18:00 Kevin Grace: "There is a momentum amongst the progressives that is nothing less than Soviet – that they do not regard any dissent from their opinions as as legitimate: none of it, ever." https://t.co/oizCsNcBVq
I’m trying to figure out where I stand on this story, so I’m going back to my fundamental premises.
* At least 90% of people 90% of the time have the capacity to glide through life, and if they’re not gliding, it is because something is screwed up in their operating system. If you are getting deplatformed as Alex Jones is, it probably has a lot to do with your own behaviors.
* Nothing is personal. If a left-winger said and did the things Alex Jones did, he’d be deplatformed too.
* If I were a right-wing activist, I’d jump on the side of Alex Jones and decry Big Tech censorship. This story would be fodder for my cause. I wouldn’t worry about the merits. The activist operates like a close-up in a movie — all intensity. Distance shots are emotionally distancing. When I am operating at my best, my natural inclination is to see things from the 10,000 foot perspective, to stay calm, to avoid feuds, and to avoid being a homer.
When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you are an activist, every big story looks like an opportunity to create activism.
I see Alex Jones as low IQ information and entertainment. I don’t see why social media should be forced to host him. I don’t want him banned from the internet. Let the free market market operate.
* If somebody wanted to make a video about dog poop, is Youtube compelled to host it?
Jones has repeatedly claimed the government staged the Oklahoma City bombing, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Sandy Hook shootings, and numerous other mass shootings and tragedies.
Mr. Jones is facing defamation lawsuits filed by the parents of victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting for claiming the shooting was an elaborate hoax. Most of Mr. Jones’s conspiracies push a theme that a global cabal of political and corporate leaders run the world’s institutions to brainwash citizens and take away their rights. Mr. Jones partly funds his operation by selling expensive nutritional supplements and vitamins between Infowars segments.
Some tech companies, including Facebook and Google, had appeared reluctant to remove Mr. Jones’s pages entirely and were instead taking action against specific videos or podcasts. YouTube, for instance, recently deleted four of Mr. Jones’s videos.
So why did Alex Jones bet banned today? I believe there is an explanation that has to do with something Jones said about Robert Mueller.
Jones set off a round of debate in recent weeks about whether Infowars should be granted carte blanche on big social media outlets when he addressed Russia investigation special counsel Robert Mueller on his show, imitated firing a gun, and said, “You’re going to get it, or I’m going to die trying.” (Facebook’s statement almost certainly is in response.)…
Supporters of the ban on Jones — including the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (Alex Jones has stated the tragedy never took place) — argue that the conspiracy theorist’s message constitutes a “societal crisis.” But his supporters, particularly those on the right, like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, believe that limiting Jones’s online reach is an affront to free speech.
Alex Jones’s media empire, explained
Alex Jones has been a leading voice in the conspiracy theorist corner of the internet for more than 20 years, spreading ideas such as “the government controls the weather” and “Hillary Clinton is a literal demon.” As my colleague Zack Beauchamp wrote in October 2016 on Jones’s views:
The US government is secretly controlled by a shadowy international cabal called the New World Order. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is going to put Americans in concentration camps. The “Jewish mafia” controls Uber and American health care. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literal demons — like, the kind that come from hell and smell like sulfur. … Jones and those like him believe the world has been secretly taken over by a secret global cabal, the so-called “New World Order.” These “globalists,” as Jones types derisively call them, want to take over the United States, which they see as the final stronghold of freedom on Earth.
He was also one of the biggest pushers of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which eventually led a gunman to enter a Washington, DC, pizzeria and fire several shots.
On July 24, Jones issued a threat aimed at Robert Mueller on The Alex Jones Show:
“That’s a demon I will take down, or I’ll die trying. So that’s it. It’s going to happen, we’re going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he’s going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it’s going to happen,” Jones said, miming a pistol with his hand. “It’s not a joke. It’s not a game. It’s the real world. Politically. You’re going to get it, or I’m going to die trying, bitch. Get ready. We’re going to bang heads. We’re going to bang heads.”
Jones is a Donald Trump supporter and promoter. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump appeared on Jones’s show, saying Jones’s “reputation was amazing,” and Jones has repeatedly bragged that he is in close contact with the president.
In a statement on the decision to remove Jones’s content from its site, Facebook said that the company was not doing so because Jones was a conspiracy theorist, but because he was “glorifying violence” and “using dehumanizing language” against minorities:
As a result of reports we received, last week, we removed four videos on four Facebook Pages for violating our hate speech and bullying policies. These pages were the Alex Jones Channel Page, the Alex Jones Page, the InfoWars Page and the Infowars Nightly News Page. In addition, one of the admins of these Pages – Alex Jones – was placed in a 30-day block for his role in posting violating content to these Pages.
Since then, more content from the same Pages has been reported to us — upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies… While much of the discussion around Infowars has been related to false news, which is a serious issue that we are working to address by demoting links marked wrong by fact checkers and suggesting additional content, none of the violations that spurred today’s removals were related to this.
More recently, Jones has been embroiled in a series of lawsuits filed by people about whom he has made repeated false assertions, like Marcel Fontaine: Infowars declared him to be the shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (despite the fact that Fontaine had never even visited the state of Florida). There’s also Leonard Pozner, the father of a Sandy Hook victim, Noah Pozner, whose family has endured endless harassment by followers of Jones who believe that Pozner’s son never existed.
Since the election The Gateway Pundit found from traffic analysis that Facebook has eliminated 93% of traffic to top conservative websites.
** Twitter is shadowbanning and censoring conservative lawmakers and conservative publishers.
** Wikipedia is controlled by far left editors who are regularly accused of liberal bias.
** YouTube is shutting down conservative pages and demonitizing several others.
Posted inAlt Lite, Alt Right, Conservatives, Journalism|Comments Off on TGP: ARE TECH GIANTS WORKING TOGETHER TO CENSOR CONSERVATIVES? — Apple, YouTube and Facebook BAN Infowars on Same Day
George Hawley explains why in Making Sense of the Alt-Right, his balanced, book-length examination of the Alt-Right: “There are only two people from the paleoconservative movement associated with the Alt-Right in any meaningful way. The first is Paul Gottfried…” (The second: the late Sam Francis.) Although I don’t classify myself as part of the Alt-Right, Hawley notes that my scholarly work certainly influenced many people on the Alt-Right—especially his [my] books and columns critiquing the conservative movement.”
I was also “something of a mentor to Richard Spencer, who coined the term ‘Alt-Right,’ and he [I] wrote articles for both Taki’s Magazine and Alternative Right,where the term was first popularized.”
George, to his credit, does dissociate me from some of the more unsavory positions attached to the Alt-Right. He points out that I am “not an anti-Semite,” which (apart from the fact that I am Jewish) is certainly true providing one accepts H.L. Mencken’s definition that “an anti-Semite is someone who dislikes Jews more than is absolutely necessary.”
George also correctly notes that I “reject white nationalism,” for all the good it’s done me in winning favor from the obsessively virtue-signaling members of Conservatism Inc.
My own relations with the Alt-Right took a noticeable plunge from about the time that the Left began smearing Donald Trump as the voice of the Alt-Right. That was also around the time that Richard Spencer began identifying his movement more explicitly with white nationalism. Then last year came the clash at Charlottesville. This brought news coverage that was less than objective. In its wake, I found that I had to protect myself against a Canadian celebrity who claimed in the National Post that I was the spiritual force behind a neo-Nazi riot. Never mind that said riot took place when well-armed “Anti-fascists” attacked right-wing demonstrators who had a legal right to assemble; and after the police failed to protect those who were exercising their legal right.
But while I have criticized the Alt-Right, it is utterly dishonest for Conservatism, Inc. to excoriate the Alt-Right as racist. Fox News is awash in black race hustlers, with whom its All-Stars engage in respectful dialogue. Why are white nationalists or white race realists off-limits? And why does Conservatism, Inc. not treat its Right-wing dissenters as indulgently as those who deviate from it from the Left, e.g. George Will, Goldberg himself and other Never-Trumpers?
Of course we know the answer: professional token conservatives prize good relations with the MSM, with which they exchange favors while proclaiming anti-racist respectability. It is no longer the French Left but Conservatism Inc. that favors the motto “no enemies to the Left.”
That said, I’ll make an exception for the “antifascist” rioters on American campuses who rage against neoconservative speakers just as they do against Richard Spencer. But these demonstrations have been a godsend for their targets and neocon sponsors. They have created media martyrs, who after their cancelled speeches can revel in the praise of their TV colleagues.[Ben Shapiro: Conservatives Under Attack on College Campuses, NRA.tv, October 25, 2017]
And let’s not be hard on the Alt-Right and its contending internet stars. Given the glaring imbalance of power between the current Left and any serious Right, even a cleaned-up version of the Alt-Right would not likely have access to the MSM—especially after Trump was elected and the Alt-Right was no longer useful to smear him.
In fact, I can’t imagine any movement to the right of Conservatism, Inc. that would do better than the Alt-Right leaders in achieving a national presence.
Of course, Neocons, West Coast Straussians and the GOP Establishment have predictably seized Trump’s presidency because they were the “conservative” powerbrokers when Trump became president. It was always likely that the Old Right, Alt-Right or Dissenting Right would be shouldered aside.
The question is whether this imbalance of power will survive. I suspect the current situation may not last. Growing racial tensions, reckless immigration and a further weakening of already-weakened social bonds could all help the Alt-Right expand its following.
Part of the Alt Right’s eventual success may come from its anti-traditionalism. The Alt-Right is mostly (but not entirely) anti-Christian and advances a Nietzschean or neo-pagan perspective. It is thereby in sync with the growing secularism of millennials.
And the Alt-Right doesn’t wear itself out trying to defend the traditional bourgeois family. It appears to be made up largely of young, unattached bloggers. Most of those Alt-Right publicists I read focus on racial conflict or the struggle between civilizations; and they push these themes far more frankly and with less careerist backtracking than the well-paid propagandists of Conservatism, Inc. They also cite telling statistics about racial and gender differences; and they pride themselves on their openness to science as well as on their sometimes vaguely defined “radical traditionalism.”
The Alt-Right belongs to a post-conservative Right. But the “conservatism” it rejects is not even recognizable as such. What the Alt-Right rejects is a bogus Right that misleadingly calls itself “conservative” but which in most ways is indistinguishable from the historic Left.
One signature Alt-Right position (and one that Hawley traces back to both Sam Francis and to me) is a willingness to mock Conservatism, Inc. for its servile kowtowing to minorities. Alt-Right publicists mock “conservatives” who call for dismantling Confederate monuments, promote the obligatory celebration of MLK as a “conservative” titan (after decades of conservatives calling King a philandering communist fellow-traveler) and advocate “moderate” as opposed to “radical feminism.”
Unlike Conservatism, Inc., the Alt-Right avoids mealy-mouthed celebrations of “legal immigration” and “diversity” when it opposes illegal immigration. Instead it demands an end to all immigration that is not compatible with what America was as a nation up until a few decades ago.
It is hard to miss the family resemblance between the Alt-Right and various European identitarian movements. Several years ago, when I attended a conference in Stockholm sponsored by Arktos Press, I noticed Swedish and French identitarian spokesmen cheek by jowl with their Alt-Right American counterparts.
A difference between the two groups, however, concerns their concept of the uncongenial “Other.” European identitarians are principally concerned with keeping out Muslims and limiting the influence of Cultural Marxists in their societies. The Alt-Right has a much stronger racial edge, which may reflect the peculiarities of the American past.
Still, on the racial front, one finds more variation in the Alt Right than the “fake media” might lead us to believe. Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire, among others who have influenced the Alt-Right, characterize themselves as “race realists” but reject the “white nationalist” label. Some younger Alt-Right bloggers like Mike Cernovich don’t seem particularly interested in race, except to whatever extent political and culture elites weaponize it against whites. Cernovich has famously trained his fire on the “deep state” and the evils of feminism.
Ultimately, the Alt-Right represents a long-delayed reaction to the landmark Great Society legislation passed by the US Congress in the mid-1960s. Alt-Right defenders are opposed to the long-range consequences of the Civil Rights Act, the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act and Voting Rights Acts.They condemn these actions as beginning a process of cultural, demographic and political radicalization. Presumably only a regime change, one that Trump has not yet brought about, can alter this trend.
The Conservative Establishment would never make peace with any serious Right, at least not one that offended the global corporate capitalists, Zionist casino-owners, and arms merchants who payroll our GOP think tanks.
But what this assumes is a continuation of the present moment. A sea change may still take place sooner or later, one in which our current political elites are swept away.
If this occurs, it will be a true populist revolt among American whites—not merely a new disguise for what Sam Francis aptly described as “the harmless persuasion.”
Posted inAlt Right, Paul Gottfried|Comments Off on Paul Gottfried: ‘Charlottesville After A Year—As An Outsider, I Think the Alt-Right Far from Finished’
On my latest appearance on Luke Ford’s YouTube livestream I made a few comments that referred to the way in which idiots like Richard Spencer allowed the Alt-Right to be subverted and destroyed by shills/ plants/ Nazitards/ morons (take your pick).
When you do such a thing, there is almost always immediate push back, with mysterious shitposters appearing, trying to distort, obfuscate, or rewrite the narrative, and of course make ad hominem attacks.
That’s because these are planned operations.
Anyway, I thought it would be a good idea to nail some of this down, so that it would be harder for sinister parties to try to backtrack and obfuscate on what actually happened to the once promising movement of the Alt-Right.
One of the points I made was that the (((Daily Stormer))) was clearly doing all in its power to create a situation by which the Alt-Right could be deplatformed and demonetized. Right now the (((Nazitard))) narrative is that Big Tech was always going to deplatform and demonetize the Alt-Right anyway, which fits in with their usual advice that you may as well be as 1488 as possible “because fuck it!”
This is a complete lie. Big Tech with its leftist culture had a soft commitment to free speech that they needed to be triggered out of. The actions of the Daily Stormer were consistent with attempting to create an excuse for Big Tech to remove Alt-Right content from the internet. Because America had a stronger cultural and constitutional commitment to free speech, whoever was directing this operation decided to attack Big Tech in Europe.
This was the correct tactical thing to do. Compared to the US, Europe is a welter of “hate speech” and “thought crime” laws. Banging on about “ovens” and “lampshades” in the US might well be ignored, but in Europe it simply can’t be. Also, all the Big Tech companies that operate in America have an equal exposure in Europe, and certainly don’t want to run the completely separate services that would be necessary to recognise the differences in free speech legality.
Several leaders of white supremacist groups have said during the last year, often via social media, that their followers should avoid such public events.
Michael Hill, who leads the Alabama-based pro-Confederate group League of the South, told his followers in a May podcast that they do not have “anything to gain” from another Charlottesville, a common sentiment on fringe message boards and chat networks.
Brad Griffin, a prominent blogger who has pushed for a “Jew-free, white ethnostate in North America” on his website Occidental Dissent, recently wrote that racists should be careful about showing up at public gatherings.
“I don’t believe we should engage with them at all anymore,” Griffin wrote last month of counter-demonstrators…
Instead of Charlottesville, organizer Jason Kessler plans to hold a “white civil rights” anniversary rally Aug. 12 in Washington across from the White House. The event will not be “about hating anybody,” but rather about supporting a race that “is becoming a minority in the United States,” he said.
Nevertheless, even some of those who agree with him have disassociated themselves.
“I have nothing to do with it, and I have nothing to do with Jason Kessler,” Richard Spencer, a white nationalist who marched with tiki torches on the University of Virginia campus last year, wrote in an email.
Spencer, who helped promote last year’s rally, shunned Kessler after he celebrated the violence. Spencer encouraged other racist groups to no longer follow him.
Facing growing protests and thinning crowds as he traveled the country, Spencer recently disbanded his college tour. Last month, white nationalist Christopher Cantwell was banned from entering the state of Virginia for five years after pleading guilty to assault for using pepper spray on a crowd last year on the University of Virginia campus.
Posted inAlt Right|Comments Off on LAT: ‘A year after Charlottesville, many white supremacists are keeping a lower profile’
”Words should convey ideas of truth and wonder,” says Fleur (whom we can be forgiven for thinking is Miss Spark’s alter ego); ”I see no reason to keep silent about my enjoyment of the sound of my own voice as I work.” Folly and weakness, guilt and sin, sadism and treachery, should be treated ”with a light and heartless hand. It seems to me a sort of hypocrisy for a writer to pretend to be undergoing tragic experiences when obviously one is sitting in relative comfort with a pen and paper.”
”Loitering with Intent” is Fleur’s memoir, written in the fullness of her days, ”of that small part of my life and all that happened in the middle of the twentieth century, those months of 1949-50.” Like her beloved Benvenuto Cellini, ”comically contradictory in his actions… boastful … about his work,” Fleur, drinking in bizarre events and terrible people, committing all to memory, ”by the grace of God, goes on her way rejoicing.”
When the novel opens, Fleur has no apparent reason for rejoicing: She has no job and no prospects and little money. She rents a dreary bed-sitting room from a swinish landlord and has appropriated unto herself a handsome, self-centered lover, Leslie, who is married to her friend Dottie – ”a Catholic, greatly addicted to the cult of the Virgin Mary about whose favors she fooled herself quite a bit, constantly betraying her quite good mind by simpering about Our Lady.” Fleur too is a Catholic, ”but not that sort at all. … If it was true, as Dottie always said, that I was taking terrible risks with my immortal soul, I would have been incapable of caution on those grounds. I had an art to practice and a life to live, and faith abounding … I’ve never held it right to create more difficulties in matters of religion than already exist.”
Dottie constantly confronts Fleur with the irregularity of their situation – ”tiresome of her. … I love (Leslie) off and on, when he doesn’t interfere with my poetry and so forth. In fact I’ve started a novel which requires a lot of poetic concentration, … So perhaps it will be more off than on with Leslie.”
What gives Fleur reason to rejoice is the working of her own imagination, her natural inclination to ”conceive everything poetically,” her ”need to know the utmost,” and her juicy conviction that she is an artist: ”When people say that nothing happens in their lives, I believe them. But you must understand that everything happens to an artist; time is always redeemed, nothing is lost and wonders never cease.”
While Fleur’s first novel is ”in larva,” she fortuitously gets a job as secretary to the Autobiographical Association, the cranky members of which meet under the roof and the supervision of Baronet Sir Quentin Oliver to compose their memoirs. The immense snobbery of Sir Quentin delights Fleur, who is ”always on the listen-in” for a turn of phrase that she can pick out of the wreckage of the moment. She is also aware of something sinister in Sir Quentin’s character, aware of the possibilities for blackmail inherent in an association of memoirists: Sir Quentin has in his keeping 10 unfinished autobiographical manuscripts, which he proposes to hold for 70 years, ”until all the living people mentioned therein shall be living no longer.”
Fleur suspects that Sir Quentin is up to no good. His motley crew alternates more and more between depression and hysteria. But the strangeness of the situation holds Fleur to it. What novelist could bear to leave the scene of a crime? As Fleur herself says, ”I have never known an artist who at some time in his life has not come into conflict with pure evil. … No artist has lived who has not experienced and then recognized something at first too incredibly evil to seem real, then so undoubtedly real as to be undoubtedly true.”
Although Fleur would not dream of reproducing people and situations photographically and literally, she is a ”magnet” for experiences she needs: ”Extraordinary how … characters and situations, images and phrases that I absolutely need for (my novel) appeared as if from nowhere into my range of perception.” This mysterious process, which Fleur calls ”artistic apprehension,” keeps her chugging along at the Autobiographical Association.
Posted inEngland, London|Comments Off on ‘Loitering With Intent’ by Muriel Spark
Sarah Jeong, the newest editorial board member of The New York Times, is also responsible for extensive anti-cop and anti-men tweets.
The New York Times stood by Jeong on Thursday after the internet surfaced her old racist tweets, however her full Twitter history reveals her ire was not only directed toward white people. (RELATED: NYTimes’ Newest Hire Sent Tons Of Anti-White Racist Tweets)
The NYT claimed that Jeong was “imitating” the behavior of people who harassed her online, but this does not explain why she was tweeting “fuck the police” and encouraging people to “kill all men.”
A search for “cops” and “police” on Jeong’s Twitter reveals an extensive history of anti-cop sentiment and a lack of sympathy for police who are injured on the job.
In one tweet from 2014 she wrote, “let me know when a cop gets killed by a rock or molotov cocktail or a stray shard of glass from a precious precious window.”
“Cops are assholes,” she said in 2015.
“If we’re talking big sweeping bans on shit that kills people, why don’t we ever ever ever ever talk about banning the police?” a tweet from 2016 asserts.
She also tweeted “fuck the police” on several occasions, including one with a gif of anime characters actually physically attacking a police officer.
In addition, Jeong repeatedly tweeted about killing men, and joked that, even if only “bad men” were killed, that would still include all men.
She tweeted in 2014, “kill more men,” and seemed to sadly state at one point, “I’m likely to actually kill zero men in my lifetime.”
White women were not spared from Jeong’s rage — during the 2016 election she eloquently tweeted “fuck white women lol.”
Posted inNew York Times|Comments Off on NYT’S SARAH JEONG ALSO SENT ANTI-COP, ANTI-MEN TWEETS
In January 1952, the U.S. Ambassador to India asked Capra to represent the U.S. film industry at an International Film Festival to be held in India. A State Department friend of Capra asked him and explained why his trip would be important:
“[Ambassador] Bowles thinks the Festival is a Communist shenanigan of some kind, but he doesn’t know what … Bowles has asked for you. “I want a free-wheeling guy to take care of our interest on his own. I want Capra. His name is big here, and I’ve heard he’s quick on his feet in an alley fight.”[42]
After two weeks in India, Capra discovered that Bowles’ fears were warranted, as many film sessions were used by Russian and Chinese representatives to give long political speeches. At a lunch with 15 Indian directors and producers, he stressed that “they must preserve freedom as artists, and that any government control would hinder that freedom. A totalitarian system – and they would become nothing but publicity men for the party in power.” Capra had a difficult time communicating this, however, as he noted in his diary:
“They all think some super-government or super-collection of individuals dictates all American pictures. Free enterprise is mystery to them. Somebody must control, either visible or invisible … Even intellectuals have no great understanding of liberty and freedom … Democracy is only a theory to them. They have no idea of service to others, of service to the poor. The poor are despised, in a sense.”
Posted inAmerica, India|Comments Off on Oriental Vs American Thinking
Is the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, Sarah Jeong, a racist?
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.
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.” Or: “White people have stopped breeding. you’ll all go extinct soon. that was my plan all along.” One simple rule I have about describing groups of human beings is that I try not to use a term that equates them with animals. Jeong apparently has no problem doing so. Speaking of animals, here’s another gem: “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.” Or you could describe an entire race as subhuman: “Are white people genetically disposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.” And then there’s this simple expression of the pleasure that comes with hatred: “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” I love that completely meretricious “old” to demean them still further. And that actual feeling: joy at cruelty!
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.
Posted inNew York Times|Comments Off on When Racism Is Fit to Print
* The basic context in Jeong’s mind is that she has to live on a planet on which most of the good stuff was invented by the ancestors of white people, which ticks her off no end.
* A remarkable fraction of today’s opinion journalism consists of blatantly self-interested promotion of racial and gender hate by non-white-men.
* I’m actually rather surprised that a graduate of Berkeley and Harvard Law School was this direct and crass about “dumbass fucking white people,” rather than wrapping it in pseudo-intellectual koanic fluff about “people who think they are white,” or “privilege,” or “the patriarchy.” I guess Twitter lets out the raw id in anybody, if they’re not careful.
Sarah’s partner:
* I think it’s funny how the New York Times does this, and then still pretends that Trump voters are crazy for thinking that the media is their enemy.
When they hire someone who explicitly says that they’re the enemy, it’s hard to believe that they’re genuinely mystified when people believe them.
* And what are you ppl gonna do about it? Complain on the internet?
The left can shame, deplatform and run their enemies out of jobs. How ’bout you?
* Why is no one talking about the direct corollary in the hiring and firing of white journalist Quinn Norton?
She had used the terms “fag” and “tard” on 4chan as part of her beat, most likely as suffixes, and certainly not with any prejudice or animosity. And she admitted being friends with Weev during his hacktivist days. For these alone she was fired the same day she was hired to the NYT editorial board.
No one is saying the name Quinn Norton but they should. Her “crimes” were far less egregious than Jeong’s and perfectly highlight the double standard, and the fact that the Times doesn’t actually care about free speech or second chances or any other phony cant. They are anti-white.
* What is even funnier in Sarah Jeong’s twitter contact history, is that she had some quite warm banter with Andrew Auernheimer aka Weev, the clever computer – hacker whiz, who co-runs Andrew Anglin’s ‘neo-Nazi’ Daily Stormer site …
Weev is the brilliant guy who kept the Stormer online for the last year, cycling thru a whole series of domain names whilst under continual savage seizures of url names and hosting platforms, using Tor and web-to-Tor links and other work-arounds for their millions of readers in the interim
Château Heartiste is speculating that Sarah Jeong is ‘Weev’s heartbroken waifu’ or at least wanted to bed him
Also interesting in this tangle is that this man Weev who co-runs the ‘neo-nazi’ Daily Stormer, is Jewish
Weev being Jewish, and co-running the world’s leading neo-nazi website (!), has led some to speculate that the Daily Stormer is actually intel-agency-run ‘controlled opposition’
Weev apparently used to do pro-Israel hasbara propaganda. Weev got sent to US prison on hacking charges, then released with a ‘surprising legal victory’, upon which the formerly pro-Tel-Aviv propagandist began helping to run the Stormer
Some say maybe the US & Israeli gov agencies set up the Stormer, in order to put anti-Zionist and race-spite material into such an extreme meme-cartoon form its effect is contained, plus the agencies get to track who is reading and commenting there
Obviously tho a lot of people read the Weev’s Stormer … Stories first seen there often show up some hours or a day later on finance news mega-site ZeroHedge
And Sarah Jeong is a fan of Weev!
* In fact, of all the people on Twitter I’ve seen defending Jeong — Helen Rosner, Jesse Singal, Matt Yglesias, Zack Beauchamp, and some guy not worth naming — every one of them has been Jewish. What’s up with that?
* Sarah Jeong is showing herself as a dumb SJW and nothing more. Her repulsive tweets make herself, her co-ethnics(incl. me), Berkeley, Harvard Law and now the NYTimes look bad. The excuse that she was somehow “provoked” into sending those tweets are just weak. With her educational background she should’ve shown more class and tact. Instead she simply showed what a classless racist lunatic she really is. I don’t know how anyone of any right mind could ever take her seriously.
* The great irony is she’s imitating white people in the colleges she attended.
Ivies are filled with anti-white Jews and ‘good white’ cucky-wucks who think they are so goody good cuz they attack other whites. So, Jeong’s anti-whiteness is really just imitation of Jewish anti-whiteness and white cucky-wuck self-hatred. But I’m sure she’s oppose to identity and nationhood of her own kind. She’s a globalist with red/green hair.
She imitates and follow the Narrative that says everything bad must be traced back to whites. It’s a game taught to kids from cradle. As long as whites allowed Jews to create a New Narrative and played cucky-wuck by hailing Diversity while attacking even the slightest vestige of white identity, people like Jeong will be dime-a-dozen.
I don’t think her anti-whiteness is grounded in envy of white achievement or any of that. If anything, Asians were far more backward vis-a-vis the White West than they are now. But they were more admiring because whites admired themselves back then.
Asians follow whites. If whites feel proud and admire their own civilization, Asians will follow. If whites hate whiteness, Asians will hate whiteness too. In essence, Jeong’s anti-whiteness obeys the logic of white self-hatred. After all, what chance would she have in the elite world if she said positive things about white civilization? Even whites at the top would shun her as ‘model minority uncle tom’ character. White masochists turned idiots like Jeong into dominatrix.
* We really need to appropriate anti-white rhetoric for our own ends. For example:
When goyim rail against Jews, that’s often shorthand for speaking out against the existing racial structure that serves to keep Jews in power. The jokes that goyim make at the expense of Jews are furthermore not supported by past and present state and corporate institutions. A Hebrew American telling a goy American to “go back to where you came from,” for instance, isn’t the same as an goy American saying the same to a Hebrew American, even if neither individual can claim ancestral roots as America’s first residents. To claim otherwise is to be blind to the history and social dynamics of this country.
* Anti-white is a better frame for conservatives than racist. Racist is overused and subject to competing definitions.
But denying Jeong’s repeated and explicit statements she hates white people are antiwhite is impossible. Antiwhite is also more specific and descriptive.
* These leftist academics – “decontextualized and ahistorified” indeed. It’s so simple a child can understand it. When you express hatred toward a group of people based simply on their race, it is, by definition, racist.
* So the Times and Jeong are on board for the ethnic cleansing of white people. They hired a known anti-white bigot, Jeong, and loosed that hydrophobe on the public. Yet they are the ones decrying Trump’s ‘the press is the enemy of the America people’ phrase as dangerous to journos.
* How ironic. This bug-eyed POS insults “old White men” at a time when DEAD YOUNG White men, who never got the chance to grow old, are having their remains brought back from South Korea, where they fought for this POS’s homeland, so she had a decent country of birth. Yet she is here in a Caucasian majority country.
Why not head on back to the RoK, Bug Eye?
And the funny thing is…….Caucasian people are probably the LEAST RAYSIS of all people in the world.
Asians? Have any of you been to Asia? They, along with Arab/Mohammedans, are probably the number one peoples when it comes to judging others by their ethnic heritage. Chinese, Japanese and Koreans lead the pack.
* One of the stupider things on twitter today (is that possible?) are the right wing (and other) commenters who are defending the Times for not “firing” Jeong — e.g., Ben Shapiro.
They are doing so on “principle” — the principle being that no one should ever be fired for tweets.
Truly this is mindless.
Are these commenters really going to argue that no set of tweets, no matter how vile, is sufficient to disqualify someone for a job, no matter how much that job may demand an appearance of freedom from bias?
It’s obvious to anyone but a fool that there are always going to be extremes which can’t be broached.
The tweets in question are not one-offs, but part of a large and recent pattern of vile and explicit bigotry. The job in question here is a position on the editorial board of the most influential newspaper in the country.
And one of the worst things about it is that the Times knew of those tweets in advance. This displays their open contempt for white people and men. They want us all to know that they just don’t care anymore to hide it.
* I think the point is to show you that the Rules don’t apply to them. They have the power, so they can destroy you, and then they can openly do the very thing they’ve destroyed you for with no consequence with only a ridiculous figleaf to explain why the situations are different (of course all parties know that the real reason is because they’re better than you). Begging them for consistency is an act of humiliation and debasement.
Where this eventually leads, I suppose, is reintroducing the Sarah Jeongs of the world to one of her people’s great inventions – gunpower.
* Look, we took in her family out of pity. Deeply humiliating to Koreans, who are very ethnocentric and more than a little resentful of whitey to begin with.
Then there are the generation(s) of Korean adoptees in America. Someone saw an opportunity for childless, race-blind whites in the West, because Koreans don’t adopt, not even other Koreans. Their orphanages could not place children with families in their own country, and (initially) were happy to have (white) Westerners take the problem off their hands.
But of course that’s problematic now, too. Quiet a few Korean adoptees reject the families that raised them. I knew a family with two Korean children; the daughter is loyal, the son moved back to Korea with inheritance from his ‘grandparents,’ and no longer speaks to the people who raised him at considerable expense in a wealthy part of Long Island.
Sarah J’s family came as immigrants, and you might expect some gratitude or appreciation for the people who offered her family a home, but you’d be wrong. The fact that she’s here because we felt sorry for her surely just adds to her rage.
Benjamin Franklin was right: “He that has done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another, than he whom you yourself have obliged.”
Her ingratitude is undignified, but there’s no pleasing some people, no matter how much you do for them.
* Glad you pointed out that those tweets are from 4 years ago – so she was 26 years old with a degree from Berkeley and in her last year at Harvard Law School (or had just graduated). Absent a traumatic brain injury, that makes her tweets even more outrageous. She’s supposedly a mature adult (at age 26) and in a highly elite class of educated woman. Yet she insisted on letting the world know through Twitter that she is more vapid, stupid, filthy and vile than any ghetto rapper. I wouldn’t hire her to clean toilets let alone write editorials.
* White “racists” are not permitted to offer excuses for what they say. They are instantly thrown overboard at the first sign of racism. They do not last a day. Sarah’s excuse would not fly. Saying it was a joke would not fly. Nothing would fly. Saying something racist for a white person is literally inexcusable. And no one will defend you, not even your friends on the “respectable right”. Anyone who defends you is himself a racist. You don’t want to be a racist, do you?
Somehow the same rules do not apply for Sarah.
The right should learn from this. Alinsky said to make the other side live up to their book of rules. They have now announced a new rule – it’s ok to say racist things if you were provoked. You get a free pass if you were provoked. Remember this rule the next time they try to throw a white person overboard because we are supposed to have one set of rules for everyone in this country.
* The doth-protest response from the NYT likely indicates there was no real vetting of Jeong’s Twitter history. At most, a cursory scan for expletives and slurs, with obvious red flags being ignored.
The NYT is conspicuously claiming they knew about her Tweets, because they are more concerned about being guilty of lazy fact-checking (“fake news”) than hiring a flagrant bigot.
* It would not surprise me if Jeong is quietly offered a severance in a few weeks and they mutually part ways. There will likely be some cover story about alt right online harassment causing her to leave. Or maybe she goes on some perpetual sabbatical.
The NYT has openly race bated before, but not in such an openly vitriolic and hostile way. They are probably looking for an exit, before it does long-lasting reputational damage or eventually leads to libelous reporting.
* One of the few things this boob evidently learned during her proximity to the establishment is that any critique of Jews, Zionists, Israel, or any prominent Jews is a career killer. If any such had been found this prog lassy would have been out on her butt faster than one could say “anti-Semite”.
* Like almost everyone, Anglin was caught off guard by what happened at Charlottesville. I think he thought it was a good idea at the time and wasn’t expecting the police to basically take the side of Antifa. Since then he has taken the (wise) position that our side can’t win in a street demonstration so that’s not the way to go.
I read the Stormer almost every day and Anglin has always been very careful about not allowing talk of violence or anything else that could lead to entrapment.
Anglin uses crass, immature humour and memes to get his point across. It may seem like a lark to you, but he’s been quite successful and I have no doubt that he’s completely sincere.
* I was having a conversation with a couple of boomers today and this was the top issue they brought up. They wanted to know if I had heard about the anti-white lady hired by the NY Times.
I think this is great. The more this stuff is out in the open, the better. We are in a race. Every day almost 3000 people are legally granted admission to the USA. A large quantity of those will eventually become citizens and vote in the near term for democrats. And they will have kids who will vote for the democrats in 18 years.
There are an enormous amount of whites still voting for the democrats. We need them to recognize what’s in store for them so that they will leave the democrats faster than the paper-work Americans can be added to the voting registry. And stuff like this will help.
If the other side were smart they’d be quiet. Time is on their side. But their hatred knows no bounds and they have already broken into their touchdown dances.
Trump needs to tweet about this gal and bring her up at the rallies from here until November.
* A good friend is an administrator at a very large public university. As part of their regular “Diversity and Inclusion” encounter sessions they’re required to certify that they do not have any racists among their acquaintance. That’s a step beyond what I knew. But it sort of makes sense–you can’t consort with the enemy. Their ideas might contaminate you, or confuse you, or just complicate things. Racism is like intellectual cooties. And that’s about the level upon which university administrators work.
Yeah, this person has to pretend not to know me, though I don’t particularly consider myself racist. I am connected to reality, though, and that’s generally enough to send these people over the edge.
* Debt of Gratitude Timeline of Sarah Jeong
S. Korean grandparents rescued from certain defeat by the North Korean army during the Korean war by the Americans, preventing them from generations of suffering under Communist oppression. Thanks White Men!
S. Korean family protected because S. Korea protected during Armistice from N. Korean army by the Americans. Thanks White Men!
S. Korean family gains dramatically in prosperity because of S. Korean nation building by Americans. Thanks White Men!
S. Korean family gains dramatically in prosperity because S. Korea brought from third world to first world by nation building efforts and adopting the technologies and practices created almost exclusively by White Men. Thanks White Men!
Parents travel to US on planes invented by White Men. Thanks White Men!
Parents shown tremendous generosity by being allowed to immigrate to the US, a land of great opportunity and prosperity. Thanks White Men!
Parents likely shown tremendous generosity in being given special minority-based benefits in setting up a small business or at hiring time that the ‘evil whites’ in the majority exclude themselves from. Thanks White Man!
Sarah Jeong receives tremendous generosity being provided a K-12 education largely paid for by the sweat of ‘evil white’ taxpayers. Thanks White Men!
Sarah Jeong and her family live in a society where the infrastructure, police, etc. are largely paid for by the sweat of ‘evil white’ taxpayers. Thanks White Men!
Being provided privileged opportunities to receive scholarships denied to the ‘evil white’ majority as well as being permitted to even attend elite Universities in the US. Thanks White Men!
Received first real world opportunity to write by a helping hand from a white man, Parker Higgins. Thanks White Man!
Having the opportunity to screw white guys instead of an Asian guy by virtue of being allowed to live in the US. Thanks White Men!
Being offered the opportunity to serve at one of the most prestigious newspapers in the US, created by whites, carried through its entire existence by whites. Thanks White Men!
Given a free pass for Hitleriffic personal views by same newspaper by virtue of being an Asian female and a leftist. Thanks White Men!
* Not just the editors at the New York Times, but all kinds of people in media, in academia, in lobbying groups and deep inside the state right now are doing the equivalent of what Richard Feynman called “tickling the tail of a sleeping dragon.”
If they are not careful, or even if they are, they might just go too far. They might push a critical mass of their victims together and cause a chain reaction that would result in more than just protests.
They might end up like Louis Slotin.
* Why hasn’t it occurred to anyone to hold a protest outside the New York Times building because of this? We should be doing it whenever the Times pulls crap like this.
Occupy the New York Times. Occupy the Washington Post. Occupy CNN. They deserve it.
* She is a hater and the pictures don’t come close to her deep ugliness. A Korean-American with a white dorky boyfriend named Nimbus (really), she made her name at Harvard as an uncontrollable ‘progressive’ fanatic and that played well with Harvard professors.
Among her personal achievements was the time she had a feud with her roommate (also a Korean) and bought a small beeping device to put in his mattress to keep him from sleeping. A true unhinged hater, those tweets are how she thinks, that’s how she talks. NY Times might come to regret associating with her. Or maybe they know and she is the kind of a cadre they think will be needed in the coming escalated ‘resistance’. I think Nimbus left her.
* This vile woman or her forebears came to this country designed and built by whites and all she has to offer in return is contempt and vitriol for the very people whose labors she enjoys today. I see a similar attitude in many Indians.
* It’s occurred to everyone, I daresay, but the Establishment–from the Police to the Court System to the Google Face Recognition Software–is on the other side. They and their footsoldiers can commit any crime they like and their MSM and ‘justice system’ will cover for them. We, on the other hand, will lose our jobs, and likely end up in jail, disowned by our loved ones after they read (more likely watch) the MSM version of events. And unlike the so-called “Antifa” we’re not permitted to wear masks.
* Paula Deen was fired for using a slur referring to a guy who held a gun to her head.
* I copied Ms. Joeng’s tweets but replaced the word “white” with “Jew” on posted them on Twitter. Took about an hour but they gave me a timeout.
* On July 6, all the remaining rioters arrested at Trump’s inauguration had their charges dropped. Washington DC juries refused to convict those brought to trial. Those who protest on our side cannot expect this kind of leniency.
* Whenever they spew this ridiculous guano about how its “impossible to be racist against white people” we must respond with something better than nuh-uh.
“Stop unpersoning me.”
It’s a good word to use, and we should define it in moral terms as far worse than mere racism.
They redefined the meaning of racism to fit their schemes, and “language is dynamic.” Ok, fine. You arent racist. You are unpersoning and that is far worse. It means you can do anything to the unpersoned, even kill them. Which is clearly the goal, or why do it? Unpersoners are murderers. Treat them accordingly.
* It’s getting hard to keep up: racism is “systemic;” racism only happens when punching down; racism is “intersectional.” The complexities and penumbrae of “racism” keep subdividing, all to justify the Left’s core belief: white people are racist by virtue of existing, and non-whites can never be racist. Hence, “racism” isn’t a substantive concept. It’s a fluid, rhetorical device to beat people over the head with. We need to stop caring about this term, “racism.”
I welcome the NY Times’ hire of anti-white shrew Sarah Jeong. I hope they and other major media organs hire more like her. It’s clarifying.
* First, who exactly is Sarah Jeong? Why is she being given a job on the editorial page of the newspaper of record in the US? Her CV seems to be pretty damned thin for that posting. She’s all of 30 years old and has not done much more than start some on-line, jumped-up blog about “wry takes on intellectual property issues.”
She was touted by Forbes as one of the “30 under 30″ in media, but based on what? Her blog lasted about a year in toto, and then she took up as a “contributing editor” to another virtual rag (“Motherboard” – whose ever heard of that?) She was the editor at Harvard Law of a pub called “The Journal of Law and Gender.” How influential is that, exactly? Beyond the obvious?
Writing is a matter of taste, of course, but when this “story” broke, I looked at a couple of her pieces, and to call them “wry,” what Forbes actually means is the typical smirking, too-earnest attempt to be ironic rubbish filled with words like “shit posting.” She’s not even too clever by half.
She’s not a writer. She has not real life experience. She’s all of 30. So she is given a job on one of the historically most significant editorial boards in the world. Based on nothing.
Second, and more to the point, while I “get” the argument about power, and punching up vs. punching down, and the idea of power dynamics in a majority white country, the whole thing seems to be pretty inapt here.
Defenders (like Rosenberg and Logan here, or Inka Koo in the other) would have you believe that it’s ridiculous to compare Jeong’s plainly anti-White tweets and the comments that “trolls” made to her on line because, well, Jeong is a helpless, powerless minority.
But let’s look at the facts here.
We have someone with the power of the megaphone, who has an cirtual platform (and now, with the NYT, a real one) to reach millions of people. She has, by her position, one would think, access to the powerful and the influential.
She can write or tweet or go on the radio and say things that have a ring of institutional “truth” behind them because she works for the powerful. As Steve would say, people like her who in the 19060s talked of sticking it to “the man” today are “the man.”
Yet we are made to believe that the real “powerful” person in this discussion is not Sarah Jeong, with her Harvard and Berkeley diplomas, her access to the corridors of power, and her megaphone. No. It’s some guy sitting in his basement trolling her with racist comments.
That is insane, sorry.
There is a power imbalance here, but it ain’t the one that Koo or Rosenberg imply.
Posted inHollywood, New York Times|Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Why Sarah Jeong’s Racist Hatred Is A-OK with the NYT
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
