NYSE Cheers Bannon's Departure

[Dubayoo]

http://nypost.com/2017/08/18/traders-at-nyse-cheered-when-bannon-departed-white-house/

Part of me is disgusted by the stupidity of businessmen who fail to understand the properness behind property rights.  When you compromise on social policies, fiscal policies are next to go.  The recent statue protests did not happen in isolation.  They happened after decades of affirmatively activist political correctness as well as postmodernist deconstruction that inhibited sophisticated conversation on serious issues.

Another part of me doesn't find this surprising.  After all, office politics is based around having nasty attitude problems and getting away with it.  These are people who deliberately tolerate postmodernist deconstruction because it's a proxy-movement for their own bad behavior that they use to become successful.  These are people who tolerate political correctness to conflate letting crooks be crooks with blaming of victims.  

A last part of me thinks Bannon is getting his just deserts because he never really made an effort to clarify the difference between the actual alt-right of racial realists versus the rhetorical alt-right of semantic strategists.  Whether he did this out of fear of losing support or out of authentic dismissal of frustrated universal idealists, the bottomline is he exposed the frustrated to being lumped in with bigots after they made a strategic decision following years and decades of mockery, harassment, and framing. Perhaps some businessmen cheered from reveling in Bannon's betrayal coming full circle.

I'm sure different businessmen cheered for different reasons though.  Each of these three motives probably apply to some of them out there.  After all, rule number one of politics is how different people believe in the same thing for different motives, and different people believe in different things for the same motive.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Dubayoo

[Caecus]

I wholeheartedly agree with you Dubayoo. Political correctness is killing this country, and it's about time we get rid of those statues representing PC culture. Finally, someone who understands why political correctness can let crooks be crooks and blame victims. 

 

[Doktor Avalanche]

6 hours ago, Caecus said:

I wholeheartedly agree with you Dubayoo. Political correctness is killing this country, and it's about time we get rid of those statues representing PC culture. Finally, someone who understands why political correctness can let crooks be crooks and blame victims. 

 

Funny how the party that put them up are the ones screaming now to take them down.

[Caecus]

2 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said:

Funny how the party that put them up are the ones screaming now to take them down.

...Republicans...? This statement doesn't make any sense. 

 

Edit: Clarification

For someone who has taken up the name of an American writer, you seem to not be American considering your lack of understanding of American history. I don't typically do this, but I'll give you a short lesson free of charge this time. 

This statement doesn't make any sense for two reasons: One, it implies you don't understand the Fourth-Party System and the ideological shift that happened in 1896, when conservatives switch from the democratic party to the republican party. Second, this implies that these statues were built before 1896 during the Reconstruction Era, which is entirely false. Only some Confederate graves were built during the Reconstruction Era, and even then, there were no statues of rebel leaders. 

So, to conclude, the party that put them up would have been the conservative party after 1896, which would have been the Republican party. I'm assuming you are trying to tie democrats to some form of ideological hypocrisy, but only people so thoroughly ignorant as you are in American history would think that. 

You're welcome. 

Edited August 19, 2017 by Caecus

[Dubayoo]

9 hours ago, Caecus said:

I wholeheartedly agree with you Dubayoo. Political correctness is killing this country, and it's about time we get rid of those statues representing PC culture. Finally, someone who understands why political correctness can let crooks be crooks and blame victims. 

 

You have me confused in which way you're being sarcastic there.

[Caecus]

Just now, Dubayoo said:

You have me confused in which way you're being sarcastic there.

Nope. I'm not being sarcastic. These statues have represented political correctness for too long, and have been left up there as a representation that our government plays in PC politics. They should be taken down. That is, I'm assuming that's what you mean by political correctness. 

[Dubayoo]

26 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Nope. I'm not being sarcastic. These statues have represented political correctness for too long, and have been left up there as a representation that our government plays in PC politics. They should be taken down. That is, I'm assuming that's what you mean by political correctness. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically correct
:  conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

The whole point of removing the statues is to be politically correct towards African Americans in treating them as a historically marginalized group, not oppose political correctness.  The alt-right's "sensitivity" is a response to what's been started. 

[Caecus]

2 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically correct
:  conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

The whole point of removing the statues is to be politically correct towards African Americans in treating them as a historically marginalized group, not oppose political correctness.  The alt-right's "sensitivity" is a response to what's been started. 

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=political+correctness&oq=political+correctness&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1j0l3.305.2310.0.2383.22.9.0.0.0.0.343.970.0j1j2j1.4.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..18.4.968.0..0i20k1j0i131k1.hM7PFJt-c_A

Politically Correct and Political Correctness are close, but not the same. Politically correct is an adjective used to describe an action. Political correctness has an entire faulty ideology behind it that leads to the objectification and commoditization of people. I prefer to use the google definition of political correctness, as listed above, since it includes why political correctness is inherently flawed:

"the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."

These monuments are the embodiment of political correctness. They are there because the US government was unwilling to exclude, marginalize, or insult the socially disadvantaged KKK and rebel confederate sympathizers in the post-war period.The US government used political correctness in the early 20th century to have an easy way out, to look united in its age of imperialism while ignoring the serious problems of civil rights, domestic terrorism, and a broken southern economy. The US government ignored the crimes of these terrorists when they lynch people. The US government turned a blind eye to their unjust laws which restrict citizen's rights.

Political correctness is wrong because it is a fancy paint job over real problems and issues. It's a token gesture without ever having to solve problems. It's PC to not call people "retarded," but PC conveniently allows people to seem like they care about the mentally disabled while in actuality they have done nothing (and will continue to do nothing) to solve issues like the public mental health crisis or disabled learning. Liberal politicians today love to use this, to make it seem like they are the vehicles of change and progress towards an egalitarian utopia. In the same way at the beginning of the 20th century, it was PC to glorify confederate generals in the "spirit of reconciliation" and to pretend like there aren't any major socio-economic divides between the North and South, all the while allowing the entire country to ignore the mob lynchings and Jim Crow laws of the racially divided South.

 

 

 

[Dubayoo]

Mate, the first group that matters here is African Americans.  You're jumping to conclusions in referring to the KKK and others after the fact.  

Don't get me wrong.  I'm familiar with how these were built during the Jim Crow era.  Obviously, there's some catering going on here...

...but the fact remains that political correctness is about going to extremes to avoid being perceived as marginalizing a discriminated against group.  Discrimination happened against those who were enslaved before those who weren't willing to go along with reconstruction.  When people are PC, they're trying to avoid appearing offensive to those who were enslaved.  

You're putting the future before the past here.  Your priorities have a backwards sense of time.

[Caecus]

1 hour ago, Dubayoo said:

Mate, the first group that matters here is African Americans.  You're jumping to conclusions in referring to the KKK and others after the fact.  

Don't get me wrong.  I'm familiar with how these were built during the Jim Crow era.  Obviously, there's some catering going on here...

...but the fact remains that political correctness is about going to extremes to avoid being perceived as marginalizing a discriminated against group.  Discrimination happened against those who were enslaved before those who weren't willing to go along with reconstruction.  When people are PC, they're trying to avoid appearing offensive to those who were enslaved.  

You're putting the future before the past here.  Your priorities have a backwards sense of time.

How can removing an icon of PC culture be considered PC in itself? 

We need to set the record straight here, otherwise this becomes a confusing conversation:

1. These statues have nothing to do with current oppression of African Americans, and by believing that they are, we are going to an extreme to act on perceived marginalization of African Americans, thus becoming PC.

2. These statues and monuments were built in the early 20th century (a little past the beginning of the Jim Crow era), and represent "catering" to southerners in a PC fashion. 

3. If we assume both 1 and 2 are correct, then there is nothing PC about removing icons of PC culture, right?

 

If we can all universally condemn PC, then we should have no problem with removing the statues and monuments.  

[Dubayoo]

Well look.  If the statues have nothing to do with the oppression of African Americans, why would so many counter-protesters show up in claiming those opposed to removing the statues are racist?  It's been rather explicit what the counter-protesters intentions were.  On the other hand, the opponents to removing the statues treated the situation as symbolic of a larger issue.  

In any case, I didn't really want to talk about the statue removal here.  The OP is about stock brokers cheering Bannon's departure.  

[Rozalia]

On 19/08/2017 at 5:36 AM, Dubayoo said:

A last part of me thinks Bannon is getting his just deserts because he never really made an effort to clarify the difference between the actual alt-right of racial realists versus the rhetorical alt-right of semantic strategists.  Whether he did this out of fear of losing support or out of authentic dismissal of frustrated universal idealists, the bottomline is he exposed the frustrated to being lumped in with bigots after they made a strategic decision following years and decades of mockery, harassment, and framing. Perhaps some businessmen cheered from reveling in Bannon's betrayal coming full circle.

I talked on this some months back on what will happen to the Alt-Right label as if the deranged on the left will admit or not, there are in fact good people there (though if you take the stance everyone who disagrees with you is evil then I suppose not). Alt-Light/Lite is a term I've seen come up, both with those proclaiming themselves as such and those Alt-Right who are Nazis who say they are cucks or whatever for being Civic Nationalists. Thing is though while they may not be racists they still are very heavily anti-immigration and Muslim. As such on those they get lumped in with the Alt-Right still and are referred to as a hate group (the go to seems to be Fascist).

With how overwhelming the MSM is in it's reach it will take quite something for the difference between the two groups to really get out there. Trump could do it but if he will who knows. 

[Caecus]

33 minutes ago, Dubayoo said:

Well look.  If the statues have nothing to do with the oppression of African Americans, why would so many counter-protesters show up in claiming those opposed to removing the statues are racist?  It's been rather explicit what the counter-protesters intentions were.  On the other hand, the opponents to removing the statues treated the situation as symbolic of a larger issue.  

In any case, I didn't really want to talk about the statue removal here.  The OP is about stock brokers cheering Bannon's departure.  

If the statues have something to do with the oppression of African Americans, then all the more reason to remove them. If we assume that the statues are acting to oppress African Americans, then by our republic's belief in equal rights, the statues need to come down. If we assume that the statues are not acting to oppress African Americans (as that would be PC), these statues are already icons of PC culture, and thus should be removed. In any case, regardless of why those protesters were there, these statues either currently interfere with the exercise of civil rights by African Americans or are icons of PC culture that need to be taken down. If the protesters are there because they PERCEIVE that the statues interfere with the exercise of African American civil rights, then they are stupid and there for the wrong reasons. But we know better. 

As for the op, I'm not surprised that stock brokers are cheering Bannon's departure. The way they see it, Bannon adds instability to the white house. This possibility of nuclear war with North Korea thing freaks people out and destroys market confidence. Their wrong, of course. The president himself is the factor of instability, not Steve Bannon. Bannon is just a normal dude trying to suck his own dick, from what I hear. 

[Dubayoo]

23 hours ago, Rozalia said:

I talked on this some months back on what will happen to the Alt-Right label as if the deranged on the left will admit or not, there are in fact good people there (though if you take the stance everyone who disagrees with you is evil then I suppose not). Alt-Light/Lite is a term I've seen come up, both with those proclaiming themselves as such and those Alt-Right who are Nazis who say they are cucks or whatever for being Civic Nationalists. Thing is though while they may not be racists they still are very heavily anti-immigration and Muslim. As such on those they get lumped in with the Alt-Right still and are referred to as a hate group (the go to seems to be Fascist).

With how overwhelming the MSM is in it's reach it will take quite something for the difference between the two groups to really get out there. Trump could do it but if he will who knows. 

Eh... Trump won't do it because he's politically correct on feminism, and he knows how feminism deconstructs the due process that idealists appeal to by labeling due process as patriarchic.  This isn't just about regulating immigration and handling Muslims, but about the general rule of law and order in society, particularly when it comes to defining objective standards for duress, intimidation, harassment, provocation, slander, fraud, misrepresentation, burden of proof, duty of care, due diligence, etc.  I mean the fact is he reneged on his promise to assign a special prosecutor to go after Hillary, the fact is his own daughter admitted to being a feminist, and the fact is he has no genuine appreciation of family values from getting divorced a few times and marrying a woman who put herself on such a crass display just for attention.  

I mean the thing about Trump is if you've followed him since the '80s, you know he's admitted that he'd probably run as a Democrat if he ran for president, and that being labeled as a Rockefeller Republican is probably an accurate label.  He's run his real estate business with affirmative action towards women by promoting them to executive positions while shallowly exploiting how sex sells instead of exercising civic responsibility in how he runs his business, and his ownership of the Miss Universe pageant glamorized shallow before sophisticated personalities.  

This is the real reason why the alt-right is divided as well.  There are many in its ranks who are fine with abortion, have no qualms with educational and managerial preference towards women, and really don't mind living in a promiscuous world.  They use these angles to appeal to feminism while exploiting feminine racial bias.  

It goes beyond feminism though.  Heck, he showed how much he endorses political correctness from his general disrespect towards the field while running to become the nominee.  He has no appreciation of grace, politeness, or being well-mannered.  He has no standards, and clearly proved that his advocacy of the rule of law is all talk and no walk (or at the very least an effort comparable to how his left-wing "opponents" love to instigate and insist on not being held responsible for their actions before labeling retaliators as hypocrites despite how they're not)...

...and if Trump won't do it, you can bet the media won't.  It loves feminism and political correctness even more than he does.

On the side, the Republican party has become politically correct on feminism in general:

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

[Dubayoo]

23 hours ago, Caecus said:

If the statues have something to do with the oppression of African Americans, then all the more reason to remove them. If we assume that the statues are acting to oppress African Americans, then by our republic's belief in equal rights, the statues need to come down. If we assume that the statues are not acting to oppress African Americans (as that would be PC), these statues are already icons of PC culture, and thus should be removed. In any case, regardless of why those protesters were there, these statues either currently interfere with the exercise of civil rights by African Americans or are icons of PC culture that need to be taken down. If the protesters are there because they PERCEIVE that the statues interfere with the exercise of African American civil rights, then they are stupid and there for the wrong reasons. But we know better. 

As for the op, I'm not surprised that stock brokers are cheering Bannon's departure. The way they see it, Bannon adds instability to the white house. This possibility of nuclear war with North Korea thing freaks people out and destroys market confidence. Their wrong, of course. The president himself is the factor of instability, not Steve Bannon. Bannon is just a normal dude trying to suck his own dick, from what I hear. 

If brokers thinks Bannon brings instability, then that's a very shallow and short-sighted understanding of politics.  Over the short-term, you will always have controversial issues that have to be handled, but if they're not, then it sets up precedents that allow others to create instability in the future.  It's like how the rule of law requires punishing criminals.  Yea, it creates danger right now, but if you don't punish criminals right now, then later on, you'll end up with criminals festering which creates more dangerous crime.

 

[Doktor Avalanche]

On 8/19/2017 at 9:24 AM, Caecus said:

...Republicans...? This statement doesn't make any sense. 

 

Edit: Clarification

For someone who has taken up the name of an American writer, you seem to not be American considering your lack of understanding of American history. I don't typically do this, but I'll give you a short lesson free of charge this time. 

This statement doesn't make any sense for two reasons: One, it implies you don't understand the Fourth-Party System and the ideological shift that happened in 1896, when conservatives switch from the democratic party to the republican party. Second, this implies that these statues were built before 1896 during the Reconstruction Era, which is entirely false. Only some Confederate graves were built during the Reconstruction Era, and even then, there were no statues of rebel leaders. 

So, to conclude, the party that put them up would have been the conservative party after 1896, which would have been the Republican party. I'm assuming you are trying to tie democrats to some form of ideological hypocrisy, but only people so thoroughly ignorant as you are in American history would think that. 

You're welcome. 

Heh, so the Democratic Party was not supported by the KKK after 1896, and that most of the Jim Crow years the Democratic Party was defending Civil Rights in the US? Who is lying about history now?

[ComradeMilton]

On 8/19/2017 at 8:10 AM, Edgar Allen Poe said:

Funny how the party that put them up are the ones screaming now to take them down. Sort of. They were still closer to Republicans and continued to be more and more closer to Republicans, but only stopped hovering in the Democratic Party until the 1950s or so for the most part. We call them blue dog Democrats in that that's how they identify, but not how they vote. All to spite Lincoln, evidently.

 

On 8/19/2017 at 1:42 AM, Caecus said:

I wholeheartedly agree with you Dubayoo. Political correctness is killing this country, and it's about time we get rid of those statues representing PC culture. Finally, someone who understands why political correctness can let crooks be crooks and blame victims. Who prevents you from being politically incorrect? How does referring to people in least offensive terms so threatening to our system of government?

 

On 8/19/2017 at 0:36 AM, Dubayoo said:

http://nypost.com/2017/08/18/traders-at-nyse-cheered-when-bannon-departed-white-house/

Part of me is disgusted by the stupidity of businessmen who fail to understand the properness behind property rights.  When you compromise on social policies, fiscal policies are next to go.  The recent statue protests did not happen in isolation.  They happened after decades of affirmatively activist political correctness as well as postmodernist deconstruction that inhibited sophisticated conversation on serious issues. First, citing the NY Post might as well be citing "research" conducted by places like BYU and Liberty University among others (Liberty is fun since it's entire structure is the opposite of that.) Affirmative action has worked and continues to work. Changes in nouns are more of a courtesy. There's no legal requirement to utilize that language and our Constitution guarantees your ability to do your own thing. If I see white people I don't call them crackers and not because it's required, but because it's polite. I don't call Jews kikes because it's offensive not due to a legal requirement to do so. And so on.

Another part of me doesn't find this surprising.  After all, office politics is based around having nasty attitude problems and getting away with it.  These are people who deliberately tolerate postmodernist deconstruction because it's a proxy-movement for their own bad behavior that they use to become successful.  These are people who tolerate political correctness to conflate letting crooks be crooks with blaming of victims.  Okay, could you explain why changing from referring to black people as "coloreds" or "negros" has damaged anything or permitting crooks (who?) to massively expand in control (the Central Committee for Acceptable Speech Labor Camp's name would be especially helpful).

 

On 8/19/2017 at 10:24 AM, Caecus said:

...Republicans...? This statement doesn't make any sense. He's ignoring conservatives who identified as Democrats over being very angry at Lincoln and the Republican Party. We call them blue dog Democrats in that they're basically Republicans using the (D) to stick it to the man or something? I don't have a comprehensive edition of "Who Sculpted, Where and Why, 9th Edition" so I don'I know if I can give a proper response, but both you and him are sort of correct. 

Edit: Clarification

 

On 8/19/2017 at 11:29 AM, Dubayoo said:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically correct
:  conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

The whole point of removing the statues is to be politically correct towards African Americans in treating them as a historically marginalized group, not oppose political correctness.  The alt-right's "sensitivity" is a response to what's been started. It's not political correctness at all. It's recognizing that honoring traitors to the Union is probably a bad idea. London's not festooned with statues to Bobby Sands, MP, or the really impressive murals done in North Ireland over the years and would probably not like to put up statues and street names glorifying their history within the United Kingdom.

 

2 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said:

Heh, so the Democratic Party was not supported by the KKK after 1896, and that most of the Jim Crow years the Democratic Party was defending Civil Rights in the US? Who is lying about history now? Asked and answered in an earlier post that was similarly out of touch with what caused it to appear Democratic Party actions at earlier points in time.

 

[Rozalia]

16 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

Eh... Trump won't do it because he's politically correct on feminism, and he knows how feminism deconstructs the due process that idealists appeal to by labeling due process as patriarchic.  This isn't just about regulating immigration and handling Muslims, but about the general rule of law and order in society, particularly when it comes to defining objective standards for duress, intimidation, harassment, provocation, slander, fraud, misrepresentation, burden of proof, duty of care, due diligence, etc.  I mean the fact is he reneged on his promise to assign a special prosecutor to go after Hillary, the fact is his own daughter admitted to being a feminist, and the fact is he has no genuine appreciation of family values from getting divorced a few times and marrying a woman who put herself on such a crass display just for attention.  

I mean the thing about Trump is if you've followed him since the '80s, you know he's admitted that he'd probably run as a Democrat if he ran for president, and that being labeled as a Rockefeller Republican is probably an accurate label.  He's run his real estate business with affirmative action towards women by promoting them to executive positions while shallowly exploiting how sex sells instead of exercising civic responsibility in how he runs his business, and his ownership of the Miss Universe pageant glamorized shallow before sophisticated personalities.  

This is the real reason why the alt-right is divided as well.  There are many in its ranks who are fine with abortion, have no qualms with educational and managerial preference towards women, and really don't mind living in a promiscuous world.  They use these angles to appeal to feminism while exploiting feminine racial bias.  

It goes beyond feminism though.  Heck, he showed how much he endorses political correctness from his general disrespect towards the field while running to become the nominee.  He has no appreciation of grace, politeness, or being well-mannered.  He has no standards, and clearly proved that his advocacy of the rule of law is all talk and no walk (or at the very least an effort comparable to how his left-wing "opponents" love to instigate and insist on not being held responsible for their actions before labeling retaliators as hypocrites despite how they're not)...

...and if Trump won't do it, you can bet the media won't.  It loves feminism and political correctness even more than he does.

On the side, the Republican party has become politically correct on feminism in general:

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

That is one of the oddest angles I've seen someone try mate. Trump is a politically correct feminist? The man who said a woman "didn't look like a president", "I mean just look at that face"? Him not giving a crap is more accurate certainly. He ripped the other male guys hard too. 

I also disagree with what you said regarding the ranks. Abortion? Sure. Homosexuality? Sure. Promiscuous? Sure. Affirmative action? No mate. I've been seeing these circles talk for a long time and not seen those sort support such a thing. They despise affirmative action and believe that merit should be who gets chosen, which Trump supported when he told that woman that she'd get a job if she was as good as the males. 

Also mate. The large post is great and all but my post regarded the Alt-Light/Lite so actually talking about that might be good.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Rozalia

[ComradeMilton]

no point.

Edited August 22, 2017 by ComradeMilton

[Dubayoo]

4 hours ago, Rozalia said:

That is one of the oddest angles I've seen someone try mate. Trump is a politically correct feminist? The man who said a woman "didn't look like a president", "I mean just look at that face"? Him not giving a crap is more accurate certainly. He ripped the other male guys hard too. 

I also disagree with what you said regarding the ranks. Abortion? Sure. Homosexuality? Sure. Promiscuous? Sure. Affirmative action? No mate. I've been seeing these circles talk for a long time and not seen those sort support such a thing. They despise affirmative action and believe that merit should be who gets chosen, which Trump supported when he told that woman that she'd get a job if she was as good as the males. 

Also mate. The large post is great and all but my post regarded the Alt-Light/Lite so actually talking about that might be good.

From what I gather, the alt-right is highly supportive of populism which means conceding to union interests (which isn't much of a historical surprise).  In turn, it acknowledges working class goals which means conceding to feminist interests on taking over management.  It doesn't mind sacrificing masculine leaders for the good of the nation in order to build a sense of patriotic fraternity (not that patriotic fraternity is a bad thing, but the movement believes the ends justify the means). 

This is part of the original one legitimate reason I saw for stock brokers cheering Bannon's dismissal - ambitious professionals despise this sort of populism. 

To be fair on Trump and feminism, feminists usually don't support executive leadership.  Their idea of decision making is based around councils and having a group come together to make decisions.  They believe executive decision making is patriarchic in itself, so Trump really isn't off-base in claiming a woman doesn't look like a president.

On the other hand, he was being specific towards Hillary's stamina there which plenty of feminists agreed with when they supported Bernie instead.  

Altogether, this is why the "alt-lite" has been outcast.  The feminism which the rest of the movement embraces is treated as an ally of rugged individualism, especially in how affirmative activism is treated as a deliberate obstacle to make things difficult for the sake of testing fitness in survival of the fittest.  Hence, it calls those who feminists call fedoras cucks when in reality, they're just honorable and self-respecting gentlemen.  

In other words, it's not hard to see how feminazis wouldn't find sympathies with those representing who they emulate.  

Also, there really isn't much anti-feminism to be seen by Bannon.  Even when he expresses concern over Judeo-Christian tradition (which doesn't really exist, but that's another advanced topic), he's saying it in light of radical Muslim terrorists, not feminist deconstruction.  Even the feminist HuffPo struggles to find much on him beyond articles Milo published on Breitbart and his own personal life issues.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Dubayoo

[Rozalia]

9 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

From what I gather, the alt-right is highly supportive of populism which means conceding to union interests (which isn't much of a historical surprise).  In turn, it acknowledges working class goals which means conceding to feminist interests on taking over management.  It doesn't mind sacrificing masculine leaders for the good of the nation in order to build a sense of patriotic fraternity (not that patriotic fraternity is a bad thing, but the movement believes the ends justify the means). 

This is part of the original one legitimate reason I saw for stock brokers cheering Bannon's dismissal - ambitious professionals despise this sort of populism. 

To be fair on Trump and feminism, feminists usually don't support executive leadership.  Their idea of decision making is based around councils and having a group come together to make decisions.  They believe executive decision making is patriarchic in itself, so Trump really isn't off-base in claiming a woman doesn't look like a president.

On the other hand, he was being specific towards Hillary's stamina there which plenty of feminists agreed with when they supported Bernie instead.  

Altogether, this is why the "alt-lite" has been outcast.  The feminism which the rest of the movement embraces is treated as an ally of rugged individualism, especially in how affirmative activism is treated as a deliberate obstacle to make things difficult for the sake of testing fitness in survival of the fittest.  Hence, it calls those who feminists call fedoras cucks when in reality, they're just honorable and self-respecting gentlemen.  

In other words, it's not hard to see how feminazis wouldn't find sympathies with those representing who they emulate.  

Also, there really isn't much anti-feminism to be seen by Bannon.  Even when he expresses concern over Judeo-Christian tradition (which doesn't really exist, but that's another advanced topic), he's saying it in light of radical Muslim terrorists, not feminist deconstruction.  Even the feminist HuffPo struggles to find much on him beyond articles Milo published on Breitbart and his own personal life issues.

I think you have some major wires crossed because oh boy, a lot wrong there. No one hates women more than the Nazis on the Alt-Right. I'll note some things about the two groups below.

Alt-Right
Firm Brand
Ethnic Nationalism
Includes Nazis, White Nationalists
Completely against Israel
Hates Jews, Blacks, and basically everything non-white
Hates Homosexuals
Traditionalist view on women. Considers white women in interracial relationship to be traitors
Doesn't want minority support. White only
Trump is a bulwark against the even worse elements out there. However a Jew lover so no "man on a white horse" as Richard Spencer has put.
Sees Alt-Lite protests as them acting like Antifa
Deals in the Jewish conspiracy
Has been denounced by Donald Trump and other top figures

Alt-Lite
Used to be Alt-Right before Spencer took control of the term (assist to the MSM). Having a hard time getting people to notice they are separate to the Alt-Right.
Civil Nationalism.
Includes Nationalists, Conservatives, Libertarians, Socialists, Religious, Anti-Establishment types
Supports Israel generally
Hates Muslims.
Supports Homosexuals though with their number including the religious it can get iffy with some
View on women varies, but heavily anti-Feminism across the board
Wants minority support and will try to promote it whenever possible. Open to everyone regardless of race
Trump is love, Trump is life. If Trump declared himself Emperor of America they'd fully support it.
Hates attacks on Trump such as the play where Trump is killed and has protested it
Deals in a Paedophile conspiracy (many top political and media people being paedophiles). Soros conspiracy.  
Has had support from Donald Trump and other top figures

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-alt-right-branding-war-has-torn-the-movement-in-two

Quote

Lucian Wintrich, of the pro-Trump tabloid the Gateway Pundit, told me that, last year, the term alt-right “was adopted by libertarians, anti-globalists, classical conservatives, and pretty much everyone else who was sick of what had become of establishment conservatism.” Wintrich counted himself among that group. “Then Richard Spencer came along, throwing up Nazi salutes and claiming that he was the leader of the alt-right,” Wintrich went on. “He effectively made the term toxic and then claimed it for himself. We all abandoned using it in droves.”

The situation has developed enough that the Alt-Lite has been recognised as a separate hate group from the Alt-Right by at least the Anti-Defamation League. 

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/from-alt-right-to-alt-lite-naming-the-hate

The two groups are currently fighting each other and things are still in flux. Have a laugh at the below article if you like:

https://altright.com/2017/06/27/alt-right-rally-success-alt-lite-movement-a-complete-failure/

Quote

Once broadly praised by many on the right, the rally became the center of controversy when Richard Spencer was invited to speak. This prompted several speakers and guests to drop out including Lucian Wintrich, Jack Posobiec, Cassandra Fairbanks, and Laura Loomer. The dropouts objected to sharing a stage with explicitly pro-White speakers and attempted to hold their own “Rally Against Political Violence”. Although this author did not attend the competing event, it’s clear from photos posted to social media that the Civic Nationalists of the “New Right” were out in full force.

This group included Jews, mixed-race couples with their offspring, cultural libertarians, minorities who voted for Trump, boomers, and generally anyone uncomfortable with the realities of race.

 

[Caecus]

On 8/21/2017 at 1:03 PM, Edgar Allen Poe said:

Heh, so the Democratic Party was not supported by the KKK after 1896, and that most of the Jim Crow years the Democratic Party was defending Civil Rights in the US? Who is lying about history now?

That's the thing, no party supported Civil Rights in the Jim Crow years, otherwise we wouldn't have Jim Crow. Both parties intentionally kept anything to do with the enforcement of the 14th and 15th amendments out of their platforms, primarily to garner the racist-ass vote of white trash southerners. The Republicans overall became the party of the conservative evangelical Christian white south. 

What about the Republicans? They free the slaves (in the process destroying the South's economy), occupy the south for a decade without fixing the underlying economic issues, and then proceeded to not give a shit about civil rights for a hundred years until 1960 when they actively tried to suppress integration and black voting rights. When was the last time a neo-Nazi voted for a democrat? It's a trick question, because Nazis didn't exist until the 1930s in the US, and by then, they were all Republicans.

I didn't accuse you of lying about history. I accused you of not knowing any.

On 8/22/2017 at 1:49 AM, Rozalia said:

That is one of the oddest angles I've seen someone try mate. Trump is a politically correct feminist? The man who said a woman "didn't look like a president", "I mean just look at that face"? Him not giving a crap is more accurate certainly. He ripped the other male guys hard too. 

I also disagree with what you said regarding the ranks. Abortion? Sure. Homosexuality? Sure. Promiscuous? Sure. Affirmative action? No mate. I've been seeing these circles talk for a long time and not seen those sort support such a thing. They despise affirmative action and believe that merit should be who gets chosen, which Trump supported when he told that woman that she'd get a job if she was as good as the males. 

Also mate. The large post is great and all but my post regarded the Alt-Light/Lite so actually talking about that might be good.

Don't forget "Grab them by the Puss!" 

[Dubayoo]

17 hours ago, Rozalia said:

I think you have some major wires crossed because oh boy, a lot wrong there. No one hates women more than the Nazis on the Alt-Right. I'll note some things about the two groups below.

Alt-Right
Firm Brand
Ethnic Nationalism
Includes Nazis, White Nationalists
Completely against Israel
Hates Jews, Blacks, and basically everything non-white
Hates Homosexuals
Traditionalist view on women. Considers white women in interracial relationship to be traitors
Doesn't want minority support. White only
Trump is a bulwark against the even worse elements out there. However a Jew lover so no "man on a white horse" as Richard Spencer has put.
Sees Alt-Lite protests as them acting like Antifa
Deals in the Jewish conspiracy
Has been denounced by Donald Trump and other top figures

Alt-Lite
Used to be Alt-Right before Spencer took control of the term (assist to the MSM). Having a hard time getting people to notice they are separate to the Alt-Right.
Civil Nationalism.
Includes Nationalists, Conservatives, Libertarians, Socialists, Religious, Anti-Establishment types
Supports Israel generally
Hates Muslims.
Supports Homosexuals though with their number including the religious it can get iffy with some
View on women varies, but heavily anti-Feminism across the board
Wants minority support and will try to promote it whenever possible. Open to everyone regardless of race
Trump is love, Trump is life. If Trump declared himself Emperor of America they'd fully support it.
Hates attacks on Trump such as the play where Trump is killed and has protested it
Deals in a Paedophile conspiracy (many top political and media people being paedophiles). Soros conspiracy.  
Has had support from Donald Trump and other top figures

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-alt-right-branding-war-has-torn-the-movement-in-two

The situation has developed enough that the Alt-Lite has been recognised as a separate hate group from the Alt-Right by at least the Anti-Defamation League. 

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/from-alt-right-to-alt-lite-naming-the-hate

The two groups are currently fighting each other and things are still in flux. Have a laugh at the below article if you like:

https://altright.com/2017/06/27/alt-right-rally-success-alt-lite-movement-a-complete-failure/

 

Just as a reminder, I don't want to drift too far off in this tangent.  The OP is really about Bannon, stock brokers cheering for his dismissal, and why they did so.  

The only thing you said there which distinguishes feminism from the alt-right is "Traditionalist view on women" which is rather vague.  At that, I don't even agree with it because of how MGTOW is a strong motivator within the movement.  It's like they've given up on family values themselves while embracing promiscuity.  For all the movement claims to oppose decadence, the movement doesn't have a solid handle on graceful living.  Heck:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-women-behind-the-alt-right/537168/

"To fit into the movement, alt-right women must be visible in the right way. They have to prove they aren’t threatening traditional gender roles: both through what they say, and how they look. The majority of well-known, female alt-right personalities are young, attractive women.

“When women do appear in alt-right journals or online discussions, it’s as objects of attraction,” said Baker. “They need to appear as victims or passive objects of male desire.”

Traditionalists wouldn't do this (nor would traditionalists hate women).  They would recognize women as being valuable whether they're attractive or not, young or not.  Objectification is done by feminists to encourage promiscuity and deconstruct organic relationships.  I'm not saying these attributes should be despised (since we shouldn't be apathetic towards personal maintenance), but the point is tradition has a deeper grasp of personality instead of just judging people based on how they look.  The point of tradition is to appreciate essential, not existential, meaning after all.

The same thing can be found here when it comes to being identitarian in raising families: https://medium.com/this-political-woman/alt-feminism-and-the-white-nationalist-women-who-love-it-f8ee20cd30d9

Raising families entails a sense of discipline which isn't anywhere close to satisfied simply by coexisting among those in your own race.  It doesn't explain how principled, well-mannered, or polite behavior is defined at all, especially when confusing or competitive interests are at stake; I call this the classic "Roman knight versus Gothic barbarian" conflict. It also doesn't explain how to further develop your ambitions or cultivation of technique.  Again, this ends up catering to materialistic deconstruction which feminists revel in just as how when the Roman Empire collapsed along with the Gothic invasions that exploited how the Empire was increasingly corrupt from within and lead to a dark age.  The only reason things didn't completely collapse was because of how principled traditions were maintained in the Byzantine Empire afterwards which became reactivated during the Renaissance 1,000 years later (and even then, the Renaissance is rather controversial from how nepotist patronage contradicted the emphasis on clerical celibacy to ensure family values throughout society instead of within the bureaucracy of the Church).

That said, again, I don't want to get caught up in a tangent here by talking about history. 

The point is that while I agree with you that the alt-right is not uniform, Bannon didn't seem to make an effort to distinguish between its branches.  Financial professionals seem to be mocking his dismissal because at best, they're "alt-lite" themselves and don't appreciate the ensuing confusion.  At worst, it's because they're trying to be politically correct by dismissing anyone who believes in social standards whether those standards are as extreme as the alt-right's or more moderate.  After all, so many financial professionals get ahead by compromising on standards in the course of office politics.  

[Doktor Avalanche]

14 hours ago, Caecus said:

That's the thing, no party supported Civil Rights in the Jim Crow years, otherwise we wouldn't have Jim Crow. Both parties intentionally kept anything to do with the enforcement of the 14th and 15th amendments out of their platforms, primarily to garner the racist-ass vote of white trash southerners. The Republicans overall became the party of the conservative evangelical Christian white south. 

What about the Republicans? They free the slaves (in the process destroying the South's economy), occupy the south for a decade without fixing the underlying economic issues, and then proceeded to not give a shit about civil rights for a hundred years until 1960 when they actively tried to suppress integration and black voting rights. When was the last time a neo-Nazi voted for a democrat? It's a trick question, because Nazis didn't exist until the 1930s in the US, and by then, they were all Republicans.

I didn't accuse you of lying about history. I accused you of not knowing any.

And I accuse you of a biased view of history, also an inaccurate take on it here. More Republicans(of which I am not one by the way) supported integration and voting rights. I know this because I studied the build up to the Civil Rights Act and what it attempted to do for the Native American population. Most of the Democrats(91 in the House and 21 in the Senate) opposed it while most of the Republicans(136 in the House and 27 in the Senate) supported it. The few Republicans(35 in the House and 6 in the Senate) who opposed it did so with the reasoning that it went against their libertarian ideals for not allowing social ideology to govern law for moral reasoning. I will concede that there were more Democrats overall who voted in favor of the Act simply because they had more in office. Were any of the opposition Racists? Probably. But do not paint the picture that Democrats are or were for Civil Rights and the Standard Bearers of Social Justice. If you believe in that lie then you are a bigger idiot than you paint yourself to be. 

As for the monuments, I really don't care to be honest. I just found it more amusing you turned it into an anti Conservative rant and threw in subjective history, then called me ignorant- all because I pointed out a fact which surprisingly is true considering many, not all but most I have researched, were paid for by organizations which supported or were politically affiliated with the Democratic Party between 1910's to 1950's. Look it up yourself.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Edgar Allen Poe

[Rozalia]

On 23/08/2017 at 5:33 PM, Dubayoo said:

Just as a reminder, I don't want to drift too far off in this tangent.  The OP is really about Bannon, stock brokers cheering for his dismissal, and why they did so.  

The only thing you said there which distinguishes feminism from the alt-right is "Traditionalist view on women" which is rather vague.  At that, I don't even agree with it because of how MGTOW is a strong motivator within the movement.  It's like they've given up on family values themselves while embracing promiscuity.  For all the movement claims to oppose decadence, the movement doesn't have a solid handle on graceful living.  Heck:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-women-behind-the-alt-right/537168/

"To fit into the movement, alt-right women must be visible in the right way. They have to prove they aren’t threatening traditional gender roles: both through what they say, and how they look. The majority of well-known, female alt-right personalities are young, attractive women.

“When women do appear in alt-right journals or online discussions, it’s as objects of attraction,” said Baker. “They need to appear as victims or passive objects of male desire.”

Traditionalists wouldn't do this (nor would traditionalists hate women).  They would recognize women as being valuable whether they're attractive or not, young or not.  Objectification is done by feminists to encourage promiscuity and deconstruct organic relationships.  I'm not saying these attributes should be despised (since we shouldn't be apathetic towards personal maintenance), but the point is tradition has a deeper grasp of personality instead of just judging people based on how they look.  The point of tradition is to appreciate essential, not existential, meaning after all.

The same thing can be found here when it comes to being identitarian in raising families: https://medium.com/this-political-woman/alt-feminism-and-the-white-nationalist-women-who-love-it-f8ee20cd30d9

Raising families entails a sense of discipline which isn't anywhere close to satisfied simply by coexisting among those in your own race.  It doesn't explain how principled, well-mannered, or polite behavior is defined at all, especially when confusing or competitive interests are at stake; I call this the classic "Roman knight versus Gothic barbarian" conflict. It also doesn't explain how to further develop your ambitions or cultivation of technique.  Again, this ends up catering to materialistic deconstruction which feminists revel in just as how when the Roman Empire collapsed along with the Gothic invasions that exploited how the Empire was increasingly corrupt from within and lead to a dark age.  The only reason things didn't completely collapse was because of how principled traditions were maintained in the Byzantine Empire afterwards which became reactivated during the Renaissance 1,000 years later (and even then, the Renaissance is rather controversial from how nepotist patronage contradicted the emphasis on clerical celibacy to ensure family values throughout society instead of within the bureaucracy of the Church).

That said, again, I don't want to get caught up in a tangent here by talking about history. 

The point is that while I agree with you that the alt-right is not uniform, Bannon didn't seem to make an effort to distinguish between its branches.  Financial professionals seem to be mocking his dismissal because at best, they're "alt-lite" themselves and don't appreciate the ensuing confusion.  At worst, it's because they're trying to be politically correct by dismissing anyone who believes in social standards whether those standards are as extreme as the alt-right's or more moderate.  After all, so many financial professionals get ahead by compromising on standards in the course of office politics.  

Perhaps Caecus has better words to use here because I'm simply puzzled. The Alt-Right, that is the Nazi and White Nat sorts are not Feminists. As extreme as they are as I tell people, they are men, not robots. So these supposed white only guys are known to have dated or are married to Asians and Jews. When found out they get some hate but are allowed to continue. The Daily Shoah guy for example when found to be married to a Jewish woman was allowed to continue though I hear like the pathetic excuse for a man he is he is now apparently getting separated now that he has been found out. A woman who is found to have dated/married to a black man or whatever else is lost forever however and the vileness of the comments towards such women has to be seen to be believed. These people love to talk of cuckoldry but they are huge cucks themselves at the end of the day. Not alone of course. Black men and Muslim men are the other two major cuck groups.

As for why they put attractive white women... uh, they want to essentially say that it ain't a complete sausage fest and that they have "the best women". A comparable example I can state is republicans who post loads of images of republican women. Usually they are attractive, in a America bikini, holding a gun, both. The message they promote being that Republican women are attractive while Liberal/Democrat women are all ugly this and that. For the Alt-Right guys putting these women forward, it is no different.