[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: THE PHILOSOPHER AND OFFICER FRIENDLY THE PHILOSOPHER AND OFFICER FRIENDLY Note: The following is a piece which I wrote at the request of revisionist icon Bradley Smith for his forthcoming book, OUR STORIES: The Human Face of Holocaust Revisionism. I was a born philospher, or if not quite born, then at least made at a very early age. I can remember the very day that it happened -- it was in nursery school, and we had a visit from Officer Friendly to tell us Very Important Things like the policeman is your friend, and how to cross the street without being flattened by a ten-ton truck. It was the matter of the truck that let me know I was a philosopher. What happened was that, when Officer Friendly announced his Grand Solution, namely, that we should always hold hands when crossing, I asked why this was supposed to prevent us from being flattened -- you know, like a row of paper dolls. The result of this daring query was that I was severely reprimanded. I mean, HOW CAN A LITTLE KID QUESTION OFFICER FRIENDLY????? Now by this time I think you have figured out that a philosopher -- and by that I mean a TRUE philosopher, and not one of those woolly-headed and foggy-brained academia nuts whose greatest accomplishment is to get an obscure paper published in an obscure journal and have it cited in the footnote of another obscure paper in another obscure journal -- is someone who asks troublesome questions -- and provides troublesome answers, if he is clever. And that is pretty much what I have been doing thruout my life, first in the traditional areas of philosophy which produced my book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy and several academic papers on logic, and later my general observations on life, found in my series of books which began with The Mortal Words of JBR Yant. So how did Holocaust revisionism come to my attention, and in fact come to play a very important part in my life? I could say -- somewhat after the fashion of the pseudo-revisionist David Irving -- that the True Philosopher, like the good soldier, marches toward gunfire, but I think that is not quite right. I do march toward gunfire -- and there is hardly any place on the planet that you will hear more gunfire (or what sounds like gunfire) than around revisionism -- but with me the motivation was more on the order of, first, curiosity about controversial issues, and second, a delight in rushing in where angels fear to tread, and thereby shocking the living daylights out of everyone by the simple act of telling the truth. (Like Harry Truman used to say, "I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.") All of which brings me to a very important point: Most people are highly skilled in the high-wire acrobatics of avoiding the truth at all costs -- including the cost of falling without a net. Like Oscar Wilde once said, "Men sometimes stumble over the truth, but quickly pick themselves up and continue on as if nothing had happened." But the truths of Holocaust revisionism are of such magnitude that many men who stumble over them -- and more and more are doing so every day -- cannot simply pick themselves up and walk away. Certainly I could not. So where did I stumble over revisionism? I cannot truthfully say, tho a likely bet is Willis Carto's newspaper The Spotlight. This newspaper -- now reincarnated as American Free Press -- is not explicitly revisionist, but it publishes articles of what might be called 'Jewish skepticism' as a regular part of its fare. Thus I do not think that I became a revisionist in one fell swoop (one swell poop?), but sort of absorbed it gradually as part of a larger picture of how the world -- and especially the Jews -- really work. But if I became a revisionist by osmosis, there was at least one magic moment in my education -- the moment that I realized that before formally converting to Holocaust revisionism and taking the Unbreakable Vows of the Dark Brotherhood, that I really ought to make an effort to read 'the other side'. But Lo!, as scientific revisionist Charles Fort might say. I discovered that there ISN'T another side -- or at least not much of one. I did manage to obtain two books supposedly refuting revisionism, one being Vidal-Naquet's Assassins of Memory, and the other being a book by Beatte Klarsfeld which I now forget, probably because it was so forgettable. But what made reading Vidal-Naquet a magic moment is that, within only a few pages of the beginning, this celebrated French author basically admitted that revisionism was right! At that point I realized that I was wrestling with a corpse, and that particular epiphany allowed me to permanently dismiss from my mind any thought that revisionist opponents had anything to say -- besides the usual curses and smear words, of course. And that is why I am always careful to keep a lookout for Officer Friendly. This week's Hell's Lettres: #1: Correspondence with a Wizard of Oz on Discrimination In order to give some aid and comfort to revisionist icon Dr Fredrick Toben of Australia's Adelaide Institute, who is currently under prosecution for his work (see http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEGAL%202006/atkinson.htm), I wrote the following letter to the entity that was involved in his prosecution, in hopes that the answers to my questions might provide some legal grist that Fredrick might use to lubricate the wheels of justice. To: Ms Bridget Akers, Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission From: John Bryant (john@thebirdman.org) Dear Ms Akers: I am an Internet writer with a large worldwide audience (more than a million hits per day on my website), and I am writing an article on antidiscrimination and free speech laws. I was wondering if you, as an official empowered to enforce such laws, could answer some simple but important questions about what is legal or not in your country. Feel free to comment on the answers if you so desire, and to raise any other issues you think might be relevant. Thanks in advance. -jb Here are the questions: What does the term 'discriminate against race R' mean? In particular, does it mean one or more of the following: * Telling lies about R * Telling unpleasant truths about R Can you tell me which of the following statements, if any, are 'racially discriminatory', assuming they are true: a) Individual x committed a crime b) Individual x committed a crime and belongs to race R c) A group of individuals committed crimes and are of race R d) Members of race R commit more crimes per capita than race S e) Members of race R commit fewer crimes per capita than race S f) Members of race R receive more honors per capita than race S g) Members of race R receive fewer honors per capita than race S h) Group A is guilty of fewer crimes than historians once thought i) Group A is guilty of more crimes than historians once thought Also, can you answer the following questions: 1) Is it possible for a minority to racially discriminate against the majority or another minority? 2) Is it racially discriminatory to say "Section Q is a high crime area" when the majority of the residents are of race R? 3) Is it racially discriminatory to say "Section Q is a high-crime area and also an area where the majority of the residents are of race R"? 4) Is it racially discriminatory to say "Section Q is a low-crime area" when the majority of the residents are of race R? 5) Is it racially discriminatory to say "section Q is a high-crime area" when the majority of the residents are of race R? 6) Is it racially discriminatory to say "Section Q is a high-crime area and has a majority of residents who are of race R, and I believe that the reason for the crime is the fact of the racial makeup"? 7) Is it racially discriminatory to say that some characteristics of race R are different from some characteristics of race T? 8) Is it racially discriminatory to say that some characteristics of race R are inferior to the same characteristics of race T? 9) Is it racially discriminatory to say that some characteristics of race R are superior to those of race T? 10) Does racial discrimination depend on whether someone's feelings are hurt, or is it independent of anyone's feelings? [The response to my letter was, unfortunately a copout on the order of "We can't give you legal advice, but here is our website giving you an explanation." And guess what? Fredrick's case was cited on the site as one of the examples! Ah, yes, sentence first, trial later, haloo?] #2: Correspondence with Peter R: Hey John, Hope all is well in your reality. I haven't forgotten the remainder of my committment (aprx $140) to go. But I still have until years end. I haven't been on as much lately as work is picking up for me. I will give my opinion though on two things. 1) Your site and 2) The joke that is the movement and why I no longer give a shit Your site is the best god-damned compendium of some of the best information I have ever discovered. I fucking love it. One change I would love to see however. I would love to see more of your writing (weekly letter/columns/whatever) at the expense of daily reads if necessary. I like the daily reads, but I just get more out of your commentaries on events than say those of Henrithecelt or Sorcha Faal, or Hal Turner. Their shit is good and many times hilarious, but I'd just rather hear more from you. I no longer give a shit about the movement. I mean how can I or why should I. Is it not a natural imperative to eschew losers and embrace those who seem to be winning? Honestly, if the white race cannot stand up for itself and throw off the yoke of Marxism, then does it deserve to survive? The weak are rightfully destroyed. This is a law of nature. And don't come down on me for entertaining such views. You yourself opined as such when you complained of the amount of donations you were receiving versus the number of hits you were getting. We both know that the 11th hour is at hand for a lot of things anathema to western civ. My experience, however with so called "Patriots" and WN's has been eye opening. The only people who seem to give a shit are losers. Plain and simple. Many good people out there, but most just don't have the brain power to walk and chew gum simultaneously, much less inspire their fellow citizens. For Christ's sake, I have resources. And I haven't found a single cause worthy of a single penny of mine (except for your site.) I am a licensed attorney with a family. Much to risk have I and many others who oppose NWO machinations. Many of the people the movement needs are people like me and many of my colleagues who are sympathetic. However, I and many others are not impressed. For these and many other reasons, I simply cannot be concerned any longer. I intend to take care of myself and family and not worry about others. Why should I? If you could wave a magic wand, would I take a paycut if I knew my wealth was actually going to help the white race survive, thrive and be relatively confident in their future? Absofuckinglutely. Would I downgrade from my paid-for BMW X-5 or my family farm to a bicycle and a 1/4 acre lot and a tiny house, if by doing this it would help to guarantee a healthy, safe future for whites and their progeny? Absofuckinglutely. But this is not how things work. As long as most whites are content being debt slaves to their masters while the rest are losers and idiots, well, what's a man to do. Just felt like sharing my thoughts with you. Maybe we'll meet one day in this life. Maybe in the next. If in the next life, look me up. Maybe we can compare notes. Yours In Cyber Friendship, Peter [Birdman responds:] Dear Peter: I know how you feel. Things look bleak. But as Churchill once remarked, "The lowest ebb is the turn of the tide." OK, maybe you don't believe the tide will turn. But again, a quote from another perceptive individual: "It ain't over till it's over." And in fact it is NEVER over -- as J Edgar Hoover once said, freedom must be rewon for each generation. And nowhere is this better illustrated than now. To wax Spenglerian, freedom comes in cycles: You have it, and then people struggle with one another and somebody's freedom grows at the expense of other people's. Then those people whose freedom has shrunk have to get together -- some of them anyway -- and knock the block off the cock of the walk. We are now in the latter stage. This is the human condition. Altho I don't relish giving the Left any credit, their notion of keeping people 'equal' has a merit which is largely unrecognized and unappreciated, to wit, that 'equality' keeps people from getting power over others and abusing them. This is important, in the sense of Lord Acton's dictum, Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I am not saying I agree with the Left -- I don't -- but limits on the concentration of power are vital to the maintenance of freedom. This is why I call myself an 'Actonite libertarian'. And it is precisely concentration of power that we are up against now. A hydra-headed monster in Washington that has billions and trillions, which is a guarantee that the power which this money represents is going to be abused. Which leads me to the conclusion that if there is to be a revolution, or maybe just evolution, the only way it will be stable is to limit the MONEY that government -- and for that matter ANY organization -- can take in. That is the crux of it -- not the Constitution or Bill of Rights or elections, or form of government, tho these may have some influence -- it is the MONEY (and thus the concentration of power) that must be limited for freedom to exist. Whatever the laws or form of government or tyrants there are, if the power is limited, that is the most crucial thing. Now as to your not giving a shit about the Movement, this is the very time when your not giving a shit is not even an option -- unless you are simply willing to accept slavery -- because it is perfectly clear that slavery is the way the West -- and the world -- is going. I am not willing to accept slavery -- my motto is 'Live free or die', and my only fear is that I may not succeed in dying before I get incarcerated. The problem then is not being 'in the Movement' -- the problem is to influence the Movement so that it will be effective. Let me here make another vitally important point. There is strong evidence that indicates an afterlife. You and I share that view, but unfortunately, many others do not because they have lost their religion. That is bad for the Movement, because it will take people who are determined not to be ashamed of themselves in an afterlife to sustain the battle for freedom. Indeed, that is why I posted my essay 'Scientifically Real Religion' in the Science & Religion section -- we need to get religion, so to speak, if we are to survive. That is the big advantage that Islam has over the West -- you can make fun of the 70 virgins bit, but a man who fights so that he will not be shamed (or will survive and prosper) in an afterlife is a man who can only be beaten by others who feel the same way. OK, maybe technological superiority will play a part, but only a part. Will, and not the atom bomb, is going to be what determines the future. I think here of a stanza of what I regard as the greatest poem in the English language, Rudyard Kipling's "If", which stands as a definition of manhood: If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew Call it manhood, but it will not likely come to fruition without religion. But getting back to the Movement, yes we are all frustrated, but that is precisely why it is up to us to act -- no one else is, so the responsibility automatically devolves on us. That's the moral obligation part. But there is more: We have to educate people so they are just as frustrated as we are -- then they will be primed to join us. And then there is the feedback loop part: The more people who 'join' the movement -- the more who speak out, act up, etc etc etc -- then the more that people WILL speak out, act up, etc, so that the effect snowballs. So that's why it is vital that we make a major effort to educate people. That is why I spend so much time working on my webpage. That is why, for example, I asked everyone who received my Iran president letter to send it to everyone on their mailing list, and ask for THEM to send it ot THEIR list, etc. My vision here is of a snowballing effect, but one backed by what I -- inspired by an idea of Tsun -- have called 'each one teach eight' (a variation on the 'each one teach one' idea of spreading literacy). What Tsun had in mind is that each Movement person would -- so to speak -- gather around him all his best friends and worst relatives and try to 'raise their consciousness' about race, the idea being that one had a better chance with friends and relatives than with unknowns. It is an idea that seems to have real value: Even if you don't make 'converts', you will at least get them in a frame of mind that will perhaps let them put 2 and 2 together. I note that you mourn about the heavy population of 'losers' who inhabit our halls, but there is a reason for that -- it is the lower classes who experience the effects of liberal policies up close and personal -- they can't participate in white flight because they don't have the economic resources. But this is all the more reason for upper class racially aware whites to be part of the Movement, because it is us who have to fill the leadership roles. That is why I have laid all my prestige and all my talents on the line -- I want to make sure that snotty Mensans and others know that 'racism' is not merely intellectually respectable, but morally obligatory -- and I want others to lay THEIR prestige and talents on the line as well -- the snowball effect, remember?. I know I am uniquely fitted for my role, so it becomes my social obligation. And speaking of the snowball effect, there is something else somewhat related to it which I am also trying to put into play here. It is what Ross Ashby identified as 'step functions' -- sudden changes in equilibria. This is in fact the way history works -- a smooth curve punctuated by sudden changes. This is what we have experienced with the Bush administration, and particularly with the Military Commissions Act -- but these are bad. What we are looking for is a snowball effect of Movement efforts that effects a sudden shift in people's opinions from going with the politically-correct flow to coming over to our side by being primed with anger and ready to throw the bastards out. Again, this will be a matter of education -- right now it's All Quiet on the Western Front, but tomorrow, or next week, or next year we will see a sea change, and a tsunami of anger that will animate the Movement and make it a poltical force to be reckoned with. People have to get angry and threatened, and carry it around for awhile, and then suddenly they come together. It may or may not be psychic, but whatever it is, we want to keep stirring the pot until something starts to happen. Finally, I want you to recall some of the quotes which I chose to head my Daily Reads page, and which I repeat here: "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed it's the only thing that ever has." --Margaret Mead If you're going to fight, fight smart. Martyrs are a lot less valuable than victories. --JBR Yant The key to being free is to fight back. --JBR Yant If you will not fight for your rights when you can easily win without bloodshed -- if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly -- then you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. --Winston Churchill Freedom begins between the ears. --Edward Abbey The above quotes represent some of the best thinking on the revolution (or evolution) which the Movement needs to be aware of. Particularly important is the quote by Margaret Mead -- it is the small band, and not a large mass, that is going to fuel the revolutionary [juggernaut]. That's what you need to remember when you start feeling as if there is no use in doing anything. Perhaps more than anything what you need to realize is that human reactions -- like their chemical cousins -- often require a catalyst to make them happen. or maybe a lot of catalysts. We don't necessarily need a charismatic leader -- indeed, perhaps the Movement will best get along as something low-key that operates in an evolutionary rather than revolutionary way. But we still need leaders -- people who will stand out from the crowd and tell the truth. Such leaders will bring about the snowball effect and the step-function, even if they themselves do not achieve the status of Great Leader. And that's where you come in. In conclusion, we need to do more thinking and more planning. The above ideas are just off the top of my head, and need to be shaped and winnowed and added to and subtracted from. We have a war on our hands, and there are people who are depending on us. Indeed, laugh if you will, but Western civilization may be resting on our very shoulders. We cannot turn our backs, and we surely cannot bow to the NWO. -j [Peter replies:] John, Thank you for such a thoughtful response. I think disillusionment with mankind in general has hounded me and my fellow travelers since the dawn of time. All it takes is one small sign of pettiness, corruption, ego ( 115 I.Q.'s who think they're brilliant because their closest friends are 100 I.Q.'s) and I'm ready to return to my cave. Freedom is indeed between the ears and I guess that is what I will continue to cultivate. I have no intention of accepting of accepting slavery. I have yet to find any effective group resistance though. I do give a shit about the human condition and the condition of my genetic family. I guess the mistake I make is projecting my feelings about loser leadership onto the masses. As of now I intend to make myself as strong and centered as possible. The power of one as they say. I feel that I will be more effective when the time comes if I quit looking outside of myself for salvation. I feel that salvation probably does "Lie Within." On slavery I can only think of the Spartan king Leonidas' response to Xerxes who asked the Spartans to lay down their arms----"Come and get them." Now that's freedom. Thanks again, Peter
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||