So, what do we call it?

 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…. 


Tucker has the evidence

 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.


Why is Tucker cucking?

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.


Totally credible reports

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.


She’s coming for the cucks

@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.


This is what gatekeeping looks like

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”.


Build your own platforms

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.


Conservatives fiddle while the USA burns

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.


Republican antitrust sellout

Just in case it wasn’t already obvious that the House and Senate Republicans are not going to do anything about the social media monopolies and their abuse of people whose opinions they don’t like:

I obtained the GOP’s confidential antitrust memo for tomorrow’s hearing. It’s a direct betrayal of conservatives.
– Mike Cernovich

I know I’m shocked….


SJWs R the Real Racists

Conservatives are celebrating how the old school liberal left are now picking up their own failed rhetoric. Rod Dreher was celebrating this “thermite” piece by Matt Taibbi today; what a tragedy that they’re finally getting the approval they so desperately sought now that it’s far too late to be relevant:

The museum became the latest institution to attempt to combat racism by pledging itself to “antiracism,” a quack sub-theology that in a self-clowning trick straight out of Catch-22 seeks to raise awareness about ignorant race stereotypes by reviving and amplifying them.

The National Museum of African American History and Culture created a graphic on “Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture” that declared the following white values: “the scientific method,” “rational, linear thinking,” “the nuclear family,” “children should have their own rooms,” “hard work is the key to success,” “be polite,” “written tradition,” and “self-reliance.” White food is “steak and potatoes; bland is best,” and in white justice, “intent counts.”

The astute observer will notice this graphic could equally have been written by white supremacist Richard Spencer or History of White People parodist Martin Mull. It seems impossible that no one at one of the country’s leading educational institutions noticed this messaging is ludicrously racist, not just to white people but to everyone (what is any person of color supposed to think when he or she reads that self-reliance, politeness, and “linear thinking” are white values?).

The exhibit was inspired by white corporate consultants with Education degrees like Judith Katz and White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo, who themselves echo the work of more consultants with Ed degrees like Glenn Singleton of Courageous Conversations. Per the New York Times, Courageous Conversations even teaches that “written communication over other forms” and “mechanical time” (i.e. clock time) are tools by which “whiteness undercuts Black kids.”

The notion that such bugbears as as time, data, and the written word are racist has caught fire across the United States in the last few weeks, igniting calls for an end to virtually every form of quantitative evaluation in hiring and admissions, including many that were designed specifically to combat racism. Few tears will be shed for the SAT and ACT exams, even though they were once infamous for causing Harvard to be overpopulated with high-scoring “undesirables” like Jews and Catholics, forcing the school to add letters of reference and personal essays to help restore the WASP balance.

The outcry against the tests as “longstanding forces of institutional racism” by the National Association of Basketball Coaches is particularly hilarious, given that the real problem most of those coaches are combating is the minimal fake academic entry requirement imposed by the NCAA to help maintain a crooked billion-dollar business scheme based on free (and largely Black) labor. The tests have been tweaked repeatedly over the years to be more minority-friendly and are one of the few tools that gave brilliant but underprivileged kids a way to blow past the sea of rich suburbanites who feel oppressed by them… But, fine, let’s stipulate, as Neon Bodeaux put it, that “them tests are culturally biased.” What to make of the campaign to end blind auditions for musical positions, which the New York Philharmonic began holding in the early seventies in response to complaints of discrimination?

Before blind auditions, women made up less than 6 percent of orchestras; today they’re half of the New York Philharmonic. But because the change did not achieve similar results with Black and Hispanic musicians, the blind audition must now be “altered to take into fuller account artists’ backgrounds and experiences.” This completes a decades-long circle where the left/liberal project went from working feverishly to expunge racial stereotypes in an effort to level the playing field, to denouncing itself for ever having done so.

This would be less absurd if the effort were not being led in an extraordinary number of cases by extravagantly-paid white consultants like DiAngelo and Howard Ross, a “social justice advocate” whose company billed the federal government $5 million since 2006 to teach basically the same course on “whiteness” to agencies like NASA, the Treasury, the FDIC, and others.

The Left has not become the Right. The point is that ideology is now irrelevant and identity trumps over all, just as every intelligent critic of multiculturalism knew that it would once the demographics of the USA were sufficiently altered. Both multiculturalism and globalism render ideology, which concerns the divisions between a nation, moot because they transform political conflict from intranational to international.

The USA is now playing host to a power struggle between different nations, and the original white American nation is merely one large and unusually ineffective player who doesn’t understand the rules of the new game.