The New, Socially Acceptable Racism

Sarah Jeong was born in South Korea and moved with her parents to the United States at age three.  She enjoyed a very privileged education, attending UC Berkeley and Harvard Law School.  She currently writes for The Verge, a technology-oriented publication, but has been hired by the New York Times to write editorials. 

After Jeong’s hire was announced, someone looked back through her Twitter feed and discovered that she has published several derogatory remarks about white people.  Her tweets included the following:

·         “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”

·         “Dumb**s f***ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs p**sing on fire hydrants.”

·         “Are white people genetically disposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”

·         “White people have stopped breeding. You’ll all go extinct soon. This was my plan all along.”

·         “White men are bulls***.”

·         “I dare you to get on Wikipedia and play ‘things white people can definitely take credit for.’  It’s really hard.”

·         “These are inconvenient truths, but we should thoroughly examine them instead of giving in to the PC lie that white people don’t smell bad.”

·         She also published a joke graph purporting to prove that white people have “a weird dog smell when it rains.”

Obviously, if Jeong were white and had tweeted these things about Asians, Blacks, or Jews, the New York Times would have immediately annulled her hiring, she’d have been fired by The Verge, and she would almost immediately have become a non-person, every trace of whom would have instantly disappeared from the Internet and every other publicly accessible place. 

But the New York Times, self-proclaimed “newspaper of record,” is defending her.  First, they argue that she was counter-trolling trolls who were attacking her online.  That is nonsense.  These tweets were not made in direct response to other tweets.  Anyone wanting to respond to a troll would respond to him directly. You do not post slurs about an entire race of people on a heavily trafficked open-forum website as a way of “counter-trolling.”  Moreover, these racist tweets continued over a period of two or three years; they are not the product of an exasperated vent at a harasser.

Beyond the lame argument of “counter-trolling,” there is a pernicious ideology lurking behind the Times’ toleration of Jeong’s blatant racism, to wit, the notion that it is impossible for minorities to harbor racist feelings or say racist things about the majority race.  Hence, no matter how facially racist a remark may appear, if it is made against a white person it is A-OK.  It cannot be racism. 

In the real world where most of us live, this is nonsense; obviously it is just as possible for an Asian to hate a white person as it is for a white person to hate an Asian.  But in Neo-Marxist, or cultural Marxist, ideology, only the dominant race can be racist, because they have more power.  That the New York Times is giving Sara Jeong a pass tells us that those who run that paper are adherents of cultural Marxism.

And that is a problem. Because Marxist ideology is at least as evil as racism.  Marxism has killed many millions more people than, say, organized racism in the form of National Socialism (Nazism).  If the number of lives destroyed is any metric, Marxism is worse than Nazism, and certainly no more to be tolerated than racism.  Racism and Marxism are both evil un-Christian and anti-Christian ideologies; one is not preferable to the other. 

It is not surprising that the New York Times is controlled by cultural Marxists; the Times was a shill for Stalin back in the 1930s.  Times reporter Walter Duranty consistently lied about what was happening in the Soviet Union, covering up the fact that Stalin was, among many other atrocities and enormities, killing millions of Ukrainians with an intentional and deliberate famine.

But, wait!  We have another example of the new, socially acceptable racism.  Lately there has been a push to remove statues of Confederate leaders, because they fought in the Civil War for a section of the country that was practicing race-based slavery.  Feelings have changed over the last century-and-a-half, and many believe that we should no longer honor, with public statuary, men who defended a socio-economic system that was unjust, cruel, and misguided.  Certainly, no one at this late date would ever consider putting up a statue or naming a street after a Confederate leader who put 5,000 blacks to the sword—men women and children—in an intentional act of genocide.

But the City of New York just did something exactly like that.  On July 31st, a New York city council committee voted to co-name a two-mile stretch of Rogers Avenue in Brooklyn (an area where there are many Haitian immigrants) after Jean-Jacques Dessalines, one of the two main leaders of the slave revolt that won Haiti its independence from France in 1804.  After defeating a French Army, Dessalines named himself Governor-General-for-Life.  He then decided that the only way to ensure that his victory would be irreversible was to wipe out the white population of Haiti. Dessalines ordered the murder of virtually every white man in the country, followed soon afterward by all white women and children.  Between 3,000 and 5,000 people were butchered in a few months.

Slavery in Haiti was as bad as, or worse than, anywhere else in the Americas, many cruelties and atrocities were visited upon the blacks, and the genocide of the white population is understandable as an act of revenge.  But is a man who ordered the “ethnic cleansing” of every white person in Haiti someone we should honor by naming a street after him?  Obviously not.  Like the Times, the City of New York is excusing its evil action on the implicit Neo-Marxist belief that there can be no racism against white people, that anything done to whites by another race, even genocide, is just fine—heck, better than fine, well-deserved because the white race is responsible for colonialism, imperialism, and all the other evil in the world. 

It is important that we insist that the new, socially acceptable racism is not acceptable in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  You cannot be a Christian and cherish feelings of racial hatred and resentment.

One reason this is important is because the ANC Party in South Africa, a country in which there are many black Seventh-day Adventists, has announced that it is preparing to steal farmland presently belonging to the white minority in that country.  They are going to expropriate white people’s land without compensation which, last I checked, was called theft.  The expropriation of white property will not be good for blacks or whites; we saw in Zimbabwe that this approach was an economic disaster that has hurt all the races in that country.  The policy is born of black resentment against the white race for the old apartheid regime that whites enforced for so long.  It is a policy of racial revenge.  

Against this background, all Seventh-day Adventists must remember that racism is evil regardless against whom it is directed.  It is just as sinful for blacks to hate whites as it is for whites to hate blacks. 

Race is not even a biblical category.  Every human being is descended from Adam and Eve, and from Noah, so we are all family, and more closely related than we think.  We are all of one blood:  “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, . . . hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth . . .” Acts 17:24-26.