Is this Website Racist, Sexist, Anti-Semitic, Etc.?

By John "Birdman" Bryant

To criticize is not to hate, but to love; for to criticize is to say that what is criticized is worthy of attention, and is important enuf to warrant reform. Contrariwise, to react negatively to criticism is not only to show yourself unworthy of both criticism and love, but is to confirm the criticism. --J.B.R. Yant, Mortal Words, v. 3

To claim that criticism implies hatred is fallacious, in much the same sense that it is fallacious to claim that a man hates his son because he punishes him. This fallacy, which I call the Victim of Hatred Fallacy, is nevertheless widely employed, for it is wonderfully useful in deflecting criticism, especially legitimate criticism. Minority groups such as Jews, blacks and feminists have become particularly adept in using the Victim of Hatred Fallacy, since they have already managed to establish themselves as victims, and can use the Victim of Hatred Fallacy not merely to avoid having their victim status questioned, but to actually add to that status. --J.B.R. Yant, Mortal Words v. 3

At one time, three of the most insulting terms that could be used against a person were nigger, faggot and kike. Now, however, the world has been truly turned upside down; for those who once bore the brunt of the aforementioned insults have developed insults of their own which are not only far more insulting, but can actually decimate the reputation of the person against whom they are used. These new insults are of course the terms racist, sexist and anti-semitic. Our interest in discussing them is that they will undoubtedly be applied to this book, not because they are true, but because they are the liberals' most powerful insults, and because this book has the temerity to point out the absurdity of the liberals' racial and sexual politics. We begin our discussion with the trickiest and most difficult to handle of these insults, anti-semitism.

Most editors become catatonic when confronted with a negative publishable fact about Jews or Israel, because they are afraid that, if they publish it, they will forever be labeled "anti-semitic". This is no accident, however, for in the liberal political environment of the last several decades, kowtowing to the "sensitivity" of minorities and women has attained the status of an official religion, where not only have these specially-favored groups gained extraordinary privileges at the expense of all other groups, but where certain previously-blameless acts involving these groups have become criminalized, as in "discrimination" and "hate crimes". The Jews -- being a rather clever bunch of folks -- have taken advantage of this atmosphere to turn anti-semitism into an epithet which can be far more devastating than nigger ever was, because the damage which the latter could do ended at the name-calling, and didn't extend into the personnel office, the bureaucratic tribunal or the civil or criminal courtroom.

According to the dictionary, an anti-semite is someone who doesn't like Jews just because they're Jews. But the question then arises, How do you tell an anti-semite from somebody who just makes some sort of criticism of Jews? The answer is simple: You can't. But to the paternalistic Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League which make a profession out of goy-bashing, such refined distinctions are unimportant: If you criticize Jews, you automatically get smeared as an "anti-semite". (That's why I refer to the ADL as the Antsy Defecation League: When they get antsy about something you say, they defecate on you.) Actually, however, criticizing Jews is not a requirement of "anti-semitism": All you have to do to get called an anti-semite is to criticize Israel, or -- get this -- question the Official Jewish Version of the Holocaust. In fact, you can get called anti-semitic for saying about Jews what other groups would consider a compliment, e.g., that they have extraordinary influence in Congress or in the media. But if this seems bizarre, one should reflect on the fact that, for suggesting postponement -- not opposition, mind you, but just postponement -- of a huge ten billion dollar loan guarantee (read gift) for Israel, President George Bush himself received the Big Jewish Finger from one of the bigwigs in the Israeli government. And even Jews themselves can get the BJF -- tho in a slightly different form: the Jew who dares to criticize any of the Jewish Holies becomes a "self-hating Jew". In the long run, of course, the tendency to yell "anti-semite" at the drop of a criticism will backfire on the Jews, not merely because of the enormous resentment it causes, but more importantly because it will dilute the significance of the term, in much the same sense that the word poppycock, which originally meant "soft shit", became so overused that now the only people who use it are little old ladies.

Now the interesting thing about the charge of anti-semitism is that it is impossible to deny, because if you do, it makes you sound as absurd as Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook". And another interesting thing about it is that the only people who are bothered by it are the people who are not anti-semitic -- after all, who ever heard of a Nazi being concerned with such an accusation? We can see, therefore, that the charge of anti- semitism is usually not only unfair -- since you can't tell an anti-semite from someone who offers a criticism of some Jewish Holy -- but it is also irrefutable even if false, and it is injurious only to the people who do not deserve to be injured. But the wonderful thing about the Big Jewish Finger -- at least to Jews -- and the very reason it continues to be used, is that it usually cuts dead any criticism of Jews or their Holies. And that makes me pretty Yahweh-damned mad, because no matter how rich, smart and powerful Jews are, I don't think they're above criticism. But more than this, I am determined that I am not going to kiss anybody's ass, especially when they've got a bunch of thugs going around trying to shut people up. And thugs is not too strong a word to use, particularly in view of the fact that Jewish thugs evidently were responsible for several murders or beatings of persons supposed to be anti-semitic or pro-Arab, just as they were apparently responsible for burning down the Institute of Historical Review, an organization whose sin was to publish books questioning the Official Jewish Version of the Holocaust. What do you do if you are accused of it? (I'm assuming, of course, that you are not anti-semitic.) For myself, I can think of three ways to handle it: the nice way, the nasty way, and the middle way. To do it the nice way, simply ask your accuser what he means by anti-semitism. If he says "being against Jews", then ask him how he can distinguish someone who is just criticizing Jews from someone who is anti- semitic. (Since he can't, this means he can't tell whether you are anti- semitic, which should destroy his smear.) To do it the nasty way, simply ask, "And what are you, a Jewish racist or just a Jewish ass-kisser?" And to do it in the middle way, just yell, "Oh, horrors! The Big Jewish Finger! Help! Help!"

Much of what we have said about anti-semitism applies equally to other liberal smears, particularly allegations of sexism and racism. The dictionary definition of these terms is, of course, being against someone just because of sex or race; but the meaning when used by liberals boils down to an accusation that you do not hold their particular view of racial and sexual politics, namely, absolute egalitarianism enforced by state power. What is so amazing about the liberal position, however, is that it is unthinkingly endorsed by so many, and yet is offensive to the basic values of most. To explain, let me quote an extended passage from my book Mortal Words, v. 3:

"To the charge that I am a racist, I can only answer as follows: If it is racist to believe that some groups are genetically superior to others with respect to certain qualities, then I am certainly racist, as is anyone who believes that, thanks to their genetic qualities, blacks are better than whites at basketball, or Jews are better at whites in winning Nobel prizes. Needless to say, this definition would make most liberals out to be racists -- unless, of course, they believe such things as that there is something about the ghetto environment that, independently of genetics, produces better basketball players. But liberals, of course, do not mean to include themselves in the "racist" category: What they are intending to do is to attach moral opprobrium to anyone who does not agree with their racial politics, and specifically they are intending to smear anyone who does not agree with the proposition that blacks can perhaps sometimes be genetically superior to whites, but never genetically inferior. It is hardly necessary to point out the absurdity of this view.

"The liberal position on race can best be understood as a psychological pathology, and specifically as an attempt to deny the facts of racial inequality which are unpleasant because they do not square with the liberal political agenda. This agenda is sometimes called equalitarianism but is better described as leveling, i.e., the policy of raising the level of the unsuccessful, usually implemented by the practice pulling down the successful. Accordingly, we can see that the pathology of liberal politics is a product of the pathology of liberals themselves -- a fact which might ordinarily make liberals an object of pity, except for the fact that the spread of this pathology has apparently foreclosed rational governance of the nation.

"There is no doubt in my mind that some of the people whom liberals call 'racist' are indeed as pathological as the liberals themselves in their manner of thinking, namely, those who insist that because the white race is superior in most aspects to the black, that therefore society should be racially segregated or that blacks should be forcibly deported. The problem here is not with the denial of facts, as it is with liberals; it is rather the failure to accept the principle of meritocracy, i.e., the principle that persons should be judged on their individual merits, and not on the characteristics of their race. We may explain our meaning by noting that in spite of the fact that -- for example -- average black IQ is substantially lower than white IQ by the degree of fifteen to twenty percent, it remains true that a great many blacks are superior to a great many whites, and thus are at least as worthy as such whites with respect to their IQ. In the present context it is interesting to note that Nobel laureate William Shockley, with whom I corresponded several years ago, refused me permission to publish our correspondence apparently because he was embarrassed by my pointing out that his views on race entailed the rejection of meritocracy.

"Now in conclusion we should note that there is only so long that truth can be suppressed, because if beliefs are false, then the consequences of acting on the basis of those false beliefs are potentially devastating. This applies in spades -- if you will pardon the expression -- to the false beliefs about race which the liberals have managed to spread so widely; for we have already seen enormous devastation caused by policies based on these false beliefs: Black crime against whites run rampant as blacks learn from liberals that Whitey owes them a living -- and as increasing black political power (for which liberals are largely responsible) makes it impossible for whites to keep blacks in check; welfare run rampant as liberals throw money at black poverty; black racism run rampant as liberals teach blacks that Whitey is a bad guy; black sexual and financial irresponsibility run rampant as welfare insulates blacks from the consequences of their actions; black incentive destroyed as blacks live off welfare or are forced to compete with whites for whom they are no match; cities destroyed by white flight from black crime and forced integration; the public schools destroyed by the refusal of whites to mix their children with those of a violent and inferior culture; our Constitution destroyed as judges assume the legislative power of taxation in order to promote integration, and as they permit racial preferences to be legally substituted for individual merit; our economy destroyed as enormous deficits are run up to fight black poverty and other black maladaptiveness; and so on ad infinitum. As has been amply documented elsewhere, communists long ago seized on the promotion of black-white conflict as a way to destroy American society and pave the way for themselves to seize power; and from the shambles which our society is now in, it appears that they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams."

But if liberal racial politics is bereft of sense, why then is it that the use of such smear words as anti-semitic, racist and sexist become a problem for the opponents of liberal policies? An important part of the answer, I think, is that the equalitarian philosophy which these terms express has not been challenged because of the reluctance which the liberals' opponents have felt in pointing out publicly the facts of racial inequality -- after all, blacks are not likely to vote for the politician who suggests that their race is inferior. Another reason, however, why liberals have been so successful with their smear words is that, in their implicit Manichaean portrayal of the world, the use of these terms forces people into viewing the issues in terms of (liberal) good versus (racist) evil, thereby concealing the fact that there are other alternatives qualitatively different from both liberalism and traditional racism which would offer the liberal position stiff competition, and in fact would probably put the liberals out of business as far as racial matters are concerned. That is, as long as liberals can take any alternative position on racial matters and smear it with some morally-tainted term like "racist", it makes it a lot easier for them to sell political snake-oil.

And in fact there is such an alternative position: Meritocracy. As I say in Mortal Words v. 2, "One of the most important and yet most neglected socio-political issue of our times is that of meritocracy, i.e., the question of whether a person's success should be proportional to his abilities, skills and personal motivation, rather than to such factors as his inherited wealth, his ancestry, or the friends he has in positions of power. A reason for this issue's neglect, perhaps, is the fact that both liberalism and conservatism -- which together constitute the great political divide of this nation -- can equally be seen to be anti- meritocratic: Liberalism, because it seeks to eliminate or minimize differences in its pursuit of "equality", and conservatism, because it seeks to use institutional authority to suppress those of ability in favor of those who are rich or well-born. In contrast to both liberalism and conservatism, however, is libertarianism, whose proponents not merely wish to see success proportional to merit, but who also seek to reduce the power of government by which the anti-meritocratic schemes of both the liberals and conservatives are sustained."

Now in the present context it is useful to point out a further complexity in the differences between liberals and conservatives on the matter of race. To explain, let me quote a letter I wrote to Wilmot Robertson, editor of the "viciously racist" (and also, for the most part, very interesting and intelligently-written) magazine Instauration:

"The division between liberals and conservatives on race issues generally, and black-vs-white issues in particular, is not a difference over facts so much as a difference of perspective: The conservatives judge individual blacks on the basis of the characteristics of their race as a whole, while the liberals believe -- or at least once believed -- that each man should be judged on his individual merits, which may be totally different from those of his race. The difference may perhaps best be exemplified by considering the different attitude of conservatives and liberals to hiring blacks in consideration of the fact that blacks are nine times more likely than whites to be involved in crime: The conservative would say that, because the probability of a black being a criminal is so much higher than that of a white, it is simply too risky to hire blacks; while a liberal would say that a blanket refusal to hire blacks is unfair because each person is different, and thus a blanket refusal would entail the refusal to hire many worthy people.

"Now the curious thing about these two perspectives is that, in a sense, both are perfectly correct: The difference lies in differing assumptions about the amount of information available to make a decision. In particular, the conservative makes his judgment based on the assumption that he will have no other information than that of race, while the liberal assumes that information on the individual can be obtained which will make the racial information irrelevant. This, then, means that both liberals and conservatives err when their informational assumptions do not fit the facts: The liberal errs by assuming that information on individuals will always be available when in fact it often is not; while the conservative errs when he judges a person on the basis of race alone when information on this individual is in fact available.

[Reader John M makes an interesting point which bears repeating here:

"Knowledge that is available often only comes at a price in time and/or money.
Classification and sorting are not free, and fine-grained sorting is more
expensive. Whether the conservative has or has not erred in this instance
depends on the relative costs and rewards -- to him, as measured by him -- of
the finer-grained classification. The liberal either denies the existence of
knowledge costs, or simply asserts as a moral imperative that they should be
ignored, and then backs his assertion with the force of the state."]

"But if we are correct in having identified the great divide which separates liberals and conservatives on the issue of race, and if we are also correct that there is no argument between one view and the other in that these two views are mutually compatible, then this suggests that the battle between liberals and conservatives over race is without substance, in the same sense that arguments about taste are without substance. This of course is not to say that the alternatives which have been offered by liberals and conservatives respectively have been without consequence, for this is obviously not so; it is rather to suggest that these differing alternatives would never have been offered up in the first place if liberals and conservatives had had a clear understanding of their differences."

I think it is significant that Robertson's response to the above piece was basically positive. But in any event, there are several things which should be kept in mind when considering the question of whether some person or publication is "racist", "sexist", "anti-semitic" and the like: First, as we have already noted, these are not genuine charges, but rather smear terms which are intended by liberals to cast aspersions on their enemies while foreclosing discussion of genuine issues; second, the very fact that liberals rely so heavily on smear tactics suggests strongly that their arguments are without substance, and that they use smears only because they have no other weapon; and third (and most important), criticizing x is not the same as being "anti-x". So what we are getting at is this: If you try to smear us by using a public forum to call us "racist", "sexist", "anti- semitic" or anything similar, we may just get a hotshot Jewish lawyer to sue your ass off.

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *