Max Boot’s already fragile ego has taken some hits lately, thanks to Buckley Fellow John Hirschauer’s pieces for National Review Online taking apart his blanket shaming of white people and Boot’s subsequent hysterical response to being taken apart.

Naturally, CNN decided to give Boot a platform to amplify his absurd contention that National Review “attacked” him out of anger at being exposed as an increasingly white supremacist publication:

National Review writers are understandably getting fed up with Boot’s stark-raving dishonesty, and today, NRO editor Charles C.W. Cooke dropped Boot like a bag of dirt.

It certainly is. We obviously post Cooke’s piece in its entirety, but his conclusion should tide you over until you can read the full takedown:

In and of itself, Boot’s techniques are both tiresome and reprehensible. But when coupled with the ersatz I-take-no-pleasure-in-this lamentations that have become his hallmark in the Trump era, the affectation becomes too much to bear. Boot seems to fancy himself as Mark Antony, here to bury a Caesar he once loved, when in reality he is more like Romeo Montague: a callow, selfish, monomaniacal, self-pitying featherweight, who is constitutionally unable to prevent the escalation of petty infractions. Reading Boot these days is akin to listening to a teenager talk incessantly about himself. “And then I didn’t like this. And then I discovered that. And then this person was mean to me. And then I was attacked.” Oh, do shut up, dear, before we all die from nausea. And learn to read before you come back.

Did we mention you should read the whole thing?

Accurate:

Max is the one whose nerves seem to be rattled.

The guy’s coming unglued before our eyes, and instead of getting the help he so clearly needs, he’s just leaning into the insanity even harder.

Not long, we’d wager.

We all know how this is ultimately going to end up for Max Boot:

***

Update:

Well, it appears the corncobbing of Max Boot is proceeding apace:

Welp.