Empire Files: Steve Bannon Exposed

[Aragorn]

DESCRIPTION


Steve Bannon has been propelled over the last year from fringe media outlier to top propagandist of the U.S. Empire as Trump's Chief Strategist.

From his Wall Street roots and apocalyptic film career to his cultivation of alt-right bigots at Breitbart News, Abby Martin exposes Bannon's true character in this explosive documentary.

Dissection of Bannon's ideology of "economic nationalism" and desire to "Make America Great Again" reveals the danger of his hand in Trump's agenda.




DURATION


27 minutes





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmBj_vw5YYQ

[TargeT]

From his Wall Street roots and apocalyptic film career to his cultivation of alt-right bigots at Breitbart News, Abby Martin exposes Bannon's true character in this explosive documentary.


Why does that description make me question the amount of bias I'm about to see?

[Aragorn]

Why does that description make me question the amount of bias I'm about to see?

Well, only you would know the answer to that question. ;) I personally find Abby Martin a very thorough, intelligent, brave and honest journalist. I don't always agree with her opinions, but in the face of the biased mainstream media, she's a fresh breath, and one of today's heroes in the battle against the corrupt globalist corporatocracy.

As they say, your mileage may vary. ;)

[TargeT]

Well, only you would know the answer to that question. ;) I personally find Abby Martin a very thorough, intelligent, brave and honest journalist. I don't always agree with her opinions, but in the face of the biased mainstream media, she's a fresh breath, and one of today's heroes in the battle against the corrupt globalist corporatocracy.

As they say, your mileage may vary. ;)

Until this single piece, I would have agreed with you (Granted I haven't watched abby since she left RT).

The language used in this "documentary" is heavily biased, some facts and a lot of spin, it's propaganda... It's so tiring to see the right and the left use this same tactic... I guess if it's not sensational it doesn't sell?

I'm only 4 min in..she just said his (bannon's) war propaganda movies were only popular in the dark circles of tea party types........... The Tea party hasn't been around that long, it certainly was never around when bannon made movies; when I catch huge glarring errors like that that are hidden in political spin, my hackles raise...

I HATE being lied to and manipulated (probably one of the few times I'll use the H word).

I used to be very very political, I was a founding member of several political action groups (http://www.anchorage2atf.com/)and Active in many more to include the Alaskan Tea party (http://www.anchorageteaparty.org/) (which, when it was active, was basically a libertarian leaning bunch of republicans). Eventually I found that politics is BS at any level and shifted my energy elsewhere. but I did spend years doing this and communicating with these people.

Abby is regurgitating sound bytes here, and talking points; it's sad to see and if this is where she's going it's a down hill path; IMO.


Is it too much to ask for just facts and no spin?

this is EXACTLY why I get all of my news and opinion pieces from youtube and other independent sources like https://www.corbettreport.com/.

Those guys would never put out something with this kind of spin, maybe it's an ego thing?

Certainly is a lot of dark stuff in this vid, not sure why the spin was needed if all these things are true (lots of reference checking to do)

[modwiz]

.......maybe it's an ego thing?

Maybe it's a hormone thing.:ttr:

[Elen]

DESCRIPTION


Steve Bannon has been propelled over the last year from fringe media outlier to top propagandist of the U.S. Empire as Trump's Chief Strategist.

From his Wall Street roots and apocalyptic film career to his cultivation of alt-right bigots at Breitbart News, Abby Martin exposes Bannon's true character in this explosive documentary.

Dissection of Bannon's ideology of "economic nationalism" and desire to "Make America Great Again" reveals the danger of his hand in Trump's agenda.




DURATION


27 minutes





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmBj_vw5YYQ


This doesn't make me feel calm and peaceful actually. :holysheep:

[Dreamtimer]

Abby's not producing a straight news piece here. It's not simple reporting, it's a show. Bannon's vision is dark. No reason to portray it in a neutral manner. That's not how we roll here in the US.

There hasn't really been objective, fact-reporting news since before I was born. We're either smart and watch and listen critically, or we're led around by the nose. That's up to us.

Everyone's manipulating us. (except maybe James Corbett;))

[Fred Steeves]

Although I think in a sane world the Steve Bannon types would never even catch a whiff of power, I also agree that this is one hell of a shameless propaganda piece. The following is a quote of mine from just a few days ago, which I now disavow, because I always reserve the right to disagree with myself upon the introduction of new evidence:


I don't see her as knowingly being part of anything nefarious. She's young, smart, and has had a political awakening. If she matures in this awakening, she will come to see the fallacy in thinking politics solves problems.

So long as she is chasing ratings however, she can be easily used, and her awakening will be contained in the initial stages.

This is my opinion :)

Now, I don't want to see Abby so much as catching a whiff of power any more than Bannon. One more thing, she straight up told the audience smack dab at the end as to her (or her handlers) true motivations in this. Did anyone catch that? She just wants to see the far Left in charge of things, not the far Right.


The real resistance will come from what Bannon fears most, a united, multi cultural, Progressive movement, in the streets.

For all her rhetoric about war, looks like she's ready to get her some too...

[Aianawa]

She may be at the geopolitical stage of ****ed off/angry

[Dreamtimer]

It's a story. Abby is doing what TeleSUR, who employs her, describes as documentary style reporting. It's no secret Abby is Progressive. See Occupy Movement.

Gingrich and his ilk made it a mission to make 'liberal' and 'progressive' bad words and they crowed victory upon their success. They also made it a mission to stop dialogue and they were unashamed about it. Much of peoples' beliefs about progressives come/came from these campaigns.

Their are plenty of people who want actual progress, not the NWO Agenda 21 bogeyman.

Abby is confrontational which is why CNN wussed out of interviewing her after they'd invited her.

[TargeT]

For all her rhetoric about war, looks like she's ready to get her some too...

that's how the "anti Fa" movement works... its lack of self awareness is amazing.

in fact, all this was predicted; and it's kind of creepy how it's playing out as predicted.



http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-there-are-two-kinds-of-fascists-fascists-and-anti-fascists-ennio-flaiano-66-59-78.jpg

[Dreamtimer]

I will not tolerate intolerance! (that was a political cartoon I saw once in Highschool)

[Elen]

I will not tolerate intolerance! (that was a political cartoon I saw once in Highschool)

"They" stole it from me...I used to say that with conviction...years ago! :chrs:

[Dreamtimer]

I looked it up. It gets used a lot. People mean different things, too. :scrhd::hmm:

[Anastasia]

WHOA! DANG!:hilarious:

Another Corbett Report fan.

[Fred Steeves]

It's no secret Abby is Progressive. See Occupy Movement.

My bad. I've only recently been introduced to Abby and her work, and up til now it has always come across as unbiased journalism. Now I know better.


It's a story. Abby is doing what TeleSUR, who employs her, describes as documentary style reporting.

Okay then it's a "story" as told told by hard Left, State run media. I'll stick with propaganda, except now it's graduated to State sponsored propaganda. Propaganda as told by America's father of propaganda Edward Bernays, is neither a good thing or a bad thing. It is benign, a means of influencing public opinion. Everybody is doing it, including now the Venezuela re-built in Chavez's image.


TeleSUR, a new television outlet, transmitted its signal throughout Latin America by satellite for the first time, July 24. The inaugural broadcast coincided with the 222nd birthday of liberator Simón Bolívar, dreamer of a united Americas and inspiration for the Bolivarian revolution shaking Latin America.

Co-founded by Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba and Uruguay, TeleSUR’s intent is to provide news and cultural programming from a Latin American perspective and to help the process of regional integration.

Most important, according to the TeleSUR mission statement, is to “allow all the inhabitants of this vast region to spread its own values, to disclose its own image, to debate its own ideas and to transmit its own content.”
http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/telesur-goes-on-the-air/


Hugo Chávez served as the 64th Venezuelan president from 1999-2013. During the time he served, he presided over the "Bolivarian Revolution," a socialist revolution in Venezuela
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/Chavez/Chavez.html


Gingrich and his ilk made it a mission to make 'liberal' and 'progressive' bad words and they crowed victory upon their success. They also made it a mission to stop dialogue and they were unashamed about it. Much of peoples' beliefs about progressives come/came from these campaigns.

I'm not here to defend Conservatives, but Progressives have much to answer for themselves that pre dates the "ilk". Like bringing in the Federal Reserve, our dubious entrance into 2 World Wars, and Prohibition. I don't call any of those progress, do you?

[Dreamtimer]

I think actual progressives and actual conservatives can work together. There are smart, patriotic people on both sides.

[Aragorn]

I think actual progressives and actual conservatives can work together. There are smart, patriotic people on both sides.

Even though this is a thread about a US-centric subject, I myself always cringe when I hear the word "patriot(ic)", because patriotism inevitably leads to nationalism and then ultimately to xenophobia and racism, the same way as that capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism and then ultimately to fascism.

The way I see it, countries — in the sense of "confined territories with man-made borders around them" — are an artificial and unnatural construct. While borders may come in handy when facing actual predation and other hostilities, they also serve as a control system, like the sheep's pen — "Now that I've got you all here in my pen, you will abide by my rules, or else". And it's one pen next to the other, each one having its own man-made rules.

The only peace of land on the planet which is still (mostly) left unclaimed as somebody's territory is Antarctica. (And it's pretty darn cold down there, so I'm not really eager to relocate there. :p)

[TargeT]

patriotism inevitably leads to nationalism and then ultimately to xenophobia and racism, the same way as that capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism and then ultimately to fascism.

I think that's a possibility,not an inevitability.

[Dreamtimer]

Here's a transcript of (https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.jb85GnM19#.whDxepmYX) Bannon in a 2014 talk at a Vatican conference.

[Aragorn]

I think that's a possibility,not an inevitability.

I see it more as so highly probable that, humans being humans, it would be nigh impossible to avoid. History certainly provides us with plenty of evidence in that regard. And for that matter, the United States of Acronyms as it currently exists is a crypto-fascist nation. It bears all of the hallmarks of fascism, but it's not being touted as such due the negative connotations of the word "fascism". There have however been plenty of nations where fascism wasn't a dirty word yet — e.g. Italy under Mussolini, Spain under Franco, Cuba under Batista, Argentina under Peron — and was thus the officially accepted description of said nation's regime.

Most people misunderstand or misremember what fascism really is, because they tend to always equate it with Nazism. Surely Hitler's Nazism — or "National-Socialism", as he himself preferred calling it — was a form of fascism, but not the only one. I've already posted about this and about why the USA is a crypto-fascist nation on the forum a few times earlier, so I'm not going to reiterate all of that again here. But if you're interested, then please see this post (https://jandeane81.com/showthread.php/7166-TPP-vote-Tuesday-Please-help-ETs-aren-t-going-to-help-without-our-initiative?p=841928491&viewfull=1#post841928491).

And just for clarity's sake, just because I wish to emphasize the difference between fascism and Nazism doesn't mean that I myself would be a proponent of fascism. On the contrary, on the political compass — i.e. with the west being socialism, the east being capitalism, the north being authoritarianism and the south being libertarianism — I find myself solidly in the lower left quadrant, and (at least statistically) very close to the political orientation of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.

[TargeT]

I see it more as so highly probable that, humans being humans, it would be nigh impossible to avoid.

it almost seems like your saying unless we go for globalism, we will degrade into xenophobia and racism?

I strongly disagree that that is the probable outcome of nationalism; not when people are able to directly communicate nearly instantaneously across the planet, even if we are "nationalistic" we aren't isolated & the goal isn't to become an isolationist (though we could use a bit more of that these days in the US).


History certainly provides us with plenty of evidence in that regard. And for that matter, the United States of Acronyms as it currently exists is a crypto-fascist nation.

History didn't have the internet, I think that's a pivotal variable that has been absent until the last couple of decades.

[modwiz]

Even though this is a thread about a US-centric subject, I myself always cringe when I hear the word "patriot(ic)", because patriotism inevitably leads to nationalism and then ultimately to xenophobia and racism, the same way as that capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism and then ultimately to fascism.

The way I see it, countries — in the sense of "confined territories with man-made borders around them" — are an artificial and unnatural construct. While borders may come in handy when facing actual predation and other hostilities, they also serve as a control system, like the sheep's pen — "Now that I've got you all here in my pen, you will abide by my rules, or else". And it's one pen next to the other, each one having its own man-made rules.

The only peace of land on the planet which is still (mostly) left unclaimed as somebody's territory is Antarctica. (And it's pretty darn cold down there, so I'm not really eager to relocate there. :p)

What is your opinion of the E.U.? From any perspective.

[Dreamtimer]

A fellow named Ronald Radosh met Bannon in 2013. They talked politics.

" He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

Shocked, I asked him what he meant.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

Last year, Radosh spoke with Bannon again.

"I ...asked Bannon whether or not he had read Sowell's piece, since Bannon was in favor of the very Tea Party tactic that Sowell had criticized.

“National Review and The Weekly Standard,” he said, “are both left-wing magazines, and I want to destroy them also.” He added that “no one reads them or cares what they say.” His goal was to bring down the entire establishment including the leaders of the Republican Party in Congress. He went on to tell me that he was the East Coast coordinator of all the Tea Party groups. His plan was to get its candidates nominated on the Republican ticket, and then to back campaigns that they could win. Then, Bannon said, when elected they would be held accountable to fight for the agenda he and the Tea Party stood for.

If they didn’t, “we would force them out of office and oppose them when the next election for their seats came around.”

[Aragorn]

I see it more as so highly probable that, humans being humans, it would be nigh impossible to avoid.

it almost seems like your saying unless we go for globalism, we will degrade into xenophobia and racism?

Not the kind of globalism that's being played out, of course. That's a corporatist and elite-controlled globalism. That is not the kind of globalism I wish to see. But I do think and believe that it is high time for humanity to come to terms with the fact that we are all brothers and sisters, regardless of our skin color, our creed, our languages and whatever other differences we might have.

The "globalism vs. nationalism" debate is once again a false dichotomy, a distraction. It's like having to choose (or at least, for Acronymians) between Democrats and Republicans, or between socialism and capitalism — not that the US Democratic Party comes anywhere near socialism for that matter, in spite of popular belief. Both are systems geared toward the distribution of wealth and resources inside a society model engineered around the concept of an artificially created and maintained scarcity. It isn't this wealth that matters, but who has it and who doesn't. It's about power and control — nothing else.



"Give me control over a nation's finances, and I care not who makes its laws."

(Meier Amschel Rothschild)


The solution is neither globalism nor nationalism, neither socialism nor capitalism. The only morally right solution is the abolition of artificial scarcity and the introduction of a society model where people do things for one another out of their own free will, and out of compassion and love for their fellow human beings, as opposed to out of the expectation to get paid in currency, services or another type of barter.

The big question, of course, is whether humanity is truly ready to embrace such a revolution. And in my personal opinion, the answer to that would then be "No, not quite, and not even by a long shot." Because, yes, with my faith in humanity having been blown to pieces all over again each and every time during my 50-something years on this planet, I have — sadly enough — become that much of a cynic.



I strongly disagree that that is the probable outcome of nationalism; not when people are able to directly communicate nearly instantaneously across the planet, even if we are "nationalistic" we aren't isolated & the goal isn't to become an isolationist (though we could use a bit more of that these days in the US).

There are two different aspects you should consider in that regard. First of all, Acronymians do tend to be highly isolationist in their world view. Many — not all, but many — Acronymians still believe that the USA lies at the center of the universe, and are totally oblivious of anything outside of the US borders, except of course for what they see and hear in the corporately controlled mainstream media. And that, right there, is the big problem in and of itself, in combination with the USA's poor education system. People are being fed propaganda and advertisements — which are themselves also a form of propaganda, of course — but not factual knowledge about the world they live in.

How many cities in Belgium can you name without looking at Wikipedia? How many in Germany? How many in the Netherlands? Do you know how many people live here, and what our respective languages are? How much do you know of our culture and our history? (The word "you" being the impersonal pronoun here, of course.)

We on the other hand know virtually all there is to know about the United States of Acronyms. And our schools have taught us everything about the Soviet Union too — and that will be about the Russian Federation now, but the Soviet Union was still very much alive by the time I left high school — as well as about India, about Korea, about Vietnam, about Japan, about China, about several of the major African nations, and so on.

See what I mean? ;)

Secondly, the rulers of the USA are not isolationist, because they are expansionist and they are constantly prospecting new territory to be conquered — militarily at first, and by way of political sock puppets and corporations later. And it is of course the latter — i.e. corporate power — which is the real reason for all these invasions (and interference in the internal affairs) of sovereign nations.

So actually, the people should become less isolationist, and the US government should become more isolationist. But better still would be to hand all politicians and corporate CEOs — not just the Acronymian ones, but all of them — over to Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos as volunteers for their respective manned flights to Mars. :p (Although that would of course pose a real and present threat to the Martian environment. But on the upside, the average IQ scores on Mars would go up drastically, and so would those on Earth, so it's a win-win situation for both planets. :p)

[Aragorn]

Even though this is a thread about a US-centric subject, I myself always cringe when I hear the word "patriot(ic)", because patriotism inevitably leads to nationalism and then ultimately to xenophobia and racism, the same way as that capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism and then ultimately to fascism.

The way I see it, countries — in the sense of "confined territories with man-made borders around them" — are an artificial and unnatural construct. While borders may come in handy when facing actual predation and other hostilities, they also serve as a control system, like the sheep's pen — "Now that I've got you all here in my pen, you will abide by my rules, or else". And it's one pen next to the other, each one having its own man-made rules.

The only peace of land on the planet which is still (mostly) left unclaimed as somebody's territory is Antarctica. (And it's pretty darn cold down there, so I'm not really eager to relocate there. :p)

What is your opinion of the E.U.? From any perspective.

Well, from the perspective of peace, having the European nations work more closely together instead of competing with one another and/or even waging war against each other was certainly a desirable thought. However, and sadly enough, that is not the real reason as to how the EU came to be.

The European Union as it currently exists came to be as the successor of an earlier and purely economic pan-European treaty. So economic interests — trade agreements — and a bureaucratic unification are the primary reasons behind the EU. And from my vantage as a Belgian citizen, I find the EU dictatorial, undemocratically designed and undemocratically governed, meddlesome, intrusive, pro-corporatist and utterly corrupt.

The whole thing is being run by hugely overpaid and overvalued career politicians, and there is no democratic process on account of the elections at the top level. And the way this is being portrayed in the mainstream media is that they will rather cheer for the next European President because he's from their own nation than because of what he stands for.

To give you an example, the previous European President was Herman Van Rompuy, a morally corrupt, conservative and pro-globalist Belgian career politician from the Flemish Christian-democrat party.

When Yves Leterme (of the same political party) was elected as the Belgian Federal Prime Minister back in 2007 (or whereabouts), he couldn't keep the government in office due to a breach of power — i.e. the executive branch had explicitly interfered with the work of the judiciary branch during the bank bailout — and Leterme and his entire government were forced to resign. But instead of organizing new elections, a new federal government was formed, unelected by the people, and with Van Rompuy as its Federal Prime Minister. And he stayed in office for a while, but then left his mandate into the hands of Leterme again in order to assume the job of European President, for a last big finale before his retirement. And while in that position, he was rewarded a net annual salary of 290'000 €, augmented with another 2'000'000 € annually for "expenses made during the course of his duty."

Did the mainstream media object to any of this? No, they didn't. They were raging against Nigel Farage — of whom I am not exactly a fan, by the way — because Farage made it part of his weekly routine to ridicule Van Rompuy in public and make fun of his plans for a new world order. "How dare that arrogant Brit make fun of our president?", you know?

It was very similar to how the Afro-American population responded to the first election of Barack Obama. They didn't care about who he was and what he stood for. They only cared about his skin color and the fact that a black man had finally made his way into the White House.

I also wonder — no, not really, because I think I have a pretty good idea already — how dedicated to their jobs those Euro-parliamentarians would be if they were being paid only as much as what I as a disabled person have to survive off. And mind you, half of their salary is exempt from taxes!

And that's not all yet. The European parliament convenes twice a month: once in Brussels (Belgium) and once in Frankfurt (Germany). And each and every time, the whole administration has to be moved over between those two locations. One such (totally unnecessary) move costs the European taxpayer 1'000'000 €. And so they do this twice a month. But it's already better now, because they used to move back and forth four times per month.

But to return to your question, as far as I'm concerned the EU should be more properly spelled as "the Uro-Pee'an Ewwwnion". :p :ttr:

Oh, and just as another bit of trivia, Christine Lagarde of the IMF was rewarded with an honorary title from one of our universities a few years ago. Personally, I would have rewarded her with a straitjacket and an extended vacation at one of our grey bar hotels. ;)

[TargeT]

The solution is neither globalism nor nationalism, neither socialism nor capitalism. The only morally right solution is the abolition of artificial scarcity and the introduction of a society model where people do things for one another out of their own free will, and out of compassion and love for their fellow human beings, as opposed to out of the expectation to get paid in currency, services or another type of barter.

The big question, of course, is whether humanity is truly ready to embrace such a revolution. And in my personal opinion, the answer to that would then be "No, not quite, and not even by a long shot." Because, yes, with my faith in humanity having been blown to pieces all over again each and every time during my 50-something years on this planet, I have — sadly enough — become that much of a cynic.


Right, and we eventually need to move off planet etc etc..

but today, tomorrow and over the next decade we will have to deal with the situation we are current in, and that will take some sort of transitional phase from where we currently are, and right now our choices seem to be drop back to nationalism or go the globalist route.

The status quo is bad, but the currently proposed globalism will be worse.





There are two different aspects you should consider in that regard. First of all, Acronymians do tend to be highly isolationist in their world view. Many — not all, but many — Acronymians still believe that the USA lies at the center of the universe

By isolationist I mean, not participating in trade with other countries, not accepting immigration, more along the lines of xenophobia etc..

I thought belgium was a city in germany. :crazy:

[Shadowself]

Good morning!


What??

Three choices? Really? Are U Sirius? On what planet might this be?

Another planet ~ Nationalism ~ Golbalism


What?

I'm glad you finally read the constitution as you stated in the video series...But did you understand it?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtvlBS4PMF0


The American Enlightenment is a period of intellectual ferment in the thirteen American colonies in the period 1714–1818, which led to the American Revolution, and the creation of the American Republic. Influenced by the 18th-century European Enlightenment, and its own native American Philosophy, the American Enlightenment applied scientific reasoning to politics, science, and religion, promoted religious tolerance, and restored literature, the arts, and music as important disciplines and professions worthy of study in colleges.

~

In his classic essay on the topic of Nationalism...George Orwell distinguishes nationalism from patriotism, which he defines as devotion to a particular place. Nationalism, more abstractly, is "power-hunger tempered by self-deception."


For Orwell, the nationalist is more likely than not dominated by irrational negative impulses:

"There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist—that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating—but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him".

~

The pacifist critique of nationalism also concentrates on the violence of nationalist movements, the associated militarism, and on conflicts between nations inspired by jingoism or chauvinism. National symbols and patriotic assertiveness are in some countries discredited by their historical link with past wars, especially in Germany.

Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind".

~

Now lets get back to that three choices:

In case you've not seen it... We the People are standing up and revolting! Trumps Muslim ban was stopped by the people standing up! The checks and balance of the the Judiciary Branch stopped it.

The Health care bill flopped on it's face because again..We the people stood up and hit the doors of the the senators and house reps until they had to fold! They want to keep their seats!

Nationalism hates free press while all the time they use it!....hence FAKE NEWS! HAHAHAHA! Don't pay attention to those facts! It's as plain at the nose on yer face!

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



~

The Nationalism pushed by Bannon and the constitution do not go hand in hand in any world no matter how hard they try....because we the people are represented weather you choose to see it or not it is so.

This form of nationalism that is being pushed today is not the same as American Nationalism that formed the 13 colonies which is quite different...Just ask Lady Liberty who's motto is Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

That video in the OP suggests otherwise and is quite accurate in it's assessment of Steve Bannon.

So which form of Nationalism do you suggest we only have an option of other than Another Planet or Globalism?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_nationalism


The American Revolution And the Constitution was built to fight such ideals that come from the lips of Steve Bannon.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLGzRXY5Bw

So tell me again how we only have three choices....Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!

[TargeT]

Now lets get back to that three choices:

In case you've not seen it... We the People are standing up and revolting! Trumps Muslim ban was stopped by the people standing up! The checks and balance of the the Judiciary Branch stopped it.

temporarily stopped a 6 country travel ban (muslim ban is propaganda speak) And I highly doubt that the ruling will be upheld (for good or bad, no comment). (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-9thcircuit-travel-ban-20170403-story.html)

Plus that's not "we the people" that's the left right dichotomy pulling us into their false drama.


The Health care bill flopped on it's face because again..We the people stood up and hit the doors of the the senators and house reps until they had to fold! They want to keep their seats!

Or because it was rushed, terrible legislation that wasn't a health care bill at all?

again, I see more theater, zero presence of "we the people" doing anything on that front.


Nationalism hates free press while all the time they use it!....hence FAKE NEWS! HAHAHAHA! Don't pay attention to those facts! It's as plain at the nose on yer face!

I don't see that as any different from any form of government,... again, this is the false dichotomy and tactics (fake news: aka censorship tactic) of governments all around regardless of their geopolitical leanings.

Try drinking a bit from both coolaid containers, not just one ;)



The Nationalism pushed by Bannon and the constitution do not go hand in hand in any world no matter how hard they try....because we the people are represented weather you choose to see it or not it is so.

well apparently bannon wants to tear it all down (which I have a hard time disagreeing with) so yea, they wouldn't go together, would they?

who's this "you" that is choosing to see or not see things? it's kind of hard to read what you write as not a bit grating... haha


So which form of Nationalism do you suggest we only have an option of other than Another Planet or Globalism?

I suggest you actually read what is written and not jump to conclusions and project on others so heavily.


will have to deal with the situation we are current in, and that will take some sort of transitional phase from where we currently are, and right now our choices seem to be drop back to nationalism or go the globalist route.

The status quo is bad, but the currently proposed globalism will be worse.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_nationalism


The American Revolution And the Constitution was built to fight such ideals that come from the lips of Steve Bannon.

So tell me again how we only have three choices....Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!

So your straw man augment here is this:

well first that I said we have 3 choices... hah (in fact I implied we only have one) and that the nationalism I speak of isn't actually nationalism our contry was founded on (because when I said "drop back to nationalism, you ignored that part, didn't fit the projection you wanted on me, right?)it's bannons version of nationalism (how do we drop back to that again? since we've never really had it) and that's what I"m really speaking about even though I mentioned his name not once?

what exactly was the intent behind this post? I may be reading it incorrectly but you seem to be very adversarial and communicating in a not very helpful way.

I'm a bit of an etymology fan... you can take your revolution and shove it, no way in hell do I want to go back to the start of this circle and do it all again.

[Shadowself]

How do you guys do that? Take a persons post and break it down by parts and leave out whole chunks of text that give said quotes meaning?

I really want to learn how to do that. Take a sentence out of context and lay meaning to it. It really takes some kind of talent I simply do not possess.

But let me give it a try.


Try drinking a bit from both coolaid containers, not just one

We kool aid drinkers are in good company! But thank you very much for the advise. Imagine if I was drinking the hard stuff! Thank you no. Kool aid is just fine.


temporarily stopped a 6 country travel ban (muslim ban is propaganda speak) And I highly doubt that the ruling will be upheld (for good or bad, no comment).

If it was not a Muslim ban why did they hold Muhammad Ali Jr for hours at a Florida airport who was born in Philadelphia in 1972 and holds a U.S. passport? The kept asking him "Where did you get your name from?" and "Are you Muslim?"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/24/muhammad-ali-jr-detained-immigration-officials-fla-airport/98379082/

Mind you this is only one example of people being held in such a fashion.


Plus that's not "we the people" that's the left right dichotomy pulling us into their false drama.

I'm so confused at what the heck that means?

WE the People [...] is the Preamble to the United States Constitution. Which goes along with the left out text you did not seem to address and seemed to ignore in favor of picking out sentences which seem to be taken out of context to the post in total. But hay I see this quite a lot and this is my first attempt...I will probably fail miserably!


Or because it was rushed, terrible legislation that wasn't a health care bill at all?

Ah! Something we actually agree on! But that does not discount the fact that President Trump gathered the House Representatives and in a closed door meeting told them if they did not pass it their 2018 reelections would be in jeopardy. Or something along those lines. He really wanted it to get passed! It was Crap!


again, I see more theater, zero presence of "we the people" doing anything on that front.



I don't know where you were during that episode of Trump Inc., but people were out in droves protesting the healthcare bill that Trump Inc. wanted passed in the worst way! But I guess if you don't watch the news you would not know that so I understand why you would not see it. Congressmen were getting hit up at town hall meeting all over the country and the phones were lit up in their offices.

That is we the people taking action and protesting a crap bill!


I suggest you actually read what is written and not jump to conclusions and project on others so heavily.

I suggest you do the same...but I did read what you wrote, and I read the whole thing as one train of thought.


Right, and we eventually need to move off planet etc etc..

but today, tomorrow and over the next decade we will have to deal with the situation we are current in, and that will take some sort of transitional phase from where we currently are, and right now our choices seem to be drop back to nationalism or go the globalist route.

The status quo is bad, but the currently proposed globalism will be worse.

Eventually we will need to move off planet etc etc....okay choice 1.


but today, tomorrow and over the next decade we will have to deal with the situation we are current in, and that will take some sort of transitional phase from where we currently are, and right now our choices seem to be drop back to nationalism or go the globalist route....choice 2 and 3

Drop back to nationalism or go back to globalist....drop back to choice 2 in favor as choice 3 (globalism) is a no go...right?

Status quo is bad but the currently proposed globalism will be worse....so Nationalism it is right? Drop back to nationalism? Did I get that wrong?

So..silly me....I write about nationalism and a huge chunk of text you simply ignored! That's alright. I understand why...



it's kind of hard to read what you write as not a bit grating... haha


I get it!



well apparently bannon wants to tear it all down (which I have a hard time disagreeing with) so yea, they wouldn't go together, would they?


Okay...the thread is about Bannon last I saw...and in the said video they talk about his views and "alt right nationalism"....which you brought up as one of three choices.

Am I wrong about that? Hay...it wouldn't be the first time! LOL But on that thought....and quoting once again:




well apparently bannon wants to tear it all down (which I have a hard time disagreeing with) [...]

Given that you have a hard time disagreeing with tearing it all down...please tell me two things.

What do you agree with tearing down...and what do you think would replace it?

~

This is also the last attempt I do at taking a persons post and breaking it down by sentences which can often times be taken out of context leaving huge chunks of rather important information out to make a point.


you can take your revolution and shove it [...]



As I said...it's all cool I'm in good company.

[Shadowself]

No Answer to those two questions? I rather thought you might not. Because that is akin to government take down ( or overthrow)....and since there is so much going on within the administration right now regarding things nobody wants to acknowledge regarding investigations of a nature regarding the agenda of said administration it should come as no surprise That the person in this thread of reference based on the OP and it's suggestions...that Steve Bannon has just been removed from the National Security Council.

Bannon Loses National Security Council Role in Trump Shakeup

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-05/bannon-removed-from-national-security-council-role-in-shakeup?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Their answer will probably be along the lines that McMaster will be just fine and does not need Bannon but that his presence will still be there just not as an official blah blah blah.... I think they want to separate themselves in any official way from the things that are becoming an issue in ongoing investigations and taking down the government is well....a no no.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

[TargeT]

If it was not a Muslim ban why did they hold Muhammad Ali Jr for hours at a Florida airport who was born in Philadelphia in 1972 and holds a U.S. passport? The kept asking him "Where did you get your name from?" and "Are you Muslim?"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/24/muhammad-ali-jr-detained-immigration-officials-fla-airport/98379082/

Mind you this is only one example of people being held in such a fashion.

Because there are humans involved in the equation, and they make mistakes.

The average police officer knows very little about law; why would this be any different?




Ah! Something we actually agree on! But that does not discount the fact that President Trump gathered the House Representatives and in a closed door meeting told them if they did not pass it their 2018 reelections would be in jeopardy. Or something along those lines. He really wanted it to get passed! It was Crap!

That's not an uncommon tactic in politics, and we both already agree it was total crap; not sure why you bright this one up again.





I don't know where you were during that episode of Trump Inc., but people were out in droves protesting the healthcare bill that Trump Inc. wanted passed in the worst way! But I guess if you don't watch the news you would not know that so I understand why you would not see it. Congressmen were getting hit up at town hall meeting all over the country and the phones were lit up in their offices.

we can agree to disagree on the effectiveness of protests I suppose.



That's alright. I understand why...

Were you guessing brevity? cutting out the snark and trying to reply to ideas? if so, you do understand why!





Okay...the thread is about Bannon last I saw...and in the said video they talk about his views and "alt right nationalism"....which you brought up as one of three choices.

Am I wrong about that? Hay...it wouldn't be the first time! LOL But on that thought....and quoting once again:

Yep, your wrong.








What do you agree with tearing down...and what do you think would replace it?

The current government is far to large and needs to be down sized; I don't think it needs to be replaced.. more like "audited".



No Answer to those two questions? I rather thought you might not.

What is the purpose behind you typing these two sentences? Do you realize what you are doing here or is it just a reflex?

Sorry for the delay, I have difficulty reading your writing style.




Steve Bannon has just been removed from the National Security Council.


Meh, who really knows why.. it's some he said she said stuff.. and I agree he'll still be there, just not on the NSC.

[Aragorn]

Update: Donald Trump has now removed Steve Bannon from the National Security Council, as you can read in this thread here (https://jandeane81.com/showthread.php/10821-Steve-Bannon-removed-from-Trump-s-National-Security-Council).