Counter-Currents
Anti-white scum bag, Sarah Jeong. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
2,099 words
“I don’t have a place in your world,” said a Leftist with whom I used to have rather open discussions. “And you don’t have a place in mine,” she added. By talking with me she was leaving open the possibility that I might change my mind on White Nationalism; that the reasonable, generally amicable, and cosmopolitan disposition I displayed ultimately could not be reconciled with the desire for a homogeneous white state. I thought about this statement later and considered the fact that the two most infuriated sides of our culture war feel that a) “the system” is against “us,” and that b) in order to avoid being oppressed, we have to win over the entire culture.
To how many Leftist types does it occur that, in order for them to achieve the social progress they desire, they do not have to win over the entire United States, Anglosphere, or European-derived world? Could they not just separate themselves and go enjoy their freedoms without risking a backlash by imposing their views on suburban and rural America? We know they couldn’t, because we on the Right can acknowledge an essential feature of their minds that they have to suppress: They are in it for the transgressive nature of the struggle. They will continuously provoke white America until they lose everything they think they have gained, because ultimately they are a by-product of our culture’s decline more than they are consciously or insidiously changing it.
For this reason, I have to thank the New York Times editorial board for their most recent hire. Sarah Jeong is quite useful to White Nationalism as a representation of the Times’ values. The fact that numerous articles now defend their decision is also a big help in eliminating any doubt about just how brazen this double-standard regarding whites is. Just about everybody will have seen her old tweets by now, in which she resentfully mocks white people as a group.
Foremost among the articles defending the decision is at Vox, for which Jeong currently writes. The author, Zack Beauchamp, quotes a tweet of his to which two other writers, David French of the National Review and Andrew Sullivan of New York Magazine, later responded.
A lot of people on the internet today confusing the expressive way anti-racists and minorities talk about “white people” with actual race-based hatred, for some unfathomable reason
— Zack Beauchamp (@zackbeauchamp) August 2, 2018
The tribal nature of the human species is probably perfectly fathomable to Beauchamp, so one can gather that he meant to send an implied eye-roll to those who fail to recognize it. He first quotes Sullivan (quoted in part here):
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?)
We can all agree that the word “expressive” was poorly chosen. The black-pilled sense that America is going to keep getting more “expressive” is why half the country likes Trump and hates the New York Times, after all.
One can get a glimpse into how some Jews would react if Leftists started going after them in James Kirchick’s Commentary article from November, in which he describes Jews as being caught between the wrath of anti-Zionists and that of the Alt Right (in a kind of un-kosher sandwich). It is only natural that they react angrily to the expressive way the Right names the Jew.
The basic thrust of both Sullivan and French’s argument is that if you subbed in any group other than “white people” for what Jeong wrote, then it would be obviously offensive. “#cancelblackpeople probably wouldn’t fly at the New York Times, would it?” Sullivan asks, rhetorically.
The only reason lefties aren’t offended by this obvious race-based hatred, the argument goes, is that they see the world entirely through the lens of power. Since whites as a class have it, minorities by definition cannot harbor racist attitudes toward them.
Substituting another race for “white” would not just be offensive, it would be satirical and funny in the way only the feeling of punching up can. Those pushing back against The New York Times are fighting the status quo, not expressing their dominance in the culture.
The crux of the whole argument is the willful blindness of people like Beauchamp, in which non-whites never have power and whites always do. I have met enough disgusted and outraged South Africans (including a flamboyant gay man, as well as a blue-haired lesbian) to know that sometimes whites do not, in fact, hold power in their country. In this view of the world, the intent of a group of people ought to inform the way we interpret their statements, no matter how vitriolic. Jeong’s tweets can be described as resentful, if one is being charitable.
Eliminationist language, in the way it’s used by scholars of genocide and racial oppression, is used as justification for concrete actions – the Holocaust is the textbook example, and the Rwandan genocide is another clear one. But the very idea that Sarah Jeong’s tweets reveal her desire to set up concentration camps for whites is laughable.
Again, the intent is supposed to matter here, as if the entire fight for equality by non-whites, feminists, homosexuals, and transsexuals is going to stop when they are finally accepted as full members of society and given sufficient access to all previously white institutions. To borrow from Heartiste, you have to look at someone’s revealed preferences to know what they are after. They might not even know themselves. Non-whites like Jeong do not have to intend anything consciously pernicious for people to naturally react against it – and to feel that a newspaper like The New York Times no longer merits the authority given to it in decades past.
Jeong’s tweets, in context, clearly fit this type of rhetoric. When she writes “dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,” she is not, as Sullivan accuses her of doing, “equat[ing whites] with animals.” Rather, she is commenting on the ubiquity of (often uniformed) white opinion on social media – a way of pointing out how nonwhite voices often don’t appear or get drowned out in social media discourse.
It does not matter on what she was commenting if enough white, non-Leftist eyeballs find that statement. It is like when Leftists shared that Guardian article asking why people from Western and European countries are expats while everyone else is an immigrant: because a people will seek to express themselves and seek a consensus within their language. English is ultimately the language of the English, and a certain Englishness is conferred upon those who adopt it. Whites are trained to think that Jeong’s tweets are racist, when in fact she is merely added her voice to a tradition of anti-white resentment. The distinction between “racism” and being anti-white may appear subtle or meaningless to some (a Tucker Carlson or Steve Bannon might use both to describe the same thing). But “racism” is simply when one group harms or excludes another, and for many college-miseducated whites, there is no reverse. To be anti-white is to join the coalition of the bungled and the botched in rebelling against what is beautiful and normal.
Beauchamp goes on to compare the way Jeong uses the term “white people” to the way feminists use the term “men,” suggesting that feminists “won this argument,” as will minorities and their allies. This is another case of blindness on his part. The fact that so many men actually refuse to accept feminists who criticize general male behavior is evident in social media arguments wherever the topic arises. That such men can be so easily soothed with the statement “not all men” is merely evidence that the Saxon needs a little galvanizing before he starts hating in earnest. But we know that just as there are ultimately no sincere male feminists on the face of the Earth, whites either fit into the coalition of spite, or will oppose it when pushed far enough. What the Right must do is make sure we capitalize on Leftist mistakes like these before our numbers dwindle irreversibly.
Both French and Sullivan basically make the obvious point that Jeong’s tweets were anti-white. What is interesting is that neither of them claims to want her fired. French even says:
The Times is standing by its hire. Good. It’s time to end termination-by-Twitter and debate bad ideas head-on. (As for whether the Times and other elite outlets will display the same fortitude when a conservative is the target of online outrage, I’ll believe it when I see it.)
This is the principled stance we all know and love. He actually makes an astute point later:
Moreover, it is simply false to excuse anti-white racism on the grounds that people of color lack power. There are certainly many millions of vulnerable and marginalized individuals in this nation, and they are disproportionately (though not entirely) black and brown. But when anti-white sentiment is embedded in the New York Times editorial board, it’s no longer “powerless” in any meaningful sense. Similarly, when it reaches the heights of government, the academy, or the bestseller lists, it’s no longer remotely “powerless.”
French disappoints immediately afterward:
None of this should be taken as an argument that power doesn’t matter. Of course it does. Power matters. And so does purpose. That’s why no one should compare Jeong’s comments to the racism you see on Stormfront or to the racism we saw on display in Charlottesville last year. Racism married to violence or violent intent is categorically different from the anti-white racism you see in certain quarters of the elite identity-politics Left.
Predictably, racism is bad no matter who is doing it. Fine, we knew that was what National Review would say. But by saying that White Nationalism and anti-whiteness are categorically different, French’s point is amply dealt with by the Vox piece:
The threat of anti-white racism (except in rare cases) isn’t violence. It’s not systematic oppression. There’s no realistic scenario where “the tables are turned” and black Americans visit on white Americans a reverse version of the worst aspects of American history. The problem with anti-white racism is that it runs directly counter to efforts to unify in spite of that history.
Poor French here just wants us to unify in spite of our differences. Civic nationalists probably agree. Beauchamp correctly counters that the “reasons [for] a power differential” are what is important, though leaves out the fact that whites built the United States and made it such an attractive destination for people like Jeong in the first place. Also, possibly the most naïve opinion expressed in all of these articles is the assertion that blacks would never take revenge on whites for real and imagined slights. Every race, nation, ethnicity, and religion seeks power, and every instinct and mental faculty we possess is a means for power to show itself through us.
I have left Beauchamp’s response to Sullivan’s tweet for last:
The sentence “white people run America” may use most of the same words as “Jews run America,” but the former is mostly true while the latter is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
Yes, mean-spirited racists believe a priori that “Jews run America,” irrespective of the facts. Just like I want to ask liberals at what point they think anti-whiteness goes too far, I also want to ask them: At what point could you say that white people don’t run America? At what point could one accurately say that Jews do? I guess that to propose such a survey just represents my ignorance of that ever-crucial context – a euphemism which divides the American population into the opposing sides of the emerging Cold Civil War.
I look forward to the day in the not-too-distant future when media outlets realize the fact that white America always cared more about race than it did about low taxes and small government. That it always cared about the safety and destiny of its children more than infinite inclusion and tolerance of others. That it was always ready to get angry at those it felt did not belong. That our willingness to concede cultural, social, and economic ground was always contingent on the reassurance that this land was our land. We might one day even read such perspectives honestly elaborated by those working at Vox, Verge, NRO, and even the scum from The New York Times.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
16 comments
This is a God-send for our side in terms of waking up fence-sitters and normies. Did you see the Twitter comments to the New York Times hit-piece on Corey Stewart this weekend? A majority of them basically asked how The Times can square calling Stewart a racist when they just hired Jeong.
This is all very welcome news: as if Dylan Roof had been honorably memorialized rather than castigated as he was across the elements of right wing media (such as it is). Recognizing this as the welcome development that it is may be a good litmus test for generally sound political intuition. I was eagerly hoping that the NYT would stick by its decision to hire, and hope things do not change in months going forward.
When liberal media give into voices like David French and Andrew Sullivan, the inevitable consequence is the hiring of pseudoconservatives like Brett Stephens (whose only bona fides are some form of unintelligent climate change denial — nothing more than reaching the right conclusion for the wrong reasons — and an insatiable appetite to invade forlorn countries with the children of others). In a recent piece — “Only Mass Deportation Can Save America” (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/only-mass-deportation-can-save-america.html) — he strains unsuccessfully to make sound ironic his genuine belief that White Americans be deported and replaced with eager and ambitious immigrants that look nothing like them. Brett looks well put together and can pretend to defend western civilization whereas Sarah Jeong is too hideous and her ideas too inchoate to convince anyone but the already converted, and she is therefore a welcome addition to the editorial board that until recently has at least been intelligent about the manner in which it signposts its desire for degeneracy and decay across the West.
Sarah Jeong’s outward appearance is as repulsive as her inward psychology is repulsive, and this is worth noting: that the Left has so embraced the idea that there is no such thing as beauty, intelligence, character and virtue that it is left unable to recognize the difficulty it will have achieving its goals without any pretense of support from the beautiful, intelligent, strong, and virtuous. When Zach Beauchamp says that Sarah Jeong is an intelligent thinker, people should take him at his word: and his word as evidence that he is completely incapable of recognizing the very artifice originally necessary to give his ideology the apparent credibility that it today has. In fact, it is everywhere and always a debit to good thinking people when their enemies embrace the ugly, mean, weak, and unintelligent. It would be as if right wing nationalists rallied behind mentally-unfit clowns in Klan suits and genuine exterminationists rather than thoughtful and virtuous men that can ultimately bring forth the ethic necessary to overcome the false and unjust.
The only people who have anything to loose from developments like these are brown people in America, such as myself, who would never associate with the leftist abominations the mainstream media presents as reasonable ambassadors thereof. Ultimately, though, the very fact that Sarah Jeong was so easily hired — that too, publicly defended by officially elected politicians! — makes it clear that whatever form of civic nationalism that was once possible between honorable guests and their honorable hosts should no longer be the goal of those who ultimately care about nothing more than cosmic justice.
An unfortunate result of white self hatred is that scores of Indians, Asians, and other brown people in North America are from the time they arrive on these shores not only taught that this land is justly theirs — just deserts from the fruit of their forefathers’ imaginary oppression – and that they should rightly hate those who made it possible. It is worse! We notice that the elites of the lands in which our parents arrive generally despise their kin, and who would rather replicate the homophobe in Alabama as opposed to the billionaire seeming masters of the universe that graduate from elite universities the admission to which we so crave?
Sarah Jeong is an emblem of everything virtuous people of any race strive not to become: verbally indecent, emotionally barren, and aesthetically disgusting. The more the left chases after the decrepit, the less capable it will be of attracting people who inspire those around them with grace and genius; and ultimately such people are the only ones necessary to bring about anything worthwhile. This, by the way, is a good reason to admire and love the various Christian preachers who truly do love the world and their communities even if their politics and mindset necessarily prevents them from any real affiliation with the right wing. I have been around these people, and by the virtue of nothing more than the lightness of their being and the extent of their compassion, I feel compelled to a certain liberal and egalitarian ethic (checked, in time, by my analysis of the facts that stand contrary to any practical implementation of these sentiments). Yet that is something to wonder at and treasure, not scoff, chide, and throwaway.
Unlike Sarah, there are indeed people on the left who lift the spirits of those around them and just by existing as they are they become evidence for the values they espouse. They are rare, but unlike Sarah Jeong worth analyzing and admiring. In any case they aren’t found anywhere within two degrees of respect for the New York Times.
One take I heard the other day is that Asians are social climbers, and Sarah Jeong is merely an example of someone who has come to the opinions she needs to have in order to achieve status. There is certainly something virtuous about fighting for representation and wealth among non-whites…if you identify as one of them.
I imagine the best time to be a person of color in terms of quality of life is right now, or maybe during the 90’s and 00’s. But blacks and Latinos will demand to live where they feel comfortable, and will vote and organize accordingly. POC are in the unenviable position of having to choose between siding with pro-white policies that will improve the society and economy on the one hand, and racial solidarity on the other. I suspect (and have witnessed) that this forces a kind of cognitive dissonance wherein the perceived aggressor is resented all the more intensely. White Nationalists do this far too often with regard to Jews, in my opinion. One of the South Africans I mentioned even said to me that the problem is how easily Africans can be goaded into retributive violence.
In the end I don’t hate people like Jeong or her colleagues. I’m sure if I met her or the writers defending her we could have a cordial discussion on all sorts of things. But what will they accomplish in their lives, really? Intra-white conflict about the nature of justice and patriotism is the tornado in which just about everyone else is caught.
Many of these people are like children who behave poorly and have bad manners because their parents never gave them a time out or a slap on the wrist when they were acting out as kids. It is hard to blame them for not being naturally endowed with the capacity to see the truth when some whites [usually their friends] tell them that other whites [usually far away in time and place] are evil. Sarah Jeong is a different story; she genuinely seems ill in some important respect, which is all the more reason her continued employment is a rare boon to people who want to expose the left for what it is. (In reality, it could be worse than Sarah, in the sense that she is as honest as one could be about her declaration of war on the white people; it is something else to wage a war under the pretenses of love and peace).
I once read a piece in the Huffington Post — or maybe it was Vogue — written by an 18-yo Indian girl complaining about “colorism” in America, sharing the anecdote that someone once told her that “she is pretty for a dark girl”. I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone in America ever said this: that simply isn’t the way white people think or talk; the ones that do would never say she is pretty to begin with. On the other hand, it’s entirely believable a family friend back in India could have said something like this. The point is that this girl grew up in Texas and fell into a group of friends and reading habits that taught her to hate, taught her to become a victim, and then treat everything every random event in the world under the least charitable and most conspiratorial lens. Certainly many White Nationalists can end up doing this same — in fact, in perhaps in the conclusions they would draw from reading the article in question — but they would be vastly more justified in their frustration for reasons known to all reading this comment.
Separately, my guess is that the 1990s and early-2000s were the best time to be an Indian immigrant to America: the case of Asians is different because they were here before 1965, sustain much higher intermarriage rates, and have a different assimilation profile: it is typical for parents of Hindu youth to enroll them in various religious classes hosted by local leaders, and they frequently return to India to visit their family with whom they maintain connections. Indian-Americans deported to India would have a much easier time making that their new home than Japanese- or Filipino-Americans in a similar situation. This was before the fever pitch of anti-white sentiment that plagues conversation today, and I think most white people — being the friendly and curious people that they are; and I speak from experience growing up in the heartland midwest, not the coasts — had either nice things or nothing to say about the Asians that they knew. There was also some vague sense of civic nationalism that seemed possible: for example, a July 4 family ritual that seems almost quaint today was to listen to the NPR rendition of the Declaration of Independence [which, despite the political flaws of its host, is — or at least was — quite good].
I don’t think Asians as a rule feel much hyphenated solidarity and when Indians do it is either with respect to events in their original country or in terms of contribution to their own ethnic, linguistic, and religious community more than political organization in their favor. This is somewhat confounded by the immigration lobby, but that is actually more the province of IT companies by Indian nationals than emigre citizens who as far as I can tell usually have a practiced disdain for politics. There is also the trouble that it is somehow difficult to complain about much anything when you are the richest ethnic group in the country. (Of Hindu-Americans, 65 percent voted for Trump according to the best data I’ve seen; which is a shift from both the Obama elections. The Indian-American demo, by polls, was much more Left-leaning but you have to adjust for the likelihood pollsters capture Bangladeshis / Pakistanis under the banner of Indian; as well as that fewer than 2/3 of Indian-Americans are Hindu). ‘
There is also something to be said about the sentiment that “when you’re talking about whites, it’s not racist”. (Not to say that it isn’t evil in some other way). It’s not as if any white person read Sarah Jeong and felt emotionally hurt — the only available reactions are pity, disdain, and scorn; indignation; or a reinvigorated hate for white people other than yourself.
To be fair, I think the same is true in the other direction too. The only thing is insults hurt more when they are true. The classical white racist — the sort caricatured by the NYT — are wrong because what they say might be substantially true. The anti-white “racist” — the sort elevated by the NYT — are wrong because what they say is almost never true.
(Naturally I am speaking of the etymological racist who insults the weak, rather than anyone who does their best to discuss their observations about these subjects with honesty and civility).
One gets the impression that today’s New York Times is like the Pravda of Soviet times, informing the nomenklatura of the latest in the Party Line.
The destruction of our traditional culture was deliberately undertaken at the behest of economic interests and hostility to white people. Monocultural China, 94% Han Chinese, watches with amazement and delight as we go about our own destruction.
Racism has been the default attitude of 99% of humanity over 99% of human existence; had it not been so, Homo sapiens would have mongrelized themselves out of distinctive existence by congressing with other hominids lacking the potential to undergo the cognitive revolution that separates some sapiens from others.
It is disheartening to find educated Aryans wishing to disavow racism when racism is required for our survival. It is only because our white forebears were reflexively racist that Western Civilization, to the extent that it still exists, exists.
This is the correct way to approach this, compared to some other reactions I saw from the the Right. From out POV, anything of this sort is eminently welcome. Bless their arrogance…
What’s even more interesting is absent these tweets she’s still just Ivy-League Korean Zoe Quinn.
Her ‘book’, ‘The Internet of Garbage’ is an anti-Gamergate style plea to censor the internet and set up establishment gatekeepers to keep people from disagreeing with her online. It’s only about 70 pages long and is ironically enough itself garbage. Yet it got her speaking opportunities and made her a ‘tech expert’.
What makes her an ideal head ‘Technology Reporter’ and editorial boarder member for the NYT is that this 30 year old with no prior interest in journalism or technology is an SJW Twitter sperg averaging 100 Tweets a day. That’s where her ‘technology’ expertise comes from! A woman suffering from severe BPD who spends all day obsessing over goons on the internet!
There’s one way to deal with NYT and other mainstream media: don’t buy their product, don’t read their articles, don’t support them. Boycott is the only efficient solution. The alt-right needs to create their own media and we should support them with our money. Imagine if counter-currents or AmRen(two sites that i read) could make million or even billions dollars as a revenue from subscribers. I believe that different white nationalist groups should join forces and create a new platform that will be supported by a huge number of subscribers. Guys like Greg Johnson and Jared Taylor have the skills, the ability and the talent to create quality content, but they don’t have enough money for bigger projects with more influence to the society.
(Sorry for my bad English)
Greetings from Greece!
Your point is excellent, Striker. And it’s a vital one. We need to use our money as a weapon. as much as we can. The Left does this very effectively, and constantly. And I don’t think we’ll get very far until we create various kinds of parallel institutions: schools, colleges, churches, publishers, etc. As you suggest, there’s a lot of talent amongst Alt-Righters which can be used in alternative media and other parallel institutions. It would help a lot if people who already have mega-bucks would get the ball rolling, but unfortunately those people tend to donate their money to very cucked causes. So right now it seems to be up to those of us of more modest means, to help get parallel institutions going.
We also need to somehow create good mutual assistance organizations. When people get doxxed, crowdfunding can help, but it doesn’t solve everything. We need to build networks like the Committees of Correspondence, which the Americans colonists developed in the years before the Revolution broke out. And before government welfare programs took off, Americans helped each other a lot through various fraternal and religious organizations. The American countryside is still covered with empty, run-down buildings which used to house such groups, and which were once thriving parts of their local communities.
I find the word “scum” unnecessary in the title of this piece. Not that it lacks precision, but CC readers can certainly draw their own conclusions. Let’s call it a rhetorical low point.
However, I predict the scumbag in question will not merit sustained attention. The scumbags who hired her — and the whole legacy media and Big Data — are in a bad way these days, the least of their problems being an utter and complete lack of imagination.
I think she’s seen (mistakenly) as a draw for millennial clicks. The adjective they would use is “relevant.”
But, hold the phone — has no one predicted this? While she’s not of the ownership tribe, and thus expendably un-chosen, for the amazingly low, low cost of a lone-wolf white-supremacist patsy (“manifesto” in progress), she can be martyred, providing 1.) a spike in megaphonic ad revenue, 2.) a deflection of attention away from the caustic embarrassment of the moment, as well as 3.) a much needed cause célèbre to a flailing left. It’s Win-Win-Win!
Then she will remembered fondly, with private smiles, knowing looks, behind closed super-secure doors, as Sarah Ka-CHING.
The last line is borrowed from Paddy Tarleton’s song “Scum from the New York Times”, which looks to have largely disappeared from the internet. It just seemed to fit, though I do kind of agree that it’s unnecessary to appear to react angrily in a case like this.
I see. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek in my critique of the title.
To put it more simply, I think reacting to her with pointed bellicosity is taking the bait.
She is going to prove useful, though. Jeong is the NYT’s click-provocateur, and no doubt a real bargain. Hence we can (hopefully) expect more of the same from all of Official Media. They tend to double down on failure.
I hadn’t heard that one. Do you know if it’s still available anywhere?
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment