Author: VD

SJW will not protect you

Not even relentless virtue-signaling is proving sufficient to save the alleged sexual harassers in comics:

I understand that Group Editor of the Superman comics Eddie Berganza has informed staffers at the DC offices that Buzzfeed is about to publish an expose feature all about him and allegations that have been made against him regarding sexual harassment.

In 2012, Bleeding Cool reported the story that such an incident was alleged to have taken place in a hotel lobby at WonderCon in Anaheim.

I received multiple reports that the subject of the original post was DC Comics then-Executive Editor Eddie Berganza and the woman was a comic book creator in her own right, a partner of a regular DC writer, and an occasional convention reporter for Bleeding Cool.

She did not want to be named back then – she was afraid it might damage her work prospects and wanted to move on, and we respected that. But a few weeks later Bleeding Cool was able to name Eddie Berganza as the man allegedly responsible.

We later learnt that a number of complaints against Berganza had been made over previous years, including this one. During this period, he was demoted from Executive Editor to Group Editor, and reportedly banned from attending comic conventions for DC.

Between the Marvel-destroying SJW Brian Bendis moving to DC and Berganza’s slow-motion departure, this is really shaping up to be a tremendous vacuum for Alt★Hero to begin filling next spring.

And whether the accusations are true or not, this insidious environment is merely one of the many reasons you are very unlikely to ever see me at a comic convention. Can you even imagine how many female SJWs would be lining up to go public with their claims that I killed them, dismembered them, and raped them with their own severed limbs if I was foolish enough to so much as let them shake my hand?

Meanwhile, SJW convergence continues to kill the comics.

Sales of comics and graphic novels to comic stores declined 11.12{666e5e86189a1fe5e2247551e7a4443f43206d2d8b82140cfc9efd38c8e16ed5} in October in comparison to the year ago period, according to information released by Diamond Comic Distributors.  Comic sales were the entire source of the decline; comic sales declined 15.74{666e5e86189a1fe5e2247551e7a4443f43206d2d8b82140cfc9efd38c8e16ed5}, while graphic novel sales were up 2.37{666e5e86189a1fe5e2247551e7a4443f43206d2d8b82140cfc9efd38c8e16ed5}. Year-to-date sales are down 10.12{666e5e86189a1fe5e2247551e7a4443f43206d2d8b82140cfc9efd38c8e16ed5}, overall, with comic sales down 9.93{666e5e86189a1fe5e2247551e7a4443f43206d2d8b82140cfc9efd38c8e16ed5} and graphic novel sales down 10.55{666e5e86189a1fe5e2247551e7a4443f43206d2d8b82140cfc9efd38c8e16ed5}.

Even more interesting, unit sales were down 20.27 percent year-on-year.

Mailvox: posturing and plagiarism

Tublecane accuses the Zman of plagiarizing David Stove

If those paragraphs you quoted in your update are supposed to be Z-man’s words, uttered without reference to their source, oh boy. I thought they sounded familiar, so I checked my copy of David Stove’s Scientific Irrationalism and Z-man copies verbiage found on page one. Right down to the year 1580, the letter “A,” and the phrase “uncommonly ignorant.”

Stove, being much brighter than the Z-men of the world, wasn’t making an “everything scientists say is factual, so shut up” argument. He doesn’t even share Z-man’s opinion on Popperian falsifiabilty, though he lays into Popper and finds him guilty of launching a line of irrationalism (or a “postmodern cult,” as the subtitle has it) in the philosophy and historiography of science. A line which isn’t so bad with Popper but gets worse and worse as you go through Kuhn, Lakatos, and Feyerabend.

The point about accumulation of knowledge, which is robust in Stove’s book, is neither here nor there regarding the subject at hand. Z-man thinks he’s dealing with nihilists, and nihilists would have trouble with facts accumulating. But of course that has nothing to do with how you characterize varieties of “science” in the 16 Points. Science since 1580 could have simultaneously been more wrong than right and still served to advance human knowledge.

Upon closer inspection, Z-man explicitly mentions David Stove’s Popper and After, but in a separate post from the one in which he steals from it.

I call plagiarism!

Moreover, plagiarism that would be insulting to Stove, RIP, since he wouldn’t be caught making an argument as silly as Z-man’s.

I haven’t read any of David Stove’s books, so I can’t testify to the accuracy of the accusation of plagiarism. But it’s not particularly surprising to be informed that the argument the Zman’s was making is not his own, as 8 hours before Tublecane posted his comment, I had made this observation: “One definitely has the impression that the Zman has not read Popper, or even Kuhn, himself, but rather, has read what people have written about Popper.”

In any event, this demonstrates why it is important not to feign knowledge you do not possess, not to pass off the arguments of others as your own, and not to express opinions on subjects you do not know very much about. Especially on the Internet, someone is bound to eventually notice that you are an intellectual fraud.

The fiend Roy Moore

Well, if dating a girl who is of the age of consent and not taking advantage of her over several months of dating doesn’t disqualify a man for the Senate, I don’t know what does!

Debbie Wesson Gibson says that she was 17 in the spring of 1981 when Moore spoke to her Etowah High School civics class about serving as the assistant district attorney. She says that when he asked her out, she asked her mother what she would say if she wanted to date a 34-year-old man. Gibson says her mother asked her who the man was, and when Gibson said “Roy Moore,” her mother said, “I’d say you were the luckiest girl in the world.”

Among locals in Gadsden, a town of about 47,000 back then, Moore “had this godlike, almost deity status — he was a hometown boy made good,” Gibson says, “West Point and so forth.”

Gibson says that they dated for two to three months, and that he took her to his house, read her poetry and played his guitar. She says he kissed her once in his bedroom and once by the pool at a local country club.

“Looking back, I’m glad nothing bad happened,” says Gibson, who now lives in Florida. “As a mother of daughters, I realize that our age difference at that time made our dating inappropriate.”

Now, I wasn’t there, but I will say that an older man who dates a younger woman for two to three months with her mother’s approval and doesn’t have sex with her is not the sort of man who behaves in the manner that his accuser is claiming. Especially in light of the timing, this is almost certainly politically motivated slander and Fake News.

Quite on the other end of the credibility scale, Steve Sailer just busted (((Jon Leibowitz))) for attempting to sweep (((Louis CK’s serial sexual harassment under the rug, while (((Matthew Weiner))) is the latest Hollywood Values paragon to be accused of sexual harassment.

Why is one accusation credible while the other isn’t? Compare how Moore’s behavior towards other was described compared with Weiner’s.

At times he seemed a classic bully: obsequious toward those above him, condescending and harsh toward those he perceived as having less power to help or harm him. After one confrontation, costume designer Juliet Polcsa began carrying a minicassette recorder to tape her interactions with Weiner.

And then there is this.

Matt originally hired Kater as his personal assistant. She was soon promoted to be his writer’s assistant, and by the end of that same season, Matt offered her the opportunity to co-write the season finale — a particularly important show for him as Weiner also directs the final episode of each season. Then, without requiring Kater to generate any other spec material on her own (usually required for a writer’s advancement), Matt promoted her to be a full-time staff writer for this past season. 

That’s a totally normal timeframe for advancement, right? Weiner wasn’t treating Kater any differently than any other PA/writer’s assistant/co-writer/staff writer, right? She was just so super-talented that she never worked in the industry again, right?

SJWS ALWAYS DOUBLE DOWN now in paperback

STAGE SIX: Expel the Infidels

The Node.js community has again turned against itself, this time over a failed vote to oust a controversial member of the project’s technical steering committee (TSC) over alleged code-of-conduct violations…. Vagg, who declined to be interviewed, offended members of the Node community through various online posts. A member of the TSC attempted to move the allegations out of public view, but they’re presently available through the Internet Archive. Essentially, among other things, Vagg argued there are downsides to codes of conduct, which seek to shut down harassment and super-sketchy behavior within technical conferences and projects.
—“Node.js forks again—this time it’s a war of words over anti-sex-pest codes of conduct”, The Register, 24 August 2017

While the nebulous code of conduct rules sometimes prove too nebulous to actual make any charges stick well enough to justify expulsion, the very Kafkaesque nature of the process is usually sufficient to demoralize the dissidents and push them into quitting. After all, how does one defend oneself against a code of conduct violation which is comprised of arguing that there are downsides to the code of conduct? Notice that the controversial member is not charged with either harassment or super-sketchy behavior at conferences, but merely with arguing against something that theoretically seeks to shut down such behaviors.

Of course, quitting is always a mistake, however one tries to justify it to oneself. Quitting is the very outcome for which the SJWs are hoping because it saves them the trouble of trying to concoct a plausible case for disemployment where none exists. As I advise in SJWs Always Lie, don’t go easily, and take as many of them with you as you can while making the rubble bounce on the way out. Remember, SJWs are cowards, and they have little stamina for extended periods of open conflict. They try to wear their opponents down through insinuation and social pressure, killing them with the death of a thousand cuts rather than via a fair trial followed by an execution.

This is a timely release indeed. The 208-page paperback edition of SJWs Always Double Down: Anticipating the Thought Police appeared on Amazon on literally the very evening that Twitter suspended its author indefinitely using a method very similar to the one explained in Chapter 5: The SJW Convergence Sequence. As TZ noted, “If they actually declared the violation, then it could be evaded in various ways. It has to remain abstract and arbitrary, so that badthink people can be banned while goodthink people get a pass for equal violations.”

This silencing of the leading opposition voices is less important than instilling fear and submission on the part of the moderates, who are always looking for a means of rationalizing their acceptance of the status quo. As the subtitle indicates, I’m not at all surprised that Twitter targeted me and suspended my account even though I’ve been very good about not responding in kind to those who have been relentlessly attacking me in ways that obviously violate the Twitter rules. It was patently obvious that Twitter was playing a version of the Expel the Infidel game when I submitted dozens of reports about blatant violations of their policies directed at me, all of which were more egregious than any of the tweets that triggered my previous suspensions, and only those that rose to the level of serious libel were found to be in violation of their politices. That told me Twitter had no intention of playing fair; their only concern was preventing me from being able to pursue any external recourse they could not control.

So, what to do? What we’re already doing, of course. Did I not promise that SJWADD would give the reader the ability to anticipate their actions? We’re already constructing our own social media platform. It will take 12-18 months, but as I mentioned on a recent Darkstream, we are already building a range of social media capabilities, including Twitter-style functionality, into DONTPANIC. In the meantime, I expect the VFM on Twitter to carry on with the #DailyMemeWars, and I will continue to provide them with the ammunition to do so via email. Remember, you should not simply quit Twitter, just keep resisting the narrative in order to force them to show their hand and shut you down.

From the recent reviews:

  • Every CEO who doesn’t want to see their company get infested and eventually decline should pick up a copy.
  • This exceeds the first. Unreservedly recommend. This may be Vox’s best book so far. Both concise, and packed with very practical information presented in an easy and entertaining manner. Go Buy it.
  • A clearly written guide for looking at the why of SJWs and how to deal with them in your organization. The connection to socio-sexual hierarchy and the fresh look at Aristotle’s ideas were brilliant examples of why this book is a standout in modern political philosophy.
  • There are two types of political commentary/philosophy books: those that complain about what’s wrong and those exceedingly rare ones offering remedies to make right. This book, like its predecessor, SJWs Always Lie, is firmly in the latter camp.
  • This book is superb! I was prepared to be disappointed as how could any book live up to SJWs Always Lie? Yet this one did. 

Another Twitter suspension

Your account (@voxday) is currently suspended. For more information, please visit Suspended Accounts.

I can’t say the Trust & Safety Council were particularly helpful, as they did not provide any explanation why or ask me to remove any tweets. I can still access Twitter from that account and see my notifications, but can’t actually tweet anything. It’s just as well, I have too much to do to waste time on social media anyhow.

We apologize for this momentary disruption in the Daily Meme Wars, which will resume tomorrow in an email-only format.

If you want to be on the daily email list, sign up here.

The power of omninationalism

This email from MD may tend to confuse more than a few of my more unvarnished critics.

I am a 32 year old Kenyan man. Kenyan being a full-blooded African as we say. I have been mulling writing this email for sometime now. It is primarily to say thank you for the good work you are doing. I came across your blogs sometime in 2011/2012. I started off with Alphagameplan(AGP) and really started on Vox Popoli(VP) at the beginning of 2014. I think I have read all the posts on AGP but haven’t really dug into the VP archives.

I got to reading the manosphere as I searched for a way to make sense of women. I am relatively intelligent (have an engineering degree) and struggled in my relations with the opposite sex. I would say I had several gamma tendencies and self sabotaged myself in this area for a while. In addition I have grown up in a staunchly Christian home struggled to reconcile my Christian faith and the local way of gender relations. This local way primarily involves sleeping around a lot. Our traditional family and moral structures have heavily eroded my modernity.

Anyway in short I came to learn how to relate with women, succeeded and moved on to learning the basics of civilization. I got married this year to a wonderful Christian girl from a family which also acknowledges the Lordship of Christ and hopefully will be a dad soon. Your take on women, men’s roles and relationships and marriage really gave me hope when I had almost given up on having a Godly marriage. I hope I do not sound too spiritual but it is the truth.

I tell my wife that your writing helped me reconcile rationality and Christianity. I always felt lacking in apologetics when people around bad mouthed Christianity. Now I have a fairly good framework for tackling the why and when they bad mouth it. One of the sad bits about the intelligentsia here in Kenya is that they suppose that their intelligence qualifies them to look down on believers.

A lot of people here are Christians because of the promise of a better tomorrow, me included. I have seen how far belief in Christ has brought my dad and mum. Unfortunately many Christians have no theological grounding and are taken advantage of. Basically people (especially intelligent ones) consider Christians to be idiots. Your writings have exposed me, sharpened my critical thinking skills and given me hope.

The post ‘On the necessity of Christianity’ gave me hope. It may not be in  my generation or the one after it but that one day the same transformation it have on the backward Germanic and other European peoples will be seen here in my homeland. Especially if we embrace the transformative power of Christianity.

Thank you. Even as you defend the West, you have allies even here in the supposed dark continent.

He is quite welcome, of course. He is also far from the only African reader here. And the fact is that it is men like MD who are the best hope of the global South and the West alike, Christian men who are willing to accept the hard task of accepting even the most bitter truths, and then taking on the challenge of building their families and their nations despite the additional degree of difficulty involved.

His comparison of the historical backwardness of the Germanic peoples with the present backwardness of his own is an apt one. Things will not always be as they are now. A reckoning is coming. A winnowing is coming. And it is strong Christian men who will serve as the foundation for the successful societies to come, wherever they may be.

Yes, Africa faces serious challenges, both material and spiritual. But imagine what an Africa that somehow, through the will of Man and the grace of God, managed to surmount them would look like. Imagine how iron-forged and formidable it would be!

We can only play the hand that we are dealt. It is our responsibility to play that hand to the best of our ability, rather than spend our lives lamenting the fact that someone else, somewhere else, happend to receive better cards.

Louis CK is up to bat

The next Hollywood Values guy to be thrown to the wolves is Louis CK:

The New York premiere of Louis C.K.’s upcoming film, I Love You, Daddy, set for Thursday, has been canceled. Reps for the premiere, due to take place at the Paris Theatre, cited “unexpected circumstances.” A source tells The Hollywood Reporter that a New York Times story on the comedian is about to break, and the premiere was canceled in case it is damaging. Additionally, Louis C.K.’s planned appearance on CBS’ The Late Show With Stephen Colbert was also canceled, with William H. Macy taking his place.

I wonder what was going on there?

The film generated controversy following its premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival in September. TIFF programmers had screened it and given I Love You, Daddy a world premiere after C.K. surprised Toronto organizers, letting them know the film existed. Controversial dialogue appears throughout the film, including the use of the N-word by C.K.’s character and multiple jokes about child rape.

Ah, there we go. As a rule of thumb, if a Hollywood Values guy is joking about something, or making a movie about something, he’s probably doing it. Good riddance. I never thought he was funny anyhow.

UPDATE: Louis C.K. Crossed a Line Into Sexual Misconduct, 5 Women Say

After being contacted for an interview this week about the on-the-record accusations of sexual misconduct — encounters that took place over a decade ago — Louis C.K.’s publicist, Lewis Kay, said the comedian would not respond. “Louis is not going to answer any questions,” Mr. Kay wrote in an email Tuesday night.

Neither Louis C.K. nor Mr. Kay replied to follow-up emails in which the accusations were laid out in detail, or to voice messages or texts. On Thursday, the premiere of Louis C.K.’s new movie “I Love You, Daddy,” was abruptly canceled, and he also canceled an appearance on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.”

The stories told by the women raise sharp questions about the anecdotes that Louis C.K. tells in his own comedy. He rose to fame in part by appearing to be candid about his flaws and sexual hang-ups, discussing and miming masturbation extensively in his act — an exaggerated riff that some of the women feel may have served as a cover for real misconduct. He has all but invited comparison between his private life and his onscreen work, too: In “I Love You, Daddy,” which is scheduled to be released next week, a character pretends to masturbate at length in front of other people, and other characters appear to dismiss rumors of sexual predation.

Derb on the 16 Points

While I like and respect John Derbyshire, and bow to his demonstrated expertise in mathematics, he should probably resist the temptation to express any strong opinions on economics and political economy, as evidenced by his recent speech on the Alt-Right. In any event, here is my response to it.

Point 1: I don’t know what a Marxian is. Typo for “Martian”?

Ha very ha. Anyhow, “Marxian” distinguishes those who accept elements of, and are heavily influenced by, various aspects of Karl Marx’s theories of history and political economy from those who accept and advocate Karl Marx’s political ideologies and policies. The former is a Marxian, the latter is a Marxist. I studied under a reasonably well-known Marxian, Robert Chernomas, which is why I am very well schooled in the substantive material differences between the two.

But you need not take my word for it.

Marxian economics refers to several different theories and includes multiple schools of thought which are sometimes opposed to each other, and in many cases Marxian analysis is used to complement or supplement other economic approaches. Because one does not necessarily have to be politically Marxist to be economically Marxian, the two adjectives coexist in usage rather than being synonymous. They share a semantic field while also allowing connotative and denotative differences.
– Marxian Economics, Infogalactic

Sadly, Prof. Chernomas did not make Wikipedia’s list of Marxian Economists. The point is, this is not one of my neologisms nor is it an even remotely esoteric concept.

Point 3: Let’s not get ideas above our station here. Aristotle had a philosophy. Descartes had a philosophy. Kant had a philosophy. What the Alt Right has is an attitude.

Fair enough, although it is rather more than that. At least in the form described by the 16 points, the Alt-Right has a political philosophy that is more specific and coherent than anything currently on offer from conservatives, liberals, progressives, globalists, or the Fake Right. If we are merely an “attitude”, then how does one describe those things to which we are an alternative?

Point 4: I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them.

Absolutely not. The Jews are not part of Western civilization. They pre-date it, they are of the East, and a significant portion of their cultural tradition is pre-civilized. The fact that the primary architects of the present effort to destroy Western civilization, particularly its pillars of Christianity and the European nations, are Jewish suffice to make it very clear that, while some Jews may be in the West, they are not of the West. Judaism is a conscious rejection of Christianity, and therefore, of the West.

Point 6: When the slave traders arrive from Alpha Centauri, or an asteroid hits, or a supervolcano pops, we shall all become globalists overnight.

No, we won’t. Reality is not Star Trek. The entire written history of Man indicates that should slave traders arrive from Alpha Centauri, the various human elites will hasten to make deals with them to set up satrapies over which they will rule to provide them with the slaves they seek. See: the history of the slave trade in Africa.

Point 8: It’s what? The word “scientody” is not known to dictionary.com; nor is it in my 1971 OED with supplement; nor in my 1993 Webster’s.

I tried digging for etymologies, but got lost in a thicket of possibilities. Greek hodos, a path or way; so “the way of science”? Or perhaps eidos, a shape or form, giving us the “-oid” suffix (spheroid, rheumatoid); so “science-like”? Then there’s aoide, a song, giving … what? “Harmonizes like science”? Or maybe it’s the Latin root odor, a smell; “smells like science.”

In any case, all three of the “understandings” here are gibberish.

a) There is a large body of solidly-established scientific results that are not liable to future revision.

Saturn is further from the Sun at any point of its orbit than Jupiter is at any point of its. A water molecule has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Natural selection plays an important role in the evolution of life.

I promise Vox Day there will be no future revisions of these facts, at any rate not on any time span he or I need worry about. (I add that qualification because there are conceivable astronomical events that could alter the sequence of planetary orbits—a very close encounter with a rogue star, for example. Those are once-in-a-billion-year occurrences, though.)

b) “Scientistry”? Wha?

c) The scientific consensus is unscientific? Huh? And why is the consensus “so-called”? There usually—not always, but usually—is a scientific consensus. It occasionally turns out to have been wrong, but it’s a consensus none the less, not a “so-called” consensus.

To simply call everything “science” is to be misleading, often intentionally. Science has no intrinsic authority, it is less reliable than engineering, and increasingly, references to it are a deceitful bait-and-switch, in which the overly credulous are led to believe that because an individual with certain credentials is asserting something, that statement is supported by documentary evidence gathered through the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, and successful replication.

In most – not many, but most – cases, that is simply not true. Even if you don’t use these three neologisms to describe the three aspects of science, you must learn to distinguish between them or you will repeatedly fall for this intentional bait-and-switch. In order of reliability, the three aspects of science are:

Scientody: the process
Scientage: the knowledge base
Scientistry: the profession

The scientific consensus is is “so-called” because while it may be a consensus, it is intrinsically unscientific. This is obvious, observable, and undeniable. Taking a vote of the current opinions of scientists is no more scientody than is collecting their cumulative bodily evacuations for hygienic disposal. The expressed opinions that make up the consensus may be based on anything from a personal use of the scientific process to a) desire to obtain grant money, b) political ideology, c) identity, d) mental illness, e) sexual desire, f) personal ambition, or g) anything else capable of influencing one’s opinion.

Point 13: I’m an economic ignoramus, but I’d like to see a good logical proof of the proposition that free trade requires free movement of peoples. I am sincerely open to being enlightened on this point.

Free trade, by definition, concerns unrestricted exchanges between two private parties. These exchanges may involve goods, capital, services, and labor. In order to freely provide services or labor, the providing party must be able to travel to the location of the receiving party in order to fulfill his end of the exchange. Therefore, free trade requires the free movement of peoples.

As a bonus proof, I will point out that in order to achieve the maximum efficiencies theoretically provided by the free market, both labor and capital must be able to travel to the most efficient production sites. Any failure to restrict this travel will necessarily create inefficiencies and therefore prevent the economy from reaching its maximum growth potential.

Point 14. I doubt there is an existential threat to white people. 

Derb has more than enough math to work out the amount of cross-breeding required to render the entire population of the Earth insufficiently white to reproduce itself. The threat is not yet dire, but if the present trends proceed in a linear fashion, they will become dire within our children’s lifetimes.

Point 15: That’s a bit kumbaya-ish (or “-oid”). No doubt the Bushmen of the Kalahari are much better at hunting with spears than are Norwegians or Japanese. As Greg Cochran points out, though: “innate superiority at obsolete tasks (a born buggy-whip maker?) doesn’t necessarily translate to modern superiority, or even adequacy.”

Superiority at an obsolete task, or at a task presently disvalued by modern liberal society, does not mean that it does not exist. Given the rate at which the Western world is descending into plumbing-free barbarism, hunting with spears may well prove to be a more important skill in the near future than the ability to solve advanced mathematical problems.

As for the other points, I do not object to the various nits being picked, as in most cases I tend to agree with them. I do not claim to have always planted my flag in the optimal place in the gradient between precision and brevity. As to the original question being posed, I consider Derb to be an honored elder who well merits a place of respect in the Alternative Right on the basis of his fearless iconoclasm and the personal sacrifices he has made in the interest of telling the truth.

More harassment at NPR

The head of National Public Radio tried to bury the harassment charges against his top editor.

The left-wing Washington Post reports that NPR “leaders were aware of at least four complaints against” Michael Oreskes, NPR’s top editor, prior to his resignation last week after two allegations went public. With charges of a cover-up floating about, NPR chief Jarl Mohn has taken a four-week leave for what he says are medical reasons.
The brewing NPR scandal comes down to the left-wing news outlet’s decision to keep Oreskes on, even though top management knew of four harassment allegations against him, according to the Post.

To make matters worse, the Post reports that in just the last ten days, five more NPR staffers claim to have been harassed by Oreskes.

Going forward, the problems for Mohn and the taxpayer-subsidized NPR are quite obvious. By not acting appropriately and/or effectively enough to end Oreskes’s alleged behavior — meaning serious disciplinary action or termination — the alleged victims piled up. The possible liability issues ramifications here are the stuff of trial lawyers’ dreams…and taxpayer nightmares, for we subsidize this apparent den of executive harassers and enablers.

The details of the seven(!) NPR allegations are not yet known. We do, however, know something about Oreskes’s alleged M.O. via reporting last week from the Post. This includes unwanted kisses, proposals for a “room service lunch, a creepy personal ad, and using the promise of employment to keep the women on the hook.

For the overall national, establishment media, this is also bad news. In just a month, no fewer than eight members of the elite media have been hit with allegations that range from harassment to misconduct to assault. In many of those cases, we have been told that “everyone knew,” but no one did anything.

On top of NPR and the New York Times, other news outlets embroiled in this growing scandal include NBC News, MSNBC, ABC News, Rolling Stone, the New Republic, and Mother Jones. The prominent names include Matt Taibbi, Mark Halperin, David Corn, and Leon Wieseltier.

While this very same establishment media excoriate Fox News over that network’s alleged harassment problems, they were all covering up much, much worse behavior allegedly committed by their very own over the course of decades.

I believe a brilliant, bestselling political philosopher has written, bestsellingly, about the tendency of a certain class of individuals to cast aspersions on others that would, by rights, more accurately describe their own behavior.