Mollie Tibbetts' Tweet

Apologies up front for this post which will appear insensitive to Mollie Tibbetts’ family and friends coming so soon after the tragedy, but it isn’t intentional.

This tragedy is now fodder for political posturing from all sides—which is inevitable. And now a tweet from Mollie from December last year, “I hate white people,” has come to light.

I write what follows to add the proper background, not Fakenews, so that anyone who decides to contribute to the politicizing will be armed with this information. Images of the tweet are provided to show the complete Dec 12, 2017 twitter feed up to August 21 when her killer was found, when the feed becomes filled with troll tweets (not shown; but link included). Also included is the image of the tweet from Simran Jeet Singh (handle: “@SikhProf”) that Mollie is commenting on.

https://twitter.com/Motibbs/status/940792919266680833

Background:

In November last year Democrat Doug Jones narrowly defeated Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama U.S. Senate special election.

Roy Moore was vilified by the Left, media and Democrats in general, because of his highly publicized legal tangles with federal courts in defense of anti-Christian, anti-South initiatives, first as a judge and then as a contender for the Senate seat. He soundly defeated his Republican opponent Luther Strange in the primary, though he was supported by Trump. Strange was the incumbent, appointed upon Jeff Sessions vacating the seat to join the Trump administration as Attorney General.

During the run-up to the election accusations emerged from a woman who claimed that Moore approached her in a courthouse in 1979 when she was 14. At the time Moore was 32 and a district attorney. He got her phone number and a week later had a sexual encounter with her. Three other women came forward with similar claims when they were aged between 16 and 18 during the same time. The left-wing MSM was 100 percent against him, as were many Republicans. Roy Moore became the Left’s poster boy for virtually all of their identity politics-based crusades. He stood for everything they hate. He was an unapologetic champion for Christianity, opposed to gay marriage, and vilified as racist, “homophobic,” “Islamophobic,” etc,

On the day of the election, Mollie posted a tweet that included a re-tweet from Simran Jeet Singh showing a bar graph of the breakdown of the vote by race and sex. It showed that 72% of white men and 63% of white women voted for Moore, while 93% of black men and 98% of black women voted against him, for Doug Jones.

Mollie’s four-word comment was “I hate white people”.

It is doubtful than anyone in her college supported Moore, and the special election probably provided the rallying cry du jour on campus... students led by faculty, presumably.

“I hate white people” is now a meme. It wasn’t started by Mollie Tibbetts. Her tweet only reached one friend who responded twice. Total of four comments, two from her friend, two replies from Mollie to her.

Proclaiming hatred of whites is indeed a meme. Most recently it became newsworthy when it was revealed that the New York Times hired a woman (Sarah Jeong) to their editorial board who had a history of tweets proclaiming her hatred of whites, especially white men.

When the New York Times decided to stand by their new hire, it became clear that it is now socially and politically acceptable to express hatred for whites. Where we go from here is anybody’s guess.

Mollie’s tweet could’ve been made by any of thousands of white college students—that’s called self-othering, btw. Demonizing whites is now an ingredient in our enculturation—not just in the academy but also the popular culture. That’s the reality.  

# # #

— Marcus Clintonius

Sarah Jeong and Why The Civil War Has Already Begun

Marcus Clintonius

August 10, 2018

We’re fond of saying, “If the Left didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.” ... and they never fail to give us fresh opportunities to do so.

The most recent example is the social media tweets of Sarah Jeong, recently hired to the editorial board at The New York Times.

It would be remiss to not include some of the tweets before the commentary ... most are already familiar with them but just in case ... here are a few of her greatest hits:

·         Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants

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

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

·         #CancelWhitePeople

·         (Replying to “@anildash”)

anyways my point is that we should kill all men *prior* to removing the state from marriage as an institution

·         (Replying to “@UUJames”)

mostly it’s been very very very funny. my fave part was when someone pointed out “kill all bad men” still kills all instances of men

·         (Replying to “@jilliancyork”)

kill more men

There’s more, some attacking white women and cops, but the above show the gist of it. Jeong hates white men and doesn’t feel there’s any need to hide it despite her climbing public profile. When backed into a corner for an apology she claimed that (repeat after me) the tweets were taken out of context, and, they were instances of her “counter-trolling” vicious tweets from the other side that she was responding to (an outright lie).

By the way, the bolding in the tweets is original, not added by me for emphasis.

The most straightforward approach to showing why this is unacceptable is to simply replace the identity being disparaged with any one of the “protected” classes: women, blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, transgenders, the all-purpose “People of Color,” etc.

But there is a problem with this. Candace Owens actually tried it substituting “blacks” and “Jews.” The tweets were promptly censored.

I, for instance, cannot play the game here and replace “white” with “black” or “men” with “fags.” Much as I would like to, there would be serious consequences for me. Nothing would hit home more than seeing these vile messages repeated word-for-word but directed at any of the established “victim” groups. The toxic hatred would be inescapable, and presumably, inexcusable. So, please use your imagination and read them to yourself silently, choosing whichever protected class label you like.

* * *

Most would expect that with such clear evidence of racial and gender animus any business, public or private, would recognize the liability on their hands and let the employee go.

But no.

Defense for Jeong came not just from throughout the left-wing blogosphere and social media, but also from her new employer: the Old Gray Lady herself, the New York Times.

How can these tweets and attitudes possibly be defended, you might ask? Here’s the Left’s reasons why Sarah Jeong’s tweets should not be cause for her to be labeled a “racist,” “bigot,” etc., and let go from her NYT gig.

The standard riff goes like this: Racism isn’t racism unless it’s practiced by a group that wields power. It is the combination of hatred plus power that makes racism. By definition, only whites can be guilty of racism—likewise only heterosexual men can be sexists.

Here’s how CNN commentator Symone Sanders put it on CNN Tonight with Don Lemon:
" ... being racist is not just prejudice, it's prejudice plus power. So one could argue that some of her tweets, even without context, note that she has a prejudice, perhaps, against white men. But that, in fact, does not make her racist. I don't think she's a racist."

This was after she first tried justifying it by attacking those that exposed the tweets, and then by employing the standard “context” excuse:

“No, I don’t think Sarah’s tweets are racist. Look, first of all, I think it’s important to note that these tweets were dug up by a right-wing — it’s not even conservative. It was a right-wingers [sic], people that identify with the white supremacist ideology and they were taken out of context,”  

You can google all day long on “Sarah Jeong tweets” and find an unlimited number of liberal progressives defending Jeong in a similar manner, often with confident erudition and “in-depth analysis.”

If racism can be excused by adding a condition of power, specifically, “white privilege,” why can’t it be qualified by other conditions?

Actual historical racism hasn’t been justified simply on the basis of “I hate {fill in the group of choice}.” It’s been justified based on some specific undesirable feature of the group:

They follow a false god.  They have cultural practices which clearly mark them as less developed than us. They are mentally inferior, and so on. And to be sure, also: their skin is darker than ours.

Other than the last example, in what way is, “They have power,” different than the other “justifications”?

What other qualifiers can we conjure to justify racism? With our advances in biology and the understanding of the human genome, shouldn’t we be concerned about “special-casing” racism?

Why is it okay to demonize a group because you claim they hold special political and cultural advantages, but not because they don’t believe in your god? Or because ironclad statistical evidence shows that they are more prone to violence? Why shouldn’t we re-institute racial profiling in policing because blacks commit murder at 4 to 5 times the rate of whites? Or, for the same reason, impose race-dependent restrictions on gun ownership? How about advocating for a higher income tax rate for women because they account for the lion’s share of government handouts? I’m sure any of these would go over well. 

* * *

This de-facto double standard is a problem. This is a big problem. If a line isn’t drawn here and now on Sarah Jeong, we may pass the point of no return.

The Left is on the verge of establishing that hatred toward whites, and white men in particular, is excusable—despite violating any rules or laws that should apply on paper. Going from excusable to acceptable is a hand-wave away.

Your local college/university has a strict set of regulations governing proscribed speech and behavior that may be considered offensive to any of an ever-growing list of “protected classes.”  This list includes race, naturally. Yet every college includes curricula and hold seminars on “white privilege”—which is an explicit violation of their own codes. Yet no one sees fit to challenge them—or if they do, they are ‘shushed.’ The white self-flagellation show must go on. On the college campus it is invariably led by white professors—women and men.

These self-same, self-othering idiots have also managed to marry "toxic" with "masculinity" in the public consciousness.

The next logical step in the program, after establishing that it is okay to demonize whites—even suggesting that they should all be killed—is actual random violence specifically directed at whites because they are white.

But we are already there. In fact we’ve been there for several years already. Not too long ago the internet was flooded with cellphone videos capturing the “knockout game.” Young black thugs competed for internet fame by filming themselves randomly slugging a white person passing them on the street. Men. Women. Old men—Sarah Jeong probably enjoyed those. It didn’t matter. The goal was to knock a white unconscious with one blow.

The mainstream media completely ignored this, naturally.

More: The Trump presidential campaign was portrayed as a “dumbass white people’s” movement of “deplorables.”  A loosely formed group of radical leftists joined together under the banner “Antifa” to disrupt and harass Trump’s campaign rallies. They made no secret of their intent to use violence, and Trump rallies were often the scene of riotous assaults on Trump supporters.

These violent protests soon expanded to any event given by any conservative speaker. Antifa trashed and burned their way through Sproul Plaza at the UCLA campus before a scheduled talk by conservative Breitbart writer/editor Milo Yiannopoulos. They and Black Lives Matter later disrupted a talk there by conservative Ben Shapiro. Conservatives have been effectively proscribed from our schools and universities just as they are shadowbanned by the social media giants Google, Facebook, Youtube and Twitter.

Meanwhile, a campaign to portray “racist policing” as the cause of the extraordinary level of violence in African-American communities led to more violent riots. Black Lives Matter marches, where slogans such as “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon!” soon led to assassinations of police officers across the nation. Now in Massachusetts, Senator Elizabeth Warren proclaims that the criminal justice system is racist “front to back.”

The harsh reality is that the Left has now fully embraced fascism as it is now defined: the use of intimidation, violence and threats of violence to silence political opposition.

The shooting has only just begun.

Besides embracing fascism, the Left has also embraced a cultural nihilism that defies rationality. More proof that they simply cannot be reasoned with.

* * *

Many years ago I wrote a piece that included a sarcastic reference to lesbians offering sexual counseling to married couples. Now drag queens are brought into public libraries and kindergartens to teach pre-school children about “gender fluidity.” Pre-school children. And they are brought, voluntarily, by their parents!

At latest count there are now 73 “genders.” Feminists hold “slut walks” to proclaim their freedom to dress like cheap hookers while simultaneously condemning “slut shaming.” Or something.

I could go on... and on ...

Half-a-century of the Left’s domination in virtually every sphere of the culture has succeeded in imposing a totally alien set of “moral” values on our nation. The resulting social chaos that has ensued is unsustainable. The nation cannot survive it. They want “open borders,” which in effect means we are no longer a sovereign nation. They want all foreign-born people to be fully accommodated in their own language, and reject the English standard.

The Left cannot be reasoned with and are willing to go to any violent extremes to achieve their goal, which is ... who knows?

Yes, we are already in a Civil War. It’s still a Cold War with sparks here and there, but sooner or later it’s going to go hot.

I think of it more as a counter-revolution of normal Americans trying to dismantle the Left’s Cultural Revolution that began in the sixties. Sarah Jeong may be the inflection point. If she is slapped down now as she should be, disaster may be averted. But if she is given a pass, the curve towards chaos and civil war will continue uninhibited.

Let’s do the right thing, and establish now that racism and hatred toward whites and men is not to be tolerated. The genocide against white farmers has begun in South Africa. This must not stand here.

# # #

Intersectionality Defined

in·ter·sec·tion·al·i·ty

noun

1.    (Google) the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.

"through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us"

2.    (The 3^rd Rail) a strategy to forestall the inevitable result of identity politics: where the various groups bestowed with victim status (i.e., all except heterosexual white males) eventually devour one another in a vicious circle of victimization one-upmanship.

“Intersectionality” is the most recent of the linguistic constructions employed by the Left to advance their political agenda. It comes from a virulent pedigree, with “diversity,” “multiculturalism,” and “inclusion” among the most notable of its ancestry. The first two achieved “holy word” stature sometime during the last decades of the twentieth century; “inclusion” more recently.

They all serve the same purpose: to diminish and denigrate the predominance of Western European culture and history in the Brave New World of “progressivism,” and to demonize heterosexual white men.

World history is deconstructed to reveal that the influence of Western European civilization on the world’s other peoples has been one of exploitation and subjugation. Furthermore, its cultural values, evolved from the Greco-Roman world through the Renaissance to the Age of Enlightenment and beyond to the present, are all poisoned by their original sin, and must be rejected.

This is why to earn a bachelor’s degree in English Literature at UCLA you must takes courses in Gender, Race, Ethnicity, Disability or Sexuality Studies, Imperial Transnational or Post-Colonial Studies, and Critical Theory—and are not required to take a single course in Shakespeare. The goal of the program is to expose students, according to the course catalog, to “alternative rubrics of gender, sexuality, race, and class.”*

It shouldn’t need to be stated that UCLA is hardly an outlier, or an insignificant college. Such academic “rubrics” are now the new norm throughout the academy.

* * *

Identity politics requires people to classify themselves first as a member of a victim group, and as an individual second. From their membership in their particular victim group (or groups), they are programmed to see political and social issues all through the lens of the group. It is ironic that this new paradigm is the reversal of the ideation from the Civil Rights movement championed by MLK. His plea was that he would see a future when people were judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. This is the antithesis of identity politics.

Intersectionality encourages its stakeholders to set aside any internecine conflicts that may arise around a particular issue, for example the outrage from some quarters of feminism wishing to exclude transgender women (that is men who have been surgically altered to mimic a female) from their latest protest. It must be quite a conundrum for them.

In the absence of the overarching unifying principle of intersectionality, these two victim groups would be at each other’s throats (and actually, they are). But intersectionality reminds them that they share a common bond: the identity of their oppressors. Feminists are oppressed by men, and transgenders are oppressed by “heteronormism.” The intersection of which is ... wait for it ... straight men.

Recognizing their shared victimhood, victim groups should table their differences on whatever current matter is in contention, in service of the higher truth. Never forget who the ultimate enemy is: the straight white male.

* * *

As the 3^rd Rail’s definition states, “... a strategy to forestall the inevitable result ...” 

The balkanization of the Left into its ever-growing number of victim classes and their petty rivalries must inevitably devour itself. Even with shrewd strategies like “intersectionality,” the inherent nihilism, toxicity and hatred of the Left will consume it.   As sixties’ radical Abbie Hoffman once intoned about a different “enemy”:

“The system will collapse under its own weight. Our job is to give it a few kicks and stay high.”

I don’t recommend the drugs inference, but I love the sentiment!

*Who Killed the Liberal Arts?” Heather Macdonald, Prager University video lecture

Copyright  ©   2018 Marcus Clintonius