Sunday, August 20, 2006

Will Grigg's Birch Blog -- The Lost Episodes

A brief preface is in order.

On June 22, I published a Birch Blog entitled "Phony Immigration Debate vs. Real Police State Threat." Within hours it had been, um, misplaced, and never appeared in that space again -- even though it had been forwarded throughout the Blogosphere, and was reproduced in its entirety on Alex Jones's "Prison Planet" newssite.

"Where did it go?" more than one puzzled Birch Blog reader inquired of me. "Why was it deleted?" I knew where it had gone, and had been told why it was disposed of, and beyond those acknowledgements I'm really not at liberty to discuss the matter.


Just this afternoon (Sunday, August 20) I came across an old copy of the essay, minus the hyperlinks (many of which probably expired anyway). In blogging, as in invasive surgery, it's a good idea to keep all of the parts, a practice I followed sporadically at best. What follows is the first of what may be a few installments from the "Lost Episode" Birch Blog file. Bear in mind that apart from the links, I've reproduced it as it was originally published, typos and all.

Although it should be obvious, I'll say it anyway: I don't support open borders. But as North Korea demonstrates, solving the problem of illegal immigration is not the summum bonum of a free society. What I attempted to do was to demonstrate how this issue was being exploited by the architects of the emerging garrison state, and how the entire conservative movement - without so much as a single exception - is falling for the deception.

Will Grigg's Birch Blog, Thursday, June 22, 2006, 12:25 PM

To understand the patent phoniness of the Republican debate over
immigration, and the very real evil that is behind it, we must resort to
the language of professional "wrestling" -- an undertaking nearly as
fraudulent, but nowhere near as malicious or corrupt, as politics.

In wrestling, a "work" is a staged event in which the outcome is
foreordained - the participant ("competitor" isn't the right word)
designed the winner will prevail in order to advance the intended storyline.
A work stands in contrast to a "shoot": In the words of the great Lou
Thesz, whose career included both, in a shoot the wrestlers are fighting for
"money, marbles, or chalk" -- that is, they're involved in a real match
for tangible stakes.

Since the 1930s, very few pro "wrestling" matches have been "shoots."
Promoters learned that it was more profitable to control process through
which champions and contenders were chosen, thereby cultivating marketable
personalities that could attract crowds across large territories.

Although "works" could often involve real bloodletting and injury (this is
sometimes called a "work-shoot"), they are always exercises in controlled
mayhem, with a scripted outcome.

Apart from what occasionally happens in a few smaller regional promotions,
the people running the steroid-enhanced soap opera that is Pro Wrestling
keep it untainted by authentic competition. The objective is to devise and
promote audience-grabbing "angles," or storylines.

The same is true of the malignant - and increasingly murderous - farce
that is American politics.

The only political objective the Bush regime cares about right now is to
preserve the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, where
impeachment proceedings or serious investigations (albeit of an
undisguised partisan variety) may erupt should the Democrats take control.

To that end, the Republican Party is preparing for a multi-city tag-team
"Battle Royale" pitting House "conservatives" against Senate "moderates"
Over the issue of immigration.

As USA Today puts it: "The congressional immigration debate took on the trappings of a national political campaign ... as each side planned a series of made-for-media events across the country to highlight the pros and cons of granting illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship.... The dueling
hearings are unusual because both the House and Senate have already passed
legislation. Normally, the next step would be a House-Senate conference
committee to reconcile differences between the bills. That now will be put
off while both sides take their case to the public over the summer."

The Los Angeles Times plays up what wrestling fans would call the "Heel turn" taken by either George W. Bush or the House Republicans: "The unorthodox plan by House Republicans for a series of hearings on
immigration policy represents an aggressive effort by hard-line critics of illegal
immigration to reassert control over the emotional debate - and wrest it from President Bush - as this year's elections approach."

Anybody familiar with pro wrestling knows that if the apparent outcome of
a "worked" match defies expectations, it will be reversed through an outrageous and unfair development.

For instance, the "referee" may be temporarily knocked unconscious,
missing the pinfall by which the Babyface (good guy) wins the match, only to be
dramatically roused from his stupor long enough to award the victory to
the Heel.

Or perhaps the match will degenerate into what is called a "schmazz" -- an
ending in which the good guy appears to win, as wrestlers from the contending camps pour into the ring, hurling chairs and other objects at each other in what appears to be a chaotic melee. Of course, that apparent victory is reversed on further review.

For promoters looking to create and exploit "heat" among the audience, either of those outcomes is desirable, since it reinforces the image of the Babyface as the innocently wronged champion.

This is exactly the image House Republicans are trying to sell to the
conservative public - in order to advance the White House's objectives: No
impeachment or serious inquiry into administration wrongdoing, and
eventual enactment of amnesty in some form.

That's right.

Write this prediction down in ink: If the Republicans succeed in using the issue of border enforcement to retain control over Congress, we will get amnesty anyway - maybe in a lame-duck session, most likely no later than a year from now.

How can I say this with such assuredness?

Easy: That's the position staked out in the most recent manifesto issued
by the self-appointed leaders of "respectable" conservatism.

The "open letter" from the Hudson Institute, signed by a bevy of faux
conservatives - from William F. Buckley to Bill Bennett to David Horowitz
(as well as the occasional misled legitimate conservative, such as Phyllis
Schlafly) - declares:

"We favor what Newt Gingrich has described as `sequencing.' First border
and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented, and proven
successful - and only then can we debate the status of current illegal
immigrants, or at least the need for new guest worker programs."

In principle, this differs not at all from George W. Bush's approach,
which is to enhance border enforcement - and then nullify it by granting amnesty
and tearing down our border with Mexico through the Security and
Prosperity Partnership.

One thing we see here is that Gingrich - though abundantly disgraced and
in bad odor with legitimate conservatives - hasn't lost his mojo as a judas

Back in 1994, when the grassroots were in full rebellion against both the
Clinton administration and the Washington Establishment, Gingrich cobbled together a "Contract With America" intended to nationalize the congressional elections. The idea was to impose message discipline on Republican candidates - to take untamed populist conservatives and break them to the saddle of the Beltway GOP leadership.

And immediately after the Republican victory in November, Gingrich and Senate GOP leader Bob Dole sold the grassroots out by holding a lame-duck session to approve US membership in the World Trade Organization,
opposition to which was exactly the kind of issue that propelled Republican
congressional candidates to victory at the polls. Gingrich and Dole made
sure that the debate over the WTO ended before the new Congress could

This is exactly the type of perfidy we're dealing with here - and the
conservative movement, without exception, is falling for it. Which makes
me think that the movement is being led by the kind of people who are
surprised when the results of WWE events aren't reported in the sports section.

The details of the current sell-out differ from the 1994 edition, of

For instance, rather than being a hands-on political player, Gingrich is a
presumptive presidential candidate and GOP dogmatist without portfolio.
And it's possible, given the extent to which the Republican congressional
leadership has turned their party into a support mechanism for Bush's
authoritarian personality cult, that no lame duck session would be

But the fact remains that a Republican victory in November will mean
amnesty in some form for illegal immigrants, a renewed push for merger with
Mexico, and - most importantly - an even more vigorous drive to build a domestic
garrison state on a permanent war footing.

In fact, the Hudson Institute manifesto makes that pretty clear:

"We are in the middle of a global war on terror.... Today, we need proof
that enforcement (both at the border and in the interior) is successful
before anything else happens."

A step-to-the-side translation of this would be: Build the police state
first, and then we can talk about amnesty.

Militarizing the border would certainly go a long way toward that

For a long time our would-be rulers have been looking for an issue that
could entice people into surrendering their freedoms: The threat of
Communism, the scourge of narcotics, the menace of international
terrorism.... They seem to identified the threat of illegal immigration as
just the thing they've been searching for. Right now, tens of millions of
conservatives, including many who have been suspicious about the Patriot
(sic) Act and similar measures, appear willing to submit to invasive,
militarized enforcement measures in order to curb illegal immigration.

This fits nicely into the "angle" being scripted by the GOP, as well. As
long as we're talking about immigration, we're not paying attention as the
Bush regime builds the Reich around us.

No matter what tumult or conflict is orchestrated for our consumption over
the next several months, the public has to remember: This isn't a real
debate, it's a "work," and the angle it is advancing will end with the
extinction of our existence as a constitutional republic.


USPatriot36 said...

Will I disagree with your belief that Pres. Bush wanted to preserve the control of the House for the Republicans. I felt since the time he was elected that his job was to wreck the Republican Majority in both houses. I believed it would be because of a major recession but obviously I was wrong about HOW the Republican majority would be destroyed.

Tony Schmitz said...

Me: I am 40, male, divorced (civil), Dad, Catholic, 25 year JBS member. I respect you very much; you regularly demonstrate high integrity.

Question: Do you propose that Robert Welch's solution is wrong? Or, do you propose that it (the structure, organization etc.) is correct, but requires reformation in leadership?

I fail to see how one person's (alleged) racist tendency, and an overly conservative approach in the attack against the Illuminati/Establishment during the past 5 - 10 years could establish that the JBS is not still the most effective weapon the Insiders.

May God bless your efforts, and your family.

In His Name,
Tony Schmitz

William N. Grigg said...

Dear Tony --

Thanks so much for your very kind comments, and your prayers on behalf of my family.

To address first the most important questions you raise:

ANY genuine JBS leadership would be an improvement over the present configuration. Under the Thompson/McManus regime, organization has had NO measurable effect regarding the preservation/ recovery of freedom precisely when the JBS was most desperately needed.

In large measure this is because its current management (the word "leadership" doesn't apply) studiously avoided engaging in the most important issues -- those dealing with the Bush Regime's wholesale evisceration of the Bill of Rights.

This isn't a "conservative approach"; it's collaboration.

The upper management of JBS is composed of individuals I know from personal experience to be craven, petty liars. They lied about me pretty consistently after I was fired until I made it clear I wouldn't put up with any more.

The most repellent of that bunch is Alan Scholl, who not only made getting rid of me something of a personal jihad but has consummately mismanaged the action agenda of the JBS.

Alan was once a generous friend. He is now someone able to chew his food owing entirely to the blessing of distance. God has not yet made of me a Christian of such patient self-restraint that I would neglect an opportunity to give Alan some tangible reasons for regret, should such an occasion arise (and if you happen to read this, Alan, consider that both an invitation and a promise).

As Joseph Sobran wrote regarding his remarkably similar treatment by William F. Buckley: "[I]f you betray a man, you have no right to complain that he isn't as nice to you as he used to be. That's the special nature of betrayal: it cancels everything in a friendship."

With focused malice and utter dishonesty, Alan connived to get me fired, leaving me with five small children, an invalid wife, and a resume (featuring the acronym of death, J-B-S) that left me all but unemployable in my chosen field.

After doing this he IMMEDIATELY began to lie about me in an effort to undermine my professional reputation.

I'm finishing my taxes tonight, and it's clear to me that, absent some Providence-inspired generosity from some incredibly wonderful people, and the fact that I had saved most of what I earned over the past two years or so of working for the JBS, we would have been entirely destitute by now.

You can't provide for a family of seven on earnings considerably south of $20K/year, which is what I was able to earn last year as a home-based freelance writer. And owing to Korrin's condition -- which made me her primary caregiver, and a functional single parent for most of last year -- I couldn't seek employment outside the home.

I have implied that Alan's priorities in focusing on the immigration campaign may be rooted in racist motives. This reflects, among other things, comments he made to the effect that as a Californian he has special insight regarding the Mexican menace -- those waves of people who are supposedly "wrecking our economy and culture."


It's people who come here to work without government permission who are wrecking our economy -- not the hyper-profligate Bush administration and Congress, and the relentlessly inflating Fed?

It's Mexicans (most of whom are Christian, more specifically Catholic) who are wrecking an already degenerate culture? Actually, the opposite is the case: Young Mexicans actually tend to be more socially conservative than denizens of our post-post-MTV "culture," and their mores degenerate once they come here.

Alan knows better regarding the economy, and the fact that he's a homeschooling parent who doesn't own a TV and worships in an insular independent Baptist congregation testifies eloquently as to what he thinks of our culture. So the complaint above seems to boil down to, "I don't like the fact that our country is host to so many brown people who speak Spanish, or speak English with a Latino accent."

It was clear at the time I wrote the piece above that Appleton selected the immigration issue as its monomaniacal focus largely for opportunistic reasons. So at a time when Bush and Company were tearing up the foundation stones of the Anglo-Saxon concept of individual rights going back to the Year of Our Lord 1215, the operational program of the JBS was to focus obsessively on the Brown Peril.

And in doing so the JBS ended up recruiting some of the most notorious bigots in Arizona, among whom were the Kuiper Belt object-sized Nazi merde-bag J.T. Ready and his buddy in the legislature, Russell Pearce.

Tony, for several years prior to my firing in October 2006, I had become aggravated by the way the JBS's priorities seemed to follow a "kiss up/kick down" approach: We were achingly careful to avoid taking on the powerful, but bold as Hector in smiting insignificant people whom we saw as competition (people like Dave Van Kliest and other 9/11 "Truth Movement" activists).

When it came to the immigration issue, it seemed to me that this was a world-historic case of ducking a real fight and then going home and beating up your poodle: Give Bush and his gang a pass, and focus your fury on poor, pathetic manual laborers from Mexico (just LOOK at the photos chosen to illustrate the immigrant "menace" in TNA, and tell me what message they convey).

All of this was made possible because of the myopia and insuperable timidity of the people running the JBS. For the reasons described above, I think Alan's skewed priorities may reflect other invidious motivations.

Because he lived in California he styles himself an expert on the cultural damage done by Mexicans. Well, as an American of Mexican ancestry, I am something of an expert on recognizing, and dealing with, people who think that Mexicans are slightly substandard human beings, and Alan displays at least some of the symptoms.

Forgive me for going on at such length and in such a bitter tone. This is still an acutely unpleasant subject for me, and besides, tomorrow's Tax Day and I'm still trying to find my files.

"The cross comes before the crown -- and tomorrow is a Monday morning!"

Thanks again, and God bless.

Bachy said...


Seeing as how this post is almost 6 years old now, I'm not sure if you'll actually get to read this, but just in case, it's at least worth the little bit of time & effort it will take to type it. First let me say that I really enjoy your writing. Of all the writers that I've become familiar with through the LRC daily email, I look forward to your articles most of all. Your wit & unflinching clarity are refreshing. However, this is the first time that I became aware of your history with JBS, & how it ended. Not that it would be of any consequence to you either way, but I just wanted to let you know that the latent undertone of bigotry as well as what I perceived as a severe misplacing of priorities are exactly what kept me from joining the JBS, even as I was being rather aggressively "recruited," I guess you could say. I wasn't so candid with the chapter leader who kept calling me at the time; I told him that as a philosophical anarchist, I couldn't, in good conscience, become a member of an organization that deals exclusively in the realm of politics. At any rate, I just wanted to say that after reading about your experience with them, I'm glad I never succumbed to the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine & joined them on the grounds that even the "limited government" they claim to champion would be better than what we suffer under now.
Honestly; it's bad enough that we who genuinely stand on the side of individual liberty have not only the political class, the statist media establishment, & the armies of indoctrinated leftist organizations out there to grapple with; when even those who would ostensibly be our allies in the movement, wind up being hypocrites, or worse, turn out to be motivated by ignorant collectivist impulses of bigotry & xenophobia, it's enough to make the battle seem unwinnable. Having them as "friends" of the movement does nothing but reinforce the misperceptions of the avowed enemies of libertarianism.
And believe me, this is coming from someone who is keenly sensitive to misguided accusations of bigotry; I don't take the issue lightly. Being a proud & vocal libertarian & supporter of the Mises Institute in online forums, I'd be a rich man if I had a dollar for every time someone tossed out innuendo or insinuations of racism against me - let alone come right out & accused me. Anyhow, I've babbled enough, especially given that I'm likely babbling to no one. I wish you the best, & I look forward to reading the Pro Libertate blog for years to come.
God Bless,