Black Rifle Coffee Company hates your guts

Conservative culture is rife with people trying to use ideology to grift off of a devoted pool of people who will support any company that stands apart from Leftist corporatism. The story of Black Rifle Coffee Company is not particularly new, but resurfaced when the New York Times published a profile piece about it founders, most notably Evan Hafer. Evan Hafer is perhaps the most successful grifter of conservatism from a corporate perspective in history (as opposed to an individual ideologue). The New York Times states that Black Rifle Coffee Company is projected $240 million dollars in revenue in 2021.

The context leading up to Evan Hafer’s apparent disdain for conservatives began with the story of Kyle Rittenhouse, the hero who killed two Antifa thugs in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Black Rifle Coffee Company bungled a simple disclaimer that Kyle Rittenhouse was not a brand ambassador of their company insinuating that they supported law enforcement for arresting him.

“You can’t let sections of your customers hijack your brand and say, ‘This is who you are,’” Best told me. “It’s like, no, no, we define that.” The Rittenhouse episode may have cost the company thousands of customers, but, Hafer believed, it also allowed Black Rifle to draw a line in the sand. “It’s such a repugnant group of people,” Hafer said. “It’s like the worst of American society, and I got to flush the toilet of some of those people that kind of hijacked portions of the brand.” Then again, what Hafer insisted was a “superclear delineation” was not too clear to everyone, as Munchel’s choice of headgear vividly demonstrated.

“The racism [expletive] really pisses me off,” Hafer said. “I hate racist, Proud Boy-ish people. Like, I’ll pay them to leave my customer base. I would gladly chop all of those people out of my [expletive] customer database and pay them to get the [expletive] out.” If that was the case, I asked, had Black Rifle — which sells a Thin Blue Line coffee — considered changing the name of its Beyond Black coffee, a dark roast it has sold for years, to Beyond Black Lives Matter? Surely that would alienate the racists polluting its customer base.

Editor’s Note: NY Times censored Hafer’s comments. EDW quoted as published.

Evan Hafer basically called Kyle Rittenhouse supporters the worst of American society. Black Rifle Coffee Company had a bit of a falling out with conservative media after that episode, most specifically Blaze Media. It’s also unclear how one can be a Proud Boy and a white supremacist, given that they have a prominent black leader, but that doesn’t stop Hafer from talking about how he wants to flush conservatives down the toilet.

A Catholic Digression

As Evangelicals do not venerate angels or saints, Black Rifle Coffee Company almost went down that road but backed out.

But while the St. Michael design was being mocked up, Hafer said he learned from a friend at the Pentagon that an image of St. Michael trampling on Satan had been embraced by white supremacists because it was reminiscent of the murder of George Floyd. Now any plans for the coffee bag had been scrapped. “This won’t see the light of day,” Hafer said.

This sounds a lot like how the “OK” hand gesture was a white supremacist symbol.

Hafer A Democrat

Hafer claims to be a conservative in multiple interviews, but has never donated to a conservative politician. His donation to Barak Obama in 2008, he first claimed to be photoshopped before claiming it was a lost bet. He donated to Tulsi Gabbard via Act Blue, which he claims was the payment processor. This was stated in an interview with Armed Scholar, who somewhat shills for Hafer. He also donated to an obscure RINO Congressional candidate in Nevada who lost his primary, and to the RINO Georgia senators that both lost this past January. In an interview with Dana Loesh, who completely shills for him, he claimed that he donated to John McCain to offset losing a bet. There is no record of a campaign contribution to John McCain. John McCain is also left of center, so this does not bolster his claim to being a conservative if if it weren’t a lie.

Communist Media

It’s common practice and common sense for conservatives and Christians to not talk to the New York Times, Associated Press, or any other media outlets that want to end your way of life. Evangelical Dark Web exercised this common sense, coincidentally over Kyle Rittenhouse. Evan Hafer not only talked to the New York Times but promoted an article that attacked their customer base.

“The Black Rifle guys are not the evil that everybody makes them out to be,” says J.J. MacNab, the extremism researcher, “but they’ve closed their eyes to some of the evil that takes their humor seriously.” Still, Black Rifle professes to be eager to put some of its fiercest and trolliest culture-war fights behind it. “What I figured out the last couple of years is that being really political, in the sense of backing an individual politician or any individual party, is really [expletive] detrimental,” Hafer told me. “And it’s detrimental to the company. And it’s detrimental, ultimately, to my mission.

The New York Times has an “extremism researcher” in their article talking about BRCC’s customers, which Hafer is apparently okay with. The latter quote by Hafer is what someone who hates their customer base would say. They spent years marketing to gun culture and when they achieved undeniable success promoting guns and coffee, they attracted, in their mind an undesirable customer base. And so they want to be more mainstream.

Evan Hafer is one of the most successful product grifters in conservative history, and now that he’s achieved success, he wants to reintegrate his product into the mainstream to not be cancelled. He was never a conservative, but now he’s rich because of them.

A call to action

Evangelical Dark Web is an online ministry that fights to maintain the orthodoxy’s and orthopraxy of Evangelical Christianity. We are specifically set up to fight three false gospels in particular: the Social Justice GospelProsperity Gospel, and Popularity Gospel. We also do in depth research to answer reader questions about false teachers. Consider subscribing to support these efforts.

22 comments

  1. Funny, I saw a headline they did an interview with the NYT and without knowing anything more and I knew this is what it would say. To tell you the truth, I kinda had that feeling they were full if it, and even though I am a serious coffee addict I didn’t even go as far to check their prices.

    Like

  2. Great post. Hafer also liked 2 tweets on Twitter that attacked Kyle. Kyle was called a larp warrior dweeb, a punk a**, and a wannabe douchebag, and Hafer liked that. So he not only hates Kyle, but supports those who also hate Kyle. Kyle used a black rifle to defend his life. It truly makes me sad that the gun community supports BRCC. I’ve also learned that other brovets like Mike Glover from Fieldcraft, will fully support Hafer despite all of his garbage and deception.
    Source: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediafiles/496445/brcc_jpg-1697269_jpeg-1699296.JPG

    Like

  3. Well, as usual, I’m gonna go off the grain here, and not accuse Hafer of being a grifter.

    The reason:

    Kyle. I’ve never understood why Kyle Rittenhouse became a hero among Conservative Christians. For get the word “conservative” for the moment, and let’s only concentrate on the word CHRISTIAN.

    “Rittenhouse, 17, could not legally purchase the weapon himself, so he gave the money to a friend to buy it for him, according to both Rittenhouse and police reports.”

    That alone indicates that Rittenhouse got the gun ILLEGALLY. He broke the law. He possessed a gun that did not belong to him.

    “Black and Rittenhouse went to Black’s stepfather’s house to get an assault-style rifle that Rittenhouse could use that night, the complaint said. Wisconsin law prohibits minors from carrying or possessing firearms unless they’re hunting. ”

    Rittenhouse broke the law. He had intent to use the gun. He left his home state to use that gun.

    He is charged with murder. He could have avoided the so-called “Self Defense” had he just STAYED HOME.

    I don’t think he’s gonna get off on a “self defense” justification. I believe he will be convicted based on the law, and rightfully so, and that he might get a lot of years behind bars.

    However, Conservatives have turned Rittenhouse into some kind of martyr. He’s not. He committed a crime. It was premeditated by the plans to get a gun, and how to get the gun, and the travel to another state.

    Why Christians are ignoring this is beyond me. Maybe because those he shot were Antifa. There is a problem with his justification, even as a Christian. He’s underage, obtaining a gun illegally, carrying a weapon illegally, and killed with it. There is a legal way to kill someone, and an illegal way to kill someone. Kyle chose the illegal manner.

    That is not a conservative value, and it’s not a Christian value. It is not a conservative Christian value, either. Breaking the law is against God (Romans 13).

    If Conservative Christians consider that a value, then they need to re-evaluate themselves.

    Ed Chapman

    Like

    • Borrowing someone’s gun is perfectly legal according to the US Constitution. Defending your neighbors property is perfectly in line with the Constitution. If you have a problem with Kyle Rittenhouse you have a problem with the 2nd Amendment and the right to self defense. That was no murder according to God’s law.

      Like

      • Ray, he can’t possess a gun, being 17, that’s underage, except for hunting. So, for Kyle, it was illegal for him to borrow any gun. As an underage citizen, he has no 2nd Amendment rights here.

        Then the courts, aka prosecutor, will look at motive, since he left his homestate, for the purpose of carrying that gun illegally.

        They will argue that he intended to kill someone without regard to self defense.

        His self defense is not going to hold up.

        You are a liar regarding this not being murder in God’s law.

        This shows how immature you are regarding love you’re neighbor as yourself.

        He went to another state with a gun with the intent to kill someone.

        I can’t understand you people that portray this guy as a justified hero.

        He broke the law. He did not love his neighbor. He went there to pay back evil with evil. We are not to even do that.

        Ed Chapman

        Like

        • At most they could get him on a crime of age which he could only be prosecuted as a minor.

          Per God’s law this is a clear instance of self defense. He was helping his neighbor defend his property from Antifa/BLM. That require lethal force which he was equipped with. Where is the violation of God’s law here? You are not, according to Scripture, to let thugs attack you or your neighbors, or even your neighbor’s property. You can fight back.

          Like

          • Murder charges changes the status to being charged as an adult. The prosecution has a case, and they intend to go forward. This is not self defense as much as you would like it to be.

            It’s also agaisnt the law to be a vigilante. We can’t take the law in our own hands.

            Since it was illegal for him to carry a gun, then it was also illegal for him to defend someone else’s property with it, too. He had no business being there.

            I can’t wait till this plays out in court.

            And for you to imply that this is not against God???????

            Disobeying man’s law is against God’s law. Except when it comes to evangelizing.

            Respect the law.

            Ed Chapman

            Like

            • The purpose of man’s law is to align with God’s law. In this case it allegedly does not. And any conservative on the jury will render a not guilty verdict. It is completely within God’s law to defend your neighbor’s property regardless of what man says.

              You seem to forget that he went up to police afterwards and was not arrested. This is the action of a vengeful prosecutor. Not an upholding of the law.

              Like

              • Who is advising you on this logic of yours? It is illegal to take a life of someone, and since he carried a gun illegally, his self defence defense will not hold water in a court of law.

                He had no business being there at all. His excuse of defending someone’s property is not a defense when he illegally had a weapon in his possession and it’s intended use was not for hunting.

                But I’d still like to know who is spiritually advising you that this is ok with God’s law? Your logic is insane.

                Ed Chapman

                Like

              • Ray,

                You had said:
                “The purpose of man’s law is to align with God’s law.”

                My response to that:

                If you are speeding, going 50 MPH in a 25 MPH zone, man’s law does not align with God’s law in this case. So are you going to IGNORE the penalty on the ticket just because man’s law does not align with God’s law?

                What’s your defense?

                Wha’ts the judge gonna say to you?

                Ed Chapman

                Like

  4. For once, Chapman has a point. Buying a firearm for someone who’s not legally eligible to own one (convicted felon, underage, adjudicated mentally ill, misdemeanor domestic abuse or stalking conviction-thanks to the Democrats) would be classified as a straw buy, and thus illegal. “As evangelicals do not venerate angels or saints….” Evangelicals don’t have the saints and church fathers. Thus they have plenty of the Tim Keller’s, JD Greears, Russell Moore’s, Ed Littons, and Al Mohlers just to name a few.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I call the concept that you refer to at the end Evangelical popes. But Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t illegally purchase a gun so the first part is moot.

      Like

      • That’s my point, everyone is their own Pope in evangelicalism.
        If Rittenhouse was under 18, then under the GCA of 1968, he could not lawfully purchase a long gun from a licensed FFL dealer. If he bought it from a private seller, that still applies; however, it’s difficult to enforce. If he in fact purchased it lawfully, underwent the background check, and it flew, then yes, it’s a moot point.

        Like

      • Kyle Rittenhouse illegally posessed a gun, whether he did not illegally purchase one. Besides, he did purchase it with his own UNEMPLOYMENT money, giving it to a friend to purchase for him.

        That’s no different than having someone else purchase beer or cigarettes for a minor. That’s illegal.

        Like

        • You love to chide me on age. You should remember Benard Goetz who “illegally” carried a .38 revolver on the NY subway and shot 4 people who tried to mug him. He was never convicted for shooting four people. Same will happen to Kyle Rittenhouse. You have no sense of compartmentalization that our legal system has for individual charges.

          Like

          • Ray,

            Why I don’t see a comparrison between the two cases:

            Benard Goetz had a HISTORY of being the victim in crime, which is why he got a gun.

            However, then end story was, he was found LIABLE to the tune of $43 MILLION against one of those who he shot.

            Rittenhouse does NOT have the HISTORY of the crime of others mugging him.

            I can see why COMPASSION was given to Goetz. He was PREVIOUSLY a victim, and so he got the gun to protect himself, even tho it was illegal for him to have it.

            Rittenhouse does not have that type of history for a defense. Sorry, but Rittenhouse cannot be compared to Goetz.

            He could plead a lesser charge, as a plea, maybe to manslaughter, but he will still be accountable for the deaths.

            Ed Chapman

            Like

  5. I’m no attorney, but depending on the laws where you live, determines the use of deadly force. I live in Kansas, and with the exception of liberal progressive blue Lawrence, is a solidly red state with reasonably laid back gun laws. I also hold a CCL in Kansas. But in Kansas, if I have a home invasion, the law says I have to retreat to the safest place. If that means locking myself in the bathroom, or fleeing my domicile, then that’s what I have to do to obey Caesar’s (asinine) laws. But what about my big German Shepherd who lives with me, and is very protective? So he goes after the home invaders. Then what? Or if I feel “threatened for my life”, then technically I can use deadly force. Defense attorneys instruct you to tell the cops “I felt threatened for my life”, and that’s it until speaking to an attorney. I have a level-headed DA in my county who favors concealed carry and the 2nd amendment, so I might be ok, maybe?
    Same applies outside my home with a CCL. If I engage in mortal combat, and then shoot someone, that’s not justifiable, and I face charges. Again “I felt threatened for my life” to draw and use one of my lawfully owned and licensed sidearms.
    I work in neighboring Missouri, that has stand your ground laws. My Kansas CCL is valid in Missouri. But a progressive liberal DA goes after lawful gun owners, even in cut and dry cases. I favor stand your ground laws, as in Texas or Florida style. But what good are they if Johnny Law wants to throw you in the weeds?
    I work in the urban core. I see young black men with their pants hanging down to their knees, and their drawers pulled up to their navels, walking pit bull dogs and talking on I-Phone 12s at 10:00 am, clearly unemployed. And I have feral young black men jump out in front of my truck, brandishing tire irons, and challenging me (an old white man) to engage in a fight. I’ll do my best to evade them, and get by ASAP, but what happens if this old white guy has no choice but to draw his weapon and pull the trigger? I live in the real world, not the woosey-woosey world of Ted Talks or rainbows and unicorns.
    Chapman can bow his knee to Caesar all he wants. And he can also head to the lions in the arena.

    Like

    • Antonio,

      Did Jesus advocate to disobey the Romans? He subjected himself to their arrest. Peter tried to defend Jesus with his “sword” by cutting off the ear of a soldier.

      How did that work out?

      It is clear that Rittenhouse went to another state to stir up trouble, not to prevent trouble from happening. He made himself Caesar.

      A 17 year old CHILD, made a bad decision to go to another state. WHO did he get permission from to go there?

      Now, if ya wanna talk about GOD vs. Caesar, how about this one:

      CHILDREN OBEY YOUR PARENTS. Did his parents give him permission for this trip of his? Or did he even bother asking them for permission?

      Titus 3:1-3

      1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

      2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

      3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

      Antonio,

      If we are going to be Christians, we sure has hell better ACT like one, giving NO EXCUSE for those who are not, to talk bad of us.

      Obey the laws of the land, and stop RESISTING Caesar! It is our Christian duty to obey the law!

      You can complain about me all ya want, because you don’t like scripture to be pointed out for some reason.

      My own daughter had trouble with the law about 8 years ago. I told my daughter to RESPECT THE LAW.

      Seems that you have disdain for the law.

      Ed Chapman

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s