On the Unmannerly David Irving:
The Birdman-Walter Correspondence

By John "Birdman" Bryant



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.


[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.


[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
>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
>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
>historian, and a great fighter, and we want you to survive and prosper."
>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]



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 * * *