I’m leaving the Bulletin Board comments up for the time being for archival purposes, but it’s gotten a bit unwieldy and it no longer accepts new contributions. You can comment directly under any post or on my Facebook page (a button at the top right of this blog will take you directly there). If you wish to send me an e mail, click on the “Contact Me” page above.
38 thoughts on “Bulletin Board”
your info on cults was entertaining in its most basic descriptions of the subjects but your condescending shortsidedness in re. to conspiracies was so dissapointing in that you didnt even bother to ask the rational questions of the subject matter but rather preferred to point out the more outlandish beliefs. after feeling insulted for wasting my time on such a fluff piece, i ddnt even bother with the secret societies offering .Not that you care , i just felt compelled to let you know
Of course I care. If you wish to use this space to provide counter-theories, I won’t censor you (though I might move the string off the “About Me” page and put it in a new category). I think I make it very clear in my book that I have no doubt that real conspiracies exist; what I take issue with is what I call “the conspiratorial world view,” which I regard as more of a totalizing theology than a considered response to actual facts.
I frequently refer to “-isms and -ologies” for accurate usage of iffy words.
But I have a quibble with your explanation of “Hobson’s choice” as “no choice at all.” It’s really the choice between accepting or rejecting what is offered–not much of a choice, to be sure; but not exactly no choice at all. It’s more “take-it-or-leave-it” than “my-way-or-the-highway.” That might seem a distinction without a difference. But consider: ‘You can rent the next horse in line or none.” vs. “You can’t rent any horse here if you’re a bad credit risk.’
Point well taken, and if there is ever another edition of ISMS, I will make the change. As I often tell people, I don’t write books because I’m such a big authority; I write them so I can learn things. Constructive criticism is a good teacher.
Just wanted to drop a point about your “Birchers and Birthers” article.
You state “A not inconsiderable slice of today’s electorate (and many of its elected representatives) believe President Barack Obama … (is) not even an American citizen.”
But that’s not the real issue. Nobody with any sense believes that. Some say that he was not born in America, but that doesn’t really seem too relevant anyhow.
However, there is a common misconception on the Internet that the full birth certificate was released – but this is not true.
What was released was a printout from the registration office..but never the full certificate, showing hospital, attending, doctor, etc.
Why does it matter?
Well, it fits into a wider overall pattern. In terms of the written record of Obama’s life, there is virtually nothing. Only the two autobiographies…
If you look for any of these records: college transcripts, senior thesis, published articles as editor of Harvard Law Review, published articles as lecturer at University of Chicago for 7 years, etc. etc.
The sum total is: Nothing. Not a single word.
Only the two books, drawing a picture of himself on a blank canvas.
Now, what’s the significance of this? I honestly have no idea.
But it’s a little strange, isn’t it?
In responding to your article here my login was prevented from posting, and comments I made under a new username were deleted, and now I am unable to post with that login too. I hope you might convince whoever did that will realize the fact that stifling debate has no place in honest discourse, and take an serious look at the facts I presented in my comments which remain. Put simply, you are currently defending a position of faith which stands in contradiction to long understood and consistently demonstrable laws of physics, by denying what irrefutably did happened.
Best of wishes,
Not a reply, but an addendum to Mr. Brunett’s post, received via e mail:
I didn’t suspect you had authority at Boing Boing, but simply figured that since they respect you enough to have published your article they might also respect a request from you for them to stop stifling rational discourse. I had plead for as much myself in my first post under my second login, after my first login was restricted from commenting, but that post and the following ones were deleted. I didn’t save copies of them either, so I can’t rightly repost them. Regardless, the deleted posts were simply responses to fallacious arguments attempting to dispute the relevance of the facts which I presented in my first comment, which is fortunately still there. I’ll copy that post here in the hopes you might give it due consideration:
“I’ve read articles by structural engineers that completely demolish his claim that the buildings collapsed at “free fall acceleration.”
You’ve been reading articles by people are knowledgeable enough to know free fall is physically impossible in the context of a fire initiated collapse, but who aren’t looking at the evidence which shows both near free fall acceleration in regard to the towers and a period of acceleration indistinguishable from free fall in regard to WTC7. Even NIST admits the videos of the towers coming down show acceleration very close to free fall, from NCSTAR 1-6:9.3.3:
“Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall as seen in videos.”
The WTC7 period of free fall is noted in NCSTAR 1-9:12.6:
“In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.”
Click to access NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf
But of course you don’t have to take anyone’s word for it, as anyone can easily Google up videos of all three buildings coming down. Granted, NIST claims the free fall makes sense in the context of the official story, and there’s plenty of websites supporting their claims, but none can prove as much, because what they are claiming is quite simply physically impossible. All three buildings had previously been rigged to come down, as is proven by the video evidence and the laws of physics alone. The who, when, how, and why, are all painful and perplexing questions that I’d like to know the answers to, but that isn’t going to happening as long as so many insist on ignoring all the evidence which contradicts the official conspiracy theory while laughing off if not shouting down those of us who don’t. We need a real investigation to find the actual masterminds of 9/11, as the people who had the WTC buildings rigged to come down and who pressured our government officials into covering up for them are most certainly not hidding out in caves in the Middle East. I know these are ugly facts which many would prefer to ignore, but that only allows the madmen who actually attacked us to continue to walk free, and we are in for an ugly future as long as they do.
If you have any contentions with what I’ve said here, please email me back with them as I would be happy to discuss the matter further.
Best of wishes,
This one is a reply:
The first link is broken; I browsed through the NIST report that the second connected me to–paying especial note to its “blast” scenarios and the column #79 conclusion–and found it all quite convincing, though I am speaking as a layman with no knowledge of physics.
You state that the NIST acknowledges that there is a moment of freefall, but then dismiss their conclusions by assertion: “Granted, NIST claims the free fall makes sense in the context of the official story, and there’s plenty of websites supporting their claims, but none can prove as much, because what they are claiming is quite simply physically impossible. All three buildings had previously been rigged to come down, as is proven by the video evidence and the laws of physics alone.”
Like I said, I’ve seen columns and columns of figures (which I freely admit I don’t understand) that purport to account for the building’s rates of acceleration on their way down. What I see in your postings is circularity–the NIST says this but they are wrong because there were bombs. Find an independent physicist who’s a great explainer, ask him or her to explain to me why I should throw out the NIST, and I will consider what he or she says.
As for my quote about the Freemasons that you mentioned in your latest e mail, I didn’t say “that some things are best kept within a select circle” as a statement of fact, though I suppose you could torture the sentence into yielding that meaning. What I said was this: “Esoteric Masonry acknowledges — as do all the mystery religions and philosophies, going back to Egyptian Hermeticism and Pythagoreanism–that some things are best kept within a select circle.” Imagine that I’d written (I didn’t, so don’t quote me on this) ‘Thomas Jefferson, like most of his fellow slave holders, acknowledged the humanity of Negroes, but also their innate inferiority.’ Within the circle of slaveholders, Jefferson would be acknowleging a truism that any sensible reader outside that circle would regard as false. Within the circle of mystery religions, the Mason is acknowledging a truism that you (and I) regard as false. I only point this out to you because I think that selective quotation and tendentious interpretation figure in much of the 9/11 debate.
My bad on slopping the link, here is the correct one:
Click to access NCSTAR%201-6.pdf
However, the understanding of physics needed to realise why the official story of how the towers came down is wrong is more complex than that of WTC7, so I prefer to stick with the latter to start. In that regard, please note I made no claim of bombs, as while the available evidence does strongly suggest explosives of some sort, there are other possible means by which the WTC7 could have been rigged to come down that I’m not rightly in a position to rule out. The evidence I refer is only enough to prove human intervention, while determining the actual specifics of what that intervention consisted of would take more investigation than I’m in a position to accomplish.
As for your comments on the NIST report, please take a careful look their “Hypothetical Blast Scenarios” section to note they simply proposed a particular scenario which conflicts with the available evidence, and then ruled out explosive demolition on the grounds that their hypothetical scenario conflicts with the available evidence. While I understand how all the detail they went into in doing so might look convincing at a glance, in actuality it’s nothing more than handwaving. Furthermore, while the “Timing of Collapse Progression and Initiation” section does report rates of acceleration, nothing from NIST even comes close to accounting for what could have facilitated the period of free fall. Also, please note that NIST originally denied free fall, and only acknowledged it thanks to the persistence of a high school physics teacher by the name of David Chandler, as he explains along with video from NIST’s conference on their WTC7 report here:
As for someone with more credentials to explain how NIST’s report is nonsense in layman’s terms, Dwain Deets, a retired engineering executive who served 37 years at NASA did a respectable job of it here:
You can also view a presentation from him, with WTC7 being addressed starting around 1:27:00 in the video, here:
And you can find others if you care to look, though unfortunately not as nearly many as one might like, since those who do contest the official conspiracy theory are regularly shouted down or worse. Kevin Ryan, fired from Underwriters Laboratories, is a notable example of this:
And Steven Jones being hounded into quiting BYU being another, which this Wiki summarizes reasonably well with plenty of citations to follow for more details:
Then of course many have the necessary understanding of physics but never bothered to looked at the evidence, and of those who do some are bound to be so emotionally averse to accepting the logical conclusions which the evidence provides to acknowledge them, and people like me who get restricted from posting on places like Boing Boing simply for mentioning such facts. I personally had the necessary understanding of physics to know the official story was wrong the moment I first saw a video of WTC7 come down in 2005. I really should have known the official story on the towers was false the moment I heard it, but figured people more familiar with the design of the buildings were capable of explaining it better than I could, and hence took the official explanations at their words, not actually looking back at the videos or familiarizing myself with the design of the towers until after I stumbled across the WTC7 video by chance.
This all ties in with my contention only your Masonry article, specifically that of your use of the term “acknowledge”, which I understand might come off as pedantic, but I hope you will hear me out on the matter. To use your example; one might acknowledge the humanity of black people, but suppose them innately inferior, acknowledgment rightly referring to matters of fact, while matters of opinion are simply suppositions. So, mystery schools can’t rightly acknowledge their teachings and works are better kept secret, but rather only suppose as much. This distinction is also present in my current position on the fall of the WTC7 buildings; I acknowledge the fact that they could not have come down as they did without having been rigged to do so since the video evidence and the laws of physics prove as much, but I’ve only seen enough evidence to reasonably suppose explosives were used, less than one can rightly call proof.
Anyway, since you noted you’ve never taken an interest in studying physics, I hope you might take this as a reason to do so if you have the time to spare. In the case of WTC, one only needs a reasonable understanding of Newton’s laws of motion which can be picked up from one of the many textbooks on the subject. Alternatively, you might consider asking others about fire resulting in free fall outside the context of 9/11, avoiding emotional complications by substituting a structure made of steel tinker-toys, or plastic for that matter, of any given design reasonably resembling that of a tall building. The answer you should get from anyone competent in Newtonian physics is that facilitating a global collapse with a period of free fall requires some forces beyond that of gravity acting on the system to displace the supporting structure though the region which the rest free falls. Anyway, since even if I’ve piqued your interest in gaining the necessary understanding of physics will take some time to realize such a goal, I’ll plan to write up a response to the various arguments you made in your Boing Boing article and get back to you with that in the next day or two.
Best of wishes,
Hey, hey. The Heenes got scentenced. Didn’t know Cliff was still your #1 fan. Gads. Here’s some interesting stories
I produce a national Australian radio program for the youth network of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and I would like to organise an interview with you. Could you please email me back with your contact email and telephone number so that I can get in touch?
Sorry to use this forum to contact you re: this, but I had no luck finding another contact.
We’d love to have you as a guest on our show over at http://sittingnow.co.uk
The book’s fantastic, and we’d love to chat with you about it.
If possible, could you mail me? firstname.lastname@example.org
Many thanks, and this is a great blog!
I just finished C,C&SS and thoroughly enjoyed it – it provided the perfect introduction to a number of topics that I have always wanted to investigate but invariably did not.
Now that my curiosity has been piqued I was wondering if you have a more robust bibliography that you might be willing to share?
A big part of my process in writing the book was coming to the realization that most of the best-known sources on conspiracy, cults, and secret societies are so tendentious. Jim Marrs, David Icke, Jim Keith, Nesta Webster, Milton William Cooper, Ralph Epperson, Cleon Skousen, Robert Welch, Myron Fagan, Willis Carto, and Gary Allen have all written extensively on the Masons, the Communists and One World globalist conspiracies, but they are ultra-right wing true-believers; Mark Lane is on the left of the political spectrum, but his books are equally biased. Carol Quigley’s work has been misappropriated by right wing theorists. If you actually look closely at his writings on the Round Table and Cecil Rhodes, he is not as alarmist or intentionalist as they make him out to be. He believes that an elite existed which was unfortunately on the wrong side of history. Similarly with cults–a lot of the on-line cult databases turn out to be by Christian fundamentalists who attack the groups for their doctrine, or worry that they are collaborating with Satan. Or they are by psychologists who re-program cult victims (Margaret Thaler Singer) and are excellent on the power dynamics, but uninformative on the theology.
I was blown away by Richard Hofstadter’s continuing relevancy after half a century–his writings on Goldwater Republicans, Birchers, and McCarthyites can be just as aptly applied to Tea Baggers, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh; his ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM IN AMERICAN LIFE tells you a lot of what you need to know to understand the Sarah Palin phenomenon. There is a lot of interesting academic writing on conspiracy theory–Karl Popper of course, but Michael Barkun (I first encountered the word “conspiracist” in one of his books), Daniel Pipes and Frank Mintz. Check out David Aaronovitch’s VOODOO HISTORIES: THE ROLE OF THE CONSPIRACY THEORY IN SHAPING MODERN HISTORY (Riverhead), which is coming out next month. He’s both more academic and British-oriented than I am, but offers a good overview of the field.
I apologize for the lack of references in the book. When I wrote it, I assumed it would be indexed–after my publisher asked me to provide the extended table of contents that appears in the front of the book it decided to save paper and leave out the index. I wish I had provided a formal bibliography; I guess I didn’t because I was appalled by so many of the books that would have appeared in it.
I read an analysis of the US debt and Federal Reserve (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/it-is-now-mathematically-impossible-to-pay-off-the-u-s-national-debt). It sounds vaguely conspiratorial, and some of the comments start to link monetary policy to JFK’s assassination. Do you have a take on this or have you covered this topic in the past?
Although this article is over 50 years old — it does seem like yesterday’s news:
From: Chicago IL Southtown Economist, 8-19-56, p2
“File Petitions Tomorrow For Third Party Electors by Harold Cress, Economist Staff Writer”
“Petitions will be filed tomorrow with Secretary of State Carpentier at Springfield to have 27 independent candidates for Presidential electors placed on the November ballot in Illinois…All of the independent elector candidates are committed to vote for the election of Sen. Jenner, Republican of Indiana, as President of the United States and Sen. Byrd, Democrat of Virginia, as Vice-President.
Jenner and Byrd are to be placed in nomination at the third party’s Grass Roots national convention, to be held in Chicago on September 5, 6 and 7, according to present plans.
The third party has the active support of For America, a committee for political action, of which Gen. Robert E. Wood is honorary chairman and Dean Clarence Manion of Notre Dame the co-chairman…For America and the Grass Roots Party are dedicated to (1) protection of the independence and solvency of the United States. (2) peace with honor, (3) to safeguard the constitutional rights of the 48 states, (4) to destroy the Communist conspiracy, (5) to abolish socialistic bureaucracy and (6) to enact the Bricker amendment.
The preamble of the platform of the For America committee and the new party states:
‘Internationalist leadership has captured both of the major parties. Internationalist policies threaten American independence —threaten us with bankruptcy, involve us in foreign wars, and are destroying our liberties.’
Five hundred members of the third party from Chicago and other communities of Illinois, at a meeting last week in the Hamilton Hotel, heard an address by Kent Courtney of New Orleans, secretary of the States’ Rights Party of Louisiana. Courtney said the Eisenhower administration “has taken us further to the left than any previous administration.”
He stated: “There is no way back except through the States’ Right party which will fight Socialism on the political level which is the way it creeped into our government.”
Courtney continued: “You haven’t heard any presidential candidate of a major party say he would cut income taxes by reducing unnecessary foreign give-aways, enforce the McCarran immigration law, pass the Bricker amendment or get the 450 Americans out of Red Chinese prisons.”
Regarding the United States Supreme Court, he said it had made unconstitutional decisions which must be set aside. He stated: “The Supreme Court said a Fifth Amendment employee cannot be fired and that a railroad man in Kansas must belong to a Union. It invaded the rights of the states to run their own schools when a majority of both races prefer separate schools. By these and other recent decisions the Supreme Court has warped our Constitution.”
Dean Manion broadcasts on behalf of the For America committee and the Grass Roots third party every Sunday night on WGN radio.
AND another example:
Willis E. Stone column, “Organized Tax Protests” = Lima OH News, 1-22-59. p21:
“A group in New Orleans, headed by Kent Courtney, is using the Boston Tea Party theme in their tax protest, sending teabags with their protest to the members of Congress and the State Legislatures.”
Arthur..my daughter bought your “Cults…” for me for Xmas. Entertaining. However I must talk about your cover design. The art work is not protected by copyright anymore but it should be displayed properly. The hands clasping….it’s upside down. Very annoying every time I look at the book. caro
Now that I look at it, I see what you’re saying. Maybe it’s a weirdly contorted Masonic grip? More likely not. I will pass your comment onto my publisher, who hopefully can flip the image in future editions.
I was excited to read your book as a Psychology major, but became very disappointed when I read your accounts of Waco and Ruby Ridge. They were very slanted- against the FBI in particular. Your accounts were not entirely forthcoming regarding the facts. For example, the Davidians shot and killed their own people, including the children – THEY are responsible for their fellow-members’ deaths, not the US Government.
It is my opinion that when presenting material regarding organizations and historical events, that a writer should feel an obligation (lest he be a conspiracy-theorist himself) to tell the truth as best he can, and not leave out such important information.
Incorrect/incomplete information feeds ignorance amongst your readership. It is my hope that this message reaches you in the spirit of fighting that ignorance.
Most people who write me–especially members of the 9/11 Truth Community–fault me for being insufficiently conspiratorial and too soft by far on the government.
I reread my sections on the Branch Davidians and Ruby Ridge and it seems to me that I was as even-handed as its possible to be. I noted that the Danforth Commission cleared the FBI and ATF of intentional criminal wrong-doing at Waco; I also noted that few defended their conduct of the siege. The FBI has been assiduous to avoid “another Waco” ever since.
For example, in 1996 the Congressional Committees on the Judiciary and Government Reform and Oversight submitted a report on the tragedy in which they faulted the FBI for its use of gas. “CS riot control agent is capable of causing immediate, acute and severe physical distress to exposed individuals, especially young children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with respiratory conditions,” the report read. “In some cases, severe or extended exposure can lead to incapacitation. Evidence presented to the subcommittees show that use of CS riot control agent in enclosed spaces, such as the bunker, significantly increases the possibility that lethal levels will be reached, and the possibility of harm significantly increases. In view of the risks posed by insertion of CS into enclosed spaces, particularly the bunker, the FBI failed to demonstrate sufficient concern for the presence of young children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with respiratory conditions. While it cannot be concluded with certainty, it is unlikely that the CS riot control agent, in the quantities used by the FBI, reached lethal toxic levels. However, the presented evidence does indicate that CS insertion into the enclosed bunker, at a time when women and children were assembled inside that enclosed space, could have been a proximate cause of or directly resulted in some or all of the deaths attributed to asphyxiation in the autopsy reports.”
As for Ruby Ridge, few would argue that the FBI, the US Marshalls Service, or the ATF burnished their reputations there. When Weaver went on trial, he was acquitted for all but his bail violation. The wrongful death suit that he brought against the government was settled for $3.8 million.
I’ve just bought your book and have written something about it here:
I expect I’ll write a little more once I have actually read the thing but I was wondering if you have written any posts on Kesha Rogers and the LaRouchian infiltration of the Democratic Party. Do you have any idea where the claims that Obama is a British agent come from? (As in what evidence is put forward).
Thanks and nice site!
Thank you for your kind words about my book—I hope you still like it after you’ve read it!
I haven’t written specifically about Kesha Rogers, but can recommend some links that explain some of her wilder assertions. This one provides the full text of LaRouche’s April 2008 talk that contained this rant about Obama:
It also offers background on LaRouche’s long-standing racism. This one provides more background on the roots of LaRouche’s fixation about the British-Zionist nexus and traces it to an American isolationist pamphlet from the Roosevelt era. Click here for some of its text (as reprinted by the LaRouche organization).
American conspiracists have been ranting about a Zionist-British nexus for a long, long time–since well before FDR. Silverites or Bi-metalists believed that the “Crime of 1873” (Congress’s coinage act that demonetized silver) happened because Congress was corrupted by agents of the British government, working hand-in-hand with the Rothschilds. Going back even further, to the 1830s, pro-slavery interests believed that Abolitionism was a British plot. The rural populism of the 1880s and 1890s took up both of these themes and many of them found their way into the anti-New Deal groups that sprung up in the 1930s.
LaRouche isn’t big on evidence–he makes sweeping theological assertions, about how B’nai B’rith is an Illuminist power and the Windsors are international gangsters. Few of them are his own invention; he is drawing on a long tradition.
Thanks very much for those links. I ‘ll update my post. Those quotes from Lyndon LaRouche are even more shocking than I would have expected.
Here’s an entertainingly novel conspiracy theory for you: Dan Maes, the Republican candidate for Governor of Colorado, recently asserted that Denver’s bike-sharing program is a prelude to a UN takeover. Yes, he actually said that, and when given the opportunity to clarify his remarks, he doubled-down instead.
Despite much mockery over his claim, Maes won yesterday’s primary – mainly because his primary opponent was caught plagiarizing $300K worth of work. Between this, and Tom Tancredo running as a 3rd party candidate, it’s been an amusing season so far!
I’ll say. I hope Tancredo actually gets enough votes to hurt Maes–any good news these days makes me scared.
AlterNet’s Top 10 Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories. And the Birthers didn’t even make the list…
I wish I had a dollar for every time someone referred me to an article in Wikipedia as “proof” for whatever points they want to make.
This morning I posted the following message in the “discussion” section of the Wiki article on Meir Kahane — which should illustrate the problem when one relies upon Wiki as though it contains fact-checked or fact-based articles.
First, here is the Wikipedia article section which caught my attention:
“Infiltrating John Birch Society
In the late 1950s to early 1960s Kahane led a life of secrecy. His strong anti-Communist views landed him a position as a consultant with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). His assignment was to infiltrate the right-wing John Birch Society and report his findings back to the FBI. For this position Kahane took on the false name Michael King and spent nearly two and a half years posing as a Christian, learning all he could about the John Birch Society. ”
One reason why Wikipedia often cannot be taken seriously as an “encyclopedia” or even containing fact-based articles — is revealed by this article on Kahane.
Contrary to claims made in this article, Kahane never “infiltrated” the Birch Society for the FBI nor was he ever a “consultant” to the FBI concerning the JBS. Even Kahane’s widow, Libby, told me that she had no corroborating documentation for this claim.
I possess the entire FBI HQ file on the JBS (12,000 pages; HQ 62-104401) along with most FBI JBS-related field office files — and there is no mention whatsoever of Kahane nor is there any document which mentions somebody whose description would correspond to Kahane.
In addition, FBI field offices that used informants within any organization had to first prepare a summary memo about their proposed informant and then request authorization from HQ to use the informant.
After HQ approved use of the informant, periodic field office reports were submitted to HQ which summarized whatever info the informant provided and the field office would characterize every informant’s data in terms of reliability (such as “of known reliability” OR “unknown reliability” OR the office assigned a percentage such as “informant information found to be 95% accurate”.
BUT there are no such documents in any FBI JBS-related file because the FBI never sought or had informants within the Birch Society!
For an actual example showing how an FBI field office requested permission to use an informant and then reported on reliability of information received, see the following documents pertaining to Rev. Delmar Dennis, a JBS member who infiltrated the most violent Klan in our nation’s history—the White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi.
Notice, too, that the Bureau assigned a code name and symbol number to every informant. Significantly, NO SUCH DOCUMENTS EXIST on Kahane with respect to “infiltrating” the JBS for the FBI.
Beyond that, every FBI informant usually had expenses (e.g. travel to/from meetings, purchasing publications, membership dues, etc.) plus many were compensated for their services weekly — so, obviously, FBI files always contain expense reports or memos reporting whatever monies were paid to informants.
BUT there are no such memos or reports whatsoever in ANY JBS file—-because the FBI never had informants inside the JBS!
Furthermore, you have to ask the obvious question: what information about the JBS did the FBI supposedly want that it could not obtain except by “infiltration” by “informants”?
Lastly — the FBI never conducted a formal investigation of the JBS. Informants were used by the Bureau primarily in instances where official investigations were conducted — such as, for example, inside the KKK and CPUSA.
There were, of course, people who contacted the FBI of their own volition and then provided unsolicited raw information. Usually, the FBI just recorded such contacts in memo form and then they just ignored it.
You may find this article and arvix paper interesting in relation to your article on Haiti. http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26114/
Im sure the CT groups will be all over this.
I submitted ownership of the word “Ismology” ,the study of isms. Then a friend found your book and now I don’t have to write one.
Just take a look over on the right. Mr. GOLDWAG wrote a book touting the Jewish Kaballah (go read the dripping goo he dredged up for “reviews”).
I guess that kind of thing gives him gravatas to write about cults, huh?
Funny how a Jew can lambast everything in the world and then lovingly present what the “Chosen Ones” think is so profound.
More and more Americans are now starting to get it about these arrogant people!
@ Phillip: This may come as a shock to you, but just because someone writes a book on a topic doesn’t necessarily mean they believe in it. Do you think all those books on Norse mythology were written by people who actually worship Odin? Or that the recent slew of books on terrorism are all written by terrorists?
I haven’t read this book, but with 30 seconds of research the very first review I found (at Amazon.com) says it “…provides a good description of what Kabbalah is without any real judgments as to its effectiveness.”
I am currently working on the second edition of my report on the late Eustace Mullins.
I will be discussing, at length, various assertions made by, and articles written by, Mullins.
For example: I will devote considerable attention to the various hoaxes which Mullins authored including:
* the “Rabbi Rabinovich” speech
* the “Lizzie Stover College Fund”
* the “Israel Cohen” hoax
* the alleged Birch Society/Rockefeller “connection”
In addition, I will devote a major portion of my Report to a discussion of Mullins’ autobiographical book, “A Writ For Martyrs” — because a factual analysis of that book so clearly illustrates how political extremists manipulate data to preclude any adverse judgments about their own lives.
Significantly, Mullins altered FBI documents which he reproduced in his book. He excised portions which referred to his homosexuality, his anti-semitism, and his connections to neo-nazis and racial extremists.
In his book, Mullins portrays himself (and his friend Max Nelsen) as completely innocent average Americans who were viciously hounded, harassed, and persecuted by an out-of-control “police-state” security organization accountable to no one (i.e. the FBI).
Here are some relevant facts Mullins omits from his book:
(1) Mullins received training in explosives and bomb-making (!!!) at the farm of William Wernecke in Huntley IL. The FBI learned about this from interviewing Wernecke’s wife.
(2) Max Nelsen had advocated bombing synagogues in Illinois and he expressed approval of the October 1958 bombing of the Atlanta, Georgia Temple — which involved members of the National States Rights Party (NSRP). Mullins recommended membership in the NSRP and Nelsen was the Illinois leader of the NSRP plus he bragged about his close association with George Lincoln Rockwell (American Nazi Party) and other neo-nazis.
(3) During his college days, Nelsen sent anonymous threatening letters to the then-Mayor of Minneapolis (Hubert Humphrey) and to the Police Dept Detective who eventually arrested Nelsen. Furthermore, Nelsen plastered the area around his university campus with “Kill Jews” signs.
(4) Beyond that, the propaganda which Nelsen put out during his college years and subsequently in Illinois (in conjunction with Mullins through groups they co-founded such as M&N Associates, Realpolitical Institute, and Institute For Biopolitics) was explicitly inciteful of racial and religious hatred.
(5) In short, contrary to the whitewash which Mullins presents in his book, there were many legitimate reasons why the FBI became interested in both Mullins and Nelsen and why they both were listed as “potential bombing suspects” and “racial extremists”.
(6) From the FBI viewpoint, here were two guys (Mullins and Nelsen) that….
(a) constantly associated themselves with extremists (such as James Madole-National Renaissance Party, John Kasper—(Clinton TN riot fame), Joseph Beauharnais-White Circle League of Chicago and Emory Burke—The Columbians) OR
(b) who were involved in, or had condoned, violent acts or who had received instruction in bomb-making and use of explosives (for example: William Wernecke, James Madole, Emory Burke, F. Allen Mann, Joseph Beauharnais, John Kasper, etc) OR
(c) who had written or published literature which was extremely inflammatory and inciteful of racial and religious hatred
(d) Plus Mullins had lived (for varying periods of time) with some of these guys (such as William Wernecke, Matt Koehl, John Crommelin, John Kasper)
There is much more in Mullins’ book which is totally false or deliberately misrepresents the facts of the matters he discusses. I will present this material in the next edition of my Mullins Report.
A brief preview:
I recently obtained the military service records plus additional FBI files pertaining to Mullins — who is described by his admirers as:
“America’s premier populist historian…a titanic figure on the landscape of American (and world) history as a consequence of his monumental contributions to the arena of political, economic and philosophical discussion.” [American Free Press, 7/27/09, p A-4, “Meet Eustace Mullins”]
The actual beliefs, values, and life-long associations of Mullins reflect a totally different reality.
The new edition of my Mullins Report will incorporate scanned copies of personal correspondence and articles written by Mullins which have never previously been publicly revealed. Such data will conclusively demonstrate the life-long bigotry of Mullins and his history of fabricating hoaxes for his gullible readers.
Here are some new details which will appear in my new Mullins Report:
1. MILITARY SERVICE
In most of his self-written biographical sketches Mullins described himself as “a veteran of the United States Air Force with 38 months of active service during World War II.”
However, according to his military service records at the Military Personnel Records Center (St. Louis MO):
Mullins served in the Army Air Corps from 1/2/43 until 2/5/46. He served as a Clerk-Typist but had no foreign service.
He received “two Summary Court-Martials” for being AWOL and for failure to report to an appointed place.
During his military service, he was hospitalized upon two different occasions:
(1) September 11, 1943 – September 17, 1943 = he was hospitalized with a diagnosis of “constitution psychopathic state, inadequate personality, EPTI” [EPTI=existing prior to induction]
(2) December 14, 1944 – February 29, 1945 = he was hospitalized with a diagnosis of “constitutional psychopathic state, unqualified, EPTI”
On this second occasion, Mullins was brought in as a prisoner. At the time of his arrest he had in his possession a gun and bullets and “he made the statement to two officers that he had purchased the revolver with the intention of committing suicide sometime during the afternoon of his arrest…His reason was because he was tired of living.”
The doctors who treated him concluded that he exhibited “both psychopathic and neurotic trends, both due to the same dynamic latent homosexuality…” Among his symptoms: having to urinate while sitting down, dreams of snakes, castration anxiety, fear of going blind and heart failure.
“The case was presented to the Section VIII Board for disposition and after a two to two deadlock, patient was ordered back to duty.”
Mullins asked another patient on his ward who was diagnosed “as dementia praecox, hebephrenic type” to steal his (Mullins’) chart and destroy it.
“After completion of various tests, Mullins was determined to be a ‘malingerer’ and that disciplinary action rather than medical action should be taken.”
Mullins declared in his autobiographical summaries that:
“After serving thirty-eight months in the U.S. Army Air Force during World War II, Eustace Mullins was educated at Washington and Lee University, Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, and New York University. He later studied art at the Escuela des Bellas Artes, San Miguel de Allende Mexico and the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Washington, D.C.”
[From: Mullins’s self-published book, “The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History”, Revelation Books, (Staunton VA), 1987, page 2, “About The Author”]; Also see American Free Press, 7/27/09, page A-4, “Meet Eustace Mullins”]
(a) Washington and Lee University: He attended W&L from 2/46 to 2/48. He never declared a major. He did not graduate. His GPA was below the required minimum of “C”.
(b) Ohio State University : The Registrar’s Office at Ohio State had no record of Mullins ever attending that University.
(c) University of North Dakota: The Registrar’s Office at UND had no record of Mullins ever attending that University.
(d) New York University: Mullins attended a summer session (June-September 1947).
(e) Institute of Contemporary Arts: Mullins attended as a writing student in 1948-1949. He did not receive a degree.
(3) 1958 INCOME TAX RETURN
Mullins claimed a $60 deduction representing a bad debt allegedly owed him by “Mr. Leslie Richards, FBI”. No person by that name ever was employed by the FBI.
Mullins also claimed that he donated $125 to United Jewish Appeal and $75 to the Urban League. The IRS declined to prosecute Mullins for tax fraud only because the cost of prosecution would exceed the amount of money that could be recovered.
My name is Brendan Somerville, and I’m producing a show in NYC that I’d like to have you come down for an interview. I don’t want to reveal too much information over this forum, so please email me back at your earliest convenience at the attached email address, and I can explain exactly what I’m talking about.
I have a talk show called Women Talk on wpbradio.com and I would like if you would grant us a call in interview. We stream live every Thursday & Friday from 5 pm to 9 pm EST and tonight we will be having a discussion regarding organizations and cults and thought that you would be able to add some insight to our conversation. I truly hope you will be available to talk to us. I can be reached via email at email@example.com, thank you for your consideration.
I read your book last year as an introduction to the subject of conspiracy theories and paranoid politics and it was exactly what I needed for starting my research.
This year I have been blogging on the Arab Spring, and in various forums around the web I have found an explosion of anti-Jewish revisions of history, and David Icke style conspiracy theories. It is worrying in that in conversations with a few people from oppressed regions in MENA it is taken for granted that “Jews rule the world” and are to blame for their suffering.
So I was wondering if you have had much contact with the Arabic versions of conspiracy theories and if you know of some websites with good counter arguments for them. I would like to write a post or two on the subject and it would be a great help if you could pass them on.
The Conspiracies of the Elders of Zion were published in Arabic in Damascus as early as 1925; they took with a vengeance and remain the preferred conspiracist template in the Middle East. I don’t read Arabic, but I’ve looked at a number of English language websites. Conspiracy theory–and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory especially–serves the interests of the entrenched powers in the Arab world by diverting anger away from them. Of course, the Islamic nations’ hostility to Israel isn’t altogether irrational–they have many sound reasons for disliking and distrusting Israel. Insane, over-the-top Anti-Semitic conspiracism serves the interests of right wing Zionists, too, by distracting attention from their own sins.
Rabid anti-Islamic websites like Atlas Shrugs don’t do Israel any favors; what’s needed is the kind of nuanced, balanced truth-telling that you still hear on the Israeli left and read on the editorial pages of H’aaretz, but almost never hear from American politicians.
Dr. Medford Bryan Evans : A Case Study of Conspiracy “Logic”
Medford Evans was a very well-educated individual [bachelor’s degree from University of Chattanooga, magna cum laude; and Ph.D from Yale University.] His 1933 Yale doctoral dissertation (in English literature) was entitled “Samuel Johnson’s Reports of Debates In Parliament.”
From approximately 1928 thru 1942, Dr. Evans was an associate professor of English at several colleges and universities in Mississippi, Texas, Tennessee, and, Louisiana.
From 1942-1943 he was a program writer and announcer at radio station WDOD in Chattanooga TN but he was abruptly fired (see below).
In 1943, Evans started working at the Atomic Energy Commission in Oak Ridge TN and, ultimately, wound up in Washington DC. His last position was (he claimed) Chief of Security Training. I have no clue how his training in English literature qualified him for Security Training.
After leaving AEC, he became Dean at McMurry College in Abilene TX but he soon left that position to work in Dallas at Facts Forum–alongside former FBI Special Agent, Dan Smoot. Smoot fired Dr. Evans in 1955 whereupon Evans took a social science faculty position at Northwestern State College of Louisiana in Natchitoches. He was fired from that position in June 1959 and he subsequently became a John Birch Society Coordinator in Texas as well as a regular contributor to the JBS magazine, American Opinion. In addition, in 1959 Dr. Evans joined the staff of Citizens Councils of America and became Managing Editor of their magazine.
As you can see from this summary, Dr. Evans had a very unstable and volatile employment history. If you hear alarm bells ringing…read on…
In the John Birch Society Blue Book, pages 88-90, Robert Welch discusses Medford Evans in the context of Welch’s plan to set up JBS front groups. One such group Welch thought might be appropriate was a Committee To Protest The Firing of Medford Evans.
Welch then explains how such a JBS front group could work to expose how “Communists” oppose academic freedom when it applies to conservative anti-communist college professors.
Here, then, is Welch’s conspiratorial explanation regarding Evans being fired from his last college position:
“Now Medford Evans is being fired – officially he has been told that his contract will not be renewed next June – from Northwestern State College in Louisiana for no other reason than his uncompromising stand against Communism. This can be shown conclusively to the satisfaction of any reasonable man…In fact, as of now the Leftists behind this deal…seem to want it known that Dr. Evans is losing his job because of his anti-Communism – again as a warning and threat to others like him.”
The beauty of conspiratorial allegations (such as the one just summarized by Welch) is that they combine kernels of truth with outright falsehoods and then weave everything together tightly via sinister innuendo—none of which requires even one iota of actual factual proof, but they always depend upon the extreme unlikelihood that anyone will perform any research into the facts of the matter being discussed.
“No other reason than his uncompromising stand against Communism” ???
Let’s review some factual evidence and THEN you decide if Welch’s paradigm is credible:
1. As mentioned above, Evans was fired in 1955 from his position at Facts Forum by none other than fellow conspiracy adherent, Dan Smoot (a former FBI Special Agent), who, in later years, endorsed the Birch Society.
Obviously, Dan Smoot didn’t fire Evans for “his uncompromising stand against Communism” – so something else must be responsible, right? What could it be?
2. Enter Karl Baarslag. Baarslag served on the Communist desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence during World War II and he was a national American Legion director of countersubversive activities. He edited the American Legion monthly newsletter entitled Firing Line. In 1955, Baarslag supplied information to Rex Findley (of American Legion’s Americanism Commission) about why Medford Evans was fired by Dan Smoot. Findley then passed the information onto his FBI contact, Cartha DeLoach. It turns out that Evans was fired by Smoot due to financial irregularities at Facts Forum.
3. In April 1960, the Chief Investigator for the segregationist Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission (Zack Van Landingham, another former FBI Special Agent) wrote a memo summarizing information he had received concerning the formation of a Birch Society chapter in Jackson MS.
Mr. Van Landingham received this information from his meeting with Bill Simmons, a JBS member in Mississippi and another official of Citizens Council of America. Simmons told Van Landingham, that “Medford Evans was a professor at the Northwest Louisiana College, Natchitoches LA, but was fired because of his anti-integration policies.”
4. Evans’ anti-integration views and activities are well-documented. For example: In 1959 he was Chairman of a strategy committee for the pro-segregation States Rights Party of Louisiana (SRPL). He was also Secretary of the SRPL. In 1962 he joined the staff of the anti-integration Citizens Councils of America and became a CCA Field Director. In 09/62 he wrote an article for the CCA magazine (The Citizen) entitled: “Forced Integration is Communism in Action”. In a column captioned “The South—Soviet Target”, Evans wrote that:
“The South, however, cannot endure, could not survive, the destruction of the systems of legal segregation…Now, the very fact that integration is impossible is the reason why the Communists promote it.”
But this isn’t the end of the saga of Medford Evans. It’s only the beginning!
Because of his employment by the Atomic Energy Commission, Evans was subject to an FBI background investigation. A January 31, 1962 FBI memo summarized their investigation as follows:
“Evans was investigated in 1947 as an Atomic Energy Act applicant when it was alleged that he drank considerably and was unreliable and irresponsible.”
The FBI memo also reports that Evans had been fired by radio station WDOD “due to his heavy drinking and being unreliable” plus Evans had been arrested and fined for public drunkenness in May 1944 in Tennessee.
The FBI concluded that Evans was terminated from Northwestern State College in Louisiana not for his anti-communist beliefs, (as Robert Welch claimed) but because the college wanted the head of their Social Science Department to have training in that discipline. Evans’s training and doctorate was in English and all of his teaching experience prior to Northwestern State College was as an English professor.
So, you can choose from three explanations for the firing of Evans:
1. The Welch fabrication that Evans was fired for his “anti-communist” beliefs
2. Evans was fired for his anti-integration beliefs
3. Evans was fired because his professional training and experience was in a different discipline than that required by the Louisiana college
Arthur: Not sure how you feel about this but. IMHO, if Obama is re-elected, I think he faces the greatest possibility of a violent attack against him from a right-wing fanatic. My reasoning is this:
It is now clear that the Republican strategy from Day One of Obama’s Presidency has been to prevent him from achieving anything.
The “respectable” wing of the GOP presents themselves as merely arguing against Obama “policies” they disagree with.
But the fanatic and conspiratorial wings of the GOP use every opportunity to convey personal contempt toward Obama as a person.
They use everything from:
(1) associating him with “terrorists” (i.e. Bill Ayers),
(2) to questioning his religious beliefs (“he’s a Muslim”),
(3) to denying his U.S. citizenship (birthers),
(4) to explicit appeals to racism (“he hates whites”; or “one must consider his Kenyan background”),
(4) to questioning his loyalty or patriotism (he’s not one of “us” and he always “apologizes for America” or he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism,) etc.
(5) to declaring he subscribes to alien concepts (“he’s a socialist” or “marxist”)
(a) Everyone knows that no American President in history (other than FDR) has ever won re-election when unemployment has been as high as it is now
(b) All current polling suggests that the “right track/wrong track” question produces large majorities who think we are on the “wrong track”
(c) When Obama took office, the “Misery Index” (unemployment rate added to the inflation rate) was 7.83; it currently is 12.76 and trending consistently upward
1. The GOP has every reason to believe that Obama will be (as Michele Bachmann constantly says) a “one-term President”.
2. The Tea Party’s influence within the GOP makes it extremely unlikely that any GOP incumbent in Congress or any GOP candidate in 2012 will attempt to find common ground with Obama because doing so will undermine their objective of presenting him as a failed President.
3. SO — If Obama is re-elected, I think some fanatic is going to conclude that a “second amendment remedy” is entirely appropriate and necessary.
Comments are closed.