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

considering bannon wrote the speech, I really wouldn't be surprised if the "america first" stuff is dogwhistling for a lot more sinister means [img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0a/5d/7f/0a5d7f032ccb0486d03adb79ff8ffd01.jpg[/img]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/0p1cEPd.jpg[/IMG]

[t]http://cdn8.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/waiting-for-signals.png[/t] See I can use Dr. Seuss too, it doesn't really prove much of a point

[QUOTE=Judas;51712228]the point is that the fucking president gave a speech written by a neo-nazi[/QUOTE] If you were buying a cake would you care if the chef was a homeopath? So long as the chef isn't putting in his own biases, ie cyanide for sweetness, does it affect the product? Not even arguing whether or not he's a neo-nazi.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51712707][t]http://cdn8.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/waiting-for-signals.png[/t] See I can use Dr. Seuss too, it doesn't really prove much of a point[/QUOTE] It just echoes to the original America First group, who were a mix of nazi sympathizers and people for isolationist america. Was this intentional? I'd say no, but who knows. It's Steve bannon. I trust him as far as I can throw him

[QUOTE=Thlis;51712710]If you were buying a cake would you care if the chef was a homeopath? So long as the chef isn't putting his own biases ie cyanide for sweetness, does it affect the product? Not even arguing whether or not he's a neo-nazi.[/QUOTE] this metaphor makes so little since I actually don't know how to deconstruct it

[QUOTE=Judas;51712726]this metaphor makes so little since I actually don't know how to deconstruct it[/QUOTE] If a person isn't putting their personal beliefs into a product then do you still consider that product tainted by that person having those personal beliefs? If a tailor is Islamic but doesn't put any Islamic styling(?) into his work then is it rational for someone that despises Islam to despise his work because of the tailor's personal beliefs?

[QUOTE=archangel125;51712395]For the record, two was a story that was proven to be a complete fabrication. They aren't past making shit up entirely to push an agenda. Four's a joke. They're effectively blaming a lack of law enforcement presence and poor government social support on the muslim immigrants living in their neighborhood Three does exactly what you(falsely, in that case) dismissed the DOJ report on the Ferguson department for; makes an argument using a bunch of stats without taking into account the many variables. For the other two, fine, you win. You've successfully dismantled my argument, so I'll amend my statement. Steve Bannon is a man running a propaganda organization that caters to ultranationalists and bigots of every stripe, and clearly has an interest in pushing an agenda in favour of a racially and culturally homogenous America. He went on record to call his website 'The platform for the Alt-right' last year. If you need any evidence of the audience the website caters to, do have a look at the comment section for any of those above articles. It's a hive for the "I'm not racist, but" crowd. Degenerates without the balls to come right out for what they are.[/QUOTE] Can you cite where he's called for or pushed an agenda of a racially and culturally homogenous America? (Being against Islam doesn't equate to being against every other race and culture.)

[QUOTE=sgman91;51712834]Can you cite where he's called for or pushed an agenda of a racially and culturally homogenous America? (Being against Islam doesn't equate to being against every other race and culture.)[/QUOTE] This isn't from Bannon, but from Yiannopolous. Same website, and when Bannon was chief executive, so it's the same agenda. [url]http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/[/url] Breitbart gives a pretty glowing recommendation to a movement whose central beliefs are that Americans should be segregated along lines of race, sexual orientation and class. [quote]There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright. The origins of the alternative right can be found in thinkers as diverse as Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, and the paleoconservative movement that rallied around the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan. The French New Right also serve as a source of inspiration for many leaders of the alt-right. The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought.[/quote] And, as I pointed out before, it was Bannon himself who declared Breitbart "The platform of the Alt-right" when he was executive chair in 2016, the same man responsible for the site's shift from a right-wing Pro-Israel publication to an ultranationalist propaganda hub. That's about as clear as it gets without coming straight out of the man's mouth.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51712896]This isn't from Bannon, but from Yiannopolous. Same website, and when Bannon was chief executive, so it's the same agenda. [URL]http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/[/URL] Breitbart gives a pretty glowing recommendation to a movement whose central beliefs are that Americans should be segregated along lines of race, sexual orientation and class. And, as I pointed out before, it was Bannon himself who declared Breitbart "The platform of the Alt-right" when he was executive chair in 2016, the same man responsible for the site's shift from a right-wing Pro-Israel publication to an ultranationalist propaganda hub. That's about as clear as it gets without coming straight out of the man's mouth.[/QUOTE] Your argument is tenuous at best. It depends on weak links of association and indirect claims. Instead, how about an interview with Bannon in which they speak about this very issue: "But he says Breitbart is also a platform for “libertarians,” Zionists, “the conservative gay community,” “proponents of restrictions on gay marriage,” “economic nationalism” and “populism” and “the anti-establishment.” In other words, the site hosts many views. “We provide an outlet for 10 or 12 or 15 lines of thought—we set it up that way” and the alt-right is “a tiny part of that.” Yes, he concedes, the alt-right has “some racial and anti-Semitic overtones.” He makes clear he has zero tolerance for such views." ([URL]http://www.wsj.com/articles/steve-bannon-on-politics-as-war-1479513161[/URL])

I guess this explains the incessant use of "America First".

[QUOTE=sgman91;51712961]Your argument is tenuous at best. It depends on weak links of association and indirect claims. Instead, how about an interview with Bannon in which they speak about this very issue: "But he says Breitbart is also a platform for “libertarians,” Zionists, “the conservative gay community,” “proponents of restrictions on gay marriage,” “economic nationalism” and “populism” and “the anti-establishment.” In other words, the site hosts many views. “We provide an outlet for 10 or 12 or 15 lines of thought—we set it up that way” and the alt-right is “a tiny part of that.” Yes, he concedes, the alt-right has “some racial and anti-Semitic overtones.” He makes clear he has zero tolerance for such views." ([URL]http://www.wsj.com/articles/steve-bannon-on-politics-as-war-1479513161[/URL])[/QUOTE] Man chosen to head presidential candidate's campaign lies about his views to avoid compromising his employer. I think his actions - the type of content published on Breitbart after he took control of it - make his views perfectly clear. His word, considering his vested interests and the reason the interview even happened, is worth about as much as President Trump's. The vast majority of evidence supports my conclusion, not yours. But like I've said, if mental gymnastics were an olympic sport, you could win America the gold.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51718241]Man chosen to head presidential candidate's campaign lies about his views to avoid compromising his employer. I think his actions - and the type of content published on Breitbart after he took control of it - makes his views perfectly clear.[/QUOTE] Right, so guilt by association and insensitive articles, mostly towards Muslims, are more important than words by the actual person in question. Also, your general statements towards the "type of content published on Breitbart" doesn't mean anything. I've already shown that you had a false impression of the content on the site.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51718257]Right, so guilt by association and insensitive articles, mostly towards Muslims, are more important than words by the actual person in question. Also, your general statements towards the "type of content published on Breitbart" doesn't mean anything. I've already shown that you had a false impression of the content on the site.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. This wasn't association - this was Bannon's chosen direction that Breitbart as a company was to take. He was the fucking executive chair. Before he took that position, Breitbart was a lot more moderate. It's hilarious that you can't seem to wrap your head around this one thing that happens to poke a hole in your argument. Were he a clerk or even a writer for the paper you could worm your way out of the conclusion that the paper's publishing reflected his views. As the chief executive of the company, and as the man under whose leadership the company made a noticeable change in political slant, I think it's very, very clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. And no, I wasn't wrong about the site's content. It simply maintains the facade of pseudo-intellectualism while pushing the same agenda I accused it of pushing, and is careful not to use words that are openly discriminatory.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51718264]Absolutely. This wasn't association - this was Bannon's chosen direction that Breitbart as a company was to take. He was the fucking executive chair. Before he took that position, Breitbart was a lot more moderate. It's hilarious that you can't seem to wrap your head around this one thing that happens to poke a hole in your argument. Were he a clerk or even a writer for the paper you could worm your way out of the conclusion that the paper's publishing reflected his views. As the chief executive of the company, and as the man under whose leadership the company made a noticeable change in political slant, I think it's very, very clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. And no, I wasn't wrong about the site's content. It simply maintains the facade of pseudo-intellectualism while pushing the same agenda I accused it of pushing, and is careful not to use words that are openly discriminatory.[/QUOTE] So you weren't wrong when you said that it was a white nationalist publication? Even though you didn't find a single white nationalist article? OK... So far, your evidence is that he called it a "platform for the alt-right" with no context about what he meant by the "alt-right," a very nebulous term and the comment sections of the site.

What will it take to convince the rest of Trump's supporters that they have made a terrible mistake?

You just throw out these huge accusations as if everyone should just take your word for it. It would be like me saying that the Huffington Post is a man-hating publication because obviously they post articles that make it clear. Sure, I can't actually find anything that shows them to be man hating (let alone establish a record, which is the actual burden of proof for that sort of accusation), but hey, obviously I'm right.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51718284]So you weren't wrong when you said that it was a white nationalist publication? Even though you didn't find a single white nationalist article? OK... So far, your evidence is that he called it a "platform for the alt-right" with no context about what he meant by the "alt-right," a very nebulous term and the comment sections of the site.[/QUOTE] The alt-right are not a 'nebulous' movement. It is not a nebulous term. Richard Spencer, the movement's founder, outlined very clearly what the movement's core tenets were. As someone who loves to argue semantics, I assumed you'd be more aware of this. No, my piece of evidence is that the man not only embraced the alt-right, but that it was under his leadership that Breitbart took its extremist right-wing stance. Something you haven't yet addressed - Guilt by association is inapplicable where the person in question was the one in control of an organization. Look, at this point I'm merely repeating myself. I'm quite aware I'm not going to change your mind, just as I couldn't on the Ferguson issue. What, then, is the point of carrying this on?

[QUOTE=archangel125;51718315]The alt-right are not a 'nebulous' movement. It is not a nebulous term. Richard Spencer, the movement's founder, outlined very clearly what the movement's core tenets were. As someone who loves to argue semantics, I assumed you'd be more aware of this. No, my piece of evidence is that the man not only embraced the alt-right, but that it was under his leadership that Breitbart took its extremist right-wing stance. Something you haven't yet addressed - Guilt by association is inapplicable where the person in question was the one in control of an organization. Look, at this point I'm merely repeating myself. I'm quite aware I'm not going to change your mind, just as I couldn't on the Ferguson issue. What, then, is the point of carrying this on?[/QUOTE] I'm going to continue as long as you keep responding because I think it's clear that you have zero evidence or grounding in your claims. The fact that you think "alt-right" has a definitive meaning, as given by Spencer, is just plain ridiculous. The NYTimes, most definitely not a right wing source, explicitly says that Bannon's use of the phrase is very different from Spencer's usage. ([URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/opinion/sunday/what-the-alt-right-really-means.html?_r=0[/URL]) Here are some quotes from the article, but feel free to read the rest: [QUOTE]"Perhaps we should not make too much of this. Mr. Bannon may have meant something quite different by the term. Last summer “alt-right,” though it carried overtones of extremism, was not an outright synonym for ideologies like Mr. Spencer’s."[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"There is no good evidence that Mr. Trump or Mr. Bannon think in terms like these (those of Spencer)."[/QUOTE] Spencer doesn't even consider Bannon as his brand of "alt-right."

[QUOTE=archangel125;51718315]The alt-right are not a 'nebulous' movement. It is not a nebulous term. Richard Spencer, the movement's founder, outlined very clearly what the movement's core tenets were. As someone who loves to argue semantics, I assumed you'd be more aware of this. No, my piece of evidence is that the man not only embraced the alt-right, but that it was under his leadership that Breitbart took its extremist right-wing stance. Something you haven't yet addressed - Guilt by association is inapplicable where the person in question was the one in control of an organization. Look, at this point I'm merely repeating myself. I'm quite aware I'm not going to change your mind, just as I couldn't on the Ferguson issue. What, then, is the point of carrying this on?[/QUOTE] Listen, I fucking hate Breitbart and this Steve Bannon guy sounds like a piece of shit. But it really seems like you're missing the point here. You haven't been able to show that Breitbart is a [i]white nationalist site[/i], just that [i]white nationalists like the site[/i]. Which are very different things.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51711312]the CEO of the white supremacist propaganda website, Breitbart.[/QUOTE] huffington post and buzzfeed called, they want to hire you

Just throwing this out there, the [url=http://www.adl.org/sp/stephen-bannon-backgrounder/bannon-backgrounder.html]Anti-Defamation League article[/url] on Bannon basically just says that he embraces the alt-right, headed Breitbart when some of its writers wrote unsavory pieces, and has [i]not[/i] personally demonstrated any anti-Semitism. The accusations seem tenuous at best. He doesn't strike me as a particularly nice person, but all this 'racist sexist xenophobic anti-semite' stuff really falls flat when the best evidence is 'he was CEO of a company that had a writer say negative things about Muslim immigrants'. Those are some strong accusations that require a lot more than connections and speculation.

Do people forget Breitbart was founded as a pro-Israel news site?

[QUOTE=RobL;51719445]Do people forget Breitbart was founded as a pro-Israel news site?[/QUOTE] Do you forget the numerous posts stating its drifted from it's original platform?