Posted on 08/04/2018 10:40:40 AM PDT by CptnObvious
Why Would the New York Times Embrace Racism with Sarah Jeong when they're attacking Donald Trump for it. Can any of you tell me why??
In the swirling mass of random neuron firings that is commonly called the liberal “mind,” the Sarah Jeong cytoplasm lump is not racist. Only Whites can be racist, and they all are, even if they aren’t.
We are at war in this country. Most Whites don’t know it, but the left is targeting them for extermination, right after taking their money. It’s several decades in the future, but as true as I’m sitting here typing this.
The future is non-White. The demographics are there, and cannot be disputed. The left is not just OK with that, but it is happy over it, it gloats over it, and it wants to make it happen ASAP.
I’m actually glad they hired her. It makes it clear and explicit how much the left hates Whites, and that they want to eliminate Whites. But first, they take all Whites’ money.
Thing said: “ find a study on whether killing all the White people would make black people safer”
In a civil war, when you want your civilian “troops” to progress to where they can act or condone some really immoral and evil deeds, you must build up their irrational hates. “You are the victim of an unjust enemy who must be destroyed for the good of the victim and the body politic.”
The Times knows this is war and has long chosen sides. Republicans and conservatives continue to fund all regressive racist institutions and defend the policies that enable the Left to ever grow. The Times is acting perfectly logically to reach its ends. The other side, nah not so much, interferes with sleep and wanting to be liked.
In their view, they didn’t. They believe that because whitey has so wronged the rest of the world, anyone who expresses anti-white sentiments is not expressing racism, they’re just bravely expressing the righteous indignation requisite to the wrongs that they’ve suffered.
[how exactly white America has ever wronged Korean immigrants such as Sarah Jeong, when they . . . um, fought and died so that they could be free and prosperous instead of North Korean slave laborers, then accepted millions of them as immigrants, who have always enjoyed full equal rights and are amongst the prosperous of Americans of any color . . . I dunno!]
Because, as I predicted, the leftists are getting even more arrogant and stupid ?
BOYCOTT (includes anyone who does business with them)
To sell more of their trash paper.
The New York Times has been a panderer of Leftist dogma, at least since the 1930s. As such they are not logically consistent in the sense you suggest. They are very consistent in which factions they choose to support—always the one that seeks to level society in a socialist morass, both domestic & international.
Apparently she was hired because of her breasts and not her brains.
Because members of the hate-filled racist left always stick together.
She’s ugly and stupid. It’s not for anything about her looks she was hired for, probably her sexuality and of course her beliefs in white genocide.
They blame her loss on Russia trying to foment unrest and create discord among various voter blocks.
And Yet we had Queen Hillary talking about deplorables. We have Maxine Waters pushing confrontation and violence. We have the MSM pushing resistance and violence.
If fomenting discord is trying to destroy the election process, the Democrats and the Media are a worse threat than Russia
Exactly.
Statists, notably in this case those of the left variety, have raised tolerance to level of political dogma, but embedded in that tolerance is an unwillingness to call out their own side for intolerance. As explained in this very well-written article from a leftist point of view,
...imagine some liberal US Muslim leader, when he goes on the O’Reilly Show, and O’Reilly ambushes him and demands to know why he and other American Muslims haven’t condemned beheadings by ISIS more, demands that he criticize them right there on live TV. And you can see the wheels in the Muslim leader’s head turning, thinking something like “Okay, obviously beheadings are terrible and I hate them as much as anyone. But you don’t care even the slightest bit about the victims of beheadings. You’re just looking for a way to score points against me so you can embarass all Muslims. And I would rather personally behead every single person in the world than give a smug bigot like you a single microgram more stupid self-satisfaction than you’ve already got.”
This unwillingness on the left (and statist right/neocon/#NeverTrump lot) to call out their own is due in part to the embracing of politics as a religion. As noted in this awesome article:
Liberals...have made politics their religion...What they really want is liberal Sharia law, a secular theocracy.(emphasis added)
The minimum wage, gender equality, nationalized health care, and global warming—whatever their practical virtues—are not just expedient policy prescriptions. They are essential aspects of the liberal fatwa...the left is having a nervous breakdown in the wake of Trump's election..because, for them, politics is the means to secular salvation...political failure is not just a setback on the road to a more stable society—it is a blow to their very worldview. Opposition to their program is not just wrong-headed, but evil...Question them and you are not just wrong—you are a heretic.
I believe you are on target, that credibility and hypocrisy is taking its toll on the haters of America. My guess is the #WalkAway movement and other similar efforts are a result of people getting totally fed up with this "good for me, not for thee" attitude, so wonderfully on display at the NY Times.
Very good article in that link.
Because they’re a bunch of loons who have actively embraced mediocrity.
Next Question.
Liberals, rationalizing.
Rationaliation never means having to say sorry, ever being wrong, ever having to change your behavior or views.
Here’s a politically incorrect thought. Because they have a bunch of women in important positions in the company. And, women in business leadership positions is about 72% of what is wrong with this world. They often make BAD decisions.
So the Slimes is projecting. But let’s be a little more specific. the NYSlimes is nothing if not a harbor of elite limousine liberal white privilege.
Yep, just one (sub?) class of the functionally Non-Working that constitute the ‘Rat Party-on Party.
Liberals have embraced tiered morality like the Code of Hammurabi and Shariah law in Islam. An individual’s status and worth to society is based on their demographics and belief system.
In Shariah law, a Muslim is worth twice as much as a non-Muslim who pays the dhimmi tax, 3 times one who doesn’t. Men are worth twice as much as a woman. That ranking shows up in everything from weight in court to blood money paid upon your murder.
The social justice hierarchy, the privilege stack, is their attempt to impose such an unfair tiered system - ironically in the name of making things fair.
In the liberal worldview, men and whites have an unfair advantage, so they have to be oppressed to make things fair.
When someone is your moral inferior, whether an untouchable in India, dhimmi in Shariah law or white in liberal identity politics, hating on them, demonizing them as a group and systematically oppressing them isn’t wrong. Those groups are seen as inherently bad, guilty of a kind of original sin, white privilege.
Therefore it is moral, to a liberal, to blame all members of said group and oppress them, discriminating against them in hiring or punishing them more harshly for committing an assault on a moral superior.
Liberals have appropriated blasphemy laws from Islam, too. That to disagree with sacred social justice dogma is equated to a literal attack on all believers. This is the reasoning behind Islam calling for the execution of critics of the faith and those who leave it.
Liberals say they are love, so everyone else can be silenced under hate speech. Challenge them after that declaration of sacred truth, and you’re invalidating their existence. You’re guilty of blasphemy, attacking their sacred souls with your evil words, and fit to be lynched by a mob of liberal bullies empowered by their religious faith in their political dogma.
This is why they generally see no problem tearing apart a liberal who commits a minor transgression. They are protecting the ideology, so the intentions or actual guilt of the person is irrelevant. Burn the accused witch, and no one will dare be one. Or beat up the accused conservative, and no one will dare share contrary evil opinions in public because of that public example.
Liberals have borrowed from the systematic oppression of dhimmi in another way. To protect Muslim believers, you aren’t allowed to be friends with them. You aren’t supposed to intermarry, but if you do, the believer can hate the unbeliever though married to them. And per Islamic law, the unbelievers are to be abused in public, whether called a lesser greeting in the morning to slapped by government officials when paying their taxes. The systemic humiliations are seen as a way to keep the inferior class in line while also giving them an incentive to convert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.