Jewish Question Essay:
Response to the Defamatory Letters in the March 2000
Mensa
Bulletin
by John Bryant (http://www.thebirdman.org,
john@thebirdman.org)
Contents: OPINION
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.
