How Black Rifle Coffee Used Every Trick In The Book to Fool Conservatives – The Burning Platform

It looks like a lot of “conservative” types got played … hard. SMFH. How Black Rifle Coffee Used Every Trick In The Book to Fool Conservatives Once again, patriots are learning the hard way that when you tether your identity to a for-profit institution, you’re setting yourself up to be disappointed. Black Rifle Coffee Company … Continue reading “How Black Rifle Coffee Used Every Trick In The Book to Fool Conservatives”

How Black Rifle Coffee Used Every Trick In The Book to Fool Conservatives

Once again, patriots are learning the hard way that when you tether your identity to a for-profit institution, you’re setting yourself up to be disappointed.

Black Rifle Coffee Company was supposed to be a company that countered the effete stereotypes of other coffee sellers. When Starbucks promised to hire refugees, BRCC pledged to hire veterans. The company ran a promotion donating free bags of coffee to police officers. Its products are adorned in pro-military, pro-police kitsch. Black Rifle was supposed to be the rare company willing to openly market to the majority of America that doesn’t enjoy riots, protesting the flag, 13-year-olds getting castrations or double mastectomies, and every other piece of the ideological package that has become America’s de facto ruling ideology.

Sike!

Black Rifle actually hates populists and conservatives. In fact, it’s willing to pay you to never be their customer again. That’s the takeaway from the company’s 7,000-word profile in The New York Times last week.

Sometime in the last few months, The New York Times asked Black Rifle if they’d be interested in an interview. As a proud MAGA-backing coffee company, Black Rifle could have responded in several different ways:

-Ignore them

-Deliver a terse statement

-Ask for a list of questions and give brief, accurate answers

-“The Times is the enemy of the American people. F off.”

Black Rifle did none of those things. Instead, founder Evan Hafer sat down for a wide-ranging in-person interview. The company posed for a photo shoot. They gave the Times’ Jason Zengerle everything he needed for a massive story making it absolutely clear how the company really feels about its most enthusiastic supporters.

The Rittenhouse episode may have cost the company thousands of customers, but, Hafer believed, it also allowed Black Rifle to draw a line in the sand. “It’s such a repugnant group of people,” Hafer said. “It’s like the worst of American society, and I got to flush the toilet of some of those people that kind of hijacked portions of the brand.” Then again, what Hafer insisted was a “superclear delineation” was not too clear to everyone, as Munchel’s choice of headgear vividly demonstrated.

“The racism [expletive] really pisses me off,” Hafer said. “I hate racist, Proud Boy-ish people. Like, I’ll pay them to leave my customer base. I would gladly chop all of those people out of my [expletive] customer database and pay them to get the [expletive] out.” [NY Times]

Hafer’s choice of epithet is revealing. One doesn’t even have to like the Proud Boys to know that calling them racist is ridiculous. The group’s leader is sometime FBI-informant Enrique Tarrio, an Afro-Cuban. It famously attracts Hispanics, Asians, and Polynesians. The Proud Boys are all-male and proud “Western chauvinists.” Hafer could have called them violent, or stupid, or a potential federal op. But instead, he chose to call them racists, the one slur against them that is completely indefensible.

In other words, Hafer doesn’t actually know anything about the Proud Boys. He’s just repeating nonsense talking points fed to him by the Right’s enemies, whom he evidently views as a reliable information source.

That pattern recurs throughout the article. The damning revelation of the interview is that, whatever his superficial signaling towards American nationalists, Hafer has thoroughly submitted to the moral imperialism of the left. He accepts their core premises about reality and allows them to define the limits of his worldview.

… More at the url above.

Read More

Leave a Reply