Pages

Jump to bottom

114 comments

1 Artist  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 12:07:34pm

Sometimes it feels like he just makes it up as he goes along.

2 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 12:10:23pm

I had a hell of a time putting together a cohesive narrative for this one. Does it make sense? Editing suggestions are welcome.

3 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 12:21:20pm
4 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 12:31:05pm

re: #3 000G

Ah, I missed the connection to previous Birch Society documents...

Like much of the rest of his anti-Soros screed, Beck is embellishing the story behind Kozak’s document. Beck didn’t need to skulk around in “a very old copy of the congressional records” -- he could have easily purchased a copy on Amazon, where it’s sold under the title And Not A Shot Is Fired.


I wrote about that at the time but didn't now it was the same document. Nice catch.

5 Randall Gross  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 12:31:09pm

re: #2 Killgore Trout

Does to me, you did a really great job here KT.

6 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 12:40:31pm

re: #5 Thanos

Does to me, you did a really great job here KT.

Ok, thanks. It's kinda hard with these longer pages to make sure other people can understand what I'm talking about. I usually try to keep things shorter than this.

7 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 12:44:46pm

re: #2 Killgore Trout

Editing suggestions are welcome.

"in right here in"

8 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 12:49:37pm

re: #7 000G

"in right here in"

Thanks.

9 blueraven  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 1:41:38pm

Well done KT!

Thanks for actually following his "advice" to check it out for yourself. He knows damn well most of his viewers will not do so. He needs to be called out every time.

Seems like he really wants to restore the "good name" of Joseph McCarthy in the process.

10 CuriousLurker  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 2:06:35pm

Bravo—great page!

11 Romantic Heretic  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 2:23:16pm

I always figured he got his shit from the flashing neon sign in his brain.

12 HappyWarrior  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 3:04:14pm

He's so crazy.

13 Michael Orion Powell  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 4:12:09pm

His citing Orson Welles and William Randolph Hearst is so bizarre. Welles was a self-described progressive. It's amazing how Beck gets history so topsy turvy.

14 ernie1241  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 6:54:54pm

Trout's article is filled with falsehoods:

1. Sen. Joseph McCarthy was never on the House Committee on Un-American Activities

2. There is no credible evidence which establishes that HCUA Chairman (Cong. Francis Walter) was "a racist"

3. The JBS, as an organization, is not "racist".

4. The JBS objection to our civil rights movement was not based in any meaningful way on the Kozak article.

5. In any event, notice that Trout does not dispute or disprove anything specific in the Jan Kozak article

All things considered, this article by Mr. Trout is worthless

15 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 12, 2010 7:38:21pm

re: #14 ernie1241

Trout's article is filled with falsehoods:

1. Sen. Joseph McCarthy was never on the House Committee on Un-American Activities

2. There is no credible evidence which establishes that HCUA Chairman (Cong. Francis Walter) was "a racist"

3. The JBS, as an organization, is not "racist".

4. The JBS objection to our civil rights movement was not based in any meaningful way on the Kozak article.

5. In any event, notice that Trout does not dispute or disprove anything specific in the Jan Kozak article

All things considered, this article by Mr. Trout is worthless

Wow. He are honored by a visit from a real Birch society nut. Thanks for stopping by, spread the word.

16 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sat, Nov 13, 2010 12:05:17am

re: #15 Killgore Trout

Wow. He are honored by a visit from a real Birch society nut. Thanks for stopping by, spread the word.

I don't think whether that is necessarily a correct (or fair) assertion, Trout.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: sites.google.com...]

17 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sat, Nov 13, 2010 12:05:41am
I don't think

Make that "I don't know".

I am tired.

18 freetoken  Sat, Nov 13, 2010 12:19:42am

re: #14 ernie1241

The only claim of yours that is clearly true is that Old Joe was indeed a Senator and thus the House committee wasn't his.

19 Gus  Sat, Nov 13, 2010 1:40:08am

re: #14 ernie1241

2. There is no credible evidence which establishes that HCUA Chairman (Cong. Francis Walter) was "a racist"

From Hollywood's Blacklists: A Political and Cultural History by Reynold Humphries:

Lest people believe such ravings were limited to racist Southern Democrats, let us turn to Rep. Francis Walter, chairman of HUAC from 1955. A Democrat representing Pennsylvania, he co-authored with another reactionary Democrat, Senator Pat McCarran of Nevada, an Immigration Act designed to maintain "traditional racial balance." When there were protests, Walter dismissed them as "professional Jews shedding crocodile tears for no reason whatsoever."

20 Gus  Sat, Nov 13, 2010 1:49:47am

re: #19 Gus 802

Let us continue on Rep. Francis E. Walter.

Stefan Kühl’s Examination of Pioneer Fund Tactics
Chapter 1: The “New” Scientific Racism

The Pioneer Fund, as historian Barry Mehler has demonstrated, has a dismal record on civil rights issues. In the post–World War II period, certain recipients of the Pioneer Fund aligned themselves with the American Right in fighting against the Supreme Court ruling that declared segregated schooling unconstitutional. Draper, who until the 1960s served as both the main benefactor and the most influential figure in the Pioneer Fund, also worked with the United States House Un-American Activities Committee to demonstrate that blacks were genetically inferior and ought to be "repatriated" to Africa. Francis E. Walter, the director of the Pioneer Fund in the 1950s and 1960s, chaired the same committee. In the 1970s, the Pioneer Fund granted $40,000 to Ralph Scott, professor of educational psychology at the University of Northern Iowa, for his investigation of "forced busing and its relationship to genetic aspects of educability." Scott also used the funds to organize antibusing conferences.

21 Gus  Sat, Nov 13, 2010 2:13:59am

re: #20 Gus 802

From Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review

The perception that Jewish concerns were an important feature of the opposition to the McCarran- Walter act can also be seen in the following exchange between Representative Celler and Representative Walter. Celler noted that "The national origin theory upon which our immigration law is based . . . [mocks] our protestations based on a question of equality of opportunity for all peoples, regardless of race, color, or creed." Representative Walter replied that "a great menace to America lies in the fact that so many professionals, including professional Jews, are shedding crocodile tears for no reason whatsoever" (Cong. Rec. Jan. 13, 1953, p. 372). And in a comment referring to the peculiarities of Jewish interests in immigration legislation, Richard Arens, Staff Director of the Senate subcommittee that produced the McCarran-Walter act, pointedly noted that "one of the curious things about those who most loudly claim that the 1952 act is 'discriminatory' and that it does not make allowance for a sufficient number of alleged refugees, is that they oppose admission of any of the approximately one million Arab refugees in camps where they are living in pitiful circumstances after having been driven out of Israel" (in Bennett, 1963, p. 181).

22 Gus  Sat, Nov 13, 2010 2:54:31am

re: #2 Killgore Trout

I had a hell of a time putting together a cohesive narrative for this one. Does it make sense? Editing suggestions are welcome.

Suggest this change:

That's right. His source is a document from Joseph McCarthy's the House Un-American Activities Committee. Mr. Beck was kind enough to post his copy of the document on his website.

23 CuriousLurker  Sat, Nov 13, 2010 9:09:23am

re: #14 ernie1241

Your use of the word "falsehoods" implies an intent to deceive. Some of KT's statements may very well be incorrect, but I have never known him to be intentionally deceptive.

KT obviously put a lot of effort into this. He asked for editing suggestions and made changes as new info was given to him. He has provided us with valuable information by connecting dots that we can use as a starting point for additional research. To dismiss the entire article as "worthless" is inaccurate & discourteous.

24 wrenchwench  Sat, Nov 13, 2010 11:55:26am

re: #15 Killgore Trout

Wow. He are honored by a visit from a real Birch society nut. Thanks for stopping by, spread the word.

I have taken, or mistaken, our friend ernie1241 for an anti-JBS nut. I am surprised to see him apparently defending them. I wish I knew his grounds for saying they are not racist.

I found something that looks to be similar to Beck's Kozak article for sale on Amazon: How Parliament can play a revolutionary part in the transition to socialism and the role of the popular masses: The role of Parliament in a Communist revolution. They also have his book: And Not a Shot Is Fired. It certainly appears to have had some significance to the JBS.

Here's a brief review of a very revealing book, especially for those who viewed Glenn Beck's programs this week about the 1969 radical manifesto, "You Don't Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows." This book review originally appeared in the July 5, 1999 issue of The New American magazine as a helpful guide to those interested in a deeper understanding of elite power politics and the larger cultural-social revolution which is the "prefigurative dimension" of the political revolution that is battering and undermining American society, institutions, and values.

Emphasis added.

25 ernie1241  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 7:23:16am

A totally ridiculous reply by Killgore. For more than 40 years, JBS members have despised me and they routinely describe me as a Communist, Communist dupe, Communist sympathizer, New World Order stooge, a disinformation agent, etc. etc. because I a 100-page report online which demolishes most of their arguments -- and I use sources which the JBS itself has often acknowledged to be authoritative and credible.

See: JBS REPORT

The reason why the JBS is so often easily able to discredit its critics is because (like Killgore) the critics often cannot accurately present the JBS position on whatever matters are being discussed.

There are many VALID reasons to reject the JBS -- but use of stereotypes, half-truths, falsehoods, wild exaggerations, rumor, etc. only gives the JBS ammunition to attack critics as biased or worse.

re: #15 Killgore Trout

Wow. He are honored by a visit from a real Birch society nut. Thanks for stopping by, spread the word.

26 ernie1241  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 7:27:47am

I used the standard definition of falsehood, i.e.
"noun: a statement that is not true".

re: #23 CuriousLurker

Your use of the word "falsehoods" implies an intent to deceive. Some of KT's statements may very well be incorrect, but I have never known him to be intentionally deceptive.

KT obviously put a lot of effort into this. He asked for editing suggestions and made changes as new info was given to him. He has provided us with valuable information by connecting dots that we can use as a starting point for additional research. To dismiss the entire article as "worthless" is inaccurate & discourteous.

27 ernie1241  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 7:50:24am

Nobody is more aware of the arguments used for describing the JBS as "racist" than I am. I reject those arguments for the same reason I reject the Birch Society's description or innuendos about prominent Americans whom they libel as Communist or Communist sympathizer or Communist agent or Communist dupe.

It is certainly accurate to state that the official JBS position about our civil rights movement and its leaders is often factually false. It is also accurate to state that the JBS maliciously libeled many good, decent, and patriotic Americans who fought segregation and Jim Crow. I devote considerable space in chapter 6 of my JBS report (link below) to discussing this matter.

JBS ON CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

I know how easy it is for us to make derogatory assumptions about the motives of our political opponents and to present them in the worst possible light. But it simply is not true that the JBS, as an organization, is "racist".

In fact, a JBS member (Rev. Delmar Dennis) was an FBI informant who infiltrated the most violent Klan in our nation (White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi) and his testimony was largely responsible for convicting Klan members in Mississippi for various illegal activities. After he surfaced as an FBI informant, the JBS hired him as a Coordinator and as a paid speaker who made speeches around the country about the Klan's noxious activities.

Although the JBS never attracted a large number of African-Americans to its ranks -- it nevertheless did have a significant number of African American and other minority group members -- including the very prominent African American author and columnist, George S. Schuyler -- who also spoke around the country under the auspices of the Birch Society's Speakers Bureau.

I know this is a very difficult and complex subject -- particularly for people who do not have detailed knowledge about the Society....but it is wrong to attribute racist motives to the JBS. I agree, however, that the Society was insensitive to the depredations experienced by our African American citizens. Their perceptions of reality were colored by their anti-communist ideology and their often uncritical acceptance of white privilege.

For anyone interested in a more factual understanding of the JBS (and in particular its members) I recommend a recent doctoral dissertation (link below) by Sam Brenner. Brenner had access to internal JBS records which reveal a much more nuanced reality about the JBS:

BRENNER DISSERTATION


re: #24 wrenchwench

I have taken, or mistaken, our friend ernie1241 for an anti-JBS nut. I am surprised to see him apparently defending them. I wish I knew his grounds for saying they are not racist.

I found something that looks to be similar to Beck's Kozak article for sale on Amazon: How Parliament can play a revolutionary part in the transition to socialism and the role of the popular masses: The role of Parliament in a Communist revolution. They also have his book: And Not a Shot Is Fired. It certainly appears to have had some significance to the JBS.

Emphasis added.

28 ernie1241  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 8:09:48am

Gus: The famous philosopher of science, Karl Popper, observed that one can "prove" anything if one looks only for "confirmations".

In the age of internet, there is no position (no matter how absurd or false) that cannot be "proved" by citing something posted on-line.

When I confront excerpts such as the one you posted, I often ask the question: "what independent research have you done into the material which you are citing"? Have you, for example, considered alternative explanations as well as contradictory evidence?

I start from the premise that nobody's character or integrity should be besmirched unless there is overwhelming high-quality verifiable factual evidence to support whatever pejorative statements are made.

In politics, as I am sure you will agree, it is commonplace for politicians to characterize the motives of their critics and opponents in highly unfavorable terms. I am certainly open to revising my statement about Congressman Walter -- but I would need something more compelling that one author's subjective characterization of Walter's motives.

re: #19 Gus 802

29 ernie1241  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 8:17:50am

I am not aware that Walter was "a director" of the Pioneer Fund. However, the excerpt you quoted below is suspect because HUAC did not produce any documents whose intent or theme was "to demonstrate that blacks were genetically inferior and ought to be irepatriated' to Africa."

However, in 1954, HUAC did produce a report entitled Preliminary Report on Neo-Fascist and Hate Groups (link below) which excoriated individuals, organizations, and publications which DID believe "that blacks were genetically inferior and ought to be repatriated' to Africa."

HUAC REPORT ON NEO-FASCIST AND HATE GROUPS

re: #20 Gus 802

Let us continue on Rep. Francis E. Walter.

Stefan Kühl’s Examination of Pioneer Fund Tactics
Chapter 1: The “New” Scientific Racism

The Pioneer Fund, as historian Barry Mehler has demonstrated, has a dismal record on civil rights issues. In the post–World War II period, certain recipients of the Pioneer Fund aligned themselves with the American Right in fighting against the Supreme Court ruling that declared segregated schooling unconstitutional. Draper, who until the 1960s served as both the main benefactor and the most influential figure in the Pioneer Fund, also worked with the United States House Un-American Activities Committee to demonstrate that blacks were genetically inferior and ought to be "repatriated" to Africa. Francis E. Walter, the director of the Pioneer Fund in the 1950s and 1960s, chaired the same committee. In the 1970s, the Pioneer Fund granted $40,000 to Ralph Scott, professor of educational psychology at the University of Northern Iowa, for his investigation of "forced busing and its relationship to genetic aspects of educability." Scott also used the funds to organize antibusing conferences.

30 ernie1241  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 8:24:46am

Alternative link to HUAC Report mentioned in my previous message:
HUAC REPORT


re: #29 ernie1241

31 researchok  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 1:58:32pm

First class post, if for no other reason that it will encourage further debate.

KT, Gus 802, ernie, 1241, et al, have contributed to the body of knowledge, opinion and insight.

32 wrenchwench  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 2:23:15pm

re: #27 ernie1241

I didn't read all 688 pages of "Shouting at the Rain", but I did peruse some pertinent parts. The gist of it seems to be that JBSers did not oppose Civil Rights because they are racist, but because they are principled. The argument is no different from the one against Rand Paul, who said he would not favor the Civil Rights Act because a restaurateur has the right to discriminate.

It seems the JBS was more concerned about appearing to be racist than they were about actually being racists.

33 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 2:34:14pm

re: #27 ernie1241

Uncritical acceptance of white privilege is racist.

So is opposite to equal civil rights for blacks.

On those grounds, the JBS was racist.

34 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 2:36:46pm

re: #33 Obdicut

Opposite = opposition.

PIMF.

They were not far outside the mainstream in terms of their racism. That can be said in their 'defense'. However, that still makes them racist.

35 ernie1241  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 4:48:43pm

Wrench: As you probably know, there are many people who describe Sen. Barry Goldwater as "racist" because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- even though (a) he supported previous civil rights legislation and (b) as Chief of Staff of the Arizona National Guard, he desegregated the Air Guard, and (c) he was a member of the NAACP during the 1950's and he contributed $400 to the NAACP in support of their efforts to de-segregate Phoenix schools.

The bottom-line is this: it is possible, for principled reasons, to oppose legislation favored by liberals and civil rights leaders.

If you decide to read more of the Brenner dissertation, I think you will discover a more nuanced understanding of the JBS position on civil rights legislation. Having said that, I fully understand why it can be argued plausibly that JBS opposition to our civil rights movement arose from less than noble motives.


Read more: [Link: www.time.com...]

re: #32 wrenchwench

36 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 4:56:13pm

re: #35 ernie1241

Why are you pointing to Brenner as the ne plus ultra authority on what the JBS was about? And why are you crediting him with complete honesty?

37 ernie1241  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:00:59pm

Well, Obdicut, most rational beings do not embrace your absolutist criteria.

Motivations and behavior are rarely subject to such stark criteria as you present.

I recognize, however, that it is a natural human tendency to present caricatures of persons we regard as our political opponents -- and to pretend that they have utterly no redeeming qualities because their motives are always based upon malice.

Apparently, you prefer that kind of cartoon depiction. Perhaps if you had an opportunity to sit down and talk with someone whose views differed from yours -- you might discover that honorable and decent men and women can arrive at diametrically opposite positions.

Someday, perhaps you will adopt a position which is controversial and requires interpretation of your motives or values. If your critics declare that your position can only originate from ignoble or malicious attributes---then perhaps you might want to re-visit this exchange.


re: #33 Obdicut

Uncritical acceptance of white privilege is racist.

So is opposite to equal civil rights for blacks.

On those grounds, the JBS was racist.

38 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:09:38pm

re: #37 ernie1241

Well, Obdicut, most rational beings do not embrace your absolutist criteria.

Motivations and behavior are rarely subject to such stark criteria as you present.

I'm sorry, but your assertions about what most rational beings do or not do is kind of irrelevant.


I recognize, however, that it is a natural human tendency to present caricatures of persons we regard as our political opponents -- and to pretend that they have utterly no redeeming qualities because their motives are always based upon malice.

Which is nothing that I did. In fact, the accusation that I have closely resembles making me into a caricature.


Apparently, you prefer that kind of cartoon depiction. Perhaps if you had an opportunity to sit down and talk with someone whose views differed from yours -- you might discover that honorable and decent men and women can arrive at diametrically opposite positions.

I fully well know and accept that. I have no idea why you think I don't.


Someday, perhaps you will adopt a position which is controversial and requires interpretation of your motives or values. If your critics declare that your position can only originate from ignoble or malicious attributes---then perhaps you might want to re-visit this exchange.

I have a lot of controversial positions. For example, I don't think that we should punish police officers for accidental shootings. In the recent case in Oakland, I don't think the officer deserved any punishment whatsoever.


You are awfully quick to assume large numbers of things about me based on very little. You might want to think about that, and how that applies to your own line of logic.

39 ernie1241  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:12:38pm

I am not pointing to Brenner as the "ultimate authority". I recommended his dissertation because

(1) he had unique access to internal JBS records -- such as private member comments which were submitted every month to JBS headquarters plus the replies to those comments by senior JBS officials. Those JBS records were thrown away (but retrieved) when the JBS moved its headquarters from Massachusetts to Wisconsin

(2) Brenner's dissertation is the first new work of its kind since the 1960's and is extremely well documented.

I should mention that Brenner obtained numerous FBI files from me and he copied masters theses and doctoral dissertations in my collection which pertain to the extreme right in our country.

I am particularly troubled by your last sentence. Perhaps unlike yourself, I don't assume dishonesty just because someone might present data that contradicts something I presently believe. If you look into Brenner's background and his resume (link below), you might wish to retract your malicious insinuation.

[Link: www.samuelbrenner.com...]

re: #36 Obdicut

Why are you pointing to Brenner as the ne plus ultra authority on what the JBS was about? And why are you crediting him with complete honesty?

40 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:14:26pm

re: #39 ernie1241

I'm not assuming dishonesty. I'm not assuming honesty. There is an enormous difference. Do you understand that?

41 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:16:30pm

re: #39 ernie1241

Since you are claiming personal authority, can you tell us who you are, please?

42 ernie1241  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:19:25pm

It is not a matter of "assuming" anything about you. It is merely a response to your own words --- particularly your insinuation that we should consider that proposition that Brenner might be dishonest. This is somebody you don't know and have never spent one millisecond researching.

Also, your immediate characterization of the JBS as "racist" even though I am willing to bet that you have never actually engaged in any significant conversation with a JBS member or sympathizer -- and you have never carefully examined the historical record -- which is not subject to your absolutist criteria.

re: #38 Obdicut

I'm sorry, but your assertions about what most rational beings do or not do is kind of irrelevant.

Which is nothing that I did. In fact, the accusation that I have closely resembles making me into a caricature.

I fully well know and accept that. I have no idea why you think I don't.

I have a lot of controversial positions. For example, I don't think that we should punish police officers for accidental shootings. In the recent case in Oakland, I don't think the officer deserved any punishment whatsoever.

You are awfully quick to assume large numbers of things about me based on very little. You might want to think about that, and how that applies to your own line of logic.

43 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:19:43pm

It is true that racist motives and intents are factually different from racist consequences and results, so that one can have one without the other and vice versa. For all practical purposes, though, racist consequences and results are what matter to the actual people involved since it rarely matters what just remains in another person's mind and heart.

It is furthermore true that a lot of people go out of their way to prove that the themselves or people, organizations, causes etc. they hold dear are not racist when in fact they are but overwhelming public disapproval of racism simply propels them to. I hold that this overwhelming public disapproval has in some ways a disservice to the factually correct assertions and analysises of racism. I furthermore hold that the overwhelming majority of human beings are racist but that there are vast differences in degree and sophistication of such sentiments.

44 ernie1241  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:21:21pm

No -- I don't understand your weasel words. The point is you raised the question as though it was a perfectly reasonable imputation to suggest that Brenner might be dishonest.

re: #40 Obdicut

I'm not assuming dishonesty. I'm not assuming honesty. There is an enormous difference. Do you understand that?

45 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:21:29pm

re: #42 ernie1241

It is not a matter of "assuming" anything about you. It is merely a response to your own words --- particularly your insinuation that we should consider that proposition that Brenner might be dishonest. This is somebody you don't know and have never spent one millisecond researching.

You should always consider the possibility that someone might be dishonest. I have no idea why you think otherwise.


Also, your immediate characterization of the JBS as "racist" even though I am willing to bet that you have never actually engaged in any significant conversation with a JBS member or sympathizer -- and you have never carefully examined the historical record -- which is not subject to your absolutist criteria.

You're willing to make a lot of bets and a lot of assumptions about me. You shouldn't.

It's really bizarre that you're castigating me for absolutism and assumptions while heaping absolutist judgement and assumptions on me.

46 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:22:06pm

re: #44 ernie1241

Yes. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that Brenner might be dishonest, either intentionally or unconsciously.

You are being purposefully insulting. Why?

47 ernie1241  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:22:54pm

What the hell are you talking about? What "personal authority" am I "claiming"? What personal authority are YOU claiming to speak on these matters?

re: #41 Obdicut

Since you are claiming personal authority, can you tell us who you are, please?

48 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:23:25pm

re: #45 Obdicut

You should always consider the possibility that someone might be dishonest. I have no idea why you think otherwise.

You're willing to make a lot of bets and a lot of assumptions about me. You shouldn't.

Does not compute.

Calm down.

49 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:23:40pm

re: #47 ernie1241

What the hell are you talking about? What "personal authority" am I "claiming"? What personal authority are YOU claiming to speak on these matters?

This:


I should mention that Brenner obtained numerous FBI files from me and he copied masters theses and doctoral dissertations in my collection which pertain to the extreme right in our country.
50 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:23:57pm

re: #48 000G

What doesn't compute, exactly?

51 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:25:35pm

re: #50 Obdicut

What doesn't compute, exactly?

You are suggesting one should always be ready to make assumptions about anyone else but then call foul when you perceive this to be taking place with yourself.

52 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:26:47pm

re: #51 000G

No, you're rather misread that. I'm saying it's wrong to make the assumption of honesty; that one should be capable of imagining someone to be either honest, or dishonest, and not to assume either one.

53 ernie1241  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:27:06pm

Well, Obdicut, your first comment distinguishes me from you. Considering the possibility of dishonesty is not my first reaction to somebody I don't know. This entire conversation is surreal. If you have some FACTUAL basis to make such a malicious insinuation about Brenner -- then spit it out. Otherwise, just be ashamed of yourself.

re: #45 Obdicut

You should always consider the possibility that someone might be dishonest. I have no idea why you think otherwise.

You're willing to make a lot of bets and a lot of assumptions about me. You shouldn't.

It's really bizarre that you're castigating me for absolutism and assumptions while heaping absolutist judgement and assumptions on me.

54 ernie1241  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:28:39pm

You still don't get it -- there is no reasonable basis to suggest that Brenner might be dishonest. That is entirely a malicious fabrication by you. Maybe we should apply your disgusting standard to YOU. Let's all assume that you may be dishonest.

re: #46 Obdicut

Yes. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that Brenner might be dishonest, either intentionally or unconsciously.

You are being purposefully insulting. Why?

55 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:29:29pm

re: #53 ernie1241

You are behaving in an extremely odd fashion.

56 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:29:41pm

re: #52 Obdicut

No, you're rather misread that. I'm saying it's wrong to make the assumption of honesty; that one should be capable of imagining someone to be either honest, or dishonest, and not to assume either one.

You must have some bizarre conversations if you are not capable of giving your partner in conversation the benefit of the doubt. This seems to be one of them.

57 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:29:59pm

re: #54 ernie1241

It's entirely reasonable to suppose that I might be dishonest.

58 ernie1241  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:30:24pm

Sorry -- I sincerely do not understand your point. Brenner visited me in order to copy FBI files and academic theses in my possession. What "authority" does that betoken?

re: #49 Obdicut

This:

59 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:30:37pm

re: #56 000G

This is definitely a bizarre conversation. I'm supposed to be ashamed of myself because I think that it's possible someone might be dishonest. It's definitely surreal.

60 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:31:24pm

re: #59 Obdicut

This is definitely a bizarre conversation. I'm supposed to be ashamed of myself because I think that it's possible someone might be dishonest. It's definitely surreal.

No one mentioned shame. You are now resorting to straw men. Again: Calm down.

61 ernie1241  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:32:26pm

Only in your warped mind Obdicut. I suggest you consult any pastor, priest, rabbi, or other similar figure of your choice -- and present copies of your messages here and see what they say about your comments.

re: #55 Obdicut

You are behaving in an extremely odd fashion.

62 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:32:51pm

re: #53 ernie1241

Otherwise, just be ashamed of yourself.

Ooops

63 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:33:13pm

re: #58 ernie1241

I'm pointing out that there is no particular reason to believe that that anecdote is true.

I really don't get what you're attempting to achieve through this amazingly abrasive style.

64 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:33:36pm

re: #60 000G

No one mentioned shame. You are now resorting to straw men. Again: Calm down.

re: #53 ernie1241

Otherwise, just be ashamed of yourself.

65 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:33:56pm

re: #61 ernie1241

GAZE.

66 ernie1241  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:38:04pm

OK -- just consult page "v" of Brenner's dissertation (the acknowledgements page) which refers to Sam's visit with me and what he got from me.

[Link: www.samuelbrenner.com...]


re: #63 Obdicut

I'm pointing out that there is no particular reason to believe that that anecdote is true.

I really don't get what you're attempting to achieve through this amazingly abrasive style.

67 ernie1241  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 5:39:44pm

The link to his dissertation is here:

[Link: www.samuelbrenner.com...]

re: #66 ernie1241

OK -- just consult page "v" of Brenner's dissertation (the acknowledgements page) which refers to Sam's visit with me and what he got from me.

[Link: www.samuelbrenner.com...]

68 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 16, 2010 6:01:37pm

re: #67 ernie1241

Thank you for confirming that. I fully accept that that is you-- especially since you, ah, appear to take this tone wherever you post-- and that Brenner did indeed get information from you. Further, I accept that you have reasons to believe that Brenner is an honest and honorable man.

However, that does not give you leave to go mongo-ballistic because I say that he might be dishonest. He might be. So might you. I have no idea why this concept to the extent that it does; I'd think a researcher like yourself would not assume honesty from anyone.

In the end, I think you've assumed a lot about what I'm saying that isn't there. I do think that anyone opposed to the CRA was, in fact, racist-- not necessarily in the sense that they felt that blacks were inferior to whites, but that racial equality is not a right on the same level as all other rights. You seem to assume that 'racism' can only take an active form, where the passive racism is far more prevalent and far more dangerous.

To put it another way: an ideology that holds states rights as more important than assuring equal rights for all races is an ideology that passively endorses racism.

Finally: Telling me to be ashamed of myself and otherwise being insulting isn't going to have any effect on me other than make me think that you're a rather angry person. Continue to do so if you wish, but if you actually want to change my mind, make arguments.

I've never believed, or asserted, or argued that the JBS was the equivalent of the KKK. They did, in their opposition to the CRA, use racist imagery, racist arguments, and exploited racial tension to attempt to defeat it. That they may have been doing so on the basis that the CRA was communist does not in the least obviate that their resistance to it both uses racism and was racist.

69 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 7:35:33am

re: #2 Killgore Trout

I had a hell of a time putting together a cohesive narrative for this one. Does it make sense? Editing suggestions are welcome.

This is a really fantastic post KT.

70 wrenchwench  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 8:26:39am

re: #35 ernie1241

I see a pretty good defense of Barry Goldwater there. JBS not so much.

The word "nuance" used in discussions of race makes me think somebody has a different idea of what constitutes racism than I do. I agree with Obdicut's #68 wholeheartedly.

I don't know why you want to delve deeply into nuance to show that the JBS is not racist. The very sources you give state that "everyone knew this" [that they were racist], and then try to explain, through nuance and strict adherence to ideology, that there was not any racist motivation to the actions which made "everyone know" they were racist.

You've done a lot of work to show what the JBS was, and maybe is, why now do you work to deny what was obvious to contemporary observers?

71 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 10:09:01am

You are correct about one matter: the "tone" of my postings is exactly the same whenever I confront people who present insinuation and innuendo without a single iota of factual evidence.

As far as your second paragraph is concerned: I again recommend that you bring our messages to any clergyman or ethicist of your choice and inquire of that person whether your approach to discussion conforms to Christian or Jewish principles regarding how one should approach amicable civil discourse. In other words, should one BEGIN a conversation by suggesting it is entirely appropriate to propose questioning the honesty of someone whom you do not even know and, more importantly, someone whom you have never even spent one millisecond in reviewing their background or credentials. Then come back and let us know what that clergyman or ethicist says.

Also, I suggest you bring paragraph three of your message to the attention of the clergyman/ethicist of your choice inquire if that meets Judeo-Christian moral standards for what constitutes evidence of racism.

Signigicantly, you interpret my comments in reply to your messages as "insulting".

However, you pretend that your comments questioning the integrity and character of a scholar whom you do not know and whom you have never spoken to or contacted, and someone whose voluminous writings you have never read --- should be considered, in your scheme of things, perfectly reasonable.

re: #68 Obdicut

Thank you for confirming that. I fully accept that that is you-- especially since you, ah, appear to take this tone wherever you post-- and that Brenner did indeed get information from you. Further, I accept that you have reasons to believe that Brenner is an honest and honorable man.

However, that does not give you leave to go mongo-ballistic because I say that he might be dishonest. He might be. So might you. I have no idea why this concept to the extent that it does; I'd think a researcher like yourself would not assume honesty from anyone.

In the end, I think you've assumed a lot about what I'm saying that isn't there. I do think that anyone opposed to the CRA was, in fact, racist-- not necessarily in the sense that they felt that blacks were inferior to whites, but that racial equality is not a right on the same level as all other rights. You seem to assume that 'racism' can only take an active form, where the passive racism is far more prevalent and far more dangerous.

To put it another way: an ideology that holds states rights as more important than assuring equal rights for all races is an ideology that passively endorses racism.

Finally: Telling me to be ashamed of myself and otherwise being insulting isn't going to have any effect on me other than make me think that you're a rather angry person. Continue to do so if you wish, but if you actually want to change my mind, make arguments.

I've never believed, or asserted, or argued that the JBS was the equivalent of the KKK. They did, in their opposition to the CRA, use racist imagery, racist arguments, and exploited racial tension to attempt to defeat it. That they may have been doing so on the basis that the CRA was communist does not in the least obviate that their resistance to it both uses racism and was racist.

72 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 10:10:27am

Because I believe in God's 9th Commandment, I cannot agree with your observations.

re: #70 wrenchwench

I see a pretty good defense of Barry Goldwater there. JBS not so much.

The word "nuance" used in discussions of race makes me think somebody has a different idea of what constitutes racism than I do. I agree with Obdicut's #68 wholeheartedly.

I don't know why you want to delve deeply into nuance to show that the JBS is not racist. The very sources you give state that "everyone knew this" [that they were racist], and then try to explain, through nuance and strict adherence to ideology, that there was not any racist motivation to the actions which made "everyone know" they were racist.

You've done a lot of work to show what the JBS was, and maybe is, why now do you work to deny what was obvious to contemporary observers?

73 wrenchwench  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 10:19:18am

re: #72 ernie1241

Because I believe in God's 9th Commandment, I cannot agree with your observations.

You didn't get this far on Obdicut's last post. Do you have a respose to this?:

I've never believed, or asserted, or argued that the JBS was the equivalent of the KKK. They did, in their opposition to the CRA, use racist imagery, racist arguments, and exploited racial tension to attempt to defeat it. That they may have been doing so on the basis that the CRA was communist does not in the least obviate that their resistance to it both uses racism and was racist.
74 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 11:02:00am

Since Obdicut does not specify what evidence he is using to establish that the JBS used "racist imagery", "racist arguments" and "exploited racist tension", I cannot respond appropriately.

However, what I am arguing is the general principle which Obdicut does not accept --- that honorable, decent, moral individuals may vigorously oppose legislation which is proposed to address recognized social problems -- but their opposition does not arise from any animosity or bigotry toward anybody.

Obdicut uses a straw man argument when he dismisses the idea that "the JBS was the equivalent of the KKK". That is not the issue. The issue is this: what are the acceptable boundaries for opposition to legislative proposals?

As I previously mentioned, historically even Barry Goldwater was denounced as a racist. The persons making that argument used criteria which they thought justifies such a horrific accusation.

I think we should address specifics of whatever is proposed -- and stop poisonous vituperation about the alleged motives of critics or opponents.

The one exception I make is when there is considerable high-quality verifiable factual evidence to establish that a person or organization uniformly opposes everything which seeks to empower a racial or religious minority or they philosophically oppose all measures designed to address government coercion/oppression/discrimination.

As I stated previously, one has to understand WHY people like Goldwater opposed the CRA. It was NOT because of any animus toward minorities. Goldwater explicitly recognized the problems which African-Americans faced in our southern communities. He did not endorse or defend segregationist logic. He supported civil rights legislation which was enacted during the Eisenhower years.

The JBS is more complex to discuss because there were prominent JBS members and officials who WERE pro-segregation. And, regretably, the JBS did not seem to understand the real-world consequences of their hostility toward our civil rights leaders and organizations. But their hostility was not based upon racial factors. It was because the JBS genuinely thought that most of our civil rights leaders and organizations had been compromised and subverted by individuals whose primary loyalty was to the Communist Party USA. Furthermore, the JBS thought those individuals wanted to use our civil rights movement to produce more and more violent incidents, and, ultimately, exploit those incidents to produce a revolution to overthrow our government.

This may seem absurd to you (and me) -- but the average JBS member was steeped in "documentation" which came, in many instances, from FBI informants inside the CPUSA -- who later surfaced and became JBS members or endorsers.

Here is a December 2009 comment by a JBS official which should be considered:


On the Civil Rights movement...Yes, we did end up on the losing side of trying to stop the expansion of federal government control over our lives under that banner. However, The John Birch Society never endorsed segregation. The John Birch Society argued that the federal government should stay within its constitutionally defined restrictions of power. It argued for Jim Crow laws to be repealed at the state level.

Admittedly, that route would likely have taken longer and left the many victims of Jim Crow laws wanting. And yes, we admit that most of the leaders of The John Birch Society not being directly affected by the worst elements of segregation, could more freely choose to stand on the principle that the Federal government, restricted by the U.S. Constitution, had no authority to enact the civil rights laws.

Using the SAME principle regarding Constitutional limits, the JBS opposed our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Should we now, therefore, describe the JBS as pro-Taliban or pro-Al Qaeda?

You didn't get this far on Obdicut's last post. Do you have a respose to this?:

75 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 11:40:49am

re: #74 ernie1241

Since Obdicut does not specify what evidence he is using to establish that the JBS used "racist imagery", "racist arguments" and "exploited racist tension", I cannot respond appropriately.

Well, Bennett says they did, for one. Check out pages 505 and 506, for some quick, easy examples.

That essay of his is rather good reading. Thanks for linking to it.


However, what I am arguing is the general principle which Obdicut does not accept --- that honorable, decent, moral individuals may vigorously oppose legislation which is proposed to address recognized social problems -- but their opposition does not arise from any animosity or bigotry toward anybody.

I fully accept that. I simply think that opposition, even though not stemming from bigotry, can also be racist.

If you support only people with college educations voting for the president, and no black people have college educations, it really doesn't matter if your belief is based staunchly on an honorable belief that only the college-educated can make that decision well; it is also a racist position.

In other words, should one BEGIN a conversation by suggesting it is entirely appropriate to propose questioning the honesty of someone whom you do not even know and, more importantly, someone whom you have never even spent one millisecond in reviewing their background or credentials. Then come back and let us know what that clergyman or ethicist says.

Okay. I asked an ethicist. He said it was fine to question the honesty of anyone, as long as I wasn't presuming dishonesty.

But their hostility was not based upon racial factors. It was because the JBS genuinely thought that most of our civil rights leaders and organizations had been compromised and subverted by individuals whose primary loyalty was to the Communist Party USA. Furthermore, the JBS thought those individuals wanted to use our civil rights movement to produce more and more violent incidents, and, ultimately, exploit those incidents to produce a revolution to overthrow our government.

It's very odd; you seem to be insisting on a nuanced appraisal of the JBS, but ignoring a nuanced idea of racism. Racism doesn't only include being bigoted, but-- as I previously said-- valuing other things above racial equality. In this case, you are asserting, and I agree, that the JBS felt that states rights and the resistance to federal government was more important than racial equality.

76 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 3:16:12pm

Part 1 of 2 replies

Well, Obdicut, I guess you use the words "racist" and "bigotry" differently than I do nor do I think your definitions conform to what those terms mean in normal customary usage.

You declare that opposition can be "racist" without stemming from bigotry. The gold standard of the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary. According to OED:
RACIST = n. An advocate or supporter of racism; a person whose words or actions display racial prejudice or discrimination.

According to the OED, "bigotry" can be defined as "intolerance, prejudice" and my thesaurus indicates that synonyms for bigotry include: bias, racialism, racism.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any actual real-life example of someone who is racist but who is not bigoted. One presupposes the other.

Now---with respect to your reference to pages 505-506 of Brenner's dissertation which you think provides "quick easy examples" of "racist imagery", "racist arguments" and "exploiting racist tension" -- I don't think your "examples" can stand up to more careful analysis.

It is quite common for large organizations to attract weirdos and wackos or "boarding parties" who think they can divert the energies of members to their personal agendas.

For example, the leaders of organizations such as the ACLU, NAACP, Americans For Democratic Action, and SANE explicitly declared that Communists were not welcome in their organizations. Nevertheless, CPUSA members were instructed to join all those groups in the hope that they could insinuate themselves into policy-making positions, or as delegates to annual conventions, or as contributors to each organization's official publications.

So the real question becomes: what does a targeted group do when it discovers such "boarding parties"?

The official position of the Birch Society, as an organization, is presented to all members in the monthly JBS Bulletin written, originally, by Robert Welch. The "examples" you refer to in Brenner's narrative did not represent the official JBS position. As Brenner clearly points out, JBS members who expressed racist or anti-semitic beliefs were summarily removed from the JBS. As Brenner correctly observed on page 506 regarding the comments by Revilo Oliver:

"As that incident demonstrates, while the Americanist Right certainly had racists among its members, it was ready and willing to eject them from Americanist organizations when their racism became too open or too
vicious."

Many organizations (including liberal groups) are willing to overlook obnoxious personal opinions and attitudes so long as they cannot be construed to reflect the organization's position.

On many occasions when a JBS member made some intemperate or bigoted comment -- their membership was terminated. Three more prominent examples include: John Schmitz, Westbrook Pegler, Richard Cotten. In another instance, an entire JBS chapter was disbanded in Meridian MS when a JBS chapter leader refused instructions from the local JBS Coordinator to terminate the membership of local JBS members who were discovered to be KKK members.

77 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 3:23:43pm

re: #76 ernie1241

RACIST = n. An advocate or supporter of racism; a person whose words or actions display racial prejudice or discrimination.

And supporting a racist system because you oppose the expansion of federal power necessary to end it is, in fact, supporting discrimination.


Off the top of my head, I can't think of any actual real-life example of someone who is racist but who is not bigoted. One presupposes the other.

I can. The judicial system in the US is institutionally racist. This doesn't require that any individual inside it actually be bigoted.


Now---with respect to your reference to pages 505-506 of Brenner's dissertation which you think provides "quick easy examples" of "racist imagery", "racist arguments" and "exploiting racist tension" -- I don't think your "examples" can stand up to more careful analysis.

They're not my examples. They're Brenner's examples. And the example he gives on those pages is Welch himself. Have you read Brenner's dissertation?

Your argument is now simply that the JBS would eject people who were too obviously racist. I fully endorse that position.

I'm glad that you were able to refrain for personal attacks and other bizarreness in your last post. Thank you for that.

78 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 3:30:27pm

Part 2 of 2

It is accurate to point out that some very prominent JBS members were officials within the White Citizens Councils movement or other racist groups. However, they were not allowed to use the JBS as an avenue to proselytize for those beliefs.

In 2/66, Donald Gray, (the Birch Society's Wholesale Book Division Business Mgr) sent a memo to all of the JBS's American Opinion bookstores. The purpose of the memo was to identify the type of material that should NOT be sold in, or recommended by, JBS bookstores. Gray described such verboten material as:
"...most of the books and pamphlets with an anti-Semitic flavor which we omit from our booklist (that) are not of sufficient value in substance or scholarship to rise above the level of anti-Semitic invective or propaganda. Frankly, in our opinion, this applies to most of the books or pamphlets by Marilyn Allen, Richard Cotten, Myron Fagan, Kenneth Goff, Wickliffe Vennard, Eustace Mullins, Gerald L.K. Smith, Robert H. Williams, and Benjamin Freedman."

Significantly, several of the listed authors (such as Marilyn Allen, Richard Cotten, Gerald LK Smith and Eustace Mullins) were explicit racists -- not just anti-semites.

With respect to your comment about a "nuanced understanding of racism" -- I think you are conflating two different matters. There is nothing in my argument that requires anybody to euphemize or trivialize the credible factual evidence regarding racists who were JBS members. And, as I have previously written both here in LGF, in other discussion forums, and in my on-line reports about the JBS --- there are many valid reasons for criticizing and rejecting the JBS interpretation of our civil rights movement.

My position, however, is that it is not fair or necessary to attribute to the JBS as an organization, or to its leadership, such vile motives as racism or bigotry (whether "passive" or 'active"). That premise wrongly smears many decent people and the use of such unkind and mean-spirited labels makes intelligent and amicable discussion impossible.

I might also add that I apply the exact same principle to the Birch Society itself. For 40+ years I have condemned their malicious characterizations of everyone who disagrees with them -- whether liberals or conservatives.


re: #75 Obdicut

Well, Bennett says they did, for one. Check out pages 505 and 506, for some quick, easy examples.

That essay of his is rather good reading. Thanks for linking to it.

I fully accept that. I simply think that opposition, even though not stemming from bigotry, can also be racist.

If you support only people with college educations voting for the president, and no black people have college educations, it really doesn't matter if your belief is based staunchly on an honorable belief that only the college-educated can make that decision well; it is also a racist position.

Okay. I asked an ethicist. He said it was fine to question the honesty of anyone, as long as I wasn't presuming dishonesty.

It's very odd; you seem to be insisting on a nuanced appraisal of the JBS, but ignoring a nuanced idea of racism. Racism doesn't only include being bigoted, but-- as I previously said-- valuing other things above racial equality. In this case, you are asserting, and I agree, that the JBS felt that states rights and the resistance to federal government was more important than racial equality.

79 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 3:36:29pm

re: #78 ernie1241

My position, however, is that it is not fair or necessary to attribute to the JBS as an organization, or to its leadership, such vile motives as racism or bigotry (whether "passive" or 'active"). That premise wrongly smears many decent people and the use of such unkind and mean-spirited labels makes intelligent and amicable discussion impossible.

I don't mean those labels in any sort of unkind or mean-spirited way. You can call them a product of their times, if you want.

I mean, in the example you give above, they won't allow antisemitic texts unless they're of great scholarly value. That means, explicitly, that they will allow antisemitic texts.

I might also add that I apply the exact same principle to the Birch Society itself. For 40+ years I have condemned their malicious characterizations of everyone who disagrees with them -- whether liberals or conservatives.

I think that perhaps your zeal has rather blinded you to reality, in my case. You've launched a number of really vicious personal attacks on me, told me I ought to be ashamed of myself, while hollering all the time that you're attempting to preserve civil debate.

You have a very, very odd way of attempting to preserve civil debate.

80 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 4:02:34pm

Obdicut---everybody has principles and values which inform their beliefs and affect their behavior.

You want us to ascribe intent (i.e. what is in one's brain and heart) based upon whether or not behavior conforms to your your personal political preferences.

You propose that we must accept your principles and values as the only valid template for what is right and decent.

If everything in life was as self-evident as you seem to think -- then we would have no need for courts, judges, or juries. Instead, we could just consult the Obdicut Book of Ultimate Final Truth No deviations would be permitted. No alternatives would be considered valid or even considered moral options. All decisions would have to be made according to your desires.

The JBS (and many conservatives who despised the JBS) were opposed to the CRA not just because of what they thought were unConstitutional federal usurpations. They also worried that the civil rights movement was being subverted and used by radicals with a long history of involvement in Communist enterprises. Nor was this opposition limited to perceptions about "communists". There was also the radicalism and violence associated with the Nation of Islam, the Black Panther Party, and other black nationalist groups.

I don't know how old you are --- but those of us who lived during the 1960's experienced a period of immense social upheaval -- often accompanied by horrific acts of violence: the assassination of President Kennedy, the murders of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., and the attempted murder of George Wallace. In addition, there were DOZENS of riots in our major cities and numerous race-related bombings, arsons, etc.

One has to be familiar with the context of what was happening daily during that time before making judgments about how people reacted.

With respect to Brenner: of course I have read his dissertation. I have a copy 10 feet from me right now. Merely repeating that you are using Brenner's examples does not address the points I made.

Again, for clarity, the JBS, as an organization, did not subscribe to racist ideology or recommend racist publications. It did not recommend or endorse mistreatment of minorities; it did not use bigoted language when referring to minorities; it did not advocate disadvantaging entire categories of Americans just because of their racial background; it did not condone or excuse violence, intimidation, or harassment and it did not solicit members from racist organizations.

As I previously mentioned, it was a JBS member (Rev. Delmar Dennis) who infiltrated the most violent Klan in our country -- and who testified against numerous Klan members. Rev. Dennis was largely responsible for the convictions of real "bigots" and "racists" in Mississippi and he then was hired by the JBS as a paid speaker to report on his experiences. Significantly, he was ostracized in his community to the point where he could not find employment; his life was threatened; his wife divorced him; and he eventually had to move out of Mississippi. It is EASY and RISK-FREE for you to condemn the JBS for being "racist" -- while ignoring the sacrifices of someone like Dennis.


re: #77 Obdicut

And supporting a racist system because you oppose the expansion of federal power necessary to end it is, in fact, supporting discrimination.

I can. The judicial system in the US is institutionally racist. This doesn't require that any individual inside it actually be bigoted.

They're not my examples. They're Brenner's examples. And the example he gives on those pages is Welch himself. Have you read Brenner's dissertation?

Your argument is now simply that the JBS would eject people who were too obviously racist. I fully endorse that position.

I'm glad that you were able to refrain for personal attacks and other bizarreness in your last post. Thank you for that.

81 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 4:09:11pm

re: #80 ernie1241

You propose that we must accept your principles and values as the only valid template for what is right and decent.

No, I don't. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Where on earth do you pull that from?

Again, for clarity, the JBS, as an organization, did not subscribe to racist ideology or recommend racist publications.

You quoted them saying that they wouldn't recommend anti-semitic texts unless they were of sufficient scholarly value; therefore, they were fine with recommending racist publications, as long as they were of 'scholarly' value.

82 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 4:10:52pm

There you go again! The JBS did not allow antisemitic texts -- period -- because they had no scholarly value!

I suggest that you consult the writings of ACTUAL anti-semites who denounced the JBS as a worthless organization. They claimed the JBS was designed to neutralize genuine anti-communists. For example: Elizabeth Dilling, Lyrl Clark Van Hyning, Eustace Mullins, Helen Peters, William Pierce, George Lincoln Rockwell.

Incidentally, the only official investigation ever to be conducted into the JBS (a 2-year enterprise by the California Senate Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities) rejected your premise that the JBS was either racist or antisemitic. Significantly, that Subcommittee was populated and controlled by Democrats who were hostile toward the JBS.

With respect to your last comment about "civil debate": If you sincerely want a different reaction to what you write -- then change your behavior. Just present your best case without attributing vile motives to persons you disagree with.

re: #79 Obdicut

I don't mean those labels in any sort of unkind or mean-spirited way. You can call them a product of their times, if you want.

I mean, in the example you give above, they won't allow antisemitic texts unless they're of great scholarly value. That means, explicitly, that they will allow antisemitic texts.

I think that perhaps your zeal has rather blinded you to reality, in my case. You've launched a number of really vicious personal attacks on me, told me I ought to be ashamed of myself, while hollering all the time that you're attempting to preserve civil debate.

You have a very, very odd way of attempting to preserve civil debate.

83 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 4:17:38pm

re: #82 ernie1241

I'm sorry, but your quote really does say the following:

most of the books and pamphlets with an anti-Semitic flavor which we omit from our booklist (that) are not of sufficient value in substance or scholarship to rise above the level of anti-Semitic invective or propaganda.

Does most mean all to you for some reason?

How do you read that sentence as not saying that if a book is antsemitic flavor but has sufficient value or substance to rise above the level of invective, it would be allowed?


With respect to your last comment about "civil debate": If you sincerely want a different reaction to what you write -- then change your behavior. Just present your best case without attributing vile motives to persons you disagree with.

What vile motives have I ascribed to whom?

84 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 4:26:30pm

I "pull it from" your own words.

You insist, for example, that we accept your notion that our judicial system is inherently racist.

You insist that we accept your position that:
"And supporting a racist system because you oppose the expansion of federal power necessary to end it is, in fact, supporting discrimination."

It nevers occurs to you (apparently) that one can oppose the expansion of federal power as a matter of Constitutional principle concerning federal-state relations WITHOUT "supporting a racist system".

For example:

1. I want every person accused of murder or rape to have a competent lawyer. Does that mean I "support" murderers and rapists?
2. I want the prosecution to make available to defense counsel any exculpatory evidence. Does that mean I "support" murderers and rapists?
3. If a defendant is released because of prosecutorial misconduct such as not making exculpatory evidence available to defense counsel -- and I agree with the court's decision, does that mean I "support" murderers and rapists because I want the principles of justice as enumerated in our Constitution and laws ---- to be obeyed --- EVEN WHEN it is inconvenient to do so and may even allow a person guilty of terrible crimes to go free?

re: #81 Obdicut

No, I don't. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Where on earth do you pull that from?

You quoted them saying that they wouldn't recommend anti-semitic texts unless they were of sufficient scholarly value; therefore, they were fine with recommending racist publications, as long as they were of 'scholarly' value.

85 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 4:36:57pm

Part 1 of 2

As is your custom, you are misinterpreting the excerpt I provided because of your extreme animus toward the JBS i.e. you always present the worst possible option as the most reasonable and fair interpretation.

I will copy below more of the Gray memorandum so you can understand what was meant by the word "most" (not your mean-spirited assumption). In addition, I will copy, in part 2 of this message, a memo written by Robert Welch which accompanied the memo sent to bookstores by Donald Gray:

“To all Bookstore Units: As you may know, the ADL, at its annual meeting about two weeks ago, issued a booklet attacking the JBS. We have not yet been able to obtain this booklet…But we do have a photostatic copy of the 3 ½ pages out of 36 which deal with ‘The John Birch Society and Anti-Semitism’. And one part of this section strains very hard to find something with an anti-Semitic taint being sold somewhere by any of the 350 bookstore units to which we give wholesale service.

As Mr. Welch has repeatedly made clear, we are not ‘book burners’. And ADL has no more chance of making us ‘book burners’ than it does of making us anti-semitic by its unjust charges of ‘anti-Semitism’. We carry advertising in American Opinion of many books with which we disagree in whole or in part. And if we offered for sale only those books containing nothing which we consider erroneous or objectionable, we would soon be down to having our selection committee as our only customers.

Also, each of these bookstore units is individually owned and managed by members of their respective committees, who may or may not be members of the JBS. So we neither have nor want any positive control over your purchases from other suppliers. We can only offer suggestions including those that are automatically made by the booklist (and omissions from that booklist) of the items which we ourselves carry in stock for your convenience. But we do have a recommendation at this point that we emulate Caesar’s wife by not only being virtuous, but by considering the appearance of virtue as also important.

Many of your customers and ours, are serious students. The line we try to draw with regard to any book in this field, therefore, is whether or not it is of sufficient historical, substantive, or informational importance, to justify our carrying it in stock despite the kind of criticism that might be voiced by the ADL. While we have never put the most violently anti-Semitic book written, Karl Marx’s World Without Jews, on our booklist, therefore, we do not carry it in stock, it would be as absurd for you or for us to refuse to obtain it for a customer as it would for us to refuse to supply Marx’s Communist Manifesto or Das Capital under the same circumstances simply because we disagree so emphatically with both.

On the other hand, most of the books and pamphlets with an anti-Semitic flavor which we omit from our booklist (that) are not of sufficient value in substance or scholarship to rise above the level of anti-Semitic invective or propaganda. Frankly, in our opinion, this applies to most of the books or pamphlets by Marilyn Allen, Richard Cotten, Myron Fagan, Kenneth Goff, Wickliffe Vennard, Eustace Mullins, Gerald L.K. Smith, Robert H. Williams, and Benjamin Freedman. For this reason you will not find anything by these writers among the hundreds of entries in our new booklist which you have just received. And to whatever extent you are willing to abide by our suggestions, we recommend that you too keep all such items out of your stock and your sales.”

86 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 4:38:37pm

Part 2 of 2

WELCH MEMO:

“Thanks for the copy of your notice to the bookstores. I agree and approve. Let me merely add two or three brief comments.

First, I consider the distribution of any material which can fairly and honestly be called anti-Semitic as not only unwise for any affiliate of the John Birch Society, but as basically immoral.

Second, in my opinion, as apparently in yours, one purpose of the ADL in publishing this recent booklet is to try to make us and our members actually anti-semitic. The whole booklet, which I have now seen, shows that they are out to try to destroy The John Birch Society at any cost, and practically by any means. And they would certainly consider driving us into anti-Semitic feelings as one way of doing so. Let’s make sure that they have no slightest success in this endeavor.

We are a voluntary association of individuals, we believe that not only every individual should stand on his own feet, but that he should be judged entirely as an individual, regardless of race, color, or creed. Several hundred of our most faithful and dedicated members, including many of our best Chapter leaders, and also many of our ablest anti-Communist editors, writers, and speakers, are Jewish.

Their number is growing. And almost without exception these courageous members will stand up for us and with us against the attacks of the ADL. So let’s always keep in mind, as of the utmost importance, that neither the Jews in general nor any individual Jew in particular should be blamed for what the ADL does, any more than a Christian should be blamed for what the National Council of Churches does, or a Negro for what is done by the NAACP. I suggest that you add this codicil to your memorandum. Robert Welch.”

re: #85 ernie1241

87 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 4:52:14pm

In response to your last question --- apparently you are not reading your own messages. You continue to insist that the JBS is a "racist" organization because its beliefs do not conform to yours. Furthermore, you do not even recognize the hypothetical possibility that somebody can oppose federal civil rights legislation WITHOUT, ipso facto, "supporting" racism or discrimination.

In short, there are no legitimate alternative competing beliefs or public policy positions on these matters if they do not conform to your personal political preferences. If somebody opposes something you favor, then their motives are suspect --- AND -- if somebody writes a book, article, or dissertation which disputes something you believe --- THEN we should immediately consider whether that author might be DISHONEST!

re: #83 Obdicut

I'm sorry, but your quote really does say the following:

Does most mean all to you for some reason?

How do you read that sentence as not saying that if a book is antsemitic flavor but has sufficient value or substance to rise above the level of invective, it would be allowed?

What vile motives have I ascribed to whom?

88 Gus  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 6:11:34pm

re: #20 Gus 802

Let us continue on Rep. Francis E. Walter.

Stefan Kühl’s Examination of Pioneer Fund Tactics
Chapter 1: The “New” Scientific Racism

The Pioneer Fund, as historian Barry Mehler has demonstrated, has a dismal record on civil rights issues. In the post–World War II period, certain recipients of the Pioneer Fund aligned themselves with the American Right in fighting against the Supreme Court ruling that declared segregated schooling unconstitutional. Draper, who until the 1960s served as both the main benefactor and the most influential figure in the Pioneer Fund, also worked with the United States House Un-American Activities Committee to demonstrate that blacks were genetically inferior and ought to be "repatriated" to Africa. Francis E. Walter, the director of the Pioneer Fund in the 1950s and 1960s, chaired the same committee. In the 1970s, the Pioneer Fund granted $40,000 to Ralph Scott, professor of educational psychology at the University of Northern Iowa, for his investigation of "forced busing and its relationship to genetic aspects of educability." Scott also used the funds to organize antibusing conferences.

Reposted.

89 Gus  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 6:12:16pm

re: #19 Gus 802

From Hollywood's Blacklists: A Political and Cultural History by Reynold Humphries:

Lest people believe such ravings were limited to racist Southern Democrats, let us turn to Rep. Francis Walter, chairman of HUAC from 1955. A Democrat representing Pennsylvania, he co-authored with another reactionary Democrat, Senator Pat McCarran of Nevada, an Immigration Act designed to maintain "traditional racial balance." When there were protests, Walter dismissed them as "professional Jews shedding crocodile tears for no reason whatsoever."

Reposted.

90 Gus  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 6:12:45pm

re: #21 Gus 802

From Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review

The perception that Jewish concerns were an important feature of the opposition to the McCarran- Walter act can also be seen in the following exchange between Representative Celler and Representative Walter. Celler noted that "The national origin theory upon which our immigration law is based . . . [mocks] our protestations based on a question of equality of opportunity for all peoples, regardless of race, color, or creed." Representative Walter replied that "a great menace to America lies in the fact that so many professionals, including professional Jews, are shedding crocodile tears for no reason whatsoever" (Cong. Rec. Jan. 13, 1953, p. 372). And in a comment referring to the peculiarities of Jewish interests in immigration legislation, Richard Arens, Staff Director of the Senate subcommittee that produced the McCarran-Walter act, pointedly noted that "one of the curious things about those who most loudly claim that the 1952 act is 'discriminatory' and that it does not make allowance for a sufficient number of alleged refugees, is that they oppose admission of any of the approximately one million Arab refugees in camps where they are living in pitiful circumstances after having been driven out of Israel" (in Bennett, 1963, p. 181).

Reposted.

91 Gus  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 6:15:56pm

re: #29 ernie1241

I am not aware that Walter was "a director" of the Pioneer Fund. However, the excerpt you quoted below is suspect because HUAC did not produce any documents whose intent or theme was "to demonstrate that blacks were genetically inferior and ought to be irepatriated' to Africa."

However, in 1954, HUAC did produce a report entitled Preliminary Report on Neo-Fascist and Hate Groups (link below) which excoriated individuals, organizations, and publications which DID believe "that blacks were genetically inferior and ought to be repatriated' to Africa."

HUAC REPORT ON NEO-FASCIST AND HATE GROUPS

My posts were not in reference to the HUAC.

92 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 6:32:43pm

re: #84 ernie1241

I "pull it from" your own words.

You insist, for example, that we accept your notion that our judicial system is inherently racist.

No, I don't. I asserted it. I'm not insisting that you accept it. That's where you start sliding into being a crazy person, when you say I'm 'insisting' that 'we accept your notion', because I'm saying that it's true.

I'm sorry, you have a lot of interesting information and you've done a lot of interesting research, but I can't even pretend to respect the level of nuttiness you're at. To scream that I'm 'insisting' that you accept something because I assert it is beyond the pale of reason.

You accuse me of 'extreme animus' towards the JBL based on my saying that they are racist in a way that's consistent with the mainstream during that time period.

You do not behave in a rational manner, and I have no further desire to talk to you.

I suggest you reread the excellent dissertation of Mr. Brenner, paying particular attention to the way that he highlights the JBS using racial animus and racial tension to promote their agenda.

93 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 6:40:31pm

I was responding to the section you quoted that said:

"...the Pioneer Fund, also worked with the United States House Un-American Activities Committee to demonstrate that blacks were genetically inferior and ought to be "repatriated" to Africa."

Instead of asserting that the Pioneer fund "worked with" HUAC for the purposes stated, it would be much more compelling to QUOTE something which HUAC supposedly published that sought to "demonstrate that blacks were genetically inferior" etc.

Primary sources are almost always more compelling references than secondary sources.


re: #91 Gus 802

My posts were not in reference to the HUAC.

94 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 6:57:30pm

Your "assertion" is the predicate which you ask us to believe and that unproven predicate is then used to shape the discussion. It is not "crazy" to intuit the obvious meaning, logic, and pattern of your thoughts.

If you do not require that we accept your "assertion" -- then what are we arguing about? I note, for the record, that you don't preface your comments with something like "in my opinion", or "based upon what I know" etc. etc. Instead, you make bold declarations and use innuendo to suggest that persons with different understandings are somehow suspect.

Again -- for example: It is entirely reasonable for someone to ask questions such as:

1. WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL POWER?
2. WHAT DOES OUR CONSTITUTION PERMIT AND FORBID?
3. HOW DOES #1 and #2 IMPACT PROPOSED CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION?

Then, after those questions are answered, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that a particular public policy proposal VIOLATES the principles and values inherent in our Constitution -- EVEN IF the proposal is otherwise a commendable good-faith effort to focus our attention on some problem which everyone agrees needs to be addressed.

However, it is NOT reasonable or fair-minded to state (as you have done) that certain public policy ideas or philosophical positions regarding federal-state relations should be considered illegitimate simply because they call for a recognition of limits to federal power.

Put another way: in a free society, we explicitly recognize that there are always legitimate, honorable, competing, alternative ideas for addressing our public policy controversies. We do not subscribe to authoritarian or totalitarian mindsets which declare that there is always ONLY ONE correct interpretation of whatever problem we confront and always ONLY ONE correct policy option to choose. Furthermore, we do not subscribe to the idea that critics and opponents are, by definition, dishonorable or motivated by malice -- simply because they have a different understanding of our Constitution, our laws, or our history.

You may think this not a "rational" distinction to make. So be it.

re: #92 Obdicut

No, I don't. I asserted it. I'm not insisting that you accept it. That's where you start sliding into being a crazy person, when you say I'm 'insisting' that 'we accept your notion', because I'm saying that it's true.

I'm sorry, you have a lot of interesting information and you've done a lot of interesting research, but I can't even pretend to respect the level of nuttiness you're at. To scream that I'm 'insisting' that you accept something because I assert it is beyond the pale of reason.

You accuse me of 'extreme animus' towards the JBL based on my saying that they are racist in a way that's consistent with the mainstream during that time period.

You do not behave in a rational manner, and I have no further desire to talk to you.

I suggest you reread the excellent dissertation of Mr. Brenner, paying particular attention to the way that he highlights the JBS using racial animus and racial tension to promote their agenda.

95 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 7:04:21pm

re: #94 ernie1241

Your "assertion" is the predicate which you ask us to believe and that unproven predicate is then used to shape the discussion. It is not "crazy" to intuit the obvious meaning, logic, and pattern of your thoughts.

If you do not require that we accept your "assertion" -- then what are we arguing about? I note, for the record, that you don't preface your comments with something like "in my opinion", or "based upon what I know" etc. etc. Instead, you make bold declarations and use innuendo to suggest that persons with different understandings are somehow suspect.

Again -- for example: It is entirely reasonable for someone to ask questions such as:

1. WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL POWER?
2. WHAT DOES OUR CONSTITUTION PERMIT AND FORBID?
3. HOW DOES #1 and #2 IMPACT PROPOSED CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION?

Then, after those questions are answered, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that a particular public policy proposal VIOLATES the principles and values inherent in our Constitution -- EVEN IF the proposal is otherwise a commendable good-faith effort to focus our attention on some problem which everyone agrees needs to be addressed.

However, it is NOT reasonable or fair-minded to state (as you have done) that certain public policy ideas or philosophical positions regarding federal-state relations should be considered illegitimate simply because they call for a recognition of limits to federal power.

Put another way: in a free society, we explicitly recognize that there are always legitimate, honorable, competing, alternative ideas for addressing our public policy controversies. We do not subscribe to authoritarian or totalitarian mindsets which declare that there is always ONLY ONE correct interpretation of whatever problem we confront and always ONLY ONE correct policy option to choose. Furthermore, we do not subscribe to the idea that critics and opponents are, by definition, dishonorable or motivated by malice -- simply because they have a different understanding of our Constitution, our laws, or our history.

You may think this not a "rational" distinction to make. So be it.

National Review has run two good articles on the points I bolded, and those found that the Civil Rights acts were with the Constitution's limits. Given the grip that segregation had on the South, only laws that uprooted it entirely could even begin to right its wrongs.

As for the paragraph I italicized ; Obdicut did not say any such thing and to say he did is prevarication.

96 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 7:24:57pm

As a further observation regarding your comments below, please note your attempt to parse words again. You ask us to believe that making an assertion is somehow different than insisting one accept your predicate.

Well, first, "assertion" is defined as follows: "a definite statement or claim that something is true."

So, when you make "assertions" such as:

(1) And supporting a racist system because you oppose the expansion of federal power necessary to end it is, in fact, supporting discrimination. or

(2) The judicial system in the US is institutionally racist. This doesn't require that any individual inside it actually be bigoted.

...one naturally has to ask the obvious question: what possibility is there for any kind of principled discussion if you "assert" something as factually true even though the predicate is not proven?

In the context of your two quotations above:

(a) According to you, if somebody opposes expansion of federal power, i.e. they believe in the constraints mandated by our Constitution (which precludes or limits federal intervention in some matters) ---- then, according to your predicate, that person is "supporting a racist system". In other words, you attribute moral depravity to a person simply because they accept the limitations imposed on government activism by our Constitution. I guess your approach might be described as "outcome-based". Existing rules and processes are irrelevant; only the desired outcome should be considered. If the desired outcome is thwarted by application of established legal principles, and existing law and precedents --- then the persons who observe those principles and laws are morally depraved.

(b) If a person declares that the judicial system in our country is not institutionally racist --- then, presumably, they, too, are morally depraved because they function as enablers of that "racist" system.

What you describe as "nuttiness" on my part -- is simply the natural counter-reaction to your bizarre viewpoints. Competing or alternative interpretations which don't conform to your preferences are not, by definition, illegitimate just because you attach pejorative adjectives to them.

re: #92 Obdicut

No, I don't. I asserted it. I'm not insisting that you accept it. That's where you start sliding into being a crazy person, when you say I'm 'insisting' that 'we accept your notion', because I'm saying that it's true.

I'm sorry, you have a lot of interesting information and you've done a lot of interesting research, but I can't even pretend to respect the level of nuttiness you're at. To scream that I'm 'insisting' that you accept something because I assert it is beyond the pale of reason.

You accuse me of 'extreme animus' towards the JBL based on my saying that they are racist in a way that's consistent with the mainstream during that time period.

You do not behave in a rational manner, and I have no further desire to talk to you.

I suggest you reread the excellent dissertation of Mr. Brenner, paying particular attention to the way that he highlights the JBS using racial animus and racial tension to promote their agenda.

97 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 7:46:02pm

Dark Falcon:

National Review agreed with the Goldwater position during the entire period we have been discussing. So did every other mainstream conservative publication.

With respect to the portion of my comment which you italicized --- you should revisit Obdicut's predicate that "supporting a racist system because you oppose the expansion of federal power necessary to end it is, in fact, supporting discrimination."

As I stated previously, it does not follow that one "supports" a racist system just from insisting that we observe fundamental precepts of our Constitution -- even when doing so might appear (to some people) to perpetuate some injustice.

Let's bring this up-to-date in another context: As you probably know, the Attorneys General of Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Virginia, Colorado and Louisiana are currently suing the federal government over the health care legislation passed by this Congress. Ultimately, 28 or more states may join this lawsuit.

One of the main issues of contention is whether or not the Federal Government has the authority to compel private citizens to purchase something they don't want. Specifically, that the individual mandate requiring people to have healthcare insurance exceeds the Federal Government's Constitutional authority, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate interstate commerce.

Now---if I adopted Obdicut's logic, I could argue that anyone who sided with the federal government's position is "supporting" tyranny. In other words, instead of recognizing that there is a LEGITIMATE Constitutional issue which needs to be addressed -- I could simply boldly declare a conclusion (what Obdicut calls an "assertion") which rules out the possibility of a legitimate debate over a complex issue which honorable men and women can disagree about --- WITHOUT having their patriotism, morals, intelligence, values, or commitment to our way of life questioned.


re: #95 Dark_Falcon

National Review has run two good articles on the points I bolded, and those found that the Civil Rights acts were with the Constitution's limits. Given the grip that segregation had on the South, only laws that uprooted it entirely could even begin to right its wrongs.

As for the paragraph I italicized ; Obdicut did not say any such thing and to say he did is prevarication.

98 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 7:55:09pm

re: #97 ernie1241

Dark Falcon:

National Review agreed with the Goldwater position during the entire period we have been discussing. So did every other mainstream conservative publication.

With respect to the portion of my comment which you italicized --- you should revisit Obdicut's predicate that "supporting a racist system because you oppose the expansion of federal power necessary to end it is, in fact, supporting discrimination."

As I stated previously, it does not follow that one "supports" a racist system just from insisting that we observe fundamental precepts of our Constitution -- even when doing so might appear (to some people) to perpetuate some injustice.

Let's bring this up-to-date in another context: As you probably know, the Attorneys General of Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Virginia, Colorado and Louisiana are currently suing the federal government over the health care legislation passed by this Congress. Ultimately, 28 or more states may join this lawsuit.

One of the main issues of contention is whether or not the Federal Government has the authority to compel private citizens to purchase something they don't want. Specifically, that the individual mandate requiring people to have healthcare insurance exceeds the Federal Government's Constitutional authority, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate interstate commerce.

Now---if I adopted Obdicut's logic, I could argue that anyone who sided with the federal government's position is "supporting" tyranny. In other words, instead of recognizing that there is a LEGITIMATE Constitutional issue which needs to be addressed -- I could simply boldly declare a conclusion (what Obdicut calls an "assertion") which rules out the possibility of a legitimate debate over a complex issue which honorable men and women can disagree about --- WITHOUT having their patriotism, morals, intelligence, values, or commitment to our way of life questioned.

National Review took the position you state then, but it has since recanted and taken a better one. And the fact remains that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Right's Act of 1965 can be justified by the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. The Civil Rights Acts were enacted per the Congress's power to enforce those amendments via appropriate legislation.

99 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 8:12:22pm

re: #97 ernie1241

There is no "legitimate" beef with the constitution over the Civil Rights act of 1964 as determined by precedent in the supreme court. Your analogy is specious. You are also too full of your own shit to see that, so I am not going to bother explaining to you that the body that determines what is constitutional already has done so in a way that destroys your silly arguments completely.

So I am not going to even bother.

Anyone who has issues with Civil Rights is a disgusting abomination to our nation. Anyone who likes HUAC or defends them at all is against the very fabric of free speech in this nation. Anyone who thinks that JBS was not a racist organization (among many at the time) that spewed the most insane conspiracy theories is a nut.

You know, I really don't have the patience to deal with or quibble with Paulbots.

So I will just say it. Fuck off Paul Bot.

100 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 8:20:42pm

Dark Falcon:

Yes--but the debate between Obdicut and myself is in regards to what transpired during the 1960's. His observations about what is or is not racist must be interpreted in the context of what conservatives believed at that time.

My point continues to be that there is no reason to impute racism or support for discrimination to persons who opposed the CRA during that time --- simply because they approached the matter (like Goldwater) from a different perspective regarding the limits of federal powers.

You may recall in the movie "A Man For All Seasons", the great English lawyer, philosopher, and Renaissance humanist, Sir Thomas More, (played by Paul Scofield) chastises his young future son-in-law (William Roper) because the son-in-law had views comparable to those expressed by Obdicut, i.e. Roper was more concerned with outcomes than principles of law or Constitutional restraints.

Here is the relevant exchange -- which I think also pertains to our current discussion because Obdicut perceives evil villains (not honorable opponents) who must be vanquished:

TM = Thomas More
WR = William Roper

WR: Now you give the Devil benefit of law!
TM: Yes, what would you do? Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil?
WR: Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
TM: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you...
...where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted with laws from coast to coast...Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then?

WR: Yes.
TM: I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.

re: #98 Dark_Falcon

101 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 8:23:31pm

You may believe that no legitimate constitutional issue existed with respect to the CRA -- but that certainly was not the prevailing belief at the time. With respect to your vulgarities -- they reveal more about you than me. Incidentally, I do not like or defend HUAC. Apparently, you are so hostile you don't even care what I actually believe.

re: #99 LudwigVanQuixote

There is no "legitimate" beef with the constitution over the Civil Rights act of 1964 as determined by precedent in the supreme court. Your analogy is specious. You are also too full of your own shit to see that, so I am not going to bother explaining to you that the body that determines what is constitutional already has done so in a way that destroys your silly arguments completely.

So I am not going to even bother.

Anyone who has issues with Civil Rights is a disgusting abomination to our nation. Anyone who likes HUAC or defends them at all is against the very fabric of free speech in this nation. Anyone who thinks that JBS was not a racist organization (among many at the time) that spewed the most insane conspiracy theories is a nut.

You know, I really don't have the patience to deal with or quibble with Paulbots.

So I will just say it. Fuck off Paul Bot.

102 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 8:31:21pm

re: #100 ernie1241

As it happens, A Man For All Seasons is my father's favorite movie. But I do not think it applies here, since in my mind the Civil Right's acts in question were entirely constitutional. The nation's fundamental law was reinforced and upheld, not violated.

103 ernie1241  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 8:52:48pm

It is also one of my favorite movies.

But you misunderstand why I quoted that excerpt. It speaks to the matter of how all of us may want to use law to address wrongs in our society --- and how we all may become more interested in outcomes than the rules or principles which may be violated to produce the desired outcome.

Segregation and racism were and are evil. No decent American should defend such practices.

But the issue in the 1960's (as today with respect to the health care lawsuit I mentioned) is what limits should apply to federal intervention into state affairs or individual behavior. Do we want our federal government to intercede in everything which is perceived as injustice? Or do we think that remedies should originate with the governmental entities closest to the people -- i.e. our state legislatures. Who should have the primary jurisdiction? The feds or the states? Do we want to create a national police as exists in many countries? Or do we want local law enforcement to be the primary agency to enforce our laws?

Perhaps most important of all: Are we willing to exceed the powers granted by the U.S. Constitution to the Federal Government --- if we can rationalize it because of our outrage over specific events?


re: #102 Dark_Falcon

As it happens, A Man For All Seasons is my father's favorite movie. But I do not think it applies here, since in my mind the Civil Right's acts in question were entirely constitutional. The nation's fundamental law was reinforced and upheld, not violated.

104 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 8:59:40pm

re: #103 ernie1241

It's worthy question, but not one the JBS ever really raised, instead spending itself with overheated attacks. Save those questions and ask them on issues where you feel there might be such a tension in play.

105 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Nov 17, 2010 11:36:09pm

ernie1241 - interesting discussion.

Let me pose a question to you as a spinoff of the discussion above.

Imagine a black cop who has just risked his life to arrest an armed burglar that was attempting to rob a store. After the thief is arrested and taken away, the cop goes back into the store to talk to the proprietor to get information for his report, and while there, the cop picks up a coke to purchase. When you he goes to the register to pay, the proprietor refuses to sell the coke to the cop, and points to a sign:

If you're not white, we won't serve you in this store.

OK. I've never had a conversation with Rand Paul, and I can't say for sure whether he thinks that black people are inferior to white people. I have no idea whether, when he sees a black person, he assumes that they are less intelligent or capable than he. Paul certainly says that he abhors discrimination. But he does believe that the store owner in the example above has a right to discriminate against the black cop, and he will fight in Congress to overturn laws that prevent such discrimination.

Do you contend that in supporting the right of that store owner to discriminate - indeed, fighting to remove the laws that prevent the store owner from discriminating, Rand Paul is not supporting discrimination?

Don't you think that it is incumbent for Paul - as someone elected to represent citizens of all races - to understand that the context I described his highly offensive to members of a race who suffered such discrimination on the basis of their skin color (let alone anyone else who finds such discrimination deplorable)? Do you really argue that concerns about the "legislative overreach" of codifying laws that prevent that store-owner from discriminating trump the injustice of that cop being refused service?

106 sizzleRI  Thu, Nov 18, 2010 8:45:22am

re: #100 ernie1241

Great movie, great quote. In fact my law school orientation involved being shown many clips, including that one, from A Man For All Seasons. Its what happens if one chooses a Catholic law school, Sir Thomas Moore is a saint here. So I am fairly horrified that you are using this quote in a thread where you are defending the 1960's objection to the CRA. Objecting to the CRA in the 1960's is actually more morally horrifying to me than objecting now. In 2010 I think it is very difficult for people of my generation (I was born in 1983) to imagine a world in which African-Americans were routinely excluded. Some of us are blind to that pervasiveness of segregation and we think that would not happen today even without anti-discrimination laws. That our countrymen have moved past that. But we only think that Because of the effects of the CRA. How morally abhorrent to be living during the 1960's and actually observe the evils of segregation and try to defend the practice on dubious Federalism grounds. And I do mean dubious because people like you seem to always leave out mention of Article VI.

Go read Article VI. Then read it again. Then maybe read some of the Supreme Court's (you know, the people tasked with interpreting the Constitution) writings on the Supremacy Clause. Just because the JBS and other 10thers don't like it doesn't mean it is not there.

107 ernie1241  Thu, Nov 18, 2010 8:47:10am

I'm not sure what you mean by your statement that the JBS never raised those questions. It constantly raised them.

However, I agree that most JBS members were convinced that gradual incremental change (at the local level) was the best answer to our civil rights problems. Government compulsion/coercion was anathema to Birchers and to most conservatives because of the first-principles they operated under (plus their understanding of history). Obviously, they could propose such a "remedy" because they never experienced the depredations which African-Americans experienced on a daily basis.

Finally, just for clarity, the reason I am extremely reluctant to characterize Birchers in the manner favored by Obdicut is because, for more than 40 years, I have debated Birchers. It is difficult to attribute nasty motives to people you actually know and respect as intelligent, decent, moral people (even if you totally disagree with them).

In the past, I have written that the JBS position amounted to them functioning as "enablers" of racism. Regretably, Birchers could not transcend their ideology (and their fears about communism) to recognize the consequences to actual human brings which their ideas trivialized.

Perhaps a major reason for my reluctance to describe Birchers individually, or the JBS as an organization, as "racist" --- stems from my revulsion at how Birchers routinely libeled people whom, at some point in their lifetime, may have been linked to something vaguely radical or suspect.

So, for example, if someone signed a petition which, it turns out, originated with a Communist front organization --- then, ipso facto, that became (to Birchers) "evidence" of that person being a "Comsymp" or dupe or worse. And if someone adopted a viewpoint or policy position that seemed to coincide with the Communist Party position on that same issue --- then Birchers conflated the two and made it seem that the person had Communist sympathies or was being "manipulated" by subversives.

Just as many Birchers used defective logic to wrongly characterize our civil rights leaders and organizations -- I don't intend to adopt their defective logic (or warped values) and describe them as "racists" -- when I know most of them sincerely believed that they were serving their country's interests best by opposing what they thought was Constitutionally-defective legislation -- while, simultaneously, opposing what they considered radicals who populated the civil rights movement.

re: #104 Dark_Falcon

It's worthy question, but not one the JBS ever really raised, instead spending itself with overheated attacks. Save those questions and ask them on issues where you feel there might be such a tension in play.

108 ernie1241  Thu, Nov 18, 2010 8:53:57am

You are totally wrong. I am not "defending" anybody. I am attempting to explain their position. There is a difference -- even if you don't understand it.

Lastly, the persons who made the arguments I have only briefly summarized included constitutional scholars. It was not just some wackos in the JBS.

re: #106 sizzleRI

Great movie, great quote. In fact my law school orientation involved being shown many clips, including that one, from A Man For All Seasons. Its what happens if one chooses a Catholic law school, Sir Thomas Moore is a saint here. So I am fairly horrified that you are using this quote in a thread where you are defending the 1960's objection to the CRA. Objecting to the CRA in the 1960's is actually more morally horrifying to me than objecting now. In 2010 I think it is very difficult for people of my generation (I was born in 1983) to imagine a world in which African-Americans were routinely excluded. Some of us are blind to that pervasiveness of segregation and we think that would not happen today even without anti-discrimination laws. That our countrymen have moved past that. But we only think that Because of the effects of the CRA. How morally abhorrent to be living during the 1960's and actually observe the evils of segregation and try to defend the practice on dubious Federalism grounds. And I do mean dubious because people like you seem to always leave out mention of Article VI.

Go read Article VI. Then read it again. Then maybe read some of the Supreme Court's (you know, the people tasked with interpreting the Constitution) writings on the Supremacy Clause. Just because the JBS and other 10thers don't like it doesn't mean it is not there.

109 Gus  Thu, Nov 18, 2010 8:55:56am

re: #108 ernie1241

You are totally wrong. I am not "defending" anybody. I am attempting to explain their position. There is a difference -- even if you don't understand it.

Lastly, the persons who made the arguments I have only briefly summarized included constitutional scholars. It was not just some wackos in the JBS.

The convention at LGF is to put the quotes first followed by your comment. You've been putting the quotes at the bottom.

110 sizzleRI  Thu, Nov 18, 2010 9:19:30am

re: #108 ernie1241

I understand the difference. And I can also explain these people's beliefs. But you are defending them.

I know that there were Constitutional scholars who defended opposition to the CRA on Federalism grounds. There were scholars who defended Plessy and opposed Brown on the same grounds. The same is true for Dredd Scott, and in all of these cases the scholars were wrong. And I feel comfortable saying in the majority of cases, the Constitutional arguments were a weak veneer coating racism. I'm sorry you cannot see that and want so much to explain these beliefs on lofty Federalism principles.

111 Talking Point Detective  Thu, Nov 18, 2010 11:15:01am

re: #108 ernie1241

Curious as to why you skipped over my question.

I'd still like to hear your answer, as well as to some other questions.

I assume that you feel that there is some point along a slipper slope where federal intervention over state jurisdiction is justified. For example, if a state legislature were to fail to legislate against teenagers being able to access automatic weapons, or people being able to legally drive drunk?

State legislatures refused to enact laws that made discriminatory practices illegal. In fact, they refused to remove laws that codified discriminatory practices as legal.

At what point do you, not the JBS, but you, feel that the immediate impact of discrimination outweighs some abstracted moral principle of judicial or legislative overreach based on the notion that federally baring something as abhorant as discrimination could, at some undetermined time in the future, lead to laws that do more harm than good?

Another question for you. Do you think - without reference to some theoretical potential further slide down a slippery slop- that there is a greater injustice done to a racist store-owner legally barred by a federal government from discriminating against the black cop in the example above than there would be in having that black cop refused service by a racist store owner? Assuming that you would say no, at what point is it incumbent on a federal government to step in to address an immediate injustice rather than waiting around for it to be stopped at a state level, assuming that it would ever be stopped by the state?

Do you think that the CRA has caused more harm than good, created more injustice than it has prevented?

112 ernie1241  Thu, Nov 18, 2010 12:39:25pm

Sizzle, I am not "defending" these folks. My own views are mostly opposite to theirs. Please do not attribute to me beliefs or values which are not mine.

If I understand your second paragraph correctly, you are saying that there is no such thing as a legitimate argument presented by conservative legal scholars if they are critical of civil rights legislation? Instead, whatever arguments they make are predominantly "a weak veneer coating racism"?

So, for example, you think Clarence Manion was essentially a racist, correct? Clarence Manion taught constitutional law, government, and history at Notre Dame University for 25 years. For 12 of those years, he was Dean of Notre Dame Law School, until President Eisenhower appointed him to a government position.

Also, if I understand your second paragraph correctly, you don't think there are any legitimate conservative legal journals? Insofar as they have published articles critical of, or questioning fundamental aspects of, civil rights legislation -- then they, too, must be presenting a "weak veneer coating racism" - correct?

Furthermore, conservative legal organizations, such as the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, are also suspect -- along with the 20,000 practicing attorneys who are their members? -- correct?

re: #110 sizzleRI

I understand the difference. And I can also explain these people's beliefs. But you are defending them.

I know that there were Constitutional scholars who defended opposition to the CRA on Federalism grounds. There were scholars who defended Plessy and opposed Brown on the same grounds. The same is true for Dredd Scott, and in all of these cases the scholars were wrong. And I feel comfortable saying in the majority of cases, the Constitutional arguments were a weak veneer coating racism. I'm sorry you cannot see that and want so much to explain these beliefs on lofty Federalism principles.

113 ernie1241  Thu, Nov 18, 2010 12:57:20pm

TPD: You are asking the wrong person your questions. I have no problems whatsoever with civil rights legislation enacted during the 1960's. However, I recognize the legitimacy of the philosophical issues being raised. I do not pretend that they are frivolous or that they arise from racist sentiments.

All of us face a common dilemma. When we see injustice, we want to redress it. But in our zeal to correct a problem, what principles should guide us? Are there limits upon what coercive powers we should give to government bureaucrats and agencies?

This is why I quoted the comments by Sir Thomas More. His son-in-law was prepared to "cut down every law in England" to vanquish the Devil. This is not some arcane debate from hundreds of years ago. The principles expressed by Sir Thomas still apply today.

In our zeal to correct injustice, we must always be cognizant of the harm we can cause by constantly giving government more and more power and control over our lives. Another current example: the controversy over invasive pat downs and body scanners at our airports. In the name of "security" we are now telling government employees that it is OK to touch or view the genitals of men and women.

If (like myself) you think that George Bush and Dick Cheney should have been impeached for their gross violations of fundamental Constitutional principles -- then perhaps you can understand the relevance of wanting strict limitations upon what government is permitted to do in our name.


re: #111 Talking Point Detective

Curious as to why you skipped over my question.

I'd still like to hear your answer, as well as to some other questions.

I assume that you feel that there is some point along a slipper slope where federal intervention over state jurisdiction is justified. For example, if a state legislature were to fail to legislate against teenagers being able to access automatic weapons, or people being able to legally drive drunk?

State legislatures refused to enact laws that made discriminatory practices illegal. In fact, they refused to remove laws that codified discriminatory practices as legal.

At what point do you, not the JBS, but you, feel that the immediate impact of discrimination outweighs some abstracted moral principle of judicial or legislative overreach based on the notion that federally baring something as abhorant as discrimination could, at some undetermined time in the future, lead to laws that do more harm than good?

Another question for you. Do you think - without reference to some theoretical potential further slide down a slippery slop- that there is a greater injustice done to a racist store-owner legally barred by a federal government from discriminating against the black cop in the example above than there would be in having that black cop refused service by a racist store owner? Assuming that you would say no, at what point is it incumbent on a federal government to step in to address an immediate injustice rather than waiting around for it to be stopped at a state level, assuming that it would ever be stopped by the state?

Do you think that the CRA has caused more harm than good, created more injustice than it has prevented?

114 Talking Point Detective  Thu, Nov 18, 2010 1:18:38pm

re: #113 ernie1241

TPD: You are asking the wrong person your questions. I have no problems whatsoever with civil rights legislation enacted during the 1960's. However, I recognize the legitimacy of the philosophical issues being raised. I do not pretend that they are frivolous or that they arise from racist sentiments. .

I agree that legitimate philosophical issues are in play here, and the questions are intended to engage you in debating those philosophical issues.

Some positions may or may not arise from racist sentiments. Or more accurately perhaps, they may ore may not arise from racial insensitivities to one degree or another.

So, when you say that you have no problems with the CRA as enacted in the 60s, you are, in fact, in disagreement with Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and the commonly held ideology among libertarians.

There is no question that there need to be reasonable restraints on federal powers. As an ardent leftist, there is overlap in that sense between my ideology and that of many libertarians. Where I disagree with most of those said libertarians is in where I believe lines should be drawn. As someone who has made a good case for why we should be careful about making facile assumptions about the "racism" of those who see civil rights legislation as problematic, I am interested in your perspective.

I absolutely want strict limitations in what the government can do in my name - but to just make such a blanket statement begins to approach meaninglessness, IMO, if you don't tackle these questions in context.

As a side note - fwiw, not that you really need my advice, I also agree with you about the tone of the debate on this thread - for the most part. That said, I would call your attention, however, to your first post, where you called the top post "worthless." I would suggest that was unnecessarily inflammatory, and unless you're actually looking for the kind of divisive debate that this thread turned into, you might consider being more forward-thinking when you begin to engage the readers. I would also argue that it is somewhat contradictory, or let's say hyperbolic, to call the head post "worthless" and then proceed to spend hours engaged in debate about the issues that the head post raises.

So - anyway, I'm still interested in hearing your answers to the questions I posed if you decide you'd like to weigh in on the issues they raise.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
YUNGBLUD (With WILLOW) - Memories (Official Music Video) YUNGBLUD (with WILLOW) - Memories (Official Music Video) Stream and download “Memories (with WILLOW)” : yungblud.lnk.to watch more official YUNGBLUD videos: yungblud.lnk.to SIGN UP to YUNGBLUD's Mailing List: yungblud.lnk.to subscribe to YUNGBLUD: yungblud.lnk.to connect with YUNGBLUD online:visit the official ...
Thanos
1 week, 5 days ago
Views: 980 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 3 •