With correspondence and two additional essays on similar themes
The real Jewish Question may be explained as follows: If there is
so much
emerging from the Jewish Quarter which is threatening to Western
culture
and to the white race which founded that culture, then how can
the West
allow itself the luxury of retaining the Jews in its midst?
This is not,
of course, to say that all Jews are bad, or even most of them; it
is rather
to say that -- to use an unfortunate but apt analogy -- if a
swamp keeps
breeding malaria, then no matter how many innocent beings the
swamp may
contain, are we not justified in draining it? There is, of
course, no
denying that Jews have made great contributions to the West, and
no denying
that their contributions are significantly out of proportion to
their
numbers, as is their intelligence. But there is also no
denying that
Jewish good must be balanced against Jewish evil, and that if
Jewish evil
is so profound as to be threatening the demise of Western
civilization,
then the amount of Jewish good -- however great it might be --
may not
really matter.
But in speaking of Jewish good and Jewish evil, we seem to
be engaging in
the morally dubious act of judging Jews as collectively
responsible for
this good or evil, rather than judging them on their individual
behavior.
But while it is all very well to aspire to judge people by the
content of
their character rather than the color of their skin -- or in the
case of
Jews, by their ethnicity -- it is another thing entirely to be
able to
know
the content of an individual's character. Thus while skin
color, ethnic
origin, or other group designator is a highly imperfect vehicle
for judging
character, it nevertheless gives some information, and
thus makes possible
a probability judgment. Accordingly, if we cannot determine
the
individual's character, we would be as foolish to refuse to make
a
probability judgment based on ethnicity as we would be to refuse
to ignore
the likelihood that a visitor to a casino is going to leave with
his wallet
lightened, or that playing Russian roulette is likely to get you
killed.
Thus in spite of a moral preference for judging the
individual rather than
the collective, the fact remains that, to some degree or another,
Jews will
be held collectively responsible for the acts of Jewish
individuals. The
matter does not rest purely on probability considerations,
however, but on
the fact of what philosophers call emergent properties,
ie, the fact that
the group may exhibit properties which are not manifest in
individuals.
The classic example of emergent properties is salt, which is
composed of
sodium and chlorine: While both of these substances are poisonous
separately, their combination as sodium chloride is essential to
life;
hence the life-giving properties of salt are 'emergent'.
Likewise, while
isolated individual Jews are, by and large, good citizens, their
combination as part of the 'Jewish nation' may give that nation
an
'emergent' character which is lethal to the West.
Correspondence with Nathan E
John,
I browsed your site this morning and appreciate your ability
to voice an unpopular opinion, while questioning the validity
of your own beliefs.
I've noticed my own tendency to judge by speculating upon the
motives behind a person's argument, rather than its validity.
Surely you will agree that it would be too easy for me to
simply dismiss you as an 'anti-semite', rather than debate the
substance of your essays.
Judaism is a topic you often write about. I've noticed that
you consider, and judge, the actions of Jews collectively. You
are not afraid to outline Judaistic perpetration. This habit
of yours probably garners censure.
The popular history of Judaism is punctuated by the narrative
of victimhood. This sense of shared suffering and persecution
is expressed on an individual level, to this day. For every
victim, there is a perpetrator, and if collective suffering
can be assumed, so should collective guilt. I hope the
collective characterisation of Judaism in terms of victimhood
will cease, so that your analysis of Jewish guilt will lose
any rational basis.
While I can muse upon the malevolent intentions behind your
decision to exhaustively consider the 'Jewish Question', I'm
saddened to realise that your essays would be considered
logical had you replaced your critique of Judaism with that of
the Christian European orthodoxy.
Best of luck in keeping your site online,
Nathan E
[Birdman responds:]
Dear Nathan:
I can see that you take a detached and intellectually
sophisticated approach to my page, tho I can also see that your
approach is chawing at the bit of its intellectual limits,
waiting to charge me in a full frontal attack of naked hate.
As to speculation about my motives, you clearly recognize this as
a fallacious basis for attacking me. That is to your credit, and
I hope that the above-noted bit-chawing will not tempt you to
change your mind.
As to the measure of judging Jews collectively, I have directly
addressed this question in the following essay:
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Jews/Jews-TheRealJewishQuestion.html
The only time I can recall this matter ever being brought up was
by some Jewish acquaintances of ours who invited my wife to a
social event and then used that contact to warn here that, while
it was perfectly OK to criticize individual Jews, I had better
not criticize them collectively. That was before I even started
my webpage, and of course adds no weight whatever to any nutcase
conspiracy theory that I might be inclined to propound.
I do hope you will read more deeply into my site. You might even
tease out some of those mysterious motivations that are driving
me.
-Birdman
A New Look at the Race War
Birdman's Weekly Letter #389 - August 15, 2006
1. Uncertainty
Thanks Hengist73
There are two great beasts of life -- enemies and uncertainty -- and the greater is always uncertainty. We can live with our enemies, because we know with certainty that we must crush them, either by conquering them or by making them our friends; but uncertainty is more difficult because if we don't know who our enemies are, we are likely to be reduced to frustrated inaction, or worse, to lashing out at random and doing nothing for ourselves but making more enemies.
In the early part of the 20th century, the great Russian behavioral psychologist IP Pavlov proved how difficult it can be to live with uncertainty. By conditioning dogs to expect food at the display of an oval and to expect punishment at the display of a circle, Pavlov produced in his dogs typical symptoms of psychological disease as he made the ovals more and more round in succeeding trials -- a circumstance which made the dogs expect either punishment or reward, but kept them from knowing in advance which one.
In everyday life we are exposed to numerous uncertainties, and we deal with this by attempting to reduce our uncertainty. For example, in looking for a job, we prefer a long-established company to a small one because employment is likely to be more stable and hence less uncertain; in child-rearing we insist that children be home by a certain hour to reduce uncertainty about their being ok; in automobiles we insist on certain safety features to reduce the likelihood of (and hence uncertainty over) accident or injury; and so on. A particularly important case of uncertainty reduction is marriage: The purpose of big weddings and vows of loyalty is not merely to show off one's parents' wealth and acquire gifts from one's friends, but is also for the purpose of forcing each partner to make a very public statement of his loyalty to the other with the view to reducing the uncertainty in each partner about whether the other will run off with the office Romeo or the joint bank account.
The attempt to reduce uncertainty cuts very close to the political bone. We see this in the popular affinity for socialism which pervades the supposedly-capitalist West: Government pensions, government unemployment insurance, government-provided medical care, government roads, government grants, and in general, government-provided services of every form and description. Socialism reduces the uncertainty of the common man's knowing where his next meal is coming from and how he will keep a roof over his head; and socialism remains popular in spite of the fact that countries where socialism is at a minimum are far more wealthy: Most people seem to value security (ie, certainty) a lot more than they do wealth.
But in spite of most people's desire to reduce uncertainty, we see here that uncertainty also has a positive value in stimulating entrepreneurship and the creation of wealth. More particularly, while socialism may reduce uncertainty, it also kills the entrepreneurial spirit thru high taxes (needed to fund socialist programs) and the habit of dependency (on the government) which keeps people from enterprise of their own, and in addition kills the entrepreneurial spirit by a neglect of cultivating individual initiative and risk-taking which are essential for the creation of wealth. The result is that, under socialism, wealth grows smaller as capital goods depreciate (there are no entrepreneurs in a socialist society to take care of things -- only bureaucrats to write memos and bums to lean on shovels), so that at the 'end of history' socialism collapses in a scramble for scraps of the ever-shrinking socialist pie.
But socialism is not the only case where men show a marked propensity for rejecting the benefits of freedom (uncertainty) in favor of increasing their security (ie, decreasing their uncertainty). The case I have in mind is religion, where the certainty (so to speak) of dogma and revelation is allowed to replace the uncertainty of thinking for oneself. Of course dogma and revelation are anything BUT certain, but the religious believer is somehow convinced to the contrary; and the fact that his beliefs protect him against uncertainty gives him a very strong psychological stake in not only maintaining those beliefs, but in convincing others that those beliefs are true. The reason for the believer assuming this 'missionary position' is simply that the more people there are who believe his dogma, the more secure (ie, less uncertain) he is in his beliefs, based of course on the theory that if everyone else is jumping off cliffs, how can it possibly be wrong?
One of the times when uncertainty is most troubling is during wartime -- one often has difficulty telling friends from enemies, and often fears to speak or act lest an enemy be in his midst. This kind of uncertainty has shown itself most acutely in the present race war in the West, where liberals -- particularly including Jews, who are largely responsible for promoting this war -- have ganged up with minorities in an effort to accomplish what amounts to an act of genocide on the white race. What is particularly unsettling is that government officials, who are supposed to look out for the interests of their countrymen, have joined with liberals and Jews, either because they have been paid off, or else because they fear for their jobs and their lives. The uncertainty here is of course that racially-conscious whites cannot tell who their friends are, since so many whites are liberals -- a fact illustrated so well in the case of my friend Wili, whose letter appeared on these pages describing her ordeal of being interrogated by the police for the sin of giving some pro-white literature to a pizza delivery boy.
We argued above that the attempt to reduce uncertainty often leads to undesirable consequences. An example mentioned above is the attempt to reduce financial uncertainty by means of socialism, with the result that the nation becomes enmired in poverty. Another example which is especially important involves attempts by racially-conscious whites to reduce the uncertainty of who the enemy is in the race war they are engaged in. The basic problem here is that some Jews are friends and some are enemies, just as some whites are friends and some are enemies. The reaction of many racially-conscious whites to this inability to easily tell friend from foe, particularly whites of the lower classes who have a low tolerance for uncertainty, is to slip into what I call the 'mantra mode' which disambiguates the situation by declaring "White is good; others bad" (WIGOB). While this certainly makes clear who the enemy is, it has the problematic downside of embracing many enemies -- white liberals -- while rejecting many friends -- or, more correctly, turning those friends into enemies. The bottom line, in my humble opinion, is that this is a recipe for racial suicide.
Let me explain my views more exactly. To begin with, preserving the white race and its great achievement, Western civilization, is not a program which threatens any other race, and therefore should not engender the hostility of any other race. (More precisely, the white race is GOOD for other races because of the many benefits it supplies to them, from inexpensive clothing (Gandhi was still at his spinning wheel till his death in the 1940s) to space-age computers.) But with a WIGOB philosophy, the white race suddenly acquires a world full of enemies -- something that can hardly be desirable when whites are only 18% of the world population. Beyond this, a WIGOB philosophy embraces white liberals as friends, when these people are in fact deadly poison for our race.
The weak cannot live with uncertainty. For them, everything must be black or white, good or bad, right or wrong -- never in between, never shades of gray. These are the religious nuts, the True Believers, the seig heilers and hakenkreutzers who think they are purists and heroes, but whose simple-mindedness and inability to tolerate uncertainty puts the rest of us at risk and makes it even more certain that our race is going to be wiped off the map.
And that's one thing you can be certain of.
2. The Swamp Thing
Thanks Joseph Keith
On several occasions I have compared the Jewish Question to what may be called the Swamp Question: If we are being bothered by the mosquitoes that are coming from a swamp, at what point do we feel compelled to drain the swamp, ie, at what point do we feel we have to kill all the innocent other life in the swamp in order to get rid of our mosquito problem? (This, we may note, does not involve 'collective punishment' of the mosquitoes or the other life in the swamp -- it is simply a matter of deciding when we can no longer afford to rely on screens and insect repellent.) Many people now agree that, in the case of Jews, it is time to 'drain the swamp' in some manner or other, and I am at least sympathetic with this position. However, the question of how it is to be done is another matter entirely. For this reason I wish to try to throw some light on the matter by examining four answers that have been attempted historically, and in light of their failures, to suggest a fifth answer that I believe must be the ultimate 'final solution' if there is ever to be one.
The four answers I have in mind are expulsion, isolation, integration and extermination. The first was tried in many places but, as we know, was ultimately useless, because the Jews eventually wormed their way back into the places they were expelled from. The isolationist answer -- the one which put Jews in ghettos or inside a pale -- was not much more successful, since ghettoes no longer exist and the majority of Jews seem to have little taste for living in the international ghetto that is Israel, altho they are generally enthusiastic about letting certain of their fellow Jews perpetuate this running sore in the side of Arabia. The integrationist approach was tried by Spain in 1492, where Jews were required to convert to Catholicism in lieu of expulsion; but as students of history know, many Jews did not assimilate but instead practiced their religion in secret, and within half a century this had led to the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition -- headed, interestingly, by an ascetic monk, Torquemada, who himself was reportedly 1/8 Jewish. A fourth solution is extermination; but -- conventional historians to the contrary -- this has never been tried, and is unlikely to be (save perhaps in the fantasies of the seig heilers and hakenkreutzers), so there is little point in discussing it.
But there is a fifth solution which is not only workable, but which is actually on the verge of working, and that is what could be called 'education', but which is perhaps more correctly called 'killing the Jewish mindset'. What I mean is that, at no other time or place in history has there been such a widespread and serious knowledge of Jewish crimes (a knowledge which is now spread all over the Net), Jewish hatred (of everyone, especially whites) and Jewish chutzpah ('God's Chosen'). Jews are now openly being questioned about their abuses, and we are starting to see a significant rejection of Judaism by Jews themselves in recoil against the lies of the Holocaust, the brutality of Israel, and even the stranglehold that Jews hold over America. What this means is that we are in the process of KILLING THE JEWISH MINDSET. We are making Jews embarrassed to be Jews, and showing them that it is they, and not Hitler's minions, who are the real nazis (in the worst sense of the word, that is). Even the fact that Hitler was himself one-quarter Jewish is a dagger that will penetrate the Jewish skull, for so much that Hitler did is mirrored in what Israel has been doing since 1948. We of the Internet who seek to know and spread the truth about Jews are on a roll, and we must press our advantage at every opportunity. But even more important, we must abandon thoughts of 'final solutions' that have failed, because they will only impede our progress and play into the hands of our enemies.
But if, then, we are determined to fight a war of words, we need not be overly concerned that the Jewsmedia seek to suppress our message; for the Internet is ours, and our audience grows daily by leaps and bounds. Jewish propaganda has surely been guilty of attempting to kill the white spirit, but the Jews have failed, and their failure will become more and more obvious as time passes, while whites will continue their success in killing the Jewish mindset, and for one simple reason: The Jews are telling lies, while whites are telling the truth.
Responsibility and 'The People'
Birdman's Weekly Letter #405
"Whenever I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun." --Joseph Goebbels
"Whenever I hear the words 'the people' I reach for my tranquilizers." --JBR Yant
There is nothing so frequently heard as generalizations about 'the people', and there is equally nothing so silly and ill-informed as such generalizations. Take, for example, the commonly-heard definition of democracy as 'a system where the people rule'. If we are talking about a representative democracy -- a republic, in technical jargon -- then this is false in the sense that it is the elected representatives that rule. The most that can be said about the people's 'rule' is that it is limited to 'ruling' who are to be the representatives. But even that is not a good description, because while the elected representatives may 'rule' in some sense, it is the men who have supplied large chunks of change to get the representatives elected who are the real rulers, because the representatives are under obligation to their contributors and wish to continue securing those contributors' money so that they may continue in office.
But it's not just representative government where generalizations about 'the people' are mistaken. It is also -- and perhaps more importantly -- in observations about how 'the people' are responsible for the ills of their country and are therefore obligated to cure those ills. We hear such claims in the case of whistleblowers and other complainers who seem to think that 'the people' are going to rise up and smite the evil-doers whom they have exposed. This of course is a tragic misperception; for just because evil (or whatever you want to call it) has been exposed, this does not in any sense mean that anyone is going to 'clean it up'. Indeed, 'the people' have demonstrated a remarkable indifference to corruption, most likely because the organs which would be expected to take care of such corruption are themselves remarkably indifferent to corruption, which is to say that such organs are themselves remarkably corrupt.
There is, however, a deeper question here: When we debate whether 'the people' are responsible for the ills of their country, what we are really doing is attempting to assign blame by identifying a causal connection. In particular, to say that 'the people' are responsible for their corrupt government is to say that 'the people' 'produced' this government, and therefore are responsible for either cleaning it up or suffering condign (or maybe divine) punishment. This, however, is what might be called the socialist theory of responsibility, which holds that if there are bad guys in the group, then it is the group that ought to be punished. In contrast, the capitalist theory of responsibility is that the bad guys themselves should be punished, and the 'innocents' in the group should be left alone. The capitalist theory, as most readers undoubtedly know, has worked wonders in the economic and other spheres: When a man is forced to take responsibility for himself by receiving rewards and punishments according to his own behavior, then he tends to 'act responsibly', ie, productively and morally. Likewise, when a man is absolved of responsibility for his behavior, as he is (after a fashion at least) in the socialist system, his behavior tends toward the irresponsible.
While it would seem that the capitalist theory of responsibility wins hands-down over the socialist theory, in fact the matter is not that simple. In particular, the capitalist theory, which is (or used to be until recently) an ingrained part of the Western psyche, is problematic in that it is often a difficult theory to apply in practice. The problem is most obvious in the case of groups, as when we know that someone who was in the room during another's murder was the guilty party, but we don't know who, and the ones who DO know aren't talking. A related problem arises in war, when we ask how much responsibility civilians bear for their army's resistance, particularly in view of the fact that civilians are responsible for feeding and otherwise supplying that army. The answer given to this question by the Allies in WW2 was that civilians were fair game, if for no other reason than that bombing civilians was a way to undermine enemy army morale. This, however, reflects adherence to the socialist theory, which holds that the group bears the entire burden (or a large part of it) for the misbehavior (if that is what you wish to call it) of armed resistance. Ironically, of course, the socialist theory was abandoned by the Allies during the postwar war crimes trials, where only the top echelon of the enemy was held accountable. Thus we see that neither the capitalist nor socialist approach was embraced entirely, but rather a sort of compromise was found between the two.
In our everyday living, we observe that the capitalist approach is becoming less and less applicable to the conflicts among society's members because the multiculturalism which Western leaders have inflicted on their populations increasingly produces conflicts of groups rather than individuals. To some extent this is evident in American crime statistics, where blacks and hispanics are increasingly guilty of crimes against whites; but such acts are only the premonitory symptoms of an all-out racial war which promises to turn skin colors into uniforms and crimes into enemy engagements. But with the present attitudes of the social zeitgeist that do not recognize groups, and the present laws that demand the capitalist rather than socialist approach to criminal behavior, American and Western society's hands are tied as far as solving the genuine problems which must be addressed.
One thing that is useful to observe here is that the capitalist approach is one which requires much more precise information in order to be effective. For example, it takes better information to identify the individual perpetrator of a crime than to identify just the group he is in; and likewise, it takes better information to identify superior or inferior individuals than superior or inferior groups. In the case of crimes, what this means is that the justice system in primitive societies may involve one family paying another family compensation for what a member has done, as opposed to the Western approach of identifying the perpetrator by means of sophisticated investigatory techniques and then punishing that individual only. Similarly, in identifying talent, more primitive societies will rely purely on group discrimination (men are superior to women, whites are superior to blacks, etc), while in a more civilized setting, discernment of individual talent can be apprehended by means of sophisticated tests. Needless to say, none of these approaches is 'wrong' -- rather, they merely reflect the different information available. To this should be added that obtaining more precise information for the purpose of judging virtues or vices may be possible in a given case, but may not be cost-effective, as when an employer attempts to find talented employees but decides to reject negroes wholesale on the basis that costs do not justify looking for needles in haystacks.
In attempting to find some sort of answer to the question of when 'the people' are responsible for this or that event, we have observed that responsibility may range broadly in a socialist ethic or narrowly in a capitalist one. We have also observed that responsibility may have different degrees among those deemed responsible, and -- as an adjunct to determining responsibility -- we have also observed that it is generally not possible to have good enuf information to justify the Western capitalist approach to judging vice or virtue. The result is that the capitalist approach to determining responsibility must often be abandoned in favor of a socialist one, in spite of the scorn of 'enlightened' liberals who embrace the socialistic ethic at every point except when their beloved 'minorities' and other 'oppressed' mascots would have to suffer as a result of taking responsibility for their own atrocious group behavior.
But if we have made some progress in analyzing the notion of responsibility and in identifying who bears it in various real-world situations, there remains one way of looking at this matter that is vitally important and yet rarely discussed in a sensible manner, namely, the responsibility of the system itself, apart from the people who participate in the system. In fairness, it should be said that this matter has in fact been addressed after a fashion by those of various political persuasions, but the Left and the libertarians have given us little more than the old chant "Two, four, six, eight, Organize and smash the State", while the Right has not done much more than whine about the need for a return to Constitutional government, or perhaps even monarchy or dictatorship. In all these efforts, however, there does not seem to have been any serious attempt to specify what kind of system should be established that will actually avoid the problems of political corruption which are endemic in America and the West, with the exception of my own efforts which appear in my book, Handbook of the Coming American Revolution. While I am not going to attempt to restate that book in 25 words or less, I would like to make a few comments that I hope will provide some enlightenment in the present context, and which make the point that -- in some important sense -- it is the system itself which has led to corruption, and which must be changed if good government is to be achieved.
When it comes to government, and certainly American government, I think it may be truly said that money is the root of all evil, or at least most of it. In part, this is because no one can be elected to more than local office without substantial funds, and this means campaign contributions, ie, bribes which put the officeholder in the thrall of his large contributors. But money is also a problem because the government has so much of it: Money is power, and, as Lord Acton famously remarked, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thus the most critical reform of Western governments generally, and American government specifically, is, first, to get the money out of politics (I have explained how to do this in the Handbook), and second, to reduce government corruption by the simple if crude method of sharply limiting government revenue. The point here, however, is not to discuss these reforms, or the numerous others which need to be made -- that is done in Handbook -- rather, the point is that the system itself breeds -- and is thus responsible for -- corruption, and until the system is changed, it doesn't really matter who is elected to office, as the system itself keeps any serious change from occurring.
In the present context it is interesting to observe that most modern wars are not really conflicts between countries or people so much as they are conflicts between systems of government. In WW2, for example, the war was not really an attempt to destroy Germany, Italy and Japan as it was an attempt to destroy the system of government which had been put in place in these countries, and which caused the Allies to feel threatened. More particularly, once the Axis armies were conquered, the Allies did not go on to wipe out the people of the countries involved or destroy their infrastructure (tho there was some of this), but instead simply installed governments which were friendly to the Allies and would do Allied bidding. And while millions of people were killed in this attempt to change governments, we can see that not a single death is strictly necessary in changing a governmental system, but only the willingness of the participants to make the change.
But irrespective of whether you think it is the bastards in Washington who are responsible for the abuses of our government, or whether it is just the system under which they operate, it remains to answer the very personal question of what responsibility the reader himself has in keeping freedom alive and tyranny at bay. Many men have given their lives to keep this nation free -- or at least they have given their lives in an effort which they thought would be useful for that purpose -- so in this sense we have a responsibility to them to see that their sacrifice was not in vain. Beyond this, we have a responsibility to our loved ones, our friends and our countrymen generally not to let our nation down in time of need. But saying we have a responsibility does not tell us what it is. The answer to that question rests on many factors, from the value that one puts on living in a free country to the skills and time one has to contribute to the effort. No one can do everything, but everyone can do something, and by combining our efforts, we can make the difference between tyranny and freedom.
Contributing to the upkeep of this page is one thing everyone can do, and something that everyone who reads it has a responsibility to do. I only hope that a few of you will see fit to help.
Freedom
isn't free! To insure the
continuation of this website and the survival of its creator in
these financially-troubled times, please send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683
"The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."
Please
contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all
your friends!
Remember: Your donation = our survival!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *