It seems that being white is an unbearable sin in the eyes of the liberal left. Jim Goad provides us with plenty of examples, all riffing off the title of Milan Kundera's famous novel (and the film made from it), 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being'.
The Huffington Post—which was started by a woman who’s so white, her eyes appear to be turning into cocaine—is a serial abuser of this term. The publication decries “The Unbearable Whiteness of Trumpistan,” “The Unbearable Whiteness Of Being in China,” “The Unbearable Whiteness of Anti-Intellectualism,” and “The Unbearable Whiteness of Suicide-by-Mass-Murder.”
. . .
To my knowledge, the quintessentially unbearable writers for the Huffington Post have never referred to blackness or Jewishness as “unbearable.”
Despite the fact that the publishing industry slavishly caters to minoritarian tyrants and routinely bashes the very notion of white people, many insist that this industry, too, is unbearably white. A gay black author whinges about “The Unbearable Whiteness of Science Fiction.” An editor for the Islamic Monthly takes issue with “The Unbearable Whiteness of Canadian Columnists.” (He notes that “Canadian columnists are predominately white” and designates this as a “problem.”)
A writer for The American Prospect slams “The Unbearable Whiteness of Liberal Media,” noting that even the staff of The Nation has only “slightly over 4 percent of its staff hailing from racial and ethnic minority groups.” (Apparently he counts Jews as white.) And of course, even The Nation itself bemoans the publishing industry’s “unbearable whiteness.”
Writing in TIME, a certain Eliza Berman tut-tuts “The Unbearable Whiteness of the Oscar Nominations.” In the Daily Beast, an Asian woman takes issue with “The Unbearable Whiteness of Cameron Crowe’s ‘Aloha’.” And Think Progress—which is bankrolled by Holocaust enabler George Soros—has a bone to pick with Ridley Scott’s Moses and its “Unbearable Whiteness.”
There's more at the link.
Isn't it funny how left-wing and progressive commentators are actually more racist than the rest of us? Oh, sorry, I forgot - according to them, if you're left-wing, or progressive, or (particularly) Black and any of those things, you can't be racist, by definition.
I leave it to you to imagine my response to such fatuous nonsense.
Peter
Perfect examples of the vacuous thinking of the left.....
ReplyDeleteI love it how they want to black list the Oscars for being too white but love the M.O.B.O. awards.
ReplyDeleteThey love black actors who will not kiss (on film) white women, but how long would a white actor last who would not kiss a black woman.
It's ok to be Raaaaacist if you're a regressive. Your heart is automatically in the right place, in their deluded minds.
ReplyDeleteI recommend this Econtalk podcast that delves into the history of Progressives and their bigoted, racist nature
ReplyDelete"Thomas Leonard: Two ways to think about this, Russ. The first is, the term, 'liberal'--it's an old word in English but it's a relatively new word in the political lexicon. So, after the American Civil War, say in the 1870s, if you described a person as liberal, what that meant is the person would be committed to individual freedom and to those institutions that were thought necessary for maintaining individual rights against the State. So, for example, a relatively free-market economy; and laws that protect individual rights against the State. Today we use the term 'classical liberal' to describe that view because the Progressives gave the term, at least in the United States, an entirely different meaning. The Progressives viewed this 19th century classical liberalism as inefficient, as wasteful, as corrupt. And so they certainly were reformers. But they weren't liberals. And in fact what they were trying to do was to dismantle 19th century classical liberalism in the name of health, welfare, and mores. They basically saw individual liberties--which in the American context are sort of very expressly and famously enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights--they thought of those liberties as basically archaic impediments to their reform project of making, you know, the United States healthier and improving welfare and morals, too. So that's the first sense in which they are illiberal--is that there's not a lot of respect for individual rights. Particularly, in the economic context. The second sense, the additional sense in which I'd say the Progressives were illiberal, is, where first--the original sense of the term, Russ. So, when we said someone was 'liberal,' before it became a political term, what we meant is that they were open-minded or tolerant, free from prejudice and bigotry. And as you know, it turns out that a very--a shockingly high percentage of the Progressives, including the progressive economists--were anything but liberal in that traditional sense. They were closed-minded. They were intolerant. And they were bigoted. In fact they--"
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/12/thomas_leonard.html
I've taken to calling them Bigoteers - we'll see if the term gets any traction.
ReplyDeletehttp://rickscafe45.blogspot.com/2016/12/politcally-correct-bigoteers.html
Jim Goad is a National Treasure. I've been reading him for years.
ReplyDeleteThe unbearable arrogance of leftist elitism.
ReplyDeleteIf he accomplishes little else in his term in office, we can thank Donald Trump for making it OK to let the left spew their PC garbage and accusations at us, then simply turn our backs on them and ignore them Or for extreme cases, mock them.
The days of being guilted into violating your own beliefs because of false accusations had finally ended.