Note to reader: Each writer's letter is in normal type; Birdman's responses are in italics.
[Letters are separated with a short dotted line: -------. Letters are unedited.]
Hello John,
Your email is sure to elicit some vociferous opinions (which you seem to thrive on), but see if you can read this brief response before you scroll down to see if I have a Jewish name.
Considering that you can't begin to teach a person something they think they already know, I would nevertheless ask that you consider the following:
I am Jewish-Christian-Buddhist-Taoist in terms of my beliefs. My greatest teachers are Socrates, Solomon (Ecclesiastes), Lao Tse (The "Tao"), Jesus (Matthew 5-7), Patanjali, Krishna, and others such as Emerson and Thoreau. Seeing through emotion is not seeing clearly. Taking "sides" is not standing in truth. No one is "right" all of the time. Are you?
Your negative attacks on "the Jews" can be seen as hate-mongering for one simple reason: You seem to have nothing positive to say about anyone who is/was Jewish. Surely, all peoples have their constructive/instructive men and women as well as their destructive ones. People can be offensive when they get defensive (as you and the letter-writers have demonstrated).
Personally, I find your paranoia about "the Jews" to be no different than Jewish paranoia about the "goyim". Ignorance does breed hate- and, I know, familiarity breeds contempt. : ) But to read publications such as the Wall Street Journal and Business Week is to get an education about US commerce. No industry (including media and entertainment) is "controlled" by any one group. This is a free country. If a particular publication finds something distateful to their readership, they are free to not be forced to print it.
I must address your overriding contention about "the Jews" being responsible for all of the disasters of the last century. Stalin and Hitler were directly responsible for atrocities and war crimes. Neither was partial to "the Jews". Mao was responsible for atrocities as well. Did "the Jews" control him? There were atrocities and wars in Africa and Asia as well as South and Central America. Wars of religion and territory have plagued man(kind?) for millennia. I'm not concerned with labels like "liberal" and "conservative". Why are you? Each "side" is as confused as the other, more concerned with being "right" than with standing in truth. I think that to your credit, you try to think for your self, but that doesn't mean the opinions you parade as facts are any more factual than those opinions you attempt to disprove.
Your contention that the Jewish Holocaust didn't happen flies in the face of the testimony of thousands who survived it. Whether it was six million or one million is, I think, irrelevant to the fact that it did occur. I've spoken with some of those whose wrists were tattooed with numbers. I can believe them, and numerous others. They were there. You weren't. Other holocausts (murders of millions) occurred during the century. They didn't involve "the Jews" as either victims or perpetrators. They were surely no less important. Just more evidence of man's inhumanity. Social movements which attempt to address injustices often create more injustices. It was ever thus.
Just a few quick thoughts, keeping it positive.
Stan Bernstein
--------
My comments are interleaved in your text, and set off by asterisks. ****
----- Original Message ----- From: <morninglory> To: "Birdman" <john@thebirdman.org> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 12:35 AM Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech
> Helo John, > > Your email is sure to elicit some vociferous opinions (which you seem to > thrive on), but see if you can read this brief response before you scroll down > to see if I have a Jewish name. > > Considering that you can't begin to teach a person something they think they > already know, I would nevertheless ask that you consider the following: > > I am Jewish-Christian-Buddhist-Taoist in terms of my beliefs. My greatest > teachers are Socrates, Solomon (Ecclesiastes), Lao Tse (The "Tao"), Jesus > (Matthew 5-7), Patanjali, Krishna, and others such as Emerson and Thoreau. > Seeing through emotion is not seeing clearly. Taking "sides" is not standing in > truth.
**** You seem to be saying that no opinion can be wrong. I would heartily disagree. 2+2 is not equal 5.
No one is "right" all of the time. Are you?
**** I TRY to be right all the time, and when not right, to change and ACKNOWLEDGE MY ERROR. That's why I state on my website that anyone who believes me wrong and posts an essay saying so WILL BE LINKED BY ME. In 16,000 unique visitors, NOT ONE REQUEST. That's a pretty good objective test of my being right, tho of course not infallible.
> > Your negative attacks on "the Jews" can be seen as hate-mongering for one > simple reason: You seem to have nothing positive to say about anyone who is/was > Jewish.
***** Absolutely false. I post many articles by Jews. Many revisionists are Jews. Check out my essay 'Our allies the Jews.' You are not observant.
Surely, all peoples have their constructive/instructive men and women > as well as their destructive ones. People can be offensive when they get > defensive (as you and the letter-writers have demonstrated). > > Personally, I find your paranoia about "the Jews" to be no different than > Jewish paranoia about the "goyim".
**** Jews are perfectly right to be paranoid, after all the persecution they have endured. Which is not to say that they have not, in some measure been responsible for it.
Ignorance does breed hate- and, I know, > familiarity breeds contempt. : ) But to read publications such as the Wall > Street Journal and Business Week is to get an education about US commerce. No > industry (including media and entertainment) is "controlled" by any one group.
**** Read Dr Pierce's essay "Who Rules America" on the National Vanguard website. Then you wouldn't say that. Then you can go on from there. The Rothschilds, for example, own the FED.
> This is a free country. If a particular publication finds something distateful > to their readership, they are free to not be forced to print it.
**** To be free to do is not necessarily to act ethically. Mensa certainly did not.
> > I must address your overriding contention about "the Jews" being > responsible for all of the disasters of the last century. Stalin and Hitler > were directly responsible for atrocities and war crimes.
***** Saying that Jews were significantly involved in many bad events is not to say that others were not. Stalin had Jews all around him. Kaganovich ('The wolf of the Kemlin') was his right-hand man, and his brother-in-law. Jews constituted the overwhelming majority of the Party, even tho their percent of the Russian population was small. And of course it was Jews who fomented the Russian Revolution in the first place.
Neither was partial to > "the Jews". Mao was responsible for atrocities as well. Did "the Jews" control > him? There were atrocities and wars in Africa and Asia as well as South and > Central America. Wars of religion and territory have plagued man(kind?) for > millennia. I'm not concerned with labels like "liberal" and "conservative". Why > are you?
***** Labels are names for what you are dealing with. If you don't care what you're dealing with, I guess labels don't matter. But I care.
Each "side" is as confused as the other, more concerned with being > "right" than with standing in truth. I think that to your credit, you try to > think for your self, but that doesn't mean the opinions you parade as facts are > any more factual than those opinions you attempt to disprove. > > Your contention that the Jewish Holocaust didn't happen flies in the face > of the testimony of thousands who survived it.
**** I didn't contend that many Jews were not killed in WWII. Again, you are not observant. Here is a quote from Jewish Holocaust historian Arno Mayer (Why Did the Heavens Not Darken): "The evidence for the gas chambers is both rare and unreliable." Think on't.
Whether it was six million or > one million is, I think, irrelevant to the fact that it did occur.
**** It's not irrelevant when they shout you down or put you in prison (8,000 in Germany alone) for saying 1 instead of 6.
I've spoken > with some of those whose wrists were tattooed with numbers. I can believe them, > and numerous others. They were there. You weren't.
**** To be part of a historical event is not to understand it.
Other holocausts (murders of > millions) occurred during the century. They didn't involve "the Jews" as either > victims or perpetrators. They were surely no less important.
**** Again, just because Jews were involved in major bad events does not mean that they were responsible for all.
Just more evidence > of man's inhumanity. Social movements which attempt to address injustices often > create more injustices. It was ever thus. > > Just a few quick thoughts, keeping it positive. > > Stan Bernstein
--------
Hi John,
I'll respond to your responses here. It got quite unformatted below. Also, you might look at http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/labor-force/, an answer to those who would deny that the Holocaust happened.
1) Of course opinions can be wrong, when they are not based in reality. Your example that two plus two does not equal five is a matter of fact, not opinion.
2) Your stating that you are not right all the time is true of course. But your asking those with differing beliefs to post them on a site that you will link to is not the same as simply printing their beliefs on your site- most people don't have their own web-site. Will you post the URL I've included above? I didn't think so. : )
3) I saw nothing positive on the site you linked to from your original email.
4) I don't know that anyone has a "right" to be paranoid. It's just part of human habit. And I would say that the "victim" mentalty carried by Jewish culture and individuals has not been a positive way of viewing the world. I would also say that all minority groups (not just Jews) have been victimized, blamed and made scapegoats by the majority culture. It happened to Christians in their early years (before many of the oppressed became the oppressors). It's happened more recently to Palestinians by Israelis.
5) Where did you get your information that the Rothschilds "own" the Fed? The Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned by many people. It is comprised of twelve member banks which institute policies determined by the Federal
Reserve Board (usually referred to as the "Fed"). The Chairman of the Fed has influence over the Board, but hardly controls it. Fed governors are appointed. Monetary policy has been well directed, I think, since Paul Volcker. There have been few members or Chairmen who have been Jewish, although Greenspan has done a commendable job during his tenure in my opinion. Please read publications like the Wall Street Journal and Business Week (neither published, edited or controlled by "the Jews") to get educated about commerce in this country.
6) I agree that to be free is not necessarilly to act ethically. To have integrity is to do what we say we're going to do. Did Mensa lack integrity?
7) You didn't say that Jews were "significantly involved", You said that "Jews have been the leaders and force majeure behind virtually every major destructive social movement or event of the 20th century". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant "Jewish individuals", and didn't mean to libel an entire group. Having said that, I would point out that Marx wrote a book (actually in the 19th century, not the 20th)- he was certainly no leader. As far as feminism goes (and the suffrage movement that preceded it), I have no problem with women having equal rights. Do you? The subsequent effects (like the breakdown of the nuclear family, has, in my opinion, been a negative result- but I could be wrong about that). If the president of the NAACP until 1970 was a Jew, so what? This is 2001. Hello? : ) Liberals are no more or less destructive than conservatives, in my opinion. As for "hate crime" legislation, that seems redundant to me, but if congress needs to justify their time, then, hey, who am I to complain? : ) I don't personally own a weapon, but have no problem with my friends who do. And I can see the need for controls on certain weapons (bazookas, tanks, A-bombs). Come on, Soviet spying hasn't been restricted to Jews. Include all the names of those who weren't Jews, and they would dwarf your list. The Net can't be censored, lots of people post drivel. First amendment right, remember? Again, the Federal Reserve Bank was created out of the necessity to have a central bank to issue and regulate currency. PLEASE read the WSJ for a few years- you'll get a better grip on reality with regards to economic forces. Jews got us into both WWs?! I thought WW1 had to do with defense treaties. Did Jews bomb Pearl Harbor? The Balkans war was started by Milosevic. It was ended by the US/NATO (for now). The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is the only "significant involvement" here with which I agree with you.
8) Labels- those tags which can obfuscate reason. Would you care to label me if I state a few beliefs here? I believe that the establishment of the state of Israel (which Palestinians call "the catastrophe") was wrong, that it was an injustice. (I've been called a "self-hating Jew for that one). Having said that, I believe that Manifest Destiny was wrong in that it was an injustice for Native Americans. I believe that capitalism is the best and most efficient system for producing and distributing goods and services. Adam Smith had it right, Karl Marx (though his intentions were, I think, good) had it wrong. I believe that people should be treated equally, no matter their ethnicity or color. I believe that war is a form of genocide. I also believe that abortion is a form of murder, and that in a future, more enlightened time, both war and abortion will be unnecessary. I believe that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns, and that criminals who use guns should be locked up for a long time. I believe that values (whether they are the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount) should be taught in public schools.
9) You say that "to be part of a historical event is not to understand it". I'm sure you meant "not to necessarilly" understand it. Again, please check the link above to get the truth. (Though I'm sure you're not interested in posting it on your site). And it's hard to believe that 8,000 are in prison for saying one million instead of six million. (Though I do believe the number is closer to six).
Your basic contention about the "Jewish Question" is something I would call the "Human Question". I don't believe that Jews are any better or worse than any other people. The "chosen people" tag has backfired over the centuries. But the fact that virtually all people wake to their day with a "chattering" mind; spend a good part of it judging things ("good", "bad", "right", "wrong"); are anxious much of the time; have less-than-great health; feel the need to be "right" about every belief; argue like children; are unhappy; spend lots of time with "acquisition" and "activity" (especially in this culture); are hypocritical at best, liars at worst; and think that intelligence equates with common sense (which is not very common) and the ability to have relationships, it's no wonder that we live in a sick world. Kinda like a hospital, where all of the patients think they're the doctors. But compassion is in order, and, like I said "it was ever thus".
Part of a lyric I wrote:
Once there was a man who thought that he was right He saw the world around him in shades of black and white If only everyone would listen and do the things he said they should He thought that he could change the world, and everything would be so good
His name was Everyman, every man for himself He thought that he was different, but he was a reflection of everybody else His name was Everyman, and every man can see That when you think about it, the more you think about it, he was just like you and me
Stan
---------
My comments are set off by asterisks, and interleaved in your text.
----- Original Message ----- From: <morninglory> To: "Birdman" <john@thebirdman.org> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 8:37 PM Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech
> Hi John, > > I'll respond to your responses here. It got quite unformatted below. Also, > you might look at http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/labor-force/, an > answer to those who would deny that the Holocaust happened. > ****** Of course SOMETHING happened. What DIDN'T happen are the two great myths of the Orthodox Jewish Version: gas chambers and 6 million killed. I have discussed these at length in an essay on my site; if you want more info, go to the revisionist websites such as CODOH, the Zundelsite or IHR. I am not going to try to convince you -- you have to read the documents and decide for yourself. Read both sides as I have done.
> 1) Of course opinions can be wrong, when they are not based in reality. > Your > example that two plus two does not equal five is a matter of fact, not > opinion.
****** 2+2=4 may be a fact, but we can't know facts - we can only hold opinions on what the facts are (or if indeed there are facts.)
> > 2) Your stating that you are not right all the time is true of course. But > your asking > those with differing beliefs to post them on a site that you will link > to is not the > same as simply printing their beliefs on your site- most people don't > have their > own web-site.
***** By offering to link my enemies I have gone the second mile. Don't ask me to go a third. There are free websites available.
Will you post the URL I've included above?
****** You tell me what you think it refutes, specifically, and I will post it, along with your name and email, and my ascerbic comments if I disagree.
I didn't > think so. : ) > > 3) I saw nothing positive on the site you linked to from your original > email.
***** I don't know what you are referring to.
>
> 4) I don't know that anyone has a "right" to be paranoid.
***** I didn't say that. I said the Jews were right to be paranoid (ie, afraid) because of a history of persecution. Try reading what I say more carefully.
It's just part of > human > habit. And I would say that the "victim" mentalty carried by Jewish > culture and > individuals has not been a positive way of viewing the world. I would > also say > that all minority groups (not just Jews) have been victimized, blamed > and made > scapegoats by the majority culture. It happened to Christians in their > early years > (before many of the oppressed became the oppressors). It's happened > more > recently to Palestinians by Israelis. > > 5) Where did you get your information that the Rothschilds "own" the Fed?
***** Read my site. Your comments below just reflect your unfamiliarity with the appropriate literature, ie, your ignorance.
> The > Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned by many people. It is > comprised of > twelve member banks which institute policies determined by the Federal > > Reserve Board (usually referred to as the "Fed"). The Chairman of the > Fed has > influence over the Board, but hardly controls it. Fed governors are > appointed. > Monetary policy has been well directed, I think, since Paul Volcker. > There have > been few members or Chairmen who have been Jewish, although Greenspan > has done a commendable job during his tenure in my opinion. Please > read > publications like the Wall Street Journal and Business Week (neither > published, > edited or controlled by "the Jews") to get educated about commerce in > this > country. >
***** Good heavens! You are actually so naive as to think you can get appropriate information on these topics from Business Week and the WSJ. What a laff!
> 6) I agree that to be free is not necessarilly to act ethically. To have > integrity is > to do what we say we're going to do. Did Mensa lack integrity?
****** If my letter didn't convince you of Mensa's lack of integrity, nothing will. Most people can at least see THAT.
> > 7) You didn't say that Jews were "significantly involved", You said that > "Jews have been the leaders and force majeure behind virtually every > major destructive social movement or event of the 20th century". I'll give you > the benefit of the doubt > that you meant "Jewish individuals", and didn't mean to libel an entire > group. > Having said that, I would point out that Marx wrote a book (actually in the > 19th > century, not the 20th)- he was certainly no leader.
***** Marx wrote several books. So what? He was also virulently antisemitic and racist. So what?
As far as feminism goes > (and > the suffrage movement that preceded it), I have no problem with women > having > equal rights. Do you?
****** What's equal rights? The right to be a soldier? I have a great problem with that. Plus a few other things. If you don't, kindly tell me what planet you are living on.
The subsequent effects (like the breakdown of the > nuclear > family, has, in my opinion, been a negative result- but I could be wrong > about that). > If the president of the NAACP until 1970 was a Jew, so what?
****** It makes the point that Jews were using blacks to manipulate events, that's what. In fact, that is exaclty what the (Jewish) communists planned back in the 20s.
This is 2001. > Hello? : ) Liberals are no more or less destructive than conservatives, in > my > opinion.
**** Maybe, but the destruction is being done by the liberals, and has about sacked our civilization during the last half-century.
As for "hate crime" legislation, that seems redundant to me, but > if > congress needs to justify their time, then, hey, who am I to complain? : )
****** For a very good reason: Criminalizing hate is criminalizing thought. This is just one more step toward stamping out freedom of belief and speech, and imposing multiculturalism. And that is what the Jewish establishment is working to do.
> I don't > personally own a weapon, but have no problem with my friends who do. And I > can > see the need for controls on certain weapons (bazookas, tanks, A-bombs). > Come > on, Soviet spying hasn't been restricted to Jews.
***** Quite wrong. Check the names. All the major spies were Jews. The Rosenbergs, Theodore Hall, Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, Greenglass, etc etc
Include all the names of > those > who weren't Jews, and they would dwarf your list. The Net can't be > censored, > lots of people post drivel. First amendment right, remember?
****** What is this supposed to refer to?
Again, the > Federal > Reserve Bank was created out of the necessity to have a central bank to > issue > and regulate currency.
***** Your ignorance is so profound it's funny. There is no 'necessity' for a central bank. America got along just fine without a central bank for most of its years, and when it did have one, the events surrounding it were not pretty. Read some history, like Jackson and the Bank of the US. Nicholas Biddle, head of the Second Bank, by the way, was a Rothschild operative.
PLEASE read the WSJ for a few years- you'll get a > better > grip on reality with regards to economic forces.
***** I read the WSJ for several years. It is irrelevant to our discussion.
Jews got us into both > WWs?! > I thought WW1 had to do with defense treaties.
***** Why can't you at least read the documents on my site? Perhaps ;you could argue with them, but instead, you just come up with these ridiculous remarks. For WWI, read the history of the Wilson administration and his advisor Brandeis. Find out about Col House's father - partner of the Rothschilds. For WWII, find out about the Balfour Declaration. Do your homework before shooting off your mouth.
Did Jews bomb Pearl Harbor?
***** Roosevelt was surrounded with Jews, and was in fact from a Jewish family.(Rosenveldt) He was dying to get into the war. He put pressure on the Japs by restricting their access to scrap metal, etc in hopes they would attack. He even knew of the attack long in advance, but didn't warn Husband Kimmel, the commander at Pearl. Read your history, for chrissake.
> The Balkans war was started by Milosevic.
***** The Balkans war was started by the Clinton administration on the basis of fake atrocity stories. More than half of all Clinton appointees were Jews, including sec def and sec state. Also national security advisor.
It was ended by the US/NATO (for > now).
****** The NATO commander, Wesley Clark, is a Jew.
The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is the only "significant > involvement" here with > which I agree with you.
****** Do I care whether a person of such profound ignorance as yourself agrees with me?
> > 8) Labels- those tags which can obfuscate reason. Would you care to label > me if > I state a few beliefs here? I believe that the establishment of the > state of Israel > (which Palestinians call "the catastrophe") was wrong, that it was an > injustice. > (I've been called a "self-hating Jew for that one). Having said that, I > believe that > Manifest Destiny was wrong in that it was an injustice for Native > Americans.
***** Why is it an 'injustice' to civilize a continent inhabited by stone-age people? Would you prefer that America still be settled by loincloth-Americans?
> I believe that capitalism is the best and most efficient system for > producing and > distributing goods and services. Adam Smith had it right, Karl Marx > (though his > intentions were, I think, good) had it wrong. I believe that people > should be > treated equally, no matter their ethnicity or color.
****** What's equally? Why should we treat the criminally-inclined equally with the well-behaved? Blacks commit crimes at 9 times the rate of whites (that's 900%). Why should we treat them equally? Are you so stupid as to think that you will be equally safe walking in the ghetto as in your own neighborhood. Well, why don't yo try it a few times and see how long it takes to get mugged or killed?
I believe that war > is a form of > genocide.
***** From the standpoint of the invaded, war is a way to protect yourself.
I also believe that abortion is a form of murder, and that in > a future, > more enlightened time, both war and abortion will be unnecessary. I > believe that > law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns, and that criminals > who use > guns should be locked up for a long time. I believe that values > (whether they are > the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount) should be taught in > public > schools. > > 9) You say that "to be part of a historical event is not to understand it". > I'm sure > you meant "not to necessarilly" understand it. Again, please check the > link above > to get the truth. (Though I'm sure you're not interested in posting it > on your site). > And it's hard to believe that 8,000 are in prison for saying one > million instead of > six million.
****** More precisely, for questioning the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Big H.
(Though I do believe the number is closer to six).
****** The death books for Auschwitz (recently recovered from the Soviets) where supposedly 4 of the 6 mil were killed, show SEVENTY THOUSAND DEAD. That's a bit less than 4 mil (now officially reduced to 1.1)
> > Your basic contention about the "Jewish Question" is something I would call > the > "Human Question". I don't believe that Jews are any better or worse than any > other > people.
**** Jews have a higher IQ, by about 15 points. That is why there are so many in Mensa. And why they are so successful. They are also -- according to Lenin -- far more cruel. The Soviet secret police were primarily Jewish. The Cheka was founded by Drzinsky (?), a Polish Jew.
The "chosen people" tag has backfired over the centuries. But the fact > that virtually all people wake to their day with a "chattering" mind; spend a > good part of it judging things ("good", "bad", "right", "wrong"); are anxious > much of the time; have less-than-great health; feel the need to be "right" about > every belief; argue like children; are unhappy; spend lots of time with > "acquisition" and "activity" (especially in > this culture); are hypocritical at best, liars at worst; and think that > intelligence equates > with common sense (which is not very common) and the ability to have > relationships, it's no wonder that we live in a sick world. Kinda like a > hospital, where all of the patients think they're the doctors. But compassion is > in order, and, like I said "it was ever thus". > > Part of a lyric I wrote: > > Once there was a man who thought that he was right > He saw the world around him in shades of black and white > If only everyone would listen and do the things he said they should > He thought that he could change the world, and everything would be so good > > His name was Everyman, every man for himself > He thought that he was different, but he was a reflection of everybody else > His name was Everyman, and every man can see > That when you think about it, the more you think about it, he was just like > you and me > > > Stan
----------
My replies are set off with asterisks and interleaved:
----- Original Message ----- From: <morninglory> To: "Birdman" <john@thebirdman.org> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 11:47 PM Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech
> Hello Again John, > > Since your ad hominem comments below don't merit refutal, I'll be a little > more general here.
****** All of my remarks were addressed directly to your points. None were ad hominem, tho admittedly I did allow my disgust for your ignorance to show thru. But your ignorance is a very obvious fact. You presume to 'debate' about something which you, in general, know very little about. And of course your labeling my responses as 'ad hominem' conveniently releases you from the necessity of dealing with my cogent points (cogent, enuf, at least for you to fear to try to answer them).
BTW, your anger is like a poison that you drink, thinking it > will harm your perceived "enemies" (i.e. those who disagree with you.).
******* Anger is not a voluntary act, like scratching. It is a reaction. If you have generated that reaction in me, you might wish to ask why. That you should think of anger as a voluntary act is just testament to your confused thinking.
I'm sure > glad I don't live in your head. : ) But I do have compassion for desperately > unhappy people.
***** I am unhappy at the injustice I have suffered. You aren't unhappy because you haven't suffered any. Furthermore, injustice doesn't seem to bother you. Fine. But when it is your turn to suffer injustice, perhaps you will realize that unhappiness is not some sort of medical syndrome, as you seem to think here, but a natural and appropriate human reaction to circumstances.
> > If you had checked the link I sent, you would have seen that it refers > directly to lies printed on your site.
****** There are no lies printed on my site. In case you didn't know it, a lie is a deliberate falsification. I haven't made any deliberate falsifications. The fact that you would accuse me -- without evidence -- of lying is yet another act of irresponsible disregard for the truth on your part. To make such an observation -- practically offhandedly -- is yet another act of your disregard for truth and accuracy. Now as to the URL, I only had to read a little of it to see it was of a quality which could be quickly dismissed. Here is one of the first paragraphs (my comments immediately follow it):
-------------------------------- And then there are the tasks which betray the sinister secrets inside the camp: the extermination actions. The most striking facts can be hidden in a featureless series of numbers. The number of "stokers" are listed on page 3 of each report. At face value, this would mean the prisoners who fed the huge ovens of the death camp with fuel. In reality, it is a euphemism for the Sonderkommando, the prisoners who also untangled corpses from the gas chambers, dragged them to the ovens or pits, and burned them. --------------------------------
(My comments) : Cyanide gas is very dangerous. As you may know from descriptions of executions in America, the execution chamber has to be ventillated for hours before people can safely enter, and this is just with the execuiton of one or two people. If sonderkommandos untangled people, they would be dead quickly from the trapped gas in the clothing. Or to put it plainly, your URL is complete BS. If you want me to post it, I will, but I will put this comment at my link.
The fact that you are putting > "conditions" on posting links doesn't surprise me.
***** If you have arguments with my conditions, state them. Don't imply they are unreasonable without saying why.
> > Trying to reason with an unreasonable person is like trying to teach a pig > to sing. Very annoying for the pig, and unsatisfying for the teacher. : )
******* You want an ad hominem attack? Then check yours. It might be justified if you pointed out a flaw in my reasoning, but you did not. In fact, you have not ONCE pointed out any flaw in my reasoning.
Your > ignorance about the Federal Reserve Bank in particular and central banks in > general is not surprising.
****** In my previous letter I pointed out numerous things which YOU did not seem to have any awareness of. Now, of course, you come back with the completely unsupported observation about 'my ignorance of the FED'. Which is not to say I know everything, or even a great deal about what you happen to consider important, but then I consider what you think important to be largely irrelevant, such as the relation of M1,2,3 (below)
Do you really understand how they operate, the > relations between currencies
***** I understand them enuf to have traded them successfully. Will that suffice?
, why the gold standard is an anachronism in a world > of monetary supply that is so many computer bytes,
***** There is nothing 'anachronistic' about the gold standard. It is recognized as important because it is a way of keeping governments from robbing the people of their savings by inflating the currency. Currently, the government robs our assets at 2-3% per year. With a gold standard that couldn't happen. Which is not to say that the gold standard is without problems, but it is a big step in the right direction. The very fact that you call it an anachronism is ample demonstration of your ignorance of what the debate on the matter is all about.
the relations between M1, M2 > and M3 money supplies? Of course there is a need for central banks now.
***** I am not saying that central banks do not sometimes perform useful functions (such as in international trade). But the question of whether their utility offsets their negative qualities is a different matter. In the case of the FED, it is a cash cow for its owners, the Rothschilds, and a parasite on America. No room to discuss details here, but see my site.
There > really has been since the industrial revolution (though the Fed wasn't created > until 1913). > > You seem to have about as much of a sense of humor as many liberals. (I > know, this is deadly serious stuff, these Jews controlling the world). : )
***** Ah, what a devastating argument against me -- that I don't have a sense of humor! Well, does that mean that my book Barryations: John Bryant Kicks Butt On Dave Barry's Turf does not exist? Does that mean that the Humor section on my site is empty? As to Jews, I never said they 'controlled the world'. But they do have significant power, and that power is being used, by and large, to undercut Western civilization. See my site for specifics.
> Because you say you don't believe that we can know facts, then I have no reason > to believe anything you say.
***** What does the inability to know facts have to do with your ability to believe? There might be reasons for not believing what I say, but the inability to know facts (as opposed to having mere opinions of what the facts are) cannot possibly be one of them.
Because I believe that we can know facts, I'll base > my beliefs on the best evidence.
****** Exactly -- you BELIEVE that you know facts. That means you have only OPINIONS, NOT FACTS. >
> That's all I have to write. No need for a response. : )
****** Right -- no need for a response from me to further disabuse you of your belief that your are right. Ignorance is bliss, is it not? > > Stan
---------
[This additional letter was sent shortly after the last:]
Stan: I have been too harsh with you. Unlike most of the others I have corresponded on the Mensa flap, you have been gentle, even if 180 degrees wrong. You deserve credit for that, which is far more than your 'friends' have done. So I apologize. It is important even for enemies to be able to talk. I am glad we have been able to. Some good may come of it somewhere down the road. -j
-------
Hi John,
I appreciate the apology and offer one to you as well. I said a few things which were less than positive and undeserved. Regarding my 'friends' (your quotes), I doubt that I know any of those people or would even have similar beliefs. Nor do I consider you as an enemy.
I will answer your last email later. Too many other things to do today. And, contrary to how it probably appeared, I didn't mean to end the communication so that I could get in the "last word". It just seemed like we were each talking past each other and there was no reason to continue. I'm glad you do have a sense of humor. It's necessary in this world. : )
Stan
--------
[Stan writes again:]
Hi John,
My responses are denoted by a 1.
Birdman wrote:
> My replies are set off with asterisks and interleaved: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <morninglory> > To: "Birdman" <john@thebirdman.org> > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 11:47 PM > Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech > > > Hello Again John, > > > > Since your ad hominem comments below don't merit refutal, I'll be a > little > > more general here. > > ****** All of my remarks were addressed directly to your points. None were > ad hominem, tho admittedly I did allow my disgust for yor ignorance to show > thru. But your ignorance is a very obvious fact. You presume to 'debate' > about something which you, in general, know very little about. And of > course your labeling my responses as 'ad hominem' conveniently releases you > from the necessity of dealing with my cogent points (cogent, enuf, at least > for you to fear to try to answer them).
1. The comments I was referring to were comments about my "ignorance". As I made similar comments, I would suggest that we refrain from using the term when referring to either each other or to statements either of us may make. It would make for a more civil discourse.
>
> > BTW, your anger is like a poison that you drink, thinking it > > will harm your perceived "enemies" (i.e. those who disagree with you.). > > ******* Anger is not a voluntary act, like scratching. It is a reaction. > If you have generated that reaction in me, you might wish to ask why. That > you should think of anger as a voluntary act is just testament to your > confused thinking.
1. I believe that anger is a learned response. People usually get angry when they feel they've been hurt or threatened. Also, I believe that we may condition our selves to anger as a kind of adrenaline "rush", a way of getting a kind of false feeling from life. It only exists in the mind. Two people can react to the same situation. One may feel no anger or only slight anger- the other may become enraged. It depends on how (much) one feels from whatever triggered the anger. Humans can reflect on their emotions, and learn to respond differently. I would agree that a dog involuntarily scratches an itch just as it involuntarily snarls when it perceives a threat. But I would also say that humans can learn to control anger. I don't mean suppress, I mean learn to understand that the ego that it comes from is a construct and no more real than the false feelings it can produce.
> > > I'm sure > > glad I don't live in your head. : ) But I do have compassion for > desperately > > unhappy people. > > ***** I am unhappy at the injustice I have suffered. You aren't unhappy > because you haven't suffered any. Furthermore, injustice d*oesn't seem to > bother you. Fine. But when it is your turn to suffer injustice, perhaps > you will realize that unhappiness is not some sort of medical syndrome, as > you seem to think here, but a natural and appropriate human reaction to > circumstances.
1. I don't want anyone to suffer injustice. Of course I've experienced injustices. (Sorry about the comment about "desperately unhappy people". That was uncalled for). Everyone has suffered perceived or genuine injustice at some time(s) in their life. I think it affects peoples' belief systems. But I believe that most people are actually unhappy. Suffering is all around. So is an amazing world. I don't think unhappiness is a medical syndrome. But, like negative emotions, I've come to understand that it also can become a kind of conditioned response, a feeling of life where the person has to feel "something", so they feel unhappy. I'm not belittling the feeling here, or denying its existence. I just believe that we have more control over our lives than we may realize.
> > > > > > If you had checked the link I sent, you would have seen that it > refers > > directly to lies printed on your site. > > ****** There are no lies printed on my site. In case you didn't know it, a > lie is a deliberate falsification. I haven't made any deliberate > falsifications. The fact that you would accuse me -- without evidence -- of > lying is yet another act of irresponsible disregard for the truth on your > part. To make such an observation -- practically offhandedly -- is yet > another act of your disregard for truth and accuracy. Now as to the URL, I > only had to read a little of it to see it was of a quality which could be > quickly dismissed. Here is one of the first paragraphs (my comments > immediately follow it):
1. Sorry if the word lie was used inappropriately. I would say I was referring to an untruth. I'll explain below.
> > > -------------------------------- > And then there are the tasks which betray the sinister secrets inside the > camp: the extermination actions. The most striking facts can be hidden in a > featureless series of numbers. The number of "stokers" are listed on page 3 > of each report. At face value, this would mean the prisoners who fed the > huge ovens of the death camp with fuel. In reality, it is a euphemism for > the Sonderkommando, the prisoners who also untangled corpses from the gas > chambers, dragged them to the ovens or pits, and burned them. > -------------------------------- > > (My comments) : Cyanide gas is very dangerous. As you may know from > descriptions of executions in America, the execution chamber has to be > ventillated for hours before people can safely enter, and this is just with > the execuiton of one or two people. If sonderkommandos untangled people, > they would be dead quickly from the trapped gas in the clothing. Or to put > it plainly, your URL is complete BS. If you want me to post it, I will, but > I will put this comment at my link.
1. No one suggested that cyanide gas was used. Zylon B was the gas of choice. Surely, gas masks were usable and disposable. There is lots of British footage that has been broadcast which shows: Zylon B gas; the death chambers and delivery (shower) systems; many, many crematoria; troops taking over the death camp and showing nearby townspeople what they were discovering; tens of tousands of naked bodies (with looks of terror still frozen on many faces of men, women and children); the bodies being tossed like so many cords of firewood into massive pits. I've seen the footage. I've also spoken with people who lost virtually their entire families in these dozens of death camps, and seen interviews wth others who experienced the same thing. Some three million Polish Jews were reduced to about 300,000 by the end of the war. They didn't just disappear. The many dead who were thrown into pits had missed being cremated because the war was over. This was a war crime, the deliberate murder of millions of civilians.
I can explain why I have no interest in reading "denial" claims. Have you heard of the books which claim that the US never landed on the moon? I heard one of the authors on the radio. Just as with the Holocaust, there are witnesses (who were there) and lots of film footage and interviews. In both cases, I'm convinced by what I've seen and heard that what happened, happened. I don't have the inclination or the time to read a book which claims that we didn't go to the moon, nor do I have the interest or time to read that the Holocaust didn't result in the murder of millions of Jews.
> The fact that you are putting > > "conditions" on posting links doesn't surprise me. > > ***** If you have arguments with my conditions, state them. Don't imply > they are unreasonable without saying why.
1. I was referring here to the fact that you had said you'd post links, and later said that you would need to post a reason, the person's name and email address, and your own ascerbic comments.
> > > > > Trying to reason with an unreasonable person is like trying to teach > a pig > > to sing. Very annoying for the pig, and unsatisfying for the teacher. : )
> ******* You want an ad hominem attack? Then check yours. It might be > justified if you pointed out a flaw in my reasoning, but you did not. In > fact, you have not ONCE pointed out any flaw in my reasoning.
1. Sorry about that. It was an attempt at humor that failed. : ) I think that people generally consider anyone who agrees with them to be reasonable, and anyone who disagrees, to be unreasonable. By those definitions, either of us could be the pig or the teacher (if we were trying to convince the other of something).
> > > Your > > ignorance about the Federal Reserve Bank in particular and central banks > in > > general is not surprising. > > ****** In my previous letter I pointed out numerous things which YOU did not > seem to have any awareness of. Now, of course, you come back with the > completely unsupported observation about 'my ignorance of the FED'. Which > is not to say I know everything, or even a great deal about what you happen > to consider important, but then I consider what you think important to be > largely irrelevant, such as the relation of M1,2,3 (below)
1. Those things which I have studied about the Fed (the mechanisms by which it operates and affects our economy) I do consider important. I think if you speak of the Fed, it would be good to know how they control monetary policy and their actual relationship with the banking system.
> > > Do you really understand how they operate, the > > relations between currencies
> > ***** I understand them enuf to have traded them successfully. Will that > suffice?
1. If you've traded currencies successfully, you're a rare individual trader.
> > , why the gold standard is an anachronism in a world > > of monetary supply that is so many computer bytes, > > ***** There is nothing 'anachronistic' about the gold standard. It is > recognized as important because it is a way of keeping governments from > robbing the people of their savings by inflating the currency. Currently, > the government robs our assets at 2-3% per year. With a gold standard that > couldn't happen. Which is not to say that the gold standard is without > problems, but it is a big step in the right direction. The very fact that > you call it an anachronism is ample demonstration of your ignorance of what > the debate on the matter is all about.
1. What is "anachronistic" about the gold standard is that it is basically a relic of past economies. But the problem with using it today is that the economy would grow about as quickly as gold could be dug out of mines and the ground. Inflation is a necessary evil of a modern capitalist economy. If monetary policy is directed towards maintaning the integrity of the currency (as it has been for the last 20 years), then inflation can be kept to the 2-3% level, as you observe. If the government "robs" people by inflating the currency, where does that go? When goverenments used to punch holes in gold coins, they really were inflating the money (i.e. deflating its value). Now we live in a time of rapid flux. If the Fed (and other central banks) do their jobs right, then we can avoid turning a recession into a depression. They weren't as smart in 1930, shrinking the money supply when they should have been expanding it (while we were still on a de facto gold standard) and putting up barriers to trade (like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff).
> > > the relations between M1, M2 > > and M3 money supplies? Of course there is a need for central banks now. > > ***** I am not saying that central banks do not sometimes perform useful > functions (such as in international trade). But the question of whether > their utility offsets their negative qualities is a different matter. In > the case of the FED, it is a cash cow for its owners, the Rothschilds, and a > parasite on America. No room to discuss details here, but see my site.
1. I won't repeat myself here. Whatever the central bank evolves into will be because markets have evolved, and changes are necessary. As I've said, the Fed is not owned by the Rothschilds, it is owned by many people. As the central bank, it's different than other banks, to be sure (which are mostly publically owned and subject to lots of oversight). Maybe there should be oversight of the Fed. A cash cow and a parasite? How exactly does the Fed make profits? They don't specifically lend funds, they create capital and credit and make it available by buying or selling securities in the marketplace, thereby incrementally increasing or decreasing the money supply and keeping the fed funds rate within a trading range (which affects short-term rates).
> There > > really has been since the industrial revolution (though the Fed wasn't > created > > until 1913). > > > > You seem to have about as much of a sense of humor as many liberals. > (I > > know, this is deadly serious stuff, these Jews controlling the world). : ) > > ***** Ah, what a devastating argument against me -- that I don't have a > sense of humor! Well, does that mean that my book Barryations: John Bryant > Kicks Butt On Dave Barry's Turf does not exist? Does that mean that the > Humor section on my site is empty? As to Jews, I never said they > 'controlled the world'. But they do have significant power, and that power > is being used, by and large, to undercut Western civilization. See my site > for specifics.
1. You seemed to have no sense of humor, and to be obsessed about what you call the "Jewish Question". Glad that you do have a sense of humor. I would disagree that the "Jews" are undercutting Western civilization. Some individuals may be doing just that (just as gentiles are doing the same thing), but the fact that you would say "they" are doing it (thereby virtually libeling an entire group) is what I would take issue with.
> > > > Because you say you don't believe that we can know facts, then I have no > reason > > to believe anything you say. > > ***** What does the inability to know facts have to do with your ability to > believe? There might be reasons for not believing what I say, but the > inability to know facts (as opposed to having mere opinions of what the > facts are) cannot possibly be one of them.
1. I'll re-phrase that. The fact that you say we can't know facts means that you believe all knowledge is a matter of opinion. I would disagree. It's difficult to believe someone who doesn't believe his facts are more than simply opinions.
> > > Because I believe that we can know facts, I'll base > > my beliefs on the best evidence. > > ****** Exactly -- you BELIEVE that you know facts. That means you have only > OPINIONS, NOT FACTS.
1. I don't want to play word games here. I believe we can know facts. For instance, it's a fact that in this world, everything changes. It's also a fact that in this world, everything living, dies. Those are irrefutable.
> > > > > > That's all I have to write. No need for a response. : ) > > ****** Right -- no need for a response from me to further disabuse you of > your belief that your are right. Ignorance is bliss, is it not?
1. Actually, I think that ignorance can be bliss. But it's not the kind of bliss I'm interested in. That bliss would be a result of understanding that people have beliefs; that arguing about beliefs is pointless and kind of silly; that emotions can be destructive; that when we see through our own bs, we can see through others'. I hope I've addressed your points here in a clear way, though I don't hope to or need to change your mind.
Stan
----------
Mark: My responses are designated by $$$$$
----- Original Message ----- From: <morninglory> To: "Birdman" <john@thebirdman.org> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 5:00 AM Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech
> Hi John, > > My reponses are denoted by a 1. > > Birdman wrote: > > > My replies are set off with asterisks and interleaved: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <morninglory> > > To: "Birdman" <john@thebirdman.org> > > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 11:47 PM > > Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech > > > > > Hello Again John, > > > > > > Since your ad hominem comments below don't merit refutal, I'll be a > > little > > > more general here. > > > > ****** All of my remarks were addressed directly to your points. None were > > ad hominem, tho admittedly I did allow my disgust for yor ignorance to show > > thru. But your ignorance is a very obvious fact. You presume to 'debate' > > about something which you, in general, know very little about. And of > > course your labeling my responses as 'ad hominem' conveniently releases you > > from the necessity of dealing with my cogent points (cogent, enuf, at least > > for you to fear to try to answer them). > > 1. The comments I was referring to were comments about my > "ignorance". As I made similar comments, I would suggest that we refrain from > using the term when referring to either each other or to statements either of us > may make. It would make for a more civil discourse. > > > > > > > > BTW, your anger is like a poison that you drink, thinking it > > > will harm your perceived "enemies" (i.e. those who disagree with you.). > > > > ******* Anger is not a voluntary act, like scratching. It is a reaction. > > If you have generated that reaction in me, you might wish to ask why. That > > you should think of anger as a voluntary act is just testament to your > > confused thinking. > > 1. I believe that anger is a learned response.
$$$$$ Getting red in the face is LEARNED??? Fast heartbeat????? Oh come on. But you can learn to SUPPRESS anger.
People usually get angry > when they feel they've been hurt or threatened. Also, I believe that we may > condition our selves to anger as a kind of adrenaline "rush", a way of getting a > kind of false feeling from life. It only exists in the mind. Two people can > react to the same situation. One may feel no anger or only slight anger- the > other may become enraged. It depends on how (much) one feels from whatever > triggered the anger. Humans can reflect on their emotions, and learn to respond > differently. I would agree that a dog involuntarily scratches an itch just as it > involuntarily snarls when it perceives a threat. But I would also say that > humans can learn to control anger. I don't mean suppress, I mean learn to > understand that the ego that it comes from is a construct and no more real than > the false feelings it can produce. > > > > > > > I'm sure > > > glad I don't live in your head. : ) But I do have compassion for > > desperately > > > unhappy people. > > > > ***** I am unhappy at the injustice I have suffered. You aren't unhappy > > because you haven't suffered any. Furthermore, injustice doesn't seem to > > bother you. Fine. But when it is your turn to suffer injustice, perhaps > > you will realize that unhappiness is not some sort of medical syndrome, as > > you seem to think here, but a natural and appropriate human reaction to > > circumstances. > > 1. I don't want anyone to suffer injustice. Of course I've experienced > injustices. > (Sorry about the comment about "desperately unhappy people". That was uncalled > for). Everyone has suffered perceived or genuine injustice at some time(s) in > their life. I think it affects peoples' belief systems. But I believe that most > people are actually unhappy. Suffering is all around. So is an amazing world. I > don't think unhappiness is a medical syndrome. But, like negative emotions, I've > come to understand that it also can become a kind of conditioned response, a > feeling of life where the person has to feel "something", so they feel unhappy. > I'm not belittling the feeling here, or denying its existence. I just believe > that we have more control over our lives than we may realize. > > > > > > > > > > > If you had checked the link I sent, you would have seen that it > > refers > > > directly to lies printed on your site. > > > > ****** There are no lies printed on my site. In case you didn't know it, a > > lie is a deliberate falsification. I haven't made any deliberate > > falsifications. The fact that you would accuse me -- without evidence -- of > > lying is yet another act of irresponsible disregard for the truth on your > > part. To make such an observation -- practically offhandedly -- is yet > > another act of your disregard for truth and accuracy. Now as to the URL, I > > only had to read a little of it to see it was of a quality which could be > > quickly dismissed. Here is one of the first paragraphs (my comments > > immediately follow it): > > 1. Sorry if the word lie was used inappropriately. I would say I was > referring to an untruth. I'll explain below. > > > > > > > -------------------------------- > > And then there are the tasks which betray the sinister secrets inside the > > camp: the extermination actions. The most striking facts can be hidden in a > > featureless series of numbers. The number of "stokers" are listed on page 3 > > of each report. At face value, this would mean the prisoners who fed the > > huge ovens of the death camp with fuel. In reality, it is a euphemism for > > the Sonderkommando, the prisoners who also untangled corpses from the gas > > chambers, dragged them to the ovens or pits, and burned them. > > -------------------------------- > > > > (My comments) : Cyanide gas is very dangerous. As you may know from > > descriptions of executions in America, the execution chamber has to be > > ventillated for hours before people can safely enter, and this is just with > > the execuiton of one or two people. If sonderkommandos untangled people, > > they would be dead quickly from the trapped gas in the clothing. Or to put > > it plainly, your URL is complete BS. If you want me to post it, I will, but > > I will put this comment at my link. > > 1. No one suggested that cyanide gas was used. Zylon B was the gas of > choice.
$$$$$ Zyklon B was a type of cyanide prepared in disks for slow release.
Surely, gas masks were usable and disposable. There is lots of British > footage that has been broadcast which shows: Zylon B gas; the death chambers and > delivery (shower) systems; many, many crematoria;
$$$$$$ There were indeed crematoria: Many people died from typhus, and the bodies had to be burned. Burning is not killing.
troops taking over the death > camp and showing nearby townspeople what they were discovering; tens of tousands > of naked bodies
$$$$$$ I have seen the films. The 'naked bodies' were people who starved to death mostly. Their clothes may have been stolen by the living -- it was very cold. They looked like others in prison camps such as Andersonville -- see links on my site.
(with looks of terror still frozen on many faces of men, women > and children); > the bodies being tossed like so many cords of firewood into massive pits. I've > seen the footage. I've also spoken with people who lost virtually their entire > families in these dozens of death camps, and seen interviews wth others who > experienced the same thing. Some three million Polish Jews were reduced to about > 300,000 by the end of the war.
$$$$$ The death books recently gotten from Soviet archives show less than 70,000 deaths at Auschwitz, not 4 mil (original claim) or 1.1 mil (current claim). Auschwitz was in Poland, the largest 'death camp'. The death books refute your claim (below) of deliberate mass murder. So does the fact that the Germans were desperate for labor. Auschwitz was a huge industrial facility, not a 'death camp'. All this is discussed on my site, but of course you haven't bothered to read it. Again, your proufound ignorance raises it's head.
They didn't just disappear. The many dead who > were thrown into pits had missed being cremated because the war was over. This > was a war crime, the deliberate murder of millions of civilians. > > I can explain why I have no interest in reading "denial" claims. Have you > heard of the books which claim that the US never landed on the moon?
$$$$$$ I have one -- Nasa Mooned America, by Rene, a friend of mine. I am not going to say he is right; but I will say that I have read his quite formidable arguments, and i am waiting for them to be refuted. He is no dummy -- he is a Mensan, in fact.
I heard > one of the authors on the radio. Just as with the Holocaust, there are witnesses > (who were there) and lots of film footage and interviews.
$$$$$$ According to senior Jewish Holocaust historian Arno Mayer, in his well-known book Why Did the Heavens Not Darken, "Evidence for the gas chambers is both rare and unreliable." Right from the horse's mouth.
In both cases, I'm > convinced by what I've seen and heard that what happened, happened. I don't have > the inclination or the time to read a book which claims that we didn't go to the > moon, nor do I have the interest or time to read that the Holocaust didn't > result in the murder of millions of Jews. > > > The fact that you are putting > > > "conditions" on posting links doesn't surprise me. > > > > ***** If you have arguments with my conditions, state them. Don't imply > > they are unreasonable without saying why. > > 1. I was referring here to the fact that you had said you'd post links, and > later said that you would need to post a reason, the person's name and email > address, and your own acerbic comments.
$$$$$$ I will not place a link I do not endorse without a comment. That would be stupid, because it would confuse people into thinking it was my own. Is that a sufficient explanation?
> > > > > > > > > Trying to reason with an unreasonable person is like trying to teach > > a pig > > > to sing. Very annoying for the pig, and unsatisfying for the teacher. : ) > > > ******* You want an ad hominem attack? Then check yours. It might be > > justified if you pointed out a flaw in my reasoning, but you did not. In > > fact, you have not ONCE pointed out any flaw in my reasoning. > > 1. Sorry about that. It was an attempt at humor that failed. : ) I think > that people generally consider anyone who agrees with them to be reasonable, and > anyone who disagrees, to be unreasonable. By those definitions, either of us > could be the pig or the teacher (if we were trying to convince the other of > something). > > > > > > > Your > > > ignorance about the Federal Reserve Bank in particular and central banks > > in > > > general is not surprising. > > > > ****** In my previous letter I pointed out numerous things which YOU did not > > seem to have any awareness of. Now, of course, you come back with the > > completely unsupported observation about 'my ignorance of the FED'. Which > > is not to say I know everything, or even a great deal about what you happen > > to consider important, but then I consider what you think important to be > > largely irrelevant, such as the relation of M1,2,3 (below) > > 1. Those things which I have studied about the Fed (the mechanisms by which > it operates and affects our economy) I do consider important. I think if you > speak of the Fed, it would be good to know how they control monetary policy and > their actual relationship with the banking system. > > > > > > > Do you really understand how they operate, the > > > relations between currencies > > > > > ***** I understand them enuf to have traded them successfully. Will that > > suffice? > > 1. If you've traded currencies successfully, you're a rare individual > trader. > > > > > , why the gold standard is an anachronism in a world > > > of monetary supply that is so many computer bytes, > > > > ***** There is nothing 'anachronistic' about the gold standard. It is > > recognized as important because it is a way of keeping governments from > > robbing the people of their savings by inflating the currency. Currently, > > the government robs our assets at 2-3% per year. With a gold standard that > > couldn't happen. Which is not to say that the gold standard is without > > problems, but it is a big step in the right direction. The very fact that > > you call it an anachronism is ample demonstration of your ignorance of what > > the debate on the matter is all about. > > 1. What is "anachronistic" about the gold standard is that it is basically > a relic of past economies. But the problem with using it today is that the > economy would grow about as quickly as gold could be dug out of mines and the > ground.
$$$$$$ You don't have to actually use gold coins in order to have a gold standard. You can still have 'bytes and bits', but reckoned in gold units. The amount of actual gold is irrelevant: Prices merely expand or contract with the contraction or expansion of the gold supply.
Inflation is a necessary evil of a modern capitalist economy. If > monetary policy is directed towards maintaning the integrity of the currency (as > it has been for the last 20 years),
$$$$$ Where were you during the Carter inflation, when inflation was in the 20% range. That's maintaining the integrity of the currency???? Give me a break!
then inflation can be kept to the 2-3% > level, as you observe. If the government "robs" people by inflating the > currency, where does that go?
$$$$$$ Inflation allows debtors to pay off with cheaper dollars. The govt is the biggest debtor of all. And it allows 'tax bracket creep', so that real taxation gets higher. Robbery it is.
When governments used to punch holes in gold > coins, they really were inflating the money (i.e. deflating its value). Now we > live in a time of rapid flux. If the Fed (and other central banks) do their jobs > right,
$$$$$ The 'job' the central banks do is to enrich their owners -- the Rothschilds, among others.
then we can avoid turning a recession into a depression. They weren't as > smart in 1930, shrinking the money supply when they should have been expanding > it (while we were still on a de facto gold standard) and putting up barriers to > trade (like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff). > > > > > > > the relations between M1, M2 > > > and M3 money supplies? Of course there is a need for central banks now. > > > > ***** I am not saying that central banks do not sometimes perform useful > > functions (such as in international trade). But the question of whether > > their utility offsets their negative qualities is a different matter. In > > the case of the FED, it is a cash cow for its owners, the Rothschilds, and a > > parasite on America. No room to discuss details here, but see my site. > > 1. I won't repeat myself here. Whatever the central bank evolves into will > be because markets have evolved, and changes are necessary.
$$$$$ The central bank has evolved into a monster, because its purpose is to enrich its owners. It may 'change' but its purpose will not change.
As I've said, the > Fed is not owned by the Rothschilds, it is owned by many people.
***** Read my site. Stop making such ignorant comments. If you think the documentation is wrong, you are free to dispute it. But your bald and unsupported statement will not cut it.
As the central > bank, it's different than other banks, to be sure (which are mostly publically > owned and subject to lots of oversight). Maybe there should be oversight of the > Fed. A cash cow and a parasite? How exactly does the Fed make profits?
$$$$$ Among other things, the FED makes profits by printing money in exchange for govt bonds, plus a percent. But, I would guess, the really big money is made by manipulation of the markets and interest rates.
They > don't specifically lend funds, they create capital and credit and make it > available by buying or selling securities in the marketplace, thereby > incrementally increasing or decreasing the money supply and keeping the fed > funds rate within a trading range (which affects short-term rates). > > > There > > > really has been since the industrial revolution (though the Fed wasn't > > created > > > until 1913). > > > > > > You seem to have about as much of a sense of humor as many liberals. > > (I > > > know, this is deadly serious stuff, these Jews controlling the world). : ) > > > > ***** Ah, what a devastating argument against me -- that I don't have a > > sense of humor! Well, does that mean that my book Barryations: John Bryant > > Kicks Butt On Dave Barry's Turf does not exist? Does that mean that the > > Humor section on my site is empty? As to Jews, I never said they > > 'controlled the world'. But they do have significant power, and that power > > is being used, by and large, to undercut Western civilization. See my site > > for specifics. > > 1. You seemed to have no sense of humor, and to be obsessed about what you > call the "Jewish Question". Glad that you do have a sense of humor. I would > disagree that the "Jews" are undercutting Western civilization.
$$$$$$ It is one thing to 'disagree'; another entirely to confront my EXTENSIVE ARGUMENTS AND DOCUMENTATION on my site. Try the latter for a change.
Some individuals > may be doing just that (just as gentiles are doing the same thing), but the fact > that you would say "they" are doing it (thereby virtually libeling an entire > group) is what I would take issue with. > > > > > > > > Because you say you don't believe that we can know facts, then I have no > > reason > > > to believe anything you say. > > > > ***** What does the inability to know facts have to do with your ability to > > believe? There might be reasons for not believing what I say, but the > > inability to know facts (as opposed to having mere opinions of what the > > facts are) cannot possibly be one of them. > > 1. I'll re-phrase that. The fact that you say we can't know facts means > that you believe all knowledge is a matter of opinion. I would disagree. It's > difficult to believe someone who doesn't believe his facts are more than simply > opinions.
$$$$$ So you tell me how to differentiate between a fact and an opinion. If you say x is a fact, I say that 'x is a fact' is your opinion. You may believe x, but someone else may disbelieve x, so how do you decide which is 'the fact'? Answer: YOU CAN'T.
> > > > > > > Because I believe that we can know facts, I'll base > > > my beliefs on the best evidence. > > > > ****** Exactly -- you BELIEVE that you know facts. That means you have only > > OPINIONS, NOT FACTS. > > 1. I don't want to play word games here. I believe we can know facts. For > instance, it's a fact that in this world, everything changes. It's also a fact > that in this world, everything living, dies. Those are irrefutable.
$$$$$ I don't believe that everything changes. 2+2=4 doesn't change. But that is my OPINION, not a fact.
> > > > > > > > > > > That's all I have to write. No need for a response. : ) > > > > ****** Right -- no need for a response from me to further disabuse you of > > your belief that your are right. Ignorance is bliss, is it not? > > 1. Actually, I think that ignorance can be bliss. But it's not the kind of > bliss I'm interested in. That bliss would be a result of understanding that > people have beliefs; that arguing about beliefs is pointless and kind of silly; > that emotions can be destructive; that when we see through our own bs, we can > see through others'. I hope I've addressed your points here in a clear way, > though I don't hope to or need to change your mind. > > Stan
---------
Hello John (My name isn't Mark, BTW),
My responses to your $$$$$ are designated by a 2.
Birdman wrote:
> Mark: My responses are designated by $$$$$ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <morninglory> > To: "Birdman" <john@thebirdman.org> > Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 5:00 AM > Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech > > > Hi John, > > > > My reponses are denoted by a 1. > > > > Birdman wrote: > > > > > My replies are set off with asterisks and interleaved: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: <morninglory> > > > To: "Birdman" <john@thebirdman.org> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 11:47 PM > > > Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech > > > > > > > Hello Again John, > > > > > > > > Since your ad hominem comments below don't merit refutal, I'll be > a > > > little > > > > more general here. > > > > > > ****** All of my remarks were addressed directly to your points. None > were > > > ad hominem, tho admittedly I did allow my disgust for yor ignorance to > show > > > thru. But your ignorance is a very obvious fact. You presume to > 'debate' > > > about something which you, in general, know very little about. And of > > > course your labeling my responses as 'ad hominem' conveniently releases > you > > > from the necessity of dealing with my cogent points (cogent, enuf, at > least > > > for you to fear to try to answer them). > > > > 1. The comments I was referring to were comments about my > > "ignorance". As I made similar comments, I would suggest that we refrain > from > > using the term when referring to either each other or to statements either > of us > > may make. It would make for a more civil discourse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, your anger is like a poison that you drink, thinking it > > > > will harm your perceived "enemies" (i.e. those who disagree with > you.). > > > > > > ******* Anger is not a voluntary act, like scratching. It is a > reaction. > > > If you have generated that reaction in me, you might wish to ask why. > That > > > you should think of anger as a voluntary act is just testament to your > > > confused thinking. > > > > 1. I believe that anger is a learned response. > > $$$$$ Getting red in the face is LEARNED??? Fast heartbeat????? Oh come > on. But you can learn to SUPPRESS anger.
2. I was clear below about suppression of anger. Because a person has only learned to "control" it by suppression doesn't change the fact that it is conditioned and can be unconditioned and lessened if not eliminated. Just because you haven't learned that doesn't mean others haven't learned it.
> > > People usually get angry > > when they feel they've been hurt or threatened. Also, I believe that we > may > > condition our selves to anger as a kind of adrenaline "rush", a way of > getting a > > kind of false feeling from life. It only exists in the mind. Two people > can > > react to the same situation. One may feel no anger or only slight anger- > the > > other may become enraged. It depends on how (much) one feels from whatever > > triggered the anger. Humans can reflect on their emotions, and learn to > respond > > differently. I would agree that a dog involuntarily scratches an itch just > as it > > involuntarily snarls when it perceives a threat. But I would also say that > > humans can learn to control anger. I don't mean suppress, I mean learn to > > understand that the ego that it comes from is a construct and no more real > than > > the false feelings it can produce. > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure > > > > glad I don't live in your head. : ) But I do have compassion for > > > desperately > > > > unhappy people. > > > > > > ***** I am unhappy at the injustice I have suffered. You aren't unhappy > > > because you haven't suffered any. Furthermore, injustice doesn't seem > to > > > bother you. Fine. But when it is your turn to suffer injustice, > perhaps > > > you will realize that unhappiness is not some sort of medical syndrome, > as > > > you seem to think here, but a natural and appropriate human reaction to > > > circumstances. > > > > 1. I don't want anyone to suffer injustice. Of course I've > experienced > > injustices. > > (Sorry about the comment about "desperately unhappy people". That was > uncalled > > for). Everyone has suffered perceived or genuine injustice at some time(s) > in > > their life. I think it affects peoples' belief systems. But I believe that > most > > people are actually unhappy. Suffering is all around. So is an amazing > world. I > > don't think unhappiness is a medical syndrome. But, like negative > emotions, I've > > come to understand that it also can become a kind of conditioned response, > a > > feeling of life where the person has to feel "something", so they feel > unhappy. > > I'm not belittling the feeling here, or denying its existence. I just > believe > > that we have more control over our lives than we may realize. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you had checked the link I sent, you would have seen that it > > > refers > > > > directly to lies printed on your site. > > > > > > ****** There are no lies printed on my site. In case you didn't know it, > a > > > lie is a deliberate falsification. I haven't made any deliberate > > > falsifications. The fact that you would accuse me -- without > evidence -- of > > > lying is yet another act of irresponsible disregard for the truth on > your > > > part. To make such an observation -- practically offhandedly -- is yet > > > another act of your disregard for truth and accuracy. Now as to the > URL, I > > > only had to read a little of it to see it was of a quality which could > be > > > quickly dismissed. Here is one of the first paragraphs (my comments > > > immediately follow it): > > > > 1. Sorry if the word lie was used inappropriately. I would say I was > > referring to an untruth. I'll explain below. > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------- > > > And then there are the tasks which betray the sinister secrets inside > the > > > camp: the extermination actions. The most striking facts can be hidden > in a > > > featureless series of numbers. The number of "stokers" are listed on > page 3 > > > of each report. At face value, this would mean the prisoners who fed the > > > huge ovens of the death camp with fuel. In reality, it is a euphemism > for > > > the Sonderkommando, the prisoners who also untangled corpses from the > gas > > > chambers, dragged them to the ovens or pits, and burned them. > > > -------------------------------- > > > > > > (My comments) : Cyanide gas is very dangerous. As you may know from > > > descriptions of executions in America, the execution chamber has to be > > > ventilated for hours before people can safely enter, and this is just > with > > > the execuiton of one or two people. If sonderkommandos untangled > people, > > > they would be dead quickly from the trapped gas in the clothing. Or to > put > > > it plainly, your URL is complete BS. If you want me to post it, I will, > but > > > I will put this comment at my link. > > > > 1. No one suggested that cyanide gas was used. Zylon B was the gas of > > choice. > > $$$$$ Zyklon B was a type of cyanide prepared in disks for slow release. > > Surely, gas masks were usable and disposable. There is lots of British > > footage that has been broadcast which shows: Zylon B gas; the death > chambers and > > delivery (shower) systems; many, many crematoria; > > $$$$$$ There were indeed crematoria: Many people died from typhus, and the > bodies had to be burned. Burning is not killing.
2. I'm not denying that people died from typhus and starvation. (A war crime in itself if it was allowed on that scale). I am saying that the many crematoria operated far too much, burning day and night, to account for such "natural" deaths. The link I sent you explains that. But you only read the first paragraph. The bodies of people shown in the film were just those from the end of the war. The killing machine was very efficient, and lasted for almost three years when it was at its peak. Those last final tens of thousands of bodies would have been incinerated if there had been time to complete the job.
> > > troops taking over the death > > camp and showing nearby townspeople what they were discovering; tens of > tousands > > of naked bodies > > $$$$$$ I have seen the films. The 'naked bodies' were people who starved to > death mostly. Their clothes may have been stolen by the living -- it was > very cold. They looked like others in prison camps such as Andersonville -- > see links on my site.
2. If you've seen the films and weren't revulsed, I'm not surprised. What would the other living virtual skeletons have done with the tattered clothing? It didn't show people wearing extra clothing.Clothes were indeed stolen (when the families were taken prisoner), as well as possessions (down to gold tooth fillings)- by the criminals who used the proceeds from their thefts to help finance the death camps.
> > > (with looks of terror still frozen on many faces of men, women > > and children); > > the bodies being tossed like so many cords of firewood into massive pits. > I've > > seen the footage. I've also spoken with people who lost virtually their > entire > > families in these dozens of death camps, and seen interviews wth others > who > > experienced the same thing. Some three million Polish Jews were reduced to > about > > 300,000 by the end of the war. > > $$$$$ The death books recently gotten from Soviet archives show less than > 70,000 deaths at Auschwitz, not 4 mil (original claim) or 1.1 mil (current > claim). Auschwitz was in Poland, the largest 'death camp'. The death books > refute your claim (below) of deliberate mass murder. So does the fact that > the Germans were desperate for labor. Auschwitz was a huge industrial > facility, not a 'death camp'. All this is discussed on my site, but of > course you haven't bothered to read it. Again, your proufound ignorance > raises its head.
The camp systems did involve labor camps as well. Slave labor helped to run the war machine. You haven't explained the several million missing Jews; the constantly- burning crematoria; or the testimony of hundreds of witnesses. They saw what happened. Putting their stories together gives a more complete picture. How many survivors of the camps have you spoken with?
> They didn't just disappear. The many dead who > > were thrown into pits had missed being cremated because the war was over. > This > > was a war crime, the deliberate murder of millions of civilians. > > > > I can explain why I have no interest in reading "denial" claims. Have > you > > heard of the books which claim that the US never landed on the moon? > > $$$$$$ I have one -- Nasa Mooned America, by Rene, a friend of mine. I am > not going to say he is right; but I will say that I have read his quite > formidable arguments, and i am waiting for them to be refuted. He is no > dummy -- he is a Mensan, in fact.
"Formidable arguments" don't refute facts. Either we went to the moon or we didn't. Arguments about it are irrelevant to the facts. If you believe we didn't go, I'm not surprised. I happen to believe we went.
> > > I heard > > one of the authors on the radio. Just as with the Holocaust, there are > witnesses > > (who were there) and lots of film footage and interviews. > > $$$$$$ According to senior Jewish Holocaust historian Arno Mayer, in his > well-known book Why Did the Heavens Not Darken, "Evidence for the gas > chambers is both rare and unreliable." Right from the horse's mouth.
The "horse's mouth" would be someone who lived through it, not just a historian. And, like you said, even someone who was there may not have been aware of what was happening. So I'll believe the hundreds of witnesses' testimony over one person who may have been there or over a historian's opinion.
> > > In both cases, I'm > > convinced by what I've seen and heard that what happened, happened. I > don't have > > the inclination or the time to read a book which claims that we didn't go > to the > > moon, nor do I have the interest or time to read that the Holocaust > didn't > > result in the murder of millions of Jews. > > > > > The fact that you are putting > > > > "conditions" on posting links doesn't surprise me. > > > > > > ***** If you have arguments with my conditions, state them. Don't imply > > > they are unreasonable without saying why. > > > > 1. I was referring here to the fact that you had said you'd post > links, and > > later said that you would need to post a reason, the person's name and > email > > address, and your own acerbic comments. > > $$$$$$ I will not place a link I do not endorse without a comment. That > would be stupid, because it would confuse people into thinking it was my > own. Is that a sufficient explanation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trying to reason with an unreasonable person is like trying to > teach > > > a pig > > > > to sing. Very annoying for the pig, and unsatisfying for the teacher. > : ) > > > > > ******* You want an ad hominem attack? Then check yours. It might be > > > justified if you pointed out a flaw in my reasoning, but you did not. > In > > > fact, you have not ONCE pointed out any flaw in my reasoning. > > > > 1. Sorry about that. It was an attempt at humor that failed. : ) I > think > > that people generally consider anyone who agrees with them to be > reasonable, and > > anyone who disagrees, to be unreasonable. By those definitions, either of > us > > could be the pig or the teacher (if we were trying to convince the other > of > > something). > > > > > > > > > > > Your > > > > ignorance about the Federal Reserve Bank in particular and central > banks > > > in > > > > general is not surprising. > > > > > > ****** In my previous letter I pointed out numerous things which YOU did > not > > > seem to have any awareness of. Now, of course, you come back with the > > > completely unsupported observation about 'my ignorance of the FED'. > Which > > > is not to say I know everything, or even a great deal about what you > happen > > > to consider important, but then I consider what you think important to > be > > > largely irrelevant, such as the relation of M1,2,3 (below) > > > > 1. Those things which I have studied about the Fed (the mechanisms by > which > > it operates and affects our economy) I do consider important. I think if > you > > speak of the Fed, it would be good to know how they control monetary > policy and > > their actual relationship with the banking system. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you really understand how they operate, the > > > > relations between currencies > > > > > > > > ***** I understand them enuf to have traded them successfully. Will > that > > > suffice? > > > > 1. If you've traded currencies successfully, you're a rare individual > > trader. > > > > > > > > , why the gold standard is an anachronism in a world > > > > of monetary supply that is so many computer bytes, > > > > > > ***** There is nothing 'anachronistic' about the gold standard. It is > > > recognized as important because it is a way of keeping governments from > > > robbing the people of their savings by inflating the currency. > Currently, > > > the government robs our assets at 2-3% per year. With a gold standard > that > > > couldn't happen. Which is not to say that the gold standard is without > > > problems, but it is a big step in the right direction. The very fact > that > > > you call it an anachronism is ample demonstration of your ignorance of > what > > > the debate on the matter is all about. > > > > 1. What is "anachronistic" about the gold standard is that it is > basically > > a relic of past economies. But the problem with using it today is that the > > economy would grow about as quickly as gold could be dug out of mines and > the > > ground. > > $$$$$$ You don't have to actually use goid coins in order to have a gold > standard. You can still have 'bytes and bits', but reckoned in gold units. > The amount of actual gold is irrelevant: Prices merely expand or contract > with the contraction or expansion of the gold supply.
I didn't say a gold standard requires the use of gold coins. It was used to back the value of paper currency when it was used as a standard. But you make my point. If prices expand with the expansion of the gold supply, and the economy doesn't expand, that's inflation. If they contract and the economy doesn't contract, that's deflation. When I said that economic expansion (with a true government-controlled gold standard, which is what you're suggesting we again have) would depend on the amount of gold that could be extracted in order to back a growing money supply, that is what I meant. Do you really want economic expansion to be dependent on expansion of the gold supply?
> > > Inflation is a necessary evil of a modern capitalist economy. If > > monetary policy is directed towards maintaning the integrity of the > currency (as > > it has been for the last 20 years), > > $$$$$ Where were you during the Carter inflation, when inflation was in the > 20% range. That's maintaining the integrity of the currency???? Give me a > break!
2. Uhhh....I said during the past 20 years. During that time, inflation has peaked a couple of times at about 4%. After Carter appointed Volcker, the FOMC changed their policy to fighting inflation. After Volcker raised rates (to 20%, briefly), it was all over for Carter. But it was over for inflation, too. It's hasn't been high for 20 years.
> > > then inflation can be kept to the 2-3% > > level, as you observe. If the government "robs" people by inflating the > > currency, where does that go? > > $$$$$$ Inflation allows debtors to pay off with cheaper dollars. The govt > is the biggest debtor of all. And it allows 'tax bracket creep', so that > real taxation gets higher. Robbery it is.
2. That means it allows home-owners (some 67% of people own their own home in this country) to pay off with cheaper dollars, as well. That debt is actually about equal to govt. debt.
> > > When goverenments used to punch holes in gold > > coins, they really were inflating the money (i.e. deflating its value). > Now we > > live in a time of rapid flux. If the Fed (and other central banks) do > their jobs > > right, > > $$$$$ The 'job' the central banks do is to enrich their owners -- the > Rothschilds, among others.
2. By that definition, the "job" that any enterprise does is to enrich its owners. Businesses exist to provide goods and services, the central bank exists to provide liquidity to the economy.
> > > then we can avoid turning a recession into a depression. They weren't as > > smart in 1930, shrinking the money supply when they should have been > expanding > > it (while we were still on a de facto gold standard) and putting up > barriers to > > trade (like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff). > > > > > > > > > > > the relations between M1, M2 > > > > and M3 money supplies? Of course there is a need for central banks > now. > > > > > > ***** I am not saying that central banks do not sometimes perform useful > > > functions (such as in international trade). But the question of whether > > > their utility offsets their negative qualities is a different matter. > In > > > the case of the FED, it is a cash cow for its owners, the Rothschilds, > and a > > > parasite on America. No room to discuss details here, but see my site. > > > > 1. I won't repeat myself here. Whatever the central bank evolves into > will > > be because markets have evolved, and changes are necessary. > > $$$$$ The central bank has evolved into a monster, because its purpose is to > enrich its owners. It may 'change' but its purpose will not change.
2. You haven't shown the Fed to be a "monster", nor do you apparently know much about how it actually operates (which you admit). Its purpose was and is to provide for capital and direct the creation of the money supply.
> > > As I've said, the > > Fed is not owned by the Rothschilds, it is owned by many people. > > ***** Read my site. Stop making such ignorant comments. If you think the > documentation is wrong, you are free to dispute it. But your bald and > unsupported statement will not cut it. > > As the central > > bank, it's different than other banks, to be sure (which are mostly > publicly > > owned and subject to lots of oversight). Maybe there should be oversight > of the > > Fed. A cash cow and a parasite? How exactly does the Fed make profits? > > $$$$$ Among other things, the FED makes profits by printing money in > exchange for govt bonds, plus a percent. But, I would guess, the really > big money is made by manipulation of the markets and interest rates.
Markets are just too big to be manipulated these days. (Remember the Hunt brothers in 1980, trying to manipulate the silver market? It couldn't be done, and they lost out big-time). The fact that you "would guess" doesn't surprise me. And they don't print money in exchange for govt. bonds. Their daily actions in the bond market are to regulate the money supply, to keep the fed funds rate at a certain level. (Right now, that level is 4.5%, the number determined by the FOMC to keep inflation relatively low while getting the economy back on track. It's a balancing act to do that).
> > > They > > don't specifically lend funds, they create capital and credit and make it > > available by buying or selling securities in the marketplace, thereby > > incrementally increasing or decreasing the money supply and keeping the > fed > > funds rate within a trading range (which affects short-term rates). > > > > > There > > > > really has been since the industrial revolution (though the Fed wasn't > > > created > > > > until 1913). > > > > > > > > You seem to have about as much of a sense of humor as many > liberals. > > > (I > > > > know, this is deadly serious stuff, these Jews controlling the world). > : ) > > > > > > ***** Ah, what a devastating argument against me -- that I don't have a > > > sense of humor! Well, does that mean that my book Barryations: John > Bryant > > > Kicks Butt On Dave Barry's Turf does not exist? Does that mean that the > > > Humor section on my site is empty? As to Jews, I never said they > > > 'controlled the world'. But they do have significant power, and that > power > > > is being used, by and large, to undercut Western civilization. See my > site > > > for specifics. > > > > 1. You seemed to have no sense of humor, and to be obsessed about > what you > > call the "Jewish Question". Glad that you do have a sense of humor. I > would > > disagree that the "Jews" are undercutting Western civilization. > > $$$$$$ It is one thing to 'disagree'; another entirely to confront my > EXTENSIVE ARGUMENTS AND DOCUMENTATION on my site. Try the latter for a > change.
2. Again, you can name Jewish individuals who you are claiming are undercutting western civilization. I may agree or disagree with you on particular people. But to go from that to saying "the Jews" are doing this is absurd. Even if you named a thousand names (currently) the number would be infinitesimally small compared to the whole population. So your blaming an entire group of people for the actions of far less than one percent of its number is pointless. And your "arguments" are just that. I already explained why I don't have a need to argue.
> > > Some individuals > > may be doing just that (just as gentiles are doing the same thing), but > the fact > > that you would say "they" are doing it (thereby virtually libeling an > entire > > group) is what I would take issue with. > > > > > > > > > > > > Because you say you don't believe that we can know facts, then I have > no > > > reason > > > > to believe anything you say. > > > > > > ***** What does the inability to know facts have to do with your ability > to > > > believe? There might be reasons for not believing what I say, but the > > > inability to know facts (as opposed to having mere opinions of what the > > > facts are) cannot possibly be one of them. > > > > 1. I'll re-phrase that. The fact that you say we can't know facts > means > > that you believe all knowledge is a matter of opinion. I would disagree. > It's > > difficult to believe someone who doesn't believe his facts are more than > simply > > opinions. > > $$$$$ So you tell me how to differentiate between a fact and an opinion. If > you say x is a fact, I say that 'x is a fact' is your opinion. You may > believe x, but someone else may disbelieve x, so how do you decide which is > 'the fact'? Answer: YOU CAN'T.
2. Like I said, the fact of whether we went to the moon or not exists regardless of anyone's opinion. We either went or we did not. That's why arguing over these things is pointless. Is it a fact that I am typing an email now, or an opinion?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Because I believe that we can know facts, I'll base > > > > my beliefs on the best evidence. > > > > > > ****** Exactly -- you BELIEVE that you know facts. That means you have > only > > > OPINIONS, NOT FACTS. > > > > 1. I don't want to play word games here. I believe we can know facts. > For > > instance, it's a fact that in this world, everything changes. It's also a > fact > > that in this world, everything living, dies. Those are irrefutable. > > $$$$$ I don't believe that everything changes. 2+2=4 doesn't change. But > that is my OPINION, not a fact.
2. Laws of mathematics and physics don't usually get repealed, but what humans believe about the world around them does change.
Stan
-------
Stan: I apologize for getting your name wrong. I can't explain it. My responses to your paragraphs designated 2 are designated 22222 It is possible I have omitted answering something of yours, but that is only because I missed it in all the higgeldy-piggeldy type.
----- Original Message ----- From: <morninglory> To: "Birdman" <john@thebirdman.org> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 3:47 PM Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech
> Hello John (My name isn't Mark, BTW), > > My responses to your $$$$$ are designated by a 2. > > Birdman wrote: > > > Mark: My responses are designated by $$$$$ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <morninglory> > > To: "Birdman" <john@thebirdman.org> > > Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 5:00 AM > > Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > My reponses are denoted by a 1. > > > > > > Birdman wrote: > > > > > > > My replies are set off with asterisks and interleaved: > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: <morninglory> > > > > To: "Birdman" <john@thebirdman.org> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 11:47 PM > > > > Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech > > > > > > > > > Hello Again John, > > > > > > > > > > Since your ad hominem comments below don't merit refutal, I'll be > > a > > > > little > > > > > more general here. > > > > > > > > ****** All of my remarks were addressed directly to your points. None > > were > > > > ad hominem, tho admittedly I did allow my disgust for yor ignorance to > > show > > > > thru. But your ignorance is a very obvious fact. You presume to > > 'debate' > > > > about something which you, in general, know very little about. And of > > > > course your labeling my responses as 'ad hominem' conveniently releases > > you > > > > from the necessity of dealing with my cogent points (cogent, enuf, at > > least > > > > for you to fear to try to answer them). > > > > > > 1. The comments I was referring to were comments about my > > > "ignorance". As I made similar comments, I would suggest that we refrain > > from > > > using the term when referring to either each other or to statements either > > of us > > > may make. It would make for a more civil discourse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, your anger is like a poison that you drink, thinking it > > > > > will harm your perceived "enemies" (i.e. those who disagree with > > you.). > > > > > > > > ******* Anger is not a voluntary act, like scratching. It is a > > reaction. > > > > If you have generated that reaction in me, you might wish to ask why. > > That > > > > you should think of anger as a voluntary act is just testament to your > > > > confused thinking. > > > > > > 1. I believe that anger is a learned response. > > > > $$$$$ Getting red in the face is LEARNED??? Fast heartbeat????? Oh come > > on. But you can learn to SUPPRESS anger. > > 2. I was clear below about suppression of anger. Because a person has only > learned to "control" it by suppression doesn't change the fact that it is > conditioned
22222 Anger may be conditioned just as it may be suppressed. But you said it was a learned response. It clearly is not.
and can be unconditioned and lessened if not eliminated. Just > because you haven't learned that doesn't mean others haven't learned it. > > > > > > > People usually get angry > > > when they feel they've been hurt or threatened. Also, I believe that we > > may > > > condition our selves to anger as a kind of adrenaline "rush", a way of > > getting a > > > kind of false feeling from life. It only exists in the mind. Two people > > can > > > react to the same situation. One may feel no anger or only slight anger- > > the > > > other may become enraged. It depends on how (much) one feels from whatever > > > triggered the anger. Humans can reflect on their emotions, and learn to > > respond > > > differently. I would agree that a dog involuntarily scratches an itch just > > as it > > > involuntarily snarls when it perceives a threat. But I would also say that > > > humans can learn to control anger. I don't mean suppress, I mean learn to > > > understand that the ego that it comes from is a construct and no more real > > than > > > the false feelings it can produce. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure > > > > > glad I don't live in your head. : ) But I do have compassion for > > > > desperately > > > > > unhappy people. > > > > > > > > ***** I am unhappy at the injustice I have suffered. You aren't unhappy > > > > because you haven't suffered any. Furthermore, injustice doesn't seem > > to > > > > bother you. Fine. But when it is your turn to suffer injustice, > > perhaps > > > > you will realize that unhappiness is not some sort of medical syndrome, > > as > > > > you seem to think here, but a natural and appropriate human reaction to > > > > circumstances. > > > > > > 1. I don't want anyone to suffer injustice. Of course I've > > experienced > > > injustices. > > > (Sorry about the comment about "desperately unhappy people". That was > > uncalled > > > for). Everyone has suffered perceived or genuine injustice at some time(s) > > in > > > their life. I think it affects peoples' belief systems. But I believe that > > most > > > people are actually unhappy. Suffering is all around. So is an amazing > > world. I > > > don't think unhappiness is a medical syndrome. But, like negative > > emotions, I've > > > come to understand that it also can become a kind of conditioned response, > > a > > > feeling of life where the person has to feel "something", so they feel > > unhappy. > > > I'm not belittling the feeling here, or denying its existence. I just > > believe > > > that we have more control over our lives than we may realize. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you had checked the link I sent, you would have seen that it > > > > refers > > > > > directly to lies printed on your site. > > > > > > > > ****** There are no lies printed on my site. In case you didn't know it, > > a > > > > lie is a deliberate falsification. I haven't made any deliberate > > > > falsifications. The fact that you would accuse me -- without > > evidence -- of > > > > lying is yet another act of irresponsible disregard for the truth on > > your > > > > part. To make such an observation -- practically offhandedly -- is yet > > > > another act of your disregard for truth and accuracy. Now as to the > > URL, I > > > > only had to read a little of it to see it was of a quality which could > > be > > > > quickly dismissed. Here is one of the first paragraphs (my comments > > > > immediately follow it): > > > > > > 1. Sorry if the word lie was used inappropriately. I would say I was > > > referring to an untruth. I'll explain below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > And then there are the tasks which betray the sinister secrets inside > > the > > > > camp: the extermination actions. The most striking facts can be hidden > > in a > > > > featureless series of numbers. The number of "stokers" are listed on > > page 3 > > > > of each report. At face value, this would mean the prisoners who fed the > > > > huge ovens of the death camp with fuel. In reality, it is a euphemism > > for > > > > the Sonderkommando, the prisoners who also untangled corpses from the > > gas > > > > chambers, dragged them to the ovens or pits, and burned them. > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > > > > > (My comments) : Cyanide gas is very dangerous. As you may know from > > > > descriptions of executions in America, the execution chamber has to be > > > > ventillated for hours before people can safely enter, and this is just > > with > > > > the execuiton of one or two people. If sonderkommandos untangled > > people, > > > > they would be dead quickly from the trapped gas in the clothing. Or to > > put > > > > it plainly, your URL is complete BS. If you want me to post it, I will, > > but > > > > I will put this comment at my link. > > > > > > 1. No one suggested that cyanide gas was used. Zylon B was the gas of > > > choice. > > > > $$$$$ Zyklon B was a type of cyannide prepared in disks for slow release. > > > > Surely, gas masks were usable and disposable. There is lots of British > > > footage that has been broadcast which shows: Zylon B gas; the death > > chambers and > > > delivery (shower) systems; many, many crematoria; > > > > $$$$$$ There were indeed crematoria: Many people died from typhus, and the > > bodies had to be burned. Burning is not killing. > > 2. I'm not denying that people died from typhus and starvation. (A war > crime in itself if it was allowed on that scale)
222222 The Germans did everything they could to prevent deaths. There is a famous memo about this to the commandant of (I believe) Auschwitz. But failing to prevent is not a war crime or anything else. Crimes must be voluntary acts, not products of circumstances beyond one's control.
. I am saying that the many > crematoria operated far too much, burning day and night, to account for such > "natural" deaths. The link I sent you explains that.
22222222 The link you sent explains only that the people who wrote the essay don't know what they are talking about. The absurd error I pointed out means the essay is untrustworthy. Hence we can trust nothing that they say about crematoria or anything else -- except themselves, indirectly.
But you only read the first > paragraph. The bodies of people shown in the film were just those from the end > of the war. The killing machine was very efficient, and lasted for almost three > years when it was at its peak. Those last final tens of thousands of bodies > would have been incinerated if there had been time to complete the job.
22222 Again, the Germans were desperate for labor. Killing potential workers was contrary to their interests. > > > > > > > troops taking over the death > > > camp and showing nearby townspeople what they were discovering; tens of > > tousands > > > of naked bodies > > > > $$$$$$ I have seen the films. The 'naked bodies' were people who starved to > > death mostly. Their clothes may have been stolen by the living -- it was > > very cold. They looked like others in prison camps such as Andersonville -- > > see links on my site. > > 2. If you've seen the films and weren't revulsed, I'm not surprised.
2222222 I didn't say I wasn't sorry for these folks. But what if I weren't -- it is irrelevant, and saying you are not surprised is an insult. Apology, please.
What > would the other living virtual skeletons have done with the tattered clothing?
222222 Good heavens! Not everybody died at once. So some were alive and cold, and probably took the clothing of the dead. Is that so difficult to understand?
> It didn't show people wearing extra clothing.
22222 This is a bunch of irrelevancy - there could be any number of things that happened to the clothing: It could have been taken by the Germans to ship elsewhere - I was just proposing an explanation of why the corpses were nude, but many other explanations are possible.
Clothes were indeed stolen (when > the families were taken prisoner), as well as possessions (down to gold tooth > fillings)- by the criminals who used the proceeds from their thefts to help > finance the death camps.
22222 Again, Auschwitz was an industrial center - very large - not a 'death camp' - the Germans were frantic for more laborers - so killing people would have been contrary to their interests. Are you incapable of seeing this?
> > > > > > > (with looks of terror still frozen on many faces of men, women > > > and children); > > > the bodies being tossed like so many cords of firewood into massive pits. > > I've > > > seen the footage. I've also spoken with people who lost virtually their > > entire > > > families in these dozens of death camps, and seen interviews wth others > > who > > > experienced the same thing. Some three million Polish Jews were reduced to > > about > > > 300,000 by the end of the war. > > > > $$$$$ The death books recently gotten from Soviet archives show less than > > 70,000 deaths at Auschwitz, not 4 mil (original claim) or 1.1 mil (current > > claim). Auschwitz was in Poland, the largest 'death camp'. The death books > > refute your claim (below) of deliberate mass murder. So does the fact that > > the Germans were desperate for labor. Auschwitz was a huge industrial > > facility, not a 'death camp'. All this is discussed on my site, but of > > course you haven't bothered to read it. Again, your proufound ignorance > > raises it's head. > > The camp systems did involve labor camps as well. Slave labor helped to run > the war machine. You haven't explained the several million missing Jews; the > constantly- > burning crematoria; or the testimony of hundreds of witnesses. They saw what > happened. Putting their stories together gives a more complete picture. How many > survivors of the camps have you spoken with? > > > They didn't just disappear. The many dead who > > > were thrown into pits had missed being cremated because the war was over. > > This > > > was a war crime, the deliberate murder of millions of civilians. > > > > > > I can explain why I have no interest in reading "denial" claims. Have > > you > > > heard of the books which claim that the US never landed on the moon? > > > > $$$$$$ I have one -- Nasa Mooned America, by Rene, a friend of mine. I am > > not going to say he is right; but I will say that I have read his quite > > formidable arguments, and i am waiting for them to be refuted. He is no > > dummy -- he is a Mensan, in fact. > > "Formidable arguments" don't refute facts. Either we went to the moon or we > didn't. Arguments about it are irrelevant to the facts. If you believe we didn't > go, I'm not surprised. I happen to believe we went. > > > > > > > I heard > > > one of the authors on the radio. Just as with the Holocaust, there are > > witnesses > > > (who were there) and lots of film footage and interviews. > > > > $$$$$$ According to senior Jewish Holocaust historian Arno Mayer, in his > > well-known book Why Did the Heavens Not Darken, "Evidence for the gas > > chambers is both rare and unreliable." Right from the horse's mouth. > > The "horse's mouth" would be someone who lived through it, not just a > historian. And, like you said, even someone who was there may not have been > aware of what was happening. So I'll believe the hundreds of witnesses' > testimony over one person who may have been there or over a historian's opinion. > > > > > > > In both cases, I'm > > > convinced by what I've seen and heard that what happened, happened. I > > don't have > > > the inclination or the time to read a book which claims that we didn't go > > to the > > > moon, nor do I have the interest or time to read that the Holocaust > > didn't > > > result in the murder of millions of Jews. > > > > > > > The fact that you are putting > > > > > "conditions" on posting links doesn't surprise me. > > > > > > > > ***** If you have arguments with my conditions, state them. Don't imply > > > > they are unreasonable without saying why. > > > > > > 1. I was referring here to the fact that you had said you'd post > > links, and > > > later said that you would need to post a reason, the person's name and > > email > > > address, and your own ascerbic comments. > > > > $$$$$$ I will not place a link I do not endorse without a comment. That > > would be stupid, because it would confuse people into thinking it was my > > own. Is that a sufficient explanation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trying to reason with an unreasonable person is like trying to > > teach > > > > a pig > > > > > to sing. Very annoying for the pig, and unsatisfying for the teacher. > > : ) > > > > > > > ******* You want an ad hominem attack? Then check yours. It might be > > > > justified if you pointed out a flaw in my reasoning, but you did not. > > In > > > > fact, you have not ONCE pointed out any flaw in my reasoning. > > > > > > 1. Sorry about that. It was an attempt at humor that failed. : ) I > > think > > > that people generally consider anyone who agrees with them to be > > reasonable, and > > > anyone who disagrees, to be unreasonable. By those definitions, either of > > us > > > could be the pig or the teacher (if we were trying to convince the other > > of > > > something). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your > > > > > ignorance about the Federal Reserve Bank in particular and central > > banks > > > > in > > > > > general is not surprising. > > > > > > > > ****** In my previous letter I pointed out numerous things which YOU did > > not > > > > seem to have any awareness of. Now, of course, you come back with the > > > > completely unsupported observation about 'my ignorance of the FED'. > > Which > > > > is not to say I know everything, or even a great deal about what you > > happen > > > > to consider important, but then I consider what you think important to > > be > > > > largely irrelevant, such as the relation of M1,2,3 (below) > > > > > > 1. Those things which I have studied about the Fed (the mechanisms by > > which > > > it operates and affects our economy) I do consider important. I think if > > you > > > speak of the Fed, it would be good to know how they control monetary > > policy and > > > their actual relationship with the banking system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you really understand how they operate, the > > > > > relations between currencies > > > > > > > > > > > ***** I understand them enuf to have traded them successfully. Will > > that > > > > suffice? > > > > > > 1. If you've traded currencies successfully, you're a rare individual > > > trader. > > > > > > > > > > > , why the gold standard is an anachronism in a world > > > > > of monetary supply that is so many computer bytes, > > > > > > > > ***** There is nothing 'anachronistic' about the gold standard. It is > > > > recognized as important because it is a way of keeping governments from > > > > robbing the people of their savings by inflating the currency. > > Currently, > > > > the government robs our assets at 2-3% per year. With a gold standard > > that > > > > couldn't happen. Which is not to say that the gold standard is without > > > > problems, but it is a big step in the right direction. The very fact > > that > > > > you call it an anachronism is ample demonstration of your ignorance of > > what > > > > the debate on the matter is all about. > > > > > > 1. What is "anachronistic" about the gold standard is that it is > > basically > > > a relic of past economies. But the problem with using it today is that the > > > economy would grow about as quickly as gold could be dug out of mines and > > the > > > ground. > > > > $$$$$$ You don't have to actually use gold coins in order to have a gold > > standard. You can still have 'bytes and bits', but reckoned in gold units. > > The amount of actual gold is irrelevant: Prices merely expand or contract > > with the contraction or expansion of the gold supply. > > I didn't say a gold standard requires the use of gold coins. It was used to > back the value of paper currency when it was used as a standard. But you make my > point. If prices expand with the expansion of the gold supply, and the economy > doesn't expand, that's inflation. If they contract and the economy doesn't > contract, that's deflation. When I said that economic expansion (with a true > government-controlled gold standard, which is what you're suggesting we again > have) would depend on the amount of gold that could be extracted in order to > back a growing money supply, that is what I meant. Do you really want economic > expansion to be dependent on expansion of the gold supply? > > > > > > > Inflation is a necessary evil of a modern capitalist economy. If > > > monetary policy is directed towards maintaning the integrity of the > > currency (as > > > it has been for the last 20 years), > > > > $$$$$ Where were you during the Carter inflation, when inflation was in the > > 20% range. That's maintaining the integrity of the currency???? Give me a > > break! > > 2. Uhhh....I said during the past 20 years. During that time, inflation has > peaked a couple of times at about 4%. After Carter appointed Volcker, the FOMC > changed their policy to fighting inflation. After Volcker raised rates (to 20%, > briefly), it was all over for Carter. But it was over for inflation, too. It's > hasn't been high for 20 years.
222222 The FED has been around since 1913. It deliberately caused depressions in 1919 and 1929. Who knows what other things it has done. But one thing is clear -- we don't 'need' it. And inflation is deliberate, so it is robbery, no matter whether it is 1%, 4% or 20%. If inflation occurs accidentally, the money supply should be cut to restore the value of the currency.
> > > > > > > then inflation can be kept to the 2-3% > > > level, as you observe. If the government "robs" people by inflating the > > > currency, where does that go? > > > > $$$$$$ Inflation allows debtors to pay off with cheaper dollars. The govt > > is the biggest debtor of all. And it allows 'tax bracket creep', so that > > real taxation gets higher. Robbery it is. > > 2. That means it allows home-owners (some 67% of people own their own home > in this country) to pay off with cheaper dollars, as well. That debt is actually > about equal to govt. debt.
222222 The REAL government debt, including 'off-budget' items, is huge, and far larger than the 'official' debt. It totals perhaps as much as 15 TRILLION. I don't have figures at hand, but with a bit of digging (which I don't have time for) I could find them. But I suggest you search the web to get a perspective on the problem.
> > > > > > > When goverenments used to punch holes in gold > > > coins, they really were inflating the money (i.e. deflating its value). > > Now we > > > live in a time of rapid flux. If the Fed (and other central banks) do > > their jobs > > > right, > > > > $$$$$ The 'job' the central banks do is to enrich their owners -- the > > Rothschilds, among others. > > 2. By that definition, the "job" that any enterprise does is to enrich its > owners. Businesses exist to provide goods and services, the central bank exists > to provide liquidity to the economy.
22222 The 'theory' of the central bank is that it is to 'serve the country', not be a profit-making institution. So when owners who are SET UP AS SERVANTS OF THE COUNTRY use their power to make profits, this is a violation of trust. The point is that the FED is a profit-making institution but disguised as something else. That makes it a SCAM.
> > > > > > > then we can avoid turning a recession into a depression. They weren't as > > > smart in 1930, shrinking the money supply when they should have been > > expanding > > > it (while we were still on a de facto gold standard) and putting up > > barriers to > > > trade (like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the relations between M1, M2 > > > > > and M3 money supplies? Of course there is a need for central banks > > now. > > > > > > > > ***** I am not saying that central banks do not sometimes perform useful > > > > functions (such as in international trade). But the question of whether > > > > their utility offsets their negative qualities is a different matter. > > In > > > > the case of the FED, it is a cash cow for its owners, the Rothschilds, > > and a > > > > parasite on America. No room to discuss details here, but see my site. > > > > > > 1. I won't repeat myself here. Whatever the central bank evolves into > > will > > > be because markets have evolved, and changes are necessary. > > > > $$$$$ The central bank has evolved into a monster, because its purpose is to > > enrich its owners. It may 'change' but its purpose will not change. > > 2. You haven't shown the Fed to be a "monster", nor do you apparently know > much about how it actually operates (which you admit). Its purpose was and is to > provide for capital and direct the creation of the money supply. >
222222 The FED is a monster because it has behaved like a private profit making institution when it was established as a public trust. It has manipulated the economy for the profit of its owners and against the interest of Americans. It has caused at least 2 depressions (1919 and 1929), and it is responsible for the degredation in purchasing power of the currency to the value of only a few cents of its pre-1913 value. If that isn't a monster, then there ain't no such animal.
> > > > > > As I've said, the > > > Fed is not owned by the Rothschilds, it is owned by many people. > > > > ***** Read my site. Stop making such ignorant comments. If you think the > > documentation is wrong, you are free to dispute it. But your bald and > > unsupported statement will not cut it. > > > > As the central > > > bank, it's different than other banks, to be sure (which are mostly > > publicly > > > owned and subject to lots of oversight). Maybe there should be oversight > > of the > > > Fed. A cash cow and a parasite? How exactly does the Fed make profits? > > > > $$$$$ Among other things, the FED makes profits by printing money in > > exchange for govt bonds, plus a percent. But, I would guess, the really > > big money is made by manipulation of the markets and interest rates. > > Markets are just too big to be manipulated these days. (Remember the Hunt > brothers in 1980, trying to manipulate the silver market? It couldn't be done, > and they lost out big-time). The fact that you "would guess" doesn't surprise > me. And they don't print money in exchange for govt. bonds. Their daily actions > in the bond market are to regulate the money supply, to keep the fed funds rate > at a certain level. > (Right now, that level is 4.5%, the number determined by the FOMC to keep > inflation relatively low while getting the economy back on track. It's a > balancing act to do that). > > > > > > > They > > > don't specifically lend funds, they create capital and credit and make it > > > available by buying or selling securities in the marketplace, thereby > > > incrementally increasing or decreasing the money supply and keeping the > > fed > > > funds rate within a trading range (which affects short-term rates). > > > > > > > There > > > > > really has been since the industrial revolution (though the Fed wasn't > > > > created > > > > > until 1913). > > > > > > > > > > You seem to have about as much of a sense of humor as many > > liberals. > > > > (I > > > > > know, this is deadly serious stuff, these Jews controlling the world). > > : ) > > > > > > > > ***** Ah, what a devastating argument against me -- that I don't have a > > > > sense of humor! Well, does that mean that my book Barryations: John > > Bryant > > > > Kicks Butt On Dave Barry's Turf does not exist? Does that mean that the > > > > Humor section on my site is empty? As to Jews, I never said they > > > > 'controlled the world'. But they do have significant power, and that > > power > > > > is being used, by and large, to undercut Western civilization. See my > > site > > > > for specifics. > > > > > > 1. You seemed to have no sense of humor, and to be obsessed about > > what you > > > call the "Jewish Question". Glad that you do have a sense of humor. I > > would > > > disagree that the "Jews" are undercutting Western civilization. > > > > $$$$$$ It is one thing to 'disagree'; another entirely to confront my > > EXTENSIVE ARGUMENTS AND DOCUMENTATION on my site. Try the latter for a > > change. > > 2. Again, you can name Jewish individuals who you are claiming are > undercutting western civilization. I may agree or disagree with you on > particular people. But to go from that to saying "the Jews" are doing this is > absurd. Even if you named a thousand names (currently) the number would be > infinitesimally small compared to the whole population. So your blaming an > entire group of people for the actions of far less than one percent of its > number is pointless. And your "arguments" are just that. I already explained why > I don't have a need to argue.
2222222 I never blamed 'the Jews', tho I may sometimes seem to, unintentionally. HOWEVER, the fact that the Jewish community has been the locus of so many extremely serious assaults on Western civilization, raises the question of whether or not the West can afford to keep the Jews as part of its population, in spite of the fact that many, and probably most, are innocent of crimes against Western culture. That is, while only a small number of individuals are responsible for assaults on the West, would getting rid of this small number stop the assault, or would other Jews step in to take their place? It is a very serious question. I am not sure of the answer, but the ADL -- one of the worst organizations -- has been around since 1913, and is not going to go under when Abe Foxman retires. Examples could be multiplied indefinitely.
> > > > > > > Some individuals > > > may be doing just that (just as gentiles are doing the same thing), but > > the fact > > > that you would say "they" are doing it (thereby virtually libeling an > > entire > > > group) is what I would take issue with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because you say you don't believe that we can know facts, then I have > > no > > > > reason > > > > > to believe anything you say. > > > > > > > > ***** What does the inability to know facts have to do with your ability > > to > > > > believe? There might be reasons for not believing what I say, but the > > > > inability to know facts (as opposed to having mere opinions of what the > > > > facts are) cannot possibly be one of them. > > > > > > 1. I'll re-phrase that. The fact that you say we can't know facts > > means > > > that you believe all knowledge is a matter of opinion. I would disagree. > > It's > > > difficult to believe someone who doesn't believe his facts are more than > > simply > > > opinions. > > > > $$$$$ So you tell me how to differentiate between a fact and an opinion. If > > you say x is a fact, I say that 'x is a fact' is your opinion. You may > > believe x, but someone else may disbelieve x, so how do you decide which is > > 'the fact'? Answer: YOU CAN'T. > > 2. Like I said, the fact of whether we went to the moon or not exists > regardless of anyone's opinion. We either went or we did not. That's why arguing > over these things is pointless. Is it a fact that I am typing an email now, or > an opinion?
222222 The question I raise about truth vs opinion is serous and has important practical implications. Read the introductory material on my site for more information. I discuss this matter at some length. I am not goingto repeat myself here. The 'fact' that you are typing may be a 'fact' in some unknowable way, but as far as we are able to grasp it as fallible human beings, it is an opinion. Truth is just a theory about opinions: We call things true or facts because men's opinions approach one another on many subjects. As I say, truth is the asymptote of opinion. But it is still a theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because I believe that we can know facts, I'll base > > > > > my beliefs on the best evidence. > > > > > > > > ****** Exactly -- you BELIEVE that you know facts. That means you have > > only > > > > OPINIONS, NOT FACTS. > > > > > > 1. I don't want to play word games here. I believe we can know facts. > > For > > > instance, it's a fact that in this world, everything changes. It's also a > > fact > > > that in this world, everything living, dies. Those are irrefutable. > > > > $$$$$ I don't believe that everything changes. 2+2=4 doesn't change. But > > that is my OPINION, not a fact. > > 2. Laws of mathematics and physics don't usually get repealed, but what > humans believe about the world around them does change. > > Stan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's all I have to write. No need for a response. : ) > > > > > > > > ****** Right -- no need for a response from me to further disabuse you > > of > > > > your belief that your are right. Ignorance is bliss, is it not? > > > > > > 1. Actually, I think that ignorance can be bliss. But it's not the > > kind of > > > bliss I'm interested in. That bliss would be a result of understanding > > that > > > people have beliefs; that arguing about beliefs is pointless and kind of > > silly; > > > that emotions can be destructive; that when we see through our own bs, we > > can > > > see through others'. I hope I've addressed your points here in a clear > > way, > > > though I don't hope to or need to change your mind. > > > > > > Stan
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *