Correspondence with Tom Clancy on the Race Question

By John "Birdman" Bryant


Tom Clancy is one of America's most celebrated novelists, and a favorite of the military types about whom he often writes. Unfortunately, he is a better novelist than he is a philosopher, as the following correspondence between him and the Birdman demonstrates. James von Brunn, who is mentioned in the correspondence, is a WW2 PT boat captain, champion of white rights and Western civilization, the author of a highly-praised book, and the creator of the website which the Birdman has recently linked.

To: Tom Clancy

From: John 'Birdman' Bryant (

Re: Von Brunn correspondence

Dear Mr Clancy:

I have read thru about a third of the correspondence which you had with Jim Von Brunn, which the latter gave me. I have some reactions which I would like to pass on.

First, I am sure you are an excellent novelist, based on the widespread popularity of your books. To be outstanding in a highly competitive field is certainly an achievement.

On the other hand, the uncivilized behavior you exhibited toward Mr von Brunn is appalling. It is true that he was not always civilized in return, but this is perhaps understandable in view of your constant profanity and insults. When someone insults me, I always point out, in an echo of Dr Johnson, that insult is the last refuge of the out-argued. And I think that is true in your case. While Jim has some attitudes and beliefs that I disagree with, I think his general tenor is in the right direction, to mix metaphors. (I hasten to add, however, that such questions as how right or wrong was Hitler, the Jewish question, and the many questions related to these topics, are complex and difficult, and there are no easy answers.) I used to be a flaming liberal, but once I began to actually study the matter -- first, holocaust revisionism, and then other subjects -- I became convinced that the side we always see depicted as 'evil' was actually more- or-less right, and that the very reason for hammering away at their supposed 'evil' was to keep people from actually studying the matter in a serious way.

I am not prepared to get into a long correspondence with you, because I think that throwing spitballs at each other as you and Jim did is no way to settle a complicated argument. I do, however, suggest you visit my website,, which has become one of the more popular on the Web as ranked by I try to treat many of the matters with which Jim is concerned in a somewhat systematic way, and my Daily Reads page posts articles on a regular basis which deal with these matters.

I am taking my time to write this letter because you are an important person who can influence others. I do believe that you will be surprised if, as many before you have done, you choose to educate yourself on the 'other side'.

In closing, I have to wonder why you call yourself 'politically incorrect'. In my experience, this is just the nice name for the opinions which liberals -- and yourself -- call 'bigoted', 'hateful' and the like.

Thanks for your time. -Birdman

On 7/29/02 at 12:15 PM wrote:

I am and try to be civil to everyone, but not without limits. I saved all of the exchange with this character. People like him interest me in a clinical sense because I am indeed a writer, and I often write about abnormal personalities. The chief of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins is a friend of mine - a Jew, by the way - a brilliant physician, and a Nobel candidate. Where he goes to church is between him and God. I have many Jewish friends, and I am loyal to them because a man who is not loyal to his friends is valueless, and many of them are truly superior people. I utterly reject racism in all its forms. I've known Colin Powell for over 15 years. He's is one hell of a fine man, and a truly great American, well respected by his peers - four-star officers - and, buddy, that's one tough audience. But to this von Brunn character, Colin is just another "nigger." You know, one of my close friends is a former FBI agent who worked the Goodman-Cheney-Schwirner case in Mississippi in 1963. Those three American citizens were working to get other American citizens the right to vote. This is a right guaranteed them by the Constitution, which is, by the way, the Supreme Law of the Land. Your friend would probably have wished to deny them that right. That desire is not consonant with the United States of America. I spit upon such people. My friend sent them all to federal prison. They're all out now, I suppose, but they've calmed down quite a bit. My FBI friends despise them all. Why? They are criminals, murdering terrorists, one of whom shit his drawers when arrested. Quite a man, eh? Von Brunn also walked into a government building, by his own account, armed (he claims the gun was not loaded, but one cannot tell that from three feet away can one?), and demanded that his rather eccentric view of the law be accepted by others. Well, you know, that's pretty damned dumb. He was sent to prison for stupidity, claiming to me that he was unfairly railroaded by Jews and others. No, buddy, he went to jail for being rather incredibly stupid, to the point of madness in my opinion. (I've never looked into his case. I could have done so - I have a lot of FBI friends - but why waste one's time on an idiot?) Most offensive of all, after serving (so he said) his country in World War Two, he now says that he admires Adolf Hitler for his views and his actions. Hitler, in addition to being among the most evil men every born, was also a total fool, albeit a clever one in political terms, who though himself to be God's own gift to the human race. I am a serious student of history. I know Sir John Keegan, for example, probably the best military historian alive today. Hitler had no strategic or operational sense at all. Like most mad politicians he saw things entirely through his own lens of aesthetics in which he was the arbiter of reality. Now, it's been said that had his personal doctor known about the medicinal use of lithium, Hitler might have worked out as a mediocre painter, but absent proper medical treatment he was a madman responsible for millions of deaths, about ten million of them German, the people he was supposed to look after. Your friend denies all these facts, and further denies that the Holocaust ha ppened. Hitler himself said that is did, and at the conclusion of the war, we got possession of voluminous German documents (they wrote everything down, you see) confirming the fact. Okay, sure, there are those who deny it. I put them in the same class as those who report Elvis sightings. Such a fact could not be hidden (the Germans tried to hide it - and why hide a falsity?), nor, if true, can it be denied. The British historian David Irving tried, and failed, to demonstrate not that it didn't happen, but that Hitler himself did not know if it until it was too late to stop. Plausible, perhaps, that the satraps of a dictator might go off on their own and do such a thing, but in this case, not demonstrably true - and even if it were true, Hitler is still responsible for being the chief of government who allowed it to happen through poor supervision. Therefore, I conclude your friend is an ass. I tried to reason with him and failed. I add to his offensives the suggestion that the Catholic Church is peopled entirely with homosexuals (then also suggesting that they practiced their perversion on me) which was much more true of the German NDSAP than of the Church of Rome. In short, I have nothing for which to apologize, least of all to that ass von Brunn. TC

[Birdman responds:]

Dear Mr Clancy:

Thank you for your long response.

I am not going to try to defend Jim any more than I have done, because I, like you, do not know details of his case. I can say this, however: He was trying to change what he saw as a corrupt system, and he put his balls on the line to do it. Maybe it was stupid (hey, we Mensans are not averse to a little stupidity once in awhile), but on the other hand it was both a thousand times more courageous and a thousand times more caring than anything most people will do, and for that alone, Jim wins my kudos and respect.

As to the Holocaust, let me very briefly say the following: I have read both sides of the controversy, tho primarily the revisionists, because the literature of the 'other side' pretty much doesn't exist for the reason that apparently they have no good arguments against the revisionists (Even Churchill, in his monumental history, did not mention 'gas chambers'). On the basis of the logical power and factual consistency of the revisionists, they win hands down, IMHO. I have given a summary of my findings in "Holocaust revisionism in one easy lesson" which you will find at

As to Jews generally, I have always liked them on a personal level, but liking Jews as individuals is a far different matter from the question of the effect of the international Jewish nation on America and the Western world. Another closely-related point is that most people do not understand the difference between criticism and hatred, so that when they hear someone who criticizes Jews, as I do quite a bit, the reaction is to yell 'hater' and 'antisemite'. To this I can only say, "Ask not whether I am antisemitic; ask only if I am right." In this regard, see the following essay on my site, "The case against the Jews", which is probably the best summary of my 'antisemitism', and which will be found at:

One other essay that I believe might be of special interest to you is my piece "Why I am a white racist", at:

If the above three articles excite your interest, you will find many more on my site of equal quality.

In your letter you spend much time on negative comments about Hitler. This is not a subject I know a great deal about, but there are two things I feel compelled to say: First, Hitler's railing against the Jews does appear somewhat crazy -- UNTIL you look at the facts outlined in "The case against the Jews" (mentioned above) and until you consider numerous developments SINCE WW2 -- particularly the Jewish dominance of the media and its result, namely, the spreading of the virus of liberalism -- in view of which Hitler seems to have been right on the mark in an amazingly accurate and possibly psychic way. The second thing I am compelled to mention is that Hitler was guided by what we might call an 'older morality', which only became 'immoral' following WW2, namely the morality which every nation practiced up until that time, and indeed which Americans practiced in taking America away from the Indians, namely, the morality of 'To the victor belong the spoils'. In this sense, then, Hitler was simply a champion of the white race, and should be honored as such. Certainly he should not be judged by the liberal/Jewish standard of 'tolerance' which has been imposed upon the world as a result of the Allied victory, and which is on the verge of putting Western civilization six feet under.

In conclusion, while some write me off as a crackpot, most do not; and this is reflected in the popularity of my website (more popular than your own most popular site by a considerable margin, according to which has achieved its status by word-of-mouth alone, and in the testaments of numerous persons of unquestionable credentials (including Jews) who have passed favorable judgment on my books. The only power I have is the power of my ideas, and if they leave you unmoved, then so be it. I would never condemn anyone for an honest opinion, whether it be the same or different from mine; I would only hope that they would listen sympathetically to the other side, and it is precisely the 'other side' -- on many subjects in addition to race -- to which my website is devoted.



[The following letter is from Clancy, but interspersed with the Birdman's comments, which are marked by asterisks *******.]

I have made comments on your letter interspersed in your text and marked with *******

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 8/1/02 at 7:50 PM wrote:

I took the time to read over your letter and its website references. You know, about 150 years ago, when the Irish Catholics got off the boat, we were the "niggers" of America. We got the worst jobs and housing. We were despised for our provincialism, our accents, and our drinking habits. We were especially despised for being Catholics. But, being hardworking people, we toughed it out, and now we are in all the professions, including writing. We've build numerous universities, and a few cathedrals. So what happens? Anti-catholic prejudice is the last respectable class-hatred. (Except for people like you, of course. You doubtless hate Catholics and Jews, along with blacks. How do you feel about Hungarians?) Dear God, man, are you a member of the DAR. Do you sit down to take a leak?

******* Tho it is somewhat off-topic, I often make the point that a number of minority groups came to America, and were discriminated against -- Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Jews, Polish, etc -- but all succeeded within a generation or two -- EXCEPT blacks and Indians. There is an obvious conclusion to be drawn from that -- neither all men nor all RACES are created equal -- but I am pretty sure you won't draw that conclusion in view of the statements you make later in your letter.

******* Now as to your assertion that 'I doubtless hate Catholics and Jews', it is clear that you did not remember the point I made in my last letter that criticism is not equivalent to hate. (It is a point easy to see, altho not many people seem to have the intelligence to grasp it: Tho one may criticise his wife, that doesn't mean he hates her.) You also stumble on another item: You, like most conventional thinkers who have been conditioned by the racial propaganda of the liberal media, believe that hate is 'evil'. But in fact hate is neither evil nor good: As I often say, Hate is good, provided only that it is directed against hateful things. It is actually more complicated than that, however: Hate is an emotion. It happens. Like sunshine, or rain, or shit. Therefore it is neither good nor bad except in reference to some context: Rain is good if things are dry, bad if there is a flood. Hate is bad if it causes innocents to die, good if it helps a man defend his family from a burglar. So what is the result of your inability to distinguish criticism from hate and your inability to see that hate is not necessarily bad? Quite simply it leads you to the conclusion that I hate Jews because I criticize them, and that I am evil because I hate Jews. But these conclusions obvously do not follow. They do, however, have a big advantage for you, because they keep you from having to grapple with my criticisms of Jews. Because if you had to do that, then you would have to concede that I am right in everything I say. Or if you say that this is not so, then I challenge you to find even one major point on which I am wrong. That, of course, would hardly refute 'The case against the Jews', but my point is that you cannot even do that.

Birdman, I commend to you the Declaration of Independence - just the preamble: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…"

****** While it may be debated what Jefferson meant by this, it is clear that none of the Founders believed blacks and whites were 'equal'. Jefferson, Washington and others were slave-owners; and Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, explicitly declared black inferiority.

In proclaiming that, America gave the world a pattern to follow. The rest of the world is still trying to catch up, but the countries that have tried hard to emulate America's ethos live in much greater prosperity than those who remain in the past. You know, maybe there's a message in that. Smart people happen everywhere, Britain, Europe, Africa, China, all over the place. Since America gave them all a place to bloom, we've led the world in invention, in material prosperity, and in the sheer joy of life. "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free…" The big shots all stayed home and burned in two world wars. The losers came over here and twice saved Europe from itself, then saved the entire world from Communism. We're both the most advanced and the most generous nation in all of human history, and we became that by rejecting the ideas you espouse. Maybe there's a message in that, Birdie.

****** While I am not clear on what ideas of mine America was supposed to have rejected in order to become great, the fact is that there has been legal discrimination against blacks from the founding of the nation until 1954, our greatest period; but since these legal barriers have been removed, the nation has been seething from racial discord. In short, legal discrimination was good for America during its greatest period.

America is not a race. We're healthy mongrels.

****** America may be a mixture of strains, but these strains are primarily WHITE. Virtually no achievements, whether in America or otherwise, can be attributed to blacks. This is consonant with the fact that the average American black has an IQ of 85 (average white is 100), average African has an IQ of 70 (borderline retarded), and that no black country has ever achieved anything approaching civilization (Look at Africa today, now that the whites have left. Where else do you hear of baby rape? Where is the rape capital of the world? Where is the only continent where slavery and cannibalism still exist?).

America is not a plot of dirt between two oceans. America is an idea, an idea delineated in the Constitution that enshrines the rights of individuals, not groups. Liberals are trying to dial that backwards, but they will fail. Why? Because the Constitution protects the average guy, and the average guy is pretty smart, something which the Europeans still have not grasped. Better a truck driver in Congress than some Harvard Ph.D., because the truck driver knows that you need brakes and a steering wheel to get you out of problems that your daydreams get you into, and that you have to pay the bills at the end of the month. Jews. I have a lot of Jewish friends. My editor. My former publisher. My agent. One of my lawyers. My personal physician, and a lot of his colleagues. One of these guys is a pediatric oncologist, the most courageous man I know. He fights every day for the lives of children. He fights hard and smart, the survival rate has doubled since he got into the business, and he's the man who made some of that happen. I've seen what losing a kid does to him. But he's a Jew, and therefore must be a bad guy, right?

*****Again you equate criticism and hate. Did you by any chance notece that my book on Jews was reviewed favorably by two prominent Jews?

Birdie, where the hell is your head at? You judge men by who they are and what they do, not by who their parents were. Sure, there are Jews unworthy of the air they breathe, but so are a lot of Irishmen, and even Germans, believe it or not (one such bastard kidnapped and killed Charles Lindbergh's son). But I've never met a Jew unworthy of his American citizenship. "Race" is an obsolete concept. Do you know what DNA is? The DNA of a black man in Zambia is virtually indistinguishable from yours or mine.

****** As pointed out above, there has never been a black civilization worthy of the name (The Egyptians were not black, BTW). And that, coupled with the fact that even blacks in America have never achieved much, should be strong enuf testament for differences in race to any but the most tenaciously prejudiced. As for DNA, it is said by some that chimpanzee DNA is 97% the same as human. Hey, are you ready to vote in a chimp for president?

DNA wasn't discovered until 1953 or so, after Hiller and his coterie of assholes went down for the count. The lionization of Hitler and his bunch just boggles my mind.

******Hitler was almost certainly the grandson of a Rothschild. He had many Jews around him, incuding his valet and cook, and more than 70 generals.

The guy was a loser who came to prominence through a remarkable series of coincidences, and then ran his country right into the ground. The real accident happened in World War One. America might have been better off to stay out of that one, because it killed off a whole World Order and replaced it with scar tissue. Had Germany won, Hitler would have gone back to painting postcards in Vienna and Lenin would have written more pamphlets in Zurich, and maybe the world would have stumbled through progress behind America, but, no, the vengeful European states wanted to destroy Germany, and so they started with the Kaiser (by no means God's gift to the world, but a man not entirely devoid of virtue) without whose elimination the Holocaust would not have been possible (Wilhelm II had a lot of Jewish friends, and besides, the Kaiser ruled by God's sufferance, and kings do not slaughter their own people, because they recognize that there is a God somewhere up there - and besides, Hitler would never have defied the Kaiser). But those idiots all wanted revenge and twenty years later they reaped the whirlwind. Who ever said chiefs of state were smart? At least Wilhelm II knew when to call it a day. Hitler decided that since the Germans lost, they were unworthy of him, and then he takes the coward's way one by eating a gun + cyanide sandwich. Fucking coward.

******Anyone who faces death at his own hand is anything but a coward. Certainly the Japanese have always considered suicide honorable (hara-kiri, remember?) But the Catholics forbid it, so maybe that is why you so vehemently denounce it. Could it be that you need to be multiculturalized?

But you guys think he was the Second Coming. Second coming of what, I am afraid to ask. He could have won the war if he'd had half a brain and listened to his soldiers. (Even Wilhelm II read Alfred Thayer Mahan, for Christ's sake!) But you think he was a great man.

******This is pure fabrication on your part. I never said Hitler was a great man. I have never been particularly concerned with him. He had his greatness, and his failings. To what degree he was great or not could be debated endlessly -- and pointlessly.

Why? Because you share the madman's prejudices? Because you would rather hate than love? God help your kids. Human beings are more than things made of flesh and blood. We are creatures of ideas. The successful cultures in human history are those which lift men's hearts and minds, not the ones which pander to our baser instincts. America has done that, not by screaming how superior we were, but by telling the world that we will offer them the opportunities that other countries are too dumb to extend to its best and brightest - that we believe in them and their children, and if they want to work hard the world is theirs for the taking. And, oh by the way, in enriching themselves they also enrich their country. And you know, it worked. Else how does one explain the computer you're using?

******Computers were invented by WHITES.

You know, a few years go Colin Powell erected a monument out at Fort Leavenworth for the black troopers of the 9th and 10th Cavalry, and the 24th and 25th infantry regiments. I yelled at Colin about that. We've been friends for a lot of years, and he neglected to ask me for a donation. Why was I mad? Those soldiers fought (pretty well, as a matter of fact) for my flag. And so they also fought for me, and I have a right to honor their memory just as I've honored other such units. Can you stretch your brain that far? TC

******* In conclusion, you did not deal with a single idea in any of the essays I suggested you read, much less did you refute any of them. That is because you can't, and you know it. Instead you went on and on about a lot of irrelevancies such as Hitler, whom I rarely mention, and WW1 and 2, which are irrelevant to our discussion. It is clear, Mr Clancy, that either you are intellectually dishonest in refusing to deal with the ideas I present, or else you are so blinded by your own prejudices on race that anything which challenges them is simply an idea too large to fit into your cranial cavity. But prove me wrong, Mr Clancy. Take any of my essays and refute it point by point. (Or alternately, just refute me on any 3 or 4 major points.) Unless you do that, my respect for you will be permanently in suspension.

[Clancy has not yet responded. If he does, the subsequent correspondence will be posted.]


* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *