interviewed
Donald Trump for The Hollywood Reporter in June 2016, and he seemed to have liked -- or not disliked -- the piece I
wrote. "Great cover!" his press assistant, Hope Hicks, emailed me after it came out (it was
a picture of a belligerent
Trump in mirrored sunglasses). After the election, I proposed to him that I come to the White House and report an inside story for
later publication -- journalistically, as a fly on the wall -- which he seemed to misconstrue as a request for a job. No, I said.
I'd like to just watch and write a book. "A book?" he responded, losing interest. "I hear a lot of people want to write books," he
added, clearly not understanding why anybody would. "Do you know Ed Klein?" -- author of several virulently anti-Hillary books. "Great
guy. I think he should write a book about me." But sure, Trump seemed to say, knock yourself out.
Since the new White House was often uncertain about what the president meant or did not mean in any given utterance, his non-disapproval
became a kind of passport for me to hang around -- checking in each week at the Hay-Adams hotel, making appointments with various
senior staffers who put my name in the "system," and then wandering across the street to the White House and plunking myself down,
day after day, on a West Wing couch.
... ... ...
Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing. The neoliberal elite was desperate for such a stooge, and in Wolffe they've found one.
From the quote below looks like a sensationalist book. I could understand that level of disappointment of Trump, but it does not
look like a complete slander. More like yet another intelligence operation against him, which played Bannon narcissism like a violin.
Bannon appears in the book both stupid, disloyal and self-absorbed. What was his motivation to give all this information to hostile
to Trump reporter, especially a mole send to undermine Trump, other the plain vanilla vanity. If so he is extremely, fatally stupid
and vain.
As for his economic nationalism he has nothing but slogans. no any plan of actions no real efforts to built a party. absolutely
nothing. He is naked king of economic nationalism. If he was the initial author of Trump anti-Muslim bill he is in addition to that
incompetent (although the main blame is on Trump, who should know his staff better)
Bannon is a very strange creature and his pro-Israeli position does not correlate with with the economic nationalism and isolationalism.
But the even stranger things can happen in politics. The problem with Bannon that the does not really have an economic program for his
"economic nationalism". It is mostly slogans. How really to decrease unemployment and recover manufacturing are much more complex things
them slogans. And who will support a "New New Deal". What social forces?
The book portraits Bannon even bigger narcissist then Trump. And are not conversation with the President a privileged information?
How this guy got such a free access to the WH with the tape-recorder. Where was Secret service.
there is also a definite antipathy to Kushner that is evident from the book. So it is not only hatchet job on Trump, but also on
Kushner.
Notable quotes:
"... When you take out all the never-Trump guys who signed all those letters and all the neocons who got us in all these wars ... it's not a deep bench ..."
"... Bannon was curiously able to embrace Trump while at the same time suggesting he did not take him entirely seriously. ..."
"... when he took over the Trump campaign, Bannon, beyond a few interviews he had done with Trump for his Breitbart radio show, was pretty sure he hadn't spent more than ten minutes in one-on-one conversation with Trump. ..."
"... "I think Comey is a third-rate guy. I think Brennan is a second-rate guy," Bannon said, dismissing the FBI director and the CIA director. ..."
"... "Donald might not be Nixon in China," said Ailes, deadpan, suggesting that for Trump to seize the mantle of global transformation might strain credulity. Bannon smiled. "Bannon in China," he said, with both remarkable grandiosity and wry self-deprecation. "How's the kid?" asked Ailes, referring to Trump's son-in-law and paramount political adviser, thirty-six-year-old Jared Kushner. ..."
"... "He's my partner," said Bannon, his tone suggesting that if he felt otherwise, he was nevertheless determined to stay on message. "Really?" said a dubious Ailes. "He's on the team." "He's had lot of lunches with Rupert." "In fact," said Bannon, "I could use your help here." Bannon then spent several minutes trying to recruit Ailes to help kneecap Murdoch. Ailes, since his ouster from Fox, had become only more bitter towards Murdoch. Now Murdoch was frequently jawboning the president-elect and encouraging him toward establishment moderation -- all a strange inversion in the ever-stranger currents of American conservatism. ..."
At nine-thirty, three hours late, a good part of the dinner already eaten, Bannon finally arrived. Wearing a disheveled blazer,
his signature pairing of two shirts, and military fatigues, the unshaven, overweight sixty-three-year-old joined the other guests
at the table and immediately took control of the conversation. Pushing a proffered glass of wine away -- "I don't drink" -- he dived
into a live commentary, an urgent download of information about the world he was about to take over.
"We're going to flood the zone so we have every cabinet member for the next seven days through their confirmation hearings," he
said of the business-and-military i950s-type cabinet choices. "Tillerson is two days, Session is two days, Mattis is two days...."
Bannon veered from "Mad Dog" Mattis -- the retired four-star general whom Trump had nominated as secretary of defense -- to a
long riff on torture, the surprising liberalism of generals, and the stupidity of the civilian-military bureaucracy. Then it was
on to the looming appointment of Michael Flynn -- a favorite Trump general who'd been the opening act at many Trump rallies -- as
the National Security Advisor.
"He's fine. He's not Jim Mattis and he's not John Kelly... but he's fine. He just needs the right staff around him." Still, Bannon
averred: " When you take out all the never-Trump guys who signed all those letters and all the neocons who got us in all these
wars ... it's not a deep bench ."
Bannon said he'd tried to push John Bolton, the famously hawkish diplomat, for the job as National Security Advisor. Bolton was
an Ailes favorite, too. "He's a bomb thrower," said Ailes. "And a strange little fucker. But you need him. Who else is good on Israel?
Flynn is a little nutty on Iran. Tillerson" -- the secretary of state designate -- "just knows oil."
"Bolton's mustache is a problem," snorted Bannon. "Trump doesn't think he looks the part. You know Bolton is an acquired taste."
"Well, he got in trouble because he got in a fight in a hotel one night and chased some woman." "If I told Trump that, he might have
the job."
* * *
Bannon was curiously able to embrace Trump while at the same time suggesting he did not take him entirely seriously.
He had first met Trump, the on-again off-again presidential candidate, in 2010; at a meeting in Trump Tower, Bannon had proposed
to Trump that he spend half a million dollars backing Tea Party-style candidates as a way to further his presidential ambitions.
Bannon left the meeting figuring that Trump would never cough up that kind of dough. He just wasn't a serious player. Between that
first encounter and mid-August 2016, when he took over the Trump campaign, Bannon, beyond a few interviews he had done with Trump
for his Breitbart radio show, was pretty sure he hadn't spent more than ten minutes in one-on-one conversation with Trump.
But now Bannon's Zeitgeist moment had arrived. Everywhere there was a sudden sense of global self-doubt. Brexit in the UK, waves
of immigrants arriving on Europe's angry shores, the disenfranchisement of the workingman, the specter of more financial meltdown,
Bernie Sanders and his liberal revanchism -- everywhere was backlash. Even the most dedicated exponents of globalism were hesitating.
Bannon believed that great numbers of people were suddenly receptive to a new message: the world needs borders -- or the world should
return to a time when it had borders. When America was great. Trump had become the platform for that message.
By that January evening, Bannon had been immersed in Donald Trump's world for almost five months. And though he had accumulated
a sizable catalogue of Trump's peculiarities, and cause enough for possible alarm about the unpredictability of his boss and his
views, that did not detract from Trump's extraordinary, charismatic appeal to the right-wing, Tea Party, Internet meme base, and
now, in victory, from the opportunity he was giving Steve Bannon.
* * *
"Does he get it?" asked Ailes suddenly, pausing and looking intently at Bannon. He meant did Trump get it. This seemed to be a
question about the right-wing agenda: Did the playboy billionaire really get the workingman populist cause? But it was possibly a
point-blank question about the nature of power itself. Did Trump get where history had put him?
Bannon took a sip of water. "He gets it," said Bannon, after hesitating for perhaps a beat too long. "Or he gets what he gets."
With a sideways look, Ailes continued to stare him down, as though waiting for Bannon to show more of his cards.
"Really," Bannon said. "He's on the program. It's his program." Pivoting from Trump himself, Bannon plunged on with the Trump
agenda. "Day one we're moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Netanyahu's all in. Sheldon" -- Sheldon Adelson, the casino billionaire,
far-right Israel defender, and Trump supporter -- "is all in. We know where we're heading on this." "Does Donald know?" asked a skeptical
Ailes. Bannon smiled -- as though almost with a wink -- and continued: "Let Jordan take the West Bank, let Egypt take Gaza. Let them
deal with it. Or sink trying. The Saudis are on the brink, Egyptians are on the brink, all scared to death of Persia ... Yemen, Sinai,
Libya ... this thing is bad.... That's why Russia is so key.... Is Russia that bad? They're bad guys. But the world is full of bad
guys." Bannon offered all this with something like ebullience -- a man remaking the world. "But it's good to know the bad guys are
the bad guys," said Ailes, pushing Bannon. "Donald may not know."
The real enemy, said an on-point Bannon, careful not to defend Trump too much or to diss him at all, was China. China was the
first front in a new cold war. And it had all been misunderstood in the Obama years -- what we thought we understood we didn't understand
at all. That was the failure of American intelligence. "I think Comey is a third-rate guy. I think Brennan is a second-rate guy,"
Bannon said, dismissing the FBI director and the CIA director.
"The White House right now is like Johnson's White House in 1968. Susan Rice" -- Obama's National Security Advisor -- "is running
the campaign against ISIS as a National Security Advisor. They're picking the targets, she's picking the drone strikes. I mean, they're
running the war with just as much effectiveness as Johnson in sixty-eight. The Pentagon is totally disengaged from the whole thing.
Intel sendees are disengaged from the whole thing. The media has let Obama off the hook. Take the ideology away from it, this is
complete amateur hour. I don't know what Obama does. Nobody on Capitol Hill knows him, no business guys know him -- what has he accomplished,
what does he do?"
"Where's Donald on this?" asked Ailes, now with the clear implication that Bannon was far out ahead of his benefactor. "He's totally
on board." "Focused?" "He buys it."
"I wouldn't give Donald too much to think about," said an amused Ailes. Bannon snorted. "Too much, too little -- doesn't necessarily
change things."
"What has he gotten himself into with the Russians?" pressed Ailes. "Mostly," said Bannon, "he went to Russia and he thought he
was going to meet Putin. But Putin couldn't give a shit about him. So he's kept trying." "He's Donald," said Aies.
"It's a magnificent thing," said Bannon, who had taken to regarding Trump as something like a natural wonder, beyond explanation.
Again, as though setting the issue of Trump aside -- merely a large and peculiar presence to both be thankful for and to have
to abide -- Bannon, in the role he had conceived for himself, the auteur of the Trump presidency, charged forward: "China's everything.
Nothing else matters. We don't get China right, we don't get anything right. This whole thing is very simple. China is where Nazi
Germany was in 1929 to 1930. The Chinese, like the Germans, are the most rational people in the world, until they're not. And they're
gonna flip like Germany in the thirties. You're going to have a hypernationalist state, and once that happens you can't put the genie
back in the bottle."
"Donald might not be Nixon in China," said Ailes, deadpan, suggesting that for Trump to seize the mantle of global transformation
might strain credulity. Bannon smiled. "Bannon in China," he said, with both remarkable grandiosity and wry self-deprecation. "How's
the kid?" asked Ailes, referring to Trump's son-in-law and paramount political adviser, thirty-six-year-old Jared Kushner.
"He's my partner," said Bannon, his tone suggesting that if he felt otherwise, he was nevertheless determined to stay on message.
"Really?" said a dubious Ailes.
"He's on the team." "He's had lot of lunches with Rupert." "In fact," said Bannon, "I could use your help here." Bannon then spent
several minutes trying to recruit Ailes to help kneecap Murdoch. Ailes, since his ouster from Fox, had become only more bitter towards
Murdoch. Now Murdoch was frequently jawboning the president-elect and encouraging him toward establishment moderation -- all a strange
inversion in the ever-stranger currents of American conservatism.
Bannon wanted Ailes to suggest to Trump, a man whose many neuroses included a horror of forgetfulness or senility, that Murdoch
might be losing it. "I'll call him," said Ailes. "But Trump would jump through hoops for Rupert. Like for Putin. Sucks up and shits
down. I just worry about who's jerking whose chain."
The older right-wing media wizard and the younger (though not by all that much) continued on to the other guests' satisfaction
until twelve-thirty, the older trying to see through to the new national enigma that was Trump -- although Ailes would say that in
fact Trump's behavior was ever predictable -- and the younger seemingly determined not to spoil his own moment of destiny. "Donald
Trump has got it. He's Trump, but he's got it. Trump is Trump," affirmed Bannon.
Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing. The neoliberal elite was desperate for such a stooge, and in Wolffe
they've found one.
You can like Trump, you can hate Trump, but what Bannon did is called a betrayal.
Kenn Daily, 17 hours ago
What a great way to sell books. :-)
thatMimosaGrove, 17 hours ago
Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing.
thatMimosaGrove, 16 hours ago
Trump is right. Bannon lost his job AND HIS MIND!
William Brown, 16 hours ago
BRUTUS BANNEN!
serge schouterden , 17 hours ago
This is why, when I taught to 16-18 year olds I urged them to keep their feet firmly on
the ground. Don't be cocky, arrogant etc. Let your actions speak for you. Bannon is arrogant
and thinks he is better than anyone else. Being humble is not in his book.
Matthew KsE , 15 hours ago
Everyone who wants to save Western Civilization, I'm with you 100 percent. Classical
Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative, every damn thing right of center and even part of the
center, WE NEED TO COME TOGETHER! Or the frothing at the mouth hardcore leftists and
democrats will gang rape this country until it goes from a beautiful, productive, sexy, free
woman, to a filthy gender fluid 2 dollar whore used and abused by the pimps known as
socialists and communists.
"This is war, you can't be choosy" -George Carlin
G Buz, 15 hours ago (edited)
Bannon had his own selfish reasons for leaking information and untruths to whoever and
others aren't necessarily fully on Trump's side. You mentioned one reason Trump did this,
Bannon's attack on his family. But I think Trump sees Bannon as "Bannon the loose cannon".
His attack takes Bannon out of the game. Selling lefty BS books is a small price.
Daniel Bohl, 14 hours ago
Sigh
It's either incompetence or conspiracy. I don't know which to believe.Or which is
worse.
Kimberly Weaver, 17 hours ago
Bannon is dirty! I am not buying this was a plan by the deep state that Bannon knew
nothing about OR a planned distraction by Trump.
GySgt DD Barton Ret, 15 hours ago
Don't follow the media's lead and perpetrate the false narratives ffs. I have listened to
hours of video today. I am thinking that Ben Shapiro and President Trump pretty much nailed
the situation down. Listen to them. Like Trump said, Bannon is out for himself.
Shapiro backed that up with his Bannon experiences from Breitbart. Bannon was the leaker
in the Whitehouse. He was also the one who brought the fox in the henhouse so to speak.
I almost believe Trump played them both and will make the media look like the idiots they
are once again. In fact, some aren't falling for the fake news .... Already see some saying
the book is unbelievable, literally. Trump's got this. Bannon is history.
Anonymous Sources, 17 hours ago
Stefan, it's called, "Political Theatrics" I find it hard to believe Mr. Bannon has turned
on a dime, something deeper is in play here.
Great Doofus, 15 hours ago (edited)
Bannon stood by Trump during the pussy tape incident, when even Pence was about to stab
him in the back. Trump throws his people under the bus all the time. See Flynn for example.
So he's the most disloyal. Bannon is just a mini-Trump.
Jason Collins, 11 hours ago
Trump has shown himself to be quite a brilliant psychological tactician. It wouldn't
surprise me at all if the reason he allowed this author to write this book was for the
specific purpose of triggering and thereby uncovering the Machiavellian nature of members of
his staff specifically so he could get rid of them. I've watched Trump do this sort of thing
many times, and almost no one realizes it. Trump is way more deliberate than most people
think.
Gus Evening, 16 hours ago
Trump gave into the neocons months ago. Bannon was the last of the nationalists. It's over
folks, Trump is a globalist stooge now.
Whytebio, 17 hours ago (edited)
Bannon has been a tumor in the Trump administration that got cut out - and the
administration is better for it. While Bannon was with the White House it struggled to do
anything productive and it accomplished its major legislative overhaul (massive tax cuts)
after he left and in contrast to what Bannon wanted, which was a massive tax hike and
infrastructure bill and protectionists tariffs. Now that Bannon is out of favor with Trump
and out of favor with the Mercer family and helped the GOP lose a safe Republican senate seat
it had held for 30 years, he bites the hand that fed him in an attempt to remain relevant and
now it's blown up in his face because he doesn't have 1/100th the backing he thought he
did.
Bannon was a slimy political opportunist and always has been, with a toxic brand that
drives people away. He attached himself to Palin then left her when she was no longer useful,
he hijacked Brietbart and fashioned it into an outlet for the alt-right then threw them under
the bus when they were no longer convenient, then he attached himself to Trump and tried to
throw him under the bus when he thought doing so would get him ahead. He was an albatross
around the neck of the administration and the massive improvement and productivity of the
white house since his departure shows it. Good riddance Bannon, you won't be missed and Trump
and his agenda is miles better off without you.
Dumisani Tsotetsi, 16 hours ago (edited)
Stefan is starting to disbelief. Trump might not be that smart. You chose the wrong white
guy to be president.
Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing. The neoliberal elite was desperate for such a stooge, and in Wolffe they've found one.
But his book is actually a political death sentence for Bannon.
Look also how this pressitute promotes Russiagate: "Steve Bannon was openly handicapping a 33.3 percent chance of impeachment, a 33.3 percent chance of resignation in the shadow
of the 25th amendment and a 33.3 percent chance that he might limp to the finish line on the strength of liberal arrogance and
weakness."
And the statement "Insiders believed that the only thing saving Mueller from being fired, and the government of the United
States from unfathomable implosion, is Trump's inability to grasp how much Mueller had on him and his family."
reminds me Beria approach to justice.
Notable quotes:
"... Insiders believed that the only thing saving Mueller from being fired, and the government of the United States from unfathomable implosion, is Trump's inability to grasp how much Mueller had on him and his family. ..."
"... At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends. ..."
"... That gossipy last detail will have set off alarms in intelligence agencies around the world. ..."
Originally from: Mr. Trump, He Crazy The American Conservative
More:
As the first year wound down, Trump finally got a bill to sign. The tax bill, his singular accomplishment, was, arguably, quite
a reversal of his populist promises, and confirmation of what Mitch McConnell had seen early on as the silver Trump lining: "He'll
sign anything we put in front of him." With new bravado, he was encouraging partisans like Fox News to pursue an anti-Mueller
campaign on his behalf. Insiders believed that the only thing saving Mueller from being fired, and the government of the United
States from unfathomable implosion, is Trump's inability to grasp how much Mueller had on him and his family.
Steve Bannon was openly handicapping a 33.3 percent chance of impeachment, a 33.3 percent chance of resignation in the shadow
of the 25th amendment and a 33.3 percent chance that he might limp to the finish line on the strength of liberal arrogance and
weakness.
Donald Trump's small staff of factotums, advisors and family began, on Jan. 20, 2017, an experience that none of them, by any
right or logic, thought they would -- or, in many cases, should -- have, being part of a Trump presidency. Hoping for the best,
with their personal futures as well as the country's future depending on it, my indelible impression of talking to them and observing
them through much of the first year of his presidency, is that they all -- 100 percent -- came to believe he was incapable of
functioning in his job.
At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends.
That gossipy last detail will have set off alarms in intelligence agencies around the world.
Here's the thing: even if you deny that everything Wolff writes in this adaptation from his book is true, all of it has the ring
of truth. The inside-the-White-House stuff sounds exactly like what I was hearing second-hand from an unnerved insider last spring,
though with more detail in Wolff's telling. Would you bet money that Wolff's tale is entirely a lie?
A "cease and desist" letter on Wolff and his publisher from the president's lawyer is the best possible thing a writer and a publisher
can hope for. It's pointless, but it makes it look like Wolff inserted his proton torpedo into the Trump White House's exhaust chute.
Notable quotes:
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
... ... ..Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the
CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked
and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media
should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition
party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the
media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that
Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director,
Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat
an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington
parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its
cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that
the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White
House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of
Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week,
MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in
the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should
be "investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in
that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor
Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill
, in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group
of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much
of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly
with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything.
. . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett
inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At
this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter
. . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position
by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment
of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received
as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that
if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with
that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday
print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited
by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this
headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure
Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.
- John Fund is NRO's national-affairs correspondent . https://twitter.com/@JohnFund
Notable quotes:
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
... ... ..Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the
CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked
and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media
should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition
party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the
media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that
Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director,
Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat
an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington
parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its
cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that
the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White
House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of
Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week,
MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in
the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should
be "investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in
that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor
Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill
, in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group
of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much
of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly
with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything.
. . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett
inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At
this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter
. . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position
by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment
of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received
as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that
if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with
that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday
print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited
by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this
headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure
Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.
- John Fund is NRO's national-affairs correspondent . https://twitter.com/@JohnFund
Hatchet job.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump's small staff of factotums, advisors and family began, on Jan. 20, 2017, an experience that none of them, by any right or logic, thought they would -- or, in many cases, should -- have, being part of a Trump presidency. Hoping for the best, with their personal futures as well as the country's future depending on it, my indelible impression of talking to them and observing them through much of the first year of his presidency, is that they all -- 100 percent -- came to believe he was incapable of functioning in his job. ..."
"... At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends. ..."
"... A "cease and desist" letter on Wolff and his publisher from the president's lawyer is the best possible thing a writer and a publisher can hope for. It's pointless, but it makes it look like Wolff inserted his proton torpedo into the Trump White House's exhaust chute. ..."
"... Verily, a New Hope ..."
What Wolff reports in the new installment (and oh boy,
you're
gonna want to read the whole thing ) is jaw-dropping, certainly, but also weirdly familiar, the kind of things that make you
shake your head as if to say, "I knew it!" Excerpts:
Reigning over all of this was Trump, enigma, cipher and disruptor. How to get along with Trump -- who veered between a kind
of blissed-out pleasure of being in the Oval Office and a deep, childish frustration that he couldn't have what he wanted? Here
was a man singularly focused on his own needs for instant gratification, be that a hamburger, a segment on Fox & Friends or an
Oval Office photo opp. "I want a win. I want a win. Where's my win?" he would regularly declaim. He was, in words used by almost
every member of the senior staff on repeated occasions, "like a child." A chronic naysayer, Trump himself stoked constant discord
with his daily after-dinner phone calls to his billionaire friends about the disloyalty and incompetence around him. His billionaire
friends then shared this with their billionaire friends, creating the endless leaks which the president so furiously railed against.
More:
As the first year wound down, Trump finally got a bill to sign. The tax bill, his singular accomplishment, was, arguably, quite
a reversal of his populist promises, and confirmation of what Mitch McConnell had seen early on as the silver Trump lining: "He'll
sign anything we put in front of him." With new bravado, he was encouraging partisans like Fox News to pursue an anti-Mueller
campaign on his behalf. Insiders believed that the only thing saving Mueller from being fired, and the government of the United
States from unfathomable implosion, is Trump's inability to grasp how much Mueller had on him and his family.
Steve Bannon was openly handicapping a 33.3 percent chance of impeachment, a 33.3 percent chance of resignation in the shadow
of the 25th amendment and a 33.3 percent chance that he might limp to the finish line on the strength of liberal arrogance and
weakness.
Donald Trump's small staff of factotums, advisors and family began, on Jan. 20, 2017, an experience that none of them,
by any right or logic, thought they would -- or, in many cases, should -- have, being part of a Trump presidency. Hoping for the
best, with their personal futures as well as the country's future depending on it, my indelible impression of talking to them
and observing them through much of the first year of his presidency, is that they all -- 100 percent -- came to believe he was
incapable of functioning in his job.
At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends.
That gossipy last detail will have set off alarms in intelligence agencies around the world.
Here's the thing: even if you deny that everything Wolff writes in this adaptation from his book is true, all of it has the ring
of truth. The inside-the-White-House stuff sounds exactly like what I was hearing second-hand from an unnerved insider last spring,
though with more detail in Wolff's telling. Would you bet money that Wolff's tale is entirely a lie?
A "cease and desist" letter on Wolff and his publisher from the president's lawyer is the best possible thing a writer and a publisher
can hope for. It's pointless, but it makes it look like Wolff inserted his proton torpedo into the Trump White House's exhaust chute.
Michelle
January
4, 2018 at 11:51 am
Wolff reportedly recorded hundreds of hours worth of conversations with Bannon and other Trump administration officials, so good
luck with that lawsuit. If anything, as you indicate, Trump's bellowing will serve to increase sales as people rush to buy the
book Dear Leader doesn't want them to read. I know I will.
I've read the two Wolff articles and, while salacious, they don't differ in kind from numerous articles about the inside workings
of Trumpworld that have come out since the election. While the book might contain numerous exaggerations, there's no doubt lots
of truth contained therein, which is why Trump, for all his posturing, probably won't sue. As Kevin Drum writes, we won't get
lucky enough to see the ultimate feces-slinging contest between Trump and Bannon. Too bad.
If Trump has succeeded in one thing, it's in turning the presidency into the ultimate reality TV show. Unfortunately, unlike
the usual variety, this one has serious consequences for the actual world.
Bernie , says:
January
4, 2018 at 11:59 am
"Would you bet money that Wolff's tale is entirely a lie?"
On the other hand, how much money would you bet as to what percent of Wolff's writing about Trump is entirely accurate? Ten
percent? 30 percent? 60% percent? I hate to see this type of post on Rod's blog. It's tabloid quality and in all probability includes
scandalous information. You can argue with my conclusion, but can you prove otherwise? This post is disappointing.
[NFR: A prominent pro-Trump conservative with White House access told me two months into the Trump administration that the
place was a "snake pit" with all Trump's advisers out to destroy each other, and an incompetent and disconnected president at
the center of the maelstrom. "All he wants to do is watch TV," said my source, who predicted disaster, and that GOP bigs would
blame the eventual collapse of the Trump presidency on Christian conservatives, because they were suckers, and the only ones who
had no wider support in the Establishment. I believed him then and that has something to do with why I believe Wolff. -- RD]
Franklin Evans , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:02 pm
I never condone trial and conviction by innuendo and implication. I will, however, in this case engage in a bit of personal gloating
that the King of "fake news!" accusations is having his own credible (better than plausible) statements of the recent and not
so recent past coming back to haunt him.
Trump is more than a symptom of the degeneration of American politics and society. He is the poster child, nay the divine avatar
of my patron deity Momus, heaping scorn and ridicule on every aspect of America that so richly deserves it.
Upon his certification as the Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States, I publicly (and with significant
backlash) predicted that Trump was going to be the enema so sorely needed by a constipated American electorate, gladly feasting
on the indigestible roughage of decades of partisan polarizing rhetoric. The first flood of expulsion is already in full swing.
It is odorous, scummy, and glorious.
The story of Momus is sketchy at best, but what is known explains the sketchiness: Zeus was well-entertained by Momus' take-downs
of the other deities, until the day Momus set his sights on Zeus, and did his job too well. Zeus banished Momus, who quickly faded
into obscurity (and never had much in the way of a human following anyway).
I see Trump on that very same path, the only problem being that there is no Zeus to act decisively at the appropriate moment.
Momos (Momus) .
Mardi Gras society and krewe Knights of Momus .
Youknowho , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:08 pm
Does anyone STILL has to justify having voted for Hillary?
charles cosimano , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:15 pm
Anyone who wants the job of President is a little crazy. Personally, I think crazy is fun. Sanity is too boring for words but
nothing here points to crazy at all. It's all seriously inside baseball and there is nothing there that the voters give a damn
about.
You still don't get it. His supporters in their many millions love Trump for the very reasons you can't stand him.
Patrick , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:16 pm
Yeah, boy: wait until everyone finds out Trump is self-centered and know nod of nutty! You really got him now!
collin , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:25 pm
I am with Matt Yglesias on this Is there really anything new here? Doesn't Daniel Drezner have a twitter feed of 200 occasions
where Trump staff is treating him like a toddler? Heck, just read Trumps's twitter feed for evidence! (Are you going to watch
the Trumpies on Monday 5:00?)
The Wolff book is like the Steele dossier with lots salacious over the top stories but nothing really new.
HildaMary , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:25 pm
None of this has "the ring of truth". What it does have is the ring of propaganda. I suppose it might appear to have the ring
of truth if one was predisposed to believe the worst kind of caricatures of Trump.
It would be very easy to rewrite these excerpts using the same factual statements but framing them in a positive light rather
than the negative spin preferred by Mr. Wolff. As a writer yourself, Rod, you should know this.
The last part, about Trump being heavily made-up and "failing to recognize old friends", is obviously blatant disinformation
intended to undermine the administration. Publishing it is an act of political sabotage and borders on treasonous.
This is some deep-state *excrement* we're dealing with here, Rod, and I'm honestly surprised you've been suckered by it.
Adamant , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:27 pm
I have no idea if some of the more eye-opening quotes are legit or if Wolff is a fantasist, but what in God's name was the WH's
thought process in letting a journalist just hang out in the West Wing for months on end? The incompetence is staggering.
DM , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:31 pm
Wow, too bad we elected the batty old man instead of the batty old woman.
EngineerScotty , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:35 pm
A "cease and desist" letter on Wolff and his publisher from the president's lawyer is the best possible thing a writer and
a publisher can hope for. It's pointless, but it makes it look like Wolff inserted his proton torpedo into the Trump White House's
exhaust chute.
Of course, "small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port" is one of the dirtiest lines in cinema, as brilliantly exposed
in this college production of Verily, a New Hope , a brilliant Shakespearean retelling of Star Wars that was
publish'd some years back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdUEF5i_hpc
(NSFW, skip to 40 minutes in for the relevant scene)
But a "cease and desist letter" against Bannon, I think, would be pointless. Wolff's book is in the can already. When it comes
to what Bannon knows, the horse has already left the barn.
VikingLS , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:45 pm
"Does anyone STILL has to justify having voted for Hillary?"
Um, no.
And nobody has to justify voting for Trump. Not if we're being fair. Particularly not in the light of a book that hadn't been
written yet.
You don't want to be fair though. You want to come here and take over the conversation and make certain it's always you that's
the center of attention.
You know, sort of like Trump.
grumpy realist , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:45 pm
Bernie–it makes no difference how much is actual truth in Wolff's writings. The fact is, it all is horribly plausible, based on
what we've already seen from this clown car of an administration. Screeching about said reports as being "tabloid!" doesn't work
very well in such a case .
And do you think that Trump is ever going to allow himself to go under the laser beam of discovery if he DOES actually insist
on suing for libel? Ho ho ho.
Alex Curbelo , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:47 pm
I wouldn't worry too much about the GOP "bigs" blaming Christians, and I would encourage you not to let them get away with scapegoating
social conservatives who have been betrayed and abused enough over the years by the establishment. They don't need Rod Dreher
piling on. Trump is in fact a creation of the GOP bigs; he is only in the presidency in the first place because they made a point
of ignoring for decades the legitimate concerns and grievances of the typical non-rich Republican voter.
[NFR: My source is a conservative Christian, and he was not saying that blaming us (himself) is fair, but that it is going
to be what the GOP establishment does to shift blame from itself. -- RD]
Simon James , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:52 pm
I can't see the "gossipy last detail" causing any alarm, nor any of the rest of these gossipy details. What is so "jaw-dropping"
about an admittedly unreliable reporter sprinkling a few context-free alleged quotes into a substrate of invective in order to
destroy Trump? My jaw dropped into a yawn.
minimammal , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:53 pm
Incidentally, have you seen the new Star Wars, Rod? What did you think of it?
[NFR: I have not. I was going to take the kids today, but two of them seem to be coming down with flu. -- RD]
JonF , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:55 pm
Re: It's tabloid quality and in all probability includes scandalous information.
Bernie, is "scandalous" a synonym for "false" in your usage? Because scandalous news can sometimes be factual news. (See: Watergate;
Monica Lewinsky)
Alex Curbelo , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:57 pm
As for the book, there is just no way to know to what extent the claims are colored by embellishment, exaggeration, subjective
interpretation, cognitive bias, quotes taken out of context and outright lies.
Andrew , says:
January
4, 2018 at 12:59 pm
This time, Trump is truly done for! Lol :-).
I'm not sure how much of the allegations are true, but regardless, most of this is typical Trump street theater. He's provoking
chaos and allowing his adversaries (especially the news media) to be focused on distractions. Meanwhile, he and his administration
are getting things done behind the scenes.
I have no way of knowing this, but my instinct is that this is a set-up, and Trump and Bannon are on the same side. There are
plenty of good political reasons why Trump would rather the two of them be seen as enemies. I could be completely wrong, and there
really is bad blood between them. But it just seems so contrived. One more laser pointer to distract all the cats. And even if
it is all genuine and legitimate, Trump will still use it to his advantage.
Remember when the whole world was in danger of nuclear war because of a Trump tweet? That was, what, two days ago? Trump is
"crazy" like a fox, he enjoys being underestimated by his opponents, and he is engaging in very effective strategies that allow
him to accomplish a great deal.
Does anyone else notice that the economy is improving, burdensome regulations are being undone, government corruption is being
exposed, ISIS is virtually defeated on the ground, North Korea is reaching out to South Korea, etc.? Trump is a very peculiar
president, but he is a lot more intelligent than people give him credit for.
I personally think that the Trump era is very much like the book of Esther. The plot to kill Trump and his supporters will
eventually trap and kill the plotters themselves. (I mean "kill" only in the political sense.) The Russia-collusion conspiracy
is the most obvious example.
Mark VA , says:
January
4, 2018 at 1:00 pm
My mind is fairly resistant to apocalyptic imagery. Rather, I see this:
Michael Wolff (born August 27, 1953)[1] is an American author, essayist, and journalist, and a regular columnist and contributor
to USA Today, The Hollywood Reporter, and the UK edition of GQ.[2] He has received two National Magazine Awards, a Mirror Award, and
has authored seven books, including Burn Rate (1998) about his own dot-com company, and The Man Who Owns the News (2008), a
biography of Rupert Murdoch. He co-founded the news aggregation website Newser and is a former editor of Adweek.
Michael Wolff was born in Paterson, New Jersey, the son of Lewis Allen Wolff (October 10, 1920 - February 18, 1984)[5], an
advertising professional, and Marguerite "Van" (Vanderwerf) Wolff (November 7, 1925 – September 17, 2012)[6] a reporter for Paterson
Evening News.[7][8] He attended Columbia University in New York City, and graduated from Vassar College in 1975.[9] While a student
at Columbia, he worked for The New York Times as a copy boy
How Michael Wolf managed to tape people in WH?
Notable quotes:
"... "Michael Wolff has tapes to back up quotes in his incendiary book -- dozens of hours of them," Allen reports. "Among the sources he taped, I'm told, are Steve Bannon and former White House deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh." ..."
"... Soon after the Axios report dropped Thursday morning, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced a ban on personal cell phones inside the White House -- "for both guests and staff." ..."
"... Wolff wrote in The Hollywood Reporter that he collected the material for his book as a "fly on the wall" over 18 months. Allen says that the White House concedes that Wolff received access to the building less than 20 times since Trump's inauguration. ..."
Mike Allen writes at Axios that Michael Wolff,
author of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, has "dozens of hours" of
recordings to corroborate the controversial quotes attributed to senior White House personnel
in the new book -- including former White House Chief Strategist and Breitbart executive
chairman Stephen K. Bannon.
"Michael Wolff has tapes to back up quotes in his incendiary book -- dozens of hours of
them," Allen reports. "Among the sources he taped, I'm told, are Steve Bannon and former White
House deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh."
Soon after the Axios report dropped Thursday morning, White House Press Secretary Sarah
Huckabee Sanders announced a
ban on personal cell phones inside the White House -- "for both guests and staff."
Wolff wrote in
The Hollywood Reporter that he collected the material for his book as a "fly on the wall"
over 18 months. Allen says that the White House concedes that Wolff received access to the
building less than 20 times since Trump's inauguration.
Notable quotes:
"... "I support President Trump and the platform upon which he was elected," Mercer said. "My family and I have not communicated with Steve Bannon in many months and have provided no financial support to his political agenda, nor do we support his recent actions and statements." ..."
"... Per a Wall Street Journal report, the board of the far-right Breitbart News is also considering ousting Bannon from his position as executive chairman there. ..."
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has apparently lost the support of billionaire Republican donor and longtime
Donald Trump supporter Rebekah Mercer.
Mercer made her differences with Bannon clear in a statement to The Washington Post on Thursday.
"I support President Trump and the platform upon which he was elected," Mercer said. "My family and I have not communicated
with Steve Bannon in many months and have provided no financial support to his political agenda, nor do we support his recent actions
and statements."
Per a Wall Street Journal report, the board of the far-right Breitbart News is also considering ousting Bannon from his position
as executive chairman there.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders encouraged the move during Thursday's press briefing.
"I certainly think that it's something they should look at and consider," she said of Bannon's potential dismissal.
Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing. The neoliberal elite was desperate for such a stooge, and in Wolffe they've found one.
"Stunning act of betrayal" is an apt definition of Bannon did via Wolff.
Former Trump Roger Stone was on Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight to refute Steve Bannon's statements, and just about everything
else in the upcoming book "Fire and Fury".
The ongoing feud between Steve Bannon and various members of Trump's inner circle, including
family members Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr., is hardly a secret (we wrote about it here:
Steve Bannon In "Self-Imposed Exile" After Disputes With Trump's Inner Circle ). But, if
The Guardian 's reporting on excerpts from an explosive new book penned by Michael Wolff
are even directionally accurate, then Bannon has just taken his White House feud to a whole new
level.
According to The Guardian, which apparently got its hands on a copy of "Fire and Fury" ahead
of its expected release next week, Bannon unloads on Don Jr. and Kushner saying that their
meeting with
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in New York was "treasonous" and/or
"unpatriotic" and the FBI should have been called immediately.
Donald Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting
between the president's son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as
"treasonous" and "unpatriotic", according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian.
The meeting was revealed by the New York Times in July last year, prompting Trump Jr to
say no consequential material was produced. Soon after, Wolff writes, Bannon remarked
mockingly: "The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a
foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with
no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers.
"Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I
happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately."
Bannon went on, Wolff writes, to say that if any such meeting had to take place, it should
have been set up "in a Holiday Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire, with your lawyers who meet
with these people". Any information, he said, could then be "dump[ed] down to Breitbart or
something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate publication".
... ... ...
Trump is not spared in the new book either. According to The Guardian, Wolff writes that
Thomas Barrack Jr, the billionaire founder of Colony Capital who counts himself as one of
Trump's earliest supporters, allegedly told a friend: "He's not only crazy, he's stupid."
All of which should make for some very entertaining Trump tweets once the book drops next
week.
Meanwhile, even Drudge couldn't avoid getting dragged into the fray and on Wednesday morning
tweeted: "No wonder schizophrenic Steve Bannon has been walking around with a small army of
bodyguards..."
Another possibility that it was attempt of entrapment
See also
Natalia Veselnitskaya, Russian lawyer at Donald Trump Jr. meeting, ready to testify to Senate -
CBS News "In the lengthy interview with RT, Veselnitskaya was dismissive of the tumult in the
U.S. surrounding her meeting with Trump campaign officials, and she denied again links with top
Russian government officials close to President Vladimir Putin. " ... "She called the controversy
a "very well-orchestrated story concocted by one particular manipulator," whom she identified
repeatedly as American
businessman Bill Browder ."
John , Jan 3, 2018 2:14:44 PM |
112
Off topic:
Bannon is being quoted in the Guardian from his forthcoming book, paraphrasing: "they had
(sic) top officials from the new administration meeting with Russians in Trump Tower and
nobody thought to have a lawyer present? The minimum they could've done was call the
FBI."
This statement doesn't pass the smell test or Bannon is smoking some Colorado grass. One
minute he's against deep state and the next minute he wants to call the FBI? I don't think
so.
The Guardian Article
Interesting possible Browder-MI6 trace to Veselnitskaya Scandal
She called the controversy a "very well-orchestrated story concocted by one particular
manipulator," whom she identified repeatedly as American businessman Bill Browder.
Browder was once the biggest foreign investor in Russia, but he has since become a vocal
critic of the country's leadership and has clashed with Putin's inner circle.
Browder was a driving force behind the Magnitsky Act, a U.S. law passed in 2012 that imposes
economic sanctions and travel restrictions on Russians named as human rights abusers. Browder
believes it is Putin's No. 1 priority to get the U.S. to lift the sanctions imposed under the
act, which currently affect 44 Russians.
In her interview with Russian government-funded RT, Veselnitskaya called Browder "one of the
greatest experts in the field of manipulating the mass media," and said she had "no doubt that
this whole information campaign is being spun, encouraged and organized by that very man as
revenge" for a legal settlement earlier this year which effectively saw his efforts to expose
alleged Russian money-laundering in the U.S. hit a brick wall.
During Browder's appearance on "CBS This Morning" Tuesday, co-host Charlie Rose called
attention to Browder's description of Veselnitskaya as "probably the most aggressive person I
have ever encountered in all of my contacts with Russians" -- to which Browder replied, "Yes,
she's a remarkable person. I should caveat that: she's not aggressive in a physical
way."
BritBob Jan 3, 2018
2:52 PM
Bannon, speaking to author Michael Wolff, warned that the investigation into alleged
collusion with the Kremlin will focus on money laundering and predicted: "They're going to
crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV."
besnook Jan
3, 2018 3:20 PM
bannon hasn't lost his mind. he never had one. he is just another wacko evangelical
wingnut of the 4th turning theory who think they will witness the second coming of Christ
this turning if only they can make enough war in the Mideast with the goal of getting Israel
directly involved since their participation is a prerequisite.
breitbart is nuts.
Notable quotes:
"... Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House ..."
Former Trump Chief Strategist Steve Bannon says the Mueller investigation is targeting the alleged "greasy" money laundering
of Trump associates like Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort as a path to attack President Trump, according to a new book by Michael
Wolff called
Fire and Fury: Inside
the Trump White House .
David Smith
reports
in the Guardian :
Bannon has
criticised Trump's decision to fire Comey . In Wolff's book, obtained by the Guardian ahead of publication from a bookseller
in New England, he suggests White House hopes for a quick end to the Mueller investigation are gravely misplaced.
"You realise where this is going," he is quoted as saying. "This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor
Andrew] Weissmann first
and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner It's
as plain as a hair on your face."
Last month it was reported that federal prosecutors
had subpoenaed records
from Deutsche Bank, the German financial institution that has lent hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kushner property
empire. Bannon continues: "It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to
go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me."
Scorning apparent White House insouciance, Bannon reaches for a hurricane metaphor: "They're sitting on a beach trying to stop
a Category Five."
Read the rest
here
.
Economic nationalism in key ideas is close to Mussolini version of corporatism. It is about
the alliance of state with large corporation but of less favorable to large corporations terms
then under neoliberalism, which is a flavor of corporatism as well, but extremely favorable to
the interests of transactionals.
So grossly simplifying, this is Mussolini version of corporatism (Make Italy Great Again),
minus foreign wars, minus ethnic component (replacing it with more modern "cultural nationalism"
agenda).
Bannon is definitely overrated. It is jobs that matter and he has no real plan. Relying on
tax cutting and deregulation is not a plan. In this sense, yes, he is a paper tiger. And not a
real nationalist, but some kind of castrated variety.
One thing that plays into Bannon hands in the DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats led by
Hillary Clinton) were completely discredited during the last elections.
Notable quotes:
"... But his statements show that it's all bluster and no real strategy. Democrats seem poised to take back Congress precisely because of Republican extremism, not because institutional Republicans are inadequately racist and nationalist. ..."
"... Like Karl Rove before him, Steven Bannon is a paper tiger. ..."
There is a tendency on the left to overestimate the abilities of conservative campaign gurus
and spinmeisters after a bitter defeat. In the aughts, Karl Rove was seen as the Svengali
mastermind of Republican politics, a nefarious force smarter and more cunning than all the
left's braintrust put together. It turned out not to be true. Karl Rove didn't have "the math"
and never really did: Rove mostly got lucky by a combination of butterfly ballots in Florida,
and happening to hold power during a terrorist attack that saw Democrats cowed into submission
rather than holding the president and his team accountable for their failure to protect the
country.
Steve Bannon is taking on a similar mystique for some. But Bannon is no more special than
Rove...
... ... ...
Bannon is
going
to war " with the GOP establishment, even going so far as to countermand Trump's own
endorsement in the Alabama Senate race and force the president to back a loser.
But his statements show that it's all bluster and no real strategy. Democrats seem
poised to take back Congress precisely because of Republican extremism, not because
institutional Republicans are inadequately racist and nationalist.
And his prediction to the Values Voter Summit that Trump will
win 400 electoral votes in 2020 is simply preposterous on its face. It's no better than
even odds that Trump will even finish out his term, much less sweep to a Reaganesque landslide
in three years. During the same speech, Bannon quipped a line destined to be fodder for the
inevitable 2018 campaign commercials accusing Trump of actively blowing up the ACA
exchanges and driving up premiums in a bid to kill the program.
Like Karl Rove before him, Steven Bannon is a paper tiger. Democrats need only
muster courage, conviction and hard work to teach him the same lesson they taught Rove in 2006.
David Atkins is a writer, activist and
research professional living in Santa Barbara. He is a contributor to the Washington Monthly's
Political Animal and president of The Pollux Group, a qualitative research firm.
Bastard neoliberalism by Trump (and Bannon) are inconsistent. You can't be half pregnant -- to be
a neoliberal (promote deregulation, regressive taxes) and be anti-immigration and anti-globalist. In
this sense words Trump is doomed: neoliberal are determined to get rid of him.
Reagan was a former governor of California before becoming the President. hardly a complete outsider.
Trump was an outsider more similar to Barak Obama in a sense that he has no political record and can
ride on backlash against neoliberal globalization, especially outsourcing and offshoring and unlimited
immigration, as well as ride anti-globalism sentiments and popular protest against foreign wars. Only
quickly betraying those promised afterward. Much like king of "bait and switch" Obama .
Notable quotes:
"... Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy designed to prosper Americans first. ..."
"... Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot. ..."
"... He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally, but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can't control its borders isn't really a country any more. ..."
"... Reagan and Trump both embraced the Eisenhower doctrine of "peace through strength." And, like Ike, both built up the military. ..."
"... Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security. ..."
"... Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time. ..."
"... As Ingraham writes, Trump_vs_deep_state is rooted as much in the populist-nationalist campaigns of the 1990s, and post-Cold War issues as economic patriotism, border security, immigration control and "America First," as it is in the Reaganite issues of the 1980s. ..."
"... Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war with GOP leaders on the Hill. ..."
"... And both are fans of the tinkle-down theory of economics, where the govt cuts taxes on the rich and increases them on the poor and middle class, since the rich will do a better job of spreading around the extra money they get to keep, thereby stoking the economy, supposedly. Or as 'Poppy' Bush called it, "voodoo economics." ..."
"... It's a failed regressive tax program that only creates more billionaires while the number of poor swells, due to an influx of the steadily declining middle-class. ..."
"... Bizarrely, comically ignorant of reality. Though the really bizarre thing is the degree to which the same obtusely ignorant world-view permeates the establishment media and the political establishment. ..."
"... There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism. Reagan's opposition to the Soviet Union was very much bound up in resistance to that ideology, even if that resistance was often as much a pretext as a real motive. ..."
"... Today neither Russia nor China subscribes to any such universalist ideology. It is the US, today, that seeks to impose its liberal democratic political correctness ideologies and its manufactured taboos upon the world and which harasses and menaces any country that tries to live differently. ..."
"... As for Trump supposedly being wrapped up in "America First", that's particularly comical this week as he demonstrates that his idea of "America First" is acting as Israel's bitch, and as he makes ever louder noises about undermining the Iran deal – a policy as clearly counterproductive to any interest plausibly attributable to the American nation (as opposed to the identity lobbies that run the US government politics and media) as it is self-evidently in the self-perceived interests of the Israel Lobby and the foreign country that lobby serves. ..."
"... Trump is an egotistical jackass, nothing else. A liar from the git-go, and a completely ineffective leader, ideologue and President. He's not going to last much longer. I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety. But, he has molted into a complete fuckup. ..."
"... Goodbye, good riddance. Let's get ready to deal with the next wacko -- Pence. ..."
"... you're forgetting that Trump wasn't a war monger while on the campaign trail, far from it. Which is the only reason he won the election. In other words he fooled just enough people (like you and me) long enough to get elected. Same thing happened with peace candidate, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Hussein Obama. It's clearly a rigged process. ..."
... ... ...
Both men were outsiders, and neither a career politician. Raised Democratic, Reagan had been a
Hollywood actor, union leader and voice of GE, before running for governor of California.
Trump is out of Queens, a builder-businessman in a Democratic city whose Republican credentials
were suspect at best when he rode down that elevator at Trump Tower. Both took on the Republican
establishment of their day, and humiliated it.
Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy
designed to prosper Americans first.
Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because
of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though
a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot.
He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally,
but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can't control its borders isn't really a
country any more.
Reagan and Trump both embraced the Eisenhower doctrine of "peace through strength." And, like
Ike, both built up the military.
Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget
through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's
day, Russia and China in Trump's time.
And both were regarded in this capital city with a cosmopolitan condescension bordering on contempt.
"An amiable dunce" said a Great Society Democrat of Reagan.
The awesome victories Reagan rolled up, a 44-state landslide in 1980 and a 49-state landslide
in 1984, induced some second thoughts among Beltway elites about whether they truly spoke for America.
Trump's sweep of the primaries and startling triumph in the Electoral College caused the same consternation.
However, as the Great Depression, New Deal and World War II represented a continental divide in
history between what came before and what came after, so, too, did the end of the Cold War and the
Reagan era.
As Ingraham writes, Trump_vs_deep_state is rooted as much in the populist-nationalist campaigns of the
1990s, and post-Cold War issues as economic patriotism, border security, immigration control and
"America First," as it is in the Reaganite issues of the 1980s.
Which bring us to the present, with our billionaire president, indeed, at the barricades.
The differences between Trump in his first year and Reagan in 1981 are stark. Reagan had won a
landslide. The attempt on his life in April and the grace with which he conducted himself had earned
him a place in the hearts of his countrymen. He not only showed spine in giving the air traffic controllers
48 hours to get back to work, and then discharging them when they defied him, he enacted the largest
tax cut in U.S. history with the aid of boll weevil Democrats in the House.
Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united
Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative
accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen
senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war
with GOP leaders on the Hill.
Greg Bacon
, Website
October 13, 2017 at 10:24 am GMT
And both are fans of the tinkle-down theory of economics, where the govt cuts taxes
on the rich and increases them on the poor and middle class, since the rich will do a better job
of spreading around the extra money they get to keep, thereby stoking the economy, supposedly.
Or as 'Poppy' Bush called it, "voodoo economics."
It's a failed regressive tax program that only creates more billionaires while the number
of poor swells, due to an influx of the steadily declining middle-class.
The only parts of the economy it helps are the builders of luxury mansions, antique and pricey
art dealers, and the makers of luxury autos and private jets.
Randal
,
October 13, 2017 at 12:24 pm GMT
@Mark James
when the US Government is trying to prevent alien forces from interfering in our electoral
process
Bizarrely, comically ignorant of reality. Though the really bizarre thing is the degree
to which the same obtusely ignorant world-view permeates the establishment media and the political
establishment.
Two pieces here at Unz you ought to read, and fully take on board the implications of, if you
want to even begin the process of grasping reality, rather than living in the manufactured fantasy
you appear to inhabit at the moment:
Randal
,
October 13, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT
Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in
Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time.
There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear
ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the
grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism. Reagan's opposition to
the Soviet Union was very much bound up in resistance to that ideology, even if that resistance
was often as much a pretext as a real motive.
Today neither Russia nor China subscribes to any such universalist ideology. It is the
US, today, that seeks to impose its liberal democratic political correctness ideologies and its
manufactured taboos upon the world and which harasses and menaces any country that tries to live
differently.
As for Trump supposedly being wrapped up in "America First", that's particularly comical
this week as he demonstrates that his idea of "America First" is acting as Israel's bitch, and
as he makes ever louder noises about undermining the Iran deal – a policy as clearly counterproductive
to any interest plausibly attributable to the American nation (as opposed to the identity lobbies
that run the US government politics and media) as it is self-evidently in the self-perceived interests
of the Israel Lobby and the foreign country that lobby serves.
Here's the German government being unusually blunt yesterday about the stupidity of the Trump
regime's seeming plans in this regard:
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel on Thursday said that any move by US President Donald
Trump's administration to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal would drive a wedge between Europe
and the US.
"It's imperative that Europe sticks together on this issue," Gabriel told Germany's RND
newspaper group. "We also have to tell the Americans that their behavior on the Iran issue
will drive us Europeans into a common position with Russia and China against the USA."
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-warns-donald-trump-against-decertifying-iran-deal/a-40933703
It's difficult to know whether the likes of Gabriel actually believe all the boilerplate nonsense
they talk about a supposed Iranian nuclear program – the real reason the European nations want
the deal to continue is that it stopped them having to pretend to believe all the outright lies
the US told about Iran, and having to kowtow t0 costly and counterproductive sanctions against
Iran that did immense general harm for the benefit only of Israel and Saudi Arabia and their US
stooges.
The US pulling out of the deal would at least bring that issue of US dishonesty on Iran and
past European appeasement of it to a head, I suppose.
John
Jeremiah Smith ,
October 13, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT
Trump is an egotistical jackass, nothing else. A liar from the git-go, and a completely ineffective
leader, ideologue and President. He's not going to last much longer. I will take note that he
did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety. But, he has molted into a complete
fuckup.Goodbye, good riddance. Let's get ready to deal with the next wacko -- Pence.
Assuming they won't kill Pence with the same bomb.
YetAnotherAnon
,
October 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT
@Mark James
"As for Trump I think it's crystal clear his campaign involved the Russians in our election.
"
It's crystal clear that some people will believe any crap that The Media Formerly Known As
Hillary's broadcast.
reiner
Tor ,
October 13, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT
@John Jeremiah Smith
I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety.
Often I feel like it'd be better if Hillary did the same insane policies. It's always worse
when our guy does something wrong, and better when the hated enemy does it.
Hillary was a danger that she would start WW3 in Syria, but I don't think we can be certain
she'd have started it. Given how risk-averse women are in general, I think the only issue was
whether the Russians could've made it clear that shooting at Russian soldiers would mean war with
Russia. And I think even Hillary's advisers would've blinked.
On the other hand, I don't think Hillary would be nearly as insane on North Korea or Iran.
As a bonus, she would be accelerating the demise of the US, by introducing ever more insane domestic
policies, things like gay, transsexual and female quotas in US Special Forces. This would ultimately
be a good thing, destroying or weakening US power which is currently only used to evil ends in
the world.
reiner
Tor ,
October 13, 2017 at 5:07 pm GMT
@Randal
Unfortunately I can see Orbán and the Poles torpedoing a common EU stance. I'm sure that will
be the price for Netanyahu's meeting with the V4 leaders a few months ago.
reiner
Tor ,
October 13, 2017 at 5:15 pm GMT
I think one good thing would be if US conservatives stopped their Reagan worship. He was certainly
not a bad person, but he allowed the amnesty to happen, couldn't stop the sanctions on Apartheid
South Africa, didn't (or couldn't?) do anything against the MLK cult becoming a state religion,
and started the free trade and tax cuts cults, he's also responsible for promoting the neocons
to positions of power. So overall he was a mixed bag from a nationalist conservative viewpoint.
Chris Mallory
,
October 13, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT
@Mark James
Private citizens are forbidden to ask for help from a foreign country, when the US Government
is trying to prevent alien forces from interfering in our electoral process.
You forgot the Clintons, Bush, McCain, Romney, and Obama. China and Israel worked on behalf
of all five of them, even though three of them lost
Randal
,
October 13, 2017 at 5:33 pm GMT
@reiner Tor
Yes, that's quite possible, but a common EU stance is not really all that important. What really
matters is how far the Germans, and to a lesser extent the less relevant but still big European
nations such as France and Italy and the more subservient US tool, the UK, are prepared to continue
to kowtow to US and Israeli dishonesty on Iran.
All the signs seem to be that repudiating the deal and trying to return to the days of the
aggressive and counter-productive US-imposed sanctions will be a step too far for many of those
players.
As a bonus, she would be accelerating the demise of the US, by introducing ever more insane
domestic policies, things like gay, transsexual and female quotas in US Special Forces. This
would ultimately be a good thing, destroying or weakening US power which is currently only
used to evil ends in the world.
Actually I suspect that repudiating the JCPOA, whether openly or by de facto breach, will go
immensely farther, and much faster, towards destroying practical US influence and therefore power
globally than any of those domestic policies, at least in the short run.
You can see that Trump is at least dimly aware of that likelihood from the way he keeps bottling
and postponing the decision, despite his clearly evident and desperate desire to please his pro-Israeli
and anti-Iranian advisers and instincts.
John
Jeremiah Smith ,
October 13, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT
@reiner Tor
On the other hand, I don't think Hillary would be nearly as insane on North Korea or Iran.
An election of Hillary meant open borders. That is official, rapid and deliberate national
suicide. All foreign policy issues pale before such a horror.
reiner
Tor ,
October 13, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT
@John Jeremiah Smith
1) There's a chance foreign policy insanity starts a nuclear war, in which case all domestic
policy issues will pale before such horror.
2) The US already has de facto open borders. Why does it matter if it becomes majority nonwhite
in 30 or just 20 years?
3) For non-American whites, it's better the earlier the US sphere disintegrates. I bet you
it's better for American whites as well. As long as this political/cultural center holds, the
rot cannot be stopped.
The Alarmist ,
October 13, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT
I watched the movie Independence Day last night: Can we have that guy for President after
Trump, or do we have to have an obligatory Democrat (Chelsea Clinton?) President for the next
8 years?
German_reader
,
October 13, 2017 at 6:57 pm GMT
@John Jeremiah Smith
An election of Hillary meant open borders. That is official, rapid and deliberate national
suicide. All foreign policy issues pale before such a horror.
That's understandable, but obviously the calculation must be somewhat different from a non-US
perspective. Given how strongly many white Americans are in favor of pro-war policies and mindless
Israel worship (how many US blacks or Hispanics care about Israel or confronting Iran?), I'm not
even sure nationalists in Europe should really lament the Hispanicization of the US. It might
at least have a positive effect in restricting US interventionism and eroding US power. The sooner
the US is unable to continue with its self-appointed role as a global redeemer nation, the better.
RadicalCenter
,
October 13, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT
@Mark James
Glad you think it's "crystal clear." How about evidence?
nsa
,
October 13, 2017 at 9:10 pm GMT
History repeats first as tragedy (crushing the spoiled unionized mostly white air traffic controllers),
then as farce (crushing the spoiled unionized mostly afro NFL jocks). Reagan was at least an American
Firster. Trumpenstein is an obvious traitorous Izzie Firster, with little concern for the so-called
deplorables except to convert them into deployables at the service of his jooie sponsors. Maybe
Paddy should have titled his screed "Heir to Begin, not Reagan"?
Aren
Haich ,
October 13, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT
Pat Buchanan points out that " it is far more likely that a major war would do for the Trump presidency
and his place in history what it did for Presidents Wilson, Truman, LBJ and George W. Bush."
As for President Trump; Let us hope that war DOES NOT BECOME "The Last Refuge Of This Scoundrel"!
John Gruskos ,
October 13, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT
@reiner Tor
Orban has been critical of regime change wars.
John Gruskos ,
October 13, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT
@German_reader
Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority non-White
jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).
If only non-White votes were counted, Hillary Clinton would have been elected unanimously by
the electoral college, and Hillary is more of a war-monger than Trump is.
The few reliable voices for foreign policy sanity in congress, such as Senator Rand Paul and
Congressmen Walter Jones, John Duncan, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash, represent overwhelmingly
White, Protestant, old-stock American districts.
German_reader
,
October 13, 2017 at 10:39 pm GMT
@John Gruskos
Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority
non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).
Maybe, but is there any data indicating many blacks in Washington DC actually voted in the
Republican primaries? Why would they when most of them are a solid Democrat voting block? I'd
guess Rubio got his votes from white elites in DC.
As for Puerto Rico, I didn't know they actually have primaries, seems odd given they don't vote
in US presidential elections.
Hillary is more of a war-monger than Trump is.
Hillary was horrible all around, and I agree she might well have been disastrous as president
given her dangerous proposals for no-fly zones in Syria, and the potential of conflict with Russia
this entailed. But I'm no longer sure Trump is really better regarding foreign policy. His behaviour
on the North Korea issue is irresponsible imo, and his willingness to wreck the nuclear deal with
Iran at the behest of neoconservatives and Zionist donors like Sheldon Adelson is a big fat minus
in my view. Sorry, but I think you guys who hoped for something different have all been (neo-)conned.
Jonathan
Mason ,
October 13, 2017 at 11:42 pm GMT
Reagan said: My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation
that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.
Trump said: We will totally destroy North Korea if the United States is forced to defend
itself or its allies.
Reagan was a joker, Trump is a wildcard.
Carroll
Price ,
October 14, 2017 at 1:51 am GMT
The only similarities I see between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump is that both live (lived) in
a sort of la-la land, totally out of touch with reality. The only difference between them is that
Reagan had sensible people around him (like Pat Buchannan) who wrote good speeches and make good
decisions which he took full credit for. Trump, on the other hand delivers abbreviated, one-sentence
speeches via Twitter while surrounded by mental midgets with military minds.
Carroll
Price ,
October 14, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT
@Randal
There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear
ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in
the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism
Not really Randal. The Cold War was an invented war like the War on Terror that replaced just
in the nick of time, and for the same purpose, which is to justify unlimited defense budgets necessary
to sustain a bloated MIC that would not otherwise exist.
Carroll
Price ,
October 14, 2017 at 2:35 am GMT
@John Gruskos
Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority
non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).
but you're forgetting that Trump wasn't a war monger while on the campaign trail, far from
it. Which is the only reason he won the election. In other words he fooled just enough people
(like you and me) long enough to get elected. Same thing happened with peace candidate, and Nobel
Peace Prize winner, Hussein Obama. It's clearly a rigged process.
Randal
,
October 14, 2017 at 7:48 am GMT
@Carroll Price
Not really Randal. The Cold War was an invented war like the War on Terror that replaced
just in the nick of time, and for the same purpose, which is to justify unlimited defense budgets
necessary to sustain a bloated MIC that would not otherwise exist.
Well, yes and no. In both cases. It really is more complicated than that.
KA
,
October 14, 2017 at 11:18 am GMT
Reagan didn't undo Arab Israel Camp David Peace Treaty He didn't keep the Israeli side and undo
the Egyptian side of the American obligation . He kept both.
Trump is dangerous malevolent anti-American and anti- anything that hurts his ego or pocket
. He has malcontent displaced sycophants as inner circle supporters who want a piece in the pie
denied to them by the establishment .
Here is a quote from antiwar -"In other words, it's all about the war that Trump and his still-loyal
lieutenant Steve Bannon, assisted by UN ambassador Nikki Haley, have declared on the "deep state."
Also, Trump and Bannon aren't really interested in draining the foreign policy swamp in DC.
They simply want to install their own cronies who will ensure that war and globalization benefit
them rather than Kissinger and his ilk. It's a shell game designed to fool Trump's base, but the
rest of the world has kept its eye on the ball."
http://original.antiwar.com/feffer/2017/10/13/trump-signaling-unprecedented-right-turn-foreign-policy/
This war between elites have been predicted by a CT professor in an article in 2016 , to get
more serious and dangerous by 2020 . The fights among elites are not new but another pathway an
empire takes additionally to the final fate of the destruction from within
KA
,
October 14, 2017 at 11:49 am GMT
@KA
"A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable,
has been denied access to elite positions."
Another visible sign of increasing intra-elite competition and political polarization is the
fragmentation of political parties
cliodynamic research on past societies demonstrates that elite overproduction is by far the
most important of the three main historical drivers of social instability and political violence
(see Secular Cycles for this analysis).
But the other two factors in the model, popular immiseration (the stagnation and decline of
living standards) and declining fiscal health of the state (resulting from falling state revenues
and rising expenses) are also important contributors.
:
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-social-instability-lies.html#jCp
polskijoe
,
October 14, 2017 at 1:04 pm GMT
@reiner Tor
Ideally Europe would be strong together, without US and more sane policies on morals and immigration.
Yes v4 is connected to CC, Neocon, Zios.
While Polands stance on immigration, and trying to hold on to old values is good, problem is
depending on US too much, and being stuck between Russia and Germany which would isolate it from
Europe in some ways. Obviously Poles are not uniform, views on US, Russia, Germany, Ukraine are
all over the place. I wish Poland was just European (in politics) but the US-EU connection is
still strong.
polskijoe
,
October 14, 2017 at 1:16 pm GMT
Commenting on US presidents. Presidents are puppets. All of them. Modern leaders in Western world
are unlikable. Reagan at least had some balance, had some Catholic and Paleocon involvement. It
wasnt all Neocons and Zios. Im quite sure Reagan (and his dad), people like Buchanan had connections
to groups like Knights Malta or Knights Colombus. Cant prove it though. Kennedy was KC.Today
Neocon/Zionist influence is even stronger. Trump policies on NK and Iran are nuts. At best a war
is avoided.
On the other side you have Clintons, Obamas. They would destroy the US, and have similar policies
because again they are puppets. Clinton would likely be involved in Syria, just like Obama was.
German_reader
,
October 14, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT
@polskijoe
While Polands stance on immigration, and trying to hold on to old values is good, problem
is depending on US too much
Yes, that's a problem, and I think Polish national conservatives are somewhat in denial about
what the modern US stands for the "values" pushed by the US establishment today are incompatible
with the Polish right's vision for Poland (e.g. conservative values in sexual morality – no homo-lobbyism
and transgender nonsense -, strong public role of Catholicism, restrictive and selective immigration
policies that keep out Muslims).
I can understand to some degree why the Polish right is so pro-US, given history and apprehensions
about Germany and Russia, but they should at least be aware that alliance with the US could have
a rather pernicious influence on Poland itself.
Notable quotes:
"... Bardella said Bannon had helped villainise McConnell, making him a toxic symbol of the Republican establishment and an albatross around the necks of vulnerable Republicans such as Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada. A seat in Tennessee following Senator Bob Corker's announcement that he would not seek re-election in 2018 could also be a target. ..."
"... Among the "establishment" donors likely to oppose Bannon in a series of running battles are the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. Bannon himself has admitted there is not "a deep bench" of viable candidates to represent his agenda. ..."
"... "The floodgates are open. You'll see a lot of this, one after another, and Steve Bannon's going to be at the centre of it. He's one for one. It'll be a civil war; it has been for quite some time." ..."
"... Andrew Surabian, a political strategist who worked under Bannon at the White House, told USA Today: "Bannon is plotting a strategy to launch an all-out assault on the Republican establishment. I think it's fair to say that if you're tied to Mitch McConnell, any of his henchmen in the consulting class, or were a Never-Trumper during the campaign, you're not safe from a primary challenge." ..."
"... Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs ..."
Already Bannon is touring the country and meeting with candidates who will carry forward such
an agenda. He told the Bloomberg agency: "The populist-nationalist movement proved in Alabama that
a candidate with the right ideas and a grassroots organization can win big. Now, our focus is on
recruiting candidates to take over the Republican party."
The election eve rally in Alabama was a reunion of sorts of those in Bannon's political orbit.
Two potential candidates, Chris McDaniel of Mississippi and Mark Green of Tennessee, attended along
with Paul Nehlen, a primary challenger last year to the House speaker, Paul Ryan, whose campaign
was heavily promoted by Breitbart.
McDaniel described Moore's win as "incredibly inspiring" for his own challenge to Senator Roger
Wicker in 2018. "We know Mitch McConnell was rejected tonight and Roger Wicker is just another part
of Mitch McConnell's leadership apparatus," McDaniel told the Associated Press.
"We supported Donald
Trump because he was an agent of change, and he's still an agent of change. In this instance,
he must have been given bad advice to retain this particular swamp creature."
On Thursday, Bannon
spent two hours with Tom Tancredo, who worked on Nehlan's behalf and is considering a run for
Colorado governor next year. Tancredo, a former congressman, told the Guardian: "He was encouraged
by what happened in Alabama and was certainly hoping he can replicate it.
"He's trying to establish an awareness of the fact the Republican party should be standing for
the values he and others have tried to articulate over the years. It's a hugely difficult undertaking
when you consider the power of the establishment and the swamp. He just kept reiterating: 'I need
to try to save the country.'"
Asked about the prospect of a Republican civil war, Tancredo replied: "A good philosophic blood
letting is not necessarily a bad thing."
... ... ...
Bardella said Bannon had helped villainise McConnell, making him a toxic symbol of the Republican
establishment and an albatross around the necks of vulnerable Republicans such as Jeff Flake of Arizona
and Dean Heller of Nevada. A seat in Tennessee following Senator Bob Corker's announcement that he
would not seek re-election in 2018 could also be a target.
"Every dollar that is spent on a candidate by Mitch McConnell and the Republican party is a dollar
spent against them," Bardella added. "And that's because it plays right into the theme that they're
bought and paid for by the establishment."
Among the "establishment" donors likely to oppose Bannon in a series of running battles are
the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. Bannon himself has admitted there is not "a deep
bench" of viable candidates to represent his agenda.
But he can expect at least tacit backing from Trump, who was said to be furious about having backed
the wrong horse in Alabama: the president even deleted three tweets that endorsed Strange. Bannon
also has powerful benefactors in the shape of the billionaire hedge fund investor Robert Mercer and
his daughter Rebekah Mercer.
The New York Times reported that Bannon and Robert Mercer began working out a rough outline for
a "shadow party" that would advance Trump's nationalist agenda during a
five-hour meeting last month at the family's Long Island estate.
Bannon has also been consulting with Henry Kissinger and other foreign policy veterans, Bloomberg
reported, and is preparing make the threat posed by China a central cause. "If we don't get our situation
sorted with China, we'll be destroyed economically," he said.
Rick Tyler, a political analyst and former campaign spokesman for the Texas senator Ted Cruz,
said: "Roy Moore has demonstrated that the establishment and all its money can be beaten. You can
only spend so much money in Alabama before it becomes irritating: you can only stuff so much in people's
mailboxes or run so many ads on TV.
"The floodgates are open. You'll see a lot of this, one after another, and Steve Bannon's
going to be at the centre of it. He's one for one. It'll be a civil war; it has been for quite
some time."
Republican memories are still raw from 2014, when the House majority leader,
Eric Cantor, was beaten in a primary contest by Dave Brat, a little-known professor backed by
the Tea Party. But Bannon could make the establishment versus Tea Party battle look like a mere skirmish.
Andrew Surabian, a political strategist who worked under Bannon at the White House,
told USA Today: "Bannon is plotting a strategy to launch an all-out assault on the Republican
establishment. I think it's fair to say that if you're tied to Mitch McConnell, any of his henchmen
in the consulting class, or were a Never-Trumper during the campaign, you're not safe from a primary
challenge."
Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs
Notable quotes:
"... The Tea Party recognizes that "one of the primary sort of marks of the triumph of neoliberalism in the US is a very high tolerance of illegal immigration, and that illegal immigration is the kind of one plus ultra of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires." The rise of illegal immigration represents a new form of capitalism, as opposed to the old "meritorious" capitalism of the post-war period. When right-wing ideologues attack "communism," the argument goes, they are actually conceptualizing neoliberalism. ..."
"... Michaels concedes that the Tea Party is a disproportionately upper middle class movement, but argues that even segments of the top twenty percentile of Americans by income have been hit hard in recent decades. ..."
"... The top one percent have been the big winners of the neoliberal era, while the other 19 percent in that bracket anxiously see their position falter in comparison. ..."
"... people in the Tea Party movement have a problem that is realer than "White male status anxiety," that the economic shifts that are taking place, the more and more extreme inequality, the more and more going to the top, no doubt some people may be unhappy because of loss of status, but many millions more are going to be unhappy because of the loss of actual money. ..."
Ideas spread in all sorts of directions. I've heard Christian right "intellectuals"
haphazardly invoke Gramsci and counter-hegemony and I myself have spent more of my youth than
I'm willing to admit reading back issues of National Review . It's probably less
of a stretch that some Tea Partiers have favorably nodded toward the ideas on their movement
that our friend Walter Benn Michaels expresses in his interview in the inaugural
Jacobin .
Here's my summary of Michaels's argument on the Tea Party and immigration, which brings up
the question, a question that shouldn't really be a question at all, about the left and open
borders. (My thoughts on the over-hyped and over-exposed Tea Party can be found over at
New Politics .)
Michaels identifies the Tea Party as a reaction against neoliberalism. He doesn't view the
challenge as a serious one, but also stresses that the movement, "is not simply a reaction
against neoliberalism from the old racist right." Michaels contests the American left's desire
to summarily reduce the Tea Party to racists: "They're thrilled when some Nazis come out and
say 'Yeah, we support the Tea Party' or some member of the Tea Party says something racist,
which is frequently enough." Michaels finds the subversive content of their political program
in an opposition to illegal immigration.
The Tea Party recognizes that "one of the primary sort of marks of the triumph of
neoliberalism in the US is a very high tolerance of illegal immigration, and that illegal
immigration is the kind of one plus ultra of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires."
The rise of illegal immigration represents a new form of capitalism, as opposed to the old
"meritorious" capitalism of the post-war period. When right-wing ideologues attack "communism,"
the argument goes, they are actually conceptualizing neoliberalism.
Michaels concedes that the Tea Party is a disproportionately upper middle class movement,
but argues that even segments of the top twenty percentile of Americans by income have been hit
hard in recent decades.
The top one percent have been the big winners of the neoliberal era,
while the other 19 percent in that bracket anxiously see their position falter in comparison.
Responding to those who place the roots of this angst in the growing diversification of the
elite, Michaels says:
. . . people in the Tea Party movement have a problem that is realer than "White male
status anxiety," that the economic shifts that are taking place, the more and more extreme
inequality, the more and more going to the top, no doubt some people may be unhappy because
of loss of status, but many millions more are going to be unhappy because of the loss of
actual money. So my point isn't really to deny the phenomenon of status anxiety, it's just to
point out the extraordinary eagerness of American liberals to identify racism as the problem,
so that anti-racism (rather than anti-capitalism) can be the solution.
Michaels's conclusion is, in sum, that students of Friedrich Hayek and exalters of Ayn Rand
are the most visible source of resistance to neoliberalism on the American scene. Such a view,
I believe, is as contradictory as it appears...
Bhaskar Sunkara is the founding editor of Jacobin .
Notable quotes:
"... If Only The God-Emperor Knew: Using Trump_vs_deep_state Against The Trump Administration" ..."
"... Republican Sen. Corker announces he won't seek re-election ..."
"... Associated Press, ..."
"... Corker's departure is widely being interpreted as a sign of the Establishment's inability to control the GOP base, as the election of President Trump, the rise of nationalism and the emergence of alternative media outlets (such as Breitbart and VDARE.com) make it harder for cuckservatives to Republican primary voters in line [ Sen. Bob Corker's retirement is notable for when it's happening ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... And now, we have the ultimate proof in Alabama. Judge Roy Moore, one of the most persistent targets of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is now the Republican nominee for the Senate. And he defeated incumbent Senator Luther Strange despite Strange being endorsed by President Donald J. Trump himself. ..."
"... Of course, Strange didn't just have Trump in his corner. He also had Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell using his PAC to run negative ads against Moore, ads which conservative websites called "defamatory" and which cost many millions of dollars [ McConnell's Super PAC accused of 'defaming ' Roy Moore ..."
"... McConnell's mortal enemy might soon be in his caucus ..."
"... Alabama rally: Trump campaigns in last-ditch effort for Senate candidate Luther Strange ..."
"... President Trump admits he doesn't 'know that much' about Alabama Senate contender Roy Moore, gets his name wrong in interview ..."
"... New York Daily News, ..."
"... During a debate with Strange, Moore suggested President Trump was being "redirected" by Mitch McConnell and others who "will not support his [Trump's] agenda" [ Alabama Senate debate erupts over whether McConnell is manipulating Trump ..."
"... Brexit Hero Farage in Alabama: Judge Roy Moore 'Not Going To Be Sucked Into The Swamp' ..."
"... Sarah Palin endorses Judge Roy Moore for US Senate ..."
"... Western Journalism, ..."
"... Ben Carson Splits With Trump, Basically Endorses Roy Moore in Alabama ..."
"... Talking Points Memo, ..."
"... Gorka: Trump Was Pressured to Endorse 'Swamp Dweller' Strange ..."
"... , Fox News, ..."
"... The Breitbart Universe Unites For Roy Moore ..."
"... The Atlantic, ..."
"... Trump's advisors seem to know this. In the Fox News ..."
"... Roy Moore Wins Senate G.O.P. Runoff in Alabama ..."
"... How Alabama Senate Election Results Could Trigger Trump's Impeachment ..."
"... Trump supports Strange, but says it may be "mistake," ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... Roy Moore: 'I can't wait' for Trump to 'campaign like hell' for me ..."
"... Washington Examiner, ..."
"... Chamber of Commerce: 'Shut Down' Roy Moore & 'Remind Bannon Who's In Charge' ..."
"... Trump should seize on the narrative of his supposed opponents. He is unquestionably being given objectively poor political counsel by his aides!not surprising how utterly incompetent the Republican Establishment is when it comes to political strategy. [ Steve Bannon: We Need A Review After This Alabama Race To See How Trump Came To Endorse Someone Like Luther Strange ..."
"... Trump's N.F.L. Critique a Calculated Attempt to Shore Up His Base ..."
"... New York Times, ..."
"... Today, those who defeated Trump in the Republican army are still proclaiming their loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief. But Donald Trump, memes aside, is not a sovereign or just a symbol. He is a man who created a political movement!and that movement expects results. The movement he created, and which put him in office, is desperate for him to lead on an America First agenda. ..."
"... If Trump does not give it results, the movement will eventually find a new leader. Roy Moore is almost certainly not that leader on a national scale. But in Alabama tonight, Moore proved he is stronger than the president himself. ..."
"... James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc. ..."
[See:
If Only The God-Emperor Knew: Using Trump_vs_deep_state Against The Trump Administration" by
James Kirkpatrick]
He must have known what was coming. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, a pillar of the cowardly
GOP Establishment , announced he would not be running for re-election on Tuesday [
Republican Sen. Corker announces he won't seek re-election , by Richard
Lardner and Erik Schelzig, Associated Press, September 26, 2017]. Corker's
departure is widely being interpreted as a sign of the Establishment's inability to control the
GOP base, as the election of President Trump, the rise of nationalism and the emergence of
alternative media outlets (such as Breitbart and VDARE.com) make it harder for cuckservatives
to Republican primary voters in line [
Sen. Bob Corker's retirement is notable for when it's happening , by
Amber Phillips, Washington Post, September 26, 2017]
And now, we have the ultimate proof in Alabama.
Judge Roy Moore, one of the most
persistent
targets of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is now the Republican nominee for the Senate.
And he defeated incumbent Senator Luther Strange despite Strange being
endorsed by President Donald J. Trump himself.
Of course, Strange didn't just have Trump in his corner. He also had Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell using his PAC to run negative ads against Moore, ads which conservative
websites called "defamatory" and which cost many millions of dollars [ McConnell's
Super PAC accused of 'defaming ' Roy Moore , by Bob Unruh, WND,
August 3, 2017] As a result, Judge Moore openly campaigned against his party's own Senate
leader during the primary, claiming a victory for him would mean the end of McConnell's hapless
leadership. [ McConnell's
mortal enemy might soon be in his caucus , by Burgess Everett and Seung Min
Kim, Politico, September 18, 2017]
However, and significantly, Moore never campaigned against President Trump himself. Yet
Trump certainly gave Moore ample cause. He openly campaigned for Luther Strange, speaking with
the incumbent Senator at a major rally, with Strange sporting a red MAGA hat [
Alabama rally: Trump campaigns in last-ditch effort for Senate candidate Luther
Strange , by Alex Pappas, Fox News, September 22, 2017]. Trump also
said Moore would have a hard time beating the Democrats because they would pour in so much
money. He even called Moore by the wrong first name [
President Trump admits he doesn't 'know that much' about Alabama Senate contender Roy
Moore, gets his name wrong in interview , by Jason Silverstein, New York
Daily News, September 25, 2017]
And yet, revealingly, Moore and his allies framed their insurgency against Trump's wishes as
an act of loyalty.
During a debate with Strange, Moore suggested President Trump was being "redirected" by
Mitch McConnell and others who "will not support his [Trump's] agenda" [
Alabama Senate debate erupts over whether McConnell is manipulating Trump
, by Alex Isenstadt and Daniel Strauss, Politico, September 21,
2017]
UKIP's former leader Nigel Farage said "absolutely" that "the point is to help the
president" by electing Roy Moore and suggested The Judge would help deliver on President
Trump's agenda [
Brexit Hero Farage in Alabama: Judge Roy Moore 'Not Going To Be Sucked Into The
Swamp' by Ian Mason, Breitbart, September 25, 2017]
Sarah Palin channeled Trump's rhetoric by saying Moore would take on "DC's swamp
monsters" and "help Make America Great Again" [ Sarah
Palin endorses Judge Roy Moore for US Senate , by Randy DeSoto, Western
Journalism, August 24, 2017]
Some of President Trump's best-known advisors also backed Moore.
Ben Carson, one of President Trump's own Cabinet secretaries, essentially endorsed Moore,
saying he was "delighted" he was running and that he "wished him well" [
Ben Carson Splits With Trump, Basically Endorses Roy Moore in Alabama ,
by Cameron Joseph, Talking Points Memo, September 22, 2017]. Sebastian Gorka
endorsed Moore, hinted the president was pressured into backing Strange, and said it would be
a "very great day" for Trump if Strange was defeated [
Gorka: Trump Was Pressured to Endorse 'Swamp Dweller' Strange , Fox
News, September 23, 2017]. And of course, Breitbart's
Steve Bannon endorsed Moore, but said "we did not come here to defy Donald Trump, we came
here to praise and honor him" [
The Breitbart Universe Unites For Roy Moore , by Rosie Gray, The
Atlantic, September 26, 2017]
Even before Trump's inauguration, when there were troubling signs the new President was
surrounding himself with the Republican Establishment,
it was clear that the President's supporters would need to rise against Trump in his own
name . The victory of Roy Moore is the best example so far of how this insurgency will play
out.
And most importantly, it shows how the populist and nationalist movement is larger than
Trump himself.
Trump's advisors seem to know this. In the Fox News interview referenced above,
Dr. Gorka claimed "no one voted for Trump, we voted for his agenda." And during his speech in support of Moore,
Bannon referenced Jeff Sessions, not Trump, as
the "spiritual father of the populist and nationalist movement."
But does Trump himself know this? Already, the Main Stream Media is trying to present this
as a devastating defeat for the president personally. The New York Times kvetched
about Moore's social views and sneered that his victory "demonstrated in stark terms the limits
of Mr. Trump's clout" [
Roy Moore Wins Senate G.O.P. Runoff in Alabama , by Jonathan Martin and
Alexander Burns, September 26, 2017]. Jason Le Miere at Newsweek suggested Trump had
suffered his first major political defeat at the ballot box and hinted his political weakness
could trigger his impeachment. [ How
Alabama Senate Election Results Could Trigger Trump's Impeachment , September
26, 2017]
This wildly overstates the case. Trump had hedged his bets, suggesting at one point he made
a "mistake" in endorsing Strange [
Trump supports Strange, but says it may be "mistake," Washington Post,
September 25, 2017]. He also said he would "campaign like hell" for Moore if Moore won [
Roy Moore: 'I can't wait' for Trump to 'campaign like hell' for me , by
Sean Langille, Washington Examiner, September 25, 2017].
It's hardly a devastating defeat for President Trump when his supposed enemies are
fanatically loyal to him and his "allies" can't wait to stab him in the back.
But there is still a lesson for Trump. The Chamber of
Commerce and
Republican Establishment picked this fight to "shut down" Moore and show populists who was
in charge. [
Chamber of Commerce: 'Shut Down' Roy Moore & 'Remind Bannon Who's In Charge'
by Joel Pollak, Breitbart, September 24, 2017] They just got their answer. It's not
them.
Trump should seize on the narrative of his supposed opponents. He is unquestionably
being given objectively poor political counsel by his aides!not surprising how utterly
incompetent the Republican Establishment is when it comes to political strategy. [
Steve Bannon: We Need A Review After This Alabama Race To See How Trump Came To Endorse
Someone Like Luther Strange , by Allahpundit, Hot Air, September 26,
2017]
Tellingly, Trump in his messy intuitive way is already embarking on a movement to shore up
his base by taking on the pro-Black Lives Matter and anti-American antics of the National
Football League [ Trump's
N.F.L. Critique a Calculated Attempt to Shore Up His Base , by Glenn Thrush
and Maggie Haberman, New York Times, September 25, 2017]. But such symbolic fights are
meaningless unless they are coupled with real action on trade and immigration policy.
Today, those who defeated Trump in the Republican army are still proclaiming their
loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief. But Donald Trump, memes aside, is not a sovereign or just
a symbol. He is a man who created a political movement!and that movement expects results. The
movement he created, and which put him in office, is desperate for him to lead on an America
First agenda.
If Trump does not give it results, the movement will eventually find a new leader. Roy
Moore is almost certainly not that leader on a national scale. But in Alabama tonight, Moore
proved he is stronger than the president himself.
Trump has given the Establishment Republicans their chance and they have failed him. It's
time for him to return to the people who have supported him from the very beginning.
James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from
Conservatism Inc.
Parsifal > ,
September 27, 2017 at 7:44 am GMT
Look people, it's time to grasp some basic politics. The heart might have said Roy Moore
but a leader can not think with his heart alone. Whatever happened in the GOP primary, Luther
Strange was going to remain in the Senate until January. There are big, important votes
coming up in Congress and Trump's margin of error in the Senate is virtually non-existent.
What sense does it make to alienate, even slight, a sitting Senator that has always voted
your way and has never trashed you in public?
Realist > ,
September 27, 2017 at 8:13 am GMT
Moore's victory means nothing. If Moore is elected it will change nothing. The Deep State
rules .they will eat Moore for lunch.
"Trump has given the Establishment Republicans their chance and they have failed him."
Trump has caved to the Establishment Republicans. He will never return.
Randal > ,
September 27, 2017 at 9:20 am GMT
All seems pretty much directly on target.
It's hardly a devastating defeat for President Trump when his supposed enemies are
fanatically loyal to him and his "allies" can't wait to stab him in the back.
As a man who supposedly highly values personal loyalty, does Trump really not understand
that the men who pushed him to support Strange are also the men who will be first in line to
vote for impeachment the moment it looks as though the leftist establishment has found a
pretext that will succeed?
Greg Bacon > ,
Website
September 27, 2017 at 9:28 am GMT
Like Bannon said, the Trump people voted for is gone. If he was ever around, or just being
smart enough to know what to say to get votes.
President Kushner, er Trump will not be draining any Swamp anytime soon, not until he
drags himself out of the Swamp and back onto sane, dry land.
WhiteWolf > ,
September 27, 2017 at 9:41 am GMT
The movement better start paying attention to the thoughtcrime laws being passed right now
under the banner of "hatespeech". The first amendment isn't just a nice concept. People in
other countries are jailed for speaking their mind in the way Americans take for granted.
Notable quotes:
"... We should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President, Moore writes on his site. We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated. ..."
"... It's too early to tell whether the nationalist hawks will be more or less interventionist overall than the internationalist, neocon hawks were, Daniel McCarthy, editor-at-large at the American Conservative ..."
...Steve Bannon told me Wednesday afternoon that he and Moore, who defeated Sen. Luther
Strange (whom President Trump had backed) for the Republican primary nomination in Alabama on
Tuesday, see eye to eye on global affairs, as well, and that, yes, he is every bit the
Bannonite on foreign policy.
Moore, the twice-ousted Alabama Chief Justice, is likely headed to the United States Senate.
Bannon and the Trump movement have often been depicted as essentially non-interventionist. My
recent
reporting indicates
a
caveat to that, however. While Bannon and his cohort might differ with the
blob on confronting Kim Jong Un in North Korea or Bashar al-Assad in Syria or Vladimir
Putin in Russia, they are much more suspicious of the government of Iran. ...
... ... ...
The judges website, Roymoore.org, features such language. We should not be entangled in
foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President, Moore writes on his site. We must
treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated.
But there are notable divergences from the paleocons. Like Bannon, Moore is a hawk for
Israel. We should pass the
Taylor Force Act and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. His writing that the U.S. should
not rely on nuclear reduction treaties which leave us vulnerable to foreign powers and that it
should reject agreements or policies that undermine Israel's security clearly alludes to the
Iran deal. The pair would part company with Buchanan on that.
And like President Trump, Moore, a graduate of West Point, wants a bigger military. More
funding should be available to develop a missile defense system and to provide our Navy, Air
Force, Army, Marines, and Coast Guard with the most modern technology including weapon systems.
Respect for our strength is the best defense. Walk softly and carry a big stick is and should
be our guide.
... ... ...
It's too early to tell whether the nationalist hawks will be more or less
interventionist overall than the internationalist, neocon hawks were, Daniel McCarthy,
editor-at-large at the American Conservative , tells me. My guess is that while the
nationalists will speak more provocatively, abort diplomatic agreements, and ramp up `political
warfare, they'll engage in fewer large-scale, nation-building interventions. McCarthy adds
that religion is important here, as well. Moore and Bannon are both on record as deeply
religious. Neoconservative foreign policy is sold as a scheme for secular salvation, bringing
the blessings of liberalism and democracy and human rights to a world that eagerly awaits them,
says McCarthy. Moore's religious convictions might help to immunize him against a belief in
worldly salvation through American arms and advisers...
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on
Twitter: @CurtMills.
Notable quotes:
"... over $100 million ..."
"... Jeb's 2016 departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , ..."
"... Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency ..."
"... Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyon ..."
"... Tensions Between and Within the Two Parties, ..."
"... When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years." ..."
"... Devil's Bargain ..."
"... the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules!for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days. ..."
"... Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017] ..."
"... But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing. ..."
"... Nixon's White House Wars ..."
Republished from
VDare.com
Throughout 2016, I would occasionally turn on the television to see how the punditocracy was responding to the mounting
Trump tsunami . If you get most of your news online, watching cable news is frustrating. The commentary is so
dumbed down and painfully
reflective of speaker's biases, you can always basically guess what's coming next. With a few exceptions!above all
Ann Coulter 's famous
June 19, 2015 prediction
of a Trump victory on
Bill Maher !these pundits again and again told us that Trump would eventually go away, first after he made this or that gaffe,
then after he "failed" in a debate, then after people actually started voting in the primaries.
Finally, after having been wrong at every point during the primaries, they just as confidently predicted that the Republican primary
voter had foolishly done nothing more
than
assure that Hillary Clinton would be the next president.
The most interesting cases to me: the "
Republican
strategists ," brought on to CNN and MSNBC to give the audience the illusion that they were hearing both sides: Nicole Wallace,
Steve Schmidt, Ana Navarro, Rick Wilson, Margaret Hoover, Todd Harris.
Mike Murphy even convinced donors to hand him over $100 million to make Jeb Bush the next president! [
Jeb's 2016
departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , By Maeve Reston, February 22, 2016]
With campaigns and donors throwing money at these people, and the Main Stream Media touting them, it was easy to assume they must
know what they were talking about. Significantly, each of these pundits was a national security hawk, center-right on economic issues,
and just as horrified by "
racism " and "
sexism
" as their
Leftist counterparts . By a remarkable coincidence, the "
strategic
" advice that they gave to Republican candidates lined up perfectly with these positions. Their prominence was a mirage created
by the fact that the
MSM handed this
token opposition the
Megaphone
because they did not challenge the core prejudices of the
bipartisan Ruling Class.
And of course they were all humiliated in a spectacular fashion, November 8 being only the climax.
Joshua Green begins his book
Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon,
Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency by giving us a view inside the Trump campaign on election night, before
tracing Steve Bannon's path up to that point. Reliving the journey is one of the joys of Green's work, which is mostly an intellectual
biography of Steve Bannon,
with a special focus on his relationship with Trump and the election.
Bannon
joined the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016 without any previous experience in electoral politics. But like the candidate
himself, the Breitbart editor showed that he understood the nature of American politics and the GOP base
better than Establishment Republicans. The "strategists'" supposed "expertise," "strategic advice," and "analysis" was in reality
built on a house of cards. (In fact, the
Bannon-Trump
view of the electorate is closer to the
consensus among
political scientists that, unlike more nationalist and populist policies,
Republican Establishment positions have relatively little popular support. [
Political
Divisions in 2016 and Beyon d | Tensions Between and Within the Two Parties, Voter Study Group, June 2017]).
One key example: Green recounts how after Obama's re-election, the GOP Establishment was
eager to surrender
on immigration, supporting
the bipartisan Amnesty/ Immigration Surge Gang of Eight
bill
. GOP leaders had
neutralized Fox News, leaving Breitbart.com, talk radio
and guerilla websites like VDARE.com as the only resistance. But the bill died due to a grass-roots revolt, partly inspired by Breitbart's
reporting on the flood of
Central American "child" refugees t he Obama Regime was
allowing across the southern border. GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his
congressional seat in a
shock upset in the primaries. And little over a year later,
Donald Trump became a candidate for president with opposition to illegal immigration as his signature issue.
Bannon at Breitbart.com gave the Republican base what it wanted. Moral: in a democracy, you always have a chance at winning when
public opinion (or at least intraparty opinion) is on your side.
Green traces Bannon's journey from his
Irish-Catholic working-class
roots and traditionalist upbringing, to his time in the Navy, at Harvard Business School and Goldman Sachs, and finally Breitbart.com
and the pinnacle of American politics. The picture that
emerges is of a man with principles and vigor, refusing to submit to the inertia that is part of the human condition, with enough
confidence to realize that life is too short to not make major changes when staying on the current path is not going to allow him
to accomplish his goals.
For example, Bannon originally wanted a career in defense policy, and took a job in the Pentagon during the Reagan administration.
Yet he was off to Harvard Business School when he realized that the rigid
bureaucracy that he was a part of would not let him move up to a high-level position until he was middle-aged. Decades later,
after taking over his website upon the unexpected death
of Andrew Breitbart in 2012, it would have been easy to go low-risk!sticking to Establishment scripts, making life comfortable
for Republican elites, implicitly submitting to the taboos of the Left.
Instead , he helped turn Breitbart News into a major voice of the populist tide that has been remaking center-right politics
across the globe.
When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man
who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years."
From Green, we learn much about Bannon's intellectual influences. Surprisingly, although he was raised as a Roman Catholic and
maintains that faith today, we find out that Bannon briefly practiced Zen Buddhism while in the Navy. There are other unusual influences
that make appearances in the book, including Rightist philosopher
Julius Evola and
René Guénon,
a French occultist who eventually became a Sufi Muslim. Although not exactly my cup of tea, such eccentric intellectual interests
reflect a curious mind that refuses to restrict itself to fashionable influences.
It's incorrect to call Devil's Bargain a biography. There is practically no mention of Bannon's personal life!wives,
children. I had to Google to find out that he has three daughters. His childhood is only discussed in the context of how it may have
influenced his beliefs and political development.
Rather, we get information on Bannon's intellectual and career pursuits and his relationships with consequential figures such
as mega-donor Robert Mercer, Andrew Breitbart and Donald Trump.
As Bannon exits the White House and returns to Breitbart, we must hope that Bannon and the movement he's helped to create accomplish
enough in the future to inspire more complete biographies.
But the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment
may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules!for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many
members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful
in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed,
without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was
too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their
candidate off to Arizona in the final days.
Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White
House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [
Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017]
But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald
Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an
election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing.
In his memoir Nixon's White House Wars , Pat
Buchanan writes about how, despite playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was
mostly shut out
of high-level jobs:
Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our movement had exhibited real power
in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and
though we were
playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was
mostly shut out
of high-level jobs:
Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our movement had exhibited real power
in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and
though we were veterans of a victorious presidential campaign, few of us had served in the executive branch. We lacked titles,
resumes, credentials Our pool of experienced public servants who could seamlessly move into top positions was miniscule compared
to that of the liberal Democrats who had dominated the capital's politics since FDR arrived in 1933.
History repeated itself in 2016, when Donald Trump would win the presidency on a nationalist platform but find few qualified individuals
who could reliably implement his agenda.
If nationalists want to ensure that their next generation of leaders is able to effectively implement the policies they run on,
they are going to have to engage in the slow and tedious project of working their way up through powerful institutions.
Bannon may have been and remains an "outsider" to the political Establishment. But nonetheless, throughout his life he has leveraged
elite institutions such as Harvard, Goldman Sachs, the Republican Party, and even Hollywood in order to become financially independent
and free to pursue his political goals.
If enough of those on the Dissident Right forge a similar path, we can be sure that future nationalist political victories will
be less hollow. Jeremy Cooper is a specialist in international politics and an observer of global trends. Follow him at
@NeoNeoLiberal .
Clyde Wilson >
, August 29, 2017
at 12:29 pm GMT
Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the offices?
Jobless > ,
August 30, 2017 at
6:52 pm GMT
@Clyde Wilson
Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the offices? Having dabbled ever so slightly
in this process in the spring, my impression is that there is a mechanism run largely by lawyers from the big DC law firms (presumably
one for each party) who are the gatekeepers for applicants. The result of this system, which I have little doubt that the "Trump
Team" did not try to take on (after all, they had only a couple of months to put together the beginnings of a team, and that left
little or no time replacing The Swamp Machine ) is that the key positions throughout the administration are largely filled with
lawyers from connected law firms. After all, who better to administer the government than lawyers!?!?
At any rate, my experience with the process was: on your marks, get set, nothing. 30 years experience in and around federal
government, but not a lawyer. Don't call us, we don't want to talk to you. (I also made clear in my cover letter that the key
motivator for my application -- and first ever political contributions -- was Trump and his agenda. In retrospect, this "admission"
was probably a kiss of death. I was a Trumpite. Eeeewww!!! (I may well not have been qualified for anything, but I'm SURE I was
disqualified by my support for Trump )
The triumph of the Swamp.
Clyde Wilson > ,
August 30, 2017 at
9:08 pm GMT
We have here perhaps the key to Trump's tragic failure. It was our last shot.
In its aftermath, commentators warned of a resurgence of economic nationalism, that is,
protectionism. Some states did increase tariff levels but this has not led to a generalised
increase in barriers to trade in the pursuit of national economies for interrelated reasons:
(1) the integration and therefore interdependency of economies; (2) the complexity of the
global economy, making it all but impossible to separate by nationality; (3) the greater
extensity of world markets compared to the mid-20th century; (4) the redundancy of the various
models of economic nationalism.
Policy Implications
- Economic nationalism should be understood as a set of practices to create, bolster and
protect national economies in the context of world markets. The rise and institutionalisation
of economic nationalism in the 20th century was a product of economic crisis, nationalist
movements and enlarged states.
- There has been no 'return of economic nationalism' as in a generalised rise in protective
barriers to trade since the financial crash of 2011. Unlike the 1930s, sovereign debt has not
motivated states to withdraw from global markets.
- The integration, complexity and extensity of the world's economy mean that a reversal of
trade as great as during the interwar period would entail an economic Armageddon. Whatever
future ructions the world's economy experiences due, above all, to chronic levels of
sovereign debt, policy makers should be mindful of this reality.
- Simultaneously, they should be aware that ongoing instability may entail greater economic
nationalism. The key lesson from the period after the Second World War is relevant now at a
more overtly global level: the importance of planning, regulation and respect for models of
economic diversity to further global trade.
Anti-globalism of alt-right is very important...
Notable quotes:
"... neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right. ..."
"... The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives. ..."
"... The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means. ..."
"... The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. ..."
"... The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another ..."
- The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of
the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt
Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and
neocons are not Alt Right.
National Socialists are not Alt Right.
- The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that
is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's
10 Conservative
Principles
, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative
to libertarianism.
- The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled
defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt
Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality,
cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
- The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and
supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the
Graeco-Roman legacy.
- The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the
right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and
immigration.
-
The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals
or globalist objectives.
- The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason
it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist
in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
- The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the
scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future
revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called
scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically
unscientific.
- The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
-
The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by
another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is
opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through
nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
- The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
- The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
- The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free
trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of
international free trade.
- The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for
white children.
-
The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people,
or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique
strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native
culture it prefers.
-
The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the
world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another
as well as
efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic
assimilation.
TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and
the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.
The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote:
"The great line of demarcation in
modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one
side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women
who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only
needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that
line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant
human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."
This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern
politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined
by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic
heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end,
because the former is subject to change.
Rejection of globalization by alt-right is very important. that's why make them economic nationalists.
And that's why they are hated neocon and those forces of neoliberalism which are behind Neocon/Neolib
Cultural Revolution -- promotion of LGBT, uni-gender bathrooms, transsexuals, etc, identity wedge in
politics demonstrated by Hillary, etc. (modeled on Mao's cultural revolution, which also what launched
when Mao started to lose his grip on political power).
In my experience with the alt-right, I encountered a surprisingly common narrative: Alt-right supporters
did not, for the most part, come from overtly racist families. Alt-right media platforms have actually
been pushing this meme aggressively in recent months. Far from defending the ideas and institutions
they inherited, the alt-right!which is overwhelmingly a movement of white millennials!forcefully
condemns their parents' generation. They do so because they do not believe their parents are racist
enough
In an inverse of the left-wing protest movements of the 1960s, the youthful alt-right bitterly
lambast the "boomers" for their lack of explicit ethnocentrism, their rejection of patriarchy, and
their failure to maintain America's old demographic characteristics and racial hierarchy. In the
alt-right's vision, even older conservatives are useless "cucks" who focus on tax policies and forcefully
deny that they are driven by racial animus.
... ... ...
To complicate matters further, many people in the alt-right were radicalized while in college. Not
only that, but the efforts to inoculate the next generation of America's social and economic leaders
against racism were, in some cases, a catalyst for racist radicalization. Although academic seminars
that explain the reality of white privilege may reduce feelings of prejudice among most young whites
exposed to them, they have the opposite effect on other young whites. At this point we do not know
what percentage of white college students react in such a way, but the number is high enough to warrant
additional study.
A final problem with contemporary discussions about racism is that they often remain rooted in
outdated stereotypes. Our popular culture tends to define the racist as a toothless illiterate Klansman
in rural Appalachia, or a bitter, angry urban skinhead reacting to limited social prospects. Thus,
when a white nationalist movement arises that exhibits neither of these characteristics, people are
taken by surprise.
George Hawley (@georgehawleyUA) is an assistant professor of political science at the University
of Alabama. His books include Right-Wing Critics
of American Conservatism , White Voters in
21st Century America , and
Making Sense of the Alt-Right (forthcoming).
Nate J , says:
August 24, 2017 at 10:35 pm
It boggles my mind that the left, who were so effective at dominating the culture wars basically
from the late 60s, cannot see the type of counter-culture they are creating. Your point about
alt-righters opposing their parents drives this home.
People have been left to drift in a sea of postmodernism without an anchor for far too long
now, and they are grasping onto whatever seems sturdy. The alt-right, for its many faults, provides
something compelling and firm to grab.
The left's big failure when all the dust settles will be seen as its inability to provide a
coherent view of human nature and a positive, constructive, unifying message. They are now the
side against everything – against reason, against tradition, against truth, against shared institutions
and heritage and nationalism It's no wonder people are looking to be for something these days.
People are sick of being atomized into smaller and smaller units, fostered by the left's new and
now permanent quest to find new victim groups.
DonChi , says:
August 25, 2017 at 5:17 am
I'm disappointed to read an article at The American Conservative that fails to address the reality
behind these numbers. Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein
white people are depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward
identity politics themselves in not surprising, and it's a bit offensive to attribute this trend
to the eternal mysteries of inexplicable "racist" hate.
The young can see through the fake dynamic being depicted in the mainstream media, and unless
The American Conservative wants to completely lose relevance, a light should be shone on the elephant
in the room. For young white kids, The Culture Wars often present an existential threat, as Colin
Flaherty shows in Don't Make the Black Kids Angry–endorsed and heralded as a troubling and important
work by Thomas Sowell.
Nicholas , says:
August 25, 2017 at 7:44 am
From the 16 Points of the Alt-Right:
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right
of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist
objectives.
It is important to remember that nations are people, not geography. The current American Union,
enforced by imperial conquest, is a Multi-National empire. It has been held together by force
and more recently by common, though not equal, material prosperity.
With the imposition of Globalism's exotic perversions and eroding economic prospects the American
Union is heading for the same fate as all Multi-National empires before it.
Nation(Identity) > Culture > Politics.
KD , says:
August 25, 2017 at 9:15 am
Mysteriously absent from the scholarly discussion seems to be the pioneer of sociology, Ludwig
Gumplowicz. Incredibly so, as the same factors that led to the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire abound in contemporary America.
Steve , says:
August 25, 2017 at 9:25 am
I have two teenage sons – we live in Canada – and they tell that, no matter what they say, who
they hang out with, what music they listen to, no matter how many times they demonstrate they
are not racist, they are repeatedly called racist. They are automatically guilty because they
are white. They are beaten over the head with this message in school and in the press and are
sick and tired of it.
Todd Pierce , says:
August 25, 2017 at 10:48 am
What might also be considered is the cultural effect upon a generation which has now matured through
what the government calls "perpetual war," with the concomitant constant celebration of "warriors,"
hyper-patriotism as demanded of all public events such as shown in the fanaticism of baseball
players engaged in "National Anthem standouts," such as were popular a couple years ago in MLB,
the constant references in political campaigns to the "enemy," to include Russia as well now,
and the "stab in the back" legend created to accuse anyone opposed to more war and occupation
of "treason." We've "radicalized" our own youth, with Trump coming along with his links to Israel's
ultra militarist, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli "Right," and created a cultural condition
much like this:
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/conservative-revolutionaries-fascism/
Doc Broom , says:
August 25, 2017 at 10:49 am
Odd, you write "How did the youngest white Americans respond to the most racially polarizing election
in recent memory?" In reality it was less racially polarized than 2012, when 93 % of African Americans
and 71% of Hispanics voted for Obama while in 2016 88% of Blacks and 65% of Hispanics voted from
Hillary. So Trump won a higher percentage of African American votes and Hispanic votes than Mitt
Romney. In 2008 Obama won 95% of Blacks and 67% of Hispanics, in 2004 the numbers were 88 and
53 for Kerry so the three elections between 2004 and and 2016 were all more polarizing than the
2016 race.
Eric Mader
, says:
August 25, 2017 at 10:55 am
Yes, you make many important points, Mr. Hawley, but that you feel the need to join the chorus
of those who see our president's reaction to Charlottesville as somehow inappropriate or even
itself racist–that is sad. I don't see what else you may be implying in your opening paragraphs,
since you move directly from the number of "likes" Obama's bromide received to this: "[Obama's
reaction] also offered a stark contrast to that of President Trump."
In spite of many liberals' frantic desire to read whatever they want into President Trump's
words, he very clearly condemned the neo-Nazis and the evil of Heather Heyer's murderer. That
he also condemned the violence coming from Antifa ranks does not lessen his condemnation
of that coming from the alt right side. Rather, condemning the rising illiberalism on both sides
of this growing conflict was both commendable and necessary.
Many Americans see these recent events in a context stretching back years. Myself, at fifty,
having watched especially the steady empowerment of a demagogic left on our campuses, I'm not
much surprised that a racist "white nationalist" movement should burst into flame at just this
point. The kindling is right there in the anti-white, misandrous virulence of our SJW left.
Sane conservatives have strongly condemned the new alt-right racism. The problem is that we
are not seeing anything similar from the left. Our left seems incapable of condemning, let alone
even seeing , its own racist excesses. Which are everywhere in its discourse, especially
in our humanities departments.
I would say that in the recent decades the American left has grown much more deeply invested
in identity politics than the right has ever been during my lifetime. In my view, our left has
grown more enamored of identity issues precisely because it has abandoned the bread and butter
issues that really matter to most Americans.
I have many left-liberal friends and regularly read the left press. Surveying the reactions
to Charlottesville and the rising conflict between alt-right extremists and a radicalized Antifa
left, I see nowhere a step toward acknowledging the obvious: our rabid identity politics is by
no means just a problem of the right.
Racial identity politics is a curse. Sadly, it seems we've been cursed by it well and and good.
The poison's reaching down to the bone. Unless both smart moderates and people on the left start
to recognize just how badly poisoned our left has been by this curse, no progress will be made.
Identity politics needs to be condemned on both sides of this growing national street brawl,
and it should start NOW.
But I'm afraid it's not going to happen. I see my friends on the left, and they're nowhere
near acknowledging the problem. And I'm sad to see our president's attempt to call out both sides
has gotten such negative reactions. I'm afraid this isn't going to end well.
Todd Pierce , says:
August 25, 2017 at 11:21 am
Should read: "National Anthem standoffs," not "standouts."
Siarlys Jenkins
, says:
August 25, 2017 at 11:29 am
Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein white people are
depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward identity politics
themselves in not surprising
One of many good reasons for rejecting "identity" politics generally.
CampNouidiote , says:
August 25, 2017 at 11:34 am
A white friend attended a Cal State graduate program for counseling a couple of years ago; he
left very bitter after all his classes told him that white men were the proximate cause of the
world's misery. Then a mutual Latina friend from church invited him to coffee and told him that
he was the white devil, the cause of her oppression. You can conclude how he felt.
The liberal universities' curricula has caused a storm of madness; they have unleashed their
own form of oppressive thought on a significant portion on American society:white men. There is
now an adverse reaction. Of course, even more opprobrium will be heaped upon on men who might
question the illogicality of feminism and the left. How can all of this end well if the humanity
of white men is denied in universities, public schools and universities?
G. K. , says:
August 25, 2017 at 11:39 am
The Alt Right simply believes that Western nations have a right to preserve their culture and
heritage. Every normal man in these United States agreed with that premise prior to the Marxist
takeover of our institutions in the 1960's. And you know it's true.
Cornel Lencar , says:
August 25, 2017 at 11:41 am
Maybe at the bottom of it is not racism as in they are the wrong colour, but about cultural traits
and patterns of behaviour that are stirring resentment. Plus maybe the inclusion towards more
social benefits not available before (Obamacare?).
The current rap music, as opposed to the initial one, that emphasized social injustice is such
that one feels emptying his own stomach like sharks do.
The macho culture that black gangs, latin american gangs manifest is a bit antagonistic to
white supremacists gangs and attitudes towards women. After all, vikings going raiding used to
have shield maidens joining, and Celtic culture is full of women warriors. Northern European culture,
harking back to pre-Christian times was more kinder to women than what women from southern Europe
(Greece, Rome) experienced (total ownership by husbands, the veil, etc., all imported from the
Middle East: but one must not judge too harshly, the book "Debt, the first 5000 years" could be
an eye opener of the root causes of such attitudes).
Also, the lack of respect for human life expressed in these cultures is not that palatable,
even for white supremacists (while one can point to Nazi Germany as an outlier – but there it
was the state that promoted such attitudes, while in Japan the foreigner that is persecuted and
ostracized could be the refugee from another village around Fukushima – see the Economist on that).
So I think there are many avenues to explore in identifying the rise in Alt right and white
supremacists in the U.S. But colour is definitely not it.
Joe Beavers , says:
August 25, 2017 at 11:50 am
Come now. There were the same types around me years ago at school, work, society. They just did
not march around like Nazis in public, probably because the Greatest Generation would have kicked
their butts.
Now, with the miracle of modern technology, a few hundred of them can get together and raise
hell in one place. Plus they now get lots of encouraging internet press (and some discouraging).
A better article on this is:
http://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/keillor-my-advice-be-genial-dont-take-lunacy-too-seriously/
Jack V , says:
August 25, 2017 at 12:17 pm
This article says virtually nothing.
The author fails to define his terms, beginning with Alt-Right.
And he seems to operate from a dislike of Trump underneath it all. This dislike is common among
pundits, left and right, who consider themselves to be refined and cultured. So it was that the
NYT's early condemnation of Trump led with complaints about his bearing and manners – "vulgar"
was the word often used if memory serves.
This gets us nowhere. Many in the US are disturbed by the decline in their prospects with a decrease
in share of wages in the national income ongoing since the 1970's – before Reagan who is blamed
for it all. Add to that the 16 years of wars which have taken the lives of Trump supporters disproportionately
and you have a real basis for grievances.
Racism seems to be a side show as does AntiFa.
KD , says:
August 25, 2017 at 12:24 pm
Richard McEvoy writes:
"The accusation of being racist because you are white is a misunderstanding of structural racism."
I agree, but I notice that Jews have the same misunderstanding when you mention structural
"Zionist Occupied Government" or "Jewish Privilege".
Perhaps because they are both conspiracy theories rooted in hatred and ignorance, which is
where we descend when the concept of a statistical distribution or empirical data become "controversial",
or "feelings" overtake "facts".
Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says:
August 25, 2017 at 12:36 pm
And progressives still refer to KKK when they seek an example of a white supremacist group. Amazing.
They are too lazy even to learn that the Klan lost its relevance long ago, and the most powerful
white supremacist organization of today consists of entirely different people, who are very far
from being illiterate.
***
Todd Pierce,
Israel's ultra militarist, Benjamin Netanyahu
I won't deny that Bibi is a controversial figure, but calling him an ultra militarist is quite
a bit of a stretch.
haderondah , says:
August 25, 2017 at 1:35 pm
Elite sports. After reading this article and it's underlying thesis, it occurs to me that the
way sports have evolved in this country is very likely to be the experience that millennial whites
have had that fosters their "out group" belief systems. It is very common, using soccer as my
frame of reference, for wealthy suburban families to spend a fortune getting their children all
the best training and access to all the best clubs. Their children are usually the best players
in their community of origin and usually the top players all the way through the preadolescent
years only to find all of that money and prestige gone to waste once their kids get to around
sixteen at which point their children are invariably replaced on the roster by a recent immigrant -- mainly from Africa or south of our border and usually at a cut rate compared to the one they
are bleeding the suburban families with. I'm assuming this is becoming more common across all
sports as they move toward a pay to play corporate model. In soccer, the white kids are, seriously,
the paying customers who fill out the roster that supports the truly talented kids (from countries
who know how to develop soccer talent.)
sedric , says:
August 25, 2017 at 8:20 pm
The thing is when blacks begin to feel power and a secure place in America then their true colors
show-at least among many. Left unchecked they would become the biggest racists of all. You can
see that now. So what it comes down to are white people going to give away their country? Until
blacks become cooperative and productive things need to stay as they are. Sad maybe but that's
just the way it has to be.
vato_loco_frisco , says:
August 25, 2017 at 8:18 pm
There have always been fringe, rightwing groups in the US. Nothing new there. But the so-called
alt-right, comprised of Nazi wannabes and assorted peckerwoods, is truly the spawn of the looney
left, whose obsession with race has created the toxic environment we find ourselves in.
Notable quotes:
"... Bannon openly acknowledged his animus for the "Party of Davos" editorial positions of The Economist ..."
"... For Mr Bannon, who went from a working-class Virginian family to careers in Wall Street and Hollywood, those agreements epitomised the folly of globalisation, which he considers disastrous for American workers and avoidable. He hardened this critique after returning to America from a spell in Hong Kong; China, whose gaming of WTO rules Mr Bannon considers tantamount to an "economic war" against America, remains at the heart of it. ..."
"... When some of Mr Bannon's early schemes failed -- including the shabbily planned travel ban, now snarled up in the courts -- Mr Trump turned increasingly to his more conventional advisers, including Mr Kushner and Mr McMaster. ..."
President Trump's former chief strategist and current Breitbart
News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon invited the editors of
The Economist
to his
home for a candid discussion about the future of the populist economic nationalist movement and
the civilizational challenges that will pit "the Judeo-Christian liberal West" against
globalist "mercantilist" forces from China to Silicon Valley.
Bannon openly acknowledged his animus for the "Party of Davos" editorial positions of
The Economist
, referring to them as "the enemy" of economic nationalism for their
"radical" obsession with free trade at all costs.
He also affirmed his loyalty to Trump and his desire to help him. Breitbart "will never turn
on [Trump]," Bannon said, "But we are never going to let him take a decision that hurts
him."
Bannon acknowledged that in the White House he had "influence," but outside at Breitbart he
has "power." He said he intends to use that power to "rally the base" and "have [Trump's] back.
The harder he pushes, the more we will be there for him."
The discussion soon turned to what Bannon sees as the inevitable civilizational struggle
between the Judeo-Christian classical liberalism of the West -- which affirms human rights,
freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and self-governance -- versus the "mercantilist,
Confucian system" of an ascendant China.
From
The Economist
:
Among the particular opponents he has in his sights, said Mr Bannon, seated in a
dining-room decorated with Christian iconography and political mementos, are congressional
Republicans ("Mitch McConnell, I'm going to light him up"), China ("Let's go screw up One
Belt One Road") and "the elites in Silicon Valley and Wall Street -- they're a bunch of
globalists who have forgotten their fellow Americans." Despite his departure -- voluntarily, he
insists, though his resignation is reported to have been demanded of him -- Mr Bannon says he
will never attack his former boss. Yet Breitbart will caution Mr Trump to stick to the
populist nationalist course Mr Bannon charted. "We will never turn on him. But we are never
going to let him take a decision that hurts him." The website offered an early taste of this
in its disparaging coverage of Mr Trump's "flip-flop" decision to send more American troops
to Afghanistan, which was announced on August 21st and Mr Bannon strongly opposes (see
article
).
As Mr Trump's campaign chief (his third in two months, the campaign having been roiled by
scandals) Mr Bannon urged him to redouble that effort [to campaign on as a populist economic
nationalist taking on the politically correct establishment]. "The American people understood
his foibles and understood his character flaws and they didn't care," he says. "The country
was thirsting for change and [Barack] Obama didn't give them enough. I said, we are going for
a nationalist message, we are going to go barbarian, and we will win."
For Mr Bannon, who went from a working-class Virginian family to careers in Wall Street
and Hollywood, those agreements epitomised the folly of globalisation, which he considers
disastrous for American workers and avoidable. He hardened this critique after returning to
America from a spell in Hong Kong; China, whose gaming of WTO rules Mr Bannon considers
tantamount to an "economic war" against America, remains at the heart of it.
A zealous
Catholic who believes in the inevitability of civilizational conflict, he considers China's
growth to be an additional, overarching threat to America, which it must therefore dial back.
"I want the world to look back in 100 years and say, their mercantilist, Confucian system
lost. The Judeo-Christian liberal West won."
The president has, if not fixed intellectual differences with Mr Bannon, different
predilections, including his slavish regard for the military and business elites now stocking
his cabinet, whom his former adviser derides. ("What did the elites do?" asks Mr Bannon.
"These are the guys who gave us happy talk on Iraq, who let China into the WTO and said it
would sign up to the rules-based order.")
When some of Mr Bannon's early schemes
failed -- including the shabbily planned travel ban, now snarled up in the courts -- Mr Trump
turned increasingly to his more conventional advisers, including Mr Kushner and Mr McMaster.
On trade and security in particular, they have edged him towards the mainstream. Whereas Mr
Bannon urged the president to withdraw from NAFTA and Afghanistan, for example, he has
launched a modest-looking review of the former and will send more troops to the latter.
Increasingly isolated, Mr Bannon's departure from the White House was predicted.
Read the rest
here
.
'I'm not going to breathe the same air as
that terrorist'
Bannon boycotted Trump meet with 'terrorist' Abbas --
report
Days after his ouster from the White House, the extent of the animosity
between divisive strategist Steve Bannon and the president's son-in-law
Jared Kushner is steadily emerging in US media reports, with an article in
Vanity Fair detailing their disputes and asserting that Bannon is now
planning his "revenge."
Bannon, a hero of the so-called "alt right" whose presence in the West
Wing was controversial from the start, had become the nucleus of one of
several competing power centers in a chaotic White House. During his
six-month tenure as Trump's chief strategist, Bannon and Kushner reportedly
clashed on numerous policy issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.
... ... ...
Hours after he was fired, Bannon
returned to his previous job as editor of the ultra-conservative
Breitbart News, where he declared war on Ivanka, Kushner and
fellow "globalist" Gary Cohn.
The Vanity Fair article was headlined:
"Steve Bannon readies his revenge: The war on Jared Kushner is
about to go nuclear."
... ... ...
"Jared and Ivanka helped push him out. They were concerned about how they
were being viewed by the Jewish community," The Mail reported on Sunday.
Read more
http://www.timesofisrael.com/bannon-boycotted-trumps-meeting-with-terrorist-abbas-report
SOURCE
www.timesofisrael.com
Commnets from
Bannon boycotted Trump meet with 'terrorist' Abbas -- report The Times of Israel
Jossef Perl
·
Nahariyah, Hazafon, Israel
Yes, this time it is Tamar
Pileggi who gives us Time of Israel's typical Trump's
blasting story quoting "Vanity Fair detailing their (i.e.
Kushner vs. Bannon) disputes and asserting that Bannon is
now planning his 'revenge."" If it comes from Vanity Fair
that Bannon is planning a revenge (albeit without a single
named source) it must be true right? But this is what the
US fake news media has decended to, while the Israeli fake
news media goes one step lower, just quoting the US fake
media. Any 7 years old can see the that intent here
continues to be to creat an impression that the Trump
white is out of control and everything around Trum is
falling apart. How can this kind of media continue to
think the public believes a word from them? Tamar Pileggi,
if all you do is quoting Vanity Fair, which is typical to
the rest of the staff at TOI, why don't you all just
include a link to the original articles in your TOI
webpage? Who need all of you filling your paper by quoting
other publications without any due diligence? How can you
call yourselves journalists when all you do is cut and
paste?
Audrey Travis
·
Works at
Music Teacher - Retired
Perhaps, but 90% of
the world knows nothing about the
extreme violence of the ultra left
Antifa and the fact the y brought and
used weapons in Charlottesville. What
Trump should have done was be explicit
in the detailsof why he was condemning
both side. His broadsided condemnation
of both sides was the problem.
Albert Reingewirtz
·
Works at
Happily Retired
He did not do any
equivalence between two despicable gangs
of mobsters. He talked about BOTH of
their VIOLENCE. You listen too much to
propaganda. The more they repeat the
more people believe their lies.
Steve Klein
·
Works at
Self-Employed
Albert Reingewirtz,
do you believe there were "some very
fine" people marching with the Nazis in
Charlottesville?
Like
·
Reply
·
2
·
Aug 21, 2017 5:17am
Steve Klein
·
Works at
Self-Employed
'Bannon: Mahmoud Abbas is a terrorist,
I'd never meet with him'
Ousted WH strategist Steve Bannon reportedly lobbied hard
for Jerusalem embassy move, tougher line against PA - but
was opposed by Kushner.
David Rosenberg, 21/08/17 11:23 (Israel National News)
Notable quotes:
"... The "West Wing Democrats" in the White House are eager to sacrifice President Donald Trump's top campaign promise in exchange for Democratic approval of the tax cuts sought by wealthy donors and business interests, according to an article in Politico. In an August 23 article about Trump's push to get funding for an extended border wall, Politico described the lack of support for the wall among his business-affiliated aides: Few staff members in the West Wing are as concerned about it [as the President], senior administration officials said. Some in the White House have urged Trump not to focus as much on the wall, try to pass a clean debt-ceiling bill and move to tax reform. "You have barely anyone here saying, 'Wall, wall, we have to get the wall at all costs,'" one White House official said. Two people who have spoken to Trump said he sees not building the wall as a personal embarrassment -- and that he has shown more interest in building the wall than in other issues, like the upcoming budget negotiations. "You don't want a government shutdown," the White House official said. "He is told that. He says, 'I want money for the wall.'" The same emphasis on tax cuts for the elite before immigration reform for voters was also cited by Axios on August 20, in an article which claimed to explain why top staff chose to stay in the White House amid elite hatred of his populist, wage-boosting, pro-American priorities. Axios reported : We talked to a half dozen senior administration officials, who range from dismayed but certain to stay, to disgusted and likely soon to leave. They all work closely with Trump and his senior team so, of course, wouldn't talk on the record. Instead, they agreed to let us distill their thinking/rationale: "You have no idea how much crazy stuff we kill": The most common response centers on the urgent importance of having smart, sane people around Trump to fight his worst impulses. If they weren't there, they say, we would have a trade war with China, massive deportations, and a government shutdown to force construction of a Southern wall. "General Mattis needs us": Many talk about their reluctance to bolt on their friends and colleagues who are fighting the good fight to force better Trump behavior/decisions. They rightly point out that together, they have learned how to ignore Trump's rhetoric and, at times, collectively steer him to more conventional policy responses. This situation leaves Trump dependent on a few aides -- such as immigration reformer Steve Miller -- and his supporters at his rallies to help fend off the insistent demands by his globalist aides for a back-room surrender of his presidential goals. ..."
"... the pro-American immigration reformers who backed Trump in the election fear his globalist aides will push Trump to accept and establish former President Barack Obama's DACA amnesty in exchange for minor concessions, such as a modest amount of funds to build a short distance of border wall. ..."
The "West Wing Democrats" in the White House are eager to sacrifice President Donald Trump's
top campaign promise in exchange for Democratic approval of the tax cuts sought by wealthy donors
and business interests, according to an article in Politico.
In an August 23 article about Trump's push to get funding for an extended border wall, Politico
described the lack of support for the wall among his business-affiliated aides:
Few staff members in the West Wing are as concerned about it [as the President], senior administration
officials said.
Some in the White House have urged Trump not to focus as much on the wall, try to pass a clean
debt-ceiling bill and move to tax reform. "You have barely anyone here saying, 'Wall, wall, we
have to get the wall at all costs,'" one White House official said.
Two people who have spoken to Trump said he sees not building the wall as a personal embarrassment
-- and that he has shown more interest in building the wall than in other issues, like the
upcoming budget negotiations. "You don't want a government shutdown," the White House official
said. "He is told that. He says, 'I want money for the wall.'"
The same emphasis on tax cuts for the elite before immigration reform for voters was also cited
by Axios on August 20, in an article which claimed to explain why top staff chose to stay in the
White House amid elite hatred of his populist, wage-boosting, pro-American priorities. Axios
reported :
We talked to a half dozen senior administration officials, who range from dismayed but certain
to stay, to disgusted and likely soon to leave. They all work closely with Trump and his senior
team so, of course, wouldn't talk on the record. Instead, they agreed to let us distill their
thinking/rationale:
"You have no idea how much crazy stuff we kill": The most common response centers on the urgent
importance of having smart, sane people around Trump to fight his worst impulses. If they weren't
there, they say, we would have a trade war with China, massive deportations, and a government
shutdown to force construction of a Southern wall.
"General Mattis needs us": Many talk about their reluctance to bolt on their friends and colleagues
who are fighting the good fight to force better Trump behavior/decisions. They rightly point out
that together, they have learned how to ignore Trump's rhetoric and, at times, collectively steer
him to more conventional policy responses.
This situation leaves Trump dependent on a few aides -- such as immigration reformer
Steve Miller -- and his supporters at his rallies to help fend off the insistent demands
by his globalist aides for a back-room surrender of his presidential goals.
That surrender would help his aides win Democratic support for their goals -- but
it would leave Trump with few friends heading into the 2018 midterm elections and the crucial 2020
reelection, says D.C. insiders. For example, the pro-American immigration reformers who backed
Trump in the election fear his
globalist aides will push Trump to accept and establish former President Barack Obama's DACA
amnesty in exchange for minor concessions, such as a modest amount of funds to build a short distance
of border wall.
"If [Trump's aides] are left to their own devices, they would exchange this for a few trinkets,"
so violating Trump's campaign promise before the 2018 and 2020 elections, said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman
for FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
The suggested deal was outlined in a Tuesday
article by Anita Kumar, a reporter for the McClatchy news service. She uses the Democrats' term
-- 'dreamers' – to describe the 800,000 DACA illegals as she wrote:
White House officials want Trump to strike an ambitious deal with Congress that offers Dreamers
protection in exchange for legislation that pays for a border wall and more detention facilities,
curbs legal immigration and implements E-verify, an online system that allows businesses to
check immigration status, according to a half-dozen people familiar with situation, most involved
with the negotiations.
The group includes former and current White House chiefs of staff, Reince Priebus and
John Kelly , the president's daughter,
Ivanka Trump , and her husband,
Jared Kushner , who both serve as presidential advisers, they said. Others who have not been
as vocal publicly about their stance but are thought to agree include Vice President
Mike Pence , who as a congressman worked on a failed immigration deal that called for citizenship,
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohn, a Democrat who serves as director of the
National Economic Council.
There is no evidence that Democrats will accept that ambitious deal before the 2018 election,
and much evidence that Trump's aides will quickly give up wall funding and the popular RAISE Act
to win Democratic support for tax cuts. So far, top Democrats have responded that they would
not offer anything as they demand a permanent DACA amnesty.
However, Trump's determination to resist his aides is likely boosted by the cheering he gets at
rallies when he promises to build the wall.
"We are building a wall on the southern border, which is absolutely necessary," he told roughly
30,000 cheering supporters at an August 22 rally in Phoenix, Ariz. "The obstructionist Democrats
would like us not to do it, believe me, [but] if we have to close down our government, we are building
that wall We're going to have our wall. We're going to get our wall."
There you have it, @realDonaldTrump
-- Your own 30k focus-group. LIKE: deportations, a wall, jobs; DON'T LIKE: Media,
Afghan War & tax cuts.
-- Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter)
August 23,
2017
Trump later thanked the crowd.
Phoenix crowd last night was amazing – a packed house. I love the Great State of Arizona. Not
a fan of Jeff Flake, weak on crime & border --
-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
August
23, 2017
Read the Axios article
here , and the Politico article
here .
Under current immigration policy, the federal government accepts 1 million legal immigrants each
year, even though 4 million young Americans enter the workforce to look for decent jobs. Each year,
the government also hands out
almost 3 million short-term work permits to foreign workers. These permits include
roughly 330,000 one-year OPT permits for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges, roughly
200,000 three-year H-1B visas for foreign white-collar professionals, and 400,000 two-year permits
to DACA illegals.
The current
annual flood of
foreign labor
spikes profits and Wall Street values by
cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees.
It also drives up r
eal estate prices ,
widens wealth-gaps , reduces
high-tech investment , increases
state and local tax burdens , hurts
kids' schools and
college education , pushes Americans
away from high-tech careers , and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized
Americans and their families.
Many
polls show that Americans are very generous, they do welcome individual immigrants, and they
do want to like the idea of immigration. But the polls also show that most Americans
are increasingly worried that large-scale legal immigration will
change their country and disadvantage themselves and their children. Trump's "Buy American, Hire
American" policies are also
extremely popular , including among Democratic-leaning voters.
<
The fact that Karl rove is allowed to write for WSJ makes WSJ a yellow publication...
The country is better off with him out of the West Wing, but now Trump has to step up.
After departing his post as White House chief strategist last week, Steve Bannon told the Weekly Standard that "the Trump presidency
that we fought for, and won, is over." The clear suggestion is that Mr. Trump's chance at success had followed Mr. Bannon out the
door.
Trying to recast his ouster as a personal choice, Mr. Bannon bragged "I can fight better on the outside." He promised "to crush
the opposition," saying "I built a f! machine at Breitbart."
The former adviser also told a Bloomberg reporter he would be "going to war for Trump against his opponents!on Capitol Hill, in
the media, and in corporate America."...
Notable quotes:
"... Bannon's exit clears an obstacle for backers of an active U.S. foreign policy in line with recent presidencies -- and is a resounding win for Bannon's internal rival, national security adviser H.R. McMaster. Bannon was a regular participant in national security debates, often as an opponent of military action and a harsh critic of international bodies like the United Nations and the European Union. ..."
"... He has also been a withering critic of diplomatic, military and intelligence professionals -- "globalists" he says have repeatedly shown bad judgment, particularly when it comes to U.S. military interventions abroad. That put him at loggerheads with Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, as well as McMaster. ..."
"... "If you look at the balance of power of isolationists versus internationalists in the White House now, it seems safe to say that the pendulum has swung towards the internationalists," said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. ..."
"... In the immediate term, foreign policy insiders agreed, Bannon's departure also could increase the chances of a U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan!a plan championed by McMaster but strongly opposed by Bannon, who managed to draw out debate on the issue with direct appeals to Trump. ..."
"... Bannon is not totally conflict averse: He calls for a far stronger U.S. posture against China and has warned that war with Beijing could be inevitable. But he pressed Trump to take economic, not military action against Beijing. ..."
"... "Bannon's departure probably means a return to normalcy, where the State and Defense Departments will have greater influence on foreign policy," Abrams said. ..."
"... Bannon also told the Prospect that he was "changing out people" on the Pentagon's China desk. Mattis, too, has had personnel disputes with the White House. "Anything that Tillerson and Mattis really push for will now have a better chance of winning out -- for better and for worse," Abrams added. Abrams and others said that Bannon's exit makes it more likely that McMaster and Mattis will convince Trump to send more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the subject of a meeting among Trump and his national security team at Camp David today. ..."
"... God help us when Bannon is the voice of reason ...... ..."
Stephen Bannon may have been a political adviser to President Donald Trump, but his firing Friday could have an impact on
U.S. foreign policy from Europe to the Middle East and Asia.
Bannon's exit clears an obstacle for backers of an active U.S. foreign policy in line with recent presidencies -- and is a
resounding win for Bannon's internal rival, national security adviser H.R. McMaster. Bannon was a regular participant in national
security debates, often as an opponent of military action and a harsh critic of international bodies like the United Nations and
the European Union.
He has also been a withering critic of diplomatic, military and intelligence professionals -- "globalists" he says have repeatedly
shown bad judgment, particularly when it comes to U.S. military interventions abroad. That put him at loggerheads with Defense Secretary
James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, as well as McMaster.
"If you look at the balance of power of isolationists versus internationalists in the White House now, it seems safe to say
that the pendulum has swung towards the internationalists," said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy
studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
Though Bannon has not described himself as an "isolationist," he has proudly adopted Trump's "America First" motto, which
he says argues for spending less blood and treasure overseas for anything less than America's most vital interests.
He has also alarmed European leaders with his criticism of the EU and his expressed support for some European nationalist movements.
Bannon actively backed Great Britain's 2016 "Brexit" from the E.U. and introduced Trump to its chief political advocate, the populist
British politician Nigel Farage.
"Our European allies are happy about Bannon's departure," said Jorge Benitez, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council.
In the immediate term, foreign policy insiders agreed, Bannon's departure also could increase the chances of a U.S. troop
increase in Afghanistan!a plan championed by McMaster but strongly opposed by Bannon, who managed to draw out debate on the issue
with direct appeals to Trump.
More generally, it will remove an internal brake on U.S. military action abroad. Bannon has argued greater U.S. intervention in
Iraq and Syria and was among the few White House officials to oppose President Donald Trump's early-April missile strike in Syria.
Bannon is not totally conflict averse: He calls for a far stronger U.S. posture against China and has warned that war with
Beijing could be inevitable. But he pressed Trump to take economic, not military action against Beijing.
And on Wednesday, Bannon told the American Prospect magazine that there is "no military solution" to Trump's standoff with North
Korea -- undermining the president's recent military threats against that country, and echoing China's view of the situation.
Beyond the policy realm, Bannon's exit is a clear victory for national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who at times seemed to
be in zero-sum struggle with the Trump adviser for power and influence in the White House.
Foreign policy veterans were startled when, in early February, Trump designated Bannon as a member of the National Security Council's
elite principals committee -- calling it unprecedented for a White House political adviser to have a reserved seat at the table for
life-and-death debates.
McMaster stripped Bannon of his official NSC position in April, after succeeding the ousted Michael Flynn!a Bannon ally -- as
national security adviser. Bannon continued to attend NSC meetings and debates about foreign policy in the Oval Office. But Bannon
resented McMaster for demoting him, and for purging several Flynn allies from the NSC.
Bannon and McMaster also sharply differed on how Trump should discuss terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda. Bannon favors using
the phrase "radical Islamic extremism," but McMaster has largely prevented Trump from saying it in public on the grounds that it
could alienate moderate Muslims who hear it as an attack on their religion.
McMaster's defenders have accused Bannon of spearheading a campaign of leaks meant to undermine the top national security aide.
"The campaign to get him out was clearly coming from Bannon or his allies," said Brian McKeon, a former NSC chief of staff and
senior Pentagon policy official in the Obama administration. "The national security adviser's job is hard enough without having to
always look over your shoulder to see who's trying to knife you.
"This will make McMaster's days a little easier," he added.
Likely to share McMaster's satisfaction at Bannon's ouster is Tillerson, who chafed at Bannon's role in State Department personnel
decisions. Speaking to the American Prospect this week, Bannon boasted that he was working to remove Tillerson's top official for
China and East Asia.
"I'm getting Susan Thornton out at State," Bannon said in the interview.
In a pointed show of support the next morning, Tillerson shook Thornton's hand in front of television cameras.
And when Tillerson recommended in February that Trump nominate former Reagan and George W. Bush administration official Elliott
Abrams to be his deputy, Bannon intervened to block the choice, according to Abrams.
"Bannon's departure probably means a return to normalcy, where the State and Defense Departments will have greater influence
on foreign policy," Abrams said.
Bannon also told the Prospect that he was "changing out people" on the Pentagon's China desk. Mattis, too, has had personnel
disputes with the White House. "Anything that Tillerson and Mattis really push for will now have a better chance of winning out --
for better and for worse," Abrams added. Abrams and others said that Bannon's exit makes it more likely that McMaster and Mattis
will convince Trump to send more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the subject of a meeting among Trump and his national security team
at Camp David today.
Some sources downplayed the significance of Bannon's departure, however -- noting that, on military and diplomatic issues, Bannon
was more dissenter than policy maker.
Ben Rhodes, a former top national security aide to former President Barack Obama, said Bannon's main contributions was his backing
for Trump's early executive orders restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries. Bannon was also a defender of his friend
and ally Sebastian Gorka, a controversial White House adviser who often appears on television.
"On national security, it was hard to see Bannon's influence anywhere other than the Muslim ban and Gorka doing cable hits, so
I don't think it changes that much," Rhodes said, adding: "It does suggest a greater likelihood of a troop increase in Afghanistan."
And several sources cautioned that while Bannon may not longer occupy the White House, his worldview is still frequently reflected
in the words of the most powerful policymaker of all: President Trump.
European allies "will not be popping champagne corks because their main source of worry remains in the White House, Donald Trump,"
Benitez said. "Most Europeans blame Trump personally rather than Bannon or other subordinates for damaging transatlantic relations."
"The president gets the last vote," McKeon added. "And he has a different approach to foreign policy than all his predecessors."
Eliana Johnson contributed reporting
Felix ·
7 hours ago
As long as there is disagreement there is hope for compromise and moderation. If everyone in the Executive branch were in agreement,
there would be no hope for moderation..
DrS · 6 hours ago
Our 'dear' leaders are NOT in control.
North Korea ia a distraction as is Trump.
Examine the military buildup by Nsto against Russia.
Time for Germany, Russia and China to work together militarily for harmony/peace in our world.
andrewboston · 4 hours ago
God help us when Bannon is the voice of reason ......
Bill Malcolm · 4 hours ago
330 million people and a bunch of nutbars in charge of the place, very few of whom have ever had a vote cast for them in any election,
Trump being the exception. Some guy like Bannon sits around formulating a wanker worldview and somehow gains power for seven months.
I don't suppose the EU gives a tinker's damn that he dislikes it, it's none of his business. Fulminating on it just exposes his
acceptance of Imperial America, muttering threats because in his blinkered mind that's not the way the US would have organized
Europe - I am unaware that anyone with a brain regards Bannon as an intellectual, merely a weirdo. Then you have all these generals
running around thinking they're political geniuses or something, all unelected bozos with little exposure to real life. Giving
and taking orders and salutes all around, living a regimented life - just the thing for running the civilian part of the USA.
Why is it that in the US you vote for dogcatchers, sheriffs and judges which no other country bothers with, yet all these high
cabinet posts are filled from unelected dorks out there who somehow got noticed, picked by the president, nominated and agreed
to by the Senate? The argument has been, well because they're specialists. So what - they're not responsible to the electorate
in any direct manner. There's a fat chance that they are managerial competents if they are from the military, a big chance they
have developed some warped theory about the world, and few of them are in the slightest bit interested in domestic politics as
it relates to the average citizen. 50% of the budget goes to running the armed forces, by nature always measuring foreign "threats"
as if diplomacy was a competition or something. The business types picked as cabinet secretaries are invariably from the big business
side of the ledger and find foreigners annoying when they don't hand over their natural resources for next to nothing royalties,
leading to the government bashing these foreigners over the head until they put someone in charge who sees the "light" and becomes
a US ally.
It's a formula for bad government for the domestic population from beginning to end. So up ramps the patriotism to make the
people keep the faith which many are happy to do, and then they crap all over the way other countries are organized, their food,
customs and "only in America can a hobo be elected President" and there's no opportunity anywhere but in the USA memes. Mesmerized
by their own propaganda into thinking the US is the best there is. Cough.
GivingUpOnTrump · 4 hours ago
Tonight if Trump order more troops to Afghanistan, he'd put the last and hardest nail on his own coffin.
I do not understand, how long Americans will let the Deep State win, making them sacrificial animals at the mercy of a perpetual
power.
Notable quotes:
"... Stephen Bannon may have been a political adviser to President Donald Trump, but his firing Friday could have an impact on U.S. foreign policy from Europe to the Middle East and Asia. Bannon's exit clears an obstacle for backers of an active U.S. foreign policy in line with recent presidencies -- and is a resounding win for Bannon's internal rival, national security adviser H.R. McMaster. ..."
"... More generally, it will remove an internal brake on U.S. military action abroad. Bannon has argued greater U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria and was among the few White House officials to oppose President Donald Trump's early-April missile strike in Syria. ..."
"... Tonight if Trump order more troops to Afghanistan, he'd put the last and hardest nail on his own coffin. I do not understand, how long Americans will let the Deep State win, making them sacrificial animals at the mercy of a perpetual power. ..."
His exit is a win for backers of a more traditional -- and interventionist -- U.S. foreign policy.
Stephen Bannon may have been a political adviser to President Donald Trump,
but his firing Friday could have an impact on U.S. foreign policy from Europe to the Middle East
and Asia. Bannon's exit clears an obstacle for backers of an active U.S. foreign policy in line with recent
presidencies -- and is a resounding win for Bannon's internal rival, national security adviser H.R.
McMaster.
Bannon was a regular participant in national security debates, often as an opponent of military
action and a harsh critic of international bodies like the United Nations and the European Union.
He has also been a withering critic of diplomatic, military and intelligence professionals -- "globalists"
he says have repeatedly shown bad judgment, particularly when it comes to U.S. military interventions
abroad. That put him at loggerheads with Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, as well as McMaster.
"If you look at the balance of power of isolationists versus internationalists in the White House
now, it seems safe to say that the pendulum has swung towards the internationalists," said Danielle
Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
Though Bannon has not described himself as an "isolationist," he has proudly adopted Trump's "America
First" motto, which he says argues for spending less blood and treasure overseas for anything less
than America's most vital interests.
He has also alarmed European leaders with his criticism of the E.U. and his expressed support
for some European nationalist movements. Bannon actively backed Great Britain's 2016 "Brexit" from
the E.U. and introduced Trump to its chief political advocate, the populist British politician Nigel
Farage.
"Our European allies are happy about Bannon's departure," said Jorge Benitez, a senior fellow
with the Atlantic Council.
In the immediate term, foreign policy insiders agreed, Bannon's departure also could increase
the chances of a U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan -- a plan championed by McMaster but strongly opposed
by Bannon, who managed to draw out debate on the issue with direct appeals to Trump.
More generally, it will remove an internal brake on U.S. military action abroad. Bannon has argued
greater U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria and was among the few White House officials to oppose
President Donald Trump's early-April missile strike in Syria.
Bannon is not totally conflict averse: He calls for a far stronger U.S. posture against China
and has warned that war with Beijing could be inevitable. But he pressed Trump to take economic,
not military action against Beijing.
And on Wednesday, Bannon told the American Prospect magazine that there is "no military solution"
to Trump's standoff with North Korea -- undermining the president's recent military threats against
that country, and echoing China's view of the situation.
Beyond the policy realm, Bannon's exit is a clear victory for national security adviser H.R. McMaster,
who at times seemed to be in zero-sum struggle with the Trump adviser for power and influence in
the White House.
Foreign policy veterans were startled when, in early February, Trump designated Bannon as a member
of the National Security Council's elite principals committee -- calling it unprecedented for a White
House political adviser to have a reserved seat at the table for life-and-death debates.
McMaster stripped Bannon of his official NSC position in April, after succeeding the ousted Michael
Flynn -- a Bannon ally -- as national security adviser. Bannon continued to attend NSC meetings and debates
about foreign policy in the Oval Office. But Bannon resented McMaster for demoting him, and for purging
several Flynn allies from the NSC.
Bannon and McMaster also sharply differed on how Trump should discuss terrorist groups like ISIS
and al Qaeda. Bannon favors using the phrase "radical Islamic extremism," but McMaster has largely
prevented Trump from saying it in public on the grounds that it could alienate moderate Muslims who
hear it as an attack on their religion.
McMaster's defenders have accused Bannon of spearheading a campaign of leaks meant to undermine
the top national security aide.
"The campaign to get him out was clearly coming from Bannon or his allies," said Brian McKeon,
a former NSC chief of staff and senior Pentagon policy official in the Obama administration. "The
national security adviser's job is hard enough without having to always look over your shoulder to
see who's trying to knife you.
"This will make McMaster's days a little easier," he added.
No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
Get Your Free Daily Newsletter You can't buy your way onto these pages
Likely to share McMaster's satisfaction at Bannon's ouster is Tillerson, who chafed at Bannon's
role in State Department personnel decisions. Speaking to the American Prospect this week, Bannon
boasted that he was working to remove Tillerson's top official for China and East Asia.
"I'm getting Susan Thornton out at State," Bannon said in the interview.
In a pointed show of support the next morning, Tillerson shook Thornton's hand in front of television
cameras.
And when Tillerson recommended in February that Trump nominate former Reagan and George W. Bush
administration official Elliott Abrams to be his deputy, Bannon intervened to block the choice, according
to Abrams.
"Bannon's departure probably means a return to normalcy, where the State and Defense Departments
will have greater influence on foreign policy," Abrams said.
Bannon also told the Prospect that he was "changing out people" on the Pentagon's China desk.
Mattis, too, has had personnel disputes with the White House.
"Anything that Tillerson and Mattis really push for will now have a better chance of winning out
-- for
better and for worse," Abrams added.
Abrams and others said that Bannon's exit makes it more likely that McMaster and Mattis will convince
Trump to send more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the subject of a meeting among Trump and his national
security team at Camp David today.
Some sources downplayed the significance of Bannon's departure, however -- noting that, on military
and diplomatic issues, Bannon was more dissenter than policy maker.
Ben Rhodes, a former top national security aide to former President Barack Obama, said Bannon's
main contributions was his backing for Trump's early executive orders restricting travel from several
Muslim-majority countries. Bannon was also a defender of his friend and ally Sebastian Gorka, a controversial
White House adviser who often appears on television.
"On national security, it was hard to see Bannon's influence anywhere other than the Muslim ban
and Gorka doing cable hits, so I don't think it changes that much," Rhodes said, adding: "It does
suggest a greater likelihood of a troop increase in Afghanistan."
And several sources cautioned that while Bannon may not longer occupy the White House, his worldview
is still frequently reflected in the words of the most powerful policymaker of all: President Trump.
European allies "will not be popping champagne corks because their main source of worry remains
in the White House, Donald Trump," Benitez said. "Most Europeans blame Trump personally rather than
Bannon or other subordinates for damaging transatlantic relations."
"The president gets the last vote," McKeon added. "And he has a different approach to foreign
policy than all his predecessors."
Eliana Johnson contributed reporting
===
Click Here
To Support Information Clearing House
Felix ·
7 hours ago
As long as there is disagreement there is hope for compromise and moderation. If everyone in the
Executive branch were in agreement, there would be no hope for moderation..
DrS ·
6 hours ago
Our 'dear' leaders are NOT in control.
North Korea ia a distraction as is Trump. Examine the military buildup by Nsto against Russia. Time for Germany, Russia and China to work together militarily for harmony/peace in our world.
andrewboston ·
4 hours ago
God help us when Bannon is the voice of reason ......
Bill Malcolm ·
4 hours ago
330 million people and a bunch of nutbars in charge of the place, very few of whom have ever had
a vote cast for them in any election, Trump being the exception. Some guy like Bannon sits around
formulating a wanker worldview and somehow gains power for seven months. I don't suppose the EU
gives a tinker's damn that he dislikes it, it's none of his business. Fulminating on it just exposes
his acceptance of Imperial America, muttering threats because in his blinkered mind that's not
the way the US would have organized Europe - I am unaware that anyone with a brain regards Bannon
as an intellectual, merely a weirdo. Then you have all these generals running around thinking
they're political geniuses or something, all unelected bozos with little exposure to real life.
Giving and taking orders and salutes all around, living a regimented life - just the thing for
running the civilian part of the USA.
Why is it that in the US you vote for dogcatchers, sheriffs and judges which no other country
bothers with, yet all these high cabinet posts are filled from unelected dorks out there who somehow
got noticed, picked by the president, nominated and agreed to by the Senate? The argument has
been, well because they're specialists. So what - they're not responsible to the electorate in
any direct manner. There's a fat chance that they are managerial competents if they are from the
military, a big chance they have developed some warped theory about the world, and few of them
are in the slightest bit interested in domestic politics as it relates to the average citizen.
50% of the budget goes to running the armed forces, by nature always measuring foreign "threats"
as if diplomacy was a competition or something. The business types picked as cabinet secretaries
are invariably from the big business side of the ledger and find foreigners annoying when they
don't hand over their natural resources for next to nothing royalties, leading to the government
bashing these foreigners over the head until they put someone in charge who sees the "light" and
becomes a US ally.
It's a formula for bad government for the domestic population from beginning to end. So up
ramps the patriotism to make the people keep the faith which many are happy to do, and then they
crap all over the way other countries are organized, their food, customs and "only in America
can a hobo be elected President" and there's no opportunity anywhere but in the USA memes. Mesmerized
by their own propaganda into thinking the US is the best there is. Cough.
GivingUpOnTrump ·
4 hours ago
Tonight if Trump order more troops to Afghanistan, he'd put the last and hardest nail on his own
coffin.
I do not understand, how long Americans will let the Deep State win, making them sacrificial
animals at the mercy of a perpetual power.
Notable quotes:
"... Stephen K. Bannon has always been more comfortable when he was trying to tear down institutions -- not work inside them. ..."
"... With his return to Breitbart News, Mr. Bannon will be free to lead the kind of ferocious assault on the political establishment that he relishes, even if sometimes that means turning his wrath on the White House itself. ..."
"... Mr. Bannon's exit is, of course, a relief. As the well-financed Pied Piper of the alt-right Breitbart crowd, Mr. Bannon at the pinnacle of White House policy making was a nightmare come to life. ..."
Authored by Mike Shedlock via
MishTalk.com,
The axe fell on Steve Bannon Friday.
Mid-day, mainstream media proclaimed stocks were up because of the firing. Stocks closed the
day down. Apparently, stocks were both up and down due to Bannon.
Now
Bannon is Back on the Outside
, back at Breitbart, and happy to be there.
Stephen K. Bannon has always been more comfortable when he was trying to tear down
institutions -- not work inside them.
With his return to Breitbart News, Mr. Bannon will be free to lead the kind of ferocious
assault on the political establishment that he relishes, even if sometimes that means turning
his wrath on the White House itself.
Hours after his ouster from the West Wing, he was named to his former position of executive
chairman at the hard-charging right-wing website and led its evening editorial meeting. And Mr.
Bannon appeared eager to move onto his next fight.
"In many ways, I think I can be more effective fighting from the outside for the agenda
President Trump ran on," he said Friday. "And anyone who stands in our way, we will go to war
with."
Among those already in Mr. Bannon's sights: Speaker Paul D. Ryan; Senator Mitch McConnell,
the majority leader; the president's daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law, Jared Kushner; and
Gary D. Cohn, the former president of Goldman Sachs who now directs the White House's National
Economic Council.
Thanks But No Thanks
Trump thanked Bannon for his help during the campaign, but not for his tenure in the White
House
I want to thank Steve Bannon for his service. He came to the campaign during my run against
Crooked Hillary Clinton - it was great! Thanks S
! Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
August 19, 2017
Trump explicitly thanks Bannon for his time on the campaign. Not his 7 months in the W.H. as
chief strategist.
Nothing to see here.
https://t.co/gqDRj5I2zJ
! Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1)
August 19, 2017
New York
Times Parting Shot
The New York Times editorial,
Exit Steve
Bannon
, gave Banon a swift kick on his way out the door.
Mr. Bannon's exit is, of course, a relief. As the well-financed Pied Piper of the alt-right
Breitbart crowd, Mr. Bannon at the pinnacle of White House policy making was a nightmare come
to life.
But Mr. Bannon, who promptly returned to Breitbart as its executive chairman on Friday,
still poses a danger for our broader politics. Outside the White House, he is freer to rally
his forces against anyone who doesn't toe his nationalist-protectionist line. A Bannon-led
right-wing backlash against Mr. Trump, who unleashed the worst impulses of nationalists in
service to himself, would be a fitting comeuppance.
More Fun to Throw Mud
Clearly, it's far more fun to throw mud than have it thrown at you.
Lost in the Bannon and Trump bashing is one key question: Who is really the bigger threat,
Hillary, Trump, or Bannon?
Why We Are Where We Are
We are in this mess because Obamanomics, war-mongering, Fed policies, and social handouts
created a budget mess but did not solve any problems. People revolted, and Trump got
elected.
When it comes to trade and protectionism, Trump is wrong. So is Bannon.
Those who think Hillary would have been any better on trade policy are mistaken. If you
believe differently, then please take
Today's Quiz: Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton – Who Said It?
We would have a no-fly zone over Syria, had Hillary won. That would have risked a
confrontation with Russia. Hillary wrecked Libya, and of course Obama and Bush had extremely
misguided warmongering policies in the Mideast.
Obamacare was a failure, but no one on either side seems able or willing to fix it.
So here we are, with everything broken, and we still cannot get anything done. Republicans
want more military spending and Democrats want more social spending. Warmongers on both sides
want more war.
Art of Compromise
Compromise in Washington is more military spending and more social spending.
Repetitive "compromises" sent deficits soaring out of sight. On top of it all, the Fed blew
massive bubbles in just about everything.
Problems Too Big and Too Many To Fix
One thing I expect Trump will get right, at least from a public union standpoint, regards
appointments to the supreme court.
Overall, I hoped Trump would do better on many fronts. It was not to be. Trump could not
drain the swamp. Partisan politics interfered, there was too much infighting, and there is
nonsensical Russia bashing on both sides of the aisle.
The problems are too big and too many to fix. If you think Hillary would have fixed them you
are delusional
To the victor, goes the blame. Trump will be the fall guy when this mess blows up.
https://t.co/99d7BrUfak
! Mike Mish Shedlock (@MishGEA)
August 19, 2017
To a certain extent Bannon firing was his own foult as perchant for self-promition proved to be quite destructive.
But it was also a stage of Trump conversion into Bush
III. Globalist coalition won but this is a Pyrrhic victory.
The problem that brought Trump
to the White house -- crisis of neoliberalism and first of all neoliberal globalization is unsolvable
within the neoliberal framework. And Trump administration has now nothing but his bastard version
of neoliberal and deregulation and all that staff.
And to this "Javanka" problem and Trump looks
doomed to be failure.
Notable quotes:
"... He has failed. While he moved quickly on the immigration issue, he did so in such a ham-handed way that any prospect for momentum was lost before it could begin. On foreign policy he has belied his own campaign rhetoric with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia's nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO membership for Montenegro, his consideration of troop augmentations in Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement in Venezuela's internal affairs. On trade, it must be said, he has sought to move in the direction of his campaign rhetoric, though with limited results thus far. ..."
"... In the meantime, he suffered a tremendous defeat with the failure of congressional Republicans to make good on their vow to end and replace the Affordable Care Act. His tax-overhaul initiative is far behind the kind of calendar schedule needed for smooth success (by this point in 1981 Reagan had secured both his big tax package and an even more controversial spending-reduction program). And Trump's infrastructure program must be seen as residing currently in Nowheresville. ..."
"... What we see in these defeats and stalled initiatives is an incapacity on the part of the president to nudge and herd legislators, to mold voter sentiment into waves of political energy, to fashion a dialectic of political action, or to offer a coherent vision of the state of the country and where he wishes to take it. Everything is ad hoc. No major action seems related to any other action. In a job that calls for a political chess master, Trump displays hardly sufficient skills and attentiveness for a game of political checkers. ..."
"... It's telling, but not surprising, that Trump couldn't manage his White House staff in such a way as to maintain a secure place on the team for the man most responsible for charting his path to the White House. This isn't to say that Bannon should have been given outsized influence within West Wing councils, merely that his voice needed to be heard and his connection to Trump's core constituency respected. ..."
"... But that's not the way Trump operates -- another sign of a man who, over his head at the top of the global power structure, is winging it. ..."
"... ...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech... ..."
"... The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal ..."
"... "There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel" ..."
In the wake of Stephen Bannon's firing, it has become almost inconceivable that President Trump
can avoid a one-term fate. This isn't because he sacked Bannon but because of what that action tells
us about his leadership. In celebrating Bannon's dismissal, The Wall Street Journal wrote
in an editorial: "Trump can't govern with a Breitbart coalition. Does he see that?" True enough.
But he also can't govern without the Breitbart constituency -- his core constituency -- in
his coalition. The bigger question is: Does he see that ?
It's beginning to appear that Trump doesn't see much of anything with precision or clarity when
it comes to the fundamental question of how to govern based on how he campaigned. He is merely a
battery of impulses, devoid of any philosophical coherence or intellectual consistency.
Indeed, it's difficult to recall any president of recent memory who was so clearly winging it
in the Oval Office. Think of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, both of whom made huge mistakes that
cost them the White House. But both knew precisely what they wanted to accomplish and how to go about
accomplishing it. The result was that both accomplished big things. Ronald Reagan propelled himself
into governing mode from campaign mode as if he had shot himself out of a cannon. Even Jimmy Carter
and George H. W. Bush, who stumbled into one-term diminishment, demonstrated more leadership coherence
than the current White House occupant.
Trump's political challenge on Inauguration Day was simple but difficult. He had to galvanize
his political base and build from there to fashion a governing coalition that could give propulsion
to his agenda. Further, that agenda had to give a majority of Americans a sense that the economy
was sound and growing, that unnecessary foreign wars would be avoided, that domestic tranquility
would prevail, that the mass immigration of recent years would be curtailed, that the health care
mess would be fixed, and that infrastructure needs would be addressed.
He has made little or no progress on any of it. And now, with Bannon banished from the White House,
the president even seems to be taking a cavalier attitude toward his core constituency, America's
white working class, beset by sluggish economic growth, the hollowing out of America's industrial
base, unfair competitive practices by U.S. trading partners, unchecked immigration, the opioid crisis,
and a general malaise that accompanies a growing sense of decline.
Trump became president because he busted out of the deadlock crisis that had gripped America for
years, with both parties rigidly clinging to shopworn nostrums that fewer and fewer Americans believed
in but which precluded any fresh or original thinking on the part of the party establishments. Consider
some of the elements of conventional wisdom that he smashed during the campaign.
- Immigration: Conventional thinking was that a "comprehensive" solution could emerge
as soon as officials convinced voters that they would, at some point soon, secure the border,
and then the 11 million illegals in the country could be granted some form of amnesty. After all,
according to this view, polls indicated solid support for granting illegals a path to citizenship
or at least legal residence. Thus the issue was considered particularly hazardous to Republicans.
But Trump demonstrated that voter concerns about the magnitude of immigration -- both legal and
illegal -- were more widespread and intense than the political establishment wanted to believe.
He transformed the dynamics of the issue.
- Foreign Policy: Trump railed against George W. Bush's Iraq invasion, the ongoing and
seemingly pointless war in Afghanistan, Barack Obama's actions to help overthrow Libya's President
Muammar Qaddafi, and the previous administration's insistence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
must leave office even though his toughest enemies, ISIS and al-Nusra, were also our enemies.
He sought to sooth the tensions then gaining momentum between the United States and Russia, and
he did so in the face of widespread hostility from most of the foreign policy establishment. In
all this he signaled that, as president, he would formulate an entirely new grand strategy designed
to align U.S. policy with U.S. power and avoid foreign wars with little connection to U.S. vital
interests.
- Trade: Trump took on the establishment view that globalized free trade provided an
automatic benefit to the U.S. economy and U.S. workers, even when big trading partners, particularly
China, imposed non-tariff trade barriers that slammed America's waning industrial core and the
country's working classes. Here again he demonstrated a strong body of political sentiment that
had been ignored or brushed aside by the country's economic and financial elites.
The important point about these issues is that they all cut across partisan lines. That's what
allowed Trump to forge a nontraditional coalition that provided him a slim margin of victory -- but
only in the Electoral College. His challenge was to turn this electoral coalition into a governing
one.
He has failed. While he moved quickly on the immigration issue, he did so in such a ham-handed
way that any prospect for momentum was lost before it could begin. On foreign policy he has belied
his own campaign rhetoric with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia's
nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO membership for Montenegro,
his consideration of troop augmentations in Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement
in Venezuela's internal affairs. On trade, it must be said, he has sought to move in the direction
of his campaign rhetoric, though with limited results thus far.
In the meantime, he suffered a tremendous defeat with the failure of congressional Republicans
to make good on their vow to end and replace the Affordable Care Act. His tax-overhaul initiative
is far behind the kind of calendar schedule needed for smooth success (by this point in 1981 Reagan
had secured both his big tax package and an even more controversial spending-reduction program).
And Trump's infrastructure program must be seen as residing currently in Nowheresville.
What we see in these defeats and stalled initiatives is an incapacity on the part of the president
to nudge and herd legislators, to mold voter sentiment into waves of political energy, to fashion
a dialectic of political action, or to offer a coherent vision of the state of the country and where
he wishes to take it. Everything is ad hoc. No major action seems related to any other action. In
a job that calls for a political chess master, Trump displays hardly sufficient skills and attentiveness
for a game of political checkers.
And now Stephen Bannon is gone. The rustic and controversial White House strategist represented
Trump's most direct and compelling tie to his political base, the people who flocked to his rallies
during the campaign, who kept him alive when his political fortunes waned, who thrilled to his anti-establishment
message, and who awarded him the states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. As the
Journal says, Trump can't govern only with this electoral base. But if his support among these
people wanes or dissipates, he will have no base from which to build -- and no prospect for successful
governance.
It's telling, but not surprising, that Trump couldn't manage his White House staff in such
a way as to maintain a secure place on the team for the man most responsible for charting his path
to the White House. This isn't to say that Bannon should have been given outsized influence within
West Wing councils, merely that his voice needed to be heard and his connection to Trump's core constituency
respected.
But that's not the way Trump operates -- another sign of a man who, over his head at the top
of the global power structure, is winging it.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor
of The American Conservative . His next book,
President McKinley: Architect of the American Century
, is due out from Simon & Schuster in November.
doctor10
Aug 20, 2017 9:06 PM Its all about ideas-and which ones are adopted by society.
The USA has a very poor prognosis-has yet to shed its 20th century Bolshevick Baggage.
Occident Mortal
doctor10
Aug 20, 2017 9:17 PM It's mostly down to culture.
Some people are more culturally predisposed to exploring and trying new things.
If you believe the future will be better than the past then you will be prepared to work to
improve things, if you believe the world is in terminal decline and that the glory days were some
time ago, either when gods or prophets did all the important stuff or when your locale was more
prosperous then you will not be as encouraged to work on improvements and you will thend to hoarde
meagre resources and live by thrift with minimal expenditure.
Oracle of Kypseli
Occident Mortal
Aug 20, 2017 10:00 PM I think that colonialism is in play again as the advance societies are
starving for resources and will invest in these countries in exchange. This will change the trend
into better education, better jobs and everything that comes with it for the middle classes but
perpetuate slave wages for the uneducated masses.
The world is not changing but morphing. It's the nomenclature that changes for the sake of
political correcteness and feel good predisposition.
DjangoCat
Oracle of Kypseli
Aug 20, 2017 10:15 PM
The history of western investment in third world resources does not
make for a pretty read. Look now at what has happened just in the last months of a major silver
mine being closed in a small Central American country, where the local manager has been accused
of murdering protestors and objectors to the mines presence in their midst, destroying the countryside.
The CIA seems to have had, as it's primary objective, the job of clearing the way for US and
British, and Canadian industrial, infrastructure and mining interests to come in and take the
resources. A good payoff to the man in power greases the wheels, and the people get nothing but
a degraded environment and mammoth debt.
The next step is to restructure the debt, in the process privatizing state infrastructure at
cut rate prices. This is nothing but mass rape and pillage.
Wake up.
Unknown User
DjangoCat
Aug 20, 2017 10:54 PM
England never freed its colonies. It simply changed the means of enslavement
from physical to financial.
Eeyores Enigma
DjangoCat
Aug 21, 2017 12:38 AM
Too true DC but that truth doesn't work well with "American Exceptionalism"
so we get articles like this one.
Ayreos
Eeyores Enigma
Aug 21, 2017 3:57 AM
"American exceptionalism" is just a small-time ugly consequence of the
actual phenomenon: good old imperialism, taught by the British. And there's nothing wrong with
it. All European countries have accepted NATO and american influence on them willingly. They have
all recognized and validated American exceptionalism themselves. As subjects of an empire they
now complain that the Emperor is quickly losing its clothes,
Crazy Or Not
Occident Mortal
Aug 21, 2017 5:38 AM
True you have to have "Ambition & Will" for change to stomach the difficult
period of creating that change.
(eg Gandhi, US independence etc).
...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through
industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications,
ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech...
This however while a factor is also bias. Post WWII no weapons (other than US) were permitted
in Pacific war region and a decisive factor in limiting the influence of the Brits in their pre
war colonies. Post colonials also saw war as a way out of colonial rule, using US leverage to
oust Brit influence.
edit - probably BritBob will go apoplectic with this? Cue "Rule Britania"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRwj1SmPF5w
...and other jingoistic bollocks ;)
buttmint
Oh regional Indian
Aug 21, 2017 12:41 AM
...
all ZHers owe themselves trek to Mother India, quite a head turning
experience. One comes to appreciate the West's "can-do philosophy."
This approach to problem solving is in small measure in India. India's fine burgeoning medical
capital in Chennai (old Madraas) is a testament to talented Indians being schooled in Occidental
universities and then returned to Mother India to set up shop. In many ways, India will lead the
West OUT of their self-imposed medical nemesis. There is much progress in India. All Indians love
to ORATE. You betcha, they stand on the corner and begin lecturing. A much better approach than
USA's 535 idiots and grifters that make up the US Congress.
My own hunch is that India will eclipse the remarkable progress of China. Stay tuned as the
world squirms.....
Oh regional Indian
Koba the Dread
Aug 21, 2017 2:54 AM
Unfortunately, it has become quite the living hell....
Western model of development + rampant corruption + poor engineering standards have made this
a hotch-potch of a rending screech of a marriage between east and west....
Ayreos
Oh regional Indian
Aug 21, 2017 3:51 AM
Perhaps it's time to admit Indians got a chance to take their country
back and move their society forward, seen through nationalist Gandhi, but Indians neither want
nor understand the concept of moving forward.
Without the "western model of development" there would be no development in India for millennia.
Kobe Beef
Ayreos
Aug 21, 2017 5:20 AM
Without the Aryan colonization/admixture of many millennia ago, there
would never have been any civilization on the Indian Subcontinent.
The Second Aryan invasion (ie British colonialism) left barely enough behind to last more than
the coming century.
The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal . But there is
huge amount of paper profits to be derived from pretending otherwise. There is a lot of ruin to
be extracted from the Commons. At home, The African Equality Racket has garnered trillions so
far, with no sign of stopping. Abroad, The Afghan Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far,
with no sign of stopping. No signs of progress with either hominid population. And yet, we still
have people arguing that culture is somehow separate from biology.
But back to the topic at hand..
Prediction: India returns to barbarism and warring superstitions.
asstrix
Ayreos
Aug 21, 2017 5:21 AM
The western way of moving forward is about consuming, using up resources.
Once the resources are gone, they have to find a new place to plunder, in order to again move
forward.
The eastern culture is in general about living in a sustainable manner, in harmony with nature.
Their way is more about trade and not war. This is why they got conquered so easily.
Now I can't say which is better. Plundering and moving forward or staying put and living in
peace with nature. My only hope is that the easterners have enough of the western values already
in them to not repeat the old mistakes again.
Tallest Skil
doctor10
Aug 20, 2017 9:40 PM
Reminder that Europe (((gave up))) the entire colored portion of the
map above because Germany wanted a land corridor to East Prussia.
Son of Captain Nemo
Aug 20, 2017 9:32 PM
"...the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair
intellectuals was that once the correct incentives were in place and institutions were organized,
these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual growth.
They couldn't have been more wrong..."
Anyone who tracked the likes of Hans Adler a German/Brazilian Jew who worked for the World
Bank in the 60s and 70s and who I studied under at George Mason University in the 80s knows that
the "Latifundio/Minifundio" land tenure structure was the mechanism and means to exploit the gold
fillings "literally" out of the mouths of the natives that owned and tended their lands throughout
Latin America from the 40s through the 80s doing what the World Bank and IMF always has done it's
best to get the multinationals in to take over the most important arable land for exploitation
through "incentivized" loan deals that ended up robbing them of all their ownership for worthless
"shit paper" -- ... Rinse and repeat for the "model" used everywhere else especially Middle Eastern
oil.
John Perkins solidified it in his work "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" 25 years later...
Too little too late I'm afraid. Only wish there were many more like him --
DemandSider
Son of Captain Nemo
Aug 21, 2017 1:05 AM
I only wish Perkins had explained the role of the dollar. This book,
'The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony' 'Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets' explains
that better. He does explain how The IMF and World Bank keep them in line with debt, though.
The Cooler King
Aug 20, 2017 9:23 PM
"There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept
of either the pipe or the wheel"
But they can balance a mean jug of water on their head, which makes make them perfect candidates
to GET RICH buying cryptos
Moe Hamhead
The Cooler King
Aug 20, 2017 9:30 PM
Obummer removed Churchill's bust from the Oval office -- He was
offended by his graven image. I recall that it has since been brought back.
TuPhat
Jason T
Aug 20, 2017 11:20 PM
I agree, except for the part about the internet being responsible for
wealth. That part is garbage. Internet wealth is non productive and eventually a drain on any
economy.
DjangoCat
Aug 20, 2017 10:02 PM
Read "The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". IMF, USAID and BIS have
worked in unison to rape and pillage the "Third World"
This is not a problem of the colonies falling apart, it is a problem of deliberate overselling
of debt with a side of mandated privatisation, followed by ruin and sale of government assets,
followed by grinding povery and tax to pay the interest on the ever climbing debt.
This is a system of overt debt slavery disguised as aid.
I think this piece is white wash propaganda. Tylers??
Koba the Dread
DjangoCat
Aug 21, 2017 2:00 AM
Well said, Cat -- The occupying nations left a cadre of native
criminals behind to enslave their countrymen. The cadre of native criminals take their cut and
pass the rest uphill to London, Paris or New York. They call it "Independence" -- Sort of
like what happened in the new United States of America where farmers and artisans fought for freedom
from Great Britain and New York, Massachusetts and Virginia aristocrats took over the country.
Oh regional Indian
Scanderbeg
Aug 20, 2017 10:40 PM
You need to read up on a litle history my friend..... your post is ignorant
at so many levels, it's laughable. The number of highly advanced concepts that were stolen from
the east over the centuries is legion. India and the ME were the root of all great knowledge, astrology,
astronomy, metallurgy (Damascus steel came from India), mathematics (Zero came from India)......
Whites were shitting on the streets and eating their dead not 300 years ago.
Jhonny come lately with a gun, get it? And all your scientific wonders are toxic to the world
and humans. All of them, including your "medicine"....
Notable quotes:
"... Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power. ..."
"... "That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying." ..."
"... The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free. I've got my hands back on my weapons ..."
Axios:
that part of that war effort might include a brand new cable news network to the right of Fox
News.
Axios' Jonathan Swan hears Bannon has told friends he sees a massive opening to the right of
Fox News , raising the possibility that he's going to start a network. Bannon's friends are speculating about whether it will be a standalone TV network, or online
streaming only.
Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a
channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist
direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power.
Now he has the means, motive and opportunity: His chief financial backer, Long Island hedge
fund billionaire Bob Mercer, is ready to invest big in what's coming next, including a huge
overseas expansion of Breitbart News. Of course, this new speculation comes after Bannon declared last Friday that he was "
going to war" for
Trump ...
" If there's any confusion out there, let me clear it up. I'm leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents... on Capitol
Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,
Meanwhile, with regard his internal adversaries , at the departments of State and Defense,
who think the United States can enlist Beijing's aid on the North Korean standoff, and at
Treasury and the National Economic Council who don't want to mess with the trading system,
Bannon was ever harsher...
"Oh, they're wetting themselves," he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which
was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only
temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has
big plans to marginalize their influence.
"That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury
and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying."
Finally, perhaps no one can summarize what Bannon has planned for the future than Bannon
himself:
"The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free.
I've got my hands back on my weapons.
I am definitely going to crush the opposition. There's no
doubt. I built a f***ing machine at Breitbart. And now we're about to rev that machine up."
Globalists here means neoliberals and often neocons.
That means that Trump administration has strong neocon/neolib "fifth column" -- the "enemy within" that tries to mold him into Republican
version of Obama -=- professional "bait and switch" artists with his fake slogan "Change we can believe in".
Obama simply used anti-racism as a tool to further his own image. His actions while in office proved beyond a doubt that he certainly
never gave a damn about racism. All he ever did was pay lip service to anti-racism ideals. He was about as trustworthy as a snake.
Notable quotes:
"... The chief strategist had been involved in a nasty tug-of-war with what his allies view as the "globalist" wing of the White House, represented by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. ..."
"... On Friday, conservatives lashed out at what they viewed as Trump selling out his base and surrendering to those "liberal" forces. ..."
"... "Steve's allies in the populist nationalist movement are ready to ride to the gates of hell with him against the West Wing Democrats and globalists like [national security aide] Dina Powell, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster," said one Bannon ally. ..."
Originally from The Hill
A number of conservatives expressed fury and dismay on Friday after news broke that President Trump has parted ways with his chief
strategist, Stephen Bannon.
Bannon is a hero on the right and credited with harnessing Trump's message of economic populism during the campaign.
The chief strategist had been involved in a nasty tug-of-war with what his allies view as the "globalist" wing of the White
House, represented by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and national security adviser
H.R. McMaster.
On Friday, conservatives lashed out at what they viewed as Trump selling out his base and surrendering to those "liberal"
forces.
"I'm very upset," said Tea Part activist Debbie Dooley. "The deep state globalists won. They forced out Steve Bannon. I had a
'CNN is fake news protest' scheduled for tomorrow at their headquarters in Atlanta that I'm canceling because I'm so disheartened.
It's a betrayal of his base. I'll continue to support Trump and his policies but I'll no longer be on the front lines defending him."
There are rumors that Bannon could be headed back to Breitbart News, where as chairman he is credited with turning the outlet
into a right-wing juggernaut.
Breitbart has been explicitly pro-Trump since the GOP presidential primaries and has vigorously defended the president through
his tumultuous first months in office. Regional editors at the internet publication made clear that their loyalties lie with Bannon
over Trump. There are some fears among Trump allies that Bannon could wreak havoc on the administration from outside of the White
House.
For months, Breitbart has been running attacks against Kushner, Cohn and McMaster in an effort to boost Bannon's standing in the
West Wing. The sense of urgency to protect Bannon grew after McMaster ousted several of Bannon's allies from the national security
council.
Now, with Bannon gone, his allies are cutting loose.
"Steve's allies in the populist nationalist movement are ready to ride to the gates of hell with him against the West Wing
Democrats and globalists like [national security aide] Dina Powell, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster," said
one Bannon ally.
"They should all be very worried that their efforts to undermine the president will be exposed. If they think what's happened
with Steve is rough, wait until they see what he does outside the White House," the ally said.
Last week, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, spoke to Trump, urging him not to fire
Bannon, GOP sources said.
A senior White House official told The Hill that the president had been inundated in recent days from "high-level Republican donors
and activists" pleading with the president to keep Bannon on.
With both Bannon and former chief of staff Reince Priebus out, "a lot of GOP lawmakers are confused and nervous about who they
are supposed to talk to in the administration," said one GOP source. "They both did the bulk of Hill outreach."
Notable quotes:
"... "Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the desk and cry," he told multiple people. ..."
"... Mr. Bannon made little secret of the fact that he believed "Javanka," as he referred to the couple behind their backs, had naïve political instincts and were going to alienate Mr. Trump's core coalition of white working-class voters. ..."
With little process to speak of, tensions over policy swelled. Ideological differences devolved into caustic personality clashes.
Perhaps nowhere was the mutual disgust thicker than between Mr. Bannon and Mr. Trump's daughter and son-in-law.
Mr. Bannon openly complained to White House colleagues that he resented how Ms. Trump would try to undo some of the major policy
initiatives that he and Mr. Trump agreed were important to the president's economic nationalist agenda, like withdrawing from the
Paris climate accords. In this sense, he was relieved when Mr. Kelly took over and put in place a structure that kept other aides
from freelancing.
"Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the desk and cry," he told multiple people.
Mr. Bannon made little secret of the fact that he believed "Javanka," as he referred to the couple behind their backs, had naïve
political instincts and were going to alienate Mr. Trump's core coalition of white working-class voters.
Notable quotes:
"... For the record, Mr. Bannon gave notice on 8/7 to POTUS. As well, Mr. Bannon, when appointed to Trump's cabinet, stated for any who bothered to read/listen that he would accept under one condition, which was he'd be leaving the WH in eight months. Eight months brings us to 8/7. No one fired him. He is back at Breitbart as its Chairman. ..."
"... Bannon's interview with the American Prospect last week was his shot across the proverbial bow aimed directly at the globalists who are determined to keep their march toward raping the world from all her resources aka the NWO/neocon/neolib mafia while fomenting more war(s). ..."
"... If you are unaware of the current round of NAFTA negotiations, now in its fourth day, w/Canada and Mexico OR if you are unaware that on Friday the Trump administration formally launched a Section 301 Trade investigation into China's trading practices, then you are not paying attention to what the right hand is doing. ..."
"... Oh, and btw, it was Kushner and his data operation who carried Trump over the finish line not Bannon and his policy positions. ..."
h | Aug 20, 2017 12:52:39 PM |
122
Francis @68 - Refreshing to read a comment by someone who obviously has made it her/his
business to understand Trump and Team from the conservative perspective. Great comment and spot
on IMHO.
For the record, Mr. Bannon gave notice on 8/7 to POTUS. As well, Mr. Bannon, when appointed
to Trump's cabinet, stated for any who bothered to read/listen that he would accept under one
condition, which was he'd be leaving the WH in eight months. Eight months brings us to 8/7. No
one fired him. He is back at Breitbart as its Chairman.
Bannon's interview with the American Prospect last week was his shot across the proverbial
bow aimed directly at the globalists who are determined to keep their march toward raping the
world from all her resources aka the NWO/neocon/neolib mafia while fomenting more war(s).
Bannon with Mercer and et al backing (and I can make a pretty solid educated guess that
there are others) have been developing a new media platform of some kind which will be launched
in weeks not months (another educated guess). Sinclair broadcasting has been mentioned on other
conservative platforms as getting ready to make a move of some kind as well.
As Breitbart's editor wrote on Friday following the Bannon announcement - "WAR" - is
unequivocally that sites way of saying the Swamp in DC is going to be drained. Indeed, Trump
and Team have already begun to roll out their 2018 election strategy.
Any who hold the belief that Trump is stupid, naive, or whatever derogatory statement
conjured up is just plain wrong and shouldn't be taken seriously by any here who know
better.
Trump is a businessman. Trump is not a politician. And he certainly wasn't elected to serve
as America's grandpa-he ain't gonna hold your hand...ever.
If you are unaware of the current round of NAFTA negotiations, now in its fourth day,
w/Canada and Mexico OR if you are unaware that on Friday the Trump administration formally
launched a Section 301 Trade investigation into China's trading practices, then you are not
paying attention to what the right hand is doing.
There is always much going on behind all of the noise the insufferable Left makes on a daily
basis. Apparently, they don't want you to know about any of the plethora of Executive Orders
signed, the roll back of regulations zero and czars put in place, the trade negotiations and
so, so much more.
On the other hand, conservative sites are all over the blogosphere report daily what this
administration is doing and how it is succeeding. Bannon remains a phone call away.
Oh, and btw, it was Kushner and his data operation who carried Trump over the finish line
not Bannon and his policy positions.
Notable quotes:
"... The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon. ..."
Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise.
The war veteran
has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a
series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon.
The strategist denied involvement, but he also did not speak out against them.
By the time Charlottesville erupted, Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump had a powerful ally in Mr.
Kelly, who shared their belief that Mr. Trump's first statement blaming "many sides" for the
deadly violence needed to be amended.
Mr. Bannon vigorously objected. He told Mr. Kelly that if Mr. Trump delivered a second, more
contrite statement it would do him no good, with either the public or the Washington press
corps, which he denigrated as a "Pretorian guard" protecting the Democrats' consensus that Mr.
Trump is a race-baiting demagogue. Mr. Trump could grovel, beg for forgiveness, even get down
on his knees; it would never work, Mr. Bannon maintained.
"They're going to say two things: It's too late and it's not enough," Mr. Bannon told Mr.
Kelly.
The first earlier in the day was "
Report: Powerful GOP Donor Sheldon Adelson Supports Campaign to Oust McMaster ." This article
detailed how major Republican donor Sheldon Adelson reportedly is supporting a campaign against McMaster
that claims the national security adviser is anti-Israel.
Later in the day, the lead story on the site was "
McMaster Of Disguise: Nat'l Security Adviser Endorsed Book That Advocates Quran-Kissing Apology Ceremonies
." This piece from frequent McMaster critic Aaron Klein said that McMaster endorsed a book that "calls
on the U.S. military to respond to any 'desecrations' of the Quran by service members with an apology
ceremony, and advocates kissing a new copy of the Quran before presenting the Islamic text to the
local Muslim public."
The article went on to say that McMaster has "troubling views" on Islamic terrorism.
The site also published two articles Sunday critical of Ivanka. One of them is an
aggregate of a Daily Mail report that claimed Ivanka helped push Bannon out of the White House.
Shortly after the story was published, the article received an update that said a White House senior
aide stated the Daily Mail report is "totally false."
Breitbart also wrote a
piece that highlighted six times Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner's displeasure with President
Trump had been leaked to the media.
Bannon said in interviews after his departure from the White House that he will use Breitbart
to fight for the president's agenda.
"In many ways, I think I can be more effective fighting from the outside for the agenda President
Trump ran on," Bannon told
The New York Times . "And anyone who stands in our way, we will go to war with."
Notable quotes:
"... Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class. ..."
"... There's more to it than that. Its true that the white working class in America are the only group that the media feels it is acceptable to insult/denigrate. What was it Obama said - People in small towns clinging on to their religion & guns. ..."
"... The white middle class has to walk the walk with respect of social justice. Due to the economics of it, multiculturalism has affected the working classes far more than the middle classes. As I say, I'm prepared for the consequences personally, but I wonder how many others would be. ..."
"... People may underestimate the populist element in Bannon's make up. As Scaramucci tells it, both he and Bannon had white middle class fathers who had played with a straight bat and had their retirement savings wiped out in 2008 and all that, while the fat cats were saved by Uncle Sam. Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there. ..."
"... "In Bannon's view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon, the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now. ..."
"... I got the strong sense that Trump was hunkered down defensively and baring his teeth like a feral dog trapped in a corner. ..."
"... Trump is not Mussolini or Franco in that he is not a true believer ..."
"... With the exception of the military which at this point is a state unto itself the government is a paradox of being both omnipresent and nowhere and thus truly Kafkaesque...utterly opaque and completely visible at all times... ..."
"... The left's focus on identity politics is the reason this Bannon chump is relevant at all. The switch in focus from class to race and gender has segmented the working class from the common struggle. A people divided. This is about the only strategic fact Bannon understands. But it is an important one. ..."
"... Identity politics at its core is mostly untenable and while it might treat the symptoms of disease in the short run it will always collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies. The blind squirrel Bannon has found his nut. Continuing to assert that poor white men have it made is demonstrably false and offensive. And gives the alt-right plenty of tools to recruit. ..."
jessthecrip ,
18 Aug 2017 09:16
Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless
of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class.
So a billionaire like Trump, with Bannon's aid, does whatever he can to focus the disatisfaction of the population on people
who have a different skin colour, rather than the vastly rich elites who have grabbed such a massive share of US wealth and power
- and demand yet more
joey2000 ->
jessthecrip , 18 Aug 2017 09:29
There's more to it than that. Its true that the white working class in America are the only group that the media feels
it is acceptable to insult/denigrate. What was it Obama said - People in small towns clinging on to their religion & guns.
Must have gone down really well in those rustbelt towns where everyone is on oxycontin out of sheer despair. But hey, they're
only rednecks so who cares right ?
JerHig ->
jessthecrip , 18 Aug 2017 09:36
Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country,
regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class.
Exactly, it's all about creating a group you can point to and say "at least you're not as bad off as them!"
When your entire existence is predicated on 'at least I'm not the worst off' it becomes frightening when those who were previously
'worse off' start improving. But instead of improving themselves they try and bring the others down again.
MattSpanner ->
Isomewhatagree , 18 Aug 2017 09:34
That's what I don't get about the Nazis who turned up in Charlottsville: they chanted "Jews will not replace us" and also "we're
going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump". How can Nazis believe Trump is on their side when his daughter is married to a
Jew? There are so many contradictions in this situation that I can't get my head around it.
asparagusnextleft ->
MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 09:40
It's simple. They're fucking idiots.
Fwaffy ->
BrokenLogic , 18 Aug 2017 09:34
It's remarkable isn't it, the man appears to be visibly decomposing. It's been suggested that the statue of Robert E Lee was
his penultimate Horcrux.
MattSpanner ->
Fwaffy , 18 Aug 2017 09:49
He looks like an alchy.
therebythegrace ->
MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 10:13
Or Dorian Gray's picture. Maybe the more evil Trump gets, the worse Bannon looks?
Ravenblade ->
Bjerkley , 18 Aug 2017 10:35
Someone has to lose out in a redistribution of anything, be it political power or wealth. I mention the white middle classes
because they tend to the the keyboard warriors refusing to tackle the insecurities and concerns of the white working class, and
simply resorting to calling them racist.
The white middle class has to walk the walk with respect of social justice. Due to the economics of it, multiculturalism
has affected the working classes far more than the middle classes. As I say, I'm prepared for the consequences personally, but
I wonder how many others would be.
Agree with your latter point and I'm sensitive to the fact that within class groups, minorities and women remain disadvantaged;
I'm not saying we don't continue to look at that. But realistically, on an economic level, you're not going to get white working
class men accepting that middle class minorities or women are disadvantaged compared to them, are you? The only reason this distinction
doesn't seem to happen (class lines) is because most of the SJW contingent suddenly have to check an aspect of privilege they're
unkeen to pay attention to.
tamborineman ,
18 Aug 2017 09:27
People may underestimate the populist element in Bannon's make up. As Scaramucci tells it, both he and Bannon had white
middle class fathers who had played with a straight bat and had their retirement savings wiped out in 2008 and all that, while
the fat cats were saved by Uncle Sam. Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there.
As to Bannon still in the job, I think LBJ's story about tents and which way the piss goes applies.
Bjerkley ->
tamborineman , 18 Aug 2017 09:31
Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there.
As others have noted, given that both of them worked in finance/had some background in finance, it's odd that their fathers
lost savings which could have been avoided (Bannon's father, for instance, only lost out because he sold his stock but it regained
its value shortly afterwards, i.e. it was a bad financial decision). But as you say, its out there.
KeithNJ ->
Bjerkley , 18 Aug 2017 09:54
Indeed. If you held on through the crash you now have double the money you had in 2007.
There are some pretty basic retirement rules (60/40 equity to bonds or less, keep 2 years in cash) which if anyone followed
would have resulted in no pain from the crash, just some anxiety.
If he got greedy, had 100% in equities and sold at the bottom of the market because he had not kept a cash cushion - well he
cannot blame the Chinese for that.
Of course he was bitter before his son became a billionaire, but to still be bitter is more about character than the economy.
MattSpanner ,
18 Aug 2017 09:28
"In Bannon's view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must
be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon,
the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now.
"What we are witnessing," Bannon told The Washington Post last month, "is the birth of a new political order.""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-apocalypse_us_5898f02ee4b040613138a951
...and along comes N.Korea and makes all Bannon's dreams come true.
richmanchester ->
MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 09:34
Though in Bannon's last interview he explicitly stated there was no military option available wrt North Korea.
Dwaina Tembreull ->
userforaday , 18 Aug 2017 09:54
An interesting interpretation of his behavior. I got the strong sense that Trump was hunkered down defensively and baring
his teeth like a feral dog trapped in a corner.
ID4524057 ,
18 Aug 2017 17:49
" and it has forged an indefatigable core of support that will stay with Trump through the next general election and
beyond."
Except that atavistic and uneducated people can and will change their sense of allegiance on a dime or a whim and given the
fact that Trump is not an ideologue but rather an unstable pathological narcissist and a bigot (versus espousing a coherent racist
plan of action because he has a particular ideological agenda) there is no way to effectively predict what his actions will echo
in that part of his base and therefore no way to predict what his base will do if Trump is untethered from Bannon. Trump is as
likely to make a boneheaded deal with China that pleases Wall Street as he is to accidentally start a war. He is as likely to
break his support as he is to cement it.
As Christopher Hitchens said:
"A feature, not just of the age of the end of ideology, but of the age immediately preceding the age of the end of ideology,
is that of the dictator who has no ideology at all."
Trump is not Mussolini or Franco in that he is not a true believer though he is a bigot and clearly dictatorial. Trump
is all expediency first and faith second even if he has consistently been a racist.
The second problematic issue is that if you assert that Axelrod and Rove "achieved" anything of lasting consequence then Axelrod
could not have followed Rove and Bannon could not have followed Axelrod.
Unlike in France where the president serves far longer the reelection cycle here with its utterly corrupt need to raise massive
amounts of cash which then forces candidates to constantly be in race mode (and effectively reduces the period of actual governance
to around 18 months) has created a perpetually unstable and ineffective bureaucracy that has more in common with late Ottoman
inefficiency than it does with a contemporary "modern" state.
With the exception of the military which at this point is a state unto itself the government is a paradox of being both
omnipresent and nowhere and thus truly Kafkaesque...utterly opaque and completely visible at all times...
Further, there is this: "There's another reason why firing Bannon wouldn't be a huge loss: his work is largely done."
In fact, Trump has achieved nothing and done nothing of lasting change to the bureaucracy. In a sense it is analogous to the
situation with North Korea where, despite Trump's pale Strangelove imitation it was noted in the media that the military had made
no changes to its posture.
... ... ...
jmad357 ,
18 Aug 2017 17:53
The only time I have ever agreed with Bannon is that his analysis of the potential for N Korea to destroy S Korea with an artillery
barrage. With about 12,000 artillery prices the North could launch somewhere around 50,000 shells per minute into Soul. Do the
arithmetic for a 10 minute shelling. Any grandstanding by the US military is simply folly.
MasMaz ,
18 Aug 2017 17:59
The left's focus on identity politics is the reason this Bannon chump is relevant at all. The switch in focus from class
to race and gender has segmented the working class from the common struggle. A people divided. This is about the only strategic
fact Bannon understands. But it is an important one.
Identity politics at its core is mostly untenable and while it might treat the symptoms of disease in the short run it
will always collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies. The blind squirrel Bannon has found his nut. Continuing
to assert that poor white men have it made is demonstrably false and offensive. And gives the alt-right plenty of tools to recruit.
Notable quotes:
"... Contrary to Trump's threat of fire and fury, Bannon said: "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ..."
"... "To me," Bannon said, "the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able to recover." ..."
"... Bannon's plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. "We're going to run the tables on these guys. We've come to the conclusion that they're in an economic war and they're crushing us." ..."
"... "The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." ..."
"... For ideas on how to counter the far-right agenda in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville, click here . ..."
You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of
events in Charlottesville, he is widely blamed for his boss's continuing indulgence of white supremacists. Allies of National Security
Adviser H.R. McMaster hold Bannon responsible for a campaign by Breitbart News, which Bannon once led, to vilify the security chief.
Trump's defense of Bannon, at his Tuesday press conference, was tepid.
But Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of taking a harder line with China,
and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury. "They're
wetting themselves," he said, proceeding to detail how he would oust some of his opponents at State and Defense.
Needless to say, I was a little stunned to get an email from Bannon's assistant midday Tuesday, just as all hell was breaking loose
once again about Charlottesville, saying that Bannon wished to meet with me.
Needless to say, I was a little stunned to get an email from Bannon's assistant midday Tuesday, just as all hell was breaking
loose once again about Charlottesville, saying that Bannon wished to meet with me. I'd
just published a column on how China was
profiting from the U.S.-North Korea nuclear brinkmanship, and it included some choice words about Bannon's boss.
"In Kim, Trump has met his match," I wrote. "The risk of two arrogant fools blundering into a nuclear exchange is more serious
than at any time since October 1962." Maybe Bannon wanted to scream at me?
I told the assistant that I was on vacation, but I would be happy to speak by phone. Bannon promptly called.
Far from dressing me down for comparing Trump to Kim, he began, "It's a great honor to finally track you down. I've followed your
writing for years and I think you and I are in the same boat when it comes to China. You absolutely nailed it."
"We're at economic war with China," he added. "It's in all their literature. They're not shy about saying what they're doing.
One of us is going to be a hegemon in 25 or 30 years and it's gonna be them if we go down this path. On Korea, they're just tapping
us along. It's just a sideshow."
Bannon said he might consider a deal in which China got North Korea to freeze its nuclear buildup with verifiable inspections
and the United States removed its troops from the peninsula, but such a deal seemed remote. Given that China is not likely to do
much more on North Korea, and that the logic of mutually assured destruction was its own source of restraint, Bannon saw no reason
not to proceed with tough trade sanctions against China.
Contrary to Trump's threat of fire and fury, Bannon said: "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget
it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes
from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." Bannon went on
to describe his battle inside the administration to take a harder line on China trade, and not to fall into a trap of wishful thinking
in which complaints against China's trade practices now had to take a backseat to the hope that China, as honest broker, would help
restrain Kim.
"To me," Bannon said, "the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue
to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able
to recover."
Bannon's plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology
transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. "We're going
to run the tables on these guys. We've come to the conclusion that they're in an economic war and they're crushing us."
But what about his internal adversaries, at the departments of State and Defense, who think the United States can enlist Beijing's
aid on the North Korean standoff, and at Treasury and the National Economic Council who don't want to mess with the trading system?
"Oh, they're wetting themselves," he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which was put on hold when the war of threats
with North Korea broke out, was shelved only temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon
has big plans to marginalize their influence.
"I'm changing out people at East Asian Defense; I'm getting hawks in. I'm getting Susan Thornton [acting head of East Asian and
Pacific Affairs] out at State."
But can Bannon really win that fight internally?
"That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair]
Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying."
"We gotta do this. The president's default position is to do it, but the apparatus is going crazy. Don't get me wrong. It's like,
every day."
Bannon explained that his strategy is to battle the trade doves inside the administration while building an outside coalition
of trade hawks that includes left as well as right. Hence the phone call to me.
There are a couple of things that are startling about this premise. First, to the extent that most of the opponents of Bannon's
China trade strategy are other Trump administration officials, it's not clear how reaching out to the left helps him. If anything,
it gives his adversaries ammunition to characterize Bannon as unreliable or disloyal.
More puzzling is the fact that Bannon would phone a writer and editor of a progressive publication (the cover lines on whose first
two issues after Trump's election were "Resisting Trump" and "Containing Trump") and assume that a possible convergence of views
on China trade might somehow paper over the political and moral chasm on white nationalism.
The question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up. This is also puzzling, since Steve Bannon is not
exactly Bambi when it comes to dealing with the press. He's probably the most media-savvy person in America.
I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the ugly white nationalism epitomized by the
racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump's reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of
using Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump's base.
He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's
a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."
"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.
From his lips to Trump's ear.
"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every
day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."
I had never before spoken with Bannon. I came away from the conversation with a sense both of his savvy and his recklessness.
The waters around him are rising, but he is going about his business of infighting, and attempting to cultivate improbable outside
allies, to promote his China strategy. His enemies will do what they do.
Either the reports of the threats to Bannon's job are grossly exaggerated and leaked by his rivals, or he has decided not to change
his routine and to go down fighting. Given Trump's impulsivity, neither Bannon nor Trump really has any idea from day to day whether
Bannon is staying or going. He has survived earlier threats. So what the hell, damn the torpedoes.
The conversation ended with Bannon inviting me to the White House after Labor Day to continue the discussion of China and trade.
We'll see if he's still there.
For ideas on how to counter the far-right agenda in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville,
click here .
Notable quotes:
"... Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one. ..."
"... Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense. ..."
"... Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual. ..."
"... n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills. ..."
"... The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland. ..."
"... I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it. ..."
"... As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration. ..."
"... In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway. ..."
"... The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise. ..."
"... The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots. ..."
The announcement of the
'resignation' of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon represents the culmination of a process which began with the equally
forced 'resignation' of President Trump's first National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.
Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people
like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one.
Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican
conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands:
General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the
Secretary of Defense.
In the case of Bannon, it is his clear that his ousting was insisted on by General Kelly, who is
continuing to tighten
his control of the White House.
Bannon's removal – not coincidentally – has come at the same time that General H.R. McMaster is
completing his purge of
the remaining Flynn holdovers on the staff of the National Security Council.
Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior
official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual.
I n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be
no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than
rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated.
Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political
skills.
Bannon is sometimes credited as being the author of the President's two travel ban Executive Orders. I am sure this wrong. The
Executive Orders clearly originate with the wishes of the President himself. If Bannon did have any role in them – which is possible
– it would have been secondary to the President's own. I would add that in that case Bannon must take some of the blame for the disastrously
incompetent execution of the first of these two Executive Orders, which set the scene for the legal challenges that followed.
The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President
delivered during his recent trip to Poland.
I have already made known my views of this speech
. I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points,
and the President has derived no political benefit from it.
However it is the closest thing to an ideological statement the President has made since he took office, and Bannon is widely
believed – probably rightly – to have written it.
As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and
appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible
since the inauguration.
In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump
administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to
know much about Bannon anyway.
It is in a completely different respect – one wholly independent of President Trump's success or failure as President – that the
events of the last few weeks give cause for serious concern.
The events of the last year highlight the extent to which the US is in deep political crisis.
The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are
openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both
now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise.
All this is happening at the same time that there is growing criticism of the economic institutions of the US government, which
since the 2008 financial crisis have seemed to side with a wealthy and unprincipled minority against the interests of the majority.
The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure
of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots.
It is striking that the only officials President Trump can nominate to senior positions who do not immediately run into bitter
opposition have been – apart from General Flynn, who was a special case – senior soldiers.
Now the military in the persons of Kelly, McMaster and Mattis find themselves at the heart of the US government to an extent that
has never been true before in US history, even during the Presidencies of former military men like Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant
or Dwight Eisenhower.
The last time that happened in a major Western nation – that the civilian institutions of the state had become so dysfunctional
that the military as the only functioning institution left ended up dominating the nation's government and deciding the nation's
policies – was in Germany in the lead up to the First World War.
Time will show what the results will be this time, but the German example is hardly a reassuring one.
Bannon does not have a well defined economic policy. And he was a suspected leaker.
For a former military officer he also have pretty lose lips (which tend to sink ships) and penchant for self-promotion as we later
discovered from Wolff's book
Notable quotes:
"... Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/ ..."
"... US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity." ..."
"... We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow. ..."
"... Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera. ..."
"... Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality. ..."
"... The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes. ..."
"... Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times. ..."
Are we a step closer to War?
jawbone | Aug 18, 2017 2:19:23 PM |
97
Well, with Bannon gone who will have most influence over Trump now? Will the rest of the
Alt-Righters stay at the White House? Hhhmmm...
Meanwhile, while the MCM (mainstream corporate media) is unable to focus on more that one
or two things, Trump has signed an executive order which will have real work consequences as
sea levels rise. Under Obama, a rule was developed to require infrastructure projects to
consider the effects of global warming on flooding, effects of storms, etc. Now, developers
are free to build what and where they want, with no consideration for the possible damage
which might destroy those projects in the future.
Throw-away society on a grand --and expensive-- scale.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-scrap-rule-protect-094700052.html
Oh, my. Things ought to be interesting in DC in the near future. Dangerous all over in the
long run.
jawbone | Aug 18, 2017 2:20:53 PM |
98
Oops. Real work consequences should have been real world consequences. Preview is a good tool
to use....
karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 2:29:00 PM |
99
Presumably, Bannon's mouth (
American Prospect
interview) got him fired -- requested to
resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly
and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press
secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and
wish him the best.'"
https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/
Now it appears that Trump's completely surrounded by the former generals he appointed--a
different version of
Seven Days in May? Or is it the fantastical number of contradictions
finally coming home to roost as The Saker seems to think,
http://thesaker.is/the-neocons-are-pushing-the-usa-and-the-rest-of-the-world-towards-a-dangerous-crisis/
When Trump got elected, I thought the best outcome would be total gridlock in DC; and
in some ways, that's what's occurred. Yet, as The Saker points out, something's afoot if the
propaganda published by Newsweek--which is owned by Bezos--is any indication.
It's Friday. The Syrian Army is making huge gains. Congress is in recess. And the
weather forecast for Monday's eclipse here on the Oregon coast is looking positive--no
fog!
karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 2:37:52 PM |
100
previous page
Yeah jawbone, it's a good tool. I should've used it prior to my comment being grabbed by
the spambot. Al Gore's opined Trump should resign, indicating he favors Pence, which send s
what sort of message given the context Gore opined?
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/al-gore-has-just-one-small-bit-advice-trump-resign
As most barflys know, Pence is far worse on most things than Trump. Did Gore just out himself
as a previously closeted Neocon?
Anonymous | Aug 18, 2017 2:40:58 PM |
101
Another "grown up"?:
Mattis to back Kiev's claim to Crimea during Ukraine visit
US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government
in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon
said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's
sovereignty and territorial integrity."
fastfreddy | Aug 18, 2017 2:42:16 PM |
102
Manifest Destiny and Religious Zealotry (extremism) were manifested in recent history by
America's Great Leaders. Here's General Boykin:
You know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his [about Muslims in Somalia]. I knew
that my God was a real God and his was an idol.
Many other quotes here:
http://www.azquotes.com/author/39645-William_G_Boykin
Greg M | Aug 18, 2017 2:55:25 PM |
103
@96, I view this as part of an effort to push back against anti Iran pro Israel hard liners.
First with Flynn, then McMaster forcing out Flynn allies, and now Bannon. Not that McMaster
and his people are not pro Israel or possess any redeeming qualities, but it is important to
understand that Bannon and those in his circle are NOT anti interventionists.
@Madderhatter67 | Aug 18, 2017 3:21:06 PM |
104
Thirdeye & Fastfreddy
Thirdeye "The third eye is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye
which provides perception beyond ordinary sight." Wikipedia ;)
This is a good read. Especially for Thirdeye blind.
Pardon Me!
High Crimes and Demeanors in the Age of Trump
By Tom Engelhardt
Let me try to get this straight: from the moment the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 until
recently just about every politician and mainstream pundit in America assured us that we were
the planet's indispensable nation, the only truly exceptional one on this small orb of
ours.
We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the
architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake
of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last
forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the
ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the
end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a
periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the
chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the
British in its shadow.
Who could doubt that this was now our world in a coming American century beyond
compare?
And then, of course, came the attacks of 9/11................ The rest below.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/
Anonymous | Aug 18, 2017 3:34:25 PM |
105
Greg D
You couldnt be more wrong: Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the
other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also
why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera.
karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 3:37:18 PM |
106
@Madderhatter67 @104--
Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the
justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and
reality.
smuks | Aug 18, 2017 6:50:43 PM |
107
Nah...don't quite agree on this one.
The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't
forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily
what he believes.
Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated.
If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid
stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US
decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them.
But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's
crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times.
Notable quotes:
"... Lots of dunces, but chief strategist Steve Bannon, sadly, isn't one of them. The intellectual leader of the alt-right movement is no genius – nobody with his political views could be – but neither is he an idiot. He's one of the few people in that White House with even a primitive grasp of long-term strategy, which makes his impulsive-seeming decision to call The American Prospect this week curious. ..."
"... In the interview, Bannon said there was "no military solution" to North Korea's posturing. He stressed his efforts to fight economic war with China, adding, in a Scaramuccian touch, that his intramural foes on that front were "wetting themselves." ..."
"... "The longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em," he said. "I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." ..."
Reply
Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:19 AM
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-fire-steve-bannon-w498354
Fire Steve Bannon
The Trump administration's stubbly race warrior reminds us why he's so dangerous
By Matt Taibbi
21 hours ago
The list of nitwits in the Trump administration is long. Betsy DeVos, in charge of education
issues, seems capable of losing at tic-tac-toe. Ben Carson thought the great pyramids of Egypt
were grain warehouses. Rick Perry, merely in charge of the nation's nuclear arsenal, probably
has post-it notes all over his office to remind him what things are: telephone, family photo,
souvenir atomic-reactor paperweight, etc.
Lots of dunces, but chief strategist Steve Bannon, sadly, isn't one of them. The
intellectual leader of the alt-right movement is no genius – nobody with his political
views could be – but neither is he an idiot. He's one of the few people in that White
House with even a primitive grasp of long-term strategy, which makes his impulsive-seeming
decision to call The American Prospect this week curious.
In the interview, Bannon said there was "no military solution" to North Korea's
posturing. He stressed his efforts to fight economic war with China, adding, in a Scaramuccian
touch, that his intramural foes on that front were "wetting themselves."
When asked about the Charlottesville tragedy, Bannon called the neo-Nazi marchers "a
collection of clowns." He also called them "losers" and a "fringe element."
This theoretically should be a dark time for Bannon, since Charlottesville reminded the
whole world of his inexplicable and indefensible presence in the White House. The story has
even the National Review howling for his dismissal.
But Prospect writer Robert Kuttner noted with surprise in his piece that Bannon seemed
upbeat. He essentially told Kuttner he believed the Charlottesville mess and stories like it
were a long-term political windfall for people like himself.
"The longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em," he said. "I want them to talk
about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic
nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."
...
Reply
Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:20 AM
The president and senior White House officials were debating when and how to dismiss Stephen
K. Bannon as chief strategist.
Mr. Bannon had clashed for months with other senior West Wing advisers and members of the
president's family.
Trump Tells Aides He Has Decided to Remove Stephen Bannon
https://nyti.ms/2vKGSNG
NYT - MAGGIE HABERMAN - August 18
President Trump has told senior aides that he has decided to remove Stephen K. Bannon, the
embattled White House chief strategist who helped Mr. Trump win the 2016 election, according to
two administration officials briefed on the discussion.
The president and senior White House officials were debating when and how to dismiss Mr.
Bannon. The two administration officials cautioned that Mr. Trump is known to be averse to
confrontation within his inner circle, and could decide to keep on Mr. Bannon for some
time.
As of Friday morning, the two men were still discussing Mr. Bannon's future, the officials
said. A person close to Mr. Bannon insisted the parting of ways was his idea, and that he had
submitted his resignation to the president on Aug. 7, to be announced at the start of this
week, but the move was delayed after the racial unrest in Charlottesville, Va.
Mr. Bannon had clashed for months with other senior West Wing advisers and members of the
president's family.
But the loss of Mr. Bannon, the right-wing nationalist who helped propel some of Mr. Trump's
campaign promises into policy reality, raises the potential for the president to face criticism
from the conservative news media base that supported him over the past year.
Mr. Bannon's many critics bore down after the violence in Charlottesville. Outraged over Mr.
Trump's insistence that "both sides" were to blame for the violence that erupted at a white
nationalist rally, leaving one woman dead, human rights activists demanded that the president
fire so-called nationalists working in the West Wing. That group of hard-right populists in the
White House is led by Mr. Bannon.
On Tuesday at Trump Tower in New York, Mr. Trump refused to guarantee Mr. Bannon's job
security but defended him as "not a racist" and "a friend."
"We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," Mr. Trump said.
Mr. Bannon's dismissal followed an Aug. 16 interview he initiated with a writer with whom he
had never spoken, with the progressive publication The American Prospect. In it, Mr. Bannon
mockingly played down the American military threat to North Korea as nonsensical: "Until
somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don't
die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about,
there's no military solution here, they got us." ...
Reply
Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:37 AM
Trump on North Korea
https://nyti.ms/2vI6smj
NYT - MARK LANDLER - August 17
WASHINGTON -- For all his fire-breathing nationalism -- the demands to ban Muslims, build a
wall on the Mexican border and honor statues of Confederate heroes -- Stephen K. Bannon has
played another improbable role in the Trump White House: resident dove.
From Afghanistan and North Korea to Syria and Venezuela, Mr. Bannon, the president's chief
strategist, has argued against making military threats or deploying American troops into
foreign conflicts.
His views, delivered in a characteristically bomb-throwing style, have antagonized people
across the administration, leaving Mr. Bannon isolated and in danger of losing his job. But
they are thoroughly in keeping with his nationalist credo, and they have occasionally resonated
with the person who matters most: President Trump.
Mr. Bannon's dovish tendencies spilled into view this week in unguarded comments he made
about North Korea to a liberal publication, The American Prospect. Days after Mr. Trump
threatened to rain "fire and fury" on the North Korean government if it did not curb its
belligerent behavior, Mr. Bannon said, "There's no military solution here; they got us."
...
Reply
Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:43 AM
The casualties are not worth the little chance of blunting Kim.
Beside look: with all that money and training and so forth....DDG 62, an Aegis destroyer
could not stay safe in peaceful water!
US can't poke ISIS out of Raqqa in 3 years, what would happen with 2 million soldier tough
as VC?
+outside of Lemay/MacArthur nukes.
Reply
Friday, August 18, 2017 at 02:12 PM
"When asked about the Charlottesville tragedy, Bannon called the neo-Nazi marchers "a
collection of clowns." He also called them "losers" and a "fringe element.""
Maybe that was it? Why would he call the Prospect? Did he think he was calling the American
Conservative and it was off the record? Did he know he was out?
Reply
Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:45 AM
Stephen K. Bannon's exit was described in a White House statement as a mutual decision
between Mr. Bannon and Chief of Staff John Kelly.
Critics of Mr. Bannon, a right-wing nationalist, bore down after the violence in
Charlottesville.
Stephen Bannon Out at the White House After
Turbulent Run
https://nyti.ms/2vKGSNG
Stephen K. Bannon, the embattled chief strategist who helped President Trump win the 2016
election but clashed for months with other senior West Wing advisers, is leaving his post, a
White House spokeswoman announced Friday.
"White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be
Steve's last day," the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said in a
statement. "We are grateful for his service and wish him the best." ...
Reply
Friday, August 18, 2017 at 11:31 AM
What kind of talk doesn't threaten the money and power of the 0.1%?
What kind of talk do we get and from whom?
Reply
Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:55 AM
"The Democratic Party isn't going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime
bill."
by Jake Johnson, staff writer
....................
"The Democratic Party isn't going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill,"
Warren said. "We're not going back to the days of being lukewarm on choice. We're not going
back to the days when universal healthcare was something Democrats talked about on the campaign
trail but were too chicken to fight for after they got elected."
"And," Warren concluded, "we're not going back to the days when a Democrat who wanted to run
for a seat in Washington first had to grovel on Wall Street."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/centrist-democrats-riled-warren-says-days-lukewarm-policies-are-over
To a certain extent Bannon symbolized backlash against neoliberal globalization, that is mounting in the USA. With him gone Trump
is a really emasculated and become a puppet of generals, who are the only allies left capable to run the show. Some of them are real
neocons. What a betrayal of voters who are sick and tired of wars for expansion and protection of global neoliberal empire.
Notable quotes:
"... What Bannon's exit might mean, however, is the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism -- and I think giving up the pretense matters, at least a bit. ..."
"... The basics of the U.S. economic debate are really very simple. The federal government, as often noted, is an insurance company with an army: aside from defense, its spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (plus some ACA subsidies). ..."
"... Conservatives always claim that they want to make government smaller. But that means cutting these programs -- and what we know now, after the repeal debacle, is that people like all these programs, even the means-tested programs like Medicaid. Obama paid a large temporary price for making Medicaid/ACA bigger, paid for with taxes on the wealthy, but now that it's in place, voters hate the idea of taking it away. ..."
"... So if Bannon is out, what's left? It's just reverse Robin Hood with extra racism. On real policy, in other words, Trump is now bankrupt. ..."
"... with Bannon and economic nationalism gone, he will eventually double down on that part even more. If anything, Trump_vs_deep_state is going to get even uglier, and Trump even less presidential (if such a thing is possible) now that he has fewer people pushing for trade wars. ..."
Christopher H. ,
August 18, 2017 at 01:24 PM
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/whither-Trump_vs_deep_state/
Whither Trump_vs_deep_state?
by Paul Krugman
AUGUST 18, 2017 1:48 PM
Everyone seems to be reporting that Steve Bannon is out. I have no insights about the palace intrigue; and anyone who thinks
Trump will become "presidential" now is an idiot. In particular, I very much doubt that the influence of white supremacists and
neo-Nazis will wane.
What Bannon's exit might mean, however, is the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different
from standard Republicanism -- and I think giving up the pretense matters, at least a bit.
The basics of the U.S. economic debate are really very simple. The federal government, as often noted, is an insurance
company with an army: aside from defense, its spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (plus some ACA subsidies).
Conservatives always claim that they want to make government smaller. But that means cutting these programs -- and what
we know now, after the repeal debacle, is that people like all these programs, even the means-tested programs like Medicaid. Obama
paid a large temporary price for making Medicaid/ACA bigger, paid for with taxes on the wealthy, but now that it's in place, voters
hate the idea of taking it away.
So what's a tax-cutter to do? His agenda is fundamentally unpopular; how can it be sold?
One long-standing answer is to muddy the waters, and make elections about white resentment. That's been the strategy since
Nixon, and Trump turned the dial up to 11. And they've won a lot of elections -- but never had the political capital to reverse
the welfare state.
Another strategy is to invoke voodoo: to claim that taxes can be cut without spending cuts, because miracles will happen. That
has sometimes worked as a political strategy, but overall it seems to have lost its punch. Kansas is a cautionary tale; and under
Obama federal taxes on the top 1 percent basically went back up to pre-Reagan levels.
So what did Trump seem to offer that was new? First, during the campaign he combined racist appeals with claims that he wouldn't
cut the safety net. This sounded as if he was offering a kind of herrenvolk welfare state: all the benefits you expect, but only
for your kind of people.
Second, he offered economic nationalism: we were going to beat up on the Chinese, the Mexicans, somebody, make the Europeans
pay tribute for defense, and that would provide the money for so much winning, you'd get tired of winning. Economic nonsense,
but some voters believed it.
Where are we now? The herrenvolk welfare state never materialized, in part because Trump is too lazy to understand policy at
all, and outsourced health care to the usual suspects. So Trumpcare turned out to be the same old Republican thing: slash benefits
for the vulnerable to cut taxes for the rich. And it was desperately unpopular.
Meanwhile, things have moved very slowly on the economic nationalism front -- partly because a bit of reality struck, as export
industries realized what was at stake and retailers and others balked at the notion of new import taxes. But also, there were
very few actual voices for that policy with Trump's ear -- mainly Bannon, as far as I can tell.
So if Bannon is out, what's left? It's just reverse Robin Hood with extra racism. On real policy, in other words, Trump
is now bankrupt.
But he does have the racism thing. And my prediction is that with Bannon and economic nationalism gone, he will eventually
double down on that part even more. If anything, Trump_vs_deep_state is going to get even uglier, and Trump even less presidential (if such
a thing is possible) now that he has fewer people pushing for trade wars.
Notable quotes:
"... He was then moved quickly to contain the influence of chief strategist Steve Bannon, who McMaster removed from the National Security Council. If you recall, he was appointed to contain other Trump loyalists such as Michael Flynn, as well. ..."
"... Recently, a campaign accusing him of being anti-Israel has been waged with the support of billionaire Sheldon Adelson by a coalition of alt-right nationalists that includes Steve Bannon ..."
Remember Lieutenant-General Herbert Raymond McMaster? He was appointed as President Trump's national
security adviser back in February. He was then moved quickly to contain the influence of chief
strategist Steve Bannon, who McMaster removed from the National Security Council. If you recall,
he was appointed to contain other Trump loyalists such as Michael Flynn, as well.
Recently, a campaign accusing him of being anti-Israel has been waged with the support of
billionaire Sheldon Adelson by a coalition of alt-right nationalists that includes Steve Bannon
and extreme right-wing Zionists such as the president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton
Klein, as well as by Israeli journalist Caroline Glick from the Jerusalem Post. President Trump,
in response to all of this, called McMaster "a good man, very pro-Israel," and Israeli officials
have also come forward calling McMaster a friend of Israel.
On to talk about these connections and tensions is Shir Hever. Shir is a Real News correspondent
in Heidelberg, Germany. Of course, he covers Israel and Palestine for us extensively. I thank you
so much for joining us, Shir.
SHIR HEVER: Thanks for having me, Sharmini.
SHARMINI PERIES: Shir, President Trump is now six months into his office as president. He initially
has appointed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to take up the Israel file, but there are these allegations
flying against General McMaster. Explain to us what's going on. Why are these individuals like Sheldon
Adelson even concerned about how Trump is responding in terms of Israel and Israel policy?
SHIR HEVER: I think there's very little that General McMaster can actually do about Israel or
against Israel. It really doesn't matter much. The only issue that has come up was the Iran nuclear
deal, and I think this is going to be a decision taken directly by President Trump and not by McMaster.
Also, what exactly is the Israel interest regarding the Iran nuclear deal? It is not so clear. Obviously,
Prime Minister Netanyahu has a certain opinion, but other Israeli politicians have other opinions.
I think this is really a symbolic issue. There are people in the alt-right and also the extreme Zionism
who are using this old worn-out accusation that somebody is anti-Israel in order to get their own
people into the National Security Council, in order to exert influence on the Trump administration.
This coalition between extreme right nationalists, white nationalists in the United States, and Jewish
Zionists, which traditionally were on opposing sides, are now working together because of this very
strange rise of this alt-right.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Now, give us a greater sense of the connection or the tensions between
these alt-right organizations and McMaster and Bannon. Map this for us.
SHIR HEVER: Yeah. I've been looking through these accusations that Caroline Glick, deputy editor
of the Jerusalem Post, and Steve Bannon himself, and also Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization
of America. What problem do they have with McMaster? They make very vague things about some statements
that he made, but they couldn't put them in context. He said that Israel is an occupying power. Of
course, Israel is an occupying power, but they couldn't place that statement. The only thing that
their criticism boils down to is they say McMaster is a remnant of the Obama administration. He continues
the Obama policies, and therefore he's not loyal to Trump.
I think this is the crux of the matter, because actually, for people like Caroline Glick and I
think also for Sheldon Adelson, their relation to Trump borders on religious. They consider Trump
to be some kind of messiah or savior that will allow Israel once and for all to annex the occupied
territory, expand its borders, and then the land will be redeemed. They talk about this in religious
terminology.
Here's the problem. Trump has been president for six months now, and Israel did not annex the territory.
It did not expand its borders. In fact, it has gone from one crisis to the next, and the Israeli
government is not able to cement its power over the Palestinians. Palestinian resistance is not tied
down. They're looking for an explanation. The explanation is that something is not pure in the Trump
administration, and they're pointing the finger at McMaster saying, "Because of people like him who
are sabotaging Trump's own policies from the inside, then this is preventing the Trump administration
from reaching its full potential."
SHARMINI PERIES: Right. Obviously, Netanyahu and the Israeli government doesn't agree with this
assessment. In fact, they have come out supporting McMaster as being a good supporter of Israel.
How does this play out here?
SHIR HEVER: Absolutely. Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing real politics. He knows that there's nothing
that President Trump can do that will actually make Israel suddenly conquer more territory. That's
not the point. Netanyahu is trying to balance a very complicated system with pressure from different
points, and he is a populist, and he's only in power because of his populism. Now, his administration
is under threat because of corruption allegations, so this is a problem for him. When people expect
that the Trump administration will free his hands to do whatever he wants, Netanyahu suddenly has
a problem because he needs to come up with a new excuse. Why doesn't he annex all the occupied territory?
Of course, for him, it's not a good time to get into a fight with the Trump administration. He
wants to create the impression that things are happening under the surface, that he is in the know,
that his friends are involved in this, but I think the fact that Sheldon Adelson, the big financial
supporter of Netanyahu, is now switching to support extreme right groups that have nothing to do
with the interests of the Israeli current administration, but are actually trying to push the Israeli
administration to move further to the extreme right and to annex territory, that puts Netanyahu in
trouble. I think it also spells some clouds over the warm relationship between Netanyahu and Adelson.
SHARMINI PERIES: Coming back to this side of things here in the United States, in light of the events
of Charlottesville, Shir, showing a direct link between the alt-right and hardcore racists and neo-Nazis,
why would extreme right-wing Zionist Jewish organizations and individuals like Glick and Klein agree
to cooperate with the alt-right in this way?
SHIR HEVER: I think people on the left tend to forget that, just like the left considers itself
to be a kind of universalist movement, and that leftists around the world should have solidarity
with each other, the right also has a kind of solidarity, especially the extreme right. Extreme right
movements in different countries consider the extreme right in other countries to be their allies.
One of the things we saw in Charlottesville is that some of these neo-Nazi groups and white nationalist
groups are big supporters of Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, because they see him as the kind of strong
leader they would like to see in the United States as well.
For people who see Donald Trump talking about America first, then they're saying, "Okay, that's exactly
the kind of administration we want to see in Israel, somebody taking about Israel first." For Caroline
Gluck or for a Morton Klein, they are willing to accept a very heavy load of racism and even anti-semitism
against Jews from the Trump administration and from its supporters in exchange for being allowed
to copy that same kind of racism and that same kind of right-wing policy towards their minorities.
Just like the American administration has its minorities, Muslims, Mexicans which are being targeted,
Israel also has its minorities, Palestinians and asylum-seekers, and they want those people to be
targeted in the same harsh language and the same harsh policies, so that we can [inaudible] a great
compromise.
I have to say, the events in Charlottesville had a profound impact on Israeli public opinion.
In fact, there are a lot of Israelis who are very concerned about this kind of coalition. They are
saying, "No, there's not that much that we're willing to take in order to keep the relations with
the Trump administration on good footing." Because of that, the president of Israel, President Rivlin,
and also the education minister Naftali Bennett issued statements condemning white nationalists and
neo-Nazis in Charlottesville. I think Naftali Bennett, who is the head of the Jewish Nationalist
Party in Israel, and he's actually of the same political camp as Caroline Glick, as Morton Klein,
when he makes that statement, that shows that even he thinks that they have gone too far.
SHARMINI PERIES: Interesting analysis, Shir. I thank you so much for joining us today. I guess the
situation in Charlottesville is evolving, and it would be interesting to continue to keep an eye
on what's developing here against what's happening in Israel as well. Thank you so much.
SHIR HEVER: Thank you, Sharmini.
SHARMINI PERIES: Thank you for joining us here on the Real News Network.
Jibaro
4 hours ago
Confusing, at least to me, in any case I believe that the Zionists learned a lot from the Nazis
and there is very little difference between the two groups. I would say that the main difference
lies in the fact that the Zionists are sneakier and know how to play with popular opinion. That's
why it doesn't surprise me that they are making a common cause with the white supremacists groups.
The only surprise here is that they are doing it openly now. They have become brave and have
decided to take the backlash. Perhaps they are doing so because they know they have the support
of Trump.
Divide and conquer. Soon we will be fighting on our own streets against each other. It will
be the death of the US...
Donatella
10 hours ago
"For Caroline Gluck or for a Morton Klein, they are willing to accept a very heavy load of
racism and even anti-semitism against Jews from the Trump administration and from its supporters
in exchange for being allowed to copy that same kind of racism and that same kind of right-wing
policy towards their minorities."
I have great respect for Shir Hever, he has great insight into Israel society and politics.
However, his statement that Klein and Glick (and maybe Adelson) want to be "allowed" to copy Trump's
supporter's racism and right-wing policies towards minorities in Israel is beyond hilarious. Minorities
in Israel have been and continue to be subjected to racist and supremacist policies (much worse
than anything Trump supporters can even imagine) by the Zionists since the theft of Palestinian's
land in 1948. The Israelis are not just pursuing racist policies but as Israeli historian Ilan
Pappe said, they are committing slow motion genocide against the Palestinians.
Ethnic nationalism rises when the state and the nation experience economic difficulties. Weimar
republic is a classic example here.
Notable quotes:
"... That's exactly nationalism, for sure. The work of that wealth creation by the way is done by the all the classes below the rentier class, from working to middle class. The funneling upwards thing is actually theft. ..."
"... The middle class is shrinking and being pushed down closer to rage because the wealth-stealing mechanisms have become bigger and better, and saturated the entire national system, including its electoral politics. This real face of capitalism has driven out the iconic American Dream, which was the essence of upward mobility. ..."
"... Nationalism is an ugly word, but it's easily reached for when there aren't any better words around. In Russia, they already went through what faces the US, and they figured it out. ..."
"... "In our view, faster growth is necessary but not sufficient to restore higher intergenerational income mobility," they wrote. "Evidence suggests that, to increase income mobility, policymakers should focus on raising middle-class and lower-income household incomes." ..."
"... Advocating smoothed-out relations with Russia (for commercial perso reasons, Tillerson, etc. and a need to grade adversaries and accept some into the fold, like Russia, instead of Iran ), a more level playing field, multi-polar world, to actually become more dominant in trade (China etc.) and waste less treasure on supporting enemies, aka proxy stooges, to no purpose (e.g. Muslim brotherhood, Al Q kooks, ISIS) and possibly even Israel -- hmmm. ..."
"... The old guard will do much to get rid of the upstart and his backers (who they are exactly I'd quite like to know?) as all their positions and revenues are at risk ..."
"... The Trump crowd seems at the same time both vulnerable and determined and thus navigating à vue as the F say, by sight and without a plan An underground internal war which is stalemated, leading to instrumentalising the ppl and creating chaos, scandals, etc. ..."
Tay | Aug 18, 2017 6:56:05 AM |
82
The US has no problem generating wealth, and has no need to force conflict with China. The
US's problem is that that wealth is funneled upwards. Wealth inequality is not a meme. "Shrinking
middle class" is a euphemism for downward-mobility of the middle class, an historical incubator
for Reaction. And that's what we have here, reactionaries from a middle class background who now
are earning less than their parents at menial jobs, or who are unemployed, becoming goons; aping
the klan, appropriating nazi icons, blaming the foreigner, the negro, the Jew, the Muslim, for
their circumstances. A "trade war" will not help them one iota, it will make their lives worse,
and Bannon will go out and say it's the fault of the foreigner and the immigrant, their numbers
wool swell. More terror, depper culture wars. I suppose that's nationalism to some people.
Grieved | Aug 18, 2017 9:51:21 AM |
83
@82 Tay
That's exactly nationalism, for sure. The work of that wealth creation by the way is done
by the all the classes below the rentier class, from working to middle class. The funneling
upwards thing is actually theft.
The middle class is shrinking and being pushed down closer to rage because the wealth-stealing
mechanisms have become bigger and better, and saturated the entire national system, including
its electoral politics. This real face of capitalism has driven out the iconic American Dream,
which was the essence of upward mobility.
Nationalism is an ugly word, but it's easily reached for when there aren't any better words
around. In Russia, they already went through what faces the US, and they figured it out.
Since we're looking for the grown-ups, let's turn to Vladimir Putin, always reliable for sanity
when direction is lost.
Putin recalled the words of outstanding Soviet Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachev that patriotism
drastically differs from nationalism. "Nationalism is hatred of other peoples, while patriotism
is love for your motherland," Putin cited his words.
--
Putin reminds that "patriotism drastically differs from nationalism"
somebody | Aug 18, 2017 11:00:25 AM |
86
83
Upward
mobility has fallen sharply
"In our view, faster growth is necessary but not sufficient to restore higher intergenerational
income mobility," they wrote. "Evidence suggests that, to increase income mobility, policymakers
should focus on raising middle-class and lower-income household incomes."
Interventions worth considering include universal preschool and greater access to public
universities, increasing the minimum wage, and offering vouchers to help families with kids
move from poor neighborhoods into areas with better schools and more resources, they said.
Is there any political party or group in the US that suggests this?
Noirette | Aug 18, 2017 11:56:04 AM |
90
The Corporate "fascist" - with grains of salt - USA. The 'democracy' part is fiction, camouflaged
via a fools theatre two-party system and ginormous social re-distribution, amongst others..
the Core (PTB) found itself through miscalculation and loss of power subject to a challenger
who broke thru the \organised/ fake elections, to attempt some kind of re-adjustement - renewal
- re-set - review...
Advocating smoothed-out relations with Russia (for commercial perso reasons, Tillerson,
etc. and a need to grade adversaries and accept some into the fold, like Russia, instead of Iran
), a more level playing field, multi-polar world, to actually become more dominant in trade (China
etc.) and waste less treasure on supporting enemies, aka proxy stooges, to no purpose (e.g. Muslim
brotherhood, Al Q kooks, ISIS) and possibly even Israel -- hmmm.
Heh, the profits of domination are to be organised, extracted and distributed, differently.
One Mafia-type tribe taking over from another! Ivanka will be The Sweet First Woman Prezzie! Style,
Heart, Love, Looks! Go!
The old guard will do much to get rid of the upstart and his backers (who they are exactly
I'd quite like to know?) as all their positions and revenues are at risk, so they are activating
all - anything to attack. The Trump crowd seems at the same time both vulnerable and determined
and thus navigating à vue as the F say, by sight and without a plan An underground internal
war which is stalemated, leading to instrumentalising the ppl and creating chaos, scandals, etc.
Notable quotes:
"... McMaster's was spewing nonsense. The same was said about the Soviet Union and China when they became nuclear weapons states. North Korea just became one . Conventional deterrence of both sides has worked with North Korea for decades. Nuclear deterrence with North Korea will work just as well as it did with the Soviet and Chinese communists. If North Korea were really not deterrable the U.S. should have nuked it yesterday to minimize the overall risk and damage. It is the McMaster position that is ideological and not rational or "grown up" at all. ..."
"... Compare that to Steve Bannon's take on the issue: ..."
"... "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ..."
"... But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained from an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China), perhaps a leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US. Third generation at war with the US and his seen his father was fucked over when trying to make a deal with the US. NK's nuke and missile tech have come a long way in the few short years Kim Jong Un has been in power. ..."
"... "Deterrence is a strategy intended to dissuade an adversary from taking an action not yet started, or to prevent them from doing something that another state desires." ..."
"... Classic deterrence strategy IS working for NK perfectly. ..."
"... All one has to do to know what Bannon's position on Iran is to read Breitbart on any given day. Unless we are supposed to believe that Bannon's opinions are not reflected by the website he ran for four years. Bannon is for war against Islam in general, there is nothing "realist" about his foreign policy. ..."
"... @12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an alliance of corporate and state powers... but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they [the corporate sector] are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist. ..."
"... Bannon makes sense. That must be why many want him gone especially the neocons. As to North Korea, the US should have admitted "facts on the ground" long ago and worked to sign the official end of the war and work to get the two Koreas talking and working together. ..."
The Democrats and the media
love
the Pentagon generals in the White House. They are the "grown ups":
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., had words of praise for Donald Trump's new pick for national
security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster -- calling the respected military officer a
"certified, card-carrying grown-up,"
According to the main-stream narrative the "grown ups" are opposed by "
ideologues
" around Trump's senior advisor Steve Bannon. Bannon is even infectious,
according to Jeet Heer, as he is
Turning Trump Into an Ethno-Nationalist Ideologue
. A recent
short interview
with Bannon dispels
that narrative.
Who is really the sane person on, say, North Korea?
The "grown-up" General McMaster, Trump's National Security Advisor, is not one of them. He
claims North Korea is not deterrable from doing something insane.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But your predecessor Susan Rice wrote this week that the U.S. could tolerate
nuclear weapons in North Korea the same way we tolerated nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union
far more during the Cold War. Is she right?
MCMASTER: No, she's not right. And I think the reason she's not right is that the
classical deterrence theory, how does that apply to a regime like the regime in North Korea?
A regime that engages in unspeakable brutality against its own people? A regime that poses a
continuous threat to the its neighbors in the region and now may pose a threat, direct
threat, to the United States with weapons of mass destruction?
McMaster's was spewing nonsense. The same was said about the Soviet Union and China when
they became nuclear weapons states. North Korea just
became one
. Conventional deterrence of both sides has worked with North Korea for decades.
Nuclear deterrence with North Korea will work just as well as it did with the Soviet and
Chinese communists. If North Korea were really not deterrable the U.S. should have nuked it
yesterday to minimize the overall risk and damage. It is the McMaster position that is
ideological and not rational or "grown up" at all.
Compare that to Steve Bannon's
take
on the issue:
"There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody
solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in
the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about,
there's no military solution here, they got us."
It was indeed the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which "got" the United States and
stopped the U.S. escalation game. It is
wrong
to think
that North Korea
"backed off"
in the recent upheaval about a missile test targeted next to Guam. It was the U.S. that pulled
back from threatening behavior.
Since the
end
of May
the U.S. military trained extensively for decapitation and "preemptive" strikes on
North Korea:
Two senior military officials -- and two senior retired officers -- told NBC News that key to
the plan would be a B-1B heavy bomber attack originating from Andersen Air Force Base in
Guam.
...
Of the 11 B-1 practice runs since the end of May, four have also involved practice bombing at
military ranges in South Korea and Australia.
In response to the B-1B flights North Korea published plans to launch a missile salvo next
to the U.S. island of Guam from where those planes started. The announcement
included a hidden
offer
to stop the test if the U.S. would refrain from further B-1B flights. A deal was made
during
secret negotiations
. Since then no more B-1B flights took place and North Korea
suspended
its Guam test plans. McMaster lost and the sane people, including Steve Bannon,
won.
But what about Bannon's "ethno-nationalist" ideology?
Isn't he responsible
for the
right-wing nutters of Charlottesville conflict? Isn't he one of them?
He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it:
"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too
much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."
"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.
Bannon sees China as an economic enemy and wants to escalate an economic conflict with it.
He is said to be against the nuclear deal with Iran. The generals in Trump's cabinet are all
anti-Iran hawks. As Bannon now turns out to be a realist on North Korea, I am not sure what
real position on Iran is.
Domestically Bannon is pulling the Democrats into the very trap I had several times warned
against:
"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want
them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go
with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."
This worked well during the presidential election and might continue to work for Trump. As
long as the Democrats do not come up with, and fight for, sane economic polices they will
continue to lose elections. The people are not interested in LGBT access to this or that
bathroom. They are interested in universal healthcare, in personal and economic security. They
are unlikely to get such under Bannon and Trump. But, unlike the Democrats, the current White
House crew at least claim to have plans to achieve it.
Posted by b on August 16, 2017 at 11:51 PM |
Permalink
Peter AU 1 | Aug 17, 2017 1:05:52 AM |
1
A couple of very interesting links from the last thread were the one to the Bannon article,
and also the link to the Carter/NK article.
Kim Jong Un, 3rd generation like his father and grandfather leader of NK. From what I have
read this is a cultural thing t hat predates communism and the Japanese occupation prior. Many pictures of Kim show an overweight youngster amongst gaunt hungry looking
generals.
Gave the impression of a spoilt kid simply handed power. Not going to the May 9 parade in
Russia when invited also gave the impression he was paranoid.
But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained from
an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China), perhaps a
leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US. Third generation at
war with the US and his seen his father was fucked over when trying to make a deal with the US. NK's nuke and missile tech have come a long way in the few short years Kim Jong Un has been
in power.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Kim Jong Un and Trump have a meet one day.
The link to the Carter article
http://www.fox5atlanta.com/national-news/273096065-story
ben | Aug 17, 2017 1:22:28 AM |
2
b said: "The people are not interested in LGBT access to this or that bathroom. They are
interested in universal healthcare, in personal and economic security. They are unlikely to
get such under Bannon and Trump. But, unlike the Democrats, the current White House crew at
least claim to have plans to achieve it."
With that statement b, you nailed it..
V. Arnold | Aug 17, 2017 1:32:51 AM |
3
"There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody
solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in
the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about,
there's no military solution here, they got us."
Doesn't that at least show Bannon as the adult in the room?
I would say so.
psychohistorian
|
Aug 17, 2017 1:53:13 AM |
4
So lets start parsing this economic nationalism that Bannon is making happen with Trump.
Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of
protecting domestic consumption, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the
imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital. It
is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted
good of Free trade. It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution,
Mercantilism and planned economies.
Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers",
Malaysia's imposition of currency controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's
controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs and devaluation in
the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect
domestic steel production.
Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as
China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one
possible scenario.
At least now, IMO, the battle for a multi-polar (finance) world is out in the open.....let
the side taking by nations begin. I hope Bannon is wrong about the timing of potential global
power shifting and the US loses its empire status.
psychohistorian
|
Aug 17, 2017 2:19:03 AM |
5
I thought that maybe Bannon was being a bit too forthright in his recent comments and perhaps
he has just painted a big bullseye on his back for the racist clowns he has used to aim at. Check this out:
Bannons colleagues disturbed by interview with left wing publication
Copeland
| Aug
17, 2017 2:30:36 AM |
6
Bannon thinks the bombast on display between the Kim and Trump has been "a sideshow". The
real show, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the dramatic sparring between the two
leaders. The Mother Of All Policies, according to Bannon, is an all-bets-on trade war with
China, whose endgame admits to only one outcome,--that is to say-- that only one hegemon will
remain standing at the end of this struggle.
There can be only one King-of-the-Hill. But where is the Greek Chorus?--the prophetic
warning that goes by the name of necessity?-- that tries to ward off hubris? "One must never
subscribe to absurdities" (it was Camus who aptly said that).
V. Arnold | Aug 17, 2017 2:39:11 AM |
7
psychohistorian | Aug 17, 2017 2:19:03 AM | 5
I had read this before; interesting to say the least.
Truth be told, I'd never heard of Bannon prior to Trumps election and still know little about
him.
Politics aside Bannon seems a straight shooter; I certainly can't argue his statement re:
what would happen if we attacked NK. His statement is echo'd by many long before today.
I do plan to start paying attention from this point forward.
Oh, and I did read that Trump is afraid of Bannon, but don't remember the reason stated.
Realist | Aug 17, 2017 3:18:01 AM |
8
Here is Bannon's latest:
Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant:
"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too
much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."
"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.
Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists.
somebody | Aug 17, 2017 4:49:34 AM |
12
No, whoever planned that "United Right" rally walked Trump into the trap.
As Trump was incapable to disassociate himself clearly from people who protest against the
take down of a statue of General Lee. Trump now owns the race issue.
Steve Bannon is
a
fascist
. That does not mean he is stupid.
The generals are clearly dangerous. They have the power to walk everybody to world war
III. Trump has pledged to spend even more on the US military, the military already has the
highest spending world wide. The generals don't want to admit that they cannot solve
anythings by military power.
Trump going off script in that press conference into a stream of consciousness was bad. He
reminded everybody of their rambling demented great-grandfather. He tried to get the
discussion to economic issues, he did not succeed.
Veterans Today is a dubious source, but this here sounds genuine
Washington
behind the mirrors
In stepped more lies and garbage, this time more fake than the other, with chaos theory and
psychological warfare organizations drowning in capabilities from the overfunded phony war
on terror and too much time on their hands now lending their useless talents toward
disinforming the general public.
The result has been a divided US where "alternative facts" fabricated for a vulnerable
demographic now competes with the "mainstream" now termed, and I believe rightly so, "fake
news" to support different versions of a fictional narrative that resembles reality only in
the most rarified and oblique manner.
...
America has left itself open to dictatorship. It long since gave up its ability to
govern itself, perhaps it was the central bank, the Federal Reserve in 1913 or more recent
erosions of individual power such as the Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2005.
Whatever milestone one chooses, the remains of democratic institutions in the US are now
difficult to find.
What we are left with is what increasingly seems to be factions, mistakenly defined as
"right" or "far right" jockeying for control over America's military, and with that,
control over the planet itself.
You see, whoever controls the American military controls the world, unless a power bloc
appears that can challenge, well, challenge what? If the Pentagon controls America's
military and the Pentagon is controlled by a cabal of religious extremists as many claim or
corporate lackeys as most believe, then where does the world stand?
Then again, if Trump and his own Republican congress are at war over impeachment, and I
assure you, little else is discussed in Washington, two sides of the same coin, servants of
different masters, has all oversite of the newfound military power over American policy
disappeared?
To this, we reluctantly say "yes."
Clueless Joe | Aug 17, 2017 5:24:06 AM |
13
Bannon can be perfectly mature, adult and realist on some points and be totally blinded by
biases on others - him wanting total economic war against China is proof enough. So I don't
rule out that he has a blind spot over Iran and wants to get rid of the regime. I mean, even
Trump is realist and adult in a few issues, yet is an oblivious fool on others.
Kind of hard to find someone who's always adult and realist, actually. You can only hope to
pick someone who's more realist than most people. Or build a positronic robot and vote for
him.
somebody | Aug 17, 2017 6:16:13 AM |
14
There is something to that
interview by Steve Bannon with a left
wing website
.
More puzzling is the fact that Bannon would phone a writer and editor of a progressive
publication (the cover lines on whose first two issues after Trump's election were
"Resisting Trump" and "Containing Trump") and assume that a possible convergence of views
on China trade might somehow paper over the political and moral chasm on white nationalism.
The question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up. This is
also puzzling, since Steve Bannon is not exactly Bambi when it comes to dealing with the
press. He's probably the most media-savvy person in America.
I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the
ugly white nationalism epitomized by the racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump's
reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of using
Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump's
base.
He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it:
"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too
much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."
Explanation a) He wants to explain the climbdown of his boss on North Korea.
Not really helpful to Trump.
b) He wants to save his reputation as the association with the KKK and White Suprematists
has become toxic.
Checking on what Breitbart is doing -
splitting the Republican Party
A trade war with China would mean prices in the US would become very expensive. It is a
fool's strategy.
In other news Iran is threatening to leave the nuclear agreement, and Latin America unites
against the US threatening Venezuela with war.
The generals are completely useless.
fairleft
| Aug 17, 2017
6:35:17 AM |
15
I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel
on those matters. If this is so, then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with
China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China and the rest of the
world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in
negotiations for more investment by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well,
not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan in the 80s nd 90s.
c | Aug 17, 2017 6:51:35 AM |
16
psychohistorian a
c | Aug 17, 2017 6:59:32 AM |
17
psychohistorian at 4: 'as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US
likely defaulting...'
as a sovereign currency issuer of that size the usa can not run out of dollars
to default on their obligations would be a voluntary mistake the federal reserve will
avoid
meanwhile the chinese are investing in africa and other countries securing their position in
the world
V. Arnold | Aug 17, 2017 7:43:30 AM |
18
c | Aug 17, 2017 6:59:32 AM | 17
as a sovereign currency issuer of that size the usa can not run out of dollars
to default on their obligations would be a voluntary mistake the federal reserve will
avoid
meanwhile the chinese are investing in africa and other countries securing their position in
the world
Very good; and I agree with your POV; the usa can not run out of dollars.
And therein lies its power; a very dangerous situation that I do not think the world is
equipped to deal with in toto...
steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2017 8:18:55 AM |
19
Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead of the
Electoral College, including Steve Bannon. It is the Republican Party, not Trump and his
Trumpery who holds majorities in the House, the Senate and the nation's statehouses. Anybody
who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has forgotten that
Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.
It appears that as a purely nominal Republican, an owner in a hostile takeover, Trump has
no qualms about trashing the system. Practically speaking, this is the very opposite of
draining the swamp, which requires effective leadership.
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 8:51:55 AM |
20
Kim Jong Un, 3rd generation like his father and grandfather leader of NK. From what I have
read this is a cultural thing that predates communism and the Japanese occupation prior.
But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained
from an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China),
perhaps a leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Aug 17, 2017 1:05:52 AM | 1
OR, looked at another way:
Perhaps the gurning wunderkind Kim's ascent to the North Korean Throne was completely
predictable and was predicted a long time ago, and plans were set in motion to ensure that he
was co-opted as a kid, and now works with the US to help counter the rising Chinese
power.
Perhaps the alleged face-off Trump, Kim and the western MSM treated the world to over the
past while, was merely nothing but a pre-scripted choreographic display, a piece of theater
agreed upon beforehand by all participants except China
I wouldn't be surprised to see Kim Jong Un and Trump have a meet one day.
I wouldn't be surprised if Kim Jong Un and Trump actually play for the same side.
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 8:59:31 AM |
21
Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead of
the Electoral College, i
Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2017 8:18:55 AM | 19
Actually as far as I can tell the real political swindlers are the ones who refuse to
acknowledge that a US Presidential election is, (and has been for nearly whole time the US
has been in existence, which is more than 200 years for those who have problems keeping track
of such simple matters) decided NOT by the popular vote but by the results of the Electoral
College voting.
Anybody who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has
forgotten that Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.
Again, just to repeat the actual reality regarding US Presidential elections: They are
decided on the basis of Electoral Collage voting and NOT on the basis of the popular vote, as
political swindlers would now like everyone to believe.
Thegenius | Aug 17, 2017 9:08:56 AM |
22
Economics PhDs are resisting the only thing that can actully cause higher inflation rate:
trade war
somebody | Aug 17, 2017 9:45:00 AM |
23
19
He is doubling down now defending General Lee statues as beautiful. He is doing the same
strategy as he did in his duel with Hillary Clinton when everybody thought he was insane,
playing to his core Republican base to make sure Republicans have to stay in line or face a
primary challenge.
Breitbart is doing the same threatening "Republican traitors".
The problem with this strategy is that Trump won because Hillary Clinton was so unpopular,
because their pollsters outsmarted Nate Silver and Co. and possibly because she was a
woman.
But Republicans who have to pretend they are religious right wing nuts in the primaries,
then have to appeal to independents to win the actual election.
So they cannot go against Trump but cannot defend him. They are paralysed.
That what it comes down to. That the main aim of the president of the United States is to
paralyze the party he hijacked.
somebody | Aug 17, 2017 9:58:52 AM |
24
add to 23
Breitbart has gone full culture wars. It is comical, have a look.
john | Aug 17, 2017 10:26:02 AM |
25
Just Sayin' says:
They are decided on the basis of Electoral Collage voting and NOT on the basis of the
popular vote, as political swindlers would now like everyone to believe
indeed, though, speaking of political swindlers,
there's
mucho
evidence
that Trump may have won the popular vote as well.
likklemore | Aug 17, 2017 10:32:06 AM |
26
Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2017 8:18:55 AM | 19
Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead
of the Electoral College, including Steve Bannon. It is the Republican Party, not Trump and
his Trumpery who holds majorities in the House, the Senate and the nation's statehouses.
Anybody who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has forgotten
that Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.
Have you read the Constitution of the USA? The Electoral College elects the President by
the rank and file voters electing the Electors to the College on November election day.
That's how the system works.
Ask Al Gore; he won the popular vote.
Oh and btw, the Hillary won the popular 2016 vote meme. Take a look at Detroit, MI heavy
Democrats' precints - more votes than voters - and the millions of illegal aliens' vote in
California who voted after the invite of Obama.
WJ | Aug 17, 2017 10:50:13 AM |
27
Trump won the election. Period. End of story. Done. Finished. Get over it and get on with
your life. He didn't compete to win the popular vote. He competed and campaigned to win the
election. Advice to Democrats - nominate a candidate beside a senile old neocon woman who is
corrupt to her ugly core, and then maybe you can beat a former reality show star.
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 10:56:25 AM |
29
The problem with this strategy is that Trump won because Hillary Clinton was so unpopular,
because their pollsters outsmarted Nate Silver and Co. and possibly because she was a
woman.
Posted by: somebody | Aug 17, 2017 9:45:00 AM | 23
Nope - first part of the sentence is correct but the rest of is just you, as usual, repeating
crap you found on the Internet and then repeating it here pretending it is profound and that
you actually understand what you are talking about, which you clearly don't as evidenced by
the fact that you then go on to reference Nate Silver whose fame was never anything but media
created hype with little or nothing to back it up.
Silver's feet of clay were evident long before the latest Prez election. It became obvious
that his alleged electoral statistical prowess rested as much on luck as anything else. Lucky
in prediction when it came to the 2008 election but by 2010 things started to go wrong but
the media ignored his feet of clay and kept hyping him as a stats genius.
By the time 2016 rolled round Silver was exposed for the lucky fraud he is.
The real truth of Hillarys inability to win lies not in her being female as you and many
others disingenuously (at best) try to claim, but simply lies in the fact that she is a
thoroughly unpleasant person with a complete lack of charisma and a massive sense of
entitlement.
Blacks and others, minorities generally and independents, who came out in droves for the
Obama elections simply refused to go and vote for her.
The Republican vote however changed very little - pretty much the exact same demographic
voted republican as voted for Romney.
Trump won partly because of Clintons massive hubris in refusing to campaign in several key
states. Cambridge analytical were not required to give him the win, no matter what you read,
without analysing it, elsewhere on the web and are now repeating here in an effort to pretend
you know what you are talking about.
CA probably helped somewhat but it unlikely that they were central to the win. Clintons
hubris and her complete lack of charisma, ensured low black/minority/independent for her in
key states, especially those where she had refused to even bother to campaign, which was
enough to seal the win for Trump
You simply repeating crap you heard on the net and pretending that if you say it in an
authoritative fashion it will magically become true, just ends up making you look completely
clueless, as usual. (or dishonest)
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 11:01:18 AM |
30
@ Everybody who bought into the MSM Steve Bannon promoted white supremacy and through
Breitbart. Suggested you read his world view expressed in remarks at Human Dignity Institute,
Vatican Conference 2014
Posted by: likklemore | Aug 17, 2017 10:51:54 AM | 28
Anyone with any intelligence would be wise to treat with great caution anything Bannon
claims in public interviews about himself or his alleged political beliefs,
RUKidding | Aug 17, 2017 11:21:24 AM |
32
US politics is a great big clusterfeck - worse than ever, which is hard to believe. Bannon's big liar. He did heaps to create this very situation with the White
Supremacists. Of course the Democrats are worse than useless. All they're doing is presenting themselves
as "We're not Trump" and whining about Putin. All of them are clowns. Every last one. Including the so-called "Generals." Worthless.
Pnyx | Aug 17, 2017 11:27:14 AM |
33
"Since then no more B-1B flights took place and North Korea suspended its Guam test
plans."
but: "Yesterday (...) two US B-1 strategic bombers, operating with Japanese fighter jets,
conducted exercises to the southwest of the Korean Peninsula." says WSWS. ?
james | Aug 17, 2017 12:32:00 PM |
37
@2 ben.. i agree!
everything about the usa today is divisive... i can't imagine the usa being happy if this
didn't continue until it's demise..the 2 party system hasn't worked out very well as i see
it.. failed experiment basically.. oh well..
anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 12:51:38 PM |
39
@19
If I remember correctly, wasn't it both the President Elect and the Republican Congressmen
who won clear majorities in nearly 80 percent of congressional districts? Presuming an issue
like the gerrymandering of districts wasn't significant, that's a far more legitimate victory
than an extra million Democrats voting in California (determining the future of national
policy). I'm not a fan of the Republicans, but denying the short term efficiency of 'populist
rhetoric' isn't helping the left win any substantial electoral victories in the future.
Morongobill | Aug 17, 2017 1:03:36 PM |
40
Good Lord. Can't people read anymore? The election is all about the EC. Keep talking and
running for the popular vote, and Trump will keep winning the Electoral College. You either
want to win or you don't. I hope you keep preaching the popular vote personally.
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 1:06:52 PM |
41
@ Just Sayin' 30
I won't give you a pass. Your bias and lack of intelligence is on great
display.
No pass for little ol me? Aw shucks, I'm heart broken.
The fact that you think Bannon&Trump are going to do anything about Wall Street and
the Banking System in general is quite amusing.
Perhaps you could list a few of Bannon&Trumps anti Wall Street achievements or
initiatives since Trump took office?
It should by now be clear to anyone paying attention that while both Bannon & Trump
certainly TALK a lot, they seem to actually do very little.
So, do please tell us:
what have they actually done?
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 1:15:57 PM |
42
@2 ben.. i agree!
everything about the usa today is divisive...
Posted by: james | Aug 17, 2017 12:32:00 PM | 37
As the CIA might say:
"Mission Accomplished!!"
Keep the proles spilt in their little "identity groups", their micro-tribes, and continue
building the Kleoptocracy/Prison/Military State while the dumbed down demos are busy hunting
micro-aggressions/fighting gender & race wars etc etc
During the last 5 Prez Election cycles the population spilt on utterly retarded lines such
as Gay-marriage, Gender-free toilets etc. All this while the US fought or financed numerous
very expensive wars in the Middle East ukraine etc, resulting hundreds of thousands of lives
lost.
anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 1:16:15 PM |
43
@26
The 2008 elections had one of the highest ever voter turnout rates for the Democrats and
the 2016 elections had one of the lowest ever. The turnout rates (abysmal if ever compared to
voter turnout rates in Germany and Japan) easily explain the initial victory and the eventual
defeat, not 'Detroit fraud' or 'the millions of illegals' voting in your head. Racial
gerrymandering against black voters in the Southern States is a far more real issue.
ben | Aug 17, 2017 1:33:55 PM |
44
somwbody @ 12: Good link thanks..Interesting read about "The Forth Turning"
psycho @ 5: good link also..
WJ @ 27 said:" Advice to Democrats - nominate a candidate beside a senile old neocon woman
who is corrupt to her ugly core, and then maybe you can beat a former reality show star."
Yep, so-called "Russian hacking" wasn't the problem, HRC was the problem...
ben | Aug 17, 2017 1:40:34 PM |
45
Just Sayin' @ 41 said:"It should by now be clear to anyone paying attention that while both
Bannon & Trump certainly TALK a lot, they seem to actually do very little."
Kinda' waitin' myself to see all those "accomplishments"....
anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 2:01:34 PM |
46
@40
I'll assume this was directed to me.
I understand and respect your point, but I was responding to the initial comment's
implicit argument on public opinion: "a common argument is the
lower-middle-to-upper-middle-class social base of the Republicans is less receptive to the
short term effects of Protectionist policy and this would reduce political morale, as well as
grassroots and voting organization. However, the Democrats 'won the popular vote.' So, it's
'obvious' in saying the classless definition of 'the American people' oppose this Republican
policy, and naturally, the social base of the Republican Party isn't especially relevant to
consider when organizing voters and grassroots movements for a renewed Democratic Party."
To be fair, I think like the early Unionist and Communist circles, and presume public
opinion translates to expressions of grassroots politics between conflicting classes (more so
than it actually happens in American class society).
Mina | Aug 17, 2017 2:32:30 PM |
47
From Syria with love
https://arabic.rt.com/liveevent/894352-%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%AD-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%B6-%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%82-%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A-5-%D8%B3%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%A8/
Sad Canuck | Aug 17, 2017 2:52:38 PM |
48
If one proceeds on the assumption that politics in the United States closely follows themes,
scripts and production values pioneered by WWF, then all becomes clear. It's simply
pro-wrestling on a global scale with nuclear weapons and trillions of dollars in prize money.
james | Aug 17, 2017 2:58:51 PM |
49
@42 just sayin'.. yes to all you say - it is quite sad actually.. not sure of the way out at
this point, short of complete rebellion in the streets which looks like a longs ways off at
this point..
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 3:12:27 PM |
50
not sure of the way out at this point, short of complete rebellion in the streets which
looks like a longs ways off at this point..
Posted by: james | Aug 17, 2017 2:58:51 PM | 49
Most of the younger generation seem to be much to busy, obsessing over non-existent things
like "Micro-agressions" or "hetero-normative cis-gender oppression", to pay attention to, let
alone acknowledge, the enormous global macro-aggressions their own country is engaged in on a
world-wide scale.
Thirdeye | Aug 17, 2017 3:24:12 PM |
52
But, unlike the Democrats, the current White House crew at least claim to have plans to
achieve it.
Is there a "don't" missing from that sentence?
I must disagree that DPRK nuclear missiles are a qualitatively similar threat to those
possessed by the Soviet Union and China. DPRK's guiding
Suche
ideology is a literal
cult that goes far beyond the cult-of-personality that held sway over the Soviet Union and
China when Stalin and Mao ruled. And by the time the Soviets developed delivery capabilities
Stalin was dead and his cult was done. By the time the Chinese developed delivery
capabilities Mao was declining into figurehead status and Zhou Enlai, who as commander of the
PLA realized how weak China really was militarily, had no illusions about what would happen
in a military confrontation with the US. But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the
Kims are ordained with supernatural powers that allowed them to drive the Japanese off the
peninsula then fight off an American "invasion." They truly don't mention the role of the
Soviets and the Chinese in saving their bacon. In terms of face-saving, the Kims have set the
bar pretty high for themselves by fostering their cult. Their legitimacy would be threatened
if their statecraft as rational actors undermined their Suche cult.
DPRK have been rogue actors against ROK and Japan out of sheer spitefulness, fully
exploiting the umbrella provided by the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Assistance
with China. They have done extraterritorial kidnappings and murders not for perceived
strategic reasons but merely to intimidate. DPRK has pointedly refused to enter talks for a
formal peace between them and the ROK. Those kinds of motives do not bespeak of someone who
can be trusted with nukes.
Charles R | Aug 17, 2017 3:39:13 PM |
53
Posted by: RUKidding | Aug 17, 2017 12:23:40 PM
Bannon is someone whom I hold quite responsible for contributing to the rise of White
Supremacy in the USA, which I consider a clear and present danger. Bannon's dismissive hand
waving yesterday is meant to dissemble. Guess some are willing to buy what he was selling
yesterday. Not me.
What are your reasons for believing this about Bannon? What counts as contributing, and
how did you come to your decision?
It's not that I don't believe you. It's rather important to establish in what way his
words (whether the ones you found or the recent ones in
American Prospect
) are lies
or misdirection, so that I, and anyone interested, can evaluate this for ourselves and come
to similar or different conclusions.
stonebird
| Aug 17, 2017
3:40:47 PM |
54
I don't think Bannon wants a "trade" war with China but he is right that there is an economic
war going on. The "silk roads" and the various new organisations that the Chinese-Russians
have set up, (Major Banks, "Swift" equivalent, Glossnass satellites, card payment systems,
industrial independence, and food self-sufficiency etc), plus the use of currencies other
than the dollar - are all examples of a break-away from a US-EU domination.
However, they have not suddenly introduced everything at once to "bring the US house
down". Why? One possible reason could be that they are expecting the US to collapse anyway.
Another is that viable alternatives also take time to set up.
b has mentioned the "grown ups" v the Idealogues". The impact of the military on the
economic war seems to be underestimated. How much longer can the US afford the more than
trillion dollars per year of the "visible" arms? This does not include hidden costs
("Intelligence agencies and pork). Nor does it include costs borne by other countries. ie.
Italy has about 80 US bases (the most in the EU) and about 77 nuclear warheads on its soil.
Italy PAYS for those bases, and even that does not include infrastucture (roads, increased
airport capacity, sewage, water mains, etc) which are paid for by the Italians themselves.
Other countries will have similar systems. Some like Kuwait are "paying" back the amounts
spent on arms for example.
The total cost is astronomical.
A brief reminder the USSR collapsed because of massive overspending on arms and military
projects - leaving the rest of the economy in the lurch. Presumably the Chinese and Russians
are expecting the same thing to happen again.
(Aside - yes, you can print dollars as a sovereign state, but printing roubles didn't help
the soviets either)
So McMasters and the others are in fact just spoilt brats who think that the good times are
forever.
----
One example of the new "bluff-calling" cheaper method of economic warfare (*NK is the
another) were the recent NATO/US manoeuvres in Georgia (country) on the anniversary of the
Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. The number of troops and means involved would have been
enough to carry out a "surprise" attack this time too. The Russians - sent in Putin, who
declared that the Russians supported S.Ossetia and were ready to deal with any threat -
exactly as they did "last" time. Cost? One plane trip.
(*The NK threat by the US would have seen about 40'000 men from S. Korea and Japan sent
against about 700'000 motivated local troops and massive artillery arrays. It was a
non-starter, even with nukes)
Tom in AZ | Aug 17, 2017 4:03:19 PM |
55
thirdeye @52
You are forgetting to mention the main sticking point to talks is our refusal to halt our
annual̶d̶e̶f̶e̶n̶s̶i̶v̶e̶
̶d̶r̶i̶l̶l̶s̶ invasion practice before they will come to
the table. At least from what I read.
Thirdeye | Aug 17, 2017 4:04:22 PM |
56
54
Even with China's international financial position growing more robust with SWIFT
independence, AIDB, the New Silk Road and such, they still have an interest in the
Dollar-based western financial system as long as they can make money off of it. They are not
going to shoot themselves in the foot by deliberately causing it to collapse. They might even
prop it up in a crisis, but I suspect they would drive a hard bargain.
@Madderhatter67 | Aug 17, 2017 4:09:49 PM |
57
Thirdeye says, "But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the Kims are ordained with
supernatural powers." What is American Exceptionalism?
MCMASTER: Says classic deterrence strategy won't work with NK.
"Deterrence is a strategy intended to dissuade an adversary from taking an action not yet
started, or to prevent them from doing something that another state desires."
Classic deterrence strategy IS working for NK perfectly.
RUKidding | Aug 17, 2017 4:31:17 PM |
60
@53 Charles R: fair enough question.
What I base my analysis of Bannon is his leadership at Bretibart which may or may not be
continuing right now. Just read Breitbart if you think Bannon isn't fully behind the White
Supremacists rising up right now.
somebody | Aug 17, 2017 5:26:37 PM |
64
35
Steve Bannon is a fascist.
exhibit A
Steve Bannon Allies with Catholic Theo-Fascism Against Pope Francis
exhibit B
Steve Bannon shares a fascist's obsession with cleansing, apocalyptic war. And now he's in
the White House
exhibit C
Generation Zero -
Bannons Film using the theory of the fourth turning
The idea that people (a people) have to suffer a big war in order to cleanse themselves
from moral depravity is fascism pure and simple as who should force people to do this but a
dictator.
Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:15:08 PM |
67
All one has to do to know what Bannon's position on Iran is to read Breitbart on any given
day. Unless we are supposed to believe that Bannon's opinions are not reflected by the
website he ran for four years. Bannon is for war against Islam in general, there is nothing
"realist" about his foreign policy.
Thirdeye | Aug 17, 2017 6:15:20 PM |
68
55 Tom in AZ
That's a different issue from entering talks for a formal peace with with ROK. DPRK has
been refusing that for years. Did you ever consider that DPRK's constant saber rattling
against ROK was what lent impetus to US exercises in the region in the first place? The US
knows that China would not tolerate a US invasion of DPRK. Why take the risk of invading
across great defensive terrain when you can simply destroy?
57 Madhatter67
Thirdeye says, "But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the Kims are ordained
with supernatural powers." What is American Exceptionalism?
That's a dumb analogy and a pathetic attempt at deflection. Criticize American
Exceptionalism all you want, but don't compare it to a supernaturalist cult. That's just
stupid.
DPRK has a history of doing whatever they think they can get away with, exploiting their
treaty with China. If their delusional
Suche
ideology leads them to miscalculate or
paints them into a corner trying to prop it up, it could lead to war.
If there's any bright spot in the whole picture it's China's chilly stance towards DPRK
after recent events. The excesses of DPRK's ruling cult have occurred largely because they
figured China had their back. But China's regional interests have changed dramatically over
the past 30 years. ROK is no longer a competitive threat to China and is economically more
important to China than DPRK ever was. DPRK's military power is of much less benefit to China
than it was in the past. It might even be considered a liability.
61 Stonebird
It wouldn't be cash, it would be be assets and/or the means of controlling them. Big
Chinese money is already coming into the west coast of the US and Canada. Oh well, we fucked
things up here; maybe the Chinese will do a better job.
Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:20:48 PM |
69
@10, this article was written while Bannon was heading Breitbart, bragging about being
"conceived in Israel."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/11/17/breitbart-news-network-born-in-the-usa-conceived-in-israel/
Bannon is against the nuclear deal, and is one of the top people in the administration
arguing for Trump to move the Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Bannon has been
cited as promoting Sheldon Adelson's Israel policy in meetings with Trump.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-abbas-lauder-hawkish-adelson-battling-to-influence-trump-on-mideast/
If anything Bannon/Breitbart push an even harder line on Israel than most politicians and
media do.
blues | Aug 17, 2017 6:27:33 PM |
70
First of all, I will now declare that I am 99% confused! So please let me review the 1% that
comes through my little keyhole. What has been said?
/~~~~~~~~~~
<< = Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 11:01:18 AM | 30
Anyone with any intelligence would be wise to treat with great caution anything Bannon
claims in public interviews about himself or his alleged political beliefs,
\~~~~~~~~~~
Well sure! The guy's a political operative -- One does not get to be a political operative
by being some kind of a Dudly Do-Right. Damn.
/~~~~~~~~~~
<< = les7 | Aug 17, 2017 12:27:02 PM | 35
@12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an
alliance of corporate and state powers... but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no
trust in the corporate sector as they [the corporate sector] are to a large degree Globalists
- they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would
even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist.
\~~~~~~~~~~
Well since we can't believe anything from Bannon... And aside from that I am sick of
hearing Mussolini's definition of fascism -- After all, he was a psycho-villain -- so why
believe it?!
UNTIL WE HAVE STRATEGIC HEDGE SIMPLE SCORE VOTING WE WILL BE SADDLED WITH THE TWO-PARTY
"SYSTEM" (really only one party). Who cares if we really have no choice whatsoever. We are
held hostage to the false alternatives of the vast legion of the election methods
cognoscenti.
See my simple solution soon at Global Mutiny!
Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:30:54 PM |
71
@31, "except for the Zion-flavored warmongering." I don't know about you but completely
disqualifies him in my view.
Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:34:43 PM |
72
@35, please refer to post 69. If Bannon was not a Zionist, he would not have ran a site which
brags of being conceived in Israel and which pushes a harder line on Israel than almost any
other, and he would not be promoting Adelson's Israel policy within the administration.
Curtis | Aug 17, 2017 7:03:10 PM |
73
Bannon makes sense. That must be why many want him gone especially the neocons. As to North
Korea, the US should have admitted "facts on the ground" long ago and worked to sign the
official end of the war and work to get the two Koreas talking and working together.
anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 7:41:46 PM |
74
"That's a different issue from entering talks for a formal peace with with ROK. DPRK has been
refusing that for years."
I doubt any substantial transcripts from early talks will ever be released, so whoever had
diplomats offering the 'fairest' compromises for terms of an early framework (resulting in a
later settlement) cannot be known (regarding specifics).
If I remember correctly, there has been at least three Chinese-sponsored peace conferences
(on Korea) since 2007, where the general position of the U.S. was: North Korea had to freeze
total nuclear production, accept existing and additional (U.N.) verification missions, and
dismantle all warheads PRIOR to the signing of any peace treaty. How is demanding
unconditional surrender not intransigence? Are we going to just pretend the United States
hadn't sponsored military coups in Venezuela and Honduras and hadn't invaded Iraq and Libya
(in a similar time frame)?
During peace talks, any terms are argued, refused, and eventually compromised (usually
over years and sometimes over decades). Why presume the United States and South Korea had the
fairest offers and general settlements in a handful of conferences (especially when we have
no transcripts)?
"Did you ever consider that DPRK's constant saber rattling against ROK was what lent
impetus to US exercises in the region in the first place?"
You're presuming your case and not giving specific information on what you might know.
Personally, I don't know who 'started it' (I would guess Japan 'started it' by forcing
through the Protectorate Treaty of 1905, or the United States 'started it' by forcing through
the Amity and Commerce Treaty of 1858), but if North Korea isn't testing missiles near Guam
and the United States isn't flying specific planes over South Korea, a compromise WAS made
this last week, and more can be made to ensure peace.
Why do any Americans oppose this?
- Moscow Exile says:
July 19, 2017 at 2:44 am
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZlT3kaxIlgw?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
Reply
(Video)
Notable quotes:
"... The best analysis of what is really going on in the world is coming out of the alternative media. Molyneux is one of the heavy hitters in this world - with his 700k Youtube subscribers and similar numbers of podcast listeners, he matters. ..."
"... One of his points is this: How could this possibly be a serious Russian government effort if they have a fat Brit moron convey the message over unencrypted email? Our staff of Russian-trained intelligence experts has to concur. ..."
The best analysis of what is really going on in the world is coming out of the alternative media. Molyneux is one of the heavy
hitters in this world - with his 700k Youtube subscribers and similar numbers of podcast listeners, he matters.
One of his points is this: How could this possibly be a serious Russian government effort if they have a fat Brit moron convey
the message over unencrypted email? Our staff of Russian-trained intelligence experts has to concur.
Say hi to Rob Goldstone. This will be over in a few days, and as before, the dummies who are chasing this idea, will just look
stupider than they already do.
Save this video and watch it over your Wheaties tomorrow morning. Molyneux nails it.
https://youtu.be/wohYNCD4u-E
Tommy Jensen ,
3 hours ago
Karl Rove said in the middle of year 2000 to VIP lawyers in Washington, that they no more would be occupied with analises of
facts but forward with analising the reality Washington defined.
Due to the unipolar position Washington would from early year 2000 define the reality the world should face and spend (waste)
their time on analising.
Molyneux is good to hear and see on many subjects, but this subect is in my opinion irrelevant, irrelevant as the Russia hacking
US election is, the Assad Chemical attack, the HitlerPutin, the Crimea annexion hoax, the NK threat, man made clima change hoax,
etc.
People with true intelligent capabilities should of course not spend their time on finding evidences on and document all Washington´s
lies and defined realities.
Both Molyneux, RI and many others must have the right to dismiss obvious lies and propagandas, and go straight to the subject,
that anybody with power that lie to us and the public should and must be removed and replaced.
Otherwise we are using our powers, intelligence and energy in an un-constructive way and we never learn, because we jump on
the joke and hot air train again again.
Looks like recent leak is another fake...
MOSCOW - The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. during the presidential campaign denied in an exclusive interview with
NBC News that she had any connection to the Kremlin and insists she met with President Donald Trump's son to press her client's interest
in the Magnitsky Act - not to hand over information about Hillary Clinton's campaign.
"I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that," Natalia Veselnitskaya
said.
When asked how Trump Jr. seemed to have the impression that she had information about the Democratic National Committee, she responded:
"It is quite possible that maybe they were longing for such an information. They wanted it so badly that they could only hear
the thought that they wanted."
Trump Jr. has confirmed that the meeting occurred, saying in a statement to The New York Times that he attended "a short introductory
meeting" with the lawyer, where the topic of conversation was primarily about adoption.
On Monday, Trump Jr. seemed to confirm that he had been offered information about Hillary or her campaign but insisted that nothing
untoward in the meeting had occurred.
"Obviously I'm the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent... went nowhere but had to
listen," he tweeted, seemingly sarcastic.
The New York Times on Monday reported that Trump Jr. was told in an email before the meeting that the information Veselnitskaya
had was part of a Russian government effort to help his father's candidacy.
But Veselnitskaya flatly denied any connection to the Russian government.
This female lawyer probably can be characterized as anti-Russian lawyer. She is more probably MI6 asset then FSB asset ;-) (connection
with William F. Browder
).
But attempts to stir the pot of Purple Color Revolution ( aka Russiagate) will continue. Neocons are pretty tenacious.
Notable quotes:
"... That it was, yes, ethically promiscuous!but, worse, incredibly stupid. One recalls the line, often incorrectly attributed to Talleyrand, in response to a burgeoning scandal at the French court: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.'' ..."
"... But he didn't give up. At last week's G-20 Summit in Hamburg, in a long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump sought to get beyond the matter of Russia's U.S. political interference and take up other serious matters of mutual interest to the two countries, with a hope of easing tensions. It was an important development in a crucial area of U.S. foreign policy. Now the president is back on the defensive, his back to the wall, with his opponents positioned to immobilize him on his Russian policy. ..."
"... But, in terms of Trump's command of his policy toward Russia, it almost doesn't matter because the new revelations will constrict his range of action irrespective of what may lie behind them. The forces that have wanted to destroy the president, or at least destroy his ability to bring about a détente with Putin, are once again in the saddle. One has to wonder at, perhaps even marvel at, the timing in all this. ..."
During a post-dinner cigar session at his elegant Cleveland mansion, Hanna reported back to McKinley on the results of his mission.
Another participant recalled that the excited Hanna seemed "as keen as a razor blade.''
"Now, Major," said the political operative, addressing the governor by his Civil War title, "it's all over but the shouting. You
can get both New York and Pennsylvania, but there are certain conditions." He didn't show any discomfort with the conditions, but
McKinley was wary.
"What are they?" he asked. Hanna explained that Quay wanted control of all federal patronage in Pennsylvania, while others wanted
to dominate government jobs in New England and Maine. But Platt wanted a bigger prize!the job of secretary of the Treasury!and he
wanted a promise in writing.
McKinley stared ahead, puffing on his cigar. Then he rose from his chair, paced the room a few moments, and turned to Hanna.
"Mark," he said, "there are some things in this world that come too high. If I were to accept the nomination on those terms, the
place would be worth nothing to me, and less to the people. If those are the terms, I am out of it.''
Hanna was taken aback. "Not so fast," he protested, explaining that, while it would be "damned hard" to prevail over the powerful
bosses, who would surely not take kindly to a rebuff, Hanna thought it could be done and he welcomed the challenge. The men in the
room pondered the situation and came up with a slogan: "The People Against the Bosses.''
McKinley ultimately beat the bosses, stirring a Washington Post reporter to write that "the big three of the Republican
Party hoped to find McKinley as putty in their hands. When they failed, they vowed war on him." But now, said the reporter, their
war was sputtering. "And over in the Ohio city by the lake, one Mark Hanna is laughing in his sleeve.''
This little vignette from the mists of the political past comes to mind with the latest development in the ongoing saga involving
suspected Russian interference in last year's presidential campaign and the search for evidence that President Trump or his top campaign
officials "colluded" with Russians to influence the electoral outcome. Now it turns out that the president's son, Donald Jr., met
with a Russian lawyer, at the behest of a Russian friend, with an understanding beforehand that the lawyer could provide "official
documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and be very useful to your father."
For good measure, Donald Jr. took along his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, a top Trump adviser, and his father's campaign manager
at the time, Paul Manafort.
This is no small matter, and it is certain to roil the waters of the ongoing investigations. More significantly, it will roil
the political scene, contributing mightily to the deadlock crisis that has America in its grip. White House officials and Trump supporters
are defending young Trump with pronouncements that nothing was amiss here; every campaign collects dirt on opponents; nothing done
was against the law; we must get beyond these "gotcha" political witch hunts, etc., etc.
Meanwhile. Trump opponents see skulky tendencies, nefarious intent, moral turpitude, and likely illegality. Both sides are trotting
out criminal lawyers declaring, based on their prior political proclivities, that no laws were broken!or that laws were clearly broken.
The cable channels are crackling with competition over who can be more definitive and sanctimonious on the air!Lou Dobbs and Sean
Hannity at Fox in defending the president; or Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews in attacking him on MSNBC.
Meanwhile, the country will continue to struggle with the question of what all this Sturm und Drang actually means. What
to think? Whom to believe?
Let's stipulate, for purposes of analysis, that what we see is what there is, that what we know is not a harbinger of worse to
come. How should we assess what we know thus far? What should we make of that meeting with the Russian lawyer?
That it was, yes, ethically promiscuous!but, worse, incredibly stupid. One recalls the line, often incorrectly attributed
to Talleyrand, in response to a burgeoning scandal at the French court: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.''
Consider that, after months of investigation, with leaks all over the place from those conducting the probe, no serious evidence
emerged of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The collusion story was receding in the national consciousness,
and even in the Washington consciousness, with questions of "obstruction of justice" supplanting collusion as the more significant
avenue of inquiry. Now the question of collusion is once again in the air.
The fate of Donald Trump Jr. is a puny matter in the scheme of things, but the state of the union is a huge matter. And the young
man's stupidity of a year ago will have!indeed, is already having!a significant impact on the president's leadership. He campaigned
on a pledge to improve relations with Russia, with an implicit acknowledgment that the West was probably equally responsible, along
with Moscow, for the growing tensions between the two nations. He was right about that. Then came the evidence of Russian meddling
in the U.S. election and the allegations of collusion, and Trump's effort at improving relations was killed in the crib.
But he didn't give up. At last week's G-20 Summit in Hamburg, in a long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump
sought to get beyond the matter of Russia's U.S. political interference and take up other serious matters of mutual interest to the
two countries, with a hope of easing tensions. It was an important development in a crucial area of U.S. foreign policy. Now the
president is back on the defensive, his back to the wall, with his opponents positioned to immobilize him on his Russian policy.
Now let's set aside, for just a moment, the previous stipulation that what we see is all there is. It's possible, of course, that
this unfortunate meeting actually was part of a much bigger conspiracy that, if disclosed in full, could engulf the administration
in revelations of such magnitude as to bring down the president. It's possible, but not likely.
But, in terms of Trump's command of his policy toward Russia, it almost doesn't matter because the new revelations will constrict
his range of action irrespective of what may lie behind them. The forces that have wanted to destroy the president, or at least destroy
his ability to bring about a détente with Putin, are once again in the saddle. One has to wonder at, perhaps even marvel at, the
timing in all this.
Actions, even more than ideas, have consequences. That's what Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort ignored when they accepted an invitation
to meet with a Russian representative with "official documents" that could harm the candidacy of the Democratic contender.
And that's precisely what William McKinley had in mind when he said he wouldn't enter into unsavory bargains with the Eastern
bosses even if it meant giving up his presidential dream. Of course, McKinley was thinking in part about his own personal code of
conduct!his inability to live with a decision that was beneath his concept of rectitude. But note that he also invoked the American
people when he recoiled at the thought. He wouldn't take an action that he considered inconsistent with his duty to the electorate.
That was a long time ago!and a world away. Today we have the likes of the Trumps!and, for that matter, the Clintons, who leave
nearly everyone in their wake when it comes to moral and ethical laxity in matters of public policy. And so it must have seemed perfectly
normal for those three men, part of Donald Trump's inner circle of campaign confidantes, to accept the idea of sitting down with
someone from a foreign power and talk about how official documents from that power could help upend their opponent. Did Trump himself
know about all this as it was unfolding? We don't know, but probably. In any event, it probably wasn't a crime, but it was a hell
of a blunder.
... ... ...
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative.
His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due
out from Simon & Schuster in November.
Show
Comment
Next
New Comment
July 3, 2017 at 3:09 pm GMT
And where did Hitler worship get us?
Blonde hair blue eyed Waffen SS soldiers .I assume
baptized Christian .being wasted by beautiful blonde haired Conservative Orthodox Christian Women
Russian Snipers. This is what you will always get when you fall for the lies of the worshippers
of Franco.
Hitler and Franco .enablers of the Mohammadan Gang Rape Army .Hitler's Waffen SS-Werhrmacht
gang rape Army
Short tiny Andrew Anglin doesn't realize how much he has in common with the Jewish Antifas on
a fundamental Level ..
War for Blair Mountain
Show
Comment
Next
New Comment
July 3, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT
History offers up important lessons for the Alt Right
There is a historic
precedent for the Alt Right in US History:look no further than the late
19th-early 2oth Century US Labor Movement it was racially
xenophobic .isolationist and economically progressive .The late 19th-early 2oth
century Labor Movement gave us such wonderfull things such as The Chinese Legal
Immigrant Exclusion Act and the Sihk Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act .not bad!!!
And let's honest The Alt Right kiddie brigade that worships
Hitler Franco Pinochet .also swims in the sewage of JFK and Ronnie Reagan
worship two scoundrels who unleashed race-replacement immigration policy on The
Historic Native Born White American Working Class..
Notable quotes:
"... Trump may finally begin THE PURGE. This is good! Hopefully this is true! Fire everyone except Steve Bannon! Begin with the Kushners, fire them all, no actually that's not enough, arrest everyone. Arrest John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton, George Soros. Clean the system Mr. president, that's why the people voted for you, so you can do serious damage in Washington DC. ..."
"... Incensed by leaks that have come from within his own inner circle, President Donald Trump is about to take the gloves off in a purge of White House advisers that could begin as early as today. ..."
"... Speculation continues to swirl around White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who has hindered Trump with a series of high profile gaffes. As Infowars reported first (before the rest of the mainstream media followed suit), Trump is seriously considering replacing Spicer with Fox News host Kimberley Guilfoyle. ..."
"... Former Trump adviser Roger Stone said the establishment "made the mistake of hitting (Trump) too hard," despite the fact that Trump attempted to extend an olive branch during the early months of his presidency. "Now he understands, the gloves will be off, this is a fight to the finish – I can tell you this, don't ever push Donald Trump into a corner – he is a fighter," said Stone. ..."
"... Other names potentially on the chopping block include Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Steve Bannon, and counsel Don McGahn, according to Axios' Mike Allen, who cites White House sources. ..."
"... Jettisoning Bannon would rile Trump's base, whereas an exit for Priebus would be met with widespread support. ..."
"... However, the Daily Mail reports that Trump is "relying more" on Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, something that won't sit well with Trump's base given that both have advocated globalist policies like man-made global warming and importing "refugees". ..."
HURRAY! This is good news! Donald Trump could be back after taking a long 4 month bath in the
swamp and playing with crocodiles, piranhas and other vicious creatures.
Trump may finally begin THE PURGE. This is good! Hopefully this is true! Fire everyone except
Steve Bannon! Begin with the Kushners, fire them all, no actually that's not enough, arrest everyone.
Arrest John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton, George Soros. Clean the system Mr.
president, that's why the people voted for you, so you can do serious damage in Washington DC.
Incensed by leaks that have come from within his own inner circle, President Donald Trump
is about to take the gloves off in a purge of White House advisers that could begin as early as today.
Speculation continues to swirl around White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who has hindered
Trump with a series of high profile gaffes. As Infowars reported first (before the rest of the mainstream
media followed suit), Trump is seriously considering replacing Spicer with Fox News host Kimberley
Guilfoyle.
In an eyebrow-raising move, Guilfoyle 'liked' one of my tweets in which I linked to a story about
the fact that Trump was considering her for the post, alongside the comment, "I had this story 2
days ago, lazy MSM late again." Could mean nothing. Could mean something. When approached for comment,
Guilfoyle didn't respond.
According to Mike Cernovich, who has scooped the media repeatedly thanks to his White House sources,
the base will be very happy with the decisions Trump is about to make.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/FTT8RUVv4aw
"His media team, they don't do anything, they're ineffective. Spicer is afraid to confront the
media, afraid to call them out," said Cernovich.
Former Trump adviser Roger Stone said the establishment "made the mistake of hitting (Trump)
too hard," despite the fact that Trump attempted to extend an olive branch during the early months
of his presidency. "Now he understands, the gloves will be off, this is a fight to the finish – I
can tell you this, don't ever push Donald Trump into a corner – he is a fighter," said Stone.
Other names potentially on the chopping block include Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, chief
strategist Steve Bannon, and counsel Don McGahn, according to Axios' Mike Allen, who cites White
House sources.
Jettisoning Bannon would rile Trump's base, whereas an exit for Priebus would be met with
widespread support.
However, the Daily Mail reports that Trump is "relying more" on Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump,
something that won't sit well with Trump's base given that both have advocated globalist policies
like man-made global warming and importing "refugees".
Source
Notable quotes:
"... As the 100-day mark of his presidency approaches, there's been no serious reassessment of America's endless wars or how to fight them (no less end them). Instead, there's been a recommitment to doing more of the familiar, more of what hasn't worked over the last decade and a half. ..."
"... Like those generals, he's a logical endpoint to a grim process, whether you're talking about the growth of inequality in America and the rise of plutocracy – without which a billionaire president and his billionaire cabinet would have been inconceivable – or the form that American war-making is taking under him. ..."
"... As the chameleon he is, he promptly took on the coloration of the militarized world he had entered and appointed "his" three generals to key security posts. Anything but the norm historically, such a decision may have seemed anomalous and out of the American tradition. That, however, was only because, unlike Donald Trump, most of the rest of us hadn't caught up with where that "tradition" had actually taken us. ..."
"... Hence, Steve Bannon, his dream strategist while on the campaign trail, is now reportedly on the ropes ..."
"... Think of Trump as a chameleon among presidents and much of this makes more sense. ..."
"... Donald Trump isn't either a politician or a trendsetter. If anything, he's a trend-senser. (In a similar fashion, he didn't create reality TV, nor was he at its origins. He simply perfected a form that was already in development.) ..."
"... What happens, then? What happens when the war honeymoon is over and the generals keep right on fighting their way? The last two presidents put up with permanent failing war, making the best they could of it. That's unlikely for Donald Trump. When the praise begins to die down, the criticism starts to rise, and questions are asked, watch out. ..."
Institutionalizing War and Its GeneralsAbove all, President Trump did one thing decisively.
He empowered a set of generals or retired generals – James "Mad Dog" Mattis as secretary of defense,
H.R. McMaster as national security adviser, and John Kelly as secretary of homeland security – men
already deeply implicated in America's
failing wars across the Greater Middle East. Not being a details guy himself, he's then left
them to do their damnedest. "What I do is I authorize my military," he
told reporters recently. "We have given them total authorization and that's what they're doing
and, frankly, that's why they've been so successful lately."
As the 100-day mark of his presidency approaches, there's been no serious reassessment of
America's endless wars or how to fight them (no less end them). Instead, there's been a recommitment
to doing more of the familiar, more of what hasn't worked over the last decade and a half. No
one should be surprised by this, given the cast of characters – men who held command posts in those
unsuccessful wars and are clearly incapable of thinking about them in other terms than the ones that
have been indelibly engrained in the brains of the U.S. military high command since soon after 9/11.
That new ruling reality of our American world should, in turn, offer a hint about the nature of
Donald Trump's presidency. It should be a reminder that as strange okay, bizarre as his statements,
tweets, and acts may have been, as chaotic as his
all-in-the-family administration is proving to be, as little as he may resemble anyone we've
ever seen in the White House before, he's anything but an anomaly of history. Quite the opposite.
Like those generals, he's a logical endpoint to a grim process, whether you're talking about the
growth of inequality in America and the rise of plutocracy – without which a billionaire president
and his
billionaire cabinet would have been inconceivable – or the form that American war-making is taking
under him.
When it comes to war and the U.S. military, none of what's happened would have been conceivable
without the two previous presidencies. None of it would have been possible without Congress's willingness
to
pump endless piles of money into the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex in the post-9/11
years; without the building up of the national security state and its
17 (yes, 17!) major intelligence outfits into an
unofficial fourth branch of government; without the institutionalization of war as a permanent
(yet strangely distant) feature of American life and of wars across the Greater Middle East and parts
of Africa that evidently can't be won or lost but only carried on into eternity. None of this would
have been possible without the growing militarization of this country, including of police forces
increasingly
equipped with weaponry off America's distant battlefields and filled with
veterans of those same wars; without a media rife with retired generals and other former commanders
narrating and commenting on the acts of their successors and protégés; and without a political class
of Washington pundits and politicians taught to revere that military.
In other words, however original Donald Trump may look, he's the curious culmination of old news
and a changing country. Given his bravado and braggadocio, it's easy to forget the kinds of militarized
extremity that preceded him.
After all, it wasn't Donald Trump who had the hubris, in the wake of 9/11, to declare a "Global
War on Terror" against
60 countries (the "
swamp " of that moment). It wasn't Donald Trump who manufactured false intelligence on the weapons
of mass destruction Iraq's Saddam Hussein supposedly possessed or produced
bogus claims about that autocrat's connections to al-Qaeda, and then
used both to lead the United States into a war on and occupation of that country. It wasn't Donald
Trump who invaded Iraq (whether he was
for or against tht invasion at the time). It wasn't Donald Trump who donned a flight suit and
landed on an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego to personally declare that hostilities were
at an end in Iraq just as they were truly beginning, and to do so under an inane "
Mission Accomplished " banner prepared by the White House.
It wasn't Donald Trump who ordered the
CIA to
kidnap terror suspects (including
totally innocent individuals) off the streets of global cities as well as from the backlands
of the planet and transport them to foreign prisons or CIA "
black sites
" where they could be tortured. It wasn't Donald Trump who caused one terror suspect to experience
the sensation of drowning
83 times in a single month (even if he was inspired by such reports to
claim that he would bring torture back as president).
It wasn't Donald Trump who spent eight years in the Oval Office presiding over a global "
kill list ," running "
Terror
Tuesday " meetings, and personally helping choose individuals around the world for the CIA to
assassinate using what, in essence, was the president's own private drone force, while being
praised (or criticized) for his "caution."
It wasn't Donald Trump who presided over the creation of a
secret military of 70,000 elite troops cossetted inside the larger military, special-ops personnel
who, in recent years, have been dispatched on missions to a
large majority of the countries on the planet without the knowledge, no less the consent, of
the American people. Nor was it Donald Trump who managed to lift the Pentagon budget to $600 billion
and the overall national security budget to something like a
trillion dollars or more, even
as America's civilian infrastructure
aged and buckled .
It wasn't Donald Trump who lost an estimated
$60 billion to fraud and waste in the American "reconstruction" of Iraq and Afghanistan, or who
decided to
build highways to nowhere and a gas station in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan. It wasn't
Donald Trump who sent in the
warrior corporations to
squander more in that single country than was spent on the post-World War II Marshall Plan to
put all of Western Europe back on its feet. Nor did he instruct the U.S. military to dump at least
$25 billion into rebuilding, retraining, and rearming an Iraqi army that would
collapse in 2014 in the face of a relatively small number of ISIS militants, or at least
$65 billion into an Afghan army that would turn out to be filled with
ghost soldiers .
In its history, the United States has engaged in quite a remarkable range of wars and conflicts.
Nonetheless, in the last 15 years,
forever war has been institutionalized as a feature of everyday life in Washington, which, in
turn, has been transformed into a permanent war capital. When Donald Trump won the presidency and
inherited those wars and that capital, there was, in a sense, no one left in the remarkably bankrupt
political universe of Washington but those generals.
As the chameleon he is, he promptly took on the coloration of the militarized world he had
entered and appointed "his" three generals to key security posts. Anything but the norm historically,
such a decision may have seemed anomalous and out of the American tradition. That, however, was only
because, unlike Donald Trump, most of the rest of us hadn't caught up with where that "tradition"
had actually taken us.
The previous two presidents had
played the warrior regularly,
donning military
outfits – in his presidential years, George W. Bush often looked like a G.I. Joe doll – and
saluting the troops, while praising them to the skies, as the American people were also
trained to do. In the Trump era, however, it's the warriors (if you'll excuse the pun) who are
playing the president.
It's hardly news that Donald Trump is a man in love with what works. Hence, Steve Bannon,
his dream strategist while on the campaign trail, is now
reportedly on the ropes as his White House counselor because nothing he's done in the first
nearly 100 days of the new presidency has worked (except
promoting himself ).
Think of Trump as a chameleon among presidents and much of this makes more sense. A Republican
who had been a
Democrat for significant periods of his life, he conceivably could have run for president as
a more nativist version of Bernie Sanders on the Democratic ticket had the political cards been dealt
just a little differently. He's a man who has changed himself repeatedly to fit his circumstances
and he's doing so again in the Oval Office.
In the world of the media, it's stylish to be
shocked, shocked that the president who campaigned on one set of issues and came into office
still championing them is now supporting quite a different set – from China to taxes, NATO to the
Export-Import Bank. But this isn't faintly strange. Donald Trump isn't either a politician or
a trendsetter. If anything, he's a trend-senser. (In a similar fashion, he didn't create reality
TV, nor was he at its origins. He simply perfected a form that was already in development.)
If you want to know just where we are in an America that has been on the march toward a different
sort of society and governing system for a long time now, look at him. He's the originator of nothing,
but he tells you all you need to know. On war, too, think of him as a chameleon. Right now, war is
working for him domestically, whatever it may be doing in the actual world, so he loves it. For the
moment, those generals are indeed "his" and their wars his to embrace.
Honeymoon of the Generals
Normally, on entering the Oval Office, presidents receive what the media calls a "honeymoon" period.
Things go well. Praise is forthcoming. Approval ratings are heart-warming.
Donald Trump got none of this. His approval ratings quickly
headed for the honeymoon cellar or maybe the honeymoon
fallout shelter ; the media and he went to war; and one attempt after another to fulfill his
promises – from executive orders on deportation to repealing Obamacare and
building his wall – have come a cropper. His administration seems to be in eternal chaos, the
cast of characters changing by the week or tweet, and
few key secondary posts being filled.
In only one area has Donald Trump experienced that promised honeymoon. Think of it as the honeymoon
of the generals. He gave them that "total authorization," and the missiles left the ships, the drones
flew, and the giant bomb dropped. Even when the results were disappointing, if not disastrous (as
in a raid on Yemen in which a U.S. special operator was killed,
children slaughtered , and nothing of value recovered), he still somehow stumbled into highly
praised
"presidential" moments .
So far, in other words, the generals are the only ones who have delivered for him,
big-league . As a result, he's given them yet more authority to do whatever they want, while
hugging them tighter yet.
Here's the problem, though: there's a predictable element to all of this and it doesn't work in
Donald Trump's favor. America's forever wars have now been pursued by these generals and others like
them for more than 15 years across a vast swath of the planet – from Pakistan to Libya (and ever
deeper into Africa) – and the chaos of failing states, growing conflicts, and spreading terror
movements has been the result. There's no reason to believe that further military action will, a
decade and a half later, produce more positive results.
What happens, then? What happens when the war honeymoon is over and the generals keep right
on fighting their way? The last two presidents put up with permanent failing war, making the best
they could of it. That's unlikely for Donald Trump. When the praise begins to die down, the criticism
starts to rise, and questions are asked, watch out.
What then? In a world of plutocrats and generals, what coloration will Donald Trump take on next?
Who will be left, except Jared and Ivanka?
Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the
American Empire Project and the
author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War,
The
End of Victory Culture . He is a fellow of the
Nation Institute and runs
TomDispatch.com . His latest book is
Shadow
Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World
.
Follow TomDispatch on
Twitter and join us on
Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Book, John Dower's
The
Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II , as well as John Feffer's dystopian
novel
Splinterlands
, Nick Turse's
Next
Time They'll Come to Count the Dead , and Tom Engelhardt's
Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower
World .
On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined
"Trump has
lost control over the Pentagon", and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump
is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:
- March 14th,
the US National
Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada.
- April 7,
Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan
- On April 7th the Pentagon US bombed
Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists
- April 10,
United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border
- April 11,
The US Air
Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the
chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command.
- April 12,
President
Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO
- April 13,
NATO chief
Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe
- On April
13th, the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its
GBU-43/B Massive
Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB)
- April 13, the US-led coalition bombed
the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zor killing hundreds of people
- April 14,
The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to
the South China Sea
- April 14,
the US sent
F-35 jets to Europe
- April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest
international
conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan.
The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region".
- April14,
the
US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North
Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively
- April 16th,
the US army
makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s.
Notable quotes:
"... If we Americans could tolerate the three past stooges – fornicator, idiot, liar - then we can easily embrace a man of high passion and good family values who knows how to read a financial balance sheet. From the very beginning of Trump's race to the White House, I have admired the deftness of Corey Lewandowski, a brash NH Yankee who had little patience for fools and naysayers. He was and is a no-nonsense type of guy who means what he says and says what he means. ..."
... ... ...
None of the former POTUSs in the last thirty years had the vaguest notion of what presidential
propriety meant.
- Bill Clinton was the most egregious candidate flaunting his sexual obsessions and miscreant
behavior before, during and after his tenure as POTUS.
- W. was a disaster from the very beginning. He was unable to articulate, formulate, or even
implement any idea, program, or action without Darth Vader Cheney whispering into his war-obsessed,
vacuous mind.
- Finally, we unwittingly anointed Obama, bereft of anything substantive except a contrived
history of his birth, sexuality, and accomplishments.
These aforementioned three candidates all became less than competent POTUSs.
Now, America has a person of no small amount of accomplishments. Yet, the biased media acted as
a surrogate psychiatrist pronouncing Donald 'completely unfit by temperament to become POTUS.'
Nonsense!
If we Americans could tolerate the three past stooges – fornicator, idiot, liar - then we
can easily embrace a man of high passion and good family values who knows how to read a financial
balance sheet. From the very beginning of Trump's race to the White House, I have admired the deftness
of Corey Lewandowski, a brash NH Yankee who had little patience for fools and naysayers. He was and
is a no-nonsense type of guy who means what he says and says what he means.
Now, a Stephen Bannon was brought in to shake up the Trump team, once again. I don't know Bannon
but I do like his profile. He was a naval officer, investment banker, entrepreneur, and a political
agitator [Breitbart News]. That is precisely what Trump needs right now.
... ... ...
Source
This four seasons theory looks to me like some king of amateur dialectics...
80 years is close to Kondratiev cycles length.
Notable quotes:
"... Stephen K. Bannon has great admiration for a provocative but disputed theory of history that argues that the United States is nearing a crisis that could be just as disruptive and catastrophic as the most seminal global turning points of the last 250 years. ..."
"... This prophecy, which is laid out in a 1997 book, "The Fourth Turning," by two amateur historians, makes the case that world events unfold in predictable cycles of roughly 80 years each that can be divided into four chapters, or turnings: growth, maturation, entropy and destruction. Western societies have experienced the same patterns for centuries, the book argues, and they are as natural and necessary as spring, summer, fall and winter. ..."
"... In an interview with The Times, Mr. Bannon said, "Everything President Trump is doing - all of it - is to get ahead of or stop any potential crisis." But the magnitude of this crisis - and who is ultimately responsible for it - is an unknown that Mr. Trump can use to his political advantage. This helps explain Mr. Trump's tendency to emphasize crime rates, terrorist attacks and weak border control. ..."
"... We should shed and simplify the federal government in advance of the Crisis by cutting back sharply on its size and scope but without imperiling its core infrastructure. ..."
"... One of the authors' major arguments is that Western society - particularly American culture - has denied the significance of cyclical patterns in history in favor of the more palatable and self-serving belief that humans are on an inexorable march toward improvement. They say this allows us to gloss over the flaws in human nature that allow for bad judgment - and bad leaders that drive societies into decline. ..."
"... The authors envision a return to a more traditional, conservative social order as one outcome of a crisis. They also see the possibility of retribution and punishment for those who resist or refuse to comply with the new expectations for conformity. Mr. Trump's "with us or against us" attitude raises questions about what kind of leader he would be in such a crisis - and what kind of loyalty his administration might demand. ..."
Stephen K. Bannon has great admiration for a provocative but disputed theory of history that argues
that the United States is nearing a crisis that could be just as disruptive and catastrophic as the
most seminal global turning points of the last 250 years.
This prophecy, which is laid out in a 1997 book, "The Fourth Turning," by two amateur historians,
makes the case that world events unfold in predictable cycles of roughly 80 years each that can be
divided into four chapters, or turnings: growth, maturation, entropy and destruction. Western societies
have experienced the same patterns for centuries, the book argues, and they are as natural and necessary
as spring, summer, fall and winter.
Few books have been as central to the worldview of Mr. Bannon, a voracious reader who tends to
see politics and policy in terms of their place in the broader arc of history.
But what does the book tell us about how Mr. Bannon is approaching his job as President Trump's
chief strategist and what he sees in the country's future? Here are some excerpts from the book,
with explanations from The New York Times.
'Winter Is Coming,' and We'd Better Be Prepared
History is seasonal, and winter is coming. The very survival of the nation will feel at stake.
Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history, one commensurate
with the American Revolution, Civil War, and twin emergencies of the Great Depression and World
War II. The risk of catastrophe will be high. The nation could erupt into insurrection or civil
violence, crack up geographically, or succumb to authoritarian rule.
The "Fourth Turning" authors, William Strauss and Neil Howe, started using that phrase before
it became a pop culture buzzword courtesy of HBO's "Game of Thrones." But, as the authors point out,
some winters are mild. And sometimes they arrive late. The best thing to do, they say, is to prepare
for what they wrote will be "America's next rendezvous with destiny."
In an interview with The Times, Mr. Bannon said, "Everything President Trump is doing - all of
it - is to get ahead of or stop any potential crisis." But the magnitude of this crisis - and who
is ultimately responsible for it - is an unknown that Mr. Trump can use to his political advantage.
This helps explain Mr. Trump's tendency to emphasize crime rates, terrorist attacks and weak border
control.
The 'Deconstruction of the Administrative State,' and Much More, Is Inevitable
The Fourth Turning will trigger a political upheaval beyond anything Americans could today imagine.
New civic authority will have to take root, quickly and firmly - which won't be easy if the discredited
rules and rituals of the old regime remain fully in place. We should shed and simplify the federal
government in advance of the Crisis by cutting back sharply on its size and scope but without imperiling
its core infrastructure.
The rhythmic, seasonal nature of history that the authors identify foresees an inevitable period
of decay and destruction that will tear down existing social and political institutions. Mr. Bannon
has famously argued that the overreaching and ineffective federal government - "the administrative
state," as he calls it - needs to be dismantled. And Mr. Trump, he said, has just begun the process.
As Mr. Howe said in an interview with The Times: "There has to be a period in which we tear down
everything that is no longer functional. And if we don't do that, it's hard to ever renew anything.
Forests need fires, and rivers need floods. These happen for a reason."
'The American Dream Is Dead'
James Truslow Adams (wrote) of an 'American Dream' to refer to this civic faith in linear advancement.
Time, they suggested, was the natural ally of each successive generation. Thus arose the dogma of
an American exceptionalism, the belief that this nation and its people had somehow broken loose from
any risk of cyclical regress . Yet the great weakness of linear time is that it obliterates time's
recurrence and thus cuts people off from the eternal - whether in nature, in each other, or in ourselves.
One of the authors' major arguments is that Western society - particularly American culture -
has denied the significance of cyclical patterns in history in favor of the more palatable and self-serving
belief that humans are on an inexorable march toward improvement. They say this allows us to gloss
over the flaws in human nature that allow for bad judgment - and bad leaders that drive societies
into decline.
Though he probably did not intentionally invoke Mr. Strauss and Mr. Howe, Mr. Trump was channeling
their thesis when he often said during his campaign, "The American dream is dead." One of the scenarios
the book puts forward is one in which leaders who emerge during a crisis can revive and rebuild dead
institutions. Mr. Trump clearly saw himself as one of these when he said his goal would be to bring
back the American dream.
Conform, or Else
In a Fourth Turning, the nation's core will matter more than its diversity. Team, brand, and standard
will be new catchwords. Anyone and anything not describable in those terms could be shunted aside
- or worse. Do not isolate yourself from community affairs . If you don't want to be misjudged,
don't act in a way that might provoke Crisis-era authority to deem you guilty. If you belong to a
racial or ethnic minority, brace for a nativist backlash from an assertive (and possibly authoritarian)
majority.
The authors envision a return to a more traditional, conservative social order as one outcome
of a crisis. They also see the possibility of retribution and punishment for those who resist or
refuse to comply with the new expectations for conformity. Mr. Trump's "with us or against us" attitude
raises questions about what kind of leader he would be in such a crisis - and what kind of loyalty
his administration might demand.
Serial betrayer...
Notable quotes:
"... Oldtimers from the 1980 remember reading China, Russia and Iran were the great enemies of USA and to keep boss Israel safe her neighbors had to be splintered into mini statelets. Warring is a racket and lunacy obfuscates the racket; makes for good profits. So "sanity" will not be restored. ..."
"... Jane Meyer wrote in the New Yorker recently about the wealthy hedge funder, Robert Mercer, and his daughter Rebekah, who are big sponsors of Breitbart. They backed Cruz in the Primary, but once he lost to Trump, they began to back Trump with lots of money. For their "donations," they more or less demanded that Trump take on Bannon as an advisor. Meyer posits that it's largely due to the Mercers and Bannon that Trump won. They started working with Trump in August when Trump was seriously lagging in the poles. Although many criticized and/or jeered Trump's hiring of Bannon, the rest, as they say, is history. It is believed that Bannon and the Mercer's are largely behind and responsible for his success. ..."
"... I have read somewhere that Bannon always said he'd be out within a year. I don't believe that Trump had much loyalty to Bannon beyond whatever "good" Bannon did for him on any given day. So it's not all that surprising that Bannon is out, as are most of Trump's other initial picks as his "inside" advisors. ..."
"... Clearly and quite simply, it can't unless something majorly serious happens. We all had some slim hope that Trump could be the disrupter who made at least some levels of serious change. Clearly, that ain't gonna happen. ..."
"... Syria's just some sort of side show distraction. US citizens - at least a certain siginificant percentage of them - can be relied on to rally 'round the Flag, boys, just one more time if the tomahawks are flying at brown people "over there." ..."
"... Frankly ALL of the media here, as everyone knows, is insanely corrupt and complete and ridiculous propaganda 24/7/365. Otherwise reasonably "sane" friends of mine knee-jerked into saluting the flag and frothing at the mouth about the horrors of Assad - about whom they know bupkiss - because they listened to propaganda about it. It's pretty frightening - really - at how George Orwell it all is. I definitely keep FAR AWAY from any tvs and radios when this crap is happening. I listened to about 3 sentences that some propagandist on NPR was spewing out. It was so over the top evident that they were propagandizing the listeners that I had to turn it off immediately. It's pretty appalling. ..."
x | Apr 12, 2017 10:28:48 AM |
3
Elvis has (almost) left the building...
quote
----
Goodwin says he asked Trump if he still has confidence in Bannon, who is reportedly feuding with
Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner. And Trump didn't exactly disabuse Goodwin
of the idea that Bannon is embattled. In fact, he did quite the opposite.
"I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,"
Trump said. "I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve.
I'm my own strategist, and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I was facing
crooked Hillary."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/11/trump-just-made-some-very-strange-comments-about-stephen-k-bannon
likklemore | Apr 12, 2017 10:56:15 AM |
7
Thanks b,
Lunacy has truly taken over the White House but even more so the U.S. media. How can sanity
be brought back to town?
Oldtimers from the 1980 remember reading China, Russia and Iran were the great enemies
of USA and to keep boss Israel safe her neighbors had to be splintered into mini statelets.
Warring is a racket and lunacy obfuscates the racket; makes for good profits. So "sanity" will
not be restored.
I am reading the release of an ex see-i-aye officer that McCain, McMaster, Brennan are in a
huddle and Bannon is out. Somewhat confirming Where is Trump's loyalty? I was winning before
he rescued me:
In an interview with Michael Goodwin of NYPOST
Trump won't definitively say he still backs Bannon
"I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,"
Trump said. "I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know
Steve. I'm my own strategist and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I
was facing crooked Hillary."
He ended by saying, "Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will."
~ ~ ~ ~
My take is Trump has given too much of his presidential responsibility to Jared. Israel and Family
are always First.
RUKidding | Apr 12, 2017 12:20:29 PM |
26
Vis Trump and Bannon in terms of Bannon apparently being tossed out:
Jane Meyer wrote in the New Yorker recently about the wealthy hedge funder, Robert Mercer,
and his daughter Rebekah, who are big sponsors of Breitbart. They backed Cruz in the Primary,
but once he lost to Trump, they began to back Trump with lots of money. For their "donations,"
they more or less demanded that Trump take on Bannon as an advisor. Meyer posits that it's largely
due to the Mercers and Bannon that Trump won. They started working with Trump in August when Trump
was seriously lagging in the poles. Although many criticized and/or jeered Trump's hiring of Bannon,
the rest, as they say, is history. It is believed that Bannon and the Mercer's are largely behind
and responsible for his success.
I have read somewhere that Bannon always said he'd be out within a year. I don't believe
that Trump had much loyalty to Bannon beyond whatever "good" Bannon did for him on any given day.
So it's not all that surprising that Bannon is out, as are most of Trump's other initial picks
as his "inside" advisors.
With Bannon and Kushner not getting along, well, it's a slam dunk that Bannon's out.
"How can sanity be brought to town?"
Clearly and quite simply, it can't unless something majorly serious happens. We all had
some slim hope that Trump could be the disrupter who made at least some levels of serious change.
Clearly, that ain't gonna happen.
Syria's just some sort of side show distraction. US citizens - at least a certain siginificant
percentage of them - can be relied on to rally 'round the Flag, boys, just one more time if the
tomahawks are flying at brown people "over there."
Frankly ALL of the media here, as everyone knows, is insanely corrupt and complete and
ridiculous propaganda 24/7/365. Otherwise reasonably "sane" friends of mine knee-jerked into saluting
the flag and frothing at the mouth about the horrors of Assad - about whom they know bupkiss -
because they listened to propaganda about it. It's pretty frightening - really - at how George
Orwell it all is. I definitely keep FAR AWAY from any tvs and radios when this crap is happening.
I listened to about 3 sentences that some propagandist on NPR was spewing out. It was so over
the top evident that they were propagandizing the listeners that I had to turn it off immediately.
It's pretty appalling.
How will this end? No doubt, not well, especially if you're brown skinned in the ME. The dog
help us all.
Was Bannon one of the leakers?
Notable quotes:
"... In the same interview, Trump told Goodwin that, despite last week's airstrike, U.S. policy toward Syria has not changed. "We're not going into Syria," Trump said. "Our policy is the same - it hasn't changed. We're not going into Syria." ..."
"... Trump also acknowledged a growing rift with Russia - "We're not exactly on the same wavelength with Russia, to put it mildly" - again called the nuclear deal with Iran "the single worst deal ever," and said of the worsening nuclear situation with North Korea: "I knew I was left a mess, but it's worse than I thought." ..."
im1dc ,
April 12, 2017 at 08:20 AM
The biggest problem with Trump is his total dishonesty and the ease with which he lies with complete abandon to suit his Fake
News Spin
Here he fails to endorse Bannon, but hasn't tossed him from the WH and says he likes "Steve", the US won't go into Syria once
again giving Assad and Putin a win in Syria, that the US and Russia are at odds, calls the Iran Nuclear Deal the worst deal ever
declaring "the mess he inherited worse than he thought", yet has done nothing to help Tillerson in Moscow or sent a message to
Iran's government.
Trump is a fraud as president and human being, imo. The GOP deserves every day he's president.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-declines-to-endorse-bannon-says-us-not-going-into-syria-2017-04-11
"Trump declines to endorse Bannon, says U.S. 'not going into Syria'"
By Mike Murphy, Editor...Apr 11, 2017...11:00 p.m. ET
"President Donald Trump declined to give top adviser Steve Bannon a vote of confidence during a New York Post interview published
Tuesday, in which he also said the U.S. was not headed toward a ground war in Syria.
There have been reports of discord among Trump's top White House advisers, and rumors that controversial chief strategist Bannon
may be on the way out. Last week, Bannon and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were reportedly told to iron out their differences.
When asked Monday by Post columnist Michael Goodwin if he still had confidence in Bannon, Trump didn't exactly give a ringing
endorsement: "I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late. I had already beaten
all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve. I'm my own strategist and it wasn't like I was going to change
strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary."
"Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will," Trump said.
In the same interview, Trump told Goodwin that, despite last week's airstrike, U.S. policy toward Syria has not changed. "We're
not going into Syria," Trump said. "Our policy is the same - it hasn't changed. We're not going into Syria."
Trump also acknowledged a growing rift with Russia - "We're not exactly on the same wavelength with Russia, to put it mildly"
- again called the nuclear deal with Iran "the single worst deal ever," and said of the worsening nuclear situation with North
Korea: "I knew I was left a mess, but it's worse than I thought."
Was he one of the leakers ?
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon stripped of national security council role Tuesday memorandum also restores traditional roles on council of chairman of joint chiefs of staff and director of national intelligence ..."
"... A bitter turf war is said to under way in the White House between Kushner and Bannon, former head of the rightwing Breitbart News. ..."
"... When officials released a picture on Friday of a national security briefing on Syria, Kushner had a seat at the table while Bannon was behind Trump, his back to the wall. ..."
-> Steve Bannon
The Observer Bannon and Kushner
locked in White House 'power struggle'
David Smith in
Washington
8 April 2017 07.00 EDT Last modified on Saturday 8 April 2017 17.01 EDT
The sun shone on Donald Trump's debut in the rose garden. As reporters filed in for the time honoured
White House tradition, the president's aide Omarosa Manigault stood in the Palm Room, speaking urgently
into her phone. Vice-president Mike Pence and secretary of state Rex Tillerson shared a joke on the
front row. And the president's senior adviser and son-in-law, ->
Jared Kushner , exuded
confidence, nodding and smiling at a fellow guest as he took his place.
But as Trump held a joint press conference with King Abdullah of Jordan, ->
denouncing a chemical weapons attack on children in Syria that would lead to a US missile strike
a day later, there was a glaring absence. Chief strategist Steve Bannon, mocked by Trump's critics
as "President Bannon" on Twitter, had lost his place in the sun.
Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon stripped of national security council role Tuesday
memorandum also restores traditional roles on council of chairman of joint chiefs of staff and
director of national intelligence
A bitter turf war is said to under way in the White House between Kushner and Bannon, former
head of the rightwing Breitbart News. In the past week there were indications that the latter,
->
who once declared himself "Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors", could be heading for
a fall like Cromwell's, albeit without the gore that accompanied the English minister's violent end.
While Kushner paid a surprise visit to Iraq, beating Tillerson to the photo opps aboard a military
helicopter, Bannon was unceremoniously demoted from the national security council (NSC).
When officials
released a picture on Friday of a national security briefing on Syria, Kushner had a seat at
the table while Bannon was behind Trump, his back to the wall.
Looks like Bannon was one of the leakers. He also was instrumental in bringing Wolff into White House.
Steve Bannon
Keeper of the flame for the isolationist "America first" doctrine, a backlash against the neocons' invasion of Iraq and other
US attempts to meddle in world affairs. A month ago the ex-head of Breitbart News was rumoured to be the second most powerful
man in the world. But last week Bannon, left, was removed from the National Security Council at McMaster's behest.
Mike Cernovich, blogger
A peddler of conspiracy theories said to be influential with the administration, he describes himself as "new right". Last
week Trump's son, Donald Jr, tweeted: "In a long gone time of unbiased journalism he'd win the Pulitzer." But Cernovich has promoted
the hashtag #SyriaHoax and said: "This is appalling really. This is unbelievable.
This is not what we voted for. This is definitely not what we voted for ."
Ann Coulter, author and broadcaster
The author of In Trump We Trust and tireless media champion of the president expressed bitter disappointment to her
1.46m Twitter followers. She posted: "Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies &
creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV."
Rand Paul, senator for Kentucky
The libertarian senator played golf with Trump last weekend and appeared to be forming an unlikely alliance over allegations
of surveillance by the Obama administration.
But he told CNN on Saturday: "He really, clearly ran on the Iraq war was a mistake, regime change hasn't worked, and that involving
ourselves in civil wars throughout the world is really not the job of America's foreign policy.
"Some will say maybe this is an exception to the rule, and I hope frankly that this is an exception, that he won't believe
that we can actually solve the Syria war militarily."
Notable quotes:
"... "regular attendees" ..."
"... "Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized," Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal. ..."
"... "General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function," he added. ..."
President Donald Trump has reorganized the National Security Council,
and his Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon is apparently no longer on the
Principals Committee, according to a memo that has surfaced.
Bloomberg has posted a
memo
from Trump, dated April 4, reorganizing the National Security
Council and updating the list of officials who sit on its Principals
Committee. The document shows no role for Bannon and a reduced role
for Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert.
Director of National
Intelligence Dan Coats and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Marine General Joseph Dunford, are again considered
"regular
attendees"
of the principals committee.
In addition to Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, the regular
attendees will be the secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Energy,
Homeland Security and the Attorney General; the national and homeland
security advisers; and the US envoy to the UN, as well as the CIA
director, in addition to the Joint Chiefs chair and the DNI.
The White House chief of staff, counsel and deputy counsel for
national security, and the director of the Office of Management and
Budget are also invited to attend any NSC meeting, the memo says.
"Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last
administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized,"
Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal.
"General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function,"
he added.
Notable quotes:
"... The two thinkers, recently in the news thanks to Steve Bannon, had different views on human nature. ..."
"... if human nature is universal, cultural convergence seems to be the logical outcome of a globalized world. ..."
"... Spengler's views can be seen in the context of a movement known as historicism, the idea that human societies were the products of historical and material circumstances, which arose as a result of the universalism propagated by the Enlightenment and spread by the French Revolution. While Spengler makes some valid points, particularly in arguing against the idea that history is goal-oriented and directional, his view denies the very concept of empathy, that one can look at, say, Caesar, and see things through his eyes. ..."
"... In other words, Evola believed that there was a common core to human beings, a set of higher principles and heroic "traditional" values that lay at the root of every successful civilization. Even when eclipsed, these values remained in a dormant form, waiting to be reactivated. It is not surprising, then, that Evola is popular among nationalists and reactionaries today, because his framework allows for a shared nationalistic struggle that is simultaneously individualistic and universal in the chivalric sense that true warriors always recognize and respect each other even when serving different causes. ..."
"... The problem is that the mere existence of human nature is no guarantee of its consummation. Human beings may live pathetic or ignoble or fragmentary lives. Evola's concern (whatever one might think of it) was with encouraging the perfection of human nature through political means. That perfection may have little to do with the commonest "material, psychological, and emotional factors"; indeed, it most certainly requires their overcoming. ..."
"... This is important, because it forms one of the strongest critiques that the far right brings against democratic republics: namely, that they are materialistic and emotionally hollow; that they provide no transcendental or ennobling vision of the life of human beings and the destiny of societies. ..."
Akhilesh Pillalamarr
The two thinkers, recently in the news thanks to Steve Bannon, had different views on human
nature.
The apocalyptic worldview promoted by prominent political figures such as Steve Bannon in the United
States and Aleksandr Dugin in Russia is premised on the notion that ordinary political and legislative
battles are more than just quibbles over contemporary issues. Rather, political debates are
fronts in a greater battle of ideas , and everything is a struggle for the meaning of civilization
and human nature. Bannon's worldview is preceded by the thought of two early-20th-century thinkers,
Oswald Spengler and Julius Evola-and his passing mention of the latter in a 2014 speech has caused
some controversy in recent weeks, including a New York Times article entitled
"Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists."
These thinkers wrote at a time when the Western narrative of progress and improvement was shattered
after World War I. Interest in both Spengler and Evola has recently revived, though Spengler was
always fairly well-known for his thesis that civilizations grew and declined in a cyclical fashion.
Although both Spengler and Evola shared a pessimism over the direction of modern Western civilization,
they differed on human nature. Is there a way to reconcile two vastly different observations?
The first is that people in different eras and locales display a remarkable degree of behavioral
similarity; id est , human nature is universal and constant. However, on the other hand, the
peculiarities and differences between some cultures are so great that it is hard to see how these
are derived from a common source. This question is really what lies at the root of the current argument
between cosmopolitanism and nationalism. For if human nature is universal, cultural convergence
seems to be the logical outcome of a globalized world.
Are there alternatives? Building off of ideas introduced in the early 19th century by Hegel, Spengler
argued that the very framework of human experience was limited by the time and the civilization
in which the person lived:
"Mankind" has no aim, no idea, no plan [and] is a zoological expression, or an empty word.
But conjure away the phantom, break the magic circle, and at once there emerges an astonishing
wealth of actual forms. I see, in place of that empty figment of one linear history which can
be kept up only by shutting one's eyes to the overwhelming multitier of facts, the drama of a
number of mighty Cultures. There is not one sculpture, one painting, one mathematics, one physics,
but many, each in its deepest essence different from the others, each limited in duration and
self-contained.
Spengler's views can be seen in the context of a movement known as historicism, the idea that
human societies were the products of historical and material circumstances, which arose as a result
of the universalism propagated by the Enlightenment and spread by the French Revolution. While Spengler
makes some valid points, particularly in arguing against the idea that history is goal-oriented and
directional, his view denies the very concept of empathy, that one can look at, say, Caesar, and
see things through his eyes.
Age after age, people look back on history for inspiration, and it is hard to accept this lack
of commonality with historical figures: the idea of a common human nature is a compelling concept.
It also has the weight of historical, literary, and anthropological evidence behind it. But it does
not follow that the idea of a fixed human nature leads to a form of neoliberal universalism.
One alternative was provided by Evola, who sought to reclaim the idea of human nature from the
Enlightenment and reconcile it with the observations described by Spengler and Hegel. Instead of
the liberal, convergent universalism championed by the Enlightenment, Evola advocated a traditionalist
universalism, because "there is no form of traditional organization that does not hide a higher
principle." In an
argument that echoes Plato's Theory of Forms, he wrote:
The supreme values and the foundational principles of every healthy and normal institution
are not liable to change. In the domain of these values there is no "history" and to think about
them in historical terms is absurd even where these principles are objectified in a historical
reality, they are not at all conditioned by it; they always point to a higher, meta-historical
plane, which is their natural domain and where there is no change.
In other words, Evola believed that there was a common core to human beings, a set of higher
principles and heroic "traditional" values that lay at the root of every successful civilization.
Even when eclipsed, these values remained in a dormant form, waiting to be reactivated. It is not
surprising, then, that Evola is popular among nationalists and reactionaries today, because his framework
allows for a shared nationalistic struggle that is simultaneously individualistic and universal in
the chivalric sense that true warriors always recognize and respect each other even when serving
different causes.
... ... ...
Akhilesh Pillalamarri is an editorial assistant at The American Conservative . He also
writes for The National Interest and The Diplomat .
John Bruce Leonard
, says:
February 21, 2017 at 4:15 pm
"But the truth is probably a lot simpler: people are motivated by similar and fixed material,
psychological, and emotional factors across time and space, not by any liberal or 'meta-historical'
purposes."
Yet it seems to me that everything depends on just who the "people" in question are,
and what their relation is to the wellsprings of power. The motivations of the American electorate
are not those of a Napoleon; and these motivations in turn are not identical to those those of,
say, the Venetian Doge in the Renaissance. The character of the very social order changes dramatically
on the basis of the motivations of its rulers.
The problem is that the mere existence of human nature is no guarantee of its consummation.
Human beings may live pathetic or ignoble or fragmentary lives. Evola's concern (whatever one
might think of it) was with encouraging the perfection of human nature through political means.
That perfection may have little to do with the commonest "material, psychological, and emotional
factors"; indeed, it most certainly requires their overcoming.
This is important, because it forms one of the strongest critiques that the far right brings
against democratic republics: namely, that they are materialistic and emotionally hollow; that
they provide no transcendental or ennobling vision of the life of human beings and the destiny
of societies.
Until democratic republics can answer that charge, which is a poetic, a spiritual, a philosophical
charge, they will remain vulnerable to the peril of "fascist revolt."
Notable quotes:
"... When Mr. Bannon spoke on Thursday of "deconstructing the administrative state," it may have sounded like gobbledygook outside the hall, but it was an electrifying profession of faith for the attendees. It is through Mr. Bannon that Trump_vs_deep_state can be converted from a set of nostalgic laments and complaints into a program for overhauling the government. ..."
"... Mr. Bannon's film features predictable interviews with think-tank supply siders and free marketers fretting about big government. But new, less orthodox voices creep in, too, from the protectionist newscaster Lou Dobbs to the investment manager Barry Ritholtz. They question whether the free market is altogether free. Mr. Ritholtz says that the outcome of the financial crisis has been "socialism for the wealthy but capitalism for everybody else." ..."
"... By 2014, Mr. Bannon's own ideology had become centered on this distrust. He was saying such things about capitalism himself. "Think about it," he said in a talk hosted by the Institute for Human Dignity. "Not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis." He warned against "the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism," by which he meant "a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people." Capitalism, he said, ought to rest on a "Judeo-Christian" foundation. ..."
"... If so, this was bad news for the Republican Party. By the time Mr. Bannon spoke, Ayn Rand-style capitalism was all that remained of its Reagan-era agenda. Free-market thinking had swallowed the party whole, and its Judeo-Christian preoccupations - "a nation with a culture" and "a reason for being" - along with it. A business orientation was what donors wanted. ..."
Weekly Standard senior editor Christoper Caldwell writes at the
New York Times
:
President Trump presents a problem to those who look at politics in terms of
systematic ideologies. He is either disinclined or unable to lay out his agenda
in that way. So perhaps it was inevitable that Mr. Trump's chief strategist,
Stephen K. Bannon, who does have a gift for thinking systematically, would be
so often invoked by Mr. Trump's opponents. They need him not just as a hate
object but as a heuristic, too. There may never be a "Trump_vs_deep_state," and unless one
emerges, the closest we may come to understanding this administration is as an
expression of "Bannonism."
Mr. Bannon, 63, has won a reputation for abrasive brilliance at almost every
stop in his unorthodox career - as a naval officer, Goldman Sachs mergers
specialist, entertainment-industry financier, documentary screenwriter and
director, Breitbart News cyber-agitprop impresario and chief executive of Mr.
Trump's presidential campaign. One Harvard Business School classmate described
him to The Boston Globe as "top three in intellectual horsepower in our class -
perhaps the smartest." Benjamin Harnwell of the Institute for Human Dignity, a
Catholic organization in Rome, calls him a "walking bibliography." Perhaps
because Mr. Bannon came late to conservatism, turning his full-time energy to
political matters only after the Sept. 11 attacks, he radiates an excitement
about it that most of his conservative contemporaries long ago lost.
Many accounts of Mr. Bannon paint him as a cartoon villain or internet troll
come to life, as a bigot, an anti-Semite, a misogynist, a crypto-fascist. The
former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat
of New York, have even called him a "white nationalist." While he is certainly
a hard-line conservative of some kind, the evidence that he is an extremist of
a more troubling sort has generally been either massaged, misread or hyped up.
There may be good reasons to worry about Mr. Bannon, but they are not the
ones everyone is giving. It does not make Mr. Bannon a fascist that he happens
to know who the 20th-century Italian extremist Julius Evola is. It does not
make Mr. Bannon a racist that he described Breitbart as "the platform for the
alt-right" - a broad and imprecise term that applies to a wide array of
radicals, not just certain white supremacist groups.
Where Mr. Bannon does veer sharply from recent
mainstream Republicanism is in his all-embracing nationalism. He speaks of
sovereignty, economic nationalism, opposition to globalization and finding
common ground with Brexit supporters and other groups hostile to the
transnational European Union. On Thursday, at this year's Conservative
Political Action Conference, he described the "center core" of Trump
administration philosophy as the belief that the United States is more than an
economic unit in a borderless word. It is "a nation with a culture
"
and
"
a reason for being."
...
When Mr. Bannon spoke on Thursday of "deconstructing the administrative
state," it may have sounded like gobbledygook outside the hall, but it was an
electrifying profession of faith for the attendees. It is through Mr. Bannon
that Trump_vs_deep_state can be converted from a set of nostalgic laments and complaints
into a program for overhauling the government.
...
Mr. Bannon adds something personal and idiosyncratic to this Tea Party mix.
He has a theory of historical cycles that can be considered elegantly simple or
dangerously simplistic. It is a model laid out by William Strauss and Neil Howe
in two books from the 1990s. Their argument assumes an 80- to 100-year cycle
divided into roughly 20-year "highs," "awakenings," "unravelings" and "crises."
The American Revolution, the Civil War, the New Deal, World War II - Mr. Bannon
has said for years that we're due for another crisis about now. His documentary
about the 2008 financial collapse, "Generation Zero," released in 2010, uses
the Strauss-Howe model to explain what happened, and concludes with Mr. Howe
himself saying, "History is seasonal, and winter is coming."
Mr. Bannon's views reflect a transformation of conservatism over the past
decade or so. You can trace this transformation in the films he has made. His
2004 documentary, "In the Face of Evil," is an orthodox tribute to the
Republican Party hero Ronald Reagan. But "Generation Zero," half a decade
later, is a strange hybrid. The financial crash has intervened.
Mr.
Bannon's film features predictable interviews with think-tank supply siders and
free marketers fretting about big government. But new, less orthodox voices
creep in, too, from the protectionist newscaster Lou Dobbs to the investment
manager Barry Ritholtz. They question whether the free market is altogether
free. Mr. Ritholtz says that the outcome of the financial crisis has been
"socialism for the wealthy but capitalism for everybody else."
By 2014, Mr. Bannon's own ideology had become centered on this distrust. He
was saying such things about capitalism himself. "Think about it," he said in a
talk hosted by the Institute for Human Dignity. "Not one criminal charge has
ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis." He warned
against "the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism," by
which he meant "a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and
to objectify people." Capitalism, he said, ought to rest on a "Judeo-Christian"
foundation.
If so, this was bad news for the Republican Party. By the time Mr.
Bannon spoke, Ayn Rand-style capitalism was all that remained of its Reagan-era
agenda. Free-market thinking had swallowed the party whole, and its
Judeo-Christian preoccupations - "a nation with a culture" and "a reason for
being" - along with it. A business orientation was what donors wanted.
But voters never more than tolerated it. It was Pat Buchanan who in his 1992
run for president first called on Republicans to value jobs and communities
over profits. An argument consumed the party over whether this was a
better-rounded vision of society or just the grousing of a reactionary. After a
generation, Mr. Buchanan has won that argument. By 2016 his views on trade and
migration, once dismissed as crackpot, were spreading so fast that everyone in
the party had embraced them - except its elected officials and its
establishment presidential candidates.
Mr. Bannon does not often go into detail about what Judeo-Christian culture is,
but he knows one thing it is not: Islam. Like most Americans, he believes that
Islamism - the extremist political movement - is a dangerous adversary. More
controversially he holds that, since this political movement is generated
within the sphere of Islam, the growth of Islam - the religion - is itself a
problem with which American authorities should occupy themselves. This is a
view that was emphatically repudiated by Presidents Obama and George W. Bush.
Mr. Bannon has apparently drawn his own views on the subject from intensive, if
not necessarily varied, reading. The thinkers he has engaged with in this area
tend to be hot and polemical rather than cool and detached. They include the
provocateur Pamela Geller, a campaigner against the "Ground Zero Mosque" who
once suggested the State Department was "essentially being run by Islamic
supremacists"; her sometime collaborator Robert Spencer, the director of the
website Jihad Watch, with whom she heads an organization called Stop
Islamization of America; and the former Department of Homeland Security
official Philip Haney, who has argued that officials in the Obama
administration had compromised "the security of citizens for the ideological
rigidity of political correctness."
Read the complete column at the
New York Times
.
libezkova
February 26, 2017 at 10:46 AM
NYT about Bannon "economic nationalism"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/opinion/what-does-steve-bannon-want.html
He approves definition of neoliberalism as "socialism for the wealthy but capitalism for everybody
else."
Looks like his views are not very comparable with Republican Party platform (or Clinton wing
of Democratic Party platform, being "small republicans" in disguise)
== quote ==
"Think about it," he said in a talk hosted by the Institute for Human Dignity. "Not one criminal
charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis." He warned against
"the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism," by which he meant "a capitalism
that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people." Capitalism, he said, ought
to rest on a "Judeo-Christian" foundation.
== quote ==
If so, this was bad news for the Republican Party. By the time Mr. Bannon spoke, Ayn Rand-style
capitalism was all that remained of its Reagan-era agenda. Free-market thinking had swallowed
the party whole, and its Judeo-Christian preoccupations - "a nation with a culture" and "a reason
for being" - along with it. A business orientation was what donors wanted.
Notable quotes:
"... Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers', and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation. ..."
"... From an energy point of view globalisation is a disaster. The insane level of fossil fuels that this current world requires for transportation of necessities (food and clothing) is making this world an unstable world. Ipso Facto. ..."
"... Those who believe that globalisation is bringing value to the world should reconsider their views. The current globalisation has created both monopolies on a geopolitical ground, ie TV make or shipbuilding in Asia. ..."
"... Do you seriously believe that these new geographical and corporate monopolies does not create the kind bad outcomes that traditional – country-centric ones – monopolies have in the past? ..."
"... Then there is the practical issue of workers having next to no bargaining power under globalization. Do people really suppose that Mexican workers would be willing to strike so that their US counterparts, already making ficew times as much money, would get a raise? ..."
"... Basically our elite sold us a bill of goods is why we lost manufacturing. Greed. Nothing else. ..."
"... So proof is required to rollback globalization, but no proof was required to launch it or continue dishing it out? It's good to be the King, eh? ..."
"... America hasn't just gotten rid of the low level jobs. It has also gotten rid of supervisors and factory managers. Those are skills you can't get back overnight. For US plants in Mexico, you might have US managers there or be able to get special visas to let those managers come to the US. But US companies have shifted a ton, and I meant a ton, to foreign subcontractors. Some would put operations in the US to preserve access to US customers, but their managers won't speak English. How do you make this work? ..."
"... The real issue is commitment. Very little manufacturing will be re-shored unless companies are convinced that it is in their longterm interest to do so. ..."
"... There is also what I've heard referred to as the "next bench" phenomenon, in which products arise because someone designs a new product/process to solve a manufacturing problem. Unless one has great foresight, the designer of the new product must be aware there is a problem to solve. ..."
"... When a country is involved in manufacturing, the citizens employed will have exposure to production problems and issues. ..."
"... After his speech he took questions. I asked "Would Toyota ever separate design from manufacturing?" as HP had done, shipping all manufacturing to Asia. "No" was his answer. ..."
"... In my experience, it is way too useful to have the line be able to easily call the designer in question and have him come take a look at what his design is doing. HP tried to get around that by sending part of the design team to Asia to watch the startup. Didn't work as well. And when problems emerged later, it was always difficult to debug by remote control. ..."
"... How about mass imports of cheap workers into western countries in the guise of emigrants to push down worker's pay and gut things like unions. That factor played a decisive factor in both the Brexit referendum and the US 2016 elections. Or the subsidized exportation of western countries industrial equipment to third world countries, leaving local workers swinging in the wind. ..."
"... The data sets do not capture some of the most important factors in what they are saying. It is like putting together a paper on how and why white men voted in the 2016 US elections as they did – and forgetting to mention the effect of the rest of the voters involved. ..."
"... I had a similar reaction. This research was reinforcing info about everyone's resentment over really bad distribution of wealth, as far as it went, but it was so unsatisfying ..."
"... "Right to work" is nothing other than a way to undercut quality of work for "run-to-the-bottom competitive pay." ..."
"... I've noticed that the only people in favor of globalization are those whose jobs are not under threat from it. ..."
"... First off, economic nationalism is not necessarily right wing. I would certainly classify Bernie Sanders as an economic nationalist (against open borders and against "free" trade). Syriza and Podemos could arguably be called rather ineffective economic nationalist parties. I would say the whole ideology of social democracy is based on the Swedish nationalist concept of a "folkhem", where the nation is the home and the citizens are the folk. ..."
"... So China is Turmpism on steroids. Israel obviously is as well. Why do some nations get to be blatantly Trumpist while for others these policies are strictly forbidden? ..."
"... One way to look at Globalization is as an updated version of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty which imposed reparations on a defeated Germany for all the harm they caused during the Great War. The Globalized Versailles Treaty is aimed at the American and European working classes for the crimes of colonialism, racism, slavery and any other bad things the 1st world has done to the 3rd in the past. ..."
"... And yes, this applies to Bernie Sanders as well. During that iconic interview where Sanders denounced open borders and pushed economic nationalism, the Neoliberal interviewer immediately played the global guilt card in response. ..."
"... During colonialism the 3rd world had a form of open borders imposed on it by the colonial powers, where the 3rd world lost control of who what crossed their borders while the 1st world themselves maintained a closed border mercantilist regime of strict filters. So the anti-colonialist movement was a form of Trumpist economic nationalism where the evil foreigners were given the boot and the nascent nations applied filters to their borders. ..."
"... Nationalism (my opinion) can do this – economic nationalism. And of course other people think oh gawd, not that again – it's so inefficient for my investments- I can't get fast returns that way but that's just the point. ..."
"... China was not a significant exporter until the 2001 inclusion in WTO: it cannot possibly have caused populist uprisings in Italy and Belgium in the 1990s. It was probably too early even for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who was killed in 2002, Le Pen's electoral success in the same year, Austria's FPOE in 1999, and so on. ..."
"... In the 1930s Keynes realized, income was just as important as profit as this produced a sustainable system that does not rely on debt to maintain demand. ..."
"... "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system." ..."
"... The Romans are the basis. Patricians, Equites and Plebs. Most of us here are clearly plebeian. Time to go place some bets, watch the chariot races and gladiatorial fights, and get my bread subsidy. Ciao. ..."
"... 80-90% of Bonds and Equities ( at least in USA) are owned by top 10 %. 0.7% own 45% of global wealth. 8 billionaires own more than 50% of wealth than that of bottom 50% in our Country! ..."
"... Globalisation has caused a surge in support for nationalist and radical right political platforms. ..."
"... Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be a move in that direction. ..."
"... Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers' ..."
"... and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. ..."
"... The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation. ..."
DanielDeParis ,
February 20, 2017 at 1:09 am
Definitely a pleasant read but IMHO wrong conclusion: Yet, a return to protectionism is
not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate
compensation of its 'losers', and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. The
world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation.
From an energy point of view globalisation is a disaster. The insane level of fossil fuels
that this current world requires for transportation of necessities (food and clothing) is making
this world an unstable world. Ipso Facto.
We need a world where goods move little as possible (yep!) when smart ideas and technology
(medical, science, industry, yep that's essential) move as much as possible. Internet makes this
possible. This is no dream but a XXIth century reality.
Work – the big one – is required and done where and when it occurs. That is on all continents
if not in every country. Not in an insanely remote suburbs of Asia.
Those who believe that globalisation is bringing value to the world should reconsider their
views. The current globalisation has created both monopolies on a geopolitical ground, ie TV make
or shipbuilding in Asia.
Do you seriously believe that these new geographical and corporate monopolies does not
create the kind bad outcomes that traditional – country-centric ones – monopolies have in the
past?
Yves Smith can have nasty words when it comes to discussing massive trade surplus and policies
that supports them. That's my single most important motivation for reading this challenging blog,
by the way.
Thanks for the blog:)
tony ,
February 20, 2017 at 5:09 am
Another thing is that reliance on complex supply chains is risky. The book 1177 B.C.: The Year
Civilization Collapsed describes how the ancient Mediterranian civilization collapsed when the
supply chains stopped working.
Then there is the practical issue of workers having next to no bargaining power under globalization.
Do people really suppose that Mexican workers would be willing to strike so that their US counterparts,
already making ficew times as much money, would get a raise?
Is Finland somehow supposed to force the US and China to adopt similar worker rights and environmental
protections? No, globalization, no matter how you slice it,is a race to the bottom.
digi_owl ,
February 20, 2017 at 10:12 am
Sadly protectionism gets conflated with empire building, because protectionism was at its height
right before WW1.
Altandmain ,
February 20, 2017 at 1:35 am
I do not agree with the article's conclusion either.
Reshoring would have 1 of 2 outcomes:
- Lots of manufacturing jobs and a solid middle class. We may be looking at more than 20
percent total employment in manufacturing and more than 30 percent of our GDP in manufacturing.
- If the robots take over, we still have a lot of manufacturing jobs. Japan for example has
the most robots per capita, yet they still maintain very large amounts of manufacturing employment.
It does not mean the end of manufacturing at all, having worked in manufacturing before.
Basically our elite sold us a bill of goods is why we lost manufacturing. Greed. Nothing
else.
Ruben ,
February 20, 2017 at 3:07 am
The conclusion is the least important thing. Conclusions are just interpretations, afterthoughts,
divagations (which btw are often just sneaky ways to get your work published by TPTB, surreptitiously
inserting radical stuff under the noses of the guardians of orthodoxy).
The value of these reports is in providing hardcore statistical evidence and quantification
for something for which so many people have a gut feeling but just cann't prove it (although many
seem to think that just having a strong opinion is sufficient).
Yves Smith
Post author ,
February 20, 2017 at 3:27 am
Yes, correct. Intuition is great for coming up with hypotheses, but it is important to test
them. And while a correlation isn't causation, it at least says the hypothesis isn't nuts on its
face.
In addition, studies like this are helpful in challenging the oft-made claim, particularly
in the US, that people who vote for nationalist policies are bigots of some stripe.
KnotRP ,
February 20, 2017 at 10:02 am
So proof is required to rollback globalization, but no proof was required to launch it
or continue dishing it out? It's good to be the King, eh?
WheresOurTeddy ,
February 20, 2017 at 1:05 pm
KnotRP, as far as the Oligarchy is concerned, they don't need proof for anything #RememberTheHackedElectionOf2016
/s
Yves Smith
Post author ,
February 20, 2017 at 6:48 am
You are missing the transition costs, which will take ten years, maybe a generation.
America hasn't just gotten rid of the low level jobs. It has also gotten rid of supervisors
and factory managers. Those are skills you can't get back overnight. For US plants in Mexico,
you might have US managers there or be able to get special visas to let those managers come to
the US. But US companies have shifted a ton, and I meant a ton, to foreign subcontractors. Some
would put operations in the US to preserve access to US customers, but their managers won't speak
English. How do you make this work?
The only culture with demonstrated success in working with supposedly hopeless US workers is
the Japanese, who proved that with the NUMMI joint venture with GM in one of its very worst factories
(in terms of the alleged caliber of the workforce, as in many would show up for work drunk). Toyota
got the plant to function at better than average (as in lower) defect levels and comparable productivity
to its plants in Japan, which was light years better than Big Three norms.
I'm not sure any other foreign managers are as sensitive to detail and the fine points of working
conditions as the Japanese (having worked with them extensively, the Japanese hear frequencies
of power dynamics that are lost on Westerners. And the Chinese do not even begin to have that
capability, as much as they have other valuable cultural attributes).
Katharine ,
February 20, 2017 at 10:24 am
That is really interesting about the Japanese sensitivity to detail and power dynamics. If
anyone has managed to describe this in any detail, I would love to read more, though I suppose
if their ability is alien to most Westerners the task of describing it might also be too much
to handle.
Left in Wisconsin ,
February 20, 2017 at 10:39 am
I lean more to ten years than a generation. And in the grand scheme of things, 10 years is
nothing.
The real issue is commitment. Very little manufacturing will be re-shored unless companies
are convinced that it is in their longterm interest to do so. Which means having a sense
that the US government is serious, and will continue to be serious, about penalizing off-shoring.
Regardless of Trump's bluster, which has so far only resulted in a handful of companies halting
future offshoring decisions (all to the good), we are nowhere close to that yet.
John Wright ,
February 20, 2017 at 10:52 am
There is also what I've heard referred to as the "next bench" phenomenon, in which products
arise because someone designs a new product/process to solve a manufacturing problem. Unless one
has great foresight, the designer of the new product must be aware there is a problem to solve.
When a country is involved in manufacturing, the citizens employed will have exposure to
production problems and issues.
Sometimes the solution to these problems can lead to new products outside of one's main
business, for example the USA's Kingsford Charcoal arose from a scrap wood disposal problem that
Henry Ford had.
https://www.kingsford.com/country/about-us/
If one googles for "patent applications by countries" one gets these numbers, which could be
an indirect indication of some of the manufacturing shift from the USA to Asia.
Patent applications for the top 10 offices, 2014
1. China 928,177
2. US 578,802
3. Japan 325,989
4. South Korea 210,292
What is not captured in these numbers are manufacturing processes known as "trade secrets"
that are not disclosed in a patent. The idea that the USA can move move much of its manufacturing
overseas without long term harming its workforce and economy seems implausible to me.
marku52 ,
February 20, 2017 at 2:55 pm
While a design EE at HP, they brought in an author who had written about Toyota's lean design
method, which was currently the management hot button du jour. After his speech he took questions.
I asked "Would Toyota ever separate design from manufacturing?" as HP had done, shipping all manufacturing
to Asia. "No" was his answer.
In my experience, it is way too useful to have the line be able to easily call the designer
in question and have him come take a look at what his design is doing. HP tried to get around
that by sending part of the design team to Asia to watch the startup. Didn't work as well. And
when problems emerged later, it was always difficult to debug by remote control.
And BTW, after manufacturing went overseas, management told us for costing to assume "Labor
is free". Some level playing field.
The Rev Kev ,
February 20, 2017 at 2:00 am
Oh gawd! The man talks about the effects of globalization and says that the solution is a "a
more inclusive model of globalization"? Seriously? Furthermore he singles out Chinese imports
as the cause of people being pushed to the right. Yeah, right.
How about mass imports of cheap workers into western countries in the guise of emigrants
to push down worker's pay and gut things like unions. That factor played a decisive factor in
both the Brexit referendum and the US 2016 elections. Or the subsidized exportation of western
countries industrial equipment to third world countries, leaving local workers swinging in the
wind.
This study is so incomplete it is almost useless. The only thing that comes to mind to say
about this study is the phrase "Apart from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" And what form
of appropriate compensation of its 'losers' would they suggest? Training for non-existent jobs?
Free moving fees to the east or west coast for Americans in flyover country? Subsidized emigration
fees to third world countries where life is cheaper for workers with no future where they are?
Nice try fellas but time to redo your work again until it is fit for a passing grade.
Ruben ,
February 20, 2017 at 3:00 am
How crazy of them to have used generalized linear mixed models with actual data carefully compiled
and curated when they could just asked you right?
The Rev Kev ,
February 20, 2017 at 4:19 am
Aw jeez, mate – you've just hurt my feelings here. Take a look at the actual article again.
The data sets do not capture some of the most important factors in what they are saying. It
is like putting together a paper on how and why white men voted in the 2016 US elections as they
did – and forgetting to mention the effect of the rest of the voters involved.
Hey, here is an interesting thought experiment for you. How about we apply the scientific method
to the past 40 years of economic theory since models with actual data strike your fancy. If we
find that the empirical data does not support a theory such as the theory of economic neoliberalism,
we can junk it then and replace it with something that actually works then. So far as I know,
modern economics seems to be immune to scientific rigour in their methods unlike the real sciences.
Ruben ,
February 20, 2017 at 4:38 am
I feel your pain Rev.
Not all relevant factors need to be included for a statistical analysis to be valid, as long
as relevant ignored factors are randomized amongst the sampling units, but you know that of course.
Thanks for you kind words about the real sciences, we work hard to keep it real, but once again,
in all fairness, between you and me mate, is not all rigour, it is a lot more Feyerabend than
Popper.
The Rev Kev ,
February 20, 2017 at 5:41 am
What you say is entirely true. The trouble has always been to make sure that that statistical
analysis actually reflects the real world enough to make it valid. An example of where it all
falls apart can be seen in the political world when the pundits, media and all the pollsters assured
America that Clinton had it in the bag. It was only after the dust had settled that it was revealed
how bodgy the methodology used had been.
By the way, Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend sound very interesting so thanks for the heads
up. Have you heard of some of the material of another bloke called Mark Blyth at all? He has some
interesting observations to make on modern economic practices.
susan the other ,
February 20, 2017 at 12:03 pm
I had a similar reaction. This research was reinforcing info about everyone's resentment
over really bad distribution of wealth, as far as it went, but it was so unsatisfying and
I immediately thought of Blyth who laments the whole phylogeny of economics as more or less serving
the rich.
The one solution he offered up a while ago was (paraphrasing) 'don't sweat the deficit spending
because it is all 6s in the end' which is true if distribution doesn't stagnate. So as it stands
now, offshoring arms, legs and firstborns is like 'nothing to see here, please move on'. The suggestion
that we need a more inclusive form of global trade kind of begs the question. Made me uneasy too.
Ruben ,
February 20, 2017 at 10:58 pm
Please don't pool pundits and media with the authors of objective works like the one we are
commenting :-)
You are welcome, you might also be interested in Lakatos, these 3 are some of the most interesting
philosophers of science of the 20th century, IMO.
Blyth has been in some posts here at NC recently.
relstprof ,
February 20, 2017 at 4:30 am
"Gut things like unions." How so? In my recent interaction with my apartment agency's preferred
contractors, random contractors not unionized, I experienced a 6 month-long disaster.
These construction workers bragged that in 2 weeks they would have the complete job done -
a reconstructed deck and sunroom. Verbatim quote: "Union workers complete the job and tear it
down to keep everyone paying." Ha Ha! What a laugh!
Only to have these same dudes keep saying "next week", "next week", "next week", "next week".
The work began in August and only was finished (not completely!) in late January. Sloppy crap!
Even the apartment agency head maintenance guy who I finally bitched at said "I guess good work
is hard to come by these days."
Of the non-union guys he hired.
My state just elected a republican governor who promised "right to work." This was just signed
into law.
Immigrants and Mexicans had nothing to do with it. They're not an impact in my city. "Right
to work" is nothing other than a way to undercut quality of work for "run-to-the-bottom competitive
pay."
Now I await whether my rent goes up to pay for this nonsense.
bob ,
February 20, 2017 at 11:24 pm
They look at the labor cost, assume someone can do it cheaper. They don't think it's that difficult.
Maybe it's not. The hard part of any and all construction work is getting it finished. Getting
started is easy. Getting it finished on time? Nah, you can't afford that.
Karl Kolchak ,
February 20, 2017 at 10:22 am
I've noticed that the only people in favor of globalization are those whose jobs are not
under threat from it. Beyond that, I think the flood of cheap Chinese goods is actually helping
suppress populist anger by allowing workers whose wages are dropping in real value terms to maintain
the illusion of prosperity. To me, a more "inclusive" form of globalization would include replacing
every economist with a Chinese immigrant earning minimum wage. That way they'd get to "experience"
how awesome it is and the value of future economic analysis would be just as good.
The Trumpening ,
February 20, 2017 at 2:27 am
I'm going to question a few of the author's assumptions.
First off, economic nationalism is not necessarily right wing. I would certainly classify
Bernie Sanders as an economic nationalist (against open borders and against "free" trade). Syriza
and Podemos could arguably be called rather ineffective economic nationalist parties. I would
say the whole ideology of social democracy is based on the Swedish nationalist concept of a "folkhem",
where the nation is the home and the citizens are the folk.
Secondly, when discussing the concept of economic nationalism and the nation of China, it would
be interesting to discuss how these two things go together. China has more billionaires than refugees
accepted in the past 20 years. Also it is practically impossible for a non Han Chinese person
to become a naturalized Chinese citizen. And when China buys Boeing aircraft, they wisely insist
on the production being done in China. A close look at Japan would yield similar results.
So China is Turmpism on steroids. Israel obviously is as well. Why do some nations get
to be blatantly Trumpist while for others these policies are strictly forbidden?
One way to look at Globalization is as an updated version of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty
which imposed reparations on a defeated Germany for all the harm they caused during the Great
War. The Globalized Versailles Treaty is aimed at the American and European working classes for
the crimes of colonialism, racism, slavery and any other bad things the 1st world has done to
the 3rd in the past.
Of course during colonialism the costs were socialized within colonizing states and so it was
the people of the colonial power who paid those costs that weren't borne by the colonial subjects
themselves, who of course paid dearly, and it was the oligarchic class that privatized the colonial
profits. But the 1st world oligarchs and their urban bourgeoisie are in strong agreement that
the deplorable working classes are to blame for systems that hurt working classes but powerfully
enriched the wealthy!
And so with the recent rebellions against Globalization, the 1st and 3rd world oligarchs are
convinced these are nothing more than the 1st world working classes attempting to shirk their
historic guilt debt by refusing to pay the rightful reparations in terms of standard of living
that workers deserve to pay for the crimes committed in the past by their wealthy co-nationals.
And yes, this applies to Bernie Sanders as well. During that iconic interview where Sanders
denounced open borders and pushed economic nationalism, the Neoliberal interviewer immediately
played the global guilt card in response.
Ruben ,
February 20, 2017 at 3:23 am
Interesting. Another way to look at it is from the point of view of entropy and closed vs open
systems. Before globalisation the 1st world working classes enjoyed a high standard of living
which was possible because their system was relatively closed to the rest of the world. It was
a high entropy, strongly structured socio-economic arrangement, with a large difference in standard
of living between 1st world and 3rd world working classes. Once their system became more open
by virtue (or vice) of globalisation, entropy increased as commanded by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
so the 1st world and 3rd world working classes became more equalised. The socio-economic arrangements
became less structured. This means for the Trumpening kind of politicians it is a steep uphill
battle, to increase entropy again.
The Trumpening ,
February 20, 2017 at 3:56 am
Yes, I agree, but if we step back in history a bit we can see the colonial period as a sort
of reverse globalization which perhaps portends a bit of optimism for the Trumpening.
I use the term open and closed borders but these are not precise. What I am really saying is
that open borders does not allow a country to filter out negative flows across their border. Closed
borders does allow a nation to impose a filter. So currently the US has more open borders (filters
are frowned upon) and China has closed borders (they can filter out what they don't want) despite
the fact that obviously China has plenty of things crossing its border.
During colonialism the 3rd world had a form of open borders imposed on it by the colonial
powers, where the 3rd world lost control of who what crossed their borders while the 1st world
themselves maintained a closed border mercantilist regime of strict filters. So the anti-colonialist
movement was a form of Trumpist economic nationalism where the evil foreigners were given the
boot and the nascent nations applied filters to their borders.
So the 3rd world to some extent (certainly in China at least) was able to overcome entropy
and regain control of their borders. You are correct in that it will be an uphill struggle for
the 1st world to repeat this trick. In the ideal world both forms of globalization (colonialism
and the current form) would be sidelined and all nations would be allowed to use the border filters
they think would best protect the prosperity of their citizens.
Another good option would be a version of the current globalization but where the losers are
the wealthy oligarchs themselves and the winners are the working classes. It's hard to imagine
it's easy if you try!
What's interesting about the concept of entropy is that it stands in contradiction to the concept
of perpetual progress. I'm sure there is some sort of thesis, antithesis, synthesis solution to
these conflicting concepts.
Ruben ,
February 20, 2017 at 6:07 am
To overcome an entropy current requires superb skill commanding a large magnitude of work applied
densely on a small substratum (think of the evolution of the DNA, the internal combustion engine).
I believe the Trumpening laudable effort and persuasion would have a chance of success in a country
the size of The Netherlands, or even France, but the USA, the largest State machinery in the world,
hardly. When the entropy current flooded the Soviet system the solution came firstly in the form
of shrinkage.
We need to think more about it, a lot more, in order to succeed in this 1st world uphill struggle
to repeat the trick. I am pretty sure that as Pierre de Fermat famously claimed about his alleged
proof, the solution "is too large to fit in the margins of this book".
susan the other ,
February 20, 2017 at 12:36 pm
My little entropy epiphany goes like this: it's like boxes – containers, if you will, of energy
or money, or trade goods, the flow of which is best slowed down so everybody can grab some. Break
it all down, decentralize it and force it into containers which slow the pace and share the wealth.
Nationalism (my opinion) can do this – economic nationalism. And of course other
people think oh gawd, not that again – it's so inefficient for my investments- I can't get fast
returns that way but that's just the point.
Ruben ,
February 20, 2017 at 10:51 pm
I like your epiphany susan.
John Wright ,
February 20, 2017 at 1:25 pm
Don't you mean "It was a LOWER entropy (as in "more ordered"), strongly structured socio-economic
arrangement, with a large difference in standard of living between 1st world"?
The entropy increased as a consequence of human guided globalization.
Of course, from a thermodynamic standpoint, the earth is not a closed system as it is continually
flooded with new energy in the form of solar radiation.
Ruben ,
February 20, 2017 at 10:49 pm
Yes, thank you, I made that mistake twice in the post you replying to.
Hemang ,
February 20, 2017 at 4:54 am
The Globalized Versailles Treaty -- Permit me a short laughter . The terms of the crippling
treaty were dictated by the victors largely on insecurities of France.
The crimes of the 1st against the 3rd go on even now- the only difference is that some of the
South like China and India are major nuclear powers now.
The racist crimes in the US are even more flagrant- the Blacks whose labour as slaves allowed
for cotton revolution enabling US capitalists to ride the industrial horse are yet to be rehabilitated
, Obama or no Obama. It is a matter of profound shame.
The benefits of Globalization have gone only to the cartel of 1st and 3rd World Capitalists.
And they are very happy as the lower classes keep fighting. Very happy indeed.
DorDeDuca ,
February 20, 2017 at 1:22 pm
That is solely class (crass) warfare. You can not project the inequalities of the past to the
unsuspecting paying customers of today.
Hemang ,
February 20, 2017 at 1:35 pm
The gorgon cry of the past is all over the present , including in " unsuspecting" paying folks
of today! Blacks being brought to US as slave agricultural labour was Globalisation. Their energy
vibrated the machinery of Economics subsequently. What Nationalism and where is it hiding pray?
Bogus analysis here , yes.
dontknowitall ,
February 20, 2017 at 5:40 am
The reigning social democratic parties in Europe today are not the Swedish traditional parties
of yesteryear they have morphed into neoliberal austerians committed to globalization and export
driven economic models at any cost (CETA vote recently) and most responsible for the economic
collapse in the EU
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/austerity-was-a-bigger-disaster-than-we-thought/?utm_term=.e4b799b14d81
disc_writes ,
February 20, 2017 at 4:22 am
I wonder they chose Chinese imports as the cause of the right-wing shift, when they themselves
admit that the shift started in the 1990s. At that time, there were few Chinese imports and China
was not even part of the WHO.
If they are thinking of movements like the Lega Nord and Vlaams Blok, the reasons are clearly
not to be found in imports, but in immigration, the welfare state and lack of national homogeneity,
perceived or not.
And the beginnings of the precariat.
So it is not really the globalization of commerce that did it, but the loss of relevance of
national and local identities.
Ruben ,
February 20, 2017 at 4:41 am
One cause does not exclude the other, they may have worked synergistically.
disc_writes ,
February 20, 2017 at 5:34 am
Correlation does not imply causation, but lack of correlation definitely excludes it.
The Lega was formed in the 1980s, Vlaams Blok at the end of the '70s. They both had their best
days in the 1990s. Chinese imports at the time were insignificant.
I cannot find the breakdown of Chinese imports per EU country, but here are the total Chinese
exports since 1983:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/exports
China was not a significant exporter until the 2001 inclusion in WTO: it cannot possibly
have caused populist uprisings in Italy and Belgium in the 1990s. It was probably too early even
for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who was killed in 2002, Le Pen's electoral success in the
same year, Austria's FPOE in 1999, and so on.
The timescales just do not match. Whatever was causing "populism", it was not Chinese imports,
and I can think of half a dozen other, more likely causes.
Furthermore, the 1980s and 1990s were something of an industrial renaissance for Lombardy and
Flanders: hardly the time to worry about Chinese imports.
And if you look at the map. the country least affected by the import shock (France) is the
one with the strongest populist movement (Le Pen).
People try to conflate Trump_vs_deep_state and Brexit with each other, then try to conflate this "anglo-saxon"
populism with previous populisms in Europe, and try to deduce something from the whole exercise.
That "something" is just not there and the exercise is pointless. IMHO at least.
The Trumpening ,
February 20, 2017 at 5:05 am
European regionalism is often the result of the rise of the EU as a new, alternative national
government in the eyes of the disgruntled regions. Typically there are three levels of government,
local, regional (states) and national. With the rise of the EU we have a fourth level, supra-national.
But to the Flemish, Scottish, Catalans, etc, they see the EU as a potential replacement for the
National-level governments they currently are unhappy being under the authority of.
Sound of the Suburbs ,
February 20, 2017 at 4:28 am
Why isn't it working? – Part 1
Capitalism should be evolving but it went backwards. Keynesian capitalism evolved from the
free market capitalism that preceded it. The absolute faith in markets had been laid low by 1929
and the Great Depression.
After the Keynesian era we went back to the old free market capitalism of neoclassical economics.
Instead of evolving, capitalism went backwards. We had another Wall Street Crash that has laid
low the once vibrant global economy and we have entered into the new normal of secular stagnation.
In the 1930s, Irving Fisher studied the debt deflation caused by debt saturated economies. Today
only a few economists outside the mainstream realise this is the problem today.
In the 1930s, Keynes realized only fiscal stimulus would pull the US out of the Great Depression,
eventually the US implemented the New Deal and it started to recover. Today we use monetary policy
that keeps asset prices up but cannot overcome the drag of all that debt in the system and its
associated repayments.
In the 1920s, they relied on debt based consumption, not realizing how consumers will eventually
become saturated with debt and demand will fail. Today we rely on debt based consumption again,
Greece consumed on debt. until it maxed out on debt and collapsed.
In the 1930s Keynes realized, income was just as important as profit as this produced a
sustainable system that does not rely on debt to maintain demand. Keynes was involved with
the Bretton-Woods agreement after the Second World War and recycled the US surplus to Europe to
restore trade when Europe lay in ruins. Europe could rebuild itself and consume US products, everyone
benefitted.
Today there are no direct fiscal transfers within the Euro-zone and it is polarizing. No one
can see the benefits of rebuilding Greece, to allow it to carry on consuming the goods from surplus
nations and it just sinks further and further into the mire. There is a lot to be said for capitalism
going forwards rather than backwards and making the same old mistakes a second time.
Sound of the Suburbs ,
February 20, 2017 at 5:25 am
Someone who has worked in the Central Bank of New York and who Ben Bernanke listened to, ensuring
the US didn't implement austerity, Richard Koo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk
The ECB didn't listen and killed Greece with austerity and is laying low the Club-Med nations.
Someone who knows what they are doing, after studying the Great Depression and Japan after 1989.
Let's keep him out of the limelight; he has no place on the ship of fools running the show.
sunny129 ,
February 20, 2017 at 6:42 pm
DEBT on Debt with QEs+ ZRP ( borrowing from future) was the 'solution' by Bernanke to mask
the 2008 crisis and NOT address the underlying structural reforms in the Banking and the Financial
industry. He was part of the problem for housing problem and occurred under his watch! He just
kicked the can with explosive credit growth ( but no corresponding growth in the productive Economy!)and
easy money!
We have a 'Mother of all bubbles' at our door step. Just matter of time when it will BLOW and
NOT if! There is record levels of DEBT ( both sovereign, public and private) in the history of
mankind, all over the World.
DEBT has been used as a panacea for all the financial problems by CBers including Bernanke!
Fed's balance sheet was than less 1 Trillion in 2008 ( for all the years of existence of our Country!)
but now over 3.5 Trillions and climbing!
Kicking the can down the road is like passing the buck to some one (future generations!). And
you call that solution by Mr. Bernanke? Wow!
Will they say again " No one saw this coming'? when next one descends?
Sound of the Suburbs ,
February 20, 2017 at 4:31 am
Why isn't it working? – Part 2
The independent Central Banks that don't know what they are doing as can be seen from their
track record.
The FED presided over the dot.com bust and 2008, unaware that they were happening and of their
consequences. Alan Greenspan spots irrational exuberance in the markets in 1996 and passes comment.
As the subsequent dot.com boom and housing booms run away with themselves he says nothing.
This is the US money supply during this time:
http://www.whichwayhome.com/skin/frontend/default/wwgcomcatalogarticles/images/articles/whichwayhomes/US-money-supply.jpg
Everything is reflected in the money supply.
The money supply is flat in the recession of the early 1990s.
Then it really starts to take off as the dot.com boom gets going which rapidly morphs into
the US housing boom, courtesy of Alan Greenspan's loose monetary policy.
When M3 gets closer to the vertical, the black swan is coming and you have an out of control
credit bubble on your hands (money = debt).
We can only presume the FED wasn't looking at the US money supply, what on earth were they
doing?
The BoE is aware of how money is created from debt and destroyed by repayments of that debt.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneyc
reation.pdf
"Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without
limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive
banking system."
The BoE's statement was true, but is not true now as banks can securitize bad loans and get
them off their books. Before 2008, banks were securitising all the garbage sub-prime mortgages,
e.g. NINJA mortgages, and getting them off their books. Money is being created freely and without
limit, M3 is going exponential before 2008.
Bad debt is entering the system and no one is taking any responsibility for it. The credit
bubble is reflected in the money supply that should be obvious to anyone that cares to look.
Ben Bernanke studied the Great Depression and doesn't appear to have learnt very much.
Irving Fisher studied the Great Depression in the 1930s and comes up with a theory of debt
deflation. A debt inflated asset bubble collapses and the debt saturated economy sinks into debt
deflation. 2008 is the same as 1929 except a different asset class is involved.
1929 – Margin lending into US stocks
2008 – Mortgage lending into US housing
Hyman Minsky carried on with his work and came up with the "Financial Instability Hypothesis"
in 1974.
Steve Keen carried on with their work and spotted 2008 coming in 2005. We can see what Steve
Keen saw in 2005 in the US money supply graph above.
The independent Central Banks that don't know what they are doing as can be seen from their
track record.
Jesper ,
February 20, 2017 at 4:51 am
Good to see studies confirming what was already known.
This apparently surprised:
On the contrary, as globalisation threatens the success and survival of entire industrial
districts, the affected communities seem to have voted in a homogeneous way, regardless of
each voter's personal situation.
It is only surprising for people not part of communities, those who are part of communities
see how it affects people around them and solidarity with the so called 'losers' is then shown.
Seems like radical right is the preferred term, it does make it more difficult to sympathize
with someone branded as radical right . The difference seems to be between the radical liberals
vs the conservative. The radical liberals are too cowardly to propose the laws they want, they
prefer to selectively apply the laws as they see fit. Either enforce the laws or change the laws,
anything else is plain wrong.
Disturbed Voter ,
February 20, 2017 at 6:31 am
Socialism for the upper classes, capitalism for the lower classes? That will turn out well.
Debt slaves and wage slaves will revolt. That is all the analysis the OP requires. The upper class
will respond with suppression, not policy reversal every time. Socialism = making everyone equally
poor (obviously not for the upper classes who benefit from the arrangement).
J7915 ,
February 20, 2017 at 11:15 am
Regrettably today we have socialism for the wealthy, with all the benefits of gov regulations,
sympathetic courts and legislatures etc. etc.
Workers are supposed to take care for themselves and the devil take the hind most. How many
workers get fired vs the 1%, when there is a failure in the company plan?
Disturbed Voter ,
February 20, 2017 at 11:59 am
The Romans are the basis. Patricians, Equites and Plebs. Most of us here are clearly plebeian.
Time to go place some bets, watch the chariot races and gladiatorial fights, and get my bread
subsidy. Ciao.
Sound of the Suburbs ,
February 20, 2017 at 5:39 am
Globalization created winners and losers throughout the world. The winners liked it, the losers
didn't. Democracy is based on the support of the majority.
The majority in the East were winners. The majority in the West were losers.
The Left has maintained its support of neoliberal globalisation in the West. The Right has
moved on. There has been a shift to the Right. Democracy is all about winners and losers and whether
the majority are winning or losing. It hasn't changed.
sunny129 ,
February 20, 2017 at 6:54 pm
CAPITAL is mobile and the Labor is NOT!
Globalization( along with communication -internet and transportation) made the Labor wage arbitration,
easy in favor of capital ( Multi-Nationals). Most of the jobs gone overseas will NEVER come back.
Robotic revolution will render the remaining jobs, less and less!
The 'new' Economy by passed the majority of lower 80-90% and favored the top 10%. The Losers
and the Winners!
80-90% of Bonds and Equities ( at least in USA) are owned by top 10 %. 0.7% own 45% of
global wealth. 8 billionaires own more than 50% of wealth than that of bottom 50% in our Country!
The Rich became richer!
The tension between Have and Have -Nots has just begun, as Marx predicted!
Sound of the Suburbs ,
February 20, 2017 at 5:50 am
In the West the rewards of globalisation have been concentrated at the top and rise exponentially
within the 1%.
How does this work in a democracy? It doesn't look as though anyone has even thought about
it.
David ,
February 20, 2017 at 6:33 am
I think it's about time that we stopped referring to opposition to globalization as a product
or policy of the "extreme right". It would be truer to say that globalization represents a temporary,
and now fading, triumph of certain ideas about trade and movement of people and capital which
have always existed, but were not dominant in the past. Fifty years ago, most mainstream political
parties were "protectionist" in the sense the word is used today. Thirty years ago, protectionism
was often seen as a left)wing idea, to preserve standards of living and conditions of employment
(Wynne Godley and co). Today, all establishment political parties in the West have swallowed neoliberal
dogma, so the voters turn elsewhere, to parties outside the mainstream. Often, it's convenient
politically to label them "extreme right", although in Europe some left-wing parties take basically
the same position. If you ignore peoples' interests, they won't vote for you. Quelle surprise!
as Yves would say.
financial matters ,
February 20, 2017 at 8:00 am
Yes, there are many reasons to be skeptical of too much globalization such as energy considerations.
I think another interesting one is exchange rates.
One of the important concepts of MMT is the importance of having a flexible exchange rate to
have full power over your currency. This is fine as far as it goes but tends to put hard currencies
against soft currencies where a hard currency can be defined as one that has international authority/acceptance.
Having flexible exchange rates also opens up massive amounts of financial speculation relative
to fluctuations of these currencies against each other and trying to protect against these fluctuations.
""Keynes' proposal of the bancor was to put a barrier between national currencies, that is
to have a currency of account at the global level. Keynes warned that free trade, flexible exchange
rates and free movement of capital globally were incompatible with maintaining full employment
at the local level""
""Sufficiency provisioning also means that trade would be discouraged rather than encouraged.""
Local currencies can work very well locally to promote employment but can have trouble when
they reach out to get resources outside of their currency space especially if they have a soft
currency. Global sustainability programs need to take a closer look at how to overcome this sort
of social injustice. (Debt or Democracy)
Gman ,
February 20, 2017 at 6:35 am
As has already been pointed out so eloquently here in the comments section, economic nationalism
is not necessarily the preserve of the right, nor is it necessarily the same thing as nationalism.
In the UK the original, most vociferous objectors to EEC membership in the 70s (now the EU)
were traditionally the Left, on the basis that it would gradually erode labour rights and devalue
the cost of labour in the longer term. Got that completely wrong obviously .
In the same way that global trade has become synonymous with globalisation, the immigration
debate has been hijacked and cynically conflated with free movement of (mainly low cost, unskilled)
labour and race when they are all VERY different divisive issues.
The other point alluded to in the comments above is the nature of free trade generally. The
accepted (neoliberal) wisdom being that 'collateral damage' is unfortunate but inevitable, but
it is pretty much an unstoppable or uncontrollable force for the greater global good, and the
false dichotomy persists that you either embrace it fully or pull up all the drawbridges with
nothing in between.
One of the primary reasons that some competing sectors of some Western economies have done
so badly out of globalisation is that they have adhered to 'free market principles' whilst other
countries, particularly China, clearly have not with currency controls, domestic barriers to trade,
massive state subsidies, wage suppression etc
The China aspect is also fascinating when developed nations look at the uncomfortable 'morality
of global wealth distribution' often cited by proponents of globalisation as one of their wider
philanthropic goals. Bless 'em. What is clear is that highly populated China and most of its people,
from the bottom to the top, has been the primary beneficiaries of this global wealth redistribution,
but the rest of the developing world's poor clearly not quite so much.
Eustache de Saint Pierre ,
February 20, 2017 at 7:11 am
The map on it's own, in terms of the English one time industrial Midlands & North West being
shown as an almost black hole, is in itself a kind of " Nuff Said ".
It is also apart from London, where the vast bulk of immigrants have settled.
The upcoming bye-election in Stoke, which could lead to U-Kip taking a once traditionally always
strong Labour seat, is right in the middle of that dark cloud.
Anonymous2 ,
February 20, 2017 at 7:51 am
The problem from the UK 's position, I suggest, is that autarky is not a viable proposition
so economic nationalism becomes a two-edged sword. Yes, of course, the UK can place restrictions
on imports and immigration but there will inevitably be retaliation and they will enter a game
of beggar my neighbour. The current government talks of becoming a beacon for free trade. If we
are heading to a more protectionist world, that can only end badly IMHO.
Eustache de Saint Pierre ,
February 20, 2017 at 11:30 am
Unless we get some meaningful change in thinking on a global scale, I think we are heading
somewhere very dark whatever the relative tinkering with an essentially broken system.
The horse is long gone, leaving a huge pile of shit in it's stable.
As for what might happen, I do not know, but I have the impression that we are at the end of
a cycle.
sunny129 ,
February 20, 2017 at 7:04 pm
That 'CYCLE" was dragged on ' unnaturally' with more DEBT on DEBT all over the World by criminal
CBers.
Now the end is approaching! Why surprise?
Ignacio ,
February 20, 2017 at 8:15 am
This is quite interesting, but only part of the story. Interestingly the districts/provinces
suffering the most from the chinese import shock are usually densely populated industrial regions
of Europe. The electoral systems in Europe (I think all, but I did not check) usually do not weight
equally each district, favouring those less populated, more rural (which by the way tend to be
very conservative but not so nationalistic). These differences in vote weigthing may have somehow
masked the effect seen in this study if radical nationalistic rigth wing votes concentrate in
areas with lower weigthed value of votes. For instance, in Spain, the province of Soria is mostly
rural and certainly less impacted by chinese imports compared with, for instance, Madrid. But
1 vote in Soria weigths the same as 4 votes in Madrid in number of representatives in the congress.
This migth, in part, explain why in Spain, the radical rigth does not have the same power as in
Austria or the Netherlands. It intuitively fits the hypothesis of this study.
Nevertheless, similar processes can occur in rural areas. For instance, when Spain entered
the EU, french rural areas turned nationalistic against what they thougth could be a wave of agricultural
imports from Spain. Ok, agricultural globalization may have less impact in terms of vote numbers
in a given country but it still can be politically very influential. In fact spanish entry more
that 30 years ago could still be one of the forces behind Le Penism.
craazyman ,
February 20, 2017 at 8:44 am
I dunno aboout this one.
All this statistical math and yada yada to explain a rise in vote for radical right from 3%
in 1985 to 5% now on average? And only a 0.7% marginal boost if your the place really getting
hammmered by imports from China? If I'm reading it right, that is, while focusing on Figure 2.
The real "shock" no pun intended, is the vote totals arent a lot higher everywhere.
Then the Post concludes with reference to a "surge in support" - 3% to 5% or so over 30 years
is a surge? The line looks like a pretty steady rise over 3 decades.
Maybe I'm missing sommething here.
Also what is this thing they're callling an "Open World" of the past 30 years? And why is that
in danger from more balanced trade? It makes no sense. Even back in the 60s and 70s people could
go alll over the world for vacations. Or at least most places they coould go. If theh spent their
money they'd make friends. Greece even used to be a goood place people went and had fun on a beach.
I think this one is a situation of math runing amuck. Math running like a thousand horses over
a hill trampling every blade of grass into mud.
I bet the China factor is just a referent for an entire constellatio of forces that probably
don't lend themselves (no pun intended) partiicularly well to social science and principal component
analysis - as interesting as that is for those who are interested in that kind of thing (which
I am acctually).
Also, I wouldn't call this "free trade". Not that the authors do either, but trade means reciprocity
not having your livelihood smashed the like a pinata at Christmas with all your candy eaten by
your "fellow countrymen". I wouldn't call that "trade". It's something else.
Ruben ,
February 20, 2017 at 12:36 pm
Regarding your first point, it is a small effect but it is all due to the China imports impact,
you have to add the growth of these parties due to other reasons such as immigration to get the
full picture of their growth. Also I think the recent USA election was decided by smaller percentage
advantages in three States?
Steve Ruis ,
February 20, 2017 at 9:00 am
Globalisation is nothing but free trade extended to the entire world. Free trade is a tool
used to prevent competition. By flooding countries with our cheaper exports, they do not develop
the capacity to compete with us by making their own widgets. So, why are we shocked when those
other countries return the favor and when they get the upper hand, we respond in a protectionist
way? It looks to me that those countries who are now competing with us in electronics, automobiles,
etc. only got to develop those industries in their countries because of protectionism.
Why is this surprising to anyone?
craazyman ,
February 20, 2017 at 10:41 am
Frank would never have sung this, even drunk! . . . .even in Vegas . .
Trade Be a Lady
They say we'll make a buck
But there is room for doubt
At times you have a very unbalanced way of running out
You say you're good for me
Your pickins have been lush
But before this year is over
I might give you the brush
Seems you've forgot your manners
You don't know how to play
Cause every time I turn around . . . I pay
So trade get your balances right
Trade get your balances right
Trade if you've ever been in balance to begin with
Trade get your balances right
Trade let a citizen see
How fair and humane you can be
I see the way you've treated other guys you've been with
Trade be a lady with me
A lady doesn't dump her exports
It isn't fair, and it's not nice
A lady doesn't wander all over the world
Putting whole communities on ice
Let's keep this economy polite
let's find a way to do it right
Don't stick me baby or I'll wreck the world you win with
Trade be a lady or we'll fight
A lady keeps it fair with strangers
She'd have a heart, she'd be nice
A lady doesn't spread her junk, all over the world
In your face, at any price
Let's keep society polite
Go find a way to do it right
Don't screw me baby cause i know the clowns you sin with
Trade be a lady tonight
Gaylord ,
February 20, 2017 at 10:56 am
Refugees in great numbers are a symptom of globalization, especially economic refugees but
also political and environmental ones. This has strained the social order in many countries that
have accepted them in and it's one of the central issues that the so-called "right" is highlighting.
It is no surprise there has been an uproar over immigration policy in the US which is an issue
of class as much as foreign policy because of the disenfranchisement of large numbers of workers
on both sides of the equation - those who lost their jobs to outsourcing and those who emigrated
due to the lack of decent employment opportunities in their own countries.
We're seeing the tip of the iceberg. What will happen when the coming multiple environmental
calamities cause mass starvation and dislocation of coastal populations? Walls and military forces
can't deter hungry, desperate, and angry people.
The total reliance and gorging on fossil energy by western countries, especially the US, has
mandated military aggression to force compliance in many areas of the world. This has brought
a backlash of perpetual terrorism. We are living under a dysfunctional system ruled by sociopaths
whose extreme greed is leading to world war and environmental collapse.
sunny129 ,
February 20, 2017 at 7:01 pm
Who created the REFUGEE PROBLEMS in the ME – WEST including USA,UK++
Obama's DRONE program kept BOMBING in SEVEN Countries killing innocents – children and women!
All in the name of fighting Terrorism. Billions of arms to sale Saudi Arabia! Wow!
Where were the Democrats and the Resistance and Women's march? Hypocrites!
Anon ,
February 21, 2017 at 12:12 am
"Our lifestyle is non-negotiable." - Dick Cheney.
Ignacio ,
February 20, 2017 at 2:40 pm
What happened with Denmark that suddenly dissapeared?
fairleft ,
February 21, 2017 at 8:08 am
Globalisation has caused a surge in support for nationalist and radical right political
platforms.
Just a reminder that nationalism doesn't have to be associated with the radical right. The left
is not required to reject it, especially when it can be understood as basically patriotism, expressed
as solidarity with all of your fellow citizens.
Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be a move in that direction.
Well, that may be true as far as Trump's motivations are concerned, but a major component (the
most important?) of the TPP was strong restraint of trade, a protectionist measure, by intellectual
property owners.
Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost
ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers'
Japan has long been 'smart' protectionist, and this has helped prevent the 'loser' problem, in
part because Japan, being nationalist, makes it a very high priority to create/maintain a society
in which almost all Japanese are more or less middle class. So, it is a fact that protectionism
has been and can be associated with more egalitarian societies, in which there are few 'losers'
like we see in the West. But the U.S. and most Western countries have a long way to go if they
decide to make the effort to be more egalitarian. And, of course, protectionism alone is not enough
to make most of the losers into winners again. You'll need smart skills training, better education
all around, fewer low-skill immigrants, time, and, most of all strong and long-term commitment
to making full employment at good wages national priority number one.
and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies.
Growth has been week since the 2008, even though markets are as free as they've ever been. Growth
requires a lot more consumers with willingness and cash to spend on expensive, high-value-added
goods. So, besides the world finally escaping the effects of the 2008 financial crisis, exporting
countries need prosperous consumers either at home or abroad, and greater economic security. And
if a little bit of protectionism generates more consumer prosperity and economic stability, exporting
countries might benefit overall.
The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation.
Well, yes, the world needs more inclusivity, but globalization doesn't need to be part of the
picture. Keep your eyes on the prize: inclusivity/equality, whether latched onto nationally, regionally,
'internationally' or globally, any which way is fine! But prioritization of globalization over
those two is likely a victory for more inequality, for more shoveling of our wealth up to the
ruling top 1%.
Notable quotes:
"... The revival of nationalism in western Europe, which began in the 1990s, has been associated
with increasing support for radical right parties. This column uses trade and election data to show
that the radical right gets its biggest electoral boost in regions most exposed to Chinese exports.
Within these regions communities vote homogenously, whether individuals work in affected industries
or not. ..."
"... "Chinese imports" is only an expression, or correlate, of something else - the neoliberal YOYO
principle and breakdown/deliberate destruction of social cohesion ..."
"... As a side effect, this removes the collective identity, and increased tribalism is the compensation
- a large part it is an attempt to find/associate with a group identity, which of course gives a large
boost to readily available old identities, which were in the past (ab)used by nationalist movements,
largely for the same reasons. ..."
RC AKA Darryl, Ron :
February 20, 2017 at 04:15 AM ,
2017 at 04:15 AM
RE:
Globalisation and economic nationalism - VoxEU
[The abstract below:]
The revival of nationalism in western Europe, which began in the 1990s, has been associated
with increasing support for radical right parties. This column uses trade and election data to
show that the radical right gets its biggest electoral boost in regions most exposed to Chinese
exports. Within these regions communities vote homogenously, whether individuals work in affected
industries or not.
[I am shocked, shocked I say!]
cm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... ,
February 20, 2017 at 11:55 AM
"Chinese imports" is only an expression, or correlate, of something else - the neoliberal
YOYO principle and breakdown/deliberate destruction of social cohesion.
As a side effect, this removes the collective identity, and increased tribalism is the
compensation - a large part it is an attempt to find/associate with a group identity, which of
course gives a large boost to readily available old identities, which were in the past (ab)used
by nationalist movements, largely for the same reasons.
cm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... ,
February 20, 2017 at 12:08 PM
It seems to be quite apparent to me that the loss of national/local identity has not (initially?)
promoted nationalist movements advocating a stronger national identity narrative, but a "rediscovery"
of regional identities - often based on or similar to the geography of former kingdoms or principalities
prior to national unification, or more local municipal structures (e.g. local administrations,
business, or interest groups promoting a historical narrative of a municipal district as the village
or small town that it descended from, etc. - with the associated idyllic elements).
In many cases these historical identity narratives had always been undercurrents, even when
the nation state was strong.
cm -> cm... ,
February 20, 2017 at 12:12 PM
And I mean strong not in the military or executive strength sense, but accepted as legitimate
and representing the population and its interests.
In these days, national goverments and institutions (state/parties) have been largely discredited,
not least due to right wing/elite propaganda (and of course due to observed corruption promoted
from the same side).
ilsm -> cm... ,
February 20, 2017 at 12:56 PM
Clinton and Obama have discredited the deep state.... using it for politics and adventuring.
cm -> ilsm... ,
February 20, 2017 at 01:36 PM
I'm not aware that either have discredited any deep state (BTW which Clinton?). The first thing
I would ask for is clarification what you mean by "deep state" - can you provide a usable definition?
Obama has rejected calls for going after US torturers ("we want to move past this").
ilsm -> cm... ,
February 20, 2017 at 05:03 PM
Do not take treason lightly.
And if you don't know where the 6 months of innuendo about the Russians comes from since Aug
16 you are reading the treasonous agitprop from the democrat wind machine centered in NY, Boston
and LA.
A background:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/deep-state-trump-dangerous-washington/
The most rabid tea partiers were correct about Obama and his placing the deep state attempting
to ruin the US.
cm -> ilsm... ,
February 20, 2017 at 06:03 PM
I'm not sure this answers my question, and it seems to accuse me of something I have not said
or implied (taking treason lightly) - or perhaps cautioning me against such?
Are you willing to define the terms you are discussing? (Redirecting me to a google search
etc. will not address my question. How exactly do you define "deep state"? You can quote from
the internet of course.)
From a previous life I know a concept of "a state within the state" (concretely referring to
the East German Stasi and similar services in other "communist" countries in concept but only
vaguely in the details). That is probably related to this, but I don't want to base any of this
on speculation and unclear terms.
The frightening common ground between a Trump adviser and white nationalism's favorite philosopher
Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, sees Dugin's ideology as an ally against liberalism.
Aleksandr Dugin 's ideology has
influenced white nationalists and supremacists . His thinking also echoes that of a key player
in the Trump administration.
A few days after securing the nomination to be the 45th President of the United States, Trump
announced Steve Bannon, a man Politico
labeled "an insurgent firebrand," would be his chief strategist.
Prior to accepting the role in Trump's administration Bannon was his campaign CEO. And before
that, he ran Breitbart, a news platform that he once
called the "platform for the alt-right."
The term "alt-right" was popularized by Richard Spencer, head of the racist National Policy Institute,
and an avowed fan of both
Dugin and
Trump .
While Bannon may have no direct ties to Dugin, he is acutely aware of the Russian's ideology.
Bannon referred to Dugin while
answering questions at a talk hosted by the religious right wing Human Dignity Institute in the
summer of 2014.
"When Vladimir Putin, when you really look at some of the underpinnings of some of his beliefs
today, a lot of those come from what I call Eurasianism," said Bannon. "He's got an adviser [Dugin]
who harkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the
supporters of what's called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into
Italian fascism. A lot of people that are traditionalists are attracted to that."
Bannon is referring to Dugin here. Dugin is a proponent of traditionalism - a philosophy in which
all moral and religious truths come from divine revelation and are perpetuated by tradition - and
counts Evola, an influential Italian fascist, as one of his influences. This speech took place in
2014, when Dugin's support
for the annexation of Crimea had him prominently in the news.
Bannon may have little love for Putin. In his speech, Bannon calls Putin a kleptocrat; and when
he oversaw Breitbart, coverage of Putin and Russia was
largely negative . But
just because he disagrees with some of Putin's goals, it doesn't mean he disputes all of Putin's
methods, as he made clear during the Human Dignity Institute event.
"[W]e the Judeo-Christian West really have to look at what [Putin] he's talking about as far as
traditionalism goes - particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism - and
I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing,"
said Bannon. "I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong
neighbors, and that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States,
and I think it's what can see us forward."
For Bannon, Putin's form of traditionalism can be used as a bulwark against what he believes to
be America's gravest threats - liberalism and "radical Islam." Bannon said:
You know, Putin's been quite an interesting character. He's also very, very, very intelligent.
I can see this in the United States where he's playing very strongly to social conservatives about
his message about more traditional values, so I think it's something that we have to be very much
on guard of. Because at the end of the day, I think that Putin and his cronies are really a kleptocracy,
that are really an imperialist power that want to expand. However, I really believe that in this
current environment, where you're facing a potential new caliphate that is very aggressive that
is really a situation - I'm not saying we can put it on a back burner - but I think we have to
deal with first things first.
Despite the shared ideology, Bannon clearly doesn't lionize Putin or Dugin on the same level as
others in the racist alt-right circles. Putin and Dugin recognize parts of Islamic culture as closer
to Russian than Western culture, whereas Bannon's view of traditionalism has no place for Islam - as
evidenced by his
frequent references of a "Judeo-Christian west."
"Mr Dugin and his ideological camp, by contrast, see parts of the Islamic world as a potential
ally against the liberal-humanist demon," according to a November
report in the Economist, "and this, in turn, influences Mr Putin, who
once said
that in the view of 'certain thinkers' Russian Orthodoxy stood closer to Islam than to Western
Christianity."
Bannon seems to be ambivalent when it comes to Putin. On the one hand, he sees Putin as fighting
jihadists in Syria (
though the reality is more complicated ), while on the other, Putin is clearly not a proponent
of Bannon's vision of a powerful "Judeo-Christian West."
But that doesn't mean Bannon isn't above forming a partnership to fight liberalism, something
held in equal contempt by Dugin
. As the Economist
reported , "whatever the differences [between Dugin, Putin, and Bannon, they] do want to be in
vanguard of a fight against certain common enemies, including secularism, multi-culturalism, egalitarianism
and modernity."
Strands of Bannon's ideology resembles Dugin's. That being said, it may not be a coincidence that
many online pro-Trump supporters also posts pro-Putin messaging.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Dugin's name also makes frequent appearances in these
messages.
"In one example, anonymous pro-Russia Twitter
account holder @Ricky_Vaughn99 , who has been
acknowledged as one of the most influential tweeters for Trump, was interviewed on Radix Journal
, edited by racist 'alt-right' figure Richard Spencer, which itself hosts numerous articles
by and about Dugin ," the
Herald reported in June. "The Ricky Vaughn 99 account has even
retweeted videos in Russian . It's like one
big happy family generating social media buzz for Trump, Dugin and the cause of white identity."
This is part of a series focusing on the links between white nationalists in Russia and the
West. Read
part one here and
part two here .
Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics.
When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media
outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the
New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut
and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration.
To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only]
undermines the work of the media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world."
Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White
House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House.
She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage
over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine
him. In TV green rooms and at Washington parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time
to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its cover, describing him as
"The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to
MSNBC that the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in
their place. "Likewise, putting [former White House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind
Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of Morning Joe . "So
you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in
the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate
media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially,
and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be
"investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw
precious little interest in that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how
powerful White House counselor Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer
Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence
in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of
people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him
about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration
who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of
staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. .
. . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration."
How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the
struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in
Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told
him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she
wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never
gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of
Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer.
Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as
Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald
Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally,
not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character
assassination. The Sunday print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word
story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited by Bannon." (The online headline now reads,
"Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this headline
on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention
of Julius Evola, an obscure Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's
Italian Fascists.
- John Fund is NRO's national-affairs correspondent .
https://twitter.com/@JohnFund
Notable quotes:
"... Dugin is positively millenarian: "We must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ." ..."
anne -> Julio ... ,
January 10, 2017 at 10:20 AM
Again, I know nothing about Steve Bannon but the column of David Brooks does not seem to be connected to the Vatican speech referred
to:
http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/11/18/remarks-of-stephen-bannon-at-a-conference-at-the-vatican/
Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... ,
January 10, 2017 at 10:53 AM
Putin and Trump could be on the same side in this troubling new world order
https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/trump-putin-same-side-new-world-order
The Guardian - Matthew d'Ancona - Dec 19
Russian hacking, White House warnings, angry denials by Vladimir Putin's officials: we are edging towards a digital Cuban crisis.
So it is as well to ask what is truly at stake in this e-conflict, and what underpins it.
To which end, meet the most important intellectual you have (probably) never heard of. Alexander Dugin, the Russian political
scientist and polemicist, may resemble Santa's evil younger brother and talk like a villain from an Austin Powers movie. But it
is no accident that he has earned the nickname Putin's Rasputin. ...
The purpose of operations like the hacking of the US election has been to destabilize the Atlantic order generally, and America
specifically. And on this great struggle, Dugin is positively millenarian: "We must create strategic alliances to overthrow
the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness –
everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ."
anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... ,
January 10, 2017 at 12:03 PM
I do appreciate the reference, but the language of the column portion is too much for me. I stopped reading a few words after
"Santa's."
Julio -> anne... ,
January 10, 2017 at 11:27 AM
At the end of your linked article there is a link to the full speech, including the Q&A. It takes you here:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.wn06r4OX5#.eqzLQEa5M
In the Q&A he discusses Russia and Putin; his comments include this: "I'm not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy
that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy. "
John San Vant -> Julio ... ,
January 10, 2017 at 11:26 AM
Bannon is a zionist shill and always will be. He has tried to blur that point away. But that kind of crap is pure zionism. Putin's
ties with Ashkenazi jews is well well known. He has had much support from the extreme wings of the Lukud for years, yet the idiots
don't pay attention. Putin sold himself and they bought it up. The myth he purged the Oligarchs from Russia cracks me up. He made
sure the winners power was firmly planted.
From a "conservative revolutionary" (Renee Guenon aka real traditionalism) pov, this is pure bunk. Nationalism is semitic by
its very nature and collectivist. What they want is a global plutocracy with the bible as its whip. Now, not everybody agrees
with that version of "plutocracy". Thus comes the adversaries, the Jesuits.
anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... ,
January 10, 2017 at 09:58 AM
http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/11/18/remarks-of-stephen-bannon-at-a-conference-at-the-vatican/
2014
Remarks of Stephen Bannon at a Conference at the Vatican
Notable quotes:
"... Financial Times ..."
...media critic and Rupert Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff is legally married to Cold Spring lawyer Alison
Anthoine, from whom
he famously separated
in 2009
to
pursue
a then-28-year-old
Vanity Fair
intern named
Victoria Floethe
(pictured
above with Wolff).
While it's not clear what happened with Wolff and Floethe -- the pair were
photographed
at a
Financial Times
party in
2012 -- the former's marriage remained intact, at least by the courts.
No more.
Tom Scocca · 10/21/13 11:47AM
New York policy expert Michael Wolff believes you can
take the subway
"
from
Red Hook to Wall Street
." (Also: the
Guardian
believes "sleaze balls" should be two words.)
Media bomb-thrower has been editor of Adweek for less than a year. Earlier this month,
rumors began circulating
that he
would soon be replaced. Now, we hear, Wolff's days at Adweek are definitively coming to an end.
Softpanorama Recommended
Society
Groupthink :
Two Party System
as Polyarchy :
Corruption of Regulators :
Bureaucracies :
Understanding Micromanagers
and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :
Harvard Mafia :
Diplomatic Communication
: Surviving a Bad Performance
Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as
Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience :
Who Rules America :
Neoliberalism
: The Iron
Law of Oligarchy :
Libertarian Philosophy
Quotes
War and Peace
: Skeptical
Finance : John
Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand :
Oscar Wilde :
Otto Von Bismarck :
Keynes :
George Carlin :
Skeptics :
Propaganda : SE
quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes :
Random IT-related quotes :
Somerset Maugham :
Marcus Aurelius :
Kurt Vonnegut :
Eric Hoffer :
Winston Churchill :
Napoleon Bonaparte :
Ambrose Bierce :
Bernard Shaw :
Mark Twain Quotes
Bulletin:
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient
markets hypothesis :
Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 :
Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :
Vol 23, No.10
(October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments :
Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 :
Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 :
Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan
(Win32/Crilock.A) :
Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers
as intelligence collection hubs :
Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 :
Inequality Bulletin, 2009 :
Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 :
Copyleft Problems
Bulletin, 2004 :
Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 :
Energy Bulletin, 2010 :
Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26,
No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult :
Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 :
Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification
of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05
(May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method :
Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
History:
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000):
the triumph of the US computer engineering :
Donald Knuth : TAoCP
and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman
: Linus Torvalds :
Larry Wall :
John K. Ousterhout :
CTSS : Multix OS Unix
History : Unix shell history :
VI editor :
History of pipes concept :
Solaris : MS DOS
: Programming Languages History :
PL/1 : Simula 67 :
C :
History of GCC development :
Scripting Languages :
Perl history :
OS History : Mail :
DNS : SSH
: CPU Instruction Sets :
SPARC systems 1987-2006 :
Norton Commander :
Norton Utilities :
Norton Ghost :
Frontpage history :
Malware Defense History :
GNU Screen :
OSS early history
Classic books:
The Peter
Principle : Parkinson
Law : 1984 :
The Mythical Man-Month :
How to Solve It by George Polya :
The Art of Computer Programming :
The Elements of Programming Style :
The Unix Hater’s Handbook :
The Jargon file :
The True Believer :
Programming Pearls :
The Good Soldier Svejk :
The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society :
Ten Commandments
of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection
: BSD Logo Story :
The Cuckoo's Egg :
IT Slang : C++ Humor
: ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? :
The Perl Purity Test :
Object oriented programmers of all nations
: Financial Humor :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2008 : Financial
Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related
Humor : Programming Language Humor :
Goldman Sachs related humor :
Greenspan humor : C Humor :
Scripting Humor :
Real Programmers Humor :
Web Humor : GPL-related Humor
: OFM Humor :
Politically Incorrect Humor :
IDS Humor :
"Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian
Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer
Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church
: Richard Stallman Related Humor :
Admin Humor : Perl-related
Humor : Linus Torvalds Related
humor : PseudoScience Related Humor :
Networking Humor :
Shell Humor :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2011 : Financial
Humor Bulletin, 2012 :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2013 : Java Humor : Software
Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor :
Education Humor : IBM
Humor : Assembler-related Humor :
VIM Humor : Computer
Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled
to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer
Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org
was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP)
without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively
for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License.
Original materials copyright belong
to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only
in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Last modified: August, 21, 2020
Society
Groupthink :
Two Party System
as Polyarchy :
Corruption of Regulators :
Bureaucracies :
Understanding Micromanagers
and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :
Harvard Mafia :
Diplomatic Communication
: Surviving a Bad Performance
Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as
Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience :
Who Rules America :
Neoliberalism
: The Iron
Law of Oligarchy :
Libertarian Philosophy
Quotes
War and Peace
: Skeptical
Finance : John
Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand :
Oscar Wilde :
Otto Von Bismarck :
Keynes :
George Carlin :
Skeptics :
Propaganda : SE
quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes :
Random IT-related quotes :
Somerset Maugham :
Marcus Aurelius :
Kurt Vonnegut :
Eric Hoffer :
Winston Churchill :
Napoleon Bonaparte :
Ambrose Bierce :
Bernard Shaw :
Mark Twain Quotes
Bulletin:
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient
markets hypothesis :
Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 :
Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :
Vol 23, No.10
(October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments :
Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 :
Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 :
Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan
(Win32/Crilock.A) :
Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers
as intelligence collection hubs :
Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 :
Inequality Bulletin, 2009 :
Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 :
Copyleft Problems
Bulletin, 2004 :
Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 :
Energy Bulletin, 2010 :
Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26,
No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult :
Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 :
Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification
of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05
(May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method :
Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
History:
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000):
the triumph of the US computer engineering :
Donald Knuth : TAoCP
and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman
: Linus Torvalds :
Larry Wall :
John K. Ousterhout :
CTSS : Multix OS Unix
History : Unix shell history :
VI editor :
History of pipes concept :
Solaris : MS DOS
: Programming Languages History :
PL/1 : Simula 67 :
C :
History of GCC development :
Scripting Languages :
Perl history :
OS History : Mail :
DNS : SSH
: CPU Instruction Sets :
SPARC systems 1987-2006 :
Norton Commander :
Norton Utilities :
Norton Ghost :
Frontpage history :
Malware Defense History :
GNU Screen :
OSS early history
Classic books:
The Peter
Principle : Parkinson
Law : 1984 :
The Mythical Man-Month :
How to Solve It by George Polya :
The Art of Computer Programming :
The Elements of Programming Style :
The Unix Hater’s Handbook :
The Jargon file :
The True Believer :
Programming Pearls :
The Good Soldier Svejk :
The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society :
Ten Commandments
of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection
: BSD Logo Story :
The Cuckoo's Egg :
IT Slang : C++ Humor
: ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? :
The Perl Purity Test :
Object oriented programmers of all nations
: Financial Humor :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2008 : Financial
Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related
Humor : Programming Language Humor :
Goldman Sachs related humor :
Greenspan humor : C Humor :
Scripting Humor :
Real Programmers Humor :
Web Humor : GPL-related Humor
: OFM Humor :
Politically Incorrect Humor :
IDS Humor :
"Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian
Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer
Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church
: Richard Stallman Related Humor :
Admin Humor : Perl-related
Humor : Linus Torvalds Related
humor : PseudoScience Related Humor :
Networking Humor :
Shell Humor :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2011 : Financial
Humor Bulletin, 2012 :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2013 : Java Humor : Software
Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor :
Education Humor : IBM
Humor : Assembler-related Humor :
VIM Humor : Computer
Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled
to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer
Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org
was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP)
without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively
for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License.
Original materials copyright belong
to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only
in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Last modified: August, 21, 2020