The inimitable Andrew Sullivan once again shames the left and the pandering press.
I don’t agree with many of his views, though. He is openly gay, and he supports the definition of marriage. For some reason, he justifies taking the Bible to promote his cultural liberalism, even though the Scriptures, whether Old or New Testaments, do not fall into the policies and principles which he advocates.
On top of all these differences, Sullivan voted for Obama because he believed that the Republican Party has become too right wing. Huh? What kind of thinking is all of this? It still boggles my mind to this day.
But …
He has published savage yet accurate criticisms of the current political Left, which has gone so far that they have undermined the reason why political spectra exist. Governments exist to protect our rights or to provide goods to the members of the state, depending on one’s political, cultural, and ideological leanings.
With the way that the regressive Left has titled so far toward socialism, redistribution, and a complete from biological and historical reality, they have basically declare war on government, hierarchy, and the role of the individual within the state altogether.
They have called borders “racist.”
They have denounced freedom of speech as destructive, even though they exercise their freedom of speech to make their case for ending, or at least limiting, freedom of speech.
They are eating their own, criticizing their forebearers like Bernie Sanders because they are “too white”. The children of the revolution eat their own parents, or is it the parents which eat their children?
Either way, the Left is losing what is left of its collective (and collectivist) mind.
Is the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, Sarah Jeong, a racist?
Yes. She is. She said that white people need to die. She wants them gone. She said nasty things about older men and women who were white. She unfairly, arbitrarily commiserated with criminals just because they had darker skin color.
That is also racist, of course.
Unlike most other editorial intelligentsia in New York City, Sullivan was not afraid to call out the brazen, blatant racism of their new editorial boar member.
From one perspective — that commonly held by people outside the confines of the political left — she obviously is. A series of tweets from 2013 to 2015 reveal a vicious hatred of an entire group of people based only on their skin color. If that sounds harsh, let’s review a few, shall we? “White men are bullshit,” is one. A succinct vent, at least. But notice she’s not in any way attacking specific white men for some particular failing, just all white men for, well, existing. Or this series of ruminations: “have you ever tried to figure out all the things that white people are allowed to do that aren’t cultural appropriation. there’s literally nothing. like skiing, maybe, and also golf. white people aren’t even allowed to have polo. did you know that. like don’t you just feel bad? why can’t we give white people a break. lacrosse isn’t for white people either. it must be so boring to be white.” Or this: “basically i’m just imagining waking up white every morning with a terrible existential dread that i have no culture.” I can’t say I’m offended by this — it’s even mildly amusing, if a little bonkers. (Has she read, say, any Shakespeare or Emily Dickinson?) But it does reveal a worldview in which white people — all of them — are cultural parasites and contemptibly dull.
In the previous paragraph, Sullivan brings up tweets from the hateful Sarah Jeong which I had not found yet. Other people had not exposed these tweets, either. “I’m just imagining waking up white …”
Wow!
By the way, I am so much more than the color of my skin, so I really don’t care for this push for “white” culture or white pride. I am proud to be an American, and being an American is more than skin deep.
A little more disturbing is what you might call “eliminationist” rhetoric — language that wishes an entire race could be wiped off the face of the earth: “#cancelwhitepeople.”
There’s a better word for that. It’s called “genocide.”
Check out another tweet exposing this racist reporter’s growing disdain for white people, across a number of months.
Roseanne Bar made non-racial jokes, get called “racist” & got her show cancelled.
The New York Times hires an actual racist, Sarah Jeong attacks white people, saying “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydriants”. pic.twitter.com/o7GdoOizcU
— Seth Francis Sutter🌐 (@WeWuzSpartan) August 4, 2018
Another indicator that these statements might be racist comes from replacing the word “white” with any other racial group. #cancelblackpeople probably wouldn’t fly at the New York Times, would it? Or imagine someone tweeting that Jews were only “fit to live underground like groveling goblins” or that she enjoyed “being cruel to old Latina women,” and then being welcomed and celebrated by a liberal newsroom. Not exactly in the cards.
If any reporter had written such hateful rhetoric about black or Hispanic people, then the New York Times had insisted on hiring that person, there would be riots in the streets. There would be stacks of New York Times newspapers burning on corners throughout the Big Apple.
Of course, the outrage would have reached the most fevered pitch if hired journalist were white. Who knows how badly anyone would have reacted if the reporter were in fact black of Hispanic and were writing about the other race.
But the alternative view — that of today’s political left — is that Jeong definitionally cannot be racist, because she’s both a woman and a racial minority. Racism against whites, in this neo-Marxist view, just “isn’t a thing” — just as misandry literally cannot exist at all. And this is because, in this paradigm, racism has nothing to do with a person’s willingness to pre-judge people by the color of their skin, or to make broad, ugly generalizations about whole groups of people, based on hoary stereotypes.
Rather, racism is entirely institutional and systemic, a function of power, and therefore it can only be expressed by the powerful — i.e., primarily white, straight men. For a nonwhite female, like Sarah Jeong, it is simply impossible. In the religion of social constructionism, Jeong, by virtue of being an Asian woman, is one of the elect, incapable of the sin of racism or group prejudice. All she is doing is resisting whiteness and maleness, which indeed require resistance every second of the day.
Sullivan gets it perfectly. In fact, I have listened to deranged social justice warriors define racism like that. It has nothing to do with judging or demeaning people because of the color of one’s skin, and everything to do with going after people in supposed positions of power. In the case of modern academia and SJW nullities, white people are permanently in positions of power, and therefore they should endure routine discrimination, shame, and abuse.
That’s why Jeong hasn’t apologized to the white people she denigrated or conceded that her tweets were racist. Nor has she taken responsibility for them. Her statement actually blames her ugly tweets on trolls whose online harassment of her prompted her to respond in turn. She was merely “counter-trolling.” She says her tweets, which were not responses to any individual, were also “not aimed at a general audience,” and now understands that these tweets were “hurtful” and won’t do them again. The New York Times also buys this argument: “her journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment. For a period of time, she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers.”
The New York Times stopped caring about arguments, logic, and facts a long time ago. They have not interest in maintaining any kind of pretense of honesty, objectivity, or integrity.
Here’s another interesting take from Sullivan about Sarah Jeong:
And I don’t think the New York Times should fire her — in part because they largely share her views on race, gender, and oppression. Their entire hiring and editorial process is based on them. In their mind, Jeong was merely caught defending herself. As Vox writer Zack Beauchamp put it: “A lot of people on the internet today [are] confusing the expressive way antiracists and minorities talk about ‘white people’ with actual race-based hatred, for some unfathomable reason.” I have to say that word “expressive” made me chuckle out loud. (But would Beauchamp, I wonder, feel the same way if anti-racists talked about Jews in the same manner Jeong talks about whites? Aren’t Jews included in the category of whites?)
How should the New York Times deal with their latest, racist failure? I see nothing wrong with an en masse boycott of the newspaper. Then again, does anyone read this paper to begin with? Hasn’t there already been a Walk Away movement from the liberal press at the outset?
The SJW mind-numbing insanity of perennial outrage and hurt feelings has gone mainstream.
Don’t say that we didn’t warn you.
Yes, we all live on campus now. The neo-Marxist analysis of society, in which we are all mere appendages of various groups of oppressors and oppressed, and in which the oppressed definitionally cannot be at fault, is now the governing philosophy of almost all liberal media. That’s how the Washington Post can provide a platform for raw misandry, and the New York Times can hire and defend someone who expresses racial hatred. The great thing about being in the social justice movement is how liberating it can feel to give voice to incendiary, satisfying bigotry — and know that you’re still on the right side of history.
Funny, but deadly if it continues unchecked.
It’s time for all good-minded people to chuck the New York Times for good.
Final Reflection
Andrew Sullivan may finally be waking up and realizing that he needed to move to the right, rather than pointing the finger at the Republican Party and telling its base to move more to the Left.
The fact is that political elites and cronyism in both parties have pushed their own agenda, enriching themselves with our tax dollars and excusing themselves from the laws that they pass for us. The game is over, and President Trump is upending this Potomac Two-Step con game.
The press has been complicit in it, and the political class went along with it. Conservatives who wanted to change Washington and end business as usual realized that the fight was much bigger than the wheeling and dealing behind closed doors in the halls of Congress.
President Trump gets it. He has defined the narrative so expertly and is taking on every perverse element which has fought against the best interests of American citizens for the last thirty to fifty years.
Now we see that the left-wing media, which has pushed its blunt narrative oh so subtly for the last fift years, no longer hides its arrogant agenda. The New York Times has no problem hiring an irate, embittered Asian female who is more invested in identity politics than telling the truth or reporting the facts. In fact, the only truth which matters these overschooled, under-educated snowflakes appreciate is what will give them more power and allow them an increased sense of entitlement to shut down others.
Thank you, Andrew, for dissecting these dangerous losers so effectively, though.