[Pants-of-dog]

The Mercedes have much better ways of making money. That isn’t their motive.

I am unconvinced by this argument. You are attempting to dispute the fact that they can and do make money off far right media pundits selling hate by assuming that they will only choose to make money one way, instead of diversifying their income.

Furthermore, Bannon stuck to his beliefs while in the Whitehouse. He could have just used his position to cash in. The motive is other than money.

They can believe their racist crap, and make money off it at the same time. It is illogical to assume only one motive.

Now, were you to say Alex Jones does it for the money, you would have a case. But then Tim Wise has made a nice career out of the culture wars too. Is he above criticism because he is on the other side?

Tim Wise is not a media pundit. Nor does he run a media spectacle like Milo does.

[Sivad]

Brenton is worth millions, the Mercers are worth billions. I doubt financial gain is their motive.

I'd say it's more about maximizing their power as a class of people. There's this weird idea that rich people are somehow different than the rest of us, that for some reason they're not motivated by ideology or philosophy like most other human beings, they don't identify as a class or culture, and they're not committed to anything greater than their own self interest. I have no doubt that these people are drinking their own kool-aid, they're fully convinced they're doing the Lord's work upholding the world, advancing human development, and defending the future from all the shiftless takers. They believe their wealth proves they're a special elect who are the only ones worthy of taking the reins and determining the course of the world. Elitism is a demented quasi-mystical worldview that goes way beyond simple greed.

[SolarCross]

"Racism is profitable" is a lefty red herring meme.

Bannon is caught revealing his motivation in the article:

“Dude---we r in a global existentialist war where our enemy EXISTS in social media and u r jerking yourself off w/ marginalia!! U should be OWNING this conversation because u r everything they hate!!! Drop your toys, pick up your tools and go help save western civilization.”

Clearly for Bannon making a profit is at most only a proximate goal, saving western civilisation is what he is about.

Until the emails of the Mercers et all are also hacked then we can only guess what their motivations are but it is higly probable that like anyone else making money is only a proximate goal for enabling another larger goal. And as far as their support for Breitbart goes it probably costs them more than makes them, which means they are unlikely supporting it just for the hopes of profit.

People who only want to make money are the most innocent of all, they are simply living not crusading.

[Reichstraten]

If western civilization is going to be saved, it won't because of Bannon and other douchebags like him.

[foxdemon]

"Racism is profitable" is a lefty red herring meme.

Bannon is caught revealing his motivation in the article:



Clearly for Bannon making a profit is at most only a proximate goal, saving western civilisation is what he is about.

Until the emails of the Mercers et all are also hacked then we can only guess what their motivations are but it is higly probable that like anyone else making money is only a proximate goal for enabling another larger goal. And as far as their support for Breitbart goes it probably costs them more than makes them, which means they are unlikely supporting it just for the hopes of profit.

People who only want to make money are the most innocent of all, they are simply living not crusading.

The Mercers don’t advertise their ideological position but it isn’t difficult the guess. Bob is your basic old fashion American libertarian nationalist. His mind set is not at all dissimilar to the male heros in a Heinlein sci fi novel.

Like Bannon, they have little confidence in the current Western establishment and the current ideology. In their view the contemporary liberal consensus is self destructive. They as much against irresponsible capitalism shifting the means of production to China as they are against irresponsible immigration allowing hostile populations becoming established.

Basically, @SolarCross , they are the people you might find you agree with.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Here's how Milo's own site tries to spin this:

VOX Admits Milo is Ending Political Correctness in America

Vox admits that MILO is leading the charge against political correctness as an unstoppable force in what they call the “era of unleashing.”

In a piece about the “era of unleashing,” Klein talks about shifts in acceptable discourse by highlighting the sordid revelations about progressive darling Harvey Weinstein, who was revealed to have sexually harassed women for decades. While his behavior was an open secret in the upper echelons of Hollywood, few were willing to talk about it, until now.

The willingness to speak about Weinstein’s horrific behavior is part of a new “era of unleashing,” says Klein, who says that the victims of sexual harassment and assault are more willing than ever to publicly disclose their experiences. That simply wasn’t possible before, due to the social climate.

Likewise, the “era of unleashing”—or rather, the range of acceptable discourse—has been broadened thanks to two key figures: Milo Yiannopoulos and Donald Trump.

Citing Joe Bernstein’s BuzzFeed article, Ezra Klein regurgitates the slant present in the piece, but inadvertently admits that MILO’s willingness to speak to everyone and offer them a fair platform has expanded “the boundaries of acceptable political discourse.”

In other words, Vox admits that MILO is killing political correctness.

Although his emails were presented in a slanted manner, and were completely bereft of context, they revealed how he was open to conversing with everyone. From intersectional feminists aligned with the progressive far left, to so-called “race realists” on the far right, MILO was willing to speak to everyone, if only to get all points of view.

MILO’s willingness to speak to everyone, even those with whom he disagrees on every level, completely disrupts the ideological echo chambers established on both sides of the political spectrum.

“On Thursday night, BuzzFeed’s Joseph Bernstein published a blockbuster story based on a cache of emails between key employees of the Trumpist website Breitbart detailed the way the organization used itself to launder alt-right ideas into the conservative mainstream. This, too, was an unleashing — a calculated, steady effort to expand the boundaries of acceptable political discourse and permit white supremacists to express themselves more freely in public.”

Although the claim that MILO and Breitbart by extension were attempting to “launder alt-right ideas into the conservative mainstream” is unfounded, at best, Klein openly admits that MILO has made a steady effort to broaden the boundaries of “acceptable political discourse.”

Klein cites BuzzFeed for further proof that MILO’s openness to sharing the thoughts of those too afraid to speak is enabling others to free themselves from the shackles of censorship.

“He also heard, with frequency, from accomplished people in predominantly liberal industries — entertainment, tech, academia, fashion, and media — who resented what they felt was a censorious coastal cultural orthodoxy. Taken together, they represent something like a network of sleeper James Damores, vexed but silent for fear of losing their jobs or friends, kvetching to Yiannopoulos as a pressure valve. For Yiannopoulos, these emails weren’t just validation, though they were obviously that. They sometimes became more ammunition for the culture war.

[…] In an email titled “Working for E! Is Hell,” a production manager at the cable network wrote Yiannopoulos that her employer was a “contributor to the fake news machine and my colleagues have become insufferable. … I … offer you my services … a partner in fighting globalism.”

Like BuzzFeed’s Joseph Bernstein, Ezra Klein remains completely intent to silence those who transgress against political correctness—but as he himself says, MILO’s embrace of free speech is driving an expansion “of what people are willing to say and do in public are rocking American society, for better and for worse.”

Political correctness is going to die, and you can thank MILO for it.

[Conscript]

Tim Wise is not a media pundit. Nor does he run a media spectacle like Milo does.

Tim Wise is a fine and very lucid example of a culture warrior. I admire him in a way.

He lauds the decline of the white demographic because he sees their in group preference as responsible for all the ills of a post colonial society like the American one. He denies meritocracy and savages the transracial, class neutral 'middle America' civic identity. This is because he suggests all disparities in performance between the groups are down to this preference for whiteness in a Western society, meaning capitalism is not a neutral arena of competing individuals, but a rigged game of competition between tribalistic in groups and one brand of tribalism is progressive while the other is reactionary. That middle class american civic identity and the nuclear family is irredeemably white and unrelatable to people of color as a result, and has no place in a 21st century, globalized america that must depend of mass immigration to solve the issue of growth and the birthrate, thereby solving the solvency issue of the welfare state.

Further, he believes white racial consciousness is a false consciousness that leads the lower classes to vote against their own interests, rather than join forces with various grievance movements led by wealthy, urban liberal elites, the democratic party, and billionaire philanthropists. He sees it as a buffer to egalitarianism created by elites (who that is I am not certain, as he rages against a long dead ruling class from before the era of globalization)

Like most professional liberal anti-racists, he lectures the white working class for its folk culture, attachment to the land, conservative social mores, and love for Americana while living in a wealthy, majority white area. He is paid to give lectures on diversity and bias in the more white collar world. He frequently appears on corporate cable media outlets like CNN and MSNBC.

You're right it's a false equivalence, milo is a much more insignificant figure in the culture war. This is because of the class character of the progressives and the populists, of bourgeois and lower middle class/proletarian respectively.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

You're right it's a false equivalence, milo is a much more insignificant figure in the culture war. This is because of the class character of the progressives and the populists, of bourgeois and lower middle class/proletarian respectively.

I agree, but Milo is clearly considered a serious threat; otherwise he wouldn't be such a target not only by progressives but also the establishment GOP.

If the OP article is anything to go by, there were also plenty of high profile people among the far right who had high hopes for him.

[foxdemon]

I very much agree. 1488 scum need to be harnessed in the same way the left uses their own extremists.

I disagree. Every time anyone tries to harness extremists, it comes back to but them on the arse.

Example some: Mayalasia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan trying to use Islamic radicals to do their dirty work and then finding they need to fight off radical Islamic attempts to take over government. Also, supporting them increases support for radical Islam in the population which reduces the establishment’s ability to resist those extremists.

US Democrats using antifa and BLM to do their dirty work. It comes back on them as both are anti establishment and will ulimately turn on the Democrats. Those groups gradually take positions of power until they are ready to take over. Again supporting them increases support for radicalism in the community and undermines the power of the Democrats.

So Breitbart made a mistake in allowing neoNazis in to the alt-right. The far Right is just the same as those other radicals. They will attempt to take over the movement, and supporting them raises extreme sentiment in the community.

And yet, he does it for the money. Corporations pay him handsomely for his lectures.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I disagree. Every time anyone tries to harness extremists, it comes back to but them on the arse.

Example some: Mayalasia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan trying to use Islamic radicals to do their dirty work and then finding they need to fight off radical Islamic attempts to take over government. Also, supporting them increases support for radical Islam in the population which reduces the establishment’s ability to resist those extremists.

US Democrats using antifa and BLM to do their dirty work. It comes back on them as both are anti establishment and will ulimately turn on the Democrats. Those groups gradually take positions of power until they are ready to take over. Again supporting them increases support for radicalism in the community and undermines the power of the Democrats.

So Breitbart made a mistake in allowing neoNazis in to the alt-right. The far Right is just the same as those other radicals. They will attempt to take over the movement, and supporting them raises extreme sentiment in the community.

What I mean by "harness" is that they are vital in moving public discourse back to a normal level. As long as they are muted, somebody like me is on the right-wing fringe or an extremist, and potentially my positions are the next target to be shut out of what is considered acceptable.

Additionally, the need to constantly distance ourselves from them is analogous to repeatedly answering the question "When have you stopped beating your wife?". One can do it on occasion, but seizing every opportunity to make it clear that conservatives and right wingers are not extremists is self-defeating. I also agree with the quote in that portraying them as pathetic losers - which they are - is the best way to do this.

[Conscript]

I agree, but Milo is clearly considered a serious threat; otherwise he wouldn't be such a target not only by progressives but also the establishment GOP.

If the OP article is anything to go by, there were also plenty of high profile people among the far right who had high hopes for him.

Leftists and conservatives have always considered nationalists a threat though. This doesn't really tell us about the balance of power in the culture war.

Also the far right is so starved and demoralized it gets excited about any conservative becoming remotely 'woke' i.e. realizing the failure of traditional conservatism in the heightening culture war and its inability to unite a diversifying country with a shrinking middle class on the basis of the mentioned 'middle america' civic identity and individualism, which was supposed to cross America's racialized class barriers after legal equality, although globalization has exacerbated that inequality.

When they see conservatives realizing this identity and their ideology is no longer ruling ideology, and has been replaced by a new mass line called PC to address systemic needs, they get very excited when conservatives convert to populists and rail against this new mass line, dispose of all pretenses and fight the culture war, and fill the void left by identity politics of the antagonist. This is all in solidarity with the white lower middle class/working class, the red state heartland, and the traditions and imagery of Western civilization.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Leftists and conservatives have always considered nationalists a threat though. This doesn't really tell us about the balance of power in the culture war.

Also the far right is so starved and demoralized it gets excited about any conservative becoming remotely 'woke' i.e. realizing the failure of traditional conservatism in the heightening culture war and its inability to unite a diversifying country with a shrinking middle class on the basis of the mentioned 'middle america' civic identity, which was supposed to cross America's racialized class barriers after legal equality, although globalization has exacerbated that inequality.

When they see conservatives realizing this identity and their ideology is no longer ruling ideology, and has been replaced by a new mass line called PC to address systemic needs, they get very excited when conservatives convert to populists and rail against this new mass line, dispose of all pretenses and fight the culture war, and fill the void left by identity politics of the antagonist. This is all in solidarity with the white lower middle class/working class, the red state heartland, and the traditions and imagery of Western civilization.

While the bold bit is true, there has been quite a bit of concept creep with respect to the term nationalism. While a few decades ago, moderate expressions of nationalism were perfectly acceptable in the US and Western Europe, this is no longer true. See for instance the outrage at the idea that the US should first and foremost act in the interest of its citizens and the denial that it was predominantly US citizens who have built the country. Perhaps it's correct to say that one can pay lip service to nationalist and patriotic ideas to this day, but if people get the impression that it is no longer just lip service but sincere, they mount a response to discredit it, usually by attempting to associate it with Nazism or similar.

I agree with you on the current power balance, but I also understand why they are afraid. Nationalism with its unifying potential and its ability to supersede other identities is powerful. Even if, as is the case currently, it appeals to mostly whites, it's very dangerous to their world view and PC/identity politics.

[Pants-of-dog]

Tim Wise is a fine and very lucid example of a culture warrior. I admire him in a way.

He lauds the decline of the white demographic because he sees their in group preference as responsible for all the ills of a post colonial society like the American one. He denies meritocracy and savages the transracial, class neutral 'middle America' civic identity. This is because he suggests all disparities in performance between the groups are down to this preference for whiteness in a Western society, meaning capitalism is not a neutral arena of competing individuals, but a rigged game of competition between tribalistic in groups and one brand of tribalism is progressive while the other is reactionary. That middle class american civic identity and the nuclear family is irredeemably white and unrelatable to people of color as a result, and has no place in a 21st century, globalized america that must depend of mass immigration to solve the issue of growth and the birthrate, thereby solving the solvency issue of the welfare state.

Further, he believes white racial consciousness is a false consciousness that leads the lower classes to vote against their own interests, rather than join forces with various grievance movements led by wealthy, urban liberal elites, the democratic party, and billionaire philanthropists. He sees it as a buffer to egalitarianism created by elites (who that is I am not certain, as he rages against a long dead ruling class from before the era of globalization)

Like most professional liberal anti-racists, he lectures the white working class for its folk culture, attachment to the land, conservative social mores, and love for Americana while living in a wealthy, majority white area. He is paid to give lectures on diversity and bias in the more white collar world. He frequently appears on corporate cable media outlets like CNN and MSNBC.

You're right it's a false equivalence, milo is a much more insignificant figure in the culture war. This is because of the class character of the progressives and the populists, of bourgeois and lower middle class/proletarian respectively.

While I have no idea who this person is, and do not care about except insofar as he is relatively obscure and thus proves my point, I highly doubt this is a realistic interpretation of his beliefs.

You have previously shown yourself to be biased against progressives whom you unfairly and inaccurately describe as targeting the white working class. I have no reason to believe that this time is somehow different.

My point, that seems to have slipped through the cracks, is that the far right have created an industry around hate. They make money off these media pundits who say horrible things about minorities because bigotry sells. If this Tim Wise character is the best that the right can come up with in terms of equivalence, then my point is proven.

[Conscript]

While I have no idea who this person is, and do not care about except insofar as he is relatively obscure and thus proves my point, I highly doubt this is a realistic interpretation of his beliefs.

You have previously shown yourself to be biased against progressives whom you unfairly and inaccurately describe as targeting the white working class. I have no reason to believe that this time is somehow different.

My point, that seems to have slipped through the cracks, is that the far right have created an industry around hate. They make money off these media pundits who say horrible things about minorities because bigotry sells. If this Tim Wise character is the best that the right can come up with in terms of equivalence, then my point is proven.

Tim Wise is one of the most prominent and well spoken progressives that focuses on the issue of race. You should get to know him and his arguments as I have.

Also, it's not targeting the working class so much as throwing their chances for political victory in with social changes caused by capitalism, which allows them a chance to become a new political orthodoxy in the death throes of conservatism. There is a degree of alignment between the left and globalist capitalism, at least in the short term. They both condemn the white lower middle class and working class as on the wrong side of history for a variety of reasons that may or may not be shared: uncompetitive nature and entitlement to the middle class lifestyle of their parents, their low birth rate, their attachment to the land, their cultural values, and their opposition to the more vulgar brands of egalitarianism and of course open borders.

The populists take up a mission of idealistic defense of this nativist Western demographic which, by its nature, does not make money. The entire blue state mantra is that in this late era of capitalism, the red states (the rust belt in particular, who they have yet to forgive for delivering the election to trump) can be left behind for the betterment of the union.

I don't think you want to bring up money. Left wing ideology has become establishment exactly because it offers a means of reconciling economically driven social change with people at large. Whether it is european wars or race riots, the center left is a useful way out, providing governments with new ruling ideas that address these disruptions that threaten growth, and giving people a sense of being on the right side of history which whites particularly crave because they have been in the spotlight of history for some time now. Progressives, as a result, are insufferably bourgeois.

You'll have to name an alt right media pundit equivalent to overpaid diversity officers and departments in every company, university, and branch of the military. The entire humanities department of post secondary education is full of left wing professors that are noted to write some of the least sourced papers in academia and would never make it in the private sector.

Maybe some media pundits make money off this, I don't know. I categorically reject buzzfeed. It wouldn't surprise me that the internet, disruptive to cable news monopolies, has made money for some petit bourgeois alternative media platforms as they forcefully broaden the political discourse.

However, by and large the populists are appealing to a group condemned on the wrong side of economic history and themselves are fighting a sort of class conflict against liberal capitalism, urban left wing elites, and so on. After all, the most hated liberal newspapers, The Washington Post and New York Times, are from the most unequal areas in the US (DC and NY) that epitomize the divide between bicoastal elites and flyover folk heartland.

[foxdemon]

Tim Wise is one of the most prominent and well spoken progressives that focuses on the issue of race. You should get to know him and his arguments as I have.

Also, it's not targeting the working class so much as throwing their chances for political victory in with social changes caused by capitalism, which allows them a chance to become a new political orthodoxy in the death throes of conservatism. There is a degree of alignment between the left and globalist capitalism, at least in the short term. They both condemn the white lower middle class and working class as on the wrong side of history for a variety of reasons that may or may not be shared: uncompetitive nature and entitlement to the middle class lifestyle of their parents, their low birth rate, their attachment to the land, their cultural values, and their opposition to the more vulgar brands of egalitarianism and of course open borders.

The populists take up a mission of idealistic defense of this nativist Western demographic which, by its nature, does not make money. The entire blue state mantra is that in this late era of capitalism, the red states (the rust belt in particular, who they have yet to forgive for delivering the election to trump) can be left behind for the betterment of the union.

I don't think you want to bring up money. Left wing ideology has become establishment exactly because it offers a means of reconciling economically driven social change with people at large. Whether it is european wars or race riots, the center left is a useful way out, providing governments with new ruling ideas that address these disruptions that threaten growth, and giving people a sense of being on the right side of history which whites particularly crave because they have been in the spotlight of history for some time now. Progressives, as a result, are insufferably bourgeois.

You'll have to name an alt right media pundit equivalent to overpaid diversity officers and departments in every company, university, and branch of the military. The entire humanities department of post secondary education is full of left wing professors that are noted to write some of the least sourced papers in academia and would never make it in the private sector.

Maybe some media pundits make money off this, I don't know. I categorically reject buzzfeed. It wouldn't surprise me that the internet, disruptive to cable news monopolies, has made money for some petit bourgeois alternative media platforms as they forcefully broaden the political discourse.

However, by and large the populists are appealing to a group condemned on the wrong side of economic history and themselves are fighting a sort of class conflict against liberal capitalism, urban left wing elites, and so on. After all, the most hated liberal newspapers, The Washington Post and New York Times, are from the most unequal areas in the US (DC and NY) that epitomize the divide between bicoastal elites and flyover folk heartland.

Doesn’t matter. He still does it for the money. And he disempowers POC by speaking for them. Though I can’t say that I agree with everything POC say, they should be the ones who say it.

What I mean by "harness" is that they are vital in moving public discourse back to a normal level. As long as they are muted, somebody like me is on the right-wing fringe or an extremist, and potentially my positions are the next target to be shut out of what is considered acceptable.

Additionally, the need to constantly distance ourselves from them is analogous to repeatedly answering the question "When have you stopped beating your wife?". One can do it on occasion, but seizing every opportunity to make it clear that conservatives and right wingers are not extremists is self-defeating. I also agree with the quote in that portraying them as pathetic losers - which they are - is the best way to do this.

It is true that many on the right cringe at PC accusations. That mentality does indeed need to be rejected. The problem is that the West is fundamentally liberal and thus conservatives are at a disadvantage. But what is the best way to resist liberal hegemony over thought?

I personally have no issues with distancing myself from neo-Nazis. This is no concession to the PC crowd. I have a clear idea of what I want. An end to PC persecution. When it comes to anti-Semitism, I have no doubts where I stand. Let me explain.

Israel is the champion against a majority in the UN. One small state is standing up against the tyrant of the majority. If the UN was all about majority consensus then all minority states would ultimately be crushed. I am Australian. Australia is a country with an ethnic majority than is a minority in its region and a settler society just like Israel. If the majority in the UN imposes their will on Israel and destroys the Jewish State, then I have no illusions who’s head will be next on the chopping block.

Rejecting anti-semitism isn’t conceeding anything to the PC crowd. In fact it is quite the opposite today. Being pro Israel and pro Jewish is an execellent way to shove it right up the arse of PC moralists. And I draw your attention to the rising tide of anti-Semetism in the left. The more they support Islamists, the more anti-Semitic they become.

I ask you to carefully reflect on this. Look at the BDS movement. Look at what PC people support these days. Being Pro Israel is being politically incorrect. I don’t think we need old fashion neo Nazis who would hyjack the new conservatism given half a chance. I want nothing to do with them and I feel I can reject them with a clean politically incorrect conscience.

[Sivad]

Until the emails of the Mercers et all are also hacked then we can only guess what their motivations are

We can make a pretty educated guess based on their associations. People that know Mercer say he's a misanthropic randroid who thinks that "human beings have no inherent value other than how much money they make." Mercer is an NRx elitist.

[Pants-of-dog]

Tim Wise is one of the most prominent and well spoken progressives that focuses on the issue of race. You should get to know him and his arguments as I have.

And if he is the most prominent and is still not a media celebrity like the many far right pundits, this again supports my point.

Also, it's not targeting the working class so much as throwing their chances for political victory in with social changes caused by capitalism, which allows them a chance to become a new political orthodoxy in the death throes of conservatism. There is a degree of alignment between the left and globalist capitalism, at least in the short term. They both condemn the white lower middle class and working class as on the wrong side of history for a variety of reasons that may or may not be shared: uncompetitive nature and entitlement to the middle class lifestyle of their parents, their low birth rate, their attachment to the land, their cultural values, and their opposition to the more vulgar brands of egalitarianism and of course open borders.

The populists take up a mission of idealistic defense of this nativist Western demographic which, by its nature, does not make money. The entire blue state mantra is that in this late era of capitalism, the red states (the rust belt in particular, who they have yet to forgive for delivering the election to trump) can be left behind for the betterment of the union.

My eyes started glazing over as I read this. It is more of your usual "progressives are oppressing white people" verbal diarrhea that I have learned to ignore.

Please see my many, many posts asking you for actual evidence of your victimhood argument. Until then, please note that I will continue to ignore it.

I don't think you want to bring up money. Left wing ideology has become establishment exactly because it offers a means of reconciling economically driven social change with people at large. Whether it is european wars or race riots, the center left is a useful way out, providing governments with new ruling ideas that address these disruptions that threaten growth, and giving people a sense of being on the right side of history which whites particularly crave because they have been in the spotlight of history for some time now. Progressives, as a result, are insufferably bourgeois.

Oh right. You also appropriate Marxist terminology in your victimhood argument.

You'll have to name an alt right media pundit equivalent to overpaid diversity officers and departments in every company, university, and branch of the military. The entire humanities department of post secondary education is full of left wing professors that are noted to write some of the least sourced papers in academia and would never make it in the private sector.

I see. So the fact that you feel that university professors are too progressive is somehow magically a rebuttal to the very real fact that Milo and Alex Jones and Ezra Levant are all making a lot of money off saying horrible things about minorities?

Maybe some media pundits make money off this, I don't know. I categorically reject buzzfeed. It wouldn't surprise me that the internet, disruptive to cable news monopolies, has made money for some petit bourgeois alternative media platforms as they forcefully broaden the political discourse.

However, by and large the populists are appealing to a group condemned on the wrong side of economic history and themselves are fighting a sort of class conflict against liberal capitalism, urban left wing elites, and so on. After all, the most hated liberal newspapers, The Washington Post and New York Times, are from the most unequal areas in the US (DC and NY) that epitomize the divide between bicoastal elites and flyover folk heartland.

If you are not criticising or otherwise discussing my argument, please stop quoting my posts.

[SolarCross]

We can make a pretty educated guess based on their associations. People that know Mercer say he's a misanthropic randroid who thinks that "human beings have no inherent value other than how much money they make." Mercer is an NRx elitist.

Which people would that be? Yourself? Or someone with a citation?

Even if true it would still make him better than a misanthropic communist who thinks that human beings ought to have no agency of their own except as the soulless pawns of a totalitarian state. Better Dead than Red.

[ingliz]

Or someone with a citation?

Bob believes that human beings have no inherent value other than how much money they make.

[SolarCross]

No link? Nevermind I found the source on my own. Your quote is conveniently truncated.

David Magerman, a senior employee at Renaissance, told Mayer, “Bob believes that human beings have no inherent value other
than how much money they make. A cat has value, he’s said, because it provides pleasure to humans. But if someone is on welfare they
have negative value. If he earns a thousand times more than a schoolteacher, then he’s a thousand times more valuable.

https://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/up ... 7-2017.pdf

Some other opinions on Robert Mercer from the same file:

According to another former Renaissance employee, “Bob thinks the less government the better. He’s happy if people don’t trust the government. And if
the President’s a bozo? He’s fine with that. He wants it to all fall down.”

Nick Patterson, a former Renaissance employee, recalled that during Bill Clinton’s Presidency Mercer insisted that Clinton had participated in a secret drug-running scheme with the C.I.A. “Bob told me he believed that the Clintons were involved in murders connected to it,” Patterson said.

Mercer has argued that the passage of the Civil Rights Act, in 1964, was a major
mistake. According to a onetime Renaissance employee, Mercer has asserted repeatedly that African-Americans were better off economically before the civil-rights movement, and has said that there is no problem of white racism in America.