Ron Paul, The John Birch Society, and Individual Liberty

The subject has come up in another thread. This is not an unwarranted question, nor is it an attempt to attack anyone. It is a sincere question.

I was astounded to find what seems to me be a gross contradiction between the values espoused by the Ron Paul platform, which for the sake of discussion, I will very simply and very broadly call, Iindividual Liberty, and the apparent support of Paul (and, apparently, many of his members) for the John Birch Society (JBS). The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), under the ideological tutelage of Joseph McCarthy and his lead counsel, Roy Cohn, would later find full fruit in the tactics and programs of the JBS (e.g., its intelligence gathering operation, the Western Goals Foundation, for whose program Cohn would play an important role).

From my reading of intellectual and cultural history, HUAC, JBS, and what followed from them, were, and are, one of the most egregious examples of intrusion on the right to individual freedom of thought, the right to individual privacy, and the right to freedom of association ever conceived, in America.

I cannot accept one can be for individual liberty, and for JBS and what it represents, at one and the same time.

I invite thoughts. I do not wish to continue any existing spats, to invite any personal spats, to name call, to trash, or whatever other means we all have to avoid sticking to the substance of the question: how does individual liberty, as promulgated by Mr. Paul's campaign, square with his apparent ideological alignment with JBS?

Quotes are not exhaustive, nor even definitive. Anyone interested, can dig.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

http://www.watch.pair.com/jbs-cnp.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Goals_Foundation

 

50+ views, and not a single thought? Irrelevant? Wrong? No worries?

Edited to add: Must be dark, for lots of folks.

 

I added another thread view for you.

Maybe I will comment later, but I am neither a RP supporter or a JBS fanatic.

 

Thank you, debunked, but from the deafening silence, it seems this is just too uncomfortable a topic to deal with.

I would presume this is difficult for some, because to decry JBS, one would have to decry HUAC and McCarthysm, and many here may feel that McCarthysm and the activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee were justified, and the results - which included the destruction of much I would call democratic values, anyway - were justified, no matter the cost.

I would presume this is difficult for others, because although many here proclaim a fervent belief in "Freedom of Speech," "Freedom of Thought," "Freedom of Association," "Right to Privacy," "Freedom from Government Instrusion," and decry conspiracies and cabals destructive to these things, the apparent support of Mr. Paul for JBS raises a Gordian Knot, and so, to HUAC, JBS, Western Goals Foundation - not a peep. "More Freedom of ________" - unless ________ disagrees. Then, bring the hammer down.

I call that hypocrisy, at best.

http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/jbs.html

Just a few other gems from Robert Welch, the Founder of JBS:

http://www.answers.com/topic/john-birch-society

"Conspiracies, Intrusion, etc. - bad - unless they're not":

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/wg.php

 

Etc. It's there to read.

http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/jbs.html

 

My experience has been a couple of guys I knew, being loony and overly rapped in conspiracies pushed me away pretty quickly even if there was some highly possible things they discussed.

There are conspiracies and behind the scenes things happening everywhere, I just don't believe there are human beings capable of pulling these things off in an organised fashion for years and the only people able to see are the alex jones wackos.... The people who are in charge of these conspiracies would have to be immortal to pull them off.

 

It doen't seem that anyone cares. All these 6 degress of seperation attempst at discrediting Ron Paul are weak. But I guess it's all the opposition to real change has. Do you really think Ron Paul would hold hearings into someone's political party affiliation?

If you really cared about freedom, you would care about this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm

And this monsterous hypocrisy:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030626-3.html

 

Booyaaa!!!

 

Good god. I have never seen a better example of duck and cover, than this.

Here's a tip. I DO CONDEMN IT. I am not a fan of this President, his administration, or it's policies. I condemn these squarely, unequivocally, and utterly.

There is nothing "six degrees" about this. THESE ARE THE MAN'S OWN WORDS IN PRAISE OF THE JBS. I can understand why this might be upsetting - honest to god, until a few days ago, I would never, in my wildest imagination, placed Paul and the JBS together. But they are there, and one is free to admit or deny, on the facts.

Do not dare to call me a hypocrite while hiding behind this thread. Admit or deny that these are Mr. Paul's words:

And then admit or deny that the John Birch society is the antithesis of the right to freedom of speech, thought, association, or privacy. You have the above before you to evaluate. Or, you can continue to pursue this ridiculous groupthink speech.

 

IMHO, this thread was started to take a jab at G. In the Wiki thread he made some points, and presented them in a extremely convincing manner. It is my impression, that you become hostile to everything he said after that. Then you went in another thread he was in and started accusing him of not debating correctly. He refused to argue with you and even apoligized if he had said something to bother you. During that thread he stated he is not a member of John Birch but likes them. You were hostile to the point he did not want to debate any longer. Now, you are starting this whole thread to suggest people that support John Birch are freedom haters. Perhaps you are not getting alot of reply posts because most people that continually read in PR know what this thread it is truly about.

 

Why don't you dig up a quote by Ron Paul on McCarthy?

 

That's fine, Rebecca, you are free to believe what you would like to believe as to my intents behind the words on the page. As you are free to conclude whatever you would like to conclude regarding my intents with respect to Guerilla and his tactics, across many threads.

You are also free to stop seeking to discern intents, and address the facts on the page, as they are here, now, and available to all.

I will tell you this. I love my land, and the people in it. I treasure my right to think as I want very, very deeply. I consider the House Un-American Activities Committee, the John Birch Society, and its ilk, to be one of the darkest blights on American history in this very young peoples' history, and when the bomb was dropped that Paul is a supporter of the John Birch Society, I was floored, and feel very strongly the need to ask a direct question, in essence, WHAT THE HELL?

Believe what you will. I'm still asking.

 

Why? I am addressing his views on the John Birch Society, and the views of the John Birch society itself. Hence, the thread title. Perhaps once this discussion has exhausted itself, we can move on to another topic. Unless we'd all like to continue with non-answers as answers here. Would this make it any better?

 

Some of the nonsense around here is getting fishy. "I really supported Paul before [insert smear or random non sequitur here]"

 

Good lord, people. "Something fishy," "intents behind posts and threads." If you're issue is with the spat I have with Guerilla, and wish to delve into that, fine - I supported my contentions with facts, not opinions. If you believe my "intents" are "something fishy," prove it with facts.

Or, just deal with the damn page and the question on it.

Briant, I don't know why you resist dealing with this, as you couldn't be more wrong regarding my political philosophy.

You initially in essence labeled me a "neocon," and now you label me as some kind of RP apostate, or perhaps a "neocon in wolf's clothing."

I really don't know why you speak without any basis in fact, but as with my view on this administration and its policies, I'll restate my position here, as I've never changed. I'm a globalist. I believe in good government. I am not a supporter of RP and never have been. That said, I am an honest person - I was surprised by his ideological alignment with JBS, and it was spurred by the line that "JBS represents liberty in America." Hence, I ask a direct question. Answer it, or don't answer it, everyone's call. If the question isn't addressed, or more of this kind of "assumption" of my "intents" behind my thread are the only response, I conclude the question is too uncomfortable to deal with, or worse, just plain hypocrisy.

People scream "groupthink" all over the place. I am asking for an evaluation of the apparent connection between RP and JBS, and JBS and "Liberty," on the merits. Address the facts, or not. The discussion is transparent, and open.

Here - I'm pulling this from the other thread - sue me. THIS IS FROM THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY ITSELF. In a thread ostensibly honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., I posted the JBS view on MLK:

And not a damn word, so far.

I will say it again. If RP represents "personal liberty," then how can he at the same time laud the John Birch Society? It's a very basic question. If I'm wrong, fire away - on the substance, and not on some interpretation of WHY THE HELL I ASK THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You see, Briant, anybody who stops to think for a second and hear this: It isn't fun for me to disagree. And it really isn't fun, sometimes, to call it as I see it, knowing it's a damn hard question and equally difficult answer, going to deeply held beliefs; and because oftentimes I call it in disagreement with people I've at times agreed with, and that is never easy - at least not for me.

And this can be heard, or ignored - I have never been moved by "friends," here, or its opposite, "enemies." I loathe the notion that rules of play are good for one context, and ignored for another. And the substance of what we are talking about are deeply important. It comes down to the fundamental question, "what is America?" For friends in other countries, it comes down to, "What is liberty?" I take this seriously, and I ask in good faith. I long ago asked anything on this forum in an attempt to "win" a debate. It's a fair question, and deserves a fair reply.

 

This is why no one responded to your distraction of a post. You still haven't bothered to quote Ron Paul. It's always a step removed. I guess if Ron Paul is a republican and George Bush is a republican Ron Paul supports George Bush and all that he says. And therefore Ron Paul is "teh leet evile"

This thread is like a lot of threads around here: a distractor. Instead of talking about what is really going on, we are supposed to talk about what someone other than Ron Paul said and blame Ron Paul for it.

 

Another non-answer. Simply astounding.

Briant, you may label my question "distraction." And I would say, as I am getting here, WHEN WAS A QUESTION A DANGEROUS THING TO ASK?

Now, to your latest question, I will reply with "hat are you talking about?" The first quote of this thread is a quote from Ron Paul:

If I am wrong, and this is a misattribution, and these are not Ron Paul's words and thoughts, then I do apologize, sincerely - because it is on this that I find a deeply disturbing disconnect between "defense of Liberty" and the JBS. What spurred me to look at this at all was a quote by Guerilla:

Will then pointed me to Mr. Paul's quote, and I directly asked Will for a source - not wanting to misattribute this to Paul, since I don't fly that way:

So - again, to facts:

Do you or do you not refute that Dr. Paul isn't supportive of the John Birch Society?

If he were supportive, will you please address my question regarding how one can stand for "Liberty" and the JBS at the same time?

While we're at it - on this day, of all days - here, or on the MLK thread - how about a discussion of how one can laud MLK, while considering him part of the worldwide communist conspiracy to overthrow the United States? This also a "distraction?"

 

I think the problem is they don't have any problem with the john birch society. It looks like you are only confusing them.

This is my point of view so far on this thread.

North, you are harping about conspiracy theorist (JBS) to a conspiracy theorist (Guerilla) so they don't see anything wrong with what jbs stands for is my guess.

North, one more thing, you need to get away from dp for a while, you don't seem to be as calm anymore.

 

Debunked, you're absolutely right. I am sure this will earn me a resounding wretch, but I am fed up. I have seen so much flying back and forth about "intellectual honesty," "truth," and so forth, and it's all just a load of crap. "Honesty" only applies if the postee and his or her post is in agreement with one's point of view. I believe I post credible posts, and am supremely frustrated by feeling I'm talking with children, who are either fine with my thoughts so long as I'm calling "the opposition" to the carpet, or accusing me of my shadowy "intents" behind my posts. It's all such crap. As I said, I am sure this reads like a pompous ass, and will earn scorn. All fine.

All of which makes me the most ridiculous idiot to come down the pike, for believing as I do, that I have wasted my energies and time so as I have over my many posts here, yet continue to post nevertheless.

 

Well, I hope not to ever be one that you would consider dishonest. I strive to be honest in all I say. Yes, sometimes I do beat around the bush and other times I will be harsh, but still honest. I know I have fault and may not always be right, but like you I enjoy learning. I was never big on history in school, but now as I am catching up I find so many are dishonest about history because they don't want to believe something or more commonly just want to believe it another way to suite their view.
I will also admit to doing that, but not consciencely, I have to step back from what I "knew" and really look at the facts.

Sometimes, we just need to let people go. They will commit intellectual suicide on their own. Take anthonycea, I use to feel I had to correct all his trash and twisted information, but later realized that all I have to do is let him ramble and anyone with a little sense could see him coming a mile away. I think the only one here that actually still sticks up for him is guru, which.... well... you see what I mean right?