• To proudly identify as a xenophobe is to identify as someone who is not interested in argument. It means not masking one’s irrationality even from oneself.
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”
~ THOMAS PAINE
(1737 – 1809)
British pamphleteer, American revolutionary, radical, inventor and intellectual; 'Father of the U.S.Revolution'.
3
The commentators to this article should read "Mein Kampf." Stanley's reference to the book is astute, but he leaves out something very important. Hitler was propaganda officer before becoming head of his party. Bannon's role in Trump's White House was no coincidence.
I believe that Bannon saw himself--and still sees himself--as the Hitler for our time. He failed to grab control of the Republic Party, but may now see that he's got to do what Hitler did: start from scratch. What's truly frightening is that Trump's election may suggest the existence of the sort of fear, dissatisfaction, and sense of disenfranchisement that catapulted Hitler into power.
Race...this is what the article was about. What an explosive word.
In my opinion, race defines the signature identity of every human living in a diverse culture. In homogeneous societies, class.
We are going to be hearing much more about this topic in USA and Western Europe in the years to come.
We do not, nor will be ever live, in a "post-racial society".
Here are the relevant two sentences from this hard to follow article:
Its aim is to create a population seeking leaders who are utterly ruthless and cruel, intolerant, irrational and unyielding in the face of challenges to the cultural and political dominance of the majority racial or religious group. It normalizes fascism.
1
We usually judge people by the company they keep. I believe Bannon keeps company with the likes of Richard Spenser, known racist.
Linda Selvia
1
"Bannon’s rhetorical move of transforming vices based on irrational prejudice into virtues is not without historical precedent."
Perhaps I've turned myself into a misanthrope, but there's an argument that this "precedent" is part and parcel of the basic human character. Throw in dozens of cognitive biases and it becomes difficult for anyone to distinguish rational from irrational or right from wrong in thought and action. Expand Arendt's famous banality of evil into the banality of any willfully damaging cognition. In short, good and evil, as they may be defined from time to time, reside comfortably in the human mind in spite of what should be irrenconcilable contradictions. Hypocrisy rules.
“let them call you racists, let them call you xenophobes.” He went on: “Let them call you nativists. Wear it as a badge of honor.”
Bannon is the very definition of misanthrope.
Bannon, yet another old crazy uncle white guy, also has trouble relating to women as intelligent human beings much like other like guys such as trump, Limbaugh, and every other old white guy who ever worked at FOX, Weinstein, ...
Bannon was an officer in the Navy. I spent 6 years in the Navy (nuclear power, I was a reactor operator), where I ran into a number of these kind of guys who imagine themselves to be some kind of educated well read 'deep' intellectuals. These guys were good at spotting patterns and spinning narratives that fit the dim bulb's idea of an intelligent guy.
I won't indulge Bannon's wish to wear "let them call you" labels such as
racist, xenophobe, et al. I simply remove one layer of reification. Each and every label simply flows from ignorance. "Let them call you "
3
These types of misleading articles are why the NYT gets accused of "fake news". The speech is online. Either the author of this piece didn't read it, or the author did not try and understand it. The mere snippet that this author examined out of context was not the theme of the speech. Boiled down, it states that one, on the left or right, should not back down from his beliefs due to insulting name calling. That's good advice for all of us. Sticks A more clever title would have been "Bannon is a xenophobic rascist"! That would have been mildly amusing!
8
The belief at question here--the belief you are suggesting we not back down from--is racism. Mr. Trump ran a racist campaign and his voters responded to it. Studies tell us racial resentment was the primary motivation for Trump's voters. Mr. Bannon and his supporters may not now dishonestly pretend the context doesn't exist or doesn't matter. Racism is not just any generic belief. Trump was not just any Republican or Democratic candidate.
Lindsey E. Reese wrote:
"These types of misleading articles are why the NYT gets accused of "fake news". The speech is online. Either the author of this piece didn't read it, or the author did not try and understand it. The mere snippet that this author examined out of context was not the theme of the speech. Boiled down, it states that one, on the left or right, should not back down from his beliefs due to insulting name calling. That's good advice for all of us. Sticks A more clever title would have been "Bannon is a xenophobic rascist"! That would have been mildly amusing!"
6
Steve Bannon is a flame throwing nihilist who has flamed out. Almost all of the candidates he recently endorsed, including the child molester, Roy Moore, lost. Then he was thrown out of the White House. Now he joined another loser in Germany. Of course, the xenophobes and racists in Europe will continue to exploit and demagogue the refugee problem and might be successful but I wonder if a loser like Bannon is as relevant as this article suggests.
2
I have only read the NYT picks here, not all the comments, but I think something's missing here, namely historical perspective on racism. Bannon isn't somehow trickily inverting the meaning of words, or using reverse psychology or manipulative language. "Racist" has not always had a negative connotation. For a large part of the the 20th century "racism" was a perfectly respectable political viewpoint or philosophy. Calling someone racist wasn't insulting. It was very widely believed that the races are in a hierarchy, and that the "better" races should be dominant. Many educated and sophisticated people believed this was true, and they didn't apologize for it. The same for anti-Semitism.
If you actually BELIEVE that whites are superior to blacks, or if you actually BELIEVE that Jews are greedy (or pick your stereotype), then you would proudly call yourself a racist or antisemite. If you believe society should be structured with "higher" races privileged, that political philosophy is called racism, and it was perfectly respectable not that long ago.
This is Steve Bannon. He's not playing games, he's saying what he believes. This is awful, of course, and suggests we're heading backwards as a civilization, to very dark times. But it would make more sense to understand it straightforwardly, rather than twisting ourselves into pretzels trying to somehow believe Bannon doesn't believe what he really believes, or stand for what he really stands for.
1
Is it “negative” to be a fan? Where do you think that word comes from?
1
The danger of the inversion of language, in which hatred and brutality are seen as virtues, is that when these are accepted, actions follow accordingly. How we define things has a close link to what we do. Hitler's inversions enabled pograms to be conducted under the self deceit that they were good community cleansing action. It enabled the Holocaust to be elevated to the top national goal; by the nation's top ministers sitting around talking about the "Final Solution" as if it were normal, collective derangement become reality. What the Nazis showed, and what Orwell's 1984 portrayed, was a state of criminal intent that had gained enough power that it no longer needed to conceal itself. This is everywhere in the Trump administration and his cronies, whether still in office or out. You no longer debate your opponent on the merits of the issues, you call her "Crooked Hillary" and chant "lock her up". You call Mexicans criminals and rapists. You call those you view as enemies by vile names on Twitter. The message is that it's okay to be to be coarse, profane and brutal, it's even a virtue for which people applaud you and elect you president. Bannon, in his speech, was but a hair's breadth away from saying it's okay to be racist. He obviously decided that a long time ago, but the growing prevalence of it now gives him the power to say it and assure others that it's okay to be that way. A badge of honor.
3
Bannon is a crackpot crazy. No one with any reasonable sense of morality would believe him.
He is a wacko loon.
5
This alleged "philosopher" knows precisely what Bannon really means, and so do most Americans who in recent decades have been insulted as "baskets of despicables" by a presidential candidate, and constantly humiliated, coerced, and their first amendment rights denied by slanderous political and media accusations of racism, xenophobia, anti Semitism, intolerance, misogamy, being disturbing, and the new one "making women uncomfortable" in the workplace - whenever the supposedly free citizens have had the courage to dare to disagree with contemptuous elites of the neo Marxian Left.
5
"Mexicans are racists." "Immigrants are criminals." Anti-Semitic campaign ads. The neo-Nazis in Charlottesville are "very fine people." Refusing to disavow the KKK and David Duke. Claiming a Mexican-American judges cannot be unbiased. Discriminating against black applicants. "... laziness is a trait in blacks." Promoting the lie that President Obama was not born in America.
These are facts. Not slander. If you don't folks pointing out that your Mr. Trump and his associates are racist, then stand up and tell the president and his associates to do better. Don't blame the messenger.
Winthrop Staples wrote:
"This alleged "philosopher" knows precisely what Bannon really means, and so do most Americans who in recent decades have been insulted as "baskets of despicables" by a presidential candidate, and constantly humiliated, coerced, and their first amendment rights denied by slanderous political and media accusations of racism, xenophobia, anti Semitism, intolerance, misogamy, being disturbing, and the new one "making women uncomfortable" in the workplace - whenever the supposedly free citizens have had the courage to dare to disagree with contemptuous elites of the neo Marxian Left."
7
It was “Baskets of deplorables”, and Hillary Clinton was being too polite. I am an educated woman from a blue collar background and I know exactly what she was talking about. Like, the white guys in the Ford plants who harrassed their female and non-white colleagues out of their jobs...
Clear, concise explanation of the direction these wannabe Hitlers intend to take us. Thank you.
7
If you study the Nazis rise to power, you will see that Trump, Bannon, Gorka etc. are all fine students of Hitler and other dictators. They are trying to destroy the idea of facts, vilifying the media and creating an "OTHER" for their followers to hate. A free and objective media is the first line of defense for this but an educated citizenry needs to vote them out of power before they take away the vote.
10
Yes, the Germans decided to regard the word “fanatical” as a negative after the war. Good for them. Too bad six million Jewish human beings had to die in camps and countless more in war before they got their semantics straight. Just call Bannon what he is—a nazi.
4
What about us that don't believe in race? We only believe in the human race. Race is simply an invention. There is no race of whales or horses or fish.
Racists are first and foremost people who believe in the concept of race. That there are different types of humans. As soon as you believe that blacks and whites and asians are different types of humans you open the door to racism.
The real racists are folks who promote the very idea of race itself. Folks like liberals and the NYT.
1
That is a remarkably absurd and reprehensible bit of sophism, J. The very definition of racism is based on the fallacy that one race is genetically superior to another race. We humans are, in fact, all members of the same human race, regardless of our skin color.
6
I will use this San Ramon statement as a model to diagram in my logic class.
“Let them call you racists, let them call you xenophobes.” He went on: “Let them call you nativists. Wear it as a badge of honor.”
Flies are racing to land on Stephen Bannon.
3
These people like Bannon and Trump are like Nazis in that they vilify and project onto others their own sins. The Nazis were drug addled, vicious lazy criminals and bureaucrats who spent their time terrorizing people.
Then killing them . Which is what herr trump is now suggesting for drug dealers.
Either the American people come together and get rid of these thugs or we are doomed.
3
At this point in Bannon's life he may be unredeemable. A man who is evil.
Whether his evil is due to being a psychopath, an horrid childhood, alcoholism as suggested in the media, his words and actions are nevertheless evil.
He is looking for followers of evil just as Satan would send his servants hoping to ensnare souls. Bannon wants to ensnare the souls of people who are already hurting, feaful and feel left out. He is offering himself as a salvation from their soul felt pain. But it is a salvation that leads them to Hell.
2
Shortly after the signing of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, word went out from the Kremlin to all the gulag camps for guards to stop using the term "fascist" to mock and humiliate prisoners.
Bannon's transvaluation of "racist" isn't strange at all. Remember that Le Pen, the founder of the Front National, was a French Foreign Legionnaire who served in the losing defense of Indochina and the 1956 Suez fiasco. What he and the FN stand for is the good old days when Europeans, i.e. white men, went forth to dominate the other three-fourths of the world by forced based on their faith in their own superiority and right to conquer. Now that the rest of the world is strong enough to hit back, second best is to wall Europe (and Euro-America) off from what it can no longer rule. Bannon agrees.
2
Steve Bannon is the Charlie Manson of government.
3
In a secret war-time speech to high-ranking officers of the SS in Poznan, on 4th October 1943, Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's frontman in the extermination of Jewish people in occupied Eastern Europe, praises the officers and men of the SS for showing "pride and restraint" even in the face of the most gruesome mass killings of Jewish civilians the elite forces had to undertake, which Himmler called a "page of honor" in the history of this military detachment. Himmler would most certainly have been very proud of Bannon's unhinged fascist remarks in France as well.
3
Mr. Bannon appears in Europe disguised as a dirty bag of laundry and speaks as if he is the re-incarnation of Joseph Goebbels. "“We shall go down in history as the greatest statesmen of all time,or as the greatest criminals”
― Joseph Goebbels
1
To wit, "deplorable" is a badge of honor for millions, despite the fact Clinton was referring to people who are in some combination "...racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it."
2
Trying to link Bannon with the 3rd Reich is like Trump linking immigration with crime. Look, you even have a picture with the article that makes it look like he is giving a Nazi salute. Please.
2
It is interesting that people who disagree with the article - and apparently approve of Steve Bannon - interpreted the picture to show a Nazi salute. I did not perceive it that way and wouldn't have noticed if if all you fans of Bannon didn't point it out for me.
2
Thank you, New York Times, for keeping a close watch on this seedy, degenerate fascist as he shlumps around the world preaching hate to the already converted and getting his desperately needed fix of power. The prostitution of language is his central crime because it branches out into numerous other crimes against reason and humanity. The best disinfectant against Bannon is to keep hammering him with the truth until he's exhausted and he begs for our pity.
6
The good professor misses Bannon's point to the phrases like 'racism' and 'xenophobia' thrown about...name-calling only, and doesn't move the ball.
It can't be missed that the NYT cropped a certain photo to make it look like Bannon was performing a Nazi salute....hmm.
1
Why does the Times give this person front page space, or any space, for that matter?
He would be nobody if he weren't in print.
Bannon is a horror, the kind of fascist-goosestep-loving bigots my *immigrant* ancestors fought and defeated in WWII. His noxious, hateful message must be countered with truth and never go unchallenged or unchecked. Diversity is strength, democracy depends upon it. Bannon's reprehensible, ignorant and immoral views have no place in civil society, anywhere.
1
The Nazis did more than turn "the ungrounded hatred and fear of minority groups into an explicit virtue." Over time, they turned it into a requirement of "true" German citizenship. The words "over time" are important here. The vise turned against European Jewry proceeded slowly but inexorably.
The horror of mass murder starts somewhere, and that somewhere can be found in the language used by the nativist likes of Steve Bannon. We also hear such language from our President, not to mention extremist elements in the Republican Party. If you doubt this, listen to Iowa Representative Steve King who, among other toxic rants, declared that "We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies."
We can rely on our centuries-old democratic institutions to stem any such rising tide in America only if we care enough to use our constitutional tools to put a stop to it. Voting is a good place to start.
3
When you respond to anyone who has wants to stop illegal immigration and limit immigration with charges of racism and xenophobia you get people like Bannon. Bill Clinton, Barbara Jordan, and Barack Obama all have said things in the past which would get them called racist and xenophobic today. I find open borders advocates, including those in the Times, seldom argue on the merits and the name calling is never far behind.
I have no idea what Bannon's position is on immigration. The author compares him to Hitler, and the Nazis, then states its not his intention to compare him to the Nazis. Is it any wonder that Bannon reacts by vowing to ignore such people?
1
Monster!
No place on Earth for people like this.
Bannon, stop breathing my air!!
No, you didn't get it at all. This is about not caring about being called a xenophobe, racist or nativist, because you know that you are not and so you should stop caring what those say who have been using these words so long on everyone who is not completely on their side that the words just have lost any of the power they once had and should have.
In Germany, everyone who opposes illegal mass immigration by muslims is called a Nazi, ultra-right, fascist, racist etc. When the left mainstream uses these words even on moderate conservatives all the time, they become meaningless, and ultimately, yes, a badge of honor.
5
Speaking of Hitler, this from the great historical biography, Der Fuehrer, by Konrad Heiden: " ...but the great secret of Hitler's political method, which he only occasionally hinted at in words-the fact that the vaster the politician's field of action, the more he can expect one difficulty to be superseded and thus solved by another..."
Trump's Joseph Goebbels.
(look him up kids)
Except Goebbels didn't need a shave.
When Bannon gets to the dust bin of history (soon) the two of them can share a beer…
1
Shouting down someone with the “racist” label, when it is not warranted, is itself a grasp for power and a concrete step toward fascism. We saw it here in the US - roughly 45%, and the electoral majority, were all tarred as racists. That has consequences. It devalues the term. When you use such an important term promiscuously, you make a fool of yourself. Bannon obviously got sloppy here and while his audience well understood the moral depravity of false accusations of racism, it was predictable that NYT types would not get it, and would sleazily quote “wear it [their lies] with pride” as “wear our racism with pride.” It’s a predictable reaction, and a valid one. He could have done better. Oh well. I’m sure more clickbait will arrive shortly.
2
The rise of an American facism is truly frightening . We have bred our own version of little Hitlers and let them into mainstream politics.
And In our Humpty-Dumpty World of political language, where words are only -- well -- words, let us move forward beyond "racist," "xenophobe," bigot" and "victory" to "ignorant," "fool," "greedy," "arrogant," "abuser," "crook," "robber baron," fascist," "rapist," "murderer."
Oh, and since today is Rex Tillerson Memorial Day and the Advent of Pompeo, we must not forget "moron."
As St. Patrick's Day is near, no more "Wearin' o' the Green," but Wearin' of the Worst as Best.
Send George Orwell to the Dustbin of History.
Bring on Brother Bannon.
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
Bannon is a pathetic coward. Shame on him for hate mongering. He's repugnant and socially unacceptable.
So you have explained right-wing anti-Semitism.
How do you explain left-wing anti-Semitism? How do you explain supporting such anti-Semites as Louis Farrakhan?
3
The singular hypocrisy of Bannon's anti-Semitism is reflected by his multi-million dollar profit off residuals from Seinfeld.
While he's slinging hate in front of adoring nazi-wannabes at home and now abroad, Bannon quietly deposits his Seinfeld check which is a percentage of what Seinfeld earns in syndication. Since its inception Seinfeld is estimated to have earned over $3 billion, of which Bannon gets a percentage, which at 1% is over $30 million (he may receive more than 1%).
Bannon received an ownership interest in Seinfeld when he sold his Hollywood production company, a middling low grade entertainment company that produced right wing documentaries such as "Clinton Cash."
Seinfeld had a mostly Jewish cast playing Jewish characters living in NYC. The show was created by Seinfeld and Larry David, who's also Jewish.
So as he incites his mob to hate Jews and minorities, he happily deposits his fat residual check earned from the top rated show about Jewish friends in NYC. The entire cast was Jewish except for Michael Richards, who played the role of Kramer, a Jewish character.
He professes to despise Jews but gleefully accepts a lot of money earned from the talent and effort of Jewish actors, writers and producers.
For Bannon hate has been great for his bank account.
1
In analyzing deviant behavior such as Bannon's and yes Trump's, we need to remember that Hitler did not start with concentration camps. He started with speeches.
2
So what DO the two fascists have in common? Being left out of the mainstream of business and whatever Bannon always wanted to be. They are both failures (yes Trump has made money but is no captain of industry and has no respect from the upper echelons of corporate America). So their reaction is to hate and to tear down that unwelcoming establishment. True, many establishment politicians should be discarded, but replaced by better men and women and better ideas not by destructive psychopaths like Trump, Bannon and the afore-mentioned A. Hitler.
Bannon IS the deviant. Why attempt to explain or normalize him ?????
It's not new, Steve. Come up with some new material, why don't ya?
I'll go ahead and blow up the comments section with some quotes from...Adolf!
Over to you, A-dogg,
"They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians; it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end.
Hitler continued:
"Providence has ordained that bla bla argle bargle freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence rowr rarg screech fizz dirty and degrading self-mortifications hack spit false vision yeearrrgh conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and personal independence which only a very few can bear."
For best results, read this with Whitest Kids U Know's "Hitler Rap (extended version)" playing in another tab.
So the Philly Fanatic is a racist, xenophobic, nativist. A fan cheers and let see the best team win. To pretend that Jews or blacks or NY Rangers audience members are not fanatical about their interests is, um, how did Stanley put it..."irrational".
I suspect that those who are listening to Bannon are only looking for permission to express views which are already well established.
The problem with clowns like Bannon is that they pay lip service to cultural norms while simultaneously debasing them. There is almost a coyness or impishness to the sly way these nazis wink at their audience while espousing the most hateful of ideas.
Bannon/Trump play this game too well. In front of an audience they will say something like 'You know, we are not supposed to say this but...' while their ignorant audience whoops along with them--given permission to express publicly their rotten cores.
2
Bannon believes he's Lenin...watch him closely...his gestures, his posture, the shabby look --- the head, land of Goshen - the head...
Lenin's is better looking, the shape if you know what I mean.
Steve should try to imitate the old newsreels of Lenin by moving in that herky-jerky way --- of the old time flicks...
1
Bannon clearly is beating the bushes for his next sponsor after having burned his bridges in the U.S. It almost has the makings of a song parody, "Let Them Call You Racist," but it's not at all amusing.
I believe that Matt-from-Upstate-NY's analysis here misses the point.
In saying that "racist," "xenophobe," and "nativist" should be worn as a badge of honor, Bannon is implicitly admitting that he and his followers really have those qualities. This is his Orwellian way of dismissing the opposition, of showing how inconsequential they are. He is saying, in effect, "If these worthless people call you names, that shows you are on the right track. They know you are racists, but I don't want you to realize that, so I am attacking them rather than acknowledging the truth."
That Bannon's focus is on the supposed inconsequentiality of those who would oppose the far-right is shown by the next line of the speech, "Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker.”
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy.
1
It's way simpler than all this. He's not twisting his words, or inverting meaning, or anything like that. He's an unapologetic racist. I feel like there's a lot of denial in these comments - trying desperately to NOT understand who Bannon actually is and what he stands for. It's like people can't believe he's not ashamed to be a racist!
Another fatuous strategy is to play the victim. They say or do something horrific, then when criticized claim THEY are the ones being "persecuted." Sarah Palin always played this victim card well very.
They also resort to 5th grade name calling. Mention they might be "racist" and they call YOU the racist.
In the final analysis, this is flat out sociopathic behavior.
1
Jason, I feel like you're kind of playing into Bannon's argument here.... You bring up the word choice and etymology of his language, and then spend the rest of the article talking about the Nazi's, all the while basically saying, "well I don't mean to compare them to Nazi's persay".... In numerous ways the National Front and the spectre of Nazism has deep roots in the European fringe Right. However, nativism and anti-immigration policies are not Nazism and racial genocide. And that's essentially what Bannon is saying, he's saying that intellectuals and hand wringing lefties WILL call them Nazi's and relate their policies of closed borders to the Third Reich, and here you are doing just that.
3
"No recent far-right movement in Europe or the United States has enacted the sort of genocidal policies that the Nazis did"
...yet.
And even though I sincerely doubt it will ever go quite that far, it is important to remember when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, his movement also had not enacted genocidal policies...yet.
1
"No recent far-right movement in Europe or the United States has enacted the sort of genocidal policies that the Nazis did, and no such comparison is intended. "
Indeed. But then again, genocidists do not commit genocide until they do.
And why not draw comparisons? Did Hitler not use rhetoric and the subversion of language to lay the foundation for genocidal actions? Do we wait until the genocidists are burning down buildings and killing people in the streets to listen to, and spread the alarm, of historical precedent?
1
This is rich projection from the birthplace of American social Marxism. It is the Marxist left that coined the deviant use of the terms "rape culture", "toxic masculinity", "cultural appropriation", "safe space" and "patriarchy?" It is the Marxist left that diluted terms such as "Nazi", "fascist" and "racist" into utter meaninglessness by applying them to anyone with whom they disagree. It is the Marxist left that would have the temerity to suggest that there is anything wrong with being a nativist. This is the sad depth to which once "higher" education has fallen.
2
We need a hero, please -- where are you? Those in position, please check your spines and stand up.
1
You are applying logic where logic does not apply. Bannon's arguments ar purely emotional based on a premise that has been applied by the early Christians to malign Jews, through Hitler's minions, Roy Cohn's twisted imagination and his prize pupil who is now president. They all follow the premise that if one repeats a lie often and loud enough, enough people will come to believe it, permitting the actor to accomplish immoral feats that society previously thought were unimaginable. This has been magnified in untold ways by the communications revolution and the search continues for some way to counteract it.
Bannon is looking for ways to stay in lime light, and media is taking the bait.
1
Yes, how repulsive the far right is. Truly. And on the left, public racism is now acceptable: Up here in Canada, People are delegitimized, and dismissed, and denied the right to speak because they are guilty of 'white male privilege', or favoured minority status (asian people) or, if they happen to be a visible minority and dare to think in terms of individual responsibility instead of identity, the mob declares them guilty of 'internalized racism' should they dare to deny that white people are solely to blame for the travails of anyone with darker skin. Here's a clever trick: Even denying that one is racist is itself, Ta DA! now decried as incontrivertible evidence of racism.
Ideologies twist the meaning of words and both the extreme left and the extreme right are guilty of it.
Remember that in essence, Hitler tried to extinguish 'jewish privilege'.
Think about the effects hateful ideological speech has regardless of colour. When a Canadian government official feels she can go on Twitter to demand that someone shuts up because they are white, (LOOK IT UP) you know the leftist train is off the rails. This stunted op-ed only covers a fraction of the problem of ideologically twisted speech.
Steve Bannon's mind is full of racist rage and resentment. He is proud to be its spokesperson, and the inspiration and cheerleader of similar people in Europe. His mind seethes with the revivalism of "old-time religion" (his hillbilly Virginian roots?) transformed into apocalyptic nightmares of mass invasions of "the West" by colored people and Muslims. In its quasi-pornographic and obsessive fear and hate, Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is indeed a good analogy. See this link for a book which Bannon cites with admiration:
https://newrepublic.com/article/146925/notorious-book-ties-right-far-right
And the NYT report on his admiration of Evola, the Italian self-styled "super-Fascist" and Hitler-worshiper:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/.../bannon-vatican-julius-evola-fasci...
Well, as much as I detest defending Bannon in any way, there's a difference between what Bannon said and what Hitler and others said. Hitler embraced the title of anti-Semite in admitting he was an anti-Semite. By contrast, Bannon embraces the bigoted titles not because he admits to being a bigot, but because, in his view, the Left calling him a bigot is an intellectual capitulation. In other words, he is right about his views, and the Left can do nothing but call him names. That's a big distinction. You might still say Bannon is a bigot, and you might be right, but that doesn't mean he's admitting it.
10
So which is it, folks? Is the article correctly interpreting Bannon to mean that he embraces racism, xenophobia, and nativism, or is Bannon actually saying, "Look, the Left is going to call you these untrue names as a way to silence your legitimate concerns"? WHich is it? If you read his entire speech, you will have no doubt that it is the latter. And if it is the latter, than who is twisting the meaning here? Isn't it Jason Stanley, who must have read the whole speech, must know what Bannon was actually driving at, and who therefore is being dishonest in his essay?
4
This comment is silly. All of the pertinent studies have told us that the principal motivation for Trump voters was racial resentment. Just last week we learned that the voters who switched to Trump from other candidates were motivated primarily by race and gender. In that context, Mr. Bannon's own claims are irrelevant. Trump's words and actions speak for themselves. Folks of all political persuasions have criticized Trump and Bannon for their racism, and justifiably so. The good people who made the serious mistake of supporting Bannon and Trump must cease the prevarication and rationalization. It is time for them to stand up and rectify their error.
SCW Sargent wrote:
"So which is it, folks? Is the article correctly interpreting Bannon to mean that he embraces racism, xenophobia, and nativism, or is Bannon actually saying, "Look, the Left is going to call you these untrue names as a way to silence your legitimate concerns"? WHich is it? If you read his entire speech, you will have no doubt that it is the latter. And if it is the latter, than who is twisting the meaning here? Isn't it Jason Stanley, who must have read the whole speech, must know what Bannon was actually driving at, and who therefore is being dishonest in his essay?"
1
Bannon seems a resentful individual, beaten it seems by another demagogue, racist and xenophobe Trump. Bannon is too far from our human ability to 'know' right from wrong in our conscience. Too bad he has to follow the triad of fear, hate and division our demagogue in chief successfully used, along with lies and insults, to assault the presidency. Bannon is just trying to find relevancy in all the wrong places. What he desperately needs is a good dose of prudence...by doing what's right, however difficult and hazardous. But he may be already beyond redemption, condemned to eat his own garbage.
I suppose that your use of the word "temporary", as regards the use of irrational language, would be relative, since death from persecution, as far as we know, would be permanent.
By equating Bannon with nazism Stanley dilutes the meaning of the word, as so eloquently described by Bari Weiss a few days ago. It seems that these days only hyperbole will do, and only comparison with Hitler will reveal someone's dark inner nature.
In my view, what this kind of diatribe shows is lack of imagination and of course, erudition.
3
This is a very astute article and more articles like it are needed to bring focus to the current subversion of language, and inversion of the meaning of things. This is not confined to Bannon, it characterizes the whole Trump administration. I believe that some of these people have most likely studied Mein Kampf and deliberately adopted some of Hitler's tactics. Along with the inversion of negative/positive meanings, there is the Big Lie technique: lie brazenly and often and many people will believe you. There is the "blame the victims" technique, and "vilify the victims", ie, immigrants in the country who now are being terrorized by ruthless immigration policies are now referred to a "criminal aliens". There is projecting onto your opponents your own criminal character, motives and actions, ie, the mantra of "Crooked Hillary" by a man who is shown to be more crooked every day. Orwell's famous book, 1984, encapsulated these mechanisms as no one before or since. The Ministry of Love was where people were tortured. What Professor Stanley is pointing out is a sign of very great danger.
I hate to say it, but Steve Bannon is a monster. There is simply no two ways about it.
Meanwhile in America there are "infidel" and "deplorable" bumper stickers.
Steve Bannon had to go to France to be paid and have an audience. He was severely demoted at CPAC this year. He is not wanted anymore in America at least enough so to make a living giving his nasty speeches. And that is a very good thing.
The French far-right National Front Party has always been out there and is one of the last bastions for people like Steve Bannon. Americans are increasingly turning away from Bannon's manipulation and extremism. They get their racism just fine from Trump. Trump is not faux philosopher cum boozy looks but reality TV coifed and mass consumption approved rated.
Of course we Americans are by no means in the clear. Racism, bigotry and anti-Semitism are on the rise and Trump loves to increase the hate when in campaign mode. It must continue to be confronted directly and immediately at every instance.
Trump's current rejection of Steve Bannon gave license for others to do so. I say current because with Trump he may reach out and embrace him yet again if he sees political gain in doing so.
I think Bannon, Trump, et al. are despicable and I oppose them with every fiber of my being. Still, I believe that Jason Stanley's analysis here misses the point.
In saying that "racist," "xenophobe," and "nativist" should be worn as a badge of honor, Bannon is not admitting that he and his followers really have those qualities. Rather, this is his way of dismissing the opposition, of showing how inconsequential they are. He is saying, in effect, "If these worthless people call you names, that shows you are on the right track." That Bannon's focus is on the supposed inconsequentiality of those who would oppose the far-right is shown by the next line of the speech, "Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker.”
I am certainly in agreement with Stanley that the Bannonites are dangerous. But I think their position is more insidious than what he suggests. They don't admit to being racist or xenophobic but rather insist on a tortured application of those terms, one that suggests that that it is actually their opponents who have these qualities. (One thinks here of the standard right-wing claim that those decrying racism are the true racists.)
What is instead key for Bannon is the focus on the "weakness" and "globalist" nature of the opposition. It is here, with the emphasis on the unmanly and decadent qualities that supposedly characterize those on the left, that we find the connection with traditional fascist ideology.
15
The writer imisconstrued Bannon's remarks to mean that the audience should be racists, xenophobes, and/or nativists. That however is not true. Bannon said "let them call you...", not be. He was actually saying that labels which others may inappropriately use should not inhibit rational thought. Ironically this article is a case study in exactly the tripe Bannon was advising his audience to ignore.
5
It is amusing that way. But most here probably don't understand it! They aren't lookin really for substance.
Bannon like many people are deplorable to them anyway! They are just here to feed their hatred of Trump, et. al. This paper is especially yummy for them, I'm sure. Bon Appétit!!!
2
Now officially a full time nobody, someone apparently forgot to take away his microphone. Pull the plug please.
2
More evidence that Trump is drawn to racists, bigots and deplorables. He was best buddies with Bannon for a long time and even put him in a prime position inside the White House. Bannon is a good example of Trump's judgment of people - another of his "best".
According to the NY Times, "Dear White People," I was born a racist. My kids were also born racist. And all of my ancestors and descendants are racist...because we are white. The progressives have made it clear that they believe that anyone who is white is guilty of a crime because they are in a group. What's more racist than condemning each individual in a group just because they have a certain color of skin?
Most right wingers, conservatives, and Republicans are not racist--it's just a fringe element--albeit a terrible one. But because we all know that we are called racists for rejecting the very mainstream left wing premises of identity politics and social justice (aka neo-Marxism), we don't care if you call us that anymore!
3
It is strange that while most Urban areas are controlled by liberal Democrats, there are more racial problems in Urban, then rural areas. Perhaps if the Democrats that control these cities, NY, LA etc, made progress on racial justice, they would have a good argument. They make election promises but their cities remain divided across racial lines due to zoning, covenants and other regulations. Voters feel safe that way and it keeps real estate taxes high. I claim that those that live in gated communities, suburbs etc are the xenophobes. They want to live by people like themselves. All middle class or better living in areas protected by zoning, housing covenants and regulations to protect them from having lower class neighbors! Not suprisingly, that's where the good schools are too. These urban glass house Democrats need to keep their stones in their pockets until they follow the inclusiveness they preach to others!
An interesting, if unfortunate article. I've read Klemperer and endless books on WW2, and while you can call the German head of state (to remain unnamed) a lot of things, irrational was not necessarily one of them. Ian Kershaw's definitive biography categorizes him as a "brilliant high stakes gambler with a keen sense of his opponent's hand," whose words lit a fire in the masses to whom they were directed. One could logically argue that his opponents were irrational, for their appeasement.
In Vienna before WW1 Hitler was simply a man with common views toward Jews derived perhaps from envy of their positions in the society. At the time, the pigeonholing of every group was done by every other group as a matter of course. What would have seemed irrational was an "all people are the same" kumbaya that is popular today. At the same time the German leader targeted Jews in Mein Kampf (written in a jail, where one's views tend to be fanatical) the English were considering bombing Dublin while aiming machine guns at "little brown people" all over their Empire. In America "Negroes" were lynched for whistling at white girls. Japanese were murdering Chinese and Koreans based on racial superiority theory.
Bannon is speaking on how to stand pat on a point: resistance to unwanted illegal immigration, against catcalls. He is trying to separate that point from PC doctrine that call it racist. My fellow Liberals hate it when right intellectuals parse their outrage, but it happens.
4
I think that you are completely misscharacterizing what he said. When your opponents resort to name calling, they have done so because they realize that you have the better argument and are winning. Having the courage to persist in speaking your truth and standing up for what you think is best in your society in the face of being foisted with the most vile insult that your political culture can conjure is something for which to be proud.
1
Seriously? “...let them call you racists, let them call you xenophobes.”
He is not embracing these labels as actual markers of their behaviors - he is saying that others are attempting to silence them by pinning these labels on them.
Listen - I think these folks are fools but it never pays to underestimate or misunderstand fools with a communication channel.
"If he will not be satisfied with truth in the form of tautology, that is to say, if he will not be content with empty husks, then he will always exchange truths for illusions." ~ Nietzsche: On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense (1873)
1
Okay. We're not Nazi's yet. But isn't it astounding that the clearest American bell ringing with the Bannon/Trump perversion of language (truth, the press, any voice or words in opposition to Bannon/Trump-speak) is Southern white supremacists spewing bile in the name of "heritage."
Will it take a defeat in war to bring America around to a self-reckoning akin to the soul-searching and acceptance of guilt that allowed post-WWII Germany and Japan to renter the global stage with dignity?
If so, beware that there will be no benevolent guardian of our sovereignty, in the manner that America respected and aided the recovery of the WWII Axis powers. Russia and China won't be acting as we did at all.
The philosophy of Trump/Bannon is very, very dangerous for this nation.
1
Bannon's badge of honour isn't being a racist. It's being called a racist, where he thinks the label isn't deserved and is thrown around irresponsibly by liberals. Stanley's supposition that Bannon is proudly calling himself a racist is wildly implausible (which isn't at all to deny that Bannon is a racist).
2
The French Right crowd knows more about racism and fascism than Stevie boy ever imagined. So, to think Bannon was intellectually clever matters little because he was just an excuse to get-together and race bait.
The thing is "progressives" it is y'all that have pushed the meaning of "racist" to it's limit and beyond. It has come to mean "one who does not agree with progressive thought". That is why attempts to label me with the term has no impact. That is where Bannon is coming from.
3
Question: why is Bannon -- as a potential subject of criminal charges (Mueller investigation) -- still at large to travel the world and spew his venom and lies?
Why hasn't his passport been revoked?
He's apparently a potential flight risk for serious criminal charges and in traveling outside the country he gets the means, along with a hanging motive -- to flee US justice (extradition-agreement countries) and evade the law.
Imagine some Trump opponent being allowed to do this? The roars from Fox and Alt-Right media would be deafening!
Too bad these nations don't deny Bannon entry the way that the tit-for-tat Trump (mis)administration would do!
And this is leaving aside the whole question of Bannon, and other Ugly Americans, spewing disinformation, lies, and propaganda and shaming our nation in the eyes of most of the rest of the world!
14
Because the country is not run by progressive fascists.
So it's "Because the country is not run by "progressive fascism" to deny those under active investigation -- quite possible for high crimes and misdemeanors -- the so-called right to travel abroad and thus escape jurisdiction?
And here, I thought that was common, and widely accepted, investigative procedure! Silly me, but taking passports away from flight risks is common practice, in DEMOCRACY, where the rule of law applies to ALL, not just the "little people"!
1
Yes exactly. Those who are not with Trump need to recognize that he is a clear danger to the rule of law, the constitution and our very Republic.
Trump needs to dryly read condemnations of white supremacists from a teleprompter, but can repeat white supremacist talking points of the top of his head while in a rage. They understand exactly what this means. That is why white supremacists feel empowered and hate crimes have spiked this year. It is no accident that a white supremacist leader in Florida said Nikolas Cruz was in their organization and that Cruz posted a MAGA hat on his social media.
A lot of Democrats call Trump "traitor" etc., but don't seem to understand exactly what he is doing.
He is actively attacking all of the checks on his power and all of the institutions that make our government a Republic. He constantly pushes the envelope, making statements that would have spelled doom for any regular politician every day, with the full support of Fox News, which works day and night to legitimize his attacks on normal.
Last week he said maybe the U.S. should take a shot at a president for life, like the great man on China just did. He has often called elections fake and threatened to postpone them.
Trump attacks the Justice Department and FBI, run by his own appointees. Trump attacks the judiciary: nominating unqualified people to the federal bench, pardoned a sheriff convicted of Contempt of Court, etc.
He demands personal loyalty from Democrats!
Fight Back!
1
Once again, the Times loses an opportunity to help its readers understand the world around them.
First, let's put the rhetoric aside. In urging people to embrace the ridiculous, hyperbolic terms that the globalist left comes up for them, all he's doing is extending the same principle that saw leftists' embracing the term "nasty women" and Trump voters embracing "deplorables." We know this happens, and we know why this happens. The fact that many, many others throughout history have done it (from Nazis in the 30s to gay rights activists and black activists from the 70s to the 90s) should tell us all we need to know - it's not sinister, it's not rare, and it's not that complicated.
Secondly, in guiding the Times' readers to this non-story, the author misses an opportunity to focus on what's truly unique here. Not since the late 60s has a global political trend spanned both sides of the Atlantic. The very fact that Bannon has an audience in France is news worthy. So is the fact that the AfD is on the rise in Germany, 5 Stars just won in Italy, and the fact that Poland, Hungary, France, the U.K., and Austria have all lurched to the right.
What's driving this? I would argue that like here, it's a mass migration from the global south to the global north, with a class of elites who want to facilitate said migration. Either way, there's a story to be told in this. It's history unfolding. And yet all our parochial Times sees is all Trump, all the time. Sad!
2
Such a poorly thought out article. Perhaps, you don't realize that Bannon is simply utilizing a tactic of the left. Control the language and you control the debate. Perhaps you are too young or ignorant to remember when we were told all ideas and views had to be heard. Once the left started losing the public debate about various issues, the left changed the rules and said we can't use certain words or say certain things. This led to safe spaces. Well, when the crazies on the left realize that the vast majority of states are red and conservative (compare the number of states Trump won vs. Hillary) the need to change the rules again will occur.
Bannon to his credit is simply pointing out that by adopting the slurs made against individuals on the right those slurs will lose their power. Most Americans realize their fellow Americans are good and not racist. Hence they will start to revolt against the slurs when they are made en masse. Think of the derogatory terms that used to be applied to homosexuals. Many of them are no longer considered vulgar because so many homosexuals embraced the terms.
2
Well, it seems that since Bannon failed to sell Roy Moore to Alabamans and even Donald Tump couldn't stomach having him around anymore, he's trying to export his particular brand of whack-job right wing extremism to like-minded National Fronters in France.
Good luck with that, Steve. I suspect that they will see through you even quicker than conservative Americans did.
That said, the right wing propaganda machine started using these verbal tactics long before Bannon ever hit the scene; they've been quite effective at using Orwellian doublespeak as part of the indoctrination process as well.
Even if Bannon stays in France, his departure won't stop them from continuing their campaign to present lies as truth and greed and bigotry as righteousness.
The rest of us have a lot of work to do.
12
"On the face of it, Bannon’s advice is strange. After all, by any normative understanding, “racist,” “xenophobe” and “nativist” are negative words from both a moral and rational point of view."
Come out your classroom and experience the real world, Professor Stanley. Of course words like "racist" and "xenophobe" no longer have the meaning they once had. The left wing in both the media and academia have been furiously lobbing them at anybody whose worldview is even one degree to the right of their own that those words have lost all the sting they once had a long time ago (see: any NYT editorial about illegal immigration). The left's labeling of people other than themselves as racist has become so predictable and commonplace that the targets of the pejorative just laugh at it these days. So yes, those words have lost their original meaning and bite through pathological misuse, but the left did that, not Steve Bannon.
2
Let him call me a globalist. I will wear it as a badge of honor. Too much blood was shed over nationalism, racism, and economic competition in just the last century alone. It will take an alien invasion, the Second coming, or a global war for Bannon and his followers to realize we are humans, earthlings, and need to get along without walls.
But more to the point. “The tide of history is with us and it will compel us to victory after victory after victory.” It doesn’t get more Hitlerian than that.
I doubt very much that Europeans, the French especially, would take seriously anything that such a poorly dressed person says.
When the inversion of language to convert vices into virtues arises, I think of Eric Blair, aka George Orwell. Freedom is slavery. War is Peace. Two and two make five. Thus does Trump blame President Obama and young African Americans for the epidemic of school shootings—all of which have been committed by Trumpian disaffected white youth. As Steve Bannon, the driving force and architect behind Trump’s presidency, would say, and does, Wear the charge of racism like a badge of honor.
In the good old days of the Cold War, Bannon and those of his ilk would have been considered a liability. Consequently, he would have vanished without a trace with no fanfare and never be seen or heard again. Makes my eyes well up.
To be a racist, xenophobe and nativist today is to be both an immoral, unfair person and to also be an irrational person?
If only things were so easy, so clear. It's much easier to consider a racist, xenophobe, nativist immoral than to consider such a person irrational. Which is to say morality and rationality are not necessarily wedded--in fact it's probably hard to make them go together. Take all we mean historically by great cities or great minds and talents. Great cities such as Paris or London or Rome had great records at rationality, accomplishment, but these cities were not particularly moral if we mean by morality record of dealing with other races, foreigners, people not native to the respective cities. Of course we like to consider such cities cosmopolitan, we erect a myth that at least in these great cities if not the nations in which they were placed morality and rationality went hand in hand, but this unfortunately is stretching the matter.
Rationality has actually a bad record when it comes to being considered identical to morality: Great geniuses unfairly leave all other talents in their wake; great businesses crush lesser businesses, etc. It's actually a critical philosophical question whether morality can reliably go hand in hand with rationality, which is why we spend so much time wondering, for example, whether advanced Artificial Intelligence will "behave right". Any powerful, complex, intelligent order tends to just make its way at expense of others.
Bannon likely reminds many Americans of a person who was overlooked growing up and figured out the best way to get attention is to be different - a maverick if you will but since maverick implies unorthodox and independent. The mere fact he aligned himself with the president proved he was anything but unorthodox and independent. He was more like disturbed and unhinged. Over time all the people except one or two appointments and the generals will be remembered as sycophants to the president and history shows that sycophants to anyone are looked upon with disdain if they are remembered at all.
And therein lies the reason for Trump’s victory. Put simply, he told people who harbored prejudice that it is OK, and that if you vote for me you will be free of any need to hide your feelings.
That there were enough people falling for the trick to swing the election is to our shame as a country
1
It is difficult to find solace in the author's final line about the temporary nature of this language inversion and all it represents. Think of the damage that can be done during the interlude. Bannon's fascination with Lenin, a communist, belies his admiration for those who will do anything to seize political power. And for such individuals, morality, let alone cultural/linguistic norms, are merely signs of weakness; assets to be turned against the holders of power. If as alleged, Lenin had a copy of Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy at home, and Zarathustra in his Kremlin office, we might eagerly await an inventory of Bannon's reading material to confirm the commonality of the members of the cult of The Will.
One can assume Bannon acts in good faith and that he genuinely believes that Western values and culture are under such assault that any means are legitimate to defend them. Or, one can assume he behaves as he does for no other reason than those Ivy and Wall St. elites he wanted to accept him spurned him, denigrated him and mocked him instead. So, what is such a man to do? Throw verbal bombs and seek to burn it all down, itself an assault on Western values and culture.
11
While I fully agree with the intellectual premise and sentiment of this article, I believe that the writer is missing a critical aspect of the Bannon (and Trump) phenomenon. Do you think a community of people has the right to decide whether to more or less maintain their cultural identity, including (as is often the practical necessity) by excluding others with different identities (i.e. the Amish as a somewhat extreme example). If you say yes, many might say, whether or not you use innuendo-loaded phraseology, you are a racist as race and culture are intertwined and indefinite concepts. If you say, no, many might say you are a globalist and either anarchist or supporter of world government. The Left will never being able to understand, or more importantly to redirect, Bannon/Trumpist sentiment until this conundrum is resolved. Lashing out at the diction without trying to understand why 30,000,000+ Americans, and I'm guessing many more Europeans, fundamentally support Bannon's (white) nationalist agenda, makes our repetition of unthinkable horrors more, not less, likely.
In this country, in our lifetime, we have many, many versions of this deviation of language.
It started with the tactic of wrapping cultural issues around economic issues (Southern Strategy.)
It continued with "dog whistling" to those who were "in" on the lingo (the Reagan years.)
It grew when those skilled in the psychological techniques and metrics of mass marketing entered the political arena (Karl Rove, George Castellanos, Richard Viguerie).
It reached its greatest heights in the Bush 43 years with circular logic ("we have to stay and fight in Iraq so those who fought and died did not die in vain,) and with the art of making your opponents strength a weakness (swiftboating of Kerry) and your guy's weaknesses a strength.
If all else failed you brought out the nuclear option: Frank Luntz, who would invent new concepts when the old ones no longer worked.
Is it any wonder Trump stated he likes the uneducated?
I, for one, am proud of being a "deplorable."
1
History doesn't teach us anything beyond what happened in the past. Historical analogies can lead to disastrous mistakes. In our decision to escalate our involvement in the Viet-Nam War, the Johnson Administration argued that avoiding a commitment to go to the aid of South Viet-Nam would be appeasement as was supposedly practiced by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at Munich. There are more dis-similarities than similarities between Bannon and the Nazis.
History shows only that there are no simple lessons to be learned from a study of the past.
“To proudly identify as a xenophobe is to identify as someone who is not interested in argument. ... It means not masking one’s irrationality even from oneself.”
I wish that were true. We need it to be true and it should be. But I’m pretty sure that in our current intellectual moment it is not necessarily the case.
Much of what purports to be intellectual political discourse in popular culture is or reduces to name calling. Often strong negative labels are misapplied when labels that are more subtle and less broad would better approximate the truth. The experiences of other people are confidently inferred based solely on their race and gender. This is not argument. This, too, is the manipulation of language for cultural and political ends.
For example, search on Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia, Jordan Peterson, and Katie Roiphe. See what their intellectual and political opponents say about them. This is name calling, not argument.
Accordingly, we can’t know the extent to which people are rejecting argument or joining the battle to manipulate language. Meaning has already been changed and is up for grabs.
I think it’s the duty of social sciences and humanities professors to help stop this nonsense.
1
That an article like this cannot mention the left' pioneering use of this tactic in the United States. The N word, the B word and a litany of others I serve as examples. Moreover those in this article would say they wear false accusations as badges.
1
In recent years, we've seen courtesy and a lack of racism being dismissed as "political correctness."
In the past two years or so, we've seen racism and a hatred of immigrants supporting by fake statistics—outright lies.
Now, racism and xenophobia are claiming to be positive things in themselves.
This administration and this phase of our history is a giant step back for the country.
This is clever but a little off. The "badge of honor" that Bannon wears is not the title itself, exactly, but the fact that those who assign it to him he holds in contempt. It's a variation of the validation that Christians sometimes see in persecution: it "proves" that they are faithful and just witnesses.
I agree that Bannon is advocating an acceptance of these terms which are negative in any dictionary, but they are not for him. Thucydides saw this long ago in the revolution in Corcyra where "words changed their meaning": "recklessness" became "courage," "prudence" became "cowardice," "fanaticism" became "manliness," "intelligence" was defined as the ability to plot or to detect one, etc. (3.82). What Bannon is advocating is not irrational to him; he's arguing that the fear of immigrants is reasonable and prudent. That's where we are: arguing about basic factual information and basic moral attitudes.
1
This is why the free press is essential to a civil society. Trump effectively uses tabloid-quality spectacle, exaggeration, bad-boy behavior, World Wrestling Federation displays of bravado, and over-simplification of all complex problems with emotional cliches. It worked in 2016; now Trump is giving it another go. He wants to take the show on the road until 2020 for a never-ending campaign where the sole topic is himself.
After watching his Pittsburgh speech, it dawned on me that his act is getting stale. The bad-boy thing is getting old. He boasted to the crowd that his show The Apprentice lasted 14 years with high ratings. That's how he views his time as President. The only difference is that the majority of the people are forced to watch the spectacle of President Trump, unlike the willing viewers of The Apprentice. Non-stop fact-checking is a necessary but not sufficient antidote to Trumpism. We can't switch the channel on our President, but we can switch the President and those in Congress who make the spectacle the norm.
Temporary maybe, but not temporary enough.
I can think of one well-known public figure who absolutely wears his racism as a badge of honor, as well as a turbulent potpourri of countless fears, hatreds, and multiple forms of paranoia.
Bannon gave his speech in France. I'm pretty sure Bannon doesn't speak French, so presumably the audience had no idea at all what he was talking about.
It would seem that Bannon is is provocatively coming close to violating strict European legal prohibitions against hate speech, not a factor in America with its 1st Amendment protections. I wonder whether the French authorities have him on their radar, as do other countries there.
Being an entirely self-promoting propagandist but quite clever, he probably knows, or has been well briefed, as to how far he can go with his choice of vile words. In the much diminished Brannon's case, of course, he has become more an object of pity than a reason for any public concern. A rootless, washed-up ideologue casting about for a place where he can be listened to, even before a half-filled hall of losers. Sad.
What Bannon does is quite simple. He reduces the world to a binary proposition. With "us" or against "us". It is very powerful and effective. Clarity over reason. Action before thought.
If one succeeds in mobilizing a critical mass in this way, one can truly change the world. The French Revolutionaries, the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, indeed the Founding Fathers and their supporters, were, initially, but a tiny segment of their society. By insisting that some injustice had been commited, that a portion of society -of which they claimed to be the representatives- had been wronged, they eventually motivated the masses and overthrew the standing order...
You are quite right in drawing attention to this, but heed the warning of history: the vast majority of people just don't care, and find themselves, driven forth by their most atavistic impulses, doing things of which they didn't think themselves capable.
Yugoslavia is a case in point. As soon the first cracks appeared after Tito's death, it tore itself to shreds. Events dating back to the late Middle Ages suddenly justified the wholesale slaugther of one's neighbors sons and the rape of their daugthers. What we see in Myanmar today, is very similar, as is what happened in Rwanda in the late 90's.
People love an agent responsible for their (perceived) misfortune who isn't them. Bannon knows this, and so does Trump...
The deaths of school children is a clear desensitization...a moral degradation of what is touted as freedom to bear arms..a substitution using a weapon for war...for sport. The actions to destroy democracy increase daily to undermine a quality of life and the rights of the common man. Though we may not have seen the changes yet, this government is eroding the law of the land and tightening the noose by disenfranchising the public sector. I would expect we may see a war here and abroad.
This is a tactic out of Chapter 1 of the right wing playbook. It not only pits people against each other - chaos - but proves that the right is interested in only one thing: power. If you're denigrating a large percentage of your country's or your world's population, governance required to provide services to them directly or indirectly is of no interest whatsoever. So the agenda is to accumulate ever more power, for power's sake, not to use for the betterment of your own or other Others.
This is why I have no further interest in "considering the views" of my opponents. They are very frank, and gleeful, about their pernicious extremist agenda. They have given me all the information I need to consider to reject them as not only public servants, but as respectable people. It doesn't matter what else they have to say, these positions overwhelm any value in anything else they may have to offer.
The change may be temporary but we must consider what it might take to end this particular episode.
Bannon is dangerous. I hope his time as a celebrity is over and that he quickly fades into obscurity. The problem with the man is not that his use of language is dubious. The problem is that he, and those who support him and have given him power, have completely lost their moral compass. I had thought that even in these contentious times, the vast majority of Americans could at least agree at a minimum that fascism and bigotry were putrid ideas. After all, my father and uncle fought in WWII in battle against those views, along with millions of other Americans. But apparently not so. To see a resurgence of support for such ideas, all the way to the White House, is shocking. Bannon is best ignored. Let him retreat to a double-wide trailer outside a small town in the middle of nowhere, where he can listen to Rush Limbaugh all day on AM talk radio, and call in when he has something brilliant to say. I for one won't be listening.
17
I have never had the moral tolerance to hear a complete speech by Mr. Bannon (I usually change the TV in disgusts as soon as he speaks a few words as I don’t agree with his ideas), but I am under the impression that Mr. Bannon is not (in HIS MIND) advocating racism and xenophobia as postulated by the author. Rather, Mr. Bannon is playing a “victim’s card”. I’m under the impression that he does not see himself and his followers as racists and xenophobes, rather he is implying that others calling them such are the true racists and xenophobes. It looks to me that Mr. Bannon believes that he/his followers are perfectly tolerant people who are just misunderstood by others. From theirs point of view, to be called racists or xenophobes does not matter, as they don’t consider themselves such.
Again: I am not advocating in favor of Mr. Bannon, I am just trying to make the point that the author (Mr. Stanley) is mistaken when he argues that Mr. Bannon is trying to justify his positions by claiming them as OK. Rather, he justifies his positions by not seeing them as racists.
1
There is a battle raging for the soul of our nation.
I fear that the forces of darkness are firmly in power, and they will stop at NOTHING to maintain their grip on it.
Can we also seek to stop this nonsense by talking about background and accomplishments? This is not an atack, this is a truth; Bannon was a failed engineer, settled for a liberal arts degree from his engineering school, Virgina Tech; it's common to offer the engineering school rejects, rejected because they don't work hard enough, an alternative within the school. That's Bannon. Bannon then joined the Navy where he rose to the astonishing rank of Lieutenant. Over his entire seven year US Navy career, he was promoted exactly twice. And only one of his jobs in the Navy was a line job, an operations job. He sailed a desk a majority of his time, not a demanding or hazardous job at all, he risked paper cuts for the majority of his Naval career. Georgetown got him into Harvard, and while those are some nice schools, they obviously let the intellectually lazy village drinking champion thru. It's important to shout Bannon down intellectually, but also just as important to be honest about Bannon's seven year, two promotion, Navy career. Let's ask the same questions about Bannon Republicans love to ask; Who is this Bannon guy and why should we listen to him at all?
“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.” — Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"
1
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
If Bannon et al declare to their adherents that they have no need for rational thought, that being openly, fanatically racist is not only acceptable but preferable, their opposition on the left is thus released from the constraints of rationality.
Bannon et al rely on the meekness of the left to play the role of soft intellectuals. They should reconsider. The road they want to travel is perilous. The left can also exhort and exhibit idiotic bravado. The left can also pull triggers. It's happened in Europe more times than anyone can count.
You’re doing the same thing.
Stephen Bannon, Donald Trump, and their ilk, glorify dictatorial, non-empathetic, narrow-minded types of governments and societies.
However, if they actually lived in such a country, they might, at some point, be shocked to realize how easy it is to get zapped by authorities.
Even if you consistently parrot the ruling party rhetoric about who to hate and disparage, if the network of people who run the show are all dishonorable, unethical, corrupt, greedy, paranoid and ruthless, then there is the constant danger of displeasing just one person who is more powerful than you, and off you go to prison or the firing squad.
Other than Donald Trump himself, it's difficult to think of someone on the current American stage more repulsive than Steve Bannon. I hope for the sake of mankind that Bannon is circling the drain along with the ridiculous man he helped elevate to the presidency.
Its interesting the places and people Bannon has engaged with since he left Trump. Bannon unlike Trump doesn’t mask his fascist tendencies behind “jokes & humor”, he’s right out there with the extremists and proud of it. But not to worry the other Steve (Miller) is still in the White House managing all things white nationalist and supremest while helping keep our leader on the authoritarian path. He’s just a little more circumspect then Bannon was and doesn’t step on his bosses fragile ego. If that statement seems a little extreme listen to Bannon again as he whips up support for fascism both here and in Europe and consider his relationship with Trump, Miller, Spencer et:al, Putin must be pleased.
15
Oh Jeez! I thought this guy was gone. Why do we still care about what he says/thinks? Aren’t there any decent, normal people to cover?
12
And when this administration says "tough," hear "cruel," "bullying," or "inhumane."
After all, we're about to have a leading proponent of torture as head of the CIA.
27
As you imply, while we may not yet see rhetoric being translated into formal governmental policy, we do see the negative impact such rhetoric is having in our society, inciting citizen violence against many different minorities. That would be a serious first step toward formal policies, no doubt with precedent in genocidal tragedies. We are on extremely dangerous ground. Each day brings with it fresh, previously unthinkable horror.
53
One of the first things Trump and Sessions did when they came onto office'was to effectively cancel the consent decrees that explained the racist policies in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Chicago, and were forcing those cities to change those policies.
They cut funding for organizations that worked to deprogram white supremacists.
Today Trump nominated someone directly involved in torture to head the CIA.
Of course it is translating into public policy!
Unthinkable? The worst horror are atomic weapons, but not unthinkable - the U.S. used them......n. Korea could use them but NOT unthinkable....example set.
The only way to defeat people like Bannon is to tell the truth about their lies. That means every time journalists will need to counter his argument with factually based counter arguments. We can't afford to let him monopolize the conversation, people need another perspective so they don't fall in line with his sick agenda.
We won't be able to stop Bannon from gaining followers. There will always be those among us who are racist and nothing anyone says can change that. But the majority of people are good, kind, and moral and they will listen to the truth and reject the Steve Bannon's of this world as long as he's not the only voice.
59
As we've seen before in countless instances, such as Saddam's Iraq, an autocratic leader can oppress a majority of "good" people, through violence and terror.
This article seems to miss the point that Bannon and his listeners aren't claiming to be nativists, xenophobes, or racists while saying "These things are OK." Instead he's saying that these are labels being attached to them by senseless political opponents who insist that they are these things no matter what so there's no point in even trying to refute them. I'm sure many of his individual listeners are outwardly racist, and xenophobic, and nativistic but those qualities aren't what Bannon's addressing here. He's talking about political mudslinging between parties and the tendency of opponents to make the other sound absurdly outrageous by inflating their platforms with the extreme versions of their strongest implementation (Nazi Germany, pre-Civil War US, Jim Crow US, etc.)
69
Agreed, although he is employing the long-standing tactic of trying to render words meaningless by depicting them as recklessly, irrationally overused.
Thank you. It's easy to label patriotism and preference for one's own country and/or culture as "xenophobia". He was speaking in Europe, and I personally feel that the French and Italians should have the right to try and preserve their cultures and ways of life without being bashed or bullied.
1
Aren't you forgetting that Bannon has proved that he is as good at mudslinging and inflating his opponents platforms with the extreme versions of their strongest implementation as anyone?
That's exactly what Donald Trump's campaign was all about.
Yes, he and his listeners *are* saying that nativism, racism, and xenophobia are okay.
They say it, they act it, and they vote it. Some are even honest about it.
Excellent piece and a good start to understanding the profoundly anti-modern and totalitarian impulses embedded in the American Right and, especially, in Trumpism
36
The GOP is good at meaning inversion. We see "right to work" policies and legislation that does exactly the opposite. There is "Citizens United", "Protect Life Act", "Defense of Marriage Act", "Religious Freedom Restoration Act", among others. All pretty much do the opposite of what the title suggests (except for group looking to enforce their restrictions on the whole).
I'm sure if I dug in more, I could find a host of think tanks with names containing innuendo.
108
Well, lets add to the lexicon from the progressive side-
-Global Warming is now Climate Change
-Gay Marriage became Marriage Equality
-Gun Control is now Gun Safety
You get the gist.
My current favorite is the push to legalize gun silencers. It is called "The hearing protection act".
I agree. For the last 20 plus years the GOP has been subverting common decency with terminologies that are either euphemistic or have a patriotic nomenclature that actually demeans or subverts our democratic process.
1
Somewhere I saw a photograph of Bannon with this caption. When Syphilis meets Herpes. That is what I think now. It is weird how those kinds of things stick in your mind.
36
You forgot to include a plague in that equation. It doesn't matter which one.
1
Some things to remember in this discussion: 1) American culture has long found amusement, and yes, virtue, in the ignorant, the simpleton, the irrational person who has and wants no information and acts illogically; 2) Some actually see religion as license and encouragement to be irrational.
24
Except that Steve Bannon graduated with Honors from Harvard Business School and worked as an investment banker and vice President at Goldman Sachs. It is difficult to write him off as all of those adjectives but, more difficult to understand the damage he is doing.
I'm not writing Bannon off, I'm describing a phenomenon long present among his followers, and an entire swath of this country. Of course, Bannon is the manipulator, and he knows exactly what he's doing, and how to use a certain type of propaganda with low-or no-information voters. But he himself knows better. He's the svengali and his followers are the sheep. He's just exploiting them. He has no other job so he has to use someone to prop himself up.
Politicians have long used the people's ignorance to serve their own personal ambition.
7
Wrong message in the wrong era...just go away and we'll forget you ever were here. In fact, we already have!
4
To forget (which, without some sort of amnesia, head trauma or dementia) is impossible. I suspect the commenter wishes us to ignore Bannon, his rhetoric and it’s growing proponents here in the US and in Europe.
Ignoring a cancer kills. We must always remember, act accordingly and cut the cancer out. Speak Bannon’s name out loud, Le Pen and all the names on the growing list of racist, fascist groups and movements in the world, along with the misguided, power-driven drivel they spew. The Bannons and Le Pens of the world are the sterile dog-whistlers of the world who stir up the trolls and inspire incredible acts of hatred and violence. These acts are on the rise here and in Europe.
NEVER FORGET.
In other words, Bannon is advocating xenophobia as a virtue, hate as an end in itself.
Trump and those surrounding him are classic sociopaths; Bannon lionizing cruelty and lack of empathy seems to confirm this character deficiency.
In fact, sociologists tell us that a significant portion of the population can be classified as “sociopathic” – some estimates put it at 25%. The key is that most sociopaths don’t achieve positions of power precisely because of their character deficiencies.
The danger now is that the sociopaths have achieved positions of power, are normalizing and glorifying their character deficiencies, and – as in this example of Bannon speaking to French racists and xenophobes – encouraging unempathetic, hate-filled people to wear their stunted humanity like a badge of honor. The sociopath-in-chief is paving the way. These are the fruits of normalizing a man like Trump.
23
Hating your "enemies", real or fabricated is considered not only honorable, but a requirement in this country's delusional system ("American" Culture) .
Yes,
The only thing worse than sociopaths are the People that idolize them.
Shoddy appearance, shoddy intellect, how did this guy ever get a commission in the navy?
21
Aristotle: "every action and pursuit is thought [by men] to aim at some good."
Bannon, Trump, Nixon, and everyone believes that their words and deeds are helpful. No one strives to perform pure evil; yes, they may even admit that they may pragmatically use a terrible means, like war, but it's only to achieve a good end. All's well that ends well, yes?
Bannon is convinced that he is a good guy, a crusader, a man of truth, valor, and purity. In fact, his "disgusting" enemies prove it, in his mind. His problem, as Socrates would readily point out, is ignorance. He does not recognize goodness and is staggering off down the wrong road, like a fanatical religious zealot. Like Dostoyevsky's hero* in "Crime and Punishment," Bannon could be turned around, but such a benign outcome is unlikely.
* Raskolnikov murders a pawnbroker with an axe, intending to use the money for good causes. He justifies his actions by referring to a theory he has developed of the "great man".
3
"Aristotle: "every action and pursuit is thought [by men] to aim at some good."
Evidently Aristotle did not know the meaning of good.
Good is only whatever we like, and bad what we dislike. All of course qualified in intensity with the degree we are pleased or displeased by anything or anyone.
Bannon's words are meant to shock and enlist. However maddening, but no longer surprising. Hate and ridicule from the President of the United States, on a daily basis, is expected, and reigns supreme in the lexicon of the Trumpian Party. Fox News and Breitbart know that wild-eyed, disappointed, white men of the Trumpian Party, are the perfect foil for profits of billions. Selling fear and racism all the time, sideways and upside-down, works. Predominantly white Americans' hope in the common good must be squashed, 100% of the time. When the nativist nation and Trump lock arms in a great war, these white masses will be the first ones to enlist as real Americans, and Fox News will gladly speak their language to the masses for more dollars and more power. Who will stop the hate? No one in the Trumpian Party, ever.
15
These people always exist. The real problem is that the Democrats treat them as if they have a legitimate point of view.
The refusal of the Democratic Party to fight for justice and truth made Trump president.
It may be a recruiting tool but I see it as calling a spade a spade & it's preferable to the hypocrisy of not owning up to those odious beliefs & pretending to be against them.
4
We should not underestimate the power of language to change people's perceptions. “Let them call you racists, let them call you xenophobes ... let them call you nativists. Wear it as a badge of honor.” If the group begins to categorize itself with these pejoratives, they will -- over time -- neuter the traditional meanings of the words. Gay people did this to the word "queer" and police to the word "cop". The latter two examples, of course, did not have the deletorious societal impacts that the neutering of Bannon's words would have, but it is, sadly, not difficult to imagine that hate groups could change their reputations through manipulation of the language describing them.
3
What I think is a new and (disturbingly) interesting component to Bannon's speech is the manner in which the far left has unwittingly helped to "legitimize" Bannon's talk. For the past decade plus, a faction on the left has called anyone who doesn't agree with them, use the most up to the second "politically correct" language or just simply say something that someone among them perceives as "insensitive" as a racist, bigot, fascist etc. I think this element of the left has unintentionally diluted the meaning of those words so that when we now encounter actual fascists like Bannon and Le Pen - these words have lost some of their meaning and negativity from the far reaching overuse - and the people at whom they are hurled are desensitized and consider it mere "anti-PC." I went to a very left wing college - and am far left myself - and would always get into these disagreements with fellow students that language matters. Words matter. And using words like "rape," "holocaust," "racist" etc - freely and liberally dilutes their meaning to the detriment of all of us. Sadly, I now seem to be proven correct.
41
Yes. Too true. The far left is unintentionally legitimizing the far right. Especially their claim that words, from those on the right, constitute the same thing as physical violence.
3
Yes, I have seen the same, and gotten into similar arguments.
As Trump proves daily, hyperbole is a dangerous thing. But I am far quicker to forgive people that get carried away fighting peacefully for social, economic, and environmental justice, than I am those want to make actual violent terrorism against women, non-whites, and LGBT people "politically correct" again.
1
What do you know about Marine LePen? Which of her policies are "fascist"? Why is it "fascist" to want to maintain national borders? Why is it wrong to want to limit access to France's comparatively generous social benefits to French citizens, who worked and paid for them all their lives? What will happen to the quality of life for French people if their population explodes, even though their land area remains the same? Are French people evil for caring about their own lives and culture?
2
One wonders if the author holds the same disdain for the campus left's attempt to frame "socialism" as a superior economic system, "violence" as a legitimate substitute for protest and "censorship" as the appropriate response to dissenting opinions.
9
When the "campus left" achieves power and influence akin to the likes of Bannon, along with a place in the White House, let us know.
Furthermore, the "campus left" has not presented violence as a legitimate substitute for protest. That would be the Bannon Boys.
As always, those on the right project their behavior and mindset onto everyone else.
1
Bannon traveled to Europe to speak in front of Neo-Nazis.
Sorry, but you cannot legitimize white supremacist terrorists by comparing them to young people that get a little carried away, verbally, as activists for social economic, and environmental justice.
Anti-fascists are not the problem. Fascists are the problem.
Trump and Bannon think fascists are fine people.
2
Jason: 'the campus left' does not have a track record of committing genocide with millions of corpses to prove it. The political fascist-right does, whether against Native Americans, African peoples, Vietnamese, or Jews.
The historical score-card does not compliment your innuendo.
2
For Mr. Bannon to give this speech in France was revolting. I doubt that his audience was clever enough to see any nuance here.
2
Mr. Stanley's piece is truly on point. The most revealing line is that, subverting language, indeed has as an objective, the normalization of fascism. That is, to make it thoroughly acceptable for the masses to turn a blind eye, and for the few to engage in cruel mistreatment.
This subversion is both apparent in the speech of government (against immigrants) and also in the speech of the fascist leaders. We can always wonder if it plays a role psychologically. Hitler truly did believe his subversion (and had the energy and dedication to write a book). Does Trump, however, believe anything? I would humbly suggest that yes, he does believe in white supremacy in an uninformed, "intuitive" way. That is, while Bannon is an ideologue, Mr. Trump's moral void is comparable to the hapless, and disgraceful, individuals that enforced Jackson's Indian Removal Act, pulled the ovens' knobs at Auschwitz, and strapped middle class men and women to the torture chair in Pinochet's Dirty War.
4
Mr. Bannon is a lecturer and advisor to the Cardinals of the Catholic Church in Rome. I have a difficult time believing any religion would use someone as advisor who is encouraging racist, xenophobia and describing it as a badge of honor. Mr. Bannon's advice and language is a complete contradiction of the religious philosophy of the Church. Where are the hierarchy of the Catholic Church on Mr. Bannon's philosophy and why hasn't the Church condemned?
19
I wish I found it hard to believe.
I'll bet you a dollar that Bannon is lecturer and advisor to the Burke faction of the College of Cardinals, hence consistent with his audience.
1
"According to you, Mr. Stanley:
"Irrationality is considered to be a negative quality (except perhaps by Dadaists); so is unfairness."
But, your statement above is well known to be false. Religions, Cultures, Politicians, and other delusional systems and groups of people openly and proudly embrace Irrationality and Unfairness as long as it is in their favor, so please do not make statements that are only valid in whichever utopia you think you inhabit Mr. Stanley.
2
I am so sick of claims like this:
"Though studies have shown that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans."
Every single person who comes here illegally is committing a crime. By definition, 100% of illegal immigrants are criminals. Working here without legal status is another crime. Many illegal immigrants use stolen social security numbers as well, which I and many others consider to be a very serious crime. Homicide and drug trafficking are not the only crimes in the world, nor are they the only ones that matter. Illegal immigration drives down wages (supply surplus), and drives up housing costs (demand surplus), especially in major cities. It is a crime for a reason. It is not consequence free.
There are very legitimate reasons to be wary of mass migration. There are valid reasons to want to protect one's culture from erosion. There is great cause for skepticism regarding the multicultural utopia the politicians of the West have promised us (Merkel Lego were not necessary around every Christmas Market in the past). Bannon's point is that when you shout down everyone who has reservations about these LEGITIMATE concerns as racist, xenophobic, etc., the terms become meaningless.
You can pretend all you like that everyone is just super racist, but the fact of the matter is multiculturalism, especially in Europe, has not come without consequences, especially for the working class, and they are airing their grievances
22
It is illegal to hire people who are not in the country legally, but ICE isn't raiding workplaces. Businesses hiring illegal workers aren't being chased down by ICE in record numbers -- aren't having fines levied against them for breaking the law.
When I see the law applied EQUALLY to businesses breaking the law as it relates to illegal immigration...when I see folks like yourself who are so concerned about the ills of illegal immigration picketing outside businesses (like those owned by our president) who are benefiting from hiring illegal immigrants -- I'll take comments like yours more seriously.
You’re not happy because the studies do not confirm your own bias. To me is sounds like you are repeating things you have read or heard somewhere. I’m not saying immigration policies are unnecessary. But with so many years of our leaders refusing to work together on this, it has gotten complicated, to start with the fact that the blind eye toward illegal immigration has a lot to do with employers needing cheap labor—and these are not the jobs the working class wants. Economists have shown that robust immigration improves the economy. Driving over the speed limit, using a fake ID to buy alcohol, cheating on your taxes—all also “crimes”. At least immigrants commit their crimes in an attempt to better their families’ lives. Bannon has made it clear who he is and I pity people who don’t see this.
1
You could say that Germany was "airing their grievances" during WWII. And since a crime makes one a criminal, then I would have to ask, have you ever J-Walked or driven over the speed limit? Then you are GUILTY of being a criminal, just like illegal immigrants.
1
Enough! Attempting to ascribe motive and meaning to Mr. Bannon's babbling is akin to the constant efforts in the press to load significance onto every idle rant from the President.
It is a bad idea and dangerous to the Republic to gift incoherence with serious regard.
This is how political language becomes, a little bit at a time, debased.
9
Sorry, I wish I could agree, but I think you are missing something.
There is more than one kind of intelligence.
It doesn't matter if someone is planning for Trump behind the scenes, whether he is carefully planning all of this with a team of mass psychologists, or if it truly comes straight from his gut, the reality we are dealing with is that Trump is changing normal in scary ways.
The natural ability Trump has to manipulate media to sell hate (plus decades of experience) does not necessarily require careful planning to execute well.
He only needs to know the white supremacist code, so they know he's on their side. It mostly matters that Bannon traveled to speak to Neo-Nazis. Whatever he said is mostly icing.
Trump also has the dictator's genius for attacking EVERY check on his power. (I just realized he probably destaffed the State Department because it was a check on his power.) He attacks the rule of law. He attacks his own appointees in the Justice Department all of the time. He has a multi-prong campaign against the Judiciary. He demands loyalty, where he has no legal right to demand loyalty (even calling Democrats "treasonous" for not clapping for him, weakening a word that may figure in his future).
While it may be good advice to the media to discount Trump's nonsense, most of the media does what it does automatically most of the time and that is what Trump manipulates.
You have to explain to people that they are being manipulated or they will not notice.
Temporary perhaps, but no less frightening. Millions can die in that brief interlude during which new-speak, emboldened fascists, and a state-sponsored industrial-strength cleansing apparatus methodically sets upon the Other.
8
"After all, by any normative understanding, “racist,” “xenophobe” and “nativist” are negative words from both a moral and rational point of view."
However, these words have been so devalued that they are now used to describe anyone who has he temerity to believe that our immigration laws should actually be enforced. Now THAT is both immoral and irrational.
15
"However, these words have been so devalued"-
Not necessarily. An increasingly diverse society- aka more non-white - could well find greater examples of such behavior as the white population in the nation decreases.
"they are now used to describe anyone who has he temerity to believe that our immigration laws should actually be enforced."
There has long been an inherent racism to our immigration laws, and let's not pretend otherwise.
This Nietzschean transvaluation of values is also remarkably evident in contemporary Conservative thinking, enamored as it has been with the writings of Leo Strauss. Revealingly, Strauss claimed that Conservatives, having absolute principles, of course found the world around them wanting, because reality can never measure up to firm and absolute principles. He saw it as a good thing. We are advised to see it as a bad thing, an intellectual variant of Goldwater’s “fanaticism in the defense of liberty” nonsense.
This is a very nice op-ed.
1
No irony at all in the reality that most of these self-proclaimed "supremacists" are deeply flawed and woefully insecure people.
3
Although the author doesn't mention it, Bannon's hyperbole is consistent with the actions of Trump fans who call themselves "deplorables," with the implication that that is a good thing.
3
Bannon going to France and promoting a global coalition of nationalists is irony not lost on me...
6
Very interesting. The "other" that Bannon rants about ("let THEM call you racists, etc.") serves to divide (and conquer?) us. What amazes me is that the evangelicals are choosing to embrace these dividers, even while agreeing that the Bible tells them to "love thy neighbor as thyself." If there's a larger hypocrisy than that, I don't know what it would be.
Unless they're relying on their "neighbors" to all act like them, look like them, believe as they do - sort of lockstep Stepford wives.
11
Trump has given Bannon some legitimacy by placing him in the White House for a stretch of time, therefore Trump bears some responsibility for the hate Bannon spews abroad. I think Bannon looked to Europe to make money, as he was cashed out in the US. It’s a cynical ploy by a cynical man.
1
I'm usually leery of knee-jerk comparisons to Hitler or Nazi-ism, but in this case I have a strong feeling that if one was to talk to Bannon, with the cameras and mics off, that his affinity and sympathy to almost all of the ideas of the Third Reich would come through loud and clear.
1
Maybe fortunately, Bannon doesn't look like he is thriving in his 'new' role as a 'Movement Leader'.
How true. His appearance forces me to think of a person tortured with a substance use disorder. This in NO way implies that people suffering with such disorders are hate-filled objectors. However, I cannot help but wonder if in his case, his diatribes are attributed to the marriage of an already bigoted outlook with a daytime hangover.
1
Yup, Bannon is the proverbial drunken sailor. So “What shall we do with a drunken sailor?” (Repeat twice). “Early in the morning.... “. “Hey ho and up he rises, hey ho and up he rises, hey ho and up he rises, early in the morning...”
Excellent analysis. So what do we do? The Bannons of our nation have a vast media network that has hypnotized millions of us, and they are only becoming richer and more powerful. If the Democrats ever retake the House and Senate, restaff the FCC and revive the Fairness Doctrine and give it teeth!
2
Uh, embracing the irrational is at the heart of religion. There is no "faith" without irrationality--that's WHY it's called "faith."
People proudly declare their irrationality all around you, all the time. And they misunderstand "science"--thinking that it is a set of facts or beliefs, when it is really just a process of continually testing. That is: the opposite of faith.
5
Language manipulation is a common practice on the far right. The recent redefinition of chain migration to mean family-based migration appropriated an academic term from the early 1960s that described, basically, people from one place migrating to another (which included family since members tend to live together!). Now, the far right has packed the term with every negative connotation of "chain" possible. And, worst of all, this new definition has entered the mainstream media parlance. In the last month, Lisa Desjardins and Amy Walters on PBS Newshour have separately both used "chain migration" in discussion of family-based immigration. (And, BTW, there already was a term for family migration, called, family migration.)
This Orwellian language theft is not new. In the late 1980s, HIV antibody testing schemes were first described as voluntary, routine, and mandatory, as in voluntarily sought, routinely offered, and required. In the face of political opposition, the Reagan administration started to call mandatory testing "routine." Soon TV and print news media commonly used "routine" when reporting on mandatory testing schemes.
Can anyone say Frank Luntz?
8
I used to (be able to) say it, but the Bile now prevents me.
Temporary, except for the people who die because of it. Confidence in the long arc of history should not be taken as an excuse to disengage.
1
It has been observed that demagogues gain power and support by giving their followers permission to hate, eliminating whatever negative social pressure or guilt may be associated with their opinions and unleashing those dark forces in human nature responsible for so much suffering.
4
As the article shows, Stephen Bannon's racist, nativist, and xenophobic lies are deliberately fashioned to be so extreme as to destroy all truth. While "comparing rhetoric and policies are two different things," rhetoric forms the basis of policies, and the only reason to engage in rhetoric as extreme as that which Bannon engages in is to destroy decency, meaning, truth, and reason. In destroying many basic tethers to reality like truth, decency, and reason Bannon makes it possible to so dramatically alter societal perceptions of what truth is that he, and those like him, can then engage in policies which are horrific without having to worry that normally reasonable people with even the slightest bit of decency would find his actions morally reprehensible and resist them. This is why Bannon's rhetoric perfectly fulfills George Orwell's explanation of what constitutes Totalitarian Propaganda. As Orwell stated, Bannon's lies "do not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie."
2
"DEPLORABLE" is a badge of honor for Trump supporters. I wonder what deplorable aspects of themselves they're so proud of.
50
""DEPLORABLE" is a badge of honor for Trump supporters. I wonder what deplorable aspects of themselves they're so proud of."
They are not proud of the term; they are proud of the fact that Hillary and her ilk singled them out for castigation. Not particularly difficult to grasp.
1
No one would ever confuse me with a Trump supporter or even a conservative for that matter but Clinton’s use of deplorable is one of the most tone deaf comments possible. It was unnecessary and alienated people who weren’t Trump supporters to begin with. Bernie Sanders understood the damage done to the working class by centralist Democrats in tandem with Gingrich republicans in the 1990’s. Perhaps instead of dismissing their concerns Clinton could have come up with something better to say then deplorable.
3
Stephen Bannon is merely plagiarizing the US president’s manual for racism, xenophobia and white nationalism and is presenting these beliefs to a foreign audience. It was Bannon who boosted the GOP nominee’s flagging presidential campaign and gave it a new life that propelled it to the White House in 2016. With his failures to energize a far right wing base in the US, Bannon is in Europe now, hoping to sow his malevolent seeds there.
Since Bannon is an American in Europe, it would be poetic justice for his would-be disciples to cast him out as an undesirable alien so he would know how minorities and immigrants feel when they are grouped together as an undesirable mass of people who are unwelcome in a strange country. How would Bannon feel if irrational bias and animosity were directed at him by the European community simply because he's an American?
2
Bannon is interesting as a propagandist, media figure, and infotainer. Looking at his writing and background however there literally is nothing to see but an irrational mash of toxicity coming from a man who's achievements have been mediocre at best and who's thinking rarely coheres. There are hundreds of political shock jocks who could have played (and are playing) a Bannon-like role.
So, why Bannon in particular? How has he gained minor traction within and via the fluke of Trump?
The real story is in the thinking and goals of his sponsors: the Mercers, Kochs, Murdoch, etc. Who benefits from their disruption? What financially do they gain?
Maybe its just about continuing to expand a media empire $, based on fear and negativity, with Bannon as a major star? Maybe its just that the negaverse they've created is a very profitable brand? Fear and negativity work, but only for a while, as this article describes.
Its not about the "ideas" or the "language" except to the degree this grows their brand and profits.
In a way, its great that Bannon has taken his road show to European fascists. He'll help destroy them in short time.
2
This article neatly lays out how insidious this kind of hatred is. How it insinuates itself into the acceptable realm of public discussion is how it attempts to normalize abhorrent speech and conduct.
2
"After all, by any normative understanding, “racist,” “xenophobe” and “nativist” are negative words from both a moral and rational point of view. Their definitions, taken from any standard dictionary, will bear this out."
Perusing definitions from standard dictionaries won’t shed any light on this issue because these words aren’t being used in typical ways today. Instead, they’re increasingly being used as a tool to attempt to shut down discussion entirely. Many here would call a person who believes that western countries have a right to control immigration across their borders a “racist.” But no standard dictionary would support that.
12
Nonsense. The way to fight the misuse of words is not to misuse them yourself.
If someone calls me a racist, I don't, decide to own being a "racist," I make it extremely clear that I am not, with both words and action.
Only racists think it's a good idea to own the label "racist."
1
Understanding Bannon's surreal positions and use of language is easy. He is speaking the language of a Trump supporter. Ignorance, bigotry, hate - and the pride associated with being all three. These people wear the mantle of "deplorable" proudly. Unfortunately for the Trumpists, they constitute no more than 30 percent of the populace. And they are driving the rest of the country to be more politically active.
3
He is not trying to hoodwink people. Bannon's embrace of "racist" "xenophobe" and "nativist" is because he thinks people who use those terms pejoratively to describe his policy fantasies are the irrational ones. He believes in his policies, he believes immigrants and refugees are crippling white European societies, he believes their is a war at hand and he is leading the charge. We must accept that he and many others who are well educated and in positions of immense power believe these evil things heart and soul, and fight against them accordingly.
95
Excuse me, but you don't think the immigration of millions of unskilled often illiterate people could pose a problem to a country forced to pay these immigrants benefits they never contributed to? You don't see a potential problem there?
1
Take bannon literally. He is a menace.
2
Thank you very much! There is no need to try to intellectualize this stuff as though there is some sly clever underlying ploy. This is exactly what it says it is. Bannon has told the NF members of France (an like-minded people elsewhere) that 'it's fine to be a racists fascists xenophobe to protect your beliefs; go ahead and be proud of your racists fascists xenophobic beliefs, own them, turn these 'dishonorable' qualities to honorable'. This is abhorrent, call it what it is.
Bannon and Trump are well suited to each other. Each has no regard for the truth. Each revels in being the outsider who disrupts the power structure despite being part of the power structure in many respects. Each opposes many things but has few positive solutions to offer. Each is a total egotist. Their only problem working together was that Washington wasn't big enough for the both of them, so now Bannon is spreading his vicious politics abroad.
61
Bannon, an unabashed fascist,
Has usual hates on his list,
While Trump praising all
With his two-faced gall,
Thinks no immigrants would be missed.
Trump's main joy is self adoration,
Bannon's hate is each other Nation,
Divide-conquer anon,
"I'm your Leader says Don,
.Self-Hornblower at each oration.
84
Just a thought, Larry. Cicero recommended not publishing stuff until it was nine years old. Following that advice, you might have time to polish just a bit. Who knows, by then your little gems might scan, rhyme, or even make sense.
3
So on point! Bannon is indeed a Fascist and would proudly have taken Goebbels' place in Hitler's administration if he'd had been around then.
1