Posted by
Gavin
• 01.08.13 12:51 pm

So, I’m out of “SO?” shirts and the grand tally is $17,910 going to the Breitbart’s Children’s Trust.

 

The back story is here. In short, after he died, I was worried his enemies would see it as a victory so I made t-shirts that would carry on the message. I wanted people to keep talking about stuff the way he did, with no holds barred. Today there are about 600 people walking around with Breitbart conversation pieces.

 

 

I’d like to say to thanks to everyone who contributed. I charged $40 of which 75% was profit and gave 100% of that to the family. I was surprised how many people were eager to help. Not just old conservatives but young punks.

Death to Traitors made the shirts for a price that enabled us to make them high quality and these kids regularly volunteered to ship them.

 

 

That’s what was so great about Breitbart. He came from the liberal world so he understood what it means to be inclusive but he also realized they were a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to the facts. This is something children of the information age can relate to. When Breitbart was asked what made him cross over to the dark side, he said he woke up one day and thought, “What would Andrew Breitbart do?” From that day forward he did whatever he wanted to without worrying how it would be perceived. A few weeks after saying this, I ran into a young punk couple in Albany, NY and this was the girl’s tattoo.

 

 

I’m not worried about Andrew Breitbart disappearing any time soon. He left too indelible a mark. In a sense, he’s more popular than ever and unlike the aging boomers at MSNBC, it’s with people who are only getting started.

-

 

The check and the shirts are discussed here at the post-game wrap up (41:57).

-GAVIN McINNES


Comments
  1. RedEyeAlerts says:

    Thank you for honoring Andrew Breitbart’s memory and legacy. You’re a true patriot!

  2. Sisqo says:

    That is really great Gavin- awesome

  3. rrrick1000 says:

    You are the man! Keep doing your thing man. Love your humor. Breitbart is here.

  4. Ecgtheow says:

    Gavin, at the risk of sounding like a fawning douche, I’m a huge admirer of your outlook and how you call out the statists’ bullshit. In addition to presenting the facts, you do it with the same rapier wit they like to hide behind and often beat them at their own game. You’re a genius, a patriot, (I’m almost done) and bring a sense of hope for those who still advocate individual liberty. Thanks for keeping Breitbart’s message alive. Thanks for fighting.

    p.s. How to Piss in Public was the shit.

  5. duh says:

    Gavin have you ever pitched a show with yourself as an anti- Jon Stewart? You’ve got to have some jack at fox now.

  6. JM says:

    Breitbart was such a scrub. An entertaining showman, occasionally made a decent point here and there, but a total scrub. Just not an important, influential or particularly intelligent guy by any estimation. And he was embarrassingly full of himself. Being full of yourself is fine, but man did he wear his self-love on his sleeve.

    Plus I’ve yet to see two instances of “so?” being an effective or thought provoking retort to an argument. The example you gave of your dad saying “So” to the school board person thinking he was racist towards muslims, that was an ok one.

    Hey, I know, do a post where you think of 10 liberal arguments to which you can just say So and it in some way refutes the argument or at least turns it on its head in some way. ok?

  7. Gavin says:

    @JM Are you TLC? Who says “scrub”?
    I gave many examples of So? working but you were too lazy to click the link.

  8. k. says:

    good work for good work.

  9. JM says:

    ^ I read your obit of brietbart when it was it originally published. Went back and re-read it, actually forgot it was even sillier than I remembered. In addition to the example of your dad, I counted four examples of “So?” in action and they all really sucked.

    “I explained that Walker’s privatization created way more jobs than the government did and she said, “Yeah, but they were all just tourism jobs.” Breitbart ended the whole argument with, “So?””

    - Tourism jobs only last for 3-4 months, they pay 10 h/r tops, are respected by nobody, and generally fucking suck to work. The spike in employment that summer did nothing to solve any long-term problems. Saying those jobs are evidence of the triumph of the market would be like giving someone with AIDS ecstasy and calling that a cure for the next 6hrs he was high.

    Also, unless you claim Walker as the efficient cause of changing weather patterns, you are being pretty hilariously liberal with term “creating jobs.” Pretty sure summer was going to happen regardless of who was in office.

    “Oil companies have had record profits this year. So?”

    Gas prices have nearly quadrupled in the last 10 years, but average wages remain stagnant. While most of us have more and more of our earnings eaten away by higher commodity prices, those who own–in this case the oil companies–are taking away more and more for themselves. It’s grotesque that while gas prices have impacted the earnings of a a large number of americans in a substantial, noticeable way, oil companies are adding zeroes to what was already quite a number of zeroes. Take the moral element out of it–it’s inefficient. It’s not an efficient way for society to be organized.

    Another thing–if the oil companies are going to be making all this money on the backs of american consumers, they need to contribute their fare share. Cut out the tax breaks, and crack down on the many, many tax loopholes that companies of that size have the luxury of employing. This is at least one contributor to these profits, and again, it strongly contracticts the notion that big business such as oil companies are just righteously playing the free market to their advantage. Like the pothead layabout on food stamps, they too are gaming the government for their own welfare–except on a profoundly more massive scale. This is what liberals mean when they talk about the rich not earning or deserving their wealth.

    “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.”

    -If you’re just talking about the Koch brothers funding libertarian think tanks and foundations, I don’t think most rational people have a huge problem with that. If they do, I’d agree with you they are stupid. What is a problem is when an infinitesimally small number of rich people can bend the wills of entire wings of US government by bankrolling their campaigns and buying their votes. It’s exploitative, anti-freedom, and anti-democratic (not that democracy is so great, but that’s besides the point). Elections should be solely publicly financed.

    Also, i wanted to comment on this part of the article….

    “When the liberal media was hemming and hawing about rape accusations at OWS, Breitbart ran up to the protestors and screamed, “STOP RAPING PEOPLE” in their faces. You don’t forget a guy like that.”

    Although this is really funny, it also really pissed me off. It’s conservatives who are supposed to be pointing out the fact that the concept of rape has gotten retardedly blown out of proportion. I get what he’s saying–liberals obsess over rape then hypocritically turn a blind eye when it appears that one of them has done just that at a liberal rally–but still, the real point is that the definition of rape needs to be reigned in back to what it used to mean–at the very least out of respect to those who are legitimately raped–and the constant self-righteous rapist/racist/sexist/ageist witch hunts need to end. Breitbarts actions didn’t help that cause a lick there–instead, he played into the PC patrols hands by using their approved terms and tactics. It goes to show that he really didn’t a fuck about principles or ideas, and that all that really mattered to him was scoring points against the other side and wallowing in his own self-aggrandizement.

  10. Chapter After says:

    Way to plug Goad’s analysis. Bullseye.

  11. JM says:

    why wont this gay ass site recognize when i make a space between paragraphs

  12. Gavin says:

    @JM
    So the rapes at OWS were just dates that went too far? Even OWS admits they were real rapes.
    http://occupywallst.org/forum/young-deaf-man-raped-at-zuccotti-park/

  13. Gavin says:

    Why are college liberals so worried about how much money other people make? They’d rather the government take a rich person’s money and burn it than a rich person have tons of money.

  14. TLC says:

    @Gavin Nice comeback(s). Can you please provide a retort for the other 95% of JM’s post? It would help if you avoided absurd accusations based on the comforting caricatures that make up such an outsized part of your discourse. While I’m glad Breitbart taught you to stop questioning your inner asshole, praising him for being anything more than a cynical, self-promoting hack is laughable. AB is already largely forgotten except by those who trot his memory around trying to exude an imagined whiff of subversiveness.

  15. Gavin says:

    Gas is expensive but not even close to Britain and you’re not forced at gunpoint to buy it. You are forced to pay taxes though so if you’re looking for a bad guy, go with the latter. No big business shouldn’t be influencing gov’t and they shouldn’t be getting bailed out. These are problems with socialism not capitalism. Why do you think taxes are going to solve your problems. The money would be better off in a bonfire and I’m not exaggerating.
    As far as Breitbart goes: He was the driving force behind Drudge and Huffington Post, wrote 2 best sellers, exposed OWS rape, Anthony Weiner, Acorn, Shirley Sherrod, and did countless radio and TV apppearences that inspired millions. His various ventures still employ dozens of people. Instead of trivializing his accomplishments try to accomplish just one of the above.

  16. Lunchin' says:

    Gavin. You should team up with James O’Keefe and do a show where you continually blow an effigy of Breitbart. Now that would be hilarious.

    Seriously though, as repugnant as I find Breitbart his is but a mere drop in the overwhelming sea of shit that is Media whoremongered politcal discourse.

  17. WWABD says:

    He made conservatives look even more outrageous and whiny than liberals. Please don’t become a butthurt sensationalist like that clown. Obama got re-elected because people are tired of that shit and it completely hurts the cause.

  18. JM says:

    You’re not forced at gunpoint to buy gas, but you can get taken to jail for not paying rent or feeding your children. For that you need money, for which you need a job. Huge swaths of the country, even major cities like LA are spread out, so you need a car to get to a job. The whole country doesnt live in nyc. Cars require gas. Failing that, you can go on foodstamps or welfare. so we either have to make the markets more efficient and cut the pie up into more even slices, or we have to be content with a welfare state.

    Saying corporate welfare is a problem of socialism not capitalism is yet another example of that oft used utter bullshit false dichotomy. The problem with our gov’t isn’t that it leans to capitalist or socialist, it that it’s corrupt and beholden to moneyed interests. It’s not a problem that there are fabulously wealthy people in the US, it’s a problem that that a fraction of a percent commands the proportion of the nations wealth that they do, and continue to add to that percentge, while most of us earn the same year after year.

    Anyway this is all kind of besides the point. My main point is that “So” sucks.

  19. Nip says:

    Andrew Breitbart was a lion for his cause. I will never forget that video where he takes on the SEIU and exposes them as the astroturfing degenerate liars that they are. Breitbart was a leftist who saw that it was all a gigantic lie. Gavin had a similar experience. I had a similar experience. So did millions of young people who may not define themselves as “conservative” but certainly not liberal. It’s funny to watch the stereotypical sociology tykes on here try to shit on Breitbart – a guy who actually did things and put his money where his mouth was. He was a guy who took risks, a guy who dreamed big and a guy who truly was out there fighting for everyday people – not just pretending he was like Sean Penn, Jay-Z or Barack Obama. No matter what your politics are, Breitbart was one of the good ones and the only reason liberals hate him so much is because he always made them look so, so stupid.

  20. Lester says:

    I’ve never checked out Breitbart. I didn’t know he used to be a leftist I really dislike those types, but because of my affinity for McInnes/ SC/ Vice whatever I will give it a shot. What is something Breitbart did/said/ wrote that was good? Frankly, I associate him and his site with birther nonsense and pretty much just Repubublican spam.

  21. cook says:

    Please provide a link- …didn’t Breitbart expose Shirley Sherrod as a racist, but then his expose turned out to be false when you heard the rest of the tape?

  22. C and the MS-13s says:

    You did good, Gavin.

  23. Lester says:

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

    I’m watching this video of Andrew Breitbart at CPAC. All in all, it’s stinks. There was a miniscule funny bit about how good a cook Bill Ayers was but this seems kind of like a “hip” Christian youth minister or something. He’s bragging about how he RT’s insults on twiiter. It’s just depressing.

    lamenting Joe Lieberman and the DLC? Lieberman was pro choice, pro illegal immigration, pro gay marriage what is he talking about? Bill Ayers,

    Jeremiah Wright, etc the whole thing seems to be to treat the conservative movement as a team not a manifestation of beliefs. There are no principles in this thing other than winning again democrats.

    the anti war movement was never about ending war, it was a Saul alinsky tool to get Obama elected. Really, the trillions of people protesting the Iraq war in 2003 before anyone had heard of Obama, people all around the world? Pat Buchanan? Ron Paul? Most of the conservatives at Takimag?

    He doesn’t want to fight the state, he wants to fight the “progressive left”. Nothing here for me.

  24. Dogboy says:

    I associate him and his site with birther nonsense and pretty much just Repubublican spam

    I think that’s pretty much it. Kind of a mirror image of the Occupy movement. And he did it in an intense, crazy and highly vitriolic style which appeals to some. Like many people who convert from leftism I think his battle was primarily with some projected image of his former self and his main motivation seemed to be the thrill of confrontation.

  25. cook says:

    Ok. I did some research.

    Hopefully this is accurate:

    Here is what I believe to be andrew’s original article on Sherrod:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2010/07/19/video-Proof–The-NAACP-Awards-Racism—2010

    Indeed, he does indeed completely throw her under the bus and drag her through the mud. It is an absurd piece of sensationalistic and vitriolic writing.

    And here is the original video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk

    I tried but couldn’t even find the sympathetic murmurs that were supposed to come from the crowd in congratulation of her “racism” which Andrew later used to defend himself, saying that the naacp were his real target.

    It is just completely absurd.

  26. cook says:

    sorry for the two “indeeds”

  27. Dogboy says:

    After watching that second video it is pretty clear that Shirley Sherrod is not racist. In fact she seems really level headed and fair. For Breitbart to set her up like that is pretty shameful. But I think he saw it as revenge for false accusations leveled against the Tea Party and other tactics of the left. Like most zealots, I don’t think the truth was a high priority for him. He seemed obsessed about using the tactics of the left – including faux outrage- against them. It is sad these days that people (of all political sides) are into this. I know that Gavin and other followers think that he is the inspiration for some kind of noble new movement. There’s no evidence of that at all. His ideas are pretty marginal and seem to get more marginal (look at the last election results). If anything his actions were another small step towards the increasing legitimacy of internet trollery as an accepted form of political discourse.

  28. Gavin says:

    Sherrod worked for the Department of Agriculture and publicly admitted she didn’t like white people so they fired her. Now, when Andrew got the tape that’s all there was and that’s how he showed it. When he got the full tape he showed that too. In the full tape, you see her say, “But I need to get over that because we’re all equal etc.” People see that as Sherrod being framed. Can you imagine a white politician saying, “I don’t like black people… BUT I need to get over that because we’re all equal”? He wouldn’t be trumpeted as a hero the way Sherrod was. He’d be vilified.

    Breitbart just made a racist woman’s words public. The fact that she felt bad about her innate racism doesn’t make her a hero and exposing her is not “throwing her under a bus.” If anyone did that it was the NAACP. They always had the whole tape. They were there. Why didn’t they stand up for her?

    This is the worst you have on Andrew Breitbart and it’s bogus. Again, go over all his accomplishments from Drudge to HuffPo to his best selling book and try to accomplish half of one of them over the course of your entire life. Seriously, just try it.

  29. cook says:

    I will argue with you just to humor you, and also just to show that i disagree with your final assessment.

    here is his writing:

    In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

    Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.

    your writing

    Sherrod worked for the Department of Agriculture and publicly admitted she didn’t like white people so they fired her.

    Breitbart just made a racist woman’s words public.

    My response:

    She encounters a farmer she perceives as a racist white person who attempted to belittle her. In exchange for this insult, she refers him to white lawyer, doing “just enough” that is asked of her to fulfill her duties. Her reasoning seems to be, ” if this man can’t find it in himself to treat a black woman as an equal, then I will just hand him off to one of his own. ”

    In the rest of the tape, not shown or linked to in andrew’s post, she goes on to say that the lawyer mistreats him and mishandles his case, because the farmer is poor and the lawyer doesn’t care about him. The farmer in desperation goes back to sherrod for help. She sees that he is being mistreated because he is poor, and goes back to help him, finding him another lawyer, one that worked mainly in cases helping black farmers. From this point she says she sees that race inequality was not the only factor, and sees the discrimination that poor whites face as well, and validates this position.
    Nowhere does she say she “didn’t like white people.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk

    20:00

    As a counter to your saying that someone who has a liberal approved racist bias in their past gets a free pass, i would point to none other than Romney.

    He was a high ranking member of the mormon church as an adult, at a time when the church was officially racist, replete with accepted racist doctrine describing blacks (i believe as descendants of Ham or something) as inferior humans. I did not see this addressed in the mainstream media, ever. I would have been interested to see his response to this. Take this as an example of a conservative in the mainstream media getting a pass for past racism.

    You also have the examples of David Duke and storm thurmond holding position in the recent past. Not currently I know but worth noting.

    In conclusion, andrew defended himself in the press by saying that his attack was not on sherrod but on the naacp. You seem to be breaking with him in continuing to call her a racist.

  30. Dogboy says:

    Well, yes, he’s got us beat in the whole making popular websites and selling books game. But then again Judd Apatow has you beat in making popular movies game but that doesn’t invalidate your criticism of him does it?

  31. cook says:

    just to elucidate, James Strom Thurmond was a senator till 2003 after previously running on a segregationist platform for presidency of the US.


Leave A Reply