2011 May 3

from the desk of  
G. Edward Griffin  

G. Edward Griffin responds to his critics

On October 28, 2007, I published a report on the Freedom Force website giving details of my acquaintance with Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society. As many of you know, I wrote his biography, entitled The Life and Words of Robert Welch, published in 1975. (The full text of that report is included at the end of this article, so please hold off on coming to conclusions about the Birch Society until you have had a chance to read it. You may be surprised.) The reason I mention it now is to call attention to the following statement taken from that report. Please remember that this was written in October, 2007.

“The treatment given to the Birch Society is exactly the kind of treatment we can expect for ourselves when we become strong enough to challenge the collectivist stranglehold over the power centers of society. Once we come onto their radar, there is little doubt that they will attempt to demonize Freedom Force and, most likely, me in particular. So hang on to your hats. The ride is going to be rough. As the saying goes: There's white water ahead!”

The first rapids appeared when my book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, went into its 5th edition and 30th printing late in 2010. Soon thereafter, it popped into first place as the number-one best seller on Amazon in the category of business, banking, and money. I have appeared on hundreds of radio talk shows in the past few years and twice was interviewed on the Judge Napolitano Show, Freedom Watch, broadcast on the Fox Business Channel.  On March 25, 2011, I was a featured guest on the Glenn Beck Show, which was based almost entirely upon the information contained in my book. It is estimated that it was seen on the Fox News Channel by two million viewers and, even now, continues to be accessed on the Internet. At last, I had shown up on the radar. The white water was no longer ahead. It was here.

The purpose of this report is to bring together in one place the most significant charges made against me and Freedom Force followed by my responses. Not everyone will be interested in this tedious exchange, but I have an obligation to those who have supported my work to provide them with answers to the nasty questions that have been flung at them. I will list these somewhat in the order of importance and keep adding to the list as new issues are raised. I trust this will be an enlightening experience for those who are not yet familiar with the power of a controlled press to distort truth and engineer public opinion.


 by G. Edward Griffin,
2011 April 6

On April 6, 2011, The Washington Post published an article in the Opinion section dealing with the fact that Fox News had dropped the Glenn Beck TV Show. The article, written by Dana Milbank, claimed that Beck was dropped because the public was no longer in fear mode over the declining economy and because Beck gradually had aligned himself with conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites such as – are you ready for this? – G. Edward Griffin. Here is how Milbank phrased it:
"This vile turn for Beck reached its logical extreme two weeks ago, when he devoted his entire show to a conspiracy theory about various bankers, including the Rothschilds, to create the Federal Reserve. To make this case, Beck hosted the conspiracy theorist
G. Edward Griffin, who has publicly argued that the anti-Semitic tract “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” “accurately describes much of what is happening in our world today.” Griffin’s Web site dabbles in a variety of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including his view that “present-day political Zionists are promoting the New World Order."
I could hardly believe my eyes when I read that. This is one of the most blatant distortions of fact imaginable and, as we shall see, it was written, not out of ignorance of the truth or mistaken interpretation of some obscure statement, but could only have been crafted as a deliberate effort to misrepresent the truth in a malicious attempt to defame my character. It is impossible to find a better example of a quote taken out of context than this.
Milbank based his slander on an analysis I published on the web page of Freedom Force International. It was entitled “Are Jews and Masons and Jesuits Conspiring to Control the World?” Here is what I wrote:
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a document, widely circulated in Europe and the United States, describing a plot by Jewish conspirators to take over the world. It is said to be the minutes of a series of meetings held in Basle, Switzerland, in 1897 at the time of the First Zionist Congress. The text reveals plans whereby Jews, working together with Freemasons, were to disrupt Christian civilization and, upon its ruin, build a new world order ruled by them from behind the scenes. This was to be accomplished with liquor and vice to befuddle national leaders, corruption of womanhood, mass propaganda, economic crises, and public violence – what we now call terrorism.
"There is no doubt that the Protocols accurately describe much of what is happening in our world today, but that does not prove that the document is authentic. There is considerable evidence that the Protocols are a forgery produced by the Okhrana, which was the secret police of the Czarist government of Russia. It must be remembered that, when the revolution against the Czar was gaining favor, many of its leaders were Jews. Lenin and Trotsky were perhaps the best known, but there were many others as well. This is not surprising inasmuch as Russia had absorbed the largest population of Jews in the world at that time, so there were plenty of them on hand to assume the role. Furthermore, the Czar was decidedly anti-Semitic – due, in part, to the tendency of the Jewish population to show higher loyalty to Jewry than to the Russian Crown. Masons were also in disfavor for similar reasons. Loyalty to any entity other than the government was not tolerated. Jews had been treated harshly by the Czarist government, and it was to be expected that they would support any movement to overthrow the established order
"The Czar was not alone in his anti-Semitism. Many Russians were resentful of the Jewish immigrants, and the Okhrana capitalized upon this animosity by portraying the Czar’s enemies as tools and dupes of Jewish conspirators. The ploy was intended to convert widespread anti-Semitism into support for the Crown."
My analysis continued by offering evidence from history that supports my conclusion, particularly the fact that portions of the Protocols were lifted from three books of fiction that had been published in Europe prior to the so-called discovery of the Protocols. (Read the original article here)
Dana Milbank chose to ignore the clear message of my analysis and, instead, quoted two snippets that created the false impression that I was an anti-Semite. Why would someone do that? Perhaps the answer is that he has a collectivist political agenda and feels compelled to demonize me because I am building opposition to that agenda. According to Wikepedia, he was a member of the Progressive Party at Yale University (very Leftist in orientation) and a member of the secret society, Skull and Bones. From this, we must conclude that he is no dummy and knows exactly what he is doing when he takes my quotes out of context.
If there are any attorneys out there with an interest in this issue, I would welcome your opinion regarding whether we should invite Milbank to meet us in court. This is a deliberate and malicious distortion of my work, and it seems to me that no one should be allowed to act in that fashion without consequence.

Posted 2011, April 28 from Lisa Goldstein
Dear Messrs. Beck and Griffin,
I happened to read an op-ed piece in the Washington Post today that accuses G. Edward Griffin of being an anti-Semite, and by implication because Mr. Beck devoted an hour to Mr. Griffin's work, Mr. Beck of also being anti-Semitic. Since I am currently reading The Creature From Jekyll Island, I decided to fact-check the accusation. Should I be surprised that the author of that op-ed just outright lied? It just pains me that so many "journalists," on both the right and left, have no ethics whatsoever about deceiving their readers if they want to get a point across. The column really upset me because of this lie; my motive is to defend the truth, not persons. I wrote the letter (below) to Mr. Milbank:
TO: Dana Milbank, Washington Post
You recently wrote a column, “Why Glen Beck Lost It,” summarizing the reasons you believe Glenn Beck is leaving his Fox News television program. In that column you noted that Beck’s program reached its “logical extreme” when Beck devoted an hour to
G. Edward Griffin, who you go on to insinuate is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist. Let me say out the outset that I am not a great fan of Glenn Beck although I think he is a very talented, if not somewhat demagogic, presenter and some of what he says has some merit.

Griffin is thought of by many as a “conspiracy theorist;” what he presents in his most famous tome (and the subject of his interview with Beck) The Creature from Jekyll Island is definitely outside mainstream thinking but is also definitely not anti-Semitic. To acknowledge that Jews have been involved in banking and continue to have more than their numbers would suggest still involved in finance today and therefore have a history in, and are a part of, any story involving banking and finance can automatically provide ready fodder for those who want to smear anyone writing about banking and finance with the anti-Semitic label. Nowhere in Griffin’s book did he ever accuse the Jews as a people of being the source of the evil he writes about (i.e. the Federal Reserve). He simply could not write his story without mentioning the names of those involved, many of whom just happened to be prominent Jews. You can read, for example, Niall Ferguson’s The Assent of Money and find many Jewish characters – does that make him anti-Semitic? Of course not, it is only when Jews as a group are blamed that one is anti-Semitic. Mr. Milbank, I defy you to honestly point to anything in Mr. Griffin’s book that does that.

Which brings me to my main point: I am not here to defend Beck or Griffin. I am here to defend the truth. Mr. Milbank, when you write: “To make this case, Beck hosted the conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin, who has publicly argued that the anti-Semitic tract ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” “accurately describes much of what is happening in our world today.’ Griffin’s web site dabbles in a variety of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including his view that “present-day political Zionists are promoting the New World Order[,]” you are spreading a lie.

It is so disappointing that journalists on all sides feel the need to lie in order to make their point. Did you actually read Mr. Griffin’s entire post to which you referred? Here it is, and if you didn’t read it from top to bottom, (it’s quite short), I suggest you do.

You took Mr. Griffin’s words entirely out of context. If you actually read the whole post, you would understand that Griffin thinks the Protocol of the Elders of Zion is a fraud and, furthermore, does not believe in any Jewish conspiracies or the world domination by Jews or whatever label you are attempting to smear him with. You would find that he lectures his readers on falling into such a trap.

So, Mr. Milbank, I can only make two logical assumptions, both of which render you a dishonest writer: 1) you read Mr. Griffin’s post and chose to lie about it anyway or 2) you didn’t source your information and reported it anyway. Shame, shame because most people will not do the fact-checking I did and will take your words at face value.

There is a Chasidic parable which illustrates the harm this kind of reporting can do, not only to people, but to ideas as well. It goes like this: A man went through his village spreading lies about the Rabbi. As the man’s anger at the Rabbi abated, he felt remorse for what he had done. He asked the Rabbi to forgive him and wanted to make amends. The Rabbi told him to take several feather pillows, cut them up and scatter them to the wind. The man did so and returned to the Rabbi and told him he had completed the deed asked of him. The Rabbi then instructed him to go and gather each and every feather. The man protested, “But that is impossible.” So to is the spreading of lies; you cannot undo the damage done. The Talmud teaches that destroying another person’s name is akin to murder and, like murder, the damage cannot be undone.

Finally, Mr. Milbank, I don’t know if you are Jewish or not, but I am. I would very much appreciate it if you and others who insist on taking anti-Semitism out of context and finding it where it is not, desist. If real anti-Semitism ever raises its ugly head again, we risk not taking it seriously, because its meaning has been abused, and the real thing might not be recognizable until it is too late.
Lisa Goldstein

Posted 2011 Apr 28
Dear Mr. Griffin,
I contacted Mr. Milbank regarding his shameful attempt to portray you as an anti-Semite. I guess we really are in the whitewater now. Thanks again for all you have done and continue to do for the cause of Liberty. Text of my email to Milbank follows:

Mr. Milbank,
Your attempt to paint G. Edward Griffin an anti Semite is shameful if not easily anticipated. In the past a single essay like yours would have relegated Mr. Griffin to the caste of the untouchables. Think Joseph Sobran. The days when a media personality could destroy someone by simply accusing them of being an anti Semite or racist are long gone. Like an overused antibiotic it has become ineffective.

The fact of the matter is that pretty much anyone that didn't graduate from Yale, Harvard, or Oxford can easily see what the central bankers of the world are up to. Mr. Griffin's book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, is a meticulously footnoted, scholarly work that has provided millions of people with access to the facts about the fraud being perpetrated.

Is the fraud an intentional plot perpetrated by nefarious Zionists? Who knows? Who cares? Mr. Griffin never said it was. The fact remains that Liberty and prosperity are receding at an alarming rate and the foundational cause is currency debasement on a global scale.

Your bio indicates you are a father as am I. It is the reason I devote considerable amounts of time to learning about currency and monetary policy. I may not be able to leave my daughters the world I dream of for them and that they deserve but I'll die trying. Mr. Griffin's work provides much motivation for my efforts.


by G. Edward Griffin, 2008 August 3

Of all the things I have done over the years of pursuing a restoration of our Constitutional Republic, the one I least expected to have to defend was my decision in 1968 to volunteer as an unpaid speech writer for General Curtis LeMay, who was the Vice Presidential candidate for the American Independent Party. At the ripe old age of 37, I had lots to learn about politics and even more about the hidden agendas of those in high places, but it was already clear to me that the foreign policy of the two major political parties was dedicated to building a New World Order. My motivation for supporting the American Independent Party (even though I was a registered Republican at the time) was to throw a roadblock in the path of global collectivism.

I did, in fact, travel with LeMay’s campaign team for about two weeks and I did prepare two short speeches that emphasized the virtues of a strong America (not an aggressive one) and national sovereignty. I worked hard on those policy statements, hoping that their essence would, somehow, be absorbed by the General as he spoke the words, but this was not to be the case. My speeches were never delivered.

LeMay had a very short temper, and the press knew this. Every time he appeared at a press conference, a reporter would ask a question, not about his stand on policy issues, but about his racism. To the best of my knowledge, he was not a racist in any way, but because the front-runner of the American Independent Party was Alabama Governor George Wallace who was widely perceived as a Southern racist, that is the issue that interested the press. So, before LeMay had a chance to make his prepared statement, a reporter typically would shout out: “General, is it true that you are a racist?” The trap never failed. LeMay’s face would flush with anger, and he would launch into a 20-minute tirade on every topic under the sun except those I had prepared. The evening headlines would read: “LeMay denies he is a racist,” and the message of freedom was lost. After two weeks of this performance, I resigned from the campaign team.

I never expected that this brief experience would surface in later years to haunt me, but that is what happened a few days ago in response to my agreement to be a speaker at a 9/11 Truth conference in Los Angeles. This triggered a protest from a lady who felt that I should be removed from the list of speakers because I had been a speech writer for Curtis LeMay who, not only was a racist, but who launched the firebombing of Tokyo at the end of World War II. She sent emails to other participants of the program urging them not to share the platform with me.

The truth is that, in 1968, I had no knowledge of LeMay’s specific role in planning or executing military strategy. All I knew was that he was a famous general who had been head of the U.S. Strategic Air Command – and that he was running on a political party ticket other than Republicrat. However, if I had known about his role in the firebombing of Tokyo or if I had realized that it was under his command that the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan, I doubt that it would have made much difference. One must re-set one’s mind back to 1968 when it was seldom questioned that using weapons of mass destruction was a humane act because it brought the war to an end sooner and, by so doing, actually reduced the number of war casualties, particularly among Americans.

LeMay was not alone in this operation. All major military moves, including firebombing and A-bombing, were approved by the Commander-in-Chief, Harry Truman. I doubt if this lady would have been filled with indignation if I had been a speech writer for President Truman.

It is not my intent to defend Curtis Lemay or Harry Truman. I stand on my own record and character, not those with whom I may find common cause or those whom I have attempted to influence. When I speak and write, I do so as an expression of my own thoughts and ideals. I invite anyone who is curious about those to visit our web site at www.freedom-force.org and join in a movement to unite our forces, not splinter them.


A reply by G. Edward Griffin, updated 2007 October 28

I can understand how mention of my association with The John Birch Society may cause some people to raise an eyebrow. The general impression among many is that the Society is an extremist organization made up of kooks, McCarthyites, and racists. So let me jump to the bottom line.

I am a life member of The John Birch Society and, for several years in the 1960s, served on the Society's staff as a Major Coordinator and official spokesman. From over forty years of personal contact with its members and leadership, I can say with authority that the Society is an excellent educational organization promoting limited government and opposing collectivism in all of its forms. There is nothing about it that is contrary to the highest standards of morality and ethical conduct.

When its rapid growth in the 1960s caught the attention of the collectivists who dominate our nation's power centers, the press launched a massive attack against it and successfully demonized it in the minds of most Americans. The attack centered around a statement made by the Society's founder, Robert Welch. He had written a book, called The Politician, which was a critical view of President Dwight Eisenhower's career. The purpose of the book was to show that, although Eisenhower was widely regarded as a conservative due to his affiliation with the Republican Party and also because of the excellence of his speechwriters, his actual deeds demonstrated that he was a collectivist. He went further by stating that Eisenhower's actions were largely supportive of the goals of communism. There was not much controversy over that, because Welch included an abundance of examples to prove his point. But then, in choosing a word to politically describe him, Welch chose the wrong word. He said that Eisenhower was a Communist.

As everyone in Freedom Force knows, Communism is merely a variant of collectivism. Had Welch used the more generic word, had he called Eisenhower a collectivist, there would be very little in his book that anyone could fault. But he did not. He used the wrong word, and this was the handle the press was looking for. Welch was demonized and made to look foolish, which was all that was necessary to turn the public against him and the organization he founded.

I knew Robert Welch well. In preparation for writing his biography, The Life and Words of Robert Welch, (published in 1975) I had the privilege of examining his private papers and personal letters dating back to boyhood. I interviewed members of his immediate family, including his amazing mother who, as a former schoolteacher, was instrumental in sparking and nourishing his powerful intellect at a very early age. I spent many hours in conversation with him on a wide variety of topics: everything from religion to economics; from mathematics to philosophy. I did not agree with him on everything. For example, he believed that the Darwinian concept of evolution has been scientifically verified, whereas I think it is a theory that is no more scientifically verified than the theory of special creation, and that both theories are based on belief systems. But these disagreements were minor compared to the major issues involving personal freedom and the proper role of government, issues on which we were in harmony.

In 1963, a document was published entitled The Belmont Brotherhood, written by A.J. MacDonald. It claimed that the John Birch Society is a false-leadership organization pretending to be pro-freedom while actually being a front for the Freemasons. This document now is available on the Internet and, judging by the number of times it is referenced in search engines, it has received wide circulation.

I cannot agree with the thesis of this document for reasons that will be explained, but the issues it raises deserve to be addressed. Although MacDonald made numerous unsupportable claims and, in my opinion, reached too far into secondary relationships to fortify other claims, he nevertheless brings to light certain connections that are direct and primary.

Let’s start with the unsupportable claims. The Belmont Brotherhood says that J. Bracken Lee, is listed as a Mason in Who’s Who in America and was an early member of the John Birch Society Council. This may be true, but I can find no verification of Lee ever having been on the Council. However, in the book, The Mountain States of America: People, Politics, and the Power, p. 205, Lee is quoted as saying: “I liked Welch and what he was trying to do, but … I never did join up with him.” (Google Book Search) If anyone can provide documentation that Lee was a member of the Council, I will, of course, retract this objection.

MacDonald claims that the following members of the JBS Council were Masons: Robert Love, Ralph E. Davis, Frank E. Masland, III, and Cola Godden Parker. As his reference, he cites Who's Who in America and tells us that copies of the pertinent pages from that book are attached to the end of his report. Unfortunately, the Internet version of that report does not contain those attachments. Since I like to check things out for myself, I requested Who's Who to send me copies of the biographies of these men. The copies they sent contained no mention of Masonic membership for any of them. I have not been able to locate an original copy of MacDonald's report, so I have no idea what his attachments were, but it appears they were not from Who's Who.

It may be claimed that their membership has been confirmed by the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon. The lodge maintains a web site called "Anti-masonry Frequently Asked Questions" and on page 17 it says: "A number of John Birch Society leaders have been freemasons" and then lists the same names given by MacDonald. Coming from a Masonic source such as this would seem to be reliable information. However, following each name is a reference to Who's Who, exactly the same as provided by MacDonald. Furthermore, this paragraph is within a discussion of The Belmont Brotherhood, so it is obvious that the lodge simply is quoting MacDonald rather than drawing on its own resources. Unless someone can provide reliable confirmation that these men actually were Masons, I must assume they were not. If I come into possession of any such documents, I will publish them in a future update of this analysis.

Elsewhere, MacDonald turns his attention to Harold Lord Varney, who was an occasional contributing writer for the JBS magazine, American Opinion. Varney began his political career as a radical Leftist and activist for the Wobblies, which was the nickname for members of the Industrial Workers of the World. However, on February 8, 1920, he made a complete break with the Wobblies in an article published in the New York Sunday World and the St. Louis Dispatch. From that point forward, he was an outspoken critic of Leftist programs, and it was because of his first-hand knowledge of these things that he was invited to contribute articles to American Opinion. MacDonald apparently was not aware of this history and he quoted Varney’s early writings when he was still a Leftist as proof that the JBS has a hidden affinity to the Left and pretends to be something it is not.

This is not the place to dissect The Belmont Brotherhood. There are other bones to pick; but, in the interest of brevity, let’s turn to the more important issue of what I consider to be the legitimate questions that this publication has raised.

The early JBS Council and staff did have a few Masons who apparently had achieved the rank of 33rd degree or higher. These included T. Coleman Andrews (Council Member) and Robert Bartlett Dresser (Editorial Advisory Committee). This is an insignificant percentage of those holding positions of importance in the first ten years of the Society’s operations, but the presence of any high-level Masons has been a point of concern to those who believe that the higher levels of the Order are incompatible with the goals of the Society. They are equally concerned that Welch did not share that view. In the October, 1973 John Birch Society Bulletin, he discussed the fact that some of the Society’s members are Masons and then said, “So What?” He added: “At least ninety-five percent of the four million ordinary American Masons are just as patriotic as you or I.” MacDonald was outraged by that statement because he felt it obscured the fact that no one was worried about the ninety-five percent of “ordinary” American Masons but only those in the 33rd degree and higher, perhaps the other five percent who may not be as patriotic as you or I.

Even though I worked closely with Robert Welch, I was not at that time interested in the Masonic connection because, with my limited understanding in those days, I would have tended to agree with the response, “So what?” I was not yet aware of the differences between the common and higher degrees nor was I aware of the role Masons have played in the revolutions of so many countries. I now am of the opinion that those in the higher degrees may have agendas that are different from those revealed to the lower degrees, agendas that would not necessarily be endorsed by the common man. Otherwise, there would be no need for secrecy. In retrospect, I think that MacDonald raised an important issue that should have been addressed in greater depth.

Another issue that only recently has come to my attention – and not mentioned at all in The Belmont Brotherhood – is the ideological orientation of the National Association of Manufacturers, the powerful trade organization to which many of the original Council members belonged. No one seems to have focused on that, including me, because it was not in the public consciousness in those days that corporate America was rapidly becoming collectivist. Without realizing it, we all got caught up in a battle between right-wing collectivism (the Nazi/Fascist model) vs. left-wing collectivism (the Soviet/Leninist model). We were expected to choose one or the other, not realizing that they were merely two wings of the same ugly bird. We were so concerned over the rise of global Communism (and rightly so) that we didn’t look very carefully at the ideology of those who opposed it.

The ideology of the NAM was not – and is not – much different than what we now call Neo-Conservatism, which is just another name for right-wing collectivism. Although it opposes Leninism for global dominance, it is amazingly similar to it. This was the beginning of what I call the Ollie North Syndrome: It’s OK to violate the Constitution, lie to Congress, topple governments, smuggle drugs, restrict personal freedom, and kill anyone who gets in the way provided it can be done under the banner of defending America from her enemies. On such a path, eventually we become what we oppose.

In the 1960s, the John Birch Society found itself in the middle of this one-sided, no-real-choice crusade. Tens of thousands of us joined its ranks to oppose Communism, and we hardly noticed the thing called fascism that was silently growing within our own government.

The significance of this fact is that early members of the Society's Council included a few regional directors of the Federal Reserve System, members of the Council on Foreign Relations, and some of them worked closely with operatives of secret government agencies. For example, William J. Grede, an industrialist on the Executive Committee of the JBS Council, was a director of the Federal Reserve Seventh District. Coleman T. Andrews was a member of the Bohemian Club. Spruille Braden, an ambassador to numerous countries who helped to topple their regimes, was an agent of The United Fruit Company, Director of the W. Averell Harriman Securities Corporation, an agent of Standard Oil, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Ralph E. Davis was a director of the Wackenhut Corporation, a private security firm that has contracts for security and paramilitary services of various government agencies including black-box operations. Other Wackenhut board members included former FBI Director Clarence Kelly, former Defense Secretary and CIA deputy director Frank Carlucci (later known for his leadership role in the Carlyle Group), former Secret Service director James J. Rowley, and many others from the military and CIA. George Wackenhut boasted that his company maintained files on 2.5 million Americans who were suspected dissidents.

Although Robert Welch was never a top dignitary in the NAM power palace, he highly respected it, sought personal relationships with its leaders, and even emulated some of its features when he founded the JBS, notably the black-tie events called Council Dinners (ladies excluded from the head table). In private conversations, he tried to convince me that fractional-reserve banking was healthy for the economy, and he was extremely upset when I produced The Capitalist Conspiracy, a documentary that shows the similarity between the Illuminati and the Masonic Order. He never explained what errors had been made in the film. His only comment to me was that I was dealing with something I didn’t understand. All of this now makes sense. The mystery is solved. Some of his strongest supporters and financial donors were bankers and Masons, and he didn't want to offend them. At the time, however, I had no awareness of that, and these encounters were a source of bewilderment for many years.

The question about Welch’s possible Masonic membership probably will never be answered. My personal opinion is that he was not a member but was close to many who were and saw nothing dangerous in that. Based on my personal involvement with him under varied circumstances, social as well as business, I do not believe that he was a mole serving a hidden agenda. His early political career and especially his outpouring of political writing (most of which never found its way into The Life and Words of Robert Welch) were so genuine and passionate that it defies a sinister interpretation. It is still possible, however, that his crusade against Communism may have blinded him, or at least dulled his vision, when it came to recognizing a parallel ideology growing within the United States under a different name and under the leadership of some of the very captains of industry and banking with whom he associated.

Even though Welch was friendly with corporate leaders who may have been right-wing collectivists, we must not conclude that he endorsed their ideology. From the very first of his writings on such issues, he spoke eloquently about the dangers of big government. This was far more than tokenism. It was a major and recurring theme in all of his work. We must not assume that he was a closet collectivist just because he came from the corporate world. There are many in the freedom movement today who have traveled the same path but are totally sincere in their resolve to defeat collectivism. His defense of individualism was passionate and genuine.

After Mr. Welch’s passing, after the passing of the original Council members, and especially after the so-called demise of Communism, the John Birch Society altered its crusade to focus more intensely on opposition to collectivism within our own government. It has become an outspoken critic of the Council on Foreign Relations and its globalist agenda. In 1994, it co-published several printings of my book, The Creature from Jekyll Island; A Second Look at the Federal Reserve and continues to sell it through its wholesale book division. Several years ago, the Society sent author, Ralph Epperson, on a speaking tour addressing the topic of Freemasonry, making a careful distinction between the agenda of the highest orders and those of the good-old boys that populate the common lodges. So, any suspicions one may have about some of the Society’s early members must be tempered by an objective appraisal of the organization’s activities today. “That was then. This is now.”

I learned a great deal from Robert Welch, and much of what I have attempted to encode into Freedom Force can be traced to his influence. Today, The John Birch Society is composed of some of the finest men and women you will ever hope to meet. The charges of extremism, racism, anti-Semitism, and all the rest are pure hogwash. But there is an important lesson in this story. The treatment given to the Birch Society is exactly the kind of treatment we can expect for ourselves when we become strong enough to challenge the collectivist stranglehold over the power centers of society. Once we come onto their radar, there is little doubt that they will attempt to demonize Freedom Force and, most likely, me in particular. So hang on to your hats. The ride is going to be rough. As the saying goes: There's white water ahead!

Shortly after the previous commentary was posted to our web site, I received the following email from a member in the state of Washington:

“Hi Ed. Well, once again you succeed in "pushing back the frontiers of ignorance" (Walter E Williams). From out of my liberal, hippie past I was still carrying the implanted idea that the John Birch Society was a bunch of nuts. I have been on their website for the past hour getting re-educated. So, thank you once again for setting the record straight. I am left however, with a question. If the JBS seems to be doing such similar work to Freedom Force, why have you created a separate organization? What are the differences in goals and/or tactics that set you apart?  – Yours truly, Kevin Fisher”

The answer to that question is contained in a chart that shows a side-by-side comparison of key features of the two organizations. The following link will take you to that document: Click here


We have numerous additional items to post to this section and will do so just as soon as we can find the time. Please check back. If you run across unfavorable allegations against me or Freedom Force, please send them to me here.