Atoning for Tony: The Unforgivable Sin of Accurate Journalism

November 28, 2017

Richard Fausset’s “A Voice of Hate in America’s Heartland” profiled our Chief Operations Officer Tony Hovater’s personal life to get a better understanding of what makes evil people tick. At no point in the article did Fausset validate Tony. At no point in the article did Fausset normalize Tony’s ideas. By objective standards, Fausset’s article was your standard mainstream media hit piece depicting us as fundamentally sinister people who just wish to “set fires” for diabolical reasons.

But Fausset has come under universal admonishment by the rest of the institutional press for admitting the unavoidable: Tony is a balanced, charming, smart, and likable guy. In WaPo’s blistering response, “Why the New York Times Nazi profile was so disturbing,” Jasmin blasts the New York Times for its honesty, for its reporting too many of the facts on the ground, for humanizing a class of people who are to be dehumanized. Naturally, because that’s all these people are capable of, Jasmin accuses Fausset and the entire NYT editorial board of being, …white, privileged, and insufficiently caring for people of color.

Jasmin’s objection is that the NYT dared to write a story about white voices which was actually about white people speaking in their own voices. For him, not only Fascist Tony but the entirety of Trump’s support base as well, belong to a special class of unpersons whose voices are to be dynamically silenced, who only exist as Gargamel to the immigrant and minority Smurf, who only find humanization and redemption to the extent that they serve the immigrants and minorities to atone for their historical, collective guilt as white people.

Amid increasing neo-fascist mobilization, and during the tenure of a president who routinely peddles far-right talking points and policies and equivocates on condemning white supremacists, the Times has produced a soft-focus profile of one of the founding members of the country’s leading neo-Nazi groups.

What Fausset was attempting to do, if I may, is sound the alarm bell that the opposition is more articulate, intelligent, and persuasive than is widely presumed. That’s an important message to get out there to people who are opposed to the rise of nationalism. Wouldn’t you want to know that your opponent isn’t a clumsy, boorish, and hateful goof who’s out of touch? Isn’t that an important fact to report?

No, because journalism isn’t about reporting what’s going on. It’s about manipulating public opinion. The coastal elites are so terrified by the rise of Trump and the re-emergence of authentic nationalism that they’re not even bothering with the pretense that they’re abiding by boundaries and ethics of traditional journalism. They’re soldiers in the fight for Jews, immigrants, and minorities against a rabid, dangerous White America hellbent on their genocide.

In other words, one of America’s papers of record, whose writers and editors routinely interact with the most powerful people in the world, has published an article that treats the specter of far-right violence, an increasingly present reality for millions of immigrants and people of color in the United States, as just another voice in the marketplace of ideas.

It is as though fascism, the 20th century’s most murderous ideology, has become an obscure, little-understood footnote in history.

The most murderous ideology of the 20th century was indisputably Marxism, obviously and objectively. But that’s the kind of little white lie that’s necessary when you’re fighting evil, after all. The truth is no defense.

The only way such a piece could have been produced — despite the Times’ rigorous editorial standards — is if, at a fundamental level, its staff did not understand the threat represented by Hovater. Or, more to the point, Times staffers are not afraid of Hovater, the way so many of us are — we who are Jewish, Muslim, black, brown or queer, and who have always known that behind Hovater’s dog whistle references to “tradition” and “normies” (i.e., normal people) lies a genocidal vision for America’s future.

What we want is exactly what you want, Jasmin: the security and prosperity of our demographic, our tribe. You want White American folks to languish and decline, while we want them to flourish. You want history books where White people are the villains. We want history books where our people are heroes. The only difference is that Jasmin has led himself to believe that humiliating, displacing, and genocidally replacing White people is some kind of grand universal historical imperative, while we’re a bit more honest about the fundamentally tribal nature of the human experience.

The Washington Post is a parody of everything we stand against. It’s owned by a maniacal libertarian billionaire hellbent on buying the political system, run overwhelmingly by deeply leftist Jews, and their content routinely features minorities, immigrants, and queers who are profoundly hostile to and wish to dehumanize White American voices. We at TradWorker have for our entire lifecycle, in our founding documents, in our writings, and in our speeches, consistently made it plain that we don’t wish to hurt or harm those who aren’t our folk, which is less than Jasmin and WaPo can claim. They openly crow about the impending decline and demise of my people as a grand moral quest of some sort. They actively censor and distort the truth of anti-White violence on our nation’s streets.

When you look at the murder rates by identity in the United States, the birth rates by identity in the United States, and the wildly unsustainable legal and illegal immigration rate by identity in the United States, it betrays a profound attachment to his (((echo))) chamber for Jasmin to dare to accuse us of being the ones with a genocidal vision for America’s future. They’re projecting, and they’re projecting their fundamental hatefulness and shittiness onto the cheerful and relatable Tony.

Or perhaps Times staffers are simply insulated and figure (correctly) that, when the violence begins, it will not be directed at people like them: wealthy, white and mobile. Hovater and his extremist associates are far more likely to prioritize the murder and expulsion of static, poor, black[,] and brown communities — those who are close at hand.

Why must there be violence? Why are White voices in the public square the only voices that require violence? They’re crying out as they strike us, lauding the “antifa” who have an ideology of unprovoked violence as heroes, then claiming we must be punished preemptively for potentially responding at some undefined point in the future. What TradWorker actually does is cooperate closely with Black Panther, Nation of Islam, and Hotep black identitarians, as well as Latin American nationalists, toward practical and mutually respectful identitarian solutions to the crisis of globalism and multiculturalism.

In America as in Yugoslavia, the globalists throw a bunch of dogs in a small cage with limited food and water, then cry “Fascist!” when they struggle to survive.

They can shriek that we’re lying, but, … [citation needed]. They need to claim that we’re lying about our beliefs because they have no credible or coherent argument against our beliefs. They must knock down a scarecrow parody of us with their sophistry because our pan-nationalist anti-globalist message rings more true to the objective ear than their embattled neoliberal, neo-colonial, globalist 20th century ideology.

If the Times felt that the memories of the Jim Crow period or the Holocaust were somehow too distant to instill in their readers coherent lessons about the dangers of fascism, then they need only have glanced at world headlines last week and reflected on the conviction of General Ratko Mladić. Now serving a life sentence for genocide and crimes against humanity, Mladić was the wartime commander of the Belgrade-backed Bosnian Serb forces.

Jim Crow had nothing whatsoever to do with “fascism.” In fact, the Jim Crow Southerners did most of America’s actual fighting against Europe’s fascist insurgency. This is the sort of intellectual idiocy that festers when one side of an argument declares the other side evil and forcefully shuts them up. There was nothing remotely fascist about Mladic, and if there’s anything we can learn from the Balkans, it’s that forcing very different peoples to share a government and public spaces is a powder keg. All sides were nationalist, including the side that the Washington Post celebrates as liberators and victims.

For WaPo ‘n Pals, a “fascist” is anybody on the business end of their Zionist, globalist capitalist agenda. The Palestinians are fascists. The Southerners are fascists. The Serbs are fascists. To throw in a Seinfeld reference, one can’t help but wonder if Seinfeld’s infamous “Soup Nazi” was even an ironic thing for these people. According to Mussolini, fascism is simply the state disciplining the market to the needs of the nation. The baathist Arab nationalist states, the Philippines, China, and both Koreas are now essentially fascist in all but endorsing the electrified epithet. While different permutations have varied in their degree of opposition to global Jewry, it’s only intrinsically antisemitic to the extent that cosmopolitan Jews universally require the state to discipline the nation to the needs of the market.

Mladić, at the direction of his political superiors Radovan Karadžić and Slobodan Milošević, actually enacted the ideas that Hovater and his cohort have now presented in the pages of the New York Times as the reasonable cry of middle America’s downtrodden white man.

Atrocities have been committed and will continue to be committed by all sides in the Balkans because wildly incompatible nations were forced by the Marxists Jasmin sympathizes with to share a living space. What’s baffling is that WaPo doesn’t even endorse an intellectually consistent “I don’t see race” multiculturalism which would actually lead to his conclusion that all tribalism is bad. He just wants White people to cease being tribal or identitarian while his pet identity groups run amok with nationalist excitement about their impending demographic victories over White identity.

Despite the handwringing in the immediate aftermath of November 2016, it is clear that much of the American media establishment has learned little from the unthinkable election of Donald Trump.

Let’s start with Jasmin, who has learned the exact opposite lesson. If you don’t take the time to humanize and understand the White American reaction which made Trump possible, then you can’t actually work through it. But we all know Jasmin doesn’t wish to work through it. The half of America who voted for Trump are to be dehumanized and defeated with hateful caricatures and the NYT’s job is supposedly to churn out hateful parodies of White Americans like Warner Bros studios churned out racist caricatures of the Japs in WWII.

Unfortunately, with its glib profile of Hovater, the New York Times has failed its readers and emboldened the enemies of the republic.

Actually, at the risk of revealing the method, we at TradWorker are heartened by the universal outcry against Richard Fausset’s ill-fated attempt at an honest portrayal and frank conversation about what’s happening in America. America’s elites are blinded by hubris and hatred of “the other,” and are hellbent on doubling down on precisely the sort of anti-white hatred–the dehumanization and polarization–that fueled the core of Trump’s base. They’re going full retard, and that’s right where we at TradWorker want them.

Local Solutions to the Globalist Problem Forums Atoning for Tony: The Unforgivable Sin of Accurate Journalism

This topic contains 1 reply, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  DAMJ 2 weeks, 2 days ago.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
  • #55500


    Another great article

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Skip to toolbar