Category Archives: Regressive Leftism

Watch out, here comes “dark woke”.

Leave a reply

Okay guys, we need to get our concerned faces on. The Democrats are up to something that they’ve totally never tried.

Thankfully, we have The New York Times, that bastion of journalistic integrity, to keep us informed.

Democrats are trying out a new attitude. It’s provocative, edgy and perilously toeing the line of not being too offensive.

Uh oh, are they painting their fingernails black and listening to The Cure?

There was a time last summer when the Democratic Party was cool.

Wrong.

Okay, I broke sarcasm there. But that was dead wrong.

Kamala Harris had just stepped in as the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in the waning days of Bratsummer. She went on the popular podcast ‘Call Her Daddy.’ Tim Walz’s outdoorsy drip led to a Chappell Roan-inspired camo trucker hat. The memes were flowing, and the party’s mood was high.

One thing I’m not letting Democrats live down is that they thought that Kamala Harris was a viable candidate. Auto-complete finished that sentence for me, and I’m not ashamed of that. Even now, Democrats still don’t know why they lost, and they’re looking like they’re going back to the same strategy.

But now, it’s looking like that’s all about to change.

As liberals try to get their groove back, some party insiders say Democratic politicians have been encouraged to embrace a new form of combative rhetoric aimed at winning back voters who have responded to President Trump’s no-holds-barred version of politics.

Remember when Democrats abrasively criticized you and your virtues to a pulp? Well, watch out! Now the Dems are getting serious!

It’s an attempt to step outside the bounds of the political correctness that Republicans have accused Democrats of establishing. And it requires being crass but discerning, rude but only to a point.

Online, it has a name: ‘Dark woke.’

Okay, I’m going to go ahead and bust out the laughing anime girls for this one.

You might remember that the left already attempted a “dark” branding with this confidence-inspiring gentleman:

“Being able to use this strategy of being raw and unapologetic and unabashed about our beliefs is something our base really wants,” Mr. Ossé said. He referred to a quote by one of Mayor Eric Adams’s advisers, Ingrid Lewis-Martin, who said, “When they go low, you gotta dig for oil.”

I seem to remember that leftists called people who disagreed with them Nazis, and attempted to get them regarded as such. It’s one of many reasons why you can’t expect a leftist to argue in good faith.

I also remember that a leftist Disney director had called for students to be thrown into wood chippers for smiling while wearing MAGA hats.

I remember that it was leftists who called out “punch a Nazi” and “bash a fash”, while implying that their political opponents are fascists, advocating for violence against them.

And while I can continue with the long list of examples, for brevity, I can point out that if leftists want to try something new, they can start by shutting their mouths.

‘We can be bold, we can be petty, we can be punchy and still have a moral compass. We don’t have to replicate the right’s formula.’

That’s exactly what the right does. And for the right, it comes natural. That’s because the right are the cool kids, not the edgelords who are trying too hard.

It’s not resonating with everyone. For some, the universal truism that it can never be cool to try so hard applies here. Others, too, have criticized Democrats for seeming to place a premium on affect over policy.

To be fair, NYT does seem to have some introspection, here. The problem that they point to, that Democrats favor affect over policy, is intrinsic to the feminized nature of the political left, tending to prefer the subject to the object. Their focus is on optics more than problem-solving, and the nature of this political environment has made it way too easy to maintain positive optics while being intellectually dishonest.

Alex Peter, a lawyer and left-wing commentator who makes content under the handle LOLOverruled, said the Democrats’ new focus on viral ‘dark woke’ posts was just ‘a lot of hot air.’

‘Part of the problem with the mainstream Democratic Party is that it all kind of rings hollow,’ Mr. Peter, 33, said. ‘I don’t care about another clapback. People want concrete deliverables.’

That, and the fact that “dark woke” is really nothing new. I remember that the left were the principle agitators behind the “Summer of Love” and the George Floyd riots. And now they mean to tell us that they intend to start dressing in black and throwing chairs in the ring?

It sounds to me like they’re continuing with the same failed strategy while trying to trick whoever’s listening into thinking that they’re trying something new.

The Leftist Pro-DEI Boycott Results Are In.

Leave a reply

Say what? There was a leftist boycott? Since when? And it concerned DEI? When did that happen?

Oh yeah, I remember now! I made fun of that!

Back in February, the crayon munchers decided to have a one-day boycott over the decisions of companies and retailers to drop DEI programs. The intention was to show these companies “who really holds the power”.

Well now, we finally get to see just what impact their little boycott may have had on the bottom lines of these companies. Let’s check it out (the data was from Not The Bee):

Amazon: 9% growth

Nestlé: 2.8% growth

Target: 1.5% growth

Walmart: 6% growth

General Mills -1% growth

When a boycott is successful, the expected outcome is that a company loses growth.

The boycott rolled a zero. Critical miss.

It seems these businesses generally benefitted a lot more from ditching DEI than they might have lost from the boycott. It also seems as though regular people with real American values have more power in the American marketplace than a bunch of leftists with their stupid boycotts.

The one example of negative growth can easily be attributed to the MAHA movement, which advocates for healthier foods. The left could’ve tried to spite the MAHA movement by buying their processed, seed oil heavy foods. But even where they could’ve screwed up to muster a marginal victory, they still failed. But, to be fair, what happened with General Mills could be attributable to typical fluctuation.

I expected the boycott to fail. I did not expect it to fail so hard. But as companies are starting to align more closely with American values, it does stand to reason that Americans are going to feel more comfortable shopping with them.

That is, unless Americans are secretly okay with retailers pushing pseudo-diverse victimhood narratives on them and their children, in spite of having proven differently with their money. Which is probably one of the fantasies that the left is nurturing at this point.

As for what the left can do to become relevant again, I don’t know. But considering that they sincerely believed that Kamala Harris was a viable candidate, I wouldn’t expect them to understand what resonates with the American public.

They can go right on having fun pretending to be the resistance. They are rebels without a cause. Or an effect.

The Activist-to-Authoritarian Pipeline, Explained

Leave a reply

You might have noticed that many on the activist left tend towards authoritarianism on occasions when they find themselves in positions of power. Not surprisingly, they’ll then advocate for more activism, knowing that it serves them.

But what is a mystery is why activists, when they take hold of power, suddenly tend towards authoritarianism. This is the case whether we’re talking about elected officials or even just low-level government employees. It’s vexing because the public image of the activist is that of a libertarian, one fighting for freedoms, whether or not this image is consistent with the policies that they’re actually advocating for.

To one outside looking in, it can be a conundrum why an activist, when they finally have their hands on the levers of power, go full authoritarian. The reason this happens comes down to a simple failure to instill sincerely-held values.

Activism appeals to a sense of youthful restlessness. To one in their teens and early-twenties, it seems like a pretty sweet deal; they get to blow off some steam, do some naughty stuff, and they get to come away from it saying that they furthered a positive cause, whether or not it was really positive, at all.

And through it all, what’s idealized for them is to “effect change”. What change would that be? Really, just about any change might appeal to a person’s sense of accomplishment, especially when they lack the wisdom to recognize the knock-on consequences of a large-scale implementation of their causes. And, in many cases, they don’t look much into it.

What matters to them is that they “effect change”.

So, what happens when an activist without sincere values effects change so hard that they catch the attention of someone in a position of power who becomes interested in elevating them?

It’s easy to guess: someone who can effect change pulling the levers of power, who feels justified in laying the boot on their opposition, whom they may view as enemies rather than countrymen.

Thus, the activist-to-authoritarian pipeline.

The United States has been living in the consequences of this process, which has been occurring over the course of decades. It’s the reason why you see riots where perpetrators who commit violent crimes get off scot-free, enabled by left-wing politicians and prosecutors, with news anchors turning a blind eye to the crimes. Many such public figures were once violent agitators themselves, and whats more, it doesn’t directly serve their interests to deter someone who is furthering their causes.

This could have been prevented with a proper instilling of real values. Which is the job of the child’s parents, as is the case when it comes to much of their upbringing. It’s not the job of the school system, it’s the job of the parents.

Yet, so many keep failing. Are people afraid to instruct their own children, or something?

When it comes down to it, the individual is not just an elementary building block of society, they are also an elementary agent of a culture. If someone is not taught from a young age to see the value of a culture, it’s no surprise that they would feel nothing as they act to destroy it.

Leftists are planning a one-day “economic blackout” for tomorrow. LOL.

1 Reply

Hey look, another stupid one-day boycott:

Pictured above is the gameplan for a left-wing one-day boycott of major businesses and services, in the hopes of sending a message. That message being, “we show them who really holds the power”.

The boycott is being pitched as non-partisan, but considering it’s traction among the left, it’s plainly a reaction on their part because they’re upset that they’re losing their grip on culture. The claim of being non-partisan is clearly intended as an attempt to expand leftists’ influence when they know that they are not culturally dominant.

They are not the “silent majority”, and the 2024 Presidential election provided the numbers to prove it.

Here’s a list of their extended gameplan, which makes mention of companies that have ditched DEI, such as Wal-Mart and Amazon:

You might be wondering, “Raizen, what are you doing sharing their gameplan? Doesn’t that help them?” I’ll explain why passing this info along doesn’t help them in the following list of reasons the boycott is almost certain to fail:

  • Boycotters prep for one-day boycotts by making their purchases in advance, or making up for them in the days after, so the companys’ bottom lines are often unaffected. This is especially the case with products such as gasoline.
  • Investors who learn of the boycott in advance can reallocate their investments, and thus profit off the boycott.
  • Imagine consoomers not consooming for a day.
  • Some people may decide to spend an inordinate amount on the day of the boycott, out of spite.
  • People tend to have less money when they don’t understand how the world works. For that reason, if leftist foot soldiers decide not to spend for a day, it’s probably not going to be very impactful.

And a bunch of leftists presume to tell the rest of us about economics.

So no, it’s not necessary for you to make a big ol’ shopping list and go wild on Friday. The left-wing one-day boycott is largely self-defeating.

And with how much better off companies that ditch DEI are likely to be in the long-term, they probably won’t much care.

Absolute Bombshell: DOJ Chief of Public Affairs Reveals That Charges Against Trump Were Motivated by Politics and Alvin Bragg’s Personal Ambition

Leave a reply

For months, you or a friend you know has been saying that the charges against Trump were politically motivated and not legit. Now, you get to say, “I told you so.”

The DOJ Chief of Public Affairs has admitted that the indictments against President Trump were, in fact, politically motivated, and that Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, was motivated by personal ambition in bringing charges against the President.

And it was all caught on camera.

This fine act of investigative journalism was made possible by the Steven Crowder team. And if you’re only just now hearing about Steven Crowder, he’s someone who does what investigative journalists used to do.

Crowder’s presentation can be viewed here:

Crowder has also made the complete recording available.

Leftists are some of the most smug and self-righteous pompous assholes that I’ve ever seen, and I’d take great relish in seeing their carefully constructed denial of reality come crashing down. And now, it’s become harder than it ever has for them to deny the blatant corruption that is evident to anyone outside of leftism’s hermetically-sealed echo chamber.

Whether they’ve had fun or not as they’ve enabled the castration of children, the delusions of perverts, the murder of infants before they could breathe a breath outside their own mothers, and numerous wars to make the wealthiest among their own just a bit wealthier, and far more than these, the time has come for them to be knocked off their high horses.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s against a former President or some guy who does not have the means to resist, a DA that brings charges against anyone while motivated by either politics or personal ambition is not a legit DA, and is a disgraceful individual on top of that.

Alvin Bragg is an absolute disgrace.

It’s apparent to me the only permissible course to remedy this injustice. For one thing, Alvin Bragg should be promptly dismissed from his duties, and permanently barred from any office with any connection to the administration of justice. Also, all charges against Donald Trump should be dismissed, an act which is necessary to restore confidence in the legal system.

The next course of action would be more extensive, but also necessary. A commission must be formed to thoroughly examine every case Alvin Bragg has been involved in, in the interest of finding every instance of his mishandling of justice. This is necessary, as people may be in prison on likewise illegitimate charges. In fact, if Bragg is bombastic enough to bring illegitimate changes against a former President, it’s almost certain that he’s brought wrongful condemnation against many others.

I understand that the last course of action suggested would take a substantial expenditure of resources. But it’s called for, as the nature of Alvin Bragg’s failure is catastrophic to the justice system, and to confidence in it.

If you’ve been following the developments involving the illegitimate trial of Donald Trump, either as a Trump supporter or from a position of impartiality, the only thing surprising about this development is that an explicit profession from the DOJ Chief of Public Affairs was added to all the evidence and proof that the trial is not legitimate.

The people that I expect to be surprised would be centrists or the relatively-uninitiated who weren’t following closely, or those left-leaning who weren’t paying attention. But as for the dead-enders, we know that they’re going to divert their attention away, unable to face the reality that they’ve already been laboring diligently to avoid. They wouldn’t be able to spin this as anything other than what it is, and if made to face it, any honest assessment would be to interpret it as an undeniable defeat for their tribe.

I’ll leave this with one more thought: This isn’t football. It’s not soccer, and it’s not even women’s tennis. This is no game. Leftists literally are ruining this country, and the dead-enders among them are deliberately doing it because they hate one man who, among the current choices, stands the best chance of making things any better.

Hold on… Do they actually believe this?

Leave a reply

I know that we’re well beyond the point of taking old media seriously. But I would have imagined that The New Republic would have been one of the publications that would have preferred that we go back to the good old days. You know, the days in which people were less connected and less informed, and willing to take old media seriously with big stupid grins.

It would seem otherwise, unless they were really sincere with their new cover, which depicts the man you’re voting for this November with a toothbrush mustache:

Wow, depicting Trump as Hitler! What a stunning and brave move, especially in the current political climate!

I would have thought that “American fascism” would have involved propagandizing the American people, but it seems like the American Hitler has a Jewish daughter, three Jewish grandchildren, authored a peace treaty between the Jewish state and a handful of formerly antisemitic states, and was the only president in the last few decades to not start a new war.

Intellectual dead-ends have been accusing their political rivals of being fascists for so long that it’s just become background noise, like the old music you hear at grocery stores. And I have little doubt that they believe it, because I know that stupid people actually exist.

What I’m starting to wonder about is whether their intellectual betters who have been propagandizing them are actually intelligent, as disingenuous as they may be, or whether they actually believe what they are saying.

Communism survivors have relayed that the point of struggle sessions was to get them to declare their loyalty to the state, whether they were sincere or not, because the very act of making such a declaration had a psychological effect on the one making it, where they eventually believed what they were made to say.

In the same sense, did the propagandistic arm of the establishment finally succeed in convincing someone with their pure, untreated verbal sewage? That is, did they finally succeed in convincing themselves?

What’s especially worrying is that if people can be convinced that someone has been doing something grossly immoral, it becomes easier to convince them to commit acts of violence against them. In light of this, such blatant defamation and dehumanization is not a harmless crime. Left-wing violence has long been a problem, but with the propaganda arm of the left egging them on, I fear it’s only going to get worse.

If the U.S. is heading toward a civil war, media pundits will have played their part in bringing it about. But trust me when I say that nobody should want it. Because the cost would be way too high, even for the winner.

Considering this, irresponsible journalism should be subjected to the ridicule that it richly merits. And with its new cover, The New Republic has certainly earned it.

The Emperor Has No Clothes.

Leave a reply

I sometimes find myself thinking that I have to explain old fairy tales, because it’s apparent that most of the people around us are yet to glean the subtle lessons behind them.

Such is the case when it comes to the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. To sum it up: A conman went to the emperor and sold him a new set of clothes. He was able to convince the emperor that the clothes were something special, when in reality, they were nothing, and when the emperor wore them, he was completely bare.

The emperor was so enamored with his new clothes, that he decided to parade about while wearing them. At no point did any of the emperor’s servants or advisors correct him, and he set out down the streets wearing his new “clothes”. And, for that matter, none of the assembled crowds questioned what they were seeing, either. They agreed with assent that the emperor’s new clothes were magnificent.

But then, one guy spoke up. “Why is the emperor naked?”, he asked. Though one might think it was the most obvious thing in the world, only one guy either noticed or cared to acknowledge what was really going on.

While we might like to imagine that the guy was praised for his insight, the people around him “corrected” him, saying that the emperor wasn’t naked, he was wearing new clothes. They were either saying this because they were just that ignorant, or because they were just that dead-set against gainsaying the emperor.

And when the emperor heard what the man was saying, the emperor was angry, because if he was right, then this meant that the emperor, who was supposed to be the wisest and most insightful man in all the land, was duped by a con artist.

The specifics of the story will vary depending on who is telling it, possibly blunting the intended moral of the story to various degrees, and diminish it’s commentary on society and human psychology. But the main takeaway is usually either that there isn’t much benefit to being the one person who sees what’s wrong, and speaks up about it, or that if no one else in the room is pointing out what’s wrong, that makes it your duty.

If you’re wondering where I’m going with this, I’ll get right to it: The emperor is bare-ass nude. He has been for a long time, and the corporate establishment and much of the body politick refused to acknowledge it. His peepee is showing, and rather than squint to be sure, they instead turned and said, “Nuh-uh! Stupidhead!”

But then last week’s debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden had taken place. And Biden failed miserably. Not only did people finally start to notice that the emperor was naked, there was his willy, on full display.

Some people coped. There were those who pointed out that Biden had to have had a cold, because his voice was raspy. But I think we’ve all had the cold at some point, and we know that the cold doesn’t cause us to lose our train of thought in mid-sentence, nor does it cause us to ramble incoherently.

We got this routine for years, especially the few of us left who still trust the corporate press to be something besides the propaganda arm of the establishment uniparty, or its controlled opposition. “Biden is actually spry, I’ve seen it behind closed doors!” they’d tell us (and themselves), but it was hard to tell whether it was legitimate ignorance or cope. I know that the political left tends to be more algorithmically segregated, but imagine ignorance to the degree that a person sees someone like Joe Biden, and thinks “lucid”.

Imagine how terrifying and confusing that the world must be to someone who is that isolated from reality. None of us have to labor our minds to imagine a world where the costs of rent, food, and utilities have been skyrocketing, because that’s been our reality for the last few years. But there’s a difference between those who are so ignorant that they’ll circumvent the part of the brain that’s supposed to be inquisitive, and end up attributing price increases to “rich people being greedy”, and those who know that the cost of energy and taxes on property are going up, resulting in higher overhead costs of running businesses, necessitating increases in prices to the end of survival. The difference being, the latter have been actually paying attention.

A basic understanding of economics also helps. And I maintain that that’s the bare minimum to having a political opinion that’s worth anything.

But now, with last week’s debate between the presidential frontrunners, those who have succeeded in isolating themselves from the reality of the matter are now experiencing the kind of dread that’s comparable to the existential horror that comes with the contemplation of souls disappearing when people die. Joe Biden is not all there, and with only about four months until the presidential election, is replacing him as the nominee something that can be realistically accomplished?

Then there’s the way that Trump handled himself. While his typical poise was there, he was able to rein in his usual bombastic tone, and was surprisingly well-behaved. Whether you agree with him or not, he was able to manage a level of decorum while on stage.

Up until that point, Trump was the left’s Hitler, considering him completely incapable of saying anything that could be construed as reasonable, and whatever he might have said that might have been reasonable certainly wouldn’t have passed through the occluded lens of the left’s algorithmic isolation, and into their hermetically-sealed echo chambers.

But, if they tuned into the debate, then they would have actually heard him speak, and even if they weren’t convinced, anyone who was reasonable among them would have had to admit that there were compelling reasons for the convictions of his following. And when you realize the potential for this happening, the left’s insistence on not listening to the other side speak naturally suggests itself.

However, last week’s debate made his insight difficult to avoid. While that may have been revealing depending on who you are, last week’s debate showed us something even more revealing.

The emperor has no clothes.

Chuck Schumer’s grill skills

Leave a reply

Father’s Day is one of those days where the political elite, including Chuck Schumer, pretend that they can identify with those of us who buy boxes of spaghetti when times are tough.

But things aren’t so tough for his daughter and her wife, because they were somehow able to buy a house in this economy, where property taxes and the cost of energy have pushed the cost of everything else into the stratosphere, and Chuck’s constituents are dutifully blaming the businesses that are struggling to keep up with overhead costs.

Economics, amirite?

So here we are, looking on as Chuck Schumer takes to social media to let us know that he is a normal daddy who is also normal like himself, and he fired up the grill and celebrated something the way Americans know how: by eating stuff. Seeing an undoubtedly completely natural photo op, he posted the picture above.

The first thing that I noticed, before even that the man in the picture is Chuck Schumer, is how he’s cooking his hamburger: with a stack of American cheese sitting directly on a raw beef patty.

LOL wut?

It doesn’t escape my imagination that someone who is as out of touch as Chuck Schumer would pose for a photo op that’s so cheesy that only an AI image generator that’s been outdated for five whole minutes would give it a pass.

But what really requires a suspension of disbelief is that he somehow lived to a ripe old age when his cooking technique with ground beef could land someone in a hospital, especially if he were to try something similar with chicken.

But the cheese resting on raw beef is not the only thing wrong with this picture. Putting aside Chuck Schumer. See it?

Not only was the cutting board taken outside, where it won’t do anything, a pair of glasses were set directly on top of it, presumably before going right back on someone’s face. And worse yet, they were set lenses down, something that a person with glasses should know to not do.

Now, based on what you’re seeing, what is the likelihood that Chuck and his family know anything about guns and gun safety? And with what intellectual capital is he in the position to influence public policy, including gun control?

Whether it’s Chuck Schumer or his social media team, someone was bright enough to figure out that he was being criticized, because his post featuring the picture was removed from X. But perplexingly enough, this was the filter through which his photo was passed to make it onto X.

But as we know, what goes on the internet stays on the internet.

To wrap this up, what follows is a complete list of everything right with the picture above:

Vaush opened the wrong folder.

1 Reply

When I first heard about the breadtuber Vaush, I assumed that he didn’t really believe what he was saying, and would have guessed from his vocabulary that he was talking way over the heads of the pro-socialism typicals who love the big words they don’t know the definitions of, and that Vaush was yet another grifter who was gaming the algorithm because he knew how. Thus, I didn’t much discuss him because I didn’t want him to have any more publicity.

But then, on a Feb 7 stream, he demonstrated a flagrant lack of basic datasec. He opened his own private stash on livestream.

Which, by the way, was on a folder on his desktop. And there among his stash was a folder labeled “Taxes”.

The use of the term “private stash” may have given you an idea of just the kind of stuff that his live viewers were treated to. But to be more specific, much of it was “horse stuff” and loli art, some of it seemed to have been AI-generated.

Since then, Vaush has gone on damage control, describing the characters with the loli aesthetic as being more “goblin” in body shape, as though he was into fantasy art, and explaining that he thought that the loli was just drawings of women with “short stack” builds. Basically the “she’s actually 3000 years old” defense.

While some of his viewers and critics may be wondering whether Vaush is going to jail, right now, it seems like the answer is “no”. While loli may be illegal in many places in the world, it is not illegal in the United States, where Vaush resides (the U.S. has the 1st Amendment, which protects free expression, and the apparent contents of his folder falls under protected speech). Of course, just because something is legal doesn’t mean that you’d tell your mom about it, or that it’s allowed in every setting.

Nonetheless, that Vaush has accidentally outed himself as possessing horse and loli “stuff” has some interesting optics when you consider that in the past, he’s insisted that Nazis are pedophilia adjacent because they favor relationships with power imbalances, and similar takes.

When someone virtue-signals often, pay attention to what they say, as such a person tends to project.

While Vaush has had some questionable takes, there was some plausible deniability for a while, though I know not everyone has been giving him the benefit of the doubt. One could have easily assumed that he was making obvious efforts to stoke controversy in an effort to game the algorithm, and watch all the ad revenue roll in from all the room-temp-IQ muh-free-stuff socialists that will come to his defense by virtue of being in the same tribe. But now, much of what he’s had to say about bestiality and other topics has taken on some interesting new optics.

While this whole drama has made just about everyone an expert on datasec, I think there’s something that can be said about being more careful about who your influencer heroes are, particularly the ones who behave like Vaush does on social media. After all, even ordinary heroes are disappointing every now and then. But if someone has a habit of deliberately posting horribly offensive shit publicly, then maybe it’s a better idea to keep your distance. And when SHTF, you can look on as some of his ilk continue to defend him, and know that those who do are the true believers in his cult, willing to come to his defense no matter what, which is probably just the kind of following he really wanted.

I don’t know what’s in the future for Vaush, but at this point, it’s easy to imagine that few outside of his small clique of cultists will take him seriously, and that even his fellow breadtubers will want to keep their distance. Basically similar to what happened with Jack Murphy as his cuckolding controversy played out.

I’ll say that the legal stuff that Vaush has on his computer is his business. But what’s really creepy about him is that there’s some less legal stuff that he’s been low-key attempting to make acceptable. That doesn’t put him in great light.

I’m a little concerned.

Leave a reply

The doomscrolling stops here. This is the kind of thing that can keep you up at night (13 minute video in the embed):

Here are the main takeaways:

  • The man being interviewed is Charlie Kraiger, a cybersecurity specialist for the White House,
  • His date was James O’Keefe of O’Keefe Media Group, whose only disguise was dyed hair and glasses,
  • Charlie spills about Biden’s declining mental state,
  • He also spills that the current administration is not confident that Biden will win, but that he will be nominated anyway, by nature of being the incumbent,
  • He blabs about how they considered removing Kamala from the ticket because she was so unpopular, but are keeping her on over intersectional optics,
  • And, oh boy, is she unpopular. So much so, that even black staff members quit en masse because of her,
  • Charlie is a sincere Covid cultist, telling other dates to bugger off because they didn’t want to get the vaccine,
  • Again, Charlie Kraiger is a cybersecurity specialist for the White House.

What is the state of cybersecurity in the White House when one of their guys spills the beans to James O’Keefe in a Clark Kent disguise?

Just how safe is our country? Who knows what all else that Charlie could have said in a busy coffee shop, where a Russian agent could have been sitting nearby?

And why do I get the idea that the guy was hired because he prefers sausages over roast beef sandwiches?

Presumably, the guy somehow got a security clearance. As for how he got it, I don’t know. but I’d like to imagine that, after this fiasco, it was immediately revoked, and he was entrusted with corrosion prevention.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t intend to pick a fight with White House cybersecurity. Those guys probably know what kind of exquisite artistry that I look up.

“Uh-huh.” -Probably you. (Source)

But I’m kinda concerned, because these are the guys that the rest of us count on for protection to not be dumb, at least for their own sakes. I’d like to imagine that they’d practice basic opsec, such as using virtual machines. But after this, I have my doubts.

Let’s get into why this incident is worrisome.

If your idea of hacking came from movies, you probably think that the majority of hacking is opening a command prompt and then keyboarding away at some code, or some shit. And maybe much of it still is. But there’s a new kid in town: social engineering.

Sure, you can go to the trouble of typing up some malicious code, and hoping that your intrusion attempt goes unnoticed. But the fact is, data security measures have gotten pretty sophisticated. You know what’s easier? Tricking people.

And that’s just what social engineering is.

If someone calls you up at work, identifying themselves as IT and asking for your password, you should be a little suspicious, even if they call it “routine” or relax you by bringing up the sports scores. If you answer them honestly, then you just gave away your account.

Or there’s this one: tricking people on social media. Like showing a chart with anime characters by month, then saying “Your birth month determines which anime character you are!”, then stupid people take to the comments and give away their birth month. Then, on another post, they give away something like the day of the month they were born on, or otherwise give away their age or other personally identifiable information that can be pieced together with other personally identifiable information that they just give away.

Stuff that could be used to impersonate them.

Or stupid shit like “If you put together the name of the first street you lived on and the name of your first pet, that’s your superhero name”, and then people proceed to give the answers to their bank account security questions.

Do you see the issue? When you have datasec measures that are as advanced as they’ve become, their biggest weakness is people.

It’s because of this that your most important datasec skill is knowing when to keep your mouth shut, especially when the person sitting across from you looks just like James O’Keefe wearing glasses.

It becomes more important still when 330 million people are counting on you to not be a dumbass.

But if the White House is staffed by people as bright as Charlie Kraiger, this country is in trouble.