Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
The person who wrote the article is neither insane not joking, and didn't claim that Trump is not racist (I would recommend reading carefully the article for more details).
-
Features
Steve Bannon - Seriously?
- Thread starter Elixir
- Start date
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Semantics again. I recommend not being so literal. To add: there is NOTHING legitimate about Trump's photo and it should not be used in any honest argument, taken at face value.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Not semantics, but I disagree. It depends on the point the photo is meant to make.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
No racist would take that photo serously. You are in a thread about Steve Bannon being chosen by Trump posting a link that minimizes Trump's connection to alt-right.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
No, I'm in a thread that starts with "...in case anyone had doubts about Trump's White Nationalist agenda....".
It wasn't meant for racists.
I posted a relevant article that disagrees with the leftist usual view on this, and the view generally expressed on this thread. You didn't address any of its points, but rather made comments about a photo, though you didn't give any good reasons to think the article misuses it.
jjjjusta
New member
I am a Democrat, perhaps far-left. I don't read Breitbart. However, I haven't found specific instances of Bannon's racism, white nationalism or anti-Semitism. I have read the recent interviews where he insists his primary concern is the economy.
Being ethical, thinking people: on a scale from 1-10, how high is the likelihood he's lying? My perception is that he is uncomfortably chummy with the "deplorables" that read Breitbart, but only as far as they are useful for building a base. In short, I'm doubting his commitment to racism.
Also, I'm sensitive to the fact that Spencer, the "alt-right" and Bannon are being spoken of by many a misinformed liberal as though they are all the same. In a climate where Shaun King has resolved to simply say "Nazi" rather than "alt-right," are we really meant to believe there's going to be a Nazi in the White House? Is this a realistic, productive way for the left to conceptualize the outcome of this election?
Because it seems unrealistic to me.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Being ethical, thinking people: on a scale from 1-10, how high is the likelihood he's lying? My perception is that he is uncomfortably chummy with the "deplorables" that read Breitbart, but only as far as they are useful for building a base. In short, I'm doubting his commitment to racism.
Also, I'm sensitive to the fact that Spencer, the "alt-right" and Bannon are being spoken of by many a misinformed liberal as though they are all the same. In a climate where Shaun King has resolved to simply say "Nazi" rather than "alt-right," are we really meant to believe there's going to be a Nazi in the White House? Is this a realistic, productive way for the left to conceptualize the outcome of this election?
Because it seems unrealistic to me.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Bannon might be a racist, but even if that's established, that does not give enough reasons to conclude that Trump is committed to a White Nationalist agenda. Former presidents weren't, even if they had some racist advisors, or even if they sometimes behaved in a racist manner.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
If someone is utilizing white nationalists as a base, then one is practicing racism, whether or not one believes in being a racist.
repoman
Contributor
I think I learned some stuff about white and black nationalism recently after listening to both Malcolm X and George Lincoln Rockwell. They seemed to differentiate nation meaning race and country meaning government and geography. The newer white nationalists use the acronym, ORION - Our Race Is Our Nation.
So a black nationalist could accept that whites and blacks would all live in the US, but that on a neighborhood and business level blacks would tend to their own. Same for Whites. This is close to White/Black separatist. This does not have to mean supremacist, but it often does.
So, the question of free association of collective groups comes to mind, who is allowed and who is not. Are (Asian) Indian-Americans allowed to be a group to themselves? Blacks? Chinese? Jews? Gentile Whites? Muslims? If the rules are different, then why?
In say 30-40 years from now if whites are 25% of the US population, or 100 years when 15% will they be "allowed" to self-associate as much as others are now? Is this a matter of scale?
Should Amish be allowed to self associate? Should Amish be forced to "rent" (however Amish take rent) to atheists, hindus, muslims and others of different christian sects? Notice I am avoiding race here. I am also using a white people who are a minority in the sense that they are very small in number. Only a small number of government forced rentings or sales of property to non-amish (because of fair housing) could help to destroy the Amish as a cohesive collective. But people who would be trying to force the government to make the Amish sell property to non-amish would be pretty dickish.
So a black nationalist could accept that whites and blacks would all live in the US, but that on a neighborhood and business level blacks would tend to their own. Same for Whites. This is close to White/Black separatist. This does not have to mean supremacist, but it often does.
So, the question of free association of collective groups comes to mind, who is allowed and who is not. Are (Asian) Indian-Americans allowed to be a group to themselves? Blacks? Chinese? Jews? Gentile Whites? Muslims? If the rules are different, then why?
In say 30-40 years from now if whites are 25% of the US population, or 100 years when 15% will they be "allowed" to self-associate as much as others are now? Is this a matter of scale?
Should Amish be allowed to self associate? Should Amish be forced to "rent" (however Amish take rent) to atheists, hindus, muslims and others of different christian sects? Notice I am avoiding race here. I am also using a white people who are a minority in the sense that they are very small in number. Only a small number of government forced rentings or sales of property to non-amish (because of fair housing) could help to destroy the Amish as a cohesive collective. But people who would be trying to force the government to make the Amish sell property to non-amish would be pretty dickish.
Last edited:
Sarpedon
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,976
- Location
- MN, US
- Basic Beliefs
- the Philosophy of Not Giving a Damn
I don't have a citation, but apparently he was interviewing Trump, and Bannon made the comment that there were 'too many' tech CEOs in Silicon Valley who were Asian. Trump replied that he had no problem with immigrants so long as they came legally and were smart and skilled and contributed to the economy. Bannon said that as a nationalist he 'was to the right of [Trump] on that point.' Trump replied that this was 'fine.' I believe that you can find the citation on the Joe.My.God blog which has been carefully following the Breitbart/Bannon issue throughout the election.
Also in the news, Governor Nikki Haley is to be UN ambassador, not Secretary of State. I think this qualifies as polishing (or obtaining) her foreign policy credentials for a future presidential run. She is one to watch. I'm still hoping Mitt becomes SecState, but that seems to be doubtful.
And Trump reportedly wants to make Carson HUD secretary, despite Carson not wanting it. Am I wrong for interpreting all sorts of things from this?
Also in the news, Governor Nikki Haley is to be UN ambassador, not Secretary of State. I think this qualifies as polishing (or obtaining) her foreign policy credentials for a future presidential run. She is one to watch. I'm still hoping Mitt becomes SecState, but that seems to be doubtful.
And Trump reportedly wants to make Carson HUD secretary, despite Carson not wanting it. Am I wrong for interpreting all sorts of things from this?
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
Here you go:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...os-silicon-valley_us_582c5d19e4b0e39c1fa71e48
They also have the audio if you want to wade thru it... Bannon is obviously smart, and he seems to have been careful to avoid tainting himself too darkly with the white nationalist BS; but the walk, quack, and look is still damn obvious to this white guy.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
I read it. For example: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/steve-bannon-racist-comments-silicon-valley-inaccurate
Many left-wing media outlets are insisting that that was a racist comment made by Bannon.
I don't see any good evidence of that. The evidence on which they base their assessment and their accusations against Bannon on the matter is seriously poor. Bannon wasn't talking about "Asians" in the sense of the Mongoloid race, or something like that. Rather, he was talking about people who actually came from Asia, and weren't American citizens.
Was his comment racist, or nationalist, or both?
Maybe he is a racist and it was a racist comment, but it's epistemically irrational to believe so on the basis of the information available in the articles who call the comment "racist", or call Bannon a racist for making it.
The most extreme say things like "If You Think Donald Trump Isn’t Going After Asians, Think Again", on the basis of Bannon's comment, despite the facts that Bannon's comment is not clearly against Asians in the racial sense, and the more salient fact that Trump disagreed with Bannon on the matter, and said "We have to be careful of that, Steve. You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country".
And then, nextshark goes with that title, and says "While Donald Trump has yet to openly target Asians, an excerpt from a past conversation between Bannon and Trump posted by The Washington Post indicates we should be cautious".
No, the excerpt does not remotely indicate that.
There is zero reason to believe on the basis of that excerpt that Trump is targeting either Mongoloids, or people from Asia due to their being from Asia.
Sarpedon
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,976
- Location
- MN, US
- Basic Beliefs
- the Philosophy of Not Giving a Damn
Sophistry.
Why should he be concerned that these aren't US nationals? If they are the CEO of a business in the USA, employing Americans, what difference does it make what their nationality is?
And the fact that Trump, a man who's racism is well established, disagreed with him is no point in his favor.
And who in the hell uses the word 'Mongoloid' anymore?
Why should he be concerned that these aren't US nationals? If they are the CEO of a business in the USA, employing Americans, what difference does it make what their nationality is?
And the fact that Trump, a man who's racism is well established, disagreed with him is no point in his favor.
And who in the hell uses the word 'Mongoloid' anymore?
jjjjusta
New member
I don't know if Trump is an ideological racist -- there isn't much evidence -- but he is clearly willing to benefit from racist supporters. I guess what I wonder is: are the racist implications of concrete policy choices like the Muslim registry or the border wall likely to quietly disappear, like his promise to prosecute Hillary?
He clearly has no desire to do so.
Is it possible that Bannon is useful to Trump on jobs, but not on race? Can such a thing exist in a society which is already white-dominated?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Elixir
Made in America
Trump isn't an ideological anything. He's a self interested, self adoring pragmatist - period.
Like I said... there's no evidence that he is ideological about anything.
Of course - he's a pragmatist. He is willing to benefit from others' misfortune, and to perpetrate that misfortune himself without so much as a thought. He's been doing it all his life.
Implications are of no concern to Trump. He'd gladly fuck his racist supporters if he thought it would get him something he wanted...
Oh wait... he just did.
Never mind.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
He should not. But the question is not whether he should, or shouldn't. The question is whether his motivation was to protect a certain race, or a certain national culture.
Regarding Trump, have you considered the article I linked to?Sarpedon said:
I might, if I'm talking about Mongoloids, and "Asian" wouldn't do in context, because we're talking about whether he's a racist. But if you prefer to use another word with the same meaning, what would it be?Sarpedon said:
repoman
Contributor
So, from the nest of the alt-right, /pol/, comes this quote regarding Bannon:
The 50 years is referring to the 1965 immigration reform.I think this is much more accurate as to what the "real" alt-right thinks. The only thing it seems they really like Bannon for is his attitude about large scale Muslim immigration. I also would agree that Bannon makes common cause with zionists.
The 50 years is referring to the 1965 immigration reform.I think this is much more accurate as to what the "real" alt-right thinks. The only thing it seems they really like Bannon for is his attitude about large scale Muslim immigration. I also would agree that Bannon makes common cause with zionists.
laughing dog
Contributor
Implicitly you are arguing that Bannon simply panders to racists even though his underlying motivation is to protect a certain national culture. Which is worse - an honest racist or someone who panders to racists?
I am fairly certain Mr. Bannon knew exactly what he was doing. And it is inexcusable regardless of his true underlying motivations.
jjjjusta
New member
My inclination is to agree that it is "inexcusable," but to also reassure those that are in crisis mode that the White House is not about to go Nazi. It's becoming uglier, but I don't think the antics of NPI/Spencer are representative of the next four years. At least, I hope not.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk