This article was last modified on May 1, 2006.

Interview With the John Birch Society

I submitted ten questions to Alan Scholl, the Director of Operations for the John Birch Society. He was not only willing to respond, but in most cases responded to a simple question with multiple pages. I have whittled those responses down to the core and present them here to you for consideration. Some are still long, but I am not in the business of denying someone the opportunity to make a point or defend themself.

John Birch Society, based in Appleton, Wisconsin, is an organization that was always been anti-communist, anti-world government, pro-Judeo-Christian values and pro-Constitution (from their interpretation). Some would call them “conspiracy theorists” or another disparaging term. Others hold they are the only organization with America’s best interests in mind. Read this interview, read their website and check other sources. The answer is out there. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a fan of the John Birch Society and do not agree with Scholl’s answers and even find some of them to be factually misleading or wrong.)

GS: The John Birch Society opposes illegal immigration. Do they feel that the inconsistencies between the immigration policies directed at Mexicans and those directed at Canadians are unethical or justified? (In other words, should Canadians have immigration rights that Mexicans do not?)

AJS: Our position at The John Birch Society on immigration has always been that immigration and borders should be firmly controlled. Our elected representatives are tasked to set immigration standards that make sense to protect our nation from invasion, crime, damaging cultural erosion and economic damage. Unless there is some compelling reason to limit immigration from a particular region or nation (military, terrorist, or economic threat) there should be no favoritism, and the JBS has never taken such a position. [1]

GS: You stated that one goal of immigration control is to limit outside influences on the culture of the country. What or whom determines which cultural aspects are “American”? (For example, if the JBS was formed prior to 1900, the immigrants at Ellis Island – Jews, Italians, etc. – would be seen as a foreign culture, whereas today these ways of life are seen as wholly American.)

AJS: The John Birch Society believes and holds to the concept that the culture, society, and government of America are founded and rooted in Judeo-Christian principles. This was stated often, and by nearly every one of the founders and framers. [Alan submitted a very long list of quotations fro mthe Founding Fathers regarding religion. Rather than reprint it here, I would encourage readers to do their own search. Hundreds of pro-Christian and anti-Christian quotations can be found online, and the reader can draw their own conclusions.]

GS: With the John Birch Society being anti-socialist, is it fair to say their beliefs – if put into practice – would be harmful to the lower class, students, infirm and the elderly? In today’s society, almost everyone relies on Social Security, student loans and grants, Medicare, welfare or some other wealth-distribution service.

AJS: No. If a nation has foolishly allowed its leaders to lapse, or even lead it into socialism, and people are now trapped in that failed system, it is not logical to blame those who oppose such a system for the eventual harm caused by it. It would not be fair or even logical to conclude that the harm caused by NOT taking a position of personal responsibility rather than depending on government largess is the fault of those who advocate personal responsibility. If people are taking the bait of socialism, and leaving themselves no other options in the process, they need to examine the system and work to change it BACK to what we had under the constitution, prior to all this socialism.

Blaming the JBS for the damage if the process is righted is a bit like blaming the prosecutions key witness to a crime for the damage done in the commission of the crime committed by the criminal.

History has proven over and over that the rule of law in a self-governing nation and free enterprise are the engines of plenty. Rome is a double lesson, in that the republic under the twelve tables of Roman Law was the most productive, powerful, and stable form of government in history. Once it lapsed into populist democracy, mobs roamed the streets demanding bread and circuses, and committed the worst excesses known to man in that day, while politicians curried public favor with public money. Sound familiar?

On the other hand, all through history, even in the lauded democracy in the Greek city-states, populist governments that have sprung up all over the globe and lapsed into tyranny and excess, and social-democracy, socialism, communism, fascism, Nazism, and all other forms of socialist government eventually destroyed themselves and their citizens. These are the cesspools which create want, poverty, disdain for life, and tyranny.

The failures of socialism are evidenced in the former Soviet bloc by the lack of incentive to work, to save, and the lack of opportunity and incentive to accumulation of property and wealth by the hard-working and the thrifty. This socialist “paradise” has resulted in a residual lack of responsibility of family and individual to prepare and care for their own family or themselves, and by its nature has eliminated the base for charity for charitable institutions. These are the institutions which would care for the relative few who could/would not prepare for their future and unavoidable old age. The causes of poverty are heavy taxation, removal of incentive and interference with the right to profit by our labor and invention, and by the erosion of currency by a national bank with exclusive monopoly (see Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, and the “Ten Planks”) Even the vaunted environmental movement in the West would place more and more land and industry under government control. How did the Soviet Union do in this regard? Does Chernobyl ring a bell? The Black Sea? Deforestation in the Urals? Government is rarely the best solution to anything.

GS: According to author Devon Jackson, some of the John Birch Society’s members have included cult leader Jim Jones, Ku Klux Klan grand dragon Tom Metzger, and other more mainstream politicians such as Ralph Davis of Wackenhut Securities, populist Willis Carto, and New Right founder Paul Weyrich. Obviously, the JBS disagrees with at least some of these men’s actions. What criteria is used by the JBS to formally remove members from their ranks?

AJS: Cult leader Jim Jones was never a member, though we did have a man with the same name but of no relation as a Coordinator for our organization in the Bay Area of California during the same period. Perhaps the similar name has caused you or someone else you used as a source to be confused, it is a common name, I hope you won’t hold that against him, he is quite chagrined about it. Tom Metzger was not a racist in his youth, and to our knowledge was not as a member of JBS, at least discernibly. His membership in the JBS was revoked. Carto was similarly dismissed. Davis I’m not familiar with, and Weyrich I would not place in the same category as any of the above. We have on our application a statement that membership may be revoked at any time without reason given, and that is one evidence of our strength. As we’ve had hundreds of thousands of members, this is very thin evidence of any wrongdoing or tendency on our part. Hundreds of thousands of our members (I’d assume the balance of them, so far as we know) have NOT been racists, anti-Semites, or violent, or dangerous, or odious. I doubt many organizations of this size could make that claim, or have that purity.

By the way, all but one of the above were also Boy Scouts at one time, and would not likely be welcomed back there in any capacity any more than they would be at the JBS. Have you checked their policy on these men as well? And would you tar THEM with the same unfair brush?

GS: The John Birch Society is opposed to unnecessary war, and the current war in particular. They are also opposed to the United Nations, which they see as a “one world government”. But wouldn’t it be accurate to say that compliance with the United Nations would greatly reduce or eliminate wars between countries?

AJS: [Alan did not respond to this question. Perhaps it was lost.]

GS: The John Birch Society maintains that Joe McCarthy is proven right when we look back at history. Yet, nearly everybody else – both liberals and conservatives – sees McCarthy as an extremist who caused more harm than good. How d oyou account for this gaping difference in perspectives?

AJS: Saints and villians are created in the mind, by those in control of media and education. I might note that Germans saw odious Adolf Hitler as a savior, and popularly elected him to power. The majority is often wrong, especially when an controlled media and a biased government portray issues and smear individuals erroneously. The list McCarthy used came primarily from Otto Otepka. Otto Otepka found 858 subversives in the State Department. The criteria was membership in Communist fronts, or attendance at Communist meetings. So far, his list has proven 98% accurate in the light of history. Oh, his job? Head of Security at the State Department. And for ten years prior to this time, notorious spy Alger Hiss was a high ranking State Department official, as was Whitaker Chambers, confessed communist agent.

GS: The John Birch Society opposes CAFTA, FTAA and other free trade agreements. So do I. Their concern (and mine) is that decent American jobs will be sent somewhere else. But my other concern is that these agreements also tend to create poor economies in the other countries, as well. Does JBS concern themselves with this, have an alternate opinion, or are things outside America extraneous to the JBS tenets?

AJS: We share those concerns and others. These budding regional governments are really corporate welfare for huge multinational interests. They enslave by impoverishing third world governments and burying them in debt. Some few profit by chance in these ventures, and some American companies achieve temporary leverage from them, but as NAFTA has proven, the net result is negative for all parties… except the internationalists, who achieve steps towards world government by establishing a key element, control of trade, on a regional basis, and tying it back to the instruments of control, the World Bank, NAFTA, the ADB (Asian Development Bank), the UNDP (United Nations Development Project), and other regional government and world government agencies in the making. True free trade requires no such supra-national control agents. Disparities that threaten nations are easily handled by tariffs, imposed by the nation whose interests are threatened. Off-shoring and regional trade agreements are CONTROLLED TRADE, not free trade.

By the way Gavin, the JBS under the new leadership is reaching out to South and Central American nations and their citizens to cooperate in opposition to these efforts by the power elite to control trade and sovereign nations.

GS: You cited the Soviet Union as evidence that socialism is a failed system. Does the John Birch Society distinguish between the socialism in totalitarian Russia and the socialism in democratic Europe (such as Sweden, Denmark, Spain, etc.)?

AJS: Yes Gavin, we differentiate much as a doctor would differentiate between an aggressive and malignant cancer, and a slower, less malignant cancer. Same death of freedom, same result, different speed and velocity.

GS: John Birch Society supports Christian morals and denounces socialism. Yet, Christianity teaches us to give our money and food to the poor and the book of Acts states that each should work according to his ability and each should receive according to his needs. Is this a contradiction?

AJS: Actually the book of Acts does not state that, Karl Marx did. The common sense observation of the book of Acts simply points out the obvious: That some have more ability to give than others, and one should apply their gifts where there is the most need. The major difference between socialism and Marx, and Christian Charity is that charitable giving is voluntary, and should be. Socialism is total control of wealth by an oligarchy of nomenclatura and the “giving” or actually theft, happens involuntarily, ultimately at the point of the guns of government.

GS: I like to encourage further reading on my website. What would the JBS suggest as a “reading list” for those who wish to learn more about the JBS, communism, or any other relevent topic?

AJS: I recommend the following books… which every American should read and view to understand current events, good government, and the framework of history and control: “The Shadows of Power” by James Perloff. “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin. “The United Nations Exposed” by William F. Jasper. “Global Gun Grab” by William Norman Grigg. “The United Nations Deception” by Dr. Steven Bonta. “Empire of Debt” by Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin. There are hundreds more books with a wealth of truth about the REAL 20th century history and agenda of the Internationalist movement.


[1] “Additional Comments: I sense from the nature of the question that you at least suspect that the policies of the US government regarding immigration are racist or at least discriminatory against Mexico. Since you imply a disparity between the Mexican and Canadian policies, and the majority of immigrants from one are Hispanic, the other primarily Caucasian, I gather that you suspect some sort of prejudice on that basis. This being a series of questions directed at the JBS, and our policies, I wonder if you make the assumption that the reasons for any disparity, real or imagined, are prejudicial, and then also assume that the JBS would be in favor of such a policy for those reasons, based on some smear or wrongful accusation that has been leveled at us. I hope you are keeping an open mind on the JBS and any such accusations, rumors, or smears, all of which are without substance.

In the first place, I do not know that the policies of the US Government are unbalanced. Rather, it seems logical that since illegal immigration and the pressures for legal immigration are much higher from Mexico than from Canada, the policies may of necessity be more stringent in one case than the other. We’re not in a position to examine minutely the policies of the US Government on this basis at present, so the assumption may or may not be accurate. Also, there is a much greater exposure by historical precedent at the southern border. Many hundreds of people of many different nationalities and many criminal types have been caught attempting to violate that border with illegal drugs, coyotes (human being smugglers), and some obvious terrorists or potential terrorists. If the policies were based on racial prejudice, this would of course be unethical. This problem is much more pronounced at our southern border than our northern.

We do take a strong position against illegal immigration, and against amnesty and guest worker visa programs, and will as long as uncontrolled immigration continues, and as long as Americans are unemployed or underemployed.

I think it’s important to make clear to you and any observers of this exchange that the JBS has never taken a racist position on any issue, nor has the organization by conduct or policy adopted any racist statements or program. Limited self-government, the “Rule of Law” (fixed body of law, the Constitution) dictate that immigration be controlled by our elected representatives, within the bounds of reasonable absorption into the culture and systems, to avoid disruption or destruction of those systems. This allows for manageable numbers of immigrants, who are systematically naturalized to the culture, laws, and systems of government. It is prudent that new citizens be required to learn the language to avoid the historical division experienced by the vast majority of nations with multiple languages.

The control of immigration is important to national survival for three reasons: 1.) Security. Invasion, terrorism, economic theft, crime, and other problems associated with illegal immigration are clearly threats to the persons, property, and national security of a nation. 2.) Cultural and economic preservation. Nations which allow other cultures to flood the society and alter the systems, customs, morals, and practices with alternative views and practices risk dissolution by dissipation. Economic theft, the transfer of wealth from the productive sectors of a nation or society to unproductive sectors, or foreign economies, erode the economic security and survivability of a nation, economically. 3.) History and common sense show that nations which do not control their borders eventually cease to exist as a result. Without borders, there is no nation by definition.

Unlike the federal government, JBS forms and applications contain no racial or ethnic questions, and we do not keep track of this information in our systems. We are looking for Americans of good character, and have no litmus test, barriers, or quota system on the basis of race or ethnicity. Our membership, staff and speakers bureau contains a racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse group of people. The JBS employed Mr. Delmar Dennis for many years as a speaker and a regional coordinator of our volunteer ranks in the south. You may be aware that he was the pivotal witness, and undercover agent for the FBI who exposed the murderers of the three civil rights workers in Alabama in the 60’s. He spoke out against the KKK, and made our position on this issue very clear.”

Also try another article under Political
or another one of the writings of Gavin.

One Response to “Interview With the John Birch Society”

  1. James Says:

    Just out of the Navy, and devoutly anti-communist, I was a member of the Green Bay Chaper of JBS in the early 60’s, and most all of them delighted in telling racist jokes. (MLK was referred to as “Martin Lucifer King.”) The main thrust of their “educational” efforts back then, was to oppose the pending Civil Rights Bill, especially the ‘public accomodations’ provision, because it would deprive business owners’ right to discriminate based on ethnicity.

Leave a Reply