Trump and Priebus and Bannon
By now you’ve probably heard that president-elect Trump has announced some appointments:
The president-elect announced Sunday that he has selected Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to serve as chief of staff in his incoming administration.
In the same announcement, Priebus’ appointment shared top billing with the news that Trump campaign CEO Stephen K. Bannon will serve as chief strategist and senior counselor to the president.
“I am thrilled to have my very successful team continue with me in leading our country,” said Trump said in the emailed statement. “Steve and Reince are highly qualified leaders who worked well together on our campaign and led us to a historic victory. Now I will have them both with me in the White House as we work to make America great again.”
The dual selections are likely to send two separate signals to those closely watching Trump’s transition into power.
Indeed. For people who are scrutinizing the Trump appointments for indications of Trump’s ideological and practical intentions (that would be most of us at this blog), this tells us that for now he’s keeping the team of strange bedfellows that brought him here, with the more establishment representative (Priebus) elevated over the hard-hitting alt-rightish guy, but only slightly elevated.
Some people are going to be disappointed and/or fearful/angry about one of these appointments. Some are less than enthused about both. I’m not a big fan of Priebus but I have no real objection to him and I hope he’ll have a grounding and tempering influence on Trump, whereas Bannon raises red flags for me. However, I’m happy that Bannon was not named as Chief of Staff but instead drew the strategist position, which tends to be filled by a political operative good at the messaging part of the equation rather than the setting of policy itself. However, I’m not so naive as to say that such a person doesn’t ever have an effect on policy, though; I would imagine that he/he does.
Who is Bannon? See this for his Wiki: interesting facts in his background include naval officer and then Goldman Sachs investment banker (a similar Goldman Sachs background for Heidi Cruz was considered anathema by many in the Trump wing during the campaign). You can see at Wiki that there are allusions to Bannon’s possible anti-Semitism, and of course there’s his characterization as supporter of the alt-right. But to get to the bottom of those accusations and how much reality there is behind them in terms of the existence or degree of Bannon’s own bigotry as well as his ties to the more extreme white-supremacist wing of the alt-right is a very daunting task at this point.
So for the moment, the Bannon appointment remains a troubling warning sign that may or may not end up meaning anything dire.
One thing we can be pretty sure about is that Trump will have no trouble firing someone with whom he becomes displeased.
Georgetown, Harvard, Goldman Sachs. How Bannon got slandered as some kind of a nut is a mystery to me.
That what Spengler wrote: “A new Republican intellectual core is forming around Claremont Review, the Journal of American Greatness and–with a word from our sponsors–publications like PJ Media.” This is a more verifiable source description than a rather nebulous “alt-Right”, which everybody loves to cite but nobody knows what exactly it means. What I was able to dig out, it is a bunch of punks and beatniks with a rather puerile sense of humor and a habit of trolling and go to feats of counter-cultural provocation.
Priebus seems like a good balance to Bannon’s possibly too radical proposals. Not enough info to know his mind yet.
I am most curious whether Trump will seriously move forward on eliminating unconstitutional cabinet departments. And who would be a good general to lead that fight. Maybe Eugene Volokh?
This is another opinion from a man with a first-hand knowledge of the subject:
pjmedia.com/spengler/2016/11/14/trump-is-the-best-thing-that-has-happened-to-israel-in-years/
Not sure why the reservations about Priebus. Despite the doom and gloom predictions of adverse consequences to the down ballot because of the Trump nomination (which I shared), the GOP had a great election across the board. The Priebus led RNC has to get much credit for that; and Priebus merits credit for his personal work with Trump as well.
Confession, I don’t know anything about Bannon. But, it shouldn’t surprise that Trump brings in people from different points on the spectrum. A controversial candidate simply has to. G.W. Bush and Colin Powell come to mind. It will be interesting to see how it sorts out over time. There will be some turn over as incompatibilities are identified, and the results of that will be telling.
Sergey:
I disagree with your characterization of the alt-right.
Do a search on this blog to see what I’ve written about it in the past.
There are many elements in the alt-right, but there is a well-organized and deadly serious white-supremacist extremist wing within it that you ignore at your peril.
Trump is very close to his son-in-law who is an Orthodox Jew. If Bannon were an actual anti-semite I doubt the family would tolerate his active role in the administration.
stu:
The charge is not that Bannon is an active and “out” anti-Semite. It is something more covert, and which also involves possibly giving aid and convert to the virulently anti-Semitic wing of the alt-right.
Cornhead:
There’s no mystery about it
First of all, those credits were a while ago, and in the meantime Bannon has gone in a very different direction. People can change greatly over time, you know.
In addition, he has also given aid and comfort to the most extreme wings of the alt-right (the wing that is definitely guilty of bigotry; I have seen what they write).
Now, the question is not where the accusations come from, and why. The question is how much substance they have in terms of Bannon’s own thought and influence.
Neo, Cornhead,
I have been reading the Breitbart website pretty regularly since the start of the campaign, well before Bannon joined it. I have not seen any Jew-hating on that site.
donkatsu:
They probably get rid of comments that demonstrate it. But there is no question—none—that the extremist wing of the alt-right is anti-Semitic, and deeply so. There are other, more fringe-y websites that demonstrate it. They are also anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti a lot of things. Very hate-filled group. I have read some of their offerings; it’s no joke, and it’s not to be minimized. They’re existed for many years, and they mean business. They uniformly support Trump, which does not mean he condones them. But during the campaign he failed to speak out strongly enough against them.
In his “60 Minutes” interview last night, he spoke out more strongly. He needs to keep doing this, but they do not consider him their leader. They consider him a tool that they are using.
I certainly don’t buy the claim that Bannon is an anti-Semite. I have seen no evidence. The Breitbart site is kind of wild and clearly many of the commenters are goofy. I see this as a case of the guy just getting tagged with the alt-right label just to demonize him. That’s what the Left and MSM do.
Podesta, on the other hand, deserves all the grief he gets. But Podesta, Neera Tandeen and all of the Bernie people are going to go after Trump hard. And, of course, Barack is staying in DC.
Hillary’s taking money from SA and the Gulf States – along with the horrible Iran deal – is way more anti-Semitic than anything Breitbart has published.
And I well recall my first Trump rally in Sioux City, Iowa. Trump made a very strong statement for Israel and he received huge applause. I’m guessing there are maybe 2,000 Jews in that town. Ann Landers and Dear Abby grew up there years ago.
Trump opposers left and right,……………… The optimists were saying some version of “wait and see.”
Yes wait and see….
In Democratic Stronghold of New York City, Trump Finds Support
Some Far North Siders Voted Red In Sea Of Blue
Neo,
I understand there are real Jew-haters out there, I have the scars on my face and broken bones in my hands to prove it. However, the subject is Bannon, and I do not see how he enables this element at Breitbart.
I regularly visit the comments sections of certain websites just to take the temperature on this score. I see no mention of Bannon or Breitbart in these places. That Trump has worked for years with Jews in the NY real estate biz and has Jews in his immediate family makes this a totally red herring issue for me.
When we can see easily the large numbers of Jew-haters on the left and normalization of Juden Hass in the Democrat party leadership and cadre, it makes more sense to focus on the main locus of the syndrome, not its dying offshoots.
FWIW, if the Alt-R ever becomes a serious factor again, the FBI will be able to infiltrate it and neutralize the threat rather easily. They have done it before with the Klan and the Nazis.
Donkatsu
I don’t follow this issue as closely as you but the whole BDS movement and statehood for “Palestine” always struck me as as Democrat movements.
Agree with your NYC comment above. Trump could not have prospered in NYC if he was an anti-Semite.
donkatsu; Cornhead:
Anti-Semitism is only one aspect of the hatred of the extremist wing of the alt-right. And the accusation is not about Breitbart, but about the interface between all these groups, which is not necessarily overt and open.
That’s why it’s hard to know whether there’s any there there.
And Cornhead, I’ve written tons on this blog about the anti-Semitism of the left. We’re talking about the right now, because the right just won a big election and has an influx of energy.
Most of that is good, in my opinion. But we need to look at the bad, too, or at least the bad possibilities. They are very real. There’s nothing sacred about right or left.
As long as he doesn’t bring in a Valerie Jarrett or a Huma Abedin I’m OK with whoever he appoints in general. VJ especially has always been troubling as I see her as the real power (and unelected) over the last 8 years.
Neo, I read your post about alt-Right (published in April), but found no hard facts, only gut feeling as the main argument. I do not doubt that there are some antisemites or even actual Neo-Nazi associated with this phenomenon, but their numbers and influence on this very motley crowd is everybody’s guess, and somebody’s gut feeling is not a convincing argument for me. From a very general experience, in every society in turmoil some Nazi-like groups emerge, became a subject of much fear and concern far above their actual numbers and importance, and than disappear into irrelevance as soon as situation normalized. I have seen it in Russia and suspect the same dynamic applies to USA: a rather small marginal phenomenon, a huge overreaction of society on this and than its dissipation to almost complete extinction.
Sergey:
I don’t know what you would call “hard facts” at this point.
These people operate clandestinely to a certain extent. But some are very clear on what they want, and that they feel very empowered by the Trump candidacy and election.
There is no way to have “hard facts” about what will happen, because at this point it’s all gut feelings. My counsel is to be very aware and not in denial about the possibilities, and the fact that significant numbers of these people exist, and that they are serious about what they want.
Reading the most popular blogs usually associated with alt-Right, namely amGreatness and Breitbart.com, I found no disturbing material in both. And biographies of the leading authors indicate their closeness to the very organizations which Spengler cites as the core of new conservative movement: Claremont Review, a conservative scholar think tank, Roger Simon of PJ Media, Instapundit and like.
Ha! The core of the new conservative movement is right here at neo neo-con.
No wonder, all paranoid schizophrenics are very serious about what they want. By statistics, they comprise about 1% of general population and tend to gravitate to the most faddish conspiracy theory which is floating about. The problem is how responsive is general population to all this nonsense. Mental epidemics sometimes occur, and their scope depends on society immunity to bad ideas.
I’d been reading Breitbart for a while and didn’t notice overt editorial antisemitism. Breitbart seems to be pro Israel, though they don’t hesitate about making shady implications about progressive, secular American Jews. But, I stopped visiting the site when Shapiro left.
Where you do find naked antisemitism on that site is in the comment section, and man oh man, it’s pretty ripe stuff.
Discouragingly, the same kind of antisemitism is on many comment sections, even progressive ones like the Atlantic, Slate, dkos, Mondoweiss, etc. Read any article about Israel with a comment section, there it is.
The liberal outlets however claim their antisemitism is just ‘antizionism.’ At least on Breitbart, there’s pushback, or was.
But, more frightening to me, was meeting in person the ‘humanitarian’ antizionists who run a progressive, activist website– which caters to, and is financially supported by, Jew haters on the left, right and Middle East— all happily joined together with the happy aim of overthrowing Israel, for world peace– literally quoting from the Russian protocols of Zion, and the lesser known, updated Nazi edition.
They were attempting to groom me to join the cause… and that was what started me completely rethinking my politics.
It feels like one can’t really escape antisemitism at the moment. But of course, they don’t like to be called antisemites anymore.
Cornhead, to some extent I agree with you. It seems strange to me that Carl Icahn would donate millions to a super pac in support of Trump if he felt DJT was an anti-Semitic bigot. Ditto, Sheldon Adelson who donated $25 million and bought a newspaper in Las Vegas to try and help Trump.
On the other hand, there is no doubt in my mind what the alt-Right stands for. Bannon is sympathetic to these people, maybe in the sense that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or because he thinks he can use them as his personal band of shock troops against the radical left, or worse case because he has come to believe in identity politics. He and Trump are playing with fire.
By placing Bannon in a high level advisory post in the White House, Trump is opening himself up to legitimate charges of support for white identity at the least. I know the arguments that Bannon would use since they are ones presented by Trump supporters here, that is, that the left and Democrats will tar anyone no matter how much they disavow it as racist and anti-Semitic. Ignore it in other words. Go on about governing.
Trump is a man who got nominated by promising to deport millions of Mexicans and Central Americans. By promising to build a wall on our southern border to match the Berlin Wall in its effectiveness. By zeroing in on the theme that these people are rapists and murderers. (While distorting the percentages who are not and ignoring the far higher murder rate among American citizens in places like Chicago and Oakland.) And by appealing to disaffected white blue class people suffering from the effects of global trade, which people in the upper mid-west elected him president.
Can’t you see the problem with hiring a man whose propaganda vehicle, breitbart.com, is a voice for and written by alt-right bigots? What do you think is going to happen when the roundup starts? Can’t you see the beginnings already? What the hell are you thinking in giving Trump a pass on this?
Sergey:
I don’t have time to find details right now, but I don’t think any aware person denies that there is a white-supremacist, neo-Nazi,,\ black and Jew and Muslim and other-hating wing that is allied with the alt-right. The alt-right may not officially be claiming them, but they are there. In what numbers, we don’t know, but not in tiny numbers.
They come to this blog, too, but you don’t see them because I usually successfully get rid of them.
Here’s an interesting take on it.
Neo, I don’t care what soothing words Trump used in his interview. Actions speak louder than his ever changing blather. By hiring Bannon he sent an important signal. We’ll see what happens.
I am in the “vigilance is the price of liberty” camp when it comes to Bannon.
Whatever is in his heart of hearts, his site at least attracted a lot of white nationalist/anti-semitic commenters (see Esther’s comment above).
Of course we have to be fair, but Trump has throughout the campaign played very coy with this topic. From his original delayed reaction in disavowing the KKK, it seems he’s been trying to have it both ways. Turns out he is that master persuader Scott Adams always said he was and there’s no doubt the alt-right is gleeful over his ascension.
Trump fans, I don’t expect you to see any of this as troubling. I understand – I’d like to traffic in truth rather than propaganda and thus far neither Bannon or Trump has “done” anything. I don’t expect Bannon to be an overt white nationalist (and I’m not sure he actually is one).
All that being said, the tone set by this pick throws up red flags for me.
Kind of in the same way that I wonder what becomes of Breitbart – does it just continue to be Trump’s Pravda going forward, with overt connections to the white house?
What becomes of Trump’s businesses? Are they in a sham blind-trust to his children (who are also his trusted aids and confidants, at least the 2 possibly 3 oldest are) – in other words, do we have a major conflict of interest in that area as well?
These things will play themselves out. I’m in the wait and see camp.
Yes, the article you linked is interesting. But rather biased. For example, it cites Southern Poverty Law Center as reputable source, while it is actually extreme leftist organization, and equates racial realism of Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer to racism, which is a bit overblown. Even notion of White Nationalism is somewhat misrepresents the issue: it is about culture, not about race, and there are valid concerns about white identity politics, because interests of this group also should be somehow represented in multicultural society. But the main conclusion is exactly as I asserted: they will fail and fissile out.
Bill, true he’s not even in office yet. He could even let Bannon go before being sworn in. Wait and see.
I made a comment about five minutes ago, but it’s not showing. Just tried again and I got the pop-up message that it’s been posted. But it’s not here. ?
Bill, ever read comment section of Guardian, for example, for every article about Israel/Palestinian conflict or just about Israel? It always attracted a lot of white nationalist/anti-semitic commenters. Does this tell you anything about the paper itself?
It seems, at the moment, no one is able to adequately describe what the alt-right is and who affiliates with it. Yet, we will eventually label people as such as then there will be an alt right.
If it is a matter of tone, then is it the same kind of tone that Obama’s selection of Valerie Jarrett set that raised all kinds of red flags for me?
I know what kind of influence I think VJ exerts. I can’t prove any of it.
Maybe it’s just my aversion to labels and hashtags.
“If it is a matter of tone, then is it the same kind of tone that Obama’s selection of Valerie Jarrett set that raised all kinds of red flags for me?”
Were you happy with Valerie Jerrett as Obama’s trusted counselor?
If not, why not?
I’m assuming you had valid reasons.
There is a tone that was set with the Trump campaign, and it collided with social media anonymity and now I’m reading and seeing racist and anti-Semitic comments all over the place that we weren’t exposed to before (though they were always there).
Bannon actively utilized the alt-right and was (and I assume still is) a “burn it down” guy, and he’s vehemently opposed to most of the Republican party (for that matter, a lot of people are, including a lot of commenters here). His site attracted a lot of racist talk – doesn’t mean he is or even the site is, but a lot of people found a home there.
A lot of conservatives were and are concerned with Obama’s church, his childhood in a muslim country, muslim brotherhood ties. Those are what we call red flags, although they don’t necessarily result in actions. For example, I never thought Obama was actually a Muslim (I didn’t vote for him but don’t think he’s a monster).
Some of Trump’s associates bring similar red flags, at least to me. We just need to be smart, is all I’m saying. I’m tired of “my team” politics, especially since I no longer have a team.
Sergey
Yes, the article you linked is interesting. But rather biased. For example, it cites Southern Poverty Law Center as reputable source, while it is actually extreme leftist organization, and equates racial realism of Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer to racism, which is a bit overblown.
Nor would I consider the SPLC as a reputable source. It may have done some good work back in the day, but currently it appears to function more as a fundraiser predicated on the more “hate groups” you can pump up, the more funds you can raise. Ditto Sergey’s take on Jared Taylor. I read his Paved With Good Intentions 2 decades ago. Ditto Robert Spencer.
Speaking of connections, consider the following. Black Lives Matter Co-Founder and BLM Movement Hearts Venezuela’s Maduro.
A friend of tyranny in Venezuela is likely to be a friend of tyranny in the US.
OK, this is probably a really really dumb question, but why is it that I didn’t start hearing any buzz about the “alt-right” until this past year or so? Is it a think tank or academic term? Why had I never heard of it anywhere until this Bannon character was brought on board by the Trump people?
To my ears it sounds like one of those made-up words that folks start throwing around as though everyone who’s anyone should know them and if you don’t know them you’re just a dumb hick. Sort of like that miracle substance you hear about all the time in TV ads: “CoCu10 !” They use the term like it’s universally known that everyone knows it, like Vitamin D. [“You mean YOU don’t know what CoCu10 is?! Good gracious, get with the program you ill-informed hillbilly!”]
Yes, now that I think of it this is also a collateral request that someone explain to this hayseed from Georgia exactly what CoCu10 is and what it does. Is it like subluxations? Laetrile? Fire-walking?
Neo to Sergey @November 14th, 2016 at 3:11 pm
Here’s an interesting take on it. [the alt-right]
The source is Wired.com, which had an article earlier in the year on Venezuela. Venezuela’s Economic Success Fueled Its Electricity Crisis. It is difficult to imagine a more nonsensical article on Venezuela. There are some well-documented comments that point out the nonsense in the article. It this article on Venezuela is typical of what Wired.com puts out, Wired.com is NOT a reputable source at all.
Carl in Atlanta:
Read this about the alt-right:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/14/you-cant-whitewash-the-alt-rights-bigotry/
It’s been around awhile. Not a monolithic group. It has a following of fellow travelers. They have wormed their way into regular conservative websites. For instance, one has been linked by instapundit for 10 years, was totally “in the closet” as far as racial emphasis until the Trump phenomenon, and is now unreadable. As the article by Cathy Young shows, this isn’t just a web based bunch. Now they have direct access to the next president. That’s why the interest.
The alt-right , yeah, much, much worse than Keith Ellison at DNC and all the joy and tolerance he will bring to the table.
Conservatives tend to weed out bad seeds , the Left adopts, excuses and promotes them .
KKK and American Nazi Party praise Trump’s hiring of Bannon
Here’s an excerpt:
Emphasis mine.
My guess is everyone will see what they want to see based on whether they supported/support Trump or not.
For me, I’m concerned.
AND.. while we worry about Bannon, perhaps with some justification…we have this :
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/14/packetsled-puts-ceo-on-administrative-leave-after-he-threatens-to-take-out-trump-with-a-sniper-rifle/?singlepage=true
“The alt-right , yeah, much, much worse than Keith Ellison at DNC and all the joy and tolerance he will bring to the table.
Conservatives tend to weed out bad seeds , the Left adopts, excuses and promotes them .”
I think both parties keep whatever bad seeds help them win.
Plus, arguing “well, our X isn’t as bad as their Y” is politics as team sports.
Eyes open, everyone.
@DaveindeSwamp “AND.. while we worry about Bannon, perhaps with some justification…we have this”
That’s bad. Two things can be bad at once. Both parties can be wrong at once.
Here’s Ben Shapiro, who left Breitbart News back in March:
That Shapiro piece is in today’s Daily Wire. For some mysterious reason, the commenting thingie lets me preview it, but refuses to post it.
The link, that is. That’s what can’t be posted.
Putin has an ARMY of blog posters that troll the alt-right sites.
Their time stamps betray that they are not remotely within the Western Hemisphere.
Anti-Jewish // Protocols ‘logic’ is spewed at every turn by these professionals.
There is NO QUESTION that Putin has anti-Jewish ‘issues.’
If you went down his list of ex-friends from the oligarchy, they would read like a Tel Aviv phone book.
His ‘Jewish’ pals are all atheists… I’ll bet.
And, of course, it has been Moscow’s intent to aim the ummah // the active jihad at the West.
Daniel Greenfield has some very salient points:
http://politichicks.com/2016/11/daniel-greenfield-mad-mad-war/
The Putinist trolls are trying to ‘aim’ the alt-right, too.
All of this is straight out of the standard NKVD// KGB// SVR handbook.
Such manipulations were a HUGE part of the Russian Civil War — of a century ago.
I’m with Gellar. We can’t permit Islam to exist in the West. It’s as hostile to our culture and polity as the Nazis ever were.
I’m of the opinion we’re going to have to adopt a Constitutional Amendment to remove the cloak of legitimacy that Islamists operate under.
That will require a cultural shift, and a fulsome exposure of the Muslim threat. Right now, Barry has inserted Muslim moles all through government — eclipsing the mistakes of FDR and his Communists ‘pals.’
“The leader of America’s most prominent communist party credits Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders with helping usher socialism into the political mainstream, but says it’s essential to back Hillary Clinton if she defeats Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary.”
Let’s see. CPUSA backs Sanders, then Clinton.
Has 5000 members.
KKK backs Trump.
Has 5000 members.
Come on folks. Get a grip!
Brian E – understood. We can’t judge a man by who supports him, necessarily. Well said.
However, Trump has skillfully played the middle – a red flag went up when he didn’t immediately renounce the support of KKK/David Duke back in the day. His support has included a not insignificant number of white supremacists and anti-semites.
Maybe all Republicans garner that and in our twitter age we just have seen it more. I don’t know
Red flag of another sort went up when he promoted Bannon, who is much, much closer to the alt-right, to the CEO of his campaign. Bannon’s website was Trump’s Pravda.
Red flag up again now that Bannon is the “chief strategist”.
I’d say it’s incumbent upon Trump to help us lower the red flags. These are fair questions.
Blert:
“I’m with Gellar. We can’t permit Islam to exist in the West. It’s as hostile to our culture and polity as the Nazis ever were.”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The first amendment. I understand (though disagree) with people who think we should ban all Muslims from entering our country. But your statement goes way beyond that.
How many American Citizens are Muslim? How would you intend to “not permit Islam to exist in the west”?
You answered . . .
“I’m of the opinion we’re going to have to adopt a Constitutional Amendment to remove the cloak of legitimacy that Islamists operate under. “
OK, so that means repealing and replacing the first amendment. Do you really want to go there?
You’re suggesting adding a religious test to the Constitution.
I’m a Christian, believer in the Bible, the atoning death, burial and bodily resurrection of Jesus. And I don’t want religious freedom to be limited by cutting out one of the world’s major religions, because I know religious freedom only for some turns into religious freedom for none.
Brian E – what do you think of Blert’s suggestion? (I’m not trying to bait you – I know you are a reasonable Trump supporter, but interested – is there common ground between you and me on this, or do you think Blert’s got a good idea here?)
Bill,
Thanks. I get it and I agree with you to a certain extent.
To be blunt, I am concerned that “alt right” — whatever it is — could become the dumping ground for all those who do not agree with whatever the center of Republican Power is or becomes. And , again to be blunt, “alt right” is not looking like a place where I or perhaps anyone who might not agree on certain issues would be comfortable or want to be dumped.
From what have read I do not consider myself alt right, but I sure as heck was not on board with the GOP leadership or elite in the last 4 years, and especially during this election.
Alt right at the moment is like a “junk drawer”. And that makes me uncomfortable.
Am I to choose the side with the anti Israel activists, who are right now waving Palestinian flags at the anti Trump protests, chanting for an intifada revolution in America?
Or, do I choose the side those with those who wave the American flag and chant JewSA?
Yikes.
Esther – in a choice between two evils, choose neither. 🙂
Also, I know right now we’re in kind of a crazy time in our country.
It’s strange and eye-opening to me that it seems racial unity seems to be a particularly elusive goal these days.
Bill Says:
November 14th, 2016 at 6:44 pm
Excellent virtue signalling.
1) Islam is not a religion in any way comparable to those envisaged by the Founders. It demands a theocratic state.
2) Early arriving Muslims were over weighted with ex-Muslims trying to escape their families without suffering retribution, death being mandated.
3) It’s often possible to acculturate small groups of people. But what we’re dealing with is hijrah. This is an invasion by a hostile people, nothing less.
4) The way to tamp down Islam is by eradication of all mosques. They are uniformly led by hostile aliens, usually educated in Saudi Arabia, and are always paid by the King of Saudi Arabia or some other despot.
In Muslim societies the Big Man foots the bill. The hat is only passed for jihad. ( Islamic ‘charity’ = war funding for jihad )
5) The Nation of Islam is not Islamic. It was founded in the Great Depression, using a clean sheet of paper.
Without imams to pump up the hatred, the belief system that is Islam collapses of its own accord.
Since all of the imams in America are funded by alien despots, that is they are on an alien government payroll, it is absurd to equate them with any other clerical authority.
Yes, their existence is a gross violation of the First Amendment… since they ARE state sponsored. ( And hostile states at that. )
Chuck: Thanks for that link. Maybe I have indeed been living under a rock (as the author suggests) but I really don’t recall the alt-right becoming a “thing” in memeworld until this past spring (indeed, I had never before even heard of it).
Oh well; live and learn. I had never heard of the Gramscian March either until I learned about it right here on Neo.
With out of the way, can someone now please answer my questions about that other gaping blind spot in my knowledge base: the miracle substance called “CoQu10”?
Gringo:
I wouldn’t imagine that Venezuela would be in Wired‘s wheelhouse, but my experience with Wired is that it’s a good source in particular for internet-based news and stories. The characterization and identity of the alt-right would fall into that category.
Here is the fairly lengthy history of Wired.
Bill:
Well, I haven’t been on a team in a long long time, if ever, so I try to be evenhanded.
You write, “[Bannon’s] site attracted a lot of racist talk — doesn’t mean he is or even the site is, but a lot of people found a home there.”
I would add “and they failed to police it and ban those commenters.” That was a choice. I don’t allow that sort of overt and abusive racism here, and although they obviously have a lot more comments than I do, nevertheless I’m just one overworked person here and I do it. They’ve got the money to hire someone to do it if they cared to do so. It would be simplicity itself. They made a conscious decision not to.
the miracle substance called “CoQu10”?
Advertising?
I tease. Don’t know, but hear a lot of people say good things.
With any luck, Trump will pay absolutely no attention to Bannon, and simply go on his merry way doing whatever he sees fit to do to build the Trump brand.
Why, just last night he told Lesley Stahl he was “fine” with the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, although earlier this year he said he’d “strongly consider” appointing judges to overrule that decision.
“Of all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a “religious test” in the vetting of immigrants. Monotonously repeated in political speeches and talking-head blather, this claim is heedless of the Islamic doctrinal roots on which foreign-born Islamists and the jihadists they breed base their anti-Americanism. It is also dead wrong.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438536/immigration-religious-test-constitution-does-not-ban-vetting-immigrants-religion
Everything Blert has said is correct. Islam contains a civil code, Sharia Law, that fundamentalist Muslims would say supercedes US law.
I agree that we can absorb Muslims at a low rate. The Saudis have been exporting wahhabism worldwide and some/lot of it has reached the US and that’s a problem.
A big problem with Islam is that it is stuck in the 7th century. and it can’t escape. Reform minded Muslims want to change the concept of jihad, the struggle against unbelievers, to be a spiritual struggle, but that runs counter to what the text says and I don’t think has gained much traction, certainly not among fundamentalists.
I’ve read that the Old Testament is descriptive, while the Koran is proscriptive. And that’s the problem.
As to American Muslims, I don’t think we can or should treat them any differently.
“Of all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a “religious test” in the vetting of immigrants. “
Well, that’s not what I said.
Let me quote again what Blert said:
“We can’t permit Islam to exist in the West. It’s as hostile to our culture and polity as the Nazis ever were.
I’m of the opinion we’re going to have to adopt a Constitutional Amendment to remove the cloak of legitimacy that Islamists operate under.”
This is what I was referring to. Or, according to Blert, I was “virtue signaling” because I’m a little antsy about calls for a constitutional amendment to single out an entire religion.
“As to American Muslims, I don’t think we can or should treat them any differently.”
Well, of course we can’t. Not if we believe, as we say we do, in the Constitution. And not if we value religious freedom.
Brian E:
A religious test is wrong. But ideological tests are fine.
There is a difference.
There are many Muslims who are Muslims in name only or by birth only. There are many Muslims who have no interest in having sharia law or anything of the sort. I know quite a few of these people personally.
I wrote about the issue of a religious ban versus an ideological ban here. Go there and you’ll see that the far more appropriate, liberty-preserving, and effective way to screen people is on ideology.
“We can’t permit Islam to exist in the West. It’s as hostile to our culture and polity as the Nazis ever were.
I’m of the opinion we’re going to have to adopt a Constitutional Amendment to remove the cloak of legitimacy that Islamists operate under.”
The first sentence is true. It’s also true for Marxists, Nazi’s and anarchists.
I’m trying to think of the wording of a constitutional amendment that would produce the desired results.
I’m not sure we can survive as a liberal democracy. Oh, that’s right, we aren’t one of those. And our elected officials aren’t doing their job keeping us safe, so it appears we aren’t keeping our Republic either.
Sorry Neo, we need a complete ban on Muslims. That would still allow persecuted groups from the Syria to seek asylum. As to the persecution of Shia on Sunni violence, Iran and Saudi Arabia are going to have to take care of those groups.
I don’t really see an answer to this. If we target religious groups for surveillance because they represent a threat to us, it’s only a matter of a few elections until the atheist left uses those same laws to go after their favorite religious target–Christians.
“The first sentence is true. It’s also true for Marxists, Nazi’s and anarchists.”
Serious question: Do you know any Muslims?
“I’m not sure we can survive as a liberal democracy. Oh, that’s right, we aren’t one of those. And our elected officials aren’t doing their job keeping us safe, so it appears we aren’t keeping our Republic either.”
Wait, the Republic was saved with the election of Trump, remember?
You aren’t safe?
I don’t understand this. Of course we want to prevent terrorist attacks. But you personally have a miniscule chance of being killed by a terrorist. You have a much higher chance of being killed by a white guy.
And before everyone jumps all over me, yes, I know, we have to do whatever we can to keep ourselves safe from outside terroristic forces coming into our country. I support strong vetting.
But you guys are talking about Muslims who are American Citizens. What do you propose we do?
The safety you desire would require us to abolish the bill of rights. I don’t think that’s what you want.
Brian E:
Plenty of Muslims live in this country peacefully, support the Constitution, and do not want sharia law. I personally know quite a few who answer to that description.
An ideological test is possible and desirable, to ban the immigration of people who do not support liberty and who believe in sharia law.
Here’s is a link to an Andrew McCarthy article that goes into this quite extensively and with great clarity.
If you don’t see an answer to this, it’s because you haven’t looked hard enough, because I believe Andrew McCarthy provides one that preserves religious freedom, liberty, and our country.
I visit a couple of alt-right sites, some are part of the “neoreactionary” wing. This wing sees Trump as the first stepping stone a monarchy. Here’s an article that expresses what Trump President-Elect means to them: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/11/11/hail-trump-lets-keep-heads/. Keep in mind that this wing also has anti-semitism is their veins, seeing that Jews hold elite offices in government to entertainment (I do believe they’re accurate in this) but they see their power as corrupting, one of the main issues of the decline of the States if not Western civilization.
As for the white nationalists, their reasoning goes like this: whites built Western civilization therefore whites should stick to other whites. This is why Trump appeals to them – his idea of immigration control gets them excited, though for all the wrong reasons. It also helps Trump is white himself.
In many ways they see themselves as the “chosen” race that will save Western civilization from other races that do not contribute (Hispanics, blacks, or as one white nationalist puts it mulattos).
Some white nationalists do not see non-whites as truly “getting” refine culture or, say, Greek classics. Since non-whites have no lineage or shared culture with the likes of Plato they, to the white nationalist, cannot “get” Plato. According to certain white nationalists, at least the more intelligent ones, since whites made great operas, symphonies, architecture, basically claiming they made everything that non-whites benefit from, they are the superior race. Non-whites who admire the likes of Beethoven will never “get” the importance of it because they come from a different culture. At best they can admire it. Vice versa to a white looking at traditional Chinese art. The white can admire the art but not “get” it.
Full disclosure: I’m not white. Here is what a white nationalist said to me –
“My family moved to the Midwest in the 1850s. They and decent people like them built the farms, factories, schools, fraternities and the infrastructure you enjoy and profit from. But you don’t give a shit. You have no respect, no connection, no identity with them. They are as alien as a tribe in the Amazon.”
This comment was made after I said to another that he gets sensitive when anything suburbia is mentioned (he’s represents himself as a sophisticate — like Paris, wine etc.).
Our first exchange was more respective. We were talking about Greek life which we both agreed were good things with deep traditions and culture.
He expressed disdain that non-whites were ruining once all-white fraternities, as I quote him:
“They don’t give a shit about us. They’re looking for the blacks, Muslims, Chinese.”
When I said I wasn’t white his “hello, brother” (hello, fellow frat brother) vanished.
GRA:
I agree that people like that most definitely exist. I have seen some of their writings. I also think that although Trump is not one of them, they are encouraged by him both because he (until now, anyway) hasn’t dissociated himself strongly enough from them, and because they think that he creates conditions that help them.
They are serious, and they are dangerous.
I plan another post on the underpinnings of their philosophy.
Note: sorry for my horrible grammar. It’s been a long day for me.
I want to also say this about the alt-right: contrary to belief they aren’t all racists and anti-semites. the alt-right is rather diverse in its thinking. Here’s a philosophy map of this universe: https://alfinnextlevel.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/darkenlightenment2.png.
If there’s one thing that the alt-right does spectacular is being aware of the moral and structural decay of the West. They do not like SJWs. They do not like the MSM. They do not like leftists.
To me, despite my run-ins with some unsavory alt-righters, they are more on the right’s side than not.
Keep in mind that the monarchy wing to which I linked to in my first post see the Constitution, the Founding Fathers and the entire birth of America as something that needs to be changed.
As one wing wants whites to rule America (sometimes called “race realists”), another wants its government system to become something else.
@ neo: would you like some links to the alt-right sites I visit time to time? I keep them in my blogroll mainly because I agree with them when they speak about The Left or any type of cultural liberalism.
I wrote “As one wing wants whites to rule America (sometimes called “race realists”).” This is wrong. Race realists cane be said to hold the view that IQ and temperament are genetic in that high IQ are found more in whites, Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians. People may call those that hold this view as racist. This philosophy then carries over to why blacks or Hispanics do not see the same amount of monetary and cultural success.
high IQ, just means we worry extra well…
Ironically, I read that IQ tests were originally created to keep Jews out of this country.
@ Bill & Ann: As said I posted before the alt-right is a vast universe. The alt-right is synonymous with racism because that’s the group that shouts the loudest and is the most active in showing support for Trump. Shapiro is right that there is a strong drive to connect European white heritage within the alt-right, but where he goes wrong is that he thinks it’s the entire alt-right universe.
The white identity and racist part of the alt-right is just that: a part. It’s a particular sect and it shouldn’t represent the entire alt-right universe.
And Milo Y. as much as he loves Trump and now has a connection to the White House due to Bannon, should never hold a White House staffing position. There are rumors he may be up for Press Secretary position — no. No. No. No.
Esther Says:
November 14th, 2016 at 11:05 pm
high IQ, just means we worry extra well…
Ironically, I read that IQ tests were originally created to keep Jews out of this country.
&&&
Well, there’s an idea that is both paranoid and fulsomely wrong.
Binet launched research into IQ so as to identify children that were in need of extra special intervention so that they could read and write.
That’s why all of the original IQ testing was performed on children.
Also the original research was ethnically pure: just Whites. He didn’t expect to find racial variation — he wasn’t even looking in that direction.
“Wait, the Republic was saved with the election of Trump, remember?” – Bill
Very cute.
We dramatically increased Muslim immigration after 9/11 for what purpose?
Of course most Muslims are law abiding, just like most of us. But in general, Muslim religion isn’t compatible because the moderate Muslims will always acquiesce when confronted by the more fundamentalist element. I just haven’t seen much pushback by American Muslims to the radicalization by young Muslims already here.
This National Review article lays out some of the concerns.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396262/troubling-math-muslim-migration-ian-tuttle
My co-worker is the only Muslim I know, and after having heated debates during the Iraq War, he has slowly left the religion of his parents, brothers, cousins- in fact his entire clan back in Jordan.
He’s very Americanized, but his politics are very left leaning.
“Of course most Muslims are law abiding, just like most of us. But in general, Muslim religion isn’t compatible because the moderate Muslims will always acquiesce when confronted by the more fundamentalist element.”
Still trying to get to what you’re proposing I’m guessing a religious test for immigrants, but what about a) those already lawfully here and b) those that are American citizens?
Freedom of religion has to be for everyone or it ends up being for no one.
I know theologically conservative pastors who engage w Imams for conversation and for mutual cooperation – promoting religious freedom here to protect and benefit the Muslim minority and also in their countries to protect and benefit the Christian minorities there.
I know I’m becoming a bit of a one note and I don’t mean to be monopolizing this thread. But this election has been extremely illuminating to me and I’m becoming more interested in solutions.
The 1st states: No established religion and provides for the free expression of religion, it promotes freedom of political expression, and the right to freely associate and petition the government.
That said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Islam does pose a problem in that it is not just another expression of religion, but is as noted a political theory of subjugation all who do not submit. Islam is defined as a word meaning submission. The West needs to deal with this simple fact.
And yes, I do know a few people who are muslims and they are not scary, but many millionsof muslims fit that definition. It is a difficult conundruam.
Read Steven Gould, and starry eyed, saw him speak on the subject of IQ, apparently since then it’s become controversial?
At any rate, I’m practically inbred Ashkenazi, and do test well.
My theory is that, like Asian Tiger moms, you are required be smart or your Jewish mother will sit on your head and drive you insane until you are.
That’s how we did it in my family, your mileage may vary.
parker; Brian E.:
I realize that I linked to the wrong Andrew McCarthy article. You really should read the right one, which is this one. I think it solves the religion conundrum and offers a much better test.
Bill,
I understand that Neo is trying to avoid the religion issue by trying to parse it as ideological, but I think it’s unavoidable. Ban on all Muslim immigration in the short term.
As to legal residents, non-citizens, as long as they haven’t done anything for which they can be deported I wouldn’t. I suppose we can revoke their status. I don’t know enough about immigration law.
As to American citizens, they have the same rights as I do. If they break the law, they are subject to the same penalties as I am.
“I know theologically conservative pastors who engage w Imams for conversation and for mutual cooperation — promoting religious freedom here to protect and benefit the Muslim minority and also in their countries to protect and benefit the Christian minorities there. ” – Bill
The Muslims here already have religious freedom, unlike
Christians in most Muslim countries.
My brother taught a class in a Christian seminary in Egypt until the Muslim Brotherhood took power. It became too dangerous. The Christian nationals suffered severe and real persecution.
This whole thread is strange. The “alt-right” seems to be seen as racist (people of color bad) and white Europeans with their good cultural and philosophical contributions are good.
That is surely and undeniably true from a multi-century perspective.
And Jews? They overwhelmingly support the Left. Why should that entitle them to respect? The conduct of the ADL is overtly Leftist. So a Rightist should also think Jews work for the common good, not collective Statism a la Hillary and Bernie? Israeli Jews are cut from another cloth entirely, and I know of no one on the Right who is not adamant about Israel’s survival. The large majority of US Jews do not support Israel. Read Commentary, a politically conservative Jewish mag for a year to see what conservative Jews think.
The brouhaha about the alt-right is a distraction. A Democratic one. Unless Neo can tabulate evidence by self-professed alt-Rights that is damaging, beyond being opposed to “diversity”by race and sexual deviancy, as I am, I’m not paying attention. A bunch of fleas not carrying bacilli.
Frog:
No one said that Jewish support of the left “entitles them to respect.” I have no idea what you’re trying to say there.
But Jews, blacks, other minority groups, are entitled to respect as human beings in a country devoted to liberty. I hope that is clear.
What’s more, your assertion that Jews “overwhelmingly support the Left” is just plain incorrect, although I suppose if you redefine “the left” as “anyone who votes Democratic” you could make that case. Most Jews are Democrats and liberals, not leftists (as are most black people, most Hispanics, most Asian people, most urban dwellers, etc.).
What exactly are you suggesting?
By the way, here are some facts about Jewish voting patterns:
One more thing—it depends on how one defines “Jews.” Study after study says that religious Jews are quite heavily Republican, and that the most leftist Jews are secular Jews or cultural Jews who have no connection with the religion at all.
You write, that the “large majority” of American Jews don’t support Israel. But every poll I could find contradicts you. See this for example, as well as this.
You certainly make a lot of statements about Jews without giving a single link. You are incorrect about most of them.
Nor do I understand the point you’re trying to make. It’s okay to be anti-Semitic if you think that Jews are leftist and don’t support Israel? And by “anti-Semitic,” I don’t mean some sort of mild disapproval. I mean rage and the desire to exterminate.
I’ve seen that sentiment many times. Nor have I ever said—in fact, I’ve explicitly said the opposite—that this point of view dominates the alt-right. It does not. But it’s there, and it’s dangerous, and it’s not an insignificant group.
neo,
I am familiar with that AM post, but its a bit more complicated. There is no way to vet muslims entering from the hot beds of the ME, SE Asia, and Africa. But the same goes for all would be immigrants. Sorry to say, but it is impossible to seperate the wheat from the chaff with any certainty. Its like ebolia, the safest thing is to quarantine for a period of 2 to 5 years.
We have, under bho, tens of thousands crashing the border to the delight of the dnc and the chamber of commerce. This is why djt is the president elect.
Frog, many American Jews don’t seem to know there is even such a thing as conservative Jews, even if they’re conservative themselves.
And so many are bizarre about Israel, including the leftists who live there.
It’s puzzling, what with us supposed to be so smart.
Esther:
See this.
Whoa Frog,
I am not from your ” multi-century” blah, blah. Once in a while it is a good idea to realise you are over the top. (I could say full of shit, but I am trying to be polite.)
Esther,
It’s my understanding that the SAT was designed in part to negate the quota system of the 30’s that limited Jewish admission to elite colleges. The exact opposite of ‘keeping them out of the country’.
Ironically, the SAT is now characterized as a tool of ‘elite privilege’.
What everyone is skirting is the word fascism. We’ve got a bunch of smart ass gamer punks, wannabe journalists writing propaganda for websites that wouldn’t get a second look without outrageous click bait, self-professed “intellectuals” who write books and pen articles no one reads, has-been speech writers like Buchanan who didn’t have the brains of the Jewish kids he grew up with and as a result developed a chip on his shoulder that’s lasted a lifetime, and gay attention whores, all loosely grouped under the banner of a make-believe alt-Right movement. Their pathetic neo-fascism has managed to bring out every half-wit racist skinhead and David Duke supporter from under the rocks and garbage heaps. These losers found their perfect leader in a man who promises to cleanse the country of Mexicans and make the trains run on time. Where’s Mel Brooks when you need him.
Here you go, Milo, casting call:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmYIo7bcUw
So, in the dry residue we arrive to a classic conspiracy theory: somewhere, in unknown location, there is a powerful cabal of white supremacists hell bent on replacing constitutional republic with a fascist state. But it is so secretive that we can not name them, they communicate only by dog whistles understood only be the conspirators themselves, under anonymity provided by Internet nicknames, so it is impossible to prove anything about them and even their existence.
This becomes more and more interesting in its logical development: now when they have their man in White House as a confident of the President and his chief strategist, they can begin to implement their master plan of the world dominance using this moron as a puppet to overthrow liberal world order, dissolve NATO and EU, bring to power European fascists in many democratic countries and eventually conspire with Putin to once again divide Europe with Russia. I am sure that this theory soon will have a huge success among JStreet and became the main narrative of all liberal press in years to come.
Actually, Sergey, Trump’s unusual, admiring relationship with Putin and his stated desire to rework or walk away from our NATO commitments, simulateneous with Putin’s current more muscular approach to foreign policy and troubling Russian hacking during this election cycle are all causes of alarm for me.
Regarding the alt-right – they don’t have to be some big organized and well equipped movement for their to be concern that the President’s chief advisor has a cozy relationship with them.
Regarding immigration policy – yes, it’s a conundrum. I personally think closing off all immigration for 2 to 5 years is not that easy and may have adverse effects but it is of course not out of bounds constitutionally to work through the options. For my part I work with immigrants here legally and they want to go home now and then to visit their families Think any would take that risk of leaving the country with a capricious immigration policy? For some reason American kids no longer get computer science degrees. Just about everyone I hire is an immigrant. Maybe it’s where I live but I need them to get my job done. They are good at what they do, hard working, polite, smart, etc.
Regarding treatment of American citizens and legal residents of different religions and ethnicities. It’s easy to talk about their rights being taken away, isn’t it, when your particular race and religion is not at any risk to have your rights taken away. Perspective.
How can you expect to educate future code-writers in classes where half of students does not speak English and barely can read? This is already a reality in Southern California, Arizona and New Mexico. Do American Catholics or Evangelicals agree that their religious freedom is not under assault by attempts to take away religious exemptions under pretext of constantly expanding anti-discrimination laws?
Sergey, yes religious liberty is under attack here. That’s one reason I think it’s important to stand for liberty for all religions. Liberty for some ends up being liberty for none.
“Regarding treatment of American citizens and legal residents of different religions and ethnicities. It’s easy to talk about their rights being taken away, isn’t it, when your particular race and religion is not at any risk to have your rights taken away. Perspective.” – Bill
Amazing, isn’t it.
The people who think this is okay are not ever worried that the very laws they advocate for might, in future, be used against them.
That would never happen, NO, the dems will NEVER be elected again, nor have a majority in Congress to boot.
.
Bill, you said something elsewhere, wrt some realizations that this election has made clear.
One of them is just how many do not value the Founding principles and what the Constitution is all about.
.
I hate the phrase “the Constitution is not a suicide pact”.
Pretty handy justification for almost anything, that is.
I don’t think everyone using it means to do so, but it’s a case of one thing leads to another, down a slippery slope.
Repeating this meme just gives it more power to those who’d go well past anything they might intend.
Big Maq – you’re right.
If the Constitution needs fixing, there’s a well-ordered way of doing that through the amendment process. But we can’t just ignore it.
Is Trum still talking about Cruz’s wife being a tool of that bank, or has the whole “cuckservative” thing ended now that Trum puts GOP E cuckservatives into power for payment of political favors?
As for people who thought Trum would be able to back away from the Alt Right, Bannon is there for ya.
True, Trum could have cut his ties, but it’d be suicidal to do so in DC without a loyal Household guard to replace the Old Guard.
As for Bannon, if I recall he was a Leftist/Hollywood guy Breitbart brought up and has now ended up in control of Trumpbart, formerly some Breitbart news sites.
Breitbart would also have allied with Trum, but recall that Breitbart was a far better fighter and also far better as a human being than Trum.
https://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2016/11/15/the-future-of-the-american-experiment-while-talking-with-the-alt-right/
Here’s some more background on current relations in the ALt Right coalition against the Leftist alliance.
If anyone wants a background brief on VoxDay, that’ll take more links though. It’s not hard though, just read his blog archives.
Another fun (and totally predictable) tidbit. Trump’s kids are his transition team, and he’s actually asking to get them top secret clearance.
They also will run his companies in an (ahem) “Blind Trust”.
This will be Crony Capitalism on steroids, with the President and Trump being the Cronies (and also the same actual person).
That has to be stopped. But I’m doubtful it will be.
“Portland, Ore.–More than half of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland didn’t vote in Oregon, according to state election records.
“At least sixty-nine demonstrators either didn’t turn in a ballot or weren’t registered to vote in the state. {status of another 19 remains undetermined}
“KGW compiled a list of the 112 people arrested by the Portland Police Bureau during recent protests. Those names and ages, provided by police, were then compared to state voter logs by Multnomah County Elections officials.”
Youngsters just recreating.
People sure paint with a broad brush with their labels. Alt-right? Who defined it? Who belongs to it? Do they self identify? Should everyone who does not think in the modern cookie cutter mold–if they are right of center–be considered part of the alt-right? Actually, I haven’t seen any Alt-right riots–I mean protests. I haven’t seen that many hate crimes attributed to the alt-right; and we know that our government is ever vigilant to detect hate crimes committed by people who might qualify as alt-right.
It is odd that folks on an internet forum put so much stock in what is posted on the more gritty forums. There are plenty of those that cater to White, Black, Left, Right , or a host of other “groups”. Many of them routinely contain language that does not meet PC standards, or even standards of decency. Some Observers might actually think that they are healthy as they provide a vent for frustrations. If they start to call for violence; and if others respond, it becomes a different matter. I am sure the government is monitoring them for such trends.
Sergey:
You seem quite sarcastic about this.
Do you really think there aren’t groups of neo-Nazis around? This is hardly a new phenomenon. There are also people who aren’t technically fully-fledged neo-Nazis who are rather close to espousing policies that aren’t many steps removed.
Do you really think they don’t use the internet to organize?
Do you really think they would always be up-front when they do so?
Do you really think they don’t want power?
Do you really think they are not rejoicing at Trump’s election?
The real question isn’t whether they exist or what the answer is to all those questions I just asked. The real question is how powerful they can become, and whether someone like Bannon is allied with them or whether they just happen to think he is. Those last two question are the important ones.
As for links, plenty of them have been given. Not every article that lists them is listing actual bona fide white supremacists; there is a tendency towards over-inclusion. But there are plenty of such articles with plenty of such sites. Here’s one.
I react involuntarily to seeing someone qualified as “extreme” or “far” right, conservative, etc., particularly when it comes from the democrat side. My standard question is “What has he ACTUALLY said or done that justifies the label, or is this just a smear?”
Guilt by vague association or wild interpretation just doesn’t justify the condemnation. Would someone save me further reading and point out to me the post or posts above that meet my requirements? To the left, support of the second amendment is far right.
For what its worth, David Horowitz has been quoted saying that Bannon is no anti-semite. I love the idea of Trump’s hiring a trickster, as Breitbart was and Bannon is, I hear. Trump won because he didn’t play by the rules, and I hope he never does. Give us more of the spirit that destroyed ACORN.
More from Spengler/Golaman: Why the Big Lie about Steve Bannon?
More at the link.
That would be”Goldman,” not “Golaman.”
Let’s go back to what Ben Shapiro — who worked for Bannon at Breitbart — wrote about him:
It’s the pandering.
Marginals are marginals and are inherently incapable to become anything else. Most of them are simply crazies and can only exchange soundbites to encourage each other. This is the same public we see in street fighting after their favorite soccer team loses. Bar brawls is the ultimate expression of their “resolve”. In complex modern society they have zero chance to come to power. Even in England in 1930s, when their chances were much better, they failed royally.
What the hell European ethnicity means? There is not and never will be such ethnic group. Anglo-Saxons are, indeed, a well-defined ethnicity. Germans are, French, Italians and many other European nations, too. The remarkable feature of Anglo-Saxons is their immunity to all types of totalitarian ideology. Continental European nations obviously lack this immunity, as history has shown. So if Western culture means individualism and rule of law, it will certainly would not last long in any society where Anglo-Saxons are not at the helm.
Quite soon we will see a repeat of 1920-30 years power struggle in Europe, when Communists were at war with Nazi, Fascists or Falangists in many countries: Spain, Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria and some Balkan states. Now pro-Europe liberals would clash with European nationalists and euroskeptics. My prognosis is that in Central and Eastern Europe nationalists will win, Germany and France will be divided so no camp can overcome the other. Among this madness, Britain will be an island of tranquility and common sense.
“All we have learned from the sewage-storm directed at Bannon is that the Establishment plays dirty and that the formerly Republican #NeverTrumpers aren’t just misguided ideologues, but also yellow-bellied, gutter-crawling, backstabbing, bushwacking liars.”
Yeah, that’s all they have learned.
It’s hard to be a Republican elitist like myself – I’m going to miss all those Georgetown cocktail parties.
This is stupid. What Ann said – it’s the pandering. It’s the amoral, alynskyite, brutal use of whatever tool is at hand (in Bannon’s case, a whole website for Trump Pravda-ing that was and is crawling with virulent alt-right thuggery)
I’m pretty sure many of you were pretty freaked out by some of Obama’s associates. Remember Van Jones?
Ask yourself – how come you get to freak out but others who have similar concerns (and a lot of conservatives, myself included, have concerns about Bannon. This isn’t a leftist thing, though they are three sheets about this as well) don’t?
A lot of you are FREAKED OUT about immigration, predicting the end of the Republic, for example. I can’t have concerns about an alt-right pied piper like Bannon?
The issue with Bannon is not that he won (he did), not that he’s good at what he does (he is). The issue is that he is a few steps away from the Oval Office now and he has a lot of baggage.
On a side note, I’m sick of people describing the hidden motives of the Never Trumpers. We existed because Trump was, in our opinion, unfit for the presidency. I hope I’m wrong.
This is must-read: pjmedia.com/spengler/2016/11/15/why-the-bie-lie-about-steve-bannon/?singlepage=true
When slander and libel are used for a character assassination of a decent person on such scale, it is moral imperative to oppose such attempts and counter them with truth.
If he’s a decent person, he’ll disavow the white nationalists and anti-semites who have flocked to the Breitbart standard.
There are no white nationalists or antisemites among Breitbart autors or columnists. Such opinions can be seen only in comment section. How to disavow anonymous comments? To shut down comment section?
Sergey,
You and I will have different levels of tolerance for the alt-right and those associated with them. Bannon bragged to a reporter at the Republican National Convention that Brietbart is a “platform for the alt-right.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenkilloran/2016/11/14/steve-bannon-and-breitbart-news-why-everyone-but-the-alt-right-fears-trumps-top-adviser-pick/#2d3150f4504f
Of course, you can define the alt-right anyway you want (and as a Trump supporter you’ll define it as benignly as possible). I’ve been saying for along time in these comments threads that the alt-right scares the cr@p out of me for multiple reasons.
We are in a time of a lot of racial turmoil, fear, distrust, etc. I don’t know if Bannon is a racist in his heart and there is evidence that he’s pro-Israel (although there’s also sworn testimony from his ex-wife that he’s an anti-Semite).
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293532-bannons-ex-wife-he-didnt-want-the-girls-going-to-school
All that being said, it’s a bad look for Trump when he should be calming things down (and doing more than just saying “stop it” on 60 minutes)
Tempest in a tea-pot? Possibly. But at the presidential level perception matters, a lot.
I’m opposed to this appointment.
@Sergey – agree 100% – absolutely nobody there on notsobrightbarf’s payroll are remotely white nationalists nor antisemites.
The commenters are all there for the cookies and ice cream that those folks are offering up.
Totally benign. Nothing to see there.
/s
Sergey:
It is simplicity itself to shut off comments like that, and it doesn’t require anything remotely similar to shutting down the comments section
I wrote a comment earlier on this thread explaining this. If you didn’t see it, I’ll repeat it now.
In response to someone’s pointing out that Bannon’s site was loaded with racist comments, I said:
I will add a couple of things.
The first is that if I hadn’t eliminated those comments and banned those commenters, this site’s comments section would have looked like Breitbart’s (although with fewer comments, of course). The second is to reiterate that it’s not hard to do at all, and that once you do it the word gets around and you usually don’t have to do it quite as often after that. The third is that, had they done it at Breitbart and some of the other sites like that, they would have lost a significant portion of their enormous influx of traffic, and alienated some Trump voters. They purposely provided a comfortable home for racist commenters.
I’ve been saying for along time in these comments threads that the alt-right scares the cr@p out of me for multiple reasons.
Then instead of arguing against the pro Trum voters here, you should have been asking Eric and I questions about the Alt Right. Preparation is a necessity these days for dangers small and large.
but also yellow-bellied, gutter-crawling, backstabbing, bushwacking liars. Hell hath no fury like a self-designated elite scorned.
Gold boy there talking about Bannon or somebody else? I distinctly remember Bannon got rid of a few Breitbart staffers that weren’t part of his faction, for going up to Trum and asking Trum questions.
Oldflyer Says:
November 15th, 2016 at 12:10 pm
People sure paint with a broad brush with their labels. Alt-right? Who defined it? Who belongs to it? Do they self identify?
Your ignorance isn’t exactly a point in your favor, Old. The Alternative Right has been on the horizon since at least last year for the average citizens, and from 2012 for a select minority.
As for riots, the Alt Right does their rioting online. It’s cheaper and more effective that way.
I spend hours every day on the computer. I read PJ Media) columnists a lot. Until about five months ago I had read the NY Times daily. I subscribe to and read the WSJ and the New Yorker. I surf for hours a day here and there (I am retired).
The first mention of alt.right that I encountered was on Tyler Cowen’s Marginal Revolution (an excellent blog). That might have been two or three months ago, but not earlier.
I wonder if Oldflyer’s “since at least the last year for the average citizens” is accurate.
Sorry, that was Ymarsakar’s comment, not Odldlyer’s.
I grew up in the 50s, in a Catholic neighborhood, long before Pope John Paul II. There was an anti-Jewish covenant in my parents’ deed, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had invalidated only a couple of years earlier.
“Hebe,” “kike,” sheeny,” and “Christ-killer” were very familiar words to me, as were fights with the Catholic boys. And that was NOTHING compared to what my father went through a generation before.
In 1967, George Lincoln Rockwell was invited to and came to speak at my college — a major Midwestern state university.
In 1973 or 74 my wife and I went to Palm Beach for a vacation. Jews were not admitted to many hotels or country clubs, and blacks had to be “over the bridge” (out of town) by midnight. (Incidently, you know who destroyed that town’s rules? Donald Trump, with his resort, that’s who.)
In 1978, some Nazis tried to march through the Chicago Jewish neighborhood of Skokie. Eventually, after the ACLU litigated it all the way to the US Supreme Court, about 20 Nazis showed up, milled around for 10 minutes, and left.
In 1991, three days of anti-Jewish riots broke out in Brooklyn after a car crash, with two deaths, many beatings, and looting, described as the worst anti-Semitic incident in US history.
Has anything remotely resembling those events happened in the last 25 years? And now you’re telling me that some guy, who runs a website, that has among its commenters some Mom’s basement-dwelling trolls, who like to pretend they’re big, bad racists, is bringing back the Brownshirts?
Please, don’t talk about anti-Semites and neo-Nazis. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Richard Saunders:
WHO doesn’t know what he/she is talking about?
I most definitely know what I’m talking about. I am of the same generation as you, for starters. And I have studied history as well.
I have also been to many blogs where many people talk freely about sentiments that would make your blood run cold.
I very much know what I’m talking about.
Nor do I see anyone here suggesting that Bannon himself is bringing back the brownshirts.
Stubbs:
I don’t know what an average citizen reads or doesn’t read.
But I can tell you that the first mention of the alt-right I can find on my blog was on August 10, 2015, in the comments section. That’s well over a year ago. Note this excerpt from that comment:
Note that the commenter (Eric) writes what used to be called the alt-right, and that he doesn’t even know if they still use that word. If he was saying that a year and three months ago, and indicating the phrase was an older one, that tells you a lot about how long this has been around.
After that, there was often mention of the alt-right in the comments section here, and discussions about it. I decided to write a post about it in April of 2016, seven months ago.
“As long as he doesn’t bring in a Valerie Jarrett or a Huma Abedin I’m OK with whoever he appoints in general. VJ especially has always been troubling as I see her as the real power (and unelected) over the last 8 years.” – physicsguy
steve bunion is a twofer on red flags:
He is to be appointed trump’s “valerie jarrett”.
He is also something of a “jeremiah wright” in that he led (leads) an organization that gives home / preaches to many who have the alt-r world view.
Time will tell exactly what the effect will be, but I suspect it gives prominence to that same world view as expressed at notsobritebarf.
Neo — Having been punched in the face by anti-Semites, having seen uniformed American Nazis up close, having been in places where Jews were denied admission to hotels and clubs, having been in Germany during a pre-Vatican II Oberammergau Passion Play (attendees reported it wasn’t anti-Semitic because “It’s true!”) having graduated law school at a time when there were Jewish law firms and non-Jewish law firms and never the twain did meet, I just can’t get too excited about a bunch of internet trolls.
The only real anti-Semitism I have seen in a long time comes from the Left and Islam.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Richard Saunders:
Of course it could turn out to be nothing. But there’s no reason to assume that.
What I’m saying is that dismissing these people as trolls is very dangerous. The Nazis in Germany were dismissed by many people at first, too, and for a while after that. If the internet had existed them, they would have been trolling, too.
There’s plenty of real anti-Semitism at websites these people run, just as real as that of the left. They are very serious. Whether they will ever act on it remains to be seen.
@Richard – you are making like that crap is okay, and not worth concern, just because it is “not as bad as what I saw when I was a kid”.
Turning a blind eye to that empowers those who think like that.
Having a man who essentially encourages it through his media company in such a position of influence on the president is a grave red flag on where this kind of thinking may be headed.