Now Reading:
The Desecration of Andrew Breitbart’s Heroic Legacy
Full Article 10 minutes read

The Desecration of Andrew Breitbart’s Heroic Legacy

“The army of the emboldened and gleefully ill-informed is growing.”

-Andrew Breitbart, Righteous Indignation

March 1st 2016 marks four years since the tragic death of a conservative hero and a liberal nightmare, and he never suspected that the individualistic crowds of the right would turn into the collectivist mobs of the left.

If Andrew Breitbart hated one thing in the world, it was the manipulation of facts for the purpose of pushing of narrative of lies. He enthusiastically leapt to the frontlines against the radical rabble of the left such as Organizing for America, violent union groups, and most famously, Occupy Wall Street. He consistently placed himself in the line of fire, calling out media manipulation as “contempt for the American people.”

Andrew walked the Earth as one of the single most hated men in the eyes of ardent leftists, exposing their corruption, destroying their “cultural Marxism”, and valiantly defending the principles of free speech, open government, and diversity which made American society exceptional. Every slain media lie and every hateful tweet against him functioned as another badge of honor upon his wrinkled, open-collared dress shirt. As Guy Benson once observed, Andrew Breitbart had “all of the right enemies.”

Indeed, he fought relentlessly against slanderous accusations cast upon American patriots. No baseless charge of racism could silence him. No slings and arrows of outrageous fortune could slay him. He was unassailable. The anti-American left detested him and were agonized by the constant plague of his Herculean wrath; his righteous indignation.

Hercules is not the only Greek figure to which Andrew has since been compared. His close friend and intellectual Titian, Ben Shapiro, said upon his passing that “I always like to think of Andrew like he’s Diogenes. He’s the man walking around with a torch in broad daylight looking for an honest man.” Andrew lived for the defense of the truth until his final breath, and his spirit lived on through that blazing torch.

But now, four years later, that flame has been feverishly extinguished by its trusted bearers. Andrew’s namesake network, Breitbart News, has plunged his torch into the murky depths of populism without principle.

Embracing the Enemy

Through a relentless campaign against conservative values, Breitbart News has effectively sold its soul to the dark embodiment of Andrew’s most reviled nemesis: Donald Drumpf.

Instead of adhering to the ethics and policies of the Tea Party, this network has aided and abetted a blatant manipulative leftist with dictatorial tendencies. If Andrew had lived to see this day, he would have doubtless joined with true conservative voices such as Glenn Beck and Ben Shapiro in denouncing and destroying this spray-tanned cancer.

Forget for a moment the fact that Andrew Breitbart specifically said that Donald Drumpf is not a conservative. The amount of slanted and selectively edited reporting now taking place at Breitbart News is rivaling that of MSNBC, and Andrew would have curbed such dishonesty by now. Through spins so preposterous that they would make a hyperactive yo-yo blush and the prolific cherry-picking of news stories, Breitbart News has consistently proven for the past year or so that it has completely lost touch with its founding principles. Just this past week, when Donald Drumpf appeared on CNN with Jake Tapper and failed not once, not twice, but three times to denounce his endorsement from the former Grand Wizard of the KKK, Breitbart followed up quickly with a headline which read “CNN Harasses Donald Drumpf on Declined KKK Endorsement.” The intention? Excuse and minimize what was at the very least an incredibly stupid incident of foolery. There can be legitimate defenses of some of Drumpf’s words and actions, but just as in this case, the publication cannot let their idol be torn down in any way, so it turns Drumpf into the victim.

This malpractice is rife through the countless pages of pro-Drumpf propaganda which clutters their Facebook and Twitter feeds. At every turn, (with the exceedingly rare exception of their last conservative contributor, Ben Shapiro) the network labors endlessly to twist facts into a narrative which supports their toupee-topped demigod. This sort of selective narration is precisely what Andrew lived to destroy.

But on policy, principle, and tactics, Andrew would have indisputably found himself at Drumpf’s throat. At his final public speech at CPAC 2012, Andrew Breitbart called out the leftist media’s “Saul Alinsky [expletive] tactics.” As it turns out, Drumpf is a huge fan of Saul Alinsky “[expletive] tactics” – or at least one would think so when they hear his largely incoherent thoughts.

Drumpf’s Alinsky Obsession

Obviously, Drumpf’s favorite Alinsky tactic is personal ridicule. His sole source of offense in any of the ten GOP debates has always been to mock without regard for policy substance. It also is clear on the road when Drumpf conducts interviews or stump speeches. For instance, when Dr. Ben Carson began threatening Drumpf’s lead in national polls, Drumpf decided to go on a week-long slander-spree against the neurosurgeon, which climaxed in his now infamous comparison of Dr. Carson to a child molester. This is arguably worse than calling someone a racist, and Andrew used to launch scorched-Earth verbal assaults against journalists that levied such attacks without evidence.

Luckily, Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz succeeded in beating Drumpf bloody at his own game at the tenth GOP debate, leaving Donald with no effective offense and exposing him for the empty suit that he is.

Drumpf’s constant reliance on this ridicule also plays into another Alinsky tactic, which is to make his base enjoy his tactics. His base adores his use of badly-thrown mud. Furthermore, the former reality show host will always flee from specific questions and instead exaggerate his accomplishments. This is the use of Saul’s rule to “never go outside the expertise of your people.” The moment he begins discussing policy, it is clear that he hasn’t the foggiest clue what he is talking about. So instead, he rants about his favorite subject: himself.

These “[expletive] tactics” are littered throughout Drumpf’s campaign. He relies on them almost exclusively.

From Movement to Mob

But one facet of the left which Andrew particularly despised was the loss of individualism; the central organizing; the collectivism. At a large conservative event in 2010 with Glenn Beck, Organizing for America (sponsored by the SEIU) arrived to launch an astro-turf protest against the conservative speakers. He confronted the group (as was his habit) and began forcing them to defend the various libels scrawled across their signs. Not one protestor could defend their sign. Furthermore, it was clear that the event was centrally organized, and as Andrew exclaimed to the masses “You have no free will in the United States! You want to be led!” He specifically said to a group of reporters that these people behaved like a “herd.” This is a direct parallel to the current movement of Storm Trumpers. They, like Drumpf, are unable to defend his numerous slanders and outrageous lies. When confronted, they simply respond with whatever slogan their central organizer has given them (namely, “make America great again” and “#Trump2016”). Andrew would have undoubtedly despised this movement.

There have even been allegations that Breitbart News has been paid off by the Drumpf campaign for positive coverage. The leadership denies it, and points to the fact that they have published a guest op-ed written by Marco Rubio himself (though it is interesting to note that they did not post this piece on either their Facebook or Twitter feeds, which is indicative of their motives). In addition, almost every day brings a new slanted hit piece against either Senator Rubio or Senator Cruz. Interestingly enough, it was Andrew who specifically said that he believed that Senator Rubio would be an excellent choice for president in 2016, but the folks at Breitbart News clearly couldn’t care less about what he thought.

The End of an Icon

This relentless perversion of truth sold with Andrew’s title is not just insulting to his legacy, but it is antithetical to the movement he fueled. It used to be that the Tea Party was a group of civil citizens influencing government in a level headed manner who were devoted to principle, not a person. Drumpf, his followers, and Breitbart News have all defiled this courageous chapter in conservative history by smearing it with the filth of totalitarianism.

But one might point out that at that final speech at CPAC before his death, Andrew said that he would support whoever the GOP nominee is. One might further conclude that this is a passing endorsement of all republican nominees regardless of their principle or morality. Naturally, this is not so. He had an exceeding crucial condition for anyone he supported:

“When I travel around the United States meeting people in the Tea Party who care – black, white, gay, straight – anyone that’s willing to stand next to me a fight the progressive left, I will be in that bunker. And if you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with the candidate, more than shame on you. You’re on the other side.”

He had faith in the conservative movement. After the mid-term elections sweep of 2010, he had a profound faith that the American right would choose a conservative by the convention. With any other GOP candidate this cycle, this criteria holds. But Drumpf does not care. Drumpf is not willing to fight the progressive left – he is the progressive left. Drumpf chooses not to be in that bunker. Drumpf is on the other side. Drumpf has granted to the left what they have always wanted: a candidate who questionably racist, unquestionably xenophobic, and who brings out the absolute worst visceral human instincts. Drumpf is the living breathing monster off which progressives have always based their right-wing horror stories.

If Andrew were still alive today, he most likely would have endorsed Ted Cruz for president because he cared for conservative values. But through examining his principles, his words, his aspirations, and his actions, one can unequivocally conclude that Andrew Breitbart would have done everything within his power to bring an end to the narcissistic leftist which America has come to abhor.

Four years after the passing of giant, his spirit and ideals are trampled under the hooves of leftist-quasi-fascism and clickbait. What the left could only dream of, the writers at Breitbart News have unwittingly accomplished: the shameful desecration of his heroic legacy.

 

2 comments

  • josiahpopp

    nerd Queen is gonna be sued

    Weinstein and aTerris should be fired too….

    …….

    Andrew had the Video

    James O’keefe too

  • josiahpopp

    Darn shame. I didn’t start reading Breitbart.com until AB passed, but I always considered it a reliable source of information. Now what will we do?

Become an OUTSET Insider
Get the latest news from OUTSET, including occasional messages from our contributors and editors.

Input your search keywords and press Enter.