To: Richard Barrett (Crosstar)
From: John 'Birdman' Bryant (www.thebirdman.org)
Re: The Crosstar article denouncing the Birdman for having porn
on his site
(http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2002/mar.html#Birdman)
Richard:
This is in response to your article disassociating your website
and yourself from me and my website.
First, let me say that I realize that people can have different
views on porn. The fact that you don't like it (or something
about it, or some of it, or something) while I regard porn as a
social good, is not at issue here.
The problems I have with your article are the following:
First, you have visited my website on more than one occasion, and
have told me you have read my Daily Reads page. Now it just so
happens that I have on my home page a warning in large type which
reads: "WARNING: Not for the conventional, the timid, the
prudish, the pious or the politically-correct!" A little
further down, there is the following quote: "Fucking is a
family value. --JBR Yant". Below that, in the Table of
Contents under Daily Reads, there is the following reference:
"DAILY READS - New articles and cartoons are posted daily,
along with our Girl of the Day - our goal is to give you the best
of the best." Then, on the Daily Reads page itself, there
are two pointers to the Girl of the Day, along with several
hyperlinked articles relating to porn. These read as follows (the
first two were added just a few days ago, so you may not have
seen them):
* Pornography: Flower of Western Culture - A lot of people have
gotten their dicks caught in their zippers over our Girl of the
Day. Here is a little lubricant to help them get over the hump.
This essay is from the Introductory section.
* Sam Francis' Ithyphallacious Reasoning - The Birdman takes Sam
Francis to the woodshed over his sexophobic attitude toward porn
- this essay is from the Net Losses section
* Letter from a reader on Asian porn; Birdman responds
* Reader Sonic pounds the Birdman for displaying black porn;
Birdman responds.
* Readers react to the Sonic controversy both pro and con.
The above are posted next to a gif in which a girl is shaking her
breasts, and just below a short paragraph which reads:
"Girl of the Day - An artistic study in the biology of where
you came from and the restaurants you first ate at. Culled from
pictures freely available on the Net. Made available as a public
service to encourage white men to reproduce themselves, to help
old men who are having problems with the Staff of Life, and for
the lavender loveboys who don't know what they are missing. (For
you legal eagles, the items just cited represent this feature's
socially-redeeming importance. What's more, they meet community
standards of decency -- the community of the netizens of
cyberspace.). NOT FOR PRUDES OR THOSE UNDER 18!!!!"
All of which is to say that, if you missed the presence of porn
on my website, or if you are offended by things of an explicitly
sexual nature, then you had better see your eye doctor right
away.
What I am getting at is this: You seemed perfectly happy to
accept my praise (I gave you a Hoots-Pah Award) and my postings
of Crosstar articles and all the traffic they directed to your
site, but now suddenly you are Shocked, shocked! to discover that
-- gasp! -- there is PORN on my site!!!! Or to put it another
way, Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here? Would we be justified
in thinking that this represents a bit of opportunism-gone-wrong
-- somebody who is willing to accept the benefits of a
free-speech site, but gets antsy when it comes to defending it?
But there is another thing, too, that bothers me. It's called
"screwing your friends". What kind of a person accepts
the benefits of a liaison with somebody, and then turns around in
what appears to be a great moral huff and publicly tries to make
the person in question look like a pariah?
You don't need to answer me, Richard, tho if you choose to do so,
I will be happy to post your response on my webpage, as I am
going to post this letter. The person you need to answer is YOU.
In closing, let me make one request: That you post this letter on
your website following the article denouncing me, and also mail
this letter to the same mailing list that you posted your article
to. Don't you think that would be fair? -j
--------
[Richard replies:]
On 2/28/02 at 8:54 AM crosstar wrote:
>Dear John:
>
>Thank you for your message. Permit me to set the record
straight on a few
>things.
>
>1. Pornography is not "free-speech."
>2. Crosstar had no knowledge of any pornography on your
website.
>3. The Nationalist Movement opposes pornography by
"friend" or "foe."
>4. The Nationalist Movement opposes miscegenation and
integration.
>5. Crosstar has been pleased to have accepted your
"Hoots-Pah" Award, in
>the past,
> and has so stated.
>6. You have accused Crosstar, now, of "hypocrisy"
for receiving the
>Award, so, either
> withdraw the accusation or kindly consider the Award
returned and
>disavowed.
>7. You are welcome to post your response on the Crosstar
Forum at
> http://www.nationalist.org/forum/index.php, but it is
subject to
>editing.
>
>By way of further explanation, I am a combat-infantry veteran
and have
>been
>around those
>who use the most off-color of language. General George
Patton, one of my
>personal
>heroes, used such profanity that none of his speeches has
even been able
>to
>be reprinted.
>But his military exploits and stance against communism are
undiminished in
>my mind
>and before history. As are the heroic deeds of so many of the
soldiers
>with whom I served
>and for whom I have the utmost respect.
>
>When I first perused the "raunchy" language on your
site, I actually
>brushed it aside.
>Yes, I saw your various "warnings" but, frankly,
thought that your were
>cautioning viewers
>to beware of the off-color language and risque cartoons.
>
>It was not until someone on the Samuel Francis site pointed
out -- and you
>confirmed -- that
>there was actual pornography on your site -- depicting
Orientals and
>Negroes, as well
>as whites -- that I was alerted to the smut matter. In fact,
I then
>checked for myself and
>found the pornogpaphy of the Larry Flynt and Bob Guccione
variety.
>
>We have appropriately and immediately disassociated ourselves
from your
>pornography,
>especially of the alien and foreign variety. We were content
to leave it
>at that. However,
>you have now accused us of "hypocrisy" for
"accepting praise" from you, at
>all. So,
>please either withdraw your accusation or we will take the
further step
>and
>return and
>disavow your Award and remove any mention of you from
Crosstar.
>
>I do not suggest that we can please all the people, all the
time,
>John. Nor, do I anticipate
>that everyone can or should be expected to mirror the decorum
which we
>impose upon
>Crosstar. However, we will take all necessary steps to
obviate even the
>slightest
>appearance of impropriety or hypocrisy, on our part, and we
do so swiftly,
>openly
>and firmly.
>
>Regards,
>
>Richard Barrett
>General-Counsel
>The Nationalist Movement
-------
[Birdman responds:]
Dear Richard:
Thanks you for your response. Let me reply to some of your
points.
The thing that seems to have upset you most is my accusing you of
hypocrisy. Here is what I said:
"Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here? Would we be justified
in thinking that this represents a bit of opportunism-gone-wrong
-- somebody who is willing to accept the benefits of a
free-speech site [here, my support of you], but gets antsy when
it comes to defending it?"
It is possible that I should not have used the word hypocrisy,
and instead simply described your behavior as opportunistic -- a
word which I also used. Truthfully, there doesn't seem to be an
exact word to use here. But the accusation -- whether you call it
hypocrisy, opportunism or something else, IS accurate, and I have
no apologies for that. Perhaps this 'confession' or 'apology'
will satisfy your objection, perhaps not. But what you are doing
seems to be an act of your ignoring the forest (my accusation)
for the trees (the exact words I use to describe it). Or to put
it another way, your objection, tho perhaps not unjustified,
seems trivial and virtually irrelevant.
Concerning my accusation that you are willing to take the
benefits of a free-speech site but are reluctant to defend it,
you respond in effect by saying that porn is not 'free speech.' A
lot of conservatives have maintained this, and in fact have gone
further to maintain that the only 'free speech' which the First
Amendment protects is 'political speech'.
But it is easy to state numerous counterexamples. Let me give
just one:
The political question of whether porn is good or bad cannot be
debated unless people actually know what porn is. Thus the
viewing of pornography -- at least to a limited extent -- is
necessary in order to decide this political question. Or to put
it slightly differently, HERE IS A POLITICAL QUESTION WHICH
CANNOT BE DECIDED INTELLIGENTLY WITHOUT VIEWING PORN. I can give
an infinite number of other examples, but this should suffice to
make my point that you cannot have free 'political' speech
without having porn 'speech' (or 'information'). Which is to say
-- contra to you -- that porn IS part of free speech, ie, is a
politically necessary part of free speech.
Another important point: You state in your letter that:
"we will take all necessary steps to obviate even the
>slightest
>appearance of impropriety or hypocrisy, on our part, and we
do so swiftly,
>openly
>and firmly."
I think that is a wonderful sentiment. But the fact is that I
accused you not only of hypocrisy/opportunism/whatever, but also
of screwing your friends. I am now amplifying that by the
additional accusation that you are treating me unfairly by trying
to make me look like a bad guy to your list and on your website,
yet not giving me equal opportunity to respond. Yes, you said I
could make some 'edited' comments on your website forum, but you
know as well as I that this is nowhere near the equivalent of
allowing me to speak directly to the people to whom I have been
presented as persona non grata. There is no equivalence because
very few will read the postings on the forum, but most will read
what you put out to your list.
So if you want to obviate the 'slightest appearence of
impropriety', then send my reply -- this letter and the previous
one, unedited -- to your list and post it next to the article you
wrote about me. And please note that I do precisely this with
those who criticize me (see, for example, the Sonic
correspondence on the Daily Reads page which is mentioned in my
earlier letter, all of which went to my own mailing list and is
posted on my site), so I am not asking you to do something that I
have not already done on several occasions.
All I ask is a fair shake. How about it, Richard? -j
--------
[Richard replies:]
On 2/28/02 at 12:38 PM crosstar wrote:
>Hi, John:
>
>Thank you for your response.
>
>I appreciate your saying that you should not have
>used the word "hypocrisy." Only, your next sentence
>describes the accusation as "accurate." However,
>your apology, thereafter, seems to indicate that you
>do wish to withdraw the accusation , but may have
>not worded it quite right.
>
>Anyhow.... I, certainly, would like to accept the apology
>and you were generous to offer it. So....
>
>Please make your withdrawal of the accusation of
>"hypocrisy" unequivocal, so that we may proceed in
an
>atmosphere which I perceive you and I both desire.
>
>Thanks.
>
>R
---------
[Birdman responds:]
Richard:
I believe I have said all I have to say on the subject of my
accusation of hypocrisy. If it is not sufficiently groveling for
you, too bad. It sounds like you will use my insufficient
groveling as an excuse to ignore the far more serious matters in
my letter. If so, I can't say it is unexpected, tho I hoped for
better. But just keep in mind what you said about how you wish to
avoid all appearance of hypocrisy or impropriety. -j
[Richard replies; Birdman responds with interlineated comments:]
Richard: I have made comments interlineated with your text and
marked with ********
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 2/28/02 at 4:09 PM crosstar wrote:
>Hi, John:
>
>You state that you have said all you wish to say,
>so there is nothing else for me to say except please
>consider my acceptance of your Hoots-Pah Award
>withdrawn and any inference of "opportunism" drawn
>from our publishing of the piece you had written on
>Western Heritage for us canceled by our withdrawal
>of the publication.
>
>Perhaps I have misunderstood (I am not Mensa),
>but I do not see how your statement that accusing
>us of hypocrisy in linking to your site containing
>pornography is "accurate" when we immediately
>disassociated ourselves from the pornography.
>
****** I get the feeling that you are intentionally muddying the
waters by a deliberate misunderstanding of what I said. What I
said, in summary, was that you seemed to be perfectly happy to
receive the benefits of my free-speech site (Hoots-Pah Award,
traffic directed to your site, enjoying my Daily Reads page), but
suddenly become Shocked, Shocked! when you 'discover' there are
some things on my site that people are giving you flack for, even
tho these things are right out in the open and anybody but a
blind man would know they were there. You could call that
hypocrisy, you could call it opportunism. The terms aren't
perfect, but they hit pretty close. I say that because I give you
credit for at least being reasonably intelligent. But instead of
saying you were a hypocrite or opportunist, maybe I should have
speculated that you were a moron. Does that really make you feel
any better?
>You, then, accused us of "hypocrisy" for
"accepting
>praise" from your site. To remedy this, we asked
>you to withdraw your accusation, or else we would be
>compelled to, indeed, remove the article you had
>kindly written for us, as well as repudiate the Award
>you had generously bestowed upon us.
>
>Your statement that you should not have used the word,
>"hypocrisy," but "standing by" the smear
does not
>appear to be "grovelling" to me, but, rather, some
>illogical and disengenuous "Mensa" trick to have
your
>philosophical cake and eat it, too.
>
>In any event, I'll extend a few days' "cooling off"
period
>in the event that you wish to reflect and make any amends,
>in which case I will be receptive. Otherwise, thank you
>for your past courtesies, your scholarship and frank
>exchange.
>
>Regards,
>
>R
>
>
******** You still have refused to deal with my serious charges,
reiterated in my last letter. Quote:
>> >>I think that is a wonderful sentiment. But the
fact is that I accused
>> >you
>> >>not only of hypocrisy/opportunism/whatever, but
also of screwing your
>> >>friends. I am now amplifying that by the
additional accusation that
>you
>> >>are treating me unfairly by trying to make me
look like a bad guy to
>your
>> >>list and on your website, yet not giving me
equal opportunity to
>> >>respond. Yes, you said I could make some
'edited' comments on your
>> >>website forum, but you know as well as I that
this is nowhere near the
>> >>equivalent of allowing me to speak directly to
the people to whom I
>have
>> >>been presented as persona non grata. There is no
equivalence because
>> >very
>> >>few will read the postings on the forum, but
most will read what you
>put
>> >>out to your list.
>> >>
>> >>So if you want to obviate the 'slightest
appearence of impropriety',
>then
>> >>send my reply -- this letter and the previous
one, unedited -- to your
>> >>list and post it next to the article you wrote
about me. And please
>note
>> >>that I do precisely this with those who
criticize me (see, for example,
>> >>the Sonic correspondence on the Daily Reads page
which is mentioned in
>my
>> >>earlier letter, all of which went to my own
mailing list and is posted
>on
>> >>my site), so I am not asking you to do something
that I have not
>already
>> >>done on several occasions.
>> >>
>> >>All I ask is a fair shake. How about it,
Richard? -j
-------
[Richard responds:]
Dear John:
Actually, "moron" I can deal with. Yes, someone so
"blind" as to not see hints that pornography was
present
on your site was perhaps "moronic" for not clicking the
links
to find out.
In my own defense, however, I was interested in the content of
your
articles, not your other proclivities (which were not, even so,
visible to one simply reading your articles).
However, if you wish to amend your previous correspondence
to substitute "moron" for "hypocrite," I will
accept that
withdrawal and substitution, along with your previous apology
tendered with the accusation of "hypocrisy," in the
first place.
Regards,
R
[Birdman did not respond]
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *