THE ALT-RIGHT HAILS ITS VICTORIOUS GOD-EMPEROR

[GMDino]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-alt-right-hails-its-victorious-god-emperor

Quote:I spent much of this fall listening, both online and in person, to the connoisseurs of ugliness who call themselves the alt-right. This is such a new category that no two people agree on precisely what it means or how many people fall within it.
Some on the alt-right are committed white nationalists; others are committed neo-monarchists who refer to Donald Trump, buoyantly, as their “god-emperor”; others are chaos agents who are committed to nothing at all. One could argue that, together, these people’s social-media activism made it possible—made it conceivable—for Trump to be elected. On Wednesday, Charles Johnson, an alt-right troll who calls himself a journalist, was sitting on a Brooklyn-bound F train wearing a Make America Great Again hat. “You support a man who is racist, sexist, and homophobic,” a man standing next to him said, accurately. “We won—**** off,” Johnson said, also accurately.


The alt-right is united less by ideology than by sensibility; a hallmark of that sensibility is a careful attunement to social norms, and a perverse delight in desecrating them. This is easy to do on the Internet, where anyone can say anything. Mike Cernovich, whom I profiled last month, became a prominent vessel of pro-Trump populism by saying unconscionable things on Twitter. “This election was a contest between P.C. culture and free-speech culture,” he told me the day after Trump’s victory. “Most people know what it’s like for some smug, élite asshole to tell them, ‘You can’t say that, it’s racist, it’s bad.’ Well, a vote for Trump meant, ‘**** you, you don’t get to tell me what to say.’ ” Cernovich, who grew up working-class in rural Illinois, visited his home town in February. He said, “My parents voted for Obama, but they told me, ‘If it’s Trump versus Hillary, we’ll go with him. He gets us. He talks like us.’ Since then, I never doubted that he’d be President.”

One of the political-science clichés that hasn’t been rendered obsolete by this election is that of the Overton window. In 1994, Joseph Overton, a think-tank analyst, described the epistemic range of public debate: ideas that fall within the window are acceptable; those outside it are unthinkable. The range of acceptable ideas does not always bend toward justice, but it does change over time. The alt-right rages against political correctness in the name of the First Amendment, but this is a canard. No alt-right dissident has been jailed for thought crimes. One of the innumerable ironies of this campaign was that the only credible threats to the free press—“If I become President, oh, do they have problems”—were uttered by Trump himself.

In August of last year, Ann Coulter, a forerunner of the alt-right who once seemed like a punchline and now seems like a prophet, introduced Trump at a rally in Iowa. Coulter’s position on immigration—white nationalism, essentially—was then outside the Overton window, and Trump was the only candidate who embraced it. “The Republican Party’s typical position is to preëmptively surrender whenever liberals start yelling, ‘Ooh, that’s mean, you can’t use that word,’ ” she told the crowd. “Well, they found something new with Donald Trump.” She denounced élites as “speech Nazis,” for which she received a round of applause. Then she added a sentiment that everyone could agree with. “Since Donald Trump has announced that he’s running for President, I feel like I’m dreaming,” she said. “I can’t believe I turn on the TV, and on prime-time TV every night they’re talking about anchor babies, they’re talking about sanctuary cities, they’re talking about Mexican rapists.” Someone in the audience shouted, “Build the wall!” For much of the general election, the polls suggested that Iowa would go to Hillary Clinton. Trump won the state by ten points.

The morning after the election, an influential alt-right blogger who goes by Vox Day wrote, “Donald Trump has a lot to do . . . It is the Alt-Right’s job to move the Overton Window and give him conceptual room to work.” Day and his peers have been doing this job for months. They have flooded the Internet with offensive images and words—cartoon frogs emblazoned with swastikas, theories of racial hierarchy—and then ridiculed anyone who had the temerity to be offended. “Racism and sexism are a) human beliefs, and, b) as legitimately held as any other belief,” Day told me in a recent e-mail. No picture is shocking. No idea is bad. Who gets to define bad, anyway? “Remember that rhetoric is the art of emotional manipulation,” Day added. Last week, on his blog, Day wrote, “There is no more Republican vs. Democrat. It is now whites vs. non-whites and white quislings.”

Trump connected to the segment of the population that was prepared to believe that racism was realism, misogyny was locker-room talk, inconvenient facts were media myths, and viciousness was the new normal. Just as surely as he has redrawn the electoral map, he has radically altered the Overton window. No Presidential candidate before him had ever mocked a disabled reporter, or bragged about his penis size during a debate. What kept every other candidate before him from stooping to these tactics, presumably, was deference to social norms. But norms can be swept aside.

On Election Day, I stood outside a small Methodist church in Greensboro, North Carolina, that was serving as a polling place. Standing next to me, passing out flyers promoting a candidate for district-court judge, was a man named Larry, an African-American in his sixties. He made amiable small talk with everyone who passed, including people wearing pro-Trump T-shirts. “I know I don’t want that crazy man to be President, but I don’t have hate in my heart for anybody,” he said. Just before nightfall, a white man with a gray beard left the polls. On his way to the parking lot, he stopped in front of Larry and delivered an unsolicited monologue about why he had just cast his vote for Trump. “Bill Clinton has an illegitimate mulatto child—you know that, don’t you?” the man said. “That’s fine; I’m O.K. with mixed people, but I’m just saying—why doesn’t he talk about it?” The man mentioned George Wallace, and segregation, and the myriad pathologies he ascribed to “the inner city.” Larry looked at the pavement and didn’t say much. Eventually, the man got in his car and drove away. When he was gone, Larry said, “I’ve seen a lot in this state. I’ve known people whose kin got lynched. In the last twenty years, or thirty, you didn’t hear people saying the things that man said. These days, suddenly, they feel like they’re allowed to say it.”

[6andcounting]

[GMDino]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/305912-kkk-american-nazi-party-praise-trumps-hiring-of-bannon

Quote:President-elect Donald Trump is drawing praise from the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and other white nationalist groups for appointing former Breitbart executive Stephen Bannon as his chief strategist.


“Perhaps The Donald is for real,” Rocky Suhayda, chairman of the American Nazi Party, told CNN in an segment that included interviews with several white nationalists.

Trump’s hiring of Bannon has drawn bitter criticism from Democrats, but white nationalists believe it’s evidence the president-elect intends to live up to his campaign promises to deport illegal immigrants and build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

David Duke, a former KKK leader who lost his Senate bid last week in Louisiana, called Bannon’s hiring an “excellent” decision.

In March, Trump disavowed David Duke, but only after he stumbled on the issue a few days prior.

“David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years,” Trump told MSNBC. “I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK.”

Bannon will “push Trump in the right direction,” suggested Richard Spencer, president of the white nationalist National Policy Institute.
“That would be a wonderful thing.”

“It makes sense to me,” added Brad Griffin, author of the white nationalist website Occidental Dissent. 

Bannon “will hold Trump to the promises he has already made during the campaign,” Griffin added.

“We endorse many of those promises like building the wall, deportations, ending refugee resettlement, preserving the Second Amendment.”

Trump has tried to distance himself from white nationalists, but his decision to bring Bannon to the White House has caused those questions to resurface.

Bannon told Mother Jones over the summer that his conservative news outlet was "the platform of the alt-right,” a far-right ideology that promotes white supremacy.

Under Bannon’s leadership, Breitbart ran headlines such as: “Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,” “Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement's Human Shield,” and “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy.”

Bannon has also made anti-Catholic comments about Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on his radio show.

Top Democrats – including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada – and anti-discrimination groups are ripping the president-elect for the choice.

Pelosi said the hire undermines attempts to unite the country.

“There must be no sugarcoating the reality that a white nationalist has been named chief strategist for the Trump Administration,” she said.

And the Southern Poverty Law Center released a statement Monday saying Bannon's appointment goes "directly against Trump's pledge to be a president to 'all Americans.'"

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) got into an uncomfortable back-and-forth with reporters Monday, when they read him a series of racist and misogynistic Breitbart headlines from Bannon’s time at the helm. 

 “The president has a right to select who he thinks is best to be able to move through,” McCarthy said. 

[JustWinBaby]

No different than the New Black Panthers or Nation of Islam celebrating Obama's victory. I mean, wow, there are hate groups in the US and occasionally someone they like wins an election. Another shocker I never expected to see in my lifetime.

I never even heard of the alt-right until a few months ago. I guess the KKK and it's 4000 remaining members was just too tough of a sell.

The schadenfreud is living up to expectations!

[hollodero]

(11-15-2016, 04:31 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No different than the New Black Panthers or Nation of Islam celebrating Obama's victory.  I mean, wow, there are hate groups in the US and occasionally someone they like wins an election.  Another shocker I never expected to see in my lifetime.

I never even heard of the alt-right until a few months ago.  I guess the KKK and it's 4000 remaining members was just too tough of a sell.

The schadenfreud is living up to expectations!

OK I wanted to take it easy in here, but I just have to use this opportunity.

Sure, radical groups celebrate one candidate or the other and it's not the candidate's fault in the first place. It's just that Trump (unlike Obama) contributed himself quite a bit to that. Just by saying things that were never said before in a race (as far as I know) - connecting Mexicans to murder and rape comes to mind, demeaning comments about women, and a lot of other stuff. Trump voters can claim it's not that big of a deal, and maybe so in your mind. NO one can claim there weren't at least controversial statements that scratched the borderline to racism.

And the follow-up question might not only be, is Trump racist or sexist or isn't he. The maybe even more important question is - what do people make out of it. There are covered racists out there, and the rise of a politician like Trump makes them come out more openly. 

How do I know? My country, that's why. We have a rising right wing "freedom party" that, just like Trump, is often called racist too (here we often say "Nazis", but never mind). This might not be an accurate description either. What is true, they don't really turn against ultra-right support from naziesque groups. They say meh, what can you do. And it changed the tone in this country dramatically.
Lately, a facebook discussion from the freedom party page became public, about a non-criminal refugee who learned his whole family had died and wanted to commit suicide at the tramway (which failed). Tragic story, right? Not according to some fans of this party. I read about 350 collected posts (there were way more) that really represented the bottom of the human barrel. He should have died. We wish he would have, we wish the tram would just have driven over him, we wish his compatriots would all just do the same. Kill him, kill him, I'd cheer if he's dead. They didn't say "he", but bastard, freak and all kinds of expressions. These comments were made in the very open and with real names. No one cared to delete those. And it's not a singulary case. All over the place, and in public spaces, these pop up now, you hear people rant how every refugee should just be killed or die, how happy that would make them, if human beings just died or just would get killed, how righteous that would be. Just because they exist and are there and have a different race. And this increases by every other day.

That tone - as I said, it was almost unthinkable to read stuff like that before. And if one would have written/said it, he would have been confronted, censored, there was no place for things like that.
Now it is. It's the saddest thing. And it's not some terrorist attack doing this. It's not the criminal nature of refugees causing this, either (there are not more criminal than we are, a fact you can't hide in a smaller country). It's the party gaining momentum who are anti-immigrant, who also bring hateful speeches into the parliament, into the open debate, creating hatred and racism and/or allows those who always felt that way to dare making their coming out. You're not bad for being a racist scumbag, they convey (or at least that's the racist's perception). At the contrary, you get it, you don't get fooled (left-wing media Lügenpresse and all that), you have a healthy mind, you're one of us. All that while of course not being racist, jeez no. The racists just support us.

And that is the real danger from people like Trump. They might not embrace those endorsements, they might not be racists themselves. But they still are appealing to extremist groups, and to certain people with a certain worldview. And there is a reason for that. All voting covered or open racists voted Trump (because who else), they are a part of the winning half now. And it might change society if they start surfacing more, and I think it's dangerous, and I also think there are already some warning lights now. I really think you should spare a thought or two on that possibility before just belittling it. No "butt-hurt" democrat talking. Sorry for the length of the comment, but this is a point I really wanted to gt out for quite some time now.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-15-2016, 05:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, radical groups celebrate one candidate or the other and it's not the candidate's fault in the first place. It's just that Trump (unlike Obama) contributed himself quite a bit to that. Just by saying things that were never said before in a race (as far as I know)

Sure he did.  He looked at a group of disenfranchised voters who had been beaten down by identity politics...took the Democratic playbook and turned those votes out.

I tend to agree with the comment that Trump voters "take him seriously, not literally" and the media takes him "literally and not seriously".  And he's already walking even more of it back.  He's not polished or subtle like the skilled Dems that play the game, but he looked where the Dem's identity politics weren't connecting and dealt himself in.

I don't think it's a stretch for a rational, non-bigot to look at Trump's "extreme" campaign positions and conclude they don't endorse his radical view, but don't believe that will be the policy and DO see him as the candidate to address immigration, for example.

Like I said, at some point people are going to acknowledge that Trump's campaign is just what Dems have been doing - exagerrated fears, half-truths, deception and outright lies to create single issue voters.

What's disappointing to me is that people don't see the inherent bigotry/racism when the Dem game is about white men, old white men being sexist/racist/privileged/homophobic/etc....I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm no less offended by liberals than you are by Trump.

[hollodero]

(11-15-2016, 07:11 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Sure he did.  He looked at a group of disenfranchised voters who had been beaten down by identity politics...took the Democratic playbook and turned those votes out.

I see where you're getting at and I respect some of these observations up to a point. But I call it a false sense of equally sinful behaviour. Without knowing the details of Obama's campaign I am certain that he never used an equally borderline hateful language then Trump did. Did he want votes, sure. Did his rhetorics come across as close to hate speech, no. Not if you look at it without prejudice. I am widely free of preoccupation when drawing these comparisons, not a Dem, no horse in the race. They are just obvious to the observer. There IS a distinct difference between Trump rhetoric and Obama rhetoric in respect that Trump rhetoric is more hateful and fear-mongering and racially biased. You might not care too much about that because of other issues, and that's fine with me. But you can't claim it's all the same and Trump just acted like Obama did. There's a huge gap on decency alone.

(11-15-2016, 07:11 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I tend to agree with the comment that Trump voters "take him seriously, not literally" and the media takes him "literally and not seriously".  And he's already walking even more of it back.  He's not polished or subtle like the skilled Dems that play the game, but he looked where the Dem's identity politics weren't connecting and dealt himself in.

Yeah he did, it's just that it doesn't work that way. A latent racist whose emotions are now set free on the back of the Trump movement doesn't simply walk his racism back because Trump walks things back. It's still there on the surface, and at this point it's society that has to address this, not Trump. He can even condemn it at this point. This particular segment of voters would still believe he's on their side and just has to play the game because the ultra-left has taken over everywhere to subvert the country's greatness or whatever.
HE might walk back. They don't.
And by these comments I do not intend to offend any other Trump voters, I'm certain most aren't real racist at all. It's about those who are, that are part of the winners now too. The hateful group.

(11-15-2016, 07:11 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't think it's a stretch for a rational, non-bigot to look at Trump's "extreme" campaign positions and conclude they don't endorse his radical view, but don't believe that will be the policy and DO see him as the candidate to address immigration, for example.

Like I said, at some point people are going to acknowledge that Trump's campaign is just what Dems have been doing - exagerrated fears, half-truths, deception and outright lies to create single issue voters.

No, I do see that. I have my take on this which might differ, but I do get this take (that there are other issues and politicians all lie and deceive) and that it's not an unreasonable point of view. No disagreement, but my talking point is a different one.

(11-15-2016, 07:11 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: What's disappointing to me is that people don't see the inherent bigotry/racism when the Dem game is about white men, old white men being sexist/racist/privileged/homophobic/etc....I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm no less offended by liberals than you are by Trump.

That's just something I too would call a false equivalency. The reverse racism thing is nothing obvious. I can't see any sign that the typical white male American is a primary target for attacks. From all I see, a black or hispanic person still has way more obstacles to overcome in life. Sure it might be "the media" drawing that picture and decepting me, but then again - and I always wondered - why would they.
I don't think white men are inherently racist or whatever, but all evidence points to them - to say it carefully - not being underprivileged. Which actually is all anyone can ask for.
But - they seem to ask for more than just that. (And by saying "they" I don't mean all of them, but let's not PC it up here.)
Please don't take that too seriously, but the way I see it, white men feel privileged, more entitled. And when they do work hard and still don't get what they feel entitled to, they feel disadvantaged. Or even prosecuted. But as long as there are no believable statistics that show real systematic disadvantages, I don't buy it. I more believe white men (and women) actually miss having more privileges, but instead now get some ridicule and critizism and don't handle that too well. And now they cry "racism", as if ever a white person got searched by police or being treated unfairly or being denied opportunity because of their race. All the real stuff.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Holderdo, do you think a man making fun of a woman having a shot in public is sexism?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-15-2016, 08:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's just something I too would call a false equivalency. The reverse racism thing is nothing obvious. I can't see any sign that the typical white male American is a primary target for attacks. From all I see, a black or hispanic person still has way more obstacles to overcome in life. Sure it might be "the media" drawing that picture and decepting me, but then again - and I always wondered - why would they.
I don't think white men are inherently racist or whatever, but all evidence points to them - to say it carefully - not being underprivileged. Which actually is all anyone can ask for.
But - they seem to ask for more than just that. (And by saying "they" I don't mean all of them, but let's not PC it up here.)
Please don't take that too seriously, but the way I see it, white men feel privileged, more entitled. And when they do work hard and still don't get what they feel entitled to, they feel disadvantaged. Or even prosecuted. But as long as there are no believable statistics that show real systematic disadvantages, I don't buy it. I more believe white men (and women) actually miss having more privileges, but instead now get some ridicule and critizism and don't handle that too well. And now they cry "racism", as if ever a white person got searched by police or being treated unfairly or being denied opportunity because of their race. All the real stuff.

The fact that you call it reverse racism, rather than, you know, just racism, is a pretty decent sign. Don't even know if you meant to do it consciously, but your brain told you that racism was a thing only white people could do to non-white people and that anyone being racist to white people were "reverse" racists.


http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/feds-urged-to-probe-mob-attack-on-trump-voter/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/14/milwaukee-rioters-hunt-down-attack-whites-video/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/29/homeless-vet-dies-months-after-gas-station-attack-caught-on-video.html


Those are just a few different incidents off the top of my head that were disgusting. You may or may not have heard of them, but check those out and tell me... if the situation was reversed and it was white people doing it to black people, would it not be the largest national news story, and would they not all be charged with hate crimes? (None of them were charged with hate crimes, by the way. Don't even think the 2nd article had the people arrested.)




(No idea what the Alt-Right even is, I recently just started hearing the term thrown around a month or two ago.)

[fredtoast]

(11-16-2016, 02:42 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Those are just a few different incidents off the top of my head that were disgusting. You may or may not have heard of them, but check those out and tell me... if the situation was reversed and it was white people doing it to black people, would it not be the largest national news story, and would they not all be charged with hate crimes? (None of them were charged with hate crimes, by the way. Don't even think the 2nd article had the people arrested.)

But white people can only be victims of racism on an individual basis.  Black people are subject to systemic racisdm because white people control a disproportionate amount of the wealth and power in this country.

And using anecdotal evidence about whites being victims of hate crimes and blacks never being charged is a total lie straight out of the white supremacist handbook.  52% of racially based hate crimes target blacks while only about 20% target whites.  

Yet you complain that when an old man beaten to death because a child said he hit him then the perpetrators should be charged with a racially motivated hate crime?  

The fight in the first video appears to be over a car wreck, not politics.  The video does not show how it started.

The video about the Milwaukee gang violence does not say if the people were arrested or not.  So you have no idea what they were charged with.  And police do charge people when they commit crimes.  In fact I can post severeal studies that prove that police racially profile minorities.  you can not show me a single one that shows that police racially profile white people.  

Your complaints of police letting minorities commit crimes with no repercussions while singling out white people for prosecution are absurd and have no basis in fact. 

Nothing is more pathetic than a white guy trying to play the "race victim" card here in the United States. 

[GMDino]

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/stormfront-on-steve-bannons-appointment-it-doesnt-get-1789008594

[/url]

Quote:[url=http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/stormfront-on-steve-bannons-appointment-it-doesnt-get-1789008594]Stormfront On Steve Bannon's Appointment: "It Doesn't Get Any Better Than This"


Left: Photo of Steve Bannon by Ben Jackson/Getty Images. Right: Screengrab of Stormfront.org
Since its founding by a former Ku Klux Klan leader in 1996, Stormfront has been the internet’s premier watering hole for white nationalists and neo-Nazis everywhere. It is also, apparently, full of soon-to-be White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon’s very biggest fans.

For instance, take Stormfront user Phoenix1933, who could not possibly speak more highly of the former Breitbart man:



Or these users, all white supremacists and all positively delighted at President-elect Trump’s choice in confidantes:






According to The New York Times, Trump spokesperson Kellyanne Conway “denied that Mr. Bannon had a connection to right-wing nationalists or that he would bring those views to the White House. ‘I’m personally offended that you think I would manage a campaign where that would be one of the going philosophies,’ she said.”



I cannot find any instances of Bannon explicitly denying any connections to the white nationalist movement, or decrying its worldview. We’ve asked the Trump campaign for comment on Bannon’s white nationalism (or lack thereof), but as of the time of publication, we have yet to hear back. Bannon has, however, described right-wing nationalists as “patriots” who “just want their country taken care of.”
Still, the internet’s most dedicated neo-Nazis appear to feel a staunch kinship to Bannon, and many users on Stormfront see Bannon’s appointment as the first step in their imminent rise to power.



In a thread celebrating Bannon’s appointment, user SaveAustraliaFromInvasion wrote that Trump’s win “is going to bring out the White Pride in ourselves ... He’s employing racially aware, alt right people, he’s been praised by nationalist leaders in Europe, people who once judged him are now sucking up ... and many other people are changing their ways because of the future president.”



We should note that Bannon’s status isn’t unanimous on the Stormfront boards: User PolishSlavAryan writes that while Bannon may not be a white nationalist himself, he’s at least sympathetic to the cause.



Not everyone was immediately on board, though.



If you’ll recall, before working in media (owned by Jews), Steve Bannon was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs (also owned by Jews). How could a man who has worked so closely with the JEW MEDIA and the JEW BANKERS be one of Stormfront’s own? 



This is, of course, also Newt Gingrich’s exact argument.


Still, the users worried that Bannon isn’t quite anti-Semitic enough are few and far between compared to those that are positively stoked to see him at Trump’s side. Many Stormfront users believe that Bannon holds their same (or at least, very nearly the same) white-centric beliefs and values close to his heart.



White supremacists are openly celebrating the appointment of Donald Trump’s closest advisor to an official position in the White House. You can debate whether it’s proper to call Bannon a white supremacist all you want. The actual white supremacists, however, are doing no such thing. They are ecstatic. We should be horrified.

And I'm torn.
I don't want to fall into the trap of those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it...OR...fall for the fact that just because Trump and his major appointment has the full throated endorsement of this underbelly of America that means they are right and Trump and Bannon are racist.
But either Trump doesn't care about the optics of it, he doesn't know about it, or he approves of.
I don't think we have an option but to wait and see until the full administration is full.
I also don't want to hear ever again that President Obama is the one causing the rise in racism in this country after this.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'm wondering why GMDabo (yes, you're in GMDabo mode in this thread) thinks the opinion of anyone on Stormfront is relevant? Alan Dershowitz, who as far as I know is not a Stormfront member, has flat out said that Bannon is not an antisemite and to attempt to label him as one because his politics differ from yours is offensive. Literally the only piece of antisemitism that can be "attributed" to Bannon is his ex wife's anecdotal claim that he said he didn't want his daughters to go to school with "whiny Jews". As we all know, a divorce proceeding is the best place to get accurate information on someone because they're not heated or emotional at all.

So, could you please provide us with actual proof, other than claims by an ex-wife in a divorce proceeding, that the guy is antisemitic?

[GMDino]

(11-16-2016, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm wondering why GMDabo (yes, you're in GMDabo mode in this thread) thinks the opinion of anyone on Stormfront is relevant?  Alan Dershowitz, who as far as I know is not a Stormfront member, has flat out said that Bannon is not an antisemite and to attempt to label him as one because his politics differ from yours is offensive.  Literally the only piece of antisemitism that can be "attributed" to Bannon is his ex wife's anecdotal claim that he said he didn't want his daughters to go to school with "whiny Jews".  As we all know, a divorce proceeding is the best place to get accurate information on someone because they're not heated or emotional at all.

So, could you please provide us with actual proof, other than claims by an ex-wife in a divorce proceeding, that the guy is antisemitic?

I think you'll find that even the Stormfront people agree with you that he the anti-semite label is hard to defend given his history of "working with the jews".

However I shared that story only to show that him being chosen has pleased those who believe he is and hope that he will push THEIR policy desires.

Which is what Dershowitz said also:

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/11/15/alan-dershowitz-steve-bannon-smears-not-legitimate-call-somebody-anti-semite-disagree-policies/

Quote:

Quote:So, I haven’t seen any evidence of personal anti-Semitism on the part of Bannon. I think the (Breitbart) headline about a Conservative Republican being a renegade Jew was ill-advised. But it doesn’t suggest to me anti-Semitism. It suggests to me a degree of carelessness.
I think the larger problem – and it’s a very complicated one today – is how you assess a person who himself might not have negative characteristics, but who has widespread appeal to people who do. And I think that problem exists on the right and the left. I think there are left-wing candidates who appeal to some of the worst bigots on the hard left. Anti-Semites on the hard left. Anti-Israel people on the hard left. And I think the same thing is probably true of some very right-wing conservatives who appeal vertently or inadvertently to people whose values they probably themselves don’t agree with.

Asked whether the claims against Bannon demean the term “anti-Semitism,” Dershowitz replied:

Quote:I think so. And I think one has to be very careful about using the term anti-Semitic in two ways. One, I don’t think anybody should be called or accused of being anti-Semitic unless the evidence is overwhelming. And then the second, more subtle and difficult issue is what about characterizing supporters or people who follow them?  Subtle distinctions have to be made.

One has to be concerned about any group, right or left, that has widespread appeal to bigots. And I think they have to look in the mirror and ask themselves why. And that’s a legitimate point to make.

(btw:  Breitbart.  LOL  But that was the source of the quote.)

I believe I also said I'm trying to not fall into the trap that this appointment alone is leading us down a dark road.

Oh yeah...I did:

Quote:I don't want to fall into the trap of those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it...OR...fall for the fact that just because Trump and his major appointment has the full throated endorsement of this underbelly of America that means they are right and Trump and Bannon are racist.

So it's there for discussion.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-16-2016, 05:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: a total lie straight out of the white supremacist handbook.  

You know this because you own a copy? 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-16-2016, 02:15 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You know this because you own a copy? 

Fred just likes to casually call anyone who disagrees with him white supremacists. Because as everyone knows, that's how you display you're a rational person in discussion.

Just ignore him, it's best not to feed him.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-16-2016, 02:19 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Fred just likes to casually call anyone who disagrees with him white supremacists. Because as everyone knows, that's how you display you're a rational person in discussion.

Just ignore him, it's best not to feed him.

I don't know. Considering how much he's recently been calling and/or inferring that people are white supremacists, I can't help but wonder if he doth protest too much, if you know what I mean.

Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk

[hollodero]

(11-16-2016, 02:19 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Fred just likes to casually call anyone who disagrees with him white supremacists.

In all fairness, he didn't do that. He pointed out where the idea of systematic racism against whites stems from (I don't know if it's true, I guess it is). Whatever.

I checked your links... the third one is nothing, the first two are probably what you claim they are: An expression of racial hatred against white people.
I never doubted these instances exist. As long as there are races, there will always be hatred because of it, against whites, blacks, hispanics and all the others. 

If the roles were reversed... I don't know. I guess they wouldn't be huge national news stories either. These are individual instances and not proof of systemic racism. The stories that reach national news tend to be about police brutality or other expressions of more institutional or systematic forms of racism.

Whites can occasionally be the target of racially motivated violence like everyone else, especially in times of enragement like those. People of other races are not inherently better, so of course these instances exist. But white people - in my view - can never ever claim that they are the victim of systematic racism. The leap from these singulary instances to a finding of racism against white people is way too far. That is putting it mildly. I could as well say, if white men behave like that they need to be careful that Donald doesn't grab them.


About my use of the term racism - it is difficult to claim there is racism against the ethnic majority, because systematic racial oppression seldomly goes that way; and the minorities don't rule the country, not by a long stretch. You can claim there is too much PC around this whole subject, and I would partly even agree. That's it. 

But let me put it in a simple question. Do you believe white people are underprivileged or face everyday disadvantages because of the color of their skin?
If you say "yes", I'd say you're illusional.
If you say "no", I'd say you need to reevaluate your talking point.

Lastly, about "hate crimes"... I can't really give you a take in good conscience, for I am sceptical about that in the first place and don't consider that to be a good idea. I guess these laws exist maybe out of PC or out of bad conscience amongst some white people and I see it as an overreaction. Every murder or violent act is an expression of hatred, for one reason or another. (And if it isn't, it doesn't make the deed any less condemnable.) Then again, I have no compassion for people convicted of a hate crime either, so who cares about that anyway.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-16-2016, 04:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Do you believe white people are underprivileged or face everyday disadvantages because of the color of their skin?

I know you weren't asking me, but I'm going to answer anyway. :p

There are more underprivileged white people than black people. That's a fact. However, there are also more "upperprivileged" white people than black people. There are just more white people.

Do white people face everyday disadvantages because of their skincolor? There are a few. It's a miniscule amount, to be sure, but I know of at least 2 people (friends of mine) who live in predominantly black neighborhoods and they face all kinds of discrimination every single day, from people on the street to convenience store owners to whatever.

It's important to remember that only a Sith deals in absolutes. 

[hollodero]

(11-17-2016, 11:22 AM)PhilHos Wrote: I know you weren't asking me, but I'm going to answer anyway. :p

There are more underprivileged white people than black people. That's a fact. However, there are also more "upperprivileged" white people than black people. There are just more white people.

Do white people face everyday disadvantages because of their skincolor? There are a few. It's a miniscule amount, to be sure, but I know of at least 2 people (friends of mine) who live in predominantly black neighborhoods and they face all kinds of discrimination every single day, from people on the street to convenience store owners to whatever.

It's important to remember that only a Sith deals in absolutes. 

Not only a Sith deals in absolutes, this statement is too absolute. See - I do too. Things are almost always more nuanced, and by breaking things down to what one thinks are the essentials disregards those nuances. So in some respect I'm guilty as charged.
This is thin ice for me. Your black/white situation is pretty much unmatched in my everyday exprience, I couldn't possibly add clever things. As I said earlier, racism is not an exclusively white thing and not an exclusively majority thing, racism is everywhere and amongst all groups. 
I will say this. I guess the term racism gets thrown around way too lightly, and that is contraproductive. It angers me when women throw the word "sexist" or chauvinist ore male supremacy around too easily, not the same thing by a long stretch, just for feelings comparison. Whether anger like this fueled Trumps campaign to an extent, I couldn't say. I think the left PC department estranges people, not racist/sexist/whatever people, but rational people who face irrational accusations or cheap knockout arguments. One might call that a form of "reverse racism" (or reverse sexism) - I wouldn't and still think that's way overboard. I rather call it an overdoing of PC, and I'd guess the US and Europe both have too much of that coming from what we perceive as "the left" (-- the democratic party with the exception of Sanders, Edwards or other individuals isn't "left" to me).

Regarding your friends, I would say: The real problem here might be the existence of such distinct "black" neighbourhoods in the first place. Which might have something to do with low income neighbourhoods populated by blacks, for they are more susceptible of being born poor and the ladder to success (which I consider to be true) is way more slippery for them. That these might be a breeding place for anti-white sentiments or even racial outbursts against whites doesn't come as too much of a surprise. But calling that "reverse racism" is not a wise choice of words or perspective either. To me, poor people are underprivileged, especially black poor people, occasionally white poor people. But white people not so much because they are white people, but because they are low-income people for whom the whole American dream idea didn't work out. To speak in attackable absolutes again :)

[GMDino]

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/502476139/were-not-going-away-alt-right-leader-on-voice-in-trump-administration

Quote:'We're Not Going Away': Alt-Right Leader On Voice In Trump Administration

Listen·8:16

November 17, 20164:18 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered

Stephen Bannon, Donald Trump's incoming White House chief strategist, used to run the website Breitbart, which he called "the platform for the alt-right." The alt-right has been associated with racism, anti-Semitism and misogyny. Its adherents believe they have a voice in the new administration. NPR's Kelly McEvers talks to Richard Spencer, a white nationalist who coined the term "alt-right."

You can listen to the interview at the link.

Near the end Spencer is asked if he would condemn "make america white again", white robes with hoods, swastikas, etc.  He refused saying they were all legal and simply forms of self-expression.

Sounds like a great guy.

He also says he has had zero contact with the Trump transition team (whoever that is this week) but he feels the alt-right now has a voice in the white house.

Yay?