One thing that you said twice in the video George, is that agreeing to send someone all of this information, is something that you yourself would not do.
I carefully read your facebook transcript btw and I do not see where Jeff Berwick agreed unequivocally to send you a 100% information dump.
Edit: I am leaving my initial and incorrect statement above (and on the blockchain) however George is correct... Jeff wrote "no, I'll do it."
Unless or until it is proven otherwise, I am going to go on assuming that Jeff Berwick is NOT a scammer. Simply because I do not have the time to investigate Jeff for myself.
I have never met Mr. Berwick. However, I do know and trust people that know and trust Berwick. Unfortunately, I also know and trust people who... do not trust Berwick.
That drunk skype call about the passport 'scam' was really interesting... but what I remember from that was "Wow this guy should lay off the sauce." I think that all passports , be they 'legitimate' or not are just pieces of paper.
If you do prove that Jeff is a scammer, then you will be doing our little liberty cult a huge service. But if Jeff is an honest actor in the market for liberty, then all of this drama is just an anti-productive waste of energy.
I do have one question for my fellow readers... Is there any honest reason why Jeff Berwick would not want to share 100% of the information reguarding GGC and the 'passport scam' to a third party?
George Donnelly has a reputation for being meticulous and detail-oriented. Berwick appears to speak "off the cuff" and has made a reputation for "multiple connections" and "networking." He engages at a more general, more "conversational" level. From a relatively disinterested third party perspective, I'd say "Their two 'general approaches to life' or 'styles' are completely at odds."
I like Berwick's 'anarchast' podcasts. I like that Berwick is aware that voluntaryism can be minarchist or anarchist, and that suitably radical minarchists can be every bit as creatively-destructive toward totalitarian systems as "anarchists." (His interviews with G. Edward Griffin and Dale Brown from Threat Management are both as excellent as his interview with more conventional Watner/Konkin type "political-relinquishment-advocating" anarchists.)
I heard about the GGC, and thought: "Even if I had a million dollars, I'd never be involved with anything that failed my sniff test like this." If you claim to be following an anarcho-zionist path, then I'd damn well better be able to find at least one interview with you online where you address at least the major ideas from Atlas Shrugged's "Galt's Gulch." But Johnson hadn't even read "Atlas Shrugged." He very, very, very obviously didn't understand a single idea involved with anarcho-zionism or its many past failed attempts. He didn't have a single interview online. He was unfit to walk on the same ground as Wendy McElroy, much less debate her on any concept relevant to a "Galt's Gulch."
For the prior reasons, I'd have never considered GGC. (...Especially because Doug Casey already seemingly has something far better going on in Argentina, and others have better things going in Europe and Thailand.)
Ken Johnson seemingly viewed libertarians as idiotic members of a cult who would be willing to buy property anywhere where their cult leader's terminology ("Galt's Gulch") was invoked. By unquestioningly buying in to the project just because of its title, said libertarians acted like cult members. George Donnelly was not a member of that cult.
To me, it seems that, if you want truth and professionalism held to a high standard, drilling down and covering all the details, George Donnelly is a good person to talk to. If you want to get a general overview of an idea, or where someone stands in general, Jeff Berwick's anarchast is a great place to start.
These two people both have done good work and bad work in the liberty movement, like most of us have.
I think calling Berwick "a scammer" is a bit harsh, but then, I don't hold everyone to as high a standard as George Donnelly does, (perhaps because I don't like to be continuously disappointed). Then again, if you lend your name to a big project as a recruiter/marketer/etc., you should have a good idea whether that project is reputable or not. The GGC project was a high-profile failure for Berwick. The last I read, McElroy has publicly absolved Berwick of much of the blame for the mess, focusing her blame on Johnson. She indicates she's focused blame on Johnson here.
Someone named Terrence Gillespie lays most of the blame at the feet of Johnson, on the borderless podcast.
What "bad work" have I done? Be specific or retract it because that's a ridiculous claim to make and I don't think you have any evidence to back it.
You may disagree with some of the philosophical approaches I've tried. You may be upset that us working together did not pan out as you'd hoped, but I have never been engaged in or associated with anything fraudulent. Quite the contrary, I have exposed fraud.
Oh, this is rich. Donnelly wants a claim retracted? No evidence, eh?
When I asked Donnelly to retract the erroneous accusation against the GGC Recovery Team he made on McGillespie.com, he refused and said if I didn't like it, "tough luck."
How does it feel to be on the other side, Mr. Integrity?
Read more carefully. I cited the particular snippet of relevant conversation at the beginning of this post.
In case that's too fuzzy, check out Berwick's comment on the Aug 25th post where I say:
And he says:
Please also listen carefully to where I said I promised something equally, if not more, burdensome in return. Delivering a ream of information is trivial compared to the job of sifting through it and other reams from other sources to find the truth.
The deal is valid. Berwick broke it. That right there is evidence of dishonesty for those clear-eyed enough to be able to see it.
I'm not involved in any cults, so speak for yourself.
You are correct, Jeff wrote "no, I'll do it."