Three Letters From Birdman to David Irving During the Lipstadt Trial

By John "Birdman" Bryant

 

Note: I did not include Irving's responses because it was inconvenient to get them, they didn't say much, and they were generally negative.

[First letter:]

Dear David:

When I contemplate giving advice to people, I always remember the old story about the sign on the bar which reads, 'Our special martini 75 cents; with your helpful suggestions, $1.25.' Having said that, perhaps you will let me say the following:

* Altho it was undoubtedly a worthy observation in the course of your being lambasted with the 'usual epithets' that the defense was not being serviced by even one minority of the melanoid persuasion, the strategy of attempting to be 'less racist than thou' with your enemies is a losing one, since -- among other things -- you have been filmed at so many functions of 'racist' organizations -- an observation amply made by the defense. A much better strategy is one I always use: "Ask not whether I am racist; ask only whether I am right." (These were in fact precisely the words which I used to end a letter defending the thesis that the Jewish Question was the most important problem of the 20th century -- a letter which was published in the last (Jan/Feb) issue of the Mensa Bulletin, the official publication of the American branch of the international high-IQ organization. They don't call me 'Mensa's resident iconoclast' for nothing.)

* Beyond this, it is both more honest and more effective to defend racism than to pretend you are 'not racist'; for in fact, virtually everyone -- and especially the Jews -- are racist -- racism being nothing more than an embodiment of the old saying that 'Birds of a feather flock together.' Those who say they aren't racist are either pathological or pathological liars, and often both.

* As I said before, for God's sake get some SLEEP! While I am not exactly a Shakespeare booster, I always remember the words from Macbeth: 'Sleep, the innocent sleep/That knitteth up the raveled sleeve of care/Balm of hurt minds/Great nature's second course/Chief nourisher in life's feast.' And no doubt you have already fallen asleep over this letter. -j

 

[Second letter:]

Date: February 10, 2000

Subject: How to finesse the 'racism' charge without any damaging admission

The following is a statement which, if you gave it in court, I believe would solve your problems as far as the 'racism' charge is concerned. To this I should add that I write this with some trepidation because of your curt and insulting rejection of earlier advice on the same subject, which may open me to further punishment from you and the accusation from others that I am a fool for trying to help you -- a matter which I shall comment on later. First, the statement I suggest you make:

"I have said in court that I am not a racist, and in a sense that is perfectly true. But there is also a sense in which it is false, and I need to explain both the truth and the falsity of my racism lest I seem to be speaking falsely in denying I am a racist. "The sense in which I AM a racist is the sense in which virtually everyone is a racist -- the sense that birds of a feather flock together. The sense that whites prefer to be with whites, blacks with blacks, Jews with Jews, and so on. Racism in this sense is Nature's way -- the way of all life. It is the desire to live, work, marry and mingle with one's own kind. It is a preference for one's own kind -- to want them to survive and prosper, and to be a part of that prosperity. It is the same type of racism which one sees in the innumerable Jewish organizations around the world, as well as the multiplicity of other organizations of racial and ethnic orientation. In fact, it is so ingrained in our nature that it is reflected in our vocabulary: Etymology tells us that we like those whom we are like, and we are kind to those of our own kind. "In contrast, the sense in which I am NOT a racist is the sense in which racists are said -- almost always wrongly -- to be 'haters'. What I mean is, just because a man loves and prefers to be with his own kind does not mean he hates another man's kind, in the same way that a man who loves and prefers to be with his own family cannot be said to hate other men's families. "But in saying I do not hate any race or ethnic group -- in spite of severe provocations from one of them -- I do not deny that races and ethnic groups, like individuals, compete with one another, as one of my witnesses has noted, and that this competition can engender considerable emotion in individuals who are involved in it, including hatred. For example, the Palestinians who have been thrown off their ancestral lands by Jews have considerable hatred for Jews, or at least for Israeli Jews, and this hatred is perfectly natural and understandable, whether you approve of it or not. "The fact that I have attended meetings of white racist groups, that I have been in demand as a speaker for such groups, is a reflection of the fact that such groups recognize that Jews and gentiles are in competition with one another -- that each has group interests, and that these interests are not necessarily the same. White racist groups have called on me as an expert acquainted with one of the most important historical clashes between Jewish and gentile interests. They also, of course, recognize me as someone with the best interests of my own race at heart -- and someone who will not condemn them if they should act against or feel a twinge of hatred for another race which they feel is attempting to undermine the interests of their own."

The ugly fact -- whether you will admit it or not -- is that at the present time the defense has you by the balls on the 'racism' charge. Your stringent denials of racism -- particularly in view of the Jessica ditty, the defense of Zundel and the attendance at National Alliance meetings -- ring hollow, and everyone, including Judge Gray, can hear that hollow ring long and loud. Indeed, it was commented on in one of the press columns you posted on your website. It is of course perfectly true that the racism issue should not even BE an issue in the trial, but it is, and it may well prove your downfall by impeaching your credibility. I believe that reading my statement -- or some variant thereof -- ought to cut the ground out from under this charge, and without costing you any painful admission in court. However, it needs to be done promptly in order to give the ring of truth, and to put a quick end to the 'racism' attack.

As I said above, some may consider me a fool in trying to help you again, having already had my earlier advice along the same lines contemptuously and rudely dismissed. But that would be a mistake. For one thing, my advice is not necessarily intended for you personally, but for the larger struggle of gentiles against Jewish dominance. And from the personal standpoint, it is an opportunity for me to show my character -- to demonstrate that my own ego is secure enuf not to be bothered by the possibility of another blast from you, just as I demonstrated that security by refusing the opportunity to 'hit back' at you for your earlier rudeness except in the most subdued possible way. I might add that the underlying reason for your sharp reaction to my earlier message may well have been a (possibly subconscious) recognition that I had found the most threatening weakness in your defense, and your response was a reaction to the pain you felt in my probing it.

In conclusion, let me say that the act of accusing people such as yourself of 'racism' reminds me of the story of the King's New Clothes: No one in the present day seems to have the courage to stand up and point out that racism is normal, natural and healthy, and that those who 'accuse' others of racism are ABnormal, UNnatural and UNhealthy -- and as NAKED AS HELL. Once someone (you?) has the courage to say in a very public way that the king has no clothes, the whole politically correct house of cards will begin to collapse.

PS: Before dismissing this letter, may I suggest that you run it by one of your trusted associates?

 

[Third letter:]

Date: February 11, 2000

Subject: Why you are still vulnerable to the racism charge

* Even tho the Jessica ditty comprised only a few words of perhaps millions, Rampton can argue that it only takes one statement to show how you think on a subject. But of course there are other things which confirm your 'racist' perspective, namely, the lectures to 'racist' groups, defense of Zundel, etc.

* While you may have had assistants who were from the multicult, Rampton can argue that so did (racist) slave-owners, which hardly made them less racist. (I think Rampton was trying to make this point, but it was hard to tell from your account).

I can't say how important the racism charge is, but if it's important, you should consider using my proposed defense. It is repeated below for your convenience.

"I have said in court that I am not a racist, and in a sense that is perfectly true. But there is also a sense in which it is false, and I need to explain both the truth and the falsity of my racism lest I seem to be speaking falsely in denying I am a racist. "The sense in which I AM a racist is the sense in which virtually everyone is a racist -- the sense that birds of a feather flock together. The sense that whites prefer to be with whites, blacks with blacks, Jews with Jews, and so on. Racism in this sense is Nature's way -- the way of all life. It is the desire to live, work, marry and mingle with one's own kind. It is a preference for one's own kind -- to want them to survive and prosper, and to be a part of that prosperity. It is the same type of racism which one sees in the innumerable Jewish organizations around the world, as well as the multiplicity of other organizations of racial and ethnic orientation. In fact, it is so ingrained in our nature that it is reflected in our vocabulary: Etymology tells us that we like those whom we are like, and we are kind to those of our own kind. "In contrast, the sense in which I am NOT a racist is the sense in which racists are said -- almost always wrongly -- to be 'haters'. What I mean is, just because a man loves and prefers to be with his own kind does not mean he hates another man's kind, in the same way that a man who loves and prefers to be with his own family cannot be said to hate other men's families. "But in saying I do not hate any race or ethnic group -- in spite of severe provocations from one of them -- I do not deny that races and ethnic groups, like individuals, compete with one another, as one of my witnesses has noted, and that this competition can engender considerable emotion in individuals who are involved in it, including hatred. For example, the Palestinians who have been thrown off their ancestral lands by Jews have considerable hatred for Jews, or at least for Israeli Jews, and this hatred is perfectly natural and understandable, whether you approve of it or not. "The fact that I have attended meetings of white racist groups, that I have been in demand as a speaker for such groups, is a reflection of the fact that such groups recognize that Jews and gentiles are in competition with one another -- that each has group interests, and that these interests are not necessarily the same. White racist groups have called on me as an expert acquainted with one of the most important historical clashes between Jewish and gentile interests. They also, of course, recognize me as someone with the best interests of my own race at heart -- and someone who will not condemn them if they should act against or feel a twinge of hatred for another race which they feel is attempting to undermine the interests of their own."

 

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 * * *