Is Steve Bannon really anti-semitic?

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 10:11 am

Amarante wrote:

The issue is that people seem to rely on Breitbart as a legitimate news source and not one that has an altright point of view.

I really take tremendous issue with fake comparisons of respectable media outlets such as the Washington Post, NY Times, La Times, NBC, CBS, newspapers of other major cities, major mainstream magazines and sites such as Breitbart in terms of accuracy and legitimacy.

I am not sure why Fox is so hellbent on defending a site that is frequented by members of the White Supremacy movements; anti-Semites, misogynists and other deplorable people. They must be getting some satisfaction from the point of view which supports their views.

Alternately you have stated that it is satiric and also represents a legitimate "different" point of view. The Onion and SNL are satiric and no one cites ANY article on them as legitimate. Likewise, no one uses Pravda articles or The Russian Times as legitimate news sites.

Its not that Breitbart is "frequented" by members of the alt.right. Its that Bannon has described it as "“the platform for the alt-right.” The alt.right that puts Jews' names in parenthesis, just so everyone knows they're Jewish (or, in the case of Bannon, just puts it in headlines). That uses the Nazi term for the mainstream media, “Lügenpresse,” or lying press (just like someone did yesterday). That views non-whites (and there is a split on whether Jews -- presumably European Jews only -- are white) as inferior, and calls for segregation. That gives the Nazi salute. And, on its nastier fringes, that creates all those lovely images of putting Jews in ovens.

This isn't sarcastic, funny, stuff. Its scary.

If you want a conservative POV, go to Fox. Or Real Clear Politics. Or even Drudge, if you must. There are plenty of outlets.

If you want funny, go to The Onion. Or there is apparently a conservative counterpart, The People's Cube -- I googled for it, I can't vouch for it.

Amarante

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 10:33 am

SixOfWands wrote:

Since you quoted me, for the record, I find Breitbart to be a scary hate filled site and my use if frequented by the altright was not meant to trivialize it as a vehicle for horrendous hateful and ultimately dangerous ideological ideas. I just was pointing out that these awful people found the views on the site in alignment with their own.

I am at a loss as to why there is any defense if it as a site which would be read for legitimate views by decent people.

Fox

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 11:28 am

Amarante wrote:

I really take tremendous issue with fake comparisons of respectable media outlets such as the Washington Post, NY Times, La Times, NBC, CBS, newspapers of other major cities, major mainstream magazines and sites such as Breitbart in terms of accuracy and legitimacy.

Could you please address The Guardian article or offer some concrete evidence that Breitbart's actual reporting is not accurate. No op-ed pieces; just reporting.

Amarante wrote:

I am not sure why Fox is so hellbent on defending a site that is frequented by members of the White Supremacy movements; anti-Semites, misogynists and other deplorable people. They must be getting some satisfaction from the point of view which supports their views.

I'll let you in on a secret: deplorable people walk amongst us. I eat Oreo cookies and white supremacists eat Oreo cookies. I read HuffPo and the WSJ and they read HuffPo and the WSJ. I read Zman and misogynists read Zman. There are even perfectly nice people out there who have a deplorable opinion or two.

Moreover, I am less disturbed by the 1488ers than you are. However much they may love Trump and/or Breitbart, they are a very small fringe group that has repeatedly attached itself to whatever conservative movement has momentum. I don't think they're harmless, but I don't think they're a major threat, either.

However, I am considerably more disturbed by left-wing anti-Semitism than you seem to be. Why on earth are we worried about Breitbart when students are being advised not to wear yarmulkes on campus? When universities grant safe havens for professors who spew anti-Semitic rhetoric that makes the 1488ers look respectful? When the best and brightest young Americans are being influenced to believe that Israel has no right to exist?

The 1488ers (and please distinguish them from the more general "alt-right") are highly unlikely to hold positions of power in America in 25 years. The students being schooled in polite anti-Semitism under the guise of social justice will be.

Amarante wrote:

Alternately you have stated that it is satiric and also represents a legitimate "different" point of view. The Onion and SNL are satiric and no one cites ANY article on them as legitimate. Likewise, no one uses Pravda articles or The Russian Times as legitimate news sites.

The op-ed pieces are often satiric. The news pieces are not. Prince used to write op-ed pieces for the WSJ. Didn't mean American business leaders all went around humming Little Red Corvette.

I keep asking for actual reporting that would be considered hate speech or reflects the views of 1488ers. So far, I'm just hearing how outraged people are and seeing comments that reflect incredible ignorance of the history and makeup of the alt-Right.

So . . . I'm guessing that you wouldn't be amused by this morning's posts in which Milo makes fun of claims that VP-elect Pence supported conversion therapy by pleading that Pence electroshock him into heteros-xuality?

Laiya

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 11:48 am

Fox wrote:

And just to further support you Fox where you say the racists are a fringe group, the alt-right has possibly as many as 50,000 members, while Breitbart had 31 million unique views in the month of July alone.

It seems a stretch to say that Breitbart intentionally appeals to this tiny fraction of its readers.

- wrote:

50,000 is more than the 5,000 Klansmen. But it’s still 0.02% of the US population. It’s still about the same order of magnitude as the Nation of Islam, which has about 30,000 – 60,000 members, or the Church of Satan, which has about 20,000. It’s not quite at the level of the Hare Krishnas, who boast 100,000 US members. This is not a “voting bloc” in the sense of somebody it’s important to appeal to. It isn’t a “political force” (especially when it’s mostly, as per the 4chan stereotype, unemployed teenagers in their parents’ basements.)

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016.....wolf/

marina

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 12:15 pm

Quote:

This was an op-ed piece designed to stimulate big-picture thinking, not be taken as personal advice! Milo's approach to his own family planning issues or lack thereof resulted in his nearly breaking down in tears at a recent speech, so I don't think we can look to him for personal solutions in this area. Though I do like the idea of an earnest little Breitbart intern dashing over to comfort me whenever I get emotional.

Can you give me a very specific example of how you expect this article to stimulate big picture thinking? Who exactly will think what about what?

Quote:

Yes, I actually believe that (a) women are happier when married, even though that isn't always possible; that (b) women are generally at their best in roles that involve nurturing; and that (c) the current zeitgeist praises women for being as much like men as possible rather than bearing children and caring for them or engaging in similar nurturing behavior.

For many years, women have been encouraged to behave s-xually like men. Cosmopolitan is blocked by my filter for good and obvious reasons, but here's a quote about Cosmo that appeared in HuffPo... Well, there's plenty of statistical evidence that this formula has not been very good for women.

Feel free to discuss studies and links and agree or disagree with them. But you are not doing that. You are defending an article that calls me and millions of other people fat ugly sluts who can't get laid. And then you're surprised that I'm taking it personally? You either agree with his rhetoric or you find him despicable. It looks like the former from your comments here.

Quote:

I'm not trying to convince anyone to enjoy Breitbart. I am trying to convince them that I've never seen evidence of anti-Semitism or hate speech in Breitbart. I've seen plenty that would offend various people, but that's not hate speech.

First of all, this is not true. You're posting that this article should stimulate big picture thinking and you are defending his position about what women should or should not be doing. Next, you're citing an article that is misogynistic in the extreme. Breitbart may not be overtly anti-Semitic but by allowing this to be published they expose themselves as promoting hatred and vitriol. My thesaurus ran out of words for vile. This was really a poor choice to prove your point.

Laiya

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 12:21 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

So why did Bannon claim (or proclaim) that Breitbart is “the platform for the alt-right.” Is he a liar?

I doubt that would make any business or practical sense, since the alt-right is a fraction of a percent of their readers.

Here's the rest of your quote:

- wrote:

But he says Breitbart is also a platform for “libertarians,” Zionists, “the conservative gay community,” “proponents of restrictions on gay marriage,” “economic nationalism” and “populism” and “the anti-establishment.” In other words, the site hosts many views. “We provide an outlet for 10 or 12 or 15 lines of thought—we set it up that way” and the alt-right is “a tiny part of that.” Yes, he concedes, the alt-right has “some racial and anti-Semitic overtones.” He makes clear he has zero tolerance for such views.

(emphasis added)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/st.....13161

marina

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 12:31 pm

Quote:

Could you please address The Guardian article or offer some concrete evidence that Breitbart's actual reporting is not accurate. No op-ed pieces; just reporting.

1. I keep saying this and you haven't responded. The CEO of this paper stepped down to become a prominent member of Trump's cabinet. This makes Breitbart a propaganda machine of the upcoming regime. Like Pravda. If the CEO of the NYT, Mark Thompson, became Obama's official right hand man, you can be sure that the NYT would lose all shred of credibility.

2. Some examples of the above: Breitbart has no negative articles about Trump. None. Is that accurate reporting for you? I'm sure you can think of some negative aspects of this president-elect. Is Breitbart's deliberate indifference to them "accurate reporting" in your eyes?

3. Breitbart, for example, has three articles about the p**** grabbing scandal. One is about Trump's apology. The other two are about the evil women protesting against this virtuous leader. Is that accurate reporting in your view?

Quote:

Moreover, I am less disturbed by the 1488ers than you are. However much they may love Trump and/or Breitbart, they are a very small fringe group that has repeatedly attached itself to whatever conservative movement has momentum. I don't think they're harmless, but I don't think they're a major threat, either.

However, I am considerably more disturbed by left-wing anti-Semitism than you seem to be. Why on earth are we worried about Breitbart when students are being advised not to wear yarmulkes on campus? When universities grant safe havens for professors who spew anti-Semitic rhetoric that makes the 1488ers look respectful? When the best and brightest young Americans are being influenced to believe that Israel has no right to exist?

Stormfront boasts 300,000 members. Is this a small fringe group? How many organized anti-semites are there on the left in your view, and plse post sources. Should I post some rhetoric from Stormfront so we can see if professors' statements make them look respectful? I can do that, but we're all going to need a lot of trigger warnings about Jews being vermin that should be toasted in the ovens.

Also, Fox, I'm interested in your view on Trump's praise of his likely candidate for Secretary of Defense, a man who shared his views on Israeli settlements turning the country into an apartheid state. Since you seem concerned about those anti-israel professors.

http://www.israelnationalnews......20577

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 12:57 pm

marina wrote:

SNIP

Also, Fox, I'm interested in your view on Trump's praise of his likely candidate for Secretary of Defense, a man who shared his views on Israeli settlements turning the country into an apartheid state. Since you seem concerned about those anti-israel professors.

http://www.israelnationalnews......20577

Quote:

“I paid a military security price every day as the commander of CentCom because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and that moderates all the moderate Arabs who want to be with us, because they can’t come out publicly in support of people who don’t show respect for the Arab Palestinians,”

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/1.754253

When asked about the prospects of peace in Israel, Mattis responded “That will depend on the protagonists, and do they want it as much as I think our valiant Secretary of State wants it ...” He then continued, placing 100% of the blame squarely on Israel:

Quote:

"The current situation is unsustainable. It's got to be directly addressed. We don't want to turn this over to our children.

"We have got to find a way to make the two-state solution that Democrat and Republican administrations have supported - we have go to get there. And the chances for it, as the King of Jordan has pointed out, are starting to ebb because the settlements and where they're at are going to make it impossible to maintain the two-state option.

"For example, if I'm Jerusalem, and I put 500 Jewish settlers out here somewhere to the east and there's 10,000 Arab settlers in here, if we draw the border to include them either it ceases to be a Jewish state or you say that the Arabs don't get to vote - Apartheid. And that didn't work too well the last time I saw that practiced in a country."

http://www.israelnationalnews......20577 See also Read more: http://zoa.org/2016/11/1034316.....KQrAY

But he's a possible Trump nominee. I'm sure he must be perfectly pro-Israel!

Fox

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 1:21 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

So why did Bannon claim (or proclaim) that Breitbart is “the platform for the alt-right.” Is he a liar?

He doesn't see the alt-Right as a monolithic movement of 1488ers. The MSM and left-wing sites such as HuffPo have made the decision to associate it exclusively with the 1488ers, and of course, those allied with such movements are only too happy to comply. Apparently they don't mind the presence of true racists if that presence will make their opponents look bad.

marina wrote:

You either agree with his rhetoric or you find him despicable.

You have just explained the election of Donald Trump in eleven words.

And to the degree that the progressive left and even the moderate left agree with you, you will ensure him eight years in office, no matter how loathsome or incompetent he might turn out to be.

There are many of us who do not believe that the opposite of agreeing with someone is despising him.

There are many of us who do not believe that the political is always personal.

There are many of us who believe that wrong opinions, whether about Jews, women, etc., are better fought with argument, persuasion, and personal example than with censorship or name-calling.

I've referenced a critical article about Breitbart; I've referenced the books and people from whom Milo, et. al., draw their ideas; I've talked in other threads about the history of the alt-Right and its relationship to GamerGate, etc. Yet only a few Imamothers (who mostly PM me) are interested in discussing S-xual Personae or masculinism.

Your position seems to be that if you find something obviously offensive, anyone who doesn't find it equally offensive is not a decent person. Or, perhaps, that anyone who doesn't take offense at bad things is not a decent person. Well, I make a concerted effort never to take offense unless I can get cash for it or at least get some fish on Neko Atsume.

Being offended, disgusted, revolted, etc., is not an argument; too often, it's been the response of people who don't have one. Nor does being offended reduce the amount of evil in the world; too often, it simply serves to rearrange the furniture a bit.

marina

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 2:03 pm

Quote:

Your position seems to be that if you find something obviously offensive, anyone who doesn't find it equally offensive is not a decent person. Or, perhaps, that anyone who doesn't take offense at bad things is not a decent person. Well, I make a concerted effort never to take offense unless I can get cash for it or at least get some fish on Neko Atsume.

Hey, this is a nice rule. Does it apply to everyone or only to positions you personally find palatable? Say I post an article or cartoon about how Jews are vermin and should be baked like cookies in the oven. Will you be offended? And if I defend it, will you respect me still?

Let's try it, hm?

Trigger warning for this anti-semitic cartoon here. But Fox, please do respect me, even though you find this offensive. I mean, we just have a difference of opinion. I think Jews are vermin who deserve death and you don't. That's okay.

You don't take offense at articles which describe women on birth control as fat ugly sluts who can't get laid, and I don't take offense at Nazi cartoons. It's all good. We're both good people and this respect is what will prevent Trump from being elected again, because we can all discuss our differences respectfully.

Hidden:

And lest you think I'm exaggerating- this article to me is almost as despicable as this cartoon. And your defense of it is almost just as awful as if you'd defend this cartoon.

And stop with the Trump drama. I understand- because you've repeated yourself many times - that you attribute Trump's win to the anti-PC movement and to the victimization of the right wing intellectuals who have been unfairly maligned by the leftie liberals who blather on about safe spaces and microaggressions and call everyone who disagrees with them a racist.

This is not on topic. Milo's article deserves no respect and no consideration. And I categorically lose respect for anyone who defends this trash in any way, like I would for anyone who defends the above cartoon. In contrast, I'm happy to try and listen to Trump supporters and am reading books and articles about their experiences.

Last edited by marina on Tue, Nov 22 2016, 2:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

Fox

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 2:09 pm

marina wrote:

The CEO of this paper [Breitbart] stepped down to become a prominent member of Trump's cabinet. This makes Breitbart a propaganda machine of the upcoming regime. Like Pravda. If the CEO of the NYT, Mark Thompson, became Obama's official right hand man, you can be sure that the NYT would lose all shred of credibility.

Lol! That's a good one! Bannon publicly took a leave of absence and severed his connection with the site. There have been no examples of Breitbart getting news scoops as a result of Bannon's connection with Trump.

On the other hand, Mark Leibovich of the NYT was caught requesting approval from the Clinton campaign before running quotes.

marina wrote:

Some examples of the above: Breitbart has no negative articles about Trump. None. Is that accurate reporting for you? I'm sure you can think of some negative aspects of this president-elect. Is Breitbart's deliberate indifference to them "accurate reporting" in your eyes?

Breitbart, for example, has three articles about the p**** grabbing scandal. One is about Trump's apology. The other two are about the evil women protesting against this virtuous leader. Is that accurate reporting in your view?

Um, right. That's what The Guardian said, and I believe it is accurate. Breitbart curates news stories to fit a particular perspective. No argument there. So do many of the major news sites. I don't go to HuffPo for complimentary articles on conservative viewpoints.

If your point is that reporting is only accurate if it is 100 percent balanced, then 90 percent of the news outlets aren't legitimate.

marina wrote:

On SeeTheStats.com and Alexa.com, Stormfront has never gotten more than 40K unique views in a single day. And apparently one of those views was yours. However, their founder, Don Black, says they're getting a million unique visitors a month, and a huge number of reporters have apparently fallen for that.

The ADL's recent study of anti-Semitic tweets aimed at Jewish journalists revealed that 20K tweets deemed anti-Semitic were generated from just 1600 accounts.

I can give you a list of professors who claim the Holocaust never happened; claim there is a Jewish conspiracy to run the world; and even promote blood libels -- but that's not the point. My primary point is that these professors have a much different audience from Stormfront. Columbia University, an Ivy League institution, is regarded by David Horowitz's organization as one of the worst offenders in terms of anti-Semitism in the classroom.

Graduates of Columbia generally play a much different role in our society than Stormfront viewers, and that's why anti-Semitism, even when disguised as opposition to Israel, is so pernicious.

marina wrote:

Also, Fox, I'm interested in your view on Trump's praise of his likely candidate for Secretary of Defense, a man who shared his views on Israeli settlements turning the country into an apartheid state. Since you seem concerned about those anti-israel professors.

I have absolutely no idea. I am certainly not going to be goaded into defending every Cabinet appointee in the new administration. I disagree with much of what he says regarding immigration, but I'm not sure his views on Israel will matter that much at the DoJ.

marina

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 2:22 pm

Quote:

The issue is not whether Breitbart is getting news scoops. The issue is that their writing paints this administration in a marvelous light- because THEIR FORMER CEO IS LITERALLY ON THE PAYROLL. Do you think he cannot fire and hire at will? The problem with Pravda is that it was a government-sponsored news agency reflecting only what the government wanted people to know. This is the same with Breitbart- its reporting of the p**** grabbing scandal depicted only what the Trump administration would appreciate people knowing.

Quote:

If your point is that reporting is only accurate if it is 100 percent balanced, then 90 percent of the news outlets aren't legitimate.

You don't have to be 100% balanced. You do, I think, have to post negative articles about both sides, though, to have a chance at being even marginally legitimate. Breitbart is not on that continuum at all and posting from it is posting from Pravda to me.

Quote:

Who cares about unique views? Membership is the critical piece because most members agree with the premises. Like if someone wanted to know whether there were a lot of women who agreed with orthodox Judaism as espoused by imamother.com, they would look at the membership numbers, not unique views. Members can drop off or disappear or whatever, but their views typically don't change even if they don't check new posts every day.

And you downplay these bigots' effects at your own risk. See e.g., David Duke etc.

Fox

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 2:49 pm

marina wrote:

Am I offended by a cartoon calling for genocide? What good would that do? Is the person who created this drawing likely to care that I'm offended? No. He intended to offend me. Why would I give him the satisfaction?

Refusing to be offended doesn't have anything to do with respect, and I won't be forced into creating a litmus test: "Oh, if you defend XYZ, then I can't respect you."

Yes, I can respect people who I believe are wrong. Even spectacularly wrong.

Now, speaking realistically, someone drawing a cartoon promoting mass extinction of Jews (and calling for murder is, to my mind, a little different than calling someone a fat ugly slut) probably has plenty of other qualities that would make him unlikely to be a respected and treasured friend to me.

Nor does refusing to be offended have anything to do with some kind of kumbaya-like discussion of differences. There are times when it's appropriate and worthwhile to engage people and times when it is not. I'm guessing that the 40K people who visit Stormfront every day (do you think they're arguing about Bugaboos?) are not the kind of folks who will benefit from engagement with me. So I don't hang out on Stormfront to argue with them.

Let me give a more analogous situation in which I am also not offended.

Milo has written and spoken about the benefits of fat-shaming. Now, those who have met me IRL will attest that I am not a slender woman. As an aside, no need for various Imamothers to chime in saying, "Yeah, I met Fox, and, whew, 'not slender' is an understatement!"

He makes a lot of jokes and has occasionally gone too far and has publicly apologized. However, he's not talking to me personally. He is not addressing women old enough to be his mother who have borne six kids. He is criticizing the excesses of the body positivity movement, an excellent idea that has now gone too far.

He is also pointing out that there is research that says that fear of social disapproval is one of the most effective motivations for weight loss, and he is warning young women who espouse "beautiful at any size" a little too fervently that there are costs: men are highly visual and may not agree with the philosophy; and not all sizes are equally healthy.

Marina, you and I seem to be the only ones still standing in this discussion. Everyone else has moved on, possibly preferring to discuss Bugaboos with neo-Nazis than follow our back-and-forth. Let's call it a day and wait until Trump and/or Bannon engage in some new craziness to resume. Somehow I don't think we'll have to wait long.

WhatFor

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 2:50 pm

Fox- I see you are trying to make distinctions between various factions within the alt right, and I can accept that there are many people who were or even still are a part of the alt- right movement who are not racist. I'll admit to not knowing much about the alt right so I've largely accepted what you posted here.
In recent days, however, I'm seeing that Richard Spencer, a prominent white supremacist is credited with founding the alt right movement. He himself takes credit for it, and regardless of whether he's right about that, he's credited with popularizing it.
I can tell that many of my peers, many of whom may have had as little knowledge that I did about the alt-right, believe that it is an association of white supremacists. A common refrain I'm seeing is "alt-right = white supremacism. Call it what it is." Whether it started off with those goals (as Spencer indicates it did) or whether it was hijacked by white supremacists, at what point do non- supremacist people start disassociating themselves with the movement?

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 3:37 pm

WhatFor wrote:

The term "alt-right" was coined by Richard Spencer. The same Richard Spencer that you probably saw giving a Nazi salute at a conference last weekend. Spencer advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture. He has rejected conservatism, because according to Spencer, its adherents "can't or won't represent explicitly white interests. His own words, from September:

Quote:

Like the nationalists of a century ago, we need a cause—and one that's different, greater, and more advanced than the conservative “hot button” issues that are fading into irrelevance. We need to be more than mere “reactionaries,” who spasmodically ignite in the face of some new liberal innovation—all the while being gradually pushed in their enemies’ direction, towards accepting their enemies' assumptions, towards defeat. We need a telos, an outcome or end goal—something that we are working towards, that channels our energies. We need an ideal. And ideals are greatest when they at first seem "impossible."

The ideal I advocate is the creation of a White Ethno-State on the North American continent.

Vis-a-vis most contemporary states that are putatively based on the Rights of Man and “democracy,” our project would be a new kind of political and social order. It would be a state for the 21 century—or 22nd: reflecting advances in communication and transportation, it would be a home for Germans, Latins, and Slavs from around the world. On one level, it would be a reconstitution of the Roman Empire. The Ethno-State would be, to borrow the title of a novel by Theodor Herzl (one of the founding fathers of Zionism), an Altneuland—an old, new country.

Quote:

We need an ethno-state so that our people can “come home again,” can live amongst family, and feel safe and secure. But we also need an Ethno-state so that Whites can again reach the stars. Before the onset of the "equality" sclerosis, Europeans had a unique ability to risk everything for ends that are super-human. We must give up the false dreams of equality and democracy—not so that we could “wake up" to reality; reality is boring—but so that we can take up the new dreams of channelling our energies and labor towards the exploration of our universe, towards the fostering of a new people, who are healthier, stronger, more intelligent, more beautiful, more athletic. We need an ethno-state so that we could rival the ancients.

Oh, and Jews are NOT white. "Pigmentation really is “just skin deep.” it’s a significant, but by no means definitive element of race. Identity is formed by a combination of race, culture, spirituality, and history. And Ashkenazi Jews have an identity apart from Europeans." (Non Ashkenazi Jews are probably not considered white for other reasons.)

THAT is what alt-right means. Words have meaning. If you're the "alt-right" platform, you are the platform for white nationalism, and not a one of us here is "white." And, as I said above, pretty words about "gee, I don't mean THAT" are inherently unbelievable, like saying you're a Nazi, but like Jews. [Notice, for example, that the Tea Party is the Tea Party, not the alt-right. Because they don't share these racist separatist viewpoints.]

Fox

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 4:14 pm

marina wrote:

No, no, don't wimp out on me. One of your primary concerns about HRC and the Democrats was the leftist anti-Israel agenda and how The Party didn't openly repudiate these people. So I'm not asking you to defend every cabinet appointee, but I am very interested in how you view Trump's praise of him in light of his apartheid comments. That's a fair question, don't back away now.

You're 100 percent right. This is a legitimate question. However, I still don't know. Sessions's voting record is relatively good on many things, and he's not regarded positively by Arab scorekeepers. We'll have to see.

As for comparing Trump's appointments to Clinton influencers, no one yets meets the standard of "Mitzvah Max" Blumenthal.

WhatFor wrote:

Whether it started off with those goals (as Spencer indicates it did) or whether it was hijacked by white supremacists, at what point do non- supremacist people start disassociating themselves with the movement?

ITA, 100 percent. The quote from Bannon was from mid-August, and I think it was a failed attempt to reclaim the alt-Right label. While Bannon might have helped Trump win the election, he couldn't win the fight with the odd bedfellows of the MSM, left-wing sites, and 1488ers.

Most people agree with you, and they're jumping off the alt-Right ship in droves. Sixteen months ago, it was kind of cool to consider yourself alt-Right. Now the most any reasonable person will say is, "Well, I agree with them on some things, but . . . "

SixOfWands wrote:

If you're the "alt-right" platform, you are the platform for white nationalism, and not a one of us here is "white." And, as said above, pretty words about "gee, don't mean THAT" are inherently unbelievable, like saying you're a Nazi, but like Jews.

Just for the record, Breitbart has never mentioned Spencer or any of his ideas positively, and there have been pieces critical of the alt-Right. There have also been plenty of statements from Breitbart disavowing racism, sexism, etc.

Of course, the alt-Right in any of its variations would never have come about without GamerGate, so we've wound our way back to the issue of media bias.