Breitbart

Tags ››› Breitbart
  • Here Are Some Of The Worst Headlines Milo Yiannopoulos Published Attacking Rape Survivors

    Blog ››› ››› ERIN FITZGERALD

    Just two days after news broke that Breitbart.com’s senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos would speak at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the conference’s hosts have rescinded his speaking invitation after a video circulated of Yiannopoulos “condoning pedophilia.” Over the next few days, Simon & Schuster canceled Yiannopoulos’ book deal, and Yiannopoulos resigned from his position at Breitbart. Though Yiannopoulos claimed he felt regret over his “poor choice of words,” his prior Breitbart headlines clearly display Milo’s long-standing history for attacking and mocking survivors of sexual assault, as well as denying the existence of rape culture. Here are Milo’s worst headlines:


    [Breitbart.com, 10/16/15]

    [Breitbart.com, 8/27/14]

    [Breitbart.com, 10/30/16]

    [Breitbart.com, 1/6/16]

    [Breitbart.com, 10/7/16]

    [Breitbart.com, 6/23/14]

    [Breitbart.com, 10/12/16]

    [Breitbart.com, 7/16/15]

  • CPAC, Simon & Schuster Learn The Same Old Lesson: Breitbart Is A Sewer

    Blog ››› ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

    With its former chief, Steve Bannon, now wielding power inside the Trump White House, Breitbart in recent days has been collecting a string of symbolic Beltway trophies.

    Last week, a reporter for the far-right site was seated in the front row, alongside Reuters and The Associated Press, for the White House press briefing with President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Earlier this month, Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos bragged that he’d be attending a White House press briefing, although he never showed up.

    Bill Maher, host of HBO’s Real Time, invited Yiannopoulos on as a guest last Friday, and the two men “got along famously,” according to The Washington Post. That’s the same Yiannopoulos who has called transgender people “mentally ill” and “retarded,” announced that “there is only one place for lesbians: porn,” and claimed that “feminism is a bowel cancer.”

    Previously banned from Twitter for inciting a harassment campaign targeting black actress Leslie Jones, Yiannopoulos found a safe haven on Maher’s show. “There was little conflict or cross-examination,” noted The New York Times.

    The following day, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) jumped on Yiannopoulos’ hate rhetoric bandwagon, inviting him to speak at the annual gathering. The move seemed to further mainstream the “alt-right” movement and its white nationalist fan base within the Republican Party.

    Meanwhile, scroll back to last December, when publishing giant Simon & Schuster signed off on a Yiannopoulos book deal reportedly worth $250,000. (“They offered me a wheelbarrow full of money,” the Breitbart editor bragged.)

    The deal was widely denounced in the publishing world. “He’s a clickbait grifter who has made a name for himself spewing hate speech,” wrote Adam Morgan, editor-in-chief of the Chicago Review of Books.

    But Simon & Schuster stood proudly by its new author and defended the generous book contract, even suggesting it was taking a noble stand in the name of free speech.

    That was before tapes resurfaced this weekend “in which Yiannopoulos appears to defend pedophilia.”

    Today, as controversy swarms around Yiannopoulos over his shocking comments, who now has the biggest regrets about reaching out to the Breitbart editor in an effort to normalize his dangerous crusade? Simon & Schuster, CPAC, or Maher?

    All of them are learning the same valuable lessons: 1) Intellectually, Breitbart is an infested sewer, and it always has been. And 2) Lots of journalists and mainstream organizations that try to embrace or legitimize the site and its rancid rhetoric inevitably come to regret it.

    They regret being associated with such purposefully offensive people and likely wish somebody had stopped them before they tried to brandish the Breitbart name for their own short-terms gains. Specifically, the regrets now revolve around “alt-right” mob leader Yiannopoulos, who appeals to rotten white nationalism.

    As Media Matters noted in the wake of the latest Milo comments, the obvious warning signs surrounding the Breitbart editor have been flashing for a very long time

    It’s not a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to the “alt-right” white nationalist movement Breitbart has supported that Yiannopoulos repeatedly frames targeted harassment campaigns of transgender individuals, black women, and undocumented students as some disgusting testament to his own conveniently warped understanding of the First Amendment.

    In terms of regrets, it’s now likely a toss-up between Simon & Schuster and CPAC, but I’m guessing it’s the leaders of the annual conservative conference who, at least privately, are most embarrassed by their harebrained idea to invite Yiannopoulos to be a featured speaker. The move instantly set off criticism from within the conservative movement as journalists expressed dismay at the idea of elevating a bully to the role of a public intellectual.

    Then, in the wake of the CPAC invite, when a conservative-run Twitter account distributed clips of the Yiannopoulos pedophilia comments, the criticism erupted into a deafening uproar of condemnation for the conservative organization, much of it voiced by conservatives themselves.   

    For its misguided attempts to normalize targeted bullying and to try to feed off the “alt-right” harassment movement for political and commercial gains, CPAC, at least temporarily, became synonymous with an apparent defense of pedophilia. (The leadership later pulled the invite.)

    Meanwhile, Simon & Schuster looks equally foolish for allowing its conservative imprint, Threshold Edition, to embrace Yiannopoulos in hopes of cashing in on his hate rhetoric. (Over the weekend, the publisher canceled the book deal.) Keep in mind that the Breitbart editor’s ugly history was hiding in plain sight prior to the six-figure book deal. Meaning, people in positions of power should have known better.

    From last December:

    On Monday night, pop right-wing agitator Milo Yiannopoulos, who lost his Twitter access earlier this year after one too many online insults against women and minorities, was on the campus of Miami University in Ohio, scheduled to talk about “PIZZAGATE: The deep Dish on Liberalism and Pedophilia.” Half an hour before the speech, he abruptly changed his topic to “On Stabby Muslims, Campus Censors and Daddy’s Transition.”

    That’s who Simon & Schuster chose to publish. That’s who Maher invited on his HBO program for a televised Friday night “bromance.” That’s who the American Conservative Union decided to elevate as a new face of GOP politics in America at CPAC.

    The good news is that a lot of corporations don’t want their brands anywhere near Breitbart or Yiannopoulos.

    As BuzzFeed recently reported, Omnicom, one of the world’s largest ad-buying agencies, “has instructed its staff to pull advertising from pro-Trump website Breitbart on behalf of its biggest clients.” One internal Omicom email referred to Breitbart’s content as being “pretty unpalatable.”

    That’s a good rule of thumb.

  • National Review Whitewashes Breitbart’s Role In The Rise Of Anti-Semitism, Instead Blames “Leftist Anti-Zionists”

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    In a February 17 column titled “Who’s Encouraging Anti-Semitism?,” National Review contributor Jonathan S. Tobin whitewashed President Donald Trump and White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon’s history of promoting anti-semitic content and white nationalist voices, and blamed “leftist anti-Zionists” for the “increase in anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses.”

    Though Tobin initially admitted “Trump is guilty of being tone-deaf … and of turning a blind eye to the way the alt-right has interpreted his stands,” Tobin falsely declared “neither [Stephen Bannon] nor [Breitbart.com] has been guilty of anti-Semitism,” adding Breitbart.com “hasn’t published any anti-Semitic articles”:

    Trump is guilty of being tone-deaf about the way his comments are perceived, and of turning a blind eye to the way the alt-right has interpreted his stands. It’s also possible to assert that his silence about hate groups at times — especially during last year’s primary campaign — is a cynical strategy that encourages some on the far right to believe that Trump is on their side.

    But even if we were to concede all of this, the case for Trump or even senior aide Steve Bannon (who is viewed by many liberals as the evil genius plotting to promote hate from his new lair in the West Wing) being an anti-Semite doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. While the new administration can be fairly blamed for a multitude of shortcomings, the notion that Trump is the one who opened the Pandora’s box of Jew-hatred sweeping across the globe is simply wrong.

    Part of the reason why Trump is associated with anti-Semitism stems from the modern trope in which everything and everyone that some on the left dislike can wind up being called Hitler. Classic anti-Semites on the right who promote forms of traditional Jew-hatred have gained more notice in the last year because of their connection with an invigorated alt-right. But such people have no role in the Trump administration, nor are they likely to. His use of the slogan “America First” has a historical precedent in pre–WWII isolationism, which was compromised by anti-Semitism, but that is something that has meaning for some in the Jewish community and few others. Attempts to link his immigration executive orders to the Holocaust are specious and a partisan effort to confuse policy differences with prejudice. Bannon and the Breitbart website bear some blame for the encouragement of the worst elements among Trump’s backers, but neither the man nor the publication has been guilty of anti-Semitism. Like Trump, Breitbart has a record of support for Israel, and it hasn’t published any anti-Semitic articles.

    [...]

    More importantly, what those who are wringing their hands about the rise in anti-Semitic incidents forget is that the primary factor behind such hate crimes isn’t the things Donald Trump says or doesn’t say. If there is a “rising tide of anti-Semitism,” as the Obama State Department noted in recent years, sweeping across Europe and now seeking footholds in the United States, it is not driven by the alt-right but by Islamists and leftist anti-Zionists who seek to single out Jews and supporters of Israel for opprobrium and violence. The BDS (boycott, divest, sanctions) movement, which seeks to wage economic war on the state of Israel, has been directly responsible for an increase in anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses. Its support comes from the left and has a connection to the increasingly vocal and influential wing of the Democratic party that is deeply critical of Israel and willing at times to engage in speech that singles out Jews as part of an alleged cabal of Zionists seeking to manipulate American foreign policy against the best interests of the United States.

    Tobin’s defense of Bannon ignores Bannon’s prior boast that Breitbart News is “the platform for the alt-right,” referring to a movement created and defined by anti-semitic white nationalists. Tobin also neglected to mention claims made by Bannon’s ex-wife in a sworn court declaration in which she alleged Bannon had criticized The Archer School for Girls for “the number of Jews that attend,” had told her “he doesn’t like jews and … the way they raise their kids to be ‘whiney brats,” and declared Bannon “didn’t want the girls going to school with Jews.”

    Under Bannon’s editorial leadership, Breitbart.com has employed a white nationalist reporter that complained “in this country we have 50 rabbis in the Guardian saying if we don’t accept millions [of refugees] we’re Hitler,” as well as a columnist that planned to speak at a white nationalist conference.

    Bannon’s Breitbart.com is additionally responsible for headlines like “Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,” and an author’s decision to attack Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum by declaring “hell hath no fury like a Polish, Jewish, American elitist scorned.”

    Furthermore, Tobin neglected to mention Trump’s constant courtship of the white supremacist movement which has included the Trump campaign giving interviews to white nationalist radio, giving press credentials to white nationalist outlets, and Trump and his surrogates’ continuous retweeting of white nationalists on Twitter.

  • SPLC's 2016 Year In Hate Report Details How White Supremacist And Neo-Nazi Media Thrived Under Trump

    Blog ››› ››› BRENNAN SUEN

    The Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) annual Year in Hate report detailed the rise in white nationalist and neo-Nazi media outlets and figures in 2016 during now-President Donald Trump’s campaign. The report noted that Trump’s run “electrified the radical right, which saw in him a champion of the idea that America is fundamentally a white man’s country.”

    Since the inauguration, white nationalist and neo-Nazi media outlets and figures have openly celebrated Trump and many of his appointments and policies, just as they did during the 2016 campaign. Rather than renounce their support, Trump and his team have had repeated, disturbing interactions with white nationalists, such as engaging with them on Twitter and giving them press credentials.

    The SPLC’s 2016 Year in Hate report detailed how “Trump’s run for office electrified the radical right, which saw in him a champion of the idea that America is fundamentally a white man’s country.” One faction of that group, according to the report, is the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, which became the “top hate site in America.” During the campaign, Daily Stormer founder Andrew Anglin said that “Jews, Blacks and lesbians will be leaving America if Trump gets elected … This alone is enough reason to put your entire heart and soul into supporting this man.” In April, Anglin said the “hoax” Holocaust memorial in Berlin should be replaced “with a statue of Hitler 1,000 feet tall”:

    The reaction to Trump’s victory by the radical right was ecstatic. “Our Glorious Leader has ascended to God Emperor,” wrote Andrew Anglin, who runs the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website. “Make no mistake about it: we did this. If it were not for us, it wouldn’t have been possible.” Jared Taylor, a white nationalist who edits a racist journal, said that “overwhelmingly white Americans” had shown they were not “obedient zombies” by choosing to vote “for America as a distinct nation with a distinct people who deserve a government devoted to that people.”

    [...]

    Several new and energetic groups appeared last year that were almost entirely focused on Trump and seemed to live off his candidacy. They included Identity Evropa, a campus-oriented group based in California; The Right Stuff, based in New York; and American Vanguard, a group with 12 chapters. And The Daily Stormer, the website whose chief came up with the term “Our Glorious Leader” for Trump, expanded into real-world activism by starting 31 “clubs.” In July, it became the most visited hate site on the Internet, surpassing longtime hate leader Stormfront.

    [...]

    Aside from the rise of Andrew Anglin’s Daily Stormer site and its real-world “clubs” — new chapters that profited directly from the Trump phenomenon — the year on the neo-Nazi scene was marked by a number of attempts to build new coalitions among groups. Several of them, like the Coalition of Aryan Organizations and the United Aryan Front, collapsed almost as quickly as they appeared.

    The report also addressed Trump’s mainstreaming of racist and far-right media, including credentialing white nationalist figures for his events and hiring former Breitbart head Stephen Bannon as White House chief strategist. SPLC labeled Breitbart as a “far-right media outlet known for promoting the so-called ‘alternative right,’” which it noted was a “recent rebranding of white supremacy for public relations purposes”:

    [Trump] kicked off the campaign with a speech vilifying Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers. He retweeted white supremacist messages, including one that falsely claimed that black people were responsible for 80% of the murders of whites. He credentialed racist media personalities even while barring a serious outlet like The Washington Post, went on a radio show hosted by a rabid conspiracy theorist named Alex Jones, and said that Muslims should be banned from entering the country. He seemed to encourage violence against black protesters at his rallies, suggesting that he would pay the legal fees of anyone charged as a result.

    [...]

    Most remarkable of all was his choice as chief strategic adviser of Stephen Bannon, the former head of Breitbart News, a far-right media outlet known for promoting the so-called “alternative right” — fundamentally, a recent rebranding of white supremacy for public relations purposes, albeit one that de-emphasizes Klan robes and Nazi symbols in favor of a more “intellectual” approach. With Bannon’s appointment, white nationalists felt they had a man inside the White House.

    According to the report, Ku Klux Klan groups “received a great deal of media attention" during the campaign, "due largely to the fact that many of their leaders backed Donald Trump’s candidacy.” The report continued that the increased media attention emboldened “America’s best known (former) Klan leader” David Duke to “launch his latest bid for political office”:

    Klan groups last year received a great deal of media attention, due largely to the fact that many of their leaders backed Donald Trump’s candidacy. David Duke, easily America’s best known (former) Klan leader, spoke repeatedly of his support for Trump, saying at one point, “I’m overjoyed to see Donald Trump and most Americans embrace most of the issues that I’ve championed for years.”

    Trump at first declined to denounce or disavow Duke, saying, falsely, that he did not know anything about him. (In fact, Trump had written in a 2000 New York Times op-ed that he abandoned his exploration of a presidential bid with the Reform Party that year because of Duke and two fellow extremists who were involved with the party.) But in the end, pressed by the media, he weakly disavowed Duke.

    Nevertheless, Duke took advantage of the media attention he received to launch his latest bid for political office. Last July, he announced his run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). But he lost badly in the open November primary, coming in seventh with 3% of the vote, or 58,581 votes.

  • Trump Loyalist Outlets Claim Flynn Is The Victim Of His Resignation

    ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Pro-Trump propaganda outlets are rushing to paint President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, as the victim in his February 13 resignation, claiming that he was “the subject of a concerted attack” and that “the fake news media had been going after Flynn for months.” But Flynn’s resignation came after reports indicated that he may have violated the Logan Act during his communications with Russia.

  • Reporters Roast Sean Spicer’s Breitbart Interview: “Most Awkward Thing Ever,” “Insanely Cringey”

    Blog ››› ››› ERIC HANANOKI

    White House press secretary Sean Spicer’s “exclusive interview” with Breitbart.com crashed and burned. Reporters mocked the two-and-a-half-minute sit-down as “the most awkward thing ever” and “a glorious two-minute comedy of errors” that suffered from terrible production values.

    Breitbart.com had announced on February 8 that Spicer would appear in an interview the following day with White House correspondent Charlie Spiering, who regularly produces fawning coverage of President Donald Trump. Breitbart is a leading defender of Trump, and several White House staffers are Breitbart alumni, including chief strategist Steve Bannon, who formerly chaired the website.

    Spicer gave a short interview to the pro-Trump outlet last evening following the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ unanimous decision to not reinstate Trump’s travel ban targeting seven majority-Muslim countries.

    The interview produced little of value; Breitbart.com was not even promoting the interview’s results on the top of its homepage as of posting time (the site is instead attacking comedian Rosie O'Donnell).  

    Reporters reacted to the interview by noting its “moments of awkward silence,” comparing Spiering to “a 10-year-old who snuck into 1600 Penn,” and calling it a “total disaster” from a “production standpoint”:

    The Washington Post’s Callum Borchers: “Sean Spicer’s Facebook Live interview with Breitbart News is the most awkward thing ever. … From a production standpoint, it was what Spicer's boss likes to call a ‘total disaster.’”

    The Huffington Post’s Rebecca Shapiro: “The interview suffered from moments of awkward silence, unpleasant background noises and some strange camera angles.”

    Esquire’s Sammy Nickalls: “This Breitbart interview was...not good.”

    Death and Taxes’ Candace Bryan: "The interview is rife with awkward silences, harsh changes in sound levels, abrupt push-ins, and a reporter that looks like a 10-year-old who snuck into 1600 Penn after hiding behind the colonnades until Secret Service went on break and is now terrified he’s about to have his cover blown. ... Spicer himself looks as though he’s isn’t certain he isn’t being trolled." 

    Fusion’s Katherine Krueger: The interview was “insanely cringey.”

    The A.V. Club’s Clayton Purdom: It was “a glorious two-minute comedy of errors, with production qualities rivaling the cringe-inducing crap cinema of Fateful Findings, A Talking Cat!?!, and even The Room.”

    The Daily Beast’s Marlow Stern:

    ThinkProgress’ Ned Resnikoff:

    Gizmodo's Ashley Feinberg:

    BuzzFeed’s Ryan Broderick:

  • Sean Spicer Grants “Exclusive Interview” To Breitbart.com

    Blog ››› ››› TIMOTHY JOHNSON

    White House press secretary Sean Spicer will participate in an “exclusive interview” with “alt-right” website Breitbart.com -- a development that underscores the growing relationship between the Trump administration and the notoriously inflammatory outlet.

    Breitbart announced the interview in a February 8 post, touting an “exclusive interview” with Spicer to be streamed on Facebook at 6:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on February 9. Breitbart White House correspondent Charlie Spiering will conduct the interview. The post encouraged Breitbart readers to suggest questions for Spicer in the website’s infamous comments section, which has been called “a sewer of mindless hatred and racism.”

    Ties between the White House and Breitbart.com run deep. The website was formerly run by chief White House strategist Steve Bannon, who previously termed Breitbart “the platform for the alt-right.” Other current Trump administration employees who used to write for Breitbart include deputy assistant to the president Sebastian Gorka and Bannon assistant Julia Hahn.

    During Trump’s first press conference as president-elect, the only reporter given a reserved seat was Breitbart reporter Matthew Boyle, and Trump called on him in short order to ask a sycophantic question about what “reforms” the new president would recommend for the media industry.

    Trump and his allies have engaged in an unprecedented war on the press, dating back to his campaign. A day after being sworn in as president, Trump referenced his “running war” with mainstream media. Bannon later called mainstream press “the opposition party” and suggested that “the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for awhile.” Meanwhile, the White House has repeatedly elevated pro-Trump propaganda outlets like Breitbart. Laura Ingraham’s LifeZette, a website that frequently publishes false reports, received the first question at a recent White House press briefing. The Gateway Pundit, a notoriously sloppy conservative blog, and conspiracy theory outlet Infowars have both claimed they will soon be credentialed by the White House.

    In contrast to the widespread derision Spicer has drawn because of his tendency to lie from the press briefing room lectern, Breitbart’s coverage of Spicer’s briefings has been fawning, amplifying perceived victories over the press. Here’s a sampling of recent Breitbart Spicer headlines, all of which ran atop articles written by Spiering:

     

  • NRA And Right-Wing Media Cover For GOP-Led Vote To Allow People With Severe Mental Illness Buy Guns

    ››› ››› CYDNEY HARGIS

    After Republicans led a vote in the House of Representatives to repeal President Barack Obama’s executive action preventing some severely mentally ill Social Security recipients from purchasing a firearm members of conservative media, particularly those with ties to the National Rifle Association, falsely labeled the regulation a “gun grab.” They claimed the Obama administration had deemed any recipient receiving financial aid “mentally deficient” and stripped them of “due process,” even though the regulation covers only 75,000 severely mentally ill individuals and has a due process component allowing for an appeal. 

  • After Breitbart Attacked An Author For Criticizing Trump, A Horde Of "Alt-Right" Trolls Harassed Her

    Blog ››› ››› JOHN WHITEHOUSE

    A slew of online trolls attacked Rosa Brooks for an article she wrote in Foreign Policy discussing possible consequences of Donald Trump’s historically abnormal presidency.

    Before we get to the harassment, it is worth first briefly considering the important point she was making. Brooks, a professor at Georgetown Law who also has served as a senior adviser to the State Department, used the January 30 article to consider various ways Trump’s presidency could end. After discussing the 2020 election, impeachment, and the 25th Amendment, Brooks briefly considered the possibility of a coup in the event that Trump gives an order that is not just imprudent but actually illegal and wildly destructive:

    What would top U.S. military leaders do if given an order that struck them as not merely ill-advised, but dangerously unhinged? An order that wasn’t along the lines of “Prepare a plan to invade Iraq if Congress authorizes it based on questionable intelligence,” but “Prepare to invade Mexico tomorrow!” or “Start rounding up Muslim Americans and sending them to Guantánamo!” or “I’m going to teach China a lesson — with nukes!”

    It’s impossible to say, of course. The prospect of American military leaders responding to a presidential order with open defiance is frightening — but so, too, is the prospect of military obedience to an insane order. After all, military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the president. For the first time in my life, I can imagine plausible scenarios in which senior military officials might simply tell the president: “No, sir. We’re not doing that,” to thunderous applause from the New York Times editorial board.

    These illegal-order scenarios Brooks mentions have been discussed in regard to Trump in the past year. Brooks chose these over-the-top examples because they involve patently unconstitutional, and thus illegal, orders. This topic is of interest to her: Brooks herself wrote a piece in The Washington Post a year ago discussing whether the military would follow illegal orders issued by a then-potential President Trump.

    Military leaders, pundits, and everyday Americans have not just a responsibility to ponder the possibility of Trump giving such an order, but a duty. Famously litigated at Nuremberg, the issue of how to handle illegal orders from leaders has also been an issue in the United States, going back to the first Adams administration; a Vietnam case reaffirmed that members of the military follow illegal orders on their own accord. Duke political science professor Peter Feaver explained this reality during the campaign in regard to Trump’s promises to bring back torture and also “take out” the families of terrorists:

    Both of these proposed policies are clear violations of the law. Civilian deaths that occur as collateral damage incidental to strikes aimed at legitimate targets are always avoided but sometimes an unfortunate part of lawful warfare; Trump is talking about deliberately targeting the family members as a matter of policy. I do not know of a single law expert who would say this is legal.

    ...

    Given that it would be illegal orders, General Hayden is absolutely correct: not only would the senior military leaders refuse to follow those orders, they would be legally and professionally bound to refuse those orders. Democratic civil-military relations theory further requires that they refuse these orders. Refusing these orders would not be a coup. It would be reinforcing the rule of law and healthy civil-military relations.

    Put more bluntly: Trump has promised to give illegal orders. Every member of the military is supposed to refuse to follow illegal orders. Trump has begun his presidency by doing the very things his apologists during the campaign assured us that he would not do.

    Which finally brings us back to Rosa Brooks and her thoughts about what the military should do should it be presented with illegal orders.

    When first released, Brooks’ column got the kind of reaction you would expect, with many praising it as an interesting read and a few criticizing it. It was also briefly mentioned near the end of a Breitbart column defending Trump adviser Stephen Bannon on January 31. But perhaps correctly assuming that its audience does not read past the headlines, on February 2, Breitbart wrote up Brooks’ column again, using the headline “Ex-Obama Officials Suggests ‘Military Coup’ Against Trump.” This time, the post spread quickly among right-wing fringe propaganda outlets and fake news purveyors: Infowars, Gateway Pundit, Pamela Geller, 8chan, Angry Patriot, Mad World News, Eagle Rising, Conservative 101, America’s Freedom Fighters, Natural News, Epoch Times, UFP News, ENH Live, The Washington Feed, Conservative Tribune, Mario Murillo Ministries (whose piece was shared by Trump ally Wayne Allyn Root), Infowars (again), Ammoland Shooting Sports News, Personal Liberty, PJ Media, Before It’s News, and The Political Insider. The story also spread to right-wing outlets like The Blaze and The Washington Times, which attacked her column but did not even bother to hyperlink to it. Neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer also joined in, saying that “the increasing insolence of American Jewry in their brazen calls to kill, overthrow and illegally undermine the election of President Trump must be crushed.” The story was also picked up by Russian state outlets RT and Sputnik.

    Brooks described what happened once these posts started:

    Within a few hours, the alt-right internet was on fire. The trickle of critical email messages turned into a gush, then a geyser, and the polite emails of the first few days were quickly displaced by obscenity-laced screeds, many in all capital letters. My Twitter feed filled up with trolls.

    ...

    By mid-afternoon, I was getting death threats. “I AM GOING TO CUT YOUR HEAD OFF………BITCH!” screamed one email. Other correspondents threatened to hang me, shoot me, deport me, imprison me, and/or get me fired (this last one seemed a bit anti-climactic). The dean of Georgetown Law, where I teach, got nasty emails about me. The Georgetown University president’s office received a voicemail from someone threatening to shoot me. New America, the think tank where I am a fellow, got a similar influx of nasty calls and messages. “You’re a fucking cunt! Piece of shit whore!” read a typical missive.

    My correspondents were united on the matter of my crimes (treason, sedition, inciting insurrection, etc.). The only issue that appeared to confound and divide them was the vexing question of just what kind of undesirable I was. Several decided, based presumably on my first name, that I was Latina and proposed that I be forcibly sent to the other side of the soon-to-be-built Trump border wall. Others, presumably conflating me with African-American civil rights heroine Rosa Parks, asserted that I would never have gotten hired if it weren’t for race-based affirmative action. The anti-Semitic rants flowed in, too: A website called the Daily Stormer noted darkly that I am “the daughter of the infamous communist Barbara Ehrenreich and the Jew John Ehrenreich,” and I got an anonymous phone call from someone who informed me, in a chillingly pleasant tone, that he supported a military coup “to kill all the Jews.”

    My experience is not unusual. Anyone who attracts the attention of the alt-right is in for a rough ride.

    As Brooks notes, this type of harassment by the “alt-right” is all too familiar. As I wrote in December:

    Harassment is a deeply entrenched aspect of the “alt-right” community. It came to prominence with Gamergate, and then there was a wretched, bigoted campaign against black actress Leslie Jones. “Alt-right” figure Milo Yiannopoulos has now taken his harassment tactics with him on a college tour. Another example is the recent smear campaign against satirist Vic Berger by “alt-right” figure Mike Cernovich. Cernovich is no stranger to such tactics, having bragged previously about his ability to game Google to get other outlets to pick up on his smears, spreading the lies to more false headlines and more viewers. Comedian and producer Tim Heidecker has also spoken out about abuse he has received, including death-threats, as a result of "alt-right" criticism.

    Since then, we’ve seen harassment campaigns launched against a journalist who tied a white supremacist to white supremacy, a college professor who sarcastically tweeted about “white genocide”, undocumented immigrants who use social media, and progressive author Lindy West.

    Now that Trump and former Breitbart chief Stephen Bannon are in the Oval Office, the “alt-right” sees its chance to break through to mainstream America. The movement’s adherents are huge fans of new Fox News prime-time host Tucker Carlson. Rape-promoting white nationalist Mike Cernovich was given a show on Right-Side Broadcasting Network, which has simulcast on Trump’s own Facebook page. Breitbart is starting to hire people from mainstream outlets.

    And yet, Breitbart is still situating itself at the center of these sorts of unconscionable attacks. Will it get away with that? If it does, it’s easy to see how: Since he was first appointed to lead Trump’s presidential campaign, mainstream figures have repeatedly shied away from tying Bannon to Breitbart’s enabling of white supremacy. Mike Allen, a former Politico reporter who recently founded a new media venture called Axios, lavished praise on Breitbart during an appearance on the latter’s radio show. As Breitbart now tries to move into continental Europe, these problems are more salient than ever.

    If Trump does give an illegal order to deport all Muslim-Americans, reinstate torture, invade Mexico, or even start a nuclear holocaust, the survival of humanity may come down to where the individuals in charge of executing it get their news.

    Image by Sarah Wasko

  • How To Get Away With White Supremacy In Trump's White House

    Stephen Bannon: White Supremacist Or Just #1 Fan Of White Supremacists?

    Blog ››› ››› JOHN WHITEHOUSE

    Stephen Bannon

    With the appointment of former Breitbart chief Stephen Bannon as a permanent member of President Donald Trump’s National Security Council, white nationalist forces in America have achieved what Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and Stonewall Jackson could only dream of: a revanchist, retrograde ethno-nationalist at the highest levels of the United States government.

    You might think this would be a major news story, but instead the focus has been more parochial, largely focused on the extremism of Breitbart.com under Bannon. And indeed, the website was extreme.

    But the driver of Breitbart is not its focus on or use of verboten topics or words. Breitbart is driven by the horde of white supremacists and misogynists who frequent the site. Don’t take my word for it. Take it from Stephen Bannon himself. In late December, Bannon told Breitbart radio, “The best thing we ever had was both the comments section at Breitbart and the callers, the great audience we’ve got here at SiriusXM, to call and share every day what their feelings were.” He reiterated the importance of the “intensity in the comments” later in the interview.

    There is no ambiguity about which commenters Brannon was referencing. He bragged to Mother Jones at the Republican National Convention in August that Breitbart was “the platform for the alt-right.” And the “alt-right” loves Bannon back. Former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro said that “Breitbart has become the alt-right go-to website, with [editor Milo] Yiannopoulos pushing white ethno-nationalism as a legitimate response to political correctness, and the comment section turning into a cesspool for white supremacist mememakers” (emphasis added). Beyond Yiannopoulos, Breitbart has also hired white nationalists as reporters. Shapiro said the “alt-right” is “shot through with racism and anti-Semitism” and explained the connection with Breitbart at length:

    I’d heard, of course, that the some (sic) of Breitbart’s comment sections had been occupied over previous months by a motley collection of white supremacists and anti-Semites (I generally never check the comments). I’d certainly felt their online wrath, accused by alt-righters of being an anti-Trump “cuck” — accusations that came with memes of gas chambers and “shekelmeister” cartoons that could have come directly from Der Stürmer. Such material flowed into my inbox and Twitter feed. That flow escalated dramatically after I declared that I would not support Trump, and it escalated again after I left Breitbart over its attempts to smear its own reporter, Michelle Fields, in order to shield then-Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski against charges that he’d yanked her by the arm at a campaign event.

    But it wasn’t until March 29 that Breitbart’s full embrace of the alt-right became clear. That’s the day the site featured Yiannopoulos’s lengthy piece glorifying the alt-right. Yiannopoulos had already given interviews in which he stated that “Jews run the banks” and “Jews run the media,” dismissing anti-Semitic memes as merely “mischievous, dissident, trolly.” He wrote, along with co-author Allum Bokhari, this insane sentence: “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.”

    And this is the cast of characters, and their enablers, to whom Trump has turned.

    White nationalists and white supremacists were overjoyed when Trump appointed Bannon as his chief strategist. Former KKK grand wizard David Duke told CNN, "You have an individual, Mr. Bannon, who's basically creating the ideological aspects of where we're going." Duke added on his radio show that Bannon had “been right on about a lot of the issues facing European Americans.” A neo-Nazi website described Bannon’s White House position as “pure awesomeness.” Richard Spencer, the Nazi who was punched during inauguration weekend, lauded Bannon’s ability to chart Trump’s “macro trajectory.” Andrew Breitbart himself reportedly called Bannon “the Leni Riefenstahl of the Tea Party movement,” referring to the German filmmaker who made propaganda films for the Nazis.

    And yet the mainstream media is still insistent upon protecting Stephen Bannon’s reputation. NPR’s deferential interview with Breitbart editor Joel Pollak was a signal of what was to come. After House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) twice called Bannon a “white supremacist,” mainstream figures rushed to his defense.

    Speaking to MSNBC’s Greta Van Susteren, The New York Times’ Nick Confessore literally scoffed at the idea of Bannon as a white supremacist:

    Scott Pelley on CBS Evening News described Bannon as “controversial” and said that CBS Evening News could not find “any quotes from Bannon himself advocating white supremacy.”

    Stephen Bannon spent years empowering white supremacists and publishing a white nationalist website, and his ex-wife even swore in court that “he said he doesn’t like Jews” and didn’t want his children to go to “school with Jews.” And yet, mainstream media give him a pass because he has enough sense to not say anything in public that explicitly reveals white supremacist views. This is narrowing the definition of white supremacy to just the cartoonish, David Duke version. Bannon’s longest description of his own worldview described an apocalyptic clash of civilizations, even invoking the siege of Vienna in 1529.

    From a perspective — this may be a little more militant than others. I think definitely you’re going to need an aspect that is [unintelligible]. I believe you should take a very, very, very aggressive stance against radical Islam. And I realize there are other aspects that are not as militant and not as aggressive and that’s fine.

    If you look back at the long history of the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam, I believe that our forefathers kept their stance, and I think they did the right thing. I think they kept it out of the world, whether it was at Vienna, or Tours, or other places… It bequeathed to use the great institution that is the church of the West.

    Because it is a crisis, and it’s not going away. You don’t have to take my word for it. All you have to do is read the news every day, see what’s coming up, see what they’re putting on Twitter, what they’re putting on Facebook, see what’s on CNN, what’s on BBC. See what’s happening, and you will see we’re in a war of immense proportions. It’s very easy to play to our baser instincts, and we can’t do that. But our forefathers didn’t do it either. And they were able to stave this off, and they were able to defeat it, and they were able to bequeath to us a church and a civilization that really is the flower of mankind, so I think it’s incumbent on all of us to do what I call a gut check, to really think about what our role is in this battle that’s before us.

    The “alt-right” is counting on the media using only the cartoonish definition of white supremacy and white nationalism. Its adherents take advantage of the hesitancy of mainstream media and establishment figures to call out connections between Bannon and white supremacy. The “alt-right” is self-organizing and aims to protect the reputation of their allies.

    BuzzFeed gained access to secret chat rooms in France and documented Trump supporter’ efforts to manipulate the conversation to favor the “alt-right” by making far-right Marine Le Pen supporters appear to be the most reasonable political group. Trump supporters in America are undeniably using the same tactics.

    It’s more than fine if news outlets want to fact-check statements made about the chief strategist to the president of the United States. But it would be nice if they also gave a little more scrutiny to what, exactly, he is planning for America’s future.

  • Canada’s "Alt-Right" Mosque Shooter, And What He Means For Right-Wing Media

    Blog ››› ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

    It’s not true that the accused gunman who entered the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City on Sunday night and opened fire on dozens of defenseless worshippers was “of Moroccan origin.” And it’s also not true that the gunman, who was later apprehended with two rifles in his Mitsubishi, was part of a “false flag” operation, connected to a larger, Muslim-led “insurrection” movement.

    Instead, the gunman who killed six Muslims and wounded many more over the weekend in an "unprecedented" (for Canada) attack on a place of worship is named Alexandre Bissonnette. He’s white. He’s 27 years old. He was born in Canada. And he’s a poster boy for today’s dangerous "alt-right" movement: a radicalized extremist whose hate apparently sparked a barbaric gun rampage.

    He’s been charged with six counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder in what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called an act of terror against Muslims.

    The accused killer’s connection to the far right is not a tangential one. Bissonnette is a white nationalist who, according to Canadian press accounts, has been described by friends and acquaintances as:

    And then there was this description, from a Canadian refugee activist (emphasis added):

    "He was someone who made frequent extreme comments in social media denigrating refugees and feminism. It wasn’t outright hate, rather part of this new nationalist conservative identity movement that is more intolerant than hateful.”

    In other words, he’s not a “lone wolf” gunman. He’s an "alt-right" assassin who seemingly became deeply immersed in a radical movement in search of cultural and ethnic purity. (One family member thinks Bissonnette “fell under the influence” of someone who radicalized him.)

    In the wake of the deadly attack, Fox News viewers were told virtually none of that about the gunman. In fact, they were fed misinformation about the identity of the shooter, thanks to the network's claim on Twitter that a second gunman on the scene was “of Moroccan origin.” (Though police initially arrested two suspects, including one who is of Moroccan descent, they quickly realized he was a witness to the attack and that there was only one shooter, the Canadian native Bissonnette. Fox did not correct its tweet for more than 24 hours, until a spokesperson for the Canadian prime minister called on the network to "either retract or update" its false claim.) "Alt-right" outlet Breitbart.com did the same thing, hyping the Morocco angle, and then limply updating the incorrect report.

    During all of Fox News’ prime-time coverage on Monday night, the Quebec massacre came up exactly twice, according to a transcript search via Nexis.

    One of those references came from Bill O’Reilly, who, rather than acknowledge the shooter’s "alt-right" roots, instead tried to portray the massacre as part the larger war on terror narrative: “Continuing now with our lead story, extreme vetting to prevent terrorism in the USA. As you know may know, six people are dead, 17 others hurt after a college student allegedly shot up a mosque in Quebec, Canada.”

    O’Reilly never explained how “extreme vetting” would have stopped a homegrown white nationalist gunman from killing Muslims.

    Fox News’ hands-off Quebec coverage fits the channel’s long-established pattern of downplaying acts of right-wing, white supremacist violence, and treating them as rogue, isolated events. This, while Fox News hypes beyond proportion and common sense attacks by Muslims in America.

    In terms of the timing of Quebec’s "alt-right" massacre, it’s difficult to separate the targeted, and likely political, killings from the hotbed of international controversy set off by President Donald Trump’s decision to sign an executive order temporarily barring individuals from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States.

    Having been elected after running an openly Islamophobic campaign, Trump has repeatedly defended the ban as a way to protect American from “bad dudes” coming into the country and committing acts of terror in the name of radical Islam. It’s a deeply white nationalist message.

    Using that context, White House press secretary Sean Spicer tried to politicize the Quebec massacre by weirdly suggesting it proves the need for the president’s get-tough-on-terror agenda (emphasis added):

    We condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms. It’s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant, and why the president is taking steps to be proactive, rather than reactive, when it comes to our nation’s safety and security.

    To repeat, the arrested gunman is reportedly a white nationalist Trump supporter.

    Meanwhile, as Media Matters has noted, white nationalists in the press are “ecstatic” over Trump’s travel ban, and they are expressing their glee in openly hateful and bigoted ways: “These virulently racist writers are praising Trump for stopping 'these disgusting animals' and 'sneaky sand-people' from entering the country and are also calling on Trump to arrest or impeach federal judges who oppose the ban. A neo-Nazi writer even suggested killing those protesting the ban.”

    For the extreme "alt-right" movement, Trump has arrived as its Oval Office savior, as the two sides team join forces to wage war on jihadists supposedly pouring across America’s borders.

    Fox News personalities like Sean Hannity have also joined the on-air pep rallies to tout the anti-Muslim ban. This is the same Fox News that has advocated for bugging mosques and eliminating other constitutional rights, the same Fox News that once told its viewers, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

    For years, Fox News and other conservative media have stoked dangerous Islamophic fires with runaway hate rhetoric. (See the mob they whipped into a frenzy during the so-called “9/11 mosquehysteria in 2010.)

    Trump is now trying to harness that hate to push his anti-Muslim agenda. What’s new and different is the emergence of the international "alt-right," white nationalist movement and the violence, or the threat of violence, that never seems to be far from the surface.

    Tragically, Quebec witnessed that violence this week. The pressing question going forward: How high can Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media dial up their Muslim disdain during the Trump era, without inspiring gun rampages?

  • White Supremacist Launches Harassment Campaign On Journalist For Tying Him To White Supremacy

    “Alt-Right” Figure Who Claimed That “Jews Control The News” And Regularly Tweets About “White Genocide” Insists He Is Not A White Nationalist

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Warning: This post contains content that is not safe for work.

    Tim Treadstone, an “alt-right” white nationalist who calls himself “Baked Alaska” on the internet and frequently tweets about “white genocide,” attacked Business Insider’s Kate Taylor for an article she wrote about pro-Trump boycotts of Starbucks that linked Treadstone to white supremacy.

    In her January 30 report, Taylor wrote that Treadstone “encouraged” his followers to protest Starbucks “in an effort to ‘normalize Trump’ and the white-supremacist alt-right movement.” In response, Treadstone directed his Twitter followers to attack Taylor for what he called “falsely smear[ing] me as a white supremacist,” and also called her a “fat feminist fake news ‘journalist.’” Treadstone’s following complied with hundreds of threatening tweets, including sexually explicit comments:

    [Twitter, 1/31/17]

    [Twitter, 1/31/17]

    [Twitter, 1/31/17]

    [Twitter, 1/31/17]

    [Twitter, 1/31/17]

    Treadstone, who has been featured on the "alt-right" platform Breitbart, regularly indulges an apparent obsession with “white genocide.” He has said that changes made to the eye colors of Apple emojis meant that the company must “want white genocide” and that he would illegally download Rogue One: A Star Wars Story rather than pay for a ticket because “they support white genocide.” Treadstone also asked, “If White Genocide isn’t real, why are we criticized for providing solutions to increase our declining birth-rate?”

    [Twitter, 12/14/16]

    [Twitter, 12/14/16]

    Treadstone is a friend of fellow white nationalist Richard Spencer and sparked a rift among the “alt-right" white nationalist movement over numerous anti-Semitic comments. He repeatedly said that “Jews control the News” and dismissed comparisons of “alt-right” figures to Nazis by calling the identifier “the new boogeyman ‘ur racist’ from the left.”

    Some figures in the movement tried to sanitize Treadstone’s blatant anti-Semitism by eliminating overt displays of white supremacy, such as Nazi salutes, and Treadstone was ultimately banned from the “alt-right” Trump inauguration event known as The DeploraBall, which featured a number of neo-Nazis and white nationalists without Treadstone’s presence.

    In response to being banned from the DeploraBall, Treadstone retweeted a photoshopped anti-semitic meme showing a knife bearing the Star of David stuck in his back, and a link to an article on the white nationalist website Daily Stormer, titled “Full Cucklapse: Thernovich Bans Baked Alaska from DeploraBall -- Invites Kike MILO Instead!”


    Treadstone’s abuse of Twitter to attack journalists for doing their job is part of the ugly face of the “alt-right’s” international abuse of the Internet to spread misinformation and sideline the truth.

  • Far Right Media Cite Rumors And Fake News Outlets To Erroneously Report Canadian Mosque Attacker Was A Muslim

    Mosque Shooting Misinformation By Right-Wing Media Highlights The Plague Of Fake News

    Blog ››› ››› BOBBY LEWIS

    A shooter opened fire at the Islamic Cultural Center of Quebec on January 29, killing six and wounding eight more. On the January 30 edition of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show, Hannity ran through a list of past violent attacks allegedly tied to Islamic extremism, ending with “somebody, it’s reported, said ‘Allahu Akbar’” at the mosque attack, in an attempt to tie the attack to Muslims:

    SEAN HANNITY (HOST): This is since Obama’s been president. Let’s start. LA shooting at an airport. Remember that? An Egyptian national. March of 2006. An SUV attack, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, injuring pedestrians. Remember the, in Seattle, the Jewish Federation shootings, remember that?

    Remember all these incidents of terror that have occurred on American – Fort Hood, Texas? Remember, Army Major Hassan, 44, open fire, military processing center, killing 13, wounding 32 others. Army recruitment office in Little Rock, Arkansas. Or the Boston bombing that took place with the Tsarnaev brothers. Or the terrorist attack, three in Washington, one in New Jersey. Ali Muhammed Brown, gunned down, Leroy Henderson, et cetera, et cetera.

    The hatchet attack in New York, do you remember that back in 2014. The Garland, Texas art exhibit shooting, remember that incident? The Islamic State, they claimed responsibility for that. The Chattanooga, Tennessee military facility shooting, remember that? You remember the U.S. University of California Merced stabbings, you remember that one? You remember the San Bernardino, California shooting? Do you remember the Philly policeman shooting? Do you remember the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting? Do you remember the Chelsea, New York, Seaside, New Jersey bombings? Do you remember the Minnesota mall stabbings?

    Do you remember the Ohio State University incident with the Somali-born Ohio State student? Did you watch what happened in Quebec when somebody, it’s reported, said “Allahu Akbar” this weekend? Now, the facts are very simple if anybody cares to look at truth and fact versus fiction. 

    Hannity’s misinformation made it’s way through conservative media following reports from fake news purveyors central to the alt-right, Gateway Pundit and Prison Planet, both of which claimed the shooter had shouted “Allahu Akbar.” They cited a then-live-updating CBC report claiming a witness heard the gunman yell “Allahu Akbar” as he fired. According to the most recent reports, the suspect in custody is alleged to be an “obviously pro-Trump” 27 year old white French Canadian who has been described as an “anti-immigrant far-right ‘troll’.”

    Hannity was not alone in using the eyewitness report to falsely insinuate a Muslim had committed the attack. Alt-right outlets across the internet parroted false reports that the attacker was a Muslim, or used the "Allahu Akbar" report to insinuate that he was. Gateway Pundit even attacked mainstream media outlets that did not repeat their Islamophobic fearmongering, claiming these outlets were “those who hid the truth,” and had promoted “alternative facts.” Fox News also initially reported the attacker “was of Moroccan origin” before correcting themselves, and White House press secretary Sean Spicer used the Quebec mosque attack to defend the administration's dangerous and "un-American" Muslim ban. 

    Hannity ended his rant by claiming “the facts are very simple if anybody cares to look at truth and fact versus fiction.” Indeed, the facts are simple -- a white French Canadian with anti-immigrant beliefs and sympathies for extremist politicians like Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump is the singular suspect for the attack, and there is absolutely no sign he is a Muslim. The eagerness with which Hannity, Gateway Pundit, Matt Drudge, and other far-right media jumped the gun or ignored newly-reported facts to prop up their own Islamophobic narrative provides the latest example of fake news and alternative facts being used to advance a harmful agenda.

  • Right-Wing Media Wrongly Cite Obama To Justify Trump’s Muslim Ban

    ››› ››› NICK FERNANDEZ

    Right-wing media figures echoed misleading claims from President Donald Trump’s administration that his executive order seeking to ban travel from seven specific, predominantly Muslim countries “came from the Obama administration,” citing what they call a 2011 “ban” on “immigration from Iraq” and the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015. But, as experts have noted, the comparison to the Obama administration's actions in 2011 and 2015 are “misleading,” as “The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information” and was not an “outright ban,” and the 2015 legislation still allowed visa applications from those seven countries.