In responding to the special section of letters denouncing my
brief essay on the Jewish
Question in "The 2% Solution" in the Jan/Feb Mensa
Bulletin, let me make the
following points:
* Perhaps I should feel complimented that Marie Mayer, AML
Communications
Officer, took the trouble to sound off against me by introducing
the special section of
letters intended to assassinate my character. In that
introduction she remarked, 'Thank
you, Mensans, for responding. It's good to know that people who
think will also stand
up for what they believe.' Now this is the veriest nonsense --
while Marie is saying it is
'good' -- and by implication, courageous -- for people to stand
up for what they
believe, the reality is that it takes no courage, no character,
and indeed no thought at all
to support a conventional belief (here, political correctness).
In contrast, it takes an
abundance of courage and character for one person (here, myself)
to stand up for an
unpopular opinion and defend himself against all the conventional
(and generally
thoughtless) denunciations. But then Marie didn't think about
that, did she?
* The selection of letters makes a pretty good argument for the
point made in my essay
that the Jewish Question simply can't be discussed (the letters
did not involve any real
discussion, but only denunciation), and in fact fulfilled my
prediction that any attempt at
such discussion would be immediately shouted down with the usual
epithets
('antisemitic', 'hate', etc). (Re the latter, you'd think that
Jews would be ashamed to be
so predictable, but I guess that if the horrors of communism and
the failures of
liberalism don't embarrass them (see discussion below), then
nothing will.) In fact,
while I was called a liar in at least one letter, all the writers
were very careful not to
claim that any specific thing I said was false (I wonder why).
Furthermore, the obvious
intention of all the letters was simply to say 'shut up' -- not
only to me, but to Don
Million (who published my piece in his section), the Bulletin
staff and anyone else who
would dare to broach the topic. I guess the Jews ought to change
their slogan from
'Never forgive, never forget' to 'Never forgive, never forget,
never discuss'.
* The selection of letters also makes a pretty good case for a
second point of my
essay, namely, that Jews play a significant leadership role in
censorship. That is, all the
letter writers save one possess distinctly Jewish names or
identified themselves as Jews
(Mayer, Appel, Colman, Mosner, Eisler), and, as noted above,
their message in every
case was 'shut up'. There was, however, an additional message,
namely, 'don't you
dare criticize Jews'. Do you suppose this means Jews think
they're perfect? Or that
they are too emotional and thin-skinned to take criticism like
everybody else? Why is it
that every time you pick up a newspaper you can find somebody
denouncing whites
(ie, white gentiles) for being 'racist', 'sexist', etc, etc, etc,
but there is virtually never
any criticism of Jews -- or if there is, then all hell breaks
loose, as it did in the March
Bulletin. Sure sounds like the old Double Standard to me. And why
do we have it?
Well, as a very wise friend of mine once said, If you want to
know who your real
masters are, then ask who it is that cannot be criticized.
* The fairness of whoever selected the letters for publication is
called into doubt by the
fact that every single one of the letters reflected a highly
negative opinion of my essay.
This unfairness is confirmed by the comments of Managing Editor
Julie Olson, who
stated in her column on the inside front cover that "While
every issue of the Bulletin
includes some things that just must be published, we had a couple
of unexpected
'must-run's' pop up for this issue. ... [They included] the
significant amount of input from
members regarding a member opinion that ran in the
January/February '2% Solution'
column. While the opinion was extreme, it inspired a fascinating
and meaningful range
of responses, both philosophical and practical. We have chosen a
few representative
responses to be included in a special subsection of the Letters
section." Which in all
probability means that either Julie is fibbing about there being
a 'fascinating and
meaningful range of responses', or else whoever selected the
letters decided to
suppress ones favorable to me. I don't think you have to be a
rocket scientist to figure
out which is more likely.
* While Julie Olson labeled my essay as 'extreme', this is
objectively false and possibly
defamatory. Most of my column was devoted to citing facts in
support of my thesis,
and facts cannot be 'extreme' (tho they may be surprising to the
uninformed).
Furthermore, the thesis itself (that the Jewish Question is the
most important issue of the
20th century) could not properly be called 'extreme' (tho it
could be called surprising
for the same reason as the facts I cite could be), since it is
not a subject which lends
itself to degrees, and 'extreme' implies a very high or low
degree of some property or
quality (Philosophers call Ms Olson's statement a 'category
mistake').
* One letter-writer, Wilfred Couzin, gloated over the fact that
some birdcage-liner
Establishment journal had chosen a Jew, Albert Einstein, as
Person of the Century, and
speculated that this would stick in my craw ('Eat it, buddy!' was
the phrase he used).
Thus permit me to return the favor by noting that it has recently
been revealed that
Einstein plagiarized the e=mc2 formula from an Italian physicist
to whom he gave no
credit, and, as was revealed a couple of years ago, Einstein may
well have stolen the
idea of relativity theory from his first wife, who (as I recall)
put him thru school, and
whom he later cheated on. And just today (March 20) an article
appeared on the Net
stating that Einstein's FBI files revealed him to have 'more
communist affiliations than
Stalin.' Thus it seems that Einstein is a sort of Jewish Martin
Luther King Jr, now
recognized as a notorious plagiarist, womanizer and communist.
Eat that, Mr Couzin,
old buddy.
* I was accused of hate, but have you ever seen any set of
letters more full of hate than
the ones denouncing me? Here's what the letter-writers said:
Shapiro: "anti-Semitic,
lunatic fringe, poisonous bilge, hate-mongering, neo-Nazi";
Appel: "Blatant hate mail,
anti-Semitic, hardly worthy of refutation, doesn't deserve space,
felt physically sick,
printed in [Nazi] Germany, lies, hate material"; Couzin:
"something missing from [his]
power of reasoning, laughable, frightened, eat it"; Mosner:
"anti-Semite (twice), bigot,
despicable, blaming the victim, insane, crawl into your
hole"; Colman: "sated with hate,
execration, filth, smart-stupid"; Eisler: "dismayed;
don't owe him an apology,
explanation or even an answer; dark planet orbiting the Jewish
star [!]". You just can't
get much more hateful than that. Jees, if I had used even one of
those phrases toward
Jews ... well, let me put it this way: These folks aren't just
mouth- frothing haters, they
are hypocrites with a capital H.
* And while on the subject of hate, it is enlightening to realize
that the Talmud, which is
the principal religious text of Judaism, is actually filled with
hate toward gentiles. Here
are just a few of many quotes:
1) He who sheds the blood of the goyim [non-Jew] is offering a
sacrifice
to God. --Talmud, Jaiqut Simenoni
2) It is always a meritorious deed to get hold of a Gentile's
possessions.
-- Schulchan Aruch
3) A Jew may lie and perjure to condemn a Christian. The name of
God is
not profaned when lying to Christians. --Baba Kama 113a,b
4) A Jew is permitted to rape, cheat, and perjure himself; but he
must
take care that he is not found out, so that Israel may not
suffer. --
Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah
5) Jesus is in Hell and is being punished by being boiled in hot
semen.
Christians are boiled in excreta. --Gittin 57a
Please note that I am not saying that all Jews, or even religious
Jews, believe these
things -- most are probably unaware of them. But I am saying that
if Jews want to get
hot under the choler about hate, they ought to clean house first.
* There is perhaps a better way to state the Jewish Question than
I did in my essay:
Altho it is not well-known by the public at large (I wonder
why?), Jews have been the
leaders and force majeure behind virtually every major
destructive social movement or
event of the 20th century -- communism (Marx, Lenin and all major
leaders of
communism were Jews), feminism (Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinim,
Bella Abzug, etc),
'civil rights' (the president of the NAACP till 1970 was a Jew),
liberalism and its
destructive policies such as white-genocide immigration and
'multiculturalism' (an
estimated 90% of Jews are liberals), 'hate crime' legislation
(concocted by the ADL),
gun control (Schumer, Feinstein, Metzenbaum, etc), anti-militia
statutes (ADL 'model
statutes'), Soviet espionage (Rosenbergs, Greenglass, Gold,
Fuchs, etc), censorship of
the Net (ADL, Simon Wiesenthal Center), the Federal Reserve (the
legislation was
virtually written by Rothschild associate Paul Warburg at Jekyll
Island for the
'international bankers'), the US entry into both World Wars (the
Balfour Declaration
was a payoff to the Jews for getting the US into WWI; the 1933
Jewish boycott of
Germany was actually the start of WWII), the Balkans war (Cohen,
Albright, Berger),
the Arab-Israeli wars (the Arabs did not take kindly to having
their land stolen by the
Jews), you-name-it. Are gentiles supposed to see all this as a
mere 'accident'? If not,
is it 'irrational' and 'hateful' of them to want to protect
Western civilization and the gene
pool which built that civilization? The question answers itself.
But it does raise another
question: What to do? One thing to do is certainly to make the
ugly facts known,
which is why I wrote my essay in the first place. The 'final
solution' however, if it can
be achieved before the West goes under -- is probably
intermarriage -- Jews are
intermarrying at a 50% rate, up from only 6% a generation ago.
Which is certainly, I
might add, a good reason for Jews and gentiles to love one
another.
* While all the letter-writers assumed that I was writing because
of hostility to Jews,
such a conclusion is completely unwarranted because my opinions
are perfectly
compatible with Jewish interests. To explain, while it may be in
the short-term interest
of Jews to suppress criticism (criticism, after all, is usually
painful), in the long term
there is a very good chance that the truth will out, and that
gentiles will be so angry at
what Jews have done that the Final Solution may turn out to be
liquidation, rather than
the deportation preferred by Hitler and other Zionists. Indeed,
the suppression of
criticism is an excellent formula for creating hate -- which
Jewish organizations love to
do because it keeps those contributions rolling in. But criticism
is also in the Jewish
interest if the Jews want to avoid the accusation of 'collective
guilt' for weakening or
wrecking Western civilization: What they must do is see to it
that the guilty individuals in
their midst are punished (or at least kept from power), and that
the cancer of liberalism
which has given rise to so much undesirable behavior from the
Jewish quarter is
extirpated.
* I think it is appropriate to say that many distinguished men
have had words of praise
for my books (now numbering about 40), including many Jews.
Furthermore, I have
been called fair in my treatment of Jews by both distinguished
Jews as well as
well-known Jewish critics. You'll find many details in the
reviews of my books at
www.amazon.com, which carries all my books, including two of
special interest in the
present context, Political Correctness, Censorship and
Liberal-Jewish Strongarm
Tactics in High-IQ/Low-Morals Mensa, and Everything You Always
Wanted to
Know About Jews But Were Afraid to Ask Because You Thought You'd
Be Called
'Antisemitic'.
* There is, of course, a perfectly good reason why criticism of
Jews is taboo, namely,
the dominance of the major media by Jews and their liberal PC
compatriots, and the
consequent use of that media to suppress and twist the facts
relating to the Jewish
Question. (This makes the hostility I encounter less bothersome,
since I know it stems
from ignorance of the facts -- or else ethnic chauvinism.) If you
are skeptical about
Jewish media influence, I strongly suggest that you read Dr
William Pierce's brilliant
essay "Who Rules America" on the Net at
www.natvan.com/who-rules-america, and
check out his invaluable weekly commentaries which are archived
on the same site
(natvan.com). Another good source of general information is
www.jewwatch.com.
Those interested in the Holocaust controversy should check the
Zundelsite
(www.lebensraum.org) or the CODOH website (www.codoh.com).
Another
important source of information are three
recently-published scholarly books by Prof Kevin MacDonald,
especially The Culture
of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in
20th-Century
Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger, 1998).
* It is interesting to compare the current brouhaha over my essay
to past events of
Mensan political incorrectness regarding Jews. In particular,
some may recall that in
late 1994 or early 1995 the national media reported a breakout of
pincness in the LA
Mensa magazine which carried an article stating that "Adolf
Hitler's greatest offense
was not the killing of 6-million [sic] Jews in the Nazi Holocaust
but 'the fact that his
actions prevent a rational discussion of the creation of the
master race'" (reported in the
St Petersburg Times as "High-IQ society's newsletter sparks
outrage", 11 Jan 95:
14A). This is of particular interest because my own
Jewish-related pincness had burst
forth in Mensa's Tampa Bay area magazine at about the same time
("A Thought on the
Dedication of the Washington Holocaust Museum", Tampa Bay
Sounding, November
1994: 26-7), and was a far more notable piece in terms of both
controversial
statements and quality than the LA one, yet the latter was the
one to receive national
publicity, while discussion of my piece was limited to the local
magazine itself and never
even made the local birdcage liners, even when the controversy
resurfaced later in a
much more notable way by involving the national office. Why the
differential
treatment? Most likely because the editor of the LA magazine
apologized for the
article she published by saying that she felt compelled to run
whatever she was sent,
while the TBS editor refused to apologize. And this, combined
with the fact that the
current brouhaha has not yet been mentioned in the media in spite
of the extensive
coverage in the nationally-distributed Bulletin, suggests that a
competent person who
stands up to the shabby goy bottom-kissers and their Jewish
masters will make them
turn tail and crawl back into their dungheap.
* I do not think it is an accident that the brouhaha over my
essay is taking place at
exactly the same time as one of the greatest confrontations ever
between Jewish and
gentile interests, the David Irving/Deborah Lipstadt libel trial
(for details, see
www.fpp.co.uk). Irving, brilliant historian of the Third Reich,
is suing Lipstadt for what
he alleges is libel and an ongoing attempt to derail his career
by Lipstadt's participation
in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy against him. While most gentiles
have rightly put
behind them the traditional animosities against Jews of previous
centuries stemming
from religious differences and envy at Jewish success, they are
becoming increasingly
conscious of the need to deal with a Jewish Question having
entirely different
parameters. While much of the credit for consciousness-raising
among gentiles and
righteous Jews must go to historical revisionists who have
questioned what I call the
Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust, the modern Jewish
Question is far larger
than what many revisionists call the 'Holohoax'. I am proud to be
the first person to
have publicly raised these issues in Mensa.
* Let me conclude with the following six brief but important
observations:
(1) It is logically fallacious to equate criticism to hate, as
all the letter-writers do: A man
who criticizes his wife or child can hardly be said to hate them.
(2) Contrary to the implication of the letter-writers who accuse
me of 'hate', there is
nothing whatsoever wrong with hate, provided only that the object
hated is hateful.
(3) Racism is nothing more than the natural law expressed by the
adage 'birds of a
feather flock together'. It is but a negative word to describe
what is considered
positive when described as love of one's own people, heritage and
culture. The fact
that racism was considered normal and praiseworthy -- and
race-mixing bizarre and
pathological -- until only about 50 years ago demonstrates the
frightening brainwashing
power of the liberal -- and largely Jewish-controlled -- media.
And of course the
liberal/Jewish opposition to racism is in direct contrast with
what author Jack Bernstein
described in his book The Life of An American Jew in Racist
Marxist Israel.
(4) Liberals are constantly blathering about 'diversity', but
when someone like me
comes along and attempts to introduce some diversity of opinion,
well, the screaming
never stops.
(5) As Dr Johnson might have said had he been in my position,
insult is the last
refuge of the out-argued, which is why you see so many insults
and so little argument
in my opponents' letters.
(6) As I said in my essay, Ask not whether I am an antisemite,
bigot, nazi or all the
rest -- ask only whether I am RIGHT. If you bother to do a little
research, you'll find
out that I AM right. And speaking of bigots, it is well to keep
in mind that, as Ambrose
Bierce once remarked, a bigot is merely one who is obstinately
and zealously attached
to an opinion which you do not entertain.
To: Don Million (donmillion@compuserve.com)
From: John Bryant (socit2m1@msn.com)
Date: March 24, 2000
Dear Don:
I'd like to comment on your published remarks about me in the
March Mensa Bulletin,
if I may.
You may recall that I thanked you for publishing my essay on the
Jewish Question in
the January/February issue. I did this for a reason -- I knew
that you were going to get
a lot of nasty criticism for doing it, and I wanted to
demonstrate the contrast between
that nastiness and my own behavior -- I wanted to show you who
behaved in a
civilized manner and who
didn't. Of course I don't actually know what kind of letters you
got, but your
comments in the Bulletin made it look like you got your butt
pretty well kicked.
And there's a lesson there, Don, besides the contrast between the
civilized behavior of
an 'antisemitic neo-Nazi bigot' and the uncivilized behavior of
all those wonderful
compassionate moral-high-ground liberals and upright Jewish folk
you heard from. The
lesson is, If you don't toe the politically-correct line, you are
going to get your butt
kicked. And it's a good lesson for people to learn, because -- at
least sometimes -- it
makes them As Mad As Hell So They Aren't Going To Take It Any
More. And once
enuf people get that mad, I think the world will become a lot
better place.
Of course your published response sounded like you were kissing
the Jewish arse as
lovingly as possible in order to keep your job as editor of the
'2% Solution'. And
believe me, I can understand that -- it's a prestigious job. And
furthermore, most
people are deeply frightened about being called 'bigot', 'nazi'
and any of the other
names I was called in such profusion in the pages of the March
Bulletin. So I can
understand why you want to avoid that, too.
And thereby hangs your tail, Don -- how much of your self-respect
are you willing to
sacrifice in order to hold onto 'The 2% Solution' and not get
called nasty names? Or to
put it another way, how much personal degradation are you willing
to accept -- how
much are you willing to deep kiss the liberal/Jewish anus before
you get a belly-full and
decide that self-respect is more important than having your name
appear every month
on top of a column? It's an important question.
Of course you may really believe in political correctness. You
may really believe that I
am a 'bigot', that I am possessed of 'fear, ignorance and
prejudice' which is 'festering
inside' me, that you really are 'disgusted' at what I wrote, that
I 'hate Jews', and that
you want to 'discredit this kind of bigotry'. It's possible you
believe all this, but I don't
believe you do. I think you just wanted to save your job and get
out of the rain of
manure being thrown your way. So you decided to accept some
personal degradation
-- you decided to attack an honest and well-meaning person who
had never harmed
you because it would help to save your butt.
But there's a problem when you do this. The problem is that you
create what Macbeth
described when he said, 'My mind is full of scorpions, dear
wife'. You are going to
have to live with your behavior for the rest of your life. You
may not enjoy it. But I
don't know -- maybe it won't bother you at all.
But let me do a bit of analysis here and tell you why I think you
published my letter. I
think you did it because you wanted to see what would happen. You
knew it was
controversial -- and not just controversial, but a much
higher-quality piece than you
usually get -- in fact, a piece whose quality was much too good
to allow it to be
dismissed by a fair-minded person as 'kooky'. And what you wanted
to do was to
publish this powerfully explosive piece and see what it would be
like to set off a
firecracker in the middle of a ladies' Sunday picnic. And of
course you knew it would
get you a bit of attention -- and that's something a lot of folks
would pay a lot of
sheckels for. Well, that's ok. But by doing it you have been
forced to see the ugly
darkness which I have been fighting against. For me, that's good.
For you, maybe not
so good.
The bottom line is this, Don: I forgive you your insults; I
forgive you for wronging an
honest and well-meaning person; I forgive you for spitting on
free speech by joining in
the PC chorus; I forgive you for not standing up for principle
and telling the Censors to
take their job and shove it. But will YOU forgive you? Only you
will be able to
answer that. Only you know if the knife you tried to plunge into
me with your column is
going to turn around and plunge into you.
I'll close with a well-known but revised-by-me poem you might
wish to ponder:
The Man in the Glass
If you're starting to feel that you're cock of the walk
'Cause you've just gotten thrown a bouquet,
Then you really should go to a mirror and look
To find out what THAT man has to say.
For it isn't your father or mother or wife
On whose judgment you'll fail or you'll pass --
For the fellow whose verdict counts most in your life
Is the one staring back from the glass.
Now some people might think you're the king who has come,
And they'll sing out your praise to the sky;
But the man in the glass says you're only a bum
If you can't look him straight in the eye.
He's the fellow to please -- never mind all the rest --
For he's with you, you see, till the end;
And you'll know that you've passed your most difficult test
If the guy in the glass is your friend.
You may fool the whole world thruout all of your years,
And get great accolades when you pass;
But your final reward will be heartache and tears
If you've cheated the man in the glass.
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *