Anti-Semitic White-Nationalist Stephen Bannon Co-Wrote Trump's Inauguration Speech - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;51711422]So are you going to actually contribute or just keep up with the personal attacks? I couldn't give a single crap what you call or think of me.[/QUOTE] I've made my argument. Bannon was a founding member of the company. Breitbart took an extreme right turn after Steve Bannon became its executive chair - he made an already far-right news website into the extremist white supremacist propaganda machine it is today. To claim that the man and his work are of entirely separate worlds is ludicrous.

[QUOTE=bitches;51711447]That's an article about antisemitism. I'm talking about racism.[/QUOTE] It's about the general idea of holding publishers responsible for all their author's opinions.

[QUOTE=bitches;51711434]Just in case anyone forgot that Laferio's title isn't ironic.[/QUOTE] Way to dig up a post from 8 years ago my man. I think it's actually kind of funny that you decided to click my title to reassure your feelings considering I had the title changed- cus the previous title was broken.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51711450]I hate to invoke Godwin's law, here, but Hitler did have multiple Jewish friends, associates, and colleagues that he not only offered protections for but also added to his ranks. This argument holds as much water as "I have a black friend".[/QUOTE] Did Hitler's Jewish friends fully support Hitler as a non-antisemite?

[QUOTE=sgman91;51711386]Is being one of it's heads not working with them? How about you actually address the argument instead of playing semantics? Even Alan Dershowitz, a Jew who stands pretty far to the left, defended Brannon from claims of anti-semitism[/QUOTE] To be honest, I'd be very surprised if Bannon is everything the left accuses him of. I mean, if he is an anti-semite, he sure knows to hide that very, very well, especially since the person the OP claims he co-wrote the inauguration speech with, Stephen Miller, is Jewish as well. Plus one of his main colleagues at the White House will be Dina Powell, who is Egyptian-American, so I doubt him being a massive white supremacist on that account as well. Or if the OP's sources are telling the truth somehow, Trump is somehow managing to make a Nazi work in his political team for the last year or so with minorities he has to supposedly hate the guts of according to the OP without any hick-ups. This story really doesn't really add up if we take that in account.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51711411]My argument is that it's pointless to be an apologist for a man who was the chief executive officer of a white supremacist site - unless you're a sympathizer, which I begin to suspect more and more with every passing day. He decided the sorts of stories they ran. They reflect, therefore, his views. [/QUOTE] I don't know man this post below seems like a pretty rational and reasonable counterargument [QUOTE=Tudd;51711369]Can we please stop calling Steve Bannon a Nazi? The only thing people have on him is his association of Breibart and a statement his ex-wife made during their divorce that basically said, "I don't want to send my kids to this private school cause they have too many whiny jews." Ultimately he didn't seem to take his own advice seriously that his wife accused him of because his kids ended up going to that school. Also it doesn't look good for the ex-wife's accusations when she didn't even show up to court on an abuse charge she levied on him. Now let's look at this critically. Steve Bannon runs Breibart. A news organization that was started by a jew, has several jewish employees, like the former Ben Shapiro and active Milo/Joel Pollak, has never made a statement personally that shows any anti-Semitic comments, and is under appointment of a President that has jews in his cabinet/his daughter is married to an orthodox jew. Also Ben Shapiro HATES Steve Bannon with what he did with Breibart, but even he has said multiple times he is not anti-Semitic. [url]http://www.dailywire.com/news/10770/3-thoughts-steve-bannon-white-house-chief-ben-shapiro[/url] Just give it a fair shake and look it up yourself. I don't care you hate Breibart, but the evidence heavily leans against a anti-Semitic label.[/QUOTE] Also [QUOTE]I've noticed something about you, sgman. The things you choose to argue on this site. Trump's connections to racist groups - the Ferguson municipal corruption, etc. It seems so often to boil down to being an apologist for bigotry - not merely correcting overzealous bandwagoning against Trump when unwarranted, or arguing against the spread of leftist misinformation. No, issues like the one in this thread are strangely important to you - I'm sure the degenerates who subscribe to the doctrine of racial supremacy will be happy to know they'll always have a staunch defender in you.[/QUOTE] Damn dude, you're slowly slipping into Steve Shives territory here. Don't get on the guy's ass for being skeptical.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51711411]My argument is that it's pointless to be an apologist for a man who was the chief executive officer of a white supremacist site - unless you're a sympathizer, which I begin to suspect more and more with every passing day. He decided the sorts of stories they ran. They reflect, therefore, his views. I've noticed something about you, sgman. The things you choose to argue on this site. Trump's connections to racist groups - the Ferguson municipal corruption, etc. It seems so often to boil down to being an apologist for bigotry - not merely correcting overzealous bandwagoning against Trump when unwarranted, or arguing against the spread of leftist misinformation. No, issues like the one in this thread are strangely important to you - I'm sure the degenerates who subscribe to the doctrine of racial supremacy will be happy to know they'll always have a staunch defender in you.[/QUOTE] You went from Zero to a Hundred real fuckin fast, friend.

[QUOTE=Pops;51711443]okay. you are aware that alt-right and nationalism are not exclusive to white supremacy, anti-semitism, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, et al right?[/QUOTE] You are aware that the term "Alt right" was coined by the self-described "White Nationalist" Richard Spencer, right?

[QUOTE=archangel125;51711473]You are aware that the term "Alt right" was coined by the self-described "White Nationalist" Richard Spencer, right?[/QUOTE] the phrase alternative right predates spencer. he runs a very niche sect of it. unless that means milo yiannopoulos is a white supremacist as well?

[QUOTE=sgman91;51711464]Did Hitler's Jewish friends fully support Hitler as a non-antisemite?[/QUOTE] I doubt it, but I can't be entirely sure. From what I've read and heard, Bloch, for instance, was not particularly fond of him nor particularly despised him. I feel like you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of evidence or proof for the proposition you're making. It's also pretty much irrelevant. I place more stock on a man's actions than in what others think of him. Plenty of parents love and defend to the grave their sons that commit heinous crimes.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51711493]I doubt it, but I can't be entirely sure. From what I've read and heard, Bloch, for instance, was not particularly fond of him nor particularly despised him. I feel like you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of evidence or proof for the proposition you're making. It's also pretty much irrelevant. I place more stock on a man's actions than in what others think of him. Plenty of parents love and defend to the grave their sons that commit heinous crimes.[/QUOTE] He clearly didn't feel safe, he fled Austria for the USA in the late 30s IIRC. Mind you his friendship helped him do it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51711365]Can you cite these claims please?[/QUOTE] Only if you can pre-provide me with the approve list of sources, [I]Herr[/I] Kommisar. On a more serious tack, I refuse to respond to this in any lengthy manner, at least, in any direct form. You have, for lack of a better source, demonstrated by your post history a consistent and recalcitrant strategy of discussion. I would argue without an iota of doubt that you systematically permit only sources that affirm your biases and dismiss or otherwise whole-sale bypass sources that do not affirm said biases. One would, I imagine, be largely unsurprised if you just flatly admitted you're, "yanking liberal chains," or believed in the Day Of The Rope as only genuine solution to our civic affairs. I invite [I]you,[/I] my fellow participant, to find sources for yourself. Not every statement needs to be meticulously supported by it's issuer, and I do believe, by dint of [I]typing in google,[/I] one can determine if there are or are not sources for these particularly broad claims that have been documented and discussed at length over the past, oh, four? months. If for some noble reason, by some expediency of wit and good taste you discover that there is not sufficient merit to those statements, then hooray! Good for you! You have accomplished critical thinking, and come to a conclusion! For yourself even! You can disagree with me, and not be swayed by my post. You can even go on your own crusade, asserting there are no sufficient sources for anyone to make such claims. Doing that intellectual leg work is not my duty in this conversation. Before you have the temerity to invoke say, Russel's Teapot, to try and say that by having said a thing I now labor under the burden of proof, then I say to you, bullshit. I did not engage you in any capacity. I did not respond to a proposition put forth by you, or invite you even consider the truth or non-truth of my statement. I answered a broadly construed question (not from you, I'll point out again) with a relatively low bar for satisfaction, [I]vis,[/I] "why are people generally upset about this man." "Then why do you waste all this time responding to me," you might say. Simple, this post is not [I]for[/I] you. It for [B]anyone[/B] else, that hopefully, someone else will find my way of thinking palatable and agree that perhaps, not every conversation is worth engaging in for a wide variety of reasons. That perhaps, even though I hold discourse as the highest and most noble means of sharing and understanding ideas, I judge the habits and tactics you employ in posting to be sufficient reason to say, "this is no productive conversation." Reason made self evident because you're a genuine self-propelled strawman, the sort of commonplace rhetorical thug that does not [I]advance[/I] conversations, but decides to button them up in defense of your ideals, using every crusty, archaic chokehold of freshman logic and barroom etiquette you don't even muster yourself, in defense of your ideologically pure position.

Did you know that in 2017, it's not acceptable to have centrist views? To one side of every shouting match, the centrist is an apologist for the extreme interpretation of the other team's 'views', and therefore "as bad as the worst of them", whatever the topic may be about.

[QUOTE=bitches;51711434]Just in case anyone forgot that Laferio's title isn't ironic.[/QUOTE]Why are you personally attacking him for something that happened eight years ago?

[QUOTE=Pops;51711487]the phrase alternative right predates spencer. he runs a very niche sect of it. unless that means milo yiannopoulos is a white supremacist as well?[/QUOTE] To address your first statement, I can't find any mention of alt-right predating Spencer's usage of the word in 2010. If you have proof that the alt-right existed prior to Spencer, I'd like to see it. As for your second question... To my mind? Absolutely. As a 'journalist' and spokesperson who associates with a white supremacist website, I don't see why a publication's views should be divorced from the people who write for it, whatever they say publicly.

[QUOTE=Pops;51711487]the phrase alternative right predates spencer. he runs a very niche sect of it. unless that means milo yiannopoulos is a white supremacist as well?[/QUOTE] Considering how the alt right is actually so internally inconsistent that they're literally splitting into two different groups, it'd be hard to describe what the movement really represents in its current form. But I'd say Spencer's half is the original alt right, whereas Milo's is the more modern half that's just not happy with the republican party but isn't really into the whole white supremacy thing.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51711493]I doubt it, but I can't be entirely sure. From what I've read and heard, Bloch, for instance, was not particularly fond of him nor particularly despised him. I feel like you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of evidence or proof for the proposition you're making. It's also pretty much irrelevant. I place more stock on a man's actions than in what others think of him. Plenty of parents love and defend to the grave their sons that commit heinous crimes.[/QUOTE] My point is that Brannon's Jewish friends all defended him as not being an anti-semite. Also, about Breitbart: It's not a good newsite. I fully agree, especially recently. They stretch the truth, use sensationalist clickbait titles all the time, etc., but I really think the claims of full on racism are exaggerated. Even the worst articles are, at best, sensationalist and mean.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51711511]To address your first statement, I can't find any mention of alt-right predating Spencer's usage of the word in 2010. If you have proof that the alt-right existed prior to Spencer, I'd like to see it. As for your second question... To my mind? Absolutely. As a 'journalist' and spokesperson who associates with a white supremacist website, I don't see why a publication's views should be divorced from the people who write for it, whatever they say publicly.[/QUOTE] I really don't know shit about Breitbart, would you be willing to show me evidence of why it is white supremacist?

[QUOTE=Tuskin;51711499]He clearly didn't feel safe, he fled Austria for the USA in the late 30s IIRC. Mind you his friendship helped him do it.[/QUOTE] Actually, if I recall correctly, he did not emigrate to the US until 1940. I can imagine that he definitely felt pressured to do so under the conditions Jewish people were facing at the time, but he did receive protections from the Gestapo and special treatment when it came to emigration procedures.

It was a bretty good speech. Doesn't matter much to me who wrote it, although if this is true Steve certainly knows how to wrench around the crowd. Mad props.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51711511]To address your first statement, I can't find any mention of alt-right predating Spencer's usage of the word in 2010. If you have proof that the alt-right existed prior to Spencer, I'd like to see it. As for your second question... To my mind? Absolutely. As a 'journalist' and spokesperson who associates with a white supremacist website, I don't see why a publication's views should be divorced from the people who write for it, whatever they say publicly.[/QUOTE] technically the tea party is an alt-right group. really, it's just a blanket term to describe any conservative group that isn't the gop, at this point. it may have gained ground first due to spencer, but it's not his phrase anymore. also, you should perhaps do some digging on milo. while he works for them and has basic similar views, he generally distances himself from any racism or xenophobia.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51711503]Only if you can pre-provide me with the approve list of sources, [I]Herr[/I] Kommisar. On a more serious tack, I refuse to respond to this in any lengthy manner, at least, in any direct form. You have, for lack of a better source, demonstrated by your post history a consistent and recalcitrant strategy of discussion. I would argue without an iota of doubt that you systematically permit only sources that affirm your biases and dismiss or otherwise whole-sale bypass sources that do not affirm said biases. One would, I imagine, be largely unsurprised if you just flatly admitted you're, "yanking liberal chains," or believed in the Day Of The Rope as only genuine solution to our civic affairs. I invite [I]you,[/I] my fellow participant, to find sources for yourself. Not every statement needs to be meticulously supported by it's issuer, and I do believe, by dint of [I]typing in google,[/I] one can determine if there are or are not sources for these particularly broad claims that have been documented and discussed at length over the past, oh, four? months. If for some noble reason, by some expediency of wit and good taste you discover that there is not sufficient merit to those statements, then hooray! Good for you! You have accomplished critical thinking, and come to a conclusion! For yourself even! You can disagree with me, and not be swayed by my post. You can even go on your own crusade, asserting there are no sufficient sources for anyone to make such claims. Doing that intellectual leg work is not my duty in this conversation. Before you have the temerity to invoke say, Russel's Teapot, to try and say that by having said a thing I now labor under the burden of proof, then I say to you, bullshit. I did not engage you in any capacity. I did not respond to a proposition put forth by you, or invite you even consider the truth or non-truth of my statement. I answered a broadly construed question (not from you, I'll point out again) with a relatively low bar for satisfaction, [I]vis,[/I] "why are people generally upset about this man." "Then why do you waste all this time responding to me," you might say. Simple, this post is not [I]for[/I] you. It for [B]anyone[/B] else, that hopefully, someone else will find my way of thinking palatable and agree that perhaps, not every conversation is worth engaging in for a wide variety of reasons. That perhaps, even though I hold discourse as the highest and most noble means of sharing and understanding ideas, I judge the habits and tactics you employ in posting to be sufficient reason to say, "this is no productive conversation." Reason made self evident because you're a genuine self-propelled strawman, the sort of commonplace rhetorical thug that does not [I]advance[/I] conversations, but decides to button them up in defense of your ideals, using every crusty, archaic chokehold of freshman logic and barroom etiquette you don't even muster yourself, in defense of your ideologically pure position.[/QUOTE] You said he's "a self-proclaimed White Supremacist, American Ultra-Nationalist, and Anti-Semite." So I expect direct quotes from him where he says that he is those things. It shouldn't be very hard. I'm sure there are plenty of left-leaning sites who would have done the work for you if it exists. [editline]22nd January 2017[/editline] You refuse to respond because you know it was a bullshit claim with no evidence. Your bluster is nothing more than a smoke screen.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;51711508]Did you know that in 2017, it's not acceptable to have centrist views? To one side of every shouting match, the centrist is an apologist for the extreme interpretation of the other team's 'views', and therefore "as bad as the worst of them", whatever the topic may be about.[/QUOTE] Well the issue with being a "centrist" is in how imprecise it is in regards to certain issues. What is the "center" of climate change? What is the "center" of healthcare and economics? This is the problem with a binary political spectrum, because it's hardly as simple as a weighted scale on a pivot, or worse, a mirrored image. Most self-proclaimed centrists probably just have individual issues that they feel a certain way about (like everyone else) with a pinch of self-righteousness and smug superiority. Or maybe they're just apathetic and are content with pointing and laughing at everyone with an opinion.

Steve Bannon is 100 percent not an anti-semite. The other claims might be true but an anti-semite wouldn't work with Jews such as Milo and Ben Shapiro and wouldn't support Israel. The only evidence supporting it are claims by a bitter ex wife. By these standards, why not scream and cry the same way whenever a reporter from Al Jazeera shows up? They are actually anti-semitic.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51711564]Steve Bannon is 100 percent not an anti-semite. The other claims might be true but an anti-semite wouldn't work with Jews such as Milo and Ben Shapiro and wouldn't support Israel. The only evidence supporting it are claims by a bitter ex wife. By these standards, why not scream and cry the same way whenever a reporter from Al Jazeera shows up? They are actually anti-semitic.[/QUOTE] And if we use that logic then the The Young Turks are anti-Semitic for being funded by them for quite awhile. But even I know that is retarded.

[QUOTE]These comments drew a rebuke from the the Anti-Defamation League for featuring “tropes that historically have been used against Jews.” [/QUOTE] Did anyone else find this part ridiculous? It's like if I'm telling someone "jeez man Jon's dad is a real deadbeat, I can't believe he just walked out of his life like that" and you immediately were like "hey dude you shouldn't talk about black people like that you don't know what his experience is like" Like fuck I get it's a little insensitive to say, but if you jump to a stereotyped group right away off any little comment that kind of makes you the perpetrator, right? Ik this is low hanging fruit but fuck it just really irked me.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51711564]Steve Bannon is 100 percent not an anti-semite. The other claims might be true but an anti-semite wouldn't work with Jews such as Milo and Ben Shapiro and wouldn't support Israel. The only evidence supporting it are claims by a bitter ex wife. By these standards, why not scream and cry the same way whenever a reporter from Al Jazeera shows up? They are actually anti-semitic.[/QUOTE] Breitbart was founded as a pro-Israel paper by the late Andrew Breitbart. It wasn't until Steve Bannon became the executive chair after his death that it took its extremist alt-right stance. I think it's pretty ludicrous to imagine that Breitbart is anti-semitic. Given the history of their publishing, however, and the fact that [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/07/german-police-quash-breitbart-story-of-mob-setting-fire-to-dortmund-church"]they make up stories in order to fuel hatred against specific groups[/URL], I think they can safely be called a white supremacist publication.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51711596]Breitbart was founded as a pro-Israel paper by the late Andrew Breitbart. It wasn't until Steve Bannon became the executive chair after his death that it took its extremist alt-right stance. I think it's pretty ludicrous to imagine that Breitbart is anti-semitic. Given the history of their publishing, however, and the fact that they make up stories in order to fuel hatred against specific groups, I think they can safely be called a white supremacist publication.[/QUOTE] Give me like your top 5 white supremacist Breitbart articles. It should be pretty easy if they're a "white supremacist publication" and they publish articles every day.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51711577]Did anyone else find this part ridiculous? It's like if I'm telling someone "jeez man Jon's dad is a real deadbeat, I can't believe he just walked out of his life like that" and you immediately were like "hey dude you shouldn't talk about black people like that you don't know what his experience is like" Like fuck I get it's a little insensitive to say, but if you jump to a stereotyped group right away off any little comment that kind of makes you the perpetrator, right? Ik this is low hanging fruit but fuck it just really irked me.[/QUOTE] ADL also thinks Pepe is a racist symbol. they're wrong at times.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51711577]Did anyone else find this part ridiculous? It's like if I'm telling someone "jeez man Jon's dad is a real deadbeat, I can't believe he just walked out of his life like that" and you immediately were like "hey dude you shouldn't talk about black people like that you don't know what his experience is like" Like fuck I get it's a little insensitive to say, but if you jump to a stereotyped group right away off any little comment that kind of makes you the perpetrator, right? Ik this is low hanging fruit but fuck it just really irked me.[/QUOTE] the ADL went to shit recently and it shows