Tag: cuckservative

Vox Day Exposes Jordan Peterson And The Left’s Plan To Take Control Of The Nationalist Movement: Vox Day joins Alex Jones live via Skype to break down how Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are puppets of the left, used to take control of the nationalist movement and destroy its potential. 

That is the name of the video that InfoWars posted on May 7, 2018. It inspired the sort of responses that you can probably anticipate by now.

Vox is obviously jealous of Peterson and Shapiro’s success. He’s trying to be as relevant as they are.

So, about that relevance…. The timing of the video was rather timely, and its title was rather prophetic, because the very next day, May 8, 2018, The New York Times posted an article entitled Meet the Renegades of the Intellectual Dark Web: An alliance of heretics is making an end run around the mainstream conversation. Should we be listening?

What is the I.D.W. and who is a member of it? It’s hard to explain, which is both its beauty and its danger.

Most simply, it is a collection of iconoclastic thinkers, academic renegades and media personalities who are having a rolling conversation — on podcasts, YouTube and Twitter, and in sold-out auditoriums — that sound unlike anything else happening, at least publicly, in the culture right now. Feeling largely locked out of legacy outlets, they are rapidly building their own mass media channels.

The closest thing to a phone book for the I.D.W. is a sleek website that lists the dramatis personae of the network, including Mr. Harris; Mr. Weinstein and his brother and sister-in-law, the evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying; Jordan Peterson, the psychologist and best-selling author; the conservative commentators Ben Shapiro and Douglas Murray; Maajid Nawaz, the former Islamist turned anti-extremist activist; and the feminists Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Christina Hoff Sommers. But in typical dark web fashion, no one knows who put the website up.

The core members have little in common politically. Bret and Eric Weinstein and Ms. Heying were Bernie Sanders supporters. Mr. Harris was an outspoken Hillary voter. Ben Shapiro is an anti-Trump conservative.

But they all share three distinct qualities. First, they are willing to disagree ferociously, but talk civilly, about nearly every meaningful subject: religion, abortion, immigration, the nature of consciousness. Second, in an age in which popular feelings about the way things ought to be often override facts about the way things actually are, each is determined to resist parroting what’s politically convenient. And third, some have paid for this commitment by being purged from institutions that have become increasingly hostile to unorthodox thought — and have found receptive audiences elsewhere.

Actually, it’s not difficult to explain at all. The “Intellectual Dark Web” is the Fake Opposition, the roots of the Conservative Media 3.0. William F. Buckley’s Conservative Media 1.0 is literally bankrupt, Bill Kristol’s Conservative Media 2.0 lost its last vestiges of credibility due to the failures of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now the mainstream media needs a new squad to put on the uniforms of the Washington Generals to go out in front of the public and take a dive.

It is NeverTrump: the media edition.

This is a familiar gambit. Not only are the dramatic portraits of the various Dark Webbers almost identical to those decorating the 2006 Wired piece entitled “The Church of the Non-Believers“, but they’ve even recycled both Sam Harris and Michael Shermer as Very Important Intellectuals du Jour. Frankly, I’m a little disappointed that they didn’t dig up the corpse of Christopher Hitchens and include him too while they were at it.

Who is a member of the IDW? Anyone who a) is not Christian, b) is not a nationalist, c) is vaguely palatable to the political Right, and most importantly, d) will not upset the mainstream media narrative.

Who put the website up? I would assume Eric Weinstein, Bret Weinstein, and Heather Heying, three media non-entities who are attempting to put themselves on par with far more recognizable media figures like Christina Hoff Summers and Sam Harris, in cooperation with Claire Lehmann, whose site is hosting the little clubhouse.

More significant figures such as Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Stefan Molyneaux, Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, and Ivan Throne are conspicuously absent; one woman, Debra Soh, has less than one-fifteenth the number of Twitter followers that Cernovich has. Needless to say, I’m not exactly surprised by the identities of two of the leading members.

Before September 2016, Jordan Peterson was an obscure psychology professor at the University of Toronto. Then he spoke out against Canada’s Bill C-16, which proposed amending the country’s human-rights act to outlaw discrimination based on gender identity and expression. He resisted on the grounds that the bill risked curtailing free speech by compelling people to use alternative gender pronouns. He made YouTube videos about it. He went on news shows to protest it. He confronted protesters calling him a bigot. When the university asked him to stop talking about it, including sending two warning letters, he refused.

While most people in the group faced down comrades on the political left, Ben Shapiro confronted the right. He left his job as editor at large of Breitbart News two years ago because he believed it had become, under Steve Bannon’s leadership, “Trump’s personal Pravda.” In short order, he became a primary target of the alt-right and, according to the Anti-Defamation League, the No. 1 target of anti-Semitic tweets during the presidential election.

Now do you see? Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are both Fake Opposition, media con artists to the core. In fact, the very event that reportedly made Peterson famous appears to have been based on a mischaracterization of the law by Peterson. So much for the courage of his much-vaunted stand.

Here is my question for conservatives. If it is correct to reject people for their associations, how can any Christian or conservative not reject Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro in light of their membership in this New York Times-approved club? Especially given that The New York Times is very clear about where the line of acceptable opposition is to be drawn.

Go a click in one direction and the group is enhanced by intellectuals with tony affiliations like Steven Pinker at Harvard. But go a click in another and you’ll find alt-right figures like Stefan Molyneux and Milo Yiannopoulos and conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich (the #PizzaGate huckster) and Alex Jones (the Sandy Hook shooting denier).

It’s hard to draw boundaries around an amorphous network, especially when each person in it has a different idea of who is beyond the pale.

“I don’t know that we are in the position to police it,” Mr. Rubin said. “If this thing becomes something massive — a political or social movement — then maybe we’d need to have some statement of principles. For now, we’re just a crew of people trying to have the kind of important conversations that the mainstream won’t.”

But is a statement of principles necessary to make a judgment call about people like Mr. Cernovich, Mr. Molyneux and Mr. Yiannopoulos? It seems to me that if you are willing to sit across from an Alex Jones or Mike Cernovich and take him seriously, there’s a high probability that you’re either cynical or stupid.

The Fake Opposition is not even Alt-Lite. They’re simply Not Right at all. And they’re not being invited to speak at Ivy League colleges, appearing on Fox, CNN, and the BBC, and being featured in The New York Times complete with flattering pictures featuring dramatic lighting because they are on our side.

I suspected Jordan Peterson not only lacked intellectual integrity, but was not even on the side of Western civilization at all. Yesterday, he contributed more documentation to the growing pile of evidence that he is an enemy of the truth and the West alike.

Jordan B Peterson@jordanbpeterson
Heavens to Murgatroyd! as Bugs Bunny had it: A misogynistic antisemitic right-wing identity-politics ideologue disapproves of me…

He’s referring to this piece by Adam Piggot, a soon-to-be former fan of his:

I have been an advocate of Peterson for a while and he speaks a great deal of truth. But on reflection I am beginning to reappraise my position on him. Did the alt right embrace him so readily because we thought we had finally found someone who taught in progressive universities who wasn’t a foaming at the mouth liberal? Peterson is most certainly not foaming at the mouth; but is it true that he is not a liberal? The assumption has been that but perhaps he is merely a liberal whom we find palatable.

Peterson seems to be the real deal because we desperately want him to be the real deal.

Another thing that I have noticed in his discussions and speeches, and particularly in the Q&A sessions, is that he constantly skirts around the subject of biological reality. Once again the assumption on our part has been that he doesn’t want to go there because it would make his position untenable within the prog system in which he works. But that is a comfortable and convenient assumption on our part. Perhaps the truth is that he doesn’t go there because he himself is a believer of the magic dirt theory of race.

Peterson’s fans have done their best to try to excuse his behavior, to little avail, as his generic and false accusation quoted above could have just as easily been produced by any other Canadian feminist left-wing academic globalist. Furthermore, we now know that Peterson is aware of my post addressing his inept appeal to the mythical “115 IQ”, as it is cited in the article to which he linked.

Recently Peterson wrote a piece titled On the so-called Jewish question. There was a good deal of push-back in the comments, but the real push-back he encountered was from Vox Day – The myth of Jordan Peterson’s integrity.

“I do not know Jordan Peterson, but his incorrect and deceitful arguments and his unfair, unjustified attacks on his critics show him to be an inept and integrity-challenged coward who lacks commitment to the truth. The combination of his sudden success with his observable intellectual ineptitude suggests that he has been elevated by the mainstream media in order to provide a harmless, toothless, and non-Christian alternative to the failed conservative movement of William F. Buckley and the failed neoconservative movement of Bill Kristol and Ben Shapiro.”

As of this time Peterson has not responded to Day’s demolition of his article. A live debate between the two will most probably not eventuate as Day would be too great a risk and the topics at hand are as we know are verboten for Peterson.

Ultimately I believe that Peterson is an elaborate and very clever deception to prevent young men from inadvertently straying off the progressive reservation.

It does rather look as if Peterson is little more than the newest member of the Approved Opposition to be anointed by the mainstream media, to go with “whip-smart” Benny Shapiro, George “now, that twists my bowtie” Will, and the Official Conservative of the Washington Post, Megan McCardle, collectively known as the Washington Generals, media edition. Don’t forget, William F. Buckley became the pope of the conservative movement back in the day on the basis of his show Firing Line and his public demolition of various leftist patsies such as Gore Vidal.

Yes, Peterson speaks certain truths, but only the easy and uncontroversial ones. From what I see, he is treading the broad and easy path that leads to public acclamation as well as other destinations. But the real problem with Peterson is that he is strategically irrelevant. The societal problems caused by modernism simply cannot be solved by a modernist fighting postmodernism.

At this point it is still possible that Peterson will take action to salvage his intellectual integrity. But I think it is increasingly unlikely, as this is the second time in a row that he has doubled-down and resorted to childish attempts to discredit and disqualify his critics rather than responding substantively to them. So, I anticipate that his future behavior, and his continued engagement of other lightweight leftists further to his left in lieu of the growing number of substantial critics to his right, will serve to confirm the opinion of skeptics like NN Taleb and me.

Jordan B Peterson@jordanbpeterson
And you call me a fascist? You sanctimonious prick. If you were in my room at the moment, I’d slap you happily. 

How very fierce. Truly the epitome of the courageous intellectual warrior. I find myself wondering this: if Jordan Peterson believes calling someone else “a fascist” makes one a sanctimonious prick, then what does calling someone “a misogynistic antisemitic right-wing identity-politics ideologue” make him?

“I’m worried always that I’ll make a mistake in what I say… impulsive mistake, careless mistake, that I won’t be on top of things in a combative interview, that sort of thing, that I’ll make a mistake. I’ve been worried about that, almost to the exclusion of everything else for the last 15 months.” 
– Jordan Peterson

Interesting. I am far more inclined to worry about the state of the nation and the survival of the West myself; if I make a mistake, then I will simply own up to it and correct it. In any event, you have made a big mistake, Dr. Peterson. And you’ve doubled down on it twice already.

UPDATE: Another informative Peterson quote demonstrating that he is not on the side of the West.

“I’m not anti-feminist.”
Facebook, August 10, 2017

NeverTrump killed it:

Salem Media, owner of the influential conservative outlet RedState, froze the site on Friday and dismissed many of its writers. Bloggers were locked out of their accounts — some just temporarily, while the cuts were made, and others permanently.

Erick Erickson, the site’s longtime editor who left in 2015, tweeted about what he called the “mass firing” on Friday morning.

“Very sad to see, but not really surprising given Salem’s direction,” he wrote. “And, finally, after all these years, they’ve turned off my account.”

Multiple sources told CNNMoney that they believed conservative critics of President Trump were the writers targeted for removal.

“Insufficiently partisan” was the phrase one writer used in a RedState group chat. “They fired everybody who was insufficiently supportive of Trump,” one of the sources who spoke with CNNMoney said, adding, “how do you define being ‘sufficiently supportive’ of Trump?”

Good riddance. How do you define being sufficiently supportive of President Trump? Easy. If you refer to him regularly as the God-Emperor and mercilessly hunt down his enemies without showing them mercy or quarter, then you are sufficiently supportive.

The Hollywood Lawyer who has been playing a Fake Republican for over a decade has finally left the GOP. Of course, (((Jennifer Rubin))) is also a Fake American, so it probably won’t be long before she leaves the USA as well. Good riddance on both accounts.

Hours after Paul Ryan announced his retirement last week, President Donald Trump tweeted a photo of the House speaker and the rest of the GOP congressional leadership at dinner together at the White House. All did the traditional Trump-style smiling thumbs-up—a big show of unity to rebut anxiety about the party collapsing.

What Jennifer Rubin saw while looking at that photo: a Republican Party that “has become the caricature the left always said it was—the party of old white men. And that has become more so in the age of Donald Trump, when he is actively courting and stoking white resentment.”

Trump’s use of identity politics, Rubin told me in an interview for the latest episode of POLITICO’s Off Message podcast, “is a dead end for the party. It’s a dead end because it’s immoral and anti-American to base an entire political movement on one racial group, and it’s a dead end because that’s not America and what America is becoming.”

For Rubin, author of the Washington Post’s “Right Turn” blog, it’s been a fast trip from conservative apostle to apostate.

Rubin was hired in late 2010 to be a forceful conservative presence, the counterpart on the right to the Post’s liberal blogger, Greg Sargent. But since Trump’s election, she’s been one of the president’s most strident critics, attacking him multiple times a day as an “arrogant fool” and “flat-out racist.” In the process, she’s becoming a leading voice for a group of conservative intellectuals who don’t fit comfortably in either political party.

Conservatives are so dumb that they actually looked to a Hollywood lawyer from Berkeley as one of their opinion leaders because she told them she was one of them. Talk about controlled opposition! I wonder how long will it be before the Littlest Chickenhawk removes his Republican skinsuit in favor of this Fake Right party?

David French urges conservatives to refrain from going on the offensive against a left-wing professor. It would be unseemly, don’t you know.

No, Conservatives Shouldn’t Try to Punish Radical Professors for Offensive Speech

We’re reaching a disturbing point in American discourse where increasingly both sides of the national debate (it’s not the Left that’s driving the firestorm against Jarrar) are looking for ways to justify and rationalize censorship and suppression of offensive views. If the censorship comes through a public employer or government entity, then the Twitterati transforms into a squad of hapless law students, hunting through the results of hasty Google searches to find just the right exceptions to the relevant First Amendment jurisprudence — exceptions that allow for the infamous phrase, “I believe in free speech, but . . .”

If the suppression comes through private employers, then it’s easier to justify. From the left — “Sure, The Atlantic can fire a conservative.” From the right — “Get those damn football players off their knees.” Both sides eagerly obliterate the culture of free speech in the quest to cleanse the marketplace of ideas we don’t like.

But culture drives law, and law drives culture. Every time that we refuse to tolerate offensive expression, we incentivize the culture of crocodile tears. We motivate government officials to expand state power over speech until the silencing exceptions swallow the free-speech rule. California’s recent efforts to compel crisis-pregnancy centers to advertise for free or low-cost abortions represents what happens when the people, to borrow my friend Greg Lukianoff’s excellent phrase, “unlearn liberty.” Periodic conservative efforts to expel radical professors from the academy demonstrate the pernicious effects of a “fight fire with fire” mentality. In both cases, a culture of coercion triumphs and liberty loses.

Here’s an alternative: Leave the trolls alone. Let the radicals rant. Then, rebut the bad speech with better speech, or — sometimes better yet — rebut it with silence. Does anyone really care what Randa Jarrar thinks of Barbara Bush? Or is she now mainly useful as a foil, as clickbait, as the latest pawn in the culture war? I think we know the answer.

If you truly hate the offensive speech in question — if you truly believe it’s hurtful — why share it far and wide? Why amplify the offensive voice? Arguably, the worst rebuke for a troll, the worst punishment for the self-promoting radical, is indifference. I have my own standard for engaging bad ideas — First, I wait. I ask myself: Are these ideas gaining traction? Do they threaten to make a material difference in the marketplace of ideas? If the answer is yes, then I engage. If the answer is no, I let the offensive speech die a natural death.

But killing an idea through censorship? That’s not what free people do.

Actually, it’s what people who are not free, but would like to be free, have to do. It’s called “reprisal”. It’s remarkable how these cuckservative idiots are still relying on the same tactics that have uniformly failed for the last 50 years. Why, it’s almost as if they want to fail….

Rod Dreher, of course, agrees that nothing should be done. The most important thing when the Left attacks is to not respond, not in kind, and not in any way. Because as long as you keep your eyes shut and pretend it isn’t happening, it will eventually stop.

My job here at TAC involves opinion writing. I have been paid for most of my career to state my opinion. Yet no employer of mine — no newspaper, no magazine — would keep me on if I tweeted something as vile as what Jarrar tweeted. It would be devastating to the institutional reputation of these newspapers and magazines. TAC would lose donors left and right, and would take a real hit in terms of its credibility. Any magazine or publication would. I would never abuse the privilege I have. With that privilege comes responsibility.

So, today, I am much less sympathetic to Randa Jarrar than I was when she first spouted off. I still lean towards not firing her. But boy, is she ever a poster child for left-wing academic privilege and arrogance. If the university president fires her for pranking the crisis hotline, I won’t be sorry.

That will show her! Now, I can’t help but wonder, do these two gentlemen of principle and champions of free speech also counsel indifference to the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement?

Kurt Schlichter tears into the pious frauds who, despite their proclamations of high principle, have proven to be every bit as unprincipled as we always figured they were:

Where are your principles in the face of the gross injustices of the last few days? A federal judge who was nearly appointed Bill Clinton’s attorney general and who officiated at Soros’s wedding ordered Hannity’s information disclosed, but that was cool with you. After all, Sean Hannity is so…oh well, I never!

Principles that depend on who is asserting them aren’t principles. They are poses.

If you actually adhered to them, your principles would have you shrieking, not cheering. A bunch of Hillary-donating feds should not be allowed to randomly pillage through privileged materials looking for a crime. No, the crime-fraud exception does not mean that the feds can just take all your stuff, read through it, and decide if some happens to fall into that narrow exception and leak the rest. But hey, why let some principles get in the way of a good laugh at the expense of one of those Trump people?

Gosh, it’s almost like your talk of principles was just…talk.

Schlichter is correct. There are no Never Trump principles. As a matter of fact, there are no conservative principles, because conservatism is not, and has never been, a coherent ideology. It is, ultimately, a reactive, defensive pose.

That’s the strategic problem with conservatism. It literally can’t win. It can’t go on the offense, because it has no objectives. And Never Trump is conservatism with cancer.

UPDATE: They were always frauds from the start.

Former presidential candidate Evan McMullin owes his former campaign staff members tens of thousands of dollars and most believe he has no intention of ever paying them, a former campaign worker tells The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Right before McMullin’s failed bid for president in 2016 as the conservative alternative to President Donald Trump, the campaign was inundated with debt. The disastrous fiscal situation was a combination of frivolous spending by McMullin and his campaign manager Joel Searby, according to the former staffer.

McMullin received news weeks before Election Day 2016 about how dire the campaign’s finances were, and he had “no remorse” and said “I have qualms about this thing ending badly in debt,” the former staffer claimed. McMullin’s cavalier attitude towards the campaign’s spending struck many as a surprise, particularly because he billed himself as a fiscal conservative, he added.

It is simply delicious to think of all the harrumphing bow-ties shedding furious tears over the way they were stiffed by their fine, principled fiscally conservative candidate who was only running out of his deep sense of outraged honor.

This earlier exchange epitomizes the result of all that legal, merit-based immigration that conservatives been championing since the rhetorical failure of their focus on “illegal immigration”.

Raghav Hegde
LOL….I don’t know whether to be outraged at some of the stuff you lot say about my people or laugh. Anyway, I will say just one thing. Microsoft market cap when the company was “less Indian” in 2009: $138 billion. Microsoft market cap now that it is a company of Indians, in 2018, $738 billion. Anyway, keep up with your silly rants against those “curries”, “apus” or whateveer it is you call us ?

Sherwood family
Raghav Hegde: you just said it yourself. They are your people. Which is fine. Everyone has a people and should support them the best they can. But they are not our people. You have to go back. Make India Great Again.

Raghav Hegde
Sherwood family: Sure we will. But first we are gonna take over “your” companies and make them “our” companies. Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Adobe, Apple, IBM…you name it, we dominate. LOL…I bet you prefer the Mexicans or Latinos to us smelly Apus. At best, they work as your gardeners or house help or whatever. The little smelly ugly effete Indians, LOL, we are basically replacing you from your best jobs ? Go on, rant away ?

Sherwood family
So…Raghav Hegde’s response is summed up as: all those things you say don’t like about us…yeah…we are actually doing them and plan to do them a lot more and your noticing that is ‘ranting’. Even Raghav Hegde’s threats are parasitic at best: “we are gonna take over “your” companies and make them “our” companies.” Don’t be a parasite. Go Make India Great Again.

You see, conservatives have never understood that no one else in the world gives a damn about their high-minded principles. Which is ironic, given that conservatism, as it was originally conceived, was about the triumph of history and tradition over ideology and reason-based principles. Remember the phrase, “the democracy of the dead?” But what pass for conservatives today resolutely turn their face from the traditions of the past in favor of liberte, egalite, fraternite.

They have more in common with the French Revolution than the American one.

Recent conservative rhetoric has resorted to trying to equate the SJW Left with the Alt-Right. I suppose that’s fair enough if you’re talking about the anti-nationalist Fake Right cartoon version of Obama voters and EU supporters portrayed as the Alt-Right by the media. But any straightforward comparison of the 16 Points of the Alt-Right, or with the rising European nationalism, with the globalist, anti-American, and equalitarian values espoused by today’s conservatives will clearly show that it is the conservative movement that is considerably far to our Left.

Every generation of Man prior to the Greatest Generation understood that a nation exists to benefit its posterity, even at the expense of all other nations. That is the traditional and true Right principle, and the perverted “conservatism” of today is the result of 120 years of virulent ahistorical, anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-nationalist propaganda by self-serving immigrants. The Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and the Millennials are the only generations to have ever generally bought into the nonsense.

The exchange above illustrates what I mean when I say that European anti-Semitism is an accident of history. There is nothing special about the adversarial historical relationship between the two parties, it is simply what happens when low-trust cultures and high-trust cultures collide. Neither Jews nor Europeans understand its true nature or that the results would have been much the same if it had been a Chinese, an Indian, or any other high-performance, self-serving minority living parasitically in a high-trust, high-performance society. And almost everyone, on all sides, is going to be astonished by the eventual outcome, due to this failure to understand the nature of the historical situation.

For example, the Jews are already alarmed that the Chinese are successfully challenging their control over Hollywood and the Ivy League admissions offices. Do they really think they are going to be able to withstand the Indian plan to take over technology companies like Microsoft and Google or believe they will be able to hold onto the media, or even Wall Street when the Chinese decide to take it over with a double-envelopment from within and without.

That’s the long-term logistical problem with permitting a parasitical, self-serving minority to take control of the societal high ground of a large nation. The influential minority simply doesn’t have the numbers or the power to hold onto it when another, larger and more powerful, but equally self-serving minority decides to take it from them. As for relying on the canard of the supposedly superior intelligence explaining Jewish success, which mysteriously did not appear until the 20th century, keep in mind that there are several orders of magnitude more high-IQ Chinese and Indians than Jews.

The 21st century is not only going to be a historically interesting one, I believe it is going to turn out very, very different than almost anyone is imagining.

‘GFY’! Ben Shapiro brutally DROPS blue-check blaming him and other Rightists for mosque shooting

And what was this brutal DROP?

Ben Shapiro@benshapiro
 The shooter is a deranged POS who should burn in hell. If you think I’m responsible for his evil, GFY.  

Brutal is one way to describe it, I suppose, if you’re a sixth-grade girl. Remember, this is supposed to be the whip smart and witty aspect of the conservative media.

Russell Kirk wept.

UPDATE: Amazing! The Littlest Chickenhawk has done it again!

‘Racist bully’ Ben Shapiro has perfect answer for woman who told him, ‘Don’t ever have kids’

Ben Shapiro@benshapiro
 Sorry, already have two, including a 4-year-old daughter I will raise to believe she is capable of anything rather than a victim in the least sexist society in world history

Wow! I mean, just, WOW! That is just WHIP SMART stuff, man! Perfect answer! Just perfect!

They really should have named it Cringy.

The bad coffee chain learns that no amount of virtue-signaling is sufficient to inoculate one from the SJWs:

Way, way back in the deepest mists of history, circa March 2015, the Starbucks Corporation rolled out an initiative they called “Race Together.” Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, concerned about the racial divide in America, instructed baristas to scribble the thought-provoking phrase “Race Together” on customers’ cups as a way to “foster discussion.” Because that’s exactly what you want when you’re waiting in line for an overpriced cup of coffee that tastes like it was filtered through a hobo’s liver. You want a lecture about what a racist you are.

Starbucks even gave us all some homework to do, in the form of an insert in USA Today.

I hope this fiasco proves instructive to Howard Schultz and everybody else at Starbucks. No matter how liberal you are, no matter how hard you work to establish and maintain your #woke credentials, all it takes is one slip-up. Just one viral video, taken on one of the cameras that we all carry now, and the angry mob will descend on you. Nothing you do or say will appease them. No apology will be sufficient. You can’t grovel low enough.

They won’t learn, of course. They never do. They’ll just grovel harder in the hopes that they get devoured last.

And notice how Treacher is a brilliant example of the haplessness of the conservative, always seeking the instruction of the enemy rather than its defeat.

The longtime self-declared standard bearer of the so-called conservative movement and editor of National Review, William F. Buckley, was a closeted homosexual:

Back in the day, there was a famous feud that sometimes spilled out into public view – on tv, in the courts, and on the pages of certain magazines – between two men, both now deceased. They were on opposite ends of one spectrum, and while it may come as a shock to some the same end of a different spectrum.

By the time it escalated into a legal battle – there had already been years of shouting matches and near altercations – the two had amassed impressive files on each other. The longtime Hollywood procurer for the other denies on record that any of his interests there were underage, but what of course about the time he spent abroad, in southern Europe and later in Asia? The sworn statements provided to that legacy detective agency tell a different story. This person went to his grave fearful about the release of these statements and related pictures. The relatives may have been scorned, and left out of the will, but they were still telling the truth.

So, why then did #1 drop the suit at the eleventh hour, fearful of what he might be asked under oath? It might be because of what #2’s team, which included a purported former KGB spy, had found out about #1’s own interest: barely legal hustlers, often rough trade. He’d hire them whenever he was visiting his many politician friends in DC. He called them his “habit.” For him, the revelation would have been enough to end his career, and bring down his empire.

From The New York Times of September 26, 1972:

Buckley Drops Vidal Suit, Settles With Esquire

The legal battle between William F. Buckley, Jr. and Gore Vidal arising out of their public exchange of affronts, apparently came to an end yesterday with an announcement by Mr. Buckley of two acts: the dropping of his suit against Mr. Vidal and an out-of- court settlement of $115,000 with Esquire magazine.

The conservative movement has always been a fraud. It is the Washington Generals of American politics. No wonder its opinion leaders are so reliably worthless.