I find it interesting that the author only considers America from the top down - from the perspectives of institutions (Stanford, Goldman Sachs, Costco) and slogans (American Dream, All people deserve to live healthy lives). Part of me wonders if that’s due to America's own marketing, or due to his upbringing in a more totalitarian government, but for most Americans these perspectives are just as foreign.
At dinner tables and in churches all across the country, you hear people say "God is in control”. You’ll hear reminders to be humble and appreciate what you have, because anyone can get ill at any time, or lose all all their belongings in fire, or any number of bad events. The chaos out there is real, whether one believes in it or not. And there's an even bigger danger in trying to control the chaos, and history has plenty of examples (Mao's China and USSR most recent). The limited government in America was founded on a distrust of power, top-down control, and people who want to control the world. Without that bottom-up perspective, America will never make sense.
I do support Trump, despite disagreeing with some policies.
I’ll never forget when Ron Paul was called a racist by the media in 2012, and how he was screwed by the Republicans. It still makes me angry today. I don't trust our government, media, or major parties, and all are bad stewards of our Republic. From that perspective, Trump is doing great. This chaos is good in the same way that a controlled fire from time to time is healthy for a forest ecosystem.
I don’t believe he’s a racist or a mysogynist though and I feel pretty confident I could argue against every example people give. However, the only thing it would convince them of is that I am making excuses for a terrible person. It’s not worth it. I’ll just say I think he’s a generally good person operating in a tough environment, and came to that conclusion by going directly to source material.
As for Bannon, I generally like him but I'm happy he's back running Breitbart instead of in the White House. Too controversal. He gave a good interview on 60 minutes last week that I mostly agreed with. And Breitbart - it can be inflammatory, but I find it a good counterbalance to everything else.
Sure. Limited government, non-interventionism, merit-based immigration, human rights, freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, protecting the environment, private healthcare, net neutrality, free trade, strong civil society, education left to states, anti-PC, anti-bailouts.
> Um, that article was written by none other than Milo Y, does that make alarm bells go off?
I’ve always liked Milo. But even if you don't, the article is still important if you want to understand the history of "alt-right" as it was understood by many people.
> Richard Spencer, noted white supremacist, originated the term years before that article was written
Maybe, but Breitbart brought it into the mainstream for me and many others. I also doubt 99% of Americans knew Richard Spencer’s name until last year.
> Its inconceivable Bannon was unaware of this when he made that statement.
Bannon made that statement a few months after Milo’s article. "Alt-right" didn't have those connotations at the time. I read now that Bannon rejects the "alt-right", presumably because its meaning has changed.
> Give the Buzzfeed Breitbart leak story a read. In it you'll see Bannon encourage Milo to engage with white supremacists but try to dress them up publicly.
It just sounds like journalism. Milo reached out to Devin Saucier (the white supremacist) while researching the article I linked that summarized all the parts of the alt-right movement. Vice did the same thing. Or did you mean something else?
As a ex Ron Paul supporter with a distaste for the GOP and Neo-Cons, I proudly called myself alt-right.
I joined a few alt-right forums and found similar-minded people. Libertarians, conservatives, nationalists (in the positive sense). Generally smart people. Not Nazis. Not white supremacists.
The term alt-right never seemed to me anything other than right-wing but not Republican.
Then I saw a few New York Times and CNN articles using it differently. Mixed freely with Nazis.
And I heard that white surpremecists were using it to make their views look more mainstream.
Then people started calling me a Nazi.
It’s a beautiful strategy to see a word redefined right in front of your eyes for political gain, but sad too.
If Bannon said Breitbart supported the alt-right, I’ll assume he’s referring to the definition I first understood from the article on his site, and not the one co-opted by the left-sided media and far-right groups.
I'm doubting the twitter link's claims that:
(1) The White House had no report on Puerto Rico during a conference call with FEMA Sep 25
(2) Therefore WH "had no plans to make any moves in PR". I don't see this being reported elsewhere. The parent thought this was important enough though to back up his argument that the Trump administration is not enough doing, and I'm skeptical of both the source and the broader message.
From what I can tell, there was a major disaster and many people are struggling right now. It was made worse than it needed to be by unpreparedness and poor infrastructure. Now relief efforts are underway but they aren't happening as quickly as Houston or Florida because it's harder to reach Puerto Rico, so politicians and activists with other grievances are using this opportunity to criticize the White House. Is that incorrect?
Someone needs to publish a list of companies that violate free speech, with examples, for people to avoid them in the future. Does anything like this exist? I have a small but growing list myself with Google at the top.
At dinner tables and in churches all across the country, you hear people say "God is in control”. You’ll hear reminders to be humble and appreciate what you have, because anyone can get ill at any time, or lose all all their belongings in fire, or any number of bad events. The chaos out there is real, whether one believes in it or not. And there's an even bigger danger in trying to control the chaos, and history has plenty of examples (Mao's China and USSR most recent). The limited government in America was founded on a distrust of power, top-down control, and people who want to control the world. Without that bottom-up perspective, America will never make sense.