The Resistance News
March 16, 2017
Richard Spence, a confirmed Neo-Nazi was thrown out of the recent CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) meeting, but Bannon, another confirmed Neo-Nazi, gave an address. Obviously, CPAC thinks Americans are ignorant.
But for Americans who are not ignorant, how many Nazi at CPAC do you need, to make CPAC look bad?
Raw Story reports (source) Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer finds celebrity at CPAC: ‘I feel very welcome here, nobody’s punching me’ White supremacist Richard Spencer said on Thursday that he felt “very welcome” at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). When Spencer showed up at Thursday’s CPAC session, he was mobbed by supporters and a scrum of reporters. The neo-Nazi president of National Policy Institute told reporters that he felt “very welcome” at CPAC. Watch video of Spencer speaking to reporters here.
CPAC organizer Matt Schlapp initially said that he would not kick Spencer out of the conference, but the white nationalist was later seen being escorted out of the building by security.
Meanwhile for Bannon who addressed CPAC, Southern Poverty Law Center reports (source) of Breitbart under Bannon, in an study called: How Breitbart Became A Favorite News Source for Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists.
Breitbart News — a once unexceptional outlet in the right wing media constellation — became a leading voice in conservative media by 2016 under the leadership of Stephen K. Bannon and against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s campaign. Leaders of the white nationalist movement weren’t surprised.
Outlinks to Breitbart steadily grew over the course of 2016 on the most prominent white supremacist websites. By late 2016, Breitbart was regularly topping outlets like the UK’s Daily Mail, long favored for their sensational tabloid style reporting and breaking news, and on The Daily Stormer, the Internet’s premier neo-Nazi water cooler.
And the extremists are thanking Bannon.
“Breitbart went hardcore when he was running it,” Andrew Anglin, proprietor of The Daily Stormer told the hosts of Nordfront Radio, a Swedish neo-Nazi radio program, in November. “It is still hardcore now. It really changed from being this kind of basic cuckservative type website to being this, I mean, the articles that they publish about blacks in America and about Muslims in Europe, it’s basically stuff that you would read on the Daily Stormer.”
Breitbart overtook the Daily Mail in July of 2015, the month that President Trump announced his bid for the presidency, as the most cited outlet by authors at the Daily Stormer. When factoring in outlinks found in the comment section of the website, it led through the 2016 presidential election.
Breitbart’s popularity among readers of The Daily Stormer is unsurprising given that its lineage can be traced back to the cesspool /pol/ section of 4chan, a largely unregulated imageboard well-known for its tenacious far-right population. Anglin has identified the site’s /new/ section going “full nazi” as part of his ideological journey to neo-Nazism.
4chan regularly linked to Breitbart stories over 1,000 times a month in 2016, peaking in January after the outlet’s London bureau published an explosive story titled, “REVEALED: 1,000+ Migrants Brawl, Rape, Sexually Assault, and Steal at One German Train Station on New Year’s Eve,” describing a “war-zone” with migrants attacking “ordinary Germans” with fireworks and committing sexual assault.
The story was seized upon by white nationalists around the world as evidence for their arguments against accepting refugees and immigrants into western countries. Radix Journal, Richard Spencer’s primary publishing organ at the time, labeled the event “The Rape of Cologne.”
Breitbart’s coverage of the tragic attacks, which did in fact involve a reported 80 victims, 35 of whom were sexually assaulted, portraying “thousands” of perpetrators exemplifies an editorial strategy of depicting the west as at war with radical Islam that was put in place while Bannon was at the helm of Breitbart.
Breitbart’s ascension hasn’t been ignored by longstanding leaders on the far right who have reacted with shock at the resemblance its editorial bent has to their own.
“Imagine for a moment what it looks like from our perspective,” Brad Griffin, proprietor of Occidental Dissent wrote. “You write for a pro-White website like the Council of Conservative Citizens, AmRen, or VDARE, you have been labeled and stigmatized as an ‘extremist,’ ‘notorious racist’ and a ‘member of a hate group,’ and when you wake up in the morning and look for the subject to write about, say a refugee rapist, you realize that it is semi-pointless because UK Daily Mail or WorldNetDaily has already covered it. What is there left to do but link to the Breitbart story?”
Griffin attributes this shift to a “California Gold Rush of clicks” that has driven journalism outlets desperate for ad revenue to look for increasingly extreme and polarizing topics to cover. It’s notable that while an outlet like the Daily Mail may have initially covered the story, Griffin and his compatriots prefer the editorial styling of Breitbart.
“I think Breitbart has had a positive impact on our culture and politics,” Griffin wrote in January. “It is unwittingly engaging in what I call ‘discourse poisoning’. I assume the profit motive is at work here – anyway, it benefits us to erode taboos, so I don’t really care how much money they make. You could also say that we can look at Breitbart as a model that those of us who are further to the Right ought to be doing instead of writing history lectures or boring essays about obscure philosophers no one cares about.”
James Kirkpatrick took a similar stance at VDARE last Fall, writing, “The Truth: Breitbart is not ‘extreme’ – even the best journalism at that site just recycles the same material VDARE.com has been pushing for more than a decade.”
Stormfront, the extremist right’s most trafficked site until last summer, also saw a shift towards Breitbart from its users. Although it never surpassed the Daily Mail, Breitbart surged beginning in July of 2015, just as it did on The Daily Stormer. While sites like YouTube, Wikipedia, and Twitter dominate Stormfront, as well as The Daily Stormer, the Daily Mail held the title of most referenced news outlet.
The Daily Stormer also preferred the Daily Mail to all other news services, rounded out its top three sources with the Daily Mail and RT, the Russian government’s international television network. This held true for the sites commenters as well.
Bannon, who took an indefinite leave of absence on August 17, 2016, to become the CEO of the Trump presidential campaign, told a Breitbart news editor in 2014 to, “Let the grassroots turn on the hate because that’s the ONLY thing that will make them do their duty,” referring to Republican leaders.
His editorial vision demonstrably mobilized a different grassroots, one that is fighting for a white ethnostate and, in many cases, another Holocaust. Their hate is real and thriving.
Washington Post’s Ryan Lizza reports (source)
How Steve Bannon Conquered CPAC—
and the Republican Party
On Thursday, Steve Bannon, President Donald Trump’s most influential adviser, and Reince Priebus, Trump’s frequently embattled chief of staff, spoke together at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the annual gathering for activists, politicians, and media professionals on the right. Bannon rarely speaks in public, but the two men have been conducting a media tour to tamp down stories about friction between them.
Bannon, who is a large man, was dressed in wrinkled khakis and an open shirt that Priebus teased him about. Priebus was dressed like Alex P. Keaton. Bannon spoke in fiery language, condemning the press and global élites and insisting that Trump would implement the nationalist agenda that he promised in his campaign speeches. “This is the other thing that the mainstream media or opposition party never caught, ” Bannon said. “He’s laid out an agenda with those speeches for the promises he made. And our job every day is just to execute on that. ”
Priebus was milquetoast, and his emphasis was on agenda items that have been free of the controversies that have engulfed Trump’s Bannon-inspired plans on immigration and foreign policy. He noted that Trump “hit his agenda every single day, whether it’s T.P.P., whether it’s deregulation, whether it’s Neil Gorsuch,” Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.
If there is a war between the two men to influence Trump, it was clear on Thursday why Bannon is winning. In bureaucratic fights, a White House staffer with strong and clear ideas, even ones that are bad, will beat a rival with no ideas every time.
The Bannon-Priebus appearance was a reminder of how quickly Bannon’s view of conservatism came to defeat Priebus’s. Back in March, 2013, Bannon was something of an outcast at CPAC. In the wake of Mitt Romney’s loss in the 2012 Presidential election, conservatives were trying to emphasize their movement’s diversity and tolerance. The prevailing takeaway from the election was that the right had grown too old, too white, and too intolerant—and so CPAC, which often serves as an incubator for ideas emerging on the far right, needed to downplay the fringes of the movement.
The lineup of speakers that year was by no means a collection of squishy Republicans: the two biggest stars were the former Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. But the emphasis from the main stage was on a welcoming small-government conservatism, and the energy in the audience came from libertarian activists, who stormed the conference and helped Senator Rand Paul win the meeting’s Presidential straw poll.
Bannon, who was the head of Breitbart News, roamed the halls as a disgruntled and dishevelled fringe player. Before the conference, he had scanned the schedule and complained that CPAC’s organizers had cast out the voices representing what he viewed as the real issues on the right: the threat from Islam, illegal immigration, and corporate America’s influence on politics.
He organized an evening of counterprogramming to highlight those issues, which he called the Uninvited. Even at the most conservative gathering in America, Bannon liked to play the role of aggrieved outsider.
On the CPAC sidelines, Bannon described his alternative lineup to an interviewer: “A former Attorney General from the Bush Administration talking about jihad and the élites’ inability to recognize it. Peter Schweizer talking about crony capitalism. Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney, Nina Shea talking about the global persecution of Christians. These are huge topics. Illegal immigration. These are huge issues. They have to be vetted.”
“This is a conservative conference, supposedly,” the interviewer asked. “Why are these voices being silenced, in your opinion?” “I don’t want to speculate,” Bannon said.
Geller was viewed by most Republican leaders as an anti-Muslim extremist. In April, 2013, the month after CPAC, she called for “profiling of Muslims,” “surveillance of mosques,” and “an immediate halt of immigration by Muslims into nations that do not currently have a Muslim-majority population.” In 2015, she organized a “Draw Muhammad” contest, in Garland, Texas, where two men opened fire and were killed by police. Donald Trump, who had not yet surrounded himself with anti-Islam advisers, tweeted, “The U.S. has enough problems without publicity seekers going out and openly mocking religion in order to provoke attacks and death. BE SMART.” In an interview with “Inside Edition” he said, “I have absolutely no respect for her. She’s putting people at great danger.”
Gaffney’s views on Islam are so extreme that CPAC’s board voted to ban him from the event after he accused its leaders of being secret agents for radical Islam and suggested that one CPAC leader was part of “an influence operation” that “is contributing materially to the defeat of our country, supporting a stealthy effort to bring Shariah here.”
Two years later, the world view pushed by Geller and Gaffney would become central to Trump’s campaign for the Presidency. (Sebastian Gorka, a self-styled expert on Islam and terrorism who now works at the White House, was a regular guest on Gaffney’s radio show.)
As for Schweizer, he remains the president of the Government Accountability Institute, a nonprofit that he co-founded with Bannon, in 2012. The institute incubated “Clinton Cash,” the book by Schweizer that perhaps did more than anything else during the 2016 campaign to frame the Clintons as corrupt tools of an international donor class.
So what was Priebus, who was then the chairman of the Republican National Committee, doing in 2013 while Bannon was promoting these views at CPAC? On the Monday after the conference, Priebus released a now infamous report about how Republicans could take back the White House. The key insight was that Republicans needed to reach out to nonwhite groups, use more tolerant language, and “embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform.” Priebus wanted the report to serve as a road map for the Party’s 2016 Presidential candidate. Trump, of course, ignored it and turned Hispanics and Muslims into the bogeymen of his campaign. He heeded the direction of Bannon, who argued that increasing the G.O.P.’s share of the white vote was a surer path to victory.
It was no wonder, then, that Bannon looked so confident onstage on Thursday, while Priebus seemed fidgety and nervous. Acknowledging that his views have taken over the movement, Bannon at one point turned to Matt Schlapp, the president of the American Conservative Union, which hosts the event, and said, “I want to thank you for finally inviting me to CPAC.”