The Case Against the Jews: Part I
(An interesting essay by the Birdman Bryant)
A Documented Critique of Contemporary and Recent Historical Jewish Behavior
By John "Birdman" Bryant
The essay which follows was sent to a highly-intelligent friend of long standing. He refused to read it, saying only that he was "content to remain ignorant of that topic [Jews], as on 99% of the things in this world", in spite of conceding that "tho of course it must contain much truth". Unfortunately, there is nothing at all unusual in my friend's behavior. It is what I call the HITS (Head-In-The-Sand) reaction -- the hope that all will be well if the problem at issue can just manage to be ignored. And it is to be conceded that this approach sometimes works -- my friend is getting on in years, and he may well end up as food for worms before the Jewish Question -- ie, the question of what dangers are posed by Jews to America and to Western (gentile) civilization generally, if any -- ever substantively arises in his life. For those of us without one foot in the grave, however, the ugly fact is that the Jewish Question is one of the most important issues of the day, and it is precisely this fact which the present essay seeks to demonstrate. The Jewish Question is important, however, in a way in which other vital problems are not, because of the Great Taboo on even discussing it. In fact, the Jewish Question has become a sort of a benchmark of intellectual freedom: Whenever there is an inability to fully and freely discuss this issue, intellectual freedom has been severely compromised.
Now most people don't give a tinker's damn about intellectual freedom, which is hardly surprising since most people don't have much of an intellect to be free with -- after all, half the population -- and 85% of blacks -- have an IQ below 100. But even for most of the more cerebral types, intellectual freedom doesn't usually mean much because their minds are so fossilized with conventional ideas that the chance of a new one finding an entree is about as likely as the chance of finding a negro competent in brain surgery. For the small remainder of us, however, intellectual freedom is almost as vital as breathing. For us, truth is the goal, no matter whose ox gets gored, whose ass gets kicked, or whose sacred cow gets turned into shishkebob. Truth-seeking, it is to be admitted, can be a risky business -- the history of mankind is littered with the corpses of dissenters and heretics, and there is only the thin blue line of civilization which stands between the truth-seeker and the barbarity of most other men.
Lest I be misunderstood, I do not wish to excessively denigrate those who are unwilling to break the Great Taboo -- it is simply too frightening for most men to risk jobs or social disapproval over an issue which seems so far removed from their everyday concerns. Nor, for that matter, do I wish to excessively denigrate those who break the Great Taboo out of hatred, even tho I am not one to share that hate: It takes guts to break a taboo, and when all the pasty-faced intellectuals have run for cover, the only ones left to join in battle are those who think with their abdominal structures. And make no mistake: The usual epithets applied to those who break the Great Taboo -- "hater", "bigot", "antisemite" and the like -- are powerful anathemas which only the strong can endure, in spite of the fact that those who hurl such epithets are usually far better described as bigots and haters than those whom they seek to harm.
Besides the issue of intellectual freedom, the importance of the Jewish Question is significantly similar to intellectual conundrums like the Paradox of Irrelevant Information, which I have recently spent much time discussing with a gaggle of Mensans and other high-IQ types. This importance is due to the fact that the investigations of both the Jewish Question and intellectual conundrums such as the PII represent explorations at the frontier of man's capacities -- an intellectual frontier in the case of the intellectual conundrums, and an emotional and social frontier in the case of the Jewish Question. Explorations at such frontiers often demonstrate interesting and unanticipated things, and offer the possibility of opening up entirely new vistas and perspectives. But at the very least such explorations separate the scientific from the sciolistic, and the rational from the rationalizers.
The tragedy of those who, like my friend, are comfortable with the HITS posture, is that they will never have the chance to evaluate material which -- even if only partially true -- implies quite simply that we are all immersed in an ocean of lies which significantly skew our perspective and leave us out of touch in a major way with what is really happening in the world. And while in some sense the effect of the present essay will be to unmask the hidden activity of organized Jewry, in a more important sense the effect will be to unmask the extent of our own sordid and egregious ignorance.
You can run from this essay, but you cannot run from the truth it represents -- you can only hope, like my friend, that it does not catch up with you.
3. The Essay: J'Accuse!
Note: One of the most famous cases of antisemitism (tho it was not actually antisemitism, according to Oliver (1981), but was made to seem so as a pretext for an attack on French culture by social revolutionaries) was the so-called Dreyfus affair which occurred in the latter part of the 19th century in France. Capt Dreyfus, a Jew and member of the French General Staff, was wrongly accused of crimes by fellow officers allegedly jealous of his success. The writer Emile Zola made the case a cause celebre by publicly defending Dreyfus with a series of articles entitled "J'Accuse!" ("I accuse"). If the reader detects a bit of table-turning here, he may be right.
Jews and gentiles have been in a state of conflict for the last 2000 years -- an understandable if unfortunate circumstance, since brothers in religion or other ideology, like brothers in a family, have a more intense rivalry among themselves than they do with others more alien. But if religion provided the basis for most of the Jew-gentile conflict in historical times, it no longer does so, if for no other reason than that religion has simply ceased to play a major role in a society in which only a century ago it was the dominant force. Instead, the Jew-gentile conflict -- the "Jewish Question" as it is sometimes termed -- has now become a problem of the overweening influence if not virtual dominance by Jews of gentile institutions and culture. In the sense of the evolutionary struggle for "survival of the fittest" there is nothing obviously wrong with such a conflict; but when the details of this conflict are given a careful inspection, there seems to be a great deal which is wrong. The purpose of the present essay is to make just such an inspection; but rather than attempting to present detailed research (which would require at least a book) I have chosen rather to highlight a number of major points in a rather summary -- but I believe revealing -- fashion. While I have provided documentation for many of my assertions, as well as an extensive bibliography where a great deal more information along these lines may be found, the assertions of this essay will still be difficult for many to believe because the material is generally terra incognito to most people, including well-educated ones. The reason for this, of course, is that -- as mentioned earlier -- there is no greater taboo in American society (and for that matter, Western society) than the criticism of Jews, with the result that there is not only a profound ignorance concerning the Jewish Question, but a profound unwillingness to believe that there could possibly be anything worthwhile to learn. While I obviously cannot pry open those minds which are closed on this subject, for those individuals with at least a rudimentary curiosity I hope I will at minimum stimulate a desire to verify or refute the assertions of this essay. In my view there is simply no issue more important to Americans or white men generally than the Jewish Question, as those who dare to read this essay will shortly understand. I hasten to add, however, that there are no easy answers to the problems which are raised here, and those who believe differently have simply failed to grasp the complexity of the issues.
While Jews and their critics are often in disagreement, there is one point on which many on both sides agree, to wit, that Jews and gentiles should live separately because of their mutual incompatibility. This, it may be noted, was the theory behind the ghetto of historic times, which was sometimes imposed on Jews, but often embraced by them. And it was the theory advanced by the original Zionists, who saw Jew-gentile incompatibility as the principal wellspring of antisemitism and sought to solve the problem by creating a Jewish homeland.
While I am not an adherent of the incompatibility theory, an objective consideration of the facts demonstrate that a strong case can be made for it, particularly from the gentile side. Or to put it slightly differently, it may be said that gentiles have some very good reasons for being unhappy with Jewish behavior. I should hasten to add, however, that this is not to argue that such behavior cannot in some wise be "justified", since the conflict between Jew and gentile is a very ancient one, and thus -- much as in the famous feud of the Hatfields and McCoys -- to say what is "justified" or not in such a conflict is probably quite impossible. But "justified" or not, and ill-intended or not, the question remains as to whether or not Jewish behavior is so contrary to gentile interests as to be intolerable to them. The remainder of this essay is devoted to outlining some major aspects of this behavior. These are discussed in the starred paragraphs below:
* Communism was an essentially Jewish phenomenon. Not merely did the Jew Karl Marx develop the ideas, but the founders of the seminal Russian variety were practically all Jews (this is amply documented by Britton (nd)), as were most of the major figures in communism everywhere in the West. Furthermore, the Russian revolution was financed primarily by Jewish bankers in New York, and specifically by Kuhn Loeb & Co, one of whose partners, Jacob Schiff, was said by his son to have spent the then- inconceivable-sum of $20 million for this purpose (see Sutton (1974)). Schiff was apparently acting out of enmity to the tsar, an antisemite, whom he had also attempted to overthrow by financing the Japanese in the Russo- Japanese war of 1906; and from this it is no surprise that the very first law passed by the Bolsheviks when they took power was a law against "antisemitism". Bolshevism was responsible for more than 50 million deaths, many of them caused by the most fiendish tortures. Worldwide, Jewish-inspired communism has been responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million people. "Jewish bolshevism", as it was frequently called in its early days, came close to achieving world hegemony, and -- in its more subtle forms of liberalism and socialism -- may still do so. |
