I don’t read the Washington Post–that is Paul’s sad duty–just as I don’t read the New York Times or watch CNN. Life is too short. But sometimes these outlets’ crazed outpourings come over the transom, like this Washington Post tweet from yesterday:

Analysis: Sri Lanka church bombings stoke far-right anger in the West https://t.co/seWuJwgzwG — The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) April 22, 2019



Hundreds of people are slaughtered by mass murderers, and according to the Post it is the “far right” that is angry. And, by the way, Christians are indeed under attack in many parts of the world–a fact that, in my opinion, generates far too little reaction from “activists in the United States and Europe,” or anyone else.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng at Da Tech Guy Blog comments on the Post outrage, and quotes Australian blogger Arthur Chrenkoff, a name from the past of whom I am glad to be reminded:

If you are worried about the violence against and the persecution of Christians you might be far right. If you value the cultural and philosophical heritage of the Western civilisation you might be far right. If you don’t believe in an open borders immigration policy you might be far right. If you prefer local democracy to transnational institutions you might be far right. If you are defending your country from an armed invasion by another country you might be far right too. (…) This effort to use language as a cudgel has several sinister implications. It delegitimises perfectly normal political ideas through guilt by association. It also creates the impression that the (genuine) far right is much bigger, more influential and more threatening and dangerous than it actually is. This in turn is used to downplay and minimise the dangers of Islamist and far-left extremism and terrorism. But perhaps the scariest aspect of it all is that the left, by manufacturing the far right monster, are actually genuinely contributing to the growth of far-right extremism. The relentless flood of identity politics, grievance and victimhood, and shaming and guilting entire sections of population based on their skin colour and culture is genuinely radicalising some misfits into fascism, like the Christchurch terrorist, for example. For every action there is eventually an equal and opposite reaction. The left might think it’s courageously defanging the fascist dragon but instead it’s just sowing its teeth.

Perhaps. But I don’t see much sign of a “far right,” or any right, reaction against the sort of craziness that is typified by the Washington Post.