Birdman's note: The following
correspondence begins with a letter from John French, who asks
Karen DeCoster to respond to the Lew Rockwell materials (posted
here in Rockwell Files #2). It is followed with Karen's response
to John, then a letter to Karen from the Birdman, her response,
and a final Birdman response. At the very end of the file is a
brief discussion of correspondence with Jeff Elkins, another
Rockwell writer.
John French wrote:
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> It's me John French, one of your trusted friends at
> Amazon and a fan of your work.
>
> Let me cut right to the chase Karen: you probably
> received an e-mail last week from a very dear friend
> of mine, John Bryant. The aforementioned e-mail was an
> issue of his weekly newsletter normally sent only to
> its subscribers, but was additionally sent to the
> writers of LW.com, of who you are a member. In it, he
> issued a challenge to both Lew Rockwell and the
> contributing writers on his site. He challenged them
> to respond to criticisms identical to the ones' that
> got Joe Sobran kicked off the National Review's
> masthead--namely, the influence Israel has in
> Washington and the disproportionate hand Jews have had
> in liberalism. The only response he received was a
> very sad one from Gary North.
>
> John Bryant is not a zealot who hates Jews, he simply
> criticises them. He has also written 40 books which
> have been lauded by the likes of Milton Friedman and
> paleoconservative writer Paul Gottfried (you know who
> they are). If you don't believe me, click one the link
> below
>
>
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Books/Books-AboutReviews.html
>
> In closing, I hope you'll at least take up a small
> amount of your time to write John a few brief
> paragraphs responding to the challenge he issued. (And
> if you no longer have the e-mail he sent you, I can
> send you another one.) You criticism is very important
> to us. Thank you Karen.
>
> Truly,
> John French
>
[Karen responds to John:]
Hi John French, yes I remember. Somehow we ended up linking to
each
other at Amazon while perusing books, etc., and you're a friend
of
John's, too? How funny. Small world, eh? I will respond to your
kind
inquiry, John.
As to the Bryant letters, I did receive another one yesterday.
First,
John (Bryant) and I, as you may know from him, have corresponded
in the
past -- always civil, even if disagreeing. (By the way, I have no
problem with you forwarding this to John.)
First, I have been clued in on the North-Bryant exchange from the
beginning; I do know all the arguments, what was said, etc. Gary
and
John are two guys that will respond, and respond again (to each
other).
Let them go at it, I say. Gary's a sharp guy; he knows what he
wants to
say/do.
Second, John's "Birdman Letter" yesterday mentioned the
LRC writers: he
remarked on those that were "big names" (only 3), and
that no one on LRC
would respond to a challenge. (Actually there are 7 "big
names". He
forgot Gottfried, Hoppe, Gordon, and Raico; and Yates is an
up-and-comer) Of course, the implication is, we're all a bunch of
amateurish wimps. So nobody will, therefore, respond to that
tone. Not
that I feel obligated to respond to him on why, etc., but since
you have
so kindly inquired, I'll gladly respond to you, John, and do some
explaining for John Bryant, as well.
I'll say this: Not everything John says in his writings is
something to
disagree with. He has, in the past, said things on various issues
I
would agree with. So would others. But so what? We'd all agree on
a lot
of issues. But, I don't agree on this crazy Jewish stuff, it's
taken way
too far, but other than my thinking so, that kind of stuff is not
even a
blip on my radar map.
None of us have the time for all of this crazy "challenge
stuff", number
one. Since most of us aren't "big", we have jobs. Other
jobs. Some of
us, like me, have two jobs. Plus we write. Plus, a few of us,
like me,
are busy writing and submitting for publications, working on
research/academic stuff, and obtaining grad degrees, as well. If
we had
to respond to every single "challenge" offered to us,
we'd all have to
quit work, go on welfare, and stay home and take them all on. And
there
still wouldn't be time. TIME is the greatest resource for people
like
me. When one is working to break into mainstream-type publishing,
one
needs to select her writings, challenges, email responses, even
general
e-mails, etc., very carefully. The brunt of my writing time is
spent
writng for publication, and for future benefit. Therefore, my
time must
be productive and make money, or lay the foundations for making
money in
the future.
You must understand, these challenges are numerous. LRC IS a huge
site,
and there are a group of people out there constantly issuing us
challenges. Group challenges, crazy challenges, incoherent
challenges,
and some very worthwhile, but impractical challenges. Plus, we
get the
loads of email responses to each article, and as Gary North
correctly
wrote in his last column, some of these e-mails are simply
incoherent
disagreements picking apart every single little point,
disagreeing with
it, and asking you to write back on each and every single little
point,
and if you don't, well, of course, you're a "copout"!
But of course,
the nasty letter-writers don't stop to realize that you have
ALREADY
written your viewpoint in your article, and there is no need to
re-support those same ideas again, in response to their total
disagreement!
John is not gaining accolades for his "Little Lew-Lew"
references, and
his constant badgering of Lew, etc. The man obviously pissed Lew
off
years ago, and Lew probably wrote it off as "don't bother
with". What's
wrong with that? Why should Lew be obligated to answer each and
every
one of John's challenges and viewpoints and letters? That's
bloody
nonsense. We, _especially_ the pros like Lew, Gary, Joe, and
Paul, have
to select our challenges, arguments, and topics for publishing.
NOBODY
has the time to do it all. Considering John's constant lashing
(and
public, too) and name-calling of Lew, I wouldn't respond either.
If Lew
wants to write him off as "crazy", that's his business.
Lew moves on to
what he deems priorities, as does John. John deems Lew a
priority; the
opposite does not hold.
As to the Jewish issue, I am not into this maniacal "Jewish
issue"
stuff. I cover it all, but I have my priority topics (or pet
topics). I
especially have NO interest in the zealous Jewish stuff. I do not
brandish a hatred for Jews as a whole, and this is not an issue
that I
would care to answer each and every challenge on. There are
others that
press LRC writers on this issue. If people want to hate Jews, who
cares?, I say. Let 'em.
Also, John had some remarks from some, apparently, friends of
his, in
the latest Bryant letter. Somebody from "Vanguard News
Network". That
would be like me gaining support from Janet Reno for a legal
issue! Of
course, everyone thinks those VNN people are crazy, and nobody
cares
about them, but then again, who even thinks about them, either? I
will
tell you that someone from VNN wrote me a VICIOUS letter a few
months
ago (it may have been Linder, I don't remember), and it was the
typical
name-calling, garbage-filled, hate-filled, race-baiting piece of
crap
you would expect from those people. The man from VNN did not EVEN
know
me, he wrote me to call me "white chickenshit",
"libertarian
bullshitter", "lyin' white nigger-lover" (because
I wrote an article on
the B.S. of reparations, and apparently, didn't go *far enough*
for the
hate-filled MR. VNN).
[http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster6.html]
So I responded to Mr. VNN and said, "Please do not ever
write me again."
His response? "You're pretty, but you're a dumb white
bitch", among
other things. It's a good thing I have a sense of humor, and it's
a good
thing I have a canny sense of human behavioral psychology. Again,
a
crazy kook that you have to laugh at, and move on, wouldn't you
agree?
If Gary has decided he has the time and motivation to answer back
John's
challenges, as opposed to Lew, bless him. He has the intellectual
capacity to crush most people, including John. I don't think
Gary's
response was sad, at all. On the contrary, I think Gary took it
upon
himself to defend an individual whom he has had a friendship with
for
years. I assume Gary had seen enough of the constant
argument-baiting
(on John Bryant's part), and decided to let go some argumentation
of his
own.
Lew is a good friend of mine, and has been for years. Lew doesn't
have
the time to respond to pointless name-calling, childish digs, or
jealous
foes. The constant blasting and name-calling of a GIANT in this
movement, such as Lew, only causes one to belittle himself. John
also
blasted Gary and Lew for their religious stance ("Those Who
Love
Jeezez"), and why would Lew, being a God-fearing man and
good Catholic,
in a VOLUNTARY relationship with his God, want to deal with that
nonsense? This angle of attack is pointless and stupid. Not to
mention
the absurdity of the remark tagging Ralph Raico as
"politically
correct". Pleeeeeeze. Another intellectual GIANT attacked
because he
doesn't hate Jews enough to please the Jew-haters.
That would be the criticism I have. So, therefore, there's the
response
I offer you, John. Hope that helps.
Best wishes,
Karen De Coster
[Birdman responds to Karen:]
Karen:
Since you gave John French permission to forward your letter to
me, perhaps
you would be interested in my response.
My basic response is that you, like a lot of people, seem unable
to deal
with the 'Jewish thing'. I have tried to set things out on my
webpage,
but -- in the words of JBR Yant -- "You can lead a horse's
ass to 'oughter'
but you can't make him think." I take it that you have never
seriously
attempted to read any of the several essays posted there.
I know it's tough, the 'Jew thing'. It's like stepping over a
forbidden
line. And it has consequences for people unprepared to weather
the hate and
rejection you get when you dare to make shishkebob out of a
sacred cow. You
can see all the shit that has been dumped on me -- I have
published it on my
site. Not too many are strong enuf to take that.
Now you are supposedly 'for freedom' -- in fact, you make a Very
Big Deal
out of it what with your email address and all. But freedom isn't
free --
you have to fight for it. There are a lot of freedom-negative
elements in
this world, but one of the most important is Establishment Jewry.
I have
tackled this because I am for freedom AND I am willing to put my
balls on
the line, unlike 90% of the rest of the pro-freedom people. In
all your
support of the Austrian School, you aren't required to do any
such thing --
you can barely find anyone who knows what Austrian economics is,
and it is
certainly nothing to get in a fight about. But Jews -- well, you
can't even
MENTION them without a rain of shit.
What I am saying is, your support of freedom is like that of 'the
summer
soldier and the sunshine patriot', to use the famous words of Tom
Paine.
But real freedom doesn't come that way. It comes only with blood,
toil,
tears and sweat. You -- and the rest of the LRC crew -- are
comfortably
ignoring where the most potent freedom-negative efforts are
coming from. So
you will be comfortable for now, because they will come after me
and the
rest of the 'bigots' and 'Jew haters' first. But then it will be
your time.
And if you don't support us 'bigots' and 'Jew haters' now when we
need it,
then if we lose, they will hang you just as high as they hang us,
the only
difference being that it will be afterward.
If you were just a student or a housewife, I wouldn't say
anything. But you
have an audience, and some influence. So that means you have an
obligation
to tell the truth. And, as a supporter of freedom, it means you
have an
obligation to FIND OUT the truth. You will find out a lot of that
truth on
my page, if you take a little time to read it. And please note,
that in
more than 20,000 unique visitors to my site, not a single one has
accepted
my open offer to link criticism of so much as a single article --
which is
one hell of a good test of truth.
I have made a few other comments on your letter which are set off
by
asterisks and interleaved in your text:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karen De Coster"
<austrian-accountant@home.com>
To: "John French" <johnfrench67@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: A plea.
> Hi John French, yes I remember. Somehow we ended up linking
to each
> other at Amazon while perusing books, etc., and you're a
friend of
> John's, too? How funny. Small world, eh? I will respond to
your kind
> inquiry, John.
>
> As to the Bryant letters, I did receive another one
yesterday. First,
> John (Bryant) and I, as you may know from him, have
corresponded in the
> past -- always civil, even if disagreeing. (By the way, I
have no
> problem with you forwarding this to John.)
>
> First, I have been clued in on the North-Bryant exchange
from the
> beginning; I do know all the arguments, what was said, etc.
***** Did Gary send you copies of all the letters? What did you
think of
Gary after reading the correspondence as published in my Weekly
Letter? Do
you still regard him as a 'sharp guy'? What about his morals? How
do you
see him in comparison to the 'VNN guy' who wrote you? Don't you
think they
are cut out of the same mold?
Gary and
> John are two guys that will respond, and respond again (to
each other).
> Let them go at it, I say. Gary's a sharp guy; he knows what
he wants to
> say/do.
>
> Second, John's "Birdman Letter" yesterday
mentioned the LRC writers: he
> remarked on those that were "big names" (only 3),
and that no one on LRC
> would respond to a challenge. (Actually there are 7
"big names". He
> forgot Gottfried, Hoppe, Gordon, and Raico; and Yates is an
> up-and-comer)
***** I don't regard these folks as 'big names', however good or
bad they
may be. But that's just my opinion.
Of course, the implication is, we're all a bunch of
> amateurish wimps.
***** There was no such implication, tho it is certainly true
that you are
amateurs in the sense that you don't get paid. As to wimps, well,
you could
dispel any doubts by actually taking up the Jewish question, but
I haven't
seen anyone at LRC do that yet. And of course I won't.
So nobody will, therefore, respond to that tone. Not
> that I feel obligated to respond to him on why, etc., but
since you have
> so kindly inquired, I'll gladly respond to you, John, and do
some
> explaining for John Bryant, as well.
>
> I'll say this: Not everything John says in his writings is
something to
> disagree with. He has, in the past, said things on various
issues I
> would agree with. So would others. But so what? We'd all
agree on a lot
> of issues. But, I don't agree on this crazy Jewish stuff,
it's taken way
> too far,
***** It is easy to say it is 'taken too far', but I notice that
neither you
nor anyone else will dare to confront the issue. Does this
suggest
cowardice and dishonesty? It certainly does to me.
but other than my thinking so, that kind of stuff is not even a
> blip on my radar map.
>
> None of us have the time for all of this crazy
"challenge stuff", number
> one. Since most of us aren't "big", we have jobs.
Other jobs. Some of
> us, like me, have two jobs. Plus we write. Plus, a few of
us, like me,
> are busy writing and submitting for publications, working on
> research/academic stuff, and obtaining grad degrees, as
well. If we had
> to respond to every single "challenge" offered to
us, we'd all have to
> quit work, go on welfare, and stay home and take them all
on. And there
> still wouldn't be time. TIME is the greatest resource for
people like
> me. When one is working to break into mainstream-type
publishing, one
> needs to select her writings, challenges, email responses,
even general
> e-mails, etc., very carefully. The brunt of my writing time
is spent
> writng for publication, and for future benefit. Therefore,
my time must
> be productive and make money, or lay the foundations for
making money in
> the future.
>
> You must understand, these challenges are numerous. LRC IS a
huge site,
> and there are a group of people out there constantly issuing
us
> challenges. Group challenges, crazy challenges, incoherent
challenges,
> and some very worthwhile, but impractical challenges. Plus,
we get the
> loads of email responses to each article, and as Gary North
correctly
> wrote in his last column, some of these e-mails are simply
incoherent
> disagreements picking apart every single little point,
disagreeing with
> it, and asking you to write back on each and every single
little point,
> and if you don't, well, of course, you're a
"copout"! But of course,
> the nasty letter-writers don't stop to realize that you have
ALREADY
> written your viewpoint in your article, and there is no need
to
> re-support those same ideas again, in response to their
total
> disagreement!
>
> John is not gaining accolades for his "Little
Lew-Lew" references, and
> his constant badgering of Lew, etc. The man obviously pissed
Lew off
> years ago, and Lew probably wrote it off as "don't
bother with". What's
> wrong with that? Why should Lew be obligated to answer each
and every
> one of John's challenges and viewpoints and letters? That's
bloody
> nonsense.
***** I have accused Lew of dishonesty and I have posed strong
intellectual
challenges to some of his ideas. It is one thing to dismiss
superficial
critics; another thing entirely to dismiss carefully thought out
disagreements taking the form of essays. To say nothing of
answering
charges of immorality. But there is a greater principle here --
what you
might call karma. It is one thing to 'sin'; but another thing to
ignore a
sin and let it fester so it grows into a cancer. Lew doesn't
'have' to do
anything with respect to me, but he now has a bulldog attached to
his leg.
Let's see how long he can ignore it. Let's see how many years he
can go
without doing the right thing. I guess my point is that
immorality contains
the seeds of its own punishment: Morality is not -- contrary to
Lew and his
Jeezez-loving friends -- rules from On High Which Must Be Obeyed;
rather
they are rules for HAPPY LIVING, and when you disobey them --
like being
dishonest, not answering serious critics, etc, then there are
UNPLEASANT
CONSEQUENCES. Maybe these facts are beginning to dawn on Little
Lew-Lew.
We, _especially_ the pros like Lew, Gary, Joe, and Paul, have
> to select our challenges, arguments, and topics for
publishing. NOBODY
> has the time to do it all. Considering John's constant
lashing (and
> public, too) and name-calling of Lew, I wouldn't respond
either. If Lew
> wants to write him off as "crazy", that's his
business. Lew moves on to
> what he deems priorities, as does John. John deems Lew a
priority; the
> opposite does not hold.
>
> As to the Jewish issue, I am not into this maniacal
"Jewish issue"
> stuff. I cover it all, but I have my priority topics (or pet
topics). I
> especially have NO interest in the zealous Jewish stuff. I
do not
> brandish a hatred for Jews as a whole, and this is not an
issue that I
> would care to answer each and every challenge on. There are
others that
> press LRC writers on this issue. If people want to hate
Jews, who
> cares?, I say. Let 'em.
***** You, like so many brainwashed others, cannot tell the
difference
between hatred and criticism.
>
> Also, John had some remarks from some, apparently, friends
of his, in
> the latest Bryant letter. Somebody from "Vanguard News
Network". That
> would be like me gaining support from Janet Reno for a legal
issue! Of
> course, everyone thinks those VNN people are crazy, and
nobody cares
> about them, but then again, who even thinks about them,
either? I will
> tell you that someone from VNN wrote me a VICIOUS letter a
few months
> ago (it may have been Linder, I don't remember), and it was
the typical
> name-calling, garbage-filled, hate-filled, race-baiting
piece of crap
> you would expect from those people. The man from VNN did not
EVEN know
> me, he wrote me to call me "white chickenshit",
"libertarian
> bullshitter", "lyin' white nigger-lover"
(because I wrote an article on
> the B.S. of reparations, and apparently, didn't go *far
enough* for the
> hate-filled MR. VNN).
> [http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster6.html]
>
> So I responded to Mr. VNN and said, "Please do not ever
write me again."
> His response? "You're pretty, but you're a dumb white
bitch", among
> other things. It's a good thing I have a sense of humor, and
it's a good
> thing I have a canny sense of human behavioral psychology.
Again, a
> crazy kook that you have to laugh at, and move on, wouldn't
you agree?
>
> If Gary has decided he has the time and motivation to answer
back John's
> challenges, as opposed to Lew, bless him. He has the
intellectual
> capacity to crush most people, including John.
***** Do you still believe this after reading our correspondence?
I don't think Gary's
> response was sad, at all. On the contrary, I think Gary took
it upon
> himself to defend an individual whom he has had a friendship
with for
> years. I assume Gary had seen enough of the constant
argument-baiting
> (on John Bryant's part), and decided to let go some
argumentation of his
> own.
>
> Lew is a good friend of mine, and has been for years. Lew
doesn't have
> the time to respond to pointless name-calling, childish
digs, or jealous
> foes. The constant blasting and name-calling of a GIANT in
this
> movement, such as Lew, only causes one to belittle himself.
John also
> blasted Gary and Lew for their religious stance ("Those
Who Love
> Jeezez"), and why would Lew, being a God-fearing man
and good Catholic,
***** What is so good about dishonesty and the other things I
have
mentioned? Is it OK to be dishonest when you are Catholic?
> in a VOLUNTARY relationship with his God, want to deal with
that
> nonsense? This angle of attack is pointless and stupid. Not
to mention
> the absurdity of the remark tagging Ralph Raico as
"politically
> correct"
****** I never commented on Raico at all.
. Pleeeeeeze. Another intellectual GIANT attacked because he
> doesn't hate Jews enough to please the Jew-haters.
>
> That would be the criticism I have. So, therefore, there's
the response
> I offer you, John. Hope that helps.
>
> Best wishes,
> Karen De Coster
****** I will be publishing this letter in my next BWL, along
with my
responses. Feel free to respond if you wish, and I will publish
that
response, too. I would point out that my decision to publish is
testament
to my belief that your criticisms are off the mark. If you need
extra time
to compse your response, I will be happy to wait an extra week.
>
[Karen responds:]
John, you don't really wonder why Gary talked to you like he did,
do
you? Why is it perfectly legitimate for you to be so vituperative
and
insulting, to everyone, and God forbid if Gary should rip off
some
remarks...!
Thanks for the insults. Sorry I took the time to respond to your
"friend" trying to recruit me into this argument of
Birdman vs. the
World. By the way, I don't need to be spanked on the
"Jewish" topic by
you. Nor do I need to be told where and how I should be spending
my
time.
Yep, I'm a "sunshine patriot", a "coward",
"dishonest", I "hide the
truth", I'm "brainwashed", "immoral",
and all other delicious things,
because I won't waste my time in endless debate over the insanity
of
someone hating the Jews (who are going to "hang us
all"), yet, he gets
down on his knees and prays to the secular god at the throne of
the
bloody State and all it's coercive "glory", as he
debunks natural rights
theory and anarcho-capitalism. The only difference between you
and the
neocons is the sex topic, other libertine issues, and the fact
that they
worship Israel, and you want to nuke it. You should have included
the
"pseudo-libertarians" in your recent lib essay.
Thanks, but no thanks. I think I explained the time factor and
its
preciousness as a resource, and no, I do not have the time for
maniacal
tit-for-tats and bloody B.S. name-calling of the
daycare-mentality sort.
Us GALS, you know, don't go for that sort of thing. It must be a
testosterone issue? And no, I'm not interested in having my
e-mails
"published" on your website; not that it would matter,
anyway.
[Birdman responds:]
My replies are marked with *****
> John, you don't really wonder why Gary talked to you like he
did, do
> you? Why is it perfectly legitimate for you to be so
vituperative and
> insulting, to everyone, and God forbid if Gary should rip
off some
> remarks...!
***** Your problem, Karen, is that you can't tell the difference
between
criticism and insult. I do not believe you can quote anything I
said to
Gary that was 'vituperative and insulting' Perhaps something I
said could
have been construed that way, but even if so, in comparison to
Gary's
epithets it would have been mild.
>
> Thanks for the insults. Sorry I took the time to respond to
your
> "friend" trying to recruit me into this argument
of Birdman vs. the
> World.
******** I agree. I think you are sorry. That's because my
response to you
pointed out some of your flaws, and you find that embarrassing.
By the way, I don't need to be spanked on the "Jewish"
topic by
> you.
****** I beg to differ.
Nor do I need to be told where and how I should be spending my
> time.
***** I do not presume to 'tell' you anything. I merely pointed
out that,
in your position, you have certain moral responsibilities. If you
choose
not ot accept those responsibilities, then you must take the
consequences.
Such as being criticized by me.
>
> Yep, I'm a "sunshine patriot", a
"coward", "dishonest", I "hide the
> truth", I'm "brainwashed",
"immoral", and all other delicious things,
> because I won't waste my time in endless debate over the
insanity of
> someone hating the Jews
***** You say it's a waste of time. Why don't you tell that to
the 8000
people in prison in Germany who are there because they questioned
the
Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust under laws passed by
Guess Who.
Freedom, like a muscle, must be exercised. It's easy to speak out
now; but
just wait till the next wave of 'hate laws' gets passed, like
they have been
passed in virtually all of Europe, plus Canada. The barbarians
are at the
gates -- and inside, in fact.
(who are going to "hang us all"), yet, he gets
> down on his knees and prays to the secular god at the throne
of the
> bloody State and all it's coercive "glory",
******* This is an egregious and contemptible lie.
as he debunks natural rights
> theory and anarcho-capitalism.
The only difference between you and the
> neocons
***** Another egregious lie.
is the sex topic, other libertine issues, and the fact that they
> worship Israel, and you want to nuke it.
****** Another egregious lie.
You should have included the
> "pseudo-libertarians" in your recent lib essay.
>
> Thanks, but no thanks. I think I explained the time factor
and its
> preciousness as a resource, and no, I do not have the time
for maniacal
> tit-for-tats and bloody B.S. name-calling of the
daycare-mentality sort.
***** That's funny. Your letter appears to be exactly that. Of
course the
reason for your pyrotechnics is that I have teased out some ugly
truths, and
you are gagging on them.
> Us GALS, you know, don't go for that sort of thing. It must
be a
> testosterone issue? And no, I'm not interested in having my
e-mails
> "published" on your website; not that it would
matter, anyway.
***** Clearly, you are unwilling to have what you say examined by
others. I
am not. And I think that makes it pretty clear who is honest and
who is
telling the truth. And it isn't you. Or your friends at LRC.
Jeff Elkins Postscript
Jeff Elkins, one of Lew Rockwell's
writers, rates himself a clever fellow with his correspondence to
the Birdman, which we had originally intended to post, but simply
found it too tedious (Yes, that's how we feel about Jeff's
cleverness). However, the reader will not be totally denied
access to Jeff's creative efforts, for his magnificent graphic of
the Birdman as Pekingese man is posted HERE.
(No, we don't know whether Jeff intended a connection between his
'creation' and Peking man, but frankly we doubt that he has
sufficient subtlety for such a saltation.) While the Birdman has
no objection to being the object of a little mockery, we would
have hoped that it would not be so crude. But you can judge for
yourself. And in doing all this, Jeff of course manages to avoid
the issue about which he was contacted, namely the Birdman's
discussions of Lew Rockwell which are posted in the Rockwell
Files #2, and which were sent to all of Rockwell's writers as
well as subscribers to the Birdman's Weekly Letter. Whether
screaming (like the liberals) or mockery like this, it amounts to
the same thing: a congeries of dishonesty.
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *