The purest of bullshit

The New York Times, forfeiting all credibility, hired and subsequently defended an out-and-out hater of white people and men with the explanation, “her journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment. For a period of time, she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers.”

Andrew Sullivan, whose piece is linked-to above, described this quite accurately as “the purest of bullshit“.  He writes, “If you want to respond to trolls by trolling them, you respond to them directly.  You don’t post slurs about an entire race of people (the overwhelming majority of whom are not trolls) on an open-forum website like Twitter. And these racist tweets were not just a function of one sudden exasperated vent at a harasser; they continued for two years.”

It’s one thing for a place like the Washington Post to publish a similar men-hating piece, because they at least also publish people like Megan McArdle, who’s kind of center-right/libertarian.  The Post, at least at present, and surely thanks to the fact that it’s owned by someone who doesn’t need it to make money, is in harmony with Thomas Jefferson’s ideal of truth and error grappling in an arena of freedom.  But the fact that The New York Times kept someone with views more vile than those that Kevin Williamson was defenestrated for upon their discovery by The Atlantic, even in the face of widespread outrage, makes its actions simply unforgiveable and the damage to its reputation possibly irreparable.

This marks the moment when the NYT ceased to be “The Paper of Record”.

Prisms and mirrors

One of the really valuable things about these times of shocks and reassessments of old assumptions is the way it’ll provide evidence about many things that lots of people had simply assumed.

Did the Left and Hollywood and the media assume that a lot of policies of the NWO had genuine popular support, as opposed to being political luxuries?

Did the Deep State assume it was so useful that no one would ever seriously challenge it?

Were America’s dealings with North Korea hindered by the automatic assumption that we can’t imperil Chinese-American trade by taking a hard line over Chinese support for North Korea?

I think the answer is obviously yes to all of these.   The Trump administration itself is basically a photographic negative of the “New World Order”.   It’s as though all his targets are chosen, not on his opinions about them or on his philosophy, none of which I’m certain exist, but on how sacred a cow they were to the NWO.  And in turn, all his actions reveal more about everyone else, by their reactions to them, than anything about him.  Now the components of modern policy have been split into a spectrum the way white light is split into separate colors through a prism.

Some of these things– those which we come to discover we miss– will no doubt return in a stronger form.  Others will be trashed.  That’s a good thing.