Ernie Lazar Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Oy vey, Ernie. Anybody who read John Birch Society material in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's as I did, knows very well the McCarthyist slant of their rant -- and their accusation that Washington DC, and especially the White House, was riddled with Communists. You want to fight -- but please remember that the Harry Dean thread was shut down partly because of your relentless defense of the John Birch Society. You want to be the only authority on the John Birch Society -- but too many people have read too many of their works already -- and we know what McCarthyists they were. It was probably their incessant pushing at JFK, accusing him of being a Communist, that drove a True-believer like Ex-General Edwin Walker INSANE, so that he planned and executed the JFK Assassination in his effort to please Robert Welch, his new tin god. (For example, one cartoon in American Opinion depicted JFK in a wedding gown, being approached by Khrushchev. This was typical of the political pornography that Robert Welch published!) In the same way, Edwin Walker was obeying the instructions of Robert Welch when he and his minions and quislings humiliated United Nations Ambassador Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on 24 October 1963. The John Birch Society bears the same weight of blame for the murder of JFK as Edwin Walker will bear. Let's wait for Dr. Caufield's book to estimate the extent of his blame. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul---there is a profound difference between making a generalization (often vague) versus making specific accusations. Yes, the JBS is often presented as an heir to McCarthy but acknowledging that generalization does not mean that everything you subsequently claim about the JBS is accurate, truthful, or factual. Again, for the record, correcting factual errors about history or about an individual or organization is NOT the same as "defending" them. Everybody rational knows that I have spent my entire lifetime (starting when I was a teenager) falsifying JBS premises and conclusions and warning about how accepting or believing their viewpoints would be deeply harmful to our survival as a free society. So for you to claim I "defend" the JBS is massively offensive -- but I understand that you cannot make rational distinctions because of your ideological bias (which operates just like the JBS ideological bias when I debate JBS members). I have never claimed nor have I ever suggested that I should be considered "the only" or even a primary expert about the JBS. That is another example of how you fabricate falsehoods. Instead, I have routinely recommended careful studies which have been done on the JBS by qualified historians -- and that includes my recommendations here in EF of Samuel Brenner's 2009 doctoral dissertation as well as the 2014 book by Dr. Darren Mulloy. By contrast, you never cite ANY reputable historian's original research regarding the JBS. Instead, you just want us to mindlessly accept whatever you write. In your current message you describe Walker as "insane" but in previous messages you have vigorously denied that possibility. What gives? No serious or rational person believes that Robert Welch would have welcomed any association with someone who engaged in murder or planning a murder. Whatever you think about Welch his entire lifetime was spent defending certain principles which are inherent in all conservative philosophical and moral arguments regarding human behavior and the proper role of government. You just want to create absolute cartoon villains to rail against instead of wanting to understand human beings whose views differ from your own beliefs. Significantly, you have never once presented one iota of evidence from anybody who actually knew Welch to support your characterization of him nor have you presented any primary source evidence to support your malicious description. There are plenty of VALID reasons to reject Welch and the JBS without inventing absolute falsehoods. Like all conservatives, Welch opposed anything that smacked of "mob rule". Like all conservatives, Welch saw society as a living organism which could not survive or prosper without compliance with laws and compliance with moral principles grounded in Judeo-Christian beliefs. As I have told you previously (here in EF and privately), Welch did not want Edwin Walker associated with the JBS -- which is why Welch refused the entreaties of numerous JBS members who wanted Welch and the JBS to mount a vigorous public relations campaign to defend Walker (particularly after the University of Mississippi episode). But Welch refused and, moreover, he told his National Council members that Walker was accepting bad advice and counsel from people whom Welch regarded as bigots who could discredit not only the JBS but the entire conservative movement. So for you to claim that, somehow, Welch supported or condoned Walker is absurd on its face --- but (as previously mentioned) fiction writers are not constrained by facts. Edited August 4, 2015 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now