[ng12]

Breitbart isn't a white nationalist news source. Bannon might be an asshole but I urge you to judge it by the content on the site. I don't agree with most of it but I support their right to post truthful content and editorials as they wish.

[wlll]

I have seen content from Breitbart, it's objectionable and dangerous propaganda IMO.

I support their right to publish it, I don't support the idea of forcing people to do business with them.

[judah]

The same could certainly be said of left-wing news sources such as the New York Times.

[wlll]

I really don't see the similarity (though I'm not familiar with the NYT, I assume it's a bit like The Guardian in the UK for this discussion).

Can you give examples of fake news, or what I'd consider to be biased propaganda? (this last category I'd suggest something like climate change denial) in the NYT?

[nailer]

> though I'm not familiar with the NYT, I assume it's a bit like The Guardian in the UK

Closest thing with the Graun would be the Duggan headline the PCC ruled misleading: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-m...

[wlll]

That's a legit criticism, and likely shows a bias, though the paper did seem to acknowledge error, and the tone of the article was contrite, and lets face it, we're looking at a report of the paper's error in the paper itself.

[nailer]

All UK papers are obliged to acknowledge errors found by the PCC, and it's in their interest to maintain a good relationship with the PCC.

I can remember seeing the headline and how it didn't match the finding in the article - which was that there was a gun in the car, hence the subject being armed - and thinking all someone who needs an excuse is going to do is read the headline, not buy the paper, and unleash more violence.

The Guardian also kept saying reports that Duggan was a criminal were inaccurate as he had no record: he was a self confessed member of Star Gang and posed as such all over his Facebook. Either he was an adult human lying about being a member of a serious gang (which would have severe consequences) or he actually was involved in organised crime.

[tomp]

Most articles about Russia. E.g. currently most MSM (edit: mainstram media) are on a propaganda roll regarding Mosul (Iraq/US) vs. Aleppo (Syria/Russia) reporting.

[wlll]

Can you expand on that?

[tomp]

Most Western media report on Mosul being infested by "ISIS" and being "liberated" by the Iraq/US coalition, whereas Aleppo is a stronghold of "resistance" and viciously "attacked" by the Syria/Russia coalition. Of course, no proofs are given of any way, and it blatantly ignores reports that in Syria, "rebels" and "ISIS" are mostly one and the same, with individual fighters simply fighting for whomever pays better at the moment.

[striking]

What about that time they lied about Iraq? http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-sti...

Even just now the NYT decided they would "rededicate [themselves] to the fundamental mission of Times journalism" because of how greatly they messed up the election coverage. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-reader...

It doesn't matter what source you read from. The vast majority of news is bullshit, especially in today's day and age. It's not enough to say "oh, Fox News/MSNBC, it's obviously trash". Individually inspect articles for their truth. Look for the other side of every argument. Because brand loyalty is bullshit.

[wlll]

That's fair enough, though I don't see anything quite as "extreme" as the examples of breitbart articles (which as far as I'm aware they are standing by).

Everyone has bias, and everyone lies, and sometimes people just make mistakes, but there is a scale to this that I personally see breitbart being further along than the NYT from the limited evidence I've seen overall.

[ant6n]

When did NYT go from being 'intelectual' to being 'left-wing'. I guess next it'll be 'communist'.

[wlll]

When the right wing got so right wing that anyone in any way intellectual would end up left of what they believed in perhaps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#Fascism

Have we seen the start of this in the UK with Brexit, or "post-fact politics" too?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/michael-goves-gui...

[sundaeofshock]

> but I urge you to judge it by the content on the site

Don't judge a content producer by the content it produces? What other criteria should I judge it by?

[burkaman]

"We're the platform for the alt-right" - Steve Bannon, 2016

Let's see how they describe themselves.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-co...

> There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright.

> Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic.

> The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism. Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity. They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions.

> For natural conservatives, culture, not economic efficiency, is the paramount value. More specifically, they value the greatest cultural expressions of their tribe.

> Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the alt-right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration.

> You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option.

> The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved.

> In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct, the response of the Establishment — the conservative Establishment — has been to openly welcome that extinction. It’s true that Donald Trump would not be possible without the oppressive hectoring of the progressive Left, but the entire media is to blame for the environment in which this new movement has emerged.

> The really interesting members of the alt-right though, and the most numerous, are the natural conservatives. They are perhaps psychologically inclined to be unsettled by threats to western culture from mass immigration and maybe by non-straight relationships. Yet, unlike the 1488ers, the presence of such doesn’t send them into fits of rage. They want to build their homogeneous communities, sure — but they don’t want to commit any pogroms along the way. Indeed, they would prefer non-violent solutions.

This is, by definition, white nationalism. If Breitbart is the platform of the alt-right, and this is the alt-right, then Breitbart is a white nationalist news source.

[tomp]

How is this "by definition" white nationalism?! They barely mention race, and when they do, it's in a completely neutral context. There are even scientific studies supporting their position, i.e. that more homogenous culture makes for more trustworthy communities [1]. Of course, I'm the first person to doubt sociological research, but even if it's false, I see no reason to force people to live with others they don't like.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and...

[burkaman]

Well, if a white person cites that research as a reason to halt immigration and preserve their racial and cultural homogeneity, then they are a white nationalist. I did not make a value judgement in my comment, I'm just comparing the text to the definition.

As to why this is specifically white nationalism, I'll pull some more quotes for you.

> Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic.

"Natural conservatives" here are a group that the authors have identified as a key member of the alt-right coalition.

> This follows decades in which left-wingers on campus sought to remove the study of “dead white males” from the focus of western history and literature curricula. An establishment conservative might be mildly irked by such behaviour as they switch between the State of the Union and the business channels, but to a natural conservative, such cultural vandalism may just be their highest priority.

Here, alt-right members are concerned specifically by the removal or dilution of white culture. They might respect the promotion of other cultures in other countries, but in America they support their own culture only, which as we have seen, is white culture.

> Although the alt-right consists mostly of college-educated men, it sympathises with the white working classes and, based on our interviews, feels a sense of noblesse oblige.

Notice that white working classes specifically are worthy of sympathy, not all working classes.

> In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct, the response of the Establishment — the conservative Establishment — has been to openly welcome that extinction.

Here, the Establishment is accused of not caring about white extinction. There is no concern about the extinction of other racial cultures, in fact that is the goal. Other races can stick to their own countries.

There is a section about neo-Nazis, but the authors dismiss them as generally unwelcome in the alt-right movement.

Yes, this article does promote the idea that racial nationalism is a natural impulse for people of any race, but it is written from a white American perspective, and promotes the idea that America should be a culturally white nation with limited immigration. I encourage you to read the whole article. I am not taking things out of context or twisting words, this is a description of the alt-right movement as a bunch of white people who want to preserve their own culture and halt immigration.

[masonic]

"Well, if a white person cites that research as a reason to halt immigration and preserve their racial and cultural homogeneity."

You keep inventing stuff. None of the immigration comments referred to race/ethnicity in any way. You do realize that white people immigrate too, right?

[burkaman]

I do realize that. Again, I am not uncovering some hidden subtext here, I'm just reading what is written. These are the intended meanings.

A couple more quotes to elaborate the immigration thing:

> Immigration policy follows a similar pattern: by the numbers, cheap foreign workers on H1B visas make perfect economic sense. But natural conservatives have other concerns: chiefly, the preservation of their own tribe and its culture.

We don't have to guess what tribe and culture mean here. The very next paragraph says they're talking about Western Europeans, so Western European immigrants would not be a problem. If you're still not convinced that "tribe" has anything to do with race or ethnicity:

> The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same.

> You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible.

Clearly the immigration concerns are directly linked to concerns about racial and ethnic mixing.

> Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the alt-right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration.

The movement dislikes immigration specifically because of demographic displacement. As the rest of the piece makes explicitly clear, that demographic is "white".

[tomp]

Ok so for you "nationalism" in a predominantly white country equals "white nationalism". Well, I guess there's not much I can say against that definition, except that the term is usually used in a much more emotionally charged way (and with much more negative connotations)

[burkaman]

Can you tell me your definition? I could be wrong.

There's a little more to it than just nationalism in a predominantly white country, though. Nationalism generally means support of national identity above all else. This article promotes white identity above national identity, but the outlet for that feeling is to make the nation into a white nation, so that supporting white culture and supporting the nation are one and the same. Note that the article never talks about American culture. It talks about white culture and white identity politics.

[tomp]

I mean, yeah, I guess I see your point... As long as you're willing to criticise e.g. black nationalist/culture movements just as much.

[vorotato]

A quick search on the site for racial slurs will prooobably change your mind on that first point.

[tomp]

I checked a few articles, the word "nigger" is either in the comments or in quotes. It's true, however, that they don't abbreviate it as "n-word" like most MSM. But we all know what "n-word" means, so I find that practice kind-of pointless anyways.

[ng12]

Not sure what you're referring to. Link?