Robert Welch and the John Birch Society

Reply

Prateek Sanjay Posted: Sat, Oct 31 2009 5:33 AM

rated by 0 users

Robert Welch was one of the strongest anti-establishment persons on the other side of the curtain during the Cold War - probably having villified the US more deeply and perhaps hatefully than any person on either the Old Right, or the libertarians, or the socialist/communist side.

He considered post-WW2 US Presidents to be Communists, and felt they were people achieving the same goals on the different side of the world. He felt the Cold War was a sham and believed the US government and Soviet Russia to be more aligned in ultimate interests than being any different from one another. He even considered them to be headed by the exact same group of elites.

Robert Welch's ideas reflect the typical conspiracy theorist paranoia of men like David Icke and Alex Jones; claiming that the Illuminati was the real force in power in the world and was at war against the very people it controlled, supposedly under the guise of conflicting governments. His claims of Communist and secret society allegiances were put against many top people of the government and alleged to be far deeper in them than what any other person would dare claim.

What I simply wonder is this - was Robert Welch crazy? Or was he merely using hyperbole?

Would you condone his manner and his ideas, even if it was tilted towards the same anti-statist anti-globalist directions as the other groups who have opposed US policy?

Reply

Aragon replied on Sat, Oct 31 2009 7:37 AM

rated by 0 users

The issue of the John Birch Society in the libertarian context is and has been a pretty complex one since its founding in 1958.

Many of its leading members, such as late Lawrence MacDonald, have been advocates of the Austrian school of economics.
 Its "American Opinion" magazine had Hans Sennholz as its contributing editor and Ludwig von Mises as a member of its "Editorial Advisory Committee" in 1964. Ron Paul commented in 1998 that "the beneficial impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0370a.htm   (an exhibit of Warren Commission's Final Report)

Although there is always a risk of being labeled as a "antifluoride/black helicopters" lunatic if you assosiate with the Society, I personally feel very much sympathy with the society, since they are in many ways anti-establishment and their positive program sounds very libertarian to me even if you don't necessarily agree with all their New World Order conspiracy theories.

(As a sidenote, I was interested to read Robert Welch's most provocative book, The Politician" about Eisenhower and ordered it a couple of weeks ago)

Reply

Marko replied on Sat, Oct 31 2009 8:44 AM

rated by 0 users

What were their foreign policy stances during the Cold War? Eg on containment, Vietnam, Cuban missle crisis, proxy wars in Africa, arming the Contras, etc?

Reply

Aragon replied on Sat, Oct 31 2009 11:44 AM

rated by 0 users

Marko:

What were their foreign policy stances during the Cold War? Eg on containment, Vietnam, Cuban missle crisis, proxy wars in Africa, arming the Contras, etc?

My impression is that "birchers" were against Vietnam war. Robert Welch said that Vietnam war was "as phony as nine dollar bill". Because of this stance, proto-neocon James Burnham critisised them for following the "pacifist-Commie line".

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, Oct 31 2009 11:58 AM

rated by 0 users

Prateek Sanjay:

He considered post-WW2 US Presidents to be Communists, and felt they were people achieving the same goals on the different side of the world. He felt the Cold War was a sham and believed the US government and Soviet Russia to be more aligned in ultimate interests than being any different from one another.

Sounds right to me.  The Cold War was just a wealth transfer from the people to the military industrial complex post WWII.

Prateek Sanjay:

Robert Welch's ideas reflect the typical conspiracy theorist paranoia of men like David Icke and Alex Jones; claiming that the Illuminati was the real force in power in the world and was at war against the very people it controlled, supposedly under the guise of conflicting governments.

Jones is a demagogue.  I'm not into Icke's ideas on spirituality and energy, but on politics and history, he is very impressive.  Have you watched any of his presentations?

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4799447112501062338

Prateek Sanjay:

His claims of Communist and secret society allegiances were put against many top people of the government

It's no secret that there are all sorts of secret society connections in the US government (and elsewhere).  Bohemian Grove is a good example.

Prateek Sanjay:

Would you condone his manner and his ideas, even if it was tilted towards the same anti-statist anti-globalist directions as the other groups who have opposed US policy?

As a marketer, he's reaching out to a segment.  Even Alex Jones, reaches a certain liberty segment.  There is no one manner or idea that appeals to everyone.  The concern for me, is when these folks advocate equally harmful alternatives.

Reply

Ernie replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 8:30 AM

rated by 0 users

You are quite correct.  It is very difficult to discuss the JBS in a "libertarian context" -- particularly since many JBS members are quite candid about their desire to see a day of reckoning commence whereby the scope and application of words like "subversive" and "treason" and "un-American" would be vastly expanded if they had their way.

My experience has been that most people who are generally familiar with the JBS do not comprehend the underlying premises which inform JBS thinking.

For example, in the first meeting of the JBS National Council, Robert Welch made the comments copied below.  How many Americans would today wish to associate themselves with these judgments?

Keep in mind that the JBS has never retracted even one statement or assertion it has made about any person, organization, publication, or issue in its 50+ years of existence. 

Some of my critics claim that the JBS is "not the same organization it was back during the Cold War" -- but, nevertheless, the JBS still recommends and/or sells publications which it and others published during that time. 

In 2002 the JBS published a new edition of Robert Welch's manuscript, The Politician (TP). The back cover describes TP as "perhaps the most devestating expose of the last century"  because it "tells the bitter, but little known, truth" about our postwar history.

Among the "truths" which the JBS wants everyone to read and believe is that President Eisenhower and most other prominent American politicians during the past 8 decades have been traitors. 

And to bring this message into contemporary history, the back cover of TP states: 

"But most importantly The Politician exposes that 'conspiracy of gangsters' which even now is setting America's foreign and domestic policy." 

WELCH COMMENTS TO JBS NATIONAL COUNCIL:

“From a careful and realistic study of the mountainous pile of evidence that is there for all to see, certain terrifying conclusions are objectively inescapable. 

Among them are:
(1) The Communists are winning their large victories, as they always have, through the cumulative effect of small gains;
(2) They make these gains chiefly through the conniving assistance of many of the very diplomats and officials who are supposed to be opposing them;
(3) Communist influences are now in almost complete working control of our government;
(4) And hence, the United States Government is today, as it has been for many years, the most important and powerful single force promoting the world-wide Communist advance.”

[A Confidential Report To Members Of The Council of The John Birch Society – minutes of 1/9/60 meeting held at Union League Club in Chicago IL, page 1-2; minutes signed by Robert Welch.]

Furthermore, Welch continued:

"Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind, that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists." [Ibid, page 2]

"In our two states with the largest population, New York and California...already the two present Governors are almost certainly actual Communists...Our Congress now contains a number of men like Adam Clayton Powell of New York and Charles Porter of Oregon, who are certainly actual Communists, and plenty more who are sympathetic to Communist purposes for either ideological or opportunistic reasons." [Ibid, page 7]
[Note: the reference to Governors refers to Edmund G. Brown of California and Nelson Rockefeller of New York.]

"In the Senate, there are men like Stephen Young of Ohio, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, McNamara of Michigan, and Clifford Case of New Jersey and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whom it is utter folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference..." [Ibid, page 8]

“Our Supreme Court, dominated by Earl Warren and Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black, is so visibly pro-Communist that no argument is even needed…And our federal courts below that level…are in many cases just as bad.” [Ibid, page 8]

"Our State Department is loaded with Communists from top to bottom, to the extent that our roll call of Ambassadors almost sounds like a list somebody has put together to start a Communist front." ... [Ibid, page 8]

"It is estimated from many reliable sources that from 70% to 90% of the responsible personnel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are Communists. Our Central Intelligence Agency under Allen Dulles is nothing more or less than an agency to promote Communism throughout the world...Almost all the other Departments are loaded with Communists and Communist sympathizers. And this generalization most specifically does include our whole Defense Department." [Ibid, page 8]

See the following 90-page report for details on why J. Edgar Hoover and senior FBI officials within the Domestic Intelligence Division concluded that Robert Welch and the JBS were "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible", "fanatics" and "lunatic fringe".

FBI FILES ON JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY

Also, FYI, I am beginning to post scanned copies of documents on-line which may interest you since they are not publicly available elsewhere.  Here is what I have posted so far at:  http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/documents

Reply

Aragon replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 12:50 PM

rated by 0 users

Ernie:

Some of my critics claim that the JBS is "not the same organization it was back during the Cold War" -- but, nevertheless, the JBS still recommends and/or sells publications which it and others published during that time.

It is also my opinion that the JBS hasn't disassosiated itself enough from the most extreme comments made by some of its early members. Still I must admit that I love some of the contemporary JBS publications such as the biography about William F. Buckley Jr by John McManus which has many favourable references to Murray N. Rothbard.

Here is interesting video from the early 1980s in which late JBS leader and congressman Larry McDonald is confronted by Pat Buchanan about some weird comments made by Robert Welch.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3100752722910819372&q=%22larry+mcdonald%22&total=14&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0#

Ernie:

I am beginning to post scanned copies of documents on-line which may interest you since they are not publicly available elsewhere.

Thanks mate.

The documents you have posted look very interesting to me, especially the correspondence between JBS and the antisemites. It is interesting to note that Willis Carto (and his protegé Michael Collins Piper), Tom Metzger, Revilo P. Oliver and many other white supremacists have been expelled or left the society because of its soft stance on the "Jewish issue".

Reply

Daniel replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 1:21 PM

rated by 0 users

Prateek Sanjay:

Robert Welch was one of the strongest anti-establishment persons on the other side of the curtain during the Cold War - probably having villified the US more deeply and perhaps hatefully than any person on either the Old Right, or the libertarians, or the socialist/communist side.

Agreed.

Prateek Sanjay:

He considered post-WW2 US Presidents to be Communists, and felt they were people achieving the same goals on the different side of the world. He felt the Cold War was a sham and believed the US government and Soviet Russia to be more aligned in ultimate interests than being any different from one another. He even considered them to be headed by the exact same group of elites.

They were neocons, but now the question is, "how commie were the neocons?" 

Prateek Sanjay:

Robert Welch's ideas reflect the typical conspiracy theorist paranoia of men like David Icke and Alex Jones; claiming that the Illuminati was the real force in power in the world and was at war against the very people it controlled, supposedly under the guise of conflicting governments. His claims of Communist and secret society allegiances were put against many top people of the government and alleged to be far deeper in them than what any other person would dare claim.

To say that politicians do not conspire to their own benefit or to the benefit of their associates is to be naive. 

Prateek Sanjay:

What I simply wonder is this - was Robert Welch crazy? Or was he merely using hyperbole?

Robert Welch was as crazy as Ron Paul.

Prateek Sanjay:

Would you condone his manner and his ideas, even if it was tilted towards the same anti-statist anti-globalist directions as the other groups who have opposed US policy?

It was.

Reply

Ernie replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 2:32 PM

rated by 0 users

Aragon:   As you correctly point out, a lot of people who joined the JBS subsequently were expelled or they left because they believed that Robert Welch refused to candidly address "the Jewish issue" -- which was their euphemism for Jew-hatred.

An unusual number of virulent bigots and political extremists obtained their understanding of postwar U.S history from Welch and the JBS.

Here is a brief list, off the top of my head, of just some of the Jew-haters who "graduated" from the John Birch Society, i.e. they were members who associated themselves with the JBS for varying periods of time but either they left or they were expelled because of their Jew-hatred propagandizing. Some of these folks were JBS chapter leaders, section leaders, Coordinators, speakers under the auspices of the JBS Speakers Bureau, or National Council members!

This list does not even include the Jew-haters who endorsed the JBS and/or recommended JBS publications but whom were not JBS members---such as Gerald L.K. Smith OR people who were not known to be (but were suspected of being) JBS members. 

Nor will I list all the persons connected to the JBS whom were also associated with White Citizens Councils, KKK groups, Posse Comitatus, the Christian Identity movement, and the "tax protest movement" but whom may not have explicitly endorsed Jew-hatred literature and arguments.

Richard Butler (Aryan Nations)

Dean Kennedy (Citizens Law Enforcement and Research Committee; Hitler admirer)

Willis Carto (Liberty Lobby and about 2 dozen other groups)

William Potter Gale (Ministry of Christ Church / Christian Defense League / Posse Comitatus)

Gerda Koch (Christian Research Inc)

John Schmitz (U.S. Congressman, American Party Presidential candidate)

Thomas Metzger (White Aryan Resistance / California Knights of the KKK)

Gordon Kahl (Posse Comitatus)

Ardie McBrearty (Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, and U.S. National Taxpayers Association)

Bernard Klassen (Nationalist White Party / Church of the Creator)

Gordon D. (Jack) Mohr (Christian Identity movement)

Kevin Strom (National Alliance / Stormfront)

Eric D. Butler (Australian League of Rights)

William Pierce (National Alliance)

Speros Lagoulis (Joe McCarthy Bookstore--Boston)

Robert A. Surrey (American Nazi Party Business Manager)

Verne P. Kaub (American Council of Christian Laymen)

Sheldon Emry (America's Promise Ministries / Christian Research Inc)

Louis T. Byers (National Youth Alliance)

David E. Lane (The Order)

Robert Mathews (The Order)

Revilo P. Oliver (National Youth Alliance / George P. Dietz's Liberty Bell magazine)

George P. Dietz (Liberty Bell Publications)

Richard B. Cotten (Cotten's Conservative Viewpoint newsletter)

Frank R. Purinton (New York Anti-Communist League)

At some point in the future, I will post documents on-line which pertain to JBS internal disputes and controversies involving Jew-hatred, racism, or other forms of bigotry.  Unfortunately, because the JBS subscribes to the Soviet-method of history telling (i.e. it only acknowledges data favorable to itself and will not allow independent outside researchers to have access to its archives for historical research purposes) -- it is very difficult to find and report verifiable factual information concerning JBS history.

Significantly, within the past few years there has been a major internal dispute within the Birch Society over JBS President John McManus's comments before Catholic organizations which have been interpreted as anti-semitic. Even the current and former CEO's of the JBS described McManus's comments as anti-semitic.  

The former senior editor of the JBS magazine, The New American, [William Norman Grigg]  has posted commentaries on-line which include the following observations about the internal dispute within the JBS during 2005:

"During the 2005 conflict, Vance Smith and his allies sought to capitalize on the fact that Jack McManus, the current JBS President (at the time, president emeritus and Council member) had given a number of blatantly, brazenly anti-Semitic speeches to schismatic Catholic groups.

Audio and video recordings of those speeches had been made and marketed, and excerpts of some of the worst elements were compiled into a kind of highlight reel for use by Vance's faction in lobbying various people, including myself.

I was furious with Jack; I'd known he was capable of saying some really vicious things (he once referred to AEI's Ben Wattenberg, who had interviewed Jack on the radio, as a "slimy New York Jew"; I about collapsed from shock), but my position is that one's internal prejudices are his own affair. (As an American of Mexican ancestry I apply that principle in dealing with anti-Latino prejudice as well). When I learned that Jack, for years, had been making speeches of that kind, my reaction was a mixture of rage and weary disgust.”

Reply

Ernie replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 2:49 PM

rated by 0 users

Daniel:

To say that politicians do not conspire to their own benefit or to the benefit of their associates is to be naive. 

Like any matter under scrutiny, one must first define one's terms in order to arrive at accurate and truthful conclusions.  

What do you mean by "conspire"?  

Perhaps you believe that if your wife or other relatives and friends plan a surprise birthday party for you, they are "conspiring"??

The Birch Society used to post the following useful comment on its website:

"What is fact? What is fiction? How can you know? Conspiracy theories abound on the Internet. While some may be fairly accurate, others are not. Much of what is out there goes beyond the facts into wild conjecturing, and even outright fabrication of information. This has had an effect something like Gresham's Law (‘bad money drives out good money’), in which bad information drives out good information."

Not every assertion regarding "conspiracy" is accurate and truthful.  Politicians "conspire" with each other all the time (i.e. they meet in private, they plan strategy, they negotiate behind closed doors, etc)  but nobody except political extremists seriously describes that behavior as reflecting a "conspiracy".  Perhaps some people think our Constitutional Convention was an example of "conspiring"???

Reply

Daniel replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 3:16 PM

rated by 0 users

Ernie:

Daniel:

To say that politicians do not conspire to their own benefit or to the benefit of their associates is to be naive. 

Like any matter under scrutiny, one must first define one's terms in order to arrive at accurate and truthful conclusions.  

What do you mean by "conspire"?  

I was responding to this hasty generalization: "Robert Welch's ideas reflect the typical conspiracy theorist paranoia of men like David Icke and Alex Jones[.]"

Ernie:

Perhaps you believe that if your wife or other relatives and friends plan a surprise birthday party for you, they are "conspiring"??

Are surprise parties illegal or immoral?

Ernie:

Not every assertion regarding "conspiracy" is accurate and truthful.  Politicians "conspire" with each other all the time (i.e. they meet in private, they plan strategy, they negotiate behind closed doors, etc)  but nobody except political extremists seriously describes that behavior as reflecting a "conspiracy".  Perhaps some people think our Constitutional Convention was an example of "conspiring"???

Is the state illegal and/or immoral? If yes, then any secret plans politicians talk about behind closed doors are by definition a conspiracy. Btw, you committed the following: ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, guilt by association, poisoning the well, and straw man.

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 3:57 PM

rated by 0 users

Daniel:

Btw, you committed the following: ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, guilt by association, poisoning the well, and straw man.

lol, but who's counting? amiright? 

Reply

Ernie replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 4:19 PM

rated by 0 users

Daniel:

As previously stated, one has to be precise about definition of terms.  

"Conspire" betokens something illegal or immoral -- so my reply to you was attempting to distinguish between ordinary (and normal) political behavior versus illegal or immoral activities.

BTW --- I certainly did NOT commit what you claim: i.e. ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, guilt by association.  

I simply was attempting to address a common fallacy in discussions about what constitutes "conspiracy".  Many times people mistakenly use the word "conspire" or "conspiracy" to refer to ANY behavior which results in some policy choice or decision which does not conform to their personal political preferences.  Also, many times people discussing "conspiracy" cannot even define or describe what they consider normal non-conspiratorial political behavior.  In their scheme of things, anything done in private or which they oppose becomes an example of "conspiracy".

Your reference to "secret plans politicians talk about behind closed doors" still does not carefully distinguish between what is and is not conspiratorial behavior.  ALL politicians (left or right) meet secretly behind closed doors with their supporters and with their antagonists --- but they are not "conspiring" by doing so.

Political conspiracy theories are problem-solving devices.  They are meant to explain one's sense of impotence, i.e. why people are elected and re-elected, or policies adopted, (particularly over long periods of time) which violate one's personal political preferences.  When one perceives oneself as an "outsider" to the prevailing point of view -- it is easy to look for villains on which to place blame for one's sense of impotence.

For a complete discussion of this matter, see my article Purpose of Conspiracy Theories at:

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/ct-1

Reply

Daniel replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 4:26 PM

rated by 0 users

Ernie:

Daniel:

As previously stated, one has to be precise about definition of terms.  

"Conspire" betokens something illegal or immoral -- so my reply to you was attempting to distinguish between ordinary (and normal) political behavior versus illegal or immoral activities.

BTW --- I certainly did NOT commit what you claim: i.e. ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, guilt by association.  

I simply was attempting to address a common fallacy in discussions about what constitutes "conspiracy".  Many times people mistakenly use the word "conspire" or "conspiracy" to refer to ANY behavior which results in some policy choice or decision which does not conform to their personal political preferences.  Also, many times people discussing "conspiracy" cannot even define or describe what they consider normal non-conspiratorial political behavior.  In their scheme of things, anything done in private or which they oppose becomes an example of "conspiracy".

Your reference to "secret plans politicians talk about behind closed doors" still does not carefully distinguish between what is and is not conspiratorial behavior.  ALL politicians (left or right) meet secretly behind closed doors with their supporters and with their antagonists --- but they are not "conspiring" by doing so.

Political conspiracy theories are problem-solving devices.  They are meant to explain one's sense of impotence, i.e. why people are elected and re-elected, or policies adopted, (particularly over long periods of time) which violate one's personal political preferences.  When one perceives oneself as an "outsider" to the prevailing point of view -- it is easy to look for villains on which to place blame for one's sense of impotence.

For a complete discussion of this matter, see my article Purpose of Conspiracy Theories at:

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/ct-1

 

Let's get the ball rolling by having you define "conspiracy."

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 4:26 PM

rated by 0 users

Ernie:

"Conspire" betokens something illegal or immoral -- so my reply to you was attempting to distinguish between ordinary (and normal) political behavior versus illegal or immoral activities.

it is perfectly ordinary for politics and politicians to be evil, and immoral. As far as politics is concerned, it is all evil, with some being out in the open and behind closed doors. the stuff behind the clothed doors is conspiratorial. 

Reply

Ernie replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 4:51 PM

rated by 0 users

So, Nirgraham, I presume by your comment that if we discover that YOU are engaged in political activities, we should immediately deduce that you are participating in "evil" activities because, according to you, "As far as politics is concerned, it is all evil". 

You have provided a flawless example of what I was attempting to discuss with Daniel.  There is a school of thought among alienated individuals that "all" politics is "evil" and, therefore, there is a pre-disposition to believing that ALL political behavior constitutes some sort of "conspiracy".

Reply

Daniel replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 5:05 PM

rated by 0 users

Ernie:

 

... There is a school of thought among alienated individuals that "all" politics is "evil" and, therefore, there is a pre-disposition to believing that ALL political behavior constitutes some sort of "conspiracy".

Where may they be found? Btw, I'll await your definition of "conspiracy."

Reply

Ernie replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 5:07 PM

rated by 0 users

Daniel:

Let's get the ball rolling by having you define "conspiracy."

Daniel:  I use the standard dictionary definition of conspiracy.  

The Oxford English Dictionary is generally considered the gold standard for definitions of words in the English language -- and it also provides a date chart to reflect when each word meaning originated.

The two primary definitions of "conspire" in OED are as follows:

 1. To combine privily for an evil or unlawful purpose; to agree together to do something criminal, illegal, or reprehensible (esp. to commit treason or murder, excite sedition, etc.); to plot.

 2. To plot, plan, devise, contrive (a criminal, evil, or hostile action). 

The two primary definitions of "conspiracy" in OED are as follows:

1.  The action of conspiring; combination of persons for an evil or unlawful purpose.

2.  A combination of persons for an evil or unlawful purpose; an agreement between two or more persons to do something criminal, illegal, or reprehensible (especially in relation to treason, sedition, or murder); a plot.

The definition of "conspirator" in OED is as follows:

One who conspires; one engaged in a conspiracy; one who conspires with others to commit treason.

The definitions I am citing above of the terms "conspire" and "conspiracy"  begin in the 14th century --  so my use of these definitions hardly can be considered new, unique, or idiosyncratic.

The key point is how one decides to APPLY such terms.  More importantly, how does one define NON-conspiratorial political behavior.  

For example: has there EVER been a time in U.S. history when contemporary Americans believe that our politics was NOT the product of some sort of conspiratorial plot?

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 5:08 PM

rated by 0 users

Ernie:

So, Nirgraham, I presume by your comment that if we discover that YOU are engaged in political activities, we should immediately deduce that you are participating in "evil" activities because, according to you, "As far as politics is concerned, it is all evil". .

go for it. don't hold your breath.

and of course, understanding the truth about things in the world and not condoning evil would lead to someone being alienated from that evil. it would be an ugly person that would not be so alienated.

Reply

Ernie replied on Sun, Nov 1 2009 5:12 PM

rated by 0 users

Daniel:  you just saw a message in this forum by someone who made the assertion that all politics is "evil".  Consequently, by definition (see my separate message regarding definitions), the previous contributor would presumably believe that ALL politics is a "conspiratorial" endeavor.

Once again, I recommend that you read my Purpose of Conspiracy Theories article --- because it discusses all the relevant points in considerable detail.

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/ct-1