…by Jonas E. Alexis
New York Times writer Sarah Jeong has joined the ideological cult which always uses race for ideological purposes. Now, think about the following tweets and see if they are not ontologically racist:
“Dumbass fucking white people making up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrant.”
“Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”
“White men are bullshit.”
Jeong was just getting started. She had more interesting things to say about “white people”: “It must be so boring to be white. White people have stopped breeding. You’ll all go extinct soon. This was my plan all along.”
Let’s change the equation a bit. Suppose we substitute “black” or “Asian” or “Hispanic” for “white.” Wouldn’t that change the entire political spectrum in the Zionist world? Wouldn’t the media beat people over the heads with those acerbic tweets? Jeong responded to criticism by saying that her tweets ‘were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns.” How stupid can we be? Tweets with no prefaces are were not aimed at a general audience? Keep in mind that Jeong is a Harvard lawyer!
Guess what? Jeong has been hired at the New York Times, and she will join the NYT board next month. The NYT tells us: “Sarah has guided readers through the digital world with verve and erudition, staying ahead of every turn on the vast beat that is the internet.”
Here is the laughable thing: the New York Times fired a woman by the name of Quinn Norton for similar issues. Last February, the NYT tells us: “a social media storm had erupted, with Ms. Norton at the center of it, because of her use of slurs on Twitter and her friendship with Andrew Auernheimer, who gained infamy as an internet troll going by the name ‘weev.’ Mr. Auernheimer now works for The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website.
“The Twitter campaign against Ms. Norton focused on a tweet from October in which she said that ‘weev is a terrible person, & an old friend of mine.’ It also turned up years-old tweets by Ms. Norton in which she used slurs against gay people and another in which she retweeted a racial slur.”
In response to all the hoopla, Norton said:
“I was called a Nazi because of my friendship with the infamous neo-Nazi known on the internet as weev — his given name is Andrew Auernheimer; he helps run the anti-Semitic website ‘The Daily Stormer.’ In my pacifism, I can’t reject a friendship, even when a friend has taken such a horrifying path. I am not the judge of who is capable of improving as a person.
“This philosophy also requires me to confront him about his terrible beliefs and their terrible consequences. I have been doing this since before his brief time as a cause célèbre in 2012—I believe it’d be hypocritical for me to turn away from this obligation. weev is just one of many terrible people I’ve cared for in my life.
“I don’t support what my terrible friend believes or does. But I strongly advocate for people with a good sense of themselves and their values to engage with their terrible friends, coworkers, and relatives, to lovingly confront them for as long as it takes, and it would be wrong to not do so myself.
“I had what I now see as the advantage of coming from a family of terrible people. This taught me that not everyone worthy of love is worthy of emulation. It also taught me that being given terrible ideas is not a destiny, and that intervention can change lives.
“Not everyone believes loving engagement is the best way to fight evil beliefs, but it has a good track record. Not everyone is in a position to engage safely with racists, sexists, anti-Semites, and homophobes, but for those who are, it’s a powerful tool.
“Engagement is not the one true answer to the societal problems destabilizing America today, but there is no one true answer. The way forward is as multifarious and diverse as America is, and a method of nonviolent confrontation and accountability, arising from my pacifism, is what I can bring to helping my society.”
That is certainly a defensible position. I too have interviewed and interacted with people whose views I do not support or espouse. And we all have said terrible things in the past. If you ask parents, they will tell you they have said terrible and regrettable things to their children. If you ask husbands, they will almost certainly say the same thing about their wives. This is part of what it means to be human beings. And if you think you are spotless, then cast the first stone.
The fundamental problem is that Norton got fired for her being “racist,” but Jeong got hired for her amazing talents, despite the fact that she had a history of mouthing racist ideologies such as “White men are bullshit.” What is even more amazing is that Yahoo News published an article entitled, “Right-wing websites target New York Times’ new writer over what they call ‘anti-white’ tweets.”
Is this really a “Right-wing” issue? Shouldn’t any person with an ounce of common sense be concerned about the double standard here? If a person tweets things like “#CancelBlackPeople” or “#CancelBlackPeople”, wouldn’t the entire media take this person to shred?
Then why is it possible to hire Sarah Jeong when she has a history of saying things like “#CancelWhitePeople,’ or that “White people smell like dogs”? Isn’t Jeong essentially judging people by the color of their skin? Well, it is. The New York Times knew about Jeong’s racist tweets long before she got hired. They defended her by saying:
“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. She sees now that this approach only served to feed the vitriol that we too often see on social media.”
The New York Times forgave Jeong’s racism by saying: “She understands that this type of rhetoric is not acceptable at The Times, and we are confident that she will be an important voice for the editorial board moving forward.”
Yet they could not do the same thing for Norton. Obviously racism has been ideologically redefined in order to fit a greater political purpose. As Manisha Krishnan of Vice interestingly put it in 2016, “It’s literally impossible to be racist to a white person.”
NYT Loves Race Riots
Moreover, isn’t the New York Times implicitly telling us that they favor race riot and the black-and-white narrative by hiring Sarah Jeong? If we use the historical record as an indication, the answer to the last question is yes. The classic example of this is the black/Jewish alliance in the 1960s.
The Black-Jewish alliance was a historical turning point in America. For historian David Levering Lewis, although the alliance did not produce much good fruit, it eventually “gave rise to an unworkable paradigm of success.” Like Harold Cruse and others, Lewis saw the Black-Jewish alliance as a weapon “to fight anti-Semitism by remote control” (although Lewis seemed to have backed off from that position by 1993).
In other words, the blacks were being used as pawns in the service of a larger Jewish revolutionary ideology. In the words of Jewish author Gelya Frank, Jews used both the civil rights movement and the NAACP as “remote control.” Israel Shahak likewise noted,
“The apparent enthusiasm displayed by American rabbis or by the Jewish organizations in the U.S.A. during the 1950s and the 1960s in support of the Blacks in the South, was motivated only by considerations of Jewish self-interest, just as was the communist support for the same Blacks…
“Stalin and his supporters never tired of condemning the discrimination against the American or the South African Blacks, especially in the midst of the worst crimes committed within the USSR…Its purpose in both cases was to try to capture the Black community politically, in the Jewish case to an unthinking support of Israeli policies in the Middle East.”
Jewish scholar Murray Friedman expresses the same opinion, reflecting that “Jews did not just organize for their own defense; they also rallied to the defense of blacks, who faced even greater terrors. Why did Jews do so? Possibly it was because, as a pariah people themselves, they easily identified with another group of even more oppressed outsiders. They were no doubt also encouraged by the implicit moral imperatives of Judaism.”
Cruse bluntly stated:
“Among the many myths life and history have imposed on the Negroes is the myth that the Negro’s best friend is the Jew. Far more accurately, certain Jews have been the best friend of certain Negroes—which, in any case, is nothing very unusual…
“There is little evidence that the Jewish group was much interested in the Negro’s plight for ‘social uplift’ reasons prior to the age of Booker T. Washington and the NAACP era that followed. But this is not to say that Jews were not accurately aware of the Negro’s existence. How aware certain Jews were, is revealed in a very unlikely source—the autobiographical notes of the great Russian writer, Feodor M. Dostoevsky.”
Cruse quotes Dostoevsky’s own words, penned in 1877:
“[Jews] have already leaped en masse upon the millions of liberated Negroes, and have already taken a grip upon them in their, the Jews’ own way, by means of their sempiternal ‘gold pursuit’ and by taking advantage of the inexperience and vices of the exploited tribe…the Negroes have now been liberated from the slave owners, but that they will not last because the Jews, of whom there are so many in the world, will jump at this new little victim.”
Dostoevsky would perhaps be surprised to know that some of his predictions have come to pass. Nearly all the blacks of the “Harlem Renaissance” era received support from wealthy Jews. And according to some witnesses, almost all the teachers in Harlem were Communist Jews. Even the “Negro-Jewish alliance” in some cases was used to portray Jews in a positive light, most particularly among Communists in Harlem.
We are seeing a renaissance of the same ideological melting pot. The New York Times is using angry bigots like Sarah Jeong for ideological purposes. How? Civilta Cattolica declared that whenever an individual drops Logos, he or she will end up embracing Talmudic ideologies. Sarah Jeong is a classic example. She admitted that she grew up in a conservative home, where abstinence was one of the rules. Then she got hooked by “the educated left wing elite,” which she said was liberating.
After she was free from any constraint, Jeong began to use Twitter to express herself. “Cops fucking sucks,” she wrote, “And yeah sometimes they even screw over nice middle class ladies.” She again declared: “Men are too fucking emotional to be let out in public. Jesus Christ.”
Why are men too emotional? Well, she again said: “All men are equally garbage in my eyes.” And then this: “If marriage and the family are historically oppressive institutions that continue to be oppressive worldwide, why not abolish them?” Well, there is at least one other individual at the New York Times who aspires to abolish the institution of marriage. Her name is Masha Gessen.
-  Megan Cerullo, “New York Times defends newest hire Sarah Jeong amid controversy over racist tweets,” NY Daily News, August 2, 2018.
-  “Sarah Jeong Joins The Times’s Editorial Board,” NY Times, August 1, 2018.
-  Jim Windolf, “After Storm Over Tweets, The Times and a New Hire Part Ways,” NY Times, February 13, 2018.
-  Quinn Norton, “The New York Times Fired My Doppelgänger,” Atlantic, February 27, 2018.
-  Jaclyn Peiser, “Times Stands By Editorial Board Member After Outcry Over Old Tweets,” NY Times, August 2, 2018.
-  Ibid.
-  Manisha Krishnan, “Dear White People, Please Stop Pretending Reverse Racism Is Real,” Vice, October 3, 2016.
-  Murray Friedman, What Went Wrong?: The Creation and Collapse of the Black-Jewish alliance (New York: Free Press, 2007), 58-59.
-  Ibid., 59.
-  Gelya Frank, “Jews, Multiculturalism, and Boasian Anthropology,” American Anthropology, 1997, vol. 99, 735.
-  Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion The Weight of Three Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, 2002), 103.
-  E. Michael Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 702.
-  Harold Cruse, The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual: A Historical Analysis of the Failure of Black Leadership (New York: New York Review of Books, 2005), 476-477.
-  Ibid., 477.
-  See Mark Naison, Communists in Harlem during the Depression (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1983), 321.
-  Ibid., 324-325.