Tag: cuckservative

If UATV were growing this fast, even I would be suspicious of me.

I’ve been doing some more information gathering about #rumble as a platform because I couldn’t understand how Rumble went from being a small site in terms of getting 1 million site visits three months ago to getting over 60 million site visits in November, and I discovered that a lot of the same Conservative Inc/GOP establishment people who are on #parler are also on Rumble, and some of them have 500,000-800,000 subs on Rumble.

I can now definitively say that Rumble is the video-sharing site version of Parler. Rumble demands that you hand over your phone number just to be able to upload videos to their site, just like how Parler makes you hand over your phone number just to be able to use their site. Rumble’s biggest channels are members of the Conservative Inc/GOP Establishment and the subscriber accounts on their channels number in the hundreds of thousands, just like on Parler.

Time will tell if Rumble will start censoring Christians, conservatives, and trump supporters who are not part of the Conservative Inc/GOP Establishment/popular content creator crowd like Parler currently does, but so far it seems to me that Rumble is following the same path as Parler, which means that Rumble is probably a controlled opposition site like Parler is.

FFS, if you want free uploads, go to BitChute. This isn’t that hard. Stop being shepherded by the GOPe; they aren’t on your side.

First, read this statement from Black Rifle Coffee:

A Statement from CEO Evan Hafer on Black Rifle Coffee Company’s Mission

As a veteran-owned and operated coffee company, Black Rifle Coffee Company exists to serve premium coffee while supporting the veteran Community. At the core of Black Rifle Coffee’s values is to support and bring awareness to the millions of veterans who have proudly served our nation and we will not waver from that mission.

The Black Rifle brand is a symbol of service, of strength, and of goodness that has carried over from our military origins. It’s why we support active duty service members and veterans, prioritize veteran hiring, and advocate for individual liberty and personal responsibility.

We do not support legal advocacy efforts. We do not sponsor nor do we have a relationship with the 17-year-old facing charges in Kenosha, WI.

We believe in the integrity of the legal justice system, and support law enforcement officials.

We’re grateful for the continued support of the Black Rifle Coffee community and eager to continue serving those who serve.

-Evan Hafer, CEO/Founder

Now, as you probably know, I absolutely support The Hero Kyle Rittenhouse. And I also consider this to be a missed opportunity here for Black Rifle Coffee to take a stand in support of one of its supporters that would go over very, very well with its customers. If he’d been wearing an Arkhaven shirt, I’d have sent him ten more plus a baseball cap. But there is literally nothing wrong for a corporation to decline to not only leap into the cultural wars, but put itself at the pointiest edge of the spear in those wars.

Black Rifle didn’t cuck, it didn’t throw The Hero Kyle Rittenhouse under the bus, it didn’t disavow him, and it didn’t rush to make a donation to BLM in order to purchase a hall pass from the enemy. It just pointed out, correctly, that it was being unfairly attacked for something it didn’t do that was unrelated to its mission. Save your rhetorical fire for enemies, deserters, cucks, and traitors, don’t waste it on neutrals. Ignore them, because there are no shortage of better targets out there.

TL,DR: If you like the coffee, then drink it. There is no reason to boycott them. But then, there is no reason to go out of your way to support them either. They’ve made it clear that they won’t stand up for anyone, so you don’t need to stand up for them.

As for me, I don’t drink Black Rifle Coffee and I don’t care about Black Rifle Coffee. Here is an idea: instead of getting all enthusiastic about individuals and institutions that you imagine might maybe perhaps be on your side and getting repeatedly disappointed when you learn otherwise, why not simply focus on supporting those who actually are?

I truly do not understand this apparent desire to constantly hare off after everyone and everything that happens to make what might possibly be a sympathetic noise.

UPDATE: All right, if enough of you BRC supporters are genuinely pissed off about this, let me know and I’ll contact an Italian company I know. I wouldn’t mind having an excuse to produce a custom Italian coffee line, especially since Nespresso doesn’t seem inclined to bring back Canella anytime soon.

UPDATE: Upon further review, I was wrong. Black Rifle Coffee is a false front, it is not politically neutral and its failure to back The Hero Kyle Rittenhouse cannot be reasonably ascribed to simple corporate neutrality. They appear to be parasites in patriot clothing successfully preying on the veteran community. The CEO is an Obama donor. An ActBlue donor. And it gets worse, as demonstrated in this glowing profile by CBS News:

To Hafer and Best, honoring patriots means honoring immigrants….

 Neon Revolt, whose opinion regarding Black Rifle Coffee is pretty similar to mine, considers this comment from one of his readers to be a fair take. And I don’t disagree:

People are mad at black rifle coffee because they want right-leaning companies to go all in for the right just like the left leaning companies go all in for the left.

If you’re on the right it never feels like you get a hearty endorsement from any such company… At best you get neutrality and at worst you get disavowed.

Or to put in another way: everybody fears the left-wing mob but nobody fears the right-wing. Right-wingers are starving for someone to have their back. That is why the reaction is so strong.

Fair enough. And even if you don’t consider BRC’s actions a betrayal, they have at least demonstrated that they don’t merit any particular support from patriots or 2nd Amendment activists despite their posturing and pretensions.

Trust not in marketing.

Anyhow, I’ve already made contact with an Italian private label coffee producer and arranged for them to provide me with a box of samples. (There is no downside here.) If it’s genuinely good, we can consider what the next steps might be. Of course, we’ll have to figure out what we’re going to call it…. 

 And yet, Mr. Cuckerson continues to deny the incontrovertible:

On Friday night Tucker Carlson doubled down and denied there was any proof of vote switching during the 2020 presidential election. Tucker Carlson told his audience there is no evidence of votes being switched. But we sent him at least one video on the voter fraud we revealed with the help of several IT specialists, auditors and accountants.

This is ridiculous. There is conclusive documentary evidence of vote switching during the 2020 presidential election sitting right on YouTube. I suggest you download it before YouTube deletes it. This video was recorded on a phone camera filming CNN as Donald Trump’s Pennsylvania vote totals drop from 1,690,589 to 1,670,631 at the same time Joe Biden’s vote total rises from 1,252,537 to 1,272,495 in just 35 seconds.

That’s is clear and conclusive evidence of precisely 19,958 votes being switched from Trump to Biden during the 2020 presidential election.

Tucker Carlson is not dumb enough to fail to understand what “evidence” is or how it is properly presented. Is he under pressure from his superiors at Fox News? Or is he simply afraid of being jettisoned in the event Biden is successful in his attempt to steal the election?

“On Sunday night, we texted her after watching one of her segments. What Powell was describing would amount to the single greatest crime in American history, millions of votes stolen in a day. Democracy destroyed. The end of our centuries-old system of self-government — not a small thing,” Carlson said, noting he did not initially dismiss “any” of her claims.

He added that he believes his show was the most “open-minded show on television,” noting he’s covered evidence of UFOs.

“We took Sidney Powell seriously. We had no intention of fighting with her. We’ve always respected her work. We simply wanted to see the details. How could you not want to see them? So, we invited Sidney Powell on the show. We would’ve given her the whole hour. We would’ve given her the entire week, actually, and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention. That’s a big story. But she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of requests — polite requests. Not a page,” Carlson, whose program is regularly top-rated among prime-time shows, said.

“When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her. When we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people in positions of authority, they told us Powell has never given them any evidence either. Nor did she provide any today at the press conference,” Carlson continued, though he agreed electronic voting was dangerous. “But she never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another. Not one.”

What is ridiculous about Carlson’s statements is that one cannot reasonably be expected to provide the sort of evidence that is required to be conclusive in a press conference in front of a bunch of journalists who are totally incapable of understanding it. As both Powell and Giuliani have stated, they have the evidence and will be providing it in the appropriate venues. They have even described, in some detail, what that evidence is.

The statistical evidence is literally right in front of everyone. FFS, I knew there was voter fraud in Hennepin County by simply looking at the documentary evidence of the vote totals; it is unlikely to the point of complete impossibility for Joe Biden to have won 25.2 percent more votes than the average of votes won by Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton in three elections at the same time Donald Trump won 13.6 percent more votes than the average won by himself, Mitt Romney, and John McCain.

Hey Tucker, here is the evidence. Now, decide if you’re henceforth going to be known as Tucker Carlson or Tucker Cuckerson.

Meanwhile, Sidney Powell made much the same point I did above to Carlson. So perhaps he really isn’t smart enough to understand what evidence is and is not. Most people simply don’t understand what evidence actually is because they are not intelligent enough to understand it. What most people, especially the media, consider to be evidence is simply testimonial evidence offered by an authority about the actual evidence. But a fair amount of the statistical evidence is already right in front of everyone, they just don’t have the math to understand it or its significance.

Maria Bartiromo: How did you respond to Tucker Carlson? Did you get angry with the show because they texted you and asked you to provide evidence of what you’re alleging?

Sidney Powell: No, I didn’t get angry with the request to provide evidence in fact I sent an affidavit to Tucker that I had not even attached to a pleading yet to help him understand the situation and I offered him another witness who could explain the mathematics of the statistical evidence far better than I can. I’m not really a numbers person. But he was very insulting, demanding and rude and I told him not to contact me again in those terms.

NeverTrumper Bill Maxwell very reliably reports, on the basis of his very close connections with people he hates, that President Trump is as demoralized as he wants you to be:

According to Trump’s inner circle, he is depressed, out of money, and afraid of going to jail.

I don’t know, if I was a NeverTrumper, that would frighten me considerably more than a President Trump who is confident of victory and is basking in the full-throated public support of his supporters. After all, he’s still got at least six weeks to utilize the U.S. military and order drone strikes on individual citizens he designates as enemies. 

Don’t buy into the demoralization campaign. Epstein didn’t kill himself. And Biden didn’t win.

@SomeBitchIKnow is very unhappy with the conservatives who are too genteel and concerned about their perfectly adjusted bowties to talk about her exposure of obvious vote fraud:

I would just like to take the second to be a little bit salty to some of the conservative talking heads that refused to talk about maidengate.

They refused to even suggest that people check their old names and their registry. Something that simple, they said no.

Thanks to you fuckers, I’ve had to work uphill both ways to get the information I needed to get. If I had had some help from you, I would have done this so much sooner.

I have the screenshots.

I know who you are.

I am not done.

When I am vindicated from #MaidenGate, and I will be, I’m exposing your asses next.

Good for her. And good for Gab, for providing her a platform once Twitter deplatformed her.

While whining about how Amazon won’t post his Very Important Review of The Plot Against the President, Powerline’s Scott Johnson reveals his real imperative as a conservative gatekeeper:

I found three of the several talking heads in the film to be out of place: Mike Cernovich, Kimberly Guilfoyle, and Jack Posobiec. However, I appreciated the inclusion of the eminent historian Edward Luttwak. Among Luttwak’s many books is Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook. He brings scholarly expertise to the theme of the film. He knows what he is talking about.

Keep in mind that the “eminent historian” is primarily known by historians for writing a book about Roman grand strategy while being clueless about Roman history, and is famous for wrongly predicting that Desert Storm was going to be a protracted and bloody campaign in which U.S. troops would suffer thousands of casualties. He has also written a book on the “grand strategy” of the Byzantine empire despite knowing no more about the Byzantine empire than you, me, or Kimberly Guifoyle.

Notice that Johnson doesn’t explain why three people who are active observers of U.S. politics are supposed to be more out of place than an obvious ticket-taking globalist who still doesn’t understand how Trump was elected in the first place, and whose referenced book is “a hilarious satire”.

Sam Francis saw it first, according to the Z-Man

A long time ago, Sam Francis pointed out that Conservatism was likely to fail as a political movement, because it was engaging in formal politics. In order to engage in formal politics, it had to accept the rules of politics and the process of creating those rules. Inevitably, conservatism would be assimilated into the system they set out to oppose. Go back and read the early conservatives. Listen to a Reagan speech from the 60’s. They are unrecognizable relative to the modern conservative.

The fact that Francis was correct has always stuck with me. Everyone that takes on the system directly is destroyed and made into a useful example by the system. Everyone that tried to work the system is assimilated and turned against its original mission. There have been no exceptions.

The logical first step toward an alternative approach is accepting the reality of the past. It means “doing something” outside the system. The first step in building a genuine alternative is to turn your back on the system and stop reacting to it.

The irony, of course, is that most post-conservatives, including the Z-Man, attack everyone who actually attempts to build any alternatives to the mainstream system as a “grifter”. Apparently you’re supposed to build your own platforms, but somehow do it without any resources and provide the end product to everyone for free.

Granted, it’s a different strategy for losing, but it’s still a strategy for losing.

The unmitigated failure of conservatism is now beyond undeniable. Even the Hillsdale crowd is beginning to recognize it.

What is conservatism in America today? It’s hundreds of millions of dollars a year spent fiddling while Rome burns. It’s ideas with little to no consequence. It’s getting trampled all over by History, but while yelling Stop!

Conservatism is the seven cheers for capitalism and the deafening silence on demographic change, feminism, and corporate malfeasance. It’s the same tired cast of speakers blathering about limited government almost a century after the New Deal. It’s the platitudinous Reagan quotes and the worn-out Buckley anecdotes. It’s the mindless optimism and the childish exhortations—if something can’t go on forever, it won’t!

If it were only that, conservatism would simply be a harmless persuasion for nostalgic Baby Boomers. Or to be more generous, one big Benedict Option to offer a semblance of an alternative to the pervasive progressivism of our age.

But conservatism is also the endless wars, the nation-building, and the outdated alliances. It’s the free trade fetish. It’s the foolish libertarianism that hates the government more than it loves America. It’s the unconscionable refusal to clamp down on immigration.

Worst of all, conservatism is the cowardice and accommodation in the face of leftist hegemony. It’s the long list of enemies to the Right. It’s the court eunuchs and other members of the controlled opposition who offer an echo, but never a choice. It’s the faux grandstanding while living in fear of being called a racist.

Admittedly, this is not the whole of conservatism. There are still dissidents, contrarian thinkers, and courageous gadflies who refuse to lick the boots that crush them. Alas, their voices are, more often than not, drowned out by those of the conservative establishment.

If this is conservatism, then we may be inclined to say, let the conservatives keep it. Perhaps the time has come for patriotic Americans tired of the Left desecrating all they hold dear to go beyond conservatism?

Conservatism may indeed be unsalvageable at this point. The old guard is too heavily invested in—nay, it benefits too much from the status quo to own up to its failures, correct its leftward drift, and reground itself in the realities of the 21st century. Its business model works, as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars that flow into its coffers each year.

And yet conservatism, in its dotage, cannot shake the nagging suspicion that it no longer speaks to the country it loves, in particular to those who have no living memory of the Cold War. This dawning realization could be amplified through probing questions: is America today more conservative than it was when the conservative movement began 70 or so years ago? Is conservatism itself as conservative as it was then? On the off chance that the conservative agenda were to be implemented, would it fundamentally transform the United States of America and lead to conservative hegemony (or would it simply save us money and buy us time)?

Across the board, the answer is a resounding no. Conservatism must therefore overhaul itself. If it refuses, then it should be left to die with the passage of time. A new Right, in any case, is already overtaking it.

Call us whatever you will – New Right, Alt-Right, Nationalist Right, American Right, or Crusader Right – but our ideas are inevitable because the truth always breaks through in the end.