Alex_Krycek

Yet Steve Bannon's movement does not promote violence. Please cite a direct source where Bannon promotes the use of force to silence dissent. Not yet anyway. Let's hope that never happens. Just because you are not aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist. Watch this VICE documentary in its entirety and hear it from the horse's mouth. ANTIFA VIDEO These Antifa members say they're fed up with protests not accomplishing anything and actively promote and support violence. But, there's just standing up to Nazis, you might say. Actually, no. The term "fascist" and Nazi means what they want it to mean. If you're against mass immigration, for example, you qualify as a fascist to them. If you oppose the use of state force to control speech regarding transgender people, as Jordan Peterson does, you qualify. If you support a particular political candidate who they are against, you qualify. So you have a group of people who arbitrarily condemn and carry out extrajudicial punishment on those who are their political opponents. That is entirely relevant to the conversation, and thinking it can't happen just because it's "your side" is willful blindness.

I disagree with you there. I think some cable news shows are worth watching, such as Anderson Cooper 360, The Lead with Jake Tapper, CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, Cuomo Prime Time, The Rachel Maddow Show, The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, and a few others. However overall I prefer independent media sources such as Secular Talk with Kyle Kulinski.

Yes, I understand what you mean, and that's what groups like ANTIFA are doing. They promote the use of physical violence to "de-platform" people they consider racist / sexist, etc. First, you're allowed to be racist and sexist under the constitution, and you're allowed to talk about your views. Is it an ignorant viewpoint? As a secular humanist I think so, but I can't stop others from being racist by using violence. Second, who gets to decide who is racist and who is sexist? If someone is opposed to mass-immigration, often they're labeled as "racist" by ANTIFA and the far-left and are subjected to extreme actions to prevent them from speaking. If the far-left has their way, Bannon would not have been able to talk, nor Peterson, nor anyone on the right. (Not that I'm conflating Bannon and Peterson - as they are worlds apart in my mind.) Ultimately groups on the far left are actively working to shut down free speech, freedom of assembly, and are going so far as to harass conservative pundits at their home (as is what happened to Tucker Carlson when a disgruntled mob showed up at his house a few weeks ago, banging on his door and threatening his wife) Article Here. So it's not just the right who are subverting the democratic process. Yes, but there's a difference between controlled, legal immigration and unchecked, mass immigration. The former is productive if managed effectively while the latter is not sustainable.

He watches a lot of Fox News, what can I say. A direct quote from him at one point was: "If you really want to know what's going on in the world, watch Fox."

Great. But if the Dems controlled the Senate and Presidency too, would they really be so intent on passing this? I would hope so, but the realist in me agrees that this is mainly about optics. However, this proposal pushes the Overton window towards campaign finance reform so ultimately I'm for it. This is something Ralph Nadar proposed decades ago but of course nobody listened. True. But the point is if you really scrutinize the Democrats (especialy those who have been in office for a while) they support much of the same policies that Republicans do. Not socially, but economically. Joe Manchin of West Virginia is an example. There's a term "RINO" (Republican in Name Only). Manchin should be called a "DINO". Here he is standing up for business interests over the Environmental Protection Agency regarding what should constitute protected water: ARTICLE The contributions (bribes) Joe Manchin has taken can be viewed here: OPEN SECRETS In believe he sees Trump as a champion of the working class who will bring about these reforms on behalf of the average American.

Sure. There are other factors at play. But the fact that both of our major political parties are beholden to donor money / multinational corporations is the elephant in the room. And this has been going on for decades, long before social media algorithms and foreign governments jumped into the mix.

Heart warming story for you. There's a Trump voter at my workplace. With vociferous allegiance, he proclaims regularly that Trump will be re-elected in a landslide. Now, at first I didn't get along with this guy because of our different political viewpoints. However, putting politics aside, after a while we became friends. It's interesting what this guy actually believes, policy wise. Aside from the occasional homicidal remark towards Hillary Clinton, he generally believes in the same things that many left leaning progressives want: universal healthcare, an end to the wars in the middle east, more investment in education, protecting social security, regulations on the big banks and wall street, an end to crony capitalism and legalized bribery in the political system. The list goes on. It seems that many of the political machinations employed by the establishment wings of both parties are meant to keep people divided on social issues so we'll never unite on economic issues.

I was using disenfranchise to refer to the state of being deprived, oppressed, or subjugated, all of which are synonyms according to thesaurus.com. To say that working class people in the United States have been merely "disengaged" is an extreme understatement. They have been lied to, manipulated, overlooked, shut out, cheated, stolen from, ignored, extorted, wrongfully imprisoned, and generally humiliated at every turn by the political establishment in this country. Certainly. But racism and misogyny shouldn't be used as political gambits designed to divide the populace against itself.

Bannon is reengaging with the poor / lower middle class segments of society who have seen their jobs shipped overseas and entire regions (such as the Rust belt) decimated. The perception is that most Democrats are corrupt (which they are) and don't care about these people. This economic insecurity was on of the main reasons why blue collar workers voted for Trump. Blue collar workers feel they've been sold out by a corrupt elite (Clinton) who is apathetic to their plight. It's a hidden world of poverty and desperation that those who are living comfortably don't see, where people must choose between paying the electricity bill and putting food on the table. This excerpt sums it up: But in the late ’90s—the beginning of the crisis period that Case and Deaton identify—the number of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. dropped dramatically. Intensified by free-trade deals such as NAFTA [SUPPORTED BY CLINTON], the hollowing-out of American industry then was much greater, in terms of the absolute number of jobs lost, than what the country experienced during its first wave of deindustrialization. Article here. For many people, the changes brought on by globalization has crushed any chance at a future. This segment of society has no healthcare, no access to quality education, and no prospect of a good job - things they once had when manufacturing was vibrant and robust. Note that in Bannon's speech to the Union he said one of his main goals was to recapture manufacturing jobs and bring them back to the US. Hence the "Make America Great Again" mantra.

Yes. It's difficult to pinpoint the motivation exactly. As the article says: Although Wylie insisted that he himself did not take part in these programs, he testified to their existence. “One of the things that provoked me to leave was discussions about ‘voter disengagement’ and the idea of targeting African Americans,” he said. “I didn’t participate on any voter suppression programs, so I can’t comment on the specifics of those programs.” "Voter disengagement" could mean a number of things. It could mean that they were trying to influence black voters not to support Hillary Clinton, which they largely didn't. Both Democrats and Republicans have an interest in certain segments disengaging from the opposing party, ideally switching sides and voting for the their party instead, or just not voting at all. This is the whole purpose of negative ads. Contrast this with Bannon's stated strategy of wanting to convert working class blacks and hispanics to his side and its difficult to tell what they were actually doing with CA. I agree. Every country has a right to control its borders. Indeed, practically every country in the world has stringent immigration policies compared with the US. The country that is deporting most of the Caravan at the moment is Mexico, and many Mexicans hate the influx of the asylum seekers into their country. Article here. Mass immigration generally can't be sustained, especially for poorer countries like Hungary, which is why they are so adamant about protecting their borders. Even the most liberal countries like Sweden are rethinking their immigration policies because of problems with migrants (who are mostly young men). These seem to be based on "citizenship first", not ethnicity first. He seems to be an economic nationalist, not a white nationalist. If you believe in the concept of a nation state and citizenship then his policies are completely logical. He seems to support a skills based immigration system. This is factually inaccurate. There are many factions on the extreme left who want to shut down free speech of conservatives, denying them their constitutional rights. They've succeeded in many cases. This has been happening for a while now. The far left group Antifa for example, openly promotes violence to suppress the right to free assembly and free speech of conservative groups. The far left uses the stigma of "racist" , "bigot", "white supremacist" etc to publicly shame speakers and remove them from the public square. They've tried to do this to Jordan Peterson, for example. There are also many on the left who generally hate white people (or those of European descent), Christians, and openly call for the destruction of the State of Israel. I see the Republicans at large trying to suppress the vote, but not Bannon. In the Oxford Union talk he explained that he would prefer to supplant chain immigration in favor of skills based immigration. His ideas seem to promote a reprioritization away from immigration and towards existing citizens. Some people interpret that as a limitation of participation, but if existing citizens are the ones who have been shut out and left behind, its actually the reverse; Bannon's approach signifies a re-engagement with those who have been disenfranchised.

Not at all. From my perspective, the way Cuthber structured that sentence seemed to imply that I made such a comment. I was simply pointing out that I didn't. My view is that Cuthber is choosing to make assumptions that aren't based in fact - a leap too far, if you will. I think you're reading into things a little too much. I find Bannon's point of view interesting, yes, considering the information that I have so far been told about him as a liberal, and the juxtaposition of that framing with the actual content of his speech, which was neither racist nor extremist, but actually very sobering and provocative. I can definitely understand after hearing what he actually talks about why someone like Bannon would be perceived as a threat to the system, someone who should be discredited at all costs, by the power brokers of our society (namely big banks, multi-national corporations, government bureaucrats, etc). Perhaps labeling him a racist is the best way to do that. I commend the Oxford Union for hosting such a controversial figure and letting the public decide for itself regarding the merits of his argument.

You live in England. How do you know what the race situation is really like in the United States? Because you watch the BBC? Does not the news cover only the most extreme cases of racism, outliers in a nation of 330 million people, while ignoring the vast majority of interactions that are peaceable and harmonious? You put that line in quotes as if I actually wrote that, when in fact I never made such a statement, nor did Bannon. Further, to suggest that because a white person doesn't think race is a major problem means they are also calling black people liars is a racist statement in itself. You're assuming some kind of malevolent intent on the part of the person who doesn't immediately agree with your assumptions. There are countless scenarios where blacks, hispanics, whites, and asians coexist peaceably in the same neighborhoods / cities. If you were to poll a white person in those neighborhoods and ask them if racism is "a major problem" and that person said "no", they would be answering truthfully within the realm of their own experience. Similarly, if a black or hispanic person answered in the same way, would they also be liars?

Something you say or something you do. We can't make assumptions about a person's inner thoughts without words or actions to credibly found those assumptions on. We can't go around assuming people are racist until proven otherwise. That is a very slippery slope indeed (not to mention an unscientific one).

Should we really expect an estranged spouse going through a divorce to be impartial? Sure. But can you provide documented evidence when he did say something racist?

Not necessarily. If we dissect that quote there's a qualifier, which is the word "major". "I do not believe we have a major race problem in this country. I just don't." He didn't say there isn't a problem with race in the United States, just that he doesn't believe there is a major problem. Neither of the implications that you stated: (to say that implies that you simply do not value the opinions of all those who point out racism in daily life and, of course, most of those people (in the US) are not white. and He's simply writing off the experience of a whole section of society, and the basic defining aspect of that section is race.) are objective conclusions stemming from that statement. You can infer that there's a racist undertone to the statement, but such an inference is framed by your subjective viewpoint that he's already prejudiced. I think its doubtful that someone who reaches out to the black and hispanic communities at the grassroots level would be racist. People have different viewpoints on race in the US. Some people think racism is still a major problem; others that it is less of an issue in the modern era. I tend to think that it's a more serious problem than most people want to admit, but thinking that it's not a major issue doesn't necessarily make a person racist. There are quite a few black and hispanic youtubers who denounce Black Lives Matter and blame Democrats for constantly "race baiting". Again, that's not how I see it (I support BLM generally and think they are an important movement - especially with respect to criminal justice reform), but the fact is there are varying views on racism in American in all demographics. We tend to see extreme examples on the news, which can lead many people to think America has a widespread problem with racism, but having lived here for several decades the day to day reality is quite different. The vast majority of the time I see people of different races coexisting peacefully. Perhaps this is what Bannon sees also. That doesn't make him a racist though.

The article clearly has a strong viewpoint against Bannon, and that's fair enough. I know Mother Jones is a fairly liberal publication. As far as direct quotes from Bannon himself proving his racist views, the article has none. It's more or less just conjecture and "explanations" from convenient third parties. I don't mind. I'm open to discussing anything Bannon has purportedly said or done. The Oxford Union talk was simply the first time I've heard him speak at length in an unfiltered manner. If he's on record saying egregious or blatantly racist things then I'd like to know. So far I've been told by liberal news sources (the ones that I mainly read and watch) that he's a white nationalist bigot. It might not be true.

He makes a good point with respect to being called a racist. He pointed out that he's been on record for over a decade, even hosting his own radio show, and yet his political opponents haven't been able to produce evidence against him with respect to racist language. If he truly held racist views, there would be a preponderance of material documenting such an ideology. The evidence isn't there. Being opposed to unfettered mass immigration with open borders isn't racist. That's the main thing people attack him on.

I tried to post the link but for some reason it wouldn't embed. It's pretty easy to find if you just search for"Steve Bannon at the Oxford Union" on youtube. Like I said there is no transcript.

A couple quotes from the talk. It's only the tip of the iceberg - he went into a lot more detail - but unfortunately there's not a transcript on the Oxford Union site that I could find and nor do I have the typing skills of a court stenographer. There's only the youtube talk for a reference. The quotes are cited below. Overall nothing that he said leads me to believe he's the crazed lunatic that the media paints him to be. Quite the contrary, actually. 1. The left and the right both have fringes that are radical and violent. We can’t let violence win. My goal is to defeat them [the left] at the ballot box. 2. (Responding to accusations of being a fascist): Facism is worshipping the state. State capitalism combined with big government is facism. It is the scariest system in the world, because you take the worst elements of capitalism, and combine it with the worst elements of authoritarian government, and you’ve got problems. 3. I’m a nationalist but I don’t worship the nation. I’m a nationalist because I believe that it is the unit that serves us best, and that citizens have the most control and the most ability to control. 4. I’m the guy who keeps saying that Facebook should be broken up, Google should be broken up. We should take the data and drop it down into a public trust. I’ve said that for over a year. 5. This populist movement and Donald Trump; they’re not the cause of this. They’re the product of this. 6. September 18th, 2008 the Oval Office. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Seceretary of Treasury Hank Paulson, a guy I used to work for at Goldman Sachs, a couple of days after Lehman Brothers was put into bankruptcy. They tell him: “By five o’clock tonight we need 1 trillion dollars in cash. 1 trillion dollars in cash or the American financial system is going to implode in 48 hours. The world’s financial system will implode in 72 hours. And in two weeks we’ll have global anarchy and chaos. 1 trillion dollars. Or the American financial system. The British financial system. The EU. The Bank of Tokyo. All of it will come down in 4 to 5 days. They accomplished what Kaisder Wilhelm, and the Japanese militart Junta, and Mussolini, and Hitler, and Mao Zedong, and the Soviets, and Stalin. They accomplished what the West’s greatest enemies could not. Who’s been held accountable? Name me one banker, one CEO, one law firm, one accounting firm that has been punished. 7. Why is it the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican establishment that I fight on immigration? Because they want more labor. They understand that it suppresses wages and increases margins in industries like construction, oil field services, and agriculture. 8. The big bad headline on the Wall Street journal is: “Wages Rise”. I think wages rising is a great thing. That’s the dichotomy between ourselves and traditional Republicans. 9. I get called a fascist, but when Salvini of the Northern League won I was the one who encouraged him to make a deal with the Five Star movement. Why? Because they need to be working together, they’ve got shared goals. 10. We’ve been told by the elites that the rise of China is the second law of thermodynamics, that it is physics. That there was nothing you could change. And they were dead wrong. 11. The second extinction level event for the working class was the 7 trillion dollars that we spent on the wars in the middle east. I’m a former naval officer, my daughter is a West Point grad who fought with the 101st airborne in Iraq. I’m as much a militarist as any right winger. But 7 trillion dollars, and this is not Breitbar, this is not Bannon, this is the Watson Center at Brown University on two wars that we didn’t win, and we’re still spending 62 billion dollars a year in Afghanistan. 12. I’m here today against the established order. And that’s why it frightens people. So I’m here today to take any questions that you’v got. 13. I believe in diversity. Our movement needs diversity to win. We need 25 % of the Bernie people. 30-40% of African Americans who won't vote for Hillary. 35% of the working class Hispanic community. And we will get them.

Even as a liberal I was impressed by Steve Bannon's speech recently at the Oxford Union (published November 16th, 2018). He clearly has a formidable analytical mind and a deep and comprehensive knowledge of history, economics, and geopolitics. Really interesting to listen to and ponder. This was Trump's lynchpin, the man who won him the election. The man who we were all told is a racist monster, and yet he clearly seems to be looking at the world through an objective, logical lens. If you saw the talk, what were your thoughts on it?

What if it is? Would you see that as fodder for exogenesis?

Trump just lost his base in middle America after the whole Putin fiasco. Middle aged white men without a college degree have turned on him for appearing weak in front of Russia. The tariff situation is just exacerbating matters. He's done. Someone call him a cab back to Trump Tower.

some kind of aquatic, bipedal organism with venomous spines that glow in the dark would be interesting. barring that, I'll settle for a few colonies of extremophile bacteria.

Not sure if this article has been shared yet. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/25/huge-underground-lake-discovered-on-mars-say-astronomers

If you're looking for long term, conservative investing with low risk, and you live in the United States, you should seriously consider index investing. Google "Mr. Money Mustache" for more details. Yes, I know, his name sounds goofy. But the guy wrote a pretty solid book and retired in his mid 30s based on his strategies of long term, low risk investing. The key isn't wild, speculative venture capitalism, but rather simple mathematics and something called "compounding". Compounding is the process in which an asset's earnings, from either capital gains or interest, are reinvested to generate additional earnings over time. But keep in mind that this approach requires you to have a steady income that you can consistently invest in your chosen index. Anyway, check it out.