Trump, Bannon and the Coming Crisis

[SomeGuy]

I personally find interesting the panic over somebody's choice of reading material.

[Kinser79]

(03-10-2017, 04:41 PM)Odin Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 04:18 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Odin...Salon is a rag.  You should stop reading it.  It is junk food for the brain.

Says the guy who reads Breitbart.

Actually reading Breitbart would show you they spend most of their time debunking the lies coming from the Lugenpresse. You really should try it some time. Who knows you might just find out what the enemy is thinking...but perhaps I'm being too generous in my assessment.

[TeacherinExile]

(03-10-2017, 05:17 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I personally find interesting the panic over somebody's choice of reading material.

Should I revise the title of this thread to read, "Trump, Bannon, and the Conjuring of Crisis"?  (Just kidding...I hope.)

[Kinser79]

(03-10-2017, 05:17 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I personally find interesting the panic over somebody's choice of reading material.

I don't.  Those prone to panics and moral outrages will find something to panic about or be outraged at even if there is no real threat to cause panic or thing to be outraged by.

The Left these days mostly contains moralistic busybodies, special snowflakes and the well intentioned but clueless.

[Kinser79]

(03-10-2017, 05:11 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: Listen, I'll readily admit that Steve Bannon worries me far more than Trump does.  I prefer not to have any ideologue sitting at the right hand of the president.

Then you'll have to take umbridge at all presidents that have ever occupied the office of POTUS. I assure you that they have all had their Cheif Ideologe in their midst be they White House Staff, Kitchen Cabinet or Regular Cabinet.

Quote:  I admit, as well, some discomfort that Neil Howe lent his participation to Bannon's patently slanted documentary Generation Zero, to which I took issue--even umbrage--at a number of his suppositions.  (More on that later.)

Have you seen the film? I have and have no problem with Howe lending his participation. Of course I also don't think it is any of my business what Howe does provided he neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg--but I digress.

Quote:Okay, so Steve Bannon has made some speeches, and has read more than a few books.  I get the concern, and attention must be paid, I'll grant you that.  But the key question for me boils down to this:  Is there more than "six degrees of separation" between Bannon the provocateur and Bannon the president's chief political strategist?  Because if there is, maybe we need to dial down the volume just a bit.  (I have, though I remain watchful, to the extent that that's possible for an ordinary citizen.) 

I'm pretty sure that Bannon the ideologe/provocateur and Bannon the President's Chief Political Strategist are one and the same person. Both apparently spent time on the editorial board of Breitbart News. Which is apparently Odin's bugbear du jour.

Quote:How will we know if Steve Bannon--and by logical extension, Trump--is using any text as a "playbook" for domestic and foreign policy? Was Bannon's recent language about establishing a "new political order" lifted right out of The Fourth Turning?  Is that alone sufficient evidence on its face to accuse Bannon of orchestrating a self-fulfilling prophecy with Trump's tacit approval?  (Some us may recall that George H.W. Bush spoke of a "new world order," which some Americans immediately interpreted in strictly conspiratorial terms.)

I highly doubt that Bannon is using a text. I would argue that the new political order statement comes from the death of the old order--which is what happens every 4T. As for conspiracy theories, it isn't a conspiracy if everyone is in on it and it is being done in front of god and everybody.

Quote:Wouldn't it be glaringly obvious if our president was using any radical text--Mein Kampf, included--to hoodwink the American public, and bring about some dystopian vision?

I highly doubt that the President is using Mein Kampf if he is using any text at all. That particular book is a product of its place and time and is not really applicable to the US except in those places where Hitler stumbled upon universal truths. Universal truths he was neither the first to 'discover' nor will be the last to 'discover'.

 

Quote: Does totalitarianism come that easily to a mature democracy?  Or will it come creeping in on "little cat's feet" in a guise--and for a purpose--with which we are comfortably familiar?  Some astute observer speculated that if fascism ever comes to America, it will be a fascism created to fight another fascism (say, Islamofascism).  That I can buy, especially if our "fascism" is in response to a terrorist attack that makes 9-11 pale by comparison.  One pundit has even ventured so far as to say that we are one such attack away from the end of the "open society" as we know it.  Perish the thought.  That event might coincide with some kind of authoritarianism--benign or otherwise.

To date there has been no recorded example of Fascism taking hold of a mature democracy. Furthermore, it is unlikely to because fascism is an antiquated political ideology along with feudalism and communism. The material conditions for its existance simply are not present.

However, if we loosely interpret fascism to mean simply authoritarianism then yes it could slink in on little cat's feet. However it is unlikely to do so against so-called Islamofascism (which doesn't really exist outside of the Syrian Ba'ath Party) but rather will come from the left. As Winston Churchill observed in the future it would be the anti-fascists who would be the fascists.

Quote:It's not going to be so easy as suddenly slipping a "black hood" over our heads and carrying us off to...whatever.  There will be more to go by--something other than old speeches and a controversial reading list--to alert us that liberal democracy is about to meet its demise.

Teach, the problem is that liberal democracy isn't under assalt at all. If anything it is standing on the cusp of becoming more liberal (in the classical sense) and more democratic than ever before. If you stop, and listen to who is calling for more censorship, more safe spaces, this is problematic and that is problematic then you see it isn't the Right which is now populated almost solely by Civic Nationalists, Classical Liberals and Libertarians which is making this call.

[TeacherinExile]

A recent--and fairly exhaustive--interview of Neil Howe with Jonathan Roth on RiskHedge Radio published on February 27, 2017:

EXCLUSIVE: Neil Howe on Steve Bannon, Trump and the Possibility of Civil War in America             
https://www.riskhedge.com/post/podcast-w-neil-howe

[Eric the Green]

(03-10-2017, 05:11 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: Listen, I'll readily admit that Steve Bannon worries me far more than Trump does.  I prefer not to have any ideologue sitting at the right hand of the president.  I admit, as well, some discomfort that Neil Howe lent his participation to Bannon's patently slanted documentary Generation Zero, to which I took issue--even umbrage--at a number of his suppositions.  (More on that later.)

Okay, so Steve Bannon has made some speeches, and has read more than a few books.  I get the concern, and attention must be paid, I'll grant you that.  But the key question for me boils down to this:  Is there more than "six degrees of separation" between Bannon the provocateur and Bannon the president's chief political strategist?  Because if there is, maybe we need to dial down the volume just a bit.  (I have, though I remain watchful, to the extent that that's possible for an ordinary citizen.) 

How will we know if Steve Bannon--and by logical extension, Trump--is using any text as a "playbook" for domestic and foreign policy? Was Bannon's recent language about establishing a "new political order" lifted right out of The Fourth Turning?  Is that alone sufficient evidence on its face to accuse Bannon of orchestrating a self-fulfilling prophecy with Trump's tacit approval?  (Some us may recall that George H.W. Bush spoke of a "new world order," which some Americans immediately interpreted in strictly conspiratorial terms.)

Wouldn't it be glaringly obvious if our president was using any radical text--Mein Kampf, included--to hoodwink the American public, and bring about some dystopian vision?  Does totalitarianism come that easily to a mature democracy?  Or will it come creeping in on "little cat's feet" in a guise--and for a purpose--with which we are comfortably familiar?  Some astute observer speculated that if fascism ever comes to America, it will be a fascism created to fight another fascism (say, Islamofascism).  That I can buy, especially if our "fascism" is in response to a terrorist attack that makes 9-11 pale by comparison.  One pundit has even ventured so far as to say that we are one such attack away from the end of the "open society" as we know it.  Perish the thought.  That event might coincide with some kind of authoritarianism--benign or otherwise.

It's not going to be so easy as suddenly slipping a "black hood" over our heads and carrying us off to...whatever.  There will be more to go by--something other than old speeches and a controversial reading list--to alert us that liberal democracy is about to meet its demise.

We need to shout and scream as loudly as possible; raise the volume so loud that it makes people deaf.

Trump is reprehensible; at least 1000 times worse than Hillary would have been. Trump is evil, criminal, ghastly, monstrous, horrible... you can fill in the blank with whatever bad word you choose, and it would not be bad enough.

Crump and Bannon's plan is to destroy America by filling the swamp with alligators. His government is already a corporate takeover to boost the oligarchy much further than it already has been by 40 years of neo-liberalism. Drump is neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism on steroids; his cabinet appointments and his budget prove this beyond any question. That's only step one. He has already started to sweep people off the streets while their families watch, and deport them without justfication. He wants already to waste all our money by cutting all the programs we need and spend it instead on a wall boondoggle, replace emergency help for people in need with more "security" against non-existent threats, and spend billions on more war toys so that America can win so much we will get tired of winning-- at an unknown cost to lives and treasure and standing in the world. A war with Russia who is invited by Drump's negligence and collusion to invade Europe would suit his plan. Or if not, an attack on North Korea might do.

Next, their plan is to wipe out the free press, already declared "the enemy of the people." Coverage of his activities will not be allowed. Demonstrators will be jailed just for participating non-violently in a march where some thugs break some windows. Public broadcasting, the only real mass media in this country already which provides news and information, will be cut back so it will have to spend even more time hocking stuff and asking for dough 24/7/365.

It won't stop there. The following is just my estimate; the preceding list is well underway already. Drump and Cannon will incite riots, or announce terrorist attacks that didn't happen, with news blackouts so the people don't know they didn't happen, and that will lead to enabling laws so that Drump can become our Big Daddy Dictator. Drump is Mussolini and Nero reincarnate. He is setting the world on fire so he can watch it burn!

[Kinser79]

(03-16-2017, 03:09 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: A recent--and fairly exhaustive--interview of Neil Howe with Jonathan Roth on RiskHedge Radio published on February 27, 2017:

EXCLUSIVE: Neil Howe on Steve Bannon, Trump and the Possibility of Civil War in America             
https://www.riskhedge.com/post/podcast-w-neil-howe

The sale of the podcast was better than its content.  I listened to the whole thing and Howe didn't say anything new to people on this board.

[TeacherinExile]

This article appeared in The Federalist yesterday:

Why Progressives Hate Steve Bannon's Cyclical View Of History

Progressives hate Steve Bannon's fascination with a book that suggests history is cyclical.  It undermines a progressive worldview that yearns for utopia.

[Eric the Green]

(04-13-2017, 02:03 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(04-13-2017, 01:21 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: This article appeared in The Federalist yesterday:

Why Progressives Hate Steve Bannon's Cyclical View Of History

Progressives hate Steve Bannon's fascination with a book that suggests history is cyclical.  It undermines a progressive worldview that yearns for utopia.

Neither the cyclical view nor the incremental ramp up view are correct. History may rhyme but does not repeat. Plus, the system is noisy. So although there may be some periodicity, the waveform is quite dirty.

Actually, the irony is that the cyclic view is more progressive than the linear view. I have noted this in some of my essays at my site. One can only move forward on wheels. They provide motion. A line is static and gets stuck. Also, going in a straight line, you have no idea where you are going or where you've been, so you have no idea of what is forward or progressive. Only a cycle provides this. Cycles are always spirals if they are in relation to a line; that is, motion is the friction of a wheel moving along a path or street. So, maybe a cycle is not progressive if it's not placed on a pathway or in relation to a background, but it is progressive if it is so placed. And in music, repeating rhythm (ironically) always means movement.

Modern times have saecula that are more-sharply defined and faster than ancient/medieval/renaissance times. I have likened this to the spiral cyclic movement of air and clouds in a hurricane. A mature hurricane has a sharply defined eye and spiral. It is powerful and moves fast, and is like a living being. That's why they have names. All living beings are in a sense spirals with sharply-defined centers, and the more alive, the sharper the definition. Modern times involve more living beings, as if our hurricane has more air and more power. Of course, they can inflict more damage on things that are flimsy and in the way too.

[TeacherinExile]

(04-13-2017, 01:21 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: This article appeared in The Federalist yesterday:

Why Progressives Hate Steve Bannon's Cyclical View Of History

Progressives hate Steve Bannon's fascination with a book that suggests history is cyclical.  It undermines a progressive worldview that yearns for utopia.

I listened to Tom Ashbrook's "interview" of Neil Howe.  I thought Ashbrook's non-contextual interpretation of The Fourth Turning, not to mention his combative and rude treatment of the author, was appalling.  Make no mistake, I want to see more in the way of intellectual challenges to the generational theory posited by Strauss & Howe, in the press and on this forum.  (Thank you, Mikebert and Drakus79, to mention just two people on this blog who have attempted just that.)

I thought this article published yesterday in the Minneapolis Star Tribune was a reasonably fair discussion of all the recent hysteria about the "apocalyptic" nature of the book, as well as Bannon's "enthrallment" with it:

[/url]Bannon phobia fuels a 'Fourth Turning' freakout

[url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjT29-Dp6zTAhWIr1QKHYXiC9YQqOcBCCMwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.startribune.com%2Fbannon-phobia-fuels-a-fourth-turning-freakout%2F419506073%2F&usg=AFQjCNF5yGuyfNIAIFw1vPhqRlhA88Rb1w&sig2=iMOZSN2t2tB4XIbTGiC1PA&bvm=bv.152479541,d.cGw]

[Ragnarök_62]

(04-17-2017, 03:22 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(04-13-2017, 01:21 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: This article appeared in The Federalist yesterday:

Why Progressives Hate Steve Bannon's Cyclical View Of History

Progressives hate Steve Bannon's fascination with a book that suggests history is cyclical.  It undermines a progressive worldview that yearns for utopia.

<snip>

The rise of Trumpism explained: https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/08/how...ald-trump/

I found this jewel from the link above "<snip>".

[TeacherinExile]

No official word yet, but it appears that Steve Bannon is on his way out of the Trump administration:

[/url]Trump Tells Aides He Has Decided to Remove Stephen Bannon

[url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/steve-bannon-trump-white-house.html?mcubz=0]

[Kinser79]

(08-18-2017, 12:18 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: No official word yet, but it appears that Steve Bannon is on his way out of the Trump administration:

[/url]Trump Tells Aides He Has Decided to Remove Stephen Bannon

[url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/steve-bannon-trump-white-house.html?mcubz=0]

Actually Bannon resigned rather than was fired.  And furthermore I think he will be more effective on the outside than the inside.  The forces of freedom have to conduct asymmetric warfare with the lugenpresse.

[Kinser79]

(08-21-2017, 01:41 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(08-20-2017, 01:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 12:18 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: No official word yet, but it appears that Steve Bannon is on his way out of the Trump administration:

[/url]Trump Tells Aides He Has Decided to Remove Stephen Bannon

[url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/steve-bannon-trump-white-house.html?mcubz=0]

Actually Bannon resigned rather than was fired.  And furthermore I think he will be more effective on the outside than the inside.  The forces of freedom have to conduct asymmetric warfare with the lugenpresse.

Stop blaming the goddam press for everything. They do what they do to get clicks, views, etc.

It's not like they are some sort of Jewish cabal in bed with Wall Street who read The Protocols and sacrifice babies (did I cover it all here?).

Lugenpresse ... stick it where the sun don't shine ya damn Nazi!

1.  Does the press do what they do for clicks and views and etc.  Yes.  That is to be expected.

2.  Actually that idea isn't as far fetched as it should appear to be.  The MSM is controled by six corporations dominated by people from a certain tribe.  Now that could be a total coincidence but I don't believe in coincidences.

3.  Two problems with me being a Nazi.  A.  I'm not  socialist and socialism is the second half of Nationalsozialistische.  B.  Even if I were a socialist, I'm a little brown for the Hitlerites.  Of course this is assuming, Alphabet you're not using the "Everyone I disagree with is literally Hitler" as a political philosophy.  Given your track record it is probably the latter so.  Meh.  You'd probably call Dr. Ray Hagins a Nazi too.