Talk:John Birch Society

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)

"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.[1][2][3][4] 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)

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)

Organization vs. ideology

I think the actually crucial issue here, which the article fails to take into account, is to not confuse the actual number of official JBS membership and public exposure of the JBS name on the one hand for the wide spread of ideology originated by the JBS on the other, as such that the ideology (also used as justifications as to why supply-side economics should be better than a welfare state or "Big Government", and recently critics have started to refer to this ideology as neoliberalism) has become mainstream under Reagan as Goldwater's ideological successor, while simply the name of the JBS isn't as prominent anymore as it was in the past and its official membership seemed to decline. Another element of JBS ideology that has become mainstream conservatism ever since the term of Bush, Sr. is that of constantly detecting "political correctness" as some supposed pinko-commie conspiracy everyhwere.

In other words, the original organization may have been in decline for a long time, whereas its ideology has become mainstream, and not only as late as the 2010s. --2003:EF:13CE:6A41:F966:4672:F026:6E58 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The JBS was part of the modern conservative movement whose ideas became mainstream. But what separated them from the rest of the movement was their conspiracism, which isolated them from mainstream conservatism and has not become mainstream. They argued for example that Eisenhower has a Communist asset and the government killed JFK. Their ideas have however lived on with Pat Robertson and Glenn Beck. TFD (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

William F. Buckley Jr.#Bill Buckley didn't see them as part of the conservative movement, indeed he denounced them in National Review. As his article says, "In 1962, Buckley denounced Robert W. Welch Jr. and the John Birch Society in National Review as "far removed from common sense" and urged the Republican Party to purge itself of Welch's influence." He disliked racists, etc. He wasn't a bad guy (I actually talked to him once). Doug Weller talk 18:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

References

The John Birch Society was formed in 1958 to re-educate the public on the U.S. Constitution and the importance of having government abide by it. The organization is NOT a "radical-right", "far-right", "ultraconservative" or "extremist" organization because it is non-partizan. It is not a "conservative" organization but an American one. It does not pursue conspiracy "theories" because it can verify all of its claims. It is anti-communist because communism is a true threat. It believes in limited government as outlined in the Constitution and as envisioned by the Founders. It NEVER called Eisenhower a communist. It simply demonstrated that the President was overly compromising with a very dangerous Soviet Union. William F. Buckley was at odds with the Society because he was a "neoconservative." A liberal in conservative clothing who promoted centralized government and offensive warfare. The Society apposed the addition of fluoride to water systems for fear that it would later allow government to put dangerous chemicals in water supplies. The Society apposes membership in the U.N. because the U.N. was created to one day be the capitol of a one-world totalitarian government. The Society apposes the Federal Reserve because it was created by a group of private citizens who wanted total control of the nations' wealth. And, because printed money must be backed up by something of value like gold and silver. Laetrile HAS been proven to be effective in the treatment of cancer as a number of publications will verify. Most notable is the book World Without Cancer by G. Edward Griffin. The organization was named after Capt. John Birch because he was murdered by the Communist Chinese ten days after the end of World War Two. Our government covered up the incident for five years. Our government had helped transfer power from the Chinese Nationalists to the Communists. The Society draws criticism because it promotes patriotism, morality and faith in God. The Society has irrefutable proof that the Council on Foreign Relations is a powerful and dangerous organization. There is solid evidence that the late Congressman and former JBS President Larry McDonald was deliberately murdered.