Quote:
Originally Posted by cmac2012
Huh? Jasper a single writer associated with the JBS? No, he's got some serious clout there:
Mr. William F. Jasper joined the staff of The John Birch Society in 1976 as a researcher and soon became a contributing editor to the Society's magazines, American Opinion and The Review of the News. When those publications merged in 1985 to become THE NEW AMERICAN, Mr. Jasper continued to serve as a writer and contributing editor until 1990, when he was promoted to the position of Senior Editor.
Over the past three decades, William Jasper has researched and written extensively on foreign and domestic politics, national security, education, immigration, constitutional issues, the culture war, and most notably, the United Nations. His renown as an investigative journalist and insightful analyst on a wide array of topics has made William Jasper a frequent and highly sought guest on many radio and television programs.
This from the second link above.
My paraphrase was not too far off in spirit. Jasper is a lunatic extremist. He makes it clear that he believes that France was the rightful ruler of Vietnam around the end of WW2. France was to Vietnam much as Britain was to the American colonies in the late 18th century with one big exception. The Brits founded and peopled much of the American colonies whereas France just waltzed in and exploited Vietnam.
I'm glad you and Japser found each other. You should be grateful for my help.
|
I don't dispute his clout, he might be John Birch incarnate but he's still one man rather than the plural "Bircher's" you've claimed! He confronts and challenges Patti's positions and assertions he doesn't attack him personally, he doesn’t call him dim-witted. According to the dictionary there is a decided difference between a stooge “one who willingly plays a subordinate or compliant role to a principal" and a dupe “one that is unknowingly easily deceived or cheated
"He makes it clear that he believes that France was the rightful ruler of Vietnam around the end of WW2."
You find support for this assertion within the article you’ve provided?
“France was to Vietnam much as Britain was to the American colonies in the late 18th century with one big exception. The Brits founded and peopled much of the American colonies whereas France just waltzed in and exploited Vietnam.”
I can’t even imagine your point with this statement. Perhaps if France in the late 19th century 1860’s had depopulated the terrain of the indigenous population as had early Americans in the 17th and 18th centuries then they would have not “just waltzed in and exploited”? I would have though that someone of your delicate sensibilities would be championing the mere exploitation of Indochina over the extermination of native America?