I have mixed feelings about Breitbart:
“He said he envisions the project as an “advocacy organization that is going to advocate for Trump administration policies that generally fall under a populist-nationalist window.” (He doesn’t primarily use the word “conservative.” Howley has lost patience with the conservative movement’s focus on cutting spending and entitlement reform. “Conservatives are not offering any solutions, all they’re doing is cutting government benefits,” he said.)
In Howley’s view, Breitbart has lost its street cred by trying to go mainstream, and it no longer provides a voice for the “populist nationalist” movement that Trump represents.
“Breitbart’s dropping the ball in term of explaining what all of this is about,” Howley said. He’s not pleased, for example, that the site hired John Carney from The Wall Street Journal to lead business and economics coverage. “They’re going in a direction that I don’t think is interesting. I think it’s boring,” he said. …
Bannon left Breitbart News after joining the Trump campaign in August.
“I imagine there will be lots of competition to Breitbart, as there should be—it’s healthy,” Bannon said of the new group. “I’m still struck by how those on the left have not come up with a progressive version that goes after the Democratic establishment.” …”
Where to begin?
1.) This new group that Patrick Howley is starting sounds great – we need more populist-nationalism, less mainstream conservatism. I remember how he was fired during the Michelle Fields incident. I believe that was when I first heard about him on Twitter. I liked what he had to say at the time.
2.) From my vantagepoint, Breitbart tremendously improved after Ben Shapiro & Co. left for National Review and The Huffington Post. The general election campaign was the climax of my interest in Breitbart. I shared a ton of links to Breitbart on Twitter. Breitbart still produces some great content on issues like terrorism and refugee crime in Europe.
3.) What bothers me about Breitbart is that it seems to be marketing content to the Alt-Right because it wants the traffic from our community. That is the impression that I am getting. We want you to click on our site for we can sell these ads, but otherwise we don’t want nothing to do with you. That’s a fine line to walk … snake charming White racial consciousness while simultaneously trying to hew to the edges of mainstream conservative respectability. It’s a hard sell to keep saying White Nationalists are beyond the pale, but Bibi Netanyahu can expand all his settlements in the West Bank and that’s OK.
4.) Personally, I was never interested in or cared for MILO’s faggotry. My attitude toward MILO for a long time was that he is a kind of icebreaker or entry point into the Alt-Right. I didn’t care to follow him myself, but maybe he wasn’t as bad as his critics were saying. There was, you know, the utilitarian argument for MILO.
Whenever I did see him on Twitter, it was like a firehose of faggotry and narcissism. He seemed to become more aggressive about it. There was the ‘Twinks for Trump’ photoshoot which was plastered around the room at his RNC party. There was his address to LSU as a drag queen which was giving my Southern friends the impression that the Alt-Right as a whole was synonymous with homosexuality. The last straw for me though on the MILO question was when I saw that Satanic video of him bathing in blood.
How many times can you hear MILO call himself a “black dick supremacist” before you tune out and retch?
5.) I can’t remember where I saw it, but I caught wind of a really nasty email exchange between Joel Pollack and William Johnson of the American Freedom Party. That has colored my view of Breitbart ever since. It is always referred to as a White Nationalist site by the Lügenpresse. It is actually a Zionist website. As long as Israel is engaging in Jewish supremacy, apartheid and colonialism, Breitbart is fine with that. Civic Nationalism only applies to the United States, not to Israel.
6.) I think Breitbart has had a positive impact on our culture and politics. 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. I love to dive down that rabbit hole as much as anyone else on the Alt-Right, but that’s not what we ought to be doing.
7.) I like Steve Bannon. My impression is that the website has changed since he left, but I am not a regular reader and I am too busy watching conservatives to pay attention to Breitbart too. I do recall seeing Joel Pollack cucking up a storm on CNN which reinforced my negative impression of him. I don’t care that he is an Orthodox Jew, but can he at least dismount his high horse and show some self-awareness?
8.) Breitbart has decided that ‘racism’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ should remain taboo, but MILO’s faggotry ought to be mainstreamed at #Deploraball. Not cool. I don’t really care though. Instead of fighting with Breitbart, we ought to be creating our own platform without the mainstream conservatism, which is what Patrick Howley is doing and we are going to do with AltRight.com. If Breitbart becomes more of a mainstream conservative website under Joel Pollack, why should we complain?
9.) As Steve Bannon himself notes in the article, competition is a good thing. We need more populist-nationalist websites. We need a Breitbart to the Right of Breitbart. If the political center of gravity shifts to the point where I have become a moderate centrist, that means I have won, right?
10.) In hindsight, I regret that I didn’t spend the last few years blogging the transformation of Glenn Beck and the Tea Party into Breitbart populism. I’m certainly going to blog the transformation of Breitbart populism and Trumpism into whatever comes next.