Plenty of people throughout history have been open and self-described white supremacists, even without dressing up in klan robes. As far as I can tell Bannon is not one of them.
What the proper quick summary description of “someone who is willing to hint he’s in favor of white supremacy when speaking to white supremacists” is, I’m not sure. It might even just be “white supremacist”. It’s a tricky question.
Sure. My point was not to smoke out secret sequoia fans, but simply to illustrate that the man strikes me as more of an opportunist than a True Believer. I didn’t mean to suggest that all opportunities were of equal footing.
He brought up on his own volition that he thought there are too many Asians in Silicon Valley and that they ruin American culture. He wasn’t telling his audience what they wanted to hear.
TBH, I would consider a person who seeks to use white supremacist support to bolster their position to be a white supremacist. I mean, they know what the putative effects will be, that’s why they’re doing it, and they’re placing their own political or social ambitions ahead of those who they’d hurt while helping strengthen white supremacist causes.
This is not to say they’re equivalent to someone running around burning crosses in a white robe, of course. But once you’re at the point of, “I, and therefore this cause, are more important than these people”, you’re pretty much a bigot even if there’s no direct hatred there.
OK, I am not going to link to stormfront because I don’t want to give them traffic, But when the Aryan Nations was still around they use to post their beliefs everywhere.
Think about how these worded in a slightly less direct manner relate to both public views by him and Trump
There are more but I am always guilty of writing too long of posts, but replace “white” “Christians” and you could probably get featured on breitbart, and maybe a cabinet post.
What I find terrifying about Bannon is that the “Judeo-Christian West” is in a global conflict with Islam. That is exactly what ISIS thinks, both Bannon and ISIS want our cultures to go into our individual corners and come out fighting, they have a symbiotic relationship. In so doing, we will be fighting on their terms, making every Muslim an enemy and driving lots of them into ISIS’ camp out of survival.
Bannon and ISIS are on the same team – the “religious world war” team. Just like Dylan Roof and the guy in Dallas who murdered cops are on the “race war” team. Just two sides of the same coin.
[QUOTE=madmonk28]
What I find terrifying about Bannon is that the “Judeo-Christian West” is in a global conflict with Islam. That is exactly what ISIS thinks, both Bannon and ISIS want our cultures to go into our individual corners and come out fighting, they have a symbiotic relationship. In so doing, we will be fighting on their terms, making every Muslim an enemy and driving lots of them into ISIS’ camp out of survival.
[/QUOTE]
Nah that’s what would happen in Bannon’s fantasies, but he’s wrong. What is Russia and China going to do while the US and whatever allies join in ganging up on Islamic nations? Taking opportunity of the chaos to advance their own interests of course. If it suited them Russia or China would offer protection to any Islamic nation that offered them the right deal for access to resources. The end result would just be a bunch of countries being pushed into Russian and Chinese spheres of influence and under the protection of their Nuclear umbrellas. Of course France, India and Pakistan also have nukes so they’d also be doing deals to prop up their own interests.
The end result would be a much weaker US in terms of position and influence in the world, but maybe Bannon simply doesn’t care, as long as he gets his Judeo Christian Ethno State, he doesn’t care about the other consequences.
Obviously that’s what will happen and that is clearly what Russia wants, but Bannon and ISIS both want a final confrontation. The fact that the rest of the world won’t necessarily go along and fill the power vacuum is not the kind of thing drunken lunatics consider.
In the end, Russia is the big winner here. Since the end of the cold war their position has been for nations to pursue narrowly defined national interests that don’t align with broad philosophical alignments. In that world, a weakened Russia is more influential because the influence of Western Europe and the US is diminished. In strolls dim-witted Trump who doesn’t understand that source of America’s global influence since WWII has been largely due to soft power, not military might. He of course listens to a borderline psycho racist (or racist panderer) who now is going to get a seat at the NSC and who thinks we need to enter into a clash of civilizations with ISIS which is essentially a doomsday cult and can’t wait.
Does Steve Bannon think he’s John Galt? Haven’t read St. Ayn of Leningrad since I know better, but don’t remember she wrote him as a fat greasy slob.
That would be an interesting national poll.
Bannon has strongly criticized libertarian capitalism, so probably not. He seems like a classic conservative throwback, thinking that capitalism needs to be based on some sort of social contract or else it destroys everything of moral value.
Well, if one side - the Islamic side - is acting on it, don’t you think that the other side better take it seriously?
Only a very small portion of the “Islamic side” is acting this way. The vast majority have no interest in violence.
So if terrorists say that this is a war of Islam vs. heathens, we heathens ought to declare war on Islam?
Just because they think it is, doesn’t mean I have to think it is. I take the fact that they are saying this seriously by sticking to my principles that the vast majority of the world, regardless of religious beliefs, opposes terrorism, and I have no grievance with any individual or group that embraces peace in however they live their lives under their own belief in God.
Correction, a small number of people who happen to be muslim use the actions of the US to claim it is a war on Islam and sell it to others.
I am not exactly sure where I have seen this tactic before…
Uh, no. “One side” isn’t acting on it. A lunatic fringe in the west and a lunatic fring in the Islamic world are both acting on it and it is suicidal to take it seriously.
For similar reasons, I assume you look at the Aryan Nation and take seriously the idea of a Racial Holy War. Right?
Yes. I can’t see any way of explaining those remarks, and their context, other than that Steve Bannon is a white supremacist. The gun really could not smoke any more obviously.
Thus we see the entire “travel ban” roll-out in its true light: an open and naked attempt to provoke some Muslim individual or individuals to commit violence.
So far they are not cooperating with Bannon’s wishes and desires. How frustrated he must be!
I agree: the West could obliterate ISIS et al if it chose. ISIS et al are fighting the best they can. And the West are keeping a very close eye on the situation. But if push comes to shove, then make no mistake, the West will act and ISIS or whoever will get spanked.
Sorry, but there is a lot to unpack here: ISIS etc al? Who is the et al, where are their base of operations, what is their power base and how will we identify them?
The phrase ISIS or whoever: Is whoever different than et al? What has whoever done to us? Remember when al qaeda was the worst we could imagine and then ISIS came along? What if attacking whoevers creates something worse than ISIS.
Finally, remember when Bush wanted to invade Iraq and some of us said that it would destabilize the region and give rise to religious extremism and then conservatives called us traitors and renamed French fries? Maybe before we start killing et als and whoever we need to think a little about unintended consequences.