Article Suppressed by Tampa Bay Sounding Editor and Letters Concerning the Suppression

 

Article Suppressed by Tampa Bay Sounding Editor

March 27, 1999

Maxine Kushner, Editor
Tampa Bay Sounding

Dear Maxine:

Here is an essay which I hope you will consider including in TBS. It can be printed in one installment or two. The first part is about 1000 words (2 TBS pages), the second about 1700 words (3 pages). You may publish it only if you agree to publish both parts and to not make any substantive changes.

I would be interested in resuming a column which I used to write in TBS, providing you are receptive.

For your information I have included a catalog of my books.

Straight Talk About Racism: Part 1

Most people don't realize it, but there are actually two kinds of racists. The ordinary racist is one who honors his race, reveres his ancestry, prefers -- like virtually everyone -- to be with his own kind, and believes that his genetic inheritance is worth preserving in the same way that liberals believe that spotted owls, snail darters, American Indians and Australian aborigines are worth preserving.

In contrast to the ordinary racist is the liberal racist. While liberals claim to be against racism, in fact they are practitioners of a special form of racism. Unlike ordinary racists, they do not support the interests of their own (usually white) race, but instead support the interests of minority races against the interests of the white race. What this means, then, is that liberal racism is a particularly ugly and pernicious mindset, because liberal racists are those who have turned against their own genetic family. Liberal racism, then, is race treason, but it is worse than treason because there is not even a good reason for it -- except perhaps the enjoyment of world-class stupidity and masochistic self-degradation.

Because racism involves a positive view of some race (or races), it always carries with it the implication of a relatively less positive attitude toward other races -- an attitude that is often termed by liberals as "hate". In fact, however, racism need not -- and usually does not -- involve hate at all; for to say that a man loves his race is not to say that he hates other races, but only that he holds his own more dear. But even if it were the case that racism involved hate, that is not a reason to count it as immoral; for hatred is not a voluntary act, but an involuntary feeling over which people have no control, and only voluntary acts can be termed moral or immoral.

It is apparent from the above discussion that -- contrary to liberal dogma -- not only is there nothing immoral about ordinary racism, but that it is actually good -- after all, what is more natural or expected of human behavior than to like and support one's group? In contrast, however, liberal racism is clearly immoral by being traitorous, in addition to being either irrational or masochistic. So why then is liberal racism so often regarded as holding the moral high ground, while ordinary racism is considered immoral?

There are, I think, three explanations for this -- a psychological one, an economic one and a political one. The psychological one is that minority races -- primarily blacks -- are underdogs, and there is a certain psychological satisfaction in cheering the underdog -- and perhaps helping him. The roots of this satisfaction may lie in the recognition that a relatively-more-equal distribution of power among the members of society is better than an unequal distribution because relatively-equal power reduces the likelihood that anyone will bully anyone else, or use the edge which he has on others to accumulate power far beyond that edge.

The economic explanation for why liberal racism has been treated as the moral high ground is that our society is blessed with an abundance of wealth unimaginable even 100 years ago. The upshot of this abundance is a charitable impulse natural to white men to share the wealth with others, and a natural object of such sharing is the "poor and downtrodden" who happen to be predominantly black. And since sharing gives the sharer a saintly feeling, there is a natural tendency to think that such a feeling indicates that one who shares is inhabiting the moral high ground. As it happens, however, charity is not necessarily saintly at all, since charity -- particularly in the form of welfare and other government largesse -- encourages dependence, laziness, a the-world-owes-me-a-living attitude and other undesirable personal qualities.

The political explanation for why liberal racism has been treated as the moral high ground is that there is ample reason to believe that liberal racism is part of a leftist political program to undermine Western civilization, and making liberal racism out to be the moral high ground helps to further this political program. For example, in the late 1920s it was decided by the American Communist Party to use the race issue to destabilize American society and make it ripe for a communist takeover, and the communists and their liberal/leftist friends have made this program such a success that it may yet provide the reef upon which American society grinds itself to pieces. It is not merely racial conflict as such which has provided political success for the Left, however, but rather a self- conscious division of the American nation into racial groups which no longer see themselves as Americans, and which have become constituencies for liberal largesse in exchange for their votes. This particular political strategy has been enormously enhanced by the Immigration Act of 1965, which shifted immigration from those of predominantly white European stock to those of the Turd World, thereby providing yet more and larger immigrant groups, and more and larger racial conflicts.

In looking at the three explanations we have offered as to why liberal racism has been viewed as the moral high ground in the race debate, we see that the only explanation which offers the least moral justification is the psychological one for equal power among the members of society. This, however, is counterbalanced by the immoral political one which sees the race issue as a cover for undermining Western civilization. The conclusion we can draw from this, then, is that -- far from holding the moral high ground -- liberal racism is actually a moral cesspool of the kind that liberals customarily accuse ordinary racism of being, whereas ordinary racism is actually good, and thus -- contrary to liberal dogma -- is actually the position which holds the moral high ground.

Straight Talk About Racism: Part 2

In Part 1 of this essay we pointed out that, altho liberals spend a good portion of their time denouncing "racism", in fact liberals are themselves racists, and the liberal form of racism is notable for its immorality, in contrast to the ordinary forms of racism which liberals customarily denounce, but which are actually good.

Thoughtful people, however, should not be surprised by the fact that liberal racism is immoral, because -- as pointed out in Part 1 -- liberal racism is actually a cover for a political program historically intended to undermine American society and subvert Western civilization. There is another reason why liberal racism is immoral, however, altho this could be counted as part of the political program just mentioned. This reason is that liberal "anti-racism" has been used as an excuse to undermine free speech on the theory that "minorities" must be "protected" from "hate". The truth, however, is that not only will suppression of free speech not protect minorities, but that the very failure which is certain to accompany such a program gives the political powers-that-be an excuse to impose even further restrictions on freedom in order to "correct" the failure of such a program.

The explanation of this is straightforward. The notion that speech should be free (ie, protected by law) is based on the (explicit or implicit) recognition that free speech functions in two ways: first, as a safety valve to allow the discharge of negative emotions with the consequent reduction of the likelihood of violence, and second, as a medium of political change so that whatever is causing the negative emotions can be subject to public discussion and possible correction. Accordingly, when speech is suppressed, emotions build up, not merely because they cannot be discharged in speech, but because people are frustrated as a result of the removal of the means for social change. And when emotions build up, violence is likely to occur -- violence which will probably not be effective in causing political change, but which will almost certainly be used as an excuse by the authorities to increase their power by imposing further restrictions on freedom. Thus any program of suppressing speech is bound to fail in at least three different ways: (1) It will increase rather than decrease the hatred for those "protected" by suppressed speech; (2) It will substantially reduce the ability of people to correct erroneous social policies; and (3) it is likely to eventually lead to a totalitarian political environment.

The liberal strategy in undermining free speech is to elevate in its place the relatively trivial and absurd principle that people's feelings ought not to be hurt. This would be one of the greatest jokes of the century if it were not such a serious matter. To illustrate, consider the fact that the black crime rate is 9 times that of whites (For you math dummies, that's nine hundred percent), or the fact that there are about 20,000 black-on-white rapes in the US every year, but less than 100 white-on- black. These statistics may very well "hurt black feelings", but a person would have to be out of his mind to deny that they are of vital importance, especially to whites. In fact, such statistics directly contradict the incessant message of the liberal media that blacks are victimized by whites, and instead make it plain that it is whites who are victimized by blacks.

As the above remarks should make clear, the real thrust of the liberal/left is to place the principle of "no hurt feelings" not just above free speech, but above truth. This has been made especially clear by a recent Canadian Human Rights Commission ruling that "truth is no defense" against accusations of political incorrectness. While it is unclear at this writing whether this ruling will eventually attain the force of law, what is clear is that what is left of free speech in the country most like the US in customs and culture is only hanging on by its fingernails -- and can the US really be that far behind?

What should be appreciated here is that truth is often offensive, and unless one expects to live in a fantasy world, he is going to be offended early and often. Indeed, the difference between the political right and left is largely between which truths each finds offensive: The Right is offended by truths of sex and science (especially evolution, criticisms of religion, and graphic depiction of sex acts), while the Left is offended by truths of race, gender, ethnicity and the like. And just as the Right once suppressed the truths of sex and science when it was dominant, so the Left is busy suppressing the truths of race and gender now that it has become the prevailing zeitgeist.

While it might sound like an exaggeration, free speech is in serious danger in both America and the remainder of the Western world -- a danger which most people do not recognize for the reason that the very media on which they depend for their information have often downplayed or covered up the problem. While there is no room in this brief essay for a full discussion of the current attacks on free speech, the following is a list of recent ones in the US which have received wide publicity, most of which are supported by the liberal/left, and most of which are fueled by the "no hurt feelings" agenda:

But if the noose is tightening around America's vocal chords, it is already much more tightly cinched in other Western countries, where political incorrectness is often a serious crime. Most notable in this context is that it is illegal in most of the countries of the Western world (Australia, Canada, Germany, France, England, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Israel, Austria, Spain) to question what I have called the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust, and there are currently 7,000 people in German jails alone for doing just this. It does not, of course, take a rocket scientist to determine which minority's feelings these laws were intended to protect, or to figure out from the existence and vigorous enforcement of these laws that this minority has a tremendous worldwide influence which is vastly out of proportion to its relatively tiny numbers.

The above comments bring me to a personal note. For two years I wrote a column for the Tampa Bay Mensa magazine, Tampa Bay Sounding. This column, tho often politically incorrect, was well-received, and in fact TBS was nominated for a number of awards during my tenure, some of which were almost certainly due to my column. But then I wrote a politically- incorrect column critical of Jews, with the result that all hell broke loose. It is impossible here to even begin to go into the many gory details (tho you will find a complete account in my book Political Correctness, Censorship and Liberal-Jewish Strongarm Tactics in High- IQ/Low-Morals Mensa (Socratic Press 1997)), but the upshot was that my column was canceled and I have been banned for the last 4 years from publishing anything in TBS. This of course is a great injustice, particularly because no one in Tampa Bay Mensa is better qualified to publish in TBS than I am (I have written more than 30 books, many of which have been praised by distinguished men and women, including Nobel prizewinners; I have published more than 300 articles and cartoons, and there have been more than 100 publications about me). But if this affair has been an ignominious blot on virtually everyone in Tampa Bay Mensa and National Mensa, it has had the good effect of demonstrating the reach of Jewish power into even the smallest corners of the world, and the severe danger which that power poses.

In conclusion, let me make the following suggestion: If liberals really want to oppose racism, let them oppose the only racism besides Nazism which forbids Jew-Gentile marriages, the racism that uses torture and bone- breaking as a matter of state policy, the racism that throws indigenous people off their ancestral lands and slaughters them in refugee camps, the racism that condones the cheating and killing of gentiles and calls them "cattle", the racism that gave us both the theory of communism and its practice -- along with more than 100 million victims whose number dwarfs anything Hitler was ever accused of doing, the racism which has placed memorials in every city and burg to The Holy Six Million who it is fraudulently claimed were victims of "gas chambers" and who turn out to number only 400,000 mostly-typhus victims, the racism whose most holy texts say that Jesus is in Hell boiling in a pot of excrement, the racism that recently used its American political influence to extort more than a billion dollars from Swiss banks, the racism that has cost American taxpayers some 130 billion dollars since 1949, the racism whose influence among legislators inspired nationally-syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan to refer to Congress as "Israeli-occupied territory", the racism whose representatives make up more than 50% of all Clinton administration "look like America" appointees, the racism whose influence has persuaded us to expend American treasure and American lives on the Gulf War and numerous other wars, and the racism whose pursuit of lebensraum and hatred of indigenous peoples threatens to engulf the world in a nuclear holocaust.

And the racism that is busy trying to keep us from talking about it.

 

Letter Concerning the Suppression

May 25, 1999

Maxine Kushner, Editor
Tampa Bay Sounding

From: John Bryant
Re: Failure to publish my submitted article(s),
Straight Talk About Racism, &c.

Dear Maxine:

Gee, Maxie, aren't you getting any submissions? Now isn't that just too bad! But then when you are editor of a boring magazine which nobody reads, then who except the pretty-much-incompetent want to publish in it? And why is it boring? Is it because the polices of TBM won't allow anything interesting? Or is it because you are the next leftist, Jew or whatever to assume the editorship, whose primary purpose is to keep people from saying anything Politically Incorrect? Or is it both?

You know, Maxie, speaking as a philosopher who has spent a lot of time investigating morality, there is something I've discovered which it might interest you to know. Immorality (or 'inethicality', if you prefer) contains the seeds of its own punishment. In your case, and the case of the Jews (or shabby goys: Zadorozny denied being Jewish) who edited the Sounding before you, the punishment is to have to spend many hours doing all the work to put together the Sounding each month, and then every month to be reminded that there is little or no satisfaction in putting out a magazine which nobody reads. In short, you may have the "power" to keep me out, but it is at great expense for yourself, and much greater expense to you than to me. And then, of course, you always have to worry that there may someday be a Day of Judgment (being an atheist, I'm not speaking religiously) in which people who have acted immorally may be in receipt of various unpleasant tokens of appreciation from those whom they have wronged.

Enjoy!

 

Farewell 'Open Letter' to Maxine

Maxine:

I am so GLAD to hear that you are LEAVING as editor of the Tampa Bay Sounding. You have spent the last three years as TBM's liberal/Jewish gatekeeper, making sure that virtually whatever appears in the Sounding is passed thru the reeking filter of Political Correctness, and in particular that little or nothing gets published exposing the very ugly facts about your ethnic brethren or that "shitty little country" -- as the French ambassador to Britain put it recently -- whose influence in Congress, the media and elsewhere is so profound that billions are sucked from the American taxpayer yearly, the crazy and perverted philosophy of liberalism has become a substitute for morality, museums are constantly being built to the world's greatest Big Lie, and criticism of Jews as a race has become virtually impossible, all while the rest of the world is put at risk of war because of Israel's behavior, and Jews and their liberal allies continue to denounce what they in fact practice -- censorship, racism, genocide, torture and hatred.

Now if you want to know why I am writing this letter -- and sending it to all present and former members of Tampa Bay Mensa whose email addresses I have (close to 300) -- the answer is contained in my book Political Correctness, Censorship and Liberal-Jewish Strongarm Tactics in High-IQ/Low-Morals Mensa, which is the story of what happened to me when I published an essay in the Sounding that dared to criticize the Self-Chosen. (This book is available thru Amazon.com, my website (www.thebirdman.org), or can be ordered thru any bookstore.) This story details the shameful behavior of numerous individuals in Tampa Bay Mensa, including that of Jack Brawner, Max Loick, Frank Clarke, Joseph Joad, George Zadorozny, and a number of others, most of whom remain in power in TBM in the present day. It is a filthy little story, but it seems not to have bothered the participants much. And why is this? My suggestion is that people who do the kinds of things that were done to me are by nature without morals, so they simply can't be embarrassed by someone pointing out what they did.

It is my expectation that at some future time the people responsible for the outrages against me will enjoy their just deserts of crow and humble pie; and I shall continue to do whatever I can to insure they do. In conjunction with this, I urge the readers of this letter to visit my webpage (www.thebirdman.org), and particularly the two sections on the Jewish Question and Liberalism. Here will be found not only an in-depth and carefully-documented investigation of the ill effects of Jews and liberals on America and Western civilization, but a complete account of the brouhaha in national Mensa which was set off by an article I wrote for the Mensa Bulletin on the Jewish question -- a brouhaha in which the principals in the national organization behaved in a manner unsurprisingly similar to the shameful way they behaved in Tampa Bay Mensa.

Like the protagonist of the Nightmare on Elm Street, I'm BAAAAACKKK! I was the wrong enemy to make, and I shall continue to provide a nightmare for those who deserve it. As the hundreds of people who visit my webpage daily continues to grow, more and more people will be informed that there is something rotten in Mensa at both the national level and in TBM. Until the wrong that was done to me is righted, I will continue to call attention to the filthy behavior of not only the particular individuals who are responsible, but also to the vileness of the underlying liberal ideology and its ethnic origins and raison d'etre. You want 'Never forgive, never forget'? Well, you've got it.

Meanwhile, please accept my parting words on your retirement: GOOD RIDDANCE!

PS: For those who may be interested, the recent public contretemps in St Pete over the effort to pass an anti-birdfeeding law was actually an attempt by Jewish City Councilman Richard Kriseman to pass a law against me and my wife. Raw ugly Jewish power is easier to appreciate when you see it up close and personal. Complete details are on my website under "St Pete Pigeon Flap".

 

Freedom isn't free! To insure the continuation of this website and the survival of its creator in these financially-troubled times, please send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683

"The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."

Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
Remember: Your donation = our survival!

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