If only it was anyone other than Buzzfeed...they are the ones who published a huge expose on trump being a russian spy who pees on hookers. Of course it all turned out to be made up and the New York Times made fun of them.
He's Catholic, his grandmother was Jewish.
Well, when you push an agenda of fear and hatred of Islam, that tends to be recognized as Islamophobic...
He's not a freedom-loving gay Jew. He's a gay Catholic who supports freedom of speech, and severe nationalism... a strikingly anti-freedom stance.
- - - Updated - - -
You seem to be moving goal posts. Bannon is the editor of Breitbart, a news site that has been pushing the white nationalist agenda and anti-Islam agenda for quite some time.
Do you think that people need to be bigots in order to be concerned about literal threats by ISIS to send fighters as refugees?
Yeah, Breitbart is nationalistic but I don't see any ETHNO-nationalism peddled by it. Prove me wrong. And don't give me that 'le dogwhistle' crap.
Ethno-nationalism cannot work for North America, and is not desired by any real nationalists.
There's nothing wrong with [non ethno-]nationalism in the context of North America.
Also, nobody sees a problem with ethno-nationalism for the Japanese or Israelis, strangely enough.
Seems like a double-standard.
Last edited by Reverb256; 2017-10-06 at 03:26 PM.
I think that's the basic idea. Find a better source if you want a good dialogue.
Dude...I'm not going to come in here with a Fox News source and then bash anyone who doesn't want an "honest" discussion about the story. I would fully expect to get flamed, and rightfully so.
Find a better source.
Considering they are the ones who broke the story, and are the initial source, that's not an option. One would think it would be better to discuss the actual information, and if they can refute it, great. So far, they haven't tried to refute it.
You know as well as I do, they want to attack the source, because the material goes against their narrative, and they don't want to have to deal with it. It wouldn't make a difference if the source had been CNN, the NYT, the Washington Post, or just about anyone else.
Last edited by Machismo; 2017-10-06 at 02:52 PM.
He is the chief at Breitbart, a conservative blog who's readership also overlaps with reddit users who visit the donald, and other white supremacist blogs and subreddits. The content provided at Breitbart is the internet's dog whistle call for all white supremacists in the US to congregate in their echo chamber.
There's a "reply" button you can use.
Everyone is a bigot about something. I think that if someone supposedly supports freedom, then they should support it for others, as well. Nationalism is an anti-freedom stance. It restricts the free markets, it restricts individual freedoms. That is the stance that they are taking, which is more authoritarian than it was in previous years.
So this is some victory for the Left? This is how they deflect from their association with groups like Antifa? By painting Milo as some anointed champion of the Right, and then taking him down? I think the majority of people on the Right think Milo is a tool, so what has really been gained here?
Yes, because we already have an incredibly robust intelligence apparatus that can identify unsavory, dangerous people that want to emigrate here.
There is plenty of ethno-nationalism peddled by Breitbart, through the use of dog whistles and carrying the banner of Obama illegitimacy and birther conspiracy for years. The readership overlaps with users who frequent subreddits catered to white nationalists and white supremacists. The language of the Trump campaign dog whistled to whites in rural rust belt counties, where white populations were in excess of 85%.
You are the one trying to deflect, I do love the irony.
As for me, I don't support Antifa in any way... so that narrative just fell apart.
It's a victory for anyone who has been saying that Breitbart and Milo are disingenuous asshats, who have been pushing the bullshit agenda of white nationalists.
How does nationalism conflict with individual freedoms? Do you only have a problem with borders?
Would you like to abolish nations altogether and subject everyone in the world to a one-size-fits-all authoritarian, unaccountable, corporate system of governance?
Because that's what you get if you abolish nations.
Last edited by Reverb256; 2017-10-06 at 02:59 PM.
So, the goal is to disregard the source, and ignore the information. Thanks for proving my point.
- - - Updated - - -
The point of nationalism is to restrict free markets and free movement...
As for your comment "Oh okay, so white people are inherently bad now?" I never said that, you are simply trying to argue something I never said. You seem to do that a lot. Oh well, you really do like to deflect.
Are you unwilling to talk about the material within the article?
Use the "reply" or "reply with quote" buttons, please.
Oh okay, so white people are inherently bad now? That's what the cancerous ideology of neomarxism wants everyone to believe, the ignorant racist stereotype that white people think they're better than everyone else.
White people should be encouraged to have a clear conscience -- and flaunt it -- in the face of these blatant lies.
Manipulators hate it when you have a clear conscience; it makes you more difficult to control.
You are so naive to want borders gone, it's unbelievable. You must be oblivious to the fact that malice/evil exists in this world and decent people need to be protected from it. The environment we're used to (where people are generally civil due to shared expectations of such) does not exist everywhere in the world. How do you propose to protect people from a nation-state that wants to invade and kill them without any border control? This is why anarchism with no pragmatism is idealistic and Utopian; foolish ignorance of Human nature.
Last edited by Reverb256; 2017-10-06 at 03:06 PM.
Because in a nationalist state, if you do not meet the subjective definition of a person that is considered a nationalist, you will be scapegoated, targeted, detained, processed, and eliminated. This definition can change with the course of who the nationalist leaders are in order to consolidate power and silence dissidents.
No one would be subjects in a hypothetical borderless world with a democratically elected system of governance that more likely than not be operated through AI or ASI. It is the next step in complex societal hierarchy that has stemmed from hunter gatherer villages.