Bannon our NeoGoebbels?

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following excerpt is from an article by The Guardian's Natalie Nougayrède, where she argues that Bannon indeed seems to be operating according to some agenda greater than merely his own.

...
It’s easy to dismiss Bannon as an isolated maverick, a man who was chucked out of the White House last August before being fired by Breitbart in January. It’s also tempting to see his activities as being mainly aimed at the Anglosphere: reaching out to US audiences and Brexiteers, rather than to the old continent. It’s even possible that he is trying to grab the attention of one man and one man only: Donald Trump – to get back into his good graces.

But I don’t buy the half-reassuring line that says Bannon has set his sights on Europe simply to compensate for his supposed estrangement from Trump. His trips across the Atlantic are part of an ideological struggle between “nationalists” and “globalists”, a battle that he is seeking both to frame and to escalate. He has obviously been using his White House pedigree to open doors here: the like-minded will flock, and others believe that his presence might offer insight into, if not access to, Trump’s circle.

What’s clear is that Bannon has been busy nurturing relationships with some of the most disruptive forces in Europe. And he was interested in the continent long before Trump launched his bid for power. Remember that in 2014 Bannon chose a Vatican palace as the venue to set out his worldview, before an audience composed of ultra-conservative Catholic groups. In Budapest he was recently introduced on stage as “a great thinker”. In Italy he hailed the new far-right populist coalition as a “historic alliance”. In Prague he called the postwar liberal order a “fetish”. Earlier this year, in northern France, he attended a gathering around Marine Le Pen, where he electrified the crowd with these words: “Let them call you racist, xenophobes, nativists, homophobes, misogynists – wear it as a badge of honour!”

...
Perhaps the influence one man wields shouldn’t be exaggerated. But Bannon did, after all, help get Trump elected, and now it looks like he’s laying the groundwork for the emergence of a kind of “alt-right International”. He’s working to undermine European liberal democracies in the name of an insurgent ideology that blends ultra-nationalism, the defence of “workers’ rights”, and protectionist reflexes. In Europe he behaves almost as a spokesman for Trump. He says Europe needs to worry less about Russia, and more about “the new axis of China, Turkey and Persia against the judeo-Christian world”. ...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/06/steve-bannon-far-right-radicalise-europe-trump
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following excerpts are from Eric Kohn's review of American Dharma for Indie Wire, where Bannon waxes apocalyptic:

...
But the scariest thing about “American Dharma,” the quality that makes it the most disturbing movie of the year, stems from its continuing ambiguity: It’s never clear who has the upper hand. Bannon acolytes may not be persuaded to abandon their leader, even as he squirms under Morris’ baffled tone, and everyone else is left wondering if the bad guys have already won. Not since “Mr. Death,” his portrait of lifelong executioner and Holocaust denier Fred A. Leuchter, has Morris spent so much time with such an appalling character.

“American Dharma” might be the most personal project in Morris’ sprawling filmography. After abandoning his Interrotron —the patented interview technology that has his subjects stare directly at the camera — with last year’s mini-series “Wormwood,” Morris continues to inject himself into the frame. This time, he has good reason: As the pair sit across the table from each other, Bannon tells Morris that he was inspired to make right-wing propaganda movies after watching Morris’ McNamara portrait “The Fog of War” at the Telluride Film Festival. “It’s your fault,” Bannon says. That admission creates a fascinating context for the discussion: Morris created a monster, and now he’s desperate to understand him.

It doesn’t always go so well, but “American Dharma” soars whenever Morris gives it his best shot. While both men occasionally lose their tempers, the best moments come when the filmmaker backs Bannon into a philosophical corner. Morris positions Bannon’s working-class support against his advocacy against the cruder aspects of his party. The filmmaker talks of “good Bannon and bad Bannon,” which leads the disheveled provocateur to smirk — after all this is the guy who likes being compared to Lucifer — until he hears the rest of it.

...
Bannon relishes chaos as a blunt instrument of change. “People think I’m apocalyptic,” he says. “I think I’m a rationalist.” Morris shoots back: “Can’t you be an apocalyptic rationalist?”

Much of “American Dharma” lays out Bannon’s rise and fall in measured detail. The account of his ability to crack the Trump campaign by propelling a message to working-class struggles doesn’t exactly bring new information to the table, but it successfully positions the story as a simplistic case of exploitive campaign techniques. Far from some genius political tactician, Bannon utilized his media savvy like a marketing guru more keen on winning than fighting for some underlying cause.

...
Cinematically, “American Dharma” has the usual Morris touches that deepen the dramatic connotations of his subjects, and create the eerie feeling of hovering inside their heads. As Bannon walks through dilapidated neighborhoods in slo-mo, the cyclical music crescendoes, and “American Dharma” develops a searing, operatic tone complimented by the recurring image of a burning flag. Bannon predicts that a revolutionary war is coming, but “American Dharma” makes the case that he’s living as if it’s already begun. In the unnerving final shot, he walks down an empty tarmac, his figure growing smaller at the center of the frame. It’s unclear if he’s heading into oblivion, or another terrible chapter, but Morris is wise to leave his viewers to think it over. ...

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/09/american-dharma-review-errol-morris-steve-bannon-venice-tiff-2018-1202000889/

Morris's term, "apocalyptic rationalist", seems quite apropos within the context of what I have been discussing for the unfolding Futurist End Times process as I see it.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following video is Steve Bannon's recent speech in Las Vegas to the Western Petroleum Marketer's Association.

Bannon's rhetoric is really very good, I can agree with much of it, and it is easy to see why the 'Deplorables' (which term Bannon and friends have embraced in mockery of Hillary) were sold on this. And why so many Sander's voters switched after learning about the DNC tactics against Bernie. However, Bannon fails to mention Trump's divisive language and manner which carried through after the election. He fails to mention the massive corruption and 'normative' business incompetence of the Trumps, while positing that Trump is indeed a hero and genius. He mentions his political partners, the Mercers, and after all the valiant Populist rhetoric fails to mention that Robert Mercer skims capital from the market's 'investors' via his high-speed computer trading. That's worse than being a Mercantilist in my book.


Furthermore, Bannon repeats the Trump mantra about what great results have been achieved. Bannon allows that his populism is at odds with the tax reform, but what can you do? On the largest economic tableau the various 'resistance' branches dispute all the Trump numbers as being cherry-picked and/or distorted, much as Trump does with his poll numbers. Who and what can be believed then, Trump et al. or the 'Deep State'?

Identically with the entire Russiagate tableau. Who can definitively state how Wikileaks got the DNC data, if not enough people believe the underlying facts? Who can definitively say that Seth Rich did it, or that he even died in the first place? At the end of day we have to believe someone's narrative, because we rarely get access to the definitive evidence.

So far, the Trump economic graphs they themselves deploy with their rhetoric seem pretty flimsy. Bannon does not mention why so many Goldman Sachs people are in the WH, neither all the Georgetown people. For such as these and all the apparent contradictions in such as the web of connections, like William Barr's, one can find most and best reconciliation by finding the connecting threads. For instance, people are claiming that Barr is merely a craven brown-noser, but what if his role as a fixer runs a deeper allegiance than merely switching from the Bush camp to the Trump camp?
 
Last edited:
Top