Why It's Nice to Be Nasty

By John "Birdman" Bryant


[Do not] suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty [to publish] by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice. --John Adams

The beauty of the rose is testament to the gardener's judicious use of shit. --JBR Yant, Mortal Words v 4

All of us regularly suffer the conflict between the desire to be nice and the need to be nasty. This conflict arises from the obvious fact that unless we are nice to other people, not only will they not be nice to us, but we may inflict wounds on them which are unnecessary or unfair; but on the other hand we know that it is necessary at times to be nasty in order to discourage certain types of behavior that we find unacceptable. Needless to say, the only way to "resolve" this conflict is to find a balance between niceness and nastiness which, at least in the ideal case, will cause people to think of us as a "nice person", but not so nice as to tempt them to take advantage of us.

The conflict between being nasty and being nice is important in the present context because it is intimately involved with the purpose of my books. To explain, it is necessary to recognize that the nasty-nice conflict is actually a special case of the generic difference between male and female behavior, in the sense that males are typically aggressive ("nasty") and females are typically passive ("nice"). In particular, a woman is usually much more ready than a man to "hush up" controversies and smooth over differences, while a man is usually much more ready than a woman to get into a fight when differences and controversies occur. The distinction between these behaviors is actually deeper, however; for "nice" behavior is often motivated by the preference for short-term over long-term satisfaction, while "nasty" behavior is often the opposite. For example, the readiness to hash out differences and controversies may be reasonably interpreted as an effort to avoid carrying around angry feelings, i.e., it represents a willingness to endure short-term dissatisfaction (an argument) to obtain a longer-term satisfaction (an absence of bad feelings). As a more pedestrian example, consider the problem of getting up in the morning: In the short term it is usually "nice" to stay in bed, but in the long-term the consequences may be "nasty", e.g., getting fired from one's job. As a third example, we may feel impelled to be "nice" to the poor by giving them welfare, but this will have such "nasty" long-term consequences as making it easier for them to reproduce and thus to increase their numbers.

Now with the above in mind, the reader will be able to understand what I mean when I say that my books are "nasty". This is because they are dedicated to embracing the difficult long-term solutions rather than the easy short-term ones. Consequently, they reject niceness, not because niceness is "feminine", but rather because niceness is bad in the long run, at least as far as it applies to the problems with which my books are usually concerned. In particular, my books take issue with socio-political liberalism, whose fundamental philosophy is to be "nice" to certain groups (minorities, women, the poor, homosexuals, etc.) without concern for others, and particularly without concern for the long-term consequences of this niceness. While it may surprise the reader to realize it, one of the fundamental differences between capitalism and socialism is that the former is "nasty" (and hence "masculine") while the latter is "nice" (and thus "feminine"). That is, capitalism is a competitive system which is governed by the rule of "survival of the fittest", where those who are not as fit as their rivals meet a very fitting and "nasty" end; while in socialism, which is a cooperative system, nasty ends are simply not permitted -- that is, until, the whole nasty system comes crashing down because of its refusal to deal with that nastiness.

The relevance of the above discussion to the purpose of my books is the nasty fact that this nation is now virtually under siege by purveyors of the feminine-socialist ideology. We see this not only in the various do- good/be-nice schemes of past and present governments such as social security, federal control of education, the graduated income tax, the push for national health insurance and the zillions of government bureaus which attempt to regulate virtually every aspect of our lives, but also (and especially) in the attempt to help supposedly-disadvantaged groups thru welfare, affirmative action, minority set-asides, race norming, and other efforts which reject the aggressive and capitalistic solution of individual initiative in preference to the passive and socialistic solution of governmental dependency. In addition, we see the feminine-socialist ideology at work in the effort to enforce "political correctness" in speech in order to "protect" and "be nice to" supposedly disadvantaged groups, the attempt to eliminate such not-nice aggressive punishments as spanking and the death penalty, the effort to ban handguns (aggressive implements) and promote criminal rights (niceness), and the attempt to neutralize masculinity entirely via such feminist projects as the legislation of sexual equality and allowing women to be soldiers.

In sum, the purpose of my books -- or at least the "politically-incorrect" ones -- is to serve as a masculine counterweight to the mass media's predominantly feminine information stream and philosophical bias. Part of this function, as we have already intimated, is to be nasty, since nastiness is the only thing strong enuf to pull the plug on the saccharine socio-political ejaculate of a feminine-socialist media, a politically correct professoriate, and an oversized and overweening government, all of which are becoming increasingly efficient in shoving their distasteful load of jism down our throats and up our anuses. And yet in saying this we are not in any sense denying the importance or utility of the feminine approach -- indeed, one of my books (The Most Powerful Idea Ever Discovered) is almost entirely devoted to defending a feminine philosophy. It is rather that the balance has swung too far, and we are now in desperate need of returning to a greater equality between masculine and feminine influences. Now in conclusion it may be asked why a philosopher has become involved in something so far removed from what philosophy is ordinarily considered to be. The answer is that it is the nature of philosophy to play with unseemly ideas, to dabble in contradictions, and in general to boldly go where others fear to tread; and those who call themselves philosophers but are not up to their armpits in the bizarre, the outrageous and the outre are not genuine philosophers, but only scholarly time-servers and academic drones who shuffle the dusty ideas of others rather than having any of their own. Philosophy, then, is a product of mental manhood.

For those of you who have the balls, I hope you enjoy my books.

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