Mensa Letters: In reference to the Birdman's Mayday 2001 Mensa letter

Click for Birdman John Bryant's 'The Case Against the Jews' which is thoroughly documented

Letters and emails are unedited.



        ******* ELIZABETH FALKNER:
        We have had enough of YOU! Take us off your SPAM list.
        DO IT NOW!
       
Truth does hurt, doesn't it?
Birdman,
        Put your droppings elsewhere. We are sending a cc of your guano to the Ombudsman and hope you will be stopped from spewing your crap to those who don't want it.
        Your desire for free speech is laudable; your spamming is not.
       
        The Falkners
Ah, I can always recognize a liberal - the writing is full of insults and NEVER addresses the issues.
        Droppings, eh? Well please be informed that 'droppings' are Nature's way of fertilizing new growth, tho in your case, as with all liberals, I suppose that is impossible.
One further point: If you don't want to hear from me, then (hold onto your hat, now!) DON'T WRITE!


        ****** ERV CUTLER
        Do NOT mail anything to me in the future. I am simply NOT interested in Hate mongers like you. Why don't you do something useful like dying, so that the world will be incrementally better with the likes of you gone! Is that clear enough?
       
Gee, Erv, if you hate hatemongers so much, why is it you sound like one? Could it be you just don't like yourself?
It's people like you that my efforts are directed. Is that clear enuf?
I would tell you to have a hateful day, Erv, except that I am afraid that's exactly the kind you enjoy. Is THAT clear enuf?
Poor insignificant SICK man! What a pity! A mind is a terrible thing to waste, as they say! And to waste it on hating various peoples and groups is even sadder! GET A LIFE !! DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN . I intend to contact American Mensa HQ, and see if they can stop you, since you insist on tormenting me with your drivel and insane rantings.What an ASSHOLE !!
Golly gee whillikers, Erv - I see you just can't get out of the rut of badmouthing people. Well, let me tell you something, Erv, insult is the last refuge of the out-argued. It's the same with all you liberals - you can't argue, so what's left to do? (Certainly not what's RIGHT to do!)
One other thing, Erv. If you don't want me to write you, then (are you ready for this) DON'T WRITE ME! It's as simple as that, Erv, m'boy. But on the other hand, if you DO write me, then you are very likely to be tormented. And you know why? Because I am right and you are wrong.
It's as simple as that, Erv, m'boy! Is THAT clear enuf?


        ******* JENNIFER BROWN
        REMOVE MY NAME AND E-MAIL ADDRESS FROM YOUR LIST. ANY FURTHER MAIL FROM YOU WILL BE TURNED OVER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR PROSECUTION AS HATE MAIL!
       
While you are doing all your turning over, perhaps you ought to turn over your OWN letter, which is full of hate, and -- in contrast to this and my previous one -- does not direct any hatred toward your person. But then you are probably so full of hate and are so frothing at the mouth that you are unable to see that, right Jenny?


        ******* CANDACE BRISTER
        Please get a life. A significant numer of us are tired of hearing FROM BOTH sides of this issue and wish the topic would die.
        Thank you, Candace Brister
Tell me, Candy, does 'getting a life' require one to be brain-dead with respect to the issues raised by my letter and on my website? To me, that sounds surprisingly like getting the life of a paramecium.
John, (ah.. I can at least spell your name correctly!)
        Since you have lowered yourself to the level of name calling (ie "Candy"), I can only assume that you have little else to do but to demand attention for your damaged ego and waste the time of others.
        I reviewed the issues at the time they were raised and the second and the third. At some point I realized that when egos and a lack of sensitivity and understanding were driving the arguments, I had more important things to do than to listen to people whine. I also had more important emails which directly impacted my community and the people that I care about, which your email prevented from being recevied into my mailbox.
        Perhaps from your narrow viewpoint, you consider everyone who doesn't agree with you and whom you have offended my emailing them your position paper to be brain dead. I would like for you to completely take this out of the Mensa arena because I am tired of hearing about it and having it WASTE my resources.
        Getting a life means be respectful of others (which you can not do by insulting people) and making a positive difference in this world (which you cannot do by sitting at home emailing your complaints about near everyone to anyone whose email address you happen to have access to). It does not address brain activity but it does raise your personal level of respect in the community. Right now you have very very little regardless of the validity of your points based on the manner of presentation and the lack of understanding about how this world functions in the year 2001.
        Does this answer your questions? I hope so. Please delete me from your email address book. I prefer to not waste time on those with closed minds.
        Candace Brister
Dear Candy (or Candace):
I didn't realize that anyone would consider a common version of their own name an insult, but then I guess when you are looking for dirt, you will find it, even if it isn't there.
I would say it is a fair statement to say that liberals like yourself, none of whom will actually discuss the issues, are brain-dead with respect to those issues. It is not an insult, just a fact.
But it is the liberals who use insults, and they do for the very reason that insult is the last refuge of the out-argued. That is why you continue to insult me (lack of sensitivity, narrow, etc).
But I shouldn't bother you any further - I know how unconfortable the truth can be, especially for liberals.
PS If 'getting a life' means being respectful of others, then surely you are the one who must 'get a life', as your insults -- especially as compared with my non-insulting responses -- clearly make you the one who is far shorter on respect than I.
John, It is an insult to shorten someone's name, especially when you have not been invited to do so and it is a common name of a hooker. I have asked twice to be removed from your email adress book. I will consider any additional emails from you to be harassment.
        Go find someone else to annoy.
        Candace
Here's the rule Candace, or whatever your name might be: If you don't want to be annoyed, DON'T ANNOY! If you don't want to be written, DON'T WRITE! If you don't want to be harassed, DON'T HARASS! Is that Mensa-clear?


        ******* HOLDEN CAUFIELD
        As a fellow Mensan, but more important, as a human being, I'm absolutely appalled by your remblings. I've never seen such unbridled anger propped up by such medicore [sic; presumably mediocre - RW] reasoning. You remind me of these pathetic guys still trying to prove cold water fusion. You're very sad and need professional therapy.
        H. Caufield
You sound jealous of my achievements. Are you sure you had your BM this morning?
See? this is what you thrive on. Please do not write me again.
Among other things, I thrive on putting fools in their place. And btw, if you don't want me to write you, DON'T WRITE ME!


        ****** W RICHARD FREEMAN
        There is a certain mentality which demands everyone recognize his/her individuality. One way this is accomplished is by making anti-social remarks, writing or drawing obscene pictures (preferably on a church, school, or side of a privately-owned business), or by performing actions which "normal" people in society consider offensive to the peace and tranquility of everyday inter-relationships. It is indeed unfortunate you should choose to waste your intelligence on this kind of activity. Pointing out the foibles and idiocies of society is a legitimate activity for pushing for social change, but one should use solid facts tempered with common sense when writing these anti-social tracts.
        To point to Auschwitz and say "only" 1.1 million, instead of 6 million Jews were exterminated, is missing the point. The 6 million figure was a total of all the Jews killed in the several concentration camps scattered throughout Europe, Auschwitz being one of the larger and "busier" ones.
        To generalize the demand of the return of art works and life savings which were stolen by the Nazis, by characterizing that demand as terrorizing the western banking system, is not good logic, not correct debating procedure, nor is it factually correct.
        It was within the rights of Mensa Bulletin editors to edit or refuse to print all of, or portions of your writing, if the writing turns into a diatribe of unsupported allegations against all the people of any ethnic, religious, political or other group. If you refuse to provide supporting facts, (other than general quotes by people with the same anti-social outlook as yours), then society, or in this case the editors of the Bulletin, have the responsibility to demand proof of your statements. You do not have the moral right to whine about people picking on you, if you continue to make generalized, unsupported, anti-social or anti-anything statements . You appear to be just trying to draw attention to yourself, like an immature, under-educated-but-cocksure, adolescent.
       
The facts are on my website, Richard, should you care to read them. See especially 'The Case Against the Jews' which is thoroughly documented.
Mensa was wrong to allow me to be attacked without letting me respond. If you can't see the injustice of that, then you don't have a sense of justice.
The point about the Auschwitz count being formally reduced to 1.1 million from 4 (not 6) is that Jewish deaths have been much exaggerated, in the same way that the killings perpetrated by the Jewish bolsheviks of the Soviet Union have been ignored (in the area of 60 million). These are merely two points in a tapestry of lies which have whitewashed communism and allowed Jews to profit enormously from their supposed victimhood - more than 120 billion from the US (to Israel) and a similar amount from Germany. As the Israelis say, 'There's no business like Shoah business'.
It is my policy to link anyone who wishes to post a response to anything I post on my site. So far, after almost 17,000 visitors, I have not had a single request. I would say that is a pretty fair test of my contentions.
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that your ideas are so far removed from reality that nobody wants anything to do with them? I am one of them.
And perhaps it has not occurred to you that you have been lied to about a lot of things to the point that you yourself are removed from reality.


        ******* MARY W MATTHEWS
        Dear Mr. Bryant --
        Please remove my name from your e-mail list. If you were anywhere near as cogent a thinker and as effective a writer as YOU think you are, the world would be a wondrous place indeed.
       
Dear Mary: If 'irrationality, illogic and ignorance' are my primary characteristics, How do you explain that my work has received praise from Nobel laureates and many other distinguished men and women, or that more than 16,000 people have visited my wibsite with much priase but virtually no hate mail, or even that I have posted letters from friendly Jewish rabbis? Why it's very simple Mary -- you can't. And that's why you choose to smear rather than reply. Just like a liberal.
Birdman wrote:
Why it's very simple Mary -- you can't. And that's why you choose to smear rather than reply. Just like a liberal.
Wrong on all counts, twitter-boy, though it must be nice to be so smug. And by the way, a polite comment from a prominent person, OR EVEN PRAISE, is not the same thing as inherent merit.
        Now take my name off your mailing list. Even if I had all the free time in the world, it wouldn't be worth the effort trying to sift through your small-mindedness, ignorance, and hatred.
        Mary
       
Like I said, Mary: Your response is just like a liberal: Full of hate, bad manners and nasty terms, and narry an argument in sight. And when I say it, what happens? Why you simply repeat yourself: hate, bad manners and nasty terms. Which is to say, in a word, that 'you just don't get it', do you Mary? Nope, not by a long shot.
So why don't you write me yet another letter full of hate, bad manners, and nasty terms? I'll publish it right along side the others.


        ******** BILL BROWN
        (Note: This letter was mailed to several persons in response to a friendly letter requesting a post of my circular letter onto a Mensa bulletin board.)
        To all: I personally removed Bryant from the mailing list soon after we started because of a hate-filled and hateful letter. I would not like to see him re-instated. -- BB
       
Tell me, Billy boy, what is your objection to hate? You sound like you have a truckload of it when it comes to me. As for myself, I say there's nothing the matter with hate, provided only that it is directed against hateful things.
You have a real nice day, Billy-boy, and try not to hate me overmuch.


        ******** JOYKEN
        Please remove me from your email list.
        Go get a life.
You just can't resist the temptation to show how much of a hater you are, can you?


        ******* EDWIN COX
        Remove me from your e-mail list
        I would suggest you check out a good psychologist. You could start with megalomania, and go from there.
Gee whiz, Eddie, you do sound awfully much like you are jealous.


        ******* TREVA DUFFY
        John,
        I am one of the notoriously liberal Mensans of whom you speak. you seem to invited feedback, so I am sending some this one time.
        Impressions of your diatribe:
        1) You are trying very hard to have 15 seconds of noteriety, I presume because yu are not successful in other ways......."comfortable in your skin," as they say.
        2) In a free society you are entitled to voice your opinion, but your opinions portray you as a bigot, a racist, and, I think, an offensive person. The jews never looked better than by ignoring you in dignity. I am not a jew, but your kind of inflammatory invective makes me want to rally to their defense. The comparison between the jews that I know and know of because of their positive contributions to humanity makes you pale by comparison. I usually like debate.....even of controversial subjects, but you dimish yurself by getting on a soapbox. I want you to expunge my name from your e-mail list. You are not a worthy debater.
        3) Who cares what you think?! You sound like a pipsqueak trying to make a big noise......an exercise in self-aggrandizement! How tiring!
        May your tribe decrease.
        Treva Duffy
Treva:
You are just like all other liberals: Rather than deal with the issues, you make personal attacks. (bigot, racist, unworthy debater, etc) I have already set out the debate, namely, the articles on my website. When you can refute even ONE point I have made, I would like to hear it. But of course I won't, because you can't.


        ****** DIANE CLAYTON
        would like to be removed from my email list
        Please do so asap! I find your concepts extremely offensive. Thank you.
I am not surprised. Truth is often painful.


        ******* JOHN TREFFEISSON
        John,
        I received your e-missive, and reluctantly I have decided to take the time to reply. I am not a fan of the Mensa Bulletin editors, I find them to be biased and worse not careful when they print factual errors that could be easily checked as new insights.
        My own politics have been described as slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, although I would style myself an Economic Pragmatist. I worked in Richard Nixon's second campaign and have Alan Keyes most recent. I am not Jewish, I can trace my family back eleven generations to the 17th century and a small German village near Vogtsburg. I've been an altar boy and a vestry member at my church. Not that any of that really matters but in the current context it seemed worthwhile to mention so that you would know where I am coming from.
        What started me on this email was the your use of the term "Free Speech" as if there were such a right for one to express one's opinions no matter what they were, at anytime, at any length, whether they were welcome or not and to do it all on someone elses dime. I guess it just snowballed from there.
        The Mensa Bulletin contretemp was not a free speech issue, it's an editor using an editor's judgement, perhaps poorly and with severe bias. But ultimately that is the editor's free speech right to do so. Your remedy is do do as you have done and establish a competing voice and attempt to argue as persuasively as possible.
        Now I really don't have the time or inclination to dispute your thesis point by point. In point of fact it is hard to dispute the individual citations, although I must say I disagree with the conclusions and the linkage. However you went to the trouble of emphasizing six observations, which I suppose for you are key.
        Allow me to respond to each:
       
(1) It is logically fallacious to equate criticism to hate, as all the letter-writers do: A man who criticizes his wife or child can hardly be said to hate them.
I will agree that criticism does not automatically equal hate. However when a writer goes to great lengths to provide defamatory information on a subject (any subject) to an audience and then demonstrates a large, visceral and personal reaction to criticism of his writings, it is not unreasonable to ask what emotions motivated that writer in the first place.
        A man who criticizes his family may not hate them. However if that same man were to seek out strangers, people on the street and repeatedly inform them, for example, that his wife was a whore, one would have to assume that the man was not engaged solely in objective criticism unmotivated by negative emotions. If he based this claim solely on the fact that his wife's aunt had once had an illegitimate child, and reasoned that since they were both related it followed that his wife was also an adultress, well that would seem to raise further questions.
        Perhaps the assumption that he hated his wife was erroneous. However, the assumption that he did hate his wife is not unreasonable. This assessment is independent of whether his criticism has foundation in fact or not.
(2) Contrary to the implication of the letter-writers who accuse me of 'hate', there is nothing whatsoever wrong with hate, provided only that the object hated is hateful.
This arguement presupposes that there is such a thing as "Absolute Truth". Certainly Adolf Hitler and Timothy McVeigh are widely hated figures, but both also have their admirers. Ghandi was hated by some as was Martin Luther King Jr. So whether something, or someone is hateful is necessarily subjective and conditioned on the hater's perspective and life experience.
        Again we are back to subjective truth, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. (
3) Racism is nothing more than the natural law expressed by the adage 'birds of a feather flock together'. It is but a negative word to describe what is considered positive when described as love of one's own people, heritage and culture. The fact that racism was considered normal and praiseworthy -- and race-mixing bizarre and pathological -- until only about 50 years ago demonstrates the frightening brainwashing power of the liberal -- and largely Jewish- controlled -- media. And of course the liberal/Jewish opposition to racism is in direct contrast with what author Jack Bernstein described in his book The Life of An American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel.
I will differ with you there.
        Yes people tend to feel more comfortable with their own kind, and people in authority tend to promote people they feel comfortable with and so like begets like. This is one of the reasons the average height of management in a company tends to be the same height as the boss, this is why the Navy's admirality is mostly submariners and aviators even though both communities are distinct minorities in the officer corps, and most likely why Jews are disproportionately represented in most of the entertainment industry, although not country, not rap and certainly not in talk radio. It is also a logical extension that people would be proud of their origins and the things that make them distinct from the rest of humanity.
        However, there is a difference between ethnic pride and racism. In the first case one extols those virtues that one deems praiseworthy in the second case one attempts to exclude or inhibit a defineable group of people from what are deemed general rights and priviledges available to the entire population. By this definition affirmative action is racism and yes it is considered praiseworthy by many. Ultimately though it is simply the converse of the old Jim Crow laws.
        Logical consistency would dictate that you cannot extol one and condemn the other without a specific bias.
        50 years ago misogyny was a crime and segregation the norm. A hundred years before that other humans could be chattel and women were second class citizens at best. So what? Times change and one would hope that as more information becomes available people as a whole will make better choices. No "Jewish media" was required to abolish slavery, institute woman's sufferage or for that matter begin or end prohibition. Large scale social change occurs because a majority of people are persuaded to agree with a position. You would rightly take offense if I were to say that you must have been brainwashed in some Klan facility or by talk radio. Why not admit that many, perhaps most arrive at their opinions independently. A bias may exist in the information but there are also many alternative sources.
(4) Liberals are constantly blathering about 'diversity', but when someone like me comes along and attempts to introduce some diversity of opinion, well, the screaming never stops.
To many people the concepts and viewpoints you espouse are hateful and therefore hateworthy, if I might digress back to your second point. When someone believes that something is evil, be it racism or abortion, it is to be expected that the opposition will be strident and emotional.
        I am not saying this is the best response, but certainly it is to be expected. Nuff said.
(5) As Dr Johnson might have said had he been in my position, insult is the last refuge of the out-argued, which is why you see so many insults and so little argument in my opponents' letters.
Fair enough. However from experience with people who have believed in Satanic Masonists, JFK Assasination conspiracy, The Tri-Lateral Commission, etc... it is also not clear to me that any level of rational arguement will suffice when someone is convinced that a large scale conspiracy exists which they believe is capable of manipulating that evidence.
        In the case of the Satanic Masons, the person I was talking to was convinced that he had "out-argued" me by simply dismissing as "rubbish" the origins and purpose of the original hoax which I had spent ten minutes documenting with names and dates. His source, by the way was his neighbor who had told him "all about it"
        Now, you have said that the people who opposed you in print were shrill, insulting, and did not make logical arguements refuting your own. Okay.
        Do not take that as an automatic validation of the inherent correctness of your own opinions. If you were to go into an elementary school and start bayoneting the children because one of them could be the anti-Christ, I suspect that you would find the logical component of the subsequent discourse to somewhat lacking there as well.
        Strong emotions tend to provoke emotional responses. It's a human failing, I guess. (
6) As I said in my essay, Ask not whether I am an antisemite, bigot, nazi or all the rest -- ask only whether I am RIGHT. If you bother to do a little research, you'll find out that I AM right. And speaking of bigots, it is well to keep in mind that, as Ambrose Bierce once remarked, a bigot is merely one who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion which you do not entertain.
Well in this particular case I suppose I would have to agree with Bierce. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, well I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that people would want to call it a duck.
        Motivations for making strong and unpopular statements are worth questioning. If a good answer to that question exists it should be presented and defended.
        The best that can be said about research is that yes, statistically most media figures are liberal, and yes Jews are disproportionately represented when compared to the general population. What you don't say is that the media centers are located in places with large Jewish populations and judged in respect to the regional population they are not. What you don't say is why the public is being brainwashed, particularly in ways which would disadvantage the Jewish population as a whole. Or how this is all being coordinated. Answer THOSE types of questions, show me the significance of the reputed links and of those examples and then you might have something.
        In closing allow me to say that you have amassed a great deal of facts and you make a persuasive arguement, but it is a mile wide and an inch deep. For example, you cite social leaders who were either Jews or had Jewish sounding names. Isn't that all a bit subjective? So, are we also to include "Abe" Lincoln and yet exclude archtypical liberal social engineers like Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson?
        There are others but I'll save them in case further responses seem warranted.
        I hope you take the point.
        I hope you print this.
John: Thank you for your long and thoughtful letter. .
So you will know where I am coming from, I have been around Jews all my life, and have always liked them. But liking does not preclude criticism. My criticisms are not about 'all Jews', except in the sense of peripherally raising the question, Is it good for white gentiles to have Jews in their society? Personally, I hope the answer is yes, but I do have my doubts.
I have interleaved a few comments in your text, set off by asterisks: ***** ----- Original Message ----- From: John Treffeisen To: Birdman Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 3:20 PM Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech
John,
        I received your e-missive, and reluctantly I have decided to take the time to reply. I am not a fan of the Mensa Bulletin editors, I find them to be biased and worse not careful when they print factual errors that could be easily checked as new insights.
        My own politics have been described as slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, although I would style myself an Economic Pragmatist. I worked in Richard Nixon's second campaign and have Alan Keyes most recent. I am not Jewish, I can trace my family back eleven generations to the 17th century and a small German village near Vogtsburg. I've been an altar boy and a vestry member at my church. Not that any of that really matters but in the current context it seemed worthwhile to mention so that you would know where I am coming from.
        What started me on this email was the your use of the term "Free Speech" as if there were such a right for one to express one's opinions no matter what they were, at anytime, at any length, whether they were welcome or not and to do it all on someone elses dime. I guess it just snowballed from there.
        The Mensa Bulletin contretemp was not a free speech issue, it's an editor using an editor's judgement, perhaps poorly and with severe bias. But ultimately that is the editor's free speech right to do so. Your remedy is do do as you have done and establish a competing voice and attempt to argue as persuasively as possible.
**** But there is the question of justice which you ignore? Is it fair to attack someone in a 1 1/2 page screamfest, but not let him respond. Clearly not.
Now I really don't have the time or inclination to dispute your thesis point by point. In point of fact it is hard to dispute the individual citations, although I must say I disagree with the conclusions and the linkage. However you went to the trouble of emphasizing six observations, which I suppose for you are key.
        Allow me to respond to each:
        (1) It is logically fallacious to equate criticism to hate, as all the letter-writers do: A man who criticizes his wife or child can hardly be said to hate them.
        I will agree that criticism does not automatically equal hate. However when a writer goes to great lengths to provide defamatory information on a subject (any subject) to an audience and then demonstrates a large, visceral and personal reaction to criticism of his writings, it is not unreasonable to ask what emotions motivated that writer in the first place.
**** There is nothing the matter with hate, provided it is directed against hateful things. Hence criticizing 'hate' is simply wrong.
A man who criticizes his family may not hate them. However if that same man were to seek out strangers, people on the street and repeatedly inform them, for example, that his wife was a whore, one would have to assume that the man was not engaged solely in objective criticism unmotivated by negative emotions. If he based this claim solely on the fact that his wife's aunt had once had an illegitimate child, and reasoned that since they were both related it followed that his wife was also an adultress, well that would seem to raise further questions.
        Perhaps the assumption that he hated his wife was erroneous. However, the assumption that he did hate his wife is not unreasonable. This assessment is independent of whether his criticism has foundation in fact or not.
        (2) Contrary to the implication of the letter-writers who accuse me of 'hate', there is nothing whatsoever wrong with hate, provided only that the object hated is hateful.
        This arguement presupposes that there is such a thing as "Absolute Truth".
**** Not so. All it really says is that there is nothing morally wrong about hate, any more than there is anything morally wrong about hunger or sex drive.
Certainly Adolf Hitler and Timothy McVeigh are widely hated figures, but both also have their admirers. Ghandi was hated by some as was Martin Luther King Jr. So whether something, or someone is hateful is necessarily subjective and conditioned on the hater's perspective and life experience.
        Again we are back to subjective truth, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
        (3) Racism is nothing more than the natural law expressed by the adage 'birds of a feather flock together'. It is but a negative word to describe what is considered positive when described as love of one's own people, heritage and culture. The fact that racism was considered normal and praiseworthy -- and race-mixing bizarre and pathological -- until only about 50 years ago demonstrates the frightening brainwashing power of the liberal -- and largely Jewish- controlled -- media. And of course the liberal/Jewish opposition to racism is in direct contrast with what author Jack Bernstein described in his book The Life of An American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel.
        I will differ with you there.
        Yes people tend to feel more comfortable with their own kind, and people in authority tend to promote people they feel comfortable with and so like begets like. This is one of the reasons the average height of management in a company tends to be the same height as the boss, this is why the Navy's admirality is mostly submariners and aviators even though both communities are distinct minorities in the officer corps, and most likely why Jews are disproportionately represented in most of the entertainment industry, although not country, not rap and certainly not in talk radio. It is also a logical extension that people would be proud of their origins and the things that make them distinct from the rest of humanity.
        However, there is a difference between ethnic pride and racism.
**** The only difference is that, if it's done by minorities, it's OK, but if by whites, it's evil. Compare, for example, the NAACP (never criticized for racism) and NAAWP (white people) which is 'racist'. Or affirmative action: for minorities, fine; but it's'discrimination' if white.
In the first case one extols those virtues that one deems praiseworthy in the second case one attempts to exclude or inhibit a defineable group of people from what are deemed general rights and priviledges available to the entire population. By this definition affirmative action is racism and yes it is considered praiseworthy by many. Ultimately though it is simply the converse of the old Jim Crow laws.
        Logical consistency would dictate that you cannot extol one and condemn the other without a specific bias.
        50 years ago misogyny was a crime and segregation the norm. A hundred years before that other humans could be chattel and women were second class citizens at best. So what? Times change and one would hope that as more information becomes available people as a whole will make better choices. No "Jewish media" was required to abolish slavery, institute woman's sufferage or for that matter begin or end prohibition. Large scale social change occurs because a majority of people are persuaded to agree with a position. You would rightly take offense if I were to say that you must have been brainwashed in some Klan facility or by talk radio. Why not admit that many, perhaps most arrive at their opinions independently. A bias may exist in the information but there are also many alternative sources.
**** If you are making a criticism, I don't get it.
(4) Liberals are constantly blathering about 'diversity', but when someone like me comes along and attempts to introduce some diversity of opinion, well, the screaming never stops.
        To many people the concepts and viewpoints you espouse are hateful and therefore hateworthy, if I might digress back to your second point. When someone believes that something is evil, be it racism or abortion, it is to be expected that the opposition will be strident and emotional.
        I am not saying this is the best response, but certainly it is to be expected. Nuff said.
**** Is this a disagreement? I was well aware of the hate that would be directed against me. But as you seem to say, that doesn't make it right.
(5) As Dr Johnson might have said had he been in my position, insult is the last refuge of the out-argued, which is why you see so many insults and so little argument in my opponents' letters.
        Fair enough. However from experience with people who have believed in Satanic Masonists, JFK Assasination conspiracy, The Tri-Lateral Commission, etc... it is also not clear to me that any level of rational arguement will suffice when someone is convinced that a large scale conspiracy exists which they believe is capable of manipulating that evidence.
        In the case of the Satanic Masons, the person I was talking to was convinced that he had "out-argued" me by simply dismissing as "rubbish" the origins and purpose of the original hoax which I had spent ten minutes documenting with names and dates. His source, by the way was his neighbor who had told him "all about it"
        Now, you have said that the people who opposed you in print were shrill, insulting, and did not make logical arguements refuting your own. Okay.
        Do not take that as an automatic validation of the inherent correctness of your own opinions. If you were to go into an elementary school and start bayoneting the children because one of them could be the anti-Christ, I suspect that you would find the logical component of the subsequent discourse to somewhat lacking there as well.
        Strong emotions tend to provoke emotional responses. It's a human failing, I guess.
        (6) As I said in my essay, Ask not whether I am an antisemite, bigot, nazi or all the rest -- ask only whether I am RIGHT. If you bother to do a little research, you'll find out that I AM right. And speaking of bigots, it is well to keep in mind that, as Ambrose Bierce once remarked, a bigot is merely one who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion which you do not entertain.
        Well in this particular case I suppose I would have to agree with Bierce. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, well I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that people would want to call it a duck.
****How is that agreeing with Bierce?
Motivations for making strong and unpopular statements are worth questioning. If a good answer to that question exists it should be presented and defended. *
*** My motivation, besides becoming educated in the history of Jewish behavior toward gentiles, is described in my book Political Correctness, Censorship and Liberal-Jewish Strongarm Tactics in High-IQ/Low-Morals Mensa: A Case Study.
The best that can be said about research is that yes, statistically most media figures are liberal, and yes Jews are disproportionately represented when compared to the general population. What you don't say is that the media centers are located in places with large Jewish populations and judged in respect to the regional population they are not. *
*** Educate yourself and read Dr Pierce's "Who Rules America" on the National Vanguard website.
What you don't say is why the public is being brainwashed, particularly in ways which would disadvantage the Jewish population as a whole
**** I think you mean 'gentile population' here. Read Pierce and my website. That should get you started.
. Or how this is all being coordinated. Answer THOSE types of questions, show me the significance of the reputed links and of those examples and then you might have something.
        In closing allow me to say that you have amassed a great deal of facts and you make a persuasive arguement, but it is a mile wide and an inch deep. For example, you cite social leaders who were either Jews or had Jewish sounding names. Isn't that all a bit subjective? *
*** Read my essay "The Case Against the Jews". Plenty deep. Plenty detailed.
So, are we also to include "Abe" Lincoln and yet exclude archtypical liberal social engineers like Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson?
**** Roosevelt was saturated with Jews and commies. I don't know about Lyndon.
There are others but I'll save them in case further responses seem warranted.
        I hope you take the point.
        I hope you print this.
**** I will put it on my website along with other 'beg to differ' mail.


        ******* FREENESS
        Please remove me from you list. Your opinions make me sick. The reason you were so vehemantly critised is because people like you make everyone sick.
       
I fully understand. Truth can be very upsetting.


        ********* CEW
        Free speech has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Some are asking that all links to personal web sites (and pages) be dropped from the Mensa Home pages and that is not censorship nor does it abridge free speech in anyway. That does nothing to censor you.
        DO NOT SEND ANYTHING FURTHER TO THIS EMAIL ADDRESS. ANYTHING FURTHER WILL BE CONSIDERED HARRASSMENT AND LEGAL REMEDY WILL BE PURSUED.
       
You seem to think that it is OK for you to 'tell me off', but that you can conveniently cut off the correspondence by saying you will 'consider it harassment'. Well, gee whiz, CEW, you seem to be wrong.
Of course I realize that, to someone like yourself, the truth seems like harassment. But that's usually the way it is with liberals. It certainly doesn't surprise me.
You, sir, need to learn to quit talking so you can hear. DO NOT EVER REPLY OR EMAIL TO THIS ADDRESS AGAIN.
       
It does rather seem that you are not the one who is listening: When you send an offensive message to this address, you will be replied to in unkind. Tit for tat is the only way to handle unmannerly, aggressive, obnoxious people such as yourself.


        ******* MERRELL
        while i respect your right to an opinion, after bothering me with your extensive email, i thought i ought to take the time to check our your website:
        my opinion is you are one sick puppy -- your logic is so convoluted, no thinking person should take you seriously
        no need for a reply -- i'll waste no more time on this
Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued. Funny how all liberals are the same - all insult, and not a single reply to the issues. You are one of many of a kind, Merrell.


        ****** PHILLIP HALES
        if you criticize a group it is at the very least a bias. you criticize people you don't know. Why not criticize people you know. Even if they're jewish I can defend that! It's like the man who said I hate n***** because a n**** killed my brother. (You see it is offensive to even spell out that word) I have know a lot of jews in my life. 99% are people that I like and enjoy spending time with. I don't know how you got your anti jewish bias. To spread this doctrine is nothing but unfounded hatred. I told you the last time you started this CRAP I don't want to hear it and what ever you use as your defense you can't be talking about my friends because you don't know them so therefore you can't judge them. Don't send me any more of your G D hate mail!!!@!!@!### If Mensa won't publish your hate mail I say EXCELLENT! If it was up to me I certainly wouldn't publish your cr! ap! .
        phil hales loc sec broward mensa
Gee, Phil, liberals are all the same - full of dirty words and denunciations, but they never never answer an argument. And why is that? Because they CAN'T.
And don't worry - I won't send you any more of my crap. That's because I don't SEND crap. Only very disturbing TRUTH.
And btw, Phil, I don't have any prejudices. But I do have a lot of POST-judices.
And one final point: If you don't want to be written to, DON'T WRITE TO ME! Got it?


        ******* KATHLEEN STIPEK
        Please remove me from your mailing list. Announcements that someone is about to stop being 'politically correct,' whatever that euphemism may mean, invariably indicates that this person intends to say things that are ugly, vulgar, hostile, nasty, or tedious, frequently all of the above. One has to put up with enough of that where one cannot avoid it. On my own time, I prefer less ferocity.
        Kathleen Stipek
Dear Kathy: The world is a nasty place, and unless you talk about nasty things, you can never change the nastiness. That's what being politically incorrect is all about. But you go and live in your cocoon. Maybe you can keep reality at bay, tho I doubt it.
Your addressing me by a nickname when you do not know me certainly allows me to infer a lot about your attitude toward others. I spend my work life mixing with the masses and that is quite enough for me. I hear more political, social, and economic theories than I thought could exist, and once I'm off the meter, I prefer to contemplate my own notions and not those of others. I hope that you find an audience for your views, but I don't choose to be part of it. Your battles are not mine. I have applied the energies I have to other things
        Kathleen Stipek
[I decided not to respond to this.]


        ******* NORMAN LINTON
        The reason you were attacked is because you are a worthless, disgusting piece of shit who judges people based on their birth or non-birth into a particular religion. Rather than on their actions. There are doubtless bad Jews, just as there are bad black people, bad Christians.
        But why I am wasting my time? One day you will be lying almost dead in a hospital bed. Statistically the chances are that your life will be in the hands of a Jewish doctor. And no doubt, even if he is aware of the wickedness you have constantly spewed forth your entire life, he will try to save you.
       
Gee. Norm, why are all liberals the same - full of filthy language and denunciations, but can never never answer an argument? I'll tell you why: They CAN'T.
And why are you 'wasting your time'? I'll tell you - Because the liberal's mouth is like his asshole: He has to get rid of all his shit or else he'll explode.
Problem is, he'll usually explode anyway. Like you.


        ******* CAROLE S
        Please remove my name from your e-mail list. I don't have to be Jewish to be disgusted by what you write.
       
But you do seem to have to be like every other liberal - filthy-mouthed, but without an argument in sight.


        ******* JOE LUCAS
        John: Libertarians believe above all in freedom of belief for everyone. That includes Jews and hate-filled cranks. But I'd rather not be burdened with the need to delete your diatribes. Please don't keep me on your mailing list. And you're no Libertarian, believe me.
       
Gee, Joe, I didn't know that you were the man who determines who is and is not a libertarian. You must be quite something. Do you define yourself as God? Course maybe you were just trying ever so subtly to imply that I'm a nazi (oooh, dirty). But I'll say one thing, Joe, if I had to choose between being a nazi and being a liberal like you evidently are, the choice wouldn't be too hard - at least the nazis believed in good genes and in preserving the race which created Western civilization, while the liberals love the genetic garbage and want to see Western civ go the way ofthe dinosaur. Not a hard choice at all.


        ******* GARY RIMAR
        Dear sir:
        I am not going to abuse you. Having said that, I think you probably don't want a person like me receiving your e-mails. You obviously are sending them out blind if you're sending to me.
        I find your desire to send your stuff to every member of Mensa, evidenced by:
In closing, I request that you contact me if you are willing to send me a photocopy (or, even better, an electronic copy) of your local Mensa directory, or if you have a copy of the Mensa email directory. I want to compile an email list which I can use to notify as many Mensans by email as possible.
to be inappropriate. Most people aren't part of your battle, yet you would drag them into it. Most people want to live their lives in peace. Most people don't harbor hatred of people who are either Jewish or non-caucaisian. I don't care to engage folks that do.
        Gary Rimar
Dear Gary: We all want peace, but the question is, under what conditions and at what price? I can do no better than to quote the words of Patrick Henry: "Gentlemen may cry 'Pace, peace!' but there is no peace. The war has actually begun!'
Live in peace, Gary. Death is peace.


        ****** WILLIAM NIVER
        Howdy! I'm a member of Mensa, Intertel, and several other high IQ organizations, and just received a forwarded letter about "the mensa flap", with a link to your site.
        I'd like to state that I disagree with your position on the Jewish 'problem'. After having fully read your website (no small chore), examined your links, and read most of those opinions, I simply feel that your position is skewed. I would not classify you as anti-semetic by any definition. Misguided, maybe an alarmist. If your goals were to eliminate Jews, or suppress them, I would classify you as anti-semetic. Well, that's enough of a preface...
        You chose a society of people as the greatest problem of the 20th century. Of all the societies on the globe... you chose Jews. That in itself disturbed me, but... it was an opinion, and if I agree or disagree is not the point.
        You did use strong wording in your article... once again tho... it was an opinion of the worst problem of the 20th century... I would assume that is someone felt the need to contribute to the request for member articles, that they would stress exactly why they felt it to be a problem... that would almost definitely require strong language to convey the importance you place on the subject. I can see getting upset if someone spoke as you did if the request were for favorite cookie recipes, but that was not the case.
        Not all articles received by mensa were published. They picked yours to publish... any fallout for the printing of the article is their fault. Now, you can say that if they didn't print it, they were participating in censorship, but other articles were not printed. This however, didn't happen, they made the choice to print it.
        They received feedback on your article. Although I find it difficult to imagine that all the feedback was negative, it wouldn't take a lot to convince me otherwise... but I'm biased because I disagree with your position.
        They agreed to a rebuttal by you, and being an intelligent person, you crafted a creative way around the word limit imposed on you. They then pulled your response... not cool.
        At this point it devolves into a blame match where you say it proves your point, etc... I disagree with your position that a Jewish conspiracy forced Mensa to snub you.
        Here's my personal opinion. You are entitled to your opinions. You were asked to send your opinions in. They had the right to not print them. They had the right to not print the comments sent in response to the article... etc... You are a member of a high IQ organization. People active in high IQ organizations are bombarded by all manner of opinion, information, and mis-information on a continual basis. Members are of sufficient intelligence to decide for themselves what they like, don't like, agree with, or disagree with. We do not require someone to 'filter' information, decide what is appropriate, or correct in the moral, political, or religious arena. What someone says may make us angry, sad, etc... That does not imply that ideas are dangerous. I personally find your position on Jews to be nearly childish. I however find the Mensa response to an article they chose to publish to be appalling, and the greater evil in the exchange.
        In answer to your actual views on the Jewish community. Are they a powerful group? Certainly. Do they have the highest moral fiber, and loving ideals? No, certainly not. Will they rule the world? Maybe, maybe not. Do they influence government? Absolutely. Does any of this make them evil? No. There are hundreds if not thousands of clubs, religions, political, commercial, industrial, social, racial, and national groups which would yield the same answers. Americans, Christians, good lord... every organization I can think of has committed atrocities, have some strange, inflammatory, or hate based beliefs built into them at some level.
        Reading your opinions shows me that we need less censorship and political correctness, not more. You may be an ass, but I took an oath in the military to die protecting your right to say what you will.
        William Niver
My responses are set off by asterisks ***** and interleaved with your text.
----- Original Message ----- From: William Niver To: john@thebirdman.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 12:47 AM Subject: re: mensa flap
        Howdy! I'm a member of Mensa, Intertel, and several other high IQ organizations, and just received a forwarded letter about "the mensa flap", with a link to your site.
        I'd like to state that I disagree with your position on the Jewish 'problem'. After having fully read your website (no small chore), examined your links, and read most of those opinions, I simply feel that your position is skewed.
**** It might be 'skewed' depending on your definition. But is it wrong? You have yet to prove that one. Or even to give the least evidence for it.
I would not classify you as anti-semitic by any definition.
***** You are obviously a lot more perceptive than most of the Mensa types, at least in this regard.
Misguided, maybe an alarmist. If your goals were to eliminate Jews, or suppress them, I would classify you as anti-semetic. Well, that's enough of a preface...
        You chose a society of people as the greatest problem of the 20th century.
***** Not exactly. Strictly speaking, I am complaining about the Jewish leadership. Whether we can jump from this to Jews in general is a little tough.
Of all the societies on the globe... you chose Jews. That in itself disturbed me, but... it was an opinion, and if I agree or disagree is not the point.
        **** Chosing the Jews is not exactly arbitrary - a few others have had similar observations to mine.
        You did use strong wording in your article... once again tho... it was an opinion of the worst problem of the 20th century... I would assume that is someone felt the need to contribute to the request for member articles, that they would stress exactly why they felt it to be a problem... that would almost definitely require strong language to convey the importance you place on the subject. I can see getting upset if someone spoke as you did if the request were for favorite cookie recipes, but that was not the case.
        Not all articles received by mensa were published. They picked yours to publish... any fallout for the printing of the article is their fault. Now, you can say that if they didn't print it, they were participating in censorship, but other articles were not printed. This however, didn't happen, they made the choice to print it.
        They received feedback on your article. Although I find it difficult to imagine that all the feedback was negative, it wouldn't take a lot to convince me otherwise... but I'm biased because I disagree with your position.
        They agreed to a rebuttal by you, and being an intelligent person, you crafted a creative way around the word limit imposed on you. They then pulled your response... not cool.
        At this point it devolves into a blame match where you say it proves your point, etc... I disagree with your position that a Jewish conspiracy forced Mensa to snub you.
**** I never said any such thing. It was a typical response from a bunch of liberals, many of them Jewish, and all of whom were deathly afraid of being accused of 'antisemitism', which is the modern world's most potent anathema.
Here's my personal opinion. You are entitled to your opinions. You were asked to send your opinions in. They had the right to not print them. They had the right to not print the comments sent in response to the article... etc...
**** The question is not about 'rights'. The question is about ETHICS and CENSORSHIP, neither of which were displayed by Mensa.
You are a member of a high IQ organization. People active in high IQ organizations are bombarded by all manner of opinion, information, and mis-information on a continual basis. Members are of sufficient intelligence to decide for themselves what they like, don't like, agree with, or disagree with. We do not require someone to 'filter' information, decide what is appropriate, or correct in the moral, political, or religious arena.
***** AMC and the other folks seem to think so.
What someone says may make us angry, sad, etc... That does not imply that ideas are dangerous. I personally find your position on Jews to be nearly childish.
***** Childish. Right. Years of work, research, etc. Careful documentation. No, my friend. You just don't want to deal with the facts I marshal, so you smear me as 'childish.'
I however find the Mensa response to an article they chose to publish to be appalling, and the greater evil in the exchange.
        In answer to your actual views on the Jewish community. Are they a powerful group? Certainly. Do they have the highest moral fiber, and loving ideals? No, certainly not. Will they rule the world? Maybe, maybe not. Do they influence government? Absolutely. Does any of this make them evil? No.
**** That may depend on your definiiton of 'evil'. Gentiles may well think that being ruled by an alien group is evil. They may indeed think of it as slavery.
There are hundreds if not thousands of clubs, religions, political, commercial, industrial, social, racial, and national groups which would yield the same answers. Americans, Christians, good lord... every organization I can think of has committed atrocities, have some strange, inflammatory, or hate based beliefs built into them at some level.
**** The importance of Jews is that they are significantly in control of America and the rest of the West. This is not simply fantasy, but objective fact.
Reading your opinions shows me that we need less censorship and political correctness, not more. You may be an ass,
***** More smearing. Typical liberal response, and displaying an inability to respond to substantive arguments.
but I took an oath in the military to die protecting your right to say what you will.
        William Niver
       

 



        ****** GUS DANZER
        Intelligence and insanity have never been mutually exclusive conditions. I am sorry that you are apparently very troubled, but I prefer that you not trouble me. Please remove me from your mailing list.
        Gustave Danzer
You are right, Gus - I am disturbed. I am disturbed by immorality, censorship, lying, and similar activities which seem to be rampant in the world at large and Mensa in particular. If it is insane to be disturbed about such things, then I would not wish to be sane. But I rather think that things are vice-versa, and that you are on the side of vice.


        ******* JOHN HILTON
        John,
        You managed to send your long letter to my mail address, too, so I think you want some answer or so ?
        I am a European Mensan, and I read through your webpage, particularly with respect to the Mensa-Flap thingy you put on there.
        My opinion is that your ideas are quite weird. This is my feedback from what I thought when I read your stuff. According to the writings, you may be yet another Mensan who suffers from conspiracy theories. So most likely you are atheist or christian, since these people, particularly when in Mensa, come across as sitting on outlandish branches, having lost all ground beneath their feet, struggling, basically struggling.
        A closer look on your website and situation reveals that you in fact try to sell books. That gives the question why you filled our all mailboxes with your stuff a completely different angle. I know other people in Mensa who also try to use Mensa to sell stuff. Financial problems can be severe, and drive someone up the wall. I understand completely.
        However, passing an IQ test and being attached to a bird does not, per se, make your writing more witty or intelligent than the writing of other people. And trust me. Your stuff is weird. It is enough that people can download it from your webpage. No bulletin needed.
        Don't get me wrong. I see where your constructions come from. I am familiar with Kevin Mc Donald. I have read texts by Otto Weininger. They both write much, much better. Yet, I am not unaware of your notions per se. But even though some weird thinkings are just interesting to read, that does not mean they are correct, or should be supported, or they should be in bulletins of social clubs. Particularly when they are weird. That you have no grasp for the weirdness makes me suggest you discuss your text with people in a bar. Let this be your assignment.
        John Hilton
John:
The standard operating procedure of liberals is to call people nasty names rather than answer their arguments. Your letter is not as nasty as most, but it fits the same liberal mold and has the same function - "don't answer; SMEAR". You are also more educated on Jewish matters than most Mensans, having read McDonald, but it doesn't justify your response.
Now as to 'conspiracy theory', this has been turned into just another smear term, like racist. But again, smearing is no substitute for answering arguments. If you think I am engaging in 'conspiracy theory', then the proper response -- again -- is to ANSWER THE ARGUMENTS, NOT SMEAR.
Now let's take a little conspiracy theory which is close to home for you. Why do you suppose that virtually every country in Europe, where you live, has laws against either questioning the Ortodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust, or else has 'anti-racism laws' under which a prosecution for such behavior can be brought? Since you are not a 'conspiracy theorist', you probably maintain that all such laws are just 'accidental' rather than the product of a coordinated international Jewish effort (aka 'Jewish conspiracy'). If that's what you believe, then perhaps you still believe in a Flat Earth?
More to the point, if you downloaded most of the stuff on my website, you would probably be subject to a jail term. (8000 people have already been put in jail in Germany for just this sort of thing.) This conspiracy, or working-together, or watever you want to call it, is already nipping at your very heels. In America it is still possible to fight it, and that's what I am doing. But YOU can't even FIGHT it without serious risk. So you go right ahead and deny 'conspiracy theory' while it brings down free speech, and ultimately Western civ, all around you. And don't forget, when an ostrich puts its head in the sand, it is seriously vulnerable to being screwed in the ass.
Finally, you, like all lefties, seem to think that there is something evil about commerce, so that 'selling my books' becomes not merely a sin, but something to taint my opinions. Lefties like you think that the government is God, just waiting to put food on your plate. Well, for your information, freedom isn't free, nor is anything in life. Somebody has to pay for it. And in particular, somebody has to pay for my sitting at this computer responding to a lot of dumb ejaculations by liberals, leftists, Jewish establishment types and other seriously-misinformed people whose biggest need is to be whacked over the head by the 2-by-4 of Ugly Reality.
Such as the reality of 'conspiracy theory
'. Birdman, you ask for arguments. Man, I tell you my view, ok, if that is arguments or smear for you, I don't know since so much is in the eye of the beholder. There is no such thing as "free speech" nor was there ever free speech. I am not leftie or rightie, and you should avoid classification of my persona if what you seek is understanding of someone. "If" :-)
        Freedom, or what some politicians want to sell to you, is not a working word. It is an assumption, a vision, and it is a concept. But "freedom" as claimed by many people does not work because it is abused all the time in order to limit other people's freedom. There never was free speech, either. Human society has social laws, and these act in real time - like "now". For example, if person A limits freedom of person B by verbal abuse of freedom of speech, and as a reaction, person B kills person A by abuse of some other law, this can never, ever, be reversed again. You may argue that person A does not offend a law, but person B does it - but you then deflect from the sad reality that the "laws of the moment" do apply, while all these freedom constructions do not apply. There is no satisfaction, no correction, no reversal, nothing. So, the "use" of "freedom of speech", particularly where it is used as a political label, usually serves to kick ass.
        The forces at work are quite differently from the hypocritically stated "freedom for everyone". I believe in people's drive to go against someone else, I believe in people's drive in getting their sexual urge satisfied with, I do believe in the lynch mobs, and of course, in people suffering from conspiracy theories - but I do not believe in the hypocritical statement that there is freedom of speech, since people just do not work that way.
        Most people I know work differently, and if ever you want to get stuff done by convincing people - thereby by being able to address people - thereby being granted the "freedom of speech", you need to learn how people really work. People have a list of agendas. Real agendas. People are physical and emotional. They have fears, and they have beliefs. They act rationally - at times - and they are curious - within limits. They will obey, given enough pressure - depending on personal or cultural background, of course. But they will never give you a free pass for freedom of speech. Maybe you Americans are different, but from the few I know very well, I do not think so.
        Now you have issues going on with Mensa. Mensa has been founded to foster a range of hidden agendas. First, Mensa is there in order to create a new aristocracy. People pass IQ tests, and such think they represent intelligence. The proof that this is a correct step, has never been done. However, you *can* create the feeling of heightening yourself easily - by lowering other people. So instead of going to Bryant, and say, peace brother, you are weird, they say, Bryant we ban you from Mensa. Look, I would never print your stuff, Birdman, but I understand that you have issues. I don't support them, either. But don't think bad just because I find your views weird. Why ? Man, there is no logic in how people are, but there are ways to create understanding. There is no logic ! Many things in life are irrational. Some people team into groups. So ? I am a very independent person known to get unkosher food into some of my Jewish friends. Does that make me something ? Can I be me ? Can I ask not to be classified ? Can I ask for people to respect that I treat every instance differently ? Would you respect that at all ? Mensa is the bunch of people that make it up - and they have hidden agendas. They create the subjective emotional feeling of "high IQ is cool" by lowering people who act morally questionable. That may have been done to you.
        A second hidden agenda of Mensa is, that the people in Mensa want to do business by labelling stuff with "intelligent because of Mensa". You do that, too, man, and I am not leftie to oppose it. The real reason why I oppose it, is this: There is no proof that a high IQ means any representation of real intelligence. No. A high IQ means that I can think quicker, and if I think bullshit, I arrive at bullshit quicker. I really admit that I mess up stuff, I forget stuff, and I am a person like many else. I want to be regarded as "high IQ" but not as "highly intelligent". You should acknowledge that this "high IQ" testing has its limits, and if you need proof, look at Mensa boards - they also all passed that test. You get me ? Now, since I reserve my right - and my Mensa fellows right - to act stupid at ANY TIME in my life, and to act IMMORAL or even ILLEGAL at any time in my life - I do not represent "intelligence", and to be frank, I do not aspire to represent it. No. I am happy to represent the individual, subjective and quite average life that I live, and nothing else. And that is why the "Mensa label" can not mean anything else than "club of people who passed meaningless test". This is why I oppose you marketing stuff through Mensa. You use a publicity factor that is illogical.
        Now a third agenda of Mensans is, that they think since they are so bright that they pass some kind of test, they are also entitled to subject stuff to their way of thinking. This is actually a dangerous hop ! And of course it is wrong, too. You know that one can look at decisions wilfully, or logically. However, the assumption of "logic" being a sensible part of "daily decision making" is nothing but a wilful step - only after agreeing on that step we can meet doing logic on daily decisions. Or on social decisions, as the stuff you are into. You ask me for arguments, for logical deductions, in order to justify my decision that I find your opinions weird. Hey, man, I never said I was logical. I am me, and on my E-mail, I say "I SENT IT" - and if I find something weird, hey man that's because it's the truth ! I don't think there is logic in being afraid on some conspiracies. But I don't have a problem dealing with people in this regard. Maybe your world is entirely different. All I am saying is, that from here, your stuff looks stuffed up. Instead of asking for logical explanations, you might consider leaving your world - mentally, spiritually, or culturally. I would suggest you get good changes done that way, too. - I have a colleague in Mensa, who is actually doing the same - he confronts people in some way, and when they get upset, he says "so you discriminate against me". No logic involved !
        So you got against Mensa, the weirdest organisation to ask for something that, from my opinion, doesn't even exist - "freedom of speech". Endless laughter for me, man, and endless agony for you. Laughter for me - but only because I am beyond that myself. Don't belittle me. I am on the other side, way over yonder. Don't think I am left or right, or belonging to a religion. But I do have practical experience in how to invoke conspiracy fears in other people for the social benefit of a community, and how little is needed. Not all people in Mensa are naive and run their hidden agendas. But not all banter on websites and create weird stuff. And trust me, I understand your viewpoint. But I wish you the peace to see where the ends really lie, and I wish you the wisdom of becoming yourself. I do very much understand where you come from and where you aim at, but I do not accept this unfinished thinking, this raw aggressivity, this impoliteness, and after all, this uselessness of your website. Read Otto Weininger's "Sex and Character". And then close it and move on. Man, you are working with wrong data along many lines, as Weininger did. You go, but you go in the wrong direction. Leave this. Abandon this. It is not dangerous because of anything you may fear now - the real danger lies in its fruitlessness. You live only once and then it's gone. Do something else with your spirits. Learn Spanish, and start dancing. Learn Russian, and get yourself a real wife. Stop going after the lost souls in Mensa. And don't search for people nodding their heads - accept that my ways are different and that I appreciate your zest - not your content.
        Here we part.
        Take care, John
John: Thanks for your long letter. I see there's a little bit of a language barrier, and the result may be that I don't understand your message properly. So I will only make a couple of brief comments.
* You make much of the matter of free speech, but actually that wasn't the issue -- it was only a 'teaser title' which I used for the letter, and which was ROUGHLY right, but not really. The real issue was (1) the unethical behavior of Mensa toward me, and (2) having an opportunity to convey to other Mensans some information they have not heard because of suppression (about Jews and other matters on my website).
* Perhaps you think I am wrong about the Jewish Question. I don't have any real problem with that, but it is a cheap shot to tell me I am wrong without confronting my arguments. That's what most liberals do -- they want to denounce, but won't grapple with the arguments that are required to support their position. Maybe you aren't a 'liberal', and maybe you are a bit more courteous than most, but I see the same pattern -- denounce, but won't grapple.
* You seem to be saying the issues I am bringing forward are unimportant. On the contrary, they are vital, and all the more vital because they can't be discussed in 'polite society' (USA) or AT ALL (the rest of the Western world). That accounts for my 'aggressivity', because keeping freedom alive requires just the kind of thing I am doing (and in fact, much more: 'Live free or die' is the motto of the American state of Maine)
Maybe this helps. In any event, have a nice day. -j


        ****** GAILE HAYNES
        I am not interested in further correspondence on this subject, but I would like to explain to you what free speech means and why, I believe, that things happened as they did. First, Mensa has at least some members who are Jews. It is the affirmative duty of Mensa and Mensa-sponsored publications not to publish or otherwise disseminate hate-material against any individuals or groups within it -- whether or not justified. (That is, you beliefs about the Jews are not relevant to whether or not Mensa should publish them.)Therefore letters attacking your stance were published as a sort of make-up for the bad judgment shown in publishing your original piece while letters supporting your position were not. Second, free speech is irrelevant to the editorial license to print or not print a particular letter or group of letters. Just as you may or may not (and probably will not) choose to send this missive further, the editor may choose which letters to publish for any or no reason. For example, I responded to the same 2% Solution column that you did (and in fact received a lovely email in answer) but my contribution was not published. My free speech rights were not violated. Editors have the right to select what they choose for publication and select along any slant they like. If you note the statistics in the Letters column, about half the letters are published. Since you are in Mensa, you are demonstrably too bright not to understand what free speech really allows if you put your mind to it. Since the rest of us are also in Mensa, we are bright enough to understand it and not support your claim of free speech violation, when in fact the editor was exercising allowable editorial license. Gaile
My comments are interleaved in your text and set off by asterisks ******
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gaile Haynes" To: "Birdman" john@thebirdman.org
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 4:16 PM Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech
        I am not interested in further correspondence on this subject,


        ******** Then I suggest that you stop corresponding.
but I would like to explain to you what free speech means and why, I believe, that things happened as they did. First, Mensa has at least some members who are Jews. It is the affirmative duty of Mensa and Mensa-sponsored publications not to publish or otherwise disseminate hate-material against any individuals or groups within it -- whether or not justified. (That is, you beliefs about the Jews are not relevant to whether or not Mensa should publish them.)
***** The supposed purpose of Mensa is to facilitate the exchange of ideas among exceptional people. There is no question that the ideas I espouse are important if true; hence they ought to be discussed. I do not believe that the purpose of Mensa, contra you, is to be inoffensive to its membership. On the contrary, in the words of JBR Yant, FREE SPEECH (dat's de Mensa purrpuss, remember?) IS OFFENSIVE SPEECH
Therefore letters attacking your stance were published as a sort of make-up for the bad judgment shown in publishing your original piece
***** Not bad judgment; rather very courageous judgment.
while letters supporting your position were not. Second, free speech is irrelevant to the editorial license to print or not print a particular letter or group of letters. Just as you may or may not (and probably will not) choose to send this missive further, the editor may choose which letters to publish for any or no reason.
***** You, like a lot of other censorship apologists, don't seem to understand the difference between the LEGAL RIGHT not to publish my letter and the ETHICAL WRONG produced by that failure to publish.
For example, I responded to the same 2% Solution column that you did (and in fact received a lovely email in answer) but my contribution was not published. My free speech rights were not violated. Editors have the right to select what they choose for publication and select along any slant they like. If you note the statistics in the Letters column, about half the letters are published. Since you are in Mensa, you are demonstrably too bright not to understand what free speech really allows if you put your mind to it. Since the rest of us are also in Mensa, we are bright enough to understand it and not support your claim of free speech violation, when in fact the editor was exercising allowable editorial license. Gaile

        ******** EILEEN GORMLEY
        Do not ever write or e-mail me again.
        Eileen Gormley
When all else fails, try courtesy.


        ******** WOODYWRKNG
        Dear John;
        I had no opinion on the Mensa Bulletin flak until reading your email and glancing at your website. However, I now feel that you're a first class dickhead.
        Have a nice day;
        Larry
The typical liberal response -- mouth-frothing hate and ugly names, but never any arguments.
Ahhh, the typical far right response, typing someone as a liberal who in reality is very near the center indeed. Tis useless to argue with someone who states on his webpage that everything from the left is wrong, thus I shall not even try. Our country is the result of a mixture of all political leanings, but then I guess saying that makes me a liberal doesn't it?
       
The typical ignorant response (that's a fact, not an insult) -- claiming I am 'far right' when I state explicitly that I am a libertarian, saying that I said you were a liberal when I only said your response was a typical liberal one, and claiming to be 'in the center' which is where all liberals see themselves (in the center between Roosevelt and Stalin).
Oooo, you must really be pissed off by the TVA then eh?
       
If your response was intended to be a brilliant comeback, I am afraid it escapes me.
To use your own style then, it's typical of a right wing wacko to be critical of someone or something he doesn't understand. Open up a history book sometime.
       
You are like that famous description of the Bourbons: They learn nothing and forget nothing. In particular, you cannot learn any manners, cannot learn that the more you spew your filthy epithets (here, right-wing wacko), the more you show yourself unable to counter arguments. As with most liberals, there is no argument against them so powerful as their own words.
Okay Birdman, let's not forget who started this with an un-solicited email directing the reader to your webpage full of your radical political views. When you spew your opinions upon the general public, you should surely expect a response. Some favorable and sympathetic, and some not. As for the TVA, it's an example of a liberal program that worked. I seem to recall your page asking for such. If you don't feel it was worthwhile, I'd be happy to tell you why I feel it was.
       
I will admit that I don't have knowledge of every program that liberals have sponsored. TVA undoubtedly 'worked' in some sense; whether it could have been done by private industry better is likely, and whether it was abusive is also likely. I wasn't really including all government programs, or all govt programs endorsed by liberals, as part of 'liberal programs'; rather I was thinking of distinctly liberal programs, like gun control, communism, integration, and other programs generally identified as liberal. TVA fits into this category, but uncomfortably. There will always be gray areas; in this sense I am a bit extreme -- but not exactly wrong -- to say that no liberal program has ever worked.


        ******** TAMARA LYNN WARDELL
        This is inappropriate use of my e-mail address. DO NOT SEND any further communications
Truth is always considered inappropriate by those who are determined to ignore it.


        ******** KATE ASHTON
        Dear Mr. Bryant,
        I understand that your views are difficult to argue against: anything is difficult to argue against when one can use any questionable source one finds due to a "media conspiracy." please don't construe this as an attack -- it's merely intended as a partial explaination of why your opponent have problems arguing against you.
        My main problem with your argument is with the phrasing of your problem: "the jewish question." If you want to avoid the label of bigot, it might be helpful to specify whom you're speaking of. Is every person of Jewish descent the enemy? The religious ones? The political ones? The liberal ones? gentiles who have intermarried/converted to judeism? who, exactly, is responsible for the massive injustices you mention? and for goodness sake, how does gloria steinem fit into it all?
        Also, I'm unclear on what you see as a solution for this. would you prefer intermarriage to dilute the issue or "purification" of the races (it's probably too late for that)? If you're aiming for purification, where do you intend to put all of these segregated jews for safekeeping? you can see how thought about the ambiguous aspects of your letters can lead to fear, particularly in those who have lost family members in the Holocaust or suffered violent antisemitism since childhood, which is more common than your article implies. As a devout christian growing up, I noticed it. the few jewish children at my school certainly noticed it more.
        Please take me off your mailing list. It isn't that I think you're a psychopath, or a bigot, or even a crackpot. It's that I'm tired. I've dated a jewish man for over a year now, and I'm tired of the constant combat. Perhaps views such as your own are silenced in the media, but they are still frighteningly present on the streets. When I get on a bus (in one of the most "liberal" cities in this country) with my boyfriend, and notice that the person sitting across from me has a swastika tatooed on his arm, I get a little more frightened and a little more tired.
        Sincerely, Kate Ashton
Dear kate: Your letter was more gentle than most of the 'negatives', for which I am grateful.
I have made a few comments, interleaved in your text and set off by asterisks: ******
----- Original Message ----- From: "kate ashton" To: <john@thebirdman.org> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 8:29 AM Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech
        > Dear Mr. Bryant, > I understand that your views are difficult to argue against: anything is difficult to argue against when one can use any questionable source one > finds due to a "media conspiracy."
       
****** The implication here is that I am using 'questionable sources'. If you think my sorces are quesionable, you surely have a right to question them, but I rather suspect that you cannot make a case for any of them being 'questionable.' Hence your remark is unjustified. As to the media conspiracy, it is real: While the interest abut the JQ is intense (cf all the 'hate sites' the ADL is constantly complaining about), this subject is banned everywhere else, especially (as you should know by now) in Mensa.
please don't construe this as an attack -- it's merely intended as a partial explanation of why your opponent have problems arguing against you. My main problem with your argument is with the phrasing of your problem: "the jewish question." If you want to avoid the label of bigot, it might be helpful to specify whom you're speaking of. Is every person of Jewish descent the enemy? The religious ones? The political ones? The liberal ones? gentiles who have intermarried/converted to judeism? who, exactly, is responsible for the massive injustices you mention? and for goodness sake, how does gloria steinem fit into it all?
***** The JQ is a difficult one, full of pitfalls in which the intellectually careless can easily fall into Jew hatred, nazi-love and all kinds of other unpleasant stuff. I have tried to be very careful in expressing myself; but you have apparently failed to use proper care in examining what I have said. Many of the basic issues are set out on my website, but I am contantly having new thoughts on this complex and difficult matter.
> Also, I'm unclear on what you see as a solution for this. would you prefer intermarriage to dilute the issue or "purification" of the races (it's probably too late for that)? If you're aiming for purification, where do you intend to put all of these segregated jews for safekeeping? you can see how thought about the ambiguous aspects of your letters can lead to fear, particularly in those who have lost family members in the Holocaust or suffered violent antisemitism since childhood, which is more common than your article implies. As a devout christian growing up, I noticed it. the few jewish children at my school certainly noticed it more. *
**** Solutions are equally difficult, but we cannot find solutions without first being able to discuss the problem. And that is precisely what Mensa doesn't want to do.
> Please take me off your mailing list. It isn't that I think you're a psychopath, or a bigot, or even a crackpot. It's that I'm tired. I've dated a jewish man for over a year now, and I'm tired of the constant combat. Perhaps views such as your own are silenced in the media, but they are still frighteningly present on the streets. When I get on a bus (in one of the most "liberal" cities in this country) with my boyfriend, and notice that the person sitting across from me has a swastika tatooed on his arm, I get a little more frightened and a little more tired.
***** Like the old saying goes, if you don't face the facts, the facts have a nasty way of facing you.
Sincerely, > Kate Ashton --

        ******* KALARK
        The only problem with this whole thing is that some of us ARE Jewish, and you didn't think of the effect this would have on those of us who were not involved with the controversy but are proud of our heritage (not part of any Jewry elite or oligarchy).
       
The Jews have much to be proud of. The question is, Do they also have much to be ashamed of? I took the trouble to set out my ideas very carefully on my website. Perhaps you should exercise a small amount of care to read what I say. Pride is no substitute for being informed.


        ******* MAJMAX
        Dear Sir,
        I do not agree with your views and don't care to hear of your perspective. For 16 years I defended your right to free speech as a military officer for our great nation. I provided that very blanket of freedom you hide behind and would likely cower under if things got sticky. May I suggest that instead of devoting your time to a very poorly organized and utterly banal web presence, that you find a way to help people in the world. Try it and you may find that your hate melts away as you look into the eyes of those you help.
        I'm a Christian who has had the opportunity to live on 5 different continents. May I suggest that if your income and position in life allows it, that you visit some of the death camps and concentration camps that are memorialized in Europe today. Start at Dachau near Munich, then go to Bergen Belsen. Realize that these were constructed by the "most advanced" society of the day. It's frightening. WE must stamp out hate Sir. I welcome your efforts toward this end.
        max
My responses are interleaved in your text and set off by asterisks******
----- Original Message ----- From: <majmax> To: "Birdman" <john@thebirdman.org>; "socit2m1" <john@thebirdman.org> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 2:11 PM Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech
        > Dear Sir, > I do not agree with your views and don't care to hear of your perspective.
**** Then why are you so self-centered as to think that I would like to hear yours? Is this a subtle way which your conscience has of forcing you to imply that I am more openminded than you are? The mind does play tricks, now, does it not?
> For 16 years I defended your right to free speech as a military officer for our great nation. I provided that very blanket of freedom you hide behind and would likely cower under if things got sticky.
****** Those who have studied history intently as I have know that there has not been a single war since the American Revolution in which America's participation was justified (OK, maybe the Mexican). This is not to say your motives were bad, but the ugly fact is that you have been used by others to aggrandize a government which -- tho still the best in the world -- is rapidly sinking into totalitarianism. And that sinking is significantly aided by Establishment Jewry.
May I suggest that instead of devoting your time to a very poorly organized and utterly banal web presence, that you find a way to help people in the world.
****** You are free to regard my web presence as porly-organized and banal -- or to call it poorly-organized and banal even if you don't believe it -- but the many people who visit my site daily might disagree with you. Of course your intention is to insult me, but then that is typical of the liberal mind -- denigrate your opponent, but never never answer the arguments he presents. I would far rather be banal and poorly organized than ignorant, immoral and mendacious, as is the typical liberal.
Try it and you may find that your hate melts away as you look into the eyes of those you help.
****** Whenever anyone talks about helping others, I always think of the words of Thoreau: Whenever you see anyone coming toward you who wants to do you a good turn, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE. Especially in the case of a military man with a gun in his hand.
> I'm a Christian who has had the opportunity to live on 5 different continents.
***** If you can believe in Christian mythology, I suppose it is not too hard to believe in holocaust mythology.
May I suggest that if your income and position in life allows it, that you visit some of the death camps and concentration camps that are memorialized in Europe today. Start at Dachau near Munich, then go to Bergen Belsen. Realize that these were constructed by the "most advanced" society of the day.
***** This kind of talk merely emphasizes your ignorance. The concentration camp was invented by the British in the Boer War -- a war, incidentally, which was instigated by the Jews and their friends. It was a very ugly war. As to the German camps, you probably didn't know that the so-called 'gas chambers' were fakes constructed by the Soviets, as admitted by Francezk Piper, curator of the Auschwitz museum, on film. I could try to educate you a lot more on these matters, but you have indicated in the first sentence of your letter that you are uneducable.
It's frightening. WE must stamp out hate Sir. I > welcome your efforts toward this end.
****** There is nothing the least wrong with hate, provided only that it is directed against hateful things. Such as your abominable ignorance. >
> max --
        Dear Mr. Bryant,
        Thank-you for affirming my intuition by attacking me personally. I have now blocked your email from my account. You simply don't exist any longer. How does that feel?
You can run from me, but you can't hide from my ideas.
[Note: The above letter was NOT returned.]


        ******* MARGARET ROSE
        John:
        I'm very conservative. I have counted several folks of the Jewish faith among my circle friends for as long as I can remember.
        Perhaps you should remove me from your e-mail list.
        Thanks.
Margaret: It sounds as if you need to read my website much more carefully. I will, however, remove your name from my mailing list, as you request.


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


Text by the late John Bryant; on big-lies.org with permission of his widow. Some blockquotes and format changes added by Rae West. This page is called from a piece on the severe limitations of Mensa. Uploaded 2013-01-28