They don't have to wait for the left to overplay it's hand anymore. It's a done deal, now.
Yeah, that's an interesting article, isn't it, layman?
Yeah, it is interesting. Shapiro clearly "hates" Bannon, but at least he has enough integrity to tell the truth about Bannon's bogusly-alleged "support" for Robert Spencer.
No, I have no evidence that Steve’s an anti-Semite. I think Steve’s a very, very power-hungry dude who’s willing to use anybody and anything in order to get ahead, and that includes making common cause with the racist, anti-Semitic alt-right.
Or telling the truth about Milo's attempt to white wash the alt-right like this:
Ben Shapiro wrote:
Richard Spencer was just in a big alt-right conference, and his speech ended with a bunch of arm salutes, people yelling “Sieg Heil!” and him winking and quoting in the original German, and criticizing the press using a Nazi phrase.
Yeah, they’re not good people, I think that’s fair to say. Those people have been given this new intellectual veneer by folks like Milo Yiannopoulos. Milo wrote this piece called “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right.” It was given heavy play over Breitbart, and that piece basically made the case that these are just intellectuals who have made common cause of folks like paleo-conservatives—Pat Buchanan and other folks of that ilk.
Yeah, they’re not good people, I think that’s fair to say. Those people have been given this new intellectual veneer by folks like Milo Yiannopoulos. Milo wrote this piece called “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right.” It was given heavy play over Breitbart, and that piece basically made the case that these are just intellectuals who have made common cause of folks like paleo-conservatives—Pat Buchanan and other folks of that ilk.
Right. He demonstrates that Milo clearly disagrees that the term "alt,right" is confined to Robert Spencer, just because Spencer has a website he calls "alt.right.com." You know, the very position you were trying to deny with respect to Milo?
Shapiro, unlike Milo and Bannon, apparently wants to confine the the meaning of "alt. right" to Spencer, and those of like mind, who he says is a very, very small group. That's his privilege. But again, unlike you and your like-minded left-wing, smearing homeys, who want to impute that definition to Bannon, he refuses to participate in the smear.
But again, unlike you and your like-minded left-wing, smearing homeys, who want to impute that definition to Bannon, he refuses to participate in the smear.
Put another way, Shapiro, unlike you, Yurp, has some intellectual integrity. Or should I leave off the qualifier "intellectual" and just say "integrity?" Yeah, that would be more accurate, given what I've seen, sho nuff.
0 Replies
layman
-2
Fri 9 Dec, 2016 05:34 pm
Quote:
“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” (Thomas Jefferson).
I guess that, unlike many, Jefferson did not approve of strict adherence to a rigid "party line," eh?
"...last degradation of a free and moral agent." True dat.
0 Replies
old europe
4
Fri 9 Dec, 2016 11:28 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:
Shapiro, unlike Milo and Bannon, apparently wants to confine the the meaning of "alt. right" to Spencer, and those of like mind, who he says is a very, very small group.
You're reading the articles you're linking aren't you. Here, from the article:
Ben Shapiro wrote:
What the alt-right is trying to do, and what they’ve been trying to do now ever since Donald Trump came to prominence, is a couple of things. One is they’ve been broadening the definition of alt-right; I just wrote this piece for National Review for the print edition this week. They’ve been trying to broaden the definition of alt-right so they can suck people into believing they’re alt-right even though they don’t believe the central tenets of the alt-right. So they’ll say things like, “Well if you just don’t like Paul Ryan, that means you’re alt-right,” or “If you just like memes, that means that you’re alt-right,” or “If you think that the Republicans are too weak-kneed, that means you’re alt-right.” No, that doesn’t mean that you’re alt-right; it means that you’re not an establishment Republican
Which, incidentally, is also what you've been engaged in for the last couple of pages.
Not that anybody's accusing you of being alt-right, of course.
You're reading the articles you're linking aren't you.
.
No, I was merely reading the very excerpt that you selected to post. Did YOU read it?
0 Replies
layman
-2
Sat 10 Dec, 2016 12:13 am
@old europe,
old europe wrote:
Here, from the article:
Ben Shapiro wrote:
What the alt-right is trying to do, and what they’ve been trying to do now ever since Donald Trump came to prominence, is a couple of things. One is they’ve been broadening the definition of alt-right; I just wrote this piece for National Review for the print edition this week. They’ve been trying to broaden the definition of alt-right so they can suck people into believing they’re alt-right even though they don’t believe the central tenets of the alt-right. So they’ll say things like, “Well if you just don’t like Paul Ryan, that means you’re alt-right,” or “If you just like memes, that means that you’re alt-right,” or “If you think that the Republicans are too weak-kneed, that means you’re alt-right.” No, that doesn’t mean that you’re alt-right; it means that you’re not an establishment Republican
What in the hell do you think this passage is saying about Bannon? Shapiro is talking about what the "alt.right" does. He has already made it clear that, by his defintion, this is a very small group which does NOT include Bannon.
Are you that self-deluded? Do you really regard your flimsy innuendo and cheap-ass sophistical distortions as containing even a shred of persuasive value?
Sorry, cheese-eater, but, contrary to your apparent assumption, other people can read (unlike you).
He says the same type of thing repeatedly: "“If you think that the Republicans are too weak-kneed, that means you’re alt-right.” No, that doesn’t mean that you’re alt-right; it means that you’re not an establishment Republican." That is NOT alt.right, according to him, even if Bannon or Milo might think so.
What in the hell do you think this passage is saying about Bannon? Shapiro is talking about what the "alt.right" does. He has already made it clear that, by his defintion, this is a very small group which does NOT include Bannon.
That's right. He's saying that Bannon is not a deeply principled guy on politics. He's a very, very power-hungry dude who’s willing to use anybody and anything in order to get ahead, and that includes making common cause with the racist, anti-Semitic alt-right.
What in the hell do you think this passage is saying about Bannon? Shapiro is talking about what the "alt.right" does. He has already made it clear that, by his defintion, this is a very small group which does NOT include Bannon.
That's right. He's just saying that Bannon is a very, very power-hungry dude who’s willing to use anybody and anything in order to get ahead, and that includes making common cause with the racist, anti-Semitic alt-right.
Those are Shapiro's words from the article you linked. So you might either ask Shapiro, or re-read the article you linked.
Regarding Breitbart, Shapiro points out that Bannon allowed the site to be taken over and used by a bunch of alt-right people who are not fond of Jews or of minorities. Which merely confirms Bannon's own words when he claimed that he established Breitbart as the platform for the alt-right.
Those are Shapiro's words from the article you linked. So you might either ask Shapiro, or re-read the article you linked.
Like the "common cause" of keeping Hillary Clinton out of the White House? Well, ya know...
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." (Winston Churchill)
Having a common enemy is, I suppose, having a "common cause" but that doesn't mean that Churchill generally supports the devil. But I suspect you would try to claim that's exactly what it means.
Trump, I don’t think, is alt-right. I don’t think that Trump is particularly racist. I think he’s an ignoramus. I think that more than anything, Trump is willing to pay heed to and wink at anybody who provides him even a shred of good coverage. So if the alt-right, which worships at the altar of Trump—if they provide him good coverage, he’s willing to wink and nod at them and not wreck them.
Shapiro hates Trump, and Bannon, but he's knows they're not "racists." Shapiro thinks Trump should have undertaken to "wreck" Spencer in the middle of a campaign? Quite the idealist, aint he?
Politicians need votes to win. Is Clinton expected to personally condemn every felon who voted for her? Is Clinton supposed to announce that she wants all felons to vote for Trump, because she doesn't approve of felony? I don't think so. Maybe you do.
I've heard Trump actually say he doesn't want certain people's support, like Ryan (I think), for example. But of course that happened after Ryan said he wouldn't support him anyway.
But, as a general rule, no politician is going to tell a particular group to vote for his opponent, no matter how much he may disagree with them.
That's just politics, sorry.
That said, after the election, Trump specially denounced Spencer and his ilk, and said he would never keep Bannon on as an adviser if he thought Bannon supported them in any way.
Trump played Spencer like a fiddle.
0 Replies
old europe
3
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 02:09 am
@layman,
layman wrote:
Having a common enemy is, I suppose, having a "common cause" but that doesn't mean that Churchill generally supports the devil. But I suspect you would try to claim that's exactly what it means.
I'm not claiming anything. I'm just pointing out Shapiro's own words. From the article you linked, apparently in an attempt to exonerate Bannon.
Funny.
layman wrote:
But, as a general rule, no politician is going to tell a particular group to vote for his opponent, no matter how much he may disagree with them.
Yeah, layman. I'm sure when Shapiro said Bannon is making common cause with the racist, anti-Semitic alt-right, what he really meant was that Bannon disagrees very, very much with the racist, anti-Semitic alt-right. I'm also sure that when Bannon was bragging about how Breitbart was the platform for the alt-right, what he really meant was that he disagrees very, very much with the racist, anti-Semitic alt-right. Because why else offer them a platform and give them a voice, eh?
Good call, layman.
I also like how you drop your folksy "sho nuff" vocabulary and instead fire off two or three angry posts in a row when you're upset. It really strengthens your point.
One big problem with Shapiro's analysis is his own inconsistent references to what he calls "alt.right." Some of the time, he wants to limit the term to a "very, very, small group," to wit: Spencer.
But, throughout the article he talks about the "alt.right" in just about the same way Milo does, i.e. as a collection of a variety of loosely associated, poorly defined groups with diverse views, but which all disagree with the "mainstream" right. No politician is going to make any special effort to "court," or give a platform to, a group of 200 members with despicable views, which views he personally rejects, but that's what he tries to (incoherently) say Trump and/or Bannon is doing.
Shapiro acts as though it was extremely important for Trump get the support of some supposedly minute group. But that is ridiculous, and it soon becomes obvious that he is, in fact, calling many views that do NOT agree with Spencer "alt.right" when he elaborates.
So, even within his own interview, he wants to have it both ways. In effect he wants to first claim that the term "alt.right" is simply a synonym for Spencer, who has an website called "alt.right.com.," and who has a group (NPI) consisting of about 200 members. But then he deftly switches to applying that same term to many others who do not identify with Spencer.
At bottom, he is just doing what he accuses Spencer of doing, trying to broaden the definition of alt.right. He is not clarifying the term. He, like most, just demonstrates that he has no clear, consistent way of defining, and using, this nebulous term.
I'm certainly not endorsing everything he says in this interview just because I cited it for a particular reason. Shapiro has had extensive exposure to Bannon, personally, which few others have. He denies, as you have consistently, albeit feebly, tried to claim, that Bannon is a neo-nazi, racist, white supremacist, or anything of the kind. That's the point.
But it's obvious that you will keep tryin to deny this simple fact, regardless of how much evidence of your absurdity comes out, Yurp.
Keep on truckin, cheese-eater.
0 Replies
Lash
-1
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 06:05 am
The Clinton campaign and Debbie Wasserman Shultz tried to get Mika fired.
Why did they think they could? (Because they've done it before)
I am bemused to find a European (I suspect a Briton) here accusing of racism and anti semitism. In the Middle East we are still dealing with the sad after effects of the Anglo-French-Russian effort to take down the Ottoman Empire during WWI and add its remains to their own. (Indeed the treachery of Britain in this matter is quite breathtaking - they literally betrayed everyone involved, including some of their own people who led the efforts. They induced the Arabs to revolt on the promise of independence even as they negotiated the division of the spoils with France and Russia. They promised Palestine to both the Zionists and the Hashemites, and betrayed both. Indeed from India.Pakistan to Israel and Palestine and Vietnam, Iraq and other places we are still struggling to escape the perfidy of these powers and the residue of their now defunct exploitive and highly racist empires.
These are no longer current issues, and we don't generally raise them up. However, I believe old europe should recall more of his own history from the high place on which he sits in judgment of us.
