Farewell, Bigots!
March 13, 2018
Another arrogant Jewish culture warrior slings mud at white America
THE editor of National Geographic magazine, Susan Goldberg, apologizes for the racist opinions of her predecessors in the latest issue.
I’m the tenth editor of National Geographic since its founding in 1888. I’m the first woman and the first Jewish person—a member of two groups that also once faced discrimination here. It hurts to share the appalling stories from the magazine’s past.
Aside from the substance — or lack of substance — of Ms. Goldberg’s apology, it’s an odd thing for an editor to do. Editors don’t normally seek to denigrate their publications in public.
It seems that it is Ms. Goldberg who is the bigot.
Would the magazine of WASP racists fascinated by exotic cultures in far-off lands (though they did feature too many pictures of naked women — just like the mainstream media today) have ever so undercut the confidence of native, non-white cultures by portraying their children in sexual confusion (see below)? (Sorry, previous link was a fake.) I think not. I would wager that no previous editor of National Geographic has had anything remotely like the political agenda of Susan Goldberg and her backers in the entertainment industry, of which National Geographic is now a part.
The old NG guard never proposed biologically undermining any race:
The old guard never depicted Aborigine children in non-traditional costumes like this. The old National Geographic celebrated traditional cultures. It didn’t seek to destroy them.
Americans once treasured their back issues of National Geographic, which stood for curiosity, not racist superiority. The back issues of the future are trash, just more Communist junk.
Here’s a comment from a reader at the Unz Review (via Steve Sailer):
Actually, come to think of it, wasn’t the point in reading Nat Geo all those years: to find out what stereotypes were ingrained in every other culture? Isn’t that more or less the definition of the entire field of Cultural Anthropology? And now that’s what you’re going to avoid? So now what will Nat Geo be? Simply a log of encounters with cultures of no particular characteristics—certainly nothing in any way better or worse than anything else—who should in no way be construed as “other”? Yeah, sounds scintillating…
And another comment from the same link:
One problem for National Geographic magazine is that, as they become more openly anti-white, they can’t find new readers among the diverse. Outside of East Asians, nonwhites generally do not read very much. The freefalling comic book industry is in the same predicament. Selling to whites was good business, but liberals almost always put ideology ahead of profits.
Another:
Putting a tedious bitchy managerialist in charge is an admission of the loss of anything that once made Nat Geo special. It’s an admission that it doesn’t matter who is in charge, it’s already dead and fewer and fewer people with options will choose to work there.