THE PURPOSE OF A POLITICAL SPECTRUM – rev. March 2021
Analysis of Proposed Spectrum Which Places Nazism-Fascism
and White Nationalists on LEFT Side
A PDF copy of this Report is available at the bottom of this webpage
This webpage is being created to address a frequent argument appearing online which rejects our traditional understanding about a political spectrum.
In particular, I will address the absurdities frequently posted online by John Birch Society members which claim that neo-nazis and/or white supremacists are NOT related to conservatism and, therefore, should NOT be considered right-wing sentiments, movements, or ideologies.
Many of the critics of our traditional understanding regarding a political spectrum also take their argument one step further by rejecting evidence which establishes that most politically-inspired violence in the United States during the past 50 years has been by RIGHT-WING fanatics.
[For historical background on this subject see: https://sites.google.com/site/aboutxr/right-wing-violence
They accomplish this intellectual trick simply by demanding that we accept only their criteria for defining what constitutes genuine “right wing” or conservative ideas and principles AND we must accept their judgments as the sole arbiter of what constitutes genuine fidelity to conservative values principles. They employ this intellectual device in order to create a self-sealing argument which no amount of contradictory factual evidence can ever penetrate because it is deliberately constructed to be a “heads, I win and tails, you lose” argument.
To begin at the beginning:
(1) What are we attempting to accomplish with a political spectrum? Why even bother to create one?
(2) The major purpose of a political spectrum is its analytic and predictive value – namely, being able, over time, to make rational fact-based judgments regarding what like-minded individuals believe and how they are likely to behave in terms of whether or not they will approve or disapprove, support or reject, defend or attack, specific ideas, public policies, proposed legislation and/or political candidates and political narratives.
In other words, for example, IF we WRONGLY place someone on the "right" or "left" side of a proposed spectrum -- then the inevitable result would be that we cannot accurately predict what positions they will adopt OR what evaluations they will make -- as they confront new issues, controversies, or proposals and as they consider new prospective candidates for elective or appointed offices.
IF we can agree upon the aforementioned major purpose for why we create a political spectrum, then we can begin to have a rational discussion about the history and meaning of terms such as “right wing” vs “left wing” or “liberal” vs “conservative”.
(3) Historically, a political spectrum has been presented in linear fashion with polar opposites at the extreme edges – such as:
EXTREME LEFT (radicalism, communism) / fabianism / socialism / liberalism / conservativism / libertarian / EXTREME RIGHT (fascism, nazism)
However, one alternative conception has also been proposed by libertarian David Nolan which may be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart
(4) Normally, a political spectrum reflects the social, economic, and political ideas of like-minded individuals – because they typically agree upon a constellation of ideas, values, objectives and principles.
However, that does not mean everyone always marches in lock-step. There will always be specific issues which result in exceptions to the general rule. For example, some predominantly "left-wing" individuals may take a position normally associated with the "right-wing" and, vice-versa. Why might that happen? Because (as our founding fathers recognized), it is normal for human beings to develop “factions”, i.e. some sort of dissent or criticism about a specific issue or problem.
For example: urban areas may have different interpretations and needs from rural areas. Labor interests may be different from employer interests. Racial or religious minorities may interpret some issue differently from the larger population.
Consequently, elected representatives for these constituencies may, at some point, feel compelled to choose to support some legislative policy proposal which does not coincide with their normal political behavior or ideological pre-disposition.
We have a word in the English language for somebody who never adapts to new circumstances or never accepts new information and who, instead, robotically dismisses or de-legitimizes all exigent circumstances. That word is fanatic.
Normally, our political evaluations rely upon seeing a consistent behavior PATTERN over time because that becomes the most compelling data.
For example: NOBODY in our country questions or denies that political figures like Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or Hillary or Bill Clinton or Elizabeth Warren or President Obama appropriately belong on the LEFT side of a political spectrum, and almost nobody in our country denies that political figures like Mitch McConnell, or Marco Rubio, or Mike Lee, or Mitt Romney or Lindsay Graham appropriately belong on the RIGHT side of a political spectrum.
Fortunately, we have an objective methodology which can be used to test our understanding, i.e. the voting scorecards compiled by well-known right-wing and left-wing and non-partisan educational and interest groups.
Examples of right-wing groups include Chamber of Commerce, FreedomWorks, Heritage Foundation, American Conservative Union, National Taxpayers Union, National Rifle Association, John Birch Society.
Examples of left-wing interest groups include: Americans for Democratic Action, Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, NAACP. AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers, United Auto Workers, National Organization for Women.
Non-partisan sources include American Bar Association, National Journal and Project Vote Smart. Obviously, each interest group (right wing or left wing) selects the issues which they believe are the most important criteria for evaluating whether or not an elected official is adhering to right-wing or left-wing values, principles, and positions. Yes, there can be differences in interpretation about specific issues but the overall pattern is the most compelling information.
So---check the scores which the right-wing and left-wing groups give to every member of Congress. Check out which individuals consistently score very high every year on their scorecards. Also notice the individuals who score very low each year.
THEN, compare what neo-nazi, fascist, Hitler-admiring, and white nationalist individuals and organizations favor or approve with respect to the issues evaluated by right-wing and left-wing interest groups and calculate the score which those alleged "leftists" would achieve if they scored like members of Congress.
To use a commonly-understood terminology, we can apply the typical school grading formula to voting scores, as follows:
A (excellent) 90-100% B (good) 80-89% C (average) 70-79% D (poor) 60-69% F (fail) Less than 60%
Typically, someone who consistently scores high (over 80%) would be considered a reliable ally for liberals or conservatives while someone who consistently scores very low (0 to 69%) probably would be considered very unreliable in terms of predicting their political values or positions.
A “centrist” or “moderate” would probably consistently score 70-79% -- depending upon the specific matter under scrutiny. Thus, this person would be expected to side with conservatives on some matters and with the liberals on others. One possibility would be to side with conservatives on fiscal and/or criminal justice matters but then side with liberals on civil rights/civil liberties and environmental matters.
(5) POLITICAL EXTREMISTS
Political extremists (left or right) typically consistently give low scores to ALL of our politicians (i.e. equivalent to “D” or “F”). Their very low scores reflect their fringe understanding about what they consider unacceptable political behavior. Example: the John Birch Society currently gives the U.S. House of Representatives an average score of 35% and the U.S. Senate 24%. [JBS Freedom Index, July 20, 2020].
The extreme right in our country wants us to adopt a totally new understanding of what a political spectrum should signify or convey.
The fundamental underlying premise of their new proposed spectrum is that ALL government is our mortal enemy. Furthermore, they contend that history proves indisputably that government is evil and dangerous and it always diminishes freedom and facilitates tyranny.
Therefore, the more government activism or intervention within a society -- the less freedom exists within society.
This conception of a political spectrum posits a continuous sequence of government activist ideologies (aka “statism” or “collectivism”) in which adjacent political elements are not perceptibly different from each other. Thus, fascism, nazism, communism, fabianism, socialism and liberalism are all placed on the LEFT side of this proposed spectrum. This new proposed spectrum places anarchy [no government] on the extreme right while all authoritarian regimes and dictatorships and related ideologies are on the left.
The key to understanding this proposed new political spectrum is that all forms of government activism are considered exclusively the result of dangerous left-wing sentiments and impulses.
The CENTER of this proposed new spectrum is limited to conservatives and libertarians (i.e. anti-government or "limited" government adherents). Some adherents of this spectrum prefer to be described as “constitutionalists” instead of as conservatives.
The new "middle" or "center" of the spectrum consists of those persons who consider ALL types of liberalism, socialism, progressivism, communism, fascism, and nazism to be forms of "collectivism" or "statism" (aka PRO-government activism) which they believe inevitably produces or facilitates tyranny – so not much point in making fastidious distinctions between or among them.
Since the worst violators of human freedom and dignity in all of history have been those governments which maximized government intervention, (i.e. totalitarian dictatorships), the advocates of this spectrum don’t see much point in distinguishing between nazi, fascist, or communist ideology since they ALL resulted in horrific crimes against humanity.
Groups whose ideology we currently consider “extreme right” (such as the John Birch Society) place themselves in the CENTER of the new spectrum because they claim to be ANTI-statist since they favor "limited government".
In essence, the new spectrum is a rather transparent attempt to pretend that everything despicable, dishonorable, frightening and dangerous originates exclusively from the LEFT side of the spectrum whereas everything decent, honorable, moral, and desirable may be found exclusively in the center of the spectrum— which places the Birch Society in the epicenter of legitimate and principled political activity.
NOTE: Proposing that anarchy be placed on the extreme right of a political spectrum doesn’t make much sense because it is not actually a political ideology or coherent belief system or movement.
There are no academic journals, popular magazines, or newspapers which advocate for anarchist ideas or policies; there are no politicians who run on some sort of anarchy platform or who are endorsed by some anarchist political party; there are no specific shared public policy objectives by anarchists (if you can even find those people),
There are no anarchist radio or TV programs or interest groups or prominent spokespeople In essence, anarchy is the absence of political philosophy and governing rules/regulations. In fact, one can imagine a society totally in turmoil with pervasive and unrelenting civil unrest across all of society where BOTH left- wing and right-wing actors are participanting in lawlessness and chaos. Consequently, anarchy does not actually belong on a political spectrum.
The REAL purpose behind this proposed new idea of a political spectrum is to create an “enemies list” because collectivists/statists of all kinds (i.e. anyone who advocates utilizing the instrumentalities of government to accomplish anything within society) are considered “the enemy” of human freedom – but not honorable, principled, and legitimate political competitors.
Individuals/groups which subscribe to this new political spectrum often are very hostile toward "establishment Republicans" (whom they usually describe as RINO’s). At various times, the following Republicans have been identified as RINO’s: President George W. Bush, Chris Christie, Karl Rove, Michael Bloomberg, Charlie Crist, John McCain, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Mitt Romney, and Mitch McConnell.
Groups like the Birch Society consider these folks RINO’s because they are “Insiders” who are facilitators of "big government" while they pretend to subscribe to Constitutional limitations upon government activism.
During the 1950's, there was a comparable movement that reviled President Eisenhower. Perhaps not remembered now, but there was a protest movement during the 1950's against the Eisenhower Administration which also utilized tea bags -- sort of the precursor to our contemporary Tea Party Movement.
DISTINGUISHING POLITICAL EXTREMISM
(6) ALL political extremists may share common attitudes about some matters and they may suffer from the same types of intellectual or moral deficiencies -- but they do have unique distinguishing features and irreconcilable differences as well as contradictory evaluations about desirable policies and people which render them totally incompatible with each other.
Consequently, as will be seen below, they cannot be grouped together upon a political spectrum if you want to truly understand what motivates people to gravitate toward them and also understand which people will be likely to become RECEPTIVE to their ideas and proposals.
Examples:
(6a) What is the position of the right versus left with respect to the United Nations? OR, more broadly, with respect to "internationalism" or “globalism” vs "isolationism" or "America First"? What has been their position re: our alliances such as NATO?
(6b) What is the position of the right vs. left with respect to personal and corporate income taxation or international trade agreements or tariffs?
(6c) Historically, what has been the position of the right versus the left with respect to voting rights for African-Americans in the U.S.? What has been their position on immigration policy OR about same-sex marriage or about abortion rights?
(6d) Historically, what has been the position of the right versus the left with respect to their evaluation of these public figures or entities?
* Senator Joseph McCarthy (WI) * Senator William Knowland (CA) * Senator William Fulbright (AR) * Cong. Jeff Flake (AZ) * Cong. Adam Schiff (CA) * Governor George Wallace (AL) * Governor Lester Maddox (GA) * Governor Nelson Rockefeller (NY) * President Harry Truman * President Donald Trump * President Barrack Obama * President Dwight D. Eisenhower * Secretary of State John Foster Dulles * Walter Reuther (UAW leader) * U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren * FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover * Jane Fonda or John Wayne * Rush Limbaugh * Sean Hannity * Fox News * MSNBC or NBC * NAACP * American Civil Liberties Union
DEMOCRACY vs REPUBLIC
A key component of Birch Society thinking is that the United States was originally created to be, and should always be considered, a Republic – not a democracy.
As JBS founder Robert Welch famously declared in his speech at the founding meeting of the Birch Society in December 1958:
“The John Birch Society is to be a monolithic body. A republican form of government or of organization has many attractions and advantages, under certain favorable conditions. But under less happy circumstances it lends itself too readily to infiltration, distortion and disruption. And democracy, of course, in government or organization, as the Greeks and Romans both found out, and as I believe every man in this room clearly recognizes -- democracy is merely a deceptive phrase, a weapon of demagoguery, and a perennial fraud." [John Birch Society Blue Book, 1959, page 159]
Notice Welch's qualification regarding "republican form of government", i.e. "has many attractions and advantages, under certain favorable conditions."
The JBS declared in 1958 that those "certain favorable conditions" did NOT exist when (according to Welch) the U.S. was 20-40% under "Communist influence and control".
By 1964, according to Welch and the JBS we supposedly were 60-80% under Communist influence and control!
According to JBS analysis, we have NEVER achieved those "certain favorable conditions" -- which is why (for example) when the JBS scores the voting behavior of all members of Congress, their current average cumulative score is 35% for the House and 24% for the Senate. [July 2020, JBS Freedom Index] https://www.thenewamerican.com/files/Freedom_Index_116-3.pdf
In other words, according to the JBS, our Congress is a miserable and abject failure in terms of understanding our Constitution and voting according to its values and precepts.
Why, then, does anyone think that the JBS (if it had its way) would suddenly abandon its 60+ year history of telling Americans that "traitors" are running our government and institutions?
And why would the JBS suddenly abandon its condition requiring "certain favorable conditions" for allowing a republican form of government to operate?
And THAT, presumably, is why Welch chose a totalitarian model as the template for how to structure and run the JBS.
Robert Welch considered democracy to be "mob rule". However, Thomas Jefferson certainly had a different understanding. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Isaac H. Tiffany on August 26, 1816, which certainly contradicts the understanding of Birchers. With respect to the ancient Greeks, Jefferson wrote:
"They had just ideas of the value of personal liberty, but none at all of the structure of government best calculated to preserve it. They knew no medium between a democracy (the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town) and an abandonment of themselves to an aristocracy or a tyranny independent of the people."
Jefferson then also pointed out that:
"It seems not to have occurred that where the citizens cannot meet to transact their business in person, they alone have the right to chuse the agents who shall transact it; and that, in this way, a republican, or popular government, of the 2d grade of purity, may be exercised over any extent of country. The full experiment of a government democratical, but representative, was and is still reserved for us."
On April 24, 1816, Jefferson also wrote to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours:
“We of the United States, you know, are constitutionally and conscientiously democrats”.
Birchers say our Founding Fathers distrusted and detested democracy but Thomas Jefferson and James Madison named the political party they founded the "Democratic- Republican Party"
HISTORICAL NOTE: ALL the white supremacist organizations and movements in U.S. history (KKK, neo-nazis, and other white hate groups) professed their devotion to our "Constitutional Republic".
For example, see the text of the recruitment flyer most frequently used by the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan of Mississippi—the most violent Klan in our nation’s history. The KKK flyer also proclaims the KKK's devotion to:
"Our governmental system is a Constitutional Republic, primarily designed to protect the Responsible Individual Citizens from all tyranny..." [William H. McIlhany II, “Klandestine: The Untold Story of Delmar Dennis and His Role in the FBI’s War Against the Ku Klux Klan”, Arlington House, 975, pages 112-113]
Obviously, generalizations are worthless. As discussed above, one can vehemently proclaim one's devotion to a "Constitutional Republic" while simultaneously enslaving an entire category of human beings and/or committing criminal acts of barbarism against one's fellow countrymen.
Merely proclaiming one's belief in a "Republic" tells you nothing whatsoever! And, in fact, many of the most tyrannical governments in history were organized as "Republics".
When the John Birch Society scored the voting behavior of all members of Congress via its "Conservative Index" (now known as "Freedom Index"), they gave Sen. James O. Eastland of Mississippi a score of 96 out of 100. So, from the JBS perspective, Eastland was a role model for how our elected representatives should behave because he represented our best qualities and instincts. However, Eastland sought and received KKK support for his election campaigns AND in 1964 he helped thwart the prosecution of the murderers of civil rights workers!
In 1966, Rev. Delmar Dennis (an FBI informant inside the White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi) told the FBI about a letter written by Neshoba MS County Sheriff Lawrence Rainey (a KKK member) wherein Sheriff Rainey boasted: “I know for a fact that James O. Eastland helped prevent the trial of 16 other men and myself in Philadelphia MS.” [FBI-Jackson 67-30, serial illegible, page 2, 11/17/66 SAC Jackson to J. Edgar Hoover].
Rev. Dennis also told the FBI that Sam Bowers (Imperial Wizard, White Knights of the KKK of MS), told Klansmen “that he had made a deal with Eastland that if Bowers and Klansmen would support Eastland, Eastland in turn would have the indictments dismissed against the 17 Neshoba County defendants.” [FBI- Jackson 67-30, serial illegible, page 2, 11/17/66 SAC Jackson to J. Edgar Hoover].
Keep in mind that the KKK was listed since November 1947 as a subversive organization on the U.S. Attorney General's List. It was also listed as subversive by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
Is Eastland REALLY the type of person who we want to praise, along with the JBS, as somebody who properly understood Constitutional principles and values and the proper role of government within our society?
Do we really want to elevate and celebrate white supremacists and other bigots as the pinnacle of our country -- just because they fraudulently claim to understand what a "republic" means and they fraudulently describe themselves as "patriots"?
Significantly, Robert Welch left the GOP in 1956 to campaign and vote for the Presidential candidate of the States Rights Party (T. Coleman Andrews Sr. of Richmond VA). Andrews was a life-long white supremacist. The official motto of the States Rights Party in 1956 was "Segregation Forever!". See: https://www.ourcampaigns.com/PartyDetail.html?PartyID=45
In 1976, Welch again voted for a life-long racist (Tom Anderson, American Party). In addition, Welch and the JBS praised many other white supremacists in Congress -- such as: Cong. John Rarick (LA). Rarick was a KKK member. Also: Cong. L. Mendel Rivers (SC) and Sen. Strom Thurmond (SC). In 1963, Welch asked Thurmond to accept appointment to the JBS National Council but he declined.
WHY should we emulate Robert Welch or the John Birch Society OR believe that THEIR understanding of our Constitution should prevail?
The American abolitionist, Theodore Parker, said that democracy is “government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people; of course, a government of the principles of eternal justice, the unchanging law of God for shortness sake, I will call it the idea of freedom”. [Theodore Parker, “The American Idea”, May 1850].
Abraham Lincoln heard Parker’s speech and was influenced by it and he used some of its phraseology in his famous and immortal Gettysburg Address. Lincoln later said:
“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.”
THE FICTION OF ALLEGED JBS BELIEF IN A “CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC”
(1) What is the JBS position regarding membership in liberal organizations? Americans for Democratic Action
According to Robert Welch, membership in a liberal organization like the ADA should be regarded as an act of treason, and, thus, a capital offense.
As Welch wrote in his book-length letter entitled "The Politician" he explicitly stated (page 77 of 2002 edition; page 119 of 1963 edition): that the objective of the ADA and a similar Republican group called Republican Advance "was the gradual communization of the United States to make easier its absorption into a world-wide Communist empire ruled from the Kremlin."
And, then, a few months later, during his 12/58 lecture in Indianapolis as reported in the JBS Blue Book, page 117, Welch declared:
"But the ADA, whether a lot of its members know it or not, is the same as an arm of the Communist Party. Its weight can be thrown, and is thrown, time after time, with never an exception, in support of Communist objectives."
The Eleventh Report of the California Senate Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities pointed out about the ADA that:
“During the past few years we have received many inquiries concerning the status of this organization (ADA) and therefore deem it appropriate to devote some space to it here. This organization is in no sense a Communist front, or in any way subversive.” The Subcommittee also observed that “…the Communist newspaper in California declared angrily that the A.D.A. was a ‘Trojan horse for red-baiters.’ This refers to a critical article about ADA published in in People’s Daily World of January 8, 1947. [11th Report of California Subcommittee, 1961, page 140; Also see FBI-HQ file 100-348196 re: the ADA.] For the libel implications of what Welch and the JBS claim about the ADA, see: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9749533749622305978&q=%22americans+for +democratic+action%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
In April 1963, the Public Relations Director of the JBS (John Rousselot) gave a plaque to JBS member Maj. General Edwin A. Walker of Dallas, TX which described Walker as our "greatest living American". [Los Angeles Times, 4/4/63, page 36].
This is the same General Walker whom was offered the position of Grand Dragon of the United Klans of America chapter in Texas by Imperial Wizard Robert Shelton. General Walker mentioned to someone that he was interested in the Klan position offered by Shelton and that he would contact Shelton. [FBI-Dallas 157-218, serial #222, 10/25/65, page 2]
Walker’s position on the Americans for Democratic Action:
“I think I can match three good Americans in the KKK for every one in the Americans For Democratic Action or the Anti-Defamation League.” [Harrisburg PA Patriot, 6/21/65, page 1, “Liberals Lashed By General Walker” by Robert J. Hayes; FBI-Philadelphia file 157-1549, serial #6, 6/21/65]
Historical note: The Ku Klux Klan was placed on the U.S. Attorney General’s List of Subversive Organizations in April 1947. It also was listed as subversive on page 164 in the May 1951 “Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications” by the House Committee on Un-American Activites; also on page 262 of the December 1961 edition: https://ia800203.us.archive.org/28/items/guidetosubversiv1961unit/guidetosubversiv1961unit.pdf
"I'll bet you will find more good Americans in the Ku Klux Klan than in the Americans For Democratic Action." [Walker comment in the November 15, 1965 issue of Conde McGinley’s racist and anti- semitic New Jersey newspaper, “Common Sense”, page 5.
NOTE: The House Committee on Un-American Activities described Conde McGinley’s newspaper as "almost exclusively a vehicle for the exploitation of ignorance, prejudice and fear" and as "a clearinghouse for hate propagandists throughout the country." [“Preliminary Report on Neo-Fascist and Hate Groups”, 12/17/54, House Committee on Un-American Activities”, pages 10 and 11.] http://debs.indstate.edu/u588n4_1954.pdf
Council on Foreign Relations
The position of Robert Welch and the JBS regarding this liberal think tank is that it is part of a “treasonous conspiracy”.
In the Foreword to the new 2002 edition of The Politician, the former CEO of the JBS (G. Vance Smith) wrote:
“Several excellent books have been written about CFR influence in our government, including The Shadows of Power by James Perloff and The Insiders by John F. McManus. But Robert Welch was a pioneer in this area. He was among the first to identify the root of America’s national problems: treasonous conspiracy, not unfathomable stupidity.”
JBS members certainly understood what Welch and the JBS intended to convey. Recently, the JBS magazine (The New American) published an article entitled "Deep State CFR Boss Haass Asked About “New World Order” which pertains to an interview of CFR President Richard N. Haass.
https://thenewamerican.com/deep-state-cfr-boss-haass-asked-about-new-world-order/
This article regurgitates the standard JBS criticisms re: Council on Foreign Relations. The "comments" section of this article includes these gems by several JBS members who obviously understood what the JBS wanted them to believe:
william775 “In a saner America this traitorous scumbag would have been charged with treason and then deported as an undesirable!”
SFTOBEY: “Or hanged, which is the correct punishment for treason.”
Enoch: “Membership in the CFR should be a death penalty offense.”
(2) What is the JBS position regarding liberal politicians?
The JBS does not believe that there is such a thing as an honorable, principled, or patriotic liberal American. As Robert Welch told the first meeting of the JBS National Council in January 1960:
"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..." [Welch’s comment may be seen on my Documentary History of the JBS webpage here:
https://sites.google.com/site/ernie1241/ (Scroll down to 1/9/60 entry).
"No practical difference"?
This was Welch’s way of declaring that, from the JBS perspective, liberals are traitors and should be dealt with accordingly.
By contrast, former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover stated that:
“Our best defense in the United States against the menace of Communism is our own American way of life. The American Communists cannot hope to reach their objective of destroying our form of government unless they first undermine and corrupt it, causing confusion and disrupting public confidence in the workings of democracy.” …
“The technique of the label is a Communist trick which anti-Communists are sometimes prone to use. It is deceptive and detrimental, however, to pin the label of ‘Communist’ on honest American liberals and progressives merely because of a difference of opinion. Honesty and common decency demand that the clear-cut line of demarcation that exists between liberals and Communists be recognized. Despite the Communist technique of labeling themselves as progressives, there is no more effective or determined foe of Communism than the millions of honest liberals and progressives." [Newsweek 6/9/47, “How To Fight Communism” by J. Edgar Hoover]
J. Edgar Hoover, 1958 book, Masters of Deceit, pages 97-98
“Make no mistake, communists do not like liberalism; that is, the genuine liberalism of Western civilization. They denounce liberals (''liberal blockheads'' Lenin called them) and attempt by every means to destroy them. The communists realize that true liberalism is a bitter enemy, a fighter for the things that communism opposes… The liberals do not want revolution but genuine social reforms. That is why the communists detest them.”
OR, as one former Soviet spy (Anatoly Granovsky) declared about the Birch Society in 1961:
"The Soviet Communists would sacrifice a thousand American Communists to save the John Birch Society, for instance. I don't mean the Birch Society is Communist- infiltrated. It doesn't have to be. By discrediting prominent Americans, it confuses the population about whom to trust. In socializing Czechoslovakia…we did everything to divide the armed forces units trained by the British and the Americans by spreading rumors about officers until they were so thoroughly discredited their men would not obey them and they had to be removed.” [Washington Post, 7/14/61, page A-1, “Ex-Spy Says Anti-Reds Aid Soviet Aims in U.S.”]
In effect, the JBS operates as the functional equivalent of a PRO-Communist organization. It attacks and defames many of the same people and organizations as does the CPUSA and if given political power, there is no reason to believe that the JBS would suddenly discard its 6+ decades of contempt and revulsion toward democracy and toward liberal groups and individuals or spare them from treason trials and sentences of death.
LOWEST COMMON-DENOMINATOR REASONING
One common form of fallacious reasoning is lowest-common-denominator (LCD) reasoning or logic. LCD proceeds as follows:
All cats have four legs All elephants have four legs Therefore, all cats must be elephants and vice-versa The self-evident fallacy here is that choosing the number of legs as a unique distinguishing feature is not a valid criterion for making rational or relevant distinctions between or among animals.
Knowing the number of legs tells you nothing whatsoever about the geographical areas where such animals prefer to live or cannot live, what types of food they prefer, or any details about their life-spans, their required gestation period for reproduction, how fast they can walk or run, their sleep patterns, which animals are their predators, whether or not they can be domesticated, whether or not they are a food source for humans, etc.
Thus – LCD reasoning is not a method which can be used to arrive at sound conclusions.
Let's use an easy-to-understand example from every person's personal background.
(1) You have a mother and father plus grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. AND you may have sisters and brothers or your own children and grandchildren.
(2) Do you ALL think and behave exactly alike -- because you share the same bloodline and you are part of the same extended family?
(3) IF you had to create a political spectrum to describe your own family, wouldn't you choose to clearly understand what each individual member believes -- i.e. their specific values, beliefs, and what they want to accomplish? Wouldn't you also want to know which political candidates they supported or opposed during their lifetimes AND what sources of information they believe are the most and least reliable and authoritative for understanding history and contemporary affairs?
OR
Alternatively, would you totally ignore ALL the internal differences between and among your family members and just group them ALL TOGETHER because they are all members of your family?
(4) Anybody can select ONE single criterion and then propose that we elevate it to the status of the single most important determinant for placement upon a political spectrum — but that artificially forces us to interpret all human behavior and all human motives and all human objectives in a manner which distorts reality through lowest-common-denominator reasoning.
Now, let’s apply this basic principle to the differences between extreme right and extreme left.
REAL-WORLD TEST OF PROPOSED NEW POLITICAL SPECTRUM
At no point have extreme right groups like the John Birch Society (or its sympathizers who promote this new political spectrum) ever tested their spectrum against actual historical empirical evidence -- such as what follows.
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS
(1) When you research the political campaigns of neo-nazis and white nationalists (i.e. supposed “leftists” in the JBS scheme of things) who have run for political office in the United States, their themes, ideas and policy proposals are predominantly RIGHT-WING — and in fact, they usually run as conservative Republicans. Whatever support they subsequently get (money, endorsements, favorable publicity, votes, volunteers, etc.) comes NOT from the LEFT, but from the RIGHT side of the political spectrum.
Some examples:
(1) George R. Carlson
In 1980 (and again in 1984) Carlson ran for the GOP nomination for the 15th Congressional District seat in Michigan. Despite massive media publicity which pointed out his membership in two neo-nazi groups, (National Socialist Movement and the National Christian Democracy Union), AND despite blistering attacks from, and disavowal by, all state Republican Party officials --- Carlson WON that 8/5/80 primary election with 55% of the vote. He lost the general election on 11/5/80 but he still got 32% of that vote (53,570 votes). [In the 11/6/84 general election, Carlson won 66,172 votes for the 15th CD seat.]
So, presumably, according to the JBS...
(1a) in the August 1980 primary election, the majority (55%) of Michigan Republicans in Carlson's Congressional District were neo-nazi and LEFTISTS?
(1b) 32% of the general electorate in November 1980, in Carlson's Michigan district (i.e. 53,570) were neo- nazi supporters and LEFTISTS?
(1c) Carlson obtained his 55% primary vote, his financial contributions, his volunteers, and his endorsements predominantly from LEFTISTS and by campaigning upon LEFTIST themes and proposals?
(2) Shawn Stuart
In 2006, Shawn Stuart was the GOP candidate for the 76th District of Montana’s state legislature. He also was the Montana state contact for the neo-nazi National Socialist Movement.
(3) David Duke
Neo-nazi and Klan Grand Wizard, David Duke, won a state legislative seat in Louisiana as the Republican nominee and he served from 1989-1993. He ran as an anti-tax, anti-busing Republican and received 33,000 votes. That led to a runoff election which he won.
During his time attending Lousiana State University, he had a reputation for being a loudmouthed neo-nazi. He hung posters of nazi officials and soldiers on his dorm room walls, telling acquaintances that George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the post-war American Nazi Party, was "the greatest American who ever lived."
In 1970, Duke founded the White Youth Alliance, a student group affiliated with the National Socialist White People's Party (NSWPP), a hard-line descendant of Rockwell's American Nazi Party. After he graduated in 1974, he founded the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan (KKKK). In 1972 Duke solicited funds for the George Wallace campaign for President.
In 1990, Duke announced his candidacy in the Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat. He raised $2.4 million and won 607,391 votes (about 60% of the white Republican vote). In 2000, Duke raised funds for ultra-conservative Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign on the Reform Party ticket.
In April, 2009, Duke arrived in the Czech Republic at the invitation of Czech neo-nazis to deliver three lectures in Prague and Brno to promote his book My Awakening.
In 2018, Duke endorsed California neo-nazi Senate candidate Patrick Little (see: https://davidduke.com/vote-patrick-little-for-senate-in-california-spread-the-word/ ). Duke is also a strong supporter of Donald Trump. (4) Arthur Joseph Jones
In 2018, neo-nazi Arthur Jones was the GOP candidate in Illinois for the state’s 3rd Congressional District. He boasted about his membership in the American Nazi Party and the subsequent National Socialist White People’s Party and also supported the KKK. Jones won the GOP primary with more than 20,000 votes. Jones stated that he voted for DONALD TRUMP in 2016! He also is a holocaust denier. See: http://archive.is/VIzKb He formed an “America First Committee”. He ran again as a Republican in the March 16, 2020 primary.
(5) Jack Posobiec
“One American News Network” correspondent Jack Posobiec worked with Roger Stone to promote Donald Trump’s election in 2016. He describes himself as a “Republican political operative” but independent analysts describe him as a “neo-nazi collaborator” who traffics in right-wing conspiracy theories. Posobiec often uses his Twitter account to share links to websites preferred by white supremacists. In May 2017, he linked to a website authored by neo-nazi Joseph Jordan and he has used his program to interview neo- nazis. In May 2017, Posobiec hired neo-nazi brothers Jeffrey and Edward Clark to help create a documentary about the murder of Seth Rich for Rebel News, a far-right Canada-based website for which Posobiec was also working.
(6) Russell Walker
Neo-nazi Russell Walker, a retired chemical engineer, ran in 2018 as the Republican candidate to represent District 48 in the North Carolina state House of Representatives. He also appeared on the neo- nazi Stormfront Action podcast Walker stated that “God is a racist white supremacist and that Jews are descended from Satan.” He refers to white women who have interracial relationships as “race traitors.”
(7) Paul Nehlen
In 2016 and 2018, Nehlen ran as a GOP primary candidate for Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District and described himself as the “pro-White Christian American candidate" . He was endorsed by neo-nazis and white nationalists. In 2016 he won 16% of the vote; in 2018 he won 11%. Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said, "It looks to me like he's a racist bigot." After a series of racist and antisemitic tweets, he was permanently suspended or banned from Twitter in February 2018. He initially supported Donald Trump in 2016. He is usually described as a “white nationalist” in media reports. In 2016, Trump political adviser Steve Bannon and the right-wing website Breitbart, endorsed Nehlen but then subsequently withdrew their support.
(8) John Fitzgerald
John Fitzgerald ran for California’s 11th Congressional District seat in 2018 as a Republican and he won 23% of the vote (placing second in that primary). In June 2018, Fitzgerald appeared on John Friend’s neo-nazi interview program entitled The Realist Report. Friend stated that Adolf Hitler was “the greatest thing that's happened to Western civilization”. During his interview, Fitzgerald complained about purported “Jewish control and supremacy” and he praised Friend for claiming that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks.
(9) Patrick Little
In June 2018, neo-nazi Patrick Little ran in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat from California. He won 89,867 votes. When he was denied entrance to the California GOP Convention, Little protested his removal with a rant shown in a video posted on YouTube where he declared. “The Republican Party of California is nothing but Zionist stooges.” RECOMMENDED PUBLICATIONS
One major problem with the proposed new political spectrum suggested by Birchers and others is that Hitler- admirers and white nationalists are so often associated with RIGHT WING causes, ideas, political candidates, objectives, publications, and organizations
When you review the recommended reading lists of neo-nazi and fascist groups and white nationalists, they often recommend and sell many of the SAME publications as the Birch Society or other extreme right- wing/conservative/patriot groups.
[Historical note: check out the recommended literature lists during the 1940’s of the Aryan Book Store in Los Angeles. This store was created to promote the ideas of the German-American Bund. The store recommended and sold publications by ultra-conservative authors like Elizabeth Dilling, Robert Edward Edmondson, Eugene Sanctuary and many others.]
EXAMPLES OF RIGHT-WING LITERATURE APPROVED BY NEO-NAZIS
(1) In 1964, the American Nazi Party and the National Socialist Liberation Front both recommended and sold John Stormer's 1964 classic right-wing conspiracy narrative entitled "None Dare Call it Treason" -- which was heavily promoted by, and sold in, all John Birch Society bookstores! In 1964, Stormer supported GOP candidate Barry Goldwater for President AND from 1962-1964, Stormer was a member of the Missouri Republican State Committee and State Chairman of the Missouri Federation of Young Republicans!
(2) The Birch Society recommended and sold anti-semitic books authored by British fascist (leftist?) author Nesta Bevan Webster. The JBS 1969 booklist, listed two titles by Webster: “World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization” and “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements”.
A 9/16/96 article by William McIlhany in the John Birch Society (JBS) magazine, The New American, recommended Nesta Webster's books, listed above.
An article in the subsequent issue of TNA (9/30/96) entitled "Roots of Subversion" refers to Nesta Webster lamely as "a British historian" who, in conjunction with Robert Welch, "overwhelmingly established by both logic and a physical mountain of evidence" the existence of a "Master Conspiracy" operating in the world.
In January 1965, Revilo P. Oliver, JBS National Council member and Associate Editor of the JBS magazine at that time (American Opinion) wrote a highly favorable review of Webster’s book, World Revolution. Her book quoted liberally and approvingly from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
In World Revoution, Webster traced the conspiratorial role of Jews, as a hidden force, behind revolutionary movements from the French to the Bolshevik Revolutions.
In Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, Webster expanded upon her recurrent themes of Jewish plans for world domination and obliteration of Christianity which she traced to the Jewish Talmud. Chapter titles in the book included: The Jewish Cabalists and The Real Jewish Peril.
In the period from 1924-1927, Webster was a member of Britain's first fascist movement, The British Fascisti, (later re-named British Fascists, Ltd.) and for two years she served on its Grand Council.
In 1926, Webster authored a pamphlet for the British Fascisti entitled “The Need For Fascism in Great Britain” and she gave lectures under the auspices of BF.
(3) NATIONAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT
The NSM is currently the largest and most prominent neo-nazi organization in the United States. So--what information resources does the neo-nazi (allegedly “leftist”) National Socialist Movement recommend to its readers for their understanding of history and contemporary political issues?
Copies of its magazine NSM Report) from 2011-2017 are available online here: https://www.nsm88.org/stormtrooper/index.html
See page 13 of the following issue of NSM Report for their recommended conservative or extreme right media resources: https://www.nsm88.org/stormtrooper/nsmmagazinefallwinter2017.pdf
American Free Press American Renaissance Barnes Review Breitbart Conservative Headlines David Duke on Rense Radio Drudge Report Fox News Glenn Beck Alex Jones’ Info Wars
MORE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
(1) The first significant postwar fascist organization in the United States was James Madole's National Renaissance Party.
The May 1956 issue of the NRP Bulletin published a reprint of a previous article that declared that Hitler was “the George Washington of Europe” and it contained the following comment:
“What Hitler accomplished in Europe, the National Renaissance Party shall yet accomplish in America.”
The FBI obtained a list of NRP members, financial contributors, and subscribers to the NRP newsletter. Among the persons who contributed money to the NRP and/or subscribed to the NRP newsletter during the 1950’s and 1960’s were the individuals listed below.
These guys (whom the JBS defines as “leftist” because of their neo-nazi or white nationalist links) nevertheless chose to associate themselves with numerous RIGHT-WING groups, movements, and causes!
Joseph Beauharnais (IL) Max Nelsen (IL) William Wernecke (IL) Peter Xavier (OH) Edward R. Fields (KY) Millard Grubbs (KY) Matt Koehl (WI) West Hooker (CT) Robert Kuttner (CT) Russell Maguire (CT) Byram Campbell (UT) Willis Carto (CA) Hugh G. Grant (GA) Ernest Elmhurst (NY) Conrad Grieb (NY) Charles Smith (NY) Fred Weiss (NY)
Willis Carto (for example) actually was hired by Robert Welch to work for the John Birch Society in 1959 as a Major Coordinator.
Carto had previously operated his own right-wing group in San Francisco (Liberty and Property, Inc.) The newsletter of Carto’s organization was entitled “Right: A Monthly Newsletter Of, By, and For the American Right Wing”) See masthead here: https://williscarto.org/right-newsletter/f/do-you-know-what-is-right
In his newsletter, Carto promoted the activities of numerous racist and anti-semitic individuals and groups.
Willis Carto wrote that:
"Hitler's defeat was the defeat of Europe. And of America. How could we have been so blind? The blame, it seems, must be laid at the door of the international Jews. It was their propaganda, lies and demands which blinded the West to what Germany was doing. . . . If Satan himself, with all of his superhuman genius and diabolical ingenuity at his command, had tried to create a permanent disintegration and force for the destruction of the nations, he could have done no better than to invent the Jews."
Many of the people listed above became involved in, or were endorsers of, the Constitution Party during the 1950’s. The Constitution Party was composed of numerous ultra-conservatives including many who were racists and anti-semites.
Many Constitution Party members later became John Birch Society members or endorsers! For example, in 1960, Dr. Arthur G. Blazey was the Indiana State Chairman of the Constitution Party and he was a JBS member. Pedro A. del Valle was a keynote speaker at a Constitution Party event in 1963. He was a JBS endorser. William Potter Gale, a former JBS member, was the Constitution Party candidate for Governor of California.
In a 1948 letter to W. Henry MacFarland, James Madole praised the anti-Communist and anti-Jewish activities of such well-known right-wing bigots as Gerald L.K. Smith, Gerald B. Winrod, and Elizabeth Dilling. No sane person has ever claimed that these folks were left-wing in their political sympathies! In addition, many so-called “conservative” “patriot” groups recommend the writings of Eustace Mullins — especially his publications on the Federal Reserve. Mullins also was a member of the Nationalist Conservative Party run by William Wernecke.
Mullins associated himself with James Madole’s National Renaissance Party as a keynote speaker at their events and as a writer for its newsletter. In the October 1952 issue of the NRP newsletter, Mullins wrote an article entitled "Hitler: An Appreciation". Mullins also created his own right-wing organization called Aryan League of America.
Mullins was a roommate with Matt Koehl in both New York City and Chicago. Koehl later became the head of the American Nazi Party after George Lincoln Rockwell was assassinated. Before his ANP period, Koehl was involved with Madole’s NRP and he was a National Organizer for the ultra-right National States Rights Party.
Mullins also was a member of the Southeast Bureau editorial staff of Willis Carto's conservative publication "American Free Press" and he was also a contributing editor to Carto’s magazine, "The Barnes Review", which describes itself as “the primary periodical in the English language devoted to historical revisionism” – by which it means holocaust denial.
For more information re: Mullins and the people and organizations he supported, see: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/mullins
Obviously, according to the JBS interpretation of a political spectrum, Madole and the NRP belong on the LEFT side of a political spectrum -- but the JBS has no explanation for why the NRP attracted so many EXTREME RIGHT WING adherents.
(2) During the 1960’s, the founder of the American Nazi Party, George Lincoln Rockwell, invited John Birch Society members to attend an American Nazi Party recruitment meeting in Dallas TX. If “statist” and “collectivist” Rockwell was truly “extreme left” then why would he think that polar opposite adherents of anti- statist values (such as the JBS) would offer a potential fertile recruiting ground for ANP members and supporters?
As Rockwell stated in 1964:
"The Birch Society is sort of a kindergarten for the Nazi Party. In the last year we have taken over a majority of Birchers in three cities.”
(3) Furthermore, after Rockwell got out of the Navy, he went to work for right-wing organizations such as Robert Snowden's “Campaign for the 48 States”. [Snowden later became a member of the Birch Society.]
In the preface to his 1961 autobiography, This Time The World, Rockwell wrote:
“Acknowledgements: The author gratefully acknowledges the inspiration he received in his political career from three great Americans: Senator Joseph McCarthy, General Charles Lindbergh, General Douglas MacArthur.”
Are those LEFT-WING heroes??
In 1952, Rockwell publicly supported Gen. Douglas MacArthur for President and he organized a pro- MacArthur rally in San Diego. Is that the behavior of a "leftist"? In June 1961, Rockwell was interviewed by Paul Krassner for The Realist magazine, pages 17-23. Here are some excerpts which reflect Rockwell’s political beliefs. Are these “left-wing” beliefs?
GLR on Cong. Francis E. Walter (Chairman, House Committee on Un-American Activities)
“I think he is one of the finest Americans that ever lived” [page 20]
GLR on Sen. James O. Eastland (Chairman, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee)
“I think he is also a great American except for one thing, and that is he is pro-Zionist. In other words, Eastland is strictly anti-nigger, and Walter is pro-American and he is therefore to that extent anti-Jewish” (page 20)
GLR on J. Edgar Hoover
“I think he is the same kind of guy that we are” (page 20)
GLR on William F. Buckley Jr.
“I worked for him to help establish National Review” (pages 19-20)
(4) Robert Surrey and his wife (Mary) of Dallas TX were both John Birch Society members. They both were employed by fellow Bircher, Gen. Edwin A. Walker of Dallas.
In August 1961, Robert Surrey sent a letter to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. In his letter, Surrey praised Hoover's 1958 book "Masters of Deceit" and Surrey stated it was a tool which could be used to “awaken others”.
Surrey's letter also praised Hoover "....because YOU have maintained through the years a reputation for strict honesty and loyal Americanism, untainted by political smear. And with all my heart, I thank God for YOU. You are perhaps, personally, the best rallying-point around which Patriots may gather. I wish you a long and happy life.”
In 1963, Robert Surrey and Edwin Walker entered into a business partnership as co-owners of American Eagle Publishing Company. They published all of the standard Birch Society and right-wing conservative arguments against the UN, against the Council on Foreign Relations, against the Warren Supreme Court, against National Council of Churches and against the policies and programs of Democratic Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
Surrey also was President and Chairman of the Board of United White Christians Majority. This group was conceived by George Lincoln Rockwell to obtain funds for the American Nazi Party (ANP) from persons who might not wish to be directly associated with the ANP (in short, it was an ANP front-group!)
In May 1968, Robert Surrey became Southwest Regional Coordinator and National Business Manager for the American Nazi Party. Many other Birch Society members or supporters involved themselves in neo-nazi activities and/or promoted neo-nazi themes including anti-zionism arguments.
How does one explain this if, as the JBS and their sympathizers contend, white nationalists and neo-nazis are "collectivists" who belong on the LEFT side of a political spectrum? Why would any JBS member/sympathizer be attracted to white nationalist, neo-nazi or fascist ideas? Many more Birch Society members or supporters involved themselves in (“leftist?”) neo-nazi, white nationalist activities and/or promoted their arguments.
For example, here are some “graduates” from the Birch Society:
George P. Dietz (Liberty Bell Publications—the largest U.S. distributor of neo-nazi literature in the U.S. during the 1960’s-1990’s),
Tom Metzger (White Aryan Resistance),
William P. Gale (Ministry of Christ Church),
Ben Klassen (Nationalist White Party/Church of the Creator),
Kevin Strom (National Vanguard),
Willis Carto (Liberty Lobby and founder of holocaust denial group, Institute For Historical Review),
Gordon Kahl (Posse Comitatus)
Robert J. Mathews (who created The Order and committed bank and armored car robberies in order to finance Aryan Nations and other similar white supremacist and neo-nazi enterprises) and
William Pierce (Pierce joined the American Nazi Party in 1966 and was Editor of National Socialist World, the quarterly journal of Rockwell’s World Union of National Socialists. In 1968, Pierce became second in command of the National Socialist White People’s Party (formerly known as American Nazi Party) but he left in July 1970 to work for Willis Carto’s National Youth Alliance which he wrested away from Carto in 1974 and then re-named it National Alliance.) Pierce was also a former JBS member.
Cong. John R. Rarick (LA): In 1969 Rarick helped form the National Youth Alliance which was Willis Carto’s neo-nazi group. The FBI’s description of the NYA:
“NYA currently is controlled by individuals who militantly promote white racism and anti-Zionism and who suggest violent revolution ultimately as the means for implementing their racial and political ideas in America.”
William Pierce (former Information Officer of the National Socialist White People’s Party) was the registered agent of the new corporation and Editor of NYA publications Attack and Action. In 1970, just prior to the August 1970 primary election in Louisiana for the 6th Congressional District seat, Imperial Wizard Robert M. Shelton of Alabama visited Louisiana “and told a Klan rally that the nation needed more men like Rarick and Wallace.” (i.e. Alabama Governor George Wallace). [Ruston LA Daily Leader, 8/17/70, page 13].
If that was not enough, Rarick was a supporter of, and gave opening speeches at rallies by, Klansman David Duke. Nevertheless, Rarick was invited by the JBS to write articles for the John Birch Society magazines, (American Opinion and Review of the News). He also was invited by Robert Welch to be the featured speaker at a John Birch Society National Council dinner in Los Angeles -- which he did in March 1973 when he spoke about “The Finances of the United Nations”
As all of the above data should make obvious, EVEN IF your ideology and values CLAIM to be “anti- communist” or “anti-Marxist”, or “anti-collectivist” [which supposedly places you on the OPPOSITE side of the spectrum from nazism-fascism-communism] nevertheless, that means nothing. CONCLUSIONS
Anybody can fabricate a political spectrum which uses totally bogus (or lowest-common-denominator) criteria to wrongly place individuals and organizations into one specific position on the spectrum.
Ultimately, the kinds of questions which must be asked and answered in order to place someone in their correct location upon a political spectrum include:
* from whom is support sought for their agenda?
* which authors and publications are recommended as reliable and credible?
* what political alliances does the individual or organization try to make?
* from whom does the individual or organization obtain money for their causes and objectives?
* what persons and organizations are considered enemies whom should be vanquished and rendered impotent?
* what legislation or regulations are supported or opposed?
POLITICAL DEFINITIONS
Obviously, any political definition can be so warped OR so broad or so narrow that it becomes meaningless gibberish. Consider the following example:
In 1954, conservative Tennessee Congressman B. Carroll Reece sought to explain how "socialism" was allegedly being introduced into the United States. The 8/20/54 Congressional Record includes a speech by Reece in which he explains how he became interested in investigating the subject of tax exempt foundations.
Reece begins by referring to 3 categories of information he discovered during his service on a previous committee [the Cox committee] which investigated tax-exempt foundations.
Quoting Reece:
"The first pointed to Communist or Communist sympathizer infiltration into the foundations; the second pointed to a much broader condition, namely, foundation support of Fabian socialism in America; and the third pointed to the financial aspect of the foundations."
Reece then explained what he meant by "Fabian socialism":
"Fabian socialism is not communism: it is a technique of nonviolent revolution by the consent of a duped propagandized population. It is the technique that brought socialism to Great Britain. In the United States, Fabian socialism has taken the name 'New Deal' and 'Fair Deal'. Of this there can be no doubt...Parenthetically, I want to say a brief word to those Americans who approve of the New Deal-Fair Deal- Fabian revolution, and therefore might call this investigation a tempest in a teapot. It is their privilege to do so, but it is my privilege to oppose this overt subversion of traditional American ideals...Although the Cox committee was not looking for Fabian socialism, the evidence presented before it disclosed to me what might be an important clue to the location of the nerve center of subversion in America--the left wing intellectuals whose prestige and influence seemed to be the product of the tax-exempt foundation grants. I therefore suggested to the Congress that the investigation be extended." Contemporary news reports and editorials about the Reece Committee refer to it as an attack upon the Eisenhower Administration by 1950's disgruntled conservatives who were furious with Eisenhower because they had expected him to dismantle the FDR-New Deal and Truman-Fair Deal brick-by-brick and, thus, erase that entire era of Democratic activism and dominance from our country's history.
Notice, too, Reece's thinly-veiled contempt for intellectuals and their supposed association with "subversion" (a common theme in conspiracy arguments).
Today, this all probably seems quite bizarre to most Americans because very few of us want to repeal Social Security, unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation, or a host of other FDR-Truman programs and even fewer of us would accept the notion that such ideas or programs amount to "Fabian socialism" which were subverting our "traditional American ideals".