Correspondence with Paul Levin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Birdman's note: All spelling and
typographical errors are in the original.]
From: "Paul Levin" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: Hey, it's theTurdman!
> > Dear Jerk,
> > I wanted to see what the Holocaust reductionists
> were up to (no doubt spreading their usual
> misinformation) since last I'd checked on them. To
> make a long story short, the first site I frequented
> today (Kevin Alfred Strom's, I think) provided a link
> to yours. Now, in all my years of fighting prejudice
> on the internet I've come across some audacious
> websites that boast about putting to rest the "OJV" of
> the Holocaust, but after having looked over yours from
> top to bottom for the last hour or so, I can honestly
> say your easily the most arrogant of the Holocaust
> reductionists bunch (those pompous quotes that I was
> greated with at the top of your homepage; your
> correspondance letters with your fellows Mensans). I
> don't care how many Nobel Prize winners liked your
> books or how high your IQ is, the fact is that you've
> spread some gross misinformation about the Holocuaust
> I'll be damned if I sit back and let you get away with
> You keep talking in your "Jewish Question" essays
> about the "Holy Six Million" and how the Deaths Books
> supposedly deflate that claim. For one thing, the
> Death Books are not complete;
> > secondly,
> > they are the records of REGISTERED who died. As you
> > well know, and are not willing to acknowledge, the
> > vast
> > majority of Jews who died at Auschwitz were never
> > registered into the camp, but killed immediately
> > upon
> > arrival, or very soon thereafter. Also, the "4
> million" who died at Auschwitz was never used in the
> Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that the
> Nazis did indeed make soap from human fat at the
> Danzig Anotomical Instisute.
> Here's something else you said I ain't gonna let you
> get away with:
> <<In fact, we now know that the deaths under the
> communist regime in the Soviet Union totalled some 50
> million, and in China some 80 million, both of which
> far outnumber anything Hitler was ever accused of. And
> yet we hear little or nothing about 'communist
> atrocities' in spite of being bombarded on an
> almost-daily basis with the Holocaust mythology>>
> That's becuase nobody's
> > attempting to deny those tragedies in an effort to
> > sanitize the regime that parpetrated them. And at
> the very end you
> > quoted David Puke: "and if the
> > Holocaust
> > killed so many Jews, then how come there are so many
> > 'survivors?'"
> > How many is "many"? Toss out a few numbers, along
> > with
> > what it was they survived and we'll have something
> > to
> > talk about. Why do you insist on using the vaguest
> > terms?
> As far as your attacks on multiculturalism go, I
> genuinely enjoy reveling in the cultures of others.
> Why should Canadians resist becoming a majority
> non-white nation? Being reduced to a member of a
> minority doesn't scare most white Canadians. And even
> if that should happen, white Canadians will still be,
> by far, the largest minority for some time into the
> future. Taken as individual groups, the Chinese, the
> South Asians, etc will be far smaller minorities in
> the overall tally. Everyone's a member of *some* kind
> of minority. Erosion of privilege is not justification
> for diminishing the rights of others. Moreover, other
> cultures (non-Western) have had their folkways changed
> quite efficiently by western influcence (and not
> necessarily for the better) without the need for
> whites to physically take up residence with in their
> Bite me
From: "Birdman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Paul Levin" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Hey, it's theTurdman!
Date: Sunday, July 22, 2001 9:46 PM
Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued. Thank you for acknowledging my
(1) You seem to be saying that the death books do not prove gassings did not
take place because all the gassings were done on 'unregistered' inmates
before they entered the camps. But besides the fact that this does not
refute the ample supply of other evidence for non-gassings, it requires you
to explain why the meticulous German record-keepers would have meticulously
recorded the 'registereds' but ignored the millions of others. DOESN'T
SOUND TOO CREDIBLE TO ME.
(2) You say the '4 million' who supposedly died at Auschwitz were not
included in the '6 million'. Somehow I thought Jews were better
mathematicians than that. Or in other words, DOESN'T SOUND TO CREDIBLE TO
(3) Yehuda Bauer, head of Yad Vashem, has acknowledged the falsity of the
'soap story'. So if you still believe it, YOU DON'T SOUND TOO CREDIBLE TO
(4) As to the far greater killings of the communists in comparison with
Hitler, liberals have been trying to sanitize the commies for years, from
the reports of Walter Duranty on the Ukraine holocaust (7 million starved to
death -- Duranty denied it) to the continuing attempts to deny that the
Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss were not guilty. Which certainly explains why the
commie killing machine -- the offspring of Jews -- has been ignored,
contrary to your allegations. Or in other words, YOU DON'T SOUND TOO
CREDIBLE TO ME.
(5) Why should Canadians etc resist becoming majority nonwhite? The same
reason Jews like to live together in NY and Israel. Or in other words, YOU
DON'T SOUND TOO CREDIBLE TO ME.
(6) You term me a 'Holocaust reductionist'. In fact, the proper term is
Holocaust REVISIONIST. Which is yet another indicator of your carelessness
and ignorance of facts.
I believe that I have now spent sufficient time answering your ignorant and
stupid ejaculations so as to demonstrate that this is precisely what they
are. I shall therefore refrain from answering any future letters of yours
except in the briefest manner. I will, however, post your letter and this
response on my website as yet another demonstration of the stupidity,
ignorance and malevolence of my enemies. Thank you for making that
Correspondence with Charles Freedberg (firstname.lastname@example.org); Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:11 AM
I HATE SPELLING MISTAKES. YOUR SITE IS COMPLETE BIRDSHIT! YOUR ANOTHER DOC. PISS CLONE.
I see that you have written me a letter about birdshit, but the only birdshit I see is from the birdbrain that composed your message. Not only is it incoherent (what is a DOC? Or are you referring to a DOC PISS CLONE?) but in complaining about how much you hate spelling errors, you yourself manage to make one ('YOUR' for "you're").
I will post your letter on my site as an example of the ignorance, stupidity and mouth-frothing hatred which generally characterizes my enemies. I love letters like yours because they make it so clear who is in the wrong.
Doc. Piss is Dr. William Pierce your god.
'DOC PISS' refers to Dr Pierce? My g-d (my P-rce?) -- what SUBTLETY! Or is it just another of your spelling mistakes?
[Freedberg did not reply]
CORRESPONDENCE WITH SHERMAN SKOLNICK (email@example.com; Skolnick's Report www.scolnicksreport.com)
> Dear Mr Skolnick:
> I admire your work very much. However, it often has a serious
> deficiency which keeps me -- and probably others -- from reading that
> much of it. The problem is that the reader is often overwhelmed by a
> mass of detail before he can ascertain what exactly you are talking
> about or what your point is.An example of this is your Open Letter to
> Coca-Cola Bottlers etc. If you had just given a summary paragraph at
> the beginning, it would have been a lot easier to read -- and in fact
> I only read a small partion of this long document, but much more than
> I would have if I had known what it was about.
> What I am getting at is, if people have to read thru a whole long
> document to find out whether they are interested in it, then most of
> them simply won't read it. So if you would follow the old rule of
> "First say what you are going to say; then say it; then say what
> you've said", you would have a lot more readers, and would do the
> country a lot more good.
> Thank you for your attention. -John Bryant (www.thebirdman.org)
REPLY FROM SKOLNICK: View my series "Coca-Cola,
CIA,and the Courts". I
do notwrite things for those with short attention span or who have no
interest in details.Our work that ended up putting almost 2 dozen judges
in prison for bribery was not with ten-words-or-less explanations. Best,
CORRESPONDENCE WITH MARALYN LOIS POLAK (LANGWIDGE@AOL.COM)
<Polak writes - all errors in the original>
I am the author of the world net daily.comcolumn, the commentary,THE ALTOID CAPER, which is copyright to me, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, AS NOTED AT THE BOTTON Of the piece and you have violated this, you have published my piece without my permission, my knowledge, or my consent. copyright violation is a felony punishable by fine and imprisonment. either pay me a fair sum for posting my work for a specific length of time, or remove my work immediately from your site. i am a free lance writer and you are stealing my livelihood. please get back to me immediately, maralyn lois polak
Dear Mara Lyn:
I'll be happy to remove your work from my site. I certainly don't want to post the work of a writer who is so stupid that it can't see the benefit of being honored and given public exposure without charge. Of course I knew you were stupid in your own way, but I didn't want to discriminate againt the febrile-minded, but I see that I made a mistake. Honoring the dishonorable is always a mistake.
<Polak responds - all errors in the original>
Thanks for your immediate attention to this matter. Please remove it. Here is how another writer put it:"everything herein is copyright (c) 2000 AnglweyGlenn, and can not be republished. Period." If you use a writer's copyrighted work we must to be paid. That is how we make our livelihood. When my work is in the New York Times, they pay me. I don't need exposuire. WorldNetDaily is the largest news site on the web. That is all tjhe exposure I want and need.
Dear Mara Lyn:
Inasmuch as I removed your piece at the beginning of the day, I am sure that you will not now have to pop that extra Valium or whatever it is that takes the edge off your edge.
In passing I would like to point out a few things that have escaped your (in)attention.
* By putting your article on my website, I am not -- as your first letter stated -- 'stealing your livelihood'. It costs you nothing to have your article posted, and in fact -- as I noted in my first letter -- is to your benefit because of the publicity. Perhaps you realize this, as you did not repeat the charge in your second letter.
* Since you have no good reason to want me to remove the article, the only explanation left is that you have a BAD one, namely, the mindset of the socialist/redistributionist which holds that wealth is static, that life is a zero-sum game, and that whatever benefits X necessarily takes something away from Y. This, however, is a mistake, Mara Lyn. Life is not a zero-sum game, and giving someone else something may actually bring significant rewards. In fact, that is one of the great philosophical pillars of the Net -- albeit often unconscious in its users -- that by giving others information we have, we receive things in return -- goodwill, patronage, gifts, and the like. In fact, it is an old Christian secret - give and thou shalt receive. Of course the original idea was put in theological terms - give in this life, and you will receive in an afterlife; but the reality indirectly recognized by the theology is that when you give, chances are you will receive in THIS life.
* I am actually glad that you asked me to remove your article. If you search back into the depths of your memory, you may recall that a year or so ago we had an excchange of correspondence in which you got horsewhipped -- that's what usually happens to people who get into arguments with me. But the fact that I posted your article demonstrates the attitude I take toward my enemies (or, at least in your case, people who MAKE THEMSELVES my enemy): I showed that, in spite of your improper behavior, I was willing to give you credit for something good you did. (As it happens, it is the ONLY thing good I have found in reading several of your columns, which is why I no longer read them.) Needless to say, my atitude contrasts starkly, not only with your earlier behavior in our exchange of correspondence, but now, in your whining complaint of "It's mine, mine, mine - don't yew dare use it!!!" Yes, Mara Lyn, there is a Santa, and his name is Karma.
You have a very nice day, Mara Lyn.
[Polak responds - all errors in original]
<To my remark:> << * By putting your article on my website, I am not -- as your first letter stated -- 'stealing your livelihood'. It costs you nothing to have your article posted, and in fact -- as I noted in my first letter -- is to your benefit because of the publicity. Perhaps you realize this, as you did not repeat the charge in your second letter. >>
<Polak responds:> if you post my work pay me for it. otherwise you are using my work without paying me for it. [What powerful logic!]
knock off y0our sophistry. [Sounds like I'm getting to you, Mara Lyn.]
i have been a professional all my life. [Did you charge your parents for your baby pictures?]
<To my remark:> << * Since you have no good reason to want me to remove the article, the only explanation left is that you have a BAD one, namely, the mindset of the >>
copyright violation is a felony punishable by fine and jail. you posted my piece without my permission, knowlege, or consent. thank you for removing it as soon as possible. [You didn't read my letter, did you, Mara Lyn? I ALREADY removed it. But then I guess that your reading, like your writing, is not one of your strong points.]
If there are any further comments you would like to make on this matter, then by all means send them. Our correspondence will be published on my site -- along with all your numerous errors -- in the section "Letters from Judah: A Holocaust of Self-Immolation". You can, of course, protest that publishing your letters is a violation of your copyright, your G-d-given rights, etc, etc, but then you didn't read the rules posted on my site that all letters are subject to publication, now did you? And anyway, if you protest, it will just be an admission that you got horsewhipped again, so maybe you don't want to dig yourself in any deeper. Or do you?
Have a nize day, Mara Lyn.
[There was no further response]
CORRESPONDENCE WITH ALAN CARUBA
To: Alan Caruba (ACaruba@aol.com)
From: John Bryant
Re: The National Anxiety Center site
I agree with many of the positions expressed on your website, but disagree with others. The following essay about Michael Fumento [now posted on my website in the Net Losses section], whose site yours links, will give you an idea of some of my concerns. Fumento, by the way, did not respond to this essay, and it is my suggestion that he cannot do so. Your comments are invited, but my suggestion is that you can't respond either.
Thank you, John. I visited your site and, since I am part of the Great Jewish
Cabal to Take Over and Run the Entire World, I naturally take exception to
your views about Jews. After 5,000 years of dragging the rest of the world to
a point where some civilized behavior might actually prevail, Jews are a bit
touchy about criticism since it tends to lead to the grave.
So I will concentrate on your kind words about those parts of my weekly rants
that you like and ignore all criticism, something I am sure you have long
perfected as well. Feel free to make a really big donation to the Center.
Regards, Alan Caruba
The National Anxiety Center
You are a puzzle. Here I write you about Fumento and overanxiety, with an
eagerness to discuss, and you write me back about Jews with an eagerness NOT
to discuss. I don't really care whether you are Jewish, but you don't seem
to be able to discuss even your own subject of expertise without running a
litmus test on the other person's politics. My goodness, you remind me
what JBR Yant once said about antisemites -- that they had trouble making
friends because they could never be sure a person wasn't Jewish. Is that
why my friends keep telling me that Judaism is just another form of
CORRESPONDENCE WITH RICHARD LEVY
To: Richard S Levy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
From: John Bryant
As you are list editor of the 'History of antisemitism' list, I thought you might be interested in my website, particularly the section on the Jewish Question. Your comments and criticisms will be welcome. -jb
I have no wish to debate a person as intelligent as you claim to be. Skimming your piece persuaded me that you have US dead to rights and that you already know and have rejected everything I might offer as a feeble counter-argument. There's not a single original thought in your essay [sic], and I dare say you've never read the Talmud, but there I go falling into the trap set by smart people, such as yourself. Please let me dwell in my own ignorance, while enjoying my enormous power over the slumbering goyim. In return I and the Elders [the reference here is to the Protocols, which I never mention or rely upon -jb] shall allow you to continue publishing your multitudinous books. No, I wouldn't dream of telling you to shut up, just ask you politely not to write me again, ever or for any reason. Thank you, rsl
My DEAR Prof Levy:
Thank you so much for your letter. I have posted it on my website as the first letter in a special section entitled "Letters From Judah: A Holocaust of Self-Immolation".
Now I know you instructed me not to write you ever again for any reason etc etc etc, and believe me, I fully understand your reasons for so instructing me, to wit, that you find my writing very painful to read; but being a rather ornery fellow, I have decided to dare to disobey your instructions. You see, what you are attempting to do is to write me a letter full of put-downs, ironies, implications that I am not what I say I am, and other assorted insults and fighting words, and then to cut off the possibility of my responding to you in (un) kind by instructing me not to respond. But things don't work that way, Herr Professor. If you are going to agress against me, then by rights I get a shot at you. I will, however, refrain from writing you AGAIN -- unless you are so brash as to write to me. But then I would have no reason to write you again, having already said my piece. So if you don't want me to cause you pain by calling your bluffs, etc, then -- as wise old Archie Bunker would say to Edith -- you are going to have to stifle yourself.
One final comment: I did not begin this correspondence with hostility to you, tho I did of course intend to pose a challenge to you as an expert on antisemitism. Rather it is you who have chosen to be hostile. So be it, but hostile behavior has consequences. And I take it that those consequences are painful to you. Maybe there's a lesson there for you, Herr Professor - or have you ceased to learn?
And yes, this letter will also be posted on my website following yours.
Have a very nice day, Herr Professor. And don't get your panties bunched.
-Your smart friend John Bryant
* * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * *