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)
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
On 2/28/02 at 8:54 AM crosstar wrote:
>Thank you for your message. Permit me to set the record straight on a few
>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
> 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
>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
>By way of further explanation, I am a combat-infantry veteran and have
>who use the most off-color of language. General George Patton, one of my
>heroes, used such profanity that none of his speeches has even been able
>But his military exploits and stance against communism are undiminished in
>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
>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
>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
>please either withdraw your accusation or we will take the further step
>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
>Crosstar. However, we will take all necessary steps to obviate even the
>appearance of impropriety or hypocrisy, on our part, and we do so swiftly,
>The Nationalist Movement
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
>appearance of impropriety or hypocrisy, on our part, and we do so swiftly,
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
On 2/28/02 at 12:38 PM crosstar wrote:
>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.
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:
>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
******** 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
>> >>not only of hypocrisy/opportunism/whatever, but also of screwing your
>> >>friends. I am now amplifying that by the additional accusation that
>> >>are treating me unfairly by trying to make me look like a bad guy to
>> >>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
>> >>been presented as persona non grata. There is no equivalence because
>> >>few will read the postings on the forum, but most will read what you
>> >>out to your list.
>> >>So if you want to obviate the 'slightest appearence of impropriety',
>> >>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
>> >>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
>> >>earlier letter, all of which went to my own mailing list and is posted
>> >>my site), so I am not asking you to do something that I have not
>> >>done on several occasions.
>> >>All I ask is a fair shake. How about it, Richard? -j
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.
[Birdman did not respond]
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *