EXCLUSIVE EXCERPT: Greg Gutfeld's 'The Bible of Unspeakable Truths'

Ed. Note: This part two of Big Hollywood’s two-part excerpt exclusive from Greg Gutfeld’s new book, “The Bible of Unspeakable Truths,” which is available now. Part one is here. Leigh Scott’s review is here. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter’s review is here.

—–

The Only Difference Between You and an Expert Is Four Appearances on a Cable News Show

When I take public transportation, people come up to me and ask me the same question over and over again: “Why are you staring at me?” And also: “How come you don’t have experts on your television show?” The answer? It’s a glass eye, and experts are phonies. The easiest way to pawn yourself off as an expert is to tell people you’re an expert. Then appear on a talk show. Sex experts, steroid experts, latte experts–they’re all shams.

Here’s why: With a thousand TV channels and countless talking heads needed to fill time, no one really performs background checks. Yeah, they’ll Google your name, but that’s about it. I have, after all, pawned myself off on a number of shows as a relationship expert. God, if you only knew how my exes feel about that! Thankfully, they would never admit to dating me.

Silly Theories Kill More People Than Guns

I saw it in the New York Times , so it’s got to be true: Research has suggested that violence is an infection, something you catch like hepatitis or Janeane Garofalo. It made me so sick to my stomach, I wanted to stab a shopkeeper in the neck. The writer focused only on gang crime, as opposed to other types, like shoplifting or houseboy dismemberment, suggesting that if gang murder spreads like an infectious disease, then it should be treated like one.

If only there was a word that describes this idea. Oh yeah. Batshitcrazy.

Sorry, that’s two words. Or maybe three.

See, I wonder–if the crime were white collar or corporate in nature, would the Times call it a disease? Or would it just be another example of the perils of small government? After all, many feel that corporations like Enron are just as evil as the Crips. But the Times would never call that a disease because such a pronouncement would excuse its perpetrators, who are rich white men. And the Times would never do such a thing.

But the Times can’t blame gang members for gang crime, for in its eyes, personal responsibility only applies to whites. Implying that gang members are victims of a disease means it’s no longer their fault. They are simply helpless victims, like people with AIDS or malaria. Violent behavior is just a virus that makes you shoot people while wearing really baggy pants. If only we had universal health care, we could cure this!

As much as I hate this kind of thinking, I do believe the paper is on to something. There is a disease, but it afflicts writers at the Times . It renders them incapable of recognizing evil when it presents itself, whether it’s terror or street criminals. The disease causes its victims instead to fiddle around looking for root causes and silly theories. That disease is called self-loathing-moral-relativism syndrome. It first began to appear in the States in the 1960s, I believe.

Maybe Mick Jagger brought it over.