Dean Baquet asks if Trump feels like he did things to energize the alt-right movement. “I don’t think so, Dean,” Trump replies....Here's the NYT article from a few days ago about the conference referred to above: "White Nationalists Celebrate ‘an Awakening’ After Donald Trump’s Victory."
Trump: “I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group. It’s not a group I want to energize, and if they are energized, I want to look into it and find out why."...
On Bannon: "If I thought he was a racist or alt-right or any of the things, the terms we could use, I wouldn't even think about hiring him."...
Asked point-blank about Nazi conference in DC over wknd: @realDonaldTrump tells @nytimes "of course" "I disavow and condemn them"
In the bowels of the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, three blocks from the White House, members of the so-called alt-right movement gathered for what they had supposed would be an autopsy to plot their grim future under a Clinton administration. Instead, they celebrated the unexpected march of their white nationalist ideas toward the mainstream, portraying Mr. Trump’s win as validation that the tide had turned in their fight to preserve white culture.Here's the Mother Jones article in which Steve Bannon is quoted as saying — referring to Breitbart.com — "We're the platform for the alt-right." How can that be squared with Trump's statement today that if he thought Bannon were alt-right, he wouldn't even consider hiring him? Bannon could deny ever saying that, or he could clarify that when he said it, he intended the term"alt-right" — which is new and not crisply defined — to be understood in a broad sense and not the more restrictive sense that you can tell Trump intended when he threw "alt-right" into the garbled phrase "a racist or alt-right or any of the things, the terms we could use."
“It’s been an awakening,” Richard B. Spencer, who is credited with coining the term alt-right, said at the gathering on Saturday. “This is what a successful movement looks like.”...
Mr. Trump has shrugged off any suggestions that he has connections to the alt-right. But his hard-line views on immigration and his “America First” foreign policy have captivated members of the movement. His appointment as chief strategist of Stephen K. Bannon, who has called Breitbart News, the website he long ran, a platform for the alt-right, has reinforced the notion that the incoming president is on their side....
Trump's instinct to disavow and condemn was good politics. He'd have been slammed over any hesitation. He's seen that before. He must know he doesn't want to give his antagonists any material that could fit the he's-a-racist template they're eager to impose. It wasn't worth making any nice distinctions about the scope of the term "alt-right." Best to leave that to be sorted out later.
Posts
90 comments:
The alt-right is especially Milo Yiannapolis who is a gay provocateur and loves it
How do you square that circle? The left is hysterical about these tiny little Nazi groups with 20 members.
The Palestinian student groups on campuses re better representation of Nazis than any Trump supporters.
Propaganda units need to propagandize.
None of this is even honest personal prejudice on the part of members of the media, or some groupthink mob mentality. It is not some organic thing. It is still an organized, centrally directed messaging machine, responding to a strategic plan and tactical orders.
This was so as far back as the Bush administration, the Scooter Libby case for instance.
"We're the platform for the alt-right." How can that be squared with Trump's statement today that if he thought Bannon were alt-right, he wouldn't even consider hiring him? Bannon could deny ever saying that, or he could clarify that when he said it, he intended the term"alt-right" — which is new and not crisply defined — to be understood in a broad sense and not the more restrictive sense that you can tell Trump intended when he threw "alt-right" into the garbled phrase "a racist or alt-right or any of the things, the terms we could use."
There is an alt-right in a broad sense, as you say. I keep seeing this guy called "the leader of the alt-right", or similar phrasing, by the usual suspects. There is no Alt-Right(tm) of which Richard Spencer is a, or the, leader. Looks to me like an insignificant attention whore à la David Duke, whom the MSM has decided to make the go-to voice of "the" alt-right, out of a combination of laziness and stupidity. Or maybe it's just a matter of their barreling on with their ham-handed efforts to smear-by-association, because they just can't help themselves.
"Feminazis"... "Gaystapo"... These too are terms meant to provoke.
The only source for Bannon saying that Breitbart is "the platform for the Alt-Right" is a reporter from Mother Jones? Color me skeptical. It's on tape or it didn't happen.
Just how bad can this misrepresentation be? The other day on NPR a conservative, not even really a Trump supporter, was being interviewed on Morning Edition, and he described Trump's winning coalition. The NPR interviewer repeated the words back but added the word "white". The interviewee went ballistic & said "I didn't say those words, & I want the record to state that I didn't say "white"".
@Michael K
Milo doesn't think of himself as Alt-Right. He said as much in an MSNBC interview here, at about 00:38.
Michael K: The left is hysterical about these tiny little Nazi groups with 20 members.
That's what lazy-minded chickenshits do. Coasting on a world view made up of the half-baked slogans and conventional wisdom of one's college days is a lot easier than taking a hard look at what's really going on in the world and trying to make sense of it.
Thinking is hard.
The trap being sprung is that Trump can no longer say what he notices because it might encourage white supremicists, as if they were numerous and the big problem.
Most racists today wish blacks well.
The problem is good character, which is not encouraged in young blacks, with the self-destructive effects seen all over. Instead of good character, have a grudge, is taught.
Who, in their right mind, gives the term "ALT-Right" any validity?
It's just another "pulled from our asses" term from leftist.
All branding flows from Hillary sitting on a couch, introducing the World to the Right Wing Conspiracy.
Far right, Extreme Right, and now the especially lame ALT-Right make great copy, but doesn't move the electorate.
Continue to scream, "racist!" At white folks. What could go wrong?
Oh, wait...
Trump began the day with a Tweet cancelling the meeting with the Times, which he called "the failing New York Times."
By the end of the day Trump was calling the Times not merely "a great, great American jewel," but even "a world jewel."
What sort of bullshit is that? I'm used to political bullshit. Evasion, vagueness, refusal to commit. But Trump's bullshit is almost psychotic. I actually think political bullshit is more respectable, more measured and more principled than business bullshit. Or in Trump's case, public relations/marketing bullshit. When I think "businessman," I don't think of a guy like Trump. I think "Shamwow guy" when it comes to Trump.
They will keep trying to tarnish his brand and he will keep cleaning it, or inventing new brands. A natural competition and no less vicious (on their part, anyway) for being prosecuted with apparent good manners. "Mr. Trump, the Satan's Choice Motorcycle Gang has published a full-page ad praising your policies, when did you ever formally disavow them?" "Mr. Trump, there is a 12-year-old boy in Tampa who says you have inspired him to hate gays, would you like to comment on that?"
Etc etc etc. The media really don't seem to have much to work with on the substance (of actual cases of coordination by Trump with, or support by/for very bad actors); and they have really nothing to work with on the procedure. Trump knows biz, he knows show biz, he has been building and defending his corporate brands, his personal reputation, his street cred, since long before most of these people had gotten out of short pants.
Pass the popcorn.
Meade wrote: ""Feminazis"... "Gaystapo"... These too are terms meant to provoke."
So too are "Christianist" and "Sullivanist"
What was your point, Meade?
YoungHegelian: The only source for Bannon saying that Breitbart is "the platform for the Alt-Right" is a reporter from Mother Jones? Color me skeptical. It's on tape or it didn't happen.
Wouldn't bother me; I don't have any problem with the term being used in the loose sense to refer to the whole fuzzy (if now politically potent) mess of the anti-neocon/anti-neoliberal right. There's no getting the hysterics to stop with the nazi-paranoia crap (it's what they do; it's all they know), so best to pay them no never mind and employ useful terms in a normal sane person fashion.
Just how bad can this misrepresentation be? The other day on NPR a conservative, not even really a Trump supporter, was being interviewed on Morning Edition, and he described Trump's winning coalition. The NPR interviewer repeated the words back but added the word "white". The interviewee went ballistic & said "I didn't say those words, & I want the record to state that I didn't say "white"".
Lol. Good for him. Twats.
I don't listen to NPR anymore, but my husband continues to torture himself on his work commutes. (Kinda like worrying a sore tooth, I guess. Painful, but irresistible.) Says they've gone completely 'round the bend these days.
Denial of the charges is always proof of guilt. Unless it's somebody we liked being charged.
Chuck: "...I think "Shamwow guy" when it comes to Trump." LOL. True. I can practically hear him saying that guff as you quote it. He's a Galaxy-class BS Overlord, absolutely shameless. I find it to be, by turns, alarming, amusing and reassuring. Does it mean he's psychotic? No: as William Frankfort explains in his must-read classic, "On Bullshit," a bullshitter does not mistake what he says for the truth. A psychotic really thinks there are pink elephants, while Trump knows there aren't any, and he knows that you know there aren't, and he knows that you know that he knows that you know, etc. And, bottom line, he says it anyway, because it's all part of his riff on reality. His cheesy praise that is worth exactly nothing but helps everything roll along.
Here he praises the NYTimes in such an obviously BS way that we just have to laugh at his cheerful huckster style and absolutely impervious indifference to whether what he says has any truth at all. He doesn't believe what he says, and he doesn't expect you or the Times to think so either.
But he still sees an advantage to pushing out such BS. It does tend to create anchoring expectations, or a general ambiance, a style of speaking that rubs off on others, that might lead someone to speak incautiously, create some leverage he can use. So why not?
Pass the popcorn (part 2).
Without media help the white nationalist event in DC would have had five people. Thanks to media publicizing their ideology they grew to 200. If media keeps it up they could actually succeed in building a white nationalist movement where none existed.
Michael K - "The alt-right is especially Milo Yiannapolis..."
Milo isn't part of the alt-right.
Browndog - "Who, in their right mind, gives the term 'ALT-Right' any validity? It's just another 'pulled from our asses' term from leftist."
The left media misuse the term, but they didn't invent it.
The most interesting? No, the most boring. What did all these questions by "The worlds most important newspaper" amount to? Just a nonsense about climate changes, nazis, steve bannon, the electoral college, and what about St. Hillary?
What about immigration, the economy, DoD, the SCOTUS or foreign policy?
Yeah, who cares about that? Lets talk about Richard Spencer and his 14 followers.
Its as if Obama in November 2008 had been constantly asked to disavow the CPUSA over and over and over again.
When an avowed "Neo-Nazi" gets elected to Federal office, then wake me up. Otherwise, its just distraction and bullshit.
The most interesting? No, the most boring. What did all these questions by "The worlds most important newspaper" amount to? Just a nonsense about climate changes, nazis, steve bannon, the electoral college, and what about St. Hillary?
What about immigration, the economy, DoD, the SCOTUS or foreign policy?
Yeah, who cares about that? Lets talk about Richard Spencer and his 14 followers.
Its as if Obama in November 2008 had been constantly asked to disavow the CPUSA over and over and over again.
Whenever someone asks me "Are you 'x'?" I ask them "What do you mean by 'x'?" Because I could say I'm conservative only to hear them say "That means you're a racist!", or if I said I'm liberal they'd say "That means you are for State control!" Never, never let someone else define you.
AA: He must know he doesn't want to give his antagonists any material that could fit the he's-a-racist template they're eager to impose.
Actually he gives his antagonists all sorts of material that they can fit into the "he's-a-racist template they're so eager to impose". At least once a day, I'd say. (It's kinda hard to avoid when your antagonists define "racist" as "anyone who disagrees with us about anything".) He's been successful because he hasn't been treading on eggshells trying to avoid the "template". Trump simply isn't a white nationalist, and all he's doing here is saying that.
(Side note: it may be a personal sampling artifact, but the MSM seems to have ditched the idiotic "white supremacist" label in favor of the reasonably accurate "white nationalist". Interesting if so.)
I remember when our country's smear artists demanded incessantly that Martin Luther King disavow and condemn Communists.
It's what smear artists do.
The alt-right label has been shifted and twisted like taffy so the media can beat it up.
Milo considers himself alt right - he's a gay dude with a black Jewish boyfriend.
I'd like to know who came up with "alt-right"?
I saw a youtube video where Milo called himself alt-right. As Anne said, the term is used in several different ways. Milo was saying that it's a young, vibrant group who are concerned about some issues that no one else wanted... Not Nazis.
If Trump wants to convince folks that he does not support the alt-right - then it's easy to do - get rid of Bannon! Talk is cheap - especially from little boy Donald.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/business/media/donald-trump-new-york-times.html
“The Times is a great, great American jewel,” Mr. Trump declared as he prepared to leave the gathering in the newspaper’s 16th-floor boardroom, where portraits of former presidents adorn the walls.
“A world jewel,” added Mr. Trump, who was seated next to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the paper’s publisher. “And I hope we can all get along.”
“I cancelled today’s meeting with the failing @nytimes when the terms and conditions of the meeting were changed at the last moment. Not nice”
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/801021596228091905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
MikeR, Milo's been pretty clear about this: "I don’t consider myself a member of the alt-right." (19 September Breitbart article ‘How To Destroy The Alt Right’ by Yiannopoulos)
I wish they'd think of another name for the alt-right. Whenever I see "alt" I expect a keyboard command and it always annoys me slightly that it's not.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-alt-right-breitbart-news
""We're the platform for the alt-right," Bannon told me proudly when I interviewed him at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July. Though disavowed by every other major conservative news outlet, the alt-right has been Bannon's target audience ever since he took over Breitbart News from its late founder, Andrew Breitbart, four years ago. Under Bannon's leadership, the site has plunged into the fever swamps of conservatism, cheering white nationalist groups as an "eclectic mix of renegades," accusing President Barack Obama of importing "more hating Muslims," and waging an incessant war against the purveyors of "political correctness.""
Chuck,
Trump is offering the NYT a choice of what kind of relationship they'll have. Not difficult to guess which one the Times will choose but, hey, he offered!
Unknown,
Sounds like this Bannon fellow is on the beam!
Is althouse sure this was the most noteworthy stuff?
How about a precise look at his jabbering about the lack of limits re potus and his businesses?
Don't forget he's said that finding and maxing every loophole for his own benefit is smart.
AA
I would only believe that Mother Jones quote if a certified court reporter produced a transcript of that interview.
And check out John Hinderaker's post at Power Line re this disavowal business. Bad rhetoric by the Master Persuader here. When does Hillary Clinton condemn all those riots after the election and disavows herself from those all-left terrorists?
Is althouse sure this was the most noteworthy stuff?
How about a precise look at his jabbering about the lack of limits re potus and his businesses?
Don't forget he's said that finding and maxing every loophole for his own benefit is smart.
Is althouse sure this was the most noteworthy stuff?
How about a precise look at his jabbering about the lack of limits re potus and his businesses?
Don't forget he's said that finding and maxing every loophole for his own benefit is smart.
People, you arent dealing with people, as such, here, with the press. Or rather, their owners.
You are dealing with enemies. They are fundamentally opposed to your interests, or nearly all your interests. They would be happiest if you simply didnt exist.
There is no argument or reasoning with such. It is all about power, and in that game, under modern circumstances, there is no scope for accomodations or compromises. With a totalitarian bureaucratic state and economy it is all or nothing.
When Bannon says Breitbart is alt-right, I think he means MAGA nationalist, not white supremacist. Of course the NYT can't understand the distinction.
There are no leaders of the alt-right, only leading voices. Most are against having any appointed leaders for various strategic reasons. They prefer the Gamergate or 4GW model of activism.
Here's Vox Day's list of 16 alt-right principles which many but not all alt-right voices agree upon:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html
"TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests."
Calling Milo alt-right is like calling Christopher Hitchens a Christian because he was a vocal opponent of Islam. Just because they have the same enemy doesn't mean they are on the same team.
They are desperately trying to project [class] diversity on to their political opponents. The so-called "alt-right", as well as the majority of Americans, seem to oppose Democrats' reconstitution and rationalization of institutional and personal racism and sexism under their Pro-Choice/selective doctrine. Hopefully, they oppose abortion of life unworthy of life too, but... baby steps.
The class diversitists were also genuinely surprised when black Americans were found to lead American militias, not left-wing terrorist or right-wing anarchist groups. The liberal and progressive diversitists really need to stop judging people by the "color of their skin".
They would be happiest if you simply didnt exist
Exactly. What the Communists could not achieve through involuntary selection, the Leftists in Western societies have achieved through voluntary genocide normalized by establishment of a quasi-religion that denies science and human rights. Never again, right? Perhaps not.
Then the sheer audacity of reconstituting institutional racism, sexism, exclusion under the Pro-Choice/diversity doctrine. Extraordinary corruption. Progressive corruption.
I'm sorry, less than 300 crazies have a "convention" wherein they celebrate the Republican victory & that's proof Trump voters are all Nazi's? I'd much rather hear how Stalinist/Marxist/Leninists/Trotskyites have taken over all the astro-turf anti-Constitutional demonstrations.
Nobody knows what the hell they are talking about with respect to this topic, including the entire NYT brains trust, Steve Bannon, and Donald J. Trump.
I have heard the alt-right variously described (1) as a bunch of Constitutional originalists, (2) as a bunch who reject multiculturalism as an organizing principle of our society in favor of e pluribus unum, and (3) as a group of white supremacists. Which is it? Many would agree with (1) and (2) and reject (3).
Che Dolf said...
Browndog - "Who, in their right mind, gives the term 'ALT-Right' any validity? It's just another 'pulled from our asses' term from leftist."
The left media misuse the term, but they didn't invent it.
11/22/16, 9:22 PM
MSNBC's Chris Hayes seems to be the first to discover this term in December 2015. It's use became widespread beginning in 2016. Democrat party propagandists appear to have cribbed it from Richard Spencer's blog/webzine which started in 2010. There were a couple of essays in 2008/9 written by conservative writers which had "Alternative Right" in the title, but neither article referenced the term at all. One was on Intellectual conservatism/paleoconservatism, and the other was on conservative economics. Check the Wikipedia page for references to "alt-right". 99% from 2016...
Chuck: "What sort of bullshit is that? I'm used to political bullshit."
We know, Chuck, we know.
"Mr. Baquet, yesterday President-Elect Trump referred to your newspaper as 'a great jewel...of the world.'"
"When are you going to disavow your newspaper's connection with racism, islamophobia, homophobia, misogyny, and antisemitism?"
It's an intersecting Venn Diagram, the Alt-Right is the larger set and the racist White Nationalists are the smaller set. The Left wants to smear the Center Right by conflating the two. The same could be done on the other side by choosing a moderate Democrat, say Obama? Or say Hillary? and conflate their position with Alinski and history's famous Communist agitators, or even Satan himself since Alinski dedicated his "Rules for Radicals" to the fallen angel.
The thing about "alt right" is it seems no one actually calls themselves "alt right"--at most they defend others who are "alt right" and explain that "alt right" isn't so bad. Almost like some secret society!
Maybe that Spencer guy though.
And until a real person (i.e., not an anonymous Internet commenter who could be trolling) comes out and says "I'm alt-right" then it's safe to assume this is a group that does not actually exist except as a joke.
I have never met an alt righter, or a white nationalist, well, maybe I did meet one in the seventies, but one thing I won't trust is a media definition of a group of people with a political orientation. I have met "Tea Partiers" and they were nothing like described by the media.
Don't forget he's said that finding and maxing every loophole for his own benefit is smart. - PB&J
You are a master context stripper. But if Trump doesn't try to close some of these loopholes that benefit a tiny number of very rich people, which was his promise, that will be a black mark against him. We will see of these politically powerful, mostly Democrats, take it lying down, though.
An Awful Lot of Media Coverage for About 200 Losers Getting Together.
I find leftist mind-crime fascists and hack-media elites just as deplorable as white nationalists.
Milo is not alt right, then?
I cannot keep up with the media's high school labels.
"An Awful Lot of Media Coverage for About 200 Losers Getting Together."
Much larger numbers of pro-lifers get together every year in DC for the March for Life but it gets nothing near the breathless coverage of the Nazi fringe.
I could round up a couple hundred people in DC just to support moving Christmas to late January. I doubt the media would treat that as a groundswell (although they should--it's a very important issue!).
I'd much rather hear how Stalinist/Marxist/Leninists/Trotskyites have taken over all the astro-turf anti-Constitutional demonstrations.
Forgot the Maoists, notably there, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). A lot of the protesters are either old style leftists (the Stalinists/Marxists/etc), who have been openly supporting our enemies for generations, or those paid by George Soros and his ilk.
The Left is not hysterical about little Nazi groups with 20 members - or even 200.
It is deliberate smear tactics. Buwaya has it right - the MSM regard themselves as guerilla partisans in a battle to the death with the evil Empire and anything goes.
buwaya: People, you arent dealing with people, as such, here, with the press. Or rather, their owners.
You are dealing with enemies. They are fundamentally opposed to your interests, or nearly all your interests. They would be happiest if you simply didnt exist.
There is no argument or reasoning with such. It is all about power, and in that game, under modern circumstances, there is no scope for accomodations or compromises. With a totalitarian bureaucratic state and economy it is all or nothing.
Perhaps you've hit upon a useful definition for "alt-right" here: the people who, in their various ways, understand this. So the alt-right would not include mainstream American "conservatives", or any set who still think that arguing with these people (in the sense of disinterested rational discourse pointing out their errors, hypocrisy, and bias) is going to accomplish anything.
On election night I was talking to a young guy in Rancho Cucamonga. Second generation Mexican American. Major big time Trumpster on the immigration issue alone. He had Mentioned to me a couple days before that he was alt-right. I said that I had never heard that term in my entire life until that miserable skank Clinton introduced it to the public and what the hell did that even mean? To Angel it meant a Libertarian oriented GOP, specifically legalization! So I was down man.
Brando: And until a real person (i.e., not an anonymous Internet commenter who could be trolling) comes out and says "I'm alt-right" then it's safe to assume this is a group that does not actually exist except as a joke.
OK, I'm an anonymous internet commenter and have trolled the occasional troll in my time, but, fwiw, I'll cop to the label. I'm not a Conservative, Inc. conservative, or a liberal, or a libertarian, or whatever, and have been known to text frog memes to friends and family, so hey, why the hell not?
The label is no more or less accurate than other existing labels in identifying a general political orientation. It also works pretty well, merely as a phrase, in baiting the usual suspects into beclowning themselves. (So yeah, maybe you're correct in the implication that trollery is a basic feature.)
I love reading all these comments about how the alt.right is just an imaginary figment of some leftist reporter's mind. I wonder then who was sending all those vile nazi-themed tweets to my timeline, to David French's timeline, and to so many others who dared to oppose Donny during the primaries? And if their numbers are so small and insignificant, why was Donny so unwilling to attack them? Even now, he says he "disavows" the gang that was giving the Seig Heil in DC the other night, but he can't bring himself to say that they are fucking asshole losers, or even offer any kind of mild criticism. So no, I don't think Donny or Bannon are neo-nazis, but they were certainly willing to accept their support during the election and they deserve to be criticized for that.
To be honest Doug, It has all the earmarks of an Alt left dirty tricks. As we have all seen. When the going gets tough for a liberal, they make shit up.
"OK, I'm an anonymous internet commenter and have trolled the occasional troll in my time, but, fwiw, I'll cop to the label. I'm not a Conservative, Inc. conservative, or a liberal, or a libertarian, or whatever, and have been known to text frog memes to friends and family, so hey, why the hell not?"
I stand corrected--usually what I hear is "I'm not alt-right, but here's what they think..." and not so much "I'm alt-right and here's what we think."
Of course, if "alt right" is broadly enough defined, most of us probably could fit that label. Sort of like "alternative rock" can be almost anything.
"And if their numbers are so small and insignificant, why was Donny so unwilling to attack them? Even now, he says he "disavows" the gang that was giving the Seig Heil in DC the other night, but he can't bring himself to say that they are fucking asshole losers, or even offer any kind of mild criticism."
Well he has recently disavowed the "alt right" and perhaps his hesitancy on that is more a matter of not really knowing what they are (are they just rightists who reject then-mainstream conservatism, or something more?) as everyone seems to have a different definition of the group.
All of the Top 10 Corporate Tax Dodgers Have Donated to Hillary Clinton
hey! - how did that get in here?
At the next census, they should inquire as to who self identifies as transgendered or neo-Nazi. I wonder which group has the greater numbers. I keep reading about neonazis and transgendered people, but I have never actually met a member of either of these groups. I don't think that their numbers are sufficient to swing an election...... My sympathies go out to those who happen to be transgendered neonazis. Their life must be a lonely hell.
Douglas: I wonder then who was sending all those vile nazi-themed tweets to my timeline, to David French's timeline, and to so many others who dared to oppose Donny during the primaries?
Frankly, I'm surprised that gits like you and French and his fan-boys don't get trolled more than they do. ("[D]ared to oppose Donny"! Dared!, lol.) If I were a young guy with a twitter account, I'd probably find the temptation to troll such a bunch of pompous drama-queening clowns irresistible. Wouldn't make me a Powerful and Troubling New Political Movement, though.
why was Donny so unwilling to attack them? Even now, he says he "disavows" the gang that was giving the Seig Heil in DC the other night, but he can't bring himself to say that they are fucking asshole losers, or even offer any kind of mild criticism.
Why, oh why, don't national political figures publicly obsess about the insignificant shit that gets my panties in a twist!?! Why won't that fucking monkey dance when I say dance!?!
I dunno, Douglas. Nobody in power ever denounces the people I think are fucking asshole losers, either.
I dunno, Douglas. Nobody in power ever denounces the people I think are fucking asshole losers, either.
Hahahahaha! Genius.
Wall Street investment bankers have come out against the Republicans, I think it is time that Republicans return the favor. Does that make me "alt-right" or "anti-Semitic"?
I have learned over the years that despite being raised a nice Roman Catholic boy by my saintly mother and father, I am a racist bigot, a privileged member of the patriarchy who can't help but oppress others, a member of a social class (literate, educated, employed) who should be reviled, and on and on and on.
I admit to being a lapsed Catholic. But screw 'em for the rest of their idiotic attempts to "other" me into submission to their will. I had a damn mean older brother who taught me by horrible example that the proper response to bullying is a swift, unannounced nutpunch. Screw 'em all, and to hell their demands for conformity to their mindset.
I think that the Gamer Gate people had a point about the way the media pushes SJW agendas, does that make me "alt-right"?
I think that France has a right to keep being France, if they can, Britain too, Japan, China, India, Kenya, all of them, I believe in national self-determination. Now I think the US has a right to keep being the US too, which includes in our nationhood descendants of people enslaved and imported against their will, and immigration over the decades and centuries, but still I believe that our borders are sovereign and must be under democratic control. Does that make me "alt-right"?
"How can that be squared with Trump's statement today that if he thought Bannon were alt-right, he wouldn't even consider hiring him? Bannon could deny ever saying that, or he could clarify that when he said it, he intended the term"alt-right" — which is new and not crisply defined — to be understood in a broad sense and not the more restrictive sense that you can tell Trump intended when he threw "alt-right" into the garbled phrase "a racist or alt-right or any of the things, the terms we could use."
the alt RIGHT isn't really a "thing". It's a loose collection of people, many of whom are not even on the right who ally themselves over various interests, but are not really linked otherwise. Or are lumped together by their critics who are trying to make "alt right" equal "white supremacist".
This Spencer guy for example, I never even heard of him prior to him being highlighted by the media. Is he well known in "alt right" circles? Because he certainly was never part of trump's campaign.
I consider myself on the right and I wanted trump to win (even though I fully recognize that he isn't really conservstive and has a lot of problems) but I didn't even hear about the "alt right" until this election. how many people are part of this movement without even realizing they are art of alt right? Probably most.
What amuses me most about being called a racist by proxy, through party affiliation, by my liberal friends are the kinds of racist things they say and do all the time without even knowing it. For instance, blanket denunciations of believing Christians. I just roll my eyes and wonder if they have ever broken bread with a Black family in their own home, and held hands around the table to say grace.
Doug wrote:
"I love reading all these comments about how the alt.right is just an imaginary figment of some leftist reporter's mind. I wonder then who was sending all those vile nazi-themed tweets to my timeline, to David French's timeline, and to so many others who dared to oppose Donny during the primaries"
Doug does know there are such things as internet trolls, right?
"Wall Street investment bankers have come out against the Republicans, I think it is time that Republicans return the favor. Does that make me "alt-right" or "anti-Semitic"?"
Under special code bigotry I think so! We all know what "finance" and "bankers" really means! Unless the Left is bitching about them.
If we were talking about a different movement, say, the civil rights movement we'd have Marin Luther king and all the good thst came with him. But then you'd have the Nation of Islam, black panthers, black lives matter, the three percenters, black separatists etc etc etc. in other words, It's not just MLK.
Now, granted, it is valid to question which group has the biggest voice in the group. If those pushing inclusion in the group are a minority then it would be fair to say that the moviement may be extremist. However, when it comes to the alt RIGHT there is no evidence thst the white supremacists are anything but a tiny, tiny, tiny, minority of thst group.
Have we hpeven read anything thst neo Nazis or klan members have done in this country thst was big in decades? BLM has these protests that snarl traffic. The last tim the KKK tried to have a protest it was like ten guys, and the crowd tried to beat the crap out of them. It was actually pretty embarrassing how the crowd was more violent and totalitarian than the Klan.
So, all this Nazi talk from the left is simply noise. It doesn't reflect reality if trump or his supporters. It's simply based on their fear. But then again, they said the same thing about Bush, and Romney and Mccain. If they look under any bed for monsters, they always find a Nazi . That doesn't fly any more, and we're over the scare mongering.
Blogger sunsong said...
If Trump wants to convince folks that he does not support the alt-right - then it's easy to do - get rid of Bannon! Talk is cheap - especially from little boy Donald.
This, of course, is what this kerfuffle is all about. The left wants to try to dismantle Trump's team. The next ploy will be to accuse Jared Kushner who really was the architect of Trump's win of being a Israeli plant or of having "dual loyalty."
The left is shameless. Al Sharpton in the White House hundreds of times and Creamer even having meetings with Obama.
Trump's instinct to disavow and condemn was good politics. He'd have been slammed over any hesitation. He's seen that before.
He learns. That's part of why his opponent lost.
Really Ann? Making a categorical statement like that makes him vulnerable to the quote.
I could see Trump saying "What is alt right to you?"
If/when the response is "Racism", he could follow up with "Well..in that case, I know he's not a racist, that I can tell you."
jaydub said...
Chuck: "What sort of bullshit is that? I'm used to political bullshit."
We know, Chuck, we know.
My point being that Donald Trump's own very peculiar brand of bullshit is incomparably more laughable, insane, and unprincipled than even the worst political bullshit in Washington.
Silly me. I thought I was alt-Right for most of the last year, for the same reason I'm alt-country. I love many types of country music, but hate just about all the crap that's been played on the Top 40 country stations for 30+ years. I've never done the user-group stuff on-line, but I'm pretty sure that makes me alt-country. I'm also on the right politically, but despise the mainstream Republicans who've been fucking up for years: the congressional leadership who can never seem to bring themselves to vote for the things they promise to vote for every two years, the editors of National Review, McCain, Romney, etc. I thought that made me "alt-Right" along with tens of millions of other Americans, less than 1% of whom are Nazis, Klansmen, or anything of the sort. I'm a little surprised to find that I was wrong.
To put it another way, I thought alt-Right meant anyone who agreed with the joke about how establishment Republicans are the Washington Generals of politics: making a good living being good losers, they don't even really want to win. Did it really never mean that?
Unlike 'alt-Right', where there seems to be genuine confusion about just what it means, "white nationalist" is an ambiguous phrase used by dishonest people to trash honest and decent people on the other side. Just as an "English teacher" can be teacher of any subject who comes from England, or a person of any nationality who teaches English, so "white nationalist" can mean a white person who is also a nationalist (loves his country and wants it to do well), or it can mean someone who wants his country to be white (whether that means kicking out the nonwhites, or just keeping the whites in charge of everything). Lefties who call white Trump-voters "white nationalists" are trying to imply that they are the latter, even though the vast majority (roughly 99%) are in fact the former. It's a tactic only lying shits would use, which means it's quite popular, because there are a lot of lying shits in America today.
Hmmm. Previous should have said "wants his nation to be white" for clarity.
Once upon a time, in the old Confederate Southern States, there was a large political Party (the Democrats), founded by Andrew Jackson, inspired by Thomas Jefferson.
The problem was that they didn't treat Black people as equals. They fought a war over it, and lost to Republican Abe Lincoln.
Despite the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, the Democrats rebuilt the South. They couldn't practice slavery, but they still enforced a two-tiered, unjust cultural and legal system, which quashed the dreams of blacks. They used a Jim Crowe legal scheme and, they organized a quasi-private group, the KKK, to cause terror and intimidation through extra-judicial means.
These were all Democrats, mind you. They united with Northern Dems to propel Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman to 5 straight electoral college victories.
70 years later, after a lot of societal upheaval, and the toil of a lot of good men and woman, almost every aspect of the Jim Crow racial system, has been dismantled.
Now, we have the nefarious Steve Bannon, who has "provided a platform" for a few inconsequential morons to write mean things on the internet......
Perspective anyone?
Chuck,
You are, it seems, no connoiseur of bullshit.
It does take a certain degree of research into the guts of the data to detect the best stuff, but the best is very good indeed. You have to put in the work though, to distinguish the messages the practitioners are putting out vs reality.
Washington bullshit is conducted on a grand, titanic scale, nuanced and engineered and honed to beautifully precise tolerances by the most highly skilled practicioners on earth.
Washington bullshit is of course an art form, conducted by people who are mostly wonderful writers and speakers. They have some personal interests, some financial interests, some partisan interests and some ideological interests. And figuring that mix is key, of course.
Trump bullshit, on the other hand, is incoherent on any normal basis. He gets what he wants from you; you are brilliant, talented, a jewel. You cross him, disagree with him or criticize him, you are a loser, a failure, a crook. Even if you are absolutely none of those things. Trump has no politics, no ideology, no code, no morals; he doesn't even seem to have any understanding of those things.
He has a loose affiliation with Republicans; that alone made him my choice at the polls.
We shall see, before January; I suspect that Trump's Administration will start out as 75% Establishment GOP, before it becomes 95% Establishment GOP. Which is why I have considerable hope for a Trump presidency. Along with a solid GOP congressional majority.
"We shall see, before January; I suspect that Trump's Administration will start out as 75% Establishment GOP, before it becomes 95% Establishment GOP. Which is why I have considerable hope for a Trump presidency. Along with a solid GOP congressional majority."
That's the hope, anyway--depends on whether Preibus or Bannon (to name just two of the more closely placed advisers traditionally) has more influence on him. Bannon reportedly is more in favor of massive spending and not particularly enamored with limited government, which alarms me, and the GOP congress doesn't seem inclined to oppose Trump so we may see a return to Bush-style economic policy.
On the other hand, Trump may be inclined to follow a more conservative path if he has decent economic advisers who give him the "inflation spooks". He's a bit of a blank slate on that.
"TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests."
There is a difference between saying "The Alt Right [as I am using the term] is a Western ideology that"... (which is saying something about a group being indexed here by the term 'Alt Right') and saying "The term 'Alt Right' is used exclusively to refer to a certain Western ideology that..." (which is saying something about lexical use).
Is the Vox Day article listing earmarks of an ideology, or is it listing earmarks for the use of the term? (It could be doing both, but they are different things, and the author of the article getting one of these things right does not imply the author getting both of these things right.)
Post a Comment