a Constitutional political document. Religion has no place within the Torah faith. The dedication of middot in how a person emotionally matures his/her life has no portion with dogma or halachic ritualism stripped clean of mussar; a person who dedicates a tohor midda unto HaShem does not thereafter “believe” he swear a Torah midda oath. In equal measure Torah middot can never qualify as practices of organized religion because how a person matures his own personal emotional issues – emotional issues never qualify as religious practices but rather as strong personal habits. Correcting a midda character trait compares to changing the course of a river.

    Torah as a political Constitutional document establishes the Order of the Cohen society. Just as the United States Constitution shapes American society but not British society. Just as Parliamentary law determines the Constitution of British society but not American society. So too the Torah brit faith shapes only the Cohen nation. The idea propagated and foisted by both Xtianity and Islam of a Universal faith, complete and total narishkeit rubbish.
    The key issue of writing a Sefer Torah, the sofer has to write the Name of HaShem לשמה.  Doing a mitzva לשמה requires a subject and a predicate.  The latter informs what the subject does.  For example, P’sach, Jews remove all leaven products from their possessions.  Korbanot have a halachic prohibition to switch from one korban type to another korban type.  Tanning the hide of an animal intended by the sofer to write a Sefer Torah: that hide requires a dedication for the purpose of writing a Sefer Torah.
     
    Therefore what predicate sets the Name of HaShem apart, when the sofer writes the Name לשמה?  Its the absolute necessity of this “predicate” which separates the profane from the holy.  Its this pronoun/predicate which makes an הבדלה, which separates the first Commandment of Sinai from the second Commandment of Sinai – holy from profane.  At the Akadah, for example, Avraham dedicated his son Yitzak unto the oath brit which HaShem swore to him that his chosen “Cohen” seed would compare to the stars in the sky and the sands upon the sea shore, in the memory of obeying the Divine commandment to listen to Sarah, who demanded that Avraham expel Hagar and her son Ishmael from the oath brit inheritance, from inheriting any part of the brit sanctified chosen Cohen nation.

    גיטין: המביא גט ממדינת הים, צריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם

    This opening Mishna describes the services of a notary, an individual officially licensed by a governmental body to perform certain actions in legal matters.  The Rosh did not require a sofer to נחתם, using an impressed seal, whenever that sofer wrote the Name of HaShem.  But the masoret of writing a Sefer Torah does permit the sofer to inscribe straight lines upon the leather.  Consequently it appears to me that the language נחתם implies some type of impressed seal, which all notaries employ today.  The notary seal impressed upon the margin of the Torah on the identical line that contains the written Name of HaShem, this seal – impressed upon the margin – serves as evidence that the sofer wrote the Name לשמה — לשם מידות.

    Middot, the Oral Torah logic system format, seeks to promote effectiveness as the main criterion in the set of considerations of social emotional/communial “investors”, and in the management of associations, through the development of advanced emotional development and maturity for societal stability, development of social standards, social mapping, applied research, consulting, conferences etc.
    However, what precisely defines the k’vanna of a sofer, when he writes the Name of HaShem לשמה?  Forty days after the sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippor, Moshe heard the voice of HaShem declare the 13 tohor middot.  Why the second repetition of the Name of HaShem in that revelation, which addresses the tohor middot of logic – otherwise referred to as the Torah Sh’Baal Peh?  The second Name of HaShem comes to teach that the middot thereafter, beginning with אל, that these middot serve as pronoun predicate extensions of the Name of HaShem.  Therefore the sofer should set aside 13 specific “Crowns” to precisely indicate which middah of HaShem, that that sofer held as his k’vanna, at the precise moment in time, when that sofer wrote the Name of HaShem לשמה.

    A safer Torah which does not “נחתם” with a defined tohor midda crown, the question stands: what proof exists which testifies that the sofer wrote the Name of HaShem לשמה?  The opening Gemara of גיטין teaches that g’lut Jewry lost this precise knowledge, how to do mitzvot לשמה.  Consequently, it appears to me that a sofer has a Torah obligation to prove his k’vanna when he writes the Name of HaShem לשמה, something comparable to the services of a notary.  This requirement which establishes the halacha of the correct way to write a Sefer Torah, this commentator strongly advises, it compares to the time of Ezra, when he changed the shape of the letters of the א – ב.

    Recently celebrated Purim.  The Gra teaches that the word המלך serves as a רמז to HaShem.  Honestly this idea appears most difficult to me.  The Purim story highlights rage and extreme anger.  The sages within the Talmud compare strong anger unto avoda zara.  Therefore the rabbinic pronoun/predicate המלך, whose gematria numerical value equals to המן, this tuma word המלך, refers to God, but not unto HaShem; the exact distinction between the first and second Sinai revelation commandments.  The tuma Yatzir within the heart of man strives to seize power and make “the leader”/המן of a given nation, into some type of God.  Herein defines my current understanding of Megillat Esther.  Have made a pithy summation of this idea: refer to myself as an atheist – bless HaShem, based upon the opening mussar instruction from the Torah: בראשית ברא אלהים/In the Beginning Created God.  The tuma Yatzir within the hearts of mankind, continually seeks to transform their “anointed” moshiach into some type of God.

    The Purim story tells a story which depicts a power struggle.  The Nazi war criminals themselves referred to their up coming hanging as “Purimfest”. Both the Church, with its Jesus son of God theology Gospel Universal religion stories, together with the evil Nazis, both lost their bid for world power. Present day Iraq serves as an excellent example of the post WW2 total defeat and exile of the church who waits for the 2nd Coming, and its present exiled spiritual status, following the Israeli victory in the 1948 Independence War. According to a 2019 interim study ordered by British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and led by Rev. Philip Mounstephen, the Bishop of Truro, “xtian persecution” approaches “near genocide levels” in the Middle East. The curse of refugee degradation has switched from Jews to the Xtian church.  That report focuses upon Iraq’s xtian de-population, decimated from 1.5 million before 2003, to under 120,000 by 2019.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s