MSNBC Column Laments Sydney Sweeney American Eagle Ad Celebrating 'Whiteness'

Who would have thought that Sydney Sweeney throwing on a white tank top and a pair of jeans for an American Eagle advertisement would cause such a problem for the left-wing loons? Can you think of a better example of "if there's nothing to actually complain about, make something up" than this? 

As OutKick has documented, the left-wingers have lost their minds since Sweeney appeared in a 30-second spot for American Eagle. To be perfectly honest, I wasn't aware that American Eagle still existed. It was a big part of my teenage years (not for me personally, since I'm more of a gym shorts and t-shirt kind of guy), but I rarely go into malls at this point. 

Well, it still exists. And it stirred up a "controversy" by using a fairly innocuous pun. The tagline of the ad is that "Sydney Sweeney has good jeans." Get it? You see, "jeans" and "genes" are homophones. It's a play on words! According to "Good Morning America," and several other radical lefties, this represents Nazi symbolism. I'm not even joking about that. 

MSNBC had the most unhinged reaction to the Sydney Sweeney, American Eagle ad

MSNBC, arguably the most radical left-wing "news outlet" in the United States, was not about to be outdone by the other legacy media outlets. The website posted a column that was featured on the homepage titled, "Sydney Sweeney's ad shows an unbridled cultural shift toward whiteness." Talk about a headline, huh!? 

The subheadline reads, "Advertisements are always mirrors of society, and sometimes what they reflect is ugly and startling." You got that? Sydney Sweeney, rocking a pair of jeans and a tank top, represents something "ugly and startling" about U.S. society. My goodness, just when you think these people can't get any worse, they do. 

The column starts by explaining the ad in a way that only an MSNBC columnist could. "Sweeney, 27, is featured doing all sorts of Americana things in her American Eagle denim — like leaning over the hood of a white Mustang or lying on the floor holding a long-haired German shepherd puppy," the opening paragraph reads, in part. 

How dare they feature Americana in an ad for a company called American Eagle? Those bastards! 

"The backlash has been swift and fierce, and some of it, at least, if you ask me, is fair. The internet has been quick to condemn the advertisement as noninclusive at best and as overtly promoting "white supremacy" and "Nazi propaganda" at worst. These critics point to the copy and the implication of calling a white person superior because of their genes. In the videos, Sweeney exudes a sort of vintage sexiness that caters to the male gaze. She embodies the near mythological girl-next-door beautiful but low-maintenance sexy femininity that dominated media in the 1990s and the early 2000s. Together, the campaign feels regressive and not retro, offensive and not cheeky," the column continues. 

What a paragraph, huh? Let's take it down piece-by-piece. First, the author says the quiet part out loud. When she, some lady named Hannah Holland – who is probably really fun at parties, says "noninclusive," what she really means is "white." You see, "inclusion" is a fancy way of saying "not white." It's kind of like when liberals say "reproductive rights" when they mean "abortion" or "gender-affirming care" when they mean "sterilization and mutilation." 

We've already addressed the nonsense of "white supremacy" and "Nazi propaganda," so no need to go over that again. The rest of the paragraph is what one might expect from a far-left columnist, so we can keep moving. I'd like to focus on the final sentence, "campaign feels regressive and not retro, offensive and not cheeky." 

Putting a beautiful woman in an advertisement is suddenly "regressive." It's also somewhat hilarious that the author harkens back to the days of the 1990s and early 2000s. Does she mean when the United States was at its peak? When race relations were the best in society's history? That's the time Holland views as one we should leave in the past, huh? 

In addition, calling the ad "offensive" is quite the phrasing. You know an ad that's offensive? How about the one from Gillette that said two young boys wrestling on a lawn represented "toxic masculinity." I found that advertisement pretty offensive, but my guess is that Holland LOVED that one. Still, I didn't write a column about it. Why? Because who cares? It was a dumb ad with a dumb message. 

Let's keep going, shall we? 

"The advertisement, the choice of Sweeney as the sole face in it and the internet’s reaction reflect an unbridled cultural shift toward whiteness, conservatism and capitalist exploitation. Sweeney is both a symptom and a participant," the column states. 

Ah yes, here we go. While the author leaned towards "other people's opinions" early in the column – views she almost certainly shares – in this paragraph we get to the crux of the radical-left-wing ideology. Whiteness, conservatism and capitalism are bad. Which can only mean, of course, that non-whiteness, liberalism and socialism (or, perhaps, communism) are good. Framing society this way – good vs. evil – is a classic left-wing tactic. It allows those on that side to frame themselves as the morally righteous side. They are good. Everyone else is evil. 

Of the many hilarious aspects of this column, I find this one particularly funny. While I don't claim to be an expert on Hannah Hollan's background – since I just learned of her existence today – she certainly appears to be… white. Not that it matters, it's just worth noting. I wonder if she wakes up every day angry at herself. She certainly appears to be angry at the world, but according to her own worldview, she should be really upset with herself. In this way, I feel somewhat sorry for Holland. The poor girl is living a tortured existence as one of those evil white people she despises so much. 

A column posted on the MSNBC website claims that Sydney Sweeney appearing in an advertisement for American Eagle is a celebration of "whiteness" and that's the problem.

(Imagn Images & Getty Images)

The column then dives into Sydney Sweeney and why Holland views the actress as both a perpetrator and victim of this horrible "white-centric" society. While Holland gives Sweeney a pass in some respects, she blames her in others. Here's a great example: 

"I cannot blame Sweeney for financially benefiting from a system that is going to exploit her either way. Still, her willingness to participate in such an obviously damaging — and, depending on who you ask, even dangerous — advertising campaign as the latest American Eagle collection is disappointing," Holland writes. 

My goodness. I cannot stress this enough: the advertisement that Holland calls "obviously damaging" and goes as far as to say "dangerous," portrays an actress wearing jeans and a tank top. What about all those ads spouting about "body positivity?" This should fall into that category, since Sweeney seems proud of her body. Except, "body positivity" seems to only apply to overweight and obese women. Which, by the way, is a truly "dangerous" message, since it glorifies obesity, a medical condition that often leads to heart problems, diabetes, strokes, and early death. 

Obese women should be proud that they're taking themselves down a path of self-destruction. Sydney Sweeney should be ashamed. Can you imagine spouting this nonsense on the Internet for everyone to see? Holland displays her blatant misogyny proudly, tearing down a woman for being… too attractive? 

Think I'm overstating this, or perhaps even misinterpreting Holland's words? Well, let's keep going then. 

"It isn’t just that far-right ideology is proliferating on the fringe; our entire cultural ethos has moved further right, allowing for this sort of content. Young women are being radicalized through so-called clean skin care and healthy eating, internet slang once used exclusively by women-hating incels is mainstream, and people are unabashedly self-identifying as fascist on public platforms," Holland writes. 

Wait a minute. Young women are being radicalized by… "skin care" routines and "healthy eating?!" OK, Holland officially lost the plot. Many might argue that happened well before this moment, but I actually had to stop reading for a second and come back later because that line was so absurd I needed a moment to gather myself. I know MSNBC produces some truly dreadful commentary, but I'm still amazed they allowed this on their website. 

By the way, this is where Holland links to another column of hers titled, "The Make America Healthy Again movement is a threat to public health." I wish I were joking. Additionally, at least based on her photo, Holland is not overweight. Seriously, how much must this woman hate herself? She appears to be a skinny white girl, like the one she spent demonizing in this ridiculous column. I know the old trope "no one hates women more than other women" is overplayed, stereotypical and often incorrect, but Holland fits the bill to a T. 

"Sweeney and American Eagle deserve much scrutiny over this, but so does our own crumbling and fractured American culture that made this all possible in the first place," the column concludes. 

Finally, I found some common ground with Holland. I agree that American culture is "crumbling and fractured." However, I'm guessing we disagree on why. The real reason is because of people like Holland, who hate America, hate white people, and hate capitalism. They are the driving force behind the main issues of American society in the 2020s. It's not the people making commercials about jeans or the people appearing them. 

I'm going to quote Holland's subheadline to end: "Advertisements are always mirrors of society, and sometimes what they reflect is ugly and startling."

Hannah Holland should take her own advice and take a quick peek in the mirror. What she sees is probably a little more "ugly and startling" than an American Eagle advertisement featuring Sydney Sweeney.