Alt-Right Exults in Donald Trump’s Election With a Salute: ‘Heil Victory’

[SirLinksALot]

For openers we have a folks out there who do not believe that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

OK, let's say this is ONE MAJOR characteristic of the alt-right.... are these the beliefs of Trump and Steven Bannon? (regardless of whether you love or hate them )

[SirLinksALot]

it is the authoritarian right who want to use the hammer of the government to force their issues and force society to become what they want.

So, one characteristic of being alt-right is that of support for BIG GOVERNMENT to force society to become what they want.

In other words -- COERCION.

Can we name a few things that Trump and his cohort, Steven Bannon want to force on society?

[EasyAce]

OK, let's say this is ONE MAJOR characteristic of the alt-right.... are these the beliefs of Trump and Steven Bannon? (regardless of whether you love or hate them )

I'm no fan of either Donaldus Minimus nor Mr. Bannon. But I know enough to know this much: they do not seem,
themselves, individually, to be racists, but their disinclination to renounce such people and/or dismiss their support
(whether Donaldus Minimus's refusal to disavow or reject support from them or Mr. Bannon's refusal to close the
pages of Breitbart News to them) would leave them suspect enough.

As for big government, I have yet to see Donaldus Minimus come right out and say his preference is to reduce the
size and breadth of the federal government, and his often contradictory policy stances---not to mention that his
is the personality of an authoritarian---give little if any aid and comfort to those for whom big government is
anathema. The salient reason I voted "None of These Candidates" for the White House earlier this month, aside from
the two major party candidates being the most grotesquely unqualified presidential aspirants in my lifetime, was
that neither Donaldus Minimus nor Hilarious Rodent Clinton seemed to believe other than that the State is the
alpha and omega of life and the individual, nothing.

In the case of the alt-right, my read is that they vary among themselves between those who might prefer a big
government hammer and those who seem confident enough---however and wherever the historic record contravenes
---that a smaller government will do just fine on behalf of their ends.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Trump apparently repeatedly, and bluntly, denounced racism and the alt-right in his interview with the NYT.

[geronl]

Trump apparently repeatedly, and bluntly, denounced racism and the alt-right in his interview with the NYT.

His words and actions are two different things. He is a confirmed liar to the extreme.

[SirLinksALot]

Mr. Bannon's refusal to close the
pages of Breitbart News to them) would leave them suspect enough.

Can you cite for us some articles or columns from the alt-right that were published in Breitbart News?

[EasyAce]

Can you cite for us some articles or columns from the alt-right that were published in Breitbart News?

They are found readily enough, particularly the columns of Milo Yiannopolous and in the comments sections. In
your position, I'd seek for myself rather than ask someone to do my homework for me, but then I have a natural
enough curiosity about troubling things even if delving deeper tends to put a churn into my stomach.

Before you do, you might heed the advisory of Ben Shapiro, who was in a perfect position to know before
he left Breitbart News to become the editor in chief of The Daily Wire:

5. Under Bannon’s Leadership, Breitbart Openly Embraced The White Supremacist Alt-Right.
Andrew Breitbart despised racism. Truly despised it. He used to brag regularly about helping to integrate his
fraternity at Tulane University. He insisted that racial stories be treated with special care to avoid even the whiff
of racism. With Bannon embracing Trump, all that changed. Now Breitbart has become the alt-right go-to website,
with [Milo] Yiannopoulos pushing white ethno-nationalism as a legitimate response to political correctness, and
the comment section turning into a cesspool for white supremacist mememakers. (Link in the original.)

Bear in mind one thing, too---I have argued earlier, paraphrasing Frank Chodorov, that the proper way to deal
with such creatures is, as Chodorov said, Let them rant their heads off---that is their right, which we cannot
afford to infringe---but let us keep from them the political means of depriving everybody else of the same
right. They can say what they wish when they wish (and go to hell while they're at it), and if that's all they
do they are harmless if grotesquely obscene. The minute they attempt any graduation from mere speaking
and writing and publishing to activity on behalf of physically or politically trying to deprive any other American
of the same right to speak, write, and publish, they become a real domestic enemy of the United States.

[SirLinksALot]

David Goldman ( AKA Spengler ) writes for PJ Media, the Asia Times, the Wall Street Journal and other sites, this is what he says about Steve Bannon and Breitbart :

Anyone can search the Breitbart Media archive for posts on Israel, Jews, and related topics, as I have, and determine that Steve Bannon's hugely successful media platform is 100% pro-Israel.

Not only that: Breitbart consistently reports on the dangers of anti-Semitism around the world.

Not a single article appeared in Breitbart.com during the past two years that could not have appeared in Israel Hayom, the leading Israeli daily.

.....

.....

 John Podhoretz penned an underhanded attack on Steve Bannon on the Commentary website yesterday. One has to read Podhoretz's attack a couple of times to appreciate how sleazy it is:

The key moral problem with Steve Bannon is that as the CEO of Andrew Breitbart’s namesake organization, he is an aider and abetter of foul extremist views, including anti-Semitic ones. He used the site to promote the alt-right, which has retailed anti-Semitism as well as general outright racism and white nationalism. The distinction may seem like a minor one, but it isn’t; the hatred Breitbart has channeled is too general for it to be singled out for its anti-Semitic content.
Note the construction of Podhoretz' sentence: Breitbart isn't anti-Semitic, but in some vague, unnamed way, Breitbart has facilitated anti-Semitism from the alt-Right (whatever that is).

The man is an embarrassment to the venerable Jewish monthly. It's time for Commentary to find a new editor.

These are facts about Breitbart's content: indisputable, accessible, and easy to verify. Anyone can enter the terms "Jews" or "Israel" and "site:www.breitbart.com" into the Google search engine and obtain everything that Breitbart has published on the subjects.

I just looked through roughly a thousand articles and found nothing but pro-Israel, pro-Jewish content that might well have appeared in Israel Hayom.

There is not a shred of evidence -- not a single article -- that supports Podhoretz's allegation that Bannon and Breitbart aid and abet anti-Semitic views.

In lieu of that evidence, the supposedly anti-Semitic David Horowitz piece has been cited dozens of times in the past 24 hours (including by the Times of Israel!).

[Idaho_Cowboy]

David Goldman ( AKA Spengler ) writes for PJ Media, the Asia Times, the Wall Street Journal and other sites, this is what he says about Steve Bannon and Breitbart :

Anyone can search the Breitbart Media archive for posts on Israel, Jews, and related topics, as I have, and determine that Steve Bannon's hugely successful media platform is 100% pro-Israel.

Not only that: Breitbart consistently reports on the dangers of anti-Semitism around the world.

Not a single article appeared in Breitbart.com during the past two years that could not have appeared in Israel Hayom, the leading Israeli daily.

.....

.....

 John Podhoretz penned an underhanded attack on Steve Bannon on the Commentary website yesterday. One has to read Podhoretz's attack a couple of times to appreciate how sleazy it is:


The man is an embarrassment to the venerable Jewish monthly. It's time for Commentary to find a new editor.

These are facts about Breitbart's content: indisputable, accessible, and easy to verify. Anyone can enter the terms "Jews" or "Israel" and "site:www.breitbart.com" into the Google search engine and obtain everything that Breitbart has published on the subjects.

I just looked through roughly a thousand articles and found nothing but pro-Israel, pro-Jewish content that might well have appeared in Israel Hayom.

There is not a shred of evidence -- not a single article -- that supports Podhoretz's allegation that Bannon and Breitbart aid and abet anti-Semitic views.

In lieu of that evidence, the supposedly anti-Semitic David Horowitz piece has been cited dozens of times in the past 24 hours (including by the Times of Israel!).

So if calling folks you don't like Renegade Jews isn't anti-Semitic what is?

[EasyAce]

Then why doesn't Bannon---who is not himself a bigot or an anti-Semite---renounce and rid himself of
those few who do publish such sewage, and/or moderate the comments section more adroitly? It
would not be censorship, a privately-owned publication is within its rights to accept or reject what it
deems acceptable or rejectable. Why on earth should Breitbart keep its pages open to the like
of Yiannapolis and a few others here and there of the same stripe?

Particularly since---and I just learned of this---Donaldus Minimus himself has, according to the New
York Times, renounced at last the racist and anti-Semitic elements within the alt-right. Call it
"it's about damn time," call it "better late than never," but he did himself a phenomenal favour doing
so.

[mystery-ak]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469
Trump disavows 'alt-right' supporters

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So if calling folks you don't like Renegade Jews isn't anti-Semitic what is?

A sharp-tongued critique of some Jews by another Jew.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

A sharp-tongued critique of some Jews by another Jew.

Just like blacks can call each other the N word. Doesn't make it any less racist.

There's a great line in the movie Gentleman's Agreement. Gregory Peck's character is talking to his secretary. She's a Jew, who pretended not to be to get her Job, and is now complaining about the fact the hiring policy has been changed to be open to both Jews and Christians. It's a great movie here's the exchange:

Elaine Wales (The Secretary): You just let them get one wrong Jew in here, and it'll come out of us. It's no fun being the fall guy for the k***y ones.
Phil Green (Gregory Peck's character): Miss Wales, I'm going to be frank with you. I want you to know that words like yid and k*ke and k*key and coon and n***er make me sick no matter who says them.

His lines when his girlfriend asks if he thinks she is antisemitic sums it up pretty well:
"No, I don't. But I've come to see lots of nice people who hate it and deplore it and protest their own innocence, then help it along and wonder why it grows. People who would never beat up a Jew. People who think anti-Semitism is far away in some dark place with low-class morons. That's the biggest discovery I've made. The good people. The nice people."

[EasyAce]

Just like blacks can call each other the N word. Doesn't make it any less racist.

Funny you should mention that. A few years ago, I asked a black man I'd met about it. I told him,
"Can you answer a question for me? When I was growing up, I thought the word 'bleep' was
a soul-deep racist insult. But now I hear young blacks calling each other 'bleep' like it's going out of
style. What's up with that?"

The poor man (he was about my age) shook his head and said, "If I knew the answer, I'd be God."

(I thought, too, of the old comedian Dick Gregory's crack that any time anyone called him "bleep"
it meant a plug for his autobiography of the same name. I wondered what Gregory would have
thought of today's sad syndrome.)

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Not all blacks call each that or like that word.

[SirLinksALot]

So if calling folks you don't like Renegade Jews isn't anti-Semitic what is?

The only problem with that is the one who used those words is HIMSELF a Jew -- David Horowitz.

Here is what he wrote :

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/16/horowitz-renegade-jew-steve-bannon-witch-hunt/

This headline was written by me for an unsolicited article I sent to Breitbart.com – that I didn’t even get paid for – calling Bill Kristol a “renegade Jew.”

Why renegade Jew? Because Kristol defected from the Republican Party and the cause of Jewish survival to throw his weight behind Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who gave nuclear weapons and billions of dollars to Iran whose leaders have sworn to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Since Kristol was a leader of the post-primary, “Never Trump” Republicans, he was deserting his party to help elect Clinton and in my view to dig Israel’s grave.

“Renegade” means “deserter.” That’s what Kristol was doing. He was betraying America and the Jews and that’s what I said in the article and that’s what my headline was supposed to capture.

[Cripplecreek]

So if calling folks you don't like Renegade Jews isn't anti-Semitic what is?

George Soros is anti semitic

[ABX]

[guitar4jesus]

Heh.

[HonestJohn]

I'm going to have to steal that.

[guitar4jesus]

Not all blacks call each that or like that word.

True.

[Night Hides Not]

Not all blacks call each that or like that word.

I'll never forget Richard Pryor's stand-up routine where he talked about visiting Africa. He was huge during my days in college. I spent hours listening to his albums with friends, "Mudbone" brought tears to our eyes, we were laughing so hard.

[guitar4jesus]

"Mudbone" brought tears to our eyes, we were laughing so hard.

"Da boy wuz funny..."

[TomSea]

There were 200 people at this party, pretty stupid to make a big deal out of it.

We might as well portray all Democrats per the New Black Panthers Party, Black Lives Matter or people like Keith Ellison or Al Sharpton, the latter who created an anti-Jewish riot where someone was killed and of course, Sharpton is a confident of the president.

200 people. Big deal.

[HonestJohn]

There were 200 people at this party, pretty stupid to make a big deal out of it.

We might as well portray all Democrats per the New Black Panthers Party, Black Lives Matter or people like Keith Ellison or Al Sharpton, the latter who created an anti-Jewish riot where someone was killed and of course, Sharpton is a confident of the president.

200 people. Big deal.

There were only 15 people who attended the Wannsee conference.
Less than 20 involved in the Dreyfus affair.
Roughly 600 in Munich's beer hall putsch.

And we condemned Obama for Sharpton.

You, on the other hand, *EXCUSE* Trump.  That makes you something far worse.  A hypocrite.