The Communist Conspiracy to Destroy America Was Real, and Continues

Posted on | August 4, 2018 | 1 Comment

“The weaknesses of the capitalistic world which we can use are its insuperable antagonisms — antagonisms which dominate the whole international situation.”
— Josef Stalin

Alan Stang, who died in 2009, was a journalist and public speaker who became associated with the John Birch Society. In 1965, Stang published a book entitled It’s Very Simple: The True Story Of Civil Rights.

About 25 years ago, in a used bookstore, I picked up a copy of It’s Very Simple for 50 cents and was struck by its argument — supported by extensive documentation — that the civil-rights movement in the United States was part of the Communist conspiracy to destroy America. Now, I suppose that any educated young person reading Stang’s old book today would dismiss it as “racist,” and laugh at the idea of a Communist conspiracy, even while the same young person would give credence to the idea that Russia “hacked” the 2016 election. However, I would urge such a reader to purchase Stang’s book (used copies are available for as little as $7 on Amazon) and examine the arguments and evidence he offers.

It’s Very Simple makes two basic points:

That racial conflicts in the United States were unnecessary, but were being incited to divide and weaken the country;
and
This subversive activity was being fomented and exploited by agents of the Soviet Union as part of a larger international strategy for worldwide Communist domination.

Crazy? Yeah, almost as crazy as thinking a handful of GRU agents could have decisively influenced the presidential election.

We have abundant proof, of course, that Communists (e.g., Alger Hiss) were actively engaged in a conspiracy to subvert the U.S. government, and we know that during the Cold War, America was targeted by Soviet propaganda and disinformation operations. It is also a fact of history that Communists were active in the civil-rights movement; J. Edgar Hoover didn’t just invent Stanley Levison and Jack O’Dell.

All of this, however, is preamble to my point that Communism did not cease to exist as an idea when the Soviet Union collapsed. Communism, in one form or another, is promoted on American university campuses, by left-wing media organizations, and by Democrat politicians. And what is nowadays called “identity politics” is a legacy of Cold War-era Soviet strategy of exacerbating the “weaknesses” and “antagonisms” which Stalin saw as the means of fomenting worldwide revolution.

The vast majority of Americans do not spend their days brooding about race and gender, or arguing about “social justice.” Most Americans don’t care about politics except at election time, and still less do they view their lives in “intersectional” terms of oppression and privilege. In other words, ordinary Americans just live their lives — working to pay their bills, raising their kids, watching TV — without giving any thought to racism or sexism or anything else that concerns the “educated left wing elite,” to use Sarah Jeong’s description of herself. There would be no real racial conflict in America, were it not for activists who foment division among us. These activists want to destroy America.

You don’t have to believe this is a conspiracy to see how it operates. Those we now commonly call “social justice warriors” are, for the most part, amateurs who have been indoctrinated by professional activists to believe a crypto-Marxist ideology wherein the world is a zero-sum-game where success is a function of privilege and failure is explained as a result of oppression. To crusade on behalf of the victims of oppression — racial minorities, women, homosexuals — is therefore a sort of missionary project, a duty of the True Believer. This is why you get so many white people running around pointing the finger of blame at other white people: “RAAAAACIST!” This doesn’t actually benefit black people, but it makes the white SJW feel better about himself. And the more people spend their time attacking each other over bogus accusations like this, the more our society becomes weakened and divided.

UCLA is paying 18 students $13/hour to combat “social injustices” and “privilege and oppression” on campus, shelling out up to $42,000 per year for the program. The “Diversity Peer Leaders” program is funded through the school’s mandatory “Student Services Fee,” to which each student contributes $1,128 every academic year.

What tangible benefit can this possibly achieve? Isn’t the purpose of a university to prepare young people for adult life? Aren’t they supposed to be gaining useful skills and knowledge to enable them to participate effectively in the workplace? To earn a living and support their families?

By diverting resources away from useful educational activity in order to fund “social justice” activism, universities are undermining the economic basis of our society. Why? To destroy America.

When kids waste four years, amassing unsustainable student loan debt, to acquire diplomas that don’t actually qualify them for anything productive or useful to society, this damages our society as a whole. The annual cost of attending UCLA for in-state students is $28,697, including room and board, and what are they learning? To become neo-Stalinist commissars of political correctness? How does that benefit society?

What does UCLA’s Gender Studies program produce except a supply of credentialed ideologues who make life miserable for the rest of us? Such programs are a waste of time and money, a diversion of resources from productive activity, permanently warping the minds of students.

If Putin wants to sabotage American democracy, he could do nothing better than what UCLA and other elite universities are doing.

Category: Conspiracy Theories, Education, History

The Left’s Pyrrhic Victory (and When Did Everybody Become ‘Alt-Right’?)

Posted on | August 4, 2018 | Comments Off on The Left’s Pyrrhic Victory (and When Did Everybody Become ‘Alt-Right’?)

Let me begin by congratulating Sarah Jeong on becoming America’s most successful young hate-monger. She is arguably more racist than Richard Spencer, and yet is employed by the New York Times, and Vox is celebrating this as a victory over the “alt-right”:

She’s also an outspoken progressive and feminist, making her an obvious target for the right-wing internet mobs that have been especially active of late, launching organized smear campaigns against left-leaning celebrities by weaponizing their old jokes and tweets.
The most high-profile recent example of this is Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn, who was fired by Disney after a concerted push to dredge up and circulate several of Gunn’s old tweets. Many of the tweets contained jokes about topics like rape and pedophilia — but they were also several years old, purposely taken out of context, and pointedly curated and misrepresented to paint a very specific picture of Gunn with the express goal of getting him fired.
A similar thing happened to Jeong, and the resulting fray became something of a test for the New York Times, as well as a test of the power of alt-right internet mobs. In this case, the mob lost — which might be a sign that one of the alt-right’s signature trolling tactics is losing its effectiveness.

This interpretation includes so many wild distortions that I hesitate to begin unpacking them all. For example, there was no “context” for James Gunn’s “jokes” about rape and pedophilia. You can’t take something out of context if there is no context to begin with; what Gunn’s tweets showed is that, before the Internet feminist brigades began their #MeToo crusades, such remarks were acceptable as “edgy” humor on the Left. And given what we know about Hollywood in the wake of the scandals surrounding Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Bryan Singer, et al., it is by no means certain that Gunn was merely joking.

Furthermore, it is absurd to describe research into a public figure’s past writings — on Twitter or anywhere else — as a “trolling tactic,” which is certainly not limited to the “alt-right.” Media Matters actually made this their “signature” tactic, compiling dossiers on various conservative media personalities in an effort to discredit them. Rush Limbaugh has been doing 15 hours of talk radio for 30 years, and so it is easy for the Left’s Argus-eyed media monitors to accumulate various things he’s said which, when “taken out of context,” make him look like a disreputable ogre.

Ask any conservative hate-listed by the SPLC (me, for example) what it’s like to work for decades to achieve a successful career and then be labeled a menace to society based on some left-wing ideologue’s interpretation. The Left has been smearing the Right this way for so long — they did it to Barry Goldwater, they did it Ronald Reagan, they do it to every conservative — that we scarcely even notice it anymore.

What has happened in recent years is that the Right has begun to fight fire with fire, and the Left calls this “harassment.” This was the basic story of #GamerGate: Videogame enthusiasts had grown tired of their hobby being targeted by “social justice warriors” (SJWs) and decided to fight back. Defending themselves against the organized lobby of politically correct censors and critical-theory busybodies (e.g., Anita Sarkeesian), the #GamerGate crew were accused of “misogyny” and “haraassment.” And this exposes the double-standard: When the Left attacks the videogame industry, this is “activism”; when gamers fight back, this is “harassment.” Likewise, when left-wing outfits use the past words of conservatives to brand them racist, this is “research”; when the tables are turned, liberals call it “trolling.”

As John Sexton at Hot Air notes, the Left is defending Sarah Jeong’s anti-white hatred as simply “the way the social justice left talks”:

“White people” is a shorthand in these communities, one that’s used to capture the way that many whites still act in clueless and/or racist ways. It’s typically used satirically and hyperbolically to emphasize how white people continue to benefit (even unknowingly) from their skin color, or to point out the ways in which a power structure that favors white people continues to exist.

Having engaged in a bit of satirical hyperbole myself, I call bulls–t here. It’s a blatant double-standard — one rule for liberals, another rule for everybody else — that permits “the social justice left” to engage in blatant hate-mongering, while conservatives are compelled to tiptoe carefully and watch every word lest they accidentally say something that might somehow be interpreted as “racism.” What conservatives need to do is to start calling the Left’s rhetoric what it is: hate propaganda.

Here she is! @nytimes pic.twitter.com/yPIOf0qF1T

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) August 4, 2018

“Everything is implicitly organized around how men see the world — and not just men, how white men see the world — and this is a problem, this is why so many things suck.”
— Sarah Jeong, Oct. 27, 2015

Clay Waters at Newsbusters notes how “alt-right” is used as a smear:

While Jeong’s critics were given the hostile ideological labels and smeared as “alt-right,” her obviously liberal journalistic defenders needed no label besides “journalists.”
The media has defined “alt-right” as racist and violent, so lumping the “alt-right” in with mainstream conservative publications that have called out Jeong’s tweets for racism amounts to a slur.

You see how the “alt-right” label is an attempt to discredit criticism, implying that anyone who objects to Ms. Jeong’s words is some sort of extremist troglodyte, engaged in “bullying” and “harassment.” By this rhetorical device, the vicious hate-monger Sarah Jeong is magically transformed into a heroic victim, a martyr for “social justice.”

We have a way to defeat this. It’s called “voting.”

Donald Trump is president in large measure because millions of Americans are tired of being demonized — racist! sexist! homophobe! — as a rhetorical substitute for any actual policy the Democrats might offer. Americans were expected to vote for Obama to prove they weren’t racist, and many were OK with that, but when it was demanded that they vote for Hillary Clinton to prove they weren’t sexist, they said, “Hell, no.”

Let the Left celebrate its pyrrhic victory, making the New York Times synonymous with the hate propaganda spewed by Sarah Jeong.

Instapundit explains how this should work out:

By keeping her on and defending her, the New York Times — and the blue-check tribe on Twitter that’s been taking her side — is playing into Trump’s hands. See, Trump can say, this is what they really think of you. Because, you know, it is.

November 6 is barely three months away.

Category: Donald Trump, Media Bias, New York Times

In The Mailbox: 08.03.18

Posted on | August 3, 2018 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Remember to send in your links for the FMJRA and Rule 5 Sunday!
I promise it’ll be on Sunday this week.

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: National Watermelon Day
Twitchy: Justice Kavanaugh Ignoring “Asinine Questions” From Protesters Is Resistance-Triggering Gold
Louder With Crowder: Fact Checking WaPo’s Anti-Trump “Fact Checks”
According To Hoyt: The War Between Men & Women
Vox Popoli:The Necessity Of Trade War

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Friday Hawt Chicks & Links – The Far-Right Extremist Edition
American Power: Tucker Carlson Rips Woke Leftist Bigot Sarah Jeong
American Thinker: Unmasking The Creation Of “Islamophobia” In The Academy
Animal Magnetism: Rule Five Economic Illiteracy Friday
BattleSwarm: LinkSwarm For August 3
CDR Salamander: Fullbore Friday
Da Tech Guy: Pope Francis And The Death Penalty
Don Surber: Trumping China
Dustbury: Drop And Give Me Friday
First Street Journal: Still Working On The House!
The Geller Report: Tommy Robinson Reveals How He Was Abused In Prison, also, Migrant Mayhem On Holiday
Hogewash: Sarah Jeong, The New York Times, & Twitter, also, Team Kimberlin Post of The Day
JustOneMinute: Has Sarah Jeong Landed Yet?
Legal Insurrection: Road Rage Arrest Over Trump Bumper Sticker, also, Meanwhile, Iranian Protests Against Oppressive Theocracy Continue
The PanAm Post: The Cuban Regime’s Harassment Of Environmental Dissidents
Power Line: Is The Press The Enemy Of The People? also, Eyeless In Rochester
Shark Tank: Ashley Moody Unveils New Endorsements
Shot In The Dark: Waposplained
STUMP: Checking The Numbers – How Much Are Social Security Benefits?
The Political Hat: CSI: 3rd Reich (NB: this is not a Man In The High Castle reference)
This Ain’t Hell: Marines Consider No First Enlistment Grunts, also, The Lone Dog Tag Recovered From North Korea Had A Name
Victory Girls: Mollie Tibbetts And Media Hypocrisy
Volokh Conspiracy: Do Law Schools Discriminate Against Conservative & Libertarians In Faculty Hiring?
Weasel Zippers: VP Pence Scolds MSM For Not Covering Return Of Korean War Remains, also, Polls Show Black Support For President Trump Up 100% Over Last Year
Megan McArdle: A Carbon Tax Could Be A Time Bomb For The Left
Mark Steyn: Muga-Bye

Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals
Amazon Coupons

Category: Linkagery

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | August 3, 2018 | Comments Off on Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

by Smitty

The volcano erupted and slew the loudly weeping forest with fire. Moot was the point that the victim was a rainforest, and featured a lake. The water’s indifference to the inferno on the hill could not have been more placid.

That was, until the earthquake. The ravaged trees had their revenge against the volcano as the ground, hearing the lament of the pine forest, separated. The land bade the placid lake sacrifice itself to quench the angry heart of the volcano.

It was a three-way murder scene as volcano killed forest and lake killed volcano.

But the earth abideth forever.
—
via Darleen

Category: Friday Fiction

Why Does @SarahJeong Hate Jesus?

Posted on | August 3, 2018 | 1 Comment

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.”
— Romans 1:18-19 (KJV)

After posting about this controversy Thursday afternoon (“Fringe Extremist Hate-Monger @SarahJeong Hired by New York Times”), I had lunch with my brother, then took a nap and, when I woke up, decided to dig a bit more into Ms. Jeong’s Twitter timeline. What I found was rather remarkable, and I worked until dawn to write a column about it:

In the uproar over Sarah Jeong’s hiring by the New York Times, the focus on her history of hateful rhetoric against white people overlooked her many other expressions of hatred — toward males, Christians, and police officers, among others. While her new employers have apparently accepted Ms. Jeong’s disingenuous excuse that she was “engaged in what I thought of at the time as counter-trolling… intended as satire,” this cannot explain away her demonstrable habit of deliberately insulting entire groups of people. It is not true, as she claimed, that she merely “mimicked the language of my harassers.”
Consider, for example, Ms. Jeong’s oft-expressed contempt for Christians, including her own parents. She “grew up in a conservative evangelical Christian bubble,” but “became an annoying atheist” as a teenager, when she was “trapped in a fundamentalist Christian school.” After attending the University of California-Berkeley and graduating from Harvard Law, Ms. Jeong pronounced herself a member of the “educated left wing elite.” She says she has now “mostly cut myself off from the conservative evangelical community,”and condemns Christians who “indoctrinate children” with “reality-denying belief systems.” Ms. Jeong’s spiteful denunciation of her parents’ faith was not “counter-trolling,” nor was it “intended as satire.” These anti-Christian remarks appear to express her sincere beliefs, no different from her many similar expressions of contempt for other groups. . . .

You can read the whole thing at The American Spectator. It’s been linked at Instapundit and by Daniel Greenfield at FrontPageMagazine, and there’s a Memeorandum thread, too. One well-aimed shot can have remarkable effects, and the Daily Caller has followed up with some anti-police tweets from Ms. Jeong (e.g., “f–k the police”) that even I overlooked.

Bad things tend to happen to people who invite the wrath of God. Selah.

Category: Media Bias, New York Times, Religion

McCain’s Law of Feminism and the Memoir of Phyllis Chesler

Posted on | August 3, 2018 | Comments Off on McCain’s Law of Feminism and the Memoir of Phyllis Chesler

One thing I’ve said is that are three kinds of feminism:

Feminism that is wrong;
Feminism that is crazy;
and
Feminism that is both wrong and crazy.

This is McCain’s Law of Feminism. Unlike some other conservatives, e.g., Christina Hoff Sommers, I cede nothing to feminism in terms of its claims to have made “progress” possible for women. All claims of “progress” — beyond the greater freedom and leisure made possible by the accumulation of wealth — remind me of the words of Edmund Burke:

We know that we have made no discoveries, and we think that no discoveries are to be made in morality, nor many in the great principles of government, nor in the ideas of liberty, which were understood long before we were born, altogether as well as they will be after the grave has heaped its mold upon our presumption and the silent tomb shall have imposed its law on our pert loquacity.

The myth of moral “progress,” which Burke perceived as the motivating sentiment of the French Revolution, is dangerous and destructive. While we cannot deny that technological progress and the accompanying explosion of wealth in industrial societies has made life easier for the vast majority of people, it is a mistake to believe that being richer than our ancestors means that we are morally superior to our ancestors. Nor do I believe that having more education, in terms of mere numbers of years in school, makes people better. The terrorist Ted Kaczynski was a Harvard alumnus, and it is not true that academics are morally superior:

Walter Lee Williams, whose works include Overcoming Heterosexism and Homophobia, was “an eminent professor of gender and sexuality studies” at the University of Southern California before he pleaded guilty in federal court to traveling the world to pursue sex with boys as young as 9. Columbia University political science Professor David Epstein copped a plea bargain for having incest with his daughter. Rutgers University Professor Anna Stubblefield was convicted of sexually molesting a mentally disabled man. Lehigh University Professor Yujie Ding was convicted of federal fraud charges, and Florida State University Professor James Doran was convicted of embezzlement. One could make a long list of university faculty — Professor Alyssa Azotea (psychology, Simmons College), Professor Michael Dean Stroup (economics, Stephen F. Austin State University), Professor James Francis Quinn (criminology, University of North Texas), Professor Douglas Paul Dohrman (health science, Texas A&M University), Professor Christopher DeZutter(chemistry, University of Minnesota-Rochester), Professor Noel Campbell (business, University of Central Arkansas), Professor Kevin Sullivan (public health, Emory University), Professor Amol Kharabe(business, Ohio University), Professor J. Martin Favor (African American studies, Dartmouth College), to name just a few recent cases — arrested on child pornography charges. The FBI says self-described “boy lover” Professor James Cavalcoli used the Internet in his attempt to meet a minor for sex. And, of course, there was University of Georgia Professor Max Reinhart, who was charged with prostitution for peddling himself online as a transvestite named “Sasha.”

More money and more education are not proof of “progress,” in a moral sense, nor should we believe that “democracy” (however one conceives that vague term) guarantees “progress.” A belief in the myth of “progress” tends to blind us to the possibility of decadence. We have made remarkable technological progress — I’m typing this on a laptop computer and you’re reading it on the Internet, something that did not even exist when I graduated college in 1983 — but what are most people actually doing with all these gadgets? Binge-watching sitcoms? Posting selfies on Instagram? Trying to get laid on Tinder? But I digress . . .

Phyllis Chesler is an author I’ve known for many years. A notable Second Wave feminist, she became alarmed after 9/11 about the pro-Muslim/anti-Israel sentiments expressed by many of her movement comrades. When I was at The Washington Times, I interviewed her about her 2005 book, The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom, which explored these themes.

Ms. Chesler has produced a new memoir of her decades as a feminist, A Politically Incorrect Feminist: Creating a Movement with Bitches, Lunatics, Dykes, Prodigies, Warriors, and Wonder Women, and has published her first excerpt of this book at Tablet:

It’s impossible to convey how excited I was — how excited we all were. While at work at the Brain Research Labs, I somehow heard about a women’s meeting. I rushed out, still wearing my white lab coat. I was on the streets searching for “the women,” as if a group of aliens had suddenly landed on Earth.
We were all lost in a dream — but we had never been so awake. Women who were once invisible to each other were now the only visible creatures. Women — who used to see one another as wicked stepsisters — had magically transformed into fairy godmothers.
Some of us smoked and drank, wore motorcycle boots, tough leather jackets, and no makeup; we were rather butch, whether we were straight or not. Suddenly we were the ones who made things happen, not those to whom things happened.
Some of us wore feathers, jewelry, soft suede vests, bell bottoms, and lots of makeup. We looked like gypsies or glamorous pirates, and we too made stuff happen. You didn’t mess with us anymore. . . .

The heady excitement of modern feminism in its 1960s infancy was destined to disappointment. Quite frankly, the movement was a magnet for kooks and weirdos and ego-tripping megalomaniacs. It was largely a New York-based movement, and was allied with the radical New Left, which would soon devolve into the Weather Underground terrorist cult. The late 1960s were a time of psychedelic drug freak-outs, “free love” and every other species of dangerous craziness, so it is unfair to say that feminists had a monopoly on lunatic ideas, but theirs was a special kind of crazy, as Ms. Chesler laments:

For example, we proclaimed that “sisterhood is powerful” — it’s such a lovely idea — but such a sisterhood did not normally exist; it had to be created day by day. Women did not always treat each other kindly. Somehow we expected feminists, who are also women, to behave in radically different ways. We were shocked as we learned, one by one, that feminists didn’t even always treat each other with respect or compassion.
I know this now. I did not know it in 1967. . . .
Like most women, feminists engaged in smear and ostracism campaigns against any woman with whom they disagreed, whom they envied, or who was different in some way. Unlike men, most women were not psychologically prepared for such intense and overt battles and experienced them personally, not politically — and sometimes as near-death experiences. . . .
If only we had understood more about the dark side of female psychology, we might have been able to find ways to resist our own mean-girl treachery.
If only.
Only now, a half century later, do I understand that women in groups tend to demand uniformity, conformity, shoulder-to-shoulder nonhierarchical sisterhood — one in which no one is more rewarded than anyone else. Marxism and female psychology are a natural fit psychologically, but not for me. . . .

You can and should read the whole thing. As much as I’d like to share my opinions about why the feminist “sisterhood” proved to be so toxic, I don’t want to be accused of mansplaining, so I’ll remain silent.

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 08.02.18

Posted on | August 2, 2018 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 08.02.18

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Rush Limbaugh’s 30th Anniversary
Twitchy: Looks Like Sarah Jeong Doesn’t Just Hate White People
Louder With Crowder: Jim Acosta Demands Sarah Sanders Denounce “The Press Are the Enemy” Comments, Gets Blasted

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Sarah Jeong, also, Heather MacDonald, The Diversity Delusion
American Thinker: 3D Plastic Gun Hype Misfires
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily Iran Currency Plunge News
BattleSwarm: Harrowing Story Of Policewoman Vs. “Gooned-up” Perp
Da Tech Guy: Why Did Obama Ignore The Black Community While Trump Doesn’t? also, Judge Kavanaugh & The Fourth Amendment
Don Surber: Trump Killed Funky Winkerbean
Dustbury: Some Of Them Want To Use You
First Street Journal: Pope Francis Declares Capital Punishment Always Inadmissible In Modern Society
The Geller Report: Jewish Girl’s Murder Fuels Political Turmoil In Germany, also, 74-Year-Old British Tourist Raped, Robbed By Muslim Migrant In Spain
Hogewash: Progressives Clutching their 3D Printed Pearls, also, Team Kimberlin Post Of The Day
JustOneMinute: Find The Deep-Pocketed Defendant
Legal Insurrection: Jordan Peterson – Increasingly, People Being Taught By Ideologues Not Educators, also, Senate Caves To Big Dairy, Will Continue FDA’s Study Of Milk’s Definition
The PanAm Post: Cuban Authorities Play A Dangerous Game By Allowing A Little Bit Of Freedom
Power Line: National Archives Says Can’t Produce All Kavanaugh Docs Until End Of October, also, Open Bigotry At The New York Times [Update]
Shot In The Dark: One Reason I Love St. Paul
The Political Hat: Whiteness – Mythology, Geometry, & White Hispanics
This Ain’t Hell: People On The Rise To Counter Mikey Weinstein, also, Knock Yourselves Out
Victory Girls: It’s The Jim Acosta Show!
Volokh Conspiracy: A “Liberal Feminist” Endorses Kavanaugh
Weasel Zippers: Surprise! Ontario Forced To Pull Plug On Universal Basic Income Scheme, also, Trump Approval Surges, Blows Past Obama
Megan McArdle: Three Theories On Why MoviePass Failed

Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

Fringe Extremist Hate-Monger @SarahJeong Hired by New York Times

Posted on | August 2, 2018 | 3 Comments

Sarah Jeong is a Harvard Law School graduate who hates men, heterosexuality and white people, not necessarily in that order:

The New York Times’ newest editorial hire has a history of racist tweets against white people.
NYT announced on Wednesday that they hired Sarah Jeong to join their editorial board. Jeong previously wrote for the Verge and authored “The Internet of Garbage,” a book about online harassment and free speech.
Shortly after Jeong’s hire, Twitter users unearthed old tweets in which she expressed an extreme distaste for white people.
“Dumbass f–king white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs p–sing on fire hydrants,” she tweeted in 2016. . . .
The New York Times has yet to comment on Jeong’s racist past, however some Twitter users pointed out that they previously fired Quinn Norton after learning that she had tweeted derogatory terms about black and gay people. . . .

The New York Times now has a strict policy against hiring heterosexuals, white people, or anyone who disagrees with Sarah Jeong.