$100 reward for proof that Steve Bannon and/or Breitbart.com is racist

[jmdrake]

Seriously. I have the cash in hand. Go for it.

Here are the parameters.

Pointing out that Planned Parenthood is a racist organization that kills millions of babies is neither racist nor anti-woman, especially considering that most women support restrictions on abortion.

Posting articles written by non-whites who fled radical Islam that there is a problem with radical Islam is not racist. I disagree with the "We can't let Muslims in the country" because that is a fear reaction to what should be a faith issue. (Do you have faith in the power of the gospel? If you don't you aren't a Christian anyway.) But simply pointing out obvious problems in a minority voice in Islam is no more racist than pointing out that "Christian Identity" Christians are racists.

Posting articles that show that some gays like Milo I-can't-spell-his-last-name-and-I'm-to-lazy-to-look-it-up and radical lesbian TERF feminists hate each other with a passion is not racist. It's not even LGBTQABCDEFG phobic.

Calling neo nazis "clowns" is not racist. (Trump saying "There are good people on both sides"....? Well this isn't about Trump. It's about Bannon.)

Saying the left engages in "identity politics" is not racist.

The ADL itself, the a$$holes who started the "Steve Bannon is a racist" meme, admitted on their own website that they never found any racist statements by Steven Bannon.

So....what is the evidence that he is racist?

This offer only covers evidence of things that happened prior to the date of its publication. If sometime in the future Steve Bannon says "Screw it" and actually comes out and says something racist, you can't collect on that.

[goldenequity]

I'll bump this lonely thread with this epic rant by “Dirty Jobs” host Mike Rowe

Mike Rowe Absolutely Destroys Guy Who Accuses Him Of Being A White Nationalist
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/23/mike-rowe-absolutely-destroys-guy-who-accuses-him-of-being-a-white-nationalist/

Mike Rowe had some choice words Tuesday night in response to a question he got accusing him of harboring “white nationalist” sympathies.

Rowe posted a question submitted to him on his Facebook page that accused the TV host’s advocacy for the skilled trades of amounting to anti-intellectualism, and therefore racism.

A man named Chuck Adkins asked, “One of the tenants of white nationalism is that college educated people are academic elitests. Comment? No? I’m not surprised. You never take a political stand because you don’t want to alienate anybody. Its bad for business. I get it. But there is a current of anti intellectualism in this country – promoted by Republicans. Those people love you, and they think your initiative is their initiative. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is kickin our ass academically.”

Rowe, a popular jovial TV personality, went off in a long, brutal response.

“Since we’re being candid, allow me to say how much I dislike your post. Everything about it annoys me – your smug and snarky tone, your appalling grammar, your complete lack of evidence to support your claims, and of course, the overarching logical fallacy that informs your entire position,” Rowe wrote. “What really bugs me though, is the fact that you’re not entirely wrong. It’s true; I haven’t shared any political opinions this week, in part anyway, because doing so might very well be ‘bad for business.'”

“What can I say? I work for half-a-dozen different companies, none of whom pay me to share my political opinions. I run a non-partisan foundation, I’m about to launch a new show on Facebook, and I’m very aware that celebrities pay a price for opening their big fat gobs. Gilbert Gottfried, Kathy Griffin, Colin Kaepernick, Milo Yiannopoulos…even that guy from Google who just got himself fired for mouthing off. There’s no getting around it – the first amendment does not guarantee the freedom to speak without consequences. And really, that’s fine by me,” he continued.

“So no – I’m not going to share my personal feelings about Charlottesville, President Trump, or the current effort to remove thousands of statues of long dead soldiers from the public square. Not just because it’s ‘bad for business,’ but because it’s annoying. I can’t think of a single celebrity whose political opinion I value, and I’m not going to assume the country feels any differently about mine,” Rowe wrote. “So, rather than blow myself up, or chime in with all the obvious observations about the cowardly scum in the pointy hats, I’m going to talk instead about my belief that comments like yours pose a far greater threat to the future of our country than the existence of a memorial to Thomas Jefferson, or a monument to George Washington. Ready?”

Then Rowe started in on Adkins’ insinuations.

“You say that White Nationalists believe that everyone who goes to college is an ‘academic elite.’ You then say that Republicans promote ‘anti-intellectualism.’ You offer no proof to support either claim, but it really doesn’t matter – your statements successfully connect two radically different organizations by alleging a shared belief,” Rowe said. “Thus, White Nationalists and The Republican Party suddenly have something in common – a contempt for higher education. Then, you make it personal. You say that Republicans “love” me because they believe that my initiative and ‘their’ initiative are one and the same. But of course, ‘their’ initiative is now the same initiative as White Nationalists.”

He continued “Very clever. Without offering a shred of evidence, you’ve implied that Republicans who support mikeroweWORKS do so because they believe I share their disdain for all things ‘intellectual.’ And poof – just like that, Republicans, White Nationalists, and mikeroweWORKS are suddenly conflated, and the next thing you know, I’m off on a press tour to disavow rumors of my troubling association with the Nazis!”

“Far-fetched? Far from it,” Rowe continued. “That’s how logical fallacies work. A flaw in reasoning or a mistaken belief undermines the logic of a conclusion, often leading to real-world consequences. And right now, logical fallacies are not limited to the warped beliefs of morons with tiki torches, and other morons calling for ‘more dead cops.’ Logical fallacies are everywhere.”

Not near done, Rowe wrote, “As I type this, a Democrat on CNN is making an argument that says, ‘because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, those Republicans now opposed to tearing down his memorial are ‘pro-slavery,’ and therefore aligned with the modern day KKK.’ That’s a logical fallacy.

“Over on Fox, a Republican is arguing that ‘any Democrat who has not yet condemned the Senator from Missouri for publicly wishing that Donald Trump be assassinated, is guilty of wishing for the exact same thing.’ That’s a logical fallacy.

“Yesterday, on The Science Channel, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a noted astronomer, tweeted that the ability of scientists to accurately predict the solar eclipse, was proof that predictions of global warming were also accurate. That’s a logical fallacy.”

Then Rowe turned the tables on his accuser, continuing, “Want to hear another one? Imagine something like this, unfolding over on MSNBC.

“‘Good Evening, America, our top story tonight… Chuck Atkins is a racist! Why? Because he can’t spell. Just look at his grammar! In a recent post on Mike Rowe’s Facebook page, Mr. Atkins, while bemoaning America’s global academic standing, not only misspelled ‘elitist,’ he used ‘tenants’ when he meant ‘tenets.’ He neglected to use a hyphen in ‘anti-intellectual,’ and he misplaced several commas and apostrophes! But why is he a racist, you ask? Simple. Because everyone knows racists are ignorant. Chuck Atkins is clearly a poor speller. Poor spelling and grammar are signs of ignorance. Ergo – Chuck Atkins is a racist! Boom! The matter is settled!”

“There’s not much we can do about the news, but here on Facebook, I think we can do better. This isn’t Twitter,” Rowe said. “We’re not limited to a few inflammatory sentences and a flurry of emojis. Take a moment, Chuck. Think. Make a rational argument. Otherwise, just link us to a cat video. People love those, and they’re almost never ‘bad for business.’ (Unless of course, the cat gets hurt. People hate that.) Just don’t assume that people will care about your beliefs, if you’re not willing to back them up with some relevant facts and a rational conclusion. Here, for instance, are a few facts that matter to me, with respect to my foundation and the recurring charge of ‘fostering anti-intellectualism.'”

Rowe then defended his charitable work, writing, “mikeroweWORKS is a PR campaign for the skilled trades. For the last nine years, we’ve partnered with numerous trade schools, raised millions of dollars for work-ethic scholarships, and called attention to millions of jobs that don’t require a four-year degree. But that doesn’t mean we’re ‘anti-intellectual.’ We’re not even ‘anti-college.’ We simply reject the popular notion that a four-year degree is the best path for the most people. And we’re hardly alone.

“Millions of reasonable people – Republicans and Democrats alike – are worried that our universities are doing a poor job of preparing students for the real world. They’re worried about activist professors, safe spaces, the rising cost of tuition, a growing contempt for history, and a simmering disregard of the first amendment. These people are concerned that our universities – once beacons of free speech – now pander to a relatively small percentage of students who can’t tolerate any political opinion that challenges their own. And they’re concerned – deeply concerned – that millions of good jobs are currently vacant that don’t require a four-year degree, or any of the catastrophic debt that comes with it.”

Returning to the original attack, Rowe concluded, “Again – these are not the concerns of ‘anti-intellectuals.’ They are the concerns of people who care about the future of the country. I don’t know how many of these people are Republicans, but I can assure you that no one who actually supports my initiative is remotely confused about my feelings on education, because I’ve been crystal clear on that topic from the very beginning. To quote Thomas Jefferson, (while I still can,) ‘If a nation expects to be ignorant and free and live in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.’ On this point, my foundation does not equivocate.

“In other words, Chuck, I have no idea what The White Nationalists think about my efforts, or the Republicans, the Democrats, the elitists, the Italians, the Presbyterians, the unions, or the self-proclaimed anti-intellectuals. And really, I couldn’t care less. My question is, why do you? Mike.”

[r3volution 3.0]

I doubt Bannon's a racist; he does obviously pander to racists.

He consciously guided Breitbart toward nationalist/racist politics over the last several years.

He himself called Breitbart a "platform for the alt-right," and that movement, as he well knows, is primarily about white identity politics.

[euphemia]

Calling neo nazis "clowns" is not racist. (Trump saying "There are good people on both sides"....? Well this isn't about Trump. It's about Bannon.)

No, it is not racist, nor is Trump saying there are good people on both sides. There are some people who hold horribly bigoted attitudes who would not think of perpetrating violence on anyone. People are free to think whatever they like. They are not free to violate the rights of anyone else.

[Swordsmyth]

Seriously. I have the cash in hand. Go for it.

Here are the parameters.

Pointing out that Planned Parenthood is a racist organization that kills millions of babies is neither racist nor anti-woman, especially considering that most women support restrictions on abortion.

Posting articles written by non-whites who fled radical Islam that there is a problem with radical Islam is not racist. I disagree with the "We can't let Muslims in the country" because that is a fear reaction to what should be a faith issue. (Do you have faith in the power of the gospel? If you don't you aren't a Christian anyway.) But simply pointing out obvious problems in a minority voice in Islam is no more racist than pointing out that "Christian Identity" Christians are racists.

Posting articles that show that some gays like Milo I-can't-spell-his-last-name-and-I'm-to-lazy-to-look-it-up and radical lesbian TERF feminists hate each other with a passion is not racist. It's not even LGBTQABCDEFG phobic.

Calling neo nazis "clowns" is not racist. (Trump saying "There are good people on both sides"....? Well this isn't about Trump. It's about Bannon.)

Saying the left engages in "identity politics" is not racist.

The ADL itself, the a$$holes who started the "Steve Bannon is a racist" meme, admitted on their own website that they never found any racist statements by Steven Bannon.

So....what is the evidence that he is racist?

This offer only covers evidence of things that happened prior to the date of its publication. If sometime in the future Steve Bannon says "Screw it" and actually comes out and says something racist, you can't collect on that.


No, it is not racist, nor is Trump saying there are good people on both sides. There are some people who hold horribly bigoted attitudes who would not think of perpetrating violence on anyone. People are free to think whatever they like. They are not free to violate the rights of anyone else.

Dump said there were good people on both sides OF THE MONUMENT PROTEST, not everyone who showed up to protest the removal of the Lee statue was KKK or a NAZI, not everyone who wanted it taken down was AntiFa.

No matter which side OF THE MONUMENT DEBATE you are on there were relatively decent people on the other side.

[euphemia]

The people who defied the law in the performance of their duties and the ones who fomented violence are the bad people. The rest are free people.

Trust me, I would call out a bigot in a New York minute, but I hold that all people have freedom of thought.

[jllundqu]

I honestly think if Mike Rowe ran for office, he'd win. I'd vote for him. He is what Trump SHOULD have been. Someone who can connect with everyday people. Someone who doesn't take shit. But also someone who can articulate thoughts and positions based in principle and reason.


I'll bump this lonely thread with this epic rant by “Dirty Jobs” host Mike Rowe

Mike Rowe Absolutely Destroys Guy Who Accuses Him Of Being A White Nationalist
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/23/mike-rowe-absolutely-destroys-guy-who-accuses-him-of-being-a-white-nationalist/

Mike Rowe had some choice words Tuesday night in response to a question he got accusing him of harboring “white nationalist” sympathies.

Rowe posted a question submitted to him on his Facebook page that accused the TV host’s advocacy for the skilled trades of amounting to anti-intellectualism, and therefore racism.

A man named Chuck Adkins asked, “One of the tenants of white nationalism is that college educated people are academic elitests. Comment? No? I’m not surprised. You never take a political stand because you don’t want to alienate anybody. Its bad for business. I get it. But there is a current of anti intellectualism in this country – promoted by Republicans. Those people love you, and they think your initiative is their initiative. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is kickin our ass academically.”

Rowe, a popular jovial TV personality, went off in a long, brutal response.

“Since we’re being candid, allow me to say how much I dislike your post. Everything about it annoys me – your smug and snarky tone, your appalling grammar, your complete lack of evidence to support your claims, and of course, the overarching logical fallacy that informs your entire position,” Rowe wrote. “What really bugs me though, is the fact that you’re not entirely wrong. It’s true; I haven’t shared any political opinions this week, in part anyway, because doing so might very well be ‘bad for business.'”

“What can I say? I work for half-a-dozen different companies, none of whom pay me to share my political opinions. I run a non-partisan foundation, I’m about to launch a new show on Facebook, and I’m very aware that celebrities pay a price for opening their big fat gobs. Gilbert Gottfried, Kathy Griffin, Colin Kaepernick, Milo Yiannopoulos…even that guy from Google who just got himself fired for mouthing off. There’s no getting around it – the first amendment does not guarantee the freedom to speak without consequences. And really, that’s fine by me,” he continued.

“So no – I’m not going to share my personal feelings about Charlottesville, President Trump, or the current effort to remove thousands of statues of long dead soldiers from the public square. Not just because it’s ‘bad for business,’ but because it’s annoying. I can’t think of a single celebrity whose political opinion I value, and I’m not going to assume the country feels any differently about mine,” Rowe wrote. “So, rather than blow myself up, or chime in with all the obvious observations about the cowardly scum in the pointy hats, I’m going to talk instead about my belief that comments like yours pose a far greater threat to the future of our country than the existence of a memorial to Thomas Jefferson, or a monument to George Washington. Ready?”

Then Rowe started in on Adkins’ insinuations.

“You say that White Nationalists believe that everyone who goes to college is an ‘academic elite.’ You then say that Republicans promote ‘anti-intellectualism.’ You offer no proof to support either claim, but it really doesn’t matter – your statements successfully connect two radically different organizations by alleging a shared belief,” Rowe said. “Thus, White Nationalists and The Republican Party suddenly have something in common – a contempt for higher education. Then, you make it personal. You say that Republicans “love” me because they believe that my initiative and ‘their’ initiative are one and the same. But of course, ‘their’ initiative is now the same initiative as White Nationalists.”

He continued “Very clever. Without offering a shred of evidence, you’ve implied that Republicans who support mikeroweWORKS do so because they believe I share their disdain for all things ‘intellectual.’ And poof – just like that, Republicans, White Nationalists, and mikeroweWORKS are suddenly conflated, and the next thing you know, I’m off on a press tour to disavow rumors of my troubling association with the Nazis!”

“Far-fetched? Far from it,” Rowe continued. “That’s how logical fallacies work. A flaw in reasoning or a mistaken belief undermines the logic of a conclusion, often leading to real-world consequences. And right now, logical fallacies are not limited to the warped beliefs of morons with tiki torches, and other morons calling for ‘more dead cops.’ Logical fallacies are everywhere.”

Not near done, Rowe wrote, “As I type this, a Democrat on CNN is making an argument that says, ‘because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, those Republicans now opposed to tearing down his memorial are ‘pro-slavery,’ and therefore aligned with the modern day KKK.’ That’s a logical fallacy.

“Over on Fox, a Republican is arguing that ‘any Democrat who has not yet condemned the Senator from Missouri for publicly wishing that Donald Trump be assassinated, is guilty of wishing for the exact same thing.’ That’s a logical fallacy.

“Yesterday, on The Science Channel, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a noted astronomer, tweeted that the ability of scientists to accurately predict the solar eclipse, was proof that predictions of global warming were also accurate. That’s a logical fallacy.”

Then Rowe turned the tables on his accuser, continuing, “Want to hear another one? Imagine something like this, unfolding over on MSNBC.

“‘Good Evening, America, our top story tonight… Chuck Atkins is a racist! Why? Because he can’t spell. Just look at his grammar! In a recent post on Mike Rowe’s Facebook page, Mr. Atkins, while bemoaning America’s global academic standing, not only misspelled ‘elitist,’ he used ‘tenants’ when he meant ‘tenets.’ He neglected to use a hyphen in ‘anti-intellectual,’ and he misplaced several commas and apostrophes! But why is he a racist, you ask? Simple. Because everyone knows racists are ignorant. Chuck Atkins is clearly a poor speller. Poor spelling and grammar are signs of ignorance. Ergo – Chuck Atkins is a racist! Boom! The matter is settled!”

“There’s not much we can do about the news, but here on Facebook, I think we can do better. This isn’t Twitter,” Rowe said. “We’re not limited to a few inflammatory sentences and a flurry of emojis. Take a moment, Chuck. Think. Make a rational argument. Otherwise, just link us to a cat video. People love those, and they’re almost never ‘bad for business.’ (Unless of course, the cat gets hurt. People hate that.) Just don’t assume that people will care about your beliefs, if you’re not willing to back them up with some relevant facts and a rational conclusion. Here, for instance, are a few facts that matter to me, with respect to my foundation and the recurring charge of ‘fostering anti-intellectualism.'”

Rowe then defended his charitable work, writing, “mikeroweWORKS is a PR campaign for the skilled trades. For the last nine years, we’ve partnered with numerous trade schools, raised millions of dollars for work-ethic scholarships, and called attention to millions of jobs that don’t require a four-year degree. But that doesn’t mean we’re ‘anti-intellectual.’ We’re not even ‘anti-college.’ We simply reject the popular notion that a four-year degree is the best path for the most people. And we’re hardly alone.

“Millions of reasonable people – Republicans and Democrats alike – are worried that our universities are doing a poor job of preparing students for the real world. They’re worried about activist professors, safe spaces, the rising cost of tuition, a growing contempt for history, and a simmering disregard of the first amendment. These people are concerned that our universities – once beacons of free speech – now pander to a relatively small percentage of students who can’t tolerate any political opinion that challenges their own. And they’re concerned – deeply concerned – that millions of good jobs are currently vacant that don’t require a four-year degree, or any of the catastrophic debt that comes with it.”

Returning to the original attack, Rowe concluded, “Again – these are not the concerns of ‘anti-intellectuals.’ They are the concerns of people who care about the future of the country. I don’t know how many of these people are Republicans, but I can assure you that no one who actually supports my initiative is remotely confused about my feelings on education, because I’ve been crystal clear on that topic from the very beginning. To quote Thomas Jefferson, (while I still can,) ‘If a nation expects to be ignorant and free and live in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.’ On this point, my foundation does not equivocate.

“In other words, Chuck, I have no idea what The White Nationalists think about my efforts, or the Republicans, the Democrats, the elitists, the Italians, the Presbyterians, the unions, or the self-proclaimed anti-intellectuals. And really, I couldn’t care less. My question is, why do you? Mike.”

[Brian4Liberty]

No, it is not racist, nor is Trump saying there are good people on both sides. There are some people who hold horribly bigoted attitudes who would not think of perpetrating violence on anyone. People are free to think whatever they like. They are not free to violate the rights of anyone else.

People on the far left condone violence against those who are accused of ungood thought. They do not believe in freedom of thought.

[LibertyEagle]

I doubt Bannon's a racist; he does obviously pander to racists.

He consciously guided Breitbart toward nationalist/racist politics over the last several years.

He himself called Breitbart a "platform for the alt-right," and that movement, as he well knows, is primarily about white identity politics.

There you go again. Conflating caring about one's own country/countrymen over some globalist bullshit, is not racist; it is common sense. To suggest otherwise is communist claptrap. Stop it.

[jmdrake]

I doubt Bannon's a racist; he does obviously pander to racists.

He consciously guided Breitbart toward nationalist/racist politics over the last several years.

He himself called Breitbart a "platform for the alt-right," and that movement, as he well knows, is primarily about white identity politics.

The term "tea party" didn't mean the same thing when we did the tea party money bomb as it did once Sarah Palin et al took over. Similarly the meaning of "alt-right" today is not the same as it was when Bannon used the term.

I have not seen anyg racist at Breitbart. I've seen false claims by the media of so called racist articles but in my admittedly brief investigation. every article that ADL claimed was racist turned out not to actually be racist. Feel free to prove me wrong with a link to an actual racist article at Breitbart.

[jmdrake]

No, it is not racist, nor is Trump saying there are good people on both sides. There are some people who hold horribly bigoted attitudes who would not think of perpetrating violence on anyone. People are free to think whatever they like. They are not free to violate the rights of anyone else.


Dump said there were good people on both sides OF THE MONUMENT PROTEST, not everyone who showed up to protest the removal of the Lee statue was KKK or a NAZI, not everyone who wanted it taken down was AntiFa.

No matter which side OF THE MONUMENT DEBATE you are on there were relatively decent people on the other side.

You know, if I knew ahead of time that a bunch of neo nazis were going to show up to protest the Federal Reserve I would stay at home. 1 Corinthians 15:33 Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character."

[jmdrake]

People on the far left condone violence against those who are accused of ungood thought. They do not believe in freedom of thought.

I'm not condoning idiots on the left or the right. Trump falls in the idiots on the right category. But this thread is about Steve Bannon. He unequivocally called the right wing Charlottesville protesters "clowns." He made the right call. If Donald Trump had a lick of sense he would have followed Steve Bannon's example from the jump on this. But...and here's the irony...Steve Bannon is the one who gets canned and keeps getting the "racist" moniker as if he is the bad actor in this scenario. If anything Bannon is better off without Trump.

[Swordsmyth]

You know, if I knew ahead of time that a bunch of neo nazis were going to show up to protest the Federal Reserve I would stay at home. 1 Corinthians 15:33 Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character."
It was dumb, I have said so before on the thread about the rally.
I think many of the KKK and NAZIs are Leftist moles intent on getting decent people on the right to look bad by association.

The KKK and the NAZIs are a gift to the leftists who have been claiming the rest of us are NAZIs since the 60s.

[oyarde]

I should get a six pack for not caring if they are racist .

[jmdrake]

It was dumb, I have said so before on the thread about the rally.
I think many of the KKK and NAZIs are Leftist moles intent on getting decent people on the right to look bad by association.

The KKK and the NAZIs are a gift to the leftists who have been claiming the rest of us are NAZIs since the 60s.

Okay. Of course the real point of this thread is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Steve Bannon is racist and yet he gets tagged with that label. One can argue about Trump's comments. But Bannon's comments on this matter are unassailable. And I've seen no other evidence of Bannon being racist. I'm not a Bannon fan. His 1 trillion dollar stimulus plan it bat guano crazy. (Actually liberals should love him for it.) He's just not racist.

[Swordsmyth]

Okay. Of course the real point of this thread is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Steve Bannon is racist and yet he gets tagged with that label. One can argue about Trump's comments. But Bannon's comments on this matter are unassailable. And I've seen no other evidence of Bannon being racist. I'm not a Bannon fan. His 1 trillion dollar stimulus plan it bat guano crazy. (Actually liberals should love him for it.) He's just not racist.

Yes, he also wanted to RAISE taxes on "the Rich".
But I have yet to see any evidence of racism.

[Danke]

He is white. PM me and I will tell you where to send the money.

[oyarde]

He is white. PM me and I will tell you where to send the money.

I need to borrow 89 dollars .

[oyarde]

Last time I saw Bannon he looked corpse like , not sure I would really describe it as white . More of a gray .

[Danke]

I need to borrow 89 dollars .

Sell some beaver furs/pelts.

[oyarde]

Sell some beaver furs/pelts.

Just pretend I am the govt and give it to me , then pretend it is for social security and I intend to give it back to you later . In return , I will give you a gift and let you observe daylight saving time . Unlike the govt. though , I will tell you what I really spend it on .

[KingNothing]

There you go again. Conflating caring about one's own country/countrymen over some globalist bull$#@!, is not racist; it is common sense. To suggest otherwise is communist claptrap. Stop it.


I'll never understand why people think a belief that America's founding ideals represent the pinnacle of human social interaction is somehow racist.

I believe America is awesome and that it has the ability to reach heights no one alive today can even conceptualize. That doesn't make me a racist. An American chauvinist? Yes, please. But racist? No way.

[Brian4Liberty]

It was dumb, I have said so before on the thread about the rally.
I think many of the KKK and NAZIs are Leftist moles intent on getting decent people on the right to look bad by association.

The KKK and the NAZIs are a gift to the leftists who have been claiming the rest of us are NAZIs since the 60s.

The guy featured in the first photo (link below) giving the Nazi salute with a shield was later proven to be an Antifa false flag mole. There were pics found of him fighting on the Antifa side. Note he is covering his face, which the Black Bloc people do, not the Nazis. Good luck finding it. Google/YouTube are scrubbing their search engines.

http://forward.com/fast-forward/369199/pro-trump-protestors-give-nazi-salute-in-berkeley/

[Swordsmyth]

The guy featured in the first photo (link below) giving the Nazi salute with a shield was later proven to be an Antifa false flag mole. There were pics found of him fighting on the Antifa side. Note he is covering his face, which the Black Bloc people do, not the Nazis. Good luck finding it. Google/YouTube are scrubbing their search engines.

http://forward.com/fast-forward/369199/pro-trump-protestors-give-nazi-salute-in-berkeley/

I meant deeper moles at higher levels, but I'm sure they have them at the bottom as well.

[KingNothing]

The guy featured in the first photo (link below) giving the Nazi salute with a shield was later proven to be an Antifa false flag mole. There were pics found of him fighting on the Antifa side. Note he is covering his face, which the Black Bloc people do, not the Nazis. Good luck finding it. Google/YouTube are scrubbing their search engines.

http://forward.com/fast-forward/369199/pro-trump-protestors-give-nazi-salute-in-berkeley/

Google is now attempting to demonetize your entire life for suggesting that they'd dare hide information helpful to the right!

[Raginfridus]

I honestly think if Mike Rowe ran for office, he'd win. I'd vote for him. He is what Trump SHOULD have been. Someone who can connect with everyday people. Someone who doesn't take $#@!. But also someone who can articulate thoughts and positions based in principle and reason.Reminds me of the (Roosevelt) smear campaign against Charles Lindbergh, except Roosevelt and his goons got away with their libel, but its the same tactic: guilt by association.

If six degrees of separation holds true, and in Chuck's world we're judged guilty by association, then I myself am an accomplice to every evil committed during my lifetime, but the same rules prove I'm also to thank for assisting every good deed done on earth during my lifetime. No wonder Chuck's grammar sucks, he's a paranoid-schizophrenic.

[jmdrake]

He is white. PM me and I will tell you where to send the money.

Touche'.

https://camo.githubusercontent.com/916842e324dfef7350ecd092bd7db77331ed8ec6/687474703a2f2f7777772e72656372656174657765622e636f 6d2e61752f77702d636f6e74656e742f75706c6f6164732f32 3031342f30322f686f6d65722d636f6d70757465722d646f68 2e6a7067


Sell some beaver furs/pelts.

But I got religion and dumped all my old copies of Hustler.

[r3volution 3.0]

The term "tea party" didn't mean the same thing when we did the tea party money bomb as it did once Sarah Palin et al took over. Similarly the meaning of "alt-right" today is not the same as it was when Bannon used the term.

The term alt-right (originally coined by Richard Spencer) has always referred to white identity politics.

[jllundqu]

The term alt-right (originally coined by Richard Spencer) has always referred to white identity politics.

https://survivetheark.com/uploads/monthly_2017_06/822c430f76db5224b361fb7d6779cb2b_12-morgan-freeman-memes-hes-right_800-598.thumb.jpeg.f30e8bb5fcbd2b62cbde9584c28a5037.jp eg

[Brian4Liberty]

The term alt-right (originally coined by Richard Spencer) has always referred to white identity politics.

What the term means today has nothing to do with how it was originally "coined".


Where does the alt right come from? The term comes from “alternative right,” which was first formulated near the end of the Bush presidency to describe the anti-Bush Right. Ron Paul fans, paleoconservatives and anyone else who opposed the policies of the Bush administration — particularly the Iraq war — could be placed under this umbrella in the beginning. That was how it was described by future Rand Paul adviser Jack Hunter in a 2009 article urging for the movement to take a more libertarian turn.

Instead, it became more white nationalist. Alternative Right became the moniker of a web publication run by Richard Spencer in 2010, which emphasized the racialist elements of the burgeoning movement while shedding itself of its libertarian elements.
...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/24/what-is-the-alt-right/


In November 2008, self-described paleoconservative philosopher Paul Gottfried addressed the H. L. Mencken Club about what he called "the alternative right".[42] This was republished in December under the title "The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right"[43] in the conservative Taki's Magazine, making this the earliest published usage of the phrase in its current context according to Slate. In 2009, two more posts at Taki's Magazine, by Patrick J. Ford and Jack Hunter, further discussed the alternative right.[44] The term, however, is most commonly attributed to Richard B. Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and founder of Alternative Right.[24][45][46]
...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right


Gottfried is a paleoconservative critic of neoconservativism within the Republican Party. In fact, the term paleoconservative was first used by Paul Gottfried and Thomas Fleming, with the "paleo" prefix meaning "old" in opposition to the "neo", or "new", conservatives. Gottfried is also notable as the first person to use the term "alternative right", when referring specifically to developments within American right-wing politics, in 2008.[4] The term has since gained wide currency with the rise of the so-called "alt-right".
...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gottfried

[Brian4Liberty]

The term alt-right (originally coined by Richard Spencer) has always referred to white identity politics.

What the term means today has nothing to do with how it was originally "coined".


Where does the alt right come from? The term comes from “alternative right,” which was first formulated near the end of the Bush presidency to describe the anti-Bush Right. Ron Paul fans, paleoconservatives and anyone else who opposed the policies of the Bush administration — particularly the Iraq war — could be placed under this umbrella in the beginning. That was how it was described by future Rand Paul adviser Jack Hunter in a 2009 article urging for the movement to take a more libertarian turn.

Instead, it became more white nationalist. Alternative Right became the moniker of a web publication run by Richard Spencer in 2010, which emphasized the racialist elements of the burgeoning movement while shedding itself of its libertarian elements.
...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/24/what-is-the-alt-right/


In November 2008, self-described paleoconservative philosopher Paul Gottfried addressed the H. L. Mencken Club about what he called "the alternative right".[42] This was republished in December under the title "The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right"[43] in the conservative Taki's Magazine, making this the earliest published usage of the phrase in its current context according to Slate. In 2009, two more posts at Taki's Magazine, by Patrick J. Ford and Jack Hunter, further discussed the alternative right.[44] The term, however, is most commonly attributed to Richard B. Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and founder of Alternative Right.[24][45][46]
...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right


Gottfried is a paleoconservative critic of neoconservativism within the Republican Party. In fact, the term paleoconservative was first used by Paul Gottfried and Thomas Fleming, with the "paleo" prefix meaning "old" in opposition to the "neo", or "new", conservatives. Gottfried is also notable as the first person to use the term "alternative right", when referring specifically to developments within American right-wing politics, in 2008.[4] The term has since gained wide currency with the rise of the so-called "alt-right".
...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gottfried

[r3volution 3.0]

What the term means today has nothing to do with how it was originally "coined".

The movement which calls itself alt-right is, and always has been, primarily about white identity politics.


https://survivetheark.com/uploads/monthly_2017_06/822c430f76db5224b361fb7d6779cb2b_12-morgan-freeman-memes-hes-right_800-598.thumb.jpeg.f30e8bb5fcbd2b62cbde9584c28a5037.jp eg

Your post is blank for me.

[jllundqu]

The movement which calls itself alt-right is, and always has been, primarily about white identity politics.



Your post is blank for me.

It's a pic of morgan freeman with the clip "He's right you know." I was wholeheartedly agreeing with you

[Brian4Liberty]

The movement which calls itself alt-right is, and always has been, primarily about white identity politics.

So Paul Gottfried is all about white identity politics? Secretly KKK? A Nazi too?

[jmdrake]

The term alt-right (originally coined by Richard Spencer) has always referred to white identity politics.

How about Robert Spencer? Do you consider him white? He looks brown to me.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Robert_Spencer.jpg/220px-Robert_Spencer.jpg

His family is of Turkish Christian heritage. According to the ADL hit piece against Steve Bannon, Robert Spencer is "racist" because he doesn't like the radical Muslims who drove his family out of their ancestral homeland.

[r3volution 3.0]

It's a pic of morgan freeman with the clip "He's right you know." I was wholeheartedly agreeing with you

10-4


So Paul Gottfried is all about white identity politics? Secretly KKK? A Nazi too?


How about Robert Spencer? Do you consider him white? He looks brown to me.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Robert_Spencer.jpg/220px-Robert_Spencer.jpg

His family is of Turkish Christian heritage. According to the ADL hit piece against Steve Bannon, Robert Spencer is "racist" because he doesn't like the radical Muslims who drove his family out of their ancestral homeland.

You spend a lot of time trying to debunk the (often false or hyperbolic) claims of the MSM wrt the alt-right, yet I get the distinct impression that you've never actually explored the alt-right yourself, visited their own websites, read what they themselves have written about their own goals and ideas. Look into The Right Stuff, American Renaissance, and Radix Journal, for starters. When you've familiarized yourself with their content, come back and tell me with a straight face that they (some of the top sites of what is an almost entirely online movement) aren't about white identity politics. Sadly (for purposes of illustration) The Right Stuff no longer uses a dynamic header featuring photos of smiling NAZIs, but I'm sure you can find an old one if you Google it. Happy browsing.

[jmdrake]

10-4





You spend a lot of time trying to debunk the (often false or hyperbolic) claims of the MSM wrt the alt-right, yet I get the distinct impression that you've never actually explored the alt-right yourself, visited their own websites, read what they themselves have written about their own goals and ideas. Look into The Right Stuff, American Renaissance, and Radix Journal, for starters. When you've familiarized yourself with their content, come back and tell me with a straight face that they (some of the top sites of what is an almost entirely online movement) aren't about white identity politics. Sadly (for purposes of illustration) The Right Stuff no longer uses a dynamic header featuring photos of smiling NAZIs, but I'm sure you can find an old one if you Google it. Happy browsing.

I'm not asking about the entire alt-right. This thread is about Steve Bannon and Breitbart. Nice try at diversionary tactics. I will take your latest post as proof that you know that I'm right. If you had proof that Steve Bannon was racist or that Breitbart was racist you would have come forward with it to collect the $100.00 as opposed to trying to send me off on some wild goose chase to prove what I already know which is that there are people in the alt-right movement who are racist. Guess what? There are people in the Ron Paul movement who are racist. So.....what's your point? Do you have one?

[r3volution 3.0]

I doubt Bannon's a racist; he does obviously pander to racists.

He consciously guided Breitbart toward nationalist/racist politics over the last several years.

He himself called Breitbart a "platform for the alt-right," and that movement, as he well knows, is primarily about white identity politics.The term "tea party" didn't mean the same thing when we did the tea party money bomb as it did once Sarah Palin et al took over. Similarly the meaning of "alt-right" today is not the same as it was when Bannon used the term.

I have not seen anything racist at Breitbart. I've seen false claims by the media of so called racist articles but in my admittedly brief investigation. every article that ADL claimed was racist turned out not to actually be racist. Feel free to prove me wrong with a link to an actual racist article at Breitbart.

The term alt-right (originally coined by Richard Spencer) has always referred to white identity politics.How about Robert Spencer? Do you consider him white? He looks brown to me.

His family is of Turkish Christian heritage. According to the ADL hit piece against Steve Bannon, Robert Spencer is "racist" because he doesn't like the radical Muslims who drove his family out of their ancestral homeland.


You spend a lot of time trying to debunk the (often false or hyperbolic) claims of the MSM wrt the alt-right, yet I get the distinct impression that you've never actually explored the alt-right yourself, visited their own websites, read what they themselves have written about their own goals and ideas. Look into The Right Stuff, American Renaissance, and Radix Journal, for starters. When you've familiarized yourself with their content, come back and tell me with a straight face that they (some of the top sites of what is an almost entirely online movement) aren't about white identity politics. Sadly (for purposes of illustration) The Right Stuff no longer uses a dynamic header featuring photos of smiling NAZIs, but I'm sure you can find an old one if you Google it. Happy browsing.I'm not asking about the entire alt-right. This thread is about Steve Bannon and Breitbart.

Hence my first post in the thread was about Bannon and Breitbart.


trying to send me off on some wild goose chase to prove what I already know which is that there are people in the alt-right movement who are racist.

It's not that there are some people in the alt-right movement who are racist, it's that racism is the defining characteristic of the movement.


So.....what's your point? Do you have one?

I've made it. I've nothing further to say to you.

[LibertyEagle]

The term "tea party" didn't mean the same thing when we did the tea party money bomb as it did once Sarah Palin et al took over. Similarly the meaning of "alt-right" today is not the same as it was when Bannon used the term.

I have not seen anyg racist at Breitbart. I've seen false claims by the media of so called racist articles but in my admittedly brief investigation. every article that ADL claimed was racist turned out not to actually be racist. Feel free to prove me wrong with a link to an actual racist article at Breitbart.

Sarah Palin was not the "et al" who took over part of the tea party. She was however the et al who endorsed Rand Paul for President.

[DamianTV]

Sarah Palin was not the "et al" who took over part of the tea party. She was however the et al who endorsed Rand Paul for President.

Sarah Palin is an Astroturf Plant. Her brand of liberty was sponsored in part by some group with a hammer and scythe.

[nikcers]

100 dollar rewards for proof that Steven Bannon or Breitbart.com isn't zionist.

[nikcers]

Guess who's picture comes up when googling "zionist"

"I haven't discussed it with him." Klein called the accusations against Bannon a "total smear campaign," and described Bannon as "so pro-Israel" during his time in the White House.
I've never seen someone smeared and being presented as the opposite of what he is, like the way they've done to Steve Bannon," Klein stated.

[Ender]

Sarah Palin is an Astroturf Plant. Her brand of liberty was sponsored in part by some group with a hammer and scythe.

Yep.

[dannno]

I presume the $100 is still in hand.

I'm tempted to go make $50 offers to see if any of my progressive friends can prove he is racist.

[juleswin]

Would evidence showing that Breitbart on several occasions knowingly published false information that smeared brown people as a group to their audience count as evidence of racism? I think most big news sites are smart enough to use covert racism instead of overt racism in their practice, people are more sophisticated now. If you are looking for 1950 type racist then you are never going to pay out.

These people are just like Stefan Molyeneux, they couches his racism in this form of pseudo pursuit for the truth. You can look at the stories they should to report on, the spin they put on it and which side the reporting errors end up hurting and then you would see their racial favoritism or what I like call racism.

[enhanced_deficit]

Don't know if he is or not, he came across as an isolationist/America Firster kinda guy from what little have read about his views.

If had to bet a donut, he is probably not even 5% of "racist" compared to the militant, interventionist, drone killing colored children,ISIS founding-fathering minded puppet masters of DGP Obama who color-coordinate their presentations. That kinda war mongering wrapped greedy racism appears to be far more deadly and evil for humanity than an isolationist/nationalist minded ideologue could be.

[jmdrake]

Sarah Palin was not the "et al" who took over part of the tea party. She was however the et al who endorsed Rand Paul for President.

You do know what the term "et al" means right? It means "and others." It is not grammatically correct to say "Sarah Palin was not the and others." That said, she was part of the movement that changed what the Tea Party meant. Great she endorsed Rand. Not so great that she endorsed McCain. She is a political opportunist pure and simple.

[jmdrake]

100 dollar rewards for proof that Steven Bannon or Breitbart.com isn't zionist.

LOL. Uhhh....hell no I'm not taking that bet. Of course most of his liberal critics are zionists too.


I presume the $100 is still in hand.

I'm tempted to go make $50 offers to see if any of my progressive friends can prove he is racist.

I need to put it in an escrow account. Money comes and goes. I suspect your progressive friends would be the least likely to find real evidence because all they are going to do is to parrot the same fake evidence that's coming from the progressive media.


Would evidence showing that Breitbart on several occasions knowingly published false information that smeared brown people as a group to their audience count as evidence of racism? I think most big news sites are smart enough to use covert racism instead of overt racism in their practice, people are more sophisticated now. If you are looking for 1950 type racist then you are never going to pay out.

These people are just like Stefan Molyeneux, they couches his racism in this form of pseudo pursuit for the truth. You can look at the stories they should to report on, the spin they put on it and which side the reporting errors end up hurting and then you would see their racial favoritism or what I like call racism.

Maybe. I'd have to see. I've seen more evidence that Stefan Molyeneux might be racist than I have Steve Bannon. That said, Islam != "brown people." When I did my own research into the claims of racism made by the ADL, I realized they were full of crap. There argument seemed similar to the argument you are making.


Don't know if he is or not, he came across as an isolationist/America Firster kinda guy from what little have read about his views.

If had to bet a donut, he is probably not even 5% of "racist" compared to the militant, interventionist, drone killing colored children,ISIS founding-fathering minded puppet masters of DGP Obama who color-coordinate their presentations. That kinda war mongering wrapped greedy racism appears to be far more deadly and evil for humanity than an isolationist/nationalist minded ideologue could be.

Well....maybe. I'm not a fan of Bannon. But I will say this. Steve Bannon was one of the few in the Trump administration to criticize the attack on Syria. Bannon also said that going to war with North Korea is not a good idea. So we kind of lost the last non-interventionist in the Trump administration. Oh well.

[Identity]

Would evidence showing that Breitbart on several occasions knowingly published false information that smeared brown people as a group to their audience count as evidence of racism? I think most big news sites are smart enough to use covert racism instead of overt racism in their practice, people are more sophisticated now. If you are looking for 1950 type racist then you are never going to pay out.
[Emphasis mine]


Oh, you'd be quite mistaken in that silly assessment of the situation:

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CH5-2VYWUAAZKih.png-large.png

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKHkXcyX0AI-q5z.jpg:large

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-R8GFySXRGv8%2FWRi6eGLFBOI%2FAAAAAAAAGCY%2FKnVYruQg h-0qJhbvp8ERKBMI84b5Dfo5gCLcB%2Fs1600%2Ffw1.JPG&f=1

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. qDO6h5ZT2lJuw3Q_ZlwYBwDREq%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

Do you find any of the above 'racist?' Curious as well: do you give an ounce of effort combating the 'waycism' found in the Indian caste system, Latin America class segregation, or the daily struggle of the indigenous people of Taiwan & Tibet against Han Chinese ethnics? Or is it just these extremely tenuous classic SJW-esque assertions of "rampant" racism in the largely secular, democratic, & tolerant West? Silly arguments, all around.



These people are just like Stefan Molyeneux, they couches his racism in this form of pseudo pursuit for the truth. You can look at the stories they should to report on, the spin they put on it and which side the reporting errors end up hurting and then you would see their racial favoritism or what I like call racism.

No, just no. Out of all the things Molyneux can be criticized for (parading around an obscure, controversial theory such as Austrian economics, NAP, sloppy philosophical justifications for AnCapistan, etc..) the race issue isn't one of them.

[Identity]

Seems as if the user "r3volution 3.0" neg repped my comment. Honestly, I'm curious how anything I asked was offensive? I suppose that Salon's comments (and the above general anti-white hysteria that has gripped this country) are totally appropriate to these so-called "anti-racist" radicals. Just don't bring up the on-going discrimination against Tibetans, indigenous Taiwanese, Latin America class (and race) segregation, and cruelty inflicted upon the Kurds- this does damage to their "white people are responsible for racism" narrative. Then again, what kind of intellectual depth could one except from a grown adult that makes the laughable claim of taxation being theft or presupposes the arbitrary (and morally ambiguous) NAP? Gotta love those Mises quotes.

[acptulsa]

Out of all the things Molyneux can be criticized for (parading around an obscure, controversial theory such as Austrian economics, NAP, sloppy philosophical justifications for AnCapistan, etc..) the race issue isn't one of them.


Then again, what kind of intellectual depth could one except from a grown adult that makes the laughable claim of taxation being theft or presupposes the arbitrary (and morally ambiguous) NAP? Gotta love those Mises quotes.

No, I'm pretty sure you're getting all those neg reps wholesale because You're a National Socialist who has nothing to say but that everyone in the world is as racist as you--but you're not polite enough to just say that, so you attention whore by attacking a host of libertarian philosophies which you clearly don't understand, and obviously don't have the courage or the intellectual chops to properly debate in threads dedicated to the subjects.

In other words, just another threadjacking guilt-by-association troll. You know you're Red enough to like the color of your pip, and you know you consider that negative reputation to be badges of honor, because if you didn't you'd be comporting yourself with at least a smidgeon of comity. So, you know, keep bragging, I guess.

[Identity]

Haha, gotta love the RonPaulForums. I suppose you're showing that great Libertarian love that everyone talks about. No, I'm sympathetic to your cause and my history speaks for itself. Also, my activity on Libertarian message boards predates your 2008 account, not that I'm bragging. Once upon a time I was a "Libertarian" (improperly using that term, by the way) and supported RP during the 2008 & 2012 elections. How this is relevant to Breitbart, the Alt-Right, or the discussion in this thread remains a mystery. Now onto the garbage spewing from the rest of your poorly-worded drivel:


No, I'm pretty sure you're getting all those neg reps wholesale because You're a National Socialist

Care to show examples of me promoting National Socialism? Kind of curious since I self-identify as a Socialist and strongly disagree with the association of Socialism with the Third Reich. Politics 101- States, especially authoritarian regimes, often self-identify inaccurately. For instance, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is neither a Republic or Democratic in any sane sense of the word. However, since you believe that authoritarian regimes ought to take possession of political terms you have to concede and accept the Kim Dynasty's terminology. Silly argument. I'd love to see the myriad of examples of worker-controlled industry under Hitler's regime, you'd be better off associating me with Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain if you were attempting to make some weird genetic fallacy argument.

No, my type of Socialist largely stems from the Libertarian Socialist tradition- more accurately Proudhon & successors. One could easily find this by reading through my posts, although I'm sure my whopping 5 post count is just a tad too much for you to handle.


who has nothing to say but that everyone in the world is as racist as you--

Sad, sad times you've gotten yourself into. Just to think Ron Paul was once a burgeoning political revolutionary and now your entire movement consists of several elected officials holding an increasingly tenuous connection to Austrian economics or American-Libertarianism. Anyhow, your accusations are amusing but leave everyone else confused. Where exactly did you get this impression? Since you people love talking about the racism by Trump supporters why can't you tackle the racism of Salon and the radical Left? Ah, doesn't quite fit your narrative.


by attacking a host of libertarian philosophies which you clearly don't understand

Yes, because as we all know, if one critiques a political position it's clearly because they didn't understand it. No, I understand Libertarianism. I've read from actual Austrian economists, and use to frequent Mises & the typical Anarcho-Capitalist tripe. I'm all too familiar with such Neo-Feudalistic nonsense. Don't forget I was a teenager too once, and use to think that "are you gonna put a gun to my head and make me pay for dat gubmint building" were killer arguments- I grew out of it. Sorry that you can't handle anyone challenging your ideology.


...
obviously don't have the courage or the intellectual chops to properly debate in threads dedicated to the subjects.


Again, you might want to check my post history prior to making such bombastic statements.


In other words, just another threadjacking guilt-by-association troll.

Funny, bringing up Molyneux's alleged "racism" is perfectly A-OK and within the confines of the discussion on Breitbart. But me criticizing Molyneux for his dedication to an outlier economic ideology constitutes "threadjacking." Also, I'm not the one that just embarrassed themself by going on an ill-thought out rampage which derailed the discussion of the thread. Please accuse me of racism again, though. I'm sure the Mods will take notice.

Funny enough, my criticisms of Molyneux don't necessarily imply a non-Libertarian position. Many AnCaps and Right-"Libertarian" thinkers have criticized him form similar things in my post- his "universal agreed upon principles" stuff is hogwash.

[Raginfridus]

Bannon advocates for and organizes populist movements as destructive to the cultures he cherishes as the forces, imagined and real, he maligns but refuses to comprehend. That he's petrified of Arabs and the Yellow Peril may not be enough to call him racist, but its enough to tell me he doesn't appreciate the wounds that "glorious" Christian civilization has carved in the long memories of wiser peoples. If he really was the expert Breitbart bill him as, he'd be a noninterventionist.


https://youtu.be/gDeeEnbOARk


https://youtu.be/cvehOBxzwtY

[jmdrake]

Bannon advocates for and organizes populist movements as destructive to the cultures he cherishes as the forces, imagined and real, he maligns but refuses to comprehend. That he's petrified of Arabs and the Yellow Peril may not be enough to call him racist, but its enough to tell me he doesn't appreciate the wounds that "glorious" Christian civilization has carved in the long memories of wiser peoples. If he really was the expert Breitbart bill him as, he'd be a noninterventionist.


You realize that Bannon was one of the very few in the Trump administration to criticize the attack on the Syrian air base and who is a vocal opponent to military action against North Korea right?

[Identity]

You realize that Bannon was one of the very few in the Trump administration to criticize the attack on the Syrian air base and who is a vocal opponent to military action against North Korea right?

I think Bannon's removal was nothing less than a soft coup. Warmongers, corporate lobbyists, and the usual "Swamp" types against an outsider. I'm somewhat of a conspiracy guy and I remember MSNBC, CNN, and the usual crew running non-stop attacks against Bannon of all people- as if he was this unhinged radical. Joe Scarborough use to write articles and headline his show with "President Bannon" claiming Trump was a mere puppet of some radical extermist. None of it EVER made sense since Bannon was the one guy who was outside and generally a peace-knick. Who remains in Trump's cabinet that isn't one of the insiders at this point? Gorka and those guys are long gone... seems like the coup was successful.

[Danke]

Jmdrake owes me $100,


I already proved Bannon is a racist. And of course I am a racist too. I have helped my sister-in-law who is black , Many times, numerous times throughout the years. i fixed and maintained her car regularly, I built her a kitchen, to name just a few of the things I have done for her. The list is endless. I have mentored her children , Helpeed them with their homework and played with them, help them in their sports and musical instruments etc.


but, I am a white male, so of course I am racist. Just ask any SJW, I did not earn anything, it was because of my privilege.




But I have to scratch my head. In my profession if you are a minority or female with less qualifications and years of experience you will get hired before me. And therefore have a higher income earning potential throughout your career. But somehow I have privilege.


I have the privilege to pay over 50% of my income to those who contribute little.My property tax alone pays for the Government indoctrination institutes that these people who have many children take advantage of, I have no children in the government schools.

[Raginfridus]

You realize that Bannon was one of the very few in the Trump administration to criticize the attack on the Syrian air base and who is a vocal opponent to military action against North Korea right?Critical of resumption of conflict on the Korean peninsula because he believes the bigger peril is China. Critical of air strikes against Syria, yet he's "so pro-Israel." C'mon this guy's still looking out the Overton Window.

[jmdrake]

Jmdrake owes me $100,


I already proved Bannon is a racist. And of course I am a racist too. I have helped my sister-in-law who is black , Many times, numerous times throughout the years. i fixed and maintained her car regularly, I built her a kitchen, to name just a few of the things I have done for her. The list is endless. I have mentored her children , Helpeed them with their homework and played with them, help them in their sports and musical instruments etc.


but, I am a white male, so of course I am racist. Just ask any SJW, I did not earn anything, it was because of my privilege.




But I have to scratch my head. In my profession if you are a minority or female with less qualifications and years of experience you will get hired before me. And therefore have a higher income earning potential throughout your career. But somehow I have privilege.


I have the privilege to pay over 50% of my income to those who contribute little.My property tax alone pays for the Government indoctrination institutes that these people who have many children take advantage of, I have no children in the government schools.

Okay. I'll pay you out of what dannno owes me for having to put up with him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXnM1uHhsOI

[acptulsa]

One could easily find this by reading through my posts, although I'm sure my whopping 5 post count is just a tad too much for you to handle.

Just where in this mess...



I'll back him purely due to an anti-establishment premise, assuming he's the most viable anti-establishment guy in the race.


If you guys ever wish to be taken seriously you might actually wish to engage in actual Socialistic policies and not make this very strange (and very American) equivocation of Statism with Socialism, the two are not necessarily interlinked and the most successful Socialist societies have been of the Libertarian variety...

One could easily change "Communist regime" to "Democratic regime." After all, just about every single 20th century authoritarian State self-identified as "democratic" and "people's republics." Just ask our contemporary benevolent Dictator in the DPRK today. Notice that "D" part of the name? Yeah. The whole "Self-identify" argument has to be one of the lamest and misleading one in these sorts of circles; talk about obfuscating.

Here's BadMouse's video on the matter if you guys are interested further. His explanation is in-depth and goes into the history of Venezuela (which seems to be a power struggle between State powers and oligarchs, hardly an indictment on Socialism or any economic system for that matter)

https://youtu.be/le86H7Xfjrc

Now please make a meme thread on the lovely Capitalist paradises in Somalia, the rest of Sub-sahara Africa, most of Latin America, the "PIGS" countries of Europe, and China. Cue the "Not trooo capitalism.. austrian economics!!!11!" ​response in five seconds.


[/COLOR]One can assume that you have an objective moralistic groundwork for such a statement, no? Which presuppositions and flimsy philosophical principles lead you to this conclusion? Without assuming too much- dare I say it's the social contract known as the NAP?


...GOPe... I wonder if 2018 is going to be the year of the Populist-Conservative insurgence which is fueled by the leftovers of the 2016 "MAGA" movement. Ann Coulter the other day said "MAGA movement" people will go beyond Trump if necessary, and it seems like Alabama proves such is the case.

...do you imagine you hid your true colors?

We've been dealing with your ilk since the Deep State threw the first batch of you at us to reinforce their Newsletters Smear. Don't flatter yourself that you're fooling anyone.


Also, my activity on Libertarian message boards predates your 2008 account...

What do you want, an Iron Cross? I voted for Ron Paul for president three times. Do you do arithmetic?

[Danke]

Okay. I'll pay you out of what @dannno (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=10908) owes me for having to put up with him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXnM1uHhsOI


Oh come on and don't play up to the racial stereotyping. I know you're good for it. Maybe you can borrow it from juleswin, oh never mind he is black too, won't get a nickel from him.

[juleswin]

[Emphasis mine]


Oh, you'd be quite mistaken in that silly assessment of the situation:

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CH5-2VYWUAAZKih.png-large.png

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKHkXcyX0AI-q5z.jpg:large

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-R8GFySXRGv8%2FWRi6eGLFBOI%2FAAAAAAAAGCY%2FKnVYruQg h-0qJhbvp8ERKBMI84b5Dfo5gCLcB%2Fs1600%2Ffw1.JPG&f=1

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. qDO6h5ZT2lJuw3Q_ZlwYBwDREq%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

Do you find any of the above 'racist?' Curious as well: do you give an ounce of effort combating the 'waycism' found in the Indian caste system, Latin America class segregation, or the daily struggle of the indigenous people of Taiwan & Tibet against Han Chinese ethnics? Or is it just these extremely tenuous classic SJW-esque assertions of "rampant" racism in the largely secular, democratic, & tolerant West? Silly arguments, all around.




No, just no. Out of all the things Molyneux can be criticized for (parading around an obscure, controversial theory such as Austrian economics, NAP, sloppy philosophical justifications for AnCapistan, etc..) the race issue isn't one of them.

Have to disagree with u about the part about Molyneux, the man who believes in white and Holocaust genocide and not the genocide of Native Americans. Yea, that guys is not racist at all :rolleyes:

[juleswin]

Maybe. I'd have to see. I've seen more evidence that Stefan Molyeneux might be racist than I have Steve Bannon. That said, Islam != "brown people." When I did my own research into the claims of racism made by the ADL, I realized they were full of crap. There argument seemed similar to the argument you are making.


To you islam doesn't equate to race of brown people but to the Breitbart target audience, there is little to no difference between brown people and muslims. They are one and the same and that is all that matters.

It is a code word that people with the right ear to pick up aka dog whistle

[r3volution 3.0]

If it intends to troll RPF with substance-free jabs at Austrian economics., while parroting white nationalist pap, "Identity" can expect more negs.

[Identity]

...do you imagine you hid your true colors?

Uh oh, you got me- I'm a Socialist. Just like I said in about every single post since I joined here as of late. Wow, what a shocking exposé. For most of the world (and most young Americans) "Socialism" is merely an acceptable alternative economic structure (thank you Bernie <3 ) so trying to use it as an ad hominem is a poor propaganda tactic- it's non-offensive. Care to derail the thread further with your barely legible temper tantrum? I'm having a good enough laugh thus far.


, while parroting white nationalist pap, "Identity" can expect more negs.

What a shame, negative reps on a message board- you sure showed me, that'll bring the hustle & bustle back to RPF. Also curious as to how anything I said in this thread constituted "parroting white nationalist pap?" Apparently talking about Salon's headlines and rampant anti-white racism on the Left means one is a "white nationalist." More cigar ashes, Detective Columbo? Also, be cautious about your use of the word 'racist' when you worship at the feet of a Congressman who openly defends the slave-empire known as the Confederate States of America and suggested that slave-owners be "compensated for their property loss."


If it intends to troll RPF with substance-free jabs at Austrian economics.

As opposed to the great intellectual "revolution" parroting unsophisticated moral dogmas and clumsily applying it in real world scenarios, such as laughably equating taxation with theft. Have to hand it to you, it's quite an amazing feat to post 11,000 times and still exist in a virtual echo chamber.

[Identity]

Maybe. I'd have to see. I've seen more evidence that Stefan Molyeneux might be racist than I have Steve Bannon. That said, Islam != "brown people." When I did my own research into the claims of racism made by the ADL, I realized they were full of crap. There argument seemed similar to the argument you are making.

So far the Anti-Bannon crowd seemed to go off of inferences, guesswork, and sloppy equivocations based on terminology. We're hitting page 3 (on my end) of the thread and little has been said to make the case of Breitbart's racism. Any objective bystander would be wholly unimpressed.

Concerning the term "Alt-Right," its genesis is two-fold which adds to the confusion. The above posters participating in this thread trying to link the two are clearly ignorant of how it developed. Despite it being coined by Spencer it was shortly abandoned thereafter due to obscurity; if memory serves me correctly the registered domain by Richard was dropped since it was so rarely used. Afterwards, MRA types started picking up on it as a "Right-wing" position (culture, tad nativistic, language, Conservative values, all the typical Republican social talking points) whilst not necessarily holding typical Conservative economic views. Shortly after this happened Milo & the PJW types picked up and ran with it, along with us Donald Trump supporters. So there's a dual "New Right" & Spencer origin of the word. My inclination is that Bannon's self-identification has more to do with the former than the latter, as I'm unaware of any other connections and the users in this thread have raged empty-handed. It's also interesting to note that most of these mainstream "Alt-Righters" (like Milo) are just typical Republicans that tend to be non-PC as opposed to having great ideological divergence from the Austrian/Small government/Conservative rhetoric that dominates the Republican Party. If we're going the "He's alt-right, alt-right are evil bad racist people" route then one could define Ron Paul as an ideological heir to Proudhon based upon his misusage of the term "Libertarianism." Silly arguments, all around.

[Pauls' Revere]

I honestly think if Mike Rowe ran for office, he'd win. I'd vote for him. He is what Trump SHOULD have been. Someone who can connect with everyday people. Someone who doesn't take $#@!. But also someone who can articulate thoughts and positions based in principle and reason.

Rowe 2020?

[Influenza]

I hope no one took this bet seriously. Aren't you the same christard that owes me 200$?