Even for a soulless and brain-dead whore whose dismal personal character is well-known, this is a remarkable performance of sociopathic I’ll say anything for a paycheck whoring:

The evil right-wing media just made up a totally fake controversy about Cracker Barrel, you see.

Every paragraph of French’s column is a strawman. Every claim is obviously false. He’s not even sort of describing surface-level reality. David French now gets paid to point at cows and say, “That’s definitely not a cow.” He’s a fabulist, and a talentless one. His sole value is that he gets to cosplay “conservative” while mindlessly doing all of the dumb leftist tropes, giving correct-thinking cadre the very small thrill of feeling righteous about the people they hate. He’s a professional reassurance artist: Yes, New York Times readers, people you disagree with are always wrong and never have a point about anything. Thanks, David, here’s a nickel.

So.

You must be blind and amnesiac, because French explains this about the “good jeans” thing with Sydney Sweeney, the other recent branding controversy that he discusses alongside the Cracker Barrel thing: “There was no actual groundswell of opposition to Sweeney.”

No, seriously: “There was no actual groundswell of opposition to Sweeney.” David French just wrote this sentence and got it published in The New York Times.

Right-wingers just made it all up, calculatedly stoking outrage about something that wasn’t even real: “But if there’s a conflict between telling the truth and stoking outrage, time and again, the right chooses outrage.” Read these paragraphs carefully, and watch how casually this man lies:

The left-wing attacks on Sweeney “were confined to a small number of online voices.” Almost no one else had anything to say about it, and the topic certainly wasn’t covered widely in corporate liberal media. Meanwhile, in the same newspaper where French is making this claim, and within the last month:

Here’s The Guardian, also giving the matter a liiiiiitle bit of attention:

How utterly shameless do you have to be to pretend this, in public and in print? Quite famously and quite recently, the highest-profile magazine in the country ran an unusually stupid essay about the Sweeney ad:

“Interestingly, breasts, and the desire for them, are stereotyped as objects of white desire, as opposed to, say, the Black man’s hunger for ass.” Anyone who pays any attention at all to media remembers this insane thing. But David French somehow convinced himself that people will believe his description of a minor controversy that was only taken up by “a small number of online voices.”

Aside from The New York Times and The Guardian and The New Yorker, The Atlantic wrote about it, The New Republic wrote about it, network news covered it over and over again…

…and then David French said this, not even a full month after the high point of the widespread and hugely obvious mass media controversy: “There was no actual groundswell of opposition to Sweeney.”

This man is a shameful figure. He never so much as passes truth in the street. His schtick is too obvious now to pretend that he’s doing anything but a “real conservative” minstrel show for pay. Imagine living that way.

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, “Tell Me How This Ends.”