Copyright © 1997 by John Bryant
Published by The Socratic Press PO Box 66683 St Petersburg Beach FL 33736-6683
" Free speech is offensive speech"
Printed in USA
ISBN # 1-886739-37-4
In the opinion of the author, there is no such thing as truth, but only various individuals' opinions. Accordingly, nothing in the present book is claimed to be true, but is only claimed to represent the author's opinions and any claims in the book regarding " truth", " facts", and the like are thus to be taken as a manner of speaking rather than an actual claim about truth, facts and the like. However, if the author is forced for legal purposes to make the assumption that truth exists, or that some statements are (or can be known to be) true or false, in that case (and that case alone) he claims that all statements in the present book are true in the sense that such statements, by being statements of the author's opinions, are true descriptions of said opinions, ie, they are true descriptions of certain facts about the world -- namely, certain facts about the author's mental configuration -- and thus these statements are of necessity true. As it happens, however, there is a sense in which it is actually going too far to say that the statements in this book represent the author's opinion, because in many instances the statements are intentional exaggerations or distortions whose purpose may be to produce laughter, to engage in mockery, to assault conventional thinking by means of what might be called 'shock therapy', or perhaps other reasons. In the larger, read-between-the-lines sense they represent the author's opinion, but only with the understanding that the author not infrequently throws out ideas to the reader which are intended less as a conclusion than as things for the reader to think about. The value of the present book is not to present truth, but possibilities - - possibilities which the author believes are worthy candidates for adoption into the reader's own set of possibilities, ie, worthy candidates for his attribution of substantial probability. It is the author's opinion that unless all possibilities are able to be stated and explored openly, freedom of speech is a joke, freedom of thought is impossible, and the chance of discovering important truths is nil. As philosophers of science have pointed out, the process of science -- and the discovery of what is called scientific truth -- is the process of going from imperfect hypotheses to less imperfect hypotheses, and not in going from " falsity" to " truth". Accordingly, if this book represents an advance toward truth (or " truth" ), it is not because it is " true", but because it is -- like scientific hypotheses -- less false than what came before.
To A.L.C.B. as always
Mensa is an organization of high-IQ losers who confuse high test scores with worldly achievement, and who are so busy patting themselves on the back that they never get off their butts. -- JBR Yant
First Introduction: Censorship in Theoretical Perspective
Second Introduction: Censorship in Historical Perspective
Is this Book Racist, Sexist, Anti-Semitic, Etc.?
A Thought on the Dedication of the Washington Holocaust Museum Letter to George Zadorozny - June 30, 1995 First Letter to Frank Clarke - May 16, 1996 Second Letter to Frank Clarke - May 17, 1996 Campaign Statement for 1996 ExCom Election Letter to the Executive Committee - May 23, 1996 First Letter to Allen Neuner - August 22, 1996 Second Letter to Allen Neuner - September 17, 1996 Third Letter to Allen Neuner - September 29, 1996 Letter to All Tampa Bay Mensans - April 6, 1997 Dirty Little Secrets You Should Know Letter to Jack Brawner - April 23, 1997 A Sentence to Ponder: Hung by the News Until Brain-Dead
About the Author
About the Socratic Press
If you will not fight for your rights when you can easily win without bloodshed -- if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly -- then you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. Winston Churchill.
In a very real sense, my life has been devoted to the fight against censorship. Part of this has involved the development of arguments against censorship, the most important of which are treated in my path-breaking work Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy, particularly in the discussion of the Fundamental Theorem of Utility Theory, which I consider to be one of my most important intellectual achievements. Another part of my fight against censorship has been the real-world application of my ideas -- a matter which has led to such things as the founding of my own publishing house, the development of pioneering techniques of communication in marriage and interpersonal relations (described in detail in my book Success in Marriage -- GUARANTEED!!! ), the successful single-handed elimination of overt liberal bias in a major daily newspaper (described in my book Nasty Letter Bombs ), and the compilation of my writings on communication into two books ( Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Language and Communication and Information, Free Speech, Censorship and Truth ). The present work represents yet another aspect of the real-world application of my anti-censorship ideas, namely, a chronicle of my attempts to implement free speech in the international high-IQ organization Mensa, of which I am a member. On first thought it would seem absurd that an organization whose qualification for membership consists solely of possessing an IQ higher than 98% of everyone else in the world would not allow or encourage free speech. The absurdity derives from the fact that, if the purpose of Mensa is to bring together people with good minds, it is only logical that it should encourage the use of all that brainpower " every which way it can", especially including the free exchange of ideas, of which Mensans with all their supercharged cranial capacity supposedly have an abundance. Mensans, however, in spite of their intelligence, do not seem any more able to free themselves from the confines of the current liberal (and politically-correct) zeitgeist than any other Americans, with the result that they look -- How else can I put it? -- stupid. It is a tragedy, but it is also a lesson -- high IQ means a person can take tests well, but it does not mean that he can think. My conflict with Mensa over political correctness began when the then- current editor of the local Mensa newsletter/magazine Tampa Bay Sounding, one Christopher Thomas by name, published an article critical of Jews which I had submitted some months earlier to the previous editor. The article appeared in the November 1994 issue of the Sounding in my more-or-less regular column, " As the World Turns", and was the 10th column of mine to appear in the Sounding. The column set off a flurry of protests and put Chris under considerable pressure, but he held his own and did not publish the obsequious apology which had been " demanded" by Eileen Steinhice, American Mensa's Regional Vice Chairman and Jewish obergruppenfuhrer. He did, however, effectively drop my column (it appeared only once more), but I did not pressure him about it because I knew what he had gone thru and I figured I would take the matter up with the new editor, George Zadorozny, who took over for Chris about four months later. The documents in this book tell the story of the events which unfolded. While they consist solely of letters and essays written by me, they are composed in such a way that prior knowledge of the documents to which they refer is not necessary. While the importance of this book is partly philosophical and partly informational, it is perhaps most useful for illustrating the depths to which intelligent people will sink in order to defend the indefensible, and in order to keep from bucking the politically-correct tide. It is also, I think, a hell of a good story. And it isn't over yet.
Most people are in favor of censorship. They might not put it that way -- indeed, they might even declare themselves opposed to it. But when it comes down to actually making the decision to censor or not, they favor it overwhelmingly. By censorship, I do not mean merely the trivial sorts of censorship which we all practice in the name of smooth interpersonal relations, and which usually involve the withholding or muting of negative comments about relative strangers. Rather I refer to the significant sorts of censorship in which we fail to communicate criticisms to our intimates or to others whose behavior affects us in significant ways. The popularity of censorship is not, of course, difficult to understand: Truth hurts, and most people take no pleasure in hurting others, or in subjecting themselves to the risk that the person whom they hurt may hurt them in retaliation. But why are people so sensitive to criticism? It may seem strange to say so, but the answer in many cases is because they haven't received much criticism. And why haven't they received much criticism? Because, as explained above, criticism is painful. Or to put it another way, the situation is what is known in systems theory as a feedback loop: The less criticism people have received, the more sensitive they are likely to be to it and the more sensitive they are to it, the less they are likely to receive. The " solution" to the " criticism problem", then, is exactly the opposite of what the censors propose, to wit, more criticism. The above, however, does not really answer the question of why people are so sensitive to criticism in the first place. The answer, I think, lies in the individual's self-esteem or self-confidence: The person who has low self-esteem reacts more negatively to criticism because criticism tends to remove or dissipate the illusion which he so ardently wishes to project that he is a " worthwhile person" and " the equal" of everyone else. In contrast, the person with high self-esteem or self-confidence has little trouble with criticism -- and may in fact actually welcome it -- because he is not (or not primarily) attempting to project any illusion of " worth" or " equality" and hence cannot have the illusion removed. There is, however, a sort of irony here: In order for those with low self-esteem to truly hide their condition and successfully project their " worth" and " equality", what they need to do is to not react negatively to criticism, but rather to welcome it. And that, as we noted earlier, just so happens to be the solution to the " criticism problem". But other considerations aside, the ugly truth is that we all need criticism, because without criticism, we don't know where we are going wrong -- and we are generally going wrong somewhere. Thus it is not just that we need to be able to endure criticism, but also to learn from it. It is these facts which make it so dangerous for people to be isolated: Isolation cuts us off from criticism, and the result is often eccentric " lone nut" behavior. Few people, of course, can afford to isolate themselves, or have the desire to but those who have achieved financial independence sometimes do, and for this reason the " rich eccentric" is a stock character in the comedie humaine. From this, then, we can see the adaptive role of conformity in human society: While conformity -- by means of feedback (ie, criticism) from others -- tends to stamp out diversity, this means it tends to stamp out " lone nut" eccentricity (ie, undesirable deviance), and this, as a rule, results in a far healthier social organism than otherwise. But if criticism has the good effect of preventing the development of crazy eccentrics, it has the bad effect of tending to stamp out what for lack of better terminology might be called " worthwhile deviance" -- the sort of deviance which Thoreau was referring to when he said that " A man who is right is a majority of one." There is, however, an upside to this conflict: Anyone who becomes and remains a deviant in spite of the pressure of criticism to conform is likely to prove a very tough opponent for his critics. And after reading this book, I think you may agree that this is precisely what my critics at Mensa have found me to be.
Before the Enlightenment of the 18th century, censorship was exercised over three primary subjects: religion, sex and politics. The censors had special names for the speech crimes of each of these categories: For religion it was heresy or blasphemy for sexuality it was obscenity and for politics it was treason. Before the Enlightenment, political systems were almost uniformly monarchical and were based upon the theory of " the divine right of kings" but Enlightenment ideas, and particularly those of John Locke, rejected a religious basis for government in favor of " natural rights" and other " humanistic" (ie, human-centered rather than God-centered) concepts -- concepts which eventually became the basis of the world's first " secular humanist" government, the United States of America. One of the great achievements of the new American nation was to dispense with both political and religious censorship, an achievement enshrined in the Bill of Rights' guarantee that " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press...". America also eventually managed to dispense with most sexual censorship, tho this dispensation did not come into full flower until the second half of the 20th century, when both contraceptives and venereal prophylaxis became widely available, and thus the negative consequences for nonmarital sex were significantly reduced. But if the 20th century has witnessed the vanquishing of traditional censorship over religious, sexual and political speech, it has also seen the rise of an entirely new form of censorship, that of political correctness, which decrees a ban on the criticism of groups, and particularly certain types of racial, ethnic and sexual groups. While the wellspring of political correctness, as for all censorship, is manners, the advocates of political correctness have attempted to transmogrify an issue of manners into one of morals, a fact which is particularly interesting in view of the fact that traditional censorship viewed heresy, blasphemy, obscenity and treason as breaches of morality. It is also notable that, while traditional censorship was (and is) advanced by conservative interests, political correctness is advanced by liberal interests. But while political correctness looks askance at any criticism of groups besides white males, who are often viewed by liberals as the Devil's Own, there is one group above all others for which criticism is forbidden, namely, Jews. While Jews form only a very small proportion of the world's population, including America's, their intelligence, energy, organization and wealth have made them one of the world's most influential groups, with the result that in America they are dominant in the mass media, the Democratic Party, and many professions, particularly in finance. While the Jews -- who have long been discriminated against by other groups, particularly Christians -- must be admired for their success, an important problem which has resulted from this success is that the Jews have used their clout to stifle criticism. In many ways this is perfectly understandable: For one thing, criticism of Jews tends to be viewed as an attack on Jews by a people who have often been attacked in ways other than verbally, so the attack is parried by suppressing the criticism. The propensity of Jews to stifle criticism is also understandable in view of the fact that a good deal of the criticism has been little more than infantilistic propaganda: Martin Luther, Father Coughlin, Henry Ford and Adolph Hitler are some of the best-known critics of Jews, and yet in most cases their criticisms amounted to nothing more than sound and fury, signifying nothing except a blind hatred which aroused more blind hatred and was thereby frightening to Jews. No wonder Jews were angry at the fact that Henry Ford put a copy of his boneheaded book The International Jew on the front seat of every new car he manufactured: While Ford was a brilliant innovator, it is hard to fault the " money power" for boycotting him and forcing him to apologize. But if Jewish suppression of criticism is understandable, it is still wrong. In fact, Jews -- as one of America's and the world's most successful minorities -- should actually be one of the last groups to succumb to what could be called " the temptation of the insecure". In my view, however, the problem is not with " the Jews", but rather with powerful Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, whose continued existence -- and the fat salaries of its employees -- are dependent upon convincing ordinary -- and perhaps insecure -- Jews that there is an antisemite under every bed. Or to put it another way, these organizations have a financial interest in painting the critics of Jews as the enemies of Jews. But in setting up a hue and cry against the critics in order to line their own pockets, they are not helping Jews instead, they are sowing the seeds of hatred whose bitter harvest will be antisemitism of a much more virulent form. But if Jewish censorship is dangerous for Jews, it is also dangerous for gentiles for Jewish censorship under the banner of political correctness is becoming institutionalized without most people even recognizing what is happening. To demonstrate how far it has gone, one only need note that Canada and most countries of Europe have laws against " Holocaust revisionism", ie, against questioning what I call the " Orthodox Jewish Version" of the Holocaust and while the US does not have such laws, it does have an extensive program of " Holocaust education" which has been mandated by law as part of the public school curriculum of many states, to say nothing of the Holocaust museums in every city and burg and the incessant Holocaust propaganda that can be seen in every other newspaper and every other Hollywood movie. In fact, there is such an enormous weight of both custom and law against criticizing either Jews or Jewish Holies that the one true measure of free speech in any context or locale has now become the answer to the question: Is the criticism of Jews allowed here? In the present context it should be recognized that most people cannot make the distinction between criticism and hate -- tho it should be plain enuf to most people that when one criticize one's parents, one's mate or one's child, such criticism doesn't mean one hates them -- and it is the failure to make this distinction which has so often made free speech into a dirty word. Because of the fact that the members of Mensa are endowed with special intellectual capabilities, I expected that they would have no trouble with this distinction and yet in speaking to many who received materials from me on this matter (all of which are included in this book), I continually heard the allegation that my materials were full of " hate". For my part, I would say that I have criticized Jews severely but also admired them greatly but I would also say that, whatever my feelings about Jews may be, those feelings are irrelevant to the matter of free speech except in the narrow sense explained earlier, namely, that the existence of free speech can be measured by whether Jews can be criticized. But if it is important to recognize that criticism is not the same as hate, it is even more important to realize that hate, in and of itself, is neither bad nor good, but is rather only bad or good relative to whether the hated object is good or bad. That is, to hate the hateful is good, and to hate the good is hateful and if we determine that something is hateful -- whether censorship, or Jews, or anything else -- then we should not hide our hatred underneath a bushel, but rather display it openly and proudly for all to see. One of the many foolish aspects of political correctness is that, on the one hand, its advocates deny the validity of hate, and condemn as " haters" those who display any negative feelings against their favorite groups. On the other hand, however, the advocates of political correctness are actually haters par excellence, as demonstrated by their screaming, vitriolic, tantrum-like attacks on their critics. Certainly I have been personally subjected to the ugly face of politically correct hatred, as demonstrated by many of the documents in this book. So in conclusion I leave the reader with the following thought: If this book be hatred, then make the most of it.
To criticize is not to hate, but to love for to criticize is to say that what is criticized is worthy of attention, and is important enuf to warrant reform. Contrariwise, to react negatively to criticism is not only to show yourself unworthy of both criticism and love, but is to confirm the criticism. --J.B.R. Yant, Mortal Words, v. 3
To claim that criticism implies hatred is fallacious, in much the same sense that it is fallacious to claim that a man hates his son because he punishes him. This fallacy, which I call the Victim of Hatred Fallacy, is nevertheless widely employed, for it is wonderfully useful in deflecting criticism, especially legitimate criticism. Minority groups such as Jews, blacks and feminists have become particularly adept in using the Victim of Hatred Fallacy, since they have already managed to establish themselves as victims, and can use the Victim of Hatred Fallacy not merely to avoid having their victim status questioned, but to actually add to that status. --J.B.R. Yant, Mortal Words v. 3
At one time, three of the most insulting terms that could be used against a person were nigger, faggot and kike . Now, however, the world has been truly turned upside down for those who once bore the brunt of the aforementioned insults have developed insults of their own which are not only far more insulting, but can actually decimate the reputation of the person against whom they are used. These new insults are of course the terms racist, sexist and anti-semitic. Our interest in discussing them is that they will undoubtedly be applied to this book, not because they are true, but because they are the liberals' most powerful insults, and because this book has the temerity to point out the absurdity of the liberals' racial and sexual politics. We begin our discussion with the trickiest and most difficult to handle of these insults, anti-semitism.
Most editors become catatonic when confronted with a negative publishable fact about Jews or Israel, because they are afraid that, if they publish it, they will forever be labeled " anti-semitic". This is no accident, however, for in the liberal political environment of the last several decades, kowtowing to the " sensitivity" of minorities and women has attained the status of an official religion, where not only have these specially-favored groups gained extraordinary privileges at the expense of all other groups, but where certain previously-blameless acts involving these groups have become criminalized, as in " discrimination" and " hate crimes". The Jews -- being a rather clever bunch of folks -- have taken advantage of this atmosphere to turn anti-semitism into an epithet which can be far more devastating than nigger ever was, because the damage which the latter could do ended at the name-calling, and didn't extend into the personnel office, the bureaucratic tribunal or the civil or criminal courtroom. According to the dictionary, an anti-semite is someone who doesn't like Jews just because they're Jews. But the question then arises, How do you tell an anti-semite from somebody who just makes some sort of criticism of Jews? The answer is simple: You can't. But to the paternalistic Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League which make a profession out of goy-bashing, such refined distinctions are unimportant: If you criticize Jews, you automatically get smeared as an " anti-semite". (That's why I refer to the ADL as the Antsy Defecation League: When they get antsy about something you say, they defecate on you.) Actually, however, criticizing Jews is not a requirement of " anti-semitism" : All you have to do to get called an anti-semite is to criticize Israel, or -- get this -- question the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust. In fact, you can get called anti-semitic for saying about Jews what other groups would consider a compliment, e.g., that they have extraordinary influence in Congress or in the media. But if this seems bizarre, one should reflect on the fact that, for suggesting postponement -- not opposition, mind you, but just postponement -- of a huge ten billion dollar loan guarantee (read gift ) for Israel, President George Bush himself received the Big Jewish Finger from one of the bigwigs in the Israeli government. And even Jews themselves can get the BJF -- tho in a slightly different form: the Jew who dares to criticize any of the Jewish Holies becomes a " self-hating Jew". In the long run, of course, the tendency to yell " anti-semite" at the drop of a criticism will backfire on the Jews, not merely because of the enormous resentment it causes, but more importantly because it will dilute the significance of the term, in much the same sense that the word poppycock, which originally meant " soft shit", became so overused that now the only people who use it are little old ladies. Now the interesting thing about the charge of anti-semitism is that it is impossible to deny, because if you do, it makes you sound as absurd as Richard Nixon saying " I am not a crook". And another interesting thing about it is that the only people who are bothered by it are the people who are not anti-semitic -- after all, who ever heard of a Nazi being concerned with such an accusation? We can see, therefore, that the charge of anti- semitism is usually not only unfair -- since you can't tell an anti-semite from someone who offers a criticism of some Jewish Holy -- but it is also irrefutable even if false, and it is injurious only to the people who do not deserve to be injured. But the wonderful thing about the Big Jewish Finger -- at least to Jews -- and the very reason it continues to be used, is that it usually cuts dead any criticism of Jews or their Holies. And that makes me pretty Yahweh-damned mad, because no matter how rich, smart and powerful Jews are, I don't think they're above criticism. But more than this, I am determined that I am not going to kiss anybody's ass, especially when they've got a bunch of thugs going around trying to shut people up. And thugs is not too strong a word to use, particularly in view of the fact that Jewish thugs evidently were responsible for several murders or beatings of persons supposed to be anti-semitic or pro-Arab, just as they were apparently responsible for burning down the Institute of Historical Review, an organization whose sin was to publish books questioning the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust. But even after all this discussion, there remains a very troubling difficulty with anti-semitism: What do you do if you are accused of it? (I'm assuming, of course, that you are not anti-semitic.) For myself, I can think of three ways to handle it: the nice way, the nasty way, and the middle way. To do it the nice way, simply ask your accuser what he means by anti-semitism. If he says " being against Jews", then ask him how he can distinguish someone who is just criticizing Jews from someone who is anti- semitic. (Since he can't, this means he can't tell whether you are anti- semitic, which should destroy his smear.) To do it the nasty way, simply ask, " And what are you, a Jewish racist or just a Jewish ass-kisser?" And to do it in the middle way, just yell, " Oh, horrors! The Big Jewish Finger! Help! Help!"
Much of what we have said about anti-semitism applies equally to other liberal smears, particularly allegations of sexism and racism. The dictionary definition of these terms is, of course, being against someone just because of sex or race but the meaning when used by liberals boils down to an accusation that you do not hold their particular view of racial and sexual politics, namely, absolute egalitarianism enforced by state power. What is so amazing about the liberal position, however, is that it is unthinkingly endorsed by so many, and yet is offensive to the basic values of most. To explain, let me quote an extended passage from my book Mortal Words, v. 3:
" To the charge that I am a racist, I can only answer as follows: If it is racist to believe that some groups are genetically superior to others with respect to certain qualities, then I am certainly racist, as is anyone who believes that, thanks to their genetic qualities, blacks are better than whites at basketball, or Jews are better than whites in winning Nobel prizes. Needless to say, this definition would make most liberals out to be racists -- unless, of course, they believe such things as that there is something about the ghetto environment that, independently of genetics, produces better basketball players. But liberals, of course, do not mean to include themselves in the " racist" category: What they are intending to do is to attach moral opprobrium to anyone who does not agree with their racial politics, and specifically they are intending to smear anyone who does not agree with the proposition that blacks can perhaps sometimes be genetically superior to whites, but never genetically inferior. It is hardly necessary to point out the absurdity of this view. " The liberal position on race can best be understood as a psychological pathology, and specifically as an attempt to deny the facts of racial inequality which are unpleasant because they do not square with the liberal political agenda. This agenda is sometimes called equalitarianism but is better described as leveling, ie, the policy of raising the level of the unsuccessful, usually implemented by the practice pulling down the successful. Accordingly, we can see that the pathology of liberal politics is a product of the pathology of liberals themselves -- a fact which might ordinarily make liberals an object of pity, except for the fact that the spread of this pathology has apparently foreclosed rational governance of the nation. " There is no doubt in my mind that some of the people whom liberals call 'racist' are indeed as pathological as the liberals themselves in their manner of thinking, namely, those who insist that because the white race is superior in most aspects to the black, that therefore society should be racially segregated or that blacks should be forcibly deported. The problem here is not with the denial of facts, as it is with liberals it is rather the failure to accept the principle of meritocracy, ie, the principle that persons should be judged on their individual merits, and not on the characteristics of their race. We may explain our meaning by noting that in spite of the fact that -- for example -- average black IQ is substantially lower than white IQ by the degree of fifteen to twenty percent, it remains true that a great many blacks are superior to a great many whites, and thus are at least as worthy as such whites with respect to their IQ. In the present context it is interesting to note that Nobel laureate William Shockley, with whom I corresponded several years ago, refused me permission to publish our correspondence apparently because he was embarrassed by my pointing out that his views on race entailed the rejection of meritocracy. " Now in conclusion we should note that there is only so long that truth can be suppressed, because if beliefs are false, then the consequences of acting on the basis of those false beliefs are potentially devastating. This applies in spades -- if you will pardon the expression -- to the false beliefs about race which the liberals have managed to spread so widely for we have already seen enormous devastation caused by policies based on these false beliefs: Black crime against whites run rampant as blacks learn from liberals that Whitey owes them a living -- and as increasing black political power (for which liberals are largely responsible) makes it impossible for whites to keep blacks in check welfare run rampant as liberals throw money at black poverty black racism run rampant as liberals teach blacks that Whitey is a bad guy black sexual and financial irresponsibility run rampant as welfare insulates blacks from the consequences of their actions black incentive destroyed as blacks live off welfare or are forced to compete with whites for whom they are no match cities destroyed by white flight from black crime and forced integration the public schools destroyed by the refusal of whites to mix their children with those of a violent and inferior culture our Constitution destroyed as judges assume the legislative power of taxation in order to promote integration, and as they permit racial preferences to be legally substituted for individual merit our economy destroyed as enormous deficits are run up to fight black poverty and other black maladaptiveness and so on ad infinitum. As has been amply documented elsewhere, communists long ago seized on the promotion of black-white conflict as a way to destroy American society and pave the way for themselves to seize power and from the shambles which our society is now in, it appears that they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams."
But if liberal racial politics is bereft of sense, why then is it that the use of such smear words as anti-semitic, racist and sexist become a problem for the opponents of liberal policies? An important part of the answer, I think, is that the equalitarian philosophy which these terms express has not been challenged because of the reluctance which the liberals' opponents have felt in pointing out publicly the facts of racial inequality -- after all, blacks are not likely to vote for the politician who suggests that their race is inferior. Another reason, however, why liberals have been so successful with their smear words is that, in their implicit Manichaean portrayal of the world, the use of these terms forces people into viewing the issues in terms of (liberal) good versus (racist) evil, thereby concealing the fact that there are other alternatives qualitatively different from both liberalism and traditional racism which would offer the liberal position stiff competition, and in fact would probably put the liberals out of business as far as racial matters are concerned. That is, as long as liberals can take any alternative position on racial matters and smear it with some morally-tainted term like " racist", it makes it a lot easier for them to sell political snake-oil. And in fact there is such an alternative position: Meritocracy. As I say in Mortal Words v. 2, " One of the most important and yet most neglected socio-political issue of our times is that of meritocracy, ie, the question of whether a person's success should be proportional to his abilities, skills and personal motivation, rather than to such factors as his inherited wealth, his ancestry, or the friends he has in positions of power. A reason for this issue's neglect, perhaps, is the fact that both liberalism and conservatism -- which together constitute the great political divide of this nation -- can equally be seen to be anti- meritocratic: Liberalism, because it seeks to eliminate or minimize differences in its pursuit of " equality", and conservatism, because it seeks to use institutional authority to suppress those of ability in favor of those who are rich or well-born. In contrast to both liberalism and conservatism, however, is libertarianism, whose proponents not merely wish to see success proportional to merit, but who also seek to reduce the power of government by which the anti-meritocratic schemes of both the liberals and conservatives are sustained." Now in the present context it is useful to point out a further complexity in the differences between liberals and conservatives on the matter of race. To explain, let me quote a letter I wrote to Wilmot Robertson, editor of the " viciously racist" (and also, for the most part, very interesting and intelligently-written) magazine Instauration :
" The division between liberals and conservatives on race issues generally, and black-vs-white issues in particular, is not a difference over facts so much as a difference of perspective : The conservatives judge individual blacks on the basis of the characteristics of their race as a whole, while the liberals believe -- or at least once believed -- that each man should be judged on his individual merits, which may be totally different from those of his race. The difference may perhaps best be exemplified by considering the different attitude of conservatives and liberals to hiring blacks in consideration of the fact that blacks are nine times more likely than whites to be involved in crime: The conservative would say that, because the probability of a black being a criminal is so much higher than that of a white, it is simply too risky to hire blacks while a liberal would say that a blanket refusal to hire blacks is unfair because each person is different, and thus a blanket refusal would entail the refusal to hire many worthy people. " Now the curious thing about these two perspectives is that, in a sense, both are perfectly correct: The difference lies in differing assumptions about the amount of information available to make a decision. In particular, the conservative makes his judgment based on the assumption that he will have no other information than that of race, while the liberal assumes that information on the individual can be obtained which will make the racial information irrelevant. This, then, means that both liberals and conservatives err when their informational assumptions do not fit the facts: The liberal errs by assuming that information on individuals will always be available when in fact it often is not while the conservative errs when he judges a person on the basis of race alone when information on this individual is in fact available. " But if we are correct in having identified the great divide which separates liberals and conservatives on the issue of race, and if we are also correct that there is no argument between one view and the other in that these two views are mutually compatible, then this suggests that the battle between liberals and conservatives over race is without substance, in the same sense that arguments about taste are without substance. This of course is not to say that the alternatives which have been offered by liberals and conservatives respectively have been without consequence, for this is obviously not so it is rather to suggest that these differing alternatives would never have been offered up in the first place if liberals and conservatives had had a clear understanding of their differences."
I think it is significant that Robertson's response to the above piece was basically positive. But in any event, there are several things which should be kept in mind when considering the question of whether some person or publication is " racist", " sexist", " anti-semitic" and the like: First, as we have already noted, these are not genuine charges, but rather smear terms which are intended by liberals to cast aspersions on their enemies while foreclosing discussion of genuine issues second, the very fact that liberals rely so heavily on smear tactics suggests strongly that their arguments are without substance, and that they use smears only because they have no other weapon and third (and most important), criticizing x is not the same as being " anti-x". So what we are getting at is this: If you try to smear us by using a public forum to call us " racist", " sexist", " anti- semitic" or anything similar, we may just get a hotshot Jewish lawyer to sue your ass off.
This is the essay that started it all.
There are two problems with the term anti-semitism. The first is that it is usually used as a smear term, and hence does not so much function as a concept as it does an insult. The second and more important problem is that, even when used with its original meaning, the concept is illegitimate in a significant sense. While I have elaborated on the first of these problems in another essay, the second deserves fuller comment. To be specific, in the classification of human feelings, the real difference is not between love and hate, but between interest and indifference. In a limited sense Eric Hoffer recognized this fact when he pointed out in his well-known book The True Believer that the major political cleavage was not that between Left and Right, but rather between extremists of both Left and Right on the one hand, and " sober liberals" on the other. Hoffer buttressed this assertion with the observation that, in Nazi Germany, leftists -- the sworn enemies of Nazism -- were immediately admitted to Nazi membership upon application, while political " neutrals" were not so favored. Now the point I want to make about supposed anti-semites is that there is a significant sense in which they are not Jew-haters at all, but precisely the opposite. For consider the fact that what Jews have historically been hated for -- and continue to be hated for -- are such things as their " pushiness", their monetary dealings (particularly as bankers, and most particularly as international bankers), and their " undue influence" (particularly today in the media and movies). But what do these charges amount to? Very simply, they amount to the proposition that the accusers of Jews are jealous of Jewish success. Or in other words, the complaints against Jews are just about as close as you can get to praise without actually using kind words. So while we might not say that Jew-haters " love" Jews, we would certainly say that, by their own admission, they respect and admire Jews, and almost certainly wish for the same success for themselves. One way to characterize the anti-semites is to say that they love Jews " from a distance" but not " up close". That this concept is already recognized -- tho not in so many words -- can be seen in the feelings of most children toward their parents: The traditional father is loved " at a distance" because he is respected for his power (he is, after all, the disciplinarian of the family), while the mother is loved " up close" because, since she does little or none of the disciplining, she does not threaten the child. But if it is important to realize that anti-semites do not really hate Jews, it is even more important to realize that Jews do not really hate anti-semites. To understand why, consider the innumerable Holocaust museums which Jews have built: At first glance one might think that the Jews were building memorials to the people who hated them, and in a very real sense they are. But they are not of course doing it to encourage violent acts against Jews -- instead, they are saying, " Look how important the Jews are to have had so much attention from the Nazi Wunderkind." And in saying this, they are of course implicitly saying that the Nazis are important for the attention of the Nazis makes the Jews important precisely to the degree that the Nazis themselves are important. Or in other words, the Jews are saying how much they respect and fear the Nazis, ie, how much they love the Nazis " from a distance". But if the reader is inclined to think that my discernment of the Jewish love for Nazis is a mere verbal artifact, it is worthwhile to point out that the Jews have demonstrated their love of the Nazis in many ways other than the Holocaust museums. Israel, for example, is a socialist state, much as Nazi (ie, National Socialist ) Germany was Israel is the only state besides Nazi Germany where marriages between Jews and gentiles are forbidden Israel, like Nazi Germany, engaged in " ethnic cleansing" by throwing out most of the Palestinians and treating the remainder as second- class citizens Israel closely associated itself for many years with another racist state -- South Africa Israel is one of the most militarized states in the world with a police force, like that of the Nazis, known worldwide for its torture and terror and Israel has aggressively attempted to widen her borders by force, as Nazi Germany did in attempting to find " lebensraum". But perhaps the clinching fact in the argument is that the leaders of Israel, before it became a nation, offered to become the military allies of the Nazis in fighting the British during World War II in exchange for seeing that German Jews were forcibly removed to Israel. If Hitler is the best-known and most written-about personality of modern times, it is only because the Jews have made him into a modern version of the jealous and warlike god of the Old Testament, and have seen to it that he is continually paraded before the public (and thereby admired) in books, on films, in the media and most especially in the Holocaust museums. The Jews love Hitler, if for no other reason than he has supplied the leitmotif for the bulk of Jewish literature, Jewish reparations, Jewish nationhood, and Jewish whining. Never again? On the contrary -- over and over!
June 30, 1995
George Zadorozny, Editor Tampa Bay Sounding Box 125 Oldsmar FL 34677
In our 28 June phone conversation you stated that you did not wish to continue my " As The World Turns" column because you did not wish to publish politically-incorrect opinion pieces such as the ones I have written. Therefore, let me make the following points:
(1) My column, which has appeared 11 times (or approximately once every two months) since its first appearance in May 1993, has been well-received by the membership in at least two objective respects: (a) It has drawn more attention, more letters-to-the-editor and more response articles than any other feature, and (b) at least two -- and probably three -- of the award nominations which the Sounding recently received seem obviously due in large measure (at least in my humble opinion) to the presence of my column, these awards being for excellence in " Editorial/Opinion Forum" and " Entertainment/Most Thought-Provoking", with the third possibility being " Owl (Medium Group)", which is the award for the best newsletter overall in the whole country for a medium-size local Mensa group. (You may recall that I pointed these facts out to you over the phone.)
(2) By banning politically-incorrect essays -- essays which are, by their very nature, offensive to liberals and those of a similar political stripe -- you are banning an entire spectrum of political opinion, and in fact are banning expression of political opinion which is held by the majority of American voters, as demonstrated by the recent Republican electoral sweep. In fact, according to one poll, liberals consist of only about 17 percent of Americans, and yet you have the chutzpah to ban political expression of anything not acceptable to this tiny minority.
(3) Advocates of free speech believe that the best counterweight to " bad" speech is more speech, and not -- as you apparently believe -- the suppression of speech. Perhaps you don't know it, but America has always had a tradition of free speech (You have heard of the First Amendment, haven't you?), while totalitarian countries, such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, along with American liberals and leftists -- have shared your apparent propensity for suppression of speech. Have you considered emblazoning the Sounding with a hammer-and-sickle or a swastika?
(4) As I pointed out to you on the phone, the suspension of my column since January is particularly significant as a free-speech matter because, according to Chris Thomas, the previous editor, there were strong protests by Jews both inside and outside Mensa over my politically-incorrect column on the Holocaust Museum which appeared in the November 1994 Sounding, including a letter from a rabbi who threatened to " report us to the ADL". While I am perfectly happy to have people dispute my views, I am very upset by the blatant Jewish attempt to suppress my column, just as I am upset by your suppression of it.
Perhaps you are proud to line up on the side of the communists, nazis and liberals in suppressing free speech. Perhaps you are proud to stand with those Jews (and there seem to be quite a few of them) who spew invective on every group from Black Muslims and Palestinians to whites who stand up for their race, but who go into a frenzy of mouth-frothing accusations of " anti-semitism" whenever anyone dares criticize Jews. And perhaps it doesn't bother you to degrade the quality of the Sounding by removing a regular feature which has shown both objectively-demonstrated quality and objectively-demonstrated popularity. For all that, however, I think that many people would find it shameful to be in your shoes.
I enjoy having a column in the Sounding, and I believe that the suppression of my column by Jewish interests and now by you is an important free-speech issue. Accordingly, unless you restore my column, I intend to make as big a stink as I can about it. Some possibilities which I come to mind are taking the matter up with the Executive Committee, discussing it with the national leadership, contacting local and national news media, checking with the ACLU and the ALA, and sending a letter to every member of the local membership. Undoubtedly there are other things which will come to me in time. So if you want to fight me, I figure I can't lose -- either I get my column back, or we get in a big fight and I get lots of publicity, which will help sell my books. You, on the other hand, can only lose, since if you fight me you will make yourself out to be just another suppressor of free speech who takes pride in stifling the opinions of the American majority, if not the Mensan one.
Unless I hear from you by July 6 that you will restore my column no later than the September issue and that you will be willing to print columns of a politically-incorrect nature, the fight is on. The enclosed floppy disk contains all the columns I have already submitted, and will thus provide you with a selection of material from which you may choose if you restore my column.
And remember, if you censor because you fear the Thought Police, you are the Thought Police.
A very ugly incident of censorship has happened in Tampa Bay Mensa, and the purpose of my candidacy is to make this incident known, and to do something about it if I am elected. I used to write a column for the Sounding called " As the World Turns". (The attached logo was used for this column.) This column appeared eleven times between May 1993 and January 1995. It generated more letters to the editor and more response articles than any other feature of the Sounding, and was probably a significant contributing factor for three of the four nominations that the Sounding received for National Mensa Newsletter Awards as announced in the July 95 Sounding : (1) Best Newsletter Overall, (2) Editorial/Opinion Forum, and (3) Entertainment/Most Thought Provoking. But my column also generated something else: Jewish censorship, and a coverup by the ExCom. Here are the facts:
In the November 1994 Sounding my column carried an article which I originally entitled " Do Jews Love Nazis?: A Thought on the Dedication of the Washington Holocaust Museum", tho editor Chris Thomas removed the first clause. The events which occurred following publication of this article are as follows:
* A certain female Mensan called Chris and threatened to " tell her rabbi". * Chris received a letter from a rabbi threatening to " report the matter to the ADL" (The Anti-Defamation League is the powerful Jewish organization recently caught stealing police files in San Francisco, and which keeps thousands of files on American citizens and organizations.) * AMC Regional Vice-Chairman Eileen Steinhice (is she Jewish or is she Jewish?) " demanded" that Chris publish an apology (He declined). * Bailey Hankins, a Texas Mensan and well-known among Mensans nationally, published an article supposedly " refuting" my own in the following Sounding (actually, it was just a long whine about the Holocaust, and had essentially nothing to do with my article). * A letter from converted Jew Max Loick, published in the December 94 Sounding, called my article " anti-semitic". (A couple of months after his letter appeared, I called Max to ask him how he could tell the difference between anti-semitism and simple criticism. His answer (if you can believe it) was that it's not antisemitic to criticize Jews for the things that they are doing now (Max, himself, criticizes Jews for their undue political influence in Congress and Israeli treatment of Palestinians), but any criticism of Jews for anything during WWII or before is antisemitic. It is hardly necessary to remark on the absurdity of this answer, but I will anyway.) * I received a series of hang-up phone calls. * As a result of all the pressure, Chris published only one further column of mine, and then only after an animated discussion of the matter with me. In particular, he refused to publish a 2-part article I had specially prepared for the Sounding in response to all the brouhaha, which I had entitled " Holocaust Revisionism in One Easy Lesson". (I sent a copy of this article to Max Loick, who had accused me of " anti-semitism", but when I called him to find out his reactions, he said he had not read it and had no plans to. Maybe I should accuse Max of anti-intellectualism, right, Max?) Because I knew Chris had been thru a lot as a result of my article, I didn't make a big effort to get him to publish anything further. However, when George Zadorozny (the current editor) took over in July, I asked him to continue my column, but he flatly refused, saying something about its being " too extreme". And when I told him in response that I planned to make a stink about his censoring me (raising a stink is what, in part, I am doing now), he claimed I was " threatening" him (Poor li'l Georgie-poo!), a claim which he used to the ExCom to " justify" not publishing anything of mine. I asked George whether he was Jewish, and he denied it, but it is hard not to note that (1) George's last name sounds a lot like the last name of one of Russia's best-known public figures, Vladimir Zhironovsky, and (2) most of the Russians in America are Jews. (It is also true, tho little-known, that Zhironovsky is a Jew.) * I wrote a letter to the ExCom last July (sent to most of the members individually) pointing out the bulk of the above sordid facts, and asking them (roughly) to (a) censure George for his blanket refusal to publish my stuff, (b) create a review process for articles deemed by the editor to be " too controversial", and (c) to adopt a " free speech" policy for the Sounding by (among other things) rescinding the stated policy of not printing politically-incorrect (" sexist", " racist", etc) articles. Not only did the ExCom -- after a full hour of discussion, by the way -- not do any of these things, but the report by the LocSec Shirley Denton (published in the September 95 Sounding ) carefully avoided informing the membership of the real issues dealt with by my letter (altho she did say that one of the fundamental purposes of the Sounding was " to serve as a forum for members to express their opinions on matters relating to Mensa", and do we have a touch of hypocrisy here, or only a truckload?). In particular, in the report she wrote for the September Sounding supposedly describing the controversy, my name and column were not even mentioned, the whole matter was treated as an abstract philosophical issue completely divorced from its context as a dispute set off by my November column, and of course the matter of Jewish censorship was not even hinted at. Whether this was because the ExCom was scared shitless, or whether it was just Shirley, I do not know, but clearly there was a level of fear, dishonesty and coverup which is shameful and execrable, and which should be denounced in no uncertain terms. * I recently talked with several members of the ExCom to get a perspective on why they acted as they did. While the discussions were not very informative, the reaction from Kent Akselsen was interesting, to say the least: He suggested that if I wanted George to publish my column, I should make an apology for " threatening" him. With a backbone like Kent's, I'm surprised he can walk upright.
While the situation I have just described shows that there is something rotten in Tampa Bay Mensa, it is really a microcosm of a far greater rottenness, namely, the worldwide taboo on discussing Jews, and in particular the taboo on saying anything critical about them. My interest in being a candidate for ExCom is to expose this rottenness where everyone can see it, to embarrass those who are involved in it, and to do something about it if I can. Now as you surely must realize from the above events which I have catalogued, my ExCom candidacy (and particularly this letter) is going to bring down an entire dump truck of you-know-what on my head, tho I would never have chosen to be a candidate if I were not prepared for it. In particular I will be denounced as an " anti-semite" (indeed, I already have been, as noted earlier), and will surely also reap a whirlwind of the usual liberal epithets (" racist", " bigot" and you name it). In view of these facts it needs to be realized that " anti-semite" and similar terms are not so much descriptions as they are smear terms which are intended to silence those against whom they are directed -- which of course is just another form of censorship. In fact, the accusation of antisemitism is often a cover for Jewish anti-gentilism, about which more later. But in any event, I can only say, Don't ask whether I am an antisemite -- ask only whether what I say is the truth. A particular instance of the use of the above types of epithets is the fact that a favorite tactic of liberals in general and Jews in particular is to attempt to silence their critics by branding them as " haters". This is of special interest for many reasons, among which is the fact that modern-day Jewish icon and professional Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel advocated in his book Legends of Our Time (Avon 1968: 178-9) that " Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile hate -- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German." Altho I am of partly-German extraction, I take Wiesel's statement with a grain of salt since he is such a notorious liar (See for example " Wiesel - What a Phony Liar!", Christian News, 7 May 1990: 18). But for those who would attempt to brand me a " hater" (as I am sure some will), I would like to take this opportunity to point out that -- irrespective of how much some Jews may dislike what I say -- I am in fact acting in the best interest of Jews as well as gentiles. The explanation of this is simple, and may be best understood in terms of a simple analogy: If your kid acts up, you take him to the woodshed so next time he won't misbehave. That is, taking your kid to the woodshed is not an act of hate, or a desire to inflict pain, but the desire to make him behave properly. Of course the kid doesn't like it, but that is because he hasn't matured yet. Or to put it another way, taking the kid to the woodshed is in the long-term interest of the kid, tho it may be painful in the short term, and the same holds true when I take Jews to the woodshed. Now let me add one important clarification to the above. In discussing groups such as the Jews, there is a distinction which is at the same time both extremely subtle and extremely important, namely, the distinction between the individuals considered as individuals, and these same individuals taken as a whole or as a group. For example, when we take Jews as individuals, we all know that they are among our most successful, wealthy, productive and law-abiding citizens, and thus Jews as individuals can only be regarded as model citizens whom we all admire (or are at least jealous of). But Jews considered as a group are entirely different from Jews as individuals, for when acting in groups their behavior sometimes leaves much to be desired. One example already mentioned is the ADL and its $30 million a year spy operation against Americans, and another is the situation we have experienced at Tampa Bay Mensa. A third is the fact that, to use Pat Buchanan's phrase, the US Congress is " Israeli-occupied territory" (American aid to Israel totals the equivalent of about $750 a year for every Jewish family in Israel, and a lot more than this if you factor in $10 billion " loan guarantees", Israeli sale of restricted American technology to Red China, Iran-Contra drug/weapons deals, and the like.) A fourth is the vigorous attempt on the part of Jews worldwide to suppress Holocaust revisionism (ie, the work of historians who question what I call the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust) -- an attempt which has been largely successful, since revisionist materials are illegal in almost every country in the Western world except the US, and even here there has been a continuing attempt on the part of the Simon Wiesenthal Center to suppress revisionist writings on the Internet, and a continuing effort by organized Jewry to see that the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust is a mandatory subject in the public schools (Is there no ox so dumb as the orthodox?) But while the above are all important ill effects of organized Jewry, there is one which exceeds all others, namely, the fact that communism, which shrouded the world in a bloody totalitarianism for 70 years, was an essentially Jewish phenomenon, as has been thoroughly and unquestionably documented by historians (see, for example, Behind Communism by Frank L Britton) and the communist-socialist-leftist-liberal tendency remains a strong current in Jewish civilization in the present day, as reflected by the fact that Israel is a socialist state, and that, by some estimates, 85% of American Jews are liberals. It should be noted in this context that the deaths for which communism has been responsible have been estimated at 150 million in number (a great many of whom in the Soviet Union were Christians), while the very most that Hitler was accused of killing was a paltry 6 million in comparison (However, holocaust revisionists estimate that Hitler was responsible for no more than one million deaths, and have demonstrated (to my satisfaction, anyway) that the so-called " gas chambers" were a myth.) So I ask, does the fact that we as Americans are subjected to interminable whining about " the six million" Jewish deaths, but never never hear about the tens of millions of Christian deaths caused by Jewish communism suggest something to you about Jewish influence (!) or control (ARRRRGHHHH!!!!) of the media? (Just asking.) While there are other important examples I can give of the ill effects of organized Jewry, the point I am trying to make is that when I discuss or criticize " Jews", it is generally criticism of organizations or group tendencies, rather than Jews as individuals, who as I said are usually model citizens. For those of you who would like to know more about my opinions on Jews, I suggest you order my book Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Jews But Were Afraid to Ask Because You Thought You'd Be Called " Antisemitic" ($10.95+$2 shipping (full money-back guarantee (except shipping) any time), or write me for a free catalog of my 39 books at PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683). The catalog should be of special interest, since the reader will discover that some of the world's most prominent Jews -- MIT linguist Noam Chomsky on the Left, and economics Nobelist Milton Friedman on the Right, for example -- have had nice things to say about my works. In concluding my discussion of Jews, let me leave you with two thoughts: (1) The Talmud (the principal Jewish holy book) states that it is ok for Jews to rob, cheat or murder gentiles (Sanhedrin 57a) that it is ok for Jews to sodomize a neighbor's wife (Sanhedrin 58b) or to sodomize boys below age 9 and girls below age 3 (Sanhedrin 54b, 55a) and that Jesus is in Hell boiling in a vat of semen (Gittin 57a). (Quoted in Elizabeth Dilling, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today , Noontide Press, 1983.) (2) My altered ego JBR Yant (geddit?) states that no one could be anti- semitic who has heard Jascha Heifitz play Tschaikovsky's Violin Concerto. If this be antisemitism, make the most of it.
In concluding my campaign statement, let me say that, as I understand it, one of the fundamental purposes of Mensa is to give people with good minds a chance to exchange ideas and stimulate each other's thinking. Censorship is precisely contrary to this. If you agree with me, here's your chance to express your opinion by voting for me. I'll do what I can to make free expression a reality in Tampa Bay Mensa.
May 16, 1996
Frank Clarke Mensa Mailing-list Keeper Oldsmar FL
By e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
I see you aren't much of a believer in free speech. That, of course, is a very comfortable position, since most people do not believe in it, and it is always comfortable to run with the other sheep. And because opposition to free speech is such a common characteristic (flaw?), I try not to condemn people too harshly for it.
But besides not believing in free speech, I see you also don't believe in good manners (as demonstrated, for example, by your reference to me as " crazy as a loon" and " an ass", and my campaign statement as " trash", " arrant nonsense", etc). For a man who seems so upset about " libel" and other " bad" speech, it is a bit surprising to see what a nasty mouth you exhibit. But then perhaps it is not so surprising, since those who are so insecure (or whatever) as to feel compelled to suppress the opinions of others are just possibly prone to exhibit other pathologies, no?
To address your contention that the Sounding editor is compelled by policy not to publish ad hominem attacks on other Mensans, let me note that political campaigns often consist of attacks on those performing what the candidates consider bad acts, that this is the very essence of political campaigning, and is precisely what I am doing. It is true, of course, that Mensa elections often do not involve such attacks, but are merely popularity contests but if issues do arise involving questionable behavior on the part of Mensans, perhaps you should not have a conniption fit if these issues get aired. To this I would add that if the policy of no ad hominem attacks is upheld, and if it is interpreted as " no criticism of individuals allowed", then it will as a rule be difficult or impossible to have anything resembling a campaign for a Mensa election when there are substantive issues involved, since it will be impossible to call anyone to account for their bad (or perceived-as-bad) actions. That is not the way I believe things should be, tho it is apparently the way you believe they should be.
As to your suggestion that my campaign statement is libelous, I challenge you to find anything untrue in it (Note: Unpleasantness is not the same as libel: For something to be libelous, it must be false, as established a couple of years ago in the John Peter Zenger decision (1735)). It is possible, of course, that I have made some mistake in my campaign statement, and I am quite willing to change anything that can be shown to be mistaken, but I have not yet had anyone say that any particular thing I have written is untrue. Can you find an untruth? If not, might not your accusation of libel on my part be a libel on your part?
You say " I beg you to consider, if only for a moment, that you might be wrong. The alternative is that everyone is out of step.... but you, a proposition which requires great proof." In case you hadn't noticed, I am submitting my campaign statement to be judged by the membership. I would say that is a pretty fair act of considering that I might be wrong, because if I am, then in all probability the membership will ignominiously reject me. But what you want is not for me to consider that I may be wrong. Instead, what you really want is to keep the membership from considering whether I am wrong -- or (more importantly) right . I have shown my willingness to consider that I am wrong by the act of submitting my statement to be judged by others, while you have shown your unwillingness to consider that I may be right by your endorsement of censorship of my statement. Maybe you need to do a little more considering, Frank.
I hope you will forgive me if I have been too free in my speech in this letter, but then I was just doing as you do rather than as you say.
Have a nice day.
May 17, 1996
Frank Clarke Mensa Mailing-list Keeper Oldsmar FL
By e-mail: email@example.com
I do so enjoy seeing how angry I can make obnoxious people such as yourself, and from the fact that your response to my last letter was almost incoherent I can see that you must have pretty well blown a gasket. I just hope you didn't beat up on your wife.
I am greatly amused to see you take censorship to the ultimate limit by saying that you will " delete" any mail that I send you " over 2K". Certainly this is consistent with your behavior of failing to deal with reality (a failure which you accuse me of, incidentally, and qui accuse, s'accuse, n'est ce pas? ), but I can certainly understand why my letters cause you so much pain, since truth seems to be anathema to you.
The following are the only substantive accusations against myself which I can decipher from the incoherence of your letter, followed by my responses:
* I am " breaking the TBM printing budget" by submitting a long campaign statement, when I didn't really have to and furthermore, I did it " just to see myself in print". Response: Whether I " had to" I will leave to the individual judgments of the members but in any event the printing budget will be unaffected since (as I understand it) the Sounding will remain the same size. It's just that some of the more boring features, which the editor seems to enjoy printing so much, will have to be left out. As to seeing myself in print, my essays and cartoons appear monthly in national magazines, and publications by or about me now number about half a thousand, so I hardly think that getting some space in one of the most boring magazines around is much of a motivation.
* I'm hurting TBM by insisting they publish something potentially libelous. Response: As we know from things like the big settlement won by a woman who spilled coffee on herself and then successfully sued the business she bought the coffee from, almost anything can be the basis of a successful lawsuit. It is my view, however, that one will have a far happier life by ignoring the remote possibility of being on the receiving end of such abuses. As to TBM getting bad press from what I do, tough. I do what's right (at least by my own lights), and if someone wants to call it bad, then that's free speech. If TBM is so afraid of bad press over what I do, then let them expel me, if they can. Maybe then they'll get some really bad press.
I am highly amused that you urge me to " fess up" that I am Jewish. Your theory appears to be that if I'm not a Nazi, then perhaps I am even worse, namely, a Jew (Question: Does this make you an antisemite?) All I can say is, Who knows -- maybe I am Jewish. But who cares? I would be saying what I am saying whether I was Jewish or Gentilish.
I note your remark that I should " grow up". If " growing up" means being like you, I hope and pray I remain a babe in arms.
As always, have a nice day.
May 26, 1996: Also sent to the censors Ki Pickett, 1842 Mill Run Circle, Tampa FL 33613 Doug MacDonald, Box 826, Land O'Lakes FL 34639 Peg Brawner (already sent to husband Jack)
May 23, 1996
To: Tampa Bay Mensa Executive Committee - Actual and Potential Members Shirley Denton - 1007 Samy Drive, Tampa FL 33613 Chris Thomas - 1006 Sheldon Rd, Tampa FL 33626 Kent Akselsen - 3412 Blowing Oak St, Valrico FL 33594 Carole Austin - 2019 Nantucket Dr, Sun City Center FL 33573 Jack Brawner - 7837 Hardwicke Dr 323, New Port Richey FL 34653 Dana Groulx - 6368 92 Pl N #1801, Pinellas Park FL 34666 Delphine Jenness - 4509 W Rogers St, Tampa FL 33611 Barbara Loewe - Box 151173, Tampa FL 33684 George Zadorozny - Box 125, Oldsmar FL 34677 Jack Amos - 4109 26 St N, St Pete, FL 33714 Joseph M Joeb - 1001 Lake Charles Cr, Lutz FL 33549 Yvonne Robin Meadows - 17816 Rivendel Rd, Lutz FL 33549 Kathy Sheffield - 8724 Cobbler Pl, Tampa FL 33615 Karl Stevens - 221 Cindy La, Brandon FL 33510 Copies to: Other Mensa Officers R Perry Monastero - 4320 S Grady Av, Tampa FL 33611 (Public Relations Officer) Pat Tuley - 10912 Carnelian Dr, Riverview FL 33569 (Scribe) Eileen Steinhice - 506 Jan Dr #1, Southaven MS (AMC Regional Vice- Chairman) Frank Clarke - 150 Colette Court, Oldsmar FL 34677
In violation of the " Tampa Bay Mensa Newsletter Policy", the editor of the Sounding, George Zadorozny, has promulgated a full-scale 4-page ad hominem attack on me in the June issue. What is more, this reeks of the veriest hypocrisy, since the newsletter policy was cited several times to justify censorship of my own campaign statement in the same issue. Even worse, however, the editorial constitutes an improper and unethical attempt to influence the election of officers of TBM. I therefore request that you force publication of this letter in the Sounding as a response to that attack, except that you may omit the paragraphs censored from my campaign statement and/or the two letters I wrote to Frank Clarke, as you feel appropriate. I also request that you remove George Zadorozny as Sounding editor for his flagrant violation of newsletter policy. As a third request, I ask that the new ExComm should vote on establishing a " free speech" policy for the Sounding, and that if the ExComm rejects such a policy, I request that this policy be put to a direct vote of the membership. As a fourth request, I ask that the ExComm vote to censure those who voted or promoted the violation of the policy of Elections Supervisor Bonnie Wilpon, this policy being that no campaign statement would be censored.
The censorship of my election statement did much to demonstrate the major point I was trying to make, namely, that criticizing Jews or anything Jewish is absolutely verboten, no matter how much such criticism is justified and that anyone whose behavior might in the slightest way be construed as endorsing such criticism usually feels it necessary to wring his hands, beat his breast, point his finger at the one making the criticism, and yell epithets at him (hence the long morally-indignant " we find his beliefs abhorrent/are proud to stand with Jews against Mr Bryant" editorial by the Sounding editor).
The following are the censored statements in my campaign statement uncensored, with the censored parts in boldface, and my comments in brackets following the statements.
" Chris received a letter from a rabbi threatening to " report the matter to the ADL" (The Anti-Defamation League is the powerful Jewish organization recently caught stealing police files in San Francisco, and which keeps thousands of files on American citizens and organizations.)" [The ADL matter was widely reported in the mainstream press, and former congressman Pete McClosky is pursuing a civil suit against the ADL regarding these matters.]
" Whether this was because the ExCom was scared shitless, or whether it was just Shirley, I do not know, but clearly there was a level of fear, dishonesty and coverup which is shameful and execrable, and which should be denounced in no uncertain terms." [Aren't we happy George saw fit to spare us such disquieting terms, used universally by little boys (and girls, too!), which might shred our delicate adult eardrums!]
" A particular instance of the use of the above types of epithets is the fact that a favorite tactic of liberals in general and Jews in particular is to attempt to silence their critics by branding them as " haters". This is of special interest for many reasons, among which is the fact that modern-day Jewish icon and professional Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel advocated in his book Legends of Our Time (Avon 1968: 178-9) that " Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile hate -- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German." Altho I am of partly-German extraction, I take Wiesel's statement with a grain of salt since he is such a notorious liar (See for example " Wiesel - What a Phony Liar!", Christian News, 7 May 1990: 18). " [This issue of Christian News (a major religious newspaper) which I happen to have a copy of, contains a large amount of interesting material debunking Jewish Holocaust mythology, and includes articles by my friend Ed Toner, of Sacred Cow SIG fame, and his friend Joe Stano. Ed is one of the most educated persons I know on these and similar matters.]
" But Jews considered as a group are entirely different from Jews as individuals, for when acting in groups their behavior sometimes leaves much to be desired. One example already mentioned is the ADL and its $30 million a year spy operation against Americans, and another is the situation we have experienced at Tampa Bay Mensa."
" A fourth is the vigorous attempt on the part of Jews worldwide to suppress Holocaust revisionism (ie, the work of historians who question what I call the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust) -- an attempt which has been largely successful, since revisionist materials are illegal in almost every country in the Western world except the US, and even here there has been a continuing attempt on the part of the Simon Wiesenthal Center to suppress revisionist writings on the Internet, and a continuing effort by organized Jewry to see that the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust is a mandatory subject in the public schools (Is there no ox so dumb as the orthodox?) " [Virtually every time you pick up the newspaper you hear the Wiesenthalists beating the censorship drums. I've seen them quoted in the Wall Street Journal and the St Pete Times.]
" But while the above are all important ill effects of organized Jewry, there is one which exceeds all others, namely, the fact that communism, which shrouded the world in a bloody totalitarianism for 70 years, was an essentially Jewish phenomenon, as has been thoroughly and unquestionably documented by historians (see, for example, Behind Communism by Frank L Britton) and the communist-socialist-leftist-liberal tendency remains a strong current in Jewish civilization in the present day, as reflected by the fact that Israel is a socialist state, and that, by some estimates, 85% of American Jews are liberals." [Britton's book, copiously illustrated, is available from a little " racist" newspaper well worth reading entitled The Truth At Last, published by Dr Ed Fields, Box 1211, Marietta GA 30061.]
" The catalog should be of special interest, since the reader will discover that some of the world's most prominent Jews -- MIT linguist Noam Chomsky on the Left, and economics Nobelist Milton Friedman on the Right, for example -- have had nice things to say about my works." [In my current (May-June) catalog I had to leave out Chomsky's quote because I didn't have room, tho it appears on the back cover of Bryant's Law.]
" In concluding my discussion of Jews, let me leave you with two thoughts: (1) The Talmud (the principal Jewish holy book) states that it is ok for Jews to rob, cheat or murder gentiles (Sanhedrin 57a) that it is ok for Jews to sodomize a neighbor's wife (Sanhedrin 58b) or to sodomize boys below age 9 and girls below age 3 (Sanhedrin 54b, 55a) and that Jesus is in Hell boiling in a vat of semen (Gittin 57a)." (Quoted in Elizabeth Dilling, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today, Noontide Press, 1983.)
[Another interesting omission from my campaign statement was a title which I put across the top of each page, " Jewish Censorship in Tampa Bay Mensa". The reason for omitting it was obviously to keep as much as possible from calling attention to my campaign statement.]
The pattern of censorship exhibited by the excised portions of my campaign statement is obviously to treat the Jews with super-padded kid gloves. The message is clear: Criticizing Jews is (to use George's phrase) " abhorrent". But the censorship goes beyond this, for it is clear that the censors do not wish " the people" to get hold of any information which might upset their paradigm of " Jew = perfection". This is demonstrated by the omission of the citations which support my allegations, the omission of book titles which people might read and be " polluted" by, the omission of quotes by Jews themselves which demonstrate the extreme anti-gentilism of their most sacred texts, and of course the omission of the names and descriptions of two prominent Jews -- one of them a Nobel laureate -- who have praised my works, and who thereby give me the sort of credibility that few others have. In fact, the censors are even so brazen as to censor references to such widely-reported events as the criminality and spying activity of a major Jewish organization. Obviously, our censors have their lips planted directly on the Jewish anus, with their tongues fully extended. If you think the real concern of the censors was " libel", then I've got a great property in the Brooklyn area...
The following are comments on George's " editorial".
* George says " We reject Mr Bryant's arguments and beliefs." I wonder what exactly he rejects and why. Obviously he rejects free speech and the idea that there is anything to criticize about Jews. Does he also reject the facts of Russian history? Note: Early editions of the Jewish Encyclopedia actually bragged about the Jewish role in the establishment and promulgation of communism. Guess George rejects the notion that the writers of the Jewish Encyclopedia were truthful, right Georgie?
* I was told by members of the ExComm that the reason for the adoption of the current " official newsletter policy" which includes so many restrictions on free speech was to keep from causing a brouhaha like the one over publication of some slightly politically-incorrect essays in the Los Angeles Mensa area newsletter which made the national news. (Or in other words, the policy is, " Don't say anything controversial because we don't want to upset anybody." Hey, neat -- why don't we just restrict all Mensan conversation to " Hello", " How are you", " Fine" and " Goodby" ?) This was about the time I published my essay on " A Thought on the Dedication of the Washington Holocaust Museum" in the Sounding, and I did my darndest to catch the attention of the national (and local) news with that piece, but I guess they were burned out, and besides that, they don't like me very well down there at the Times, to which I have written so many politically- incorrect pieces that I put them into a two-volume work entitled Nasty Letter-Bombs: 150 Politically-Incorrect Unfit-to-Print Explosive Guided Missives that Shook the St Petersburg Times ($19.95+$2 shipping), which has an introduction by distinguished Canadian columnist Doug Collins. (For all that, however, the profile of me that the Times published (" A pigeon rebellion", 9 May: 1B) wasn't too bad, even if I did feel compelled to write the Times a two-page letter of corrections.)
* To answer George's assertion that " If communism was an 'essentially Jewish phenomenon', why did the communist gulags imprison and kill a multitude of Jews? Why did the Soviet Union terrorize and kill Jews who sought to emigrate to Israel?" To begin, I don't know to what extent these allegations are true. But if they are true, the explanation may simply be that some Jews didn't like communism, or at least communism as implemented by the Soviets. There's nothing that says that Jewish (or non-Jewish) communists can't harass Jewish anti-communists. My point was that communism came from Jews and was implemented by Jews, probably because of the cultural mindset of Jews but that does not mean that communism was biologically or theologically Jewish. Yes, Vagina, there is a difference.
* I cannot help noting the " record number" of the Sounding's awards nominations. Nor can I help thinking, in view of the uniformly boring quality of the Sounding, that the number of awards deserved is closer to zero. Thus it is very hard to keep from thinking that these awards were conveniently conjured up (perhaps with some help from Jews in high places, such as AMC obergrupenfuhrer Eileen Steinhice) to bolster a beleaguered editor whose magazine is about on par with his morals. Needless to say, I have no proof, but it sure is hard to keep from thinking. Particularly when my own pieces appear regularly in some of the finest alternative magazines in the country, but are not good enuf for the Sounding.
As another important point of response to George's editorial, it should be recognized that what George is (somewhat desperately) attempting to do is to paint me as someone " against Jews", as reflected, for example, in his statement that he will " stand with Jews against Mr Bryant". But as I have made plain (or tried to, at least), my opposition to " Jews" is merely opposition to Jewish organizations and " establishment Jewry" -- entities which have a long history of misbehavior, information about which is suppressed as much as possible, and in any event is taboo to discuss. In fact, it would be best to characterize my position as one which champions the ordinary Jew against the organizations which presumably represent his interests, but in fact whose survival (and the survival of the fat salaries of the professional Jews who staff these organizations) motivates them to fan the flames of hatred between Jew and gentile, and then rip off ordinary Jews for contributions by pointing to what they (the professional Jews) have done and saying " Oh, horrors! We are under attack by anti-semites!" And this is not just theory, for as Laird Wilcox has extensively documented in his book The Hoaxer Report, many so-called " anti-semitic" incidents are perpetrated by Jews themselves. An even better illustration is the mendacious campaign against Holocaust revisionism, which is the greatest cash (and holy) cow for Jewish organizations since Hitler. In fact, we might even say the Jews have become Christians in a way -- they love their enemies because those enemies bring the Jews so much money. And in view of the fact that " anti-semitic" incidents in America dropped almost 40% last year -- a fact much bemoaned by the professional Jews -- you can be sure that these guys will be salivating over my campaign statement, since -- with selective quotations and a few judicious lies -- it should be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to them in contributions (Hey, which side am I on, anyway?)
In conclusion, in response to George's anecdote about an answer to the question " When does the night come to an end", my answer is this: The night comes to an end when censorship -- and particularly censorship done by Jews and in the name of Jews -- comes to an end, and thus finally allows people like myself to throw some light on a few subjects that most folks have been kept in the dark about for far too long.
(Allen Neuner is the Mensa National Ombudsman.)
August 22, 1996
Allen G Neuner 13 Lorraine Terrace Boonton NJ 07005-1239
Dear Mr Neuner:
I have a dispute with my local Mensa organization. The dispute has a long history, so I will merely give the bare-bones outline here, and supply further information if you are interested in hearing more.
I formerly wrote a column for the local newsletter which appeared almost a dozen times over a two-year period under two previous editors. While my column was " politically incorrect", and thus drew occasional criticism, I never had any " problem" until I published a column critical of Jews. Then the roof fell in. Here are some specifics:
* The newsletter editor was put under pressure to apologize, which he did not do, altho he essentially dropped my column.
* The new editor made a blanket refusal to publish any more of my columns.
* I recently ran for ExComm, because the election rules permitted an uncensored campaign statement to be published in the newsletter which I used to air the issues relating to my conflict. But -- you guessed it -- my campaign statement was censored. The " justification" for the censorship, of course, was completely bogus.
* Altho a longstanding newsletter policy forbids the publication of personal attacks, I have been attacked several times, but have never been given the opportunity to respond. A particularly egregious example was a several-page editorial by the newsletter editor denouncing me because of my campaign statement.
* The ExComm has explicitly refused to adopt a " free speech" policy, but instead forbids " racist" and " sexist" speech, ie, speech which questions liberal racial, ethnic and sexual politics. I have pointed out to no avail that Mensa is supposed to be an organization where people with good minds can exchange ideas, so that the forbidding of certain types of opinions is contrary to the spirit of Mensa.
* The report of my efforts to get the ExComm to adopt a free speech policy, published in the LocSec's column of the newsletter, were reported in such a way that it was impossible to grasp the significance of what I had requested.
To resolve this conflict, I ask that my views be given an uncensored airing in the newsletter, and in particular that all the letters I have written in response to the various attacks on me be published there. I also ask that my column be restored, and that if a column is rejected for cause, that this censorship be submitted to a vote of the ExComm, and that the fact of its censorship be noted in the newsletter so that those who want a copy may obtain it.
I realize that you may be Jewish, or liberal, in which case it is entirely possible that your response will be to deposit this letter in the wastecan. But in case you should happen to feel that there might be an injustice here, let me know and I will send you full details.
I have enclosed a catalog of my books, one of which Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Jews... contains the essay which started the conflict. You may be interested to read the description of this book and the accompanying review.
September 17, 1996
Allen G Neuner 13 Lorraine Terrace Boonton NJ 07005-1239
Dear Mr Neuner:
Thank you for your letter of 8 Sep. I am taking your recommendation to contact Mr Lange and Mr Swanson however, contacting Ms Steinhice is inappropriate because she is one of the principals in the controversy (Specifically, she " demanded" that our newsletter editor print an apology for publishing the piece of mine on Jews.) It sounds from your letter that the dispute as it involves election statement censorship improprieties is now within your purview. Please advise me what is now appropriate for me to do with respect to this particular matter.
Third Letter to Allen Neuner
September 29, 1996
Allen G Neuner 13 Lorraine Terrace Boonton NJ 07005-1239
Dear Mr Neuner:
In response to your letter of 22 Sep, I do not wish to seem disrespectful, but it appears obvious to me that someone who has " demanded" that a newsletter editor apologize for publishing an essay of mine is hardly an unbiased judge of anything regarding me, to say nothing of being an unbiased judge of a situation in which she has very clearly demonstrated a bias and in which she is also personally involved.
I respectfully await your reply.
April 6, 1997
Dear Fellow Tampa Bay Mensan:
This letter is to tell you about how free speech is being suppressed in Tampa Bay Mensa, and how you can easily change things by signing an Initiative Petition. Free speech, of course, is what everybody says they are in favor of -- right up until somebody says something they don't like. But as Supreme Court Justice OW Holmes Jr once said, free speech is not about permitting speech you like, but rather about permitting speech you hate (Or, as I say on the cover of my catalog, " Free speech is offensive speech" ). But the bottom line about free speech is this: If you're against it, then you're intellectually dishonest, because opposing free speech means there is information or arguments you feel the need to conceal and are afraid for others to hear, probably because such information or arguments would show you to be wrong -- or a fool. As you may or may not know, a couple of years ago my popular award- gleaning Sounding column was dropped because of the fallout from an article I published in the Nov 94 issue criticizing Jews and I remain banned from the Sounding's pages by the current editor, George Zadorozny -- who is supported in his act by the EC -- because my opinions are " too extreme". These facts, plus the letters and articles denouncing me, the hang-up phone calls, the threats, and the many other events which have happened since -- demonstrate quite clearly the enormous taboo in criticizing Jews, the determination of organized Jewry to stamp out criticism at even the lowest levels, and the incredible intolerance which both Jews and non-Jews exhibit to hearing " the other side" of what is a growing and -- contrary to most people's prejudices -- vitally important debate. Last year I became a candidate for the EC in order to take my case to the members via a campaign statement which was supposed to be published uncensored in the Sounding (Needless to say, vital parts of it were censored). I had hoped that members would be upset about the censorship and demand change, but what people seemed mostly upset about was the fact that I dared to criticize Jews. Free speech is in every honest person's long term interest. This is because, while its suppression usually stems from a desire to avoid (unpleasant) criticism, all of us need criticism because without it we usually can't know where we are going wrong (and we are usually going wrong somewhere ). While free speech about sex and religion were the main targets of censors just a few years ago, today the speech which is most suppressed is that which is " politically incorrect", eg, the criticism of certain groups favored by liberals, including blacks, Jews, women, gays, the handicapped, and a few others. Exactly how wrong we are going as a result of the suppression of politically-incorrect speech can be illustrated by the following facts whose knowledge is vital to our political and personal interests, but which -- if discussed in the major media at all -- are generally disparaged as " racist" or " antisemitic" : FACT: The average black IQ is 15-20 points lower than that of the average white. (In light of all the equalitarian propaganda in the media, did you ever wonder where all those black Mensans are?) Personal and political importance: All the billions of dollars of your taxes being spent on " affirmative action", quotas, set-asides, welfare and other programs which supposedly provide blacks with " equal opportunity" simply cannot produce the desired effect, because the huge IQ gap means that most blacks simply can't perform anywhere near the level of most whites, particularly in a high-tech age. (More to the point, most programs to " help" blacks are actually taxpayer ripoffs which, according to black libertarian columnist Walter Williams, have cost $5.4 trillion in the last 30 years, which reward black incompetence and laziness, and which therefore cause these qualities to become more and more widespread). Documentation: There is virtually no disagreement among professionals in the intelligence field on this matter. A recent popular discussion is The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray. FACT: The crime rate for blacks is nine times that of whites. That means that if the black and white populations were equal in numbers, nine of every ten criminals would be black. Personal and political importance: Is it " racist" (as liberals contend) to want to stay away from the ghetto, live in a white area, not have black neighbors or co-workers, send your kids to white schools, lock your car door or cross the street when you see a black, etc -- or is it simply wisdom? Documentation: Department of Justice statistics reveal that about half of all prison inmates are black, tho they are only about 12% of the population. You do the math. FACT: The " six million" Jews supposedly killed by the Nazis is an admittedly false figure. The plaque at Auschwitz claiming 4 million killed was recently changed to read 1.1 million. But the " six million" number -- based on the old Auschwitz figure -- is actually less than one million, as confirmed by the Nazi death books recently obtained from Soviet archives. What is more, the " six million" figure actually originated in a propaganda speech given during World War One ! On the other hand, however, the Soviet communist regime -- founded primarily by Jews, and whose first law was one against antisemitism -- killed 50 million, and the Chinese communists 80 million. (I wonder why you can hardly pick up a newspaper without reading about the " six million", but never hear a word about " the 50 million" or " the 80 million". It couldn't possibly have anything to do with Jewish and leftist influence in the media, now, could it?) Personal and political importance: Does it bother you to think that everything you " know" about these important subjects is wrong, and that the people you trusted have lied or misled you? And if the Jews and their friends have managed to keep these facts out of general circulation, what else have they suppressed? (The answer might surprise you.) Documentation: See the wealth of historical revisionist material at http://www.codoh.com. See also my book Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Jews But Were Afraid to Ask Because You Thought You'd Be Called " Antisemitic" . Noted historian Robert Conquest has documented the Soviet and Chinese figures. FACT: Zionist Jews offered a military alliance with Hitler in 1941. I noted this in the Sounding article which caused my column to be canceled. And with all the reaction to that column, it is notable that no one ever disputed my statement (I wonder why). Personal and political importance: See last " FACT". Documentation: " Zionism and the Third Reich", Journal for Historical Review, July/August 1993: 29 (34). The above facts are important because if they are true (and they are, tho I encourage you to verify them for yourself), then not only do they make mincemeat of a significant part of liberal ideology, but they support an important collection of ideas which liberals customarily denounce as " racist" and " antisemitic". But important as they are, these are the very sorts of things which Sounding policy excludes from being printed. This is particularly egregious in view of the fact that one of the three stated purposes of Mensa is " to provide a stimulating intellectual... environment for its members" ( Handbook, p 17), and one of the current policies regarding the Sounding is that it " should function as a forum for the intellectual exchange of ideas among members" ( ibid, 28). In addition to the above facts, there is at least one other important argument against censorship. In the words of my altered ego JBR Yant, " to suppress discussion is to invite concussion", ie, suppressing the discussion of differences is an invitation to violent confrontation. Words are the weapons of the civilized man, and the only people who ultimately profit from suppressing discussion are those who want violence. But if these are the general arguments against censorship, there is a specific one which applies to my case: In view of the recognition which my writing has received, if I am not qualified to write for the Sounding, then who is? To this I would add that my politically-incorrect views -- however " extreme" they may be considered -- appear monthly along with my cartoons in one of the finest alternative newspapers in America, the Nationalist Times (Box 426, Allison Park PA 15101 $25/year). In view of the above, I would like to ask you to sign the petition below and return it to me, the basic purpose of which is to force a TBM referendum on the matter of censorship. As an inducement to get you to return the petition, if you enclose a stamped self-addressed envelope, I'll send you copies of two letters I wrote in response to ones sent to me by nasty-mouthed Mensan Frank Clarke last year which I think you'll find rather interesting, plus an uncensored version of my 1996 campaign statement and maybe a couple of other little surprises. Meanwhile, be sure to read " Dirty Little Secrets" in my catalog. I also hope you will consider buying some of my books, since it has been costly in both time and money to make this mailing (Note that all books carry a money-back guarantee).
We the undersigned members of Tampa Bay Mensa (TBM) request the Executive Committee (EC) to promptly submit the following policy statement to the membership for approval or disapproval in a referendum, with the understanding that approval will make the policy binding on the EC and the editor of the Sounding as provided in the TBM Bylaws:
The following shall be the policy of TBM: * No submission to the Sounding shall be rejected for publication by the editor on the basis of its content unless deemed libelous in a written letter by a competent independent attorney. * The policy against publishing material which is politically incorrect (ie, " racist", " sexist", " ageist", " that which demeans any religious or ethnic group or creed", and the like) is hereby rescinded. This is in recognition that a vigorous discussion of political and social issues cannot occur unless it is possible to print material which may offend various groups, since such groups often figure prominently in social and political events. It is also in recognition that the political left uses accusations of " racism", " sexism" and the like to suppress discussion of issues which it does not want examined. * The policy forbidding ad hominem attacks on members is to be modified as follows: Criticism of individuals, their acts or their works is permitted in the pages of the Sounding, providing that the criticism has a substantive rationale which is expressed in the article in which the criticism appears ie, mere name-calling unaccompanied by substantive argument is forbidden. Also, any person whose work or person is criticized must be given reasonable opportunity for timely response. * John Bryant's column " As the World Turns" is to be reinstated as a feature of the Sounding, and is to appear monthly as long as any officers of TBM who held their office in 1996 serve as editor(s), providing Mr Bryant supplies sufficient columns. This provision is for the purpose of recognizing the significant hostility among TBM officers which has been exhibited toward Mr Bryant because of his opinions, and which has led to the suppression of his column since the beginning of 1995. * Submissions to the Sounding shall be held no longer than one month before being rejected or accepted. * If it is determined that the editor has deliberately violated these policies, or if it is determined that he has violated them several times whether intentionally or not, he is to be dismissed promptly.
Printed name: ___________________________________________________________
Dirty Little Secrets You Should Know
* When I ran for EC last year, George Zadorozny, the current Sounding editor, violated Sounding policy by using the Sounding to launch a long personal attack on me in the same issue containing the candidates' statements. His action was also unethical because he used his unique position as newsletter editor to attempt to influence a Mensa election. * In subsequent issues, George again violated Sounding policy by allowing two personal attacks on me. He compounded these unethical acts by not allowing me to reply to either. * One of the personal attacks cited above was by Joseph M Joad, who complained in a letter published in the July 96 Sounding that I had used the logo of my own column in my campaign statement without his permission. It is difficult to imagine how a supposedly-intelligent person could make such an outrageous charge. It was the logo of my column. Who the hell else but me could or should use it? If I had known he was going to try to assert some " right of ownership" over it, I would never have consented to its use in my column. What's more, he used (or stole, if you want to get technical) the idea for his drawing from one which I drew myself and which I intended to serve as my logo, and which I would have preferred to use (It was the choice of Ben Crumpton, the Sounding editor at the time, that put Joad's drawing on my column, not mine.) In my view, the nature of Joad's complaint has shown him to be of distinctly low character. * When I complained to Mensa national ombudsman Allen Neuner about the censorship of my campaign statement and the improper behavior of the Sounding editor with respect to the election, all Neuner did was to refer me to three other Mensa officers, none of whom did anything. Furthermore, against my vigorous protest, he insisted that the person to handle my complaint of election irregularity should be Eileen Steinhice, one of the very persons involved in the irregularity! (Justice Mensa-style). * The following quote is from the report in the December 1996 Sounding on the EC meeting of 24 August: " Jack Brawner led a discussion on positive comments resulting from our handling of the difficulties around the last elections. National and Regional had watched with interest, and were positive in their comments on our discreet action." Sounds like I had the high muckamucks worried. Maybe this letter will worry them some more. * It is notable that the EC has imposed a 500 word limit on candidates' statements for this year's election (they actually wanted to make it 200 words, but accidentally published the wrong figure), and has required these statements to conform to the Sounding policies of political correctness (to insure that the one important issue in this election will not be discussed) and no personal attacks (did you ever hear of an election in which candidates were not allowed to attack one another?) Is there a tiny odor of rottenness here? * At a Mensa social gathering on 28 February during a period when I requested the assembled company to sign a nominating petition for me (I have since decided not to run), a Mensa member named Phyllis Dutrow alleged to the company on the basis of my last year's campaign statement that I was a " Nazi". As many people know, it is a favorite tack of liberals to try to silence their opponents by calling them names -- " bigot", " racist" and " Nazi" are some of their favorites -- but what they are beginning to find is that a lot of people are refusing to be intimidated by their attempted smears. I think it is ample testament to the moral corruption of liberalism that its proponents seek to stifle debate rather than answer their opponents' arguments, and ample testament to the degree of lowness of Ms Dutrow's character that she would say such a thing to me, particularly when I had said virtually nothing to her except " hello" (If I were less devoted to free speech, I might very well sue her for slander). To this I would add that, having been exposed to Ms Dutrow's bitter spitefulness, it is not so hard to understand why people once burned ugly old women as witches. * As you can see from the catalog, my book Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Jews..., which contains my article from the November 94 Sounding that raised such a ruckus, was praised highly by two prominent Jewish authors. * Because I am enclosing a catalog with my letter on the Initiative Petition, the EC will undoubtedly try to get back at me for my efforts by saying that I used the TBM mailing list " commercially", which is supposedly forbidden by TBM policies (tho I could find no such policy in the Handbook ). The reality, of course, is that my catalog contains information about me that the EC doesn't want you to have -- namely, information about my politically-incorrect books, the acceptance which my writing has won, and -- most especially -- the fact that the EC looks foolish for censoring a person of my achievements. The reality is also that -- having received only 5 votes last year -- it is unlikely that my anti-censorship message holds that much appeal in TBM, and thus it is unlikely that I will sell many books, and even more unlikely that I will make back the cost of postage and labor expended in making this mailing. Of course, as I have already described, EC doesn't bother obeying its own rules, so I suppose they will surmise that another unethical act like going after me won't hurt them that much. So what am I getting out of this effort? Simply an opportunity to embarrass the hell out of a bunch of people who ought to be embarrassed -- tho I admit that they appear to be so unethical that they may be beyond embarrassment.
Of more than 500 " Letter to All Tampa Bay Mensans" mailed, which included the Initiative Petition, " Dirty Little Secrets" and a copy of my catalog of 39 books, only five petitions were signed and returned -- a very poor showing indeed. In calling people to find out whether they received my mailing and what their reactions were, one thought the mailing was " disgusting", one thought it was " full of hate", one felt it was a personal dispute, one seemed favorable without necessarily being enthusiastic, about 10 said they did not receive my mailing, and about twice that many did not answer their phone, even tho I called at a time when most people would have been home. In addition to the petitions, I received about as many returns marked " refused" or " take me off your mailing list", all from women (women are predominantly liberal) except for one. I received only one piece of " hate mail", tho its sender -- Maynard Hirshon -- was at least courageous enuf to sign his name. It began " Here's some free speech for you: Fuck you." and continued on in this vein for several more sentences. It is interesting that, of the more than 500 Tampa Bay Mensans who appear in the TBM membership booklet along with (in most cases) brief biographies and a listing of interests, Hirshon is the only person who lists himself as a liberal, and does his behavior take anyone by surprise? My response to Hirshon was the following note:
" Insults are the last refuge of the out-argued. However, they do speak volumes about the character and manners of those who use them (in your case, none at all). Have a very nice day, Mr Hirshon."
Needless to say, I haven't heard from him again.
April 23, 1997
Jack Brawner Tampa Bay Mensa LocSec 3869 Siena Lane Palm Harbor FL 34685
This letter is in response to the comments in your " The LocSec's Column" in the May Sounding. I'm submitting it for publication in the Sounding, but in view of editor George Zadorozny's previously-exhibited hostility to me, I don't really expect it to see the light (or dark) of print. But, as I explain later, it is a decision he may later regret.
Let me begin on a positive note by saying that I think you probably mean well. However, I should qualify my statement by saying that, in all probability, so did Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
The reason I want to start by saying something positive is because I want to contrast my attitude with that of yourself and the rest of the ExCom. In particular, what you wrote, what George wrote in denouncing me last election, and what others have published in the Sounding, have all had the characteristic of painting me as -- to coin a phrase -- " totally evil". And do you know what that is a characteristic of, Jack? Let me tell you. It's the characteristic of extremists. People who view the world as black- and-white with no shades of gray. People who say " If you're not for me, you're against me". That's right, Jack. You and George and the ExCom are extremists. And of course it is particularly pleasant to point this out because liberals are always attempting to characterize their enemies as " extremists" and political correctness -- which you and the ExCom are trying to enforce on me and the Sounding -- is a phenomenon invented and promoted by liberals.
Now Jack, I know you say you are a Republican and " not a politically correct guy", two facts which presumably make you a non-liberal. But the problem, Jack, is that there is a tiny contrast between what you say you are and how you behave, because your article in the Sounding clearly shows that you are not merely politically correct, but that you are TBM's enforcer of political correctness since you are the guy selected to beat me up verbally in the Sounding's pages. Which makes you not only an extremist, Jack, but also a hypocrite.
In your Sounding column you claim that my actions have become " increasingly disruptive". That statement, of course, is intended to impute something negative to me, and represents a typical liberal use of words to falsely imply something negative about someone's actions or opinions. In a sense, of course, I am disruptive, but the disruption involved is a disruption of ingrained and false liberal thought patterns, and specifically an inclination to political correctness and censorship. In case you didn't know it, Jack, this is precisely what intellectual exchange is all about -- the disruption of falsity and its replacement by truth. This is a disruption which most Mensans at least nominally recognize to be one of Mensa's purposes. But not you or the ExCom, Jack -- noooo way! Because for you, anything disrupting to political correctness or censorship is " evil" (ie, " antisemitic", " racist", etc). Sorry to disrupt your thoughts on that one, Jack.
Another thing you (effectively) accuse me of in your Sounding column is falsely saying that my column was " award-gleaning". As I explained in my campaign statement last year
I used to write a column for the Sounding called " As the World Turns". This column appeared eleven times between May 1993 and January 1995. It generated more letters to the editor and more response articles than any other feature of the Sounding, and was probably a significant contributing factor for three of the four nominations that the Sounding received for National Mensa Newsletter Awards as announced in the July 95 Sounding : (1) Best Newsletter Overall, (2) Editorial/Opinion Forum, and (3) Entertainment/Most Thought Provoking.
Of course, it doesn't really surprise me that you didn't remember this, Jack, since you seem to remember only what is convenient for your own purposes. However, before calling my statement " blatantly untrue", it would have behooved you to have just picked up the phone and asked me why I said it, particularly in view of all your efforts at sharing your thoughts with " multiple advisors/counselors" in writing your column. But then being truthful has never been your strong suit, has it now, Jack? Particularly while you're defending political correctness out of one side of your mouth while denying you are politically correct with the other. Right, Jack?
Yet another example of your using words to distort the truth is your statement that I " tried to intimidate" the Zadoroznys. The suggestion here is that I did something unethical -- things like you and the ExCom have done to me, which I outlined in " Dirty Little Secrets" and elsewhere -- but in fact I did absolutely nothing to " the Zadoroznys" except to tell George that I would " raise a stink", which is, I believe you would agree, a true statement. But then perhaps you and the Zadoroznys find the truth intimidating, since you seem to avoid it so often when speaking about me.
Your next distortion of the facts involved using the phrase " after garnering the necessary five signatures" giving me the right to run for ExCom. In actuality I had about 14, including several in the form of letters from people with whom I had discussed my reasons for running. The implication of your statement was that I was hiding the reason for my candidacy from all the people I got to sign my petition but the fact was that I took my petition to a Mensa function for signatures on the advice of ExCom member Dana Groulx, who told me that this was customary, and I didn't bring up the reasons for my running because I didn't need to, tho I was quite prepared to. Gee, Jack, how can one person pack so many distortions into one brief essay?
Your next distortion of the truth was to say that my campaign statement was " laced with personal attacks -- on the Jewish culture/religion as a whole and on some individuals as well". Besides the absurdity of the statement that I made " personal attacks" on the " Jewish culture/religion" (is the Jewish culture/religion a person?), the implication of this statement is that there was something wrong or unethical with what I said, but you did not present any facts supporting your position -- nor, I believe, could you, for all of my material was relevant to my campaign. But again, it is the characteristic of liberals to twist words and turn apparent neutral descriptions into condemnations. For a non-liberal, you've got the liberal act down pretty well, Jack.
Your next distortion of the truth was to say that no one signed my election petition at the " recent [Mensa] event". In fact, someone did sign it -- someone who just happens to be a member of the election committee. But under the circumstances -- a heated argument in the middle of a restaurant -- the lack of enthusiasm for signing was perhaps not surprising. Certainly your distortion of the truth was not surprising.
Your next distortion of truth was to say that my recent mailing contained " racist material" and " anti-semitism". Tell me, Jack, what is " racist material" and " anti-semitism" ? An acquaintance of mine, LA Rollins, once said that antisemite used to refer to someone who doesn't like Jews, but now refers to someone whom the Jews don't like. Is that your definition? Then maybe you're right, if the Jews you are referring to are in Tampa Bay Mensa. But no matter what definition you use, you are going to have a hard time pegging me as an antisemite when -- as you could see from my catalog - - there are so many prominent Jews who have had nice things to say about my books, particularly my book on Jews. As to " racist material", I think I pretty much hit the nail on the head in my book Mortal Words when I defined racism as " The term a liberal uses to call a man a nigger." Is that your definition, Jack? (Sure sounds like it.) But my real point is that, except for the matter of " award-gleaning column" discussed above, there was nowhere in your little screed where you made any accusation that anything I said in my mailing was false. Or to put it another way, maybe (by a liberal's definition) what I said was " racist" and " antisemitic", but nowhere did I say anything false. Am I right, Jack? Can you identify any falsehoods? Please tell me, Jack. Pretty please?
Let me now deal with your accusation that my mailing was " in clear violation of Mensa and Tampa Bay Mensa policies". I'm guessing that you mean that it is contrary to policy for the mailing list to be used by members for " commercial purposes" and if this is what you are referring to, then I already discussed this matter in my mailing, so I will not repeat my argument here. I will note, however, that since you have presumably read my argument, it is notable that you did not answer it, most likely because you could not. So -- acting in the liberal mode, as now seems to be your practice -- you simply attempted to smear me by accusing me of violating policy without bothering to present any argument that I had actually done so. That's typical of liberals, Jack -- smear, smear, smear, but never, never present supporting facts or arguments. Tell me, Jack -- are you a liberal yet?
To comment on your remark about your " disgust for what John Bryant stands for", let me say that it is very hard to keep from noticing that, in all your 700-or-so-word discussion of my letter, you never once mentioned my stated purpose in writing it, namely promoting free speech in TBM. It does indeed boggle the mind that a person could discuss my letter in such detail without ever mentioning what the letter was about, but you, Jack, managed to do it, and just possibly this is yet another reflection of your determination to obscure truth at all costs. But let me ask you a question, Jack: Is your " disgust" at what I stand for a disgust for free speech? Sure as hell sounds like it. But if it isn't, then why not tell me what it is? I'd just love to know how disgusting I am, Jack.
To comment on your apparent inability to understand why I am " tilting at such an unsympathetic windmill" (which, incidentally, is yet another attempt to cast me in a bad light by making me out to be a comic buffoon like the main character in Don Quixote ), let me explain something which is hopefully not too complicated for your mind to grasp. The men who founded America pledged " their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor" to " secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", and one of these liberties was the freedom of speech. And a lot of the men who made or supported that pledge lost their lives and fortunes in trying to accomplish their task, Jack -- tho I venture to say that none lost their sacred honor. I realize, of course, that -- in view of the new dumbed-down liberal-produced multicultural national history standards in which George Washington is hardly mentioned at all but Sojurner Truth and Harriet Tubman are regarded as icons -- holding the Founding Fathers and their work in high regard is now considered corny and outre, but there are a few of us old folks who nonetheless do. And because I regard freedom of speech as not merely a convenience, but actually a necessity for the proper operation of both personal and social life, I am willing to give of myself to help preserve the Founders' dream. To this I would add that it is interesting to contrast our relative positions: You stand with the crowd and the establishment and receive its support and plaudits, while I stand almost alone, the subject of venomous attacks, vitriolic hatred and social ostracism. Am I crazy or masochistic? Or is it that I have the courage to stand up for what is right -- the courage to be, in Thoreau's words " a majority of one" ? Maybe there's a buffoon here, Jack, but somehow I don't think it's me.
Now that I have discussed your letter thoroughly and demonstrated how shot thru it is with untruths, lies, distortions and general disregard for the truth -- all of which have been employed -- not against any ideas which I stated, but rather against me personally -- my character, motives and the like -- I would like to ask you a question. How can you write such an attack on a person and how can George Zadorozny publish it in the Sounding when it is in clear violation of Sounding policy against ad hominem attacks? Well, I'll tell you how, Jack. It is because you and George (and the rest of the ExCom) don't give a good God-damn about TBM rules or about acting ethically. You are just out to get me at any cost because I'm politically incorrect and you don't like it. So let me put it to you " real straight", Jack. If I get called before some sort of Mensa tribunal because of your charges, then I'm going to get on the phone and start calling lawyers, and I'm going to see if I can find one who will take my case on a contingency fee basis (that means I don't have to pay anything, and the lawyer takes his fee from the result). And I am going to suggest to the lawyers I talk to that they sue American Mensa, and all the officers, and all the members of Tampa Bay ExCom, including you, Jack. I will suggest that they sue for libel and defamation of character, and maybe some other things, like violation of contract (Mensa membership is a contract). It's possible, of course, that I won't find a lawyer, in which case you win, and if that's the way things turn out, then I'll offer my congratulations in advance because I admire people who can fight, even if they are fighting for the wrong thing. But let's face it, Jack. I've got so much stuff on you and the ExCom and American Mensa in this case that if I were you, I just wouldn't sleep too comfortably at night. And if George refuses to publish this letter in the Sounding, then that will be just one more nail in your coffin, because it will be just one more indication that you have no interest in truth or discussing issues relevant to Mensa, but every interest in assassinating my character.
Think about it, Jack. And George. And the rest of you.
And have a very nice day.
Copy to: George Zadorozny, Box 125, Oldsmar FL 34677 others.
If you've read this far, you know that the behavior of the Tampa Bay Mensa Executive Committee and its supporters has been little short of outrageous in the matters discussed here. But what is even more outrageous is the passive acceptance or endorsement of this behavior by the membership. If this battle were the kind where one puts life or limb in danger, the response would be understandable but when it requires nothing more than signing and returning a petition, then there is obviously some type of serious problem. So what, then, is the problem? In part, I think, it is due to the success of our educational " system" -- the government schools and the mass media -- which have succeeded in dumbing down an entire generation and infecting it with the bogus ideas of liberalism, including political correctness, thereby leaving Americans cut off from the traditions of freedom so valued by the Founding Fathers. But whatever the intermediate cause, the ultimate cause is that people on the whole do not much value the freedom of speech. For one thing, most people are conventional, ie, they don't have opinions that differ much from those of others, so they can't see much use in their personal lives for free speech. For another thing, even if they do have unconventional opinions, free speech is still not worth much to them if they have to suffer social disapproval for exercising it. For someone like myself, however, who is cursed with highly unconventional opinions and a determination to speak his mind irrespective of social disapproval, free speech is as necessary as breathing. If, then, the problem we are dealing with is that people do not value free speech, then the solution to that problem is to show people how valuable it is for their own personal lives. The purpose of the many books I have written has been in part to do this, since the use of free speech to convey valuable information is itself a covert argument in favor of it. Unfortunately, however, it seems that free speech will become more and more the province of an intellectual elite for as the educational " system" continues its devastating dumbing-down effects, there will be fewer and fewer people who possess the mental tools to appreciate or engage in free speech, or to think beyond the boundaries installed by the princes of liberaldom for their compliant sheep. In the present context it seems appropriate to mention that my fight with the TBM ExCom is not the first time I have come across people in Mensa who are eager to censor what I say. When I was a member of the now-defunct Eternal Golden Braid Mensa Special Interest Group, Sander Rubin -- a founder of American Mensa and past AMC chairman, and also a member of EGB - - wrote a long diatribe against me which appeared in the October 1990 EGB newsletter, and in which he advocated that I be censored. While it is unclear from his musings whether or not it was my political incorrectness that got under his skin, it was clear enuf that he preferred to have me censored rather than to answer my arguments -- or rather to try to answer my arguments. This conflict is especially interesting in the present context because at the date of this writing, Rubin is running for election (again) as AMC chairman, and his campaign statement, which appears on page 14 of the April 1997 Mensa Bulletin, states " I believe in the round table, the fundamental metaphor of Mensa, as the basis of a good society, and in openness as the basis of just government.... I want to bring Mensa into the 21st century by exploiting new communication and information processing facilities, with the goal of connecting all members person-to-person using community-owned resources, without censorship or other controls from above. My record shows I can do it." Or to put it another way, Rubin is not merely a censor, but a smarmy hypocrite as well. In conclusion, let me say that I have taken up the fight against censorship in Mensa in part because of my personal desire for open communication, but also in part because I feel specially qualified for this fight, and hence feel a special responsibility to others who also believe in free speech but may not be able to support it in the way I can. But whether or not I am specially qualified, I do feel strongly that each of us has a social responsibility to " keep our own doorstep clean" -- ie, to do whatever we can to make sure that the small part of the world that we live in remains in as good order as possible -- with the result that, if only everyone upholds his own small responsibility, then all the world will be " clean".
In case you're wondering why you never heard about " my" scandal in the papers, this essay may help you to understand.
It is the attitude of many people that if they don't read it in the papers, hear it on the radio or see it on tv, then it can't be true. As it happens, however, there is a great deal which never appears in the papers, radio or tv which is not only true, but vital. In fact, I have made a mini-career out of keeping up with the many things of this nature which the mass media either do not mention or else mention only with scorn and my books and articles literally overflow with information on such topics. Indeed, the alternative press is based upon -- and could not even exist without -- the mass media's gross ignoring of topics. But why are the mass media averse to mentioning certain things? The main reason is that the mass media are, by definition, for the masses, and thus the beliefs which the mass media must entertain are necessarily conventional, for otherwise the mass media would endanger both their ratings and their advertising revenue. Another important reason is that the mass media -- or at least the news division of the mass media -- is a creature of government and lives in a symbiotic relation with it, in the sense of being dependent on the government for news releases, interviews and various other attentions and perquisites which the government lavishes on reporters, and which the government can withdraw from any news organization the government finds offensive. A third reason is that reporters are lazy (aren't we all?), thus meaning that they would rather not have to do the digging which unconventional stories require. The result of all this, then, is a sort of King's New Clothes phenomenon, in which important stories percolate up from the alternative media and begin little by little to infect people until such stories can no longer be ignored, at which point the stories are " broken" by one of the mass media sewer-pipes, thereby letting the home- town toilet-papers know they are ok to discuss. Now some would object to the above analysis by saying that papers are " scandal-hungry" but this is largely false. In particular, most newspapers nowadays are near-monopolies, which means that the circulation blips created by printing scandals will not add much to long-term circulation, but the anger which scandals produce are likely to affect long-term circulation negatively. Or to put it another way, the mass media has known for a long time that no news is good news, and that's why they never give any.
John 'Birdman' Bryant is a philosopher, logician, cartoonist, libertarian, award-winning-poet, and the author of 40 books (available thru his website, www.thebirdman.org, which has a complete list of his books along with descriptions and reviews, or by special order thru any bookstore from the Socratic Press) and hundreds of popular and scholarly articles. He did his undergraduate work at Antioch College and the American University, receiving his B.A. in mathematics in 1968. His works have been praised by Nobel laureates and many other distinguished men and women, and he is listed in Who's Who in the World and other prestigious biographical volumes. Among his many accomplishments are the development of Relative Modal Logic, the discovery of Bryant's Law and the Fundamental Theorem of Utility Theory, and the solution of numerous troubling paradoxes, including Hintikka's Paradox, the Allais Paradox and the Gambler's Paradox. Mr Bryant's scholarly publications in logic and philosophy have appeared in academic journals in America and a number of foreign countries, while his popular articles and cartoons appear from time to time in the American alternative press. In addition, Mr. Bryant has been deeply involved with the philosophy of the extended family movement, and this involvement won him local media recognition several years ago for founding and directing an innovative extended family program at the Unitarian Society of Germantown in Philadelphia. Mr Bryant was dubbed " Mensa's resident iconoclast" by Tom Elliott, the legendary high-IQ organization's book review editor ( Mensa Bulletin, Oct 97), was labeled the " Birdman of Pinellas County" (FL) by a local radio station, and is one of the few individuals in the world to have had seven separate laws passed specifically against him (for the infernal crime of bird feeding). He writes the libertarian, iconoclastic and very politically-incorrect Birdman's Weekly Letter, available free via email from firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Socratic Press was founded in 1986 for the purpose of publishing works by or about John Bryant, or works which are directly complementary to the ideas or themes which Mr. Bryant has developed in the numerous books, articles and pamphlets which he has written. The Press is one of the first book publishers in the world to develop and use the technology of print-on- demand, an advance made possible by the use of Aldus (now Adobe) Pagemaker software. The Socratic Press is named for Socrates, the gadfly of ancient Athens who questioned everything, was put to death for " corrupting the youth", and who began a philosophical tradition which has endured for almost 2500 years.
Authors who are interested in submitting manuscripts for possible publication by the Press should know that manuscripts of any length will be considered, but cannot be acknowledged or returned unless a self-addressed stamped envelope is included with the submission.
Authors who are interested in submitting manuscripts for possible publication by the Press should know that manuscripts of any length will be considered, but cannot be acknowledged or returned unless a self-addressed stamped envelope is included with the submission.
Freedom isn't free!
To insure the continuation of this website and the survival of its creator in
these financially-troubled times, please
send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683
" The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."
today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
Remember: Your donation = our survival!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John " Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *