“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.