I read your piece "Riots shake foundations of justice and community" in the October 27, 1996 St Petersburg Times, and I think that what you wrote deserves a response.
Let me begin by saying that you come across in your piece as a decent and well-meaning person, in spite of the fact that you suffer from the usual liberal delusions about racial and similar matters. (Indeed, it is my view that liberals on the whole are extremely well-meaning, which just goes to show that you need a lot more than good intentions before trying to reform the world.) Furthermore, I was glad to read your piece because you put your thinking about race and the recent black riot in terms of your personal experience, and had the courage to confess that you are somewhat the worse for wear because of it. And I was also glad to read your piece because, in spite of your mandatory genuflections toward the Liberal altar, I could see some cracks appearing in your Faith, however much you seemed to be denying them.
The denial I am referring to involves, among other things, the fact that all three of your children -- who, I assume, are the most precious of all your possessions -- have been mugged by blacks in your integrated neighborhood: One daughter held up at gunpoint, one son beaten and robbed in your driveway, another daughter pushed hard in the face by a bully at her school. More particularly, the denial I am referring to is your implied assertion that neither you nor any white person assumes an unreasonable risk by living in an integrated neighborhood. You want to believe this -- desperately, in fact -- because you believe the liberal litany that "race is only skin deep." And one of the reasons you want to believe it is because if you don't, then you automatically fall into the category of "bigot" and "racist", terms to which the liberal media have attached such opprobrium that only the very strongest and most secure people would dare say or do anything that might get them labeled with these powerfully denigrating words. So I fully understand your reluctance to tread upon that bloody ground, however much your conscience may impel you to do so.
But is it really true that you are taking no unreasonable risk? Or more generally, is it really true that race is only skin deep? To this I can only say, Would that it were true, Jeff! It would make things a lot easier for all of us if it were. But it isn't.
Before discussing your own opinions any further, let me illuminate the discussion by telling you something about myself. I was raised in the South -- not far, in fact, from where the Klan originated -- but I always considered myself a liberal as far as race was concerned. I was such a liberal, in fact, that in 6th grade I made a speech in favor of the then- recent Supreme Court decision Brown vs Board of Education which was responsible for integration of the schools. (For my trouble I got called "jigaboo" by some of the older kids. And no, it had nothing to do with my parents or any other adult, who as far as I can remember never even spoke about race to me.) Later, when I went to college, I asked a black guy to room with me (we got along just fine). Later, I formed a commune with three other people, and we lived in a black neighborhood in Washington DC with blacks above us and blacks below us, a black landlady, and two of the girls bonking black studs. And recently when the Times' reporter Leanora Minai was doing a profile on me, I showed her my collection of books by black authors Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, the latter of whose books I own more (seven, I believe) than of any other author (besides myself, of course). As I told Leanora, however, in spite of the fact that both Williams and Sowell are nationally-syndicated columnists, their work has never appeared in the ever-so-"diverse" Times (Now I wonder why that is.) In short, therefore, if I am indeed a "bigot" and "racist", as I am sure some of the folks at the Times think, then it must be admitted that I am a very strange sort of bigot and racist.
But of course these terms -- as well as most of the others in the liberal vocabulary -- are not intended to be descriptions, but rather smears which are intended to intimidate the opponents of liberals into silence. It's another form of censorship which keeps important ideas out of circulation, and thereby protects liberals from having to answer for their crimes against humanity in general, and America in particular. But I'm one of those rare birds who can't be intimidated.
But enuf about me, Jeff -- let's talk about you. You may recall that one of the most favorite of liberal phrases, particularly in the context of "women's rights", is "they just don't get it" -- where they refers to liberal opponents, and it refers to something in the feminist catechism, tho it has never been very clear to me exactly what. But the ugly truth, Jeff, is that in racial, sexual and similar matters it is precisely the liberals who "don't get it", and I am going to tell you exactly why that is. But I must warn you that it is a somewhat subtle point requiring a certain amount of intellectual sophistication, so it is probably no surprise that liberals don't get it, and that with the wunnerful-o- wunnerful dumbed-down educational system that the liberals have bestowed upon us in order to prove that stupidity is the equal of smartness, it is no wonder that people are increasingly unable to "get it". But I will try very hard to spell it out to you so you can understand it.
The idea I am trying to get across is that of probability. It is a somewhat elusive notion, having been developed mathematically in only relatively recent times (by Blaise Pascal around 1664, just two years before the appearance of Newton's celebrated Principia), and like number theory, it has many problems which are easily understood by the layman but are difficult to solve. However, having an undergraduate degree in mathematics, and having recently published an article in the magazine of the legendary high-IQ society Mensa proving the almost certain existence of UFOs by means of the consideration of elementary probability theory ("A Philosopher Looks at the UFO Controversy", Mensa Bulletin, Jan/Feb 1996, 15f), I believe I have sufficient qualifications to speak on this subject.
The point I would like to make can be put like this (I will discuss its exact relation to probability in a moment): We do not say a man is wrong, or foolish, or "prejudiced" because he refuses to run in front of moving cars, or refuses to play Russian Roulette, or bungee-jump, or play the lottery, or drink or take drugs, or leave his door unlocked, or go walking in the slums at night. And the reason we do not say a man is wrong or foolish or prejudiced for not doing any of these things is because of probability: The cited activities expose him to probable bad consequences. That doesn't mean that such activities will have bad consequences; rather it means that, if repeated over time, it is probable that they will, tho it is also possible -- but less likely -- that they will not. In short, probability is not certainty, but "it's the way to bet" -- at least if you want to come out a winner.
Now by this time, Jeff, you're probably asking, "How does this apply to me?", so let me answer: The probability that blacks are criminals is a lot higher than the probability that whites are. To be specific, nine times higher (that's 900% higher, if you prefer), and in fact it is even higher than this for murder, rape and other serious crimes. Which means that, if you live among blacks, the probability is that you will experience a lot more crime than if you live in a white area. These are the ugly facts, Jeff. They've even been recognized by some of your fellow columnists -- after a little tutoring from me, of course. And what's more, while crime has always been worse among blacks than whites, it has gotten a lot worse since the advent of full-scale liberalism in the 50s. Or to put it another way, it's not poverty that causes crime among blacks, because blacks were a lot poorer in the 50s than now. Rather it is liberalism that causes crime. Think about it, Jeff. Liberalism is not the solution to black crime, but the cause. Bet that never even occurred to you, did it Jeff? So what does all this mean in your case? One thing it means is that you lived your liberal beliefs by living in an integrated neighborhood, which at least shows you are not a hypocrite. But it also means that you bought into the falsehood that blacks and whites are equal, when in reality they are profoundly different in many ways -- culturally, intellectually, basketbally -- and crime is only one of these profound differences. And it's hard to admit you made a mistake, Jeff. It's hard not only because you risk being called "racist", but because it's hard for anyone to admit a mistake. And that's why I don't really expect you to admit yours.
But there is actually a much more profound mistake you made than merely buying into a liberal falsehood. The mistake, Jeff, is that you risked your family's well-being -- and particularly your precious children's lives -- all for the sake of what black racist Spike Lee called "doing the right thing". Except it wasn't the right thing, Jeff. It was the wrong thing to risk the lives of your loved ones in pursuit of the chimera of what can only be called liberal purity. And it was wrong to refuse to admit your mistake, and spare your ego the hurt of admitting that liberalism was a shoddy bill of goods.
And why was it wrong, Jeff? Not because God said so -- and anyway, I don't believe in God. It was wrong for one very simple reason: because wrong means nothing more nor less than probable bad consequences. In philosophy that's known as consequentialism, and if you want to know more about it, you can read my Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy. The basis of every system of morals must necessarily be the prevention of bad consequences, because bad consequences mean probable non-survival, and probable non-survival means probable elimination in the evolutionary struggle. And this, quite simply, is why supposedly "moral" liberalism is actually a crock of immoral shit, because it leads to race hatred, riots, and all the other bad consequences which the last 40 years has given us. And it is why America is rapidly going down the tubes, and will probably continue to do so until you and the other liberals get off your moral high- horse, admit your mistakes, and join hands to help put America back together. That is, if it's not too late.
In short, the exercise of judgment based on probability, whether applied to Russian roulette, black behavior or anything else, is not "prejudice", "bigotry" or any of the other liberal bogeymen; rather it is simply wisdom. Do you "get it" now, Jeff?
In conclusion, let me say a few things more about myself and my reasons for writing. As you may know, I have been writing letters to the Times for three or four years -- ever since the last riot, in fact, which my very first letter was about. While I have lost count of the number of letters, it must be somewhere around 200, the bulk of which is contained in my book Nasty Letter-Bombs: 150 Politically-Incorrect Unfit-to-Print Explosive Guided Missives that Shook the St Petersburg Times, which has a foreword by distinguished Canadian columnist and anti-political-correctness freedom fighter Doug Collins (You might want to check him out on the Internet). And yet of these 200 letters, not a single one has been published by the Times, nor was my book reviewed by them. Furthermore, my several requests to become a columnist at the Times were turned down, even when I bet your President and CEO, Mr Barnes, a thousand dollars that he could not truthfully deny that I was one of the best writers he had ever encountered, and even after my promise to accept compensation only on the basis that I caused circulation to rise.
So is my writing of letters to the Times just a pointless exercise in frustration? On the contrary, Jeff: The poisonous liberalism of the Times has proved a continuing inspiration for my writing, and even tho the Times does not publish what I write, my work is nonetheless published regularly by one of the finest alternative newspapers in America -- the Nationalist Times. But inspiration is only part of the picture, for as I recount in Nasty Letter-Bombs, it seems likely that I have caused a significant transformation in the Times, either because my arguments have subdued the Times' liberalism, or (more likely) because I have made the liberal columnists afraid to pen their poison because I have demonstrated myself supremely adept at skewering and mocking them in front of their colleagues when they do.
Finally, let me state plainly that the purpose of my writing -- besides the personal satisfaction which it gives me and the publication I receive in the alternative media -- is to engage liberalism in battle in this small yet important setting: myself against the Times. In spite of your paper's attempting to ignore me, I have not merely had what I believe is a substantial impact, but I have also demonstrated the editors' profound moral corruption by their continued refusal to recognize and publish the work of an opponent with substantive objections to their positions, and one whose abilities have been acknowledged by a wide range of distinguished men and women (for particulars, see my book catalog). But not only are Mr Barnes and his underlings morally corrupt, but they are supreme cowards since they will not allow my ideas to appear in the Times, most likely because they know I can demolish any of their columnists.
Am I wrong in my accusations that the editors are morally corrupt cowards? Then let them prove otherwise by giving the Times the only real diversity that matters -- diversity of ideas.
And have a nice day, Jeff.
* * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * *