Posted by
Gavin
• 03.05.12 11:50 pm

Andrew Breitbart leaves behind a widow and four children. I wrote an obit for him here but the crux of it is…

 

When I was on Greg’s show Red Eye with Breitbart we were asked what we thought of Trump sponsoring a GOP debate. Greg and I had the knee-jerk reaction of scoffing at the whole thing. When Breitbart asked us what was so funny we said, “Well, it’s obviously just some rich guy showboating.” Then he taught me a word I never really paid attention to before: “So?”

This word defines Breitbart to me more than any other. At a bar one night I was whining about the allegation that all libertarians are funded by the Koch brothers. “So?” he replied. Andrew didn’t play the PC left’s game. Libertarians don’t get magical checks from the Koch brothers, but so what if they did? George Soros spends billions paying people he likes. There’s nothing wrong with that, either.

 

The night after his death I went on Red Eye and wore a homemade “So?” shirt (we talk about it here from 2:15 to 5:20). People started asking about it so we had a bunch silk-screened and set up a charity where we’ll charge $40 a shirt and give 100% of the profits to Andrew’s widow and kids. I’ll make public all the receipts and costs so the whole thing is completely transparent.

I hope a lot of people buy this and we can help the family but I also hope it will encourage people to start saying, “So?” more. If you have something honest and genuine to say and it’s from the heart, blurt it out. If someone decides it’s offensive…

The shirt is available here.

UPDATE: As a commenter below stated, “Andrew was many things but he was not rich.” He went to every Tea Party rally and most OWS rallies. His work employed dozens of people but every time he made some money, he poured it back into his websites. He was also plagued by lawsuits. This isn’t throwing some money at a millionaire. It’s an attempt to give a grieving family one less thing to worry about, if only for a moment.

—GAVIN McINNES

 

 

PS: Here’s comedian and story teller Tom Shilue telling a room full of New York liberals how much they would have liked Breitbart.

 


Comments
  1. Drippy Dog Dix and Cum Bubbles or Something says:

    So….haha, classic. Well done!

  2. Red says:

    Without him there’d be no Drudge Report and no Huffington Post. There’d be no Red Eye either for that matter. The guy must have created a thousand jobs. Your obituary implies he always had the entire Shirley Sherrod video up but Wikipedia says otherwise. For the record, I think people make too much of the second half of that video. It’s one thing to go, “‘I hate gooks’ is a terrible thing to say” and only show the “I hate gooks” part. It’s another to say, “I hate gooks and I really need to get over that” and only show the first part. Sherrod basically said the latter. She still hates gooks.

  3. Chasmid says:

    Just ordered mine!

  4. Jay says:

    That’s exactly what I said to myself when I heard he snuffed it. Spooky.

  5. Jay says:

    $40 bucks?! Wasn’t he a millionaire? Why on earth would you donate the money to his family? Grief stricken sure, but not poor. Surely there are at least a few charities the living Brietbart would’ve donated to? You’re a strange dude Gavin making such a fuss over this guy.

  6. Red says:

    Andrew Breitbart was many things but he was not rich.

  7. Shit4Brains says:

    “You’re a strange dude Gavin making such a fuss over this guy.”

    Yeah, it’s creepy when people keep obsessing over a friend’s death a full five days after they die. Go choke to death.

  8. Good Job Gavin says:

    Shit4Brains – you have the right name – cause you really do. How is it strange to help a family and why is this obsessing? You are a fucking MORON.

  9. Sarcasm Is HARD says:

    Good Job Gavin you are an idiot. Shit4Brains is employing something known as sarcasm. Hence the ‘go choke to death’ sentiment directed towards those who are making a fuss.

  10. Shit4Brains says:

    The “go choke to death” was directed at the Limey faggot Jay for suggesting it’s “strange” for “making a fuss” about a friend who died five days ago. Then again, his empire died 100 years ago. We win! The “Good Job Gavin” guy obviously has the reading-comprehension skills of a garden slug.

  11. Chris says:

    Just ordered mine. Just like Rush said we need thousands of Andrew Breitbart. I’m engaging as many people as I can in what this WH is doing to the Constitution and how ALL our freedoms will be gone within a few short years including the 2nd if we don’t act decisively in November and get rid of all the D’s.

    Beck had the right idea to get away from individual sponsors who can be persuaded to drop advertising. Too bad sponsors don’t have a moral compass anymore; it’s all about the money. I’ll find out what sponsors dropped Rush and make sure to boycott them until they start advertising again. If they are smart (?), they will because he has a huge audience.

  12. grumpy old man says:

    I’ll stick with my “Frankie says Relax” shirt while counting my T cells.

  13. Ken says:

    Gavin, some of us are not rich either. I was logging on for the first time to buy a shirt to help Breitbart’s family, but $40.00? Jesus Christ, come on, you would make more for his family if you would make the price reasonable.

  14. Anonymous says:

    There’s a quote that Gavin likes to use, usually referenced as coming from a “1943 Moscow Central Committee Directive”:

    “Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic…The association will, after enough repetition, become ‘fact’ in the public mind.”

    Gavin always claims it’s from the Frankfurt School. Perhaps this is because his comprehension skills are poor, and he misread the final two paragraphs of this uncited and unattributed use of the quote:

    http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/society/cultural_marxism.htm

    It’s uncited and unattributed, incidentally, because it’s a completely fictitious quote. No-one has ever been able to cite a primary source for it. It never happened. It’s simply right-wing, red-baiting propaganda from the fifties. If you search for it using google books, you’ll find an entry on it in a book called ‘They Never Said It: A Book of Quotes, Misquotes and Misleading Attributions’ by Paul F. Boller, that explains its history in further detail. The irony though is pretty obvious – a myth of a left-wing smear tactic itself being used as a right-wing smear.

    So it’s only fitting that Gavin should praise Andrew Breitbart, a man who lied about and smeared ACORN, an organization that provided advice on health care, affordable housing and voter registration to poor people, and a man who lied about and smeared Shirley Sherrod. What bravery! What honest journalism!

  15. Geof says:

    I, too, think $40 is a bit steep, but that won’t stop me from ordering one sometime this week. For $40 though, I would like to be able to choose the color of the shirt. White shirts don’t look good on 897 pound dudes.

  16. jm says:

    40s a bit steep for sure. i actually was going to buy one of these but no way can i spend 40 bucks on a t shirt. cut it down to 25 and you gots a deal.

  17. Frankfurt School 4 Dummies says:

    @ Anonymous…

    The quote was cited in a 1956 Report of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (Volume 1,page 347). Yes, that’s not an original source, but it’s better than the one you cited.

    And Boller said the quote was “ALMOST certainly a fake.” So that’s nowhere near the slam-dunk you thought it was.

    So you’re denying that the left often smears enemies with terms such as “fascist, or Nazi, or anti-Semitic” to silence critics even if said critics have failed to even remotely express any such sentiments? Good luck with that, fellow traveler.

    Now feel free to cite a single lie Andrew Breitbart told. Just one. I know a lot more about the Sherrod and ACORN cases than you appear to.

    But thanks for bringing the Frankfurt School into the discussion. People need to know more about it. A LOT more about it.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Saying “so?” during an argument is just as annoying and childish as saying “I know you are but what am I?”

  19. Tom Cruise says:

    nice ass, dude. better than being a corpse I guess. behave yourself

  20. Miles says:

    I’m so alt I pretend I’m black rather than a pasty white twink.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Aah anonymous commenting. The last refuge of a coward.

  22. Anonymous says:

    @ Frankfurt School 4 Dummies

    My point was that the quote is made-up – there is no original source. Please find one. Seriously, I’d love to read it. You’ve merely cited (like in the link I posted) another use of it, which does not credibly attribute it to a primary source. Try doing that in any academic essay, or serious piece of journalism and see how far you get. So it’s neither ‘better’ nor ‘worse’, just another example of an unsubstantiated quote that has entered right-wing mythology being used to discredit the left (you do know what the House Committee on Un-American Activities was, don’t you?) – hence, a ‘smear’. Thanks for backing my argument up!

    I have no doubt that many, on all sides of the political spectrum, use terms like ‘Nazi’ ‘Ant-Semite’ etc. in arguments and attempt to discredit their opponents through smears. To deny that would be beyond stupid. Which is why I don’t actually say (if I do, please quote me) that the left doesn’t, or hasn’t, attempted to smear through such terms – something, incidentally which I think is both childish and counter-productive – because it should be obvious to anyone with any sort of intelligence that they do. What I’m doing is focusing on this particular instance, this particular quote as a smear (which happens to be from the right), because it’s often brought up by Gavin, and that the tendency for people to make unverified smears is apt given Breitbart’s track record.

    And as for Breitbart, I would say that running a website that hosted the totally fraudulent, heavily edited videos of Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe that have been deemed by investigations from both the New York and California Attorney Offices (amongst others) as being utterly deceitful and misleading, is a form of lying, and obviously a smear. If you want an instance of an actual, unquestionable lie, here’s two:

    Firstly, in Breitbart’s own column in the Washington Times (Sept. 29th 2009), Breitbart writes that O’Keefe, whilst “dressed as a pimp” received help for “various illegal activities”.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/21/breitbart-the-politicized-art-behind-the-acorn-pla/

    But none of the videos show this happening. Why? Because it never happened. All subsequent independent investigations have concluded that ACORN employees in no way committed any illegal act or had any intent to aid such acts. Breitbart is a liar, and lied to drum up interest in his smear campaign.

    Here’s another instance, which I quote from wikipedia:

    “In a September 15th interview with Sean Hannity of FOX News, Breitbart said that O’Keefe and Glies “…have been impugned in the media.” On September 17, 2009, Turner.com posted a list of all CNN transcripts covering the ACORN scandal, from the day the story was first released.[117] The transcripts showed there was no evidence that Giles or O’Keefe had been “impugned” or “excoriated” by news commentators.[129][130][131][132][133] The listed transcripts include extensive, objective coverage and discussion by CNN reporters Abbie Boudreau, Wolf Blitzer, Candy Crowley, and others.[133] Lou Dobbs (then still at CNN) had offered an impassioned statement in support of Giles and O’Keefe on September 10, the day on which the videos were first aired.”

    As for Sherrod – Breitbart posted an obviously edited video before (he claimed) asking for a full version, or making any sort of attempt to discover the context. Unlike ACORN, this didn’t make him a liar, so I’ll take that part back. It just makes him a moron and piss-poor journalist, more interested in short-term smears than in accuracy or honesty.

    Oh, and regarding the Frankfurt School? I’d love to read what your thoughts are on them. Will it be an incisive commentary on Adorno’s ‘Minima Moralia’ or his ‘Negative Dialectics’? Or a critique of Habermas’ notion of the public sphere? Perhaps you’ll dazzle us with your knowledge of Walter Benjamin and his aesthetic theories? Or will it just be a paranoid sack of horse jizz on some vague and tired idea of ‘culture wars’?

  23. Anonymous says:

    PS – In the interest of clarity, the above should read “Unlike in his dealings with ACORN…”, not “Unlike ACORN”, and I’d like to point out that none of the videos show O’Keefe dressed as a pimp inside ACORN offices, as confirmed by later investigations and contrary to Breitbart’s lie.

  24. zacal says:

    Hey Gavin, have you contacted Breitbart’s website about advertising the T-shirt there? And thank you for doing this. I’ve met his kids and my heart breaks for them.

  25. cathy says:

    divine intervention. Thanks Gavin, you kinda remind me of him from the far off land of Red Eye watchers. Peace out brother.

  26. Creepy McCreeperson says:

    sew buttons.

  27. Jennifer says:

    Great idea – I just got mine and look forward to wearing it proudly. Thank you for giving us a small way to express our condolences. I’ve got four kids of my own and cannot imagine the grief his family must be experiencing. May they be comforted in their mourning.

  28. reo speedwagon in converse says:

    I presume the chances of Gavin bringing up his love of Breitbart while hanging with his chums from CRASS is close to zero.

  29. onyx blackman says:

    “SO?”

    couldnt that same philosophy be used to justify why we shouldnt give a shit if his family goes broke?
    furthermore, fuck this guy. the fact that upon hearing about his death, many of his readers almost immediately went online making not-so-vague accusations that either obama or “the left” had him assassinated only shows that this guy was nothing more than the thinking mans victoria jackson

  30. ADDGospelYeh-Yeh says:

    Anonymous at 11:47 am and 1:57 pm is a breathe of rational air. I’m awaiting a post on Breitbart which exalts the familiar “see the light/embrace ‘conservatism'” origin story. Anonymous pretty much covered what needed to be covered about this hack. Of course, my condolences on losing a friend. On a related note, I expect that we will be seeing a post on Habermas’ “Theory of Communicative Action” and “Discursive Rationality” soon, no? I’m also interested in learning about Adorno’s aesthetic theory. Get on that.

  31. ADDGospelYeh-Yeh says:

    If anyone is interested in reading a couple of well-written, reasoned, and researched articles in the wake of this posthumous legacy circle jerk, here are two:

    1) http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/on-making-yourself-right/253889/

    2) http://gawker.com/5890660/andrew-breitbart-big-deal-big-coronary-big-corpse

  32. payeras says:

    And now let us praise not great men, and conceal their awful and decidedly not brave legacies behind the fact that they happened to have mated and spawned, turning away from the actual consequences their vile existence wrought.

  33. comic book guy. says:

    “Just ordered mine. Just like Rush said we need thousands of Andrew Breitbart. I’m engaging as many people as I can in what this WH is doing to the Constitution and how ALL our freedoms will be gone within a few short years including the 2nd if we don’t act decisively in November and get rid of all the D’s.

    Beck had the right idea to get away from individual sponsors who can be persuaded to drop advertising. Too bad sponsors don’t have a moral compass anymore; it’s all about the money. I’ll find out what sponsors dropped Rush and make sure to boycott them until they start advertising again. If they are smart (?), they will because he has a huge audience.”

    Hahahaha. So this place has finally become a cesspool of right-wing whining and Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh idolatry? Nice while it lasted. I’ll always come back for the beautiful women in the outfits, though.

  34. cook says:

    gavin pls make some explicit posts on yr politics. i’d be interested in seeing them voiced and challenged on this forum(this website). thanks

  35. Anonymous says:

    @ ADDGospelYeh-Yeh

    Thanks, man.

    One last thing – Some might see my comments as inappropriate – speaking ill of the dead – I understand that, and naturally I have sympathy for Briebart’s relatives and friends and their personal loss. But we aren’t discussing Andrew Briebart because of his family or private persona. Thousands of husbands and fathers died today and aren’t subject to rapturous panegyrics from deluded (or just calculatingly cynical) right-wing bloggers. We’re discussing him because of his public actions and politics, and frankly, they stank.

    Joel Dreyfuss puts it better than me: “Too many commentators confused Breitbart the private person with Breitbart the public figure and tried to conflate the two […] Avoiding speaking ill of the dead is not a reason to remain mute about an evil legacy. Breitbart was an agent provocateur who lied and cheated and distorted the facts to support his right-wing political agenda.”

    http://www.theroot.com/views/andrew-breitbarts-evil-legacy

    @ onyx blackman

    Totally agree – but no-one should be surprised by these loony conspiracy theories. The sole motive of Briebart’s lies and smears was to engender exactly these kind of fantasies in suggestible republicans – that the government is their enemy, it’s out to get them, that it funds and aids criminals and scroungers whilst they get nothing, that it hates people like them (white middle class people) and is conspiring against them with their own taxes etc. etc. It didn’t matter that the videos he posted were rapidly discredited and proved wrong, because by then the damage had already been done.

  36. kate says:

    First off, I want to say that I really, genuinely feel for his widow and kids. Growing up without your dad is painful and shitty, and his family didn’t deserve to lose him, especially considering how young he was. I also agree with you and Breitbart that the “so what?” factor is very, very important and that most politicians and commentators do a pretty terrible job of incorporating and explaining it.

    That said, Gavin, your obit for him really irritated me because you spent a huge chunk of it setting up ridiculous straw man “liberals” whose opinions are clearly pretty laughable and half-baked, without any real-world nuance. I would consider myself an average, reasonable left-leaning centrist who fundamentally disagreed (in a big way) with most of the stuff Breitbart put out there, and the examples of liberal positions you cited in your obit are really just examples of poorly thought-out nonsense that no one with half a brain would endorse. Look, I get that the obit page is not a place for character assassination or a detailed breakdown of the deceased’s shortcomings. I didn’t expect that. I just think that if you really admired and respected Andrew Breitbart, you would have defended him against the rational and substantive criticism of his body of work (and there has been plenty) instead of just making fun of a cartoonish “PC left” who thinks that conservatives are against unions because they “hate the working man.” Those people certainly exist, but…they’re idiots. And they definitely don’t accurately represent Breitbart’s critics.

  37. sha44ss says:

    Nice try you Commie! No one cares one bit about anything you say because it doesnt work with us anymore! You are a Coward! You ARE A NOBODY, you ARE ‘ANONYMOUS’ ‘indistinct’-‘one who goes ‘unnoticed’ so go crawl back into your ‘lonely’ soul!

  38. SJK says:

    Thank you for doing this for the family – $40 is a small price to pay for a man who gave 150% of hmself to the point he did not take care of himself as he should have.

    You are not a jerk by the way.

    Thanks for following through on this, I was watching Red Eye when the idea came up, so glad I watched last night so I could buy one.

    Andrew will work wonders from heaven.

  39. Gina Speaks says:

    I just ordered 3 So?, t-shirts!! I love it!

  40. AngelsAmongUs says:

    Hi Gavin, I can’t believe how many trolls you attract here, whew, I’m sorry for them. I hate when people try so hard to sound intelligent- and fail. Anyway, I happened to stay up late last night and saw you on Red Eye, what a great show, it looked like you were having fun, it was fun to watch. I just wanted to apologize for all the loonies that posted before me. Its so disturbing to me when I see how insensitive, heartless and cruel some people can be. I had just read “Righteous Indignation”, loved it. He was taken too soon, he will be missed, I was hoping to meet him on one of his tour engagements. God bless you & yours, my prayers go out to to his family.

  41. ryan says:

    love the shirt and idea gavin but $40?

  42. Hugh Kelly says:

    Thanks Gavin. Caught the show with the So? (is that poem now attributed?) and wondered how to get THE shirt and inquired on the Pit and found a link here. Who wudda thunk the Pit could be so efficient?

    WTF is with some of these trolls? The dude isn’t even in the ground yet and out creeps the vile assclowns on the attack – yeah, “What bravery”. And intelligent too – They actually are so clueless they are defending an organization that demonstrably said; ‘Tween sex for cash? Cool, how can WE help?’ Even slimeballs like Anthony Weiner in Congress were outraged and cut Acorn’s funding….you just know its got to be a lowlife organization when spend-happy Congress cuts your funding. But, nooooo, these buckethead trolls here are defending the Acorn nuts that are more than happy to promote the exploitation of supposed young South American tween sex slaves and in the very next sentence telling us they actually care about the Breitbart kids. Man, I’ve had flashbacks that made more sense.
    I about fell out reading the rant about “uncited and unattributed” concluding sarcasticly with; “What bravery!” — And the kicker is it was posted by, yeah, you guessed it….’Anonymous’. You really can’t make up this bufoonery even in bizzaro-world.
    Should I ever get really, really depressed, wondering if I should get a life, I’ll just come back here and read these haters rants about Breitbart and consider my life situation in context is actually quite good.

    So?….Thanks Gavin for giving us a way to say RIP Andrew, we’ve got your back. Peace and love to the Breitbart family for sharing his short life with the rest of us. We can’t buy enough shirts to pay back that debt to you.

  43. Dain Q Gore says:

    Hey Gavin. Great job. I’ve only known about you via Red Eye and glad I discovered this post.

    I think the “Anonymous” (it took me 2 seconds to type my own name) just might be missing the bigger picture here.

    “SO?” is a defiance against being caught in that damn trap of being bullied to death with BS that has nothing to do with a point to be made.

    “SO?” is not a childish thing: a childish thing is calling someone a racist, sexist, homophobe or Islamophobe based on the sole evidence that you disagree with them. A childish thing is calling someone a hack that lived and breathed this stuff; whether you liked him or not, he lived and breathed this stuff. Childishness is inferring a completely different thing than what someone implies, and cutting them off before they can edify on it. Childish is claiming you “reap what you sow” when your political opponents say or do exactly the same thing with no consequence…whatsoever.

    Most of all, in this case, Childish is criticizing someone for defending or honoring a friend’s ideas…did any of the naysayers even notice that these friends had disagreements? This was the introduction to the anecdote: a disagreement! I would love to imagine that my friends–especially those who I have had arguments, or even fights, with–would do me the honor that Gavin has done were I to pass too soon.

    I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I am not a Libertarian. I just see what happens.
    I pay attention.

    And I will buy a shirt.

  44. Dain Q Gore says:

    I must add an addendum to the rote accusations (Childish #1) that get flung around…add to the list traitor, unamerican, Commie, baby-killer…etc etc. Although these days they sound more like old movie lines…they are certainly “out of fashion.”

  45. that fucker says:

    I’ll miss Breitbart, people like him and Limbaugh are a necessary evil. I don’t descriminate I hate all media and government equally. Oh and throw corporate interests in there too while your at it. MSNBC, FOX all biased cocksuckers. Left wing, right wing full of shit and unapologetic for it. They all are rich weather its politcians or big money donors like Soros and Koch and I don’t have a dime compared to these guys. So I support anyone thats a boggieman hiding in the shadows like a Breitbart that will tap them on the shoulder and say “sup fuckers”?

  46. chuckie thinwalls says:

    Everyone is focusing on that okeefe video or the sherrod mashup which, depending on who you ask are awesome or total bullshit

  47. chuckie thinwalls says:

    Everyone is focusing on that okeefe video or the sherrod mashup which, depending on who you ask are awesome or total bullshit. Small potatos either way. Is there anything notable this guy did to someone who doesnt care about american politics at all? Was there something special about his website? Did he do funny practical jokes?

  48. NancyM says:

    Ordered mine. Thanks. Wish I had met him.

  49. JohnPaulJohnPaul says:

    So?
    Perhaps the all the employees he created and those who say him as a hero can step up for his family. My donations will go to people who have NOBODY, you know, those folks that stupid liberals are trying to include in the conversation…

    Good for Breibart and your liberal re-education, but piss off with this weepy tshirt bullshit.

  50. Anonymous says:

    Funny, I don’t remember the “racist” Breitbart urging people to “vote white” like Shirley Sherrod’s husband recently urged people to “vote black”:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrcJ3cBDS7Y

  51. Man Is The Custard says:

    Congrats Gavin, you’ve motivated a lefty to buy the “SO?” shirt.

    Red Eye is, by far, the best show on TV and lately you’re helping to keep it great.

  52. Dr. Zoo says:

    This is a great idea, glad you got it going!

    I watched the nite this was on RedEye and was quite impressed

    Posted a thread about it on FreeRepublic.com

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2856031/posts

  53. Scribe71 says:

    The thread on FR just sold one (at least one).

    The forty bucks includes shipping, btw.

  54. chuckie thinwalls says:

    To anonymous 1239 maybe voting black is distasteful but its in the same league as voting irish, polish or jewish. Voting white is a whole nother thing dude.

  55. Dr. Zoo says:

    @Scribe71
    That’s great!
    I imagine more will come from that thread.

  56. Anonymous says:

    @chuckie thinwalls

    No, that’s a false analogy you’ve swallowed.

    Voting Irish, Polish, or Jewish = voting Zimbabwean, Kenyan, or Somalian.

    Voting black = voting white.

  57. Tard Patrol says:

    The Sherrod tape was not “edited” or “doctored.” A segment of it was played. It’s never been proved either way whether Breitbart had the whole tape or only a segment, but the idea that it was “doctored” or altered is yet another lie. In fact, the NAACP had the entire tape and still called for Sherrod’s resignation when its existence was made public.

    The Sherrod tape was brought forth as a response to numerous false allegations of rampant “racism” by the Tea Party made by the NAACP. Congressman John Lewis claimed dozens of people shouted the evil “N” word at him after he signed the healthcare bill. Another stroke of brilliance by Breitbart was that he offered $10,000 to anyone who was there recording it who could prove that so much as anyone said it. Although there were dozens of handmade videos at the event, no one claimed the cash. I’ve seen a few of the tapes, along with audio. No “N” word. Not once, much less dozens of times. So it was the Congressman, not Breitbart, who was exposed as the liar and the race-baiter.

    Same with Shirley Sherrod. Here you have a woman in 2008 or whenever that tape was made—it was within the last five years—still talking about her “people” in front of a group (the NAACP) explicitly devoted to furthering one racial group’s interests, and the audience is whooping their asses off at the mention of their “people.” Purely racial. Not that there’s anything wrong with it besides the galloping hypocrisy.

    The bigger story with Sherrod is that she was part of a class-action lawsuit named Pigford v. Glickman, where 94,000 alleged black “farmers” sued for “discrimination.” Problem was, there were fewer than 20,000 black farmers in America at the time. It was a massive case of fraud based on, again, race-baiting. The media, apart from Breitbart, completely chickened out on reporting about that story.

  58. Hey There! says:

    Make the shirts in girlie-PINK and you’ll get more orders…..! Really missing Breitbart….he was the wild man fighting for individual rugged freedom, eating wild locusts and honey. Have more “Remembering Breitbart,” lounge sessions around the country— why don’t ya?

  59. MssyDe says:

    Please make a tshirt with > #war < on it? Ordering 2 of – so?

  60. chuckie thinwalls says:

    @anonymous 6:50 i can tell the diff between polish and irish just by surname n prob physical features too. Plus those 2 groups can be traced in the US as being part of specific waves of immigration and to this day exist in ethnic enclaves. Can ur avg mofo make those kind of distinctions btwn the ethnic groups u just mentioned? Probably not.

  61. Anonymous says:

    Do you think your average black mofo sees an Irish or Polish person, or do they see WHITE? We both know the answer.

    And I must have missed the “Irish” and “Polish” checkboxes on the Census form, so I picked the category they gave me: WHITE.

    So even though the government categorizes me that way, and black people define me that way, you’re saying it’s horrible for me to identify that way? Guess what? You don’t get to choose for me. And your disapproval doesn’t matter to me.

    Unfortunately, in this cowardly mob attack, they didn’t say, “Polish girl bleed a lot”:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izIyYLnk3xs

    It seems in most cases, both black and white Americans have no trouble identifying black people as blacks. In fact, for many black people, it seems to be the core of their identity. But that’s somehow, magically, not “racist.” Even blacks who came from Africa ten years ago get to identify as “black” rather than “African,” with all that implies historically.

    Point is, leftist mud-slingers were trying everything in their power to smear the Tea Party as “racist,” when the Tea Party never mentions race (unlike Occupy, where there are tons of videos of them talking shit about Jews, etc.). So Breitbart comes along showing a tape of an organization that is explicitly devoted to furthering a specific racial group’s interests, shows the woman expressing empathy for her “people” and none for someone who wasn’t part of her “people,” and he’s the racist?

    Good thinking there. Really, really solid thinking. Astounding.

  62. chuckie thinwalls says:

    @anonymous 708 i was talking about a group of people with a shared historical identity voting as a bloc, not talking about racial descriptors. That video you linked is interesting because it comes from milwaukee, which has to be one of the most racially fucked cities in the US. The city itself is pretty much all black with white minorities located in a few neighborhoods near the downtown center which is basically where this assault took place. Even though it would actually make sense for these people to vote as a white bloc they dont need to because the city is going to try to keep crime rates down and investment and tourism up.

    African immigrants generally don’t identify with black Americans. Unless you’re talking about census forms or something?

    The farmers sherrod supposedly discriminated against came out and said she wasnt a racist. I trust that assesment.

  63. Anonymous says:

    “The farmers sherrod supposedly discriminated against came out and said she wasnt a racist. I trust that assesment.”

    I suspect you trust whatever confirms your biases.

    Allow me to point out that you ignored the 94,000 “farmers” who never existed yet extorted billions from taxpayers.

    You also ignored that she belongs to an organization that explicitly mentions her race and that she speaks of “her people.” She’s expressing a tribal instinct. When whites express a tribal instinct, it’s called “racism.” When nonwhites do, it’s called “pride.”

    The reason people like you will never allow America to get past race is because you blindly embrace double standards that don’t treat everyone by the same standards. That inevitably causes resentment and conflict. What’s flabbergasting is that it’s right before your eyes and can be explained to you one million times, yet you resist, possibly out of a desire to fit in and not be ostracized for holding unpopular views. I don’t know you so I’d only be speculating.

  64. Drew says:

    @Anonymous
    Since when is acorn being remembered as “a place that helped poor people” I seem to remember them as a organization run by the same family that runs the seiu and had their funding stripped by congress for election fraud. I may be remembering things wrong though… Tell me again all the poor people they have “helped”.

  65. chuckie thinwalls says:

    So you’re alleging that pigford v vilsack was a massive fraud yet you have no evidence beyond an apparently willful minterpretation of the facts: the suit applied to those seeking loans between the years 1981 and 1996 and applied to coowners of farms whereas that 22,000 figure you quote applies to individual black owned farms themselves.
    Youre pushing a line that even Michelle Bachman wont touch anymore.

    As for white pride, assuming its in a situation where whites are in a minority its really not a bad thing. At least its understandable. Please don’t put words in my mouth. The only way that white people are gonna have solidarity with other white people in different environments is if they believe that white people in general are victims. Not that such a belief is inherently racist but it is the core tenet of every white nationalist platform out there.

  66. Anonymous says:

    Pigford v. Vilsack? You can’t even get the lawsuit’s name right. It was Pigford v. Glickman. Vilsack is the Sec. of Agriculture.

    “that 22,000 figure you quote”

    I said 94,000 farmers claimed to have been discriminated against. Please don’t, uh, “apparently willfully misrepresent” what’s right on the page here for everyone to see, K? So if there were around 22,000 black-owned farms in America at the time, you’re telling me that more than four people on every black farm in America was racially discriminated against? And you honestly believe that? We’re not talking about the 1920s, either. This was the 80s and 90s.

    Wikipedia has it at around 92,000:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigford_v._Glickman#Subsequent_events

    Snopes has it at around 86,000:
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/pigford.asp

    And the only burden of proof for “discrimination” was that they had “attempted to farm” and were denied funding.

    And Shirley Sherrod received a cool $13 million out of the deal, yet still yabbered on about victimization. He showed a tape of her speaking. Why, the horror!

    Victimization is the core tenet of every white nationalist platform out there? Ever hear of the supremacists? Or, to make it real simple and apolitical, a genetic tribal instinct that has nothing to do with victimization or supremacy? Try not to make such sweeping statements.

  67. chuckie thinwalls says:

    Pigford v Vilsack was what the suit was renamed to after it was revised to include additional claimants. Don’t be a dick.

    The criteria also required that the claimant had filed a formal complaint alleging discrimination during that period.

    You claimed there were less than 20,000 black farmers “at that time” (what time?) The settlement covers a 15 year period. Sherrod didn’t get 13 million, the farm she coowned did, i belie that between her and her husband they got a share of 300k. There’s your example of a single farm resulting in payouts to well over 4 individuals.

    Show me even one substantiated instance of fraud and Ill eat my words.

  68. chuckie thinwalls says:

    Not to mention that the billion dollar payout hasnt even been paid yet and claimants are dying bef.ore they see a penny

  69. Tard Patrol says:

    So, “some of the litigants died” and “the payout hasn’t been paid yet” is your best comeback to the idea that 94,000 “farmers” were “discriminated” against?

    Show me one example of anyone actually being discriminated against because of race in this situation, unless you equate “discrimination” with “refusing to give out free money paid for by working non-farmers.”

    Black farmers constituted about 1% of all farmers in America during the period of time that we’re talking about. They also received about 3% of government loans for farming. So they were actually over-represented when it comes to receiving loans.

  70. Tard Patrol says:

    USDA Census Report

    http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/rr194.pdf

    Last page of that PDF…

    Appendix Table 3—Farm operators in the U.S. by race, 1900 to 1997

    Black Farm Operators:
    1987…22,954
    1992…18,816
    1997…18,451

    Here’s how the USDA defines “Farm Operator”:

    http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/wellbeing/glossary.htm#farmoperator

    “The farm operator is the person who runs the farm, making the day-to-day management decisions.”

    So one would assume that’s the person filing for the loan.

    What you’re proposing is that an average of four black farmers on EVERY black farm in America were victims of racial discrimination. And you’re sticking with that?

    Show proof of even one case where someone was denied a loan because of race. Even a single one, much less 94,000, where there’s a shred of evidence that someone said, “Well, they’re black, so they don’t get the money.” The fact that they were black and denied a loan is not proof, unless you’re also saying that every white farmer who was denied a loan was deprived of the moolah because he was white.

    This money doesn’t come from “the government.” It comes from other taxpayers. The government is setting different groups at each other’s throats, and if anyone complains, they’ll scream the “R” word at them. The problem here is the government and the people who use it as a tool to extort others.

  71. chuckie thinwalls says:

    Like I said, not only can there be multiple operators per farm, a farmer might be leasing or renting the property theyre using, which will also account for the disparity. See also descendents of farmers that might be eligible. Some 7000 claimants from Pigford 1 were found ineligible yet were included in the tally.

    Actually according to the USDAls own internal findings, the most common form of discrimination was simply filing black requests for loans late, too late to allow for seed purchases, labor costs, etc. Not sure where that 1percent/3 percent figure comes from but according to the USDA the average loan to a black farmer was half that given to a white one, so that means the number of loan requests was higher, which makes sense as farmers aid is a lender of last resort when individuals can’t get commercial bank loans

    Sherrod’s story is actually a well documented example of the kind of fuckery going on in local USDA offices.

  72. DeeInHouston says:

    Wow. This is a page to order a t-shirt, and STILL the vile, vitriolic trolls come out of hiding. What the heck is wrong with you people???

    As for $40 for the shirt, it’s a FUND RAISER for the family. It was clearly stated above that Andrew pumped his cash back into his business, as any 43 year old business owner would. So either order the shirt or not, but STFU about Pigford, Acorn, etc. And for the record, cowardly “Anonymous”? There are Acorn folks now serving time, so don’t say they did nothing illegal.

    RIP Andrew. We got this. #war

  73. C and the MS-13s says:

    @AngelsAmongUs

    These aren’t trolls–these are your average run-of-the-mill Street Carnage audience members. We make it fun.

    That said, for a cause like this, $40 is acceptable. Even if this peice of shit was designed using the generic Cooper font…Ok, but I’d wear it because of the backstory. Kudos, Gavin.

  74. scarlett joe frazier says:

    How is being anonymous any more cowardly than posting under a pseudonym like “deeinhouston”?

  75. David Yikes says:

    the yelling and screaming at the OWS rally was the gayest fucking thing i ever saw. he looked like some cunt feminist crybaby. it’s like he was screaming back at people who’d already been screaming exactly that way for months.

  76. […] a t-shirt with So? written on it to a taping of Fox News’ “Red Eye.” He later sold shirts like it with the profits going to Breitbart’s family. The story is that Andrew would respond […]

  77. cump dobson says:

    just wanted to say what a nice thing I think this is to do, that’s all

  78. Savannah says:

    Just ordered mine! Thanks for doing this Gavin.


Leave A Reply