Steve Bannon - Seriously?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Top Trump strategist Bannon once told a colleague that suppressing black voters ‘not a bad thing’

From the article:

“I said, ‘That would exclude a lot of African-Americans,'” Jones tells the paper. “He said, ‘Maybe that’s not such a bad thing.’ I said, ‘But what about [Bannon’s black executive assistant] Wendy?’ He said, ‘She’s different. She’s family.'”

versus StormFront:

This is not to say that all Whites are "good", or that all Blacks are "bad"... However, in the long term, the quality of life of a nation is almost entirely determined by the quality of the mental character of the average person. If Blacks or Mexicans become a majority, then they will not be able to maintain the White man's social, cultural and economic systems because they do not have to minds needed to do so.

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t538924/

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The film, “Generation Zero,” was written, produced and directed by Bannon during a period when he was rising to prominence as a conservative filmmaker. It aims to link the 2007-08 financial crisis to the cultural liberalization of the 1960s.

“Generation Zero” lays much of the blame for the crisis at the feet of American financial and cultural elites, but it also points the finger at another culprit: efforts to combat racism. The documentary argues that the subprime mortgage bubble that precipitated the crisis resulted in large part from rules in the Community Reinvestment Act against racial discrimination that led mortgage lenders to make loans to risky borrowers.

Some of Bannon’s critics, citing his leadership of Breitbart News, have portrayed him as a “white nationalist” while Bannon has rejected that characterization and described himself as an “economic populist.”

His documentary’s argument contradicts the conclusion of mainstream experts and the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which found that the Community Reinvestment Act “was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis.”

The commission concluded that only 6 percent of high-cost loans were related to the law. A 2010 study by the Center for Responsible Lending found that while minorities faced a higher per capita rate of home foreclosure, the majority -- 56 percent -- of foreclosures between 2007 and 2009 were on white homeowners, while 12 percent were on black homeowners and 16 percent were on Latino homeowners.

But in telling the story of the near-collapse of the financial system, “Generation Zero” takes a different view.
“This policy that led to the subprime crisis and so forth came out of the fact that the civil rights movement had claimed that blacks were being red-lined,” says one narrator. “Banks then didn't want to lend money to them. Here is another source of black victimization. Here's another place where this fundamentally racist society is keeping blacks down. Since the mid- sixties, white Americans have been in a position where they constantly have to prove that they are not racist. It is that phenomenon of white guilt is what pressures people in the government to say things like, ‘Everybody has a right to a house,’ and unfortunately capitalism doesn't work that way.”

The documentary then links those sentiments to anti-discrimination provisions in the Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed in 1977 to push lenders to serve lower-income borrowers. “When Bill Clinton became president he made turbocharging the Community Reinvestment Act one of his priorities,” the documentary continues. “He got the Justice Department to go after mortgage lenders to say that if these lenders were not making proportionate loans they can be accused of racism. So this had the effect of corroding lending standards. This is what created the explosion of subprime lending during the Clinton years and the Bush administration years.”

The documentary also asserts that community organizers like Saul Alinsky and the group ACORN encouraged borrowers to lie on their mortgage applications, identifying that as another root cause of the crisis. It states black and Hispanic members of the middle class were primary victims of the housing bust.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/stephen-bannon-racial-bias-film-231934

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

When asked by The Wall Street Journal in 2011 about his top cinematic influences, Bannon quickly cited legendary Soviet director Sergei Eisenstein and the influential Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.
“People have said I’m like Leni Riefenstahl,” he said. “I’ve studied documentarians extensively to come up with my own in-house style. I’m a student of Michael Moore’s films, of Eisenstein, Riefenstahl. Leave the politics aside, you have to learn from those past masters on how they were trying to communicate their ideas.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/19/i-watched-all-of-steve-bannon-s-bad-movies.html

WTF?

 

[Axulus]

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.

No, implicitly, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm disputing the basis for the claim that Bannon's claim in that particular instance was a racist claim. I don't know whether it was. As I said, it might have been racist, or nationalist, or both. Claiming it's racist as so many left-wing outlets do is an instance of jumping to conclusions, having a belief on insufficient evidence, etc. That in no way is an argument - implicit or not - that Bannon simply panders to racists, etc.; it's a point about epistemically irrational beliefs and accusations - which would remain the case regardless of whether Bannon actually is a racist or a nationalist, or both a racist and a nationalist.

Also, I think Trump is right on this, and Bannon is wrong, regardless of their respective motivations, and that Bannon's position is unacceptable. But that still does not justify the reaction I'm commenting on, which is again an instance (or rather, many, given that many people did it) of jumping to conclusions, as is the claim that Trump has a White Nationalist agenda - the evidence does not support that, regardless of whether he actually happens to be a racist, or a Nazi, or the reincarnation of Hitler, or Lucifer himself.

Have you explored Brietbart, the current incantation which Bannon essentially created? It is a cesspool of white nationalist anti-immigrant and racist crap. FFS they even have a tag for "black crime" on the site.

http://www.breitbart.com/tag/black-crime/

Look at how many articles mention or push the concept of "white genocide", the term that originated from white nationalist racist sites like stormfront:

http://www.breitbart.com/search/?s=White+genocide

One thing you'll find of white nationalists is that they are also extremely anti-Jew.

 

[Axulus]

When asked by The Wall Street Journal in 2011 about his top cinematic influences, Bannon quickly cited legendary Soviet director Sergei Eisenstein and the influential Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.
“People have said I’m like Leni Riefenstahl,” he said. “I’ve studied documentarians extensively to come up with my own in-house style. I’m a student of Michael Moore’s films, of Eisenstein, Riefenstahl. Leave the politics aside, you have to learn from those past masters on how they were trying to communicate their ideas.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/19/i-watched-all-of-steve-bannon-s-bad-movies.html

WTF?

These tactics work. Perception is subordinate to reality/truth. The election of The Donald proves that in spades.

At least he is being honest and up front about it. He is demonstrating that one can brazenly manipulate the masses with lies and half truths and get away with it, even in a free speech protected society.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, implicitly, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm disputing the basis for the claim that Bannon's claim in that particular instance was a racist claim. I don't know whether it was. As I said, it might have been racist, or nationalist, or both. Claiming it's racist as so many left-wing outlets do is an instance of jumping to conclusions, having a belief on insufficient evidence, etc. That in no way is an argument - implicit or not - that Bannon simply panders to racists, etc.; it's a point about epistemically irrational beliefs and accusations - which would remain the case regardless of whether Bannon actually is a racist or a nationalist, or both a racist and a nationalist.

Also, I think Trump is right on this, and Bannon is wrong, regardless of their respective motivations, and that Bannon's position is unacceptable. But that still does not justify the reaction I'm commenting on, which is again an instance (or rather, many, given that many people did it) of jumping to conclusions, as is the claim that Trump has a White Nationalist agenda - the evidence does not support that, regardless of whether he actually happens to be a racist, or a Nazi, or the reincarnation of Hitler, or Lucifer himself.

Have you explored Brietbart, the current incantation which Bannon essentially created? It is a cesspool of white nationalist and racist crap. FFS they even have a tag for "black crime" on the site.

http://www.breitbart.com/tag/black-crime/

Look at how many articles mention or push the concept of "white genocide", the term that originated from white nationalist racist sites like stormfront:

http://www.breitbart.com/search/?s=White+genocide

One thing you'll find of white nationalists is that they are also extremely anti-Jew.

I had already left this thread, but briefly, I still do not see good evidence that Bannon's claim was an instance of anti-Asian racism. Maybe it was. But there is insufficient evidence to tell, even granting that there is sufficient evidence that Bannon is an anti-Black racist (if we assume "Black" is a race, or we go with the closest race), or an anti-Jew racist (even if "Jew" were a race).

That said, Breitbart has a lot of anti-Jew stuff, but also has pro-Israel articles written by conservative Jews, and there is evidence indicating that Bannon is against left-wing Jews not because they're Jews, but because he considers them traitors for [allegedly, in some cases] being anti-Israel. That's a very different animal. Is that really what he believes? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. I have insufficient info.

But in any event, my point was about his comment about people from Asia. And I haven't found any good reason at all to believe he's an anti-Asian racist (even assuming that "Asian" is a race, or going by a close match to what people might mean), let alone that that was a statement of anti-Asian racism.

 

[Ford]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/19/i-watched-all-of-steve-bannon-s-bad-movies.html

WTF?

These tactics work. Perception is subordinate to reality/truth. The election of The Donald proves that in spades.

At least he is being honest and up front about it. He is demonstrating that one can brazenly manipulate the masses with lies and half truths and get away with it, even in a free speech protected society.

What remains is the question of whether or not he actually believes his own bullshit.

Bannon cites Michael Moore as an influence. I've actually met Mike. Had a nice conversation with him and we traded emails back in the late 90s. Based on my experience, he's sincere. He really believes what he's pushing with his movies and books.

Bannon strikes me as more akin to Glenn Beck, and since I'm name dropping an old friend of mine runs the radio division of The Blaze. These are people who see a market and exploit it. Do they actually believe this stuff? Maybe some of it, but if there's money involved they'll go whole hog on promoting the "alt right" or the "tea party" or whatever drives ratings and revenue.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

These tactics work. Perception is subordinate to reality/truth. The election of The Donald proves that in spades.

At least he is being honest and up front about it. He is demonstrating that one can brazenly manipulate the masses with lies and half truths and get away with it, even in a free speech protected society.

What remains is the question of whether or not he actually believes his own bullshit.

Bannon cites Michael Moore as an influence. I've actually met Mike. Had a nice conversation with him and we traded emails back in the late 90s. Based on my experience, he's sincere. He really believes what he's pushing with his movies and books.

Bannon strikes me as more akin to Glenn Beck, and since I'm name dropping an old friend of mine runs the radio division of The Blaze. These are people who see a market and exploit it. Do they actually believe this stuff? Maybe some of it, but if there's money involved they'll go whole hog on promoting the "alt right" or the "tea party" or whatever drives ratings and revenue.

I don't take Bannon at his word, personally, but the simple fact he named a known Nazi is way more shocking than naming Michael Moore. Perhaps he was trying to be shocking and then wanted to sound more balanced by adding Moore, not realizing Moore isn't as bad as a Nazi. Normally, we might call this the Moore-Coulter failure of conservatives, or something, but since we're not talking Coulter, maybe this is the Moore-Hitler failure of White Nationalists?

 

[jjjjusta]

What remains is the question of whether or not he actually believes his own bullshit.

Bannon cites Michael Moore as an influence. I've actually met Mike. Had a nice conversation with him and we traded emails back in the late 90s. Based on my experience, he's sincere. He really believes what he's pushing with his movies and books.

Bannon strikes me as more akin to Glenn Beck, and since I'm name dropping an old friend of mine runs the radio division of The Blaze. These are people who see a market and exploit it. Do they actually believe this stuff? Maybe some of it, but if there's money involved they'll go whole hog on promoting the "alt right" or the "tea party" or whatever drives ratings and revenue.

I don't take Bannon at his word, personally, but the simple fact he named a known Nazi is way more shocking than naming Michael Moore. Perhaps he was trying to be shocking and then wanted to sound more balanced by adding Moore, not realizing Moore isn't as bad as a Nazi. Normally, we might call this the Moore-Coulter failure of conservatives, or something, but since we're not talking Coulter, maybe this is the Moore-Hitler failure of White Nationalists?

Not to seem friendly to Nazis, Bannon or the alt-right but -- film students have been comparing themselves to Riefenstahl for a long time. It's only now considered an endorsement of her politics.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[repoman]

Have you explored Brietbart, the current incantation which Bannon essentially created? It is a cesspool of white nationalist and racist crap. FFS they even have a tag for "black crime" on the site.

http://www.breitbart.com/tag/black-crime/

Look at how many articles mention or push the concept of "white genocide", the term that originated from white nationalist racist sites like stormfront:

http://www.breitbart.com/search/?s=White+genocide

One thing you'll find of white nationalists is that they are also extremely anti-Jew.

I had already left this thread, but briefly, I still do not see good evidence that Bannon's claim was an instance of anti-Asian racism. Maybe it was. But there is insufficient evidence to tell, even granting that there is sufficient evidence that Bannon is an anti-Black racist (if we assume "Black" is a race, or we go with the closest race), or an anti-Jew racist (even if "Jew" were a race).

That said, Breitbart has a lot of anti-Jew stuff, but also has pro-Israel articles written by conservative Jews, and there is evidence indicating that Bannon is against left-wing Jews not because they're Jews, but because he considers them traitors for [allegedly, in some cases] being anti-Israel. That's a very different animal. Is that really what he believes? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. I have insufficient info.

But in any event, my point was about his comment about people from Asia. And I haven't found any good reason at all to believe he's an anti-Asian racist (even assuming that "Asian" is a race, or going by a close match to what people might mean), let alone that that was a statement of anti-Asian racism.

Ha, this is the Anti-Bannon: