Sarah Jeong and the Rise of a New Power Structure

Emma Sulkowicz, Jin Hyun, now Sarah Jeong. Why does it seem like every Asian American nowadays that I come across in the media is constantly perpetuating the most puerile, pointless, SJW drivel? In addition to all of them being Asian American, I just realised that they're all women as well.

DEAR GOD.

Quick, throw some male representation in there!

Ahh, much better.

So for those who don't know, the New York Times has recently been involved in a spot of controversy for hiring Sarah Jeong, a well-known(?) journalist and social activist as their new tech writer. The controversy lies within the fact that she had been called out for posting a series of outrageously racist tweets in the past. They were so ridiculous that they would almost be funny if not for the genuine contempt that I felt seep out from my computer screen to envelop me in a dark murky fog. NYT not only did not retract their decision to hire her, they defended her white-bashing, cop-hating stance by claiming that she was counter-trolling online white harassers, and turned against one of their own for rightly claiming that Sarah Jeong has yet to have done anything for the NYT to warrant their warm welcome of her.

I have just spent all morning wading through the noxious swamp that is Sarah Jeong's Twitter and her previous journalistic works and it is...surprisingly tame. Definitely far left-leaning but aside from the racist, cop-hating tweets that were already published, it seemed like a typical Twitter feed filled with social justice grievances and a weird obsession with BigFoot.

So why the white hatred? By all accounts, Sarah Jeong is not a victim of white male patriarchy. She attended UC Berkeley and Harvard, so she obviously came from relative wealth. She has had a successful career in tech journalism, thus establishing herself as someone who has not suffered from workplace victimisation. Asian Americans have notoriously dominated the upper economic class of not only the US, but many Western nations, not to mention the fact that Asian countries are well on their way to stand toe-to-toe with Western countries in wealth and economic status, as I mentioned in my previous post. Therefore, it's hard to pinpoint how exactly she felt that she had been so marginalised by The System that she had no choice but to lash out. Of course, Sarah Jeong brought up the issue of her being harassed online, but doesn't it come with the job description of being a public figure? She is certainly not the only one getting harassed, Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Christina Hoff Summers have all seen their fair share of death threats and slander. Candace Owens was confronted in person at breakfast just a few days ago. In the immortal words of Jonah Hill from 21 Jump Street, it might have been more [sexist/racist/homophobic] not to harass her just because she was [insert appropriate intersectional trait].

Sarah Jeong is very young still, so one of the reasons I can deduce from her behaviour is her still-potent, ever present need to part of the cultural tribe. She wants to be one of the cool kids, a progressive ethnic minority who as a result of her intersectionality, has been brutally oppressed by a system built by the powerful elite, and has had to struggle to succeed and find her place in the world. Obviously being an elite herself, there is very little within the victimhood classifications she can rightfully claim. Thus, her story has to be one of being harassed by angry white men who are constantly lurking around the web like dogs pissing on fire hydrants. Add to the fact that she explicitly refers herself as a women of colour, and you have someone who has been thoroughly swayed by the intersectional movement and who desperately wants to claim some form of victim status so that she can proudly proclaim to be one of the people. Sarah Jeong is not an elite, she has not benefitted from the system. Instead she has struggled most of her life due to her gender and skin colour, against a white male patriarchy that has conspired to keep her down.

Here's what I find so dangerous about the Sarah Jeong case. Of course, we have long ceased to assume political neutrality with our media, however we should still demand some degree of objectivity among journalists. Am I being naive if I expect a publication with a readership of 130 million per month to generate articles on certain grounds of reality? How do you trust a journalist's objectivity, if said journalist has clearly stated that she thinks all white people are dumb, she wants them to go extinct, and she thinks that objective reality is a white construct? Wait, what?

It's official. We're living in a simulation.

She is a tech journalist, so what exactly is stopping her from expanding her biases towards her work? If she was sent to cover Elizabeth Holmes, would she be able to feature that scandal objectively, or would she focus on John Carreyrou instead and lambast him as a white male working within a patriarchal system designed to oppress women, especially those attempting to break the glass ceiling in tech? I don't know. What would she say about James Damore? Definitely nothing good. And if you think I'm being harsh, remember that this is the same journalist who enjoys torturing sweet little peepaws.

Down with the patriarchy!

Symone Sanders who have spoken up in Jeong's defence, claimed that it was impossible for her to be racist, since racism is a combination of prejudice and power. Maybe Jeong was prejudiced against white people but as a women of colour, it was impossible for her to be racist. Putting aside for a minute the fact that the definition of racism has been altered to suit the political agenda of the radicals, let us analyze her words in the context of the events we have witnessed thus far. Are white people still the group holding unequivocal power? Really? The New York Times just hired Jeong despite her claims that white people should move to live underground and go extinct, with no mention of having her go through diversity trainings or any form of consequence for her actions. Now her words and political mindset is about to be spread through one of the world's most powerful and widely read publications in the world. Conversely, James Damore was fired after he published an internal memo criticising Google's discriminatory hires. Who truly holds the power in the US? Is it the ones who hold positions of authority? So why were white people still the ones with power when Obama was president? Is it then the ones who comprise the population majority? The Caucasian population is shrinking, and estimates suggest that they won't be the majority in the US within another few decades. When that happens, are African Americans and Hispanics the ones who hold the power? Will they remove affirmative action, or transfer it to white people? If left-wingers want to suggest that racism is prejudice plus power, they first need to define the boundaries of what those words imply. Who truly holds the power in this country? And what exactly does it mean to be prejudiced against someone?

Economist Amy Chua once quoted in her book Battle Hymns of a Tiger Mother: Assume strength, not weakness. I disagreed almost entirely with her methods, but I'm beginning to see that some tiger parenting could be good for the American millennials. The West is on a slow but gradual decline and one of the reasons for that is because the younger generation take pride in the fact that they are victims and thus through a self-fulfilling prophecy, turned themselves into fragile porcelain dolls incapable of even governing their own emotions, let alone their entire civilisation. Postmodernism has created an entire generation of coddled individuals who yearn to be unique and admired, and yet are unwilling to expend the effort to do so. Instead, they scramble to assert a form of victimhood status and transform it into the center of their personality and being, thus creating an oppression Olympics where nobody wins except their individual egos.