The following is a letter that Birdman wrote to a certain Walter who is friends with historian David Irving, in response to Walter's defense of Irving's rudeness to a waitress who interrupted Irving's meal to find out if there were something else she could get for him. The Irving incident has been a matter of some controversy in the revisionist community, and Birdman, being of large beak, felt it necessary to contribute his 'too sense' worth.
[Birdman's initial letter to Walter, who had earlier
defended Irving:]
>Some say 'Clothes make the man'. I say, 'Manners make the
man.' I also
>say, 'A great man shows his greatness by how he treats little
men.' And
>finally I say, 'Small things are the predecessors of big
things; and that
>much of success is being able to see the big things in the
small.'
[Walter responds to Birdman:]
>Dear John: David Irving has contributed much to revisionism,
history and
>the Battle. They hate him, which means he must have some
redeeming
>qualities. He is one of the few English friends Germany has.
I am sure
>your German grandmother would approve. (I would love to try
her potatoe
>salad!) Also, he works hard, just like you.
>
>He didn't repay you (or your wife) because he is also a big
spender. You
>should never have given him the money if you expected it
back. I gave him
>750 pounds during his trial, but it was, of course, a
donation.
>
>I still think we should concentrate on the big things,
overlook the smaller
>faults and focus on the real enemy who is destroying us. (The
defaulted
>loan won't destroy you.)
>
>I like your website and cryptic comments. ...
>
>Wishing you the very best and you, too, keep up the good
work.
>Walter
----------
[Birdman replies:]
Dear Walter:
I appreciate your troubling to reply.
I could spend a great deal of time replying to your letter, but I
will simply address the one critical issue: David Irving.
If you carefully read the several files I have posted on this man
(see the Net Losses section of my site, www.thebirdman.org), you
will see that there are good reasons to regard Irving as an enemy
of the [pro-white, pro-Western civilization] movement,
specifically, there is good evidence to show he is a Jewish
agent, to say nothing of a thief, forger, womanizer, pedophile,
plagiarist, and historian of doubtful worth. I know of nothing
useful he has done, including the Lipstadt thing [his suit
against Deborah Lipstadt for supposedly libeling him by calling
him a 'Holocaust denier'] and his books (more on this in a
moment). As for Alexander Baron's book or the expose that I have
made of Irving, there has been NO ONE to raise any serious
questions about their truth, and as to the few small issues that
have been raised, I have replied to all of them in what I
consider a satisfactory manner (again, see my postings). The
situation with Irving is a lot like that of the Holocaust -- the
facts have been dug out and made available, but the public -- in
one case the general public, in the other, the 'movement public'
-- continues to believe in the initial fallacy. As I have often
said, you can lead a horse's ass to 'oughter' but you can't make
him think. I believe that is pretty much what is happening here.
Now as to the matter of Irving's contributions to the movement,
let me expand on this a little:
(a) As to his books, I think people have the notion that they
somehow 'redeem' the Third Reich by telling the historical truth.
But the reality is this: The only thing that needs redemption via
truth-telling is the matter of the Holocaust (ok, Holohoax), and
that is a matter which the revisionists have done admirably, but
that IRVING HAS DONE ESSENTIALLY NOTHING ON. Or maybe I should
say that Irving has actually been HARMFUL on, because of the
matter of 'extermination by gas vans', which Irving tells us
existed in the latest edition of Hitler's War. Irving a
revisionist? Don't make me laugh!
(b) As to the Lipstadt trial, what good did it do revisionism?
None, I will wager. It got Irving to 'admit' the gas vans story,
and it got him (and revisionism) called a lot of nasty names, but
it did not 'put the revisionist story before the public' as it
was supposed to, if for no other reason than the Jewsmedia had no
intention of publishing such a story. Beyond that, Lipstadt was
right (sorry to have to say that) in the sense that (1) either
she was perfectly right to call Irving a Holocaust denier, or
else (2) it was a harmless appellation. Hell, it was stupid for
Irving to object, because once you stop objecting and accept the
appellation, the bastards have nothing on you. That is why I call
myself a white racist -- I undercut the negative power of the
appellation by accepting it. AND, I get people's attention (My
God! He calls himself a white racist? Why???) so they will listen
to what I have to say.
One further point, which I tried to make in my earlier letter,
but which bears repeating, is the following: A man who is
dishonest about one thing is likely to be dishonest about others.
Or more generally, a man who treats other people like shit in one
context is likely to treat them like shit in others. Irving has
stolen a substantial chunk of my wife's money. And Irving has
treated a waitress like shit. Both tell us the same thing about
his character. And what they tell us is that he is likely to have
treated his reading public the same way, by lying as it suits his
purposes -- whether that purpose be to sanitize something that
doesn't deserve to be sanitized, or whether it be to forward the
purposes of his Jewish controllers, if such there be.
The bottom line is this: Irving is a scumbag, at best useless and
at worst dangerous, and thus there is every reason to stay as far
away from him as possible.
-Birdman
[Walter replies:]
>Dear John: I have read the Irving file on the Net Losses
section.
>I would not post your letter until you have real proof that
he is a Jewish
>agent. If he was a Jewish agent, why does he have such
difficulty
>marketing
>his books thru regular channels and publishers? Or just to
find a quiet
>meeting place? Why did you or your wife give him the money, I
believe,
>relatively recently? You must have had a high opinion of him
up to that
>point in time.
>
>I agree with you, treating a little person (waitress) badly
may indicate
>being a bastard all around; but I would not go so far as to
condemn him
>entirely because often a waitress will interrupt at a most
inopportune
>time.
>
>I recall some years ago, Irving and Zundel had a financial
dispute, similar
>to yours. At an Irving meeting in Seattle, I suggested to him
privately
>that he, Irving, stop picking on Ernst in public, even though
I believe
>Zundel had also advanced him some money. Irving was sore
because his
>publishing world collapsed after he gave evidence at the
Zundel trial in
>Toronto. He listened and since then I have not heard him
speak badly or
>read one negative thing about Zundel on Irving's site.
>
>You may be right about the uselessness of the Irving trial;
but I think he
>partly slid into it. He perhaps thought by acceding to the
gas vans, he
>would meet the Judge half-way. Remember he was alone facing a
battery of
>lawyers. He may not be too much of a Revisionist, but he made
the Germans
>look more human.
>
>As recently as March 30, 2003, you wrote to David Irving
"You are a
>fabulous
>historian, and a great fighter, and we want you to survive
and prosper."
>In
>your Summary you state "My purpose in writing this is to
induce Irving to
>pay her the money he owes in exchange for not making this
document public,
>and to pursue other means of collection if he does not."
I would say this
>was an improper way for you to exert collection pressure
(bl-m).
>
>Whenever I lend/give money, I don't charge interest because I
don't approve
>of usury. (The self-chosen also don't charge each other
interest, but they
>milk the goyim.) Whenever someone offers a 10% return, which
is high for
>the last few years when term deposits earn only 2.5%, it is
usually suspect
>in my eyes and I don't fall for it. There are more honorable
and better
>ways to make money.
>
>If you were to be in contact with Irving again, tell him
you'll settle for
>just the return of you wife's principal, foregoing all
interest, past and
>future, e.g. if she lent him $10,000 and has received $2,000
of interest to
>date, settle for $8,000. (Sometimes even a bird has to grin
and bear it.)
>
>Publishing the letter will make you look like you are sore
about the lost
>money (which you are!), but no one will care or sympathize
with you since
>you appear greedy because of the 10%.
>
>One of the letter writers (A to Fredrick) on you site put it
best "In my
>view it would be best to drop this issue", focus on the
real issue and stop
>their laughter and gloating (schadenfroh).
>Best personal regards, Walter
[Birdman replies:]
Dear Walter:
Thanks for writing.
Your suggesting that I might forego the interest Irving owes me
in exchange for return of the principal is an idea with some
merit. Irving will profit not merely by the foregone interest,
but also because I will get off his back, which even at this late
date may prove advantageous to him. However, unless Irving does
it fairly promptly, no deal. Feel free if you like to pass on
this offer, because he will not get it otherwise.
There is a sense in which you are right that I bear some 'blame'
for the Irving imbroglio -- given any instance in which someone
gets mugged, there is always some hypothetical something which he
could have done that would have prevented the mugging. For
example, if I had done more research on Irving, or if I had used
more foresight about the Lipstadt trial, I might have avoided the
loan. But somehow I am not convinced that my lack of more
extensive research or greater foresight absolves Irving from his
contractual or moral obligations. As to the matter of 'greed',
this is a wonderful socialist epithet which is used to smear
those seeking to profit. In this context I will remind you that
the pursuit of profit is -- to use Adam Smith's term -- the
'invisible hand' which guides the social body to affluence in a
free market. This was established in 1776, but socialists --
primarily Jews, but with a goodly smattering of gentiles -- have
not yet learned Smith's lesson.
As to my praise of Irving, I admit that this was hearsay; but now
that I have had more direct personal experience and heard what
others of a more negative stripe have had to say, I see I may
have been completely wrong. You might also consider the
possibility that I was trying to curry favor with Irving in order
to get the money back. Alas, it seems not to have worked. -j
[End of correspondence]
YOUR DONATION = OUR SURVIVAL!
Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *