Bannon our NeoGoebbels?

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following excerpted article (from a religious web site) is consistent with my thesis that we are experiencing a significant phenomenon of fascist propaganda, which the average sleeping person (including non-Americans) are too ignorant and distracted to comprehend.

Steve Bannon, is likely a good Catholic boy, and has no sincere animus (beyond the typical Catholic theological bias) for Jews. Here he is able, like the Apostle Paul (the original Goebbels), to be "all things to all people". This guy is so good that he turned a rabidly pro-Zionist media outlet into a center for white race nationalist to rally around. Not just one of many such sites, but one that had massively more hits in the run up to the election that most mainstream media outlets.

This happened because he was able to piggyback on Breitbart's already existing extreme right / populist bias that cut across the Zionist issue. After all, most evangelicals are pro-Israel to begin with.

Steve Bannon is such a poisonous figure that Republicans are either keeping quiet or lashing out at Bannon’s appointment — nobody is really doing any congratulating.

Why would he choose someone who specializes in targeting white nationalists through propaganda as his chief strategist and top advisor?

Well, as we saw with Hitler and Goebbels (yes, I just broke “Godwin’s law,” but I’m sorry, this shit applies here, clearly), if you are intending to lie to the nation, you need someone close to your side, who has intimate knowledge of your affairs and the message you want to send, who is really, really good at spreading disinformation. You need to underline his message as the truth and the other messages as lies.

It’s not just me, either. Back in February Glenn Beck was saying that Steve Bannon was gunning to be Donald Trump’s Goebbels. Beck’s argument is that he was serving in this position during Trump’s campaign as editor of Breitbart. And now Donald Trump literally just gave him the job formally. As Beck said in February:

By taking orders from a political candidate and reworking your entire site to promote the lies of a specific candidate without any kind of truth behind these things, and just spinning all of–doing what you’ve [Bannon] done to Breitbart (and anybody who reads Breitbart knows exactly what’s going on). If that is what your idea of being Roger Ailes is, you are so sadly mistaken. That doesn’t make you Roger Ailes. That makes you Goebbels. So, let’s leave it at that.

And you’ll hear many on the left saying the same thing — but even Glenn Beck, who is no liberal, sees this clearly. This is not a drill folks. This is the real deal.

And on the other side, the white nationalists are beside themselves. One states:

Stephen Bannon: racist, anti-homo, anti-immigrant, anti-jewish, anti-establishment. Declared war on (((Paul Ryan))) Sounds perfect. Muhahahaha. The man who will have Trump’s ear more than anyone else. Being anti-jewish is not illegal. Nothing you dirty stinking jews can do to keep him out.

Former employee Kurt Burdella, who used to be Breitbart’s spokesperson and is also a conservative, states this in March 2016 about Bannon’s conference calls at Breitbart:

“If anyone sat there and listened to that call, you’d think that you were attending a white supremacist rally,” said Bardella, citing what he called Bannon’s “nationalism and hatred for immigrants, people coming into this country to try to get a better life for themselves.”

“This is someone who has a very low moral compass,” he said of Bannon, “and the idea that this is the type of person that Donald Trump, as the Republican nominee, as president, would have closest to him is very disturbing.”

This is it, guys. Goebbels, similarly, was a minister of disinformation for white nationalists, with disturbing results. The lesson we learned there MUST keep us vigilant.

In the news, you may see that Trump is attempting to play nice for now, and think it’s not that bad. But there are signals that this is situational — that he’s attempting to ease into the presidency. As he stated in his 60 minutes interview last Friday:

You know, I’ll conduct myself– in a very good manner, but depends on what the situation is, sometimes you have to be rougher. ...

Similar to the Apostle Paul's obfuscations, Bannon is now qualifying his 'nationalism' as being one of an "economic nationalist". But he and Trump were not above giving the coy wink (and so much more) to the race nationalists while pretending to distance themselves to the MSM (who were quite selective in their criticism of The Donald). In my opinion, in reality Trump, and likely Bannon, are truly ecumenical ethnicists and they were / are playing the white nationalists and the wider "alt-right" populists as Trump Chumps.

Bannon also rejected the label of “white nationalist,” as some on the left have described him. “I’m an economic nationalist. I am an America first guy. And I have admired nationalist movements throughout the world, have said repeatedly strong nations make great neighbors. I’ve also said repeatedly that the ethno-nationalist movement, prominent in Europe, will change over time. I’ve never been a supporter of ethno-nationalism,” he told Strassel. ...

I'm certainly not going out on a limb to re-iterate that the main dialectic today is indeed economic based nationalism versus globalism (layered on top of such as ethnic nationalism). And here Trump may likely attempt to demonstrate that he is willing to brutally roll back the powerful economic inertia of Free Trade forces, but I see that in one fashion or other he will lead us over a cliff like Hitler did with his race nationalists. That was the whole point. And along the entire course, the alliance of defense contractors, their investors, and Trump's government will be laughing all the way to the bank (the classic economic definition of Fascism).

In pulling this off, Trump will need his highly skilled Minister of Propaganda. Nothing new here though, just look what Dubya did with 9/11, and his father did with the October Surprise. Snooze.
Thx CplCam, I just saw this before going to bed and haven't finished reading it. But already I can see I will have a lot of comments tomorrow.

But right from the git go one can see he has nailed atheism as being responsible for the Allies' big enemy in Europe. Gee, I thought it was the Catholic Church's invocation of such as Lady Fatima to call for all the world's Catholics to aid Hitler's cause (against, yes, those atheist Bolsheviks).

And Jesus sure took a long time to give us Capitalism. Actually, Jesus seemed to have screwed up Capitalism because the Romans had already invented it, and then we got Feudalism and the Dark Ages. I'll bet all those middle class serfs enjoyed that 'Capitalism'.

And welcome to the forum.
Bannon has some interesting positions, and consistent with my prior analysis and others comments, he comes off here as being much different than the red meat throwing provocateur that his Breitbart News association lends him. In the interview he tows a knife edge line in supporting nationalism while decrying 'ethno-nationalism'. Globalization becomes an inevitability of a harmonious world of strong Judeo-Christian states living happily ever after.

Here's the first problem, because there is plenty of historical evidence that such Christian states, led by Christian monarchs couldn't figure out how to get along with each other. But maybe the problem here, is that modern Capitalism had not risen up from Christian Feudalism yet, especially in Bannon's native Ireland. The Catholic descendants of which were treated like 'wiggers' in America till some conehead from Harvard decided (with no empirical evidence) that the Irish were redeemable via the institution of government programs to integrate them into decent society.

More comments following the excerpt.

It’s ironic, I think, that we’re talking today at exactly, tomorrow, 100 years ago, at the exact moment we’re talking, the assassination took place in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that led to the end of the Victorian era and the beginning of the bloodiest century in mankind’s history. Just to put it in perspective, with the assassination that took place 100 years ago tomorrow in Sarajevo, the world was at total peace. There was trade, there was globalization, there was technological transfer, the High Church of England and the Catholic Church and the Christian faith was predominant throughout Europe of practicing Christians. Seven weeks later, I think there were 5 million men in uniform and within 30 days there were over a million casualties.

That war triggered a century of barbaric — unparalleled in mankind’s history — virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we’re children of that: We’re children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age.

But the thing that got us out of it, the organizing principle that met this, was not just the heroism of our people — whether it was French resistance fighters, whether it was the Polish resistance fighters, or it’s the young men from Kansas City or the Midwest who stormed the beaches of Normandy, commandos in England that fought with the Royal Air Force, that fought this great war, really the Judeo-Christian West versus atheists, right? The underlying principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal. It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it’s the Soviet Union, England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a barbaric empire in the Far East.

That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many years and decades of peace. And I believe we’ve come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we’re starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism.
And so he starts out, with typical religious non-sequitarianism, to blame the 20th Century's world wars on atheists, of all people - and thus secularism (see the red highlighted below). And ironically, it was those world wars, and the Cold War, which led directly to the once strong middle classes of the USA and Europe. Else we would still be within the crony capitalism bequeathed to us by such as the Robber Barons. That form of capitalism, which Bannon thankfully decries, had to be restrained by government with the likes of the Glass-Steagall act, which the corporatist, Bubba Clinton, undid and unleashed the hounds of Hell along with Dubya's help. Clinton, of course, is a fellow Georgetown alumni as is Bannon.

Bannon is going to later inform us about the "enlightened" form of capitalism that we have gotten away from, but in reality this is all a shell game to disguise and help sell his real agenda. Bannon's duplicitous church (of Janus) is the source of the manipulations, along with its international banking cabal that created the bloodbath of the 20th century and before that the White Man's Burden necessitating the Man profit heavily in divinely ordained recompense. And so the middle classes benefited mightily, in the breach, via all the military-industrial complex spending that came along with it. Bannon is either a deluded Pollyanna or, as I have suggested - a propagandist extraordinaire, or both. Likely it is both, as people of such background have highly selective intellectual frameworks formed from other's corrupt analysis.

Jerry and I have discussed issues related to all of this elsewhere, including who was really responsible for Karl Marx (as opposed to 'socialism' proper), the Catholic Church's political machinations utilizing such as fake spiritualism like the appearance and prophecy of Lady Fatima. But direct to Bannon's point the German Catholic Church overtly celebrated the rise of Adolph Hitler in 1933, even inviting Hitler to attend the rare unveiling of Jesus Christ's ephod at the cathedral in Trier. The ephod is the 'seamless' robe that a Jewish high priest would wear back in the Temple Cult days. The cathedral would display the ephod once more in 1959, and both times Fritz von Papen attended in Hitler's absence. Von Papen was a Catholic politician that helped grease the democratic skids, along with the Catholic's Zentrum Party, to allow Hitler to win election. Conveniently the Communist Party and the Socialist Party could not agree to unite against Hitler. Von Papen negotiated the Vatican Concordat with the Nazis, and he later became a Papal Chamberlain, or camerlengo.

Most people do not know it but Lady Fatima (and her 2nd prophecy) was 'profitably' dragged out again as part of the Vietnam debacle, in order to rally the Vietnamese Catholics, many of which did quite well by the opium and heroin trade, selling even to American GIs.

But in any case, where do these people get off claiming that Christianity, or even Judeo-Christianity, is responsible for any form of Capitalism, good or bad. Jesus has a few parables, but there are also indicators that the fictional Jesus and his real theological kin were socialists. Here I am getting to the parallel thread discussion about globalist Rome versus the Judaic nationalists. And here Bannon is playing "all things to all people", ala the Apostle Paul.

But at least Bannon has ecumenically made peace with the Jews, unlike many others. But as I have noted, today's Jews have been in the Pope's global sandbox for several millennium - as useful foils.

End of Part 1
It does seem to be true that Hitler was privately some sort of Social Darwinist or neo-Pagan, but probably never an "atheist". And publicly, he backed a revised version of Christianity that made Jesus an Aryan fighter against the Jews; but when the clergy didn't buy completely into that, he meekly allowed the majority of Germans to continue being pious Protestants and Catholics, just as they always had been. And those Christians were content to pretend that Hitler was just another Catholic; just as modern midwesterners are willing to believe that Trump is really Christian.

So now we have another new religion, namely "Judeo-Christianity" which seems to be primarily defined as the opposite of "militant Islam". Bannon is amazed that ISIS is skilled at using the Internet to promote themselves. When is Bannon going to admit that ISIS can do this at least partly because they get funding & support from the US gov't?

A friend recommended this book. Maybe it deserves its own thread, but it seems apropos to mention here.

Before I go further in commenting on Bannon's speech, we should ponder what this pious knight of the Church Militant is doing in bed with The Donald, that is, unless The Donald is a Lifetime Actor as well. In other words, has The Donald's bad boy image been groomed for his current drama on the big stage? Or, conversely, was The Donald profiled a long time ago, say back when he was going to Jesuit Fordham University. And perhaps even 'compromised', which is the whole purpose of the Catholic 'confessional' and similarly, for Catholics at least, the institutional ordeal of pedophilic priest rape. Guilt and shame have to be of profit to somebody after all.

If The Donald should fall apart sooner or later, well the virtual coup d'etat can always fall back on Mike Pence, someone described as a radical and evangelical Roman Catholic, some even saying he is theocratic. SNL even make a joke on Trump by claiming that Pence was made the VP candidate to ensure that Trump would stay in office.

By 'coup d'etat', I don't so much as mean the dubiously close election, of which we've been having way too many of, but more rather the nature of the formerly WASP only nation that has now (post Vatican II and JFK) become predominantly Roman Catholic in governance. Pelosi, Ryan, 5 Supremes, Pence, ... and Trump was a Jesuit school boy.

The following sounds fairly apocalyptic, in the secular context of the word, at a minimum.

And we’re at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict, of which if the people in this room, the people in the church, do not bind together and really form what I feel is an aspect of the church militant, to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs, but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that’s starting, that will completely eradicate everything that we’ve been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years.

Thankfully, he appears to be redirecting his wrath at Islam and not so much at atheists and other secularists. I wonder where he stands on agnostics and Pastafarians? But as I stated earlier, he does seem to be a Vatican II Catholic, welcoming back all the lost sheep of Christ into the meta-tribe. Even liberally using the ecumenical 'Judeo-Christian' term that runs counter to Catholic tradition. After all, if the Jews hadn't have killed Jesus, there could be no Christianity for them to worry about.

"We're at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict", and this seemed to start as a consequence of the machinations of WWII, where that good Catholic boy, Adolph Hitler, made it possible for the Jews to get their Promised Land back. Talk about stirring a hornets nest. Good coverage of one aspect of this 'business' is Black's The Transfer Agreement, where different Jewish Zionist factions made a deal with the Nazis. Here, as Black recounted, the Gestapo even collaborated with the proto-Mossad on rounding up select (not too young and not too old) Jews for re-settling into Palestine. And included was that the Palestinian Jews would buy German industrial materials (like steel) to help build their nascent state.

As such, one has to wonder what the future will look like if one's like Bannon get to continue to massage the past. Well, the present looks fairly bleak.

As if modern Israel wasn't enough, then there was the hoax of 9/11, ran with the co-operation of our Wahabi friends in Saudi Arabia. The freakish Wahabis having been launched with the help of the Brits just before the American Revolution. We all got 'entertained' by Dubya and his knowing smirk sitting in the front row of the National Cathedral ceremony.

End of Part 2
It does seem to be true that Hitler was privately some sort of Social Darwinist or neo-Pagan, but probably never an "atheist".
It's hard to know what he really was during his life, however much or little was authentic to begin with. The official story has him starting out as a good Catholic boy. And the Nazis around him, at least, were well known to have taken a strong interest in various pagan beliefs, no doubt to bolster the Aryan identity motif that was profitable to hide the Roman Church's complicity. In any case, Hitler was never excommunicated, as were tons of Catholic Communists immediately after the war.

And publicly, he backed a revised version of Christianity that made Jesus an Aryan fighter against the Jews; but when the clergy didn't buy completely into that, he meekly allowed the majority of Germans to continue being pious Protestants and Catholics, just as they always had been.
Yes, this was termed 'Positive Christianity', meaning the negative taint of Judaism was removed. No doubt that would have been quite a task to accomplish considering how many OT references are made in the NT. And the whole notion of Jesus having been a Jewish high priest.

And those Christians were content to pretend that Hitler was just another Catholic; just as modern midwesterners are willing to believe that Trump is really Christian.
Good point. And most of the German Army were made up of these Christians, Catholics and Lutherans.
When is Bannon going to admit that ISIS can do this at least partly because they get funding & support from the US gov't?
Yes, just like the Taliban catechism was designed and printed in the USA. He'll go on as long as the Big Lie works.
Now, what I mean by that specifically: I think that you’re seeing three kinds of converging tendencies: One is a form of capitalism that is taken away from the underlying spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief.

I see that every day. I’m a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get. I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it’s a very, very tough environment. And you’ve had a fairly good track record. So I don’t want this to kinda sound namby-pamby, “Let’s all hold hands and sing ‘Kumbaya’ around capitalism.”

But there’s a strand of capitalism today — two strands of it, that are very disturbing.

One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that’s the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it’s what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn’t spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century.

Not sure what they're teaching where Bannon went to school, but the highlighted above is the classic definition of economic Fascism. Yes, such as the Peron's were famous for this, as was Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy, and Herr Hitler. It should be noted that the Roman Catholic Church just recently made the founder of Opus Dei, Father Escriva, a saint, along with John Paul II, both on a fast track basis. Escriva and Opus Dei was notorious for its associations with the likes of Franco and the Perons, only later appearing in one of Dan Brown's novels.

The broader distribution patterns that Bannon is discussing is part of his shell game. This growth occurred during the growth of government during the wars, including Vietnam and the Cold War. Marginal income tax rates on individuals were up to 90%, the result of which was that business owners were incentivized to retain profits inside of their businesses, which resulted in more business growth. This as opposed to owners cashing out to buy more estates and luxury items. And, of course, unlike then, today investments can be made globally at the click of a computer mouse or smartphone.

The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I’m a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that’s a very big part of the conservative movement — whether it’s the UKIP movement in England, it’s many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.

However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the “enlightened capitalism” of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost — as many of the precepts of Marx — and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they’re really finding quite attractive. And if they don’t see another alternative, it’s going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of “personal freedom.”

At least Bannon gets it right here about the Randian Objectivist system -- and the so-called 'Financialization' of the banking business, via it having been turned into a big hedge fund casino, producing nothing of aggregate value for the wider society. At least here is where Bannon reveals a dichotomy between the Tea Party and Randian Libertarianism's laissez-faire uber alles. But I don't seem to recall Bannon detailing what his "enlightened capitalism" is in regards to how it all works. Who enforces or regulates the "enlightenment"?

Theoretically, Bannon could be correct if all qualified individuals had fair access to capital, but I'm not sure when this ever was the case, Glass-Steagall or not. And as the economic graphs (not here) show, the slide of the American Middle Class started during the Reagan years and has not let up. Bubba Clinton's boom, like Reagan's was all market smoke and mirrors, both full of what Bannon complains about.

End of Part 3
From what I can remember, the following is the only illumination of what Bannon describes for his "enlightened" capitalism, all wound up hysterically with the threat of Islam and secularism.

So I think the discussion of, should we put a cap on wealth creation and distribution? It’s something that should be at the heart of every Christian that is a capitalist — “What is the purpose of whatever I’m doing with this wealth? What is the purpose of what I’m doing with the ability that God has given us, that divine providence has given us to actually be a creator of jobs and a creator of wealth?”

I think it really behooves all of us to really take a hard look and make sure that we are reinvesting that back into positive things. But also to make sure that we understand that we’re at the very beginning stages of a global conflict, and if we do not bind together as partners with others in other countries that this conflict is only going to metastasize. ...
And just before this he states:

The other tendency is an immense secularization of the West. And I know we’ve talked about secularization for a long time, but if you look at younger people, especially millennials under 30, the overwhelming drive of popular culture is to absolutely secularize this rising iteration.

Now that call converges with something we have to face, and it’s a very unpleasant topic, but we are in an outright war against jihadist Islamic fascism. And this war is, I think, metastasizing far quicker than governments can handle it. ...

It was Guenter Lewy in his The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany that clearly demonstrated that the drop in church attendance in Europe and its secularization was a direct result of those generations understanding the complicity of the Catholic and Lutheran Churches in accommodating the Nazis, protestations to the contrary aside. They understood this because it all happened right before them. Now, Bannon is speaking to these European Catholics who do not wish to recognize this reality. And they are too sheepishly ignorant to comprehend that Bannon is buffaloing them. Instead he plays on their religious fears and drives home the association of 'enlightened capitalism' with Judaism and Christianity.

Ironically there is some precedence that the ancient Phoencians had a form of capitalism, via their international, seagoing trading, where all members of a trade mission should benefit from each trip, not just those at the top. But in today's 'either/or' world there is only a binary choice with no options in between. And as to "Islamic fascism", it seems to be our governments and black funds that are in collusion with the extremists.

And today Trump appoints a religious ideologue, a proponent of dubious 'charter schools' where we are headed for a system of religious schools, the vouchers for which are publicly funded (aka religious fascism), a swampland of profiteering graft already.

The choice of DeVos is likely the handiwork of Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who as governor of Indiana expanded vouchers, said Julie Ingersoll, professor of religious studies at the University of North Florida.

“It’s been a long-standing goal of the Religious Right to replace public education with Christian education,” she said. “The long term strategy of how to change culture is through education.”

For most, but not all Americans, the public education system was once a good proposition, it worked, plain and simple. But tinkering started happening in the 70's and 80's, and it was not for the better. Create a problem, and so you can provide YOUR solution.

End of Part 4
If only someone could devise a "fourth way capitalism" that could combine the "people as cannon fodder" of the second way with the militaristic aims of the first way to fight the perceived enemies of the enlightened third way with a kind of military-industrial complex. Then we'd just need some kind of "Pearl Harbor" event against the symbolic centers of military and economic power to rally the people out of any recent economic techno-bubble. At least until the next real estate bubble, that is.

My only concern is that if we were to go down that road, we could eventually end up handing the reigns of power over to the very sort of exploitative real estate developer who would try to pass himself off as some kind of populist messiah to his reality television-addicted audience

One thing I want to make sure of, if you look at the leaders of capitalism at that time, when capitalism was I believe at its highest flower and spreading its benefits to most of mankind, almost all of those capitalists were strong believers in the Judeo-Christian West. They were either active participants in the Jewish faith, they were active participants in the Christians’ faith, and they took their beliefs, and the underpinnings of their beliefs was manifested in the work they did. And I think that’s incredibly important and something that would really become unmoored. I can see this on Wall Street today — I can see this with the securitization of everything is that, everything is looked at as a securitization opportunity. People are looked at as commodities. I don’t believe that our forefathers had that same belief. ...​

Apparently this is why God gave us slaves. And why we used to think of the Bannon's Irish as undesirables.

I will tell you that the working men and women of Europe and Asia and the United States and Latin America don’t believe that. They believe they know what’s best for how they will comport their lives. They think they know best about how to raise their families and how to educate their families. So I think you’re seeing a global reaction to centralized government, whether that government is in Beijing or that government is in Washington, DC, or that government is in Brussels. So we are the platform for the voice of that. ...

These same people wanted the Medicare and Social Security left intact, so maybe they are smarter than Bannon's binary options. And contrary to the propaganda, most people that have single payer health care seem pretty satisfied, as opposed to the rigged system the AMA and Big Pharma have helped establish. And despite all the free market competition here, the per capita medical expense is much much higher here.

On the social conservative side, we’re the voice of the anti-abortion movement, the voice of the traditional marriage movement, and I can tell you we’re winning victory after victory after victory. Things are turning around as people have a voice and have a platform of which they can use. ...

This is another point of departure with the libertarians, writ large. Back in the day, at least, libertarians were for open borders and being socially 'liberal' -- while being responsible for one's actions. With Bannon, there is no issue with responsibility because one merely goes back to doing what the Church says about everything.

And that center-right revolt is really a global revolt. I think you’re going to see it in Latin America, I think you’re going to see it in Asia, I think you’ve already seen it in India. Modi’s great victory was very much based on these Reaganesque principles, so I think this is a global revolt, and we are very fortunate and proud to be the news site that is reporting that throughout the world. ...

Reaganesque rhetoric. Unfortunately the numbers start moving the wrong way for workers starting with Reagan.

Then comes a lot of talk about the evils of Wall Street and the big banks, all true except for that the only solution being a return to a virtual theocracy. Then comes more apocalyptic fear mongering, that's good for some more otherwise unnecessary public debt.

You know, Putin’s been quite an interesting character. He’s also very, very, very intelligent. I can see this in the United States where he’s playing very strongly to social conservatives about his message about more traditional values, so I think it’s something that we have to be very much on guard of. Because at the end of the day, I think that Putin and his cronies are really a kleptocracy, that are really an imperialist power that want to expand. However, I really believe that in this current environment, where you’re facing a potential new caliphate that is very aggressive that is really a situation — I’m not saying we can put it on a back burner — but I think we have to deal with first things first. ...

Well at least Putin can take comfort in that Trump has reversed almost every one of his campaign positions.

See what’s happening, and you will see we’re in a war of immense proportions. It’s very easy to play to our baser instincts, and we can’t do that. ...​


The End
Jerry and I are fond of Georgism, a hybrid system that features massive land reform.
Yes, that could be interesting to see how that changes things. Essentially, with the "One Tax Plan," the payments that now go to the banks for the mortgage would instead go to the government as tax-rents, if I understand correctly.

Looking at a Monopoly game piece based on this idea, it seems to me that if capital and improvements made on real estate remain private, then a player in the consumer role landing on this space would still pay $250. $248 of that would go to the private owner of the hotel, and only $2 of it would go to the government as the holder of the original title deed of the unimproved property.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that even using their own propaganda tools, the reform is rather marginal
Looking at a Monopoly game piece based on this idea, it seems to me that if capital and improvements made on real estate remain private, then a player in the consumer role landing on this space would still pay $250. $248 of that would go to the private owner of the hotel, and only $2 of it would go to the government as the holder of the original title deed of the unimproved property.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that even using their own propaganda tools, the reform is rather marginal

Ha, seriously!!! This is a classic case of how abbreviated (mine) communications and assumptions (yours) can lead to 'inversions' of misunderstanding.

In this case, the original board game (before Parker Brothers) was ironically intended to demonstrate how the western real estate and rent system quickly leads to an unhealthy bifurcation of a society, .... one that starts on a literally equal basis (and amongst presumed 'friends no less). And apparently it did its job quite effectively. But once Parker Brothers got ahold of it, it became an equally great means to fuel the get rich frenzy under the mental framework of the Capitalism uber alles crowd. Its competitive game nature served the opposite meme. And like The Donald says: 'if you don't Win (one way or the other), you're a Loser'.

And yes, the Poor Losers will always be with us. Thank you Jesus.
More evidence that Bannon is a propagandist, pushing a hidden agenda. What kind of intelligent 'patriot' would want that proven moron to be the leader of their country? One that couldn't even finish out her term as governor, married to a secessionist. She is such a phony she couldn't even shoot a moose that wasn't tied up, and with her daddy standing over her shoulder telling her what to do at the same time. And don't forget her "bridge to nowhere", among other things.

Before Stephen Bannon was masterminding Donald Trump’s way into the White House, he tried to put Sarah Palin there.

The parallels between Palin and Trump—explicit populist appeal, contempt for the D.C. media, and a fast-and-loose approach to facts—point to Bannon’s overarching political strategy: empowering right-wing diehards willing to burn it all down.

And by the time Trump caught fire, Bannon was ready to go. He’d already tested out his playbook on Palin.


The Affordable Care Act didn’t include death panels. But that didn’t stop Palin from telling those rockin’ and rollin’ Tea Party crowds that Obamacare could be lethal. It was nonsense, and it won her PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year award. (To be fair, it wasn’t the only ACA-related lie that won that honor; Obama himself took it home for promising that Obamacare wouldn’t force people off health care plans they liked.)

There’s no evidence Bannon himself pushed the lie that the Affordable Care Act would result in secret panels making life-or-death decisions about Americans’ medical care. But suggesting that it was good to spread that lie highlights his comfort with using fact-free nonsense to try to get his people in power.

Palin’s lie didn’t just win her plaudits from Bannon, it also helped galvanize Tea Party activists willing to believe anything about the problems with the Affordable Care Act. And though it was divorced from reality, it was also politically potent. As PolitiFact detailed, the phrase “death panels” racked up thousands of media mentions. And anti-Obamacare fervor—which Palin helped stoke—played a major role in Republicans’ takeover of the House of Representatives in 2010.

And while Palin 2012 didn’t exactly pan out, Bannon still got what he wanted.

“I think he just really thought Palin was going to be the populist vehicle that Trump ultimately ended up being,” said Ben Howe, who interviewed Bannon on the podcast and has since become a vocal critic of him and Trump. “And it makes me realize how long he has been working this particular avenue to power. Hard to not be impressed that it worked.”
The following excerpt is from a much longer article discussing Bannon as a propaganda agent, as some other have Bannon as a sort of Leni Riefenstahl, the legendary Nazi filmmaker. I say Bannon is a step above that, and thus a Goebbels is more adequate. Mentioned is Bannon's speech to his fellow Vatican acolytes, where he throws out non sequiturs like a typical religious true-believer, or .... cynical propagandist.

The purpose of which is to stoke paranoid fears, such that the sheep will be inclined to accept a new savior. This, of course, gets to the debate hear about just who is 'degrading' our 'Culture' and why.

One school is that there are two camps, the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys, despite all odds, miraculously over came the depredations of the Roman imperium, the Church, and what not, to arrive at the apex which we achieved some decades ago (apparently just after WWII as far as I can figure).

The second school (Jerry's and mine) is that the elite human shepherd's have one contiguous interest, and that is to generally fatten and profit from the flock of human sheep. As such, with one fork of their tongue they tell us how to be good and get along with each other, and with the other they operate their various mechanisms of subversion (on an as needed basis) and play divide and conquer. The latter cases are employed when big changes are desired and needed AND when they eventually want to compel a new conformity via their latest savior of the age. In other words, "create the problem and provide the solution".

The first school operates under the presumption that either we had shepherds that loved their sheep, and/or that we achieved a wonderful state of affairs despite our shepherd ... and that a separate group of eternal bad guys is after us.

The author of the following operates under the more conventional presumption that Team Hillary has the sheeps' interests in better hand. And so all this must be read through a different lens, as usual.

Since Trump named Bannon his “chief strategist,” a job that gives him the president’s ear in what’s likely to be a smash mouth, mercurial White House, reporters have been riffling through his past to pin down his politics. Sure, in interviews, he’s laid out a worldview that touches on everything from “enlightened capitalism” to the decline of Christianity. And his welcoming of the white-nationalist “alt-right” on Breitbart has made him the target of protests, unusual for an adviser in an administration that hasn’t even taken office yet. But the documentaries offer a different, and rarely opened, window into how he sees the struggle America is facing. From start to finish, Bannon productions are intense, often short (they average 82 minutes), and vehicles for an extremely Darwinian, highly alarmed view of just what threatens the nation—and who might save us.

Over several days in November, I set out to watch every Bannon-directed documentary, and two others he produced. They were not all easy to find: I scoured the Apple Store and Amazon, where I rented the docs on-demand or purchased new and used copies from people with usernames like “da_grandma” and “RetroResale.” The earliest documentary, a 2004 collaboration with Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer on the glory of the Reagan days, was available at my local library. The experience was an agitprop fever dream, nine films spanning 13 hours and 11 minutes made with a “kinetic” editing style that aims to “almost overwhelm an audience,” as Bannon himself told Variety in a 2011 interview. If you imagined a Breitbart version of ESPN’s “30 for 30,” only far less subtly done, you’d be in the ballpark. They flicker with stock footage of a pride of lions noshing on a bloody zebra’s flesh, blooming flowers, rearing grizzly bears; there are towering mushroom clouds and seething Hitler speeches that flash on the screenwhile we hear a monologue from talking heads like Newt Gingrich and Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” fame.

In Bannon’s dark an apocalyptic world, where the heroes are few and the stakes are high, we’ve only a cadre of mavericks and truth tellers to protect us. They include Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich and Lou Dobbs and Michele Bachmann. An important one is Robertson, the God-fearin,’ gun-totin’ patriarch of the clan; he’s the star of Bannon’s most recent film, “Torchbearer.” It saw a limited release at 31 theaters nationwide, mostly in flyover country, and was screened at this year’s Republican National Convention, as well as at Cannes, where Robertson himself appeared, surrounded by armed guards, to promote the film.

Throughout all of the films, a Trumpian through line emerges. As you watch them, the seemingly disconnected strands of Trumpism—anti-illegal immigration, economic angst, frustration with “the Party of Davos”—form a cacophony that Bannon somehow marshals into a symphony. Start with a strong foundation of Reagan worship (Bannon’s first documentary, 2004’s “In The Face of Evil,” which seems to argue a great-man view of history, in Trump-like fashion, that Reagan alone could steer us through the Cold War). Sprinkle on a polemic about the woes of the “illegal immigration invasion” (2005’s “Cochise County, USA,” which frames illegal immigration as a “national tragedy,” and 2006’s “Border War,” which paints a bleak picture of the same topic in locales ranging from Nogales, Arizona, to Washington, D.C). Add a little economic anxiety and anti-elitism (2010’s “Generation Zero,” which tracks the origins of the 2008 financial crisis back to Woodstock and the “narcissism of the hippies”). Mix it with a glowing appraisal of the Tea Party (2010’s “Battle for America,” which covers the rise of the Tea Party movement, 2010’s “Fire From the Heartland,” which follows the once-meteoric ascent of conservative women like Michele Bachmann and Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis, and “The Undefeated,” the 2011 work that examines Sarah Palin’s career). Layer on a lament about crony capitalism, Clintonian scandals, professional protesters and Obama fatigue (2012’s trio of films “District of Corruption” and “Occupy Unmasked” and “The Hope & The Change”). Top it with Clash of Civilization and culture wars (2016’s “Torchbearer,” which focuses on Robertson). And then you realize it: Long before Trump announced his 2016 campaign, Bannon was staking out the political terrain that would later become the familiar geography of his boss’s presidential bid.
Wow, the following is a must read. It references Bannon's Vatican remarks that CplCam brought to my attention. David Brooks correctly notes the apocalyptic terms being used, and thus the oxymoronic dialectic formed by the 'global nationalists' [sic]. Brooks eventually go off the rails, but likely he ironically doesn't see the bigger picture, the truly apocalyptic picture in realpolitik terms.

Bannon and Dugin sardonically do not see (or want to see) that they are on the wrong side of their Bible's apocalyptic message, which is pure globalist subtext. The nationalists lose in this scenario, and Bannon and Dugin claim to be good Christians.

Well, in a manner of speaking they are such, duplicitouly leading their duped zealot charges over the cliff and into the metaphorical Sea of Galilee. This is what the Austrian Hitler and his minions did to Germany, the result of which was the foundation of Israel, Zion. Without which the final stage of the Millennial Apocalypse Proper cannot begin. Here the next Third Temple must be built so that the Christians can destroy it.

Decadent and enervated, the West lies vulnerable in the face of a confident and convicted Islamofascism, which is the cosmic threat of our time.

In this view, Putin is a valuable ally precisely because he also seeks to replace the multiracial, multilingual global order with strong nation-states. Putin ardently defends traditional values. He knows how to take the fight to radical Islam.

It’s actually interesting to read Donald Trump’s ideologist, Bannon, next to Putin’s ideologist Alexander Dugin. It’s like going back to the 20th century and reading two versions of Marxism.

One is American Christian and the other orthodox Russian, but both have grandiose, sweeping theories of world history, both believe we’re in an apocalyptic clash of civilizations, both seamlessly combine economic, moral and political analysis. Both self-consciously see themselves as part of a loosely affiliated international populist movement, including the National Front in France, Nigel Farage in Britain and many others. Dugin wrote positively about Trump last winter, and Bannon referred to Dugin in his Vatican remarks.

“We must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things,” Dugin has written, “of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy and political correctness — everything that is the face of the Beast, the Antichrist.”

“We, the Judeo-Christian West, really have to look at what [Putin] is talking about as far as traditionalism goes,” Bannon said, “particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism.”

Last week’s intelligence report on Russian hacking brought the Republican regulars, like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, into direct conflict with the ethno-nationalist populists. Trump planted himself firmly in the latter camp, and dragged Fox News and a surprising number of congressional Republicans with him.

If Trump were as effective as Putin, we’d probably see a radical shift in American grand strategy, a shift away from the postwar global consensus and toward an alliance with various right-wing populist movements simmering around the globe. ...

Forgot to add that Trump's (Drumpf's) migrant presence in America is almost (not first generation) like Hitler's alien presence in Germany. The latter having come from Austria to do his dirty work. Hitler was rewarded a place in Heaven, not being excommunicated in exchange for doing Lady Fatima's second prophecy business.
Last edited:
With Steve Bannon's revolutionary elevation to the top national security position in the NSC, from a prior 'political' position that was never, ever included in attending the NSC, I now have to admit that I was wrong in this identification of Bannon as Goebbels. He is more like Himmler now.

Himmler is indeed a good choice. Himmler seems to have been the key driver in linking the Nazis to the German Volkisch nature movement, itself an organic consequence of the 18th century Romantic Movement, started at the very first 'Modern' university, i.e. Göttingen. This German university was founded by England's George II, the Hanover's (and Saxe-Coburgs) being from Germany. These latter are today's Windsor's, having changed their surname to disguise their German roots.

By linking the Nazis to the 'nature' movement, the real puppeteers could deflect attention from themselves. It is not much different than having Collectivism being linked inherently to atheism, a non sequitur. The latter was done so by the likes of Marx, whom we know was a 'familial' agent of the Prussian aristocracy.