Skip to content

Sarah Jeong, The New York Times & The Problem Of Whites

I am glad the New York Times did not fire Sarah Jeong.

Not only am I happy, I am thrilled. I’m hoping she is assigned the Maxine Waters beat. I’m praying, really praying, her first column tells Times readers to, à la Waters, “get in the face” of white people for their unforgivable sin of being white.

You will all know by now that the Times is “sticking by” Jeong. The paper said Jeong’s string of hundreds upon many hilariously stupid hundreds of tweets written over a period of at least five years were Jeong’s attempt to counter the harassment she might have, maybe, once herself felt. The paper said she was only “imitating” the style of all those nasty white racists you all have heard about but have never met.

The Times is full of it. They know it, and they know you know it. But they don’t care because this is politics. This is war. Firing Jeong would be admitting the paper’s enemies have power. And that they cannot allow, or rather will not admit. So they are forced to keep this horrid broad on until they can find a reason to dump her that doesn’t make it look like it’s giving in.

I do not complain! I am glad. So idiotic and loud is the Times’s move that it only helps our side. If the paper’s non-Christian employers would have folded and fired Jeong, as the Atlantic did to that “conservative” guy when they discovered he was against killing the lives inside would-be mothers, their belief in the evilness of whites and orthodox (little and big O) Christians would have remained “underground”, so to speak.

As an aside, the only thing that might sink Jeong is that she also picked on the Times, which is a grave progressive sin.

Now I’ll take Jeong’s side for a moment, and admit that the problem with our national politics really is, in part, because of whites. Specifically those whites who believe politics is not identity politics. Yet all politics begins in identity politics: indeed, that is the definition of politics.

Random people do not come together by chance and spontaneously say, “Hey, let’s form a bloc and vote together!” People begin in families, which is a nice thing, and families turn into extended families, and people like being with people like themselves. Identities are formed. And politics begins. (There is far more to identity than race, of course.) There is no way on earth short of the Parousia of eradicating this natural and even praiseworthy behavior of men.

Yet somehow an ideology developed in Western academia that a post-identity politics can be found if and when whites acknowledge their inherit identity sinfulness. Whites, being on the large a religious people, and respectful of authority, believed this. Even though it is self-contradictory. And easily seen to be self-contradictory. But, as we all know, it takes more than contradictions to quash a false religion.

This false religion does need to be quashed, too. Open borders, Diversity, mandatory quotas in everything and everywhere, and the strife and acrimony this all brings will only grow worse as long as whites are convinced opposing these ideas is “racist.” Which, again, is self-contradictory. Even, the Lord help us, Andrew Sullivan recognizes this.

If whites are guilty of “racism” because they are white, then this acknowledges whites are an identity, and thus it is impossible for them not to engage in identity politics. If you are white, you can’t not be white. And to say, as whites in thrall to the false religion of racial guilt do say, that whites should give preference to non-whites because they are non-white just is identity-racialist politics! It must be, because the idea is premised on there being white and non-white identities.

But, like I said, pointing out stinging contradictions like this does very little good. Try it on, say, a Wellesley graduate and see how far you get. She will be unable to fathom why you do not feel guilt at being white.

If argument doesn’t work, a steadier diet of insults might. Which is why I am happy the Times did not fire that enraged non-white female. Whites swayed by race-guilt religion are happy to feel and acknowledge their sin on occasion. But make them do it all the time and everywhere and many will tire of it, especially when it begins hitting them personally or in the pocket book. Which it will the longer the current state of affairs continues.

Addendum Love the hole nitwits are licking themselves into!

Addendum Look at all these lovely blue check marks! (Original link, in case that’s busted.)

Addendum A blue checkmark calling for the killing of White men back in 2014.

Addendum Which leads into the funniest one: “Twitter coming after Candace Owens for quoting NY Times hire Sarah Jeong’s tweets (but replacing the word ‘white’ with ‘Jewish’). Twitter apologized after realizing they had helped make Owens’ point.” Owens did the same with ‘black’, which was acceptable.

12 thoughts on “Sarah Jeong, The New York Times & The Problem Of Whites Leave a comment

  1. “If the paper’s non-Christian employers would have folded and fired Jeong[…]”

    Oh, my. This is the glance at the Jewish control of the media canard in a month or so. Briggs used to be more subtle. Almost as distasteful is his mangling of the subjunctive mood, but that’s a cherished peeve of mine.

  2. I used to think that Asians were really smart. That was because I went to engineering school with Foo Lam and later worked with Dr. Choi, Dr. Chung and Dr. Lee. However I was mistaken and they aren’t all smart.

  3. Did get a kick out of the link to the Twitter feed calling for the “dethronement” of the straight, white, middle-class male because they dominate the upper echelons of society. My guess is that whatever else may characterize the folks who populate the upper echelons of society, none of them are “middle-class.”

  4. Most abortions are non-white. The baby chop shops peddle “colored” organs. So Sarah and her extreme kind are self-defeating on many levels. Losers with a capital “L” in the Darwinian sense.

  5. The “White debbils”(Chinese: ???) concept has an historical background perfectly captured by one of the Hong Kong Free Press (HKFP) writers, Alex Choi: “unlike most racially charged terms [i.e., those used by the White Other], is a history of resistance to oppression rather than its perpetration.”

    Choi’s recent HKFP work includes “What Charlottesville says about Hong Kong’s racially charged terms”.

    See? It’s OK. There’s a Narrative.

  6. Lee – there, there. I understand that Liberals hate hearing how much they are led by the nose by Jews. Especially when they really seem to get off on Jews getting killed, so long as they are in Israel, not America. Congitive dissonance at its finest.

    Oh, by the way. The New York Times and Washington Post are both owned by Jews. Jews are not Christians. This is what you leftists call “an inconvenient truth”.

  7. As an old white guy, I fought the notion of white privilege for years, but I now realize that I have indeed had a single huge advantage in my life: when I fail, I am told “It’s your own damn fault”. Nobody has ever told me that as a white male, the deck was stacked against against me, so it’s no wonder that I didn’t get that position. Or that the reason I was laid off had a lot more to do with my race and gender than my own performance.

    No, no pity or special consideration for me. Yes, the relentless “It’s your own damn fault” treatment, really believing it and taking it to heart, has been a huge advantage. I shudder to think what my life would be if I my excuses for failure had been indulged or even encouraged instead of being categorically dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *