Note to reader: Each writer's letter is in normal type; Birdman's responses are in italics.
[Note: Letters are separated by a short dotted line: ----------. Letters are exactly as sent or received.]
I have read through much of your website, John. Here are my comments:
I am not a jew. However, I once had an adopted uncle who was jewish (Harry Herman), and one of the finest men I have ever known. Your initial letter spread filth about one of the proudest, bravest men I've known. (He was killed in a train fire in Norway. When he was found, he was dead on the floor of a traincabin with two small kids. He had tried saving them, but was overcome by the smoke. If he had put himself first, he would've lived. He had a huge family until WWII - Auschwitch left him with one grandmother, the rest went into the ovens). You are a racist. You talk like a racist, smell like a racist and argue like a racist. I disagree with the severe anti-racism aka. political correctness that is prevalent in todays society. But I also disagree with racists such as you Judging from your correspondence with the Mensa ombudsman, it is obvious that You have been treated more than fairly Mensa has given you far more respect and patience than I would've. I would've told you to bugger off. You seem quite proud of the "Mensa's resident Iconoclast"-label. I believe that they would rather call you "The smelly, brown hole of Mensa" but were afraid of litigation. The responses you got from Mensa-members were to the point and definitely well deserved. You go on about not getting any positive responses. What if there weren't any? FYI: Holocaust happened. Jews can be cruel, as evident in Israel today. However, so can Germans, Brits and all other races. Quote: "Though not well-known, Jews have been the principal force behind most major destructive events of the last century: Communism (Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Schiff), feminism (Friedan, Steinem), integration, gun control (Feinstein, Schumer), (genocidal) immigration, espionage (Rosenbergs, Greenglass, ADL), internet censorship (ADL, SWC), antiwhite 'hatecrime' legislation, US entry into BOTH World Wars (Balfour Declaration; Untermeyer boycott), Great Depression (engineered by Federal Reserve, creation of Paul Warburg), Balkans War (Cohen, Albright, Berger), etc, etc. Are gentiles supposed to see all this as merely accidental? Are they wrong to want to protect Western civilization and the gene pool which built it?" You obviously forgot a few things here. Where are "the invention of TV commercials, fast food and vaginal douches; telemarketeers, TV-thons, beauty pageants, Rev. Falwell & co., the "Police Academy"-series, "Naked News.com", hooliganism, housemusic, 'every man his therapist', paying for medical care...." - you ought to make that list a whole lot longer! And imagine - the intelligence and influence those jews must have on our society since they are able to change society in such a way! My final suggestion to you is: get a life. A racist is still a racist - no matter his IQ. Haakon Rian Ueland Smartware, Mensa International Journal
---------
Dear Haak:
1) Like most liberals and liberal hangers-on, you miss the point - FREE SPEECH. It is one thing to disagree with me, another to shut me up. But then people like you 'just don't get it'.
2) You are right - I am a racist. Why not read the essay posted on my website entitled 'Why I am a white racist'?
3) If I am so bad, why are there many Jews in our movement, and why do I have friendly letters from rabbis?
In sum, you are like the rest of the liberals: Uninformed, prejudiced, ignorant, smug and self-righteous.
Have a nice day.
---------
Yes, my day is getting better and better. Your pathetic attempts at communication only increase my pleasure. "A racist is a man who honors his race, reveres his ancestry, prefers -- like virtually everyone -- to be with his own kind, and believes that his genetic inheritance is worth preserving in the same way that liberals believe that the spotted owl, snail darter, American Indians and Australian aborigines are worth preserving." Are you plain stupid? Or do you just act that way? A racist is a wo/man who believe that his/her race is superior to the lesser races. In all the drivel you have read - haven't you understood this?
I have often wondered why people react negatively to hearing that people are members of Mensa. There was once a big discussion in a mensa-newsgroup about whether you should include your membership in CV's or not. Most voted "not". Now that I have "met" you, I can understand this reaction. Being associated with one of your ilk is not pleasant.
Now to your points, which I noticed you haven't even bothered to answer (your communication-skills are obviously equivalent with your social intelligence): 1) Free speech? Sure. But people spreading hate and doing their best to divide people and to cause even more conflicts than the world is plagued with today can not expect that everybody wants to publish their filth. After all, an editor has a responsibility, both morally and legally. But then people like me 'just don't get it'. Everybody is entitled to free speech - but you have managed to lose that right, and you deserved it. 2) Hate is not a part of your kind of racism? "Turd-Worlders"? Wow. You could've fooled me! 3) If you hate jews, and obviously think that they are to blame for all the plagues of the world (I believe you have forgotten the Black Death, the fact that they eat babies & poison wells) why do you allow them in your "movement" (fitting term, btw - makes me think of bowel movement). Why do you care if you get "friendly letters from rabbis" - aren't they the religious leaders of the worlds worst scourge?
Your final words only deserve one comment (though, I wouldn't be surprised if you consider Jesus a jew - and therefore a communist, moneyhungry b*stard): "Why do you observe the splinter that's in your brother's eye, and yet don't consider the beam that's in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me pull the splinter out of your eye', when look, a beam is in your own eye. You hypocrite, remove the beam from your own eye first and then you will see clearly enough to remove the splinter from your bother's eye." Before you tell me that all Christians are bleeding-heart liberals: I am not a Christian.
I hope you lift your birdbrain out of the birdmuck and start using that IQ in a constructive way. Sure, you manage to be offensive. But your offensiveness is pathetic and sad. And, I quite enjoyed taking a look at the book you have "published" through Amazon ;) Quote from one review (one of the few you got): "This book is a poor piece of prose. As a libertarian, I have my bias in favor of Rothbard. Bryant's supposedly "devastating" critique of libertarian "sell-outs" is wholly inconsistent and poorly written. He obviously has some axe to grind with them." Another: "This booklet is nothing more than the rantings of a self-absorbed egomaniac. More than one half of the booklet is an interview with the author. When he finally does begin his critique of the libertarian movement he never dicusses any major works by Murray Rothbard; instead Bryant blathers about 3 monographs and 1 article of Rothbard`s. His vendetta against Robert Poole is a vindictive animosity over an alleged snub from the Reason Foundation. All in all this screed is totally lacking in content which most likely explains why it was self-published, as no reasonable publisher would ever want to have anything to do with something like this. So don`t even bother reading this nonsense!". And one more: "The bulk of Bryant's "book" is a personal attack on Murray Rothbard. Bryant sees Rothbard as a libertarian icon who sold out to the paleoconservative movement But Rothbard was always consistent philosophically. He didn't leave the libertarian movement; the libertarian movement left him. He merely remained true to his principles as one of the great thinkers of the late 20th century. Mr. Bryant's little diatribe does nothing to dispel that. It is a surreal, egocentric collection of blatherings and much more incomprehensible and unreadable than anything by Rothbard he criticizes. Avoid." That was from your booklet "Libertarian Dirt : Everything You'Ve Not Supposed to Know About Murray Rothbard, Robert Poole, and Other Movement Icons". It seems that you have a lot of respect among your fellows! Oh - they all gave you a single *. "Handbook of the Coming American Revolution : Vital Secrets of Nonviolent National and Personal Liberation the Establishment Doesn't Want You to Know" was the second of your booklet where somebody even bothered to review it. "Bryant starts this book by telling us that he does not believe there is any such thing as truth. Furthermore, if there is such a thing, it is confined to descriptions of the state of one's own mind. From this initial solipsism, the book quickly heads down hill. Who the heck cares about Bryant's fantasies, which don't have any claim to truth and aren't interesting enough to be fictions! An example of the tedium that fills these pages -- Bryant wants us all to know that Hustler magazine once stole a joke from him. "Well, sue them if you'd like but leave me out of it," will be the response of anyone outside the circle of the author's immediate friends and family. And a good response it will be. Don't waste one dime, or a minute of your time, on this volume." Wow. They love you! One star. The only person who likes your "work" is your publisher. Am I correct in assuming that he is you?
Please answer the points I state next time instead of using outdated terms and boring characterizations.
Shalom, Haakon
----------
My replies are set out by asterisks: ******* ----- Original Message ----- From: Haakon R. Ueland To: 'Birdman' Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 3:16 PM Subject: RE: Mensa vs Free Speech
Yes, my day is getting better and better. Your pathetic attempts at communication only increase my pleasure.
****pathetic: Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued.
"A racist is a man who honors his race, reveres his ancestry, prefers -- like virtually everyone -- to be with his own kind, and believes that his genetic inheritance is worth preserving in the same way that liberals believe that the spotted owl, snail darter, American Indians and Australian aborigines are worth preserving." Are you plain stupid? Or do you just act that way? A racist is a wo/man who believe that his/her race is superior to the lesser races. In all the drivel you have read - haven't you understood this?
**** Gee, Hak, I would have thought you smart enuf to know that Mensans don't call other Mensans stupid. As to racism, the definition in practice is any white who stands up for his race. Of course, as a liberal, you may not be too observant. Take for example the difference between the NAACP and the NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People) - the former is never called racist because it is for blacks; but the latter almost ALWAYS is. And that is just one example of a plethora.
I have often wondered why people react negatively to hearing that people are members of Mensa. There was once a big discussion in a mensa-newsgroup about whether you should include your membership in CV's or not. Most voted "not". Now that I have "met" you, I can understand this reaction. Being associated with one of your ilk is not pleasant.
**** Fine. Resign.
Now to your points, which I noticed you haven't even bothered to answer (your communication-skills are obviously equivalent with your social intelligence):
**** Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued.
1) Free speech? Sure. But people spreading hate and doing their best to divide people and to cause even more conflicts than the world is plagued with today can not expect that everybody wants to publish their filth. After all, an editor has a responsibility, both morally and legally.
**** The reference here is to the failure of the Bulletin to allow me an answer to their 1 1/2 page hatefest. What you haven't explained is, why is it fair to allow a hatefest against me (absolutely none of the issues I raised were addressed) but not allow me to answer. The answer, of course, is that you like liberal hate, but not any other.
But then people like me 'just don't get it'. Everybody is entitled to free speech - but you have managed to lose that right, and you deserved it.
**** The old liberal excuse: Because you are evil (ie, not a liberal), you don't have the right to speak. Gee, what's new?
2) Hate is not a part of your kind of racism? "Turd-Worlders"? Wow. You could've fooled me!
**** There is nothing the matter with hate, provided it is directed against hateful things.
3) If you hate jews, and obviously think that they are to blame for all the plagues of the world (I believe you have forgotten the Black Death, the fact that they eat babies & poison wells) why do you allow them in your "movement" (fitting term, btw - makes me think of bowel movement). Why do you care if you get "friendly letters from rabbis" - aren't they the religious leaders of the worlds worst scourge?
**** How is it that I both hate Jews and get letters from friendly rabbis? Is there a cognitive dissonance here that escaped your attention? Indeed, much more than that seems to have escaped your attention.
Your final words only deserve one comment (though, I wouldn't be surprised if you consider Jesus a jew - and therefore a communist, moneyhungry b*stard): "Why do you observe the splinter that's in your brother's eye, and yet don't consider the beam that's in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me pull the splinter out of your eye', when look, a beam is in your own eye. You hypocrite, remove the beam from your own eye first and then you will see clearly enough to remove the splinter from your bother's eye." Before you tell me that all Christians are bleeding-heart liberals: I am not a Christian.
**** If you are making a point, I don't get it. Are you saying that no one who isn't perfect has a right to criticize? If so, I would say that qualifies as pretty stupid.
I hope you lift your birdbrain out of the birdmuck and start
**** Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued.
using that IQ in a constructive way. Sure, you manage to be offensive. But your offensiveness is pathetic and sad.
**** Ditto
And, I quite enjoyed taking a look at the book you have "published" through Amazon ;)
**** The negative reviews you cite below prove nothing except that there are some people who don't like my books. The reviews are probably motivated by people who are politically correct and wish to hurt me. So what? I have plenty of positive reviews from distinguished men and women for a great many of my books - check my website. They aren't anonymous squibs from people with an agenda.
Quote from one review (one of the few you got): "This book is a poor piece of prose. As a libertarian, I have my bias in favor of Rothbard. Bryant's supposedly "devastating" critique of libertarian "sell-outs" is wholly inconsistent and poorly written. He obviously has some axe to grind with them." Another: "This booklet is nothing more than the rantings of a self-absorbed egomaniac. More than one half of the booklet is an interview with the author. When he finally does begin his critique of the libertarian movement he never dicusses any major works by Murray Rothbard; instead Bryant blathers about 3 monographs and 1 article of Rothbard`s. His vendetta against Robert Poole is a vindictive animosity over an alleged snub from the Reason Foundation. All in all this screed is totally lacking in content which most likely explains why it was self-published, as no reasonable publisher would ever want to have anything to do with something like this. So don`t even bother reading this nonsense!". And one more: "The bulk of Bryant's "book" is a personal attack on Murray Rothbard. Bryant sees Rothbard as a libertarian icon who sold out to the paleoconservative movement But Rothbard was always consistent philosophically. He didn't leave the libertarian movement; the libertarian movement left him. He merely remained true to his principles as one of the great thinkers of the late 20th century. Mr. Bryant's little diatribe does nothing to dispel that. It is a surreal, egocentric collection of blatherings and much more incomprehensible and unreadable than anything by Rothbard he criticizes. Avoid." That was from your booklet "Libertarian Dirt : Everything You'Ve Not Supposed to Know About Murray Rothbard, Robert Poole, and Other Movement Icons". It seems that you have a lot of respect among your fellows! Oh - they all gave you a single *. "Handbook of the Coming American Revolution : Vital Secrets of Nonviolent National and Personal Liberation the Establishment Doesn't Want You to Know" was the second of your booklet where somebody even bothered to review it.
**** There is a positive review on my website from Joseph Stumpf, a distinguished activist in the freedom movement.
"Bryant starts this book by telling us that he does not believe there is any such thing as truth. Furthermore, if there is such a thing, it is confined to descriptions of the state of one's own mind. From this initial solipsism, the book quickly heads down hill. Who the heck cares about Bryant's fantasies, which don't have any claim to truth and aren't interesting enough to be fictions! An example of the tedium that fills these pages -- Bryant wants us all to know that Hustler magazine once stole a joke from him. "Well, sue them if you'd like but leave me out of it," will be the response of anyone outside the circle of the author's immediate friends and family. And a good response it will be. Don't waste one dime, or a minute of your time, on this volume." Wow. They love you! One star. The only person who likes your "work" is your publisher. Am I correct in assuming that he is you?
**** I am the publisher of my own books. And so was Walt Whitman, Virginia Woolf, Robert Frost and MANY other famous people who are now household names. I am an entrepreneur as well as a writer. I don't think one has to apologize for being multi-talented.
Please answer the points I state next time instead of using outdated terms and boring characterizations.
**** Did I do a good job, Hak? Huh? Geez, I sure hope I pleased ya. Tried REALLY HARD, I did!
Keep on hakin, Hak!
Shalom, Haakon
------------
My replies are set out by asterisks: ******* And mine are marked with ||| ----- Original Message ----- From: Haakon R. Ueland To: 'Birdman' Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 3:16 PM Subject: RE: Mensa vs Free Speech
Yes, my day is getting better and better. Your pathetic attempts at communication only increase my pleasure.
****pathetic: Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued. ||| A nice way to avoid making replies to that which is too difficult to reply to.
"A racist is a man who honors his race, reveres his ancestry, prefers -- like virtually everyone -- to be with his own kind, and believes that his genetic inheritance is worth preserving in the same way that liberals believe that the spotted owl, snail darter, American Indians and Australian aborigines are worth preserving." Are you plain stupid? Or do you just act that way? A racist is a wo/man who believe that his/her race is superior to the lesser races. In all the drivel you have read - haven't you understood this?
**** Gee, Hak, I would have thought you smart enuf to know that Mensans don't call other Mensans stupid. As to racism, the definition in practice is any white who stands up for his race. Of course, as a liberal, you may not be too observant. Take for example the difference between the NAACP and the NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People) - the former is never called racist because it is for blacks; but the latter almost ALWAYS is. And that is just one example of a plethora. ||| If you had read my previous replies, you would've know that I am against all sorts of racism - black-white or white to black. As for the "not calling other Mensans stupid" - are you unaware of the research that has been going on in IQ? Seven kinds of intelligence? You may score high on the Stanford-Binet and still be an idiot.
I have often wondered why people react negatively to hearing that people are members of Mensa. There was once a big discussion in a mensa-newsgroup about whether you should include your membership in CV's or not. Most voted "not". Now that I have "met" you, I can understand this reaction. Being associated with one of your ilk is not pleasant.
**** Fine. Resign. || You wish.
Now to your points, which I noticed you haven't even bothered to answer (your communication-skills are obviously equivalent with your social intelligence):
**** Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued.
1) Free speech? Sure. But people spreading hate and doing their best to divide people and to cause even more conflicts than the world is plagued with today can not expect that everybody wants to publish their filth. After all, an editor has a responsibility, both morally and legally.
**** The reference here is to the failure of the Bulletin to allow me an answer to their 1 1/2 page hatefest. What you haven't explained is, why is it fair to allow a hatefest against me (absolutely none of the issues I raised were addressed) but not allow me to answer. The answer, of course, is that you like liberal hate, but not any other. ||| You got replies to your letter. They didn't have to let you show your dark-brown colors in the first place, but they did. No rule says you should be allowed to reply to the replies.
But then people like me 'just don't get it'. Everybody is entitled to free speech - but you have managed to lose that right, and you deserved it.
**** The old liberal excuse: Because you are evil (ie, not a liberal), you don't have the right to speak. Gee, what's new? ||| No, you are not entitled to spread your filth in any forum you see fit. Sorry, mate - get in touch with the world.
2) Hate is not a part of your kind of racism? "Turd-Worlders"? Wow. You could've fooled me!
**** There is nothing the matter with hate, provided it is directed against hateful things. ||| I see. And the one who defines "hateful things" is you. Smart. You can do better than this kind of circlelogic.
3) If you hate jews, and obviously think that they are to blame for all the plagues of the world (I believe you have forgotten the Black Death, the fact that they eat babies & poison wells) why do you allow them in your "movement" (fitting term, btw - makes me think of bowel movement). Why do you care if you get "friendly letters from rabbis" - aren't they the religious leaders of the worlds worst scourge?
**** How is it that I both hate Jews and get letters from friendly rabbis? Is there a cognitive dissonance here that escaped your attention? Indeed, much more than that seems to have escaped your attention. ||| You are proud you get support from the race you hate? Damn, that is smart! If you are unaware of how silly this is, I will not try to persuade you - it is most certainly futile.
Your final words only deserve one comment (though, I wouldn't be surprised if you consider Jesus a jew - and therefore a communist, moneyhungry b*stard): "Why do you observe the splinter that's in your brother's eye, and yet don't consider the beam that's in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me pull the splinter out of your eye', when look, a beam is in your own eye. You hypocrite, remove the beam from your own eye first and then you will see clearly enough to remove the splinter from your bother's eye." Before you tell me that all Christians are bleeding-heart liberals: I am not a Christian.
**** If you are making a point, I don't get it. Are you saying that no one who isn't perfect has a right to criticize? If so, I would say that qualifies as pretty stupid. ||| "In sum, you are like the rest of the liberals: Uninformed, prejudiced, ignorant, smug and self-righteous." This was the point I was referring to. If you don't understand what Jesus meant, it seems a case of stupid calling stupid stupid.
I hope you lift your birdbrain out of the birdmuck and start
**** Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued. ||| Really? Is that why you are so proud of being insulting?
using that IQ in a constructive way. Sure, you manage to be offensive. But your offensiveness is pathetic and sad.
**** Ditto ||| Oh wow. Wonderful argumentation. "You are dumb. No, you are. No, you are..."
And, I quite enjoyed taking a look at the book you have "published" through Amazon ;)
**** The negative reviews you cite below prove nothing except that there are some people who don't like my books. The reviews are probably motivated by people who are politically correct and wish to hurt me. So what? I have plenty of positive reviews from distinguished men and women for a great many of my books - check my website. They aren't anonymous squibs from people with an agenda. ||| This is so silly it falls flat on its arse. The comments on Amazon were made by people you don't know. For all I know, you might write all the reviews on your site yourself, just like you write the "Publishers review" on Amazon. You link to Amazon from your site - how come that there wasn't ONE positive comment from a reader? It is so easy for you to say that the reviews are "probably motivated by people who... wish to hurt me". Just as easy as it is for me to question every review on your site.
Quote from one review (one of the few you got): "This book is a poor piece of prose. As a libertarian, I have my bias in favor of Rothbard. Bryant's supposedly "devastating" critique of libertarian "sell-outs" is wholly inconsistent and poorly written. He obviously has some axe to grind with them." Another: "This booklet is nothing more than the rantings of a self-absorbed egomaniac. More than one half of the booklet is an interview with the author. When he finally does begin his critique of the libertarian movement he never dicusses any major works by Murray Rothbard; instead Bryant blathers about 3 monographs and 1 article of Rothbard`s. His vendetta against Robert Poole is a vindictive animosity over an alleged snub from the Reason Foundation. All in all this screed is totally lacking in content which most likely explains why it was self-published, as no reasonable publisher would ever want to have anything to do with something like this. So don`t even bother reading this nonsense!". And one more: "The bulk of Bryant's "book" is a personal attack on Murray Rothbard. Bryant sees Rothbard as a libertarian icon who sold out to the paleoconservative movement But Rothbard was always consistent philosophically. He didn't leave the libertarian movement; the libertarian movement left him. He merely remained true to his principles as one of the great thinkers of the late 20th century. Mr. Bryant's little diatribe does nothing to dispel that. It is a surreal, egocentric collection of blatherings and much more incomprehensible and unreadable than anything by Rothbard he criticizes. Avoid." That was from your booklet "Libertarian Dirt : Everything You'Ve Not Supposed to Know About Murray Rothbard, Robert Poole, and Other Movement Icons". It seems that you have a lot of respect among your fellows! Oh - they all gave you a single *. "Handbook of the Coming American Revolution : Vital Secrets of Nonviolent National and Personal Liberation the Establishment Doesn't Want You to Know" was the second of your booklet where somebody even bothered to review it.
**** There is a positive review on my website from Joseph Stumpf, a distinguished activist in the freedom movement. ||| How many visits does your site have compared to Amazon? If Stumpf (nice Aryan name!) likes your books that much, why hasn't he posted his review there?
"Bryant starts this book by telling us that he does not believe there is any such thing as truth. Furthermore, if there is such a thing, it is confined to descriptions of the state of one's own mind. From this initial solipsism, the book quickly heads down hill. Who the heck cares about Bryant's fantasies, which don't have any claim to truth and aren't interesting enough to be fictions! An example of the tedium that fills these pages -- Bryant wants us all to know that Hustler magazine once stole a joke from him. "Well, sue them if you'd like but leave me out of it," will be the response of anyone outside the circle of the author's immediate friends and family. And a good response it will be. Don't waste one dime, or a minute of your time, on this volume." Wow. They love you! One star. The only person who likes your "work" is your publisher. Am I correct in assuming that he is you?
**** I am the publisher of my own books. And so was Walt Whitman, Virginia Woolf, Robert Frost and MANY other famous people who are now household names. I am an entrepreneur as well as a writer. I don't think one has to apologize for being multi-talented. ||| Definitely not. No reason for apologies. But making yourself out to be a great author, sold through Amazon, when they hardly sell anything of your booklets - that is something you should apologize for.
Please answer the points I state next time instead of using outdated terms and boring characterizations.
**** Did I do a good job, Hak? Huh? Geez, I sure hope I pleased ya. Tried REALLY HARD, I did! ||| Good boy.
Keep on hakin, Hak!
Shalom, Haakon
----------
New replies are marked with #### ----- Original Message ----- From: Haakon R. Ueland To: 'Birdman' Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 4:10 AM Subject: RE: Mensa vs Free Speech
-----Original Message----- From: Birdman Sent: 3. mai 2001 01:55 To: Haakon R. Ueland Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech
My replies are set out by asterisks: ******* And mine are marked with ||| ----- Original Message ----- From: Haakon R. Ueland To: 'Birdman' Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 3:16 PM Subject: RE: Mensa vs Free Speech
Yes, my day is getting better and better. Your pathetic attempts at communication only increase my pleasure.
****pathetic: Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued. ||| A nice way to avoid making replies to that which is too difficult to reply to.
"A racist is a man who honors his race, reveres his ancestry, prefers -- like virtually everyone -- to be with his own kind, and believes that his genetic inheritance is worth preserving in the same way that liberals believe that the spotted owl, snail darter, American Indians and Australian aborigines are worth preserving." Are you plain stupid? Or do you just act that way? A racist is a wo/man who believe that his/her race is superior to the lesser races. In all the drivel you have read - haven't you understood this?
**** Gee, Hak, I would have thought you smart enuf to know that Mensans don't call other Mensans stupid. As to racism, the definition in practice is any white who stands up for his race. Of course, as a liberal, you may not be too observant. Take for example the difference between the NAACP and the NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People) - the former is never called racist because it is for blacks; but the latter almost ALWAYS is. And that is just one example of a plethora.
||| If you had read my previous replies, you would've know that I am against all sorts of racism - black-white or white to black. As for the "not calling other Mensans stupid" - are you unaware of the research that has been going on in IQ? Seven kinds of intelligence? You may score high on the Stanford-Binet and still be an idiot.
#### So you are against the double standard on race. Great, except that all the people on 'your side' are FOR it. But are you are against people standing up for their race? Sure sounds like it.
I have often wondered why people react negatively to hearing that people are members of Mensa. There was once a big discussion in a mensa-newsgroup about whether you should include your membership in CV's or not. Most voted "not". Now that I have "met" you, I can understand this reaction. Being associated with one of your ilk is not pleasant.
**** Fine. Resign.
|| You wish.
#### Brilliant comeback!
Now to your points, which I noticed you haven't even bothered to answer (your communication-skills are obviously equivalent with your social intelligence):
**** Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued.
1) Free speech? Sure. But people spreading hate and doing their best to divide people and to cause even more conflicts than the world is plagued with today can not expect that everybody wants to publish their filth. After all, an editor has a responsibility, both morally and legally.
**** The reference here is to the failure of the Bulletin to allow me an answer to their 1 1/2 page hatefest. What you haven't explained is, why is it fair to allow a hatefest against me (absolutely none of the issues I raised were addressed) but not allow me to answer. The answer, of course, is that you like liberal hate, but not any other.
||| You got replies to your letter. They didn't have to let you show your dark-brown colors in the first place, but they did. No rule says you should be allowed to reply to the replies.
##### Dark brown colors - oh, I love it! Using the rhetoric of the racists you so despise! But to your point, the 2% Solution editor was the one who published my essay - it would never have gotten in if the AMC had passed judgment. And it is true that they did not 'have to' print anything of mine -- the question was, Was it ethical to refuse to keep me from answering the attack. (No, it wasn't.)
But then people like me 'just don't get it'. Everybody is entitled to free speech - but you have managed to lose that right, and you deserved it.
**** The old liberal excuse: Because you are evil (ie, not a liberal), you don't have the right to speak. Gee, what's new?
||| No, you are not entitled to spread your filth in any forum you see fit. Sorry, mate - get in touch with the world.
#### Here we go again - you can't answer, so you smear. The question is, When someone is attacked, does he have the ETHICAL right to respond? (Yes he does)
2) Hate is not a part of your kind of racism? "Turd-Worlders"? Wow. You could've fooled me!
**** There is nothing the matter with hate, provided it is directed against hateful things.
||| I see. And the one who defines "hateful things" is you. Smart. You can do better than this kind of circlelogic.
**** I have not objected to anyone's hate, including liberals'. I merely object to being censored, and to being smeared rather than having my arguments answered.
3) If you hate jews, and obviously think that they are to blame for all the plagues of the world (I believe you have forgotten the Black Death, the fact that they eat babies & poison wells) why do you allow them in your "movement" (fitting term, btw - makes me think of bowel movement). Why do you care if you get "friendly letters from rabbis" - aren't they the religious leaders of the worlds worst scourge?
**** How is it that I both hate Jews and get letters from friendly rabbis? Is there a cognitive dissonance here that escaped your attention? Indeed, much more than that seems to have escaped your attention.
||| You are proud you get support from the race you hate? Damn, that is smart! If you are unaware of how silly this is, I will not try to persuade you - it is most certainly futile.
#### It is you who are saying I hate Jews, not I. Your problem, like most liberals, is that you can't tell the difference between criticism and hate.
Your final words only deserve one comment (though, I wouldn't be surprised if you consider Jesus a jew - and therefore a communist, moneyhungry b*stard): "Why do you observe the splinter that's in your brother's eye, and yet don't consider the beam that's in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me pull the splinter out of your eye', when look, a beam is in your own eye. You hypocrite, remove the beam from your own eye first and then you will see clearly enough to remove the splinter from your bother's eye." Before you tell me that all Christians are bleeding-heart liberals: I am not a Christian.
**** If you are making a point, I don't get it. Are you saying that no one who isn't perfect has a right to criticize? If so, I would say that qualifies as pretty stupid.
||| "In sum, you are like the rest of the liberals: Uninformed, prejudiced, ignorant, smug and self-righteous." This was the point I was referring to. If you don't understand what Jesus meant, it seems a case of stupid calling stupid stupid.
#### Your statement is not a 'point' -- it's (another) smear.
I hope you lift your birdbrain out of the birdmuck and start
**** Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued.
||| Really? Is that why you are so proud of being insulting?
#### You seem unable to tell the difference between argument and insult. I have not called you names like you have called me. I have only responded to your arguments. I am proud to have answered those arguments, and also proud to NOT be insulting in doing so. But I am sure my arguments SEEM insulting to you, because they portray you in such a bad light.
using that IQ in a constructive way. Sure, you manage to be offensive. But your offensiveness is pathetic and sad.
**** Ditto
||| Oh wow. Wonderful argumentation. "You are dumb. No, you are. No, you are..."
#### What the 'ditto' meant was 'Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued.' It seems you misunderstood.
And, I quite enjoyed taking a look at the book you have "published" through Amazon ;)
**** The negative reviews you cite below prove nothing except that there are some people who don't like my books. The reviews are probably motivated by people who are politically correct and wish to hurt me. So what? I have plenty of positive reviews from distinguished men and women for a great many of my books - check my website. They aren't anonymous squibs from people with an agenda.
||| This is so silly it falls flat on its arse. The comments on Amazon were made by people you don't know. For all I know, you might write all the reviews on your site yourself, just like you write the "Publishers review" on Amazon. You link to Amazon from your site - how come that there wasn't ONE positive comment from a reader? It is so easy for you to say that the reviews are "probably motivated by people who... wish to hurt me". Just as easy as it is for me to question every review on your site.
#### The people I quote in my reviews are generally public figures. If you doubt the legitimacy of the reviews, why not write some of them? The people on Amazon can smear me because they are anonymous. They probably wouldn't do it if they had to give their names. I seek comments from public figures precisely because they have credibility. The Amazon reviewers do not.
Quote from one review (one of the few you got): "This book is a poor piece of prose. As a libertarian, I have my bias in favor of Rothbard. Bryant's supposedly "devastating" critique of libertarian "sell-outs" is wholly inconsistent and poorly written. He obviously has some axe to grind with them." Another: "This booklet is nothing more than the rantings of a self-absorbed egomaniac. More than one half of the booklet is an interview with the author. When he finally does begin his critique of the libertarian movement he never dicusses any major works by Murray Rothbard; instead Bryant blathers about 3 monographs and 1 article of Rothbard`s. His vendetta against Robert Poole is a vindictive animosity over an alleged snub from the Reason Foundation. All in all this screed is totally lacking in content which most likely explains why it was self-published, as no reasonable publisher would ever want to have anything to do with something like this. So don`t even bother reading this nonsense!". And one more: "The bulk of Bryant's "book" is a personal attack on Murray Rothbard. Bryant sees Rothbard as a libertarian icon who sold out to the paleoconservative movement But Rothbard was always consistent philosophically. He didn't leave the libertarian movement; the libertarian movement left him. He merely remained true to his principles as one of the great thinkers of the late 20th century. Mr. Bryant's little diatribe does nothing to dispel that. It is a surreal, egocentric collection of blatherings and much more incomprehensible and unreadable than anything by Rothbard he criticizes. Avoid." That was from your booklet "Libertarian Dirt : Everything You'Ve Not Supposed to Know About Murray Rothbard, Robert Poole, and Other Movement Icons". It seems that you have a lot of respect among your fellows! Oh - they all gave you a single *. "Handbook of the Coming American Revolution : Vital Secrets of Nonviolent National and Personal Liberation the Establishment Doesn't Want You to Know" was the second of your booklet where somebody even bothered to review it.
**** There is a positive review on my website from Joseph Stumpf, a distinguished activist in the freedom movement. ||| How many visits does your site have compared to Amazon? If Stumpf (nice Aryan name!) likes your books that much, why hasn't he posted his review there?
"Bryant starts this book by telling us that he does not believe there is any such thing as truth. Furthermore, if there is such a thing, it is confined to descriptions of the state of one's own mind. From this initial solipsism, the book quickly heads down hill. Who the heck cares about Bryant's fantasies, which don't have any claim to truth and aren't interesting enough to be fictions! An example of the tedium that fills these pages -- Bryant wants us all to know that Hustler magazine once stole a joke from him. "Well, sue them if you'd like but leave me out of it," will be the response of anyone outside the circle of the author's immediate friends and family. And a good response it will be. Don't waste one dime, or a minute of your time, on this volume." Wow. They love you! One star. The only person who likes your "work" is your publisher. Am I correct in assuming that he is you?
**** I am the publisher of my own books. And so was Walt Whitman, Virginia Woolf, Robert Frost and MANY other famous people who are now household names. I am an entrepreneur as well as a writer. I don't think one has to apologize for being multi-talented.
||| Definitely not. No reason for apologies. But making yourself out to be a great author, sold through Amazon, when they hardly sell anything of your booklets - that is something you should apologize for.
#### What is a great author? I have won the plaudits of Nobel prizewinners and many others of similar rank. I am not a best-seller, but I would a lot rather be doing what I do than to be any one of 99% of the best-selling authors. If my books are less than best-sellers, it is perhaps more a reflection on the audience than the author.
Please answer the points I state next time instead of using outdated terms and boring characterizations.
**** Did I do a good job, Hak? Huh? Geez, I sure hope I pleased ya. Tried REALLY HARD, I did!
||| Good boy.
Keep on hakin, Hak!
Shalom, Haakon
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *