If Steve Bannon has made his website such a platform for an ostensibly racist "alt-right", then I must say I'm rather surprised as the distinct lack of stories espousing any such silliness.
To me, that implies that the "alt-right" (a term I never heard of until Hillary Clinton mentioned it) must contain sizable amounts of people who are not racist at all.
White nationalists, anti-Semites, holocaust skeptics, and the like only look foolish when they try to spread their flawed doctrines. They don't do to well in the free marketplace of ideas, IMHO.
The only story I'm aware of which some might have objected to was a defense of displaying the Confederate flag, and there are clearly reasons to do that which don't relate to racism.
So if Steve Bannon has made his web site a "platform for the alt-right", either he's not doing a very good job at it, or the alt-right itself is simply not defined by its "white nationalist" boogeyman content, any more than the Democrat party is defined by the fact that there are 11 KKK members remaining in the entire country.
I guess I'd like to hear Mr. Bannon explain what he thinks the alt-right really stands for, and why he'd be proud of giving it a platform on his web site...
The people Breitbart identified as the leading thinkers of the alt-right say the one unifying principle of the alt-right is the centrality of race.
If you don’t buy into that, then you’re apparently not alt-right, according to its leading thinkers.
OH.Oh. You're going to get a lecture about how the term was invented in the 13th century by a prophetic singing nun followed by one thin posting from somewhere in 1998 as proof.