Subject: Re: Bo Gritz vs Chip Berlet

From: [email-masked] (Daniel Segard)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 22:00:10 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.)
 >
 > 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.

       Well, he would certainly be in a position to know.  I wonder what
those "private banks" are and who actually controls them.  (Maybe it will
be Anglicans...  <grin>)

 > 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.

        Sorry about that, I was reading alt.revisionism when I wrote the
followup.  Looking more carefully I see that it is going to scj as well as
alt.conspiracy.  (And if we are going to get into a discussion of a bunch
of private banks running the Federal Reserve then alt.conspiracy would
probably be a reasonable place to have this cross-posted to.)
       I don't have the ability to set the followup with this editor, so if
anyone else is following up this article, please remove scj from the
distribution. Thanks.

---

From: [email-masked] (Daniel Segard)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 16:05:48 GMT

[email-masked] (Lance W. Bledsoe) asks:

 >In article <[email-masked]>
 >[email-masked] (Daniel Segard) writes:
 >>       The Federal Reserve is one thing which we hear 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.
 >
 > Why is it that whenever people start telling the facts about
 > tyrants that just happen to be of Jewish origin, everybody starts
 > yelling "neo-nazi", "anti-sematic" or "Jew Hater".

      I wasn't "yelling", rather I was just stating the facts.  Neither was
I claiming that all who investigate the Federal Reserve with a critical
opinion are automatically anti-semetic.  The fact remains that the neo-nazi
types are very often heard to complain of the Federal Reserve.  And as a
result many others shy away from such investigations.
      My claim that much of it is based on the works of Eustice Mullins as
a source stands.  And I stand by my description of Eustice Mullins as a
"neo-nazi, anit-semetic, new age flake" with the possible exception of the
"neo-" part.  He was backing Nazi party goals long ago enough that he could
probably qualify as being a real Nazi.

 > It seems that is is fashionable for people in this country, that
 > when faced with sombody they don't like, jump to label him as a
 > "Jew Hater".

      There are plenty of people whom I don't like, that I don't consider
to be "Jew Haters".   <g>

 > Why can't people be just a criminal, instead of a
 > Jew-criminal.  I suspect that, if a Jew went into a fast food
 > restaurant and then shot 35 people, the person reporting the
 > story would be labeled as anit-sematic.

     Sort of would depend upon how the person reported the story.  The same
would go for a story about someone that was Christian who did similar
crimes.  If the story said something like "fundamentalist Christians, Mr
John Doe, went into a restaurant and killed 35 people today.  The rising
force of fundamentalist Christianity worries many experts", then obviously
I think you would find many Christians who were worried about that reporter
as well.  So it is the *way* in the information of the criminal's religious
affiliation is mentioned that is being questioned in such cases.  If the
reporter attempts to go from the isolated crime, to smear the group as a
whole, then that group is going to have problems with it.