NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/conspira/14694

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 8.5 KB

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:14694 soc.culture.jewish:26167 alt.revisionism:980
Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!decwrl!pa.dec.com!alf.dec.com!hershele.alf.dec.com!harry
From: [e-mail] (Harry Katz)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,soc.culture.jewish,alt.revisionism
Subject: Schmidling the Populist
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:06:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: netnews.1993Jan26.160608.7979
References: <[e-mail]><[e-mail]><[e-mail]><[e-mail]><[e-mail]><[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: DEC - Customer Support Center, Alpharetta, GA
Lines: 243
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (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...


In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Jack Schmidling) retorts:

    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.

In other words, Bo Gritz is "a racist, anti-semitic, sexist pig," but
he is a "real ringer" and "in no way runs," or, we presume, represents
the Populist Party.


Mr. Schmidling continues:

    The simple objective of the populist party is to put the people
    first...

By nominating loonies who do not represent the party platform at all!


Mr. Schmidling continues:

    ...and your smearing it with fascist jewhating rhetoric does
    not make reality out of your igrnorant lies.

Beg pardon, but isn't it Bo Gritz's "fascist jewhating rhetoric" that
has smeared the party?  The party's ignorant nomination and support for
a loony is a reality that all of Mr. Schmidling's rhetoric cannot undo.

            ***

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (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.

    Their slogan is "America First". But just ask them what they
    *mean* by that, and what you get is a rampage about how those
    damn Kikes, Niggers, and Spics are out to ruin this country,
    and we've got to save it for the REAL americans by any means
    possible. They're not just stupid, but they're hateful - in
    Jersey, the populists I talked to wanted to get rid of the
    minorities they hated at *any* cost - I heard populists
    admiring Hitler for his brilliant solution to the problems
    of our "inferior unamerican races".


In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Jack Schmidling) retorts:

    Well, I have two things to say.

Yes, but will they be intelligible?


Mr. Schmidling's first point:

    I have heard both Republicans and Democrats use those
    expressions on occasions but hard would condemn the parties
    of the this-ngs you suggest.

It is impossible to know exactly what Mr. Schmidling means by the
phrase, "hard would condemn!"  If he means that it would be hard to
find any public condemnation of these practices, that only shows how
out of touch he is with recent American history.  If he means that he
himself would be hard put to condemn these parties for these practices,
that is quite easy to believe and explains his reluctance to condemn
his own party for the same practices.


Mr. Schmidling goes on to his second point:

    I have been to several meetings of the Illinos Populist Party
    and have never heard those terms used nor the ideas you suggest
    discussed.

On the other hand, the Democratics and Republicans do regularly
discuss "those terms" and "those ideas" in order to condemn them and
eradicate them from their parties.


Mr. Schmidling continues:

    I have read their very excellent newsletter for a number
    of years and again suggest that your experience is not mine.

We can all safely assume that Mr. Schmidling's experience is unlike
anything any of us have ever imagined in our wildest fantasies.

            ***

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] 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 .....


As innocuous as this piece is, in article  <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Jack Schmidling) retorts:

    Interesting how your summary of "recent history" contained not
    a single recent fact.

This is the most irony that Mr. Schmidling has been able to muster in
entire carreer on the net.


He continues:

    It is interesting also how you equate the Populist Party
    with populism.

It is even more interesting that Mr. Schmidling finds fault in this
observation.  Surely someone in the party must have realized that
naming it the "Populist Party" would invite comparison with populism.


Mr. Schmidling continues:

    It's sort of like suggesting that only Democrats are interested
    in democracy.

Whereas what Mr. Schmidling says is like suggesting that the Democratic
Party wants no one to associate it with democracy!


Mr. Schmidling continues:

    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.

By his own admission, only "a very narrow segment" of the Populist
Party was capable of running "some excellent candidates" but not all
excellent candidates.


Mr. Schmidling continues:

    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.

Talk about blaming the messenger for the bad news!


Mr. Schmidling continues:

    I myself ran for Cook County Commissioner on the Populist ticket
    a few years ago but that hardly makes me Fundamentalist loony
    like Gritz.


In his previous post on this subject, Mr. Schmidling confessed that he
had only been to few of the meetings, and now he reveals that he has
already been run for office.  With a system like this how do any of
their candidates get to learn the party platform?  No wonder each
candidate represents only himself, not the party, nor any other
individual member of the party!


Mr. Schmidling continues:

    Jim Justice, an outstanding American...

When he is not sitting in he is usually out standing.


Mr. Schmidling continues:

    ...ran for the U S Senate on the PP ticket and expanded our
    choise beyond two raving Israel-firsters.

In a way, Mr. Schmidling is himself an "Israel firster" in that
support for Israel is his first and foremost criterion in judging
a politician's suitability for office.


Mr. Schmidling continues:

    Mosley-Braun out-Israeled her opponent...

And apparently out-Schmidlinged poor Mr. Justice!


Mr. Schmidling continues:

    ...even though he wore a yarmulka when ever addressing
    the Friends of Israel.

The yarmulke is a symbol of the Jewish faith and has absolutely no
connection whatsoever to Zionism or Israel, but it not surprising that
Mr. Schmidling is totally ignorant of this fact.  It is this kind of
ignorance that leaves him wide open to charges of anti-Semitism.   We
all know how hard Mr. Schmidling labors to differentiate between Jews
and Zionists.  For example, he will always point out that the most
dangerous supporters of Israel are not Jews at all, but Christian
fundamentalists.  It is hard to see how the Christian fundamentalists
would have been impressed by a candidate in a yarmulke!

Moreover, in spite of his capitalization, there is no such
organization as the "Friends of Israel."  Is it any wonder that
wearing a yarmulke before a non-existent group did not translate
into votes?


Mr. Schmidling continues:

    It's is real nice to have an alternative to the media sanctioned
    candidates.

Too bad the Populist Party is not that alternative!


Mr. Schmidling continues:

    I think Perot proved that and all you smearing of a third party
    will not change things much.

The Populists were not swept into power on Ross Perot's coat-tails and
All Perot's billions could not make them popular!  And Mr. Schmidling's
smearing of the yarmulke will not help him convince anyone that he is
not anti-Semitic.


Harry Katz