my piece in the Post

Today I have a piece in the Washington Post up about Trump’s attacks on Biden’s intelligence at the debate, and how they are emblematic of the Cult of Smart. I am happy with how it turned out and proud of it.

Should Twitter discover it (and they may well not) they are liable to get very upset that I am being published by a major publication, a privilege they seem to think I lost during my troubles (my bad behavior) three years ago. I don’t think getting upset would be constructive. People in the industry should know better. Publishing me is not a comment on my character. It’s just the business of media.

To clear something up: you are entitled to get mad at the Post for publishing me if you wish, but you can’t do so under the theory that they have broken some sort of otherwise-intact embargo. It’s simply not the case that they extended an invitation no one else would have. I get asked to publish or pitch all the time, including by prominent places. I have consistently turned these opportunities down because I have wanted to avoid tapping into all the negativity that surrounds my writing at this point. Why did I accept the Post‘s offer? Because I have an obligation to St. Martin’s, and this was too big of a promotional opportunity to turn down; and because I’m unemployed and struggling to pay the rent, and could not turn down the money. That’s it.

Look, the goal now is the same as it’s been since January: promote this book to satisfy my responsibility to St. Martin’s and to myself, get a job in the normie world, and disappear. I don’t know if this is possible at this point. As I’ve said in this space before, with each rejection on the job market it becomes more likely that I will be forced to start a Patreon or a Substack simply to pay the rent. I would prefer to avoid getting back into “the conversation” but I’m kind of running out of options here. In any event: I am grateful to the Post and hope that this piece finds an audience.