Subject: Bo Gritz vs Chip Berlet

From: [email-masked] (John W. Redelfs)
Date: 10 Jan 1993 02:57:28 GMT

With Steve Crocker I too would like to see any evidence you have that Bo
Gritz is wrong about top government officials being involved in drug
trafficking for the purpose of financing covert operations.

And just dismissing Gritz as a crackpot or lunatic doesn't really prove
he isn't telling the truth.

Tell us, Chip.  You are probably the most knowledgable contributor to
this newsgroup (although much of your knowledge may be false).  Is it
certain that Bo Gritz is wrong about this?  How can we be sure?

-- 

--------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------
------------ John W. Redelfs, [email-masked] -------------

---

From: [email-masked] (John W. Redelfs)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 10:55:30 GMT

>Given that Gritz has been wrong about everything that is checkable,
>what makes you think he's truthful about this one?  Especially when
>Gritz has *no* evidence of his claims.
>
>Gritz is just a con-man trying to get money out of you the way he
>got money out of Ross Perot.
>-- 
>ted frank                     | [email-masked] 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637

I think you may be right, Ted, but I just don't know.  I'd like a little
more to go on than your say-so.  Where did you get this information?
Except for some pretty solid stuff that I've received from Chip Berlet
establishing that he's associated with some pretty seedy characters a
while back, I've found verifiable information about Gritz pretty hard to
come by.

It would sure help me if someone could document some lies he's told, some
crimes he's committed, or some anti-Semitic/white racist things he's
said in his writings or speeches.  Most of what I've heard seems to be rant
that is unsubstantiated from his political enemies, not exactly an
unbiased source.

In fact, if Gritz is the Jew hating white racist liar his enemies say
he is, I'm surprised the net isn't just loaded with such documentation.

Calling someone a villian doesn't make him one unless he's actually done
or said something wrong.  Ideology alone doesn't make someone a villian.
Neither does knowing scum unless he is one of them.

How can we know for sure that Gritz is a liar?  How can we know for sure
that he is a anti-Semitic white racist?  To be sure, we need more than
just a lot of people saying he is these things.  Rumors and gossip
aren't evidence.

I understand that he once wrote that some of the families that own the
Federal Reserve are Jewish.  Is saying this anti-Semitic?  It seems to
me that such would be the case only if he said these Jews were evil
BECAUSE they are Jewish or if it's not true.  If a bank is owned by a
Mormon family, does saying so make one an anti-Mormon?  Some people
define anti-Semitism so broadly that almost nobody can escape the
appellation unless he is Jewish.

If anyone can produce SUBSTANTIAL evidence that Bo Gritz is either
anti-Semitic or white racist as I define those terms, I will turn away
from him in total disgust.

Afterall my wife and three children are mestizo and I have Jewish
ancestry that I am very proud of.  I detest anti-Semites and white
racists.

Oddly enough, I have never seen convincing evidence that Bo Gritz is
either.

-- 

--------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------
------------ John W. Redelfs, [email-masked] -------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Ted Frank)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:50:49 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:
>I'm sorry, you're wrong.  I've seen MUCH evidence of Bo's claims.  With
>reguard to the CIA drug running charges; I have a videotape of Bo Gritz
>interviewing Burmese drug lords that flatly identify their contacts in
>the US as former CIA and state department officials.

And what evidence do you have that the person he interviewed was a 
"Burmese drug lord"?

>I don't think that Bo Gritz ever go any money from Perot.  

False.  Do a database search.  Perot was quite proud of his support
for Gritz before he became a presidential candidate.

>And if
>he did it was probablly to help find POWs in Southeast Asia.

Well, that's what Gritz told the families of MIA's that he ripped off,
yes.  Then he had a nice cock-and-bull story about how he "infiltrated"
across a river border that didn't exist, found actual "camps", and
as evidence produced "human remains" that turned out to be pig bones.

Gritz is a con-man, and a dangerous one at that, given his anti-Semitism.

>The problem is not people like Gritz, who dedicate their lives trying to
>keep us all free, but people like you that spread misinformation.

And what misinformation is this?  You're talking from bald assertions
and faked videotapes.  I have facts on my side.  Look up this stuff.
Use your goddammed head.
-- 
ted frank                     | [email-masked] 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation

---

From: [email-masked] (Ted Frank)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:05:03 GMT

>more to go on than your say-so.  Where did you get this information?

Public knowledge.  Look it up.  Do a database search.  It's not hidden;
a newspaper or three will do an article on Gritz fairly often.

>while back, I've found verifiable information about Gritz pretty hard to

There was a recent good book published about MIA-con-men in general,
part of it was excerpted in the January 1991 _Atlantic_.

>or said something wrong.  Ideology alone doesn't make someone a villian.

I disagree with the latter statement.  At what point did Hitler become
a villian?  Do we have to wait for the first Jews to enter the camps?

>Federal Reserve are Jewish.  Is saying this anti-Semitic?  

Yes.  Why?

1) It's false.  The Federal Reserve is owned and fully controlled 
   by the United States government.  

2) It's a clear appeal to anti-Semites to join him, guised in such
   language so that people like you are willing to dismiss charges
   of anti-Semitism.  The idea of a conspiracy being led by "Jewish
   bankers" is over a century old, and has been told by anti-Semites
   on at least four or five different continents.  And never has it 
   been true.

3) Let's assume counterfactually for a second that the FRB *was*
   controlled by Jews.  What purpose does it serve to note that 
   some government officials happen to be of a particular religion?  
   Of what relevance is it, if not to cast aspersions on them for 
   their religion?

>It seems to

Gritz is making a false claim that Jews have control over the 
world that they don't.  Once again -- what is the relevance of it?
Why build a campaign plank against it?  Why accept support from
*overt* blatant anti-Semites like Willis Carto?  Why banking,
if not to appeal to the old canards of the International Jewish
Banking Conspiracy?

>Oddly enough, I have never seen convincing evidence that Bo Gritz is

I'm sorry you feel that way.  What evidence would you require, aside
from a willingness to be on the same ticket as David Duke, accepting
funding from Willis Carto, and making false accusations reminiscent of
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?  David Duke never stands up and
says "I hate blacks," and Bo Gritz is never going to stand up and
say "I hate Jews" -- he's always going to phrase his anti-Semitism in 
terms of supporting groups that think the Holocaust is a hoax and
in campaign literature where he speaks of the need to stop "Jewish bankers." 

I hope, for your sake, if Gritz does come to power, that your Jewish
ancestry dates back more than three generations.
-- 
ted frank                     | [email-masked] 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation

---

From: [email-masked] (Jason Yanowitz)
Date: 13 Jan 1993 00:35:53 -0500

The notion that Bo Gritz isn't a racist, anti-semitic, sexist pig
is grounded in a skewed sense of reality.  He's the head of the Populist
Party, a proto-fascist/extreme right-wing organization that's based
in the Mid-West (they try to get farmers on their side, a la the old
Populist Party.  guess who they attack a lot -- that's right, the 
the "Jewish-controlled banking system").  To question Chip Berlet's
scholarship ad hominem (sp) is a pathetic move.  PLEASE do a little
research into these people (and even if you dislike Chip Berlet, his
assessment of Bo Gritz is certainly accurate).

I'd apologize for using the bandwidth, but the notion that Bo Gritz is
anything other than bigot must be stopped -- he and his ilk are gaining
ground in the Mid-West, after all.

-- 

Jason Yanowitz                | PGP 2.0 key available via fingering and email.
[email-masked]  | [Space currently vacant].
"A pox on Columbus" -- Bernstein, in the file _Hester Street_

---

From: [email-masked] (Rich Schwartzman)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 08:43:13 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:
}In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (John W. Redelfs) writes:
}>I think you may be right, Ted, but I just don't know.  I'd like a little
}>more to go on than your say-so.  Where did you get this information?
}
}Public knowledge.  Look it up.  Do a database search.  It's not hidden;
}a newspaper or three will do an article on Gritz fairly often.
}
}>Except for some pretty solid stuff that I've received from Chip Berlet
}>establishing that he's associated with some pretty seedy characters a
}>while back, I've found verifiable information about Gritz pretty hard to
}>come by.
}
}There was a recent good book published about MIA-con-men in general,
}part of it was excerpted in the January 1991 _Atlantic_.
}
}>Calling someone a villian doesn't make him one unless he's actually done
}>or said something wrong.  Ideology alone doesn't make someone a villian.
}
}I disagree with the latter statement.  At what point did Hitler become
}a villian?  Do we have to wait for the first Jews to enter the camps?
}
}>How can we know for sure that Gritz is a liar?  How can we know for sure
}>that he is a anti-Semitic white racist?  To be sure, we need more than
}>just a lot of people saying he is these things.  Rumors and gossip
}>aren't evidence.
}>
}>I understand that he once wrote that some of the families that own the
}>Federal Reserve are Jewish.  Is saying this anti-Semitic?  
}
}Yes.  Why?
}
}1) It's false.  The Federal Reserve is owned and fully controlled 
}   by the United States government.  
}

Just for clarification, the Federal Reserve is a group of privately owned
banks, not part of the federal government.

-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         [email-masked]            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Daniel Segard)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 15:35:50 GMT

>    by the United States government.

       The Federal Reserve is one thing which we here about over and over
again by the neo-nazi types.  Much of this I believe relates directly back
to Eustice Mullins, who has already been discussed at length here and is a
known neo-nazi, anti-semetic, new age flake.
       To counter Mullins' charges about the Federal Reserve being
privately owned (charges which are also claimed by Lyndon Larouch and
others), it seems to me that it would be a good idea to provide a quick
overview in the FAQ about how the Federal Reserve bank is actually run.
The flakes have lots of interesting "stories" which they tell about the FR:
supposedly owned by Jews, or controled by the banking community of London,
or that the value of the dollar is set daily by the street value of heroin
in Hong Kong, etc.  But obviously none of these funny stories would compare
to some good solid documentation on what branch of the government actually
controls the FR, how their policy is set, who appoints the people who
control the FR, etc.

 >   on at least four or five different continents.  And never has it

      The Federal Reserve only dates back to like 1918 or somewhere in
there.  But yes, the stories go back much further.  The actual roots go all
the way back to the Dark Ages, and it is good to point out exactly *why*
the Jews were involved in banking back then.  The problem can be laid
squarely on the door of the Christian Church.  They prohibited all Gentiles
from loaning money, they severely restricted what trades Jews could be
involved in; and as a result many Jews were involved in loaning money at
interest.  How much any of these "Jewish bankers" communicated with each
other might be anybody's guess.  But even if they were setting interest
rates as a group I don't know that this would qualify as being a
"conspiracy".

 >   Of what relevance is it, if not to cast aspersions on them for

       When the flakes start taking potshots at Jews, you will find that
they pay very little attention to the question of whether the "Jew" in
question is religiously observant or not.  If they find that a person whom
they want to attack has any Jewish ancestory anywhere in their background,
they automatically paint that person as a Jew and then paint all Jewish
people as being like the one person.  Bigotry by any other name....

---

From: [email-masked] (Daniel Segard)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 15:48:11 GMT

[email-masked] (Rich Schwartzman) writes:

 > Just for clarification, the Federal Reserve is a group of
 > privately owned banks, not part of the federal government.

         Okay, we have some apparent disagreement here.  Which of you is
correct?  (Naturally I expect both of you to raise your hand and say "I'm
right", therefore documentation would be good.)

---

From: [email-masked] (Rich Schwartzman)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 18:42:24 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Daniel Segard) writes:
}
}  [email-masked] (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
}
} >}>I understand that he once wrote that some of the families that own the
} >}>Federal Reserve are Jewish.  Is saying this anti-Semitic?
} >}
} >}Yes.  Why?
} >}
} >}1) It's false.  The Federal Reserve is owned and fully controlled
} >}   by the United States government.
} >}
} >
} > Just for clarification, the Federal Reserve is a group of
} > privately owned banks, not part of the federal government.
}
}         Okay, we have some apparent disagreement here.  Which of you is
}correct?  (Naturally I expect both of you to raise your hand and say "I'm
}right", therefore documentation would be good.)

In a 1966 essay titled Gold and Economic Freedom, Alan Greenspan, the
current head of the FED, states the ownership of the Federal Reserve is by
a group of private banks.

soc.culture.jewish is not the place for a discourse on secular philosophy,
but the essay can be found in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Peace and Liberty,

---

From: [email-masked] (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Date: 13 Jan 1993 18:07:15 -0600

>a newspaper or three will do an article on Gritz fairly often.

Unfortunately, the common news sources are where Ted gets his incorrect 
information.

>part of it was excerpted in the January 1991 _Atlantic_.

I think I will write a book about people from the university of chicago
that can't get their facts straight.  I guess you could quote from that
too.  Would it be factual?  I don't know...

>a villian?  Do we have to wait for the first Jews to enter the camps?

A more serious villian is one who propogates falsehoods about people, and
refuses to do enough studying to find out the truth.  See my quote
in my above mentioned book.

>   by the United States government.  

Oh boy, there goes your credability.  Anyone that has done ANY
research on the Federal Reserve knows it is owned by a consortium of
PRIVATE banks.  The only "control" that the US Govt has on the FED is
through an *appointed* chairman that has a tenure of 12 years.  You
obviously are way out of your sphere on knowledge on this one.

>   on at least four or five different continents.  And never has it 

On considering if Bo Gritz is an anti-semite, you should consider the
source of the charges.  If Bo said that most of the owners of the Banks
that control the FED were Jewish, he would be mostly correct.  That is
just a statement of fact.  Most (all) of the Popes are Catholic. So...?
Most of the Presidents of the US were WASPS, so...?  Does that mean I
hate WASPS?  I hope not, I am one.

The fact is that the very people out to ruin thi country are the ones
trying to slander Bo Gritz.  He has started to get under their skin,
so they've started a smear campaign aginst him, just like they have
done (did) in the 60's aginst the John Birch Society.  All they need
are a lot of lies, and a bunch of gullable people to gobble them up
and spew them wherever they can. (no offense intended)

>   Of what relevance is it, if not to cast aspersions on them for 

Hmmmm... There is hope.

>if not to appeal to the old canards of the International Jewish

GRITZ NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM.

Let me try again...

GRITZ NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM.

The Federal Reserve is controller by a bunch of internationalist bankers
that have only their own personal desire for power and money in mind.
SOME OF THEM HAPPEN TO BE JEWS.  So what.  

>in campaign literature where he speaks of the need to stop "Jewish bankers." 

"the same ticket with David Duke"?????  Give me a break.
Mabey we all should start making up lies about you.  Then you could spend
most of your time trying to refute them.  I thought that you just didn't know
what you were talking about, but now I KNOW that you are intentionally 
LYING.

>ancestry dates back more than three generations.

More absolute hate and lies from the "diary of Ted Frank"...

-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        [email-masked]        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

---

From: [email-masked] (Ted Frank)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 21:33:03 GMT

>right", therefore documentation would be good.)

I'm right.

You want documentation?  Check the statutes that authorize all of the
powers of the Federal Reserve Banks, 12 USC ss341 et seq.

Any power Federal Reserve Banks have is derived from these Acts 
of Congress.

Last I checked, Jews didn't control Congress, or the President, who
appoints governors to run the Federal Reserve.
-- 
ted frank                     | [email-masked] 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation

---

From: [email-masked] (William VanHorne)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 17:02:19 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:
>
>The urban legend that the Catholics made Jewish banking possible is
>false.  Further historical research has indicated that the reason
>the Church issued so many proclamations against "usury" was because
>they were so spectacularly unsuccessful at preventing Christians from
>charging high rates of interest.
>
>Any success Jewish bankers had came from (1) charging lower rates of
>interest, and (2) being easy to stiff, as Jewish bankers had little
>recourse from the governments of the day. 

Well, yes and no.  It was a very popular scam in the Middle Ages for a
Christian monarch to invite the Jews into his country, offering the protection
of the crown, in order to borrow *gobs* of money from them for foreign wars,
tourneys, or other aristocratic entertainments.  When he had run-up a large
tab, he would simply declare that the Jews were Enemies of Christ or The 
State, or something, kick the Jews out, and repudiate all debt.  No fuss,
no muss.  Philip IV of France was the most blatant perpetrator of this
practice, but of course he also was happy to obliterate the Christian 
Knights Templar to get at their money, so I guess you would have to call him
egalitarian in his greed.

---Bill VanHorne

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And when the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy is
Warre; which provideth for every man, by Victory or Death" - Hobbes "Leviathan"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Jack Schmidling)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1993 05:00:23 GMT

[email-masked] (Jason Yanowitz) writes:
: The notion that Bo Gritz isn't a racist, anti-semitic, sexist pig
: is grounded in a skewed sense of reality.  He's the head of the Populist
: Party, a proto-fascist/extreme right-wing organization that's based
:
Your display abject ignorance of the Populist Party.  Like all political
parties, this one occasionally picks a real ringer to head the ticket and
Grits is a first class loony put he in no way runs the party.

The simple objective of the populist party is to put the people first and
your smearing it with fascist jewhating rhetoric does not make reality
out of your igrnorant lies.

---

From: [email-masked] (Ted Frank)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1993 05:53:17 GMT

>out of your igrnorant lies.

I think Jack Schmidling's endorsement of the Populist Party is sufficient 
information to confirm its anti-Semitism. 

Of course, the Populist Party has, in the past, nominated David Duke to
be on its ticket, which should be indication enough.
-- 
ted frank                     | [email-masked] 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 18 Jan 93 17:43:06 EST

In article <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked] (Jack Schmidling) writes: 
> In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
>>
>>Second: I've had some contact with the Populist party in New Jersey -
>>they picked up a pretty strong following in some areas of New Jersey
>>during the backlash against Governor Florio's tax hikes. The populist
>>party is _not_ quite as you represent it. [deleted negative comments
>>about populist party]
> 
> I have been to several meetings of the Illinos Populist Party and have
> never heard those terms used nor the ideas you suggest discussed.  I have
> read their very excellent newsletter for a number of years and again
> suggest that your experience is not mine.
>
------------------------------------------------------------ 
I too have heard many times "the populist party wants to put
people first"  Gosh what's so bad about that?  I guess nothing
if you're one to judge an organization by its slogans.
Communist, socialist, democratic, republican, fascist parties
*all* have virtually identical slogans like this.  So what!...

Here's a summary of the recent history of the populist
party (ref: personal communication with Dennis King; investigative
journalist, and leading expert on Lyndon Larouche...wrote a great
book about it):  The Populist Party ( & populism) has a long history
that goes back to the last century.  Since the sixties it was pretty
much non-existent (it's had lots of up & downs) until E. Carto dumped
a lot of money into it.  Carto & Liberty Lobby had most of the influence
in party matters; but then every few years a local politician will
get involved with the party.  In some cases he'll be an old-fashioned
populist (who just wants to promote farming interests, populist economic
reform etc) and isn't even very aware of Liberty Lobby.  Some of these
guys will get substantial influence for a few years and then Carto
& Liberty Lobby will get the main control back.  The Liberty Lobby
is always either calling the shots when able or making overtures to
the Populist Party (look at Spotlight, or Tom Valentine SW broadcasts
every-nite) to gain more influence.  The libery lobby is never far away
though.  Sometimes they call all the shots, and then for a few years
a maverick comes along and partially eclipses them, and then liberty
lobby pretends they are out front (and shortly they get their influence
back).

Sometimes it hard to tell the horse from the Carto!!!!!!!
But through it all there *is* a cloud of suspicion over the populist
party and to be unaware of this would be a big mistake.
Sure, every now and then a maverick gets under the populist banner
and seems ok, and gets popular; but one shouldn't be naive to the
big picture of the party.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jack Schmidling)
Date: 20 Jan 93 04:46:48 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:

 >Here's a summary of the recent history of the populist
 party ...... The Populist Party ( & populism) has a long history
 that goes back to the last century.  Since the sixties it was pretty
 much non-existent .....
 
 Interesting how your summary of "recent history" contained not a single 
 recent fact.
 
 It is interesting also how you equate the Populist Party with populism.
 
 It's sort of like suggesting that only Democrats are interested in democracy.
 
 I was speaking for a very narrow segement of the the PP, i.e., the Illinois 
 Chapter which ran some very excellent candidates in the recent election.  Bo 
 Gritz does not happen to be one of them and connecting everyone in the party 
 with him and his views is simply hate mongering.
 
 I myself ran for Cook County Commissioner on the Populist ticket a few years 
 ago but that hardly makes me Fundamentalist loony like Gritz.
 
 Jim Justice, an outstanding American ran for the U S Senate on the PP ticket 
 and expanded our choise beyond two raving Israel-firsters.   Mosley-Braun 
 out-Israeled her opponent even though he wore a yarmulka when ever addressing 
 the Friends of Israel.  It's is real nice to have an alternative to the media 
 sanctioned candidates.  I think Perot proved that and all you smearing of a 
 third party will not change things much.
 
 js

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 21 Jan 93 03:43:22 GMT

>  Interesting how your summary of "recent history" contained not a single 
	 Really?  Just an overview.  What about my mention of
	the SW broadcasts from the Liberty Lobby.  They are
	being made today.  What's the exact relation of the
	Liberty Lobby and the PP.  WHo is funding who?
  
>  It is interesting also how you equate the Populist Party with populism.
	Where did I make that equation.  I did not in fact.
  
>  ago but that hardly makes me Fundamentalist loony like Gritz.
	So you think Gritz is a looney?  Please answer this:
	Is the Liberty Lobby running PP, funding PP, or is it
	just that they are both funded from a common source?
	What is Gritz's position in the PP?

>  third party will not change things much.

	Israel-firsters?  Just tell us the relationship with Liberty
	Lobby.