William Voegeli has an article at Claremont Review of Books titled RACISM, REVISED.
In it he reviews the New York Times (NYT) differeing stance on racism committed by white people and non-white people. The case in point is their employee Sarah Jeong. She has a Twitter history that is littered with the most egregious anti-white bias imaginable. But the NYT waived their hands at this and said it was those evil white trolls that made her do it. But when an equivalent bias was shown by a white person, off with his head. Very interesting read.
Jeremy Carl should be commended. As a Jewish American there is enormous pressure from his friends, relatives, acquaintances and colleagues in the Jewish community to fall in line with the progressive narrative and blame President Trump for any acts of violence committed by any maniac that can’t be undeniably proven to be funded directly by George Soros.
His American Greatness article addresses the elephant in the room, namely, that the face of Progressive Leftism is riddled with liberal Jews who play the anti-Semitic card as a means of pummeling Republicans into guilty silence. And he identifies the objective of the strategy, to paralyze the victim and make him a sitting duck for the sucker punch that will surely follow. So, blame Trump and the Republicans for a crazed anti-Semitic murderer and follow up with the gun control offensive. The perfect one – two combination. Mr. Carl spells out the fact that President Trump’s daughter and son-in-law are Jewish and that the ploy has lost its punch against him. And he also addresses the extreme anti-white hatred that some Jewish Progressives have now openly displayed.
My favorite passage is, “Nor should we sit silently while Jewish leftists like the New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg attempt to exploit the atrocity in Pittsburgh by echoing the phrasing and vision of white supremacists by celebrating the demographic decline of white people in America like a cartoon Jewish villain from a Neo-Nazi propaganda piece.”
I think this gets right to the crux of the matter. If your aim is to avoid anti-Semitism it would seem the best strategy would not be to exhibit anti-white bigotry.
It’s refreshing to see a Jewish conservative finally calling out his coreligionists on something that is a divisive and dishonest tactic that feeds an image of the Jewish community that they would be better off not encouraging.
I’ve always heard that Gay Pride is good. So Pride in being gay is good. But apparently just not feeling bad about being white is bad.
I had heard about these signs that are showing up randomly. Now if they said something about it being the best then maybe you could make a case for it being a supremacy thing. But it doesn’t even go as far as saying good. It just says okay. It must really be bad to be white it it’s not even okay to feel okay about it. Sucks being me.
A terrible thing can have good consequences. It can be a clarifying moment. An obvious example is the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. The event was a human tragedy and a terrible blow to the United States militarily. It left the U.S. interests and people in the Philippines at the mercy of the Japanese armed forces. But it galvanized the country to such an extent that millions of young American men immediately enlisted in the armed forces and everyone else steeled themselves for the imminent war.
So, that’s the archetype. Now drop your sights ten levels down and observe a clarifying moment on a much smaller stage. Over the last couple of years, the left has been using the persistence of internet records to banish anyone who has ever said anything that is now politically incorrect. An example that comes to mind is the libertarian journalist Kevin Williamson who was hired and fired by the Atlantic over the course of a few hours because some left-wing trolls dug out his anti-abortion tweets and shamed the Atlantic into firing him. Of late, the right has been trying to use the same trick. Mike Cernovich produced a very large number of tweets by Hollywood director James Gunn that flippantly espoused pedophilic opinions. His employer, Disney, terminated him immediately. And most relevantly, The New York Times fired Quinn Norton, a white woman, back in February for having twitter comments that people thought were racist or anti-gay.
Now comes Sarah Jeong. She was just hired for seemingly the same job that Quinn Norton was fired from and the evidence of anti-white racism in Jeong’s Twitter feed is more than knee deep. In fact, it seems to be practically an obsession. A mountain of quotes has been circulating on this situation. The New York Times answered these criticisms by saying that Jeong was just responding in kind to racists and she will not be penalized because of it. So, it’s official. The New York times will fire white people if there is even a pretext for calling them biased but it will ignore even blatant anti-white racism by non-whites. For the average reader of this blog I don’t think any of this is a shock. Basically, it’s business as usual at “the Gray Lady.” But who it might shock are normies. They may have thought that we are all equal in front of the internet mob. They might have imagined that the New York Times would always prefer to avoid the appearance of harboring an openly racist employee. Well, if they’re paying any attention at all to the details of this case they will see that they were wrong and the New York Times didn’t. That should be a clarifying moment. The New York Times says it’s okay for a non-white journalist to openly express racial hatred against white people.
It occurs to me that the correct way to handle this is not to complain to the New York Times. They obviously don’t care. But how about their advertisers. Would for instance, a company like Disney respond to complaints from its customers by pulling ads from the New York Times? How about Walmart? Could they be persuaded to pull ads? Seems like a worthwhile thing to do. But at least it’s clear who the New York Times cares about and who it despises. Clarification noted.