Tuesday, February 07, 2017

Breitbart is third and gaining

Robert Reich (via Steve Sailer):
... before joining Trump’s inner circle Bannon headed Breitbart News, a far-right media outlet ...
On the other side of the Atlantic, from the UK government and the crony capitalists it is enriching in the name of fighting hate (via Vox Day):
The UK government is to pay an advertising giant, which campaigned against Brexit, £60 million to fight so-called “far right” extremism online, including “going against people who read Breitbart”.
The hivemind is using the same description everywhere. Googling "Breitbart far right" returns 941,000 results.

Everyone is Hitler, everything is -ist or -phobic, hate crimes are everywhere--this hysteria hardly even elicits a scoff anymore. Middle America takes these accusations about as seriously as they do one of their toddler's temper tantrums. The high priests, votaries, and warrior monks of the Cathedral don't have any more arrows left in the quiver and we're only a couple of weeks into Trump's presidency. It's going to be a grueling eight years for them.

This "far right" descriptor is relatively tame by comparison. It is, however, one they've been forced to fall back on after the phrase "fake news" was appropriated and then turned around on them.

Still, it's worth ridiculing because these people are always worth ridiculing.

So, what do Fox News, the Washington Post, MSNBC, CBS, the Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC, BuzzFeed, Salon, Slate, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Conservative Tribune, the Huffington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Blaze, the Weekly Standard, and National Review among others, have in common?

They all have fewer online readers than Breitbart does. Breitbart.com is now the third most visited news site in the US, behind only the New York Times and CNN, and CNN is in free fall.

The third most popular news site in an environment with tens of thousands of them, you say? Hmm, sounds like a more accurate adjective than "far right" might be "mainstream" or maybe "populist", then?

I don't have data on median age by reader, but I suspect Breitbart's are decades younger than the NYT's and CNN's are. The state of media has never been more fluid than it is now, but at the moment Breitbart has to be the odds-on favorite for most popular news website in the country by the end of Trump's presidency.

I just made it the homepage on all my browsers.

25 comments:

Sid said...

"Everyone is Hitler, everything is -ist or -phobic, hate crimes are everywhere--this hysteria hardly even elicits a scoff anymore."

To add to the mess, leftists don't even discriminate (aha!) between different groups of rightists. No, really, they don't distinguish between FOX News, Breitbart, or American Renaissance. They're all jackbooted Nazis to them.

The recent schism within the alt-right, between the HBD alt-right and the "alt-lite" of people like Mike Cernovich, Paul Joseph Watson, and Milo, is absolutely meaningless and unintelligible to most leftists. Steve Bannon and Richard Spencer's positions are indistinguishable to them. They believe all of their opponents are motivated by deep racial hatred.

That's why it's useless to try to cuck. The left will always regard you as being a Nazi, so you shouldn't try to win them over. Sure, put up a big tent and don't try to alienate moderates right off the bat, but don't think the left will respect you, no matter how much you sell out to them.

I also can't help but think that's one thing that distinguishes us from our foes. During the election, we never called Hillary a communist or an anarchist: she was clearly a corrupt globalist. Similarly, we can discern when SJWs are pro-corporate puppets, and when the black bloc is made up of loathesome Communists. We know they're all politically left, but we know the differences between them and can exploit them. We could appeal to Bernie Bros and to libertarians, knowing what things they believed in which we could appeal to.

Granted, I don't know or care about what the current divisions between American Communists are - maybe some like the USSR? Others like Trotsky? Others Mao? - but I don't confuse their beliefs and motives with Audi's in their pay gap add.

In contrast, if you believe everyone from Marco Rubio to Steve Sailer, Mitt Romney to Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan to Stefan Molyneux, is part of a Neo-Nazi movement, then none of your attacks on any one of them will be on the mark.

Dan said...

Super comment, Sid. The left is now utterly intellectually inferior. It is not low IQs per se but their utter unwillingness to discover or value what is true or get out of an intellectual safe space. Sailer has said something about how not noticing is a defining trait of the left. Imagine a party where rising depends on blindness.

chris said...

My marxist legal theory professor once called the Tea Party far right. The tea party was a bunch of seniors et they are far right?

They are helping to normalize the far right descriptor though, I suppose that's a good thing.

Black Death said...

@Chris -

Marxist legal theory? You actually studied this stuff? What was it like? Was it a course all by itself or was it part of a larger course? How fascinating! How could you keep a straight face?

Dan said...

BD, I assume Chris's comment should read, "My legal theory professor, who is a Marxist, once called..."

chris said...

Dan is correct. My Legal Theory professor was a Marxist, and since he set the curricula for the course we ended up having a lot of Zizek and other marxist readings. Also a lot of postmodernist readings like Foucault. I went in there thinking we would study classical liberal theory but I was mistaken.

Black Death said...

Thanks for the clarification. BTW, Slavoj Zizek endorsed Trump! Who knew?

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Excellent points. I've challenged several SWPLs, as a thought experiment, to the following:

On some issue, I'll write down my position on it and what I think your position on it is. You'll do the same. Neither of us will communicate with one another until we're both finished writing our own positions and our best guess as to the other person's position. I'm confident that my version of your position will be closer to your actual position, as stated, than your version of my position will be to my actual position, as stated.

No one has taken me up on it, blowing it off as taking too long or being ridiculous or whatever, so I haven't field tested it, but I really am quite confident in the outcome.

Jonathan Haidt deals with this in the Righteous Mind. Those on the right have more moral dimensions than those on the left. Consequently, we can see where they're coming from, we just think their concerns are exaggerated or don't take consequences into account, etc. Because they are missing some of our moral dimensions, they simply can't/won't understand where we're coming from and instead just assume we're evil.

Chris,

We'll appropriate it just like we appropriated Pepe and fake news.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> They believe all of their opponents are motivated by deep racial hatred.

For a group of people who are supposedly smarter than their opponents, there is a huge anti-intellectual streak going on with the left. Everyone is just lumped into the same categories, which is why to them, every opponent is a racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot, etc. They use the same insults at every target as if their enemies are interchangeable. It shares a lot of parallels with Stalin's Great Terror where everyone he didn't like was branded a Trotskyite. I suppose it doesn't matter what insult they come up with, the bottom line is that someone has labeled you a wrongthinker and wants to do with you what Stalin did with millions of Trotskyites in the 1930s.

Dan said...

Seen on twitter:

"Gorsuch's own spokesman confirmed he said "demeaning" and "demoralizing.""

Uh, oh.

In his first chance, he shoots right, at Trump. Oh, joy.

Dan said...

Ok, now I'm convinced Trump needs to withdraw this pick.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/318565-could-court-pick-gorsuch-be-a-crypto-liberal-conservatives

Damnit.

Social justice church? Loved by his students at a liberal law school, who think he is a great pick?

Who are these people saying he is such a great conservative pick?

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

My in-laws are Episcopalians and I've attended a handful of services at their church, which sounds a lot like Gorsuch's. Yikes indeed.

Feryl said...

This Gorsuch dust-up is a bit weird. I wonder if it's (cynical) virtue signalling to skeptics, against whom we'll have to fight to get someone on the Supreme Court. I don't have a clue how difficult it will be. If both Gorsuch and Trump are in on the ruse, then, 7D chess or whatever. But I don't see the Left giving an inch to any of Trump's picks, 'cuz the Left is becoming more and more stubborn by the day about obstructing everything Trump does. Gabbard and Joe Manchin are the kind of people who're going to be branded as enemy collaborators as we reach civil war levels of belligerent and paranoid partisanship. Mere opposition won't suffice; ritual ostentatious deprecation of Trump as a racist, a dictator, a fraud, and a joke are the Left's sustenance at the moment and the gutless Dems are mostly going to oblige. When Dems back East like Schumer spoke of working with Trump on the more prosaic issues (like infrastructure), I don't think they realized how much volcanic hatred of Trump had been stoked by cultural elites, the West coast, and the media.

The ever growing far Left of the Dems keeps trampling whatever is left of moderation or civility in their party. Anyone who wants their record to stand up in Middle America (if not necessarily in elite judgement) decades from now ought to be deserting the Dems. If the Dems can't quell the far Left wing that Obama, nihilist whites, and non-whites favored, than we're looking at the total destruction of the party in upstate NY, PA outside of Philly, the non-carpet bagger regions of the South, and the entire Midwest/Plains outside of Detroit, Milwaukee, Chicago, and Minneapolis/St. Paul.

The delusion driving once moderate/populist Dems to go all-in the New Dem party is that, whatever their principles or goals, they bought the hype about the "Emerging" Dem majority and promptly lost interest in defending heartland whites. Not taking away Pelosi's keys says it all. Recent events probably also elicited genuine fear from Dems, that they would get attacked by both loser Leftist agitators and cultural elites alike for making prole appeals.

As for Gorsuch getting praise from various circles, big deal. He seems like a respected guy and one can only assume that he's been wise enough to not push career ending buttons or let himself get trapped like Sessions did in the mid-80's. Sessions basically had to make amends via hard work and shining performance for 3 decades to finally escape accusations that derailed him back then (the most damaging ones involved a flippant remark about the KKK to a talented tenth black, which Sessions backpedaled away from by saying it was a joke in poor taste. What was he thinking?)

I do wish Trump would continue to reward the South and Rust belt/Eastern Midwest by choosing a gentile white male judge from these regions. Western cuckville is bound to produce deracinated whites who are more likely to feel guilty about Trump's old American nationalism, and Gorsuch roots are totally from out West.

Feryl said...

For some reason, Roissy went on the warpath about Nordic feminism while recently praising Gorsuch's impeccable WASP credentials.

Kind kookoo, considering that WASPville in New England resoundingly rejected Trump (Trump lost the whitest states in America, NH and Vermont). Not to mention that genetically similar Utahns also got headaches from Trump.

Trump get's flak from two extremes: deracineated whites out West, and quite ethnocentric Eastern WASPs/Jews (who've been provoking populist movements among Midwesterns and Southerners for centuries)

Let's face it, Scots-Irish warriors and Teutonic farmers/factory workers were the biggest Trump supporters. WASPs have always been driven by the "noble" burden of freeing mankind from whatever bondage ails them. Kind of a bummer, if you ask me. I just want an America free from parasites, criminals, terrorists, and dickhead utopians. Let's get back to work. Productive work. Enough moralizing and guilt. And talk. Like Trump says, "they're all talk".

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

What do you make of that Trump/Gorsuch handshake (Heartiste noted it)? I assume Trump is and will continue to delegate SCOTUS picks. I doubt he knows much of anything about federal judges throughout most of the country. A sop to Colorado of all places is weird. Colorado cucked horribly, throwing the primary delegates and giving Hillary a pretty easy win. Why there of all places?

Why did Trump dominate the NE in the Republican primaries? Does social conservatism give us the entire explanation? His domination of the Massachusetts primary, for example, really was staggering. He dominated it as thoroughly as Romney did even though the race was more open this time around.

The new GSS data will be out in the next couple of months. I hope they included some Trump-related questions for one of the individual modules. They would've had to be configured during 2015, though, so it's a long shot.

Feryl said...

". A sop to Colorado of all places is weird. "

Yeah, if you've to pick from the West I'd go with Arizona (where Bronson learns how to be a man in Death Wish) or TX first (as much shit as we gave Ted Cruz, I do think he's a sincere DC hatin' Western conservative who isn't that PC or anything). Then, I dunno, Montana or Wyoming?

WRT primaries, from what I understand there just aren't that many N Eastern GOPers left. So their primary voters are a small sample size to go from with little relevance to the general (exception: upstate NY and PA which have always been somewhere between the Midwest and NE Coast culturally, just as they are geographically). Besides, the NE Coast tends to disdain people from the South, lower Plains, and Appalachia, so Cruz never had a chance. Part of the never rending rivalry between puritans and Scots-Irish.

Trump's rather opportunistic embrace of evangie issues to secure the South, Plains, and Midwest (even MN has gone much redder at different levels over the last several elections) did end up bugging people a lot on the West coast and yes, in much of the Northeast. Because of Trump's background, we didn't really hear much trash talking of Trump as a christo zealot (had Cruz ran, we would've) but rest assured Jews and Wasps back East still feel as though the GOP only has room for suvvern hill billies and creepily upbeat Midwestern Ned Flanders types. Had Trump vowed to take a libertarian stance on pot, abortion, law enforcement, rejection of religious mores, etc. it probably would've brought more people from Maine along for the ride. Double edged sword. It may have caused Trump to lose or nearly lose more of the quite culturally conservative heartland people; in fact, some of them still aren't convinced that Trump is fighting for them. What these people need to get is that Trump's first priority is national and economic security. Moral issues are secondary, and quite frankly Trump, like most people north of NC and East of PA, is somewhat to very liberal on cultural issues. But that's not why he gets out of bed, so he's willing to cede his feelings about personal morality to the proles who elected him

Don't get too bent out of shape. Psychologically and behaviorally, Northeasterners are in much better shape than people Out West. They just don't, for whatever reason, really care about traditional morality perhaps because they feel like people should be given the kind of liberties that us heartlanders can't stomach.

Feryl said...

Assuming Trump and Gorsuch aren't pulling an elaborate ruse, I'd expect Trump to be very, very disappointed right now. He probably heard about the guy's character, a loyal law enforcer, clean-cut, family man, young and healthy enough to have a long future, etc. Meets him, doesn't see any sign of weakness or treachery.

Then, POW! Ambush. "Taking a stand" (as if succumbing to cultural elitists and anarchist dupes takes courage). Immediate and mostly positive media coverage, but then I suppose that Trump's evil touch has tainted Gorsuch to the point of no redemption in the eyes of most liberals.

And the classless grandstanding of doing it in public. Trump the Scot/Viking warlord hates to be embarrassed by both behind the back remarks and obvious insubordination. From what I gather, what Trump hates the most isn't criticism per se (his honor motivated reprisals are just that, not thin-skinned prissiness like you see with most of the low-T media and other Trump foes). It's more about people playing down to the competition and being duplicitous. Lazy and gutless people basically, which aptly describes the majority of the media who've frozen out charismatic and likable Trump supporters (like P. Buchanan, Sailer, and Ann Coulter). We saw in the primaries and General how many first rate coaches supported Trump; people with military and athletic experience (e.g., people who do well in highly masculine sectors) really like Trump since they can tell that he's driven in a wholesome way and is gifted at reading people and getting the best from them. The bitchier something is (like modern media and Hollywood), the more it hates Trump because of his disinterest in mind games and elaborate etiquette rules. Come to think of it, Jews are the bitchiest people of all and it's not wonder they don't like Trump.

Audacious Epigone said...

The bitchier something is (like modern media and Hollywood), the more it hates Trump because of his disinterest in mind games and elaborate etiquette rules. Come to think of it, Jews are the bitchiest people of all and it's not wonder they don't like Trump.

You've provided so much insight here over the last couple of months, but this may take the cake.

Audacious Epigone said...

Re: there not being many GOPers left in the NE, I do recall NY's Republican primary turnout being basically flat to 2012, out of line with the trend most everywhere else. New Hampshire was up quite a bit, otoh (though full Trump derangement syndrome hadn't set in yet). Not sure about the rest of New England. There isn't an easy way to access the comparison at the state level that I'm seeing. Might be worth putting together.

Feryl said...

Cruz as the foil actually did make some more liberal minded people back off of Trump initially. Cruz's piety was so easy to mock, he seemed so theocratic that it elevated Trump as worldly and grounded and easier to relate to.

As Agnostic has pointed, by 1988 the West coast and Northeast was evidently beginning to sour on the GOP's bible-belt centric culture war. In Reagan's elections, America was still trying to get itself off the canvas after being knocked silly in the 70's. By the late 80's, Silents and Boomers felt secure and confident enough about national/economic security that they launched the now dead culture war which alienated people and institutions from each other as views about morality are highly dependent on not just social class and geography, but also idiosyncratic to any given person.

Now that Trump's placed the focus back on national/economic security, it's evident that anyone disagrees with restrictive immigration polices, redrawn trade lines, or cutting back useless programs/branches of government (like the Department of Edu. that Carter established as yet another appendage of the bureaucrat gravy train that LBJ got rolling) is a yuppie sell-out, a global communist, or a parasite that needs to find better things to do.

Note too that although primarily middle-aged Leftists are still whining about gays and abortion like it's 1990 all over again, what is really roiling things up the most is immigration restriction. That tells me that we've flipped finally flipped the switch to no-nonsense issues involving tangible resources, away from the highly abstract and emotional moral issues deriving from one's individual sensibilities.

Also heartening is that in tanglibe measures of security, there's no room left for empty posturing. Either people are safe and prosperous, or they're not. Refreshing compared to holier than thou culture war era arguments in which there's no consistent or agreed upon measure of results. The media and elites now have no choice but to ritually abuse Trump and his core base with shrill ad-hominem attacks and distorted figures since the net positive benefits of immigration control, protectionism, and a Fed government streamlined to no longer waste resources on attacking local governments, business owners, and police for civil rights violations are so undeniable.

The pitiful Left is now grasping at whatever meager victories they can get, like the 9th circuit court restraining order. Nice try, but while you were counting on commie West coast judges bossing us around, Trump and his loyal ICE troops were conducting relatively large round-ups of felon aliens of whom many are lurking in your back yard. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Commie judges, lawyers, and bureaucrats can only do so much to stop law enforcement that's been unshackled to do it's job. You see, illegal alien criminals have even less clout to keep their freedom and rights than American criminals. As well it should be. And we can deport these people before they become an even bigger headache. Leftists have already done enough to enable domestic criminals, but with illegals at least we have the option of just ejecting them from the country.

Feryl said...

I saw a blog/article comment where somebody said that the GOP tends to be in power during high crime periods. In fact, Leftist over-reach intensifies crime and disorder, and (especially when/if the electorate is whiter) voters react by electing a Republican.

See: mid-Century soft on crime policies, peaking with LBJ, kicking off a major crime wave in the later 60's/70's involving not just the Boomer youth bulge but the Silent Gen as well (indeed, concerns were being raised about teen delinquency as early as the 40's). The populace at large recognizes the danger and elects Nixon. Still, the inertia of the mid-Century is so great that we don't begin to see significant results until Reagan. In the 80's, drug use among whites declines, RICO is used against the Mob, terrorism and riots decline, murders of cops decline, and so on. These trends continue in the 90's as a law and order seeking public will not allow the government to repeat the mistakes of the 60's and 70's again; we even get a Dem president by now because the public now feels that both parties can be trusted to not enable criminals again.

Flash forward to the Obama era. Crime is at it's lowest level since the 1950's, and civil unrest though not unheard of is still much lower than it was in the 60's/70's. With so much apparent progress made at dealing with crime and disorder, we start to see the populace become naive and passive about the risks of going easy on criminals. Sure enough, 10-15 years of being pansies, climaxing in Obama's BLM approved 2nd term, results in a recorded uptick in homicides by 2015. Meanwhile, unrest primarily involving a youth bulge now near or in their college years grows (Millennial birth rates peaked in the 1st half of the 90's). Sound familiar?

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

So are we about to cycle into a reduction in self-destructive behaviors, too? Hard drug use and suicide rates going back down? Or are we not that far into the cycle? Cop murders have been pretty consistent over the last couple of decades (with the exception of the 2001 spike due to 9/11).

Feryl said...

I think so, but it's going to pretty slow. The violent crime waves of the late 60's-90's were closely associated with poor judgement and outright psychosis caused by stimulants and to a lesser degree, psychedelic drugs. White people reduced their use of speed/coke/LSD etc. by the mid 80's, consequently behavior improved. Crack hit blacks really hard in the late 80's, causing a huge crime boom (matter of fact, later Gen X and Millennial whites tend to not even associate whites with crime because of the black crime boom of the late 80's and 90's).

It seems like violent behavior happens in tandem with non-depressant drug use. Opioids and alcohol were consumed moderately in the mid-century with relatively little damage done to overall society though of course these drugs can hurt the user a lot. In the 90's we saw heroin (Kate Moss, grunger OD's) quickly become favored over the psychedelics of the late 60's/early 70's or the uppers that were trendy in the late 70's and 80's since heroin doesn't have an immediate effect on coordination and doesn't turn you into a hyperactive maniac, thus allowing users to feel more comfortable and less obviously drugged up. Agnostic says that outgoing periods are associated with party drugs, while cocooning periods favor downers.

This time, though, we're in a much more decadent period than the mid-century so opioids and booze are consumed in much greater quantities these days. And it's killing Boomers and Gen X-ers, whereas only a handful of G.I.s and Silents ever developed life-threatening drug or booze problems. As cocooning has reached it's peak in the 2010's, we've seen opiod dependency and abuse explode (whereas the 1990's saw overall drug use fall to levels not seen since the mid 60's). Violent and psychotic episodes remain rare among whites, but our organs have been getting pulverized by excessive drinking and opioids.

In outgoing periods, we take the chance of a bad trip from a psychedelic or upper making us sweaty, paranoid, jittery, and combative. In cocooning periods, we prefer numbing downers. Related: the boom in coffee and energy drink culture since the early 90's, as these our lower scale stimulants that help to shake us out of our cocooning and downer funk. The explosion of obesity that really took off in the 90's is also a sign of encroaching decadence.

Feryl said...

Correction, looking at Ag's blog and the Youth Risk survey, it looks like there actually was a spike in drug use in the late 90's and early 2000's, at least among kids. I'm wondering if there's a cohort effect at work that may be at least somewhat independent of other negative behaviors. In other words, Boomers were more likely to have aggressive freakouts regardless of drug use, while white late Gen X-ers in spite of high drug use didn't cause much trouble. Early X-ers were more promiscuous and violent, but thank to Reagan's Just Say No culture were less likely to get into drugs than 70's or 90's kids.

Health-wise, though, we're looking at a train wreck. And the YRS doesn't track a cohort's continuing behavior. No doubt that a lot of late Gen X-ers have continued to self-abuse while Millennials evidently are shying away from drug/alcohol/tobacco use at various stages of life. The overall picture is that lingering effects of past abuse and new effects of current abuse are really hammering Boomers and Gen X-ers, including clean later 80's/early 90's teens who are now saying yes to drugs.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

The YRS is a potential goldmine, even breaks things down by race, thanks. There's a lot of potential with the American Nations from Albion's Seed/Collin Woodward and Jayman's followup.