|Part of a series on|
|Part of a series on|
The alt-right is a segment of right-wing ideologies presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in the politics of the United States. The alt-right has been described as a movement unified by support for Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump, as well as opposition to multiculturalism and immigration.
The alt-right has no official ideology, but various sources have said it to be associated with white nationalism,white supremacism,antisemitism,right-wing populism,nativism, and the neoreactionary movement.
In November 2008, Paul Gottfried addressed the H. L. Mencken Club about what he called “the alternative right”. In 2009, two more posts at Taki’s Magazine, by Patrick J. Ford and Jack Hunter, further discussed the alternative right. The term’s modern usage, however, is most commonly attributed to white nationalist and self-described “identitarian“Richard B. Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and founder of Alternative Right.
The alt-right lacks an official ideology, and has been described as an “amorphous conservative movement” by Mic, and as “loosely assembled” by The New Yorker. Various sources have described the alt-right as composed of elements of white nationalism,white supremacism and antisemitism. The alt-right has also been linked toright-wing populism,nativism and the neoreactionary movement.
Discussing the origins of Donald Trump‘s support, Jeet Heer of The New Republic identified the alt-right as having ideological origins among paleoconservatives, particularly with respect to restricting immigration and supporting a more openly nationalistic foreign policy.Newsday columnist Cathy Young also noted the alt-right’s strong opposition to both legal and illegal immigration and its hard-line stance on the European migrant crisis. Robert Tracinski of The Federalist stated that the alt-right opposes miscegenation and advocates “hard-core” collectivism as well as tribalism.
The alt-right’s use of internet memes to advance or express its beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan, has been widely reported. Adherents of the ideology have, for instance, been credited for originating the term cuckservative, a portmanteau of cuckold and conservative. Another example is the use of triple parentheses or “echoes” to identify and target Jews online, which originated on the blog The Right Stuff. The prevalence of memes in alt-right circles has led some commentators to question whether the alt-right is a serious movement rather than just an alternative way to express traditionally conservative beliefs.
Although some conservatives have welcomed the alt-right, others on the mainstream right and left have criticized it as racist or hateful, particularly given the its overt hostility to mainstream conservatism and the Republican Party.
Benjamin Wallace-Wells, writing for The New Yorker, described it as a “loosely assembled far-right movement,” but said that its differences from the conventional right-wing in American politics was more a matter of style than substance: “One way to understand the alt-right is not as a movement but as a collective experiment in identity, in the same way that many people use anonymity on the Internet to test more extreme versions of themselves.”
In National Review, Ian Tuttle wrote, “The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and antisemitic online presence. But for Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos, the Alt-Right consists of fun-loving provocateurs, valiant defenders of Western civilization, daring intellectuals—and a handful of neo-Nazis keen on a Final Solution 2.0, but there are only a few of them, and nobody likes them anyways.” Bokhari and Yiannopoulos describe Jared Taylor, founder of American Renaissance, and Richard B. Spencer, founder of Alternative Right, as representative of intellectuals in the alt-right. Cathy Young, writing in The Federalist, stated that the website RadixJournal had replaced the Alternative Right website, and describes aRadixJournal article on abortion that proclaimed that the pro-life position is “‘dysgenic,’ since it encourages breeding by ‘the least intelligent and responsible’ women.”
Cathy Young, writing in Newsday, called the alt-right “a nest of anti-Semitism” inhabited by “white supremacists” who regularly use “repulsive bigotry”.Chris Hayes on All In with Chris Hayesdescribed alt-right as a euphemistic term for “essentially modern-day white supremacy.”BuzzFeed reporter Rosie Gray described the alt-right as “white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times,” saying that it uses “aggressive rhetoric and outright racial and anti-Semitic slurs” and that it has “more in common with European far-right movements than American ones.” Yishai Schwartz, writing for Haaretz, described the alt-right as “vitriolically anti-Semitic,” saying that “The ‘alternative’ that the alt-right presents is, in large part, an alternative to acceptance of Jews,” and warned that it must be taken seriously as a threat.
Hillary Clinton on Thursday delivered a blistering denunciation of Donald J. Trump, saying he had embraced the “alt-right” political philosophy and presenting his choice as an especially ominous turn in a presidential election full of them.
In her most direct critique yet connecting the Trump campaign to white nationalists and the conservative fringe, Mrs. Clinton is framing Mr. Trump’s run as unprecedented in modern politics.
“He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party,” she said.
Asserting that a racially charged and “paranoid fringe” had always existed in politics, she said, “It’s never had the nominee of a major party stoking it, encouraging it and giving it a national megaphone. Until now.”
The speech, at a community college here, comes one week after Mr. Trump named Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News, as his campaign chief. Mr. Bannon has eagerly described the site as “the platform for the alt-right” — a loosely defined and contested term often associated with white nationalist and anti-immigrant sentiment.
So it was that Mrs. Clinton was seeking to describe the “alt-right” to a national audience that might have little familiarity with it.
“The de facto merger between Breitbart and the Trump campaign represents a landmark achievement for the alt-right,” Mrs. Clinton said. “A fringe element has effectively taken over the Republican Party.”
Mrs. Clinton also noted that David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader, was “jubilant” on his radio show recently while describing Mr. Trump.
“A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far dark reaches of the internet, should never run our government or command our military,” Mrs. Clinton said. “If he doesn’t respect all Americans, how can he serve all Americans?”
It was the kind of formal address that Mrs. Clinton had often pursued to communicate her general election message. She also set aside specific events to sternly criticize Mr. Trump’s plans for domestic and foreign policy, and took to the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill., last month — the site of Abraham Lincoln’s “house divided” speech — to appeal to the country’s better angels.
For his part, Mr. Trump has often appeared to court the alt-right community — sometimes more winkingly than others — and his elevation of Mr. Bannon heartened many who identified with the movement.
Mrs. Clinton’s remarks also coincide with an attempted shift in strategy from Mr. Trump, who has spoken with more compassion about people in the country illegally and expressed a desire to win African-American support.
These attempts, which have come in front of predominantly white audiences, have more than occasionally offended minority voters. Mr. Trump has said African-Americans live in neighborhoods resembling “war zones,” struggle to get by on food stamps and constantly face down errant gunfire.
“What do you have to lose?” he has asked.
Mrs. Clinton’s team is straining to hold Mr. Trump to his statements from the Republican primary, reminding voters of his hard line on immigration and arguing that his campaign has encouraged hate groups.
On Thursday morning, Mrs. Clinton posted a campaign video on Twitterfeaturing clips of white supremacists praising Mr. Trump. It also included a now-famous interview when Mr. Trump initially declined to disavow Mr. Duke.
Near the end of Mrs. Clinton’s video, these words appear: “If Trump wins, they could be running the country.”
Her campaign has also moved to confront other Republicans with Mr. Trump’s most provocative statements.
John D. Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, said that “Republicans up and down the ticket are going to have to choose whether they want to be complicit in this lurch toward extremism, or stand with the voters who can’t stomach it.”
Before the speech on Thursday, Mr. Trump’s campaign suggested that Mrs. Clinton was simply trying to change the subject. “Hillary Clinton’s attempt to delete the single worst week of her political career isn’t going to work,” said Jason Miller, a Trump spokesman, citing controversies over Mrs. Clinton’s private email server and the Clinton Foundation.
At the same time, Mr. Trump’s campaign and Breitbart have reveled recently in conspiracy theories about Mrs. Clinton, suggesting she is in the throes of a health crisis.
In an appearance on Monday on “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” Mrs. Clinton theatrically asked the host to check her pulse and opened a jar of pickles to demonstrate her strength.
“Make sure I’m alive,” she joked.
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Donald J. Trump Rally in Jackson, MS on 08/24/16.
Hillary Clinton is a Bigot.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The Democratic Party often warns us that mixing big money and politics will corrupt democracy. They must have nominated Hillary Clinton to prove it.
The Clinton Foundation was ostensibly set up to solve the world’s most pressing problems. Though it’s done some fine work, its most fruitful program has been leveraging Clinton’s position in the State Department to enrich her family, friends and cronies.
It’s against federal law for charities to act in the interests of private business or individuals. Yet the Clinton Foundation secured high-paying gigs for its namesakes and helped for-profit corporations with family ties set up lucrative deals.
As it turns out, that’s probably the least corrupt part of the story.
It is becoming clear the foundation was a center of influence peddling. Rock stars. Soccer players. Conglomerates. Crown princes. All of them paid in. All of them expected access to the US government.
Want a seat on a government intelligence advisory board even though you have no relevant experience? The Clinton Foundation may be able to help.
An Associated Press investigation finds that more than half the private citizens who met or spoke with Clinton while she was secretary of state also happened to donate to her foundation. What are the odds?
It’s implausible that a majority of the 154 citizens — people who’d kicked in at least $156 million to her charity — would also happen to catch Clinton’s ear as she toiled away at State. It’s also worth remembering this list doesn’t even include officials from the 16 governments — many of them autocrats — who threw the foundation another $170 million.
Recently, the foundation announced it would ban donations from corporations and foreign countries if Hillary is elected president. The question is: If it’s a conflict of interest when Hillary will be president, why wasn’t it a problem when she was secretary of state?
Let’s also not forget that during Clinton’s tenure at State, she failed to disclose that regimes across the world were giving her charity hundreds of millions. Because she needed to hide this, she ended up sending 110 emails containing classified information — eight of which had “top secret” information, according to the FBI.
These days, Hillary brazenly goes on Jimmy Kimmel to clown around about her “boring” emails.
Well, if they’re so irrelevant, why was she hiding them from the Justice Department? If it’s no big deal, why did it take four years and a lawsuit against the State Department to gain access to her planning schedules? Why did she lie to the American people? Erase tens of thousands of emails? Set up a private server in the first place?
Hillary claims running the State Department gave her the experience and temperament necessary to be president. But if anything, it reminds us of the Clintons’ propensity for scandal and dishonesty. And if Clinton wins this year, she’ll become the most ethically compromised president in contemporary times. Perhaps ever.
Remember Walter Pinchuk? His name came up last year in an ongoing series of exposés regarding influence-peddling at the State Department through the Clinton Foundation. The steel tycoon got some face time with a “top Clinton aide” to argue on behalf of the Moscow-backed Yanukovich government in Ukraine, the Washington Post’s Tom Hamburger reported last October. The Wall Street Journal’s Peter Nicholas did a deep dive on newly released e-mails from the State Department to discover that Pinchuk didn’t just get face time with an aide while donating big bucks to the Clinton Foundation — he got Hillary Clinton to host an official State Department dinner in June 2012 for Pinchuk and other foundation donors:
While she was secretary of state, Hillary Clinton hosted a dinner involving Clinton Foundation donors, including a Ukrainian businessman who had given money to the organization and who had retained a lobbyist to arrange State Department meetings.
The dinner attended by Victor Pinchuk four years ago was mentioned in a new batch of State Department emails obtained by the conservative group Citizens United through public records requests and released on Tuesday.
The Clinton campaign has tried to make hay of Donald Trump’s supposed sympathies for Vladimir Putin through the now-dismissed Paul Manafort. This shows a much more corrupt tie to Putin’s allies, and the danger is not just in regard to Russia. As Newsweek reported in April 2015, Pinchuk allegedly violated sanctions on Iran even while Hillary feted him:
The fourth richest man in Ukraine, Pinchuk owns Interpipe Group, a Cyprus-incorporated manufacturer of seamless pipes used in oil and gas sectors.
Newsweek has seen declarations and documents from Ukraine that show a series of shipments from Interpipe to Iran in 2011 and 2012, including railway parts and products commonly used in the oil and gas sectors.
Among a number of high-value invoices for products related to rail or oil and gas, one shipment for $1.8m (1.7m) in May 2012 was for “seamless hot-worked steel pipes for pipelines” and destined for a city near the Caspian Sea.
Both the rail and oil and gas sectors are sanctioned by the US, which specifically prohibits any single invoice to the Iranian petrochemical industry worth more than $1m.
Fox News ran an essay at the time on this and other Clinton Foundation issues by Fred Fleitz, formerly chief of staff to then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton, wondering how Pinchuk managed to avoid punishment for those violations. Well, not wondering all that much, really:
These huge donations to the Clinton Foundation violated an agreement between the Clintons and the Obama administration that the Clinton Foundation would not accept foreign donations while she was Secretary of State. According to an April 23 Reuters report, the Clinton Foundation also did not report foreign donations in its tax filings to the IRS in 2010, 2011, and 2012 and is has begun to file amended tax returns for these years.
According to an April 18 Newsweek article, the Clinton Foundation also accepted donations from a firm that was violating nuclear trade sanctions against Iran. Interpipe, a Cyprus-incorporated company owned by Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, sold oil pipelines to Iran in 2011 and 2012 in violation of U.S. sanctions but was not sanctioned for these sales while Clinton was Secretary of State. On her show “The Kelly File,” Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly reported that between 2009 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation. Kelly reported that Pinchuk also pledged more than $20 million more to the foundation.
Based on my experience working as Chief of Staff to John Bolton when he was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control in the George W. Bush administration, the Interpipe sales of pipeline equipment appears to be a serious violation of U.S. trade sanctions against Iran that required the State Department to impose immediately impose sanctions against this company and its officers. Congress needs to determine why sanctions were not imposed in this case and whether pressure was put on lower level State Department officials to overlook this violation.
A donation to the Clinton Foundation goes a long way, no? Interestingly, the WSJ article mentions nothing about the Iranian angle. Nicholas does point out, though, that Pinchuk had retained a lobbyist for business at the State Department during this period, making a mockery of Hillary’s pledge to cut off foreign donations and to refrain from engaging foundation donors as Secretary of State. And that lobbyist was none other than Douglas Schoen, a longtime Clintonista who briefly headed the PUMA movement after Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008. Does anyone think that would go unnoticed by Hillary?
This makes the scandal over the Lincoln Bedroom rentals look like an AirBnB test venture. Hillary’s State Department was for sale, and everyone knew it except the American people.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
n the years following Bill Clinton’s scandal-tainted presidency, one name keeps popping up time and time again in relation to perhaps the last great brouhaha of that era; that name is Marc Rich.
Marc Rich, born Marcel Reich, was a notorious commodities trader and international financier who was convicted of tax fraud in the U.S. in the wake of oil purchases from Iran during the 1979 American hostage crisis. If that was Rich’s only crime, Washington pundits and insiders might have been able to look the other way when Bill Clinton issued a presidential pardon for Rich on Clinton’s last day in office, January 20, 2001.
But the Iranian oil buys were just a drop in the bucket of Rich’s long and storied career of negotiating metals and commodities deals for vilified dictators and despots around the world, including Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi, North Korea’s Kim Il Sung, Yugoslavia’s Slobodan Milosevic and the Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos.
In fact, Rich made his fortune by dealing with states and leaders who were international pariahs and whom U.S. law forbade trade with over five decades. The Iranian dealings were highly illegal and unpopular during a time when the Ayatollah Khomeini was seen as the face of true evil in the U.S. When news of the dealings was made public, Rich became public enemy number one, and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Rudolph Giuliani made Rich’s prosecution his highest priority. The case dragged on two decades. Rich fled the United States to Switzerland, where he remained until his death in 2013, even after Clinton’s pardon, never to return to the country of his youth and education.
Why would Bill Clinton pardon someone so infamous and obviously disreputable? Certainly, Rich had the opposite of popular support in the U.S.; he was a billionaire who boasted of flouting the law and using tax loopholes to his advantage while the country suffered through recession during the 1980s.
The answer may be found in Rich’s wife’s donation of $450,000 to the Clinton Library and $1 million to Clinton-supported Democratic causes in the period prior to Rich’s pardon. Even to this day, Denise Rich remains a close personal friend of the Clintons and a repeated donor to Hillary Clinton’s senatorial and presidential campaigns, despite renouncing her American citizenship for tax purposes.
Denise’s good friend Beth Dozoretz, a veteran Democratic Party contributor, apparently was so close to Bill Clinton that he telephoned her 10 days before the pardon took place to give her advance notice of the good news to pass on to her pal. After Bill left office, Dozoretz was hired for a senior State Department post under Hillary after serving as the finance co-chair of her 2008 presidential campaign. In recent years, she’s supported Hillary’s “Ready For Hillary” Super PAC and donated up to $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation with her husband Ron.
Marc Rich’s former spouse isn’t the only association the Clintons retain with the now-deceased financier. The extended family of convicted money launderer and oil trader Gilbert Chagoury is also well-known to the Clintons. Chagoury sold Nigerian oil with Rich but was prosecuted in connection with embezzlement during the regime of his associate, Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha. Chagoury donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Senate presidential run and pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Foundation.
His money laundering conviction was later overturned, and it’s left to observers to ponder if tight connections to the Clintons had anything to do with it. Chaghoury’s nephew Michel in Los Angeles served on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign staff and was a bundler for big-money donors. Other Chaghoury relatives donated heavily to Clinton’s multiple federal campaigns.
Bill Clinton in return has championed Gilbert Chagoury, serving as a keynote speaker when the trader received a “Pride of Heritage” award within the Lebanese community. The Clinton Global Initiative gave Chagoury’s company a sustainable development award in 2009. Chagoury was a guest at Bill Clinton’s 60th birthday party.
Former Rich employee and Russian investor Sergei Kurzin made a fortune in commodities in the former Soviet Union. One of his larger deals was signed off on by Hillary Clinton’s State Department, whereby Russia purchased 20 percent of the United States’ uranium production capacity in 2010. During the time the deal was in negotiation, Bill Clinton was coincidentally given a fee of $500,000 to speak in Moscow by a Russian investment bank promoting the enterprise. At the same time, Kurzin donated $1 million to Bill’s favorite charity, the Clinton Foundation.
Former Rich commodity trading partners Simon and David Reuben made a fortune with their firm, Trans World Metals. Since then, they have been highly enthusiastic supporters of both Clintons, donating tens of thousands to the Clinton Foundation and co-sponsoring a star-studded gala for the charity in London. Other Rich partners and employees such as Clyde Meltzer (who was indicted in 1983 along with Rich) and Gershon Kekst, who handled Rich’s P.R., have been large donors to Hillary’s multiple campaigns. Rich’s former attorneys Jack Quinn, Robert Fink and Peter Kadzik have also donated to Hillary’s various bids for office.
Lastly, there are numerous undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, despite its pledges of transparency in funding, which have links to the commodities and mining industries in Canada and other foreign nations.
In fact, many people suspect the bulk of the funding of the Clinton Foundation, which now boasts an endowment of more than $2 billion, is tied to foreign sources. If the Clinton’s political history was merely in the past, this might not be of such concern. But with Hillary in full-bore 2016 campaign mode and noted donors such as convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein, French hedge-fund manager Arpad Busson, Canadian mining billionaire Frank Giustra (who alone has given the Clintons more than $25 million), U.K. retail magnate Richard Caring, financier George Soros, and hedge fund managers S. Donald Sussman and David E. Shaw supporting her efforts, it’s hard to see where the Clintons’ public interests stop and their private interests begin.
During the administrations of husband Bill, the Lincoln bedroom had a notorious revolving door for big donors. Under Hillary, who knows what might be promised to special interests and global third parties. Clearly, Marc Rich’s associates and their ilk have a favorite candidate in mind for 2016.
A federal judge issued an order Wednesday requiring the State Department to make public batches of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails every 30 days starting next month.
U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras also set particular targets for the agency to meet each month as it wades through the roughly 30,000 emails totaling about 55,000 pages. (The percentages set for each disclosure can be viewed in the judge’s written order, posted here.)
The monthly disclosure essentially splits the differenc