Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Bannon Demise due to leaks to Wolff

News Ethno-linguistic and "Cultural" Nationalism as a reaction to Neoliberalism induced decline of standards of living Recommended Links Wolff revelations and slander of Trump administration Anti-globalization movement Russiagate -- a color revolution against Trump Bannonism
Anti war libertarians Ron Paul Tulsi Gabbard Dennis Kusinish Chris Hedges US anti war movement Non-Interventionism
Neoliberalism Neocolonialism Neoliberal Globalization American biblical nationalism and religious far right American Exceptionalism Predator state Color revolutions
Secular Stagnation under Neoliberalism Who Rules America Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich TTP, NAFTA and other supernational trade treates Brexit as the start of the reversal of neoliberal globalization Immigration, wage depression and free movement of workers Debt slavery
American Imperialism, Transnational Capitalist Class and Globalization of Capitalism Merchants of Debt Greece debt enslavement Eroding Western living standards Ukraine debt enslavement IMF as the key institution for neoliberal debt enslavement Wolfowitz Doctrine
Donald Trump -- an unusual fighter against excesses of neoliberal globalization Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism National Security State Demonization of Putin Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Neoliberalism and Christianity The Far Right Forces in Ukraine as Trojan Horse of Neoliberalism
New American Militarism Jingoism of the US neoliberal elite Demonization of Putin Cold War II Pathological Russophobia of the US elite Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Anti Trump Hysteria
American Exceptionalism   Neoconservatism Neoliberal Globalization Anti-globalization movement Color revolutions Humanitarian Imperialism
Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair Hillary wet kiss with neocons Hillary role in Libya disaster Syria civil war Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Manipulation of the term "freedom of press" Sect of fraudulent election witnesses
The art of manufacturing of prisoners of consciousness Paleoconservatism Machiavellism Philippics  John Kenneth Galbraith Humor Etc

Bannon Versus Trump - The New York Times

The populist ethno-nationalists in the Trump White House do not believe in this order. Their critique — which is simultaneously moral, religious, economic, political and racial — is nicely summarized in the remarks Steve Bannon made to a Vatican conference in 2014.

Once there was a collection of Judeo-Christian nation-states, Bannon argued, that practiced a humane form of biblical capitalism and fostered culturally coherent communities. But in the past few decades, the party of Davos — with its globalism, relativism, pluralism and diversity — has sapped away the moral foundations of this Judeo-Christian way of life.

Humane capitalism has been replaced by the savage capitalism that brought us the financial crisis. National democracy has been replaced by a crony-capitalist network of global elites. Traditional virtue has been replaced by abortion and gay marriage. Sovereign nation-states are being replaced by hapless multilateral organizations like the E.U.

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.

But Trump is no Putin. Putin is theological and cynical, disciplined and calculating, experienced and knowledgeable. When Bannon, Michael Flynn and others try to make Trump into a revolutionary foreign policy president, they will be taking on the entire foreign policy establishment under a leader who may sympathize with them, but is inattentive, unpredictable and basically uninterested in anything but his own status at the moment.

I’m personally betting the foreign policy apparatus, including the secretaries of state and defense, will grind down the populists around Trump. Frictions will explode within the insanely confusing lines of authority in the White House. Trump will find he likes hanging around the global establishment the way he liked having the Clintons at his wedding. In office he won’t be able to fixate on ISIS but will face a blizzard of problems, and thus be dependent on the established institutions.

Quartz

Obsession
2016
Pop quiz—which major American political figure said the following:
  • “The 2008 crisis… is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks.”
  • “I think the bailouts in 2008 were wrong.”
  • “[N]ot one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis.”
  • “The Republican Party “is really a collection of crony capitalists that feel that they have a different set of rules” and are “the reason that the United States’ financial situation is so dire.”

Nope, this isn’t a reheated Bernie Sanders screed. These are the words of Steve Bannon—you know, Donald Trump’s shadowy éminence grise, the guy the president-elect Donald Trump just tapped as his chief strategist, possibly reprising the role of Machiavellian whiz that helped win Trump the election. Bannon, who had run alt-right site Breitbart before becoming the Trump campaign CEO, delivered these remarks at a conference inside the Vatican in the summer of 2014, recently unearthed by BuzzFeed.

This is the gist of Bannon’s takedown of Wall Street: American capitalism, in its current form, is immoral. Investment bank greed caused the 2008 global financial crisis. The “outrageous” bank bailouts shunted the economic burden on middle-class taxpayers, hurting the economy and leaving many—particularly millennials—out of jobs. Shareholders, bank execs, and crony capitalists, meanwhile, made out like bandits. Nothing’s changed to fix it. Banks are still bent on turning hedge fund-style profits, ignoring their proper role in the economy: lending and investing in entrepreneurs. And the guilty parties “have never really been held accountable.” (Bannon worked at Goldman Sachs in the late 1980s, before its shift into trading practices that he was condemning.)

Markets seem to think the new Trump administration will coddle big banks; JPMorgan Chase shares are up almost 17% since Election Day (Nov. 8); those of Goldman Sachs have soared nearly 15%.

This isn’t so surprising; throughout the election, Trump consistently spared Wall Street from his scathing populist rants (though he has blamed Wall Street for causing “tremendous problems for us” and criticized the lax regulation of hedge funds). Trump vows to cut bank regulation, including the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, and has said he favored the 2008 bank bailouts. His transition team is jam-packed with Wall Street “insiders” (pdf), according to Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren. Pretty much what you might expect from any old Republican on his way to the White House.

Could Bannon’s stances signal that the new administration might not be as cuddly with big banks as Trump’s past remarks might suggest?

It’s possible. Bannon’s views heavily influence Trump’s own opinions, as the Washington Post recently reported.

The chance that Trump might rein in Wall Street might cheer progressives—until they read the rest of Bannon’s Vatican lecture.

As he describes it, the financial shenanigans that led to the 2008 meltdown reflect a much larger “crisis both of capitalism but really of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian West in our beliefs.” What saved the world from atheism, fascism, and “a barbaric empire in the Far East” in the first half of the 20th century, creating Pax Americana and a rising middle class, was an “enlightened from of capitalism” rooted in the spiritual and moral foundations of Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Government cronyism and Western secularism have since eroded this “enlightened capitalism,” distributing wealth unfairly—fomenting populist uprisings across the globe. Once again, another global war against fascism—this time Islamic fascism—is brewing. The implications of Bannon’s worldview seem to be that to prevail over fascism this time, capitalism must be restored to its “Judeo-Christian West” moral core, breaking free from secularism and federal government control.

Garrett Lin, Florida January 10, 2017

Taking Bannon at his word in interviews, his goal for the GOP is not to build a party of 'ethno-nationalism,' but one of 'economic nationalism,' (read: globally competitive nationalism) rooted in robust economic growth for all Americans--a true populism inclusive of Americans of all 'identities,' all of whom, in fact, have a vested interest that the US maintain geopolitical strength enough to match the manufacturing base of China.

Bannon's "Judeo-Christian West," can be read separately from his 'American Nationalism,' but they are not entirely exclusive. Bannon knows the US Constitution was a development of Enlightenment-era ideals of Protestant Western nations, and thus, all Americans who live under this document do, indeed, share in the heritage of the US as a nation of Western society. That is the connection. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

If Bannon intended to build some sort of (implicitly white) 'ethno-nationalism,' would his campaign have scheduled the 'Hindu-Americans for Trump' event, which took place last October, as an example? I think not.

Bannon knows who his audience is. He knows how that provocative headlines raise the hair of moralist puritans. Of course he knows to emphasize the 'Judeo-Christian' West when addressing the Vatican. And indeed he also knows that running the United States of America is different than delivering a keynote to a few priests.

Nothing at all to do with petty value judgments, the relative morality of capitalism, etc.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Aug 21, 2020] Steve Bannon, Former Senior Trump Advisor, Arrested For Defrauding Trump Voters

Aug 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Steve Bannon, Former Senior Trump Advisor, Arrested For Defrauding Trump Voters Mark Thomason , Aug 20 2020 16:12 utc | 1

It is likely that U.S. President Donald Trump will soon says that he hardly knew his former campaign manager and senior advisor Steve Bannon and that he had always suspected that Bannon was a crook.

Today the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York announced an indictment against Bannon and others:

Leaders Of 'We Build The Wall' Online Fundraising Campaign Charged With Defrauding Hundreds Of Thousands Of Donors

Starting in approximately December 2018, BRIAN KOLFAGE, STEPHEN BANNON, ANDREW BADOLATO, and TIMOTHY SHEA, and others, orchestrated a scheme to defraud hundreds of thousands of donors, including donors in the Southern District of New York, in connection with an online crowdfunding campaign ultimately known as "We Build The Wall" that raised more than $25 million to build a wall along the southern border of the United States. In particular, to induce donors to donate to the campaign, KOLFAGE repeatedly and falsely assured the public that he would "not take a penny in salary or compensation" and that "100% of the funds raised ... will be used in the execution of our mission and purpose" because, as BANNON publicly stated, "we're a volunteer organization."

Those representations were false.

The four indicted persons who ran the "We Build The Wall" campaign funneled donations into their own pockets:

[STEVE] BANNON, through a non-profit organization under his control ("Non-Profit-1"), received over $1 million from We Build the Wall, at least some of which BANNON used to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in BANNON's personal expenses.

Bannon and the other three accused persons are now under arrest.


bigger

Interestingly the indictments come from the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York which in June was involved in a spat with Trump :

Geoffrey Berman, the powerful U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said late Friday that he had not resigned after Attorney General William Barr said he would be stepping down. Barr sent a letter to Berman on Saturday saying he had asked President Trump to fire Berman, and the president had done so.

"I was surprised and quite disappointed by the press statement you released last night," Barr said in a statement. "Because you have declared that you have no intention of resigning, I have asked the President to remove you as of today, and he has done so."

Berman's office had investigated some of President Trump's associates, including the president's former personal attorney Michael Cohen.

There were at that time several known cases in the Southern District that involved people somewhat associated with Trump. But it still is not known why exactly Trump intervened in that office.

Could it have been because of the case against Bannon which was not publicly known at that time?

Probably not. Bannon and the others defrauded people who want to build the wall and are thereby on Trump's side. Trump is not probably not stupid enough to intervene in such a case.

Then again ...

The advisory board of We Build The Wall includes several other pro-Trump figures including mercenary salesman Erik Prince.

CBS reports that Bannon was taken into custody by US Postal Inspection Service agents. In the announcement of the indictment Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, explicitly praises the USPIS for its support. In light of the recent dust up over alleged Trump moves against the Postal Service that deserves a chuckle.

Bannon had recently worked with the Chinese crook Guo Wengui to build up a media company. As we noted a year ago :

Miles Kwok aka Guo Wengui is a disgruntled Chinese oligarch. He is one of the men who finances the Hong Kong protests. Here he appears with Steve Bannon Miles Kwok & Mr Bannon: The 5 principles on Hong Kong's matter (vid).

The Bennon-Guo media venture is also in trouble :

Cont. reading: Steve Bannon, Former Senior Trump Advisor, Arrested For Defrauding Trump Voters

A non-profit that "did not pay him" actually paid for services that benefited him. There was just a nominal cut out between him and the payment by his non-profit.

Bannon said this was wrong when the Clinton's did it. That is how the money got from their non-profit Foundation to them, and in much larger amounts than what Bannon took.

Bannon said it was wrong then when the Clinton's did it. Democrats say it is wrong now when Bannon did it. They are both correct.

And they are all hopeless hypocrites.

Skeletor , Aug 20 2020 16:30 utc | 2

Interestingly the indictments come from the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York

The same office involved with Anthony Weiner.
And Epstein.
Go figure.

Bannon is an odious prick and I hope he gets some sort of punishment.

[May 07, 2020] The very idea of an American nation has all but been destroyed. The very people who built the US have been vilified and many within this group have gone along with it.

May 07, 2020 | smoothiex12.blogspot.com

[Apr 11, 2020] Steve Bannon is an American Exceptionalist.

Apr 11, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

jayc , Apr 10 2020 18:17 utc | 40

Steve Bannon is an American Exceptionalist. He argues that USA-style capitalism and Chinese communism are incompatible systems which cannot "compete" for influence because, to his thinking, the Chinese model will always "win" (i.e. seem a better system, particularly in Global south). He advocates first, strict de-coupling; and second, a WW2 level total war with goal of destroying CCP.

I know people who have taken to Bannon's populist message, but seem to miss the "total war" part. This is the danger of a USA lurch towards fascism, should such occur as the coronavirus lockdown proceeds, as a messianic crusade against the Chinese would be a centrepiece.

[Oct 20, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard Unites Putin Apologists, Bloodstained Modi, Genocidal Assad and the U.S. Far Right by Shrenik Rao

This Indian neocon forgets that it was the USA which brought destruction on Syria by unleashing the civil war in order to achieve goals of its Middle East policy. Fueling money, weapons (from already destructed Libya), and jihadists (financed by Saudi and Golf monarchies.) There are apple documents about this activities and the amount of foreign mercenaries in ISIS forces. It was Obama and Hillary who created ISIS.
The fact that Haaretz republished such a weak article, originally published on Jan 24, 2019 on Oct 19, 2019 suggests that Tulsi has few friends in Israel lobby, which is deepely interested in the USA interventionalist policies in the Middle East.
Notable quotes:
"... Though not of Indian origin, Gabbard has been warmly embraced by pro-Modi elements of the Hindu-American diaspora in the U.S., many of whom came forward and donated generously to her campaign. According to The Intercept , "Nearly one-third of Gabbard's overall donations - $1.24 million - came from more than 800 individual donors with names of Hindu origin, many of whom made repeat donations." ..."
"... Steve Bannon "loves Tulsi Gabbard." He thinks she "gets the foreign policy stuff, the Islamic terrorism stuff ." Tucker Carlson loves her Assad-as-genocidaire skepticism, David Duke loves how she's realigning U.S. politics, and Richard Spencer lauds her "bravery" in the diplomatic field. ..."
"... Bannon was so impressed with Gabbard as a potential ally that as he brokered a meeting between her and the newly-installed President Donald Trump . Tulsi jumped at the opportunity: in her own words , "I walked out thinking that there may be some opportunity to work with this administration to shift our foreign policy in a more positive, less destructive direction." ..."
Oct 19, 2019 | www.haaretz.com

This article was originally published on 24th January 2019

"For too long, the U.S. has turned a blind eye to the atrocities being committed against civilians in Yemen by the Saudi-U.S. coalition [a] genocidal war that has killed tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians with bombs and mass starvation, creating the worst humanitarian crisis in the world The time for crocodile tears and baseless platitudes is over. Enough is enough. The U.S must end its support for Saudi Arabia and stop waging interventionist wars [unauthorized by Congress] that increase destruction, death and suffering around the world "

You wouldn't be surprised if this was a speech given by Vladimir Putin or Bashar Assad . But this isn't a quote from the Kremlin or Damascus. It part of a speech by a member of the U.S. Congress who's joined the running to be selected as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee: Tulsi Gabbard .

U.S. politicians criticizing imperialist U.S. foreign policy interventions, this time in the Middle East, and helpfully excluding other major world powers' own interventions, is exactly the message Russia seeks to amplify through its propaganda channels. On cue, Russia's 24 hour English news channel, RT, serially posted Gabbard's video clip on their YouTube channel with the headline that read: "Speeches that still matter: Rep Gabbard on bringing an end to U.S. interventionism."

Speeches that matter, part IV: End US interventionism around the world! pic.twitter.com/CCSnyKwa9B

-- RT (@RT_com) October 3, 2018

Was Gabbard's speech a genuinely passionate plea on humanitarian grounds, to the powers that be, to end the humanitarian crisis in Yemen? Or was it carefully constructed political opportunism? One clear way to triangulate the authenticity of her call would be to test how consistently Gabbard has called out state-led humanitarian crises and deaths around the world.

The death and destruction in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere is heartbreaking. It's difficult for any conscientious human being to be insensitive to grotesque acts of war where civilians are bombed or gassed to death. But what is perplexing is Tulsi's selective geographic umbrage on this issue.

Hey @realdonaldtrump : being Saudi Arabia's bitch is not "America First."

-- Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) November 21, 2018

On the one hand, she condemns the Saudi-U.S. led coalition as complicit in a genocidal war, but she welcomes India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has been called the " man with a massacre on his hands " with open arms.

Some background: In 2002, Modi was chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat when fire broke out in a train full of Hindu pilgrims. This is how The Guardian's Aditya Chakrabortty describes what followed:

"Within hours and without a shred of evidence, Modi declared that the Pakistani secret services had been to blame; he then had the charred bodies paraded in the main city of Ahmedabad; and let his own party support a state-wide strike for three days.

"What followed was mass bloodshed: 1,000 dead on official estimates, more than 2,000 by independent tallies. The vast majority of those who died were Muslim. Mobs of men dragged women and young girls out of their homes and raped them. One [of the ringleaders] boasted of how he slit open the womb of a pregnant woman."

There were clear signs that the attackers benefitted from state-level support. The attackers, armed with swords, machetes or iron bars, carried computer print-outs listing the addresses of Muslim families, shops and businesses, according to a report in The Telegraph.

Across Gujarat, 180 mosques were destroyed or damaged along with thousands of Muslim-owned businesses and homes. Callers to police stations were told: "We don't have orders to save you," and "We cannot help you, we have orders from above." Survivors called for this to be recognized not by the over-used term of 'intercommunal riots' but rather a pogrom, or attempted genocide.

The U.S. government's belief in Modi's complicity was clear when it rejected his request for a U.S. visa in 2005, by which time he had become leader of India's nationalist Bharatiya Janata party (BJP). He was excluded under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that "makes any government official who was responsible for or directly carried out at any time particularly severe violations of religious freedom ineligible for a visa."

President Obama overturned the visa ban in 2016. India's courts have exonerated Modi. He has, on numerous occasions, says he has "moved on." But the ghosts of Gujarat haven't moved anywhere.

Tulsi Gabbard has an exceptional appreciation for Modi.

Hers is a very personal rapport. She presented him with her own copy of the Bhagavad-Gita, on which she took her Congressional oath of office, when he visited the U.S. Modi sent her with "a beautiful message of Krishna" for her wedding. Gabbard then presented him with a CD of music from her wedding.

Upon Mr Modi's invitation, she took a trip to India where she was widely regarded as the "darling of the BJP and the RSS" – the RSS (a right-wing, Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer organization) being the BJP's ideological "parent." Both groups, which wield enormous power in India, take pride in a narrow, chauvinistic view of India as a Hindu country where Muslims and other minorities should be considered second-class citizens.

Such was her affinity that Tulsi opposed House Resolution 417 - "Praising India's rich religious diversity and commitment to tolerance and equality, and reaffirming the need to protect the rights and freedoms of religious minorities" - that was seen as a veiled criticism of Modi. She even tried to brush away the Gujarat pogrom by saying, "There was a lot of misinformation that surrounded the event in 2002."

When it comes to Modi, Gabbard seems to have no pangs of conscience about "destruction, death and suffering" and comfortably wipes the blood off the hands of those complicit in murder.

Why would Tulsi Gabbard damn what she sees as America's complicity in Yemen but embrace an authoritarian foreign leader with blood on his hands? Why does she openly support and endorse Modi's poor track record on human rights? What distinction does Gabbard draw between the thousands of Muslims massacred in Gujarat and the thousands of Muslims who died in Yemen? Why isn't she making a similarly passionate plea to Prime Minister Modi to stop the ongoing mob lynchings and rapes in India?

One obvious reason she won't do that is the financial and electoral benefits she accrues from openly supporting Modi. By displaying her carefully cultivated public support for Modi, she has won the support of many Indian Americans - particularly those with links to the RSS - by flaunting her 'loyal' Hindu identity.

Though not of Indian origin, Gabbard has been warmly embraced by pro-Modi elements of the Hindu-American diaspora in the U.S., many of whom came forward and donated generously to her campaign. According to The Intercept , "Nearly one-third of Gabbard's overall donations - $1.24 million - came from more than 800 individual donors with names of Hindu origin, many of whom made repeat donations."

It's not just the Hindu right who love Gabbard. America's resurgent hard and far right agrees, not least because she was an outspoken critic of the Obama administration's alleged reluctance to recognize that "Islamic extremists are our enemy."

Steve Bannon "loves Tulsi Gabbard." He thinks she "gets the foreign policy stuff, the Islamic terrorism stuff ." Tucker Carlson loves her Assad-as-genocidaire skepticism, David Duke loves how she's realigning U.S. politics, and Richard Spencer lauds her "bravery" in the diplomatic field.

Her own aunt, Caroline Sinavaiana Gabbard, has noted her discomfort with this mixed bag of endorsements, in low-key language: Gabbard "has a notably mixed voting record, and associations that veer from certain progressive causes to the apparent courting of strongmen such as Narendra Modi, Bashar al-Assad, and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (not to mention Trump) - this zigzagging path through positions is vexing."

>> Why Hasn't Seymour Hersh's Syria War Crimes Denial Ended His Career?

>> How Assad's War Crimes Bring Far Left and Right Together - Under Putin's Benevolent Gaze

Bannon was so impressed with Gabbard as a potential ally that as he brokered a meeting between her and the newly-installed President Donald Trump . Tulsi jumped at the opportunity: in her own words , "I walked out thinking that there may be some opportunity to work with this administration to shift our foreign policy in a more positive, less destructive direction."

Amongst other obvious obstacles to a Democratic congresswomen freelancing coordination with the White House, her dream of a foreign policy "shift" getting a presidential stamp burst when she went to Damascus, met Bashar Assad , and claimed that she was "skeptical" of claims that Assad's government was to blame for Syria's genocide.

Those Assad apologetics are rightly one reason why Gabbard's once-rising-star among Democrats is stalling. But her pro-Modi apologetics, far less examined and far more seldom interrogated in the U.S. media, should have been just as good a reason to repudiate her candidacy.

A fellow at the University of Oxford's Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and a graduate of the London School of Economics, Shrenik Rao is a digital entrepreneur and filmmaker. Rao revived the Madras Courier , a 232-year-old newspaper, as a digital publication of which he is the editor-in-chief.

Related Articles

[May 17, 2019] Bob Goldstone letter

Looks like a clear attempt to entrup Trump Jr
May 17, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best

Rob Goldstone

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

Best,

Don

[Apr 29, 2019] DiGenova Destroys Media's Reckless Promotion Of Trump Tower Meeting As Crime

Apr 29, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Leading up to the Mueller report, one of the long-promised "gotchas" peddled by the anti-Trump media is that that Donald Trump Jr. would be indicted over a June 9, 2016 meeting in Trump Tower with Russian representatives who promised negative information on Hillary Clinton.

Keep in mind, the Russian attorney who sought the discussion - Natalia Veselnitskaya - met with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson before and after the Trump Tower meeting. Fusion was hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to produce the now-infamous "Steele Dossier."

Also keep in mind that Trump Jr. reportedly shut down the meeting when it was obviously not going to bear fruit.

Obvious setups aside, former US Attorney Joe diGenova has penned an Op-Ed for Fox News excoriating the media for 'recklessly' promoting an untested falsehood; that the meeting was illegal in the first place.

Joseph diGenova via Fox News

Don Jr. and the Trump Tower meeting -- What happens when fake news collides with zero intent. The reporting on Donald Trump, Jr.'s treatment in the Mueller report has been woefully inaccurate.

The president's eldest son, an outspoken and unapologetic conservative, is a favorite punching bag of the left. For more than two years, liberal journalists and shrieking "#resistance" activists have salivated over the thought of seeing Don Jr. carted off in handcuffs.

To their dismay, there is only one crucial takeaway from the Mueller report's conclusions about the utterly inconsequential "Trump Tower meeting" between Don Jr., several Russians, and others: neither Don Jr. nor anyone else involved in the meeting was charged with any crime.

The reasons are clear. The entire theory about what was potentially illegal about the meeting was speculative and untested. What's more, even if it were illegal, the report concluded that Don Jr. didn't have the "willful" intent to break the law that would be necessary to make it a crime.

In their disappointment, Don Jr.'s detractors have latched on to a new theory: that he was simply "too stupid" to be charged with a crime because he didn't know that his conduct was illegal.

They hang this blatant misconstruction on these words from the report: "the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted 'willfully,' i.e. with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct."

That's not just some minor technicality, absent which Robert Mueller's prosecutors would have had Don Jr. in shackles while revelers in cat-eared pink hats danced in the streets. It's a central element of the offense they were investigating, and they decided to clear Don Jr. because without it there is no crime.

One often-used definition of "willful" intent states that it "requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew his or her conduct was unlawful and intended to do something that the law forbids; that the defendant acted with a purpose to disobey or disregard the law."

In essence, in order to be charged with conspiring to cheat, you have to have been actually meaning to cheat. That's the law. Without intent, there is no crime. And Mueller's team, even his hand-picked Democrat attack dog Andrew Weissmann, knew they didn't have evidence to convince a jury that Don Jr. meant to circumvent election laws when he typed "I love it" in response to a tangentially-related British publicist's suggestion the Russian government might have "information that would incriminate Hillary." Don Jr. even voluntarily released his email correspondence related to that meeting.

But even if there were the requisite intent, the Mueller report still exonerates Don Jr., stating that "the government would likely encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation."

Did you catch that?

For the English speakers among you, let me translate that from Weissmann-speak: "This 'crime' we thought up as a way to nail Don Jr. is so speculative and unprecedented, we don't think there's a court in the land that would let this fly."

The entire notion of a criminal conspiracy is predicated on the idea that the federal election law's ban on campaigns taking "contributions" or "things of value" from foreign nationals also applies to "dirt" on opposing candidates.

That's hardly an established interpretation of the law. In fact, no one has ever been convicted of something similar. If "dirt" is a "thing of value" for campaign finance purposes, that is a dangerously radical innovation with huge potential First Amendment implications.

Personally, I think it's a completely untenable interpretation, but don't take my word it. Mueller and his team considered it, as well -- and then rejected it as too "difficult to prove" in their report.

I wonder how many of the journalists calling Don Jr. stupid were so certain about this far-fetched legal theory. I further wonder how many of them felt the same way when foreign national Christopher Steele handed the Hillary Clinton campaign a whole dossier of "dirt" on President Trump -- at a hefty, agreed-upon price, no less.

The whole thing is pure "#resistance" fantasy.

It was reckless for the media to promote the Trump Tower meeting as a crime, and it was irresponsible for Mueller's report to discuss the matter using language that allows people who hate Don Jr. to continue in that delusion.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JOE DIGENOVA

[Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders

Highly recommended!
Skripal events probably helped to advance this line of investigation. So in a way UK intelligence services put their own stooge on the line of fire.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money laundering ..."
"... The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did. ..."
"... The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle taxpayers' money involving Russian officials. ..."
"... The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up. ..."
"... Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic competition. ..."
"... Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to US lawmakers and media outlets. ..."
"... If you like this story, share it with a friend! ..."
Nov 19, 2018 | www.rt.com
Kremlin critic Bill Browder may have given the order for his employee Sergei Magnitsky to be poisoned with a rare toxin in a Russian prison cell, along with other suspects in a tax-evasion probe against him, prosecutors have said. British financier Browder was once a well-connected investor in post-Soviet Russia, but he became a fugitive from the law in the country after being accused of financial crimes. In the West, however, he is best known as the employer of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian accountant who died in police custody while being investigated in connection to the Browder case. Magnitsky's death became an international scandal, with Browder accusing Russian officials of killing him.

Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money laundering.

The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively.

Korobeinikov died after falling off a high-rise building, while the others had health complications. The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a rare water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths, while Korobeinikov had traces of it in his liver, according to a post mortem. An investigation into four possible murders has been opened.

Read more
UK 'fraudster' Browder briefly detained in Spain on Russian warrant, tweets from police car

Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did.

The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle taxpayers' money involving Russian officials.

The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up.

Last year, Browder was sentenced by a Russian court to nine years in prison for tax evasion. The trial was held in absentia and Moscow failed to have him extradited to serve the term. The prosecutors said that they will renew attempts to get custody of Browder as part of the new criminal case, using a UN convention on fighting transnational crime to have him arrested.

Browder is a US-born British financier, whose change of citizenship had the benefit of allowing him to avoid paying tax on foreign earnings. However, he claimed the switch was prompted by his family being persecuted in the US during the McCarthyism witch hunt, while the UK seemed like the land of law and order.

Read more

Magnitsky Act mastermind seeks to stop Cyprus from revealing his offshore assets to Russia

He made a fortune in Russia during the country's chaotic transition to a market economy, having invested before there was a stock exchange in Moscow. His Hermitage Capital Management fund was a leading foreign investment entity in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The transformation of his public image from a financial shark into a human rights crusader started when Browder himself entered the spotlight of Russian law enforcement. In 2007, the foundation he ran was targeted by a probe into possible large-scale embezzlement of Russian taxpayers' money. Magnitsky, who worked for Browder and had knowledge of his firms' finances, was arrested and held in pre-trial detention until his death in November 2009. The British businessman insisted that the entire case was fabricated and that Magnitsky had been assassinated for exposing a criminal scheme involving several Russian tax officials.

The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic competition.

Browder's new-found status as a rights advocate and self-proclaimed worst enemy of Putin helps him deflect Russia's attempts to prosecute him. On several occasions, Russia filed international arrest warrants against him with Interpol, which even led to his brief detention in Spain last May.

Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to US lawmakers and media outlets.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

[Nov 17, 2018] Political War! Washington Goes Full Retard on the Russia Hoax - Antiwar.com Original

Notable quotes:
"... Even then, the Russophobes have been frantically making a mountain out of a molehill. We investigated the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, for example, and found that it was actually the hobby horse of a mid-sized Oligarch. The latter had been minding his own business trolling the Russian Internet, as the oligarchs of that country are wont to do – until the US sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 became the occasion for Washington's relentless vilification of Russia and Putin. ..."
"... Still, there is no evidence that this two-bit hobby farm was an instrument of Kremlin policy or that its tiny $2 million budget could hold a candle to the $200 million per year round-the-clock propaganda of Voice of America, and multiples thereof by the other Washington propaganda venues. ..."
"... In any event, turning the Trump Tower meeting into evidence of Russian meddling and collusion actually gives the old saw about turning a molehill into a mountain an altogether new meaning. That is to say, on any given evening Anderson Cooper will be interviewing a lathered-up ex-general or ex-spook admonishing that Natalia Veselnitskaya was actually a nefarious Russian "cut out" sent by Putin to infiltrate the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The fact is, the meeting happened because Veselnitskaya wanted to reach the Trump campaign in behalf of her anti-Magnitsky Act agenda, and to do so used the good offices of what appears to be the Russian Justin Bieber! ..."
"... Specifically, the offer came to Don Trump Jr. via a London-based PR flack named Rob Goldstone, a music publicist who knew the Trumps through the Miss Universe pageant that was held in Moscow in 2013. Goldstone didn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it comes to international affairs or Russian politics, but he did represent the Russian pop singer Emin Agalarov, whose father was also a Trump-style real estate developer and had been involved in the 2013 pageant ..."
"... More fantastically yet, Natalia had meet with Simpson both before and after the Trump Tower meeting apparently to be coached by him on her anti-Magnitsky pitch to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... So if Veselnitskaya was part of a Russian collusion conspiracy, then so was the Glenn Simpson, the midwife of the Trump Dossier! ..."
Nov 17, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

Political War! Washington Goes Full Retard on the Russia Hoax

by David Stockman Posted on August 08, 2018 August 7, 2018 It's hard to identify anything that's more uncoupled from reality than the Donald's Trade War and reckless Fiscal Debauch. Together they will soon monkey-hammer today's delirious Wall Street revilers and send main street's aging and anemic recovery back into the drink.

Except, except. When it comes to unreality, Trump's crackpot economics is actually more than rivaled by the full retard Russophobia of the MSM, the Dems and the nomenclatura of Imperial Washington.

In fact, their groupthink mania about the alleged Russian attack on American democracy is so devoid of fact, logic, context, proportion and self-awareness as to give the Donald's tweet storms an aura of sanity by comparison.

Their endless obsession with the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian nobody by the name of Natalia Veselnitskaya proves the point. She was actually in New York doing god's work, as it were, defending a Russian company against hokey money-laundering charges related to the abominable Magnitsky Act and its contemptible promoter, Bill Browder.

The latter had pulled off an epic multi-billion swindle during the wild west days of post-Soviet Russia and was essentially chased from the country in 2005 by Putin for hundreds of millions in tax evasion. Thereafter he turned the murky prison death of his accountant, Sergei Magnitsky, who was also charged with massive tax evasion, into a revenge crusade against Putin.

That resulted in a huge lobbying campaign subsidized by Browder's illicit billions and spearheaded by the Senate's most bloodthirsty trio of warmongers – Senators McCain, Graham and Cardin – to enact the 2012 Magnitsky Act.

The latter, of course, is the very excrescence of Imperial Washington's arrogant meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. It imposes sweeping sanctions on Russians (and other foreigners) deemed complicit in Magnitsky's death in a Russian jail and for other alleged human rights violations in Russia and elsewhere.

Needless to say, imperial pretense doesn't get any more sanctimonious than this. Deep State apparatchiks in the US Treasury Department get to try Russian citizens in absentia and without due process for vaguely worded crimes under American law that were allegedly committed in Russia, and then to seize their property and persons when involved in any act of global commerce where Washington can browbeat local satrapies and "allies" into cooperation!

Only in an imperial capital steeped in self-conferred entitlement to function as global hegemon would such a preposterous extraterritorial arrangement be even thinkable. After all, what happens to Russians in Russian prisons is absolutely none of Washington's business – nor by any stretch of the imagination does it pose any threat whatsoever to America's homeland security.

So the irony of the Trump Tower nothingburger is that the alleged Russian agent was here fighting Washington's meddling in Russia , not hooking up with Trump's campaign to further a Kremlin plot to attack American democracy.

You could properly call this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but Imperial Washington and its shills among the ranks of Dem politicians and megaphones in the MSM wouldn't get the joke in the slightest. That's because Washington is in the business of meddling in the domestic affairs of virtually every country in the world – friend, foe and also-ran – on a massive scale never before imagined in human history.

That's what the hideously excessive $75 billion budget of the so-called 17-agency "intelligence community" (IC) gets you. To wit, a backdoor into every access point and traffic exchange node on the entire global internet, and from there the ability to hack, surveil, exfiltrate or corrupt the communications of any government, political party, business or private citizen virtually anywhere on the planet.

And, no, this isn't being done for the noble purpose of rooting-out the terrorist needles in the global haystack of communications and Internet traffic. It's done because the IC has the resources to do it and because it has invested itself with endless missions of global hegemony.

These self-serving missions, in turn, justify its existence, keep the politicians of Washington well stocked in scary bedtime stories and, most important of all, ensure that the fiscal gravy train remains loaded to the gills and that the gilded prosperity of the beltway never falters.

Indeed, if Washington were looking for corporate pen name it would be Meddling "R" Us. And we speak here not merely of its vast and secretive spy apparatus, but also of its completely visible everyday intrusions in the affairs of other countries via the billions that are channeled through the National Endowment for Democracy and the vast NGO network funded by the State Department, DOD and other organs of the national security complex.

The $750 million per year Board For International Broadcasting, for example, is purely in the propaganda business; and despite the Cold War's end 27 years ago, still carries out relentless "agit prop" in Russia and among the reincarnated states of the old Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact via Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of America.

For example, here is a Voice of America tweet from this morning falsely charging Russia with the occupation of the former Soviet state of Georgia.

In fact, Russia came to the aid of the Russian-speaking population of the breakaway province of South Ossetia in 2008; the latter felt imperiled by the grandiose pretensions of the corrupt Saakashvili government in Tbilisi, which had unilaterally launched an indiscriminate military assault on the major cities of the province.

Moreover, even an EU commission investigation came to that conclusion way back in 2009 shortly after the events that the inhabitants of South Ossetia feared would lead to a genocidal invasion by Georgia's military.

An investigation into last year's Russia-Georgia war delivered a damning indictment of President Mikheil Saakashvili today, accusing Tbilisi of launching an indiscriminate artillery barrage on the city of Tskhinvali that started the war.

In more than 1,000 pages of analysis, documentation and witness statements, the most exhaustive inquiry into the five-day conflict dismissed Georgian claims that the artillery attack was in response to a Russian invasion

The EU-commissioned report, by a fact-finding mission of more than 20 political, military, human rights and international law experts led by the Swiss diplomat, Heidi Tagliavini, was unveiled in Brussels today after nine months of work.

Flatly dismissing Saakashvili's version, the report said: "There was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive could not be substantiated

The point is, whatever the rights and wrongs of the statelets and provinces attempting to sort themselves out after the fall of the Soviet Union, this was all happening on Russia's doorsteps and was none of Washington business even at the time. But wasting taxpayer money 10 years later by siding with the revanchist claims of the Georgian government is just plain ludicrous.

It's also emblematic of why the Imperial City is so clueless about the rank hypocrisy implicit in the Russian meddling hoax. Believing that America is the Indispensable Nation and that Washington operates by its own hegemonic rules, they are now Shocked, Shocked! to find that the victims of their blatant intrusions might actually endeavor to fight back.

Even then, the Russophobes have been frantically making a mountain out of a molehill. We investigated the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, for example, and found that it was actually the hobby horse of a mid-sized Oligarch. The latter had been minding his own business trolling the Russian Internet, as the oligarchs of that country are wont to do – until the US sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 became the occasion for Washington's relentless vilification of Russia and Putin.

Accordingly, this particular Russian patriot hired a few dozen students at $3-4 per hour who mostly spoke English as a third-language. Operating on 12-hour shifts, they randomly trolled Facebook and other US based social media, posting crude and sometimes incoherent political messages from virtually all points on the compass – messages that were instantly lost in the great sea of social media trivia and mendacity.

Still, there is no evidence that this two-bit hobby farm was an instrument of Kremlin policy or that its tiny $2 million budget could hold a candle to the $200 million per year round-the-clock propaganda of Voice of America, and multiples thereof by the other Washington propaganda venues.

me title=

In any event, turning the Trump Tower meeting into evidence of Russian meddling and collusion actually gives the old saw about turning a molehill into a mountain an altogether new meaning. That is to say, on any given evening Anderson Cooper will be interviewing a lathered-up ex-general or ex-spook admonishing that Natalia Veselnitskaya was actually a nefarious Russian "cut out" sent by Putin to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

Really?

We have no brief for Vlad Putin, but one thing we are quite sure of is that he is anything but stupid. So would he really send a secret agent to Trump Tower – who neither speaks nor writes a word of English and has been to America only once – in order to plot a surreptitious attempt to manipulate the American election?

The fact is, the meeting happened because Veselnitskaya wanted to reach the Trump campaign in behalf of her anti-Magnitsky Act agenda, and to do so used the good offices of what appears to be the Russian Justin Bieber!

Specifically, the offer came to Don Trump Jr. via a London-based PR flack named Rob Goldstone, a music publicist who knew the Trumps through the Miss Universe pageant that was held in Moscow in 2013. Goldstone didn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it comes to international affairs or Russian politics, but he did represent the Russian pop singer Emin Agalarov, whose father was also a Trump-style real estate developer and had been involved in the 2013 pageant .

Said the London PR flack in an email to Don Jr:

"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting .The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father .( this is) "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

And a very big so what!

For one thing, the last "Crown prosecutor of Russia" was assassinated by the Bolsheviks in 1917, suggesting Goldstone's grasp of the contemporary Russian government was well less than rudimentary.

Secondly, there was neither a crime nor national security issue involved when a campaign seeks to dig-up dirt from foreign nationals. The crime is when they pay for it, and do not report the expenditure to the Federal Elections Commission.

Of course, that's exactly what Hillary Clinton's campaign did with its multi-million funding of the Trump Dossier, generated by foreign national Christopher Steele and intermediated to the FBI and other IC agencies by Fusion GPS.

And that gets us to the mind-boggling silliness of the whole Trump Tower affair. Self-evidently, the dirt on Hillary suggestion was a come-on so that Veselnitskaya (through her Russian translator) could make a pitch against the Magnitsky Act; and to point out that after 33,000 Russian babies had been adopted by Americans before its enactment, that avenue of adoption had been stopped cold when the Kremlin found it necessary to retaliate.

Don's Jr. emails to his secretary from the meeting long ago proved that he immediately recognized Natalia's bait and switch operation, and that he wanted to be summoned to the phone so he could end what he saw was a complete waste of the campaign's time.

But here's the joker in the woodpile. Its seem that Glenn Simpson, proprietor of Fusion GPs, had also been hired by Veselnitskaya Russian clients to make a case in Washington against the Magnitsky Act, and to also dig up dirt on the scoundrel behind it: Bill Browder.

More fantastically yet, Natalia had meet with Simpson both before and after the Trump Tower meeting apparently to be coached by him on her anti-Magnitsky pitch to the Trump campaign.

So if Veselnitskaya was part of a Russian collusion conspiracy, then so was the Glenn Simpson, the midwife of the Trump Dossier!

It doesn't get any crazier than that – meaning that the Donald could not be more correct about this entire farce:

This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA!

In truth, the only basis for Natalia Veselnitskaya's alleged Putin ties was through Russia's prosecutor general, Yuri Chaika.

And exactly why was Chaika interested in making American contacts?

Why, because he was pursuing one Bill Browder, fugitive from Russian justice and the driving force behind the abominable Magnitsky Act – an instrument of meddling in the domestic affairs of foreign countries like no other. As one report described it:

Chaika's foray into American politics began in earnest in April 2016. That is when his office gave Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher and three other US representatives a confidential letter detailing American investor Bill Browder's "illegal scheme of buying up Gazprom shares without permission of the Government of Russia" between 1999 and 2006, one month after Rohrabacher returned from Moscow.

As it happened, Veselnitskaya had apparently brought a memo to the Trump Tower meeting that contained many of the same talking points as one written by Chaika's office two months earlier.

There you have it.

At the heart of the Russian collusion hoax and the wellspring of the current Russophobia is nothing more than a half-baked effort by Russians to tell their side of the Magnitsky story, and to expose the real villain in the piece – a monumentally greedy hedge fund operator who had stolen the Russian people blind and then conveniently gave up his American citizenship so that he would neither do time in a Russian jail or pay taxes in America.

Spoiler Alert for next part: When both economic policy and politics have gone full retard in the Imperial City is there anything which could possibly go wrong – that might pollute the punch bowl on Wall Street?

Stay tuned!

David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He's the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed , The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America and TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin And How to Bring It Back . He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra Corner and David Stockman's Bubble Finance Trader .

[Jul 27, 2018] Was Rob Goldstone MI6 operative or MI6 stooge ?

Jul 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The Trump Tower meeting was arranged by Fusion GPS associate Rob Goldstone, who said during Congressional testimony reviewed by Breitbart that he believes the June 9, 2016 meeting was a "bait and switch" by a Russian lobbyist who promised "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, and admitted that he used hyperbolic language on purpose to ensure that the meeting would take place.

"I, therefore, used the strongest hyperbolic language in order to secure this request from Donald Trump Jr. based on the bare facts I was given," said Goldstone, a UK publicist and music manager.

"It was an example of, I was given very limited information, and my job was to get a meeting, and so I used my professional use of words to emphasize what my client had only given bare-bones information about, in order to get the attention of Mr. Trump Jr. " -Rob Goldstone

Goldstone then said " it appeared to me to have been a bait and switch of somebody who appeared to be lobbying for what I now understood to be the Magnitsky act," - which sanctions Russian officials thought to be involved in the death of a Russian tax accountant.

Fusion GPS associate Natalia Veselnitskaya, an attorney for Russian businessman and Fusion GPS client Denis Katsy, said that Emin Agalarov - the son of Russian oligarch Aras Agalarov - told her to contact his representative, Irakly "Ike" Kaveladze to set up the Trump Tower meeting, which Kaveladze attended.

While both Agalarov and Katsyv opposed the Magnitsky act, Veselnitskaya worked only for Katsyv, while approaching Agalarov and his associates to participate in the Trump Tower meeting. Of ntoe, Agalarov organized the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow when it was partially owned by Donald Trump.

Veselnitskaya said Agalarov told her to get in touch with Kaveladze about the meeting because he had connections with the Trump team.

Veselnitskaya said she made a point of asking Goldstone -- who she mistakenly thought was a lawyer -- whether it was OK to include Akhmetshin, given that he was a registered lobbyist. Goldstone told her it was fine, she said. - NBC News

On June 3, 2016, Goldstone sent an email to Trump Jr. on behalf of Emin Agalarov to set up the meeting. Goldstone was described last July as "associated with Fusion GPS" by Mark Corallo - spokesman for Trump's outside legal counsel, according to the Washington Post .

"Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS , a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the president and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier" -Mark Corallo

From Goldstone's June 3rd email to Trump Jr. - six days before the Trump Tower meeting:

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump -- helped along by Aras and Emin.

Trump Jr. replied to Goldstone that " if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer ."

Breitbart News previously reported that Russian-born Washington lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, who attended the meeting with Veselnitskaya, evidenced a larger relationship with Fusion GPS and the controversial firm's co-founder Glenn Simpson , according to Akhmetshin's testimony before the same committee. - Breitbart

Fusion's fingerprints are all over this...

Hours before Veselnitskaya attended the Trump Tower meeting to lobby Trump Jr. about the Magnitsky act, she met with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson .

While most people know that Fusion GPS was paid by the Clinton campaign to produce the infamous "Steele Dossier" - assembled by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, Fusion was also working for a Russian businessman who wanted the Magnitsky act repealed, Denis Katsyv, and Veselnitskaya was his lawyer who was given special permission by the Obama DOJ to enter the U.S. to represent him.

In late November of 2017, The Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross reported that heavily redacted Fusion GPS bank records reveal DNC law firm Perkins Coie paid Fusion a total of $1,024,408 in 2016 for opposition research on then-candidate Donald Trump - including the 34-page dossier.

Ross also reported that law firm Baker Hostelter paid Fusion $523,651 between March and October 2016 on behalf of a company owned by Katsyv to research Bill Browder , a London banker who helped push through the Magnitsky Act.

Keep in mind, Veselnitskaya really doesn't like Donald Trump based on several archived Facebook posts:

me title=

So while the Trump Tower meeting may appear to some to have been a setup, the question now is whether or not Trump knew about it in advance.

Tags Legal Services Venture Capital News Agencies Social Media & Networking

nmewn -> DingleBarryObummer Thu, 07/26/2018 - 21:59 Permalink

I'm unsure of the zeitgeist being proposed here but it sure sounds like you are offering up the theory that the Deep State actually wanted Trump.

Yet he..."colluded"...among outside parties like the DNC funded Fusion, Perkins Coie, MI6 and then the FBI, the CIA, DNI and the DoJ to manufacture FALSE EVIDENCE.

In order to produce that "evidence" to a FISA court, in order to "legally" surveil (with taxpayer funds, of course) the very same man (and his associates).

So as to, gather incriminating evidence against him (Trump) so he could be removed from office in disgrace (almost immediately) because he is actually the one the Deep State wants in office, as President of the United States.

Is that what I'm hearing here? ;-)


Yellow_Snow -> DingleBarryObummer Thu, 07/26/2018 - 23:42 Permalink

Cohen was obviously in on the 'entrapping of Trump' plan from the beginning...

Even taping his conversations with his client without his permission - huge red flag

consider me gone -> Freeze These Thu, 07/26/2018 - 22:40 Permalink

The only one telling a different story is the guy who's trying desperately to stay out of prison. Not the best witness. Particularly since he didn't remember for two years prior. Reasonable doubt anyone?

Occams_Razor_Trader -> nmewn Thu, 07/26/2018 - 22:39 Permalink

So hold on this chick is employed by Fusion GPS- who was paid to concoct a dossier against Trump- using Russian sources and UK intelligence, has dinner with the head of Fusion GPS the night before the meeting, she gets the meeting offering information- within minutes changes the course of the meeting- realizing something was wrong, Donald Trump Jr ends the meeting- and the crime is Trump may have known about it??

It's a set up plain and simple. These fucking people are dirty AS SHIT- including the Brown Clown Kenyan.

The big story is using opposition research- paid for- submitted to the court as proof to secure a FISA warrant, and if they didn't know the information was false and paid for- what the fuck is the "I" in FBI for??

e_goldstein -> Occams_Razor_Trader Thu, 07/26/2018 - 22:53 Permalink

Here Louie Gohmert goes into 45 pages of detail on how dirty Mueller actually is.

https://1zwchz1jbsr61f1c4mgf0abl-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/upl

Share it far and wide.

Menoetius -> BurningFuld Thu, 07/26/2018 - 23:46 Permalink

April 2018...."Michael is in business, he is really a businessman, a fairly big business, as I understand it. I don't know his business." He "also practices law." And, "I have many attorneys. Sadly, I have so many attorneys you wouldn't even believe it." Cohen handled only a "tiny, tiny little fraction of my overall legal work."

According to Adam Davidson of the New Yorker, Cohen was not part of the Trump Organization's Legal Team in any sense. Alan Garten was the Trump Org's attorney on real estate matters and Marc Kasowitz usually represented Trump in important cases.

Cohen's legal education was not stellar by any sense of the word. Cohen often told this joke:

Q: "What do you call a lawyer who graduated with a 2.0?"

A: "Counselor."

Would Trump actually hire a guy like this to be his "personal" attorney? He was effectively a trip-and-fall attorney up to the point he was brought into the organization by Trump Sr. In truth, Cohen was a fairly savvy real estate investor and, as such, was appointed Trump's "deal maker" for international projects. He was also Trump's personal "fixer." Cohen made things 'go away.' You don't need to be an attorney to "make things go away."

It's doubtful that there was a legitimate "attorney/client" relationship there.

June 2018...

Michael Cohen is NOT my attorney:

https://youtu.be/qX0AlO53vYw

In any case, reports are out tonight that the Trump Organization's CFO has been subpoenaed to testify in the Cohen investigation. Why? Allen Weisselberg's name came up in the recording that Lanny Davis released yesterday. While everyone was getting their thongs in a twist about who said "cash," the Weisselberg mention was actually the biggest shoe to drop on that tape. Weisselberg has a thorough knowledge of all Trump's deals, payments and income.

MoreFreedom -> natronic Thu, 07/26/2018 - 23:37 Permalink

So what? Nobody cares but the dems.

What's important about this meeting:

What people should care about, is that Democrats were attempting to frame Trump, in the dirtiest campaign trick in my lifetime, and using it as a pretext to get the government to spy on Trump. But you're right that the Dems care about it, because they think (magically) that it means Trump was colluding with Russia. LOL Consider, wouldn't Trump be doing the USA a great favor by obtaining Hillary's emails from Russia, which would prove that Putin was blackmailing her and Obama. The Democrats are completely ignoring this narrative, as if it's Trump's fault Putin has her emails. LOL

Zorba's idea -> USofAzzDownWeGo Thu, 07/26/2018 - 22:25 Permalink

You're a funny guy...The perverse inquisition by the Purple Inquisitors strike again. Nothing but a pathetic Op to "Sting" Trump by the Psyop Deep State Dip Shits. Cohen squeals on cue, check his Cayman Isle bank account. Mr Mueller is beyond desperate as you should be well able to relate to. Ha F'n Ha, but you'll always have Hillary's " "Precious" pee pee dossier...

BankSurfyMan Thu, 07/26/2018 - 21:30 Permalink

Attorney Client Privilege? "Lawyers may not reveal oral or written communications with clients that clients reasonably expect to remain private." Mueller holds a law degree? https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-client-privilege.html F'Tards in the USA! Next!

GeezerGeek -> BankSurfyMan Thu, 07/26/2018 - 21:37 Permalink

Laws only apply to [neo]Liberals. Nothing matters except getting Trump.

I love your wife Thu, 07/26/2018 - 21:39 Permalink

Isn't Christopher Steele a foreign national? Weren't his sources Russian? Didn't Hillary and the DNC pay him? What's with this bullshit?

johnwburns Thu, 07/26/2018 - 21:43 Permalink

Nothing happened at the meeting, who gives a shit.

Anunnaki Thu, 07/26/2018 - 22:02 Permalink

Trump knew about a meeting re: oppo research on Hellary. Which is the same crime Hellary and the DNC did with the bogus Russo 8ntel from the Steele Dossier against What is good for the goose not good for the gander.

Alinsky Effect on steroids.

PiratePiggy Thu, 07/26/2018 - 22:05 Permalink

The Rules allow Mueller to tamper with the witnesses, but don't allow Trump to even tweet about them.

The DOJ's corrupt rules exposed for all to see - remember it when you are on a jury- it is your duty.

Berspankme Thu, 07/26/2018 - 22:22 Permalink

Guy tries to stay out of prison by telling prosecutors what they want to hear. Seen this movie a hundred times

thebriang Thu, 07/26/2018 - 22:22 Permalink

It's like a George Webb wayback machine.
Also funny how no one ever mentions that the Podesta Group closed shop immediately after George Webb filed his lawsuit against them.
Who were in bed with Fusion... who were in bed with the DNC... who were in bed with Awan.
Also funny how that fake ass Rosenstein Russian indictment stole George Webbs lawsuits actblues paragraph almost word for word, but substituting Russians for Awan.
The Awan who also downloaded terabytes of congressional data From Pakistan, ffs.
My, what a wicked web they weave.

Zepper Thu, 07/26/2018 - 22:30 Permalink

Cohen is a plant. The guy was in no danger of anything happening to him. Once the DOJ took everything they broke the law for lawyer client confidentiality. Cohen could just stfu and say nothing and no judge would prosecute him given he never broke a law... So why is he singing like a bird? Because its all a fucking setup.

Who knows, maybe he disliked Trump, Maybe his bitch wife made him do it at the end of the day its his word against a bunch of other people.

istt Thu, 07/26/2018 - 22:54 Permalink

Incredible what they are allowing Mueller to do. He basically makes it clear to the person that if they do not say what they want to hear they are going to ruin them financially, so people say tell me what you want me to say, and Mueller backs off. I am blown away this charade is being allowed to go forward. Mueller has done more to destroy the faith people have in our justice system than any other figure in our modern history. Truly, Mueller should be rotting in prison for a very long time since it is clear that he is attempting a silent coup, the US and the American public be damned. This is all about Mueller and appeasing his puppet masters.

But slowly, ever so slowly, this charade is unraveling. This is throwing his constituents a bone.

How do I really feel? FUCK YOU, Mueller. Fuck you and your outsized ego.

MuffDiver69 Thu, 07/26/2018 - 23:13 Permalink

Was just reported Cohen has already testified to Congress under oath Trump didn't know and Lanny Davis is accusing the Trump team of leaking this made up story...Cohen getting the treatment by Trump..

[Jul 27, 2018] Cohen Ready To Flip Will Tell Mueller Trump Knew About Trump Tower Meeting

So John "911 cover-up" Mueller is still waiving this dead chicken
Jul 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

President Trump's former longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, is prepared to tell special counsel Robert Mueller that then-candidate Donald Trump knew in advance about the June 2016 Trump tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Fusion GPS associate Natalia Veselnitskaya - who is not a fan of Trump Sr., and several other individuals - including Cohen who says he was there, reports CNN .

[May 24, 2018] Most probably Veselnitskaya was a false flag operation to entrap Trump campaign played by British intelligence

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. ..."
"... IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up. ..."
May 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Merasmus , May 21, 2018 at 12:36 am

'Collusion' would mean actively conspiring with a foreign government. To this day there is no evidence that the Russian lawyer was working for the Russian government (I have seen some media simply assert that she has Kremlin 'connections', whatever that's supposed to mean). Also, why exactly would the Trump campaign have any need to meet with someone promising dirt if, as the Steele Dossier claims, Trump had been a Russian agent for 5 years? The Kremlin would surely have already been providing any possible dirt, and more besides.

And is this really where we are now? Is this what we've come to? Russia is a country of 144 million people. Is simply being Russian, or talking to a Russian, now a crime? Because that's what our current atmosphere seems to think. It's shocking to see so many people, especially supposedly tolerant and multicultural liberals, ignore any distinction between a government and private citizens, and engage in what can only be called bigotry about 'Russians'. Replace 'Russian' with 'Jew', or a slur like 'Jap', and how incredibly ugly the atmosphere has become in the last 18 months or so becomes obvious.

That Trump is comically corrupt is a given. But the two central claims of Russiagate were that a. Trump is a Russian agent (or at least being blackmailed by Russia), and that b. Russia in some way hacked or interfered in the election to get Trump elected. There is, to this day, exactly zero evidence for either.

No, his son meeting with a Russian citizen promising political dirt (even if dirt had been exchanged, which it wasn't because she was lying and just wanted to get a meeting to lobby for some business interests), doesn't constitute 'collusion', or interference by a foreign government.

Nor does some St. Petersburg company spending a paltry amount of money to run a clickbait ad revenue scheme on Facebook. Nor do Macedonian teenagers running troll accounts (Macedonia isn't even in Russia, and to this day I've never seen any evidence that any Russian, much less the Russian government, is behind their activities).

The above two are especially damning, because they make it painfully obvious that Russiagate has exactly nothing. In the absence of any evidence that Russia hacked the election, proponents have been forced to venture far and wide to find something, anything, they can remotely pin on Russia. A few hundred thousand dollars spent on social media ads, including ads for Clinton and Sanders, many of which were seen by literally no one, and half of which didn't run until AFTER the election? Are you freaking kidding me?

As for 'shady Russian money', maybe Trump has taken some. It certainly wouldn't surprise me that he's done something like launder money for Russian oligarchs. Now prove to me took money from the Russian government. Because, again, those are two very different prospects. And if you think the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs are interchangeable or in lockstep with each other, you clearly don't know much about recent Russian history.

The Russiagate claim wasn't that Trump is skeevy and corrupt. Of course he is. The claim is that he is corrupt in very specific ways, ways that constitute treason.

Vivian O'Blivion , May 21, 2018 at 6:30 am

Marasmus.

Difficult to argue with any of your points.

Mueller has filed charges against some of the staff in the St Petersburg operation, if you can connect Trump to this entity then cooperation becomes criminal collusion. As charges have already been filed it matters not whether the St Petersburg staff are private or state employees.

The fact that America has laws prohibiting foreign interference in its elections is I guess understandable, but hypocritical and exceptionalist in the extreme given the cart blanch attitude America takes to interfering in the internal affairs of other nations.

The Donald Jr meeting with Russians is just a rats nest of conflicting stupidities. If as many others state (and I don't disagree) everyone tries to get dirt on the opposition and foreign sources of information are regularly tapped, then the secret is not to get caught. The Democrats have a plausible cut out (or two) in place between the Russian sources for the Steele dossier and themselves.

As Steve Bannon has stated, meeting directly with the Russians was weapons grade stupid, but hey it's Don Jr. and Jared Kushner we're talking about.

The really odd part is that the Russians would attend given that they must have known that their names would be logged by the Secret Service detail providing security for the Republican candidate. To me, this does not suggest an attempt to help Trump as "their man", but rather to dirty by association a candidate that could become President. This interpretation would concur with analysis of the activities of the St Petersburg operation, which was to sow chaos into American social and political discourse.

andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:13 am

Heres the problem with that.
FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. The Russians paid them to connect with the trump campaign in order to discuss the magnitsky act. They did not come to the meeting with any notion of DIRT. Trump Jr was told they had DIRT.

THe problem the FBI has, is that they never investigated the Russian contacts to the extent that they investigated the Americans being contacted. Dig? :) IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up.

PapaD got nailed for not being able to remember if the meeting was the tuesday prior or after joing the trump Campaign. It doesnt make sense unless the FBI was looking to spy

Homer Jay , May 21, 2018 at 12:27 pm

Let's all assume for one second that all the fantasies of Russia gate are true. That every Russian that Trump and his associates/family ever had any contact with are directed by Putin himself. Who believes for one second that this collusion has had more of a negative impact 2016 election then the collusion that occured between Clinton and the DNC to subvert Sanders, Clinton and the media to 1st subvert Sanders and then Trump (side note, why doesn't Clinton/MSM collusion against Trump balance with the Trump/Russian collusion for Trump?) How about the collusion between Wall Street and the DNC to such an extent that Citi Group was exposed as having picked Obama's cabinet. And then let's remember that the Trump collusion with Kremlin has alot of guilt by association through 6 degrees of separation and the Clinton/DNC/MSM/Wall Street collusion was proven in black and white through the publication of Clinton/DNC/Podesta emails in Wikileaks.

That this point gets ignored by the MSM, is proof to me that they have lost all objectivity.

andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:16 am

MOre so.. Homer If Clintons personal server was a nothing burger not worthy of a single indictment, then why was it a national security issue when some stranger offered the emails to Papadopoulos? They didnt bother investigating the stranger. they investigated Papadopoulos!

Nobody will touch that with a ten foot poll in the main stream media.

[May 24, 2018] Let us consider the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian delegation. As Steve Bannon stated, meeting with the Russians at a venue under Secret Service control was monumentally stupid. The Russians intelligence can't have been that dumb.

May 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Vivian O'Blivion , May 19, 2018 at 8:09 am

strngr
You cite quite a number of examples, presumably without detailed knowledge of few, if any. I will not fall into the same trap.

The Brexit vote was an outbreak of mass hysteria amongst English and Welsh working class voters. The sentiment that powered the grass roots "rebellion" against the perceived wisdom of the ruling elite was understandable frustration at social and economic neglect. My guess is that in this regard it was a mirror of the rise of Trumpism. Interestingly Scotland voted to remain in the EU by a substantially stronger margin than England voted to leave, because there was already established a vivid, informed, grass roots political discourse mainly based on Scottish social media. The Brexit outcome was influenced by some pretty underhand digital media manipulation, but those doing the manipulation were domestic and hard right wing, not Russian. The Guardian cannot be considered a source of untainted information, it is increasingly Atlantasist and Zionist.

The Scottish independence vote in 2014 was heavily influenced by digital media but it was entirely indigenous and grass roots. There was no credible claim of Russian interference then or since. The Daily Express is a far right rag owned at the time of the article you cite by a pornographer, and deeply unpleasant Zionist.

Over to a more general discussion.

Is there on any level a Russian state programme using a digital platform to influence politics and social cohesion in other states? Frankly I would be astonished if there wasn't.

The UK has had the British Council working out of its embassies since the beginning of time.

The American State Department has been creating and financing Atlantasist think tanks and associations for decades to skew British politics to meet American ends.

I doubt there is a country on the planet that has not felt the malign influence of the State Department or CIA.

In the circumstances, Russia would be entirely justified in operating troll factories and similar vehicles.

Next, what would the objectives of a Russian cyber operation be in the run up to the American Presidential election? All academic evaluation of content believed to originate in Russia and to be presented as domestic American input, suggests that the goal of the intervention was to sew discord and chaos in society. That is to say that the Kremlin did not have a favoured candidate.

How effective would the efforts of the St Petersburg troll factory be in exasperating social divisions? My guess is that it would have been analogous with taking a hair dryer outside in a category 5 hurricane.

Let us consider the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian delegation. As Steve Bannon stated, meeting with the Russians at a venue under Secret Service control was monumentally stupid. Monumentally stupid is entirely believable of Donald Jr., Jared Kushner and possibly Manafort, but the Russians can't have been that dumb. By meeting at a venue where their names would be openly logged by the State, they would be sabotaging any serious attempt to "get their man into the White House", if that was their true goal. Taking this into account, the object of the meeting from a Russian perspective can only have been to generate chaos. Seventeen months on in the new administration and if I were them I would be awarding myself an A+.

Try this though experiment and subdue your moral indignation at Russian interference for a minute. In the circumstances is Russia entitled to do that which it you accuse it of? I will not offer an answer to the question I pose, I am genuinely asking that you try and project to see an alternative perspective.

[May 16, 2018] 'No focus on Russian activities' - Donald Jr. on Trump Tower meeting in interview transcripts -- RT US News

Notable quotes:
"... "hear them out." ..."
"... "no focus on Russian activities" ..."
"... "the most embarrassing thing you've ever asked me to do" ..."
"... "complete loss of time" ..."
"... "answered every question asked" ..."
"... "I appreciate the opportunity to have assisted the Judiciary Committee in its inquiry," ..."
"... "The public can now see that for over five hours I answered every question asked and was candid and forthright with the Committee." ..."
May 16, 2018 | www.rt.com

The 2016 Trump Tower meeting set up to reveal dirt on Hillary Clinton "infuriated" Jared Kushner, was a "waste of time" and had nothing to do with Clinton, according to transcripts of interviews with the meeting's participants. The US Senate Judiciary Committee has released more than 1,800 pages of transcripts, which provide new insight into the controversial meeting during which Donald Trump Jr, along with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and then campaign chairman Paul Manafort, was expecting to receive "dirt" on Hillary Clinton from Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.

Overall, the newly-released documents seem to indicate that a short 20-minute meeting resulted in hours of interviews and thousands of pages of documents for little reason.

In the transcripts, Trump Jr. said that he was skeptical that Rob Goldstone, the publicist who had been the first to contact him about a meeting, had colleagues who possessed incriminating information about Clinton, but said felt he should at least "hear them out." Read more © RT 'Wasting taxpayers' money': Lawyer Veselnitskaya talks Trump's dossier & Fusion GPS

He also said that it was important to note that when he accepted the invitation to go to the meeting there was "no focus on Russian activities" surrounding the campaign and claimed that Goldstone had not even confirmed the names of the attendees who would join them at the meeting.

Goldstone had set up the meeting on behalf of Russian musical artist Emin Agaralov, the son of a wealthy Russian businessman, but revealed in his interview that he later told Agaralov that the meeting was "the most embarrassing thing you've ever asked me to do" given that it ended up having nothing to do with Clinton. Goldstone also revealed that Veselnitskaya's apparently Clinton-free presentation in the meeting had "infuriated" Kushner.

In another indication that the meeting was not supposed to be a top-secret attempt for the Trump campaign to collude with Russia, Goldstone also revealed that he "checked in" to Trump Tower on Facebook when he arrived.

In a supplemental interview, Goldstone also told investigators that Russian President Vladimir Putin was not able to meet Trump during the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, but invited him through a phone call with his spokesman Dmitry Peskov, organized by Agaralov, to attend the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi instead. According to Goldstone, Peskov said Putin would be happy to meet him there -- but that meeting did not end up happening.

Anatoli Samochornov, a Russian translator who attended the meeting, said that no one present had said the Russian government either supported Trump or opposed Clinton for president. He also said there were no offers from the Russian side to release hacked emails, hack voting totals or anything else.

The other translator present, Ike Kaveladze, said he spoke to Agaralov about two hours after the meeting and told him it was a "complete loss of time" and a "useless" meeting.

The committee released the thousands of pages of transcripts along with hundreds of additional pages of related material, including the interviews with Goldstone, Russian-American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin and translators Samochornov and Kaveladze.

Read more A woman passes by the Al Jazeera America broadcast center in New York City, January 13, 2016 © Brendan McDermid 'Weapon of mass suppression': Russiagate now used to target any dissent in US – Max Blumenthal

The meeting has been the subject of controversy, particularly the question of whether then-candidate Trump knew about it. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has looked closely at the meeting as part of his investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election, which has not yet turned up any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

Following the publication of the documents, Trump Jr. said they showed that he "answered every question asked" by the committee.

"I appreciate the opportunity to have assisted the Judiciary Committee in its inquiry," he said in a statement. "The public can now see that for over five hours I answered every question asked and was candid and forthright with the Committee."

Those who were present at the meeting said Veselnitskaya did not provide any 'dirt' on Clinton and instead focused on discussing the overturning of US sanctions placed on Russia under the Magnitsky Act. Those sanctions, which impose US entry bans and asset freezes on Russians alleged to have been involved in human rights abuses, are still in place and have since been expanded , most recently in December 2017 when five more Russian nationals were added to the Magnitsky List. 'No focus on Russian activities' - Donald Jr. on Trump Tower meeting in interview transcripts Democrats & Russians 'laughing' at 'witch hunt' collusion probe – Trump 'No focus on Russian activities' - Donald Jr. on Trump Tower meeting in interview transcripts 'Story of my meeting with Trump Jr. has been manipulated' - Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya

[May 16, 2018] Documents Show Promise, and Letdown, Around Trump Tower Meeting

Note how NYT try to hide the fact that the meeting was most probably yet another a false flag operation (along with Steele dossier) to implicate Russia staged with the help of a person connected to British intelligence service, Mr. Goldstone, a British music promoter. That in an interesting fact in additional to CIA mode within Trump campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... The intermediary, Rob Goldstone, told the committee that he proposed a second meeting between the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and members of Mr. Trump's team in November 2016. He said he contacted Mr. Trump's longtime executive assistant at the behest of Aras Agalarov, a Russia-based billionaire who knows Mr. Putin. ..."
May 16, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

Most of the participants in the meeting have already publicly described their version of events. Nonetheless, the records reveal some new details about the players involved and what happened after the meeting was reported by The New York Times last summer.

Among them: Six months after the Trump Tower meeting , an intermediary contacted Donald J. Trump's office asking for a follow-up, the newly released documents showed.

The intermediary, Rob Goldstone, told the committee that he proposed a second meeting between the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and members of Mr. Trump's team in November 2016. He said he contacted Mr. Trump's longtime executive assistant at the behest of Aras Agalarov, a Russia-based billionaire who knows Mr. Putin.

The second session never took place. But the invitation shows the determination of Russians with close Kremlin connections to convince the Trump team that the Magnitsky Act, which imposed sanctions on a host of Russian officials for human rights abuses, was a mistake. The 2012 law, which froze the bank accounts of some Russian officials and barred them from entering the United States, infuriated Mr. Putin.

In a late November 2016 email to Mr. Trump's assistant, Mr. Goldstone, a British music promoter, attached a three-page document marked "confidential" that called for "the launch of a congressional investigation into the circumstances of passing the Magnitsky Act." He wrote that Mr. Agalarov hoped the document would be delivered to "the appropriate team." Ms. Veselnitskaya also attacked the law in the June meeting.

The transcripts also highlight how lawyers for the Trump Organization tried to manage the fallout by coordinating the statements of Mr. Goldstone and others.

In testimony, Donald Trump Jr. acknowledged that his father may have helped draft the statement that he put out to the press after the meeting became public, but he said that they had not discussed the meeting when it happened.

[May 04, 2018] Mueller's team questioned Russian billionaire who attended Trump inauguration report TheHill

Any witch hunt has its own dynamics.
May 04, 2018 | thehill.com
Robert Mueller s team of investigators interviewed a Russian billionaire earlier this year, according to a New York Times report .

Investigators stopped the Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg at a New York-area airport after he stepped off a private plane, according to the Times. They proceeded to search his electronic devices and question him.

There is no indication that Vekselberg is suspected of wrongdoing. But the search and interview suggests that Mueller's team is homing in on the Trump campaign and inauguration committee's potential ties with Russians.

[Feb 22, 2018] Russiagate-Trump Gets Solved by Giant of American Investigative Journalism

Feb 22, 2018 | theduran.com

in Analysis , Latest Russiagate-Trump Gets Solved by Giant of American Investigative Journalism Some people's greed, apparently, knows no limits -- not even when it could produce a world-ending nuclear war.

by Eric Zuesse February 22, 2018, 07:51 1.9k Views

[Feb 16, 2018] Mueller does have the leverage to twist Bannon to his will.

Feb 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Mzhen Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:26 Permalink

Breitbart is a Zionist mouthpiece. Steve Bannon is a mouth. Robert and Rebekah Mercer (not Jewish) decided to shift their allegiance and money from Cruz to Trump. They met with Jared and Ivanka to discuss. The Mercers threw Bannon into the deal. Once Bannon had infiltrated the campaign, and later the WH, maybe the Zionists were still pulling his strings. Bannon was also colluding with Chinese nationals, so Mueller does have the leverage to twist Bannon to his will.

[Feb 05, 2018] CONFIRMED Mueller admits no collusion at Trump Tower meeting

Feb 05, 2018 | theduran.com

As is now becoming the way as the Russiagate scandal unravels, confirmation of the collapse of one of its central pillars – the claim of proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign which some have claimed to see in the meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 between the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Donald Trump Junior – has slipped out in the most covert way possible.

Nonetheless the confirmation is there and originates in what all the indications suggest is a deliberate leak either from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team or from the White House's legal team.

The confirmation is provided in an NBC News article which reads as follows

Two sources familiar with the questions Mueller's team have been asking about the meeting say the investigators are most interested in why the president crafted a misleading statement about the meeting much later, in July 2017, after a New York Times report about it. The sources say Mueller's office is trying to confirm every detail it can about the meeting.

Mueller's team is less interested in the meeting as a direct example of collusion, the sources said, although Trump Jr. accepted the meeting after being told he would receive incriminating information about Hillary Clinton as part of the Russian government effort to help his father.

No evidence has emerged publicly to contradict Veselnitskaya's account that she wanted to press a case about U.S. Magnitsky Act sanctions, and that she did not possess significant derogatory information about Clinton, despite the email from a music promoter to Trump Jr. promising incriminating details about the Democrat.

Moreover, no evidence has emerged publicly that connects the Russians in the meeting with the Russian intelligence effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

The issue of Donald Trump's supposedly misleading statement about the meeting is a red herring since it can have no possible connection to the collusion allegations which Mueller's inquiry is supposed to be investigating.

Even assuming that Trump's statement was misleading – which some might question – it would hardly be the first case of a US President making a misleading statement, and it is impossible to see how it can possibly give rise to a law enforcement issue for Mueller to investigate.

Of much more importance is the confirmation that Mueller's team now acknowledge that there is no evidence to connect Veselnitskaya to Russian intelligence and that her and Donald Trump Junior's accounts of their meeting must be accepted as true since there is no evidence to contradict them.

In truth this was obvious from the start as I pointed out in an article I wrote on 12th July 2017, written immediately after details of the meeting came to light

The meeting with Veselnitskaya duly took place on 9th June 2016. It turned out that she had no information about Hillary Clinton to offer and was not a "Russian government attorney". Instead she wanted to discuss the Magnitsky Act, upon which a baffled Donald Trump Junior politely showed her the door.

That is the unanimous account of all the participants of the meeting including Donald Trump Junior and Veselnitskaya herself. All agree that the meeting lasted no more than 20 minutes.

There is no evidence that contradicts their account and the absence of any follow-up to the meeting essentially corroborates their account.

It seems that Donald Trump Junior and Veselnitskaya have never met since and have had no further contact with each other.

There is no evidence here of any crime or wrongdoing being committed or – contrary to what many are saying – of any intention to commit one.

Russiagate would not however be Russiagate if this important news that Mueller and his team have come to the same conclusion was not smuggled out in an NBC News article whose title gives the impression that it is about the totally meaningless fact that Veselnitskaya after leaving the meeting with Donald Trump Junior had a brief encounter in the lift of Trump Tower with a blonde woman who might – or might not – have been Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka.

To such ridiculous lengths to conceal embarrassing truths about Russiagate is the media in the US increasingly reduced to.

Though the Veselnitskaya-Trump Junior meeting is now being finally acknowledged to be the red herring it always was, there is one further point about it to make.

In my 12th July 2017 article I speculated that the meeting might have been a sting intended to corroborate the collusion allegations between the Trump campaign and Russia which were to achieve written form in the first 20th June 2016 entry of the Trump Dossier, written a few weeks after the Veselnitskaya-Trump Junior took place.

What led others subsequently to speculate along the same lines was that there appeared to be a connection between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the political consultancy firm which commissioned the Trump Dossier on behalf of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Glenn Simpson's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee should put all this speculation to rest.

It turns out that Veselnitskaya was not working for Fusion GPS but rather Fusion GPS was working for her, in connection with her work on the Magnitsky case.

That in itself makes it inherently unlikely that she was acting as a catspaw for Fusion GPS when she met Donald Trump Junior.

More to the point, Glenn Simpson's comments about Veselnitskaya are anything but complimentary. He basically describes her – rather convincingly – as a self-important busybody and a minor league player, and expresses incredulity at the suggestion that she was a Russian intelligence agent who was working for the Kremlin.

Simpson's characterisation of Veselnitskaya in testimony in which he strongly promotes the Russiagate collusion allegations and vouches for the truth of the Trump Dossier makes it all but inconceivable Veselnitskaya was involved in a sting to set Trump Junior up.

Despite taking place at a time when the Trump-Russia collusion allegations were about to take off, Veselnitskaya's meeting with Trump Junior must instead be seen as one of those annoying coincidences which lawyers, journalists, policemen and the public automatically distrust, but which happen in real life.

[Jan 25, 2018] Trump, in the coming Trump-Mueller interview, doesn't know what Mueller may already know from his interviews with others so if he spins and lies he's toast

Notable quotes:
"... I do not think Mueller can get Trump on collusion with Russia ..specifically because there was no collusion with the Kremlin/official Government. Instead there were a lot of contacts with individual Russians seeking to get a deal on something to boost their own Russian creds with Putin or for their own private financial gain. ..."
"... Mueller's investigation has, according to this article, accidentally turned up something that should put Mueller in prison: https://www.sott.net/article/375184-Muellers-investigation-accidentally-exposes-FBI-cover-up-of-Saudi-role-in-9-11 ..."
Jan 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , Next New Comment January 25, 2018 at 3:08 am GMT

Back to the matter at hand

I do not think Mueller can get Trump on collusion with Russia ..specifically because there was no collusion with the Kremlin/official Government.
Instead there were a lot of contacts with individual Russians seeking to get a deal on something to boost their own Russian creds with Putin or for their own private financial gain.
Also outreach by Kushner to Russian money men and bankers for his 1 billion in debt.

Mueller has a better chance of getting Trump on obstruction of justice and maybe lying to the FBI because Trump, in the coming trump- Mueller interview, doesn't know what Mueller may already know from his interviews with others so if he spins and lies he's toast.

I don't care about Trump being impeached as much as I care about removing Kushner. Kushner is dirtier than pig shit and using his position to trade influence for money for the Kushners in every foreign contact he makes.

Trumps relationship with Kushner is beyond weird, really, really weird .something ties them together and I would bet money that's its being party to money laundering thru their real estate deals and loans. Trump cant be the genius he claims to be, and claims Jared is. and they not know all the money flowing to them from Russian oligarchs and other known money movers isn't dirty as hell.

Twodees Partain , Next New Comment January 25, 2018 at 3:52 am GMT
@renfro

Mueller's investigation has, according to this article, accidentally turned up something that should put Mueller in prison: https://www.sott.net/article/375184-Muellers-investigation-accidentally-exposes-FBI-cover-up-of-Saudi-role-in-9-11

If Trump was the stable genius he says he is, he would have seen to it that Kushner would never have married his daughter. If he is even a little smart, he would give Kushner the boot now, though it's probably too late to avoid the consequences of his appointment of Kushner.

Dimwit that I am, my conclusion is that Trump isn't a genius after all.

Cloak And Dagger , Next New Comment January 25, 2018 at 4:33 am GMT
@Twodees Partain

Interesting link.

As The Free Thought Project has reported, Trump is also complicit in covering for the Saudis, as he went from calling for holding Saudi Arabia accountable for its involvement in 9/11, to ignoring the idea that the country could have had any involvement at all.

After months on the campaign trail, in which he pledged that if he was elected, Americans would "find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center," Trump made Saudi Arabia the first foreign nation he visited as president of the U.S.

Trump's visit with Saudi King Salman occurred on May 20 – just four days after Judge Altonaga ruled that the FBI should face a Freedom of Information trial in an attempt to pursue transparency surrounding the funding of the 9/11 attacks.

During the visit, Trump announced plans for a $110 BILLION weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, which adds a new level of context that should be considered when looking at why Altonaga then reversed her decision on June 29.

That is an unexpected twist!

[Jan 22, 2018] The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised

Highly recommended!
People are really angry, judging from comments
Notable quotes:
"... Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. ..."
"... To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ. ..."
"... GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates. ..."
"... Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner. ..."
"... OK Ron Johnson (R-WI), the author was Steven Boyd, Assistant for Legislative Affairs / DOJ - Hold him in contempt of congress. ..."
Jan 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

SethPoor -> BennyBoy Jan 22, 2018 9:47 AM Permalink

Jim in MN -> SethPoor Jan 22, 2018 9:52 AM Permalink

Bottom Line:

The party in power used the apparatus of the police state to spy on and damage an opposition candidate.

There really isn't a higher crime in our supposed system.

THEN there's the cover-up.....as in deleting files and pretending you never had them even though the IG already does.

otschelnik Jan 22, 2018 8:55 AM Permalink

OK Ron Johnson (R-WI), the author was Steven Boyd, Assistant for Legislative Affairs / DOJ - Hold him in contempt of congress. Have him arrested. During questioning, press him to the wall, get him to tell him who in the FBI told him 'they couldn't find them.' Then go arrest that guy too. Rinse and repeat. Look what these bastards did to Mike Flynn. Go get 'em. NOW!!!

VideoEng_NC Jan 22, 2018 9:10 AM Permalink

One of the silver linings in this mess is the clear view that the FBI is ridiculously compromised & has chucked its standard of non-political leanings right out the window. Shutting it down may have once seemed a long shot, now maybe not so much. If you haven't noticed, another Trump boomerang has happened to the Left with their favorite word starting with the letter S. This time I'm thinking Storm is what's about to follow instead of hole or house.

stustd Jan 22, 2018 9:14 AM Permalink

Business as usual continues: Comey to teach ethical leadership course at William & Mary:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/369695-comey-to-teach-ethical-leadership-course-at-william-mary

wcole225 Jan 22, 2018 9:21 AM Permalink

If the republican leadership hiccup here on the release of the memo then it's things as usual and forget a full on war from them. I don't trust those bastards as far as I can throw them. Trump then needs to fire Sessions and Mueller and go full on attack mode with a press conference doing what he does and light the left's hair on fire like never before. This is war and it needs kicked off in grand fashion. The left's ability to guilt shame has been neutered and they know it and are scared to death.

CatInTheHat -> wcole225 Jan 22, 2018 11:03 AM Permalink

Why do people think Trump is going to do anything? When his actions say he is doing exactly what the WARMONGERING fuckers want??

Trump is Barry is Clinton is Bush...

the not so mig Jan 22, 2018 9:31 AM Permalink

these FBI Stazi guys are no good, shutter down

two hoots Jan 22, 2018 9:33 AM Permalink

The Genius has lost control. Washington is oozing and dripping its corrupt, manipulating, narcissistic and deceiving bile. Just one thin mint is all it will take. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJZPzQESq_0

wobblie Jan 22, 2018 9:50 AM Permalink

Nothing like a colossal waste of time to distract the herd.

https://therulingclassobserver.com/2018/01/07/unity-at-the-top-division

azusgm Jan 22, 2018 10:10 AM Permalink

At one point, Peter Strzok made reference to a phone that "could not be traced". He probably had a 2nd phone for a period. I'd be willing to bet it was a BlackBerry. While he had (if he had) that 2nd phone, he could have used that more secure phone for his communications with Lisa Page.

The IG may have all of Strzok's text messages with Lisa Page from his official phone, but none from the 2nd phone.

azusgm -> azusgm Jan 22, 2018 10:35 AM Permalink

Here's an article that includes the reference to the 2nd phone.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/peter-strzok-lisa-page-texts-trump-idiot/

The article says that it was Lisa Page who suggested using the 2nd phone. That message from her was in March 2016.

"Also in March, Page seems to be concerned about whether the things they say about Mr. Trump can be found out. "So look, you say we can text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it cant be traced," she wrote."

Haven't read through the entire thread here, but the end date of the interval for the missing data is also the date that Mueller was appointed.

Lostinfortwalton Jan 22, 2018 10:34 AM Permalink

All of this shit is at the NSA Blufdale, Utah, facility. Why are the taxpayers spending umpteen billion dollars collecting and storing this stuff if the government is going to pretend it doesn't exist? You can bet this internet post, and anyone who replies to it, is archived there. We are supposed to be afraid of being surveiled by assholes like Clapper and Brennan. Guess what? We're not.

enough of this Jan 22, 2018 10:34 AM Permalink

If Horowitz now claims he really didn't receive all the text messages he requested, then he too is part of a massive cover-up and any report that is issued by the DOJ's Inspector General's office can't be believed by definition.

insanelysane -> enough of this Jan 22, 2018 10:41 AM Permalink

It's possible Horowitz lied then to placate the Congressional inquiry. I believe that the Deep State believes that they can get Trump impeached before the shit hits the fan with the Sedition by the FBI. There is always Plan B for the Deep State but 50 years after they rid the world of 2 Kennedys the general population isn't buying it.

BendGuyhere Jan 22, 2018 10:37 AM Permalink

The FACT PATTERN supports a RICO indictment and prosecution.

RUDY GIULIANI for SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.

Hang Comey, Lynch, Mueller, Clinton, TO MAKE SURE IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN!

MrBoompi Jan 22, 2018 11:00 AM Permalink

If I understand how US communication systems work, every network has a splitter which copies all transmissions to NSA, or related agencies, storage devices. I would be shocked if they didn't collect everything from FBI or DOJ employees, and I mean everything, from FBI devices or their private devices. If the files are sitting safe and secure on NSA storage devices, only the NSA could really "lose" them. And this would also be true for every one of Clinton's messages. Why don't we ever see Congress ask NSA for anything? Is that verboten?

Arrow4Truth Jan 22, 2018 11:58 AM Permalink

"This glaring contradiction suggests someone is lying or perhaps simply incompetent." Wrong! It's both.

currency Jan 22, 2018 12:34 PM Permalink

FBI and DOJ and the Weasel Liar Rosenstein are LIARS. They don't want the world and the American people know what Liars, corrupt, in the tank for Hilray to know what they did are still trying to due. Trump needs to clean house of the FBI and DOJ of all Clinton and Obama people.

[Jan 22, 2018] Gowdy Steve Bannon's Testimony Presented Personal 'Credibility Issue'

Notable quotes:
"... House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that after lengthy closed-door testimony by two former top Trump aides, he found that one of the men appears to have a "credibility" problem. ..."
"... But, he said that Bannon's testimony was more eventful. Gowdy said that at one point, Bannon attempted to dodge questions by exercising a privilege that does not exist. "That was his slip-up," Gowdy said. "He got this notion that 'hey, I'm going to create a privilege that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't exist in the law." Gowdy said the only "dangerous" issue for President Donald Trump is if "credible evidence" is presented. ..."
"... He said Bannon's credibility has taken a hit, since he once said there was no chance the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. did not meet Trump Sr. ..."
"... But, after he was fired, Bannon reportedly told author Michael Wolff that there was no chance the meeting hadn't occurred. ..."
"... "This is the same witness that said that members of the president's family committed acts of treason. So, he's got a credibility issue," Gowdy said. "If they're hinging the entire case on Steve Bannon's credibility, good luck to the prosecution." ..."
Jan 17, 2018 | Fox News Insider

As seen on The Story with Martha MacCallum

House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that after lengthy closed-door testimony by two former top Trump aides, he found that one of the men appears to have a "credibility" problem.

Former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former White House adviser Steve Bannon spent several hours testifying before Gowdy's committee Tuesday.

Gowdy said Lewandowski wanted to answer every question posed to him, but that his lawyers advised him against answering those regarding his work after he left the campaign. "That [onus is] on the lawyer, not the witness. Corey is going to come back and answer every question anyone has," Gowdy said.

But, he said that Bannon's testimony was more eventful. Gowdy said that at one point, Bannon attempted to dodge questions by exercising a privilege that does not exist. "That was his slip-up," Gowdy said. "He got this notion that 'hey, I'm going to create a privilege that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't exist in the law." Gowdy said the only "dangerous" issue for President Donald Trump is if "credible evidence" is presented.

He said Bannon's credibility has taken a hit, since he once said there was no chance the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. did not meet Trump Sr.

But, after he was fired, Bannon reportedly told author Michael Wolff that there was no chance the meeting hadn't occurred.

"This is the same witness that said that members of the president's family committed acts of treason. So, he's got a credibility issue," Gowdy said. "If they're hinging the entire case on Steve Bannon's credibility, good luck to the prosecution."

Watch more above.

[Jan 22, 2018] US Intelligence Could Well Have Wiretapped Trump by Ron Paul

Notable quotes:
"... Unable to come to terms with losing the 2016 election, Democrats are still pushing the 'Russiagate' probe and blocking the release of a memo describing surveillance abuses by the FBI, former Congressman Ron Paul told RT. ..."
"... I don't think anybody is seeking justice or seeking truth as much as they're seeking to get political advantage ..."
"... "I would be surprised if they haven't spied on him. They spy on everybody else. And they have spied on other members of the executive branch and other presidents." ..."
"... "The other day when they voted to get FISA even more power to spy on American people, the president couldn't be influenced by the fact that they used it against him. And I believe they did, and he believes that." ..."
"... "I've always maintained that government ought to be open and the people ought to have their privacy. But right now the people have no privacy and all our government does is work on secrecy and then it becomes competitive between the two parties, who get stuck with the worst deal by arguing, who's guilty of some crime," the politician explained. ..."
"... Paul also blasted the infamous 'Russian Dossier' compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, and which the Democrats used in their attack on Trump, saying it ..."
"... "has no legitimacy being revealing [in terms of] of Trump being associated with Russia. From the people I know The story has been all made up, essentially." ..."
"... "I'm no fan of Trump. I'm not a supporter of his, but I think that has been carried way overboard. I think the Democrats can't stand the fact that they've lost the election, and they can't stand the fact that Trump is a little bit more independent minded than they like," he said. ..."
Jan 20, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Unable to come to terms with losing the 2016 election, Democrats are still pushing the 'Russiagate' probe and blocking the release of a memo describing surveillance abuses by the FBI, former Congressman Ron Paul told RT.

A top-secret intelligence memo, believed to reveal political bias at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ towards President Trump, may well be as significant as the Republicans say, Ron Paul told RT. But, he added, "there's still to many unknowns, especially, from my view point."

"Trump connection to the Russians, I think, has been way overblown, and I'd like to just get to the bottom of this the new information that's coming out, maybe this will reveal things and help us out," he said.

"Right now it's just a political fight," the former US Congressman said. "I think they're dealing with things a lot less important than the issue they ought to be talking about Right now, I don't think anybody is seeking justice or seeking truth as much as they're seeking to get political advantage."

Trump's claims that he was wiretapped by US intelligence agencies on the orders of the Obama administration may well turn out to be true, Paul said.

"I would be surprised if they haven't spied on him. They spy on everybody else. And they have spied on other members of the executive branch and other presidents."

However, he criticized Trump for doing nothing to prevent the Senate from voting in the expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) earlier this week.

"The other day when they voted to get FISA even more power to spy on American people, the president couldn't be influenced by the fact that they used it against him. And I believe they did, and he believes that."

"I've always maintained that government ought to be open and the people ought to have their privacy. But right now the people have no privacy and all our government does is work on secrecy and then it becomes competitive between the two parties, who get stuck with the worst deal by arguing, who's guilty of some crime," the politician explained.

The fact that Democrats on the relevant committees have all voted against releasing the memo "might mean that Trump is probably right; there's probably a lot of stuff there that would exonerate him from any accusation they've been making," he said.

Paul also blasted the infamous 'Russian Dossier' compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, and which the Democrats used in their attack on Trump, saying it

"has no legitimacy being revealing [in terms of] of Trump being associated with Russia. From the people I know The story has been all made up, essentially."

"I'm no fan of Trump. I'm not a supporter of his, but I think that has been carried way overboard. I think the Democrats can't stand the fact that they've lost the election, and they can't stand the fact that Trump is a little bit more independent minded than they like," he said.

This article was originally published by RT -

[Jan 22, 2018] Trump Jr. on FISA memo Media, Democrats working together to deceive Americans

Jan 22, 2018 | www.washingtonexaminer.com

Donald Trump Jr. called for the release of a memo that allegedly contains information about Obama administration surveillance abuses and suggested that Democrats are complicit with the media in misleading the public.

"It's the double standard that the people are fed by the Democrats in complicity with the media, that's why neither have any trust from the American people anymore," Trump said on Fox News Friday.

[Jan 22, 2018] Ivanka Trump Told by Steve Bannon: 'You're Just Another Staffer Who Doesn't Know What You're Doing,' New Book Claims by Melina Delkic

Jan 22, 2018 | www.yahoo.com

January 22, 2018

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon once told Ivanka Trump: "You're just another staffer who doesn't know what you're doing," according to a new book.

Related: Ivanka Trump's "special place in hell" for child predators comment trolls Roy Moore rally

Bannon, who has long critiqued and clashed with Ivanka's and her husband Jared Kushner's roles in the White House, tried to put the president's daughter in her place in one instance detailed in the book.

"My daughter loves me as a dad...You love your dad. I get that. But you're just another staffer who doesn't know what you're doing," Bannon said, The Washington Post reported when it published excerpts on Monday.


The revelation is part of the latest book about life inside the White House. Howard Kurtz, host of the Fox News show Media Buzz, wrote the book Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press, And The War Over The Truth, set to be released on January 29.

The new book, though perhaps not as sensational as the explosive tell-all Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, contains several new alleged revelations about the administration. Along with reports of the turbulent relationship between Ivanka Trump and Bannon, are claims that the president himself leaked information to journalists, that his aides referred to his behavior as "defiance disorder" and that his staff was "blindsided" when he accused former President Barack Obama of wiretapping his phones.

[Jan 20, 2018] Will Steve Bannon s Testimony Bring Down Jared by Abigail Tracy

A more interesting question is how those testimonies might affect Bannon -- he is in a very hot water now. If he thought that the meeting was so incriminating why he did not contact FBI and just decided to feed juicy gossip to Wolff?
Also he was not present at the meeting and was not a member of Trump team until two months later. From who he got all this information ? Was is just a slander by disgruntled employee?
Notable quotes:
"... To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr. ..."
"... Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election ..."
"... Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." ..."
"... Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me." ..."
Jan 16, 2018 | www.vanityfair.com

"The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor -- with no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers," Bannon is quoted as saying in Fire and Fury. "Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the F.B.I. immediately." Bannon reportedly speculated that the chance the eldest Trump son did not involve his father in the meeting "is zero."

When Bannon's comments became public, Trump excoriated his former strategist, whom he accused of having "lost his mind." But while Bannon has since apologized for the remarks and sought to walk back a number of the quotes, he's stopped short of denying that he viewed the Trump Tower meeting as treasonous. Instead, he's merely shifted the blame away from Trump Jr. and onto Manafort. "My comments were aimed at Paul Manafort, a seasoned campaign professional with experience and knowledge of how the Russians operate. He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning, and not our friends. To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr. ," Bannon said in a statement to Axios. ( Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election .)

... ... ...

Though the Trump Tower meeting took place before Bannon joined the Trump campaign, Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House panel, told CNN last week that he plans to question Bannon about "why this meeting at Trump Tower represented his treason and certainly unpatriotic at a minimum."

Jared Kushner's "greasy shit"

Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." (Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort have all denied wrongdoing.) Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me."

He and Trump's son-in-law have never seen eye to eye; their White House feuds were a poorly kept secret, and following his ouster, Bannon has given numerous interviews knocking Kushner, including one to my colleague Gabriel Sherman in which he questioned Kushner's maturity level. If Bannon has dirt on Kushner, he will likely get his chance to reveal it; Schiff also declared his intent to question Bannon on "the basis of his concern over money laundering."

[Jan 19, 2018] Bannon will do interview with special counsel, avoiding grand jury for now

Highly recommended!
They would be definitely able to hook him for lying to FBI. That's really easy with Bannon.
Notable quotes:
"... He is expected to cooperate with the special counsel, the sources said. ..."
"... Bannon's attorney told the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday that Bannon would answer questions when he goes to the special counsel because executive privilege would not apply, according to one of the sources. ..."
"... Last week, the FBI attempted to serve Bannon with a subpoena to appear before the grand jury in the Russia probe. He referred agents to his attorney ..."
Jan 18, 2018 | www.cnn.com

Steve Bannon has struck a deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's team and will be interviewed by prosecutors instead of testifying before the grand jury, two people familiar with the process told CNN. He is expected to cooperate with the special counsel, the sources said.

The sources did not say when the interview will take place or if the subpoena would be withdrawn.

Bannon, the former White House chief strategist for President Donald Trump, is expected to talk openly to Mueller's team. Bannon's attorney told the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday that Bannon would answer questions when he goes to the special counsel because executive privilege would not apply, according to one of the sources.

A spokesman for the special counsel's office declined to comment.

Last week, the FBI attempted to serve Bannon with a subpoena to appear before the grand jury in the Russia probe. He referred agents to his attorney, multiple sources said.

[Jan 17, 2018] Inside the link between the Russian lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump dossier

Jan 17, 2018 | www.washingtonpost.com

Emails released Tuesday by Trump Jr. reveal that his friend Rob Goldstone pitched the meeting based on the promise of damning information on Hillary Clinton that supposedly was being offered by senior Russian government officials. On Monday, Mark Corallo , a spokesman for President Trump's outside counsel, alleged that the meeting had been set up under false pretenses and implied that Veselnitskaya's association with Fusion GPS was relevant to the alleged deception.

[Jan 17, 2018] Journalist Bannon's 'Treason' Charge Against Trump, Jr. 'Is Ridiculous'

Notable quotes:
"... "Bannon is gone, but he's now become fodder for the book by Michael Wolff which is now being mined by both Mueller and the House Intelligence Committee. We don't know what Bannon told the intelligence committee, since it was behind closed doors. But the New York Times, who broke the story, speculate that the subpoena is a way to get Bannon to agree to an interview rather than stand before the grand jury." ..."
"... Lauria also discussed Wolff's "Fire and Fury," which paints a highly negative image of the first year of the Trump White House -- including a quote from Bannon describing Donald Trump, Jr. and former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort as "treasonous." ..."
"... The conversation then turned to the specifics of Bannon's claim of treason, the meeting between Manafort, Trump, Jr. and several Russian lobbyists in Trump Tower, and its connection with the famous "dodgy dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele. ..."
"... "The difference is that intelligence reports are vetted by the intelligence agent and then by his superiors and usually by other agencies in his country's intelligence community. It's also a taxpayer-funded operation, supposedly to protect society, although that's not always what intelligence agencies do. Opposition research is a completely different thing: getting dirt on a political opponent, which is what Steele did," Lauria explained. ..."
"... "The idea that Trump, Jr. had gotten this opposition research from the Russian government, as apparently Bannon said, is completely incorrect because there was no one from the Russian government, there was a former KGB agent. The lawyer was not a member of the government and no dirt was ever turned over. [There's] only been one campaign that received opposition research from foreigners during the 2016 campaign: the Clinton campaign that paid for it via a British former intelligence agent and his supposed Russian sources. But foreign opposition research [has] never been established as a crime." ..."
Jan 17, 2018 | sputniknews.com

Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon has been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, supposedly on alleged ties between the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and Russian actors. Brian Becker on Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear was joined by Joe Lauria, a veteran journalist who has also worked for major newspapers in four countries, perhaps most notably as the Wall Street Journal's correspondent to the United Nations.

​"Mr. Bannon has fallen and I think he was the ideological force behind Trump, particularly in relations with Russia," said Lauria. "It's interesting to know why did Trump call for detente, and still seems to be pursuing detente, with Russia. Many people who believe in Russiagate believe it's because he's somehow beholden to them or has been blackmailed or whatever. But professor Jeffrey Summers with the University of Wisconsin wrote an interesting piece where he said Bannon was the one who had impressed upon Trump that he should improve relations with Russia so they can team up against Islamic extremism."

"Bannon is gone, but he's now become fodder for the book by Michael Wolff which is now being mined by both Mueller and the House Intelligence Committee. We don't know what Bannon told the intelligence committee, since it was behind closed doors. But the New York Times, who broke the story, speculate that the subpoena is a way to get Bannon to agree to an interview rather than stand before the grand jury."

© REUTERS/ Carlos Barria 'Fit For Duty': White House Physician Sees No Concerns About Trump's Health

Lauria also discussed Wolff's "Fire and Fury," which paints a highly negative image of the first year of the Trump White House -- including a quote from Bannon describing Donald Trump, Jr. and former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort as "treasonous."

"If you read the key quote in that book, the House Intelligence Committee wants to question him about an allegation against Paul Manafort and Donald Trump, Jr. for treason. I find this very curious. If Bannon wanted Trump to have better relations with Russia, it's curious that he would roll out an accusation of treason. He's far from the only one to bring the charge against Trump in this entire Russiagate fiasco, but if you look at treason, it's the only crime defined in the US Constitution. It says clearly treason against the US consists only of assisting an enemy of the US in a state of open hostility with us."

© REUTERS/ Jonathan Ernst Trump Jr.: Bannon Turned His White House Career Opportunity Into Nightmare

"Russia is not in open hostilities with the United States, no one would argue that. The idea that Trump, Jr. has committed treason is ridiculous. I don't know why Bannon used [the term]. Clearly he was angry at Trump for being fired, I don't know if he was begging for his job back as Trump tweeted," Lauria said.

The conversation then turned to the specifics of Bannon's claim of treason, the meeting between Manafort, Trump, Jr. and several Russian lobbyists in Trump Tower, and its connection with the famous "dodgy dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele.

"If I could talk a second about that Don Jr meeting, there's a core issue in it over the difference in opposition research and intelligence," Lauria said. "While Christopher Steele was an MI-6 intelligence agent for Britain, he was working for a private company at the time. He was hired by the Clinton campaign and the [Democratic National Committee] through Fusion GPS. Glenn Simpson, of Fusion, who hired Steele directly, wrote in a New York Times editorial that Steele produced intelligence memos. He was either lying or misleading the readers -- he has to know the difference between them."

© REUTERS/ Jonathan Ernst 'Enough is Enough': Trump Lawyer Sues BuzzFeed, Fusion GPS Over Trump Dossier

"The difference is that intelligence reports are vetted by the intelligence agent and then by his superiors and usually by other agencies in his country's intelligence community. It's also a taxpayer-funded operation, supposedly to protect society, although that's not always what intelligence agencies do. Opposition research is a completely different thing: getting dirt on a political opponent, which is what Steele did," Lauria explained.

"The idea that Trump, Jr. had gotten this opposition research from the Russian government, as apparently Bannon said, is completely incorrect because there was no one from the Russian government, there was a former KGB agent. The lawyer was not a member of the government and no dirt was ever turned over. [There's] only been one campaign that received opposition research from foreigners during the 2016 campaign: the Clinton campaign that paid for it via a British former intelligence agent and his supposed Russian sources. But foreign opposition research [has] never been established as a crime."

[Jan 16, 2018] In the emails, Goldstone said he made contact with Trump Jr at the behest of the Russian-Azeri businessman Aras Agalarov and Aglaravov's pop-star son, Emin. On Wednesday, Aras Agalarov claimed the story was invented.

Jan 16, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said it was "wild" that Trump's son was being blamed for speaking with a Russian attorney. Lavrov – who met Trump last week at the G20 summit in Hamburg, together with Vladimir Putin – said he knew nothing of the meeting with the lawyer. Serious people were trying to "make a mountain out of a molehill", Lavrov said.

In the emails, Goldstone said he made contact with Trump Jr at the behest of the Russian-Azeri businessman Aras Agalarov and Aglaravov's pop-star son, Emin. The Agalarovs hosted Trump when he visited Moscow in 2013 for the Miss Universe beauty pageant.

On Wednesday, Aras Agalarov claimed the story was invented. "I think this is some sort of fiction. I don't know who is making it up," he told Russia's Business FM radio station, adding: "What has Hillary Clinton got to do with anything? I don't know."

[Jan 16, 2018] Bannon Subpoenaed By Mueller In Russia Probe

It would be interesting if they get Wolff to testify too ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Fox News is reporting that Steve Bannon was told by the White House not to answer questions before House Intel Committee about the White House or the transition. Bannon testified before the committee on Tuesday. ..."
"... the NYT reports that Trump's former chief strategist was subpoenaed last week by the special counsel, Robert Mueller to testify before a grand jury as part of the investigation into possible links between Trump's associates and Russia. ..."
"... After excerpts from the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," were published this month, Mr. Trump derided Mr. Bannon publicly and threatened to sue him for defamation. Mr. Bannon was soon ousted as the executive chairman of the hard-right website Breitbart News. ..."
"... The experts also said it could be a signal to Mr. Bannon, who has tried to publicly patch up his falling-out with the president, that despite Mr. Trump's legal threats, Mr. Bannon must be completely forthcoming with investigators. ..."
"... Prosecutors generally prefer to interview witnesses before a grand jury when they believe they have information that the witnesses do not know or when they think they might catch the witnesses in a lie. It is much easier for a witness to stop the questioning or sidestep questions in an interview than during grand jury testimony, which is transcribed, and witnesses are required to answer every question. ..."
"... Whether or not Bannon actually knows something that can help the Mueller probe, of course, remains to be seen. ..."
"... Good! Every time Mueller has tried to tighten the noose in the past more info on his own corruption has come out. Can't wait to find out more about what a fuck-up stoolie for the Clinton eradicate america campaign he's been. ..."
"... Yes, but how long before he finds anything. A blind squirrel could find something with this much time and resources. This really is a witch hunt. ..."
"... So fucking tired of this Democrat led witch hunt. This must be how ordinary people felt in Salem back in 1692-1693. We look like fucking fools and a fucking joke to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Grand Inquisitor Mueller, drowning in a sea of DEMOCRAT Russian collusion, subpoenas...Bannon...lol. ..."
"... How much has this idiot Mueller pissed away in taxpayer money? ..."
"... First, did he even say some of that stuff to the author of the book, as has been well publicized that the author is a known liar, fabricator, creating fiction for the sake of book sales. This stinks of the collusion story from the NY Times, which was BS, that got this whole colossal crock of simmering cow crap started. ..."
"... In his emails to Trump Jr., Goldstone referred to Veselnitskaya as a "Russian government lawyer" who had damaging info on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." ..."
"... If the above were a pedophile sting operation, Jr. would be considered beyond any doubt a child predator, even though he didn't actually get the opportunity to act upon the intent of the meeting. ..."
Jan 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Update: Fox News is reporting that Steve Bannon was told by the White House not to answer questions before House Intel Committee about the White House or the transition. Bannon testified before the committee on Tuesday.

The bad news for Steve Bannon just keeps on coming.

Not long after Bannon was bounced from Breitbart following his feud with Trump over his comments in Michael Wolff's book, moments ago the NYT reports that Trump's former chief strategist was subpoenaed last week by the special counsel, Robert Mueller to testify before a grand jury as part of the investigation into possible links between Trump's associates and Russia.

And the reason why stocks dipped modestly and the VIX bounced on the news, is that the subpoena marks the first time Mueller is known to have used a grand jury subpoena to seek information from a member of Mr. Trump's inner circle.

After excerpts from the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," were published this month, Mr. Trump derided Mr. Bannon publicly and threatened to sue him for defamation. Mr. Bannon was soon ousted as the executive chairman of the hard-right website Breitbart News.

Mueller reportedly issued the subpoena after Mr. Bannon was quoted in a new book criticizing Mr. Trump, saying that Donald Trump Jr.'s 2016 meeting with Russians was "treasonous" and predicting that the special counsel investigation would ultimately center on money laundering.

According to the NYT, the subpoena could be a negotiating tactic:

Mr. Mueller is likely to allow Mr. Bannon to forgo the grand jury appearance if he agrees to instead be questioned by investigators in the less formal setting of the special counsel's offices in Washington, according to the person, who would not be named discussing the case. But it was not clear why Mr. Mueller treated Mr. Bannon differently than the dozen administration officials who were interviewed in the final months of last year and were never served with a subpoena.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday Bannon was testifying behind closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee, which is also investigating Russia's meddling in the 2016 election and ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The NYT quotes legal experts who said the subpoena could be a sign that the investigation was intensifying, while others said it may simply have been a negotiating tactic to persuade Mr. Bannon to cooperate with the investigation. The experts also said it could be a signal to Mr. Bannon, who has tried to publicly patch up his falling-out with the president, that despite Mr. Trump's legal threats, Mr. Bannon must be completely forthcoming with investigators.

Prosecutors generally prefer to interview witnesses before a grand jury when they believe they have information that the witnesses do not know or when they think they might catch the witnesses in a lie. It is much easier for a witness to stop the questioning or sidestep questions in an interview than during grand jury testimony, which is transcribed, and witnesses are required to answer every question.

The news will hardly come as a surprise to Trump: "the president appeared to ease his anger toward Mr. Bannon at the end of last week. When asked in an interview with The Wall Street Journal whether his break with Mr. Bannon was "permanent," the president replied, "I don't know what the word 'permanent' means.""

As a result, "people close to Mr. Bannon took the president's comments as a signal that Mr. Trump was aware that his fired strategist would soon be contacted by investigators."

Whether or not Bannon actually knows something that can help the Mueller probe, of course, remains to be seen.

eclectic syncretist -> Dilluminati Jan 16, 2018 11:59 AM Permalink

Good! Every time Mueller has tried to tighten the noose in the past more info on his own corruption has come out. Can't wait to find out more about what a fuck-up stoolie for the Clinton eradicate america campaign he's been.

overbet -> eclectic syncretist Jan 16, 2018 12:06 PM Permalink

Yes, but how long before he finds anything. A blind squirrel could find something with this much time and resources. This really is a witch hunt. Meanwhile mountains of evidence being ignored on Comey, Clinton, Lynch

Sir Edge -> overbet Jan 16, 2018 12:08 PM Permalink

Let's Subpoena Hilary Instead...

Unreliable Narrator -> Sir Edge Jan 16, 2018 12:11 PM Permalink

How does a probe "intensify"? Does it mean they discuss things in louder voices? Wear more colorful clothing? Increase the office lighting brightness? What I wish would "intensify" is the brainpower of journalists.

Oh . . . and "Hillary" has two l's. Like "hell" has two l's.

espirit -> Unreliable Narrator Jan 16, 2018 12:18 PM Permalink

Haha.

They think Bannon is at odds with Trump and will roll over on him.

Must.Get.Moar.Popcorn.

This episode is about to start...

Mike Masr • Jan 16, 2018 1:49 PM Permalink

So fucking tired of this Democrat led witch hunt. This must be how ordinary people felt in Salem back in 1692-1693. We look like fucking fools and a fucking joke to the rest of the world.

nmewn -> espirit Jan 16, 2018 12:50 PM Permalink

Grand Inquisitor Mueller, drowning in a sea of DEMOCRAT Russian collusion, subpoenas...Bannon...lol.

What an idiot.

FORD_FIESTA -> nmewn Jan 16, 2018 1:13 PM Permalink

How much has this idiot Mueller pissed away in taxpayer money? Washington Gov is a total waste.....beyond repair I would say. From that Idiot Black Chick who wears the Cowboy hats like a Clown from the Circus, to the 84 fucking year old senile Bitch Feinstein......to waste of time and money. This Country is lost.

Ghost of PartysOver -> Dilluminati Jan 16, 2018 12:03 PM Permalink

First, did he even say some of that stuff to the author of the book, as has been well publicized that the author is a known liar, fabricator, creating fiction for the sake of book sales. This stinks of the collusion story from the NY Times, which was BS, that got this whole colossal crock of simmering cow crap started.

Second, is Bannon that petty or does he see the bigger picture?

Dilluminati -> Ghost of PartysOver Jan 16, 2018 12:20 PM Permalink

I think it's pretty obvious when he admitted it was all a lie and said the book wasn't accurate. I think his credibility = 0.

FreeEarCandy Jan 16, 2018 1:20 PM Permalink

In his emails to Trump Jr., Goldstone referred to Veselnitskaya as a "Russian government lawyer" who had damaging info on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

"If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer," Trump Jr. replied to Goldstone in one email.

Bannon doesn't have to say a word. Trump Jr. stated he loved the idea of Russian Government support. Bannon is right. Jr.'s intent was treasonous-not to be confused with actually committing treason.

If the above were a pedophile sting operation, Jr. would be considered beyond any doubt a child predator, even though he didn't actually get the opportunity to act upon the intent of the meeting.

[Jan 14, 2018] Trump Stumped As Bannon-Backed Roy Moore Wins Alabama Republican Primary By Landslide

Bannon backed candidate later lost. So much for this Bannon "success".
This idea of Trump playing 6 dimensional chess is a joke. It's the same explanation that was pushed for Obama disastrous neocon foreign policy. Here is one very apt quote: "What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan..." What 6-dimetional chess?
According to Occam razor principle the simplest explanation of Trump behaviour is probably the most correct. He does not control foright policy, outsourcing it to "generals" and be does not pursue domestic policy of creating jobs as he promised his electorate. In other words, both in foreign policy and domestic policy, he became a turncoat, betraying his electorate, much like Obama. kind of Republican Obama.
And as time goes by, Trump looks more and more like Hillary II or Republican Obama. So he might have problems with the candidates he supports in midterm elections. His isolationism, if it ever existed, is gone. Promise of jobs is gone. Detente with Russia is gone. What's left?
Note the level disappointment of what used to be Trump base in this site comment section...
Notable quotes:
"... In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide ..."
"... The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92% of the votes counted... ..."
"... These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory. It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. ..."
"... Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole. ..."
"... I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included. ..."
"... The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger. ..."
"... Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World. Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" ..."
"... A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment puppet once the braindead voters put him in office. ..."
"... When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies, but not for the US population. ..."
"... Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope. ..."
"... In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson. It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators are worthless. ..."
"... I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the media reports... ..."
"... Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"- (great leaders) do not do that. ..."
"... What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan... ..."
"... It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing display of disloyalty to America ..."
"... YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER. ..."
Sep 27, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama. Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy, WIN in Dec!

In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide

The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92% of the votes counted...

... ... ...

However, as Politco reported this evening, President Donald Trump began distancing himself from a Luther Strange loss before ballots were even cast, telling conservative activists Monday night the candidate he's backing in Alabama's GOP Senate primary was likely to lose ! and suggesting he'd done everything he could do given the circumstances.

Trump told conservative activists who visited the White House for dinner on Monday night that he'd underestimated the political power of Roy Moore, the firebrand populist and former judge who's supported by Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon, according to three people who were there.

And Trump gave a less-than full-throated endorsement during Friday's rally.

While he called Strange "a real fighter and a real good guy," he also mused on stage about whether he made a "mistake" by backing Strange and committed to campaign "like hell" for Moore if he won.

Trump was encouraged to pick Strange before the August primary by son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner as well as other aides, White House officials said. He was never going to endorse Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, who has at times opposed Trump's agenda, and knew little about Moore, officials said.

... ... ...

Déjà view -> Sanity Bear •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM

AIPAC HAS ALL BASES COVERED...MIGA !

On Sept. 11, the Alabama Daughters for Zion organization circulated a statement on Israel by Moore, which started by saying the U.S. and Israel "share not only a common Biblical heritage but also institutions of representative government and respect for religious freedom." He traced Israel's origin to God's promise to Abram and the 1948 creation of modern Israel as "a fulfillment of the Scriptures that foretold the regathering of the Jewish people to Israel."

Moore's statement includes five policy positions, including support for U.S. military assistance to Israel, protecting Israel from "Iranian aggression," opposing boycotts of Israel, supporting Israel at the United Nations, and supporting direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations without outside pressure. He added, "as long as Hamas and the Palestinian Authority wrongly refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, such negotiations have scant chance of success."

While those views would give Moore common ground with much of the Jewish community regarding Israel, most of the state's Jewish community has been at odds with Moore over church-state issues, such as his displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and his outspoken stance against homosexuality, both of which led to him being ousted as chief justice.

http://www.sjlmag.com/2017/09/alabama-senate-candidates-express.html?m=1

justa minute -> Déjà view •Sep 27, 2017 2:53 AM

moore misreads the Bible as most socalled christians do. they have been deceived, they have confused the Israel of God( those who have been given belief in Christ) with israel of the flesh. They cant hear Christs own words, woe is unto them. they are living in their own selfrighteousness, not good. they are going to have a big surprise for not following the Word of God instead following the tradition of men.

They were warned over and over in the Bible but they cant hear.

I Claudius -> VinceFostersGhost •Sep 27, 2017 6:27 AM

Forgive? Maybe. Forget? NEVER!! He tried to sell "US" out on this one. We now need to focus on bringing "Moore" candidates to the podium to run against the RINO's and take out McConnell and Ryan. It's time for Jared and Ivanka to go back to NYC so Jared can shore up his family's failing empire. However, if his business acumen is as accurate as his political then it's no wonder the family needed taxpayer funded visas to sell the property. Then on to ridding the White House of Gen Kelly and McMaster - two holdover generals from the Obama administration - after Obama forced out the real ones.

Clashfan -> Mycroft Holmes IV •Sep 26, 2017 11:33 PM

Rump has hoodwinked his supoprt base and turned on them almost immediately. Some refuse to acknowledge this.

"Ha! Your vote went to the Israel first swamp!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gdw_MVY1Vo

Déjà view -> Clashfan •Sep 27, 2017 1:00 AM

MIGA !

These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory. It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) came to Bannon's defense and accused the ADL of a "character assassination" against Bannon.

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.807776

The Wizard -> Oh regional Indian •Sep 26, 2017 10:12 PM

Trump should figure out the Deep State elites he has surrounded himself with, don't have control of the states Trump won. Trump thought he had to negotiate with these guys and his ego got the best of him. Bannon was trying to convince him he should have stayed the course and not give in.


Theosebes Goodfellow -> Oh regional Indian •Sep 26, 2017 10:35 PM

~"American politics gets moore strange by the day..."~

Technically speaking OhRI, with Moore's win politics became less Strange, or "Strange less", or "Sans Luther", depending on how one chose to phrase it [SMIRK]

Adullam -> Gaius Frakkin' Baltar •Sep 26, 2017 11:05 PM

Trump needs to fire Jared! Some news outlets are saying that it was his son in law who advised him to back Strange. He has to quit listening to those who want to destroy him or ... they will.

overbet -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:41 PM

Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole.

Juggernaut x2 -> overbet •Sep 26, 2017 10:07 PM

Trump better pull his head out of his ass and quit being a wishy-washy populist on BS like Iran- the farther right he goes the greater his odds of reelection because he has pissed off a lot of the far-righters that put him in- getting rid of Kushner, Cohn and his daughter and negotiating w/Assad and distancing us from Israhell would be a huge help.

opport.knocks -> Juggernaut x2 •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM

Distancing us from Israel... LOLOLOLOL

https://youtu.be/tm5Je73bYOY

The whole Russiagate ploy was a diversion from (((them)))

NoDebt -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:42 PM

I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included.

Oldwood -> NoDebt •Sep 26, 2017 10:08 PM

I think it was a setup.

Bannon would not oppose Trump that directly unless there was a wink and a nod involved.

Trump is still walking a tightrope, trying to appease his base AND keep as many establishment republicans at his side (even for only optics). By Trump supporting Strange while knowing he was an underdog AND completely apposed by Bannon/his base he was able to LOOK like he was supporting the establishment, while NOT really. Trump seldom backs losers which makes me think it was deliberate. Strange never made sense anyway.

But what do I know?

Urahara -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 12:20 AM

Bannon is hardcore Isreal first. Why are you supporting the zionist? It's an obvious play.

general ambivalent -> Urahara •Sep 27, 2017 2:23 AM

People are desperate to rationalise their failure into a victory. They cannot give up on Hope so they have to use hyperbole in everything and pretend this is all leading to something great in 2020 or 2024.

None of these fools learned a damn thing and they are desperate to make the same mistake again. The swamp is full, so full that it has breached the banks and taken over all of society. Trump is a swamp monster, and you simply cannot reform the swamp when both sides are monsters. In other words, the inside is not an option, so it has to be done the hard way. But people would prefer to keep voting in the swamp.

Al Gophilia -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 3:58 AM

Bannon as president would really have those swamp creatures squirming. There wouldn't be this Trump crap about surrounding himself with likeminded friends, such as Goldman Sachs turnstile workers and his good pals in the MIC.

Don't tell me he didn't choose them because if he didn't, then they were placed. That means he doesn't have the clout he pretends to have or control of the agenda that the people asked him to deliver. His backing of Stange is telling.

Lanka -> LindseyNarratesWordress •Sep 26, 2017 11:07 PM

McMaster and Kelly have Trump under house arrest.

Bobbyrib -> LindseyNarratesWordress •Sep 27, 2017 5:38 AM

He will not fire Kushner or Ivanka who have become part of the swamp. I'm so sick of these 'Trump is a genius and planned this all along.'

To me Trump is a Mr. Bean type character that has been very fortunate and just goes with the flow. He has nearly no diplomacy, or strategic skills.

NoWayJose •Sep 26, 2017 10:35 PM

Dear President Trump - if you like your job, listen to these voters. Borders, Walls, limited immigrants (including all those that Ryan and McConnell are sneaking through under your very nose), trade agreements to keep American jobs, and respect for our flag, our country, and the unborn!

nevertheless -> loveyajimbo •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM

I had hope for Trump, but as someone who reads ZH often, and does not suffer from amnesia (like much of America), I knew he was way too good to be true.

We all know his back tracking, his flip flops...and while the media and many paid bloggers like to spin it as "not his fault", it actually is.

His sending DACA to Congress was the last straw. Obama enacted DACA with a stroke of his pen, but Trump "needed to send it to Congress so they could "get it right". The only thing Congress does with immigration is try and get amnesty passed.

Of course while Trump sends DACA to Congress, he does not mind using the military without Congress, which he actually should do.

Why is it when it's something American's want, it has to go through the "correct channels", but when its something the Zionists want, he does it with the wave of his pen? We saw the same bull shit games with Obama...

Dilluminati •Sep 26, 2017 11:02 PM

Anybody surprised by this is pretending the civility at the workplace isn't masking anger at corporate America and Government. I'll go in and put in the 8 hours, I'm an adult that is part of the job. However I'm actually fed up with allot of the stupid shit and want the establishment to work, problem is that we are witnessing failed nations, failed schools, failed healthcare, even failed employment contracts, conditions, and wages.

The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger.

You haven't seen anything yet in Catalonia/Spain etc, Brexit, or so..

This is what failure looks like: That moment the Romanovs and Louis XVI looked around the room seeking an understanding eye, there was none.

Pascal1967 •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM

Dear Trump:

Quit listening to your moron son-in-law, swamp creature, Goldman Sachs douchebag son-in-law Kushner. HE SUCKS!! If you truly had BALLS, you would FIRE his fucking ass. HE is The Swamp, He Is Nepotism! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HATE HIM.

MAGA! LISTEN TO BANNON, DONALD.

DO NOT FUCK THIS UP!

ROY MOORE, 100%!!!!

You lost, Trump ... get your shit together before it is too late!

ElTerco •Sep 26, 2017 11:28 PM

Bannon was always the smarts behind the whole operation. Now we are just left with a complete idiot in office.

Also, unlike Trump, Bannon actually gives a shit about what happens to the American people rather than the American tax system. At the end of the day, all Trump really cares about is himself.

samsara •Sep 26, 2017 11:25 PM
I think most people get it backwards about Trump and the Deplorables.

I believed in pulling troops a from all the war zones and Trump said he felt the same

I believed in Legal immigration, sending people back if here illegal especially if involved in crime, Trump said he felt the same.

I believed in America first in negotiating treaties, Trump said he felt the same.

I didn't 'vote' for Trump per se, he was the proxy.

We didn't leave Him, He left us.

BarnacleBill •Sep 26, 2017 11:31 PM

Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World. Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" It's high time he turned back to the job he promised to do, and drain that swamp.

napper •Sep 26, 2017 11:47 PM

A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment puppet once the braindead voters put him in office.

America is doomed from top (the swarm) to bottom (the brainless voters).

Sid Davis •Sep 27, 2017 1:40 AM

When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies, but not for the US population.

Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope.

In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson. It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators are worthless.

nevertheless -> pfwed •Sep 27, 2017 7:33 AM

I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the media reports...

LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 2:56 AM

Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"- (great leaders) do not do that.

nevertheless -> LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 7:16 AM

What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan...

But most treasonous of all was his sending DACA to "get it right", really? Congress has only one goal with immigration, amnesty, and Chump knows dam well they will send him legislation that will clearly or covertly grant amnesty for millions and millions of illegals, dressed up as "security".

Obama enacted DACA with the stroke of a pen, and while TRUMP promised to end it, he did NOT. Why is it when it's something Americans want, it has to be "Constitutional", but when it comes form his banker pals, like starting a war, he can do that unilaterally.

archie bird -> nevertheless •Sep 27, 2017 7:45 AM

Bernie wants to cut aid to Israel https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/09/25/bernie-sanders-yeah-i...

nevertheless •Sep 27, 2017 8:04 AM

It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing display of disloyalty to America, and loyalty to Zionism.

Trump should always have been seen as a likely Zionist shill. He comes form Jew York City, owes everything he is to Zionist Jewish bankers, is a self proclaimed Zionist...

YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER.

Either Zero Hedge is over run with Zionist hasbara, giving cover to their boy Chump, or Americans on the "right" have become as gullible as those who supported Obama on the "left".

[Jan 14, 2018] Bannonism Will Live On by Matt Purple

Notable quotes:
"... The Constitution of Liberty ..."
"... The Camp of the Saints ..."
"... As for Bannon himself, his downfall has been fast and unceremonious: trashed by the president after he gossiped to Michael Wolff, abandoned by his deep-pocketed Mercer family funders, sacked by Breitbart, and then forced to watch as Trump indicated in a meeting earlier this week that he could sign a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Marat's downfall saw him elevated into a revolutionary martyr; Bannon has been banished into exile. ..."
"... But revolutions don't die with their figureheads. Bannonism won't either because, unlike the ethereal ideas behind liberalism and conservatism, it's found visceral real-world resonance -- among blue collars who see economic nationalism as a glimmer of hope among boarded-up plants, service-members frustrated with fruitless wars, young men flummoxed by modern feminism, right-wing activists frustrated with their political party's perceived impotence. Taunt Bannon all you like, but the imprint he leaves behind will be far larger than one spurious tell-all. ..."
"... The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement. ..."
"... The biggest thing lacking of the Bannon/Trump movement is how push back against the economic elite. Trump is governing exactly like an establishment Republican. Look at Trump/Perry ideas on saving coal which was properly turned down. This plan was unbelievably awful and not the right way for a better electric system and was simply handing Murray and First Energy a bunch money. ..."
"... Conservatism stands for stability and community. The accretions of "limited government" and "lower taxes", charming they may be as mantras, are more libertarian (Classic Liberal) than they are conservative ..."
"... A bomb-throwing Bolshevik like Bannon truly belongs on The Left, but in these days of abysmal ignorance of civics, it doesn't matter. "Bannonism" may live on, but thanks to the crackpot nature of its cobbled-together ideology, will remain a niche religion much like hard-core anarcho-libertarianism. ..."
"... Given the current atmosphere of outrage porn, willful ignorance and gleeful brutality, I do not have much hope for a Burkean conservatism to thrive, at least until after the pending social collapse ..."
"... Bannon will likely fade into oblivion via the Bourbon barrel, and the name Trump may become synonymous with "traitor" (but not like the media elite would hope). These men did not create a movement nor inspire anything. They were both savvy enough to see the political reality in this country and to give it voice. They will go, but the reality will remain. Ironically, but predictably, both men will likely be laid low by their own egos. But, so it goes ..."
"... The reality that supersedes these egotistical, narcissistic men is the fact that the traditional core of the American people have "woke" to the fact of their betrayal by the elite class to whom they have entrusted the leadership of this country for decades. They have awakened to find decay and rot throughout every American institution and to discover that these elites have enriched themselves beyond measure with the wealth of the nation at the cost of the workers and taxpayers who make that wealth possible. They have awakened to their own replacement and now realize the disdain with which they are viewed by those who would be their "masters." ..."
"... These Deplorables, white, working, taxpaying, Bible-believing, gun-owning MEN(!), are not going back into the opioid sleep of blissed out suburbia. They are now aware of the ill-hidden hatred which the elite class has for them and the future of serfdom to which these elites have fated them and their children. Gentlemen, a beast is being born out here in the hinterlands. It will not be put back in the cage ..."
Jan 12, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Bannon is an imperfect ideologue. He has a gargantuan ego that often leads him astray, perhaps lately towards the delusion that he himself would be a better populist messenger than the man he helped elect. But he's also hit on a paradox at the core of today's American conservatism. Conservatives, in theory at least, look with skepticism upon grand projects and giant leaps, which too often end up rupturing with the societal traditions they hold dear. Yet much of what conservatives support today is actually quite radical: banning all or most abortions, rolling back the regulatory state, rejecting decades of orthodoxy on the issue of climate change, a massive downshift of power from the federal government to states and localities, a moral ethic rooted in Christianity rather than identity politics -- and lately questioning the "liberal international order" in favor of something more nationalist and protectionist. The enactment of such an agenda would cause a good deal of upheaval and uncertainty, exactly the sort of void conservatives' forebears feared most.

Some have wrangled with this contradiction by scaling back their proposals, claiming great problems can be addressed with light-touch solutions, like child tax credits to arrest sagging birth rates. Others, much of Conservative Inc. it seems, are fine pretending this tension doesn't exist at all. Bannon's approach has been to gleefully embrace conservatism's radical side. Disagree with him all you like (and I do), but his is a perfectly logical position. His ascent -- some would say his transformation -- is a predictable consequence of conservatives yearning for something increasingly distant from the modern world, just as did young people in the quietly simmering 1950s. Indeed, there are many stylistic similarities between the radicals of today and those half a century ago: the "for the lulz" performance art of a Milo Yiannopoulos contains an echo of the prankster Yippies, for example. Those who lack cultural power can sell out, they can evolve, they can retreat to the catacombs -- or they can take Bannon's approach, they can transgress and pump their fists and try to burn it all down.

Bannon's digestible binaries -- establishment versus the people, globalists versus Americans -- are easily superimposed on an electorate that's itself divided both economically and culturally. Red states and the Rust Belt have for decades been the victims of bad federal policy; Bannonism gives them an abstract enemy to blame, a valve for their fury. The algorithmic and library-voiced Mitt Romney and the earnest Paul Ryan seem woefully inadequate by comparison: have those praying they run for higher office again learned nothing? In The Constitution of Liberty , F.A. Hayek critiques conservatism by defining it as "a brake on the vehicle of progress" and observing that a mere decrease in speed "cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." Likewise, while conventional taxes-and-terrorism Republican rhetoric doesn't feel like much of a heave on the ship's wheel, Bannonism furnishes a clear vision, a real change, swords to wield, dragons to slay. Guess which one has greater appeal right now?

The modern right has always had a whiff of radicalism about it, with origins in pushback against the 60s counterculture, a second wind in Newt Gingrich's legislative reformation, and late-life vitality in the Saul Alinsky-invoking tea party. But it's with Bannon that the odor has become most pungent. He is an unlikely revolutionary. An early profile from Bloomberg Businessweek in 2015 portrays him as more of an operative than anything, determined to professionalize a conservative movement that had made too many unforced errors. Other pre-Trump appearances found Bannon worrying about the national debt and extolling his Catholic faith. It's a windy road from there to storming the barricades under Donald Trump's sigil, but it's one many conservatives have traveled in recent years. The challenge for more traditional Republicans will be fashioning a new politics that quenches voters' burning thirst for change -- a position they've arrived at themselves, not been brainwashed into by Fox News -- while circumventing Bannonism's conflagrations and The Camp of the Saints ugliness.

As for Bannon himself, his downfall has been fast and unceremonious: trashed by the president after he gossiped to Michael Wolff, abandoned by his deep-pocketed Mercer family funders, sacked by Breitbart, and then forced to watch as Trump indicated in a meeting earlier this week that he could sign a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Marat's downfall saw him elevated into a revolutionary martyr; Bannon has been banished into exile.

But revolutions don't die with their figureheads. Bannonism won't either because, unlike the ethereal ideas behind liberalism and conservatism, it's found visceral real-world resonance -- among blue collars who see economic nationalism as a glimmer of hope among boarded-up plants, service-members frustrated with fruitless wars, young men flummoxed by modern feminism, right-wing activists frustrated with their political party's perceived impotence. Taunt Bannon all you like, but the imprint he leaves behind will be far larger than one spurious tell-all.

Matt Purple is the managing editor of The American Conservative

collin January 11, 2018 at 8:50 am

There is always a level of Bannonism /Paleoconservatism in the US politics but who knows how impactful it will be.
  1. Probably the biggest issue for Bannon was Trump was elected in 2016 and our nation did not want or need a Leninist. (It wasn't 2008 anymore)
    Frankly most conservatives were satisfied that HRC and Obama were not President and did not want massive changes.
  2. The whole the people and globalist division is too simplistic and there are a lot 'People' that support free trade or relatively open borders. (For instance I don't see the economic benefit of steel tariffs at all.)
  3. The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement.
  4. We still don't know how much a pushback on Trump/Bannonism will be. Trump is not popular and the House is endangered.

5) The biggest thing lacking of the Bannon/Trump movement is how push back against the economic elite. Trump is governing exactly like an establishment Republican. Look at Trump/Perry ideas on saving coal which was properly turned down. This plan was unbelievably awful and not the right way for a better electric system and was simply handing Murray and First Energy a bunch money.

David Nash , says: January 11, 2018 at 9:12 am
It is a cardinal error to confuse conservatism with The Right, as much as it is to conflate liberalism with The Left.

Conservatism stands for stability and community. The accretions of "limited government" and "lower taxes", charming they may be as mantras, are more libertarian (Classic Liberal) than they are conservative. (Thanks loads, Frank Meyer.)

A bomb-throwing Bolshevik like Bannon truly belongs on The Left, but in these days of abysmal ignorance of civics, it doesn't matter. "Bannonism" may live on, but thanks to the crackpot nature of its cobbled-together ideology, will remain a niche religion much like hard-core anarcho-libertarianism.

Given the current atmosphere of outrage porn, willful ignorance and gleeful brutality, I do not have much hope for a Burkean conservatism to thrive, at least until after the pending social collapse.

Navy Jack , says: January 11, 2018 at 12:14 pm
Bannon will likely fade into oblivion via the Bourbon barrel, and the name Trump may become synonymous with "traitor" (but not like the media elite would hope). These men did not create a movement nor inspire anything. They were both savvy enough to see the political reality in this country and to give it voice. They will go, but the reality will remain. Ironically, but predictably, both men will likely be laid low by their own egos. But, so it goes.

The reality that supersedes these egotistical, narcissistic men is the fact that the traditional core of the American people have "woke" to the fact of their betrayal by the elite class to whom they have entrusted the leadership of this country for decades. They have awakened to find decay and rot throughout every American institution and to discover that these elites have enriched themselves beyond measure with the wealth of the nation at the cost of the workers and taxpayers who make that wealth possible. They have awakened to their own replacement and now realize the disdain with which they are viewed by those who would be their "masters."

These Deplorables, white, working, taxpaying, Bible-believing, gun-owning MEN(!), are not going back into the opioid sleep of blissed out suburbia. They are now aware of the ill-hidden hatred which the elite class has for them and the future of serfdom to which these elites have fated them and their children. Gentlemen, a beast is being born out here in the hinterlands. It will not be put back in the cage.

The writer's allusion to the French Revolution is somewhat telling. The history of the West is replete with moments of savagery and destruction directed inwardly. It will be so again. When these Deplorables turn on their keepers, it will not be pretty. The Progressive elites who believe that they can control and shape "narratives" to harness that power are fools. The cloistered intellectuals who believe that they can "opt" out of the coming clash are dreaming.

The traditional core of the American people are no different than their ancestors. They just don't live as close to the edge as those folks did. But when they are backed up to that edge, when betrayal has been made clear and the institutions are revealed for the Oz that they have become, they will recall that old hatred that still courses in the Western man's veins and will react in ways that will chill the blood. The imaginary "crimes" with which "privileged whites" are damned by the rioting Cultural Marxists will escape imagination and leap into reality. God help us.

JonF , says: January 11, 2018 at 1:30 pm
Re: The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement.

Perot, for whom I voted in 1992 but not 1996, was not a paleoconservative, but rather a pragmatic centrist. Compare his position on social issues with Pat Buchanan's (Buchanan being Mr. Paleoconservative -- and who ran in 1992 too)

[Jan 13, 2018] Anderson Cooper Gets ANGRY When Trump Aide Insults Him Insted Of Answering Questions

Gorka was actually great in very difficult situation when this smug neoliberal shill Cooper try to bully his way in best tradition of Bill Oreilly. But Cooper is so well trained in bullshit that it is impossible to 'convert" him on anything. He will try to promote his fake new lines.
Notable quotes:
"... "Why don't you report on Hillary Clinton's collusion instead?" "Because there's no active FBI investigation into it. There's literally no evidence of anything like that taking place, unlike the Trump investigation, which DOES have an active FBI investigation looking into it." "....yeah, but... why don't you report it anyway? You're fake news." ..."
Jan 13, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Kaiza , 1 month ago (edited)

"Why don't you report on Hillary Clinton's collusion instead?" "Because there's no active FBI investigation into it. There's literally no evidence of anything like that taking place, unlike the Trump investigation, which DOES have an active FBI investigation looking into it." "....yeah, but... why don't you report it anyway? You're fake news."

[Jan 13, 2018] Trump lawyer: president was not aware of the meeting

Cooper is an abhorrent neoliberal shill.
Notable quotes:
"... It is amazing that the media is picking apart meetings. I have observed that what ever the deep state wants to hide they play a game of blame and twisting the facts. ..."
"... Anderson Cooper is such an arrogant self righteous elite from an elite family. Jay Sekulow is a great man an one of the greatest attorneys in American. He knows his stuff and could run circles around the entitled Cooper! ..."
"... Cooper is absolute garbage... complete and utter, absolute garbage. If he actually did a true journalistic story that wasn't just cia and deepstate bs talking points, i would have a heart attack. These "news" organizations are terrible ..."
"... CNN is fake news. Don't talk to CNN ..."
"... They conveniently over-look all the Hillary mess. Hmm, wonder why??? ..."
"... Cooper has a gay agenda. ..."
Jul 15, 2017 | www.youtube.com

TIME TO SUBSCRIBE ---- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOBD...

Peggy Fielder , 2 months ago

The Clintons and Trump were friends not too long ago. I think they're all elitists. New boss, same owners. Trump is crass but I think he's doing a surprisingly good job. I am hoping things will continue to look up, economically...because, money changes everything.

Barbara Bennett , 4 weeks ago

It is amazing that the media is picking apart meetings. I have observed that what ever the deep state wants to hide they play a game of blame and twisting the facts. It is amazing what the Liberals are emphasizing especially with the terrible things that occurred with Obama Administration, spending, loss of millions of dollars, and illegal activity.

carmell51 , 1 week ago

Anderson Cooper is such an arrogant self righteous elite from an elite family. Jay Sekulow is a great man an one of the greatest attorneys in American. He knows his stuff and could run circles around the entitled Cooper!

Absalom David , 1 month ago

Cooper is absolute garbage... complete and utter, absolute garbage. If he actually did a true journalistic story that wasn't just cia and deepstate bs talking points, i would have a heart attack. These "news" organizations are terrible

A M , 5 months ago

CNN is fake news. Don't talk to CNN

Larry Coffin, 5 days ago

Cooper sounded more like one of the nut job conspiracy theorists, just like all the rest on CNN and MSNBC. They conveniently over-look all the Hillary mess. Hmm, wonder why???

Jimi Lee , 2 months ago

He's a spoiled control brat .... if he didn't have mommy' s money he wouldn't be there! Another control freak!

John Tatum , 3 days ago

Cooper has a gay agenda.

The Holytacoman , 2 months ago

Oh no a lawyer defended his client how dare he.

[Jan 13, 2018] The establishment won the Republican civil war

The problem with Bannon is that he never have a realistic economic program, despite his claims of being the "economic nationalist". The only thing I heard is the idea of this huge investment into infrastructure which is possible because interest rate are so low.
That's why establishment Republicans were able to neutralize Bannon even before his self-immolation by talking too much to Wolff, who was only too happy to push him under the bus to earn quick bucks.
Notable quotes:
"... Bannon still thinks of himself as a revolutionary. That self-perception won't change. It's just that now he has no vehicle, no staff, no platform, and no major donors funding his ambitions." ..."
"... Is the alt-right leaderless and destined for irrelevance? Is it a "movement" at all? Has the establishment all but won the Republican civil war? ..."
"... "What made Breitbart a must-read was the idea that by reading it you're getting insight into the president. That's gone now and there's no one at Breitbart that will have proximity to the president in the way Bannon did. They are a platform without any obvious political relevance or proximity to the president." ..."
Jan 13, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

Originally from: How Bannon turned on Trump and where the nationalist right goes next David Smith and Ben Jacobs in Washington; Jan 13, 2018

He had been excommunicated by the president, the White House, his billionaire patron and now his own company. "The guy loves history," the website Axios noted. "Well, this political suicide is historic. Bannon still thinks of himself as a revolutionary. That self-perception won't change. It's just that now he has no vehicle, no staff, no platform, and no major donors funding his ambitions."

A giant of the populist base that helped propel Trump to victory has been toppled, raising questions about the movement he left behind. Is the alt-right leaderless and destined for irrelevance? Is it a "movement" at all? Has the establishment all but won the Republican civil war?

... ... ...

Miller, 32, has emerged as the keeper of the nationalist flame. He is a hardliner on immigration and a key architect of the controversial travel ban. Like Trump and Bannon, he also revels in verbal combat. Last Sunday he clashed with CNN host Jake Tapper

... ... ...

Then came Thursday's tirade about "shithole" countries, which provoked a worldwide outcry. But many on the right turned a blind eye or even endorsed the comments, providing a glimpse of the stark polarisation in America and some potential heirs to Bannon's crown. Fox News host Tucker Carlson told viewers Trump's point was "something that almost every single person in America actually agrees with". Ann Coulter tweeted: "He's trying to win me back."

As for the post-Bannon Breitbart, it made its allegiance clear. After all, Breitbart is still run by Bannon protégés. Matt Boyle, its Washington editor, has long been close to Bannon and is shaping its political coverage. Alex Marlow, a longtime stalwart of the website, is still its top editor and former Nigel Farage aide Raheem Kassam is still its London editor. One source close to Bannon said: "Nothing is changing in terms of the coverage and what it does is allow him to focus on the actual issues."

Even so, the site faces a struggle to remain relevant. Kurt Bardella, a political commentator and former Breitbart spokesman, said: "What made Breitbart a must-read was the idea that by reading it you're getting insight into the president. That's gone now and there's no one at Breitbart that will have proximity to the president in the way Bannon did. They are a platform without any obvious political relevance or proximity to the president."

[Jan 13, 2018] Exclusive: Bannon apologizes by Mike Allen

Jan 07, 2017 | www.axios.com

Battered by the backlash from Michael Wolff's book, Steve Bannon is trying to make amends with the Trump family, providing a statement to Axios that expresses "regret" to President Trump and praises his son, Donald Trump Jr.

The backstory ... In Wolff's book, Bannon is quoted as saying of Mueller's prosecutors: "They're going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.'"

Be smart: While Bannon's statement may seem like a baby step, he's as stubborn as Trump when it comes to apologizing and admitting he has made a mistake. He views any concession as a sign of humiliating weakness.

What's next: Look for Don Jr. to accept the statement graciously. But Bannon has further to go with President Trump: Axios has learned that POTUS has said that he wants surrogates who appear for him on TV to "bury Steve."

P.S. "Fake book" ... Trump tweets as he leaves Camp David: "I've had to put up with the Fake News from the first day I announced that I would be running for President. Now I have to put up with a Fake Book, written by a totally discredited author."

[Jan 13, 2018] Remarks of Stephen Bannon at a Conference at the Vatican

Looks like Bannon is really weak in political economy. He does not even use the term neoliberalism. Go here to read the full transcript of his speech.
One very interesting quote is ""I believe we've come partly off-track 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."
Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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." ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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." ..."
Jan 13, 2018 | the-american-catholic.com

Buzzfeed has the remarks of Stephen Bannon, former CEO of Breitbart News , and currently appointed by President Elect Trump to be his chief advisor, at a conference at the Vatican in the summer of 2014:

Steve Bannon:

Thank you very much Benjamin, and I appreciate you guys including us in this. We're speaking from Los Angeles today, right across the street from our headquarters in Los Angeles. Um. I want to talk about wealth creation and what wealth creation really can achieve and maybe take it in a slightly different direction, because I believe the world, and particularly the Judeo-Christian west, is in a crisis. And it's really the organizing principle of how we built Breitbart News to really be a platform to bring news and information to people throughout the world. Principally in the west, but we're expanding internationally to let people understand the depths of this crisis, and it is a crisis both of capitalism but really of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian west in our beliefs.

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 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.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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."

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.

... ... ...

[Jan 13, 2018] Steve Bannon on white nationalism, Donald Trump agenda - CBS News

Notable quotes:
"... "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," Bannon told the news outlet earlier this week. "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f -- ed over." ..."
"... "Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe," Bannon told Mother Jones in August. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements." ..."
"... "It's everything related to jobs," Bannon said and seemingly bragged about how he was going to drive conservatives "crazy" with his "trillion-dollar infrastructure plan." ..."
"... "With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up," he proposed. "We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution -- conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." ..."
"... Bannon, in the Reporter interview, also gave some insight into how he viewed his political foes (presumably, liberals and the media) -- and the "darkness" he touts in fighting against them. ..."
Jan 13, 2018 | www.cbsnews.com

Steve Bannon, the chief strategist and right-hand man to President-elect Donald Trump, denied in an interview that he was an advocate of white nationalism -- and gave hints instead about how his brand of "economic" nationalism will shake up Washington.

In The Hollywood Reporter, Bannon, the controversial former head of Breitbart News who went on to chair Mr. Trump's presidential campaign, discussed why he believed his candidate won the election.

"I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," Bannon told the news outlet earlier this week. "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f -- ed over."

Bannon's appointment to the White House has drawn criticism from Democrats and several civil liberties groups, in part because of his (and Breitbart's) strong association with the alt-right , a political movement with strains of white supremacy.

In the past, the former Breitbart CEO has admitted the alt-right's connections to racist and anti-Semitic agendas.

"Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe," Bannon told Mother Jones in August. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements."

In the Reporter interview, Bannon challenged the notion that racialized overtones dominated the Trump campaign on the trail. He predicted that if the administration delivered on its election promises, "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years."

"It's everything related to jobs," Bannon said and seemingly bragged about how he was going to drive conservatives "crazy" with his "trillion-dollar infrastructure plan."

"With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up," he proposed. "We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution -- conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement."

Bannon, in the Reporter interview, also gave some insight into how he viewed his political foes (presumably, liberals and the media) -- and the "darkness" he touts in fighting against them.

"Darkness is good," Bannon said. "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they...get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."

[Jan 12, 2018] The Case Against Michael Wolff

Notable quotes:
"... Vanity Fair ..."
Jan 12, 2018 | gawker.com

Michael Wolff is a lousy husband and, as we learned today, a lousy son-in-law, too . If you'd like to take a look at the lawsuit filed against Wolff and his wife by 85-year-old Edith Anthoine -- she claims the pair tried to force her out of her apartment -- we posted a copy of it below.

Earlier we listed one way Condé Nast could save a few bucks as it embarks on another round of budget cuts.

Here's one more: terminate Michael Wolff 's contract with Vanity Fair . We're no lawyers or anything, but we have a feeling that sleeping with an intern constitutes just cause.

[Jan 12, 2018] Ex-Trump aide I called Trump a fool

Quoting out of context is a favorite Wolff tool...
As Sam Nunberg put it Wolf book for Democratic Party is like Obama birth issue for Republican Party after Obama victory. It is a rallying cry: let's win midterm.
Notable quotes:
"... Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide, confirms that he did call Trump a fool but says the full context of his quotations were not put into Michael Wolff's new book. ..."
Jan 07, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide, confirms that he did call Trump a fool but says the full context of his quotations were not put into Michael Wolff's new book.

Vicara Vitakka , 4 days ago

Nunbergy says that the observation of possible mental unfitness on the part of the president is a Democrat "tactic and a strategy which works." It may also be entirely true.

99hoolio , 4 days ago

HOLY FUCK. A reasonably sane interview on CNN. Never thought I'd see such a thing...

Phyllis Arringtion , 4 days ago

if Trump didn't really want to win the election (as noted in Fire and Fury ) then why would he collude with Putin to win the election? It doesn't make sense. I'm a Democrat and strongly believe Donny is one can short of a six pack. Covfefe!

[Jan 12, 2018] The Wolff Eats Its Own - The New York Times

Notable quotes:
"... This is not a winning strategy. One of Trump's underappreciated strengths is his sly command of irony, on display again last week when he tweeted that his two great assets in life were "mental stability and being, like, really smart." Note the superfluous "like," which is stupid when spoken but intended as humor when written. The president isn't making a fool of himself. He's having a laugh that's part self-deprecation, part trolling, and actual wit. ..."
Jan 12, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

This is not a winning strategy. One of Trump's underappreciated strengths is his sly command of irony, on display again last week when he tweeted that his two great assets in life were "mental stability and being, like, really smart." Note the superfluous "like," which is stupid when spoken but intended as humor when written. The president isn't making a fool of himself. He's having a laugh that's part self-deprecation, part trolling, and actual wit.

Misunderestimation has already been the political stock in trade of one two-term Republican president. I believe that Trump is ignorant, incurious, vain, gauche, bigoted, intemperate, bullying, suggestible, reckless and morally unfit for his office. But he's not deficient in cunning, and that cunning deserves healthy respect from his political opponents. That Michael Wolff fails to appreciate it only shows who's the biggest dope in "Fire and Fury."

[Jan 12, 2018] Fire and Fury by Michael Wolff, reviewed. by Isaac Chotiner

Notable quotes:
"... Fire and Fury's shoddy journalism manages to indict both Wolff's tactics and the whole media ecosystem around him. ..."
"... Since Fire and Fury's thunderous debut last week, much ink has been spilled over Wolff's small errors, the unbelievability of several of the stories he relates, and his general character as a journalist. These critiques are all essentially correct: He has been known to make lazy mistakes; he tells stories that prompt eye-rolls because something about them just doesn't ring true. Yet Fire and Fury is a much worse book than any of these criticisms suggest. Wolff is not merely out of his depth -- he frequently seems confused by even basic matters of political ideology -- but he also rather starkly displays all the problems with writing palace-intrigue stories about dishonest and unscrupulous people. Another throughline of the book -- that the media has abysmally failed to cover Trump fairly or adequately -- is correct, but not in the way he thinks. The starkest sign of a rotten media ecosystem is that a book this flimsy and dubious could dominate the news cycle. ..."
"... The starkest sign of a rotten media ecosystem is that a book this flimsy and dubious could dominate the news cycle. ..."
"... The starkest sign of a rotten media ecosystem is that a book this flimsy and dubious could dominate the news cycle. ..."
"... Instead, at the precise moment that the press is under grotesque attack from people who care nothing about the truth and are doing their (admittedly incompetent) finest to discredit honest reporting, we get a book in which it is impossible to distinguish fact from fiction -- and pointless to even try. ..."
Jan 12, 2018 | www.slate.com

Fire and Fury's shoddy journalism manages to indict both Wolff's tactics and the whole media ecosystem around him.

... ... ...

[Jan 11, 2018] Russian lawyer's inconsistent statements about Simpson encounters

Notable quotes:
"... Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya speaks during an interview in Moscow, Russia November 8, 2016. ..."
Jan 11, 2018 | dailycaller.com

Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya has become a central figure in the Russia investigation because of her involvement in the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting.

And one of the stranger wrinkles in that saga is Veselnitskaya's interactions with Simpson just hours before that controversial conclave.

Simpson's interview transcript confirms past reporting that he was with Veselnitskaya the day of that meeting as well as the day before and day after.

Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya speaks during an interview in Moscow, Russia November 8, 2016. REUTERS/Kommersant Photo/Yury Martyanov

But in her own testimony to the Judiciary committee, Veselnitskaya denied encountering Simpson on those days.

"Did you have contact with Glenn Simpson on June 8, 9, or 10, 2016?" reads one of the 94 questions posed to Veselnitskaya by the Senate panel.

"No, there had been no contacts with him on [sic] specified dates," she responded. (RELATED: Russian Lawyer At Trump Tower Meeting Submits Inconsistent Testimony)

Undercutting that testimony, Simpson said that Veselnitskaya attended dinners where he was also present on June 8 and June 10. They were also together in a Manhattan court room on the morning of the Trump Tower meeting.

Simpson's work with Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian-American lobbyist who also visited Trump Tower, has stoked speculation that the Russians provided information that ended up in the dossier.

But Simpson denied in his testimony that either Russian contact told him about the Trump Tower meeting. He also said he doubted that either provided information to Steele.

[Jan 11, 2018] How Viable Are Trump's Libel Threats? Experts Weigh In by Davis Richardson

IMHO they are viable: Wolff did numerous mistakes that can be exploited against him and his publisher. Boasting about "taking the President down" in his interviews is one such blunder. Bannon is another Wolff vulnerability. Should Bannon disclaim the quotes Wolff should iether produce tapes or list losing his fortune. Actually Bannon is in better position to sue Wolff then the President and that can be used.
But Wolff can be sued for behaviour outside NY libel statute. for example for illegal recoding as he boasted that he has tapes. Whether they were obtained legally is a big, big question. His statements in emails and phone conversations such as "I want to take Trump down" also might contain tidbit that can prove malice.
Notable quotes:
"... New York Times v. Sullivan ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Jan 11, 2018 | observer.com

"There are no federal libel laws, so it will be difficult for Trump to 'open them up,' as he called for during the campaign," said Alexandra Ellerbeck, the North America Program Coordinator for Committee to Protect Journalists. "It seems like what he really objects to is the Supreme Court decision New York Times v. Sullivan , which puts in place a standard of 'actual malice' for libel suits brought by public officials."

In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that news publications could not be sued for libel by public figures unless there was grounds for false reporting. While Trump may have difficulty proving this with the media outlets he regularly disparages over Twitter -- he announced his intentions to list the most "corrupt" media organizations on the onset of 2018 -- he could have legal grounds with Wolff. Numerous actors have contested the claims made in Fire and Fury , including White House aides and Washington Post reporter Mark Berman .

"We want fairness," the president said. "Can't say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account. We are going to take a very, very strong look at that, and I think what the American people want to see is fairness."

A lawyer representing Trump sent Henry Holt and Co., Fire and Fury 's publisher, a cease and desist letter to prevent the book's publication. Fire and Fury 's publication date was moved up and is now a #1 New York Times best-seller

[Jan 11, 2018] Bannon to Testify Before House Intelligence Committee in Russia Probe

Notable quotes:
"... President Donald Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon will appear before the House Intelligence Committee to discuss Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. A source familiar with the probe told Reuters on Thursday that the interview is likely to focus on Bannon's time during the campaign, rather than his brief stint at the White House. ..."
"... Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House ..."
Jan 11, 2018 | observer.com

President Donald Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon will appear before the House Intelligence Committee to discuss Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. A source familiar with the probe told Reuters on Thursday that the interview is likely to focus on Bannon's time during the campaign, rather than his brief stint at the White House.

The Daily Beast reaffirmed the report, confirming that Bannon had retained white collar attorney Bill Burck of the firm Quinn Emanuel. Burck currently represents White House Counsel Don McGahn and former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus for the Russia investigation.

Although Bannon has managed to avoid questioning by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team, he has gone on-record criticizing the Trump team's handling of the Russia investigation.

After Bannon was ousted from the White House last August, the former aide called the president's decision to fire former FBI Director James Comey the worst blunder "in modern political history" during a 60 Minutes interview.

Bannon also called a Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump, Jr. and Russians claiming to have damaging information on former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton "treasonous" and "unpatriotic." The remarks surfaced in reporter Michael Wolff's book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House , leading to Bannon's firing from Breitbart and universal condemnation from GOP leaders.

[Jan 11, 2018] Bannon and Mercer Group Collected Opposition Research Exposing Trump Mafia Ties

Jan 11, 2018 | observer.com

Breitbart Executive Chairman Steve Bannon's fall has accelerated into a plummet. A conservative watchdog group helmed by Bannon worked to discredit President Donald Trump during the onset of the 2016 presidential primary, according to opposition research obtained by CNN.

Collected by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) and author Peter Schweizer, the document reportedly describes connections between Trump's companies and mafia figures, allegations that have long circled the president's business enterprise. GAI was co-founded by Schweizer and Bannon in 2012 and received heavy funding from the Mercer family -- one of Trump's largest campaign contributors. Before backing Trump, the Mercer family publicly supported Texas Senator Ted Cruz for the presidency.

"We research political figures from all political parties and our basic premise is follow the money. That's what guides our research approach," Schweizer told CNN.

A source familiar with the organization confirmed to CNN that GAI collected research on all Republican and Democratic candidates during the 2016 presidential election. Additional sources confirmed that the document was shared with GOP donors during the primary, but made no indication as to whether Trump was aware of its existence when he hired Bannon as his campaign's CEO.

[Jan 11, 2018] Bannonfreude: how Breitbart (and the internet) turned on Steve Bannon

Notable quotes:
"... Last Thursday, resident media critic John Nolte penned a piece that included tweets from Don Jr blaming Bannon for the loss of the Alabama special Senate election. He called Bannon's tenure a "nightmare of backstabbing, harassing, leaking, lying and undermining the president". ..."
"... Jonah Goldberg at National Review, who opined that "no personality in modern political history has so completely squandered an opportunity to be an influential force in American life, particularly in so short a period of time" ..."
Jan 11, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

Most outlets haven't found the choice to be at all difficult. Not even Breitbart, the website that until late on Tuesday, Bannon nominally controlled.

Over the last week, many of Breitbart's articles uncritically relayed the insults hurled at Bannon by the president and his allies.

Last Thursday, resident media critic John Nolte penned a piece that included tweets from Don Jr blaming Bannon for the loss of the Alabama special Senate election. He called Bannon's tenure a "nightmare of backstabbing, harassing, leaking, lying and undermining the president".

On Saturday, Charlie Spiering offered an unvarnished report on the president's remarks that his boss was "sloppy" and was "dumped like a dog".

And just yesterday, Dylan Gwinn laid out an unsympathetic account of the way the White House spurned Bannon's belated attempt to apologize.

But the brickbats for Bannon weren't just coming from his paid writers.

Last Wednesday on Infowars, Alex Jones's conspiracy swamp, Paul Joseph Watson gleefully reported that Breitbart's readers were dumping on him in the comment threads of the site's own articles.

On one of the main internet hubs of pro-Trump sentiment, the notorious "The Donald" subreddit, Bannon's erstwhile status was also under threat. Among the general jeering were a few expressions of ambivalence, or confusion: "Tough case. He does promote an America First agenda, no doubt, but he is also fully responsible for bringing a SNAKE into the WH."

... ... ...

Some were lacerating, like Jonah Goldberg at National Review, who opined that "no personality in modern political history has so completely squandered an opportunity to be an influential force in American life, particularly in so short a period of time" . The Trump skeptics at Redstate coined a new word, "Bannonfreude", to encapsulate its glee.

[Jan 11, 2018] Steve Bannon's double-conspiratorial masterplan

Jan 11, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com
alanomaly -> erikus , 10 Jan 2018 17:21
Steve Bannon's double-conspiratorial masterplan:

1: Promote Trump_vs_deep_state
2: Promote yourself as the brains and driving force behind Trump_vs_deep_state
3: Conspire behind the scenes to publicly undermine Trump_vs_deep_state and everything you are famous for achieving
4: Make sure the book you secretly conspired to have written clearly names you as one of its main sources

Flashspur , 10 Jan 2018 19:29

Bannon was an idiot. Talk about pissing in your own lounge room. He squandered the opportunity of a life time. What a dumbass. The Wolff book is a joke. There is a lot more to come out about the BS aspect of it. Yes the White House was dysfunctional at the beginning but not to that extent. Wolff is another one who think he walks on water. Wait to see him drown.

... ... ...

JADodds , 10 Jan 2018 19:10
What Steve Bannon achieved with Breitbart is impressive and will have a huge impact on our history, but he looks to have fallen victim to the same Washington hubris he spent years railing against. Nobody is bigger than the movement, not even him.
C9gfKyy423 , 10 Jan 2018 18:47
When Bannon compared himself to Thomas Cromwell, I thought it would all end in tears: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/01/09/why-would-bannon-compare-himself-with-thomas-cromwell-king-henry-viiis-adviser-who-was-beheaded /
fatkevin , 10 Jan 2018 17:34
Anarchic popularists, like Farage and Bannon, essentially seem to think that being verbally clever, angry radicals reflects some profound knowledge only they have discovered and their emotive displays reflect their gravitas and potency. Most onlookers, however, readily recognise the desparation of their absurdity. Their blank statements always sound hollow and the intensity of their massage only highlights complete vacuousness of their propositions with little to indicate wider life experience to support their grasps for airtime. There is almost no political support for their voices reflecting an wider public base. The crudity of their manner wastes our time! We will wonder why the media gave them so much airtime. Its like assuming global warming is an opinion, so let have the bonkers comments from Nigel Lawson?

[Jan 11, 2018] Now that's one lightweight Svengali. Not smart enough to outfox a journalist, too stupid to believe in his own myths

Notable quotes:
"... I'd say there is a similarity to the battle between Hitler and Rohm. Between the elite part of teh party that openly supports the capitalist elite (and that is exactly what trump does) and the plebian part that at least nominally thinks it supports those lower down (as long as they are the correct race, religion, etc). ..."
Jan 10, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

jonniestewpot , 10 Jan 2018 17:00

Now that's one lightweight Svengali. Not smart enough to outfox a journalist, too stupid to believe in his own myths and not charismatic enough to convince the Mercers the dumb technocrats who funded his pseudo christian nationalist politics to carry on paying for the horseshit masquerading as an ideology.
MartinSilenus -> Nash25 , 10 Jan 2018 16:45
"My experience with extremists on the right or left is that they will quickly turn on former allies who dare to violate the standards of ideological purity"

George Orwell: `Homage to Catalonia`
Reds (Communists) turn on Blacks (Anarchists), fascists win.

Nice to see Orwell had a problem with class, even now `middle class` is a slur in this paper, who`s readership is deeply middle class!
"Orwell was not popular among fellow British militiamen, who, like Pollitt, resented his "cut-glass Eton accent". One said he disliked the "supercilious bastard""
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/06/george-orwell-homage-to-catalonia-account-spanish-civil-war-wrong

davidc929 -> BullNakano , 10 Jan 2018 16:05
I'd say there is a similarity to the battle between Hitler and Rohm. Between the elite part of teh party that openly supports the capitalist elite (and that is exactly what trump does) and the plebian part that at least nominally thinks it supports those lower down (as long as they are the correct race, religion, etc).

davidc929 -> OutOfHampshire , 10 Jan 2018 17:24

It was far more than that. The SA wanted to replace the armed forces as a sort of people's army. Crushing the leadership of the SA was one of the prices Hitler (willingly) paid for support of the army, who also helped with the purge. Although the SA remained as an important and powerful organisation after the night of the long knives it was never again a threat to the more established parts of the German ruling elite.

On the other side of this the curtailing of the power of the SA was also used by the Nazi regime to show foreign powers that really Nazism wasn't that radical or a threat to them

[Jan 11, 2018] Ruddy: Wolff never interviewed Trump

I think damage was already done and this greedy Wolff got his 20 silver coins.
Jan 11, 2018 | www.youtube.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkEbLJyinr8

[Jan 11, 2018] Meghan McCain Destroys Wolff On 'The Vie

Notable quotes:
"... I don't think Wolff is a fraud. I seriously believe he was handsomely paid by someone who is part of the Bring Down Trump organization to serve as their front person in yet one more of their failed attempts. Wolff is not a fraud; rather, he is a prostitute. ..."
Jan 11, 2018 | dailycaller.com

Wolff's new book about the Trump administration, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," has been questioned by journalists for getting basic details and quotes wrong. McCain took Wolff to task over the many errors in his reporting, leaving him absolutely speechless at one point.

"You know, Michael, your credibility is being questioned. Trump said the book is full of lies " McCain began before Wolff cut her off.

"Let's remember who my credibility is being questioned by," Wolff said

"Let me finish," McCain retorted. "The New York Times' Maggie Haberman, New York Times' John Martin, David Brooks, CNN's Alisyn Camerota, Tony Blair, Tom Barrack, Kate Walsh, Anna Wintour, all denying quotes."

McCain continued the long list of people who have denied Wolff's reporting, and Wolff sat there awkwardly unsure of how to respond.

Wolff ultimately responded for one mistake he made–mixing up Mike and Mark Berman–but dodged the rest and even suggested that The New York Times was just jealous that he had "scooped" them.

Kathleen3 > jerry • 10 hours ago

I don't think Wolff is a fraud. I seriously believe he was handsomely paid by someone who is part of the Bring Down Trump organization to serve as their front person in yet one more of their failed attempts. Wolff is not a fraud; rather, he is a prostitute.

frank shea > Kathleen3 • 9 hours ago

and a 10 cent whore!

Kathleen3 > frank shea • 7 hours ago

Wolff will pay a high price for selling out to the highest bidder. After this fiasco I doubt another publisher will ever come near him.

MoreFreedom2 Kathleen3 , January 10, 2018 6:04 PM

He's certainly putting his pocketbook before his reputation. I hope the publisher losses millions on the book. He's admitted he's out to take Trump down, and he's admitted the book is full of rumors, which makes him a traitor to the country. His willingness to violate journalistic ethics and standards, makes him a traitor to real journalists.

I hope he's unable to publish anything else in his life, and has to get a real job like cashier or janitor (whom I respect a lot more than Wolfe).

Kathleen3 MoreFreedom2 , January 10, 2018 6:24 PM

There are no journalistic standards. I was a journalism major and what is going on today is the antithesis of what I was taught and believed.

robway56 . Kathleen3 , January 10, 2018 6:10 PM

I'm sure he was paid off. Still makes him a fraud.

Kathleen3 robway56 . , January 10, 2018 6:22 PM

He does prove "Every man has his price."

UtahJack Kathleen3 , January 10, 2018 7:23 PM

Every prostitute is a fraud for a few minutes. The media makes the whole World think, at least for a moment, that Wolff's book is true. Publishers love guys like this, factual authors are too dull for them.

Kathleen3 UtahJack , January 10, 2018 7:40 PM

Factual authors are for the intelligent. Wolff's book is nothing more than chewing gum for the mind. It has absolutely no value.

yeah, sure Kathleen3 , January 10, 2018 11:49 PM

I think you described the majority of present day journalists....

Patty Rogers Kathleen3 , January 10, 2018 11:34 PM

you can be both. One is not exclusive of the other.

bobg11 Kathleen3 , January 10, 2018 7:18 PM

Of course he's a fraud

Neil Ingalls , January 10, 2018 2:36 PM

These witches complain day in and day out how President Trump is a liar and then they trot this fool out who admits that some things in his book are not factual as some credible writer....their stupidity is outdone only by their hypocrisy.

Bart , January 10, 2018 2:41 PM

What a smarmy, smug, self important D bag. This guy thinks he's head and shoulders above everyone else. Sorry Wolff but that kind of attitude is only acceptable on the NY cocktail circuit.

Sol Asylum Bart , January 10, 2018 3:43 PM

He fancies himself as the chosen one to take down POTUS Trump. The road is littered with the bodies of like-minded people who now have no career or future prospects for one, and plenty more are going to end up in the same boat. LOL

frank shea Sol Asylum , January 10, 2018 5:08 PM

President Trump has toilet tissue with an imprint of his face on it!!!!

Sol Asylum frank shea , January 10, 2018 7:37 PM

I would think that would contribute to constapation.

Karenmarie Patrick Bart , January 10, 2018 8:49 PM

Whays with the metrasexuals named Wolf, this cretin, Bli5zzer.....

throughthewringer , January 10, 2018 2:48 PM

i have yet to see wolff questioned to the degree that mccain did with facts. everyone else he talked to, like msnbc and cnn, were sponges and not very critical of the book because they want to believe the smears. and factual errors? if i were to read anyone's book with all the factual errors it contained i would question the writer's ethics and honesty and dismiss the writer completely. factual errors are inexcusable.

whthfk1 throughthewringer , January 10, 2018 2:52 PM

That's because you have commonsense.Liberals don't..

Fred Ralphicksonville whthfk1 , January 10, 2018 2:55 PM

Nowonder liberals say common sense is white privilege. They were absent the day it was passed out.

Alti throughthewringer , January 10, 2018 5:41 PM

Not a big Megan McCain fan, but she did a good job in this interview.

Ungullible Alti , January 11, 2018 1:14 AM

Maybe she's starting to become a real conservative......unlike her nutty father.

Ungullible throughthewringer , January 11, 2018 1:12 AM

The MSM or drive by media as Rush calls em, have totally lost any sense of moralism or sense of judgement (being fair). Their demention has led them to believe their own lies and reject any normality. They have zero objectivness.

Billnonymous , January 10, 2018 2:45 PM

sounds like the hit job is a miss job.

Suzanne Hull Renfroe , January 10, 2018 2:56 PM

I have not read it and don't plan to read it. Is it considered fiction or non-fiction? Isn't it interesting that as the Russia, Russia, Russia investigation appears to be going nowhere, all of a sudden this book comes out, the President's mental capacity is being questioned, plus a myriad of other things happen. Some of these people are walking a very thin line that once crossed could result in charges of treason. People need to get a grip.

martyfrancom , January 10, 2018 3:05 PM

He seemed flummoxed by her fabulous questioning and that Whoopi etc did NOT interrupt her one single time I have to think that even the left realizes he has done a lot of damage.

Tony Johnson , January 10, 2018 2:59 PM

Any money Wolff generates from this book will be lost in the lawsuits ....

He'll be penniless after the dust settles ....

Susan Hensley , January 10, 2018 5:53 PM

he's caught.. and he knows he's caught with a whole book load of LIES!!!

Hillary the Cankled Liar Susan Hensley , January 10, 2018 8:11 PM

That's all they have, from inaugural day!!

"A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media's bias against Donald Trump.
Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump's first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.
They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations"

BetterGetReal Susan Hensley , January 10, 2018 7:12 PM

Yeah, you're right but those lefty loonies will continue to swoon over it.

morecotwo Susan Hensley , January 10, 2018 6:33 PM

He doesn't care as long as the money rolls in.

Bertie Susan Hensley , January 10, 2018 8:18 PM

He'd steal the nickels off a dead man's eyes.

Rob , January 10, 2018 5:07 PM

This guy is a complete fraud and nut job. And those girls in attendance, except for the interviewer, are nitwits and morons.

whthfk1 , January 10, 2018 2:46 PM

He's so slimy..I mean seriously..No editor proof read the book to check to see the quotes were actually made? He won't release the types he has..Does he think he can make more bank off of them latter down the line? I want to see his scummy butt in prison.

Steve , January 10, 2018 6:57 PM

"Wolff's new book about the Trump administration, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," has been questioned by journalists for getting basic details and quotes wrong".

I guess he now qualifies to work for CNN or MSNBC at a big fat salary because he is so delusional.

Wade Hewitt , January 10, 2018 6:34 PM

This book isn't about me, It's about me making money.

Lyle , January 10, 2018 8:07 PM

On top of being a liar and a buffoon, there is something else that just jumps out in this interview with Meghan McCain (MOTTO: Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.).

Just take a peek at Michael Wolff in this interview...he looks, sounds, and acts like Dr. Evil, from the Austin Powers movie series..!!! Mike Meyers could not have done the part better! Made me think of this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

In fact, Michael Wolff just bragged to selling over one 'million' copies of his bogus book, but the real number is under 30,000.

Naturally a favored way for Democrats to pay off bribes is thru inflated book sales, but I swear you cannot make this stuff up!!

rchdir1 , January 10, 2018 7:07 PM

Michael Wolff shows how low some people get on the humanity pole. He is a fraud and liar, through and through and everyone knows it, including half the people in his book who deny the statements he said they made. He is a liar and fraud looking to make money from idiots who buy the book and there will be enough of these low life's to buy it.

Pray for America rchdir1 , January 10, 2018 7:22 PM

The book was probably financed by Soros & the dnc. President Trump is not a globalist, so he will be attacked from all sides. Including within his administration. They don't care how it is done, and they will resort to any tactic. It doesn't matter if it is factual, or just B.S.

PoliticalCorrectness=Insanity , January 10, 2018 6:34 PM

Michael Wolff is just the latest Resist Movement fail. He has produced a "book" that is no more than a collection of plagiarized reports from CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes and WAPO for the past year. He should be a case study of what you cannot do in journalism at university J schools in a few years.

BetterGetReal PoliticalCorrectness=Insanity , January 10, 2018 7:06 PM

Maybe I should write a book about him, it would be a short story based entirely on crap I make up.

zafars , January 10, 2018 5:05 PM

So the guy says he was a 'fly on the wall' in meetings. Can one imagine that in a meeting anyone would make comments about their boss that he attributes. Who knew who in that meeting would not report to others their comments to the boss? Absolute nonsense Wolff.

tempus irrigandum arbor MAGA , January 10, 2018 4:59 PM

Wolff knows that his Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minded, and the weak minded are his target audience. So far, it all seems to be going according to plan.

jessefan in chapel hill tempus irrigandum arbor MAGA , January 10, 2018 5:03 PM

The book probably sells like hotcakes in places like Berkeley, Seattle, San Fran, Portland, etc etc.
The book may already be in the 75% off discount bin in the land of the "Deplorables" who have no time for malicious pap and gossip.

Grace656 , January 10, 2018 4:34 PM

He's a liar. The only reason he's getting press is because the press hates Trump.

justTheFacts Grace656 , January 10, 2018 4:54 PM

and the reason he got a WH pass?? LOL!

Qui tacet consentit , January 10, 2018 4:21 PM

So if I write a book and say I took a few journalistic liberties, might have mixed up a detail or two and never really interviewed the people I quoted. Can I still say it's Factual or would it be Fictional? I Guess the answer depends on how many people hate the person you wrote about, just saying.

Tricia , January 10, 2018 4:21 PM

Michael Wolff said "This was actually an off the record dinner."
So, how did it wind up in the book?

justTheFacts Tricia , January 10, 2018 4:55 PM

LOL! The daily caller cut him off at just the right moment LOL!

Wolff explained it on "the view".
Ailes died, and Bannon told him to put it in the book, so the off-the-record conversation turned into something he could publish...

LVTaxman , January 10, 2018 3:10 PM

How do we petition Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Books-a-Million to place this book in the fiction section?

Julie , January 10, 2018 3:02 PM

Wolff is garbage and everything he says is a lie!!!!

My gosh, if I was him I would go hide in the closet and never come out. He did this all to make money and make President Trump look bad.

ToANewHorizon Julie , January 10, 2018 3:05 PM

It goes deeper. He is an active participant in this attempted coup against the duly elected President of the USA.

Julie ToANewHorizon , January 10, 2018 3:06 PM

It won't work.

ToANewHorizon Julie , January 10, 2018 3:08 PM

Hope not. If it does work - civil war.

justTheFacts Julie , January 10, 2018 3:18 PM

and they let him in to write the book LOL!

jpcw Julie , January 10, 2018 3:04 PM

Mrs. Obvious, I agree

Justin Seine , January 10, 2018 2:53 PM

I'm surprised Wolff didn't call her a racist. That's usually the card this liberals play when do not have a valid defensive argument. Since McCain is white and maybe Wolff was actually smart enough not to call her a racist I surprised he didn't call her a misandrist instead of just stammering.

mauloa , January 10, 2018 8:51 PM

"Money" itself is not evil - it's the "evil pursuit of money" that is evil. You have a perfect example of this in Michael Wolff and his nefarious, faux book. The publisher can't wait to print another million copies. This is what I would consider "blood money" the most evil of all.

cheetahkitty , January 10, 2018 8:20 PM

McCain reduced this weirdo to a babbling quivering obfuscating leftie. He won't even release the tapes he claims to have. If he has them and he recorded surreptiously, in DC and many states, he committed a felony. But it's doubtful he has tapes. He's a bigger liar than Trump and almost a bigger liar than Hillary.

Jana Bradley , January 10, 2018 4:40 PM

If you wanted to cast the role of a sleazy ambulance-chaser, this guy's face and manner would fit the bill. It amazes me that anyone would pay $$ to buy anything this guy has to say. Same people who bought Hillary's book about all the people who cost her the election.

Texana , January 10, 2018 4:05 PM

Michael Wolff wrote a hit piece with second and third hand information - without interviewing the key people or even talking to them and those he quoted are mostly denying vehemently the quotes attributed to them.
A hit piece. A nasty piece of work - the book and the author.
A shame that a slime like Wolff will make money from his deceptions. Pathetic.

SteadyEddieTX , January 10, 2018 3:15 PM

Dude is a tool. Journalism 101 - if its off the record you can't report on it AT ALL. Why is it so hard for this dinosaur to understand that?

Hope he's doing Hillary's book next, we'll never hear from him again if he tried this with the Clintons.

chzzyg269 , January 11, 2018 12:46 AM

Never trust an author of history that is unable to answer direct questions about their work. DNC has been caught paying for several corrupt well composed controversies within the past decade, at least eight per year. I have zero reason to believe the garbage this guy is spewing from his rear.

Patty Rogers , January 10, 2018 11:33 PM

"This was an off the record dinner". What a SNAKE!

TitzyFritzensimmons , January 10, 2018 10:42 PM

I'm finding myself more and more impressed with Meghan McCain. All of a sudden, she seems to have grown up. Happy for her on her marriage and sending prayers for her dad.

TheConservativeExpat , January 10, 2018 10:34 PM

Lol when you have to put a disclaimer at the part of the book that "some parts aren't true", then you are showing you don't care as a "writer" and you are showing you have alternative motive......This guy is a nobody looking for 15 minutes of fame and with the liberals and their ability to believe everything no matter how stupid...he will get it.

Buster , January 10, 2018 10:15 PM

In the last exchange in the video he adamantly states that he has no integrity AT ALL. "It was off the record, but I printed my twisted view of what I heard anyway". ANNNND after saying that he "removed himself" from the scope of the bookit is all about him.

What a skeevy parasite.

Dan Abbett , January 10, 2018 9:40 PM

I often use the analogy of the guilty person with one hand in the cookie jar, face covered in chocolate and crumbs, one foot on the body and holding the smoking gun in the other hand denying it all. Wolff is like that. The entire left is like that. Confronting them with the evidence and reality is a waste of time.

[Jan 11, 2018] Michael Wolff Net Worth and 5 Things You Didn't Know by dalewilliams

Notable quotes:
"... His book 'Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House' might make Wolff the highest paid author of 2018. His net worth is currently at $500,000 but according to sales his worth might reach more than $12 million by the end of the year. ..."
"... The settlement was reached after a judge found there was evidence supporting Edith's claims that she'd swapped a four-bedroom on Lexington Avenue and 77th Street with Michael and Alison in exchange for her E. 74th St. one-bedroom. Edith said that the duo later tried to evict her, causing her to suffer a heart attack ..."
"... Now Nina, Robert, Nelson and mom Edith Anthoine are suing Wolff and Alison, 64, claiming they stole artwork from her home, raided a safe deposit box of antique jewelry and refused to share proceeds from the sale of a $1.85 million Lexington Ave. apartment ..."
Jan 08, 2018 | www.networth2013.com

President Trump has been the biggest constant headline since his announcement to run for president in 2015. Since his presidency things have not changed. He has drawn large criticism from both sides of the aisle for policy and personal decisions. But recently Michael Wolff has become another reason why Trump continues to stay in the headlines for the wrong reasons.

His book 'Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House' might make Wolff the highest paid author of 2018. His net worth is currently at $500,000 but according to sales his worth might reach more than $12 million by the end of the year.

1. Michael Wolff got his girlfriend Victoria Floethe pregnant while he was still married to another women. Back in 2015 Page Six reported the story. He was 61 at the time and she was 30 years his junior. Wolff's wife Alison Anthoine refused to follow through with a divorce after Wolff filed.

2. Wolff and his estranged wife were involved in a $6 million legal battle with his mother in law. The lawsuit was over real estate that belonged to the Anthoine family. According to NY Post The deal says matriarch Edith Anthoine can live in the one-bedroom unit until she dies. Alison is allowed access twice a year, say court papers.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/s2zm3KmUqJ4

The settlement was reached after a judge found there was evidence supporting Edith's claims that she'd swapped a four-bedroom on Lexington Avenue and 77th Street with Michael and Alison in exchange for her E. 74th St. one-bedroom. Edith said that the duo later tried to evict her, causing her to suffer a heart attack.

Now Nina, Robert, Nelson and mom Edith Anthoine are suing Wolff and Alison, 64, claiming they stole artwork from her home, raided a safe deposit box of antique jewelry and refused to share proceeds from the sale of a $1.85 million Lexington Ave. apartment

3. Wolff published his first article in 1974. The piece was an expose of Angela Atwood who died the same year in a shootout with Los Angeles Police.

4. In 2004 Michael Wolff made an effort to buy New York Magazine. The publication's owners decided to put it up for sale. He assembled a team of investors to make an offer but Primedia inc decided to sell to investment banker Bruce Wasserstein.

5. In 1991, Wolff launched Michael Wolff & Company, Inc., specializing in book-packaging.

[Jan 11, 2018] Wolff The media tries to walk back Trump

A blast from the past: July 31, 2016
Looks like wolff was not fan of Trump in 2016 at the time of Republicn convention
Notable quotes:
"... Even if he was criticized, or held to account on various issues, the sheer amount of his coverage, and the sense of awe and exuberance in it, seemed to neutralize the doubts, or make them less important. Print spent most of its energy covering the television coverage of Trump -- he was pure phenomenon. ..."
"... If there was a media bias, it was that eventually he would lose, although, from the media view, hopefully not too soon. Hence, the issues of who he really was -- his mendacity, corruption, vulgarity and lack of knowledge, to name just the tip of his unsuitability for the presidency -- did not have to be addressed because he was ever on his way to a crash and burn appointment. ..."
"... Even the hope that, come the general election, he would "pivot" to some more subdued and sensible version of himself was jaw-droppingly dashed at the Republican convention. He's more extreme, more unpredictable, more authoritarian, more Trump than anyone ever seemed to imagine he could be ..."
"... On television, the back-channel talk into the earpieces of guests, anchors, reporters and contributors was all about the weirdness of the event, the absurdity and even horror of it. But the coverage itself, the horse-race commentary, and the panels of political experts, and the interviews with "insiders," and the reports from the floor echoed all conventions past. The world was ending and television was covering it with its usual mixture of buoyancy, repetition, dispassion and sense of grand quadrennial spectacle. ..."
"... The New York Times' coverage of the Trump acceptance speech was a deconstruction of Trump's factual transgressions, doubletalk insinuations, twilight-in-America narrative and lowest-appeal dog whistles. This was, for the Times , quite as skeptical a treatment of a national political figure as perhaps since its coverage of Nixon at the height of Watergate. ..."
"... The Washington Post took this moment at the beginning of the general election campaign -- rather than the traditional end -- to formally, and with prejudice, you might say, disendorse Trump and his campaign as an historic threat to the nation. ..."
"... Tony Schwartz, the journalist who actually wrote The Art of the Deal, the book that in many ways created the Trump myth, and who has been largely silent about the experience, suddenly spoke up in a long interview in The New Yorker , telling an extraordinary tale of spin, fabrications, reality distortions and sociopath-like behavior. ..."
"... In a mind-boggling exhumation, Franklin Foer, in Slate ..."
"... As everyone has known, but largely failed to deliver on, there are many more shocking narratives to be written about Trump. The bankruptcy of the Trump Shuttle before it made its first payment on its debt, the peculiar financing of Mar-a-Lago, the baroqueness of Trump's personal life, now being conveniently ignored by his evangelical supporters, among them. ..."
Jul 31, 2016 | www.usatoday.com

The greatest media challenge of the long presidential campaign has been how exactly to talk about Donald Trump. Charlatan or candidate? He Is preposterous, and yet people were watching him in numbers never before experienced in the cable news world, and he led the pack of Republicans from the first debate onward. If this wasn't legitimacy, or at least a kind of legitimacy, what was?

Television, in its enthusiasm for ratings and a new political story, focused more on the Trump excitement than his bona fides. Even if he was criticized, or held to account on various issues, the sheer amount of his coverage, and the sense of awe and exuberance in it, seemed to neutralize the doubts, or make them less important. Print spent most of its energy covering the television coverage of Trump -- he was pure phenomenon. And social media belonged to Trump -- his voice ruled.

If there was a media bias, it was that eventually he would lose, although, from the media view, hopefully not too soon. Hence, the issues of who he really was -- his mendacity, corruption, vulgarity and lack of knowledge, to name just the tip of his unsuitability for the presidency -- did not have to be addressed because he was ever on his way to a crash and burn appointment.

Now, suddenly, with appropriate panic, the media has to walk back the dog.

Even the hope that, come the general election, he would "pivot" to some more subdued and sensible version of himself was jaw-droppingly dashed at the Republican convention. He's more extreme, more unpredictable, more authoritarian, more Trump than anyone ever seemed to imagine he could be. Of the 20,000 media people at the convention in Cleveland, judging by the ad hoc focus groups that formed throughout the week, all of us were shaken. None of us had ever seen a convention like this, or a candidate -- now on the precipice of actually winning the presidency.

But how to express our incredulity?

On television, the back-channel talk into the earpieces of guests, anchors, reporters and contributors was all about the weirdness of the event, the absurdity and even horror of it. But the coverage itself, the horse-race commentary, and the panels of political experts, and the interviews with "insiders," and the reports from the floor echoed all conventions past. The world was ending and television was covering it with its usual mixture of buoyancy, repetition, dispassion and sense of grand quadrennial spectacle.

Television formats themselves gave Trump the advantage of business as usual.

Print, though, after a year of running behind the story, with puzzlement being its main point of view, seemed overnight to come to attention and find its voice.

The New York Times' coverage of the Trump acceptance speech was a deconstruction of Trump's factual transgressions, doubletalk insinuations, twilight-in-America narrative and lowest-appeal dog whistles. This was, for the Times , quite as skeptical a treatment of a national political figure as perhaps since its coverage of Nixon at the height of Watergate.

The Washington Post took this moment at the beginning of the general election campaign -- rather than the traditional end -- to formally, and with prejudice, you might say, disendorse Trump and his campaign as an historic threat to the nation.

Nicholas Kristof in the Times , after a year of ineffective press complaints about Trump's race baiting, got down to work and traced a clear line of old-fashioned bigotry through Trump's very public history. His sins were not just rhetorical, but personal -- systematically violating equal protection laws. (Say this for Trump, he hides in plain sight.)

Tony Schwartz, the journalist who actually wrote The Art of the Deal, the book that in many ways created the Trump myth, and who has been largely silent about the experience, suddenly spoke up in a long interview in The New Yorker , telling an extraordinary tale of spin, fabrications, reality distortions and sociopath-like behavior.

In a mind-boggling exhumation, Franklin Foer, in Slate -- with a follow-up by political blogger Josh Marshall -- unearthed Trump's deep connection to Russian interests and reliance on Russian money, the background to Trump's heretofore seemingly inexplicable praise and appreciation of Vladimir Putin. Bad enough if it were just one strongman to another, but it is in fact, in Foer's analysis, debtor to lender. It's the Russians who have been propping up a bankrupt Trump. It's a never-before-even-imagined issue in American foreign policy: What if the president's personal business interests -- his and his family's fortune -- depend on the good will of a foreign power? And suddenly, this seemed realer still in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee by Russian-connected intelligence agencies and the leak of its embarrassing emails.

As everyone has known, but largely failed to deliver on, there are many more shocking narratives to be written about Trump. The bankruptcy of the Trump Shuttle before it made its first payment on its debt, the peculiar financing of Mar-a-Lago, the baroqueness of Trump's personal life, now being conveniently ignored by his evangelical supporters, among them.

But, not only may print have waited too long to find its voice, it may also be too late for print to matter. In the past, in a conventional world, print led the media discussion. Television took its cues from national newspapers and news magazines. If anything, television now takes its cues from social media, the form of media most dominated by Trump himself.

Television, as it created Trump, yet could break him and help decide this campaign. The question is, in the short time remaining, does it have the wherewithal, the form, the language, the backbone -- with yet no real help from Hillary Clinton, struggling to find her own voice -- to express what is in front of its face?

[Jan 11, 2018] Trump unloads on Russia investigation, libel laws, Michael Wolff book

Notable quotes:
"... During the press conference, Trump called the book a "work of fiction" and said it was a "disgrace" that Wolff could "do something like this." ..."
"... "Libel laws are very weak in this country," Trump said. "If they were stronger, hopefully, you would not have something like that happen." ..."
Jan 11, 2018 | www.businessinsider.com

In the book , former White House chief strategist and head of Breitbart News, Steve Bannon, is quoted eviscerating Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr., his daughter Ivanka Trump, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner.

During the press conference, Trump called the book a "work of fiction" and said it was a "disgrace" that Wolff could "do something like this."

"Libel laws are very weak in this country," Trump said. "If they were stronger, hopefully, you would not have something like that happen."

He added that Wolff did not know him at all and did not interview him, though he then said Wolff interviewed him once "a long time ago" for a magazine story.

"I guess 'Sloppy Steve' [Bannon] brought him into the White House a lot," Trump said. "That's why 'Sloppy Steve' is looking for a job."

In a noteworthy exchange Friday during an interview with "Today" show host Savannah Guthrie, Wolff said every single person around Trump , including senior aides and family members, questioned his intelligence and fitness for office.

[Jan 11, 2018] We do not need a book to alert us to the chaos, dysfunction, petty feuds and conflicts of interest in any Washington administration

Jan 11, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

WorkShirkBalance -> DogsLivesMatter , 10 Jan 2018 18:00

Wolff forgot the oral sex with the intern
Loztralia -> EFarley , 10 Jan 2018 17:54
Perhaps Bannon was a delusional narcissist.

[Jan 11, 2018] Michael Wolff's Book on Trump Sells a Million Copies by Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg

'Fire and Fury' is No. 1 on Amazon -- will Trump make America read again?
Jan 11, 2018 | www.wsj.com

Sales of Michael Wolff's book "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House" have gotten off to a sizzling start.

John Sargent, chief executive of publisher Macmillan, confirmed that a million copies had been sold by the close of business on Monday, including e-books, audiobooks and hardcover editions that have been sold or are on order from consumers. The New Yorker reported the figure earlier, citing an interview with Mr. Wolff.

[Jan 11, 2018] Is poor relationship with the truth a sign of our age?

Jan 11, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

NeverMindTheBollocks , 10 Jan 2018 17:14

Even the very first sentence of this opinion piece is wrong.

Ever since Steve Bannon's comments to Michael Wolff...

All we have is what Wolff and his ghost writers have claimed that Bannon said.
Wolff has a long-standing and well-known poor relationship with the truth. "Wolff claims...." is no reason to believe anything.

MikeSw -> NeverMindTheBollocks , 10 Jan 2018 18:27

Wolff has a long-standing and well-known poor relationship with the truth. "Wolff claims...." is no reason to believe anything.

Bannon has a long-standing and well-known poor relationship with the truth. "Bannon claims...." is no reason to believe anything.

Trump has a long-standing and well-known poor relationship with the truth. "Trump claims...." is no reason to believe anything.

There. Fixed it for you.

PhilosophicalSquid -> Sean Carson , 10 Jan 2018 16:41
Also dont assume that the Master or the so called 'stratergist' is as smart, insightful, competent or efficent as they would have you believe.

Sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar, and management are just incompetent egoists.

MartinSilenus -> Brunotheface , 10 Jan 2018 16:26
"This is what happens when a narcissistic maniac volunteers to be the lackey of another, more powerful, narcissistic maniac"

Yes, quite, you can only really have one overwhelming narcissist in a room at a time. How could one working for the other possibly work, thats like putting the North Poles of two really powerful magnets together?

spottedhorse , 10 Jan 2018 17:50
If the book is, as many conservative claim, fake news and utter bullshit from front to back, why then isn't everyone having a hearty laugh at it, clapping Bannon on the back, and taking him out for drinks? ....

[Jan 10, 2018] On FIRE AND FURY I'm A Bannonite by John Derbyshire

Notable quotes:
"... Et Tu, Bannon , ..."
"... That's not to endorse the guy, who has played his hand badly. I don't think it's a coincidence that "Steve Bannon" rhymes and scans with "loose cannon." ..."
"... What I'm saying is that Bannon is a better Trumpist than Trump. I like Trump_vs_deep_state more than I like either guy. I dream fondly of a well-mannered, well-read politician of the traditional gray and boring type -- a Coolidge or an Eisenhower -- who is a dogmatic and unwavering Trumpist. ..."
"... ...I want my politicians and their advisers to have the right ideas, but I also want them to be firm, cunning, and effective in making those ideas national policy and law. I want a gray, boring, politically skillful Trumpist. ..."
Jan 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Quote from the New York Post :

Following reports that [Ivanka Trump's husband Jared] Kushner had tried to set up a private communication channel with the Kremlin, Bannon called Ivanka a "f–king liar," in front of the President.

Trump responded only by telling her "I told you this is a tough town, baby" according to Wolff's book.

Et Tu, Bannon , By Ruth Brown, January 7, 2018

That sounds true to me -- very Trumpish, even though it goes against the grain of other things we've heard, and that Michael Wolff says, about the President's partiality to his children.

That his children are, in their general sensibilities, metropolitan liberals seems to be one of the main points of contention between Trump and Bannon. In the matter of not suffering fools gladly, Bannon is easily Trump's match; but un -like Trump he regards all metropolitan liberals, without qualification or favor, as fools.

Inevitably one finds oneself taking sides here: Trumpite or Bannonite. I'm going to declare myself, with a major qualification, a Bannonite. I like Bannon's strong nationalism and his skepticism of traditional postwar American conservatism, with its missionary globalism and its fantasies about private-enterprise healthcare provision.

That's not to endorse the guy, who has played his hand badly. I don't think it's a coincidence that "Steve Bannon" rhymes and scans with "loose cannon."

I'd add the same qualification to my support for Trump, though. The President does sometimes come across as coarse and ignorant.

What I'm saying is that Bannon is a better Trumpist than Trump. I like Trump_vs_deep_state more than I like either guy. I dream fondly of a well-mannered, well-read politician of the traditional gray and boring type -- a Coolidge or an Eisenhower -- who is a dogmatic and unwavering Trumpist.

...I want my politicians and their advisers to have the right ideas, but I also want them to be firm, cunning, and effective in making those ideas national policy and law. I want a gray, boring, politically skillful Trumpist.

[Jan 10, 2018] Steve Bannon quits Breitbart News after backlash over Donald Trump book

Jan 10, 2018 | telegraph.co.uk

It completes a spectacular fallout between Mr Bannon, who was credited with securing Mr Trump the White House, and the president himself.

... ... ...

It is not clear whether Mr Bannon, at the heart of Mr Trump's administration less than a year ago, will continue his attempt to unseat incumbent Republicans.

[Jan 10, 2018] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Steve Bannon's Done - But It's Way Too Late by David Stockman

Notable quotes:
"... The real problem, in fact, was not the evil flowing into the American homeland from abroad -- whether imports, illegals or terrorists. Rather, it was the outward flow of Washington's monetary and military imperialism that was gutting capitalist prosperity domestically and generating terrorist blowback abroad. ..."
"... Reprinted excerpt with permission from David Stockman's ContraCorner . ..."
Jan 10, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Good riddance to Steve Bannon. The last thing America needed was a conservative/populist/statist alternative to the Welfare State/Warfare State/Bailout State status quo. Yet what Bannonism boiled down to was essentially acquiescence to the latter -- even as it drove politicization deeper into the sphere of culture, communications and commerce.

... ... ...

The real problem, in fact, was not the evil flowing into the American homeland from abroad -- whether imports, illegals or terrorists. Rather, it was the outward flow of Washington's monetary and military imperialism that was gutting capitalist prosperity domestically and generating terrorist blowback abroad.
... ... ...

Nor did it grasp that the real cause of Flyover America's distress is the Fed's multi-decade regime of financial repression and Wall Street price-keeping policies which: (1) deplete the real pay of workers via the FOMC's absurd 2 percent inflation target; (2) savage the bank balances of savers and retirees via ZIRP; (3) gut jobs, investment and real pay in the business sector via the C-suites' strip-mining of corporate balance sheets and cash flows to fund Wall Street-pleasing stock buybacks, fatter dividends and M&A empire building; and 4) impale the bottom 80 percent of households on a un-repayable treadmill of (temporarily) cheap debt in order to sustain a simulacrum of middle class living standards.

At the same time, these pernicious monetary central planning policies did fuel the greatest (unsustainable) financial asset inflation in recorded history, thereby showering the top one percent and 10 percent with upwards of $35 trillion of windfall wealth (on paper). At bottom, Fed policy amounted to "trickle-up" with malice aforethought, and it was sponsored and endorsed by the beltway bipartisan consensus.

... ... ...

Reprinted excerpt with permission from David Stockman's ContraCorner .

[Jan 10, 2018] Ben Shapiro - The TRUTH About STEVE BANNON

Notable quotes:
"... I am sorry Ben but you have to realise that the columnist Michael Wolfe has been known for making up quote and spreading bullshit. I agree Bannon was stupid for not researching his interviewer. ..."
Jan 10, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Ben Shapiro dishes on his ex-boss, Steve Bannon, after the guy has seemingly lost his mind. Full Ben Shapiro Show - https://youtu.be/P1JJ1CmVako .

Captain Caveman 5 days ago (edited)

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Bannon just threw the Trump's family under the bus... and you got Benny Hill over here trying to soft-shoe explain this away.... lol 3

Ireland Johnson 6 days ago

If Bannon wasn't a powerful figure, why did Trump name him Chief Strategist of his campaign and want to put him in the National Security Council? Calling Bannon dumb is one thing but calling him unimportant is a really really far reach Ben.

Toddocharm 6 days ago

I am sorry Ben but you have to realise that the columnist Michael Wolfe has been known for making up quote and spreading bullshit. I agree Bannon was stupid for not researching his interviewer. Sorry but this seems a little terrible about your researcher.

Tcmtech 6 days ago

I am thinking Bannon overplayed his hand and value of his past revant influences and it came back to bite him...

DK3CHAMP 5 days ago

I wish Ben would give us insight on how Steve Bannon was as a boss. It's seems to me that there is no love loss on that account. He wouldn't be going nails to the wall against Bannon if he actually liked the guy. Goat In A Boat On A Moat 6 days ago If Bannon is talking shit, why issue a cease and desist and why state he has broken a NDA?

[Jan 10, 2018] Even in kid gloves interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour Wolff looks like a cornered, frightened rat

Notable quotes:
"... This man has a lot of hate, he can easily afford anger management counseling thanks to CNN promoting his book. ..."
"... So everyone is lying except this guy with his unnamed sources ... only CNN fake news would think it is all true. ..."
"... The guy is a known fraud who has put out fake stories in the past ..."
"... I suppose he could be a sociopath, but if I'm to rely on his word vs Trump's words and tweets ... ..."
"... It is distracting that Michael Wolff looks so much like Dr Evil. ..."
"... Its hilarious how you sheep fall for this shit every other month ..."
Jan 10, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Gumsy Dog, 1 day ago

This man has a lot of hate, he can easily afford anger management counseling thanks to CNN promoting his book. He as written a disclaimer in his own book (saying its not all factual).

Wayne Ellis, 1 day ago

So everyone is lying except this guy with his unnamed sources ... only CNN fake news would think it is all true.

Slick Smoke, 1 day ago (edited)

The guy is a known fraud who has put out fake stories in the past. Also he's creepy looken like uncle fester off the Adams family and shit.

Francis C, 1 day ago (edited)

... I suppose he could be a sociopath, but if I'm to rely on his word vs Trump's words and tweets ...

Laurent D'Hondt, 1 day ago

It is distracting that Michael Wolff looks so much like Dr Evil.

George Stoj, 1 day ago

Its hilarious how you sheep fall for this shit every other month

[Jan 10, 2018] Fire Fury by Michael Wolff Judging A Book By Its Cover

Notable quotes:
"... 'Fire and Fury', ..."
Jan 10, 2018 | brainstain.co.uk

In the light of the completely fictional book by Michael Wolff, 'Fire and Fury', which is about Donald Trump's White House and where nothing appears to be taken from any fact whatsoever, we thought we would write a totally and heavily un-researched exposure piece on Michael Wolff, claiming that he is a "pedophile" solely based on his horrific appearance. Why not ?

Yes, you can't make this stuff up, but look, we're doing what he does, making stuff up, so the question really is: "Is Michael Wolff a pedophile?" if that really is his real name. Answers on a Deep State postcard please.

Yes, all this from the man who wrote that Donald Trump didn't think he would win the Presidency while claiming at the same time that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians, which makes no sense at all.

Thus, we now bring you this unsolicited and very salacious article, where we contemplate in our minds whether or not Michael Wolff is in fact just a creepy old man and a lover of children, in the worst way possible Our reasoning behind this? Wait for it!

Just look at him! Could it be those beady eyes, that sickly pale skin, and that weird shaped head that gives it away ? We're not sure, but we promise to look a little closer.

[Jan 10, 2018] Chantacted assasnations of this rat

Notable quotes:
"... "A total sleaze bag... an unprincipled writer of fiction" ..."
"... "...too stupid and malicious for words" ..."
Jan 10, 2018 | liarandphony.com

Michael Wolff / Liar and Phony

[Jan 10, 2018] Michael Wolff Says Trump Book, 'Fire and Fury,' Will End This Presidency Hollywood Reporter

Looks like he is very afraid now but try to compensate this with bravado. If Wolff is hit with lawsuit that might end his career...
Notable quotes:
"... New York Magazine ..."
Jan 10, 2018 | www.hollywoodreporter.com
New York Magazine (and a column about it in THR ), Trump has attacked the book and its veracity. In a tweet on Thursday , the president called the book "full of lies, misrepresentations and sources that don't exist." Trump also said that he had not provided Wolff with access to the White House for the book.

On Thursday, Trump's attorney Charles Harder also sent an 11-page legal demand to Wolff and his publisher, Henry Holt & Co., alleging that the book committed defamation, false-light invasion of privacy and an inducement of breach of Steve Bannon's contract with the Trump campaign. The pressure induced Henry Holt & Co. to move up its release date to Jan. 5 from Jan. 9.

BBC Radio host Nick Robinson pressed Wolff on his reporting methods, to which he responded that he had written the book in the "time-honored fashion" of talking to sources close to the events in the White House and often granting them anonymity. Wolff added that he was able to take up residence in the West Wing because he knew Trump -- on whom he had written a THR cover story during the 2016 campaign -- and Bannon and that he had gotten the president to "shrug his shoulders and [say] 'Okay, yeah'" to granting him access to the White House.

[Jan 10, 2018] Michael Wolff admits he DID NOT interview any Trump Cabinet members for 'Fire Fury' (Video)

Jan 10, 2018 | theduran.com

Another anti-Trump mainstream media narrative unravels in a matter of days.

Author of 'Fire and Fury', Michael Wolff is now coming clean about who exactly he interviewed in the White House, and who he did not.

Wolff admitted that he DID NOT interview any White House cabinet officials for 'Fire and Fury', and his so-called interview of Trump consisted of greeting the US President in the White House, and chatting "as though we were friends."

Hardly an on-the-record interview by a journalist.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/QJL-ZJickRU?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Infowars has more details on Wolff's admission to basically being a hack

Wolff made the admission on Monday in an interview on "CBS This Morning."

Host Norah O'Donnell asked Wolf, "Did you speak to any members of the president's Cabinet for this book?"

Wolff responded, "I did not."

You did not?" O'Donnell repeated.

"I did not," Wolff confirmed.

She then asked Wolff if he ever interviewed Vice President Mike Pence.

"I did not," Wolff said again.

O'Donnell also noted Trump denied having ever been interviewed by Wolff.

"The president denies he ever spoke to you for the book, at all," O'Donnell said.

"I probably think he had no idea he was speaking to me for this book," Wolff said. "When I would meet the president in the White House we would chat as though we were friends."

"But that's not an interview, to greet someone and say, 'Hello,'" O'Donnell pointed out. "That's not a journalistic exercise."

Wolff struggled to explain away O'Donnell's point and insisted he did sit down with Trump for three hours during his months in the White House even though Wolff was "sure he [Trump] didn't think they were interviews."

Wolff describes quotes from multiple Trump administration Cabinet members in Fire & Fury, including the National Security Advisor and Treasury Secretary.

"For (Treasury Secretary) Steve Mnuchin and (former Trump White House chief of staff) Reince Priebus, the president was an 'idiot.' For (former Goldman Sachs exec) Gary Cohn, he was 'dumb as sh-t.' For (National Security Adviser) H.R. McMaster he was a 'dope.' The list went on," Wolff said.

[Jan 10, 2018] Everything I've Heard About What's in Wolff's Book

Notable quotes:
"... In this excerpt, Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon are portrayed as allies who are attempting to move forward an objective and so forth, and they're friends and so forth. That was news to me, is all I'll say. That whole conversation that took place at dinner that's excerpted in the book, I was reading that and I said, "This doesn't jibe with what people that are quoted here have told me." So I'm in a situation personally where I'm not knowing which is which now. ..."
"... Bannon's been all over the place. I mean, Bannon has been thought of as Trump's right-hand man on policy, agenda, populism, advancing the Trump agenda and all this. ..."
"... And, at other occasions, Bannon has appeared to be at great conflict with Trump, thinking that Trump doesn't know what he's doing, that Bannon is the reason anything happened. He's giving interviews to reporters and conveying that point of view. He goes on 60 Minutes and then contradicts that. He's back to saying the Russian collusion story is a nothing burger. Nothing to it. Trump is great. It's all over the ballpark. You can't keep track of it. And then I start asking, "Why is everybody so fascinated and interested in this?" ..."
"... This book just destroys the Trump White House. It destroys Trump, it destroys Melania, it destroys Trump's family, it destroys Ivanka, it destroys Jared Kushner, it destroys everybody. It makes it look like Trump didn't want to win, had no idea how to win, was devastated when he did win, that his wife was crying when they won, that he didn't want to be inaugurated -- and then he did. After a while, Trump did a giant 180 and really was excited about winning and couldn't wait to be sworn in, couldn't wait to start doing his agenda. ..."
"... A reporter said, "Did Steve Bannon betray you, Mr. President?" ..."
The Rush Limbaugh Show
In this excerpt, Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon are portrayed as allies who are attempting to move forward an objective and so forth, and they're friends and so forth. That was news to me, is all I'll say. That whole conversation that took place at dinner that's excerpted in the book, I was reading that and I said, "This doesn't jibe with what people that are quoted here have told me." So I'm in a situation personally where I'm not knowing which is which now.

So then I have to ask myself, "Well, would one of the people involved in this have told me the truth about it?" Because everybody exaggerates, and everybody wants to make themselves seem important and relevant and close to the seat of power. So you have to have a filter for some of this stuff and that's why I read these excerpts and I read these reports, and I know some of the people involved well, and I've met others, but don't know them well. And a lot of it just doesn't make sense with things that I've heard previously.

So maybe as more of this unfolds and more excerpts The book is eventually gonna get published, especially now with the cease-and-desist order from the president's lawyer. That's gonna guarantee the thing gets published. It's going to guarantee that the thing is widely read. Here is the president last night, and this is a straight-up comparison.

Bannon's been all over the place. I mean, Bannon has been thought of as Trump's right-hand man on policy, agenda, populism, advancing the Trump agenda and all this.

And, at other occasions, Bannon has appeared to be at great conflict with Trump, thinking that Trump doesn't know what he's doing, that Bannon is the reason anything happened. He's giving interviews to reporters and conveying that point of view. He goes on 60 Minutes and then contradicts that. He's back to saying the Russian collusion story is a nothing burger. Nothing to it. Trump is great. It's all over the ballpark. You can't keep track of it. And then I start asking, "Why is everybody so fascinated and interested in this?"

It's because Bannon was close to the seat of power.

So, the book comes out, the excerpt comes out yesterday, and it just excoriates. This book just destroys the Trump White House. It destroys Trump, it destroys Melania, it destroys Trump's family, it destroys Ivanka, it destroys Jared Kushner, it destroys everybody. It makes it look like Trump didn't want to win, had no idea how to win, was devastated when he did win, that his wife was crying when they won, that he didn't want to be inaugurated -- and then he did. After a while, Trump did a giant 180 and really was excited about winning and couldn't wait to be sworn in, couldn't wait to start doing his agenda.

Okay, so here's a guy who didn't want to win. That's what this excerpt in this book claims. He didn't want to win. His wife was promised! Trump promised Melania they wouldn't win. And you go and you look at how hard Trump was campaigning and you look at all the rallies and you look at how he was on message at every rally, sometimes five a day. And every one of those rallies was overflowing, and every one of those rallies had the same energy. And there was no doubt that there was something happening in this campaign.

And it did not look like a campaign of a bunch of people who wanted to lose. Now, I could understand if a lot of them thought they had no prayer of winning. I mean, everybody thought Hillary was gonna win in a landslide. Everybody thought that. All the smart people, all of the media, all of the Washington establishment -- everybody -- thought that Hillary was gonna win. This book purports to say that Trump thought the same thing, that he's doing this to become the most famous guy in the world.

That he's doing this to set up more and more business opportunities after the campaign is over. Or that he's doing this to start his own news network with Roger Ailes (that was a crock), or that he's doing this to do whatever. I mean, there were any number of reasons why he was doing this, but not one of them was to win. And then you measure that against Trump's messages during the rallies and during the campaign; it doesn't look like a guy that didn't want to win.

Now, if you talk about didn't expect to win, that's another thing. That requires getting in somebody's head or having very close relationship with 'em where they open up and tell you the truth. But there was none of that leaked during the campaign that Trump didn't expect to win, that Trump didn't want to win. This is one of these things that happens after the fact. Everybody's denying it.

Melania's denying it. Trump is denying it. Now they're sending out the cease-and-desist order, and Trump had a reaction. This was this morning at the White House. There was a meeting with Republican senators. After that, they had their little gaggle with the media Q&A. A reporter said, "Did Steve Bannon betray you, Mr. President?"

[Jan 09, 2018] Breitbart Board Mulls Removing Bannon as Chairman

Lose lips sink ships: "In the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," Bannon called Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with Russians "treasonous" and said Ivanka Trump is "dumb as a brick."
Notable quotes:
"... CNN reported that there's a "hard push" to convince Breitbart CEO Larry Solov and Susie Breitbart, widow of founder Andrew Breitbart, to part ways with Bannon. ..."
"... Bannon has quickly lost his footing in the aftermath of his involvement of a soon-to-be-released book that casts Trump, his family and tenure in a wholly negative light. ..."
"... Conservative pundits took their shot at Bannon on Thursday; Matt Drudge tweeted about the Bannon-Breitbart fallout and Rush Limbaugh reminded his audience that Bannon was "the big leaker" while in the White House ..."
Jan 09, 2018 | www.newsmax.com

The board of Breitbart News Network LLC. is considering removing Steve Bannon as chairman, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Many of the board members -- including Rebekah Mercer, daughter of billionaire financier Robert Mercer -- are supportive of such a move, pending legal entanglements with Bannon that might have to get ironed out, the Journal reported.

CNN reported that there's a "hard push" to convince Breitbart CEO Larry Solov and Susie Breitbart, widow of founder Andrew Breitbart, to part ways with Bannon.

Even the White House on Thursday said Breitbart should consider axing Bannon.

The Mercers distanced themselves from Bannon on Thursday, publicly rebuking the now disgraced former chief strategist to President Donald Trump and yanking their financial support.

Bannon has quickly lost his footing in the aftermath of his involvement of a soon-to-be-released book that casts Trump, his family and tenure in a wholly negative light.

In the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," Bannon called Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with Russians "treasonous" and said Ivanka Trump is "dumb as a brick."

Conservative pundits took their shot at Bannon on Thursday; Matt Drudge tweeted about the Bannon-Breitbart fallout and Rush Limbaugh reminded his audience that Bannon was "the big leaker" while in the White House

[Jan 09, 2018] Steve Bannon and Trump's Populist Victory by Jeremy Cooper

Notable quotes:
"... When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years." ..."
"... the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules -- for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days. ..."
"... Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017] ..."
"... But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing. ..."
www.unz.com

Republished from VDare.com

Throughout 2016, I would occasionally turn on the television to see how the punditocracy was responding to the mounting Trump tsunami . If you get most of your news online, watching cable news is frustrating. The commentary is so dumbed down and painfully reflective of speaker's biases, you can always basically guess what's coming next. With a few exceptions -- above all Ann Coulter 's famous June 19, 2015 prediction of a Trump victory on Bill Maher -- these pundits again and again told us that Trump would eventually go away, first after he made this or that gaffe, then after he "failed" in a debate, then after people actually started voting in the primaries.

Finally, after having been wrong at every point during the primaries, they just as confidently predicted that the Republican primary voter had foolishly done nothing more than assure that Hillary Clinton would be the next president.

The most interesting cases to me: the " Republican strategists ," brought on to CNN and MSNBC to give the audience the illusion that they were hearing both sides: Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Ana Navarro, Rick Wilson, Margaret Hoover, Todd Harris. Mike Murphy even convinced donors to hand him over $100 million to make Jeb Bush the next president -- [ Jeb's 2016 departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , By Maeve Reston, February 22, 2016]

With campaigns and donors throwing money at these people, and the Main Stream Media touting them, it was easy to assume they must know what they were talking about. Significantly, each of these pundits was a national security hawk, center-right on economic issues, and just as horrified by " racism " and " sexism " as their Leftist counterparts . By a remarkable coincidence, the " strategic " advice that they gave to Republican candidates lined up perfectly with these positions. Their prominence was a mirage created by the fact that the MSM handed this token opposition the Megaphone because they did not challenge the core prejudices of the bipartisan Ruling Class.

And of course they were all humiliated in a spectacular fashion, November 8 being only the climax. Joshua Green begins his book Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency by giving us a view inside the Trump campaign on election night, before tracing Steve Bannon's path up to that point. Reliving the journey is one of the joys of Green's work, which is mostly an intellectual biography of Steve Bannon, with a special focus on his relationship with Trump and the election.

Bannon joined the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016 without any previous experience in electoral politics. But like the candidate himself, the Breitbart editor showed that he understood the nature of American politics and the GOP base better than Establishment Republicans. The "strategists'" supposed "expertise," "strategic advice," and "analysis" was in reality built on a house of cards. (In fact, the Bannon-Trump view of the electorate is closer to the consensus among political scientists that, unlike more nationalist and populist policies, Republican Establishment positions have relatively little popular support. [ Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyon d | Tensions Between and Within the Two Parties, Voter Study Group, June 2017]).

One key example: Green recounts how after Obama's re-election, the GOP Establishment was eager to surrender on immigration, supporting the bipartisan Amnesty/ Immigration Surge Gang of Eight bill . GOP leaders had neutralized Fox News, leaving Breitbart.com, talk radio and guerilla websites like VDARE.com as the only resistance. But the bill died due to a grass-roots revolt, partly inspired by Breitbart's reporting on the flood of Central American "child" refugees t he Obama Regime was allowing across the southern border. GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his congressional seat in a shock upset in the primaries. And little over a year later, Donald Trump became a candidate for president with opposition to illegal immigration as his signature issue.

Bannon at Breitbart.com gave the Republican base what it wanted. Moral: in a democracy, you always have a chance at winning when public opinion (or at least intraparty opinion) is on your side.

Green traces Bannon's journey from his Irish-Catholic working-class roots and traditionalist upbringing, to his time in the Navy, at Harvard Business School and Goldman Sachs, and finally Breitbart.com and the pinnacle of American politics. The picture that emerges is of a man with principles and vigor, refusing to submit to the inertia that is part of the human condition, with enough confidence to realize that life is too short to not make major changes when staying on the current path is not going to allow him to accomplish his goals.

For example, Bannon originally wanted a career in defense policy, and took a job in the Pentagon during the Reagan administration. Yet he was off to Harvard Business School when he realized that the rigid bureaucracy that he was a part of would not let him move up to a high-level position until he was middle-aged. Decades later, after taking over his website upon the unexpected death of Andrew Breitbart in 2012, it would have been easy to go low-risk -- sticking to Establishment scripts, making life comfortable for Republican elites, implicitly submitting to the taboos of the Left. Instead , he helped turn Breitbart News into a major voice of the populist tide that has been remaking center-right politics across the globe.

When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years."

From Green, we learn much about Bannon's intellectual influences. Surprisingly, although he was raised as a Roman Catholic and maintains that faith today, we find out that Bannon briefly practiced Zen Buddhism while in the Navy. There are other unusual influences that make appearances in the book, including Rightist philosopher Julius Evola and René Guénon, a French occultist who eventually became a Sufi Muslim. Although not exactly my cup of tea, such eccentric intellectual interests reflect a curious mind that refuses to restrict itself to fashionable influences.

It's incorrect to call Devil's Bargain a biography. There is practically no mention of Bannon's personal life -- wives, children. I had to Google to find out that he has three daughters. His childhood is only discussed in the context of how it may have influenced his beliefs and political development.

Rather, we get information on Bannon's intellectual and career pursuits and his relationships with consequential figures such as mega-donor Robert Mercer, Andrew Breitbart and Donald Trump.

As Bannon exits the White House and returns to Breitbart, we must hope that Bannon and the movement he's helped to create accomplish enough in the future to inspire more complete biographies.

But the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules -- for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days.

Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017]

But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing.

In his memoir Nixon's White House Wars , Pat Buchanan writes about how, despite playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was mostly shut out of high-level jobs:

Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were

playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was mostly shut out of high-level jobs:

Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were veterans of a victorious presidential campaign, few of us had served in the executive branch. We lacked titles, resumes, credentials Our pool of experienced public servants who could seamlessly move into top positions was miniscule compared to that of the liberal Democrats who had dominated the capital's politics since FDR arrived in 1933.

History repeated itself in 2016, when Donald Trump would win the presidency on a nationalist platform but find few qualified individuals who could reliably implement his agenda.

If nationalists want to ensure that their next generation of leaders is able to effectively implement the policies they run on, they are going to have to engage in the slow and tedious project of working their way up through powerful institutions.

Bannon may have been and remains an "outsider" to the political Establishment. But nonetheless, throughout his life he has leveraged elite institutions such as Harvard, Goldman Sachs, the Republican Party, and even Hollywood in order to become financially independent and free to pursue his political goals.

If enough of those on the Dissident Right forge a similar path, we can be sure that future nationalist political victories will be less hollow. Jeremy Cooper is a specialist in international politics and an observer of global trends. Follow him at @NeoNeoLiberal .

Clyde Wilson > , August 29, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the offices?

Jobless > , August 30, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT

@Clyde Wilson Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the offices? Having dabbled ever so slightly in this process in the spring, my impression is that there is a mechanism run largely by lawyers from the big DC law firms (presumably one for each party) who are the gatekeepers for applicants. The result of this system, which I have little doubt that the "Trump Team" did not try to take on (after all, they had only a couple of months to put together the beginnings of a team, and that left little or no time replacing The Swamp Machine ) is that the key positions throughout the administration are largely filled with lawyers from connected law firms. After all, who better to administer the government than lawyers -- ? -- ?

At any rate, my experience with the process was: on your marks, get set, nothing. 30 years experience in and around federal government, but not a lawyer. Don't call us, we don't want to talk to you. (I also made clear in my cover letter that the key motivator for my application -- and first ever political contributions -- was Trump and his agenda. In retrospect, this "admission" was probably a kiss of death. I was a Trumpite. Eeeewww -- -- -- (I may well not have been qualified for anything, but I'm SURE I was disqualified by my support for Trump )

The triumph of the Swamp.

Clyde Wilson > , August 30, 2017 at 9:08 pm GMT

We have here perhaps the key to Trump's tragic failure. It was our last shot.

Sep 03, 2017 | www.unz.com
< -- --TAGS: . --> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/index.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/Trump_vs_deep_state/index.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/anti_russian_hysteria.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/Militarism/index.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/neocons.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocolonialism/Cold_war2.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Nationalism/Economic_nationalism/bannon.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Nationalism/economic_nationalism.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocolonialism/War_is_racket/media_military_industrial_complex.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Paleoconservatism/index.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Propaganda/index.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_presidential_elections/Candidates/donald_trump.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_presidential_elections/Candidates/Trump/trump_vs_deep_state.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_presidential_elections/Candidates/Trump/trump_foreigh_policy_platform.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_presidential_elections/us_presidential_elections2016.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Propaganda/Bulletin/propaganda2017.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/Bulletin/neoconservatism_bulletin2017.shtml--> < -- --file:///f:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Bulletin/political_skeptic2017.shtml--> < -- --file:///f:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocolonialism/Cold_war22/Bulletin/coldwar2_bulletin2017.shtml-->

[Jan 09, 2018] Did Fire and Fury author Michael Wolff have access to the White House

Notable quotes:
"... Sanders: "Yeah. So far, from what I can tell of the roughly just over a dozen interactions that he had with officials at the White House, I think close to 95 percent were all done so at the request of (former adviser) Mr. (Steve) Bannon." ..."
Jan 09, 2018 | www.politifact.com

Wolff claims that over an 18-month period, he conducted more than 200 interviews with Trump and senior staff. In the course of reporting his book, Wolff said he was able to take up "something like a semi-permanent seat on a couch in the West Wing."

Trump never explicitly allowed his visits nor barred him from the White House, Wolff said, which allowed Wolff to exploit this "non-disapproval" to gain access through "various senior staffers." Here's the author's account of his access, as written in the Hollywood Reporter (the circumstances of which we could not independently verify):

"Since the new White House was often uncertain about what the president meant or did not mean in any given utterance, his non-disapproval became a kind of passport for me to hang around -- checking in each week at the Hay-Adams hotel, making appointments with various senior staffers who put my name in the 'system,' and then wandering across the street to the White House and plunking myself down, day after day, on a West Wing couch."

... ... ...

During a White House press briefing, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders faced questions about Wolff's access from one journalist who recalled seeing Wolff in the building multiple times. Here's their Jan. 3 exchange:

Margaret Brennan, CBS News: "Sarah, can you clarify? Because many of us here have seen Michael Wolff at the White House on multiple occasions. We've seen him first-hand. So we know he was here. Who gave him access to the White House? What was he here for? Can you explain any of that since we don't have access to the logs?"

Sanders: "Yeah. So far, from what I can tell of the roughly just over a dozen interactions that he had with officials at the White House, I think close to 95 percent were all done so at the request of (former adviser) Mr. (Steve) Bannon."

... ... ...

However, she did not dispute that Wolff had been "seen often" with Bannon in his White House office.

"I know there were a number of times where he met with Steve. And I think they have both said and repeated that that happened," she said in a Jan. 5 interview on Fox & Friends. "We looked at the logs. We know that they met on multiple occasions. He was frequently seen meeting with him. So I think that's a pretty indisputable fact on that front."

[Jan 09, 2018] CNN's Jake Tapper Abruptly Cuts Off White House Adviser Stephen Miller

Trump's fitness for office is the new line of attack as Stele dossier is discredited and Mueller investigation is discredited too
Jan 09, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

President Donald Trump's Saturday morning tweet storm has been the dominant news story in the US over the weekend. And with the White House staff still in disarray following the publication of Michael Wolff's "Fire and Fury" book, senior aide Stephen Miller took to the Sunday shows, appearing on "State of the Union"

With Jake Tapper to rebut CNN's questions about Trump's fitness for office and some of the claims in Wolff's book about former Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon's role in the administration.

[Jan 09, 2018] Ruddy: Wolff's Claims About Trump's Mental Fitness Are 'Trash'

This "unfit for office" attack is from Hillary Clinton playbook.
Notable quotes:
"... "This is just so absurd, it's so ridiculous," Ruddy told CNN "New Day" co-anchor Chris Cuomo on claims by writer Michael Wolff in his new book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House." Cuomo cited an interview Wolff gave Friday morning on NBC's "Today" show where he claimed "100 percent" of the White House staff believes the president is mentally unfit for office. ..."
Jan 05, 2018 | www.newsmax.com

Claims about President Donald Trump's mental status -- including that he often repeats himself several times over a few minutes -- are "trash, actually," Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy, a friend of the president's, said Friday.

"This is just so absurd, it's so ridiculous," Ruddy told CNN "New Day" co-anchor Chris Cuomo on claims by writer Michael Wolff in his new book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House." Cuomo cited an interview Wolff gave Friday morning on NBC's "Today" show where he claimed "100 percent" of the White House staff believes the president is mentally unfit for office.

[Jan 09, 2018] Corey Lewandowski Wolff s Book Is a Complete Fabrication

Jan 09, 2018 | www.newsmax.com

While admitting to have been "disappointed" in being ousted in June 2016 as Trump campaign manager "by the Trump family," Corey Lewandowski rebuked Michael Wolff's "Fire and Fury" claims he called Trump's elder sons "stupid" or son-in-law Jared Kushner "the butler."

"The guy [Wolff] is a liar, is what it comes down to, and I don't think anybody who looks at what's in this book can take it honestly," Lewandowski told "Fox News Sunday"

". . . This is a book of fiction. Not only is it not accurate, there are so many misrepresentations in this book that it shouldn't be taken seriously," the current head of a pro-Trump Super PAC told host Chris Wallace, adding the book lacks "journalistic integrity" and concluded: "This book is a complete fabrication."

Lewandowski's appearance sought to discredit the claims in Wolff's salacious account of palace intrigue within the Trump White House, saying the author's failure to talk to him about second-hand statements made against the Trump family was an "injustice to the integrity of publishing a book."

"Mr. Wolff and I never spoke about this book, so where he comes up with the assertions on what I think of the Trump kids or Jared Kushner are completely made up – I've never spoken to him about this," Lewandowski, a New Hampshire Republican strategist, told Wallace.

Lewandowski added a call for an apology to the Trump family from Steve Bannon for his quoted contributions to Wolff's questioned reporting – an apology which came later Sunday via a detailed statement to Axios.

Lewandowski was not the only one appearing on Sunday's political talk circuit, as White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller "destroyed" host " Jake Tapper of Fake News CNN" – according to Trump – in a "State of the Union" appearance.

[Jan 09, 2018] Michael Caputo Trump Has 'Every Right' to Defend Self From 'Trashy Book'

Jan 09, 2018 | www.newsmax.com

Cuomo pointed out that the White House gave Wolff "plenty of access," but Caputo insisted that there are "plenty of passages" in Wolff's book that are "flat false," including a claim that the president didn't know who House Speaker John Boehner was.

Caputo also said he thinks former chief strategist Steve Bannon, who came under fire from the president for his quotes in the book, was "quoted out of context," and he believes Bannon's comments Sunday night, that he has not accused Donald Trump Jr. of acting in a treasonous manner.

"I don't believe the meeting was treasonous or unpatriotic," Caputo said of Trump Jr.'s meeting during the campaign with Russians who said they had negative information about Hillary Clinton.

He also said he does not believe there is a rivalry between Trump and Bannon, because "there is no rivalry between a hammer and a nail. . . of course, the president is the hammer."

[Jan 09, 2018] Stephen Miller and CNN's Tapper face off in off-camera dispute 'You should be ashamed of yourself' TheHill

Notable quotes:
"... As he does so, I would like to remind my colleagues still inside the White House: You don't have to be friends with each and every journalist who seeks you out. But if you do engage, remember that smartphones make excellent recording devices. ..."
Jan 09, 2018 | thehill.com

As he does so, I would like to remind my colleagues still inside the White House: You don't have to be friends with each and every journalist who seeks you out. But if you do engage, remember that smartphones make excellent recording devices.

[Jan 09, 2018] Michael Wolff on Bannon statement 'This is not true'

Who interesting questions that were asked: (1) why Wolff defended WH before publishing this slander? (2) why he was sitting on this merial so long.
Notable quotes:
"... In its review of Wolff's book Burn Rate, Brill's Content criticized Wolff for "apparent factual errors" and said that 13 people, including subjects he mentioned, complained that Wolff had "invented or changed quotes ..."
"... This guy is a male version of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and almost as slimy. ..."
Jan 09, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Nuno Baptista , 7 hours ago

Wolf is know for inventing stuff.

1) In 1998, Wolff published a book, Burn Rate, which recounted the details of the financing, positioning, personalities, and ultimate breakdown of Wolff's start-up Internet company, Wolff New Media. The book became a bestseller. In its review of Wolff's book Burn Rate, Brill's Content criticized Wolff for "apparent factual errors" and said that 13 people, including subjects he mentioned, complained that Wolff had "invented or changed quotes

2) In a 2004 cover story for The New Republic, Michelle Cottle wrote that Wolff was "uninterested in the working press," preferring to focus on "the power players -- the moguls" and was "fixated on culture, style, buzz, and money, money, money." She also noted that "the scenes in his columns aren't recreated so much as created -- springing from Wolff's imagination rather than from actual knowledge of events." Calling his writing "a whirlwind of flourishes and tangents and asides that often stray so far from the central point that you begin to wonder whether there is a central point.

3) Concerning Wolf´s book about Murdoch, Mr. Murdoch himself e-mailed Mr. Wolff before releasing,

"I have just read four or five chapters of your book," Mr. Murdoch wrote. "It contains some extremely damaging misstatements of fact which I will be happy to point out to you if we could meet. Otherwise I will have no option other than to speak to Random House."

The book was sequently changed before publication.

adam adam , 4 hours ago

This has to be a comedy skit starring Dr.Evil. People are saying Trump is not fit but he is ending ISIS, tax cut is awesome, borders are going to be protected, economy is taking off, he is actually doing something about North korea and his foreign policy is great. Just the economy alone is mind boggling.

Dan Shetler , 6 hours ago

More proof CNN is fake

Tennis , 6 hours ago

This guy is a complete flake.

Jack Morris , 7 hours ago

This is all biased propaganda to sell a crappy book. BARF!!!

Kohoko , 6 hours ago

Trump just concluded a speech at the Nashville Farm Bureau and did it without teleprompters. To say that he's losing his mind is so far from the truth this guy has definitely got something wrong with what he's trying to put out. It just doesn't make any sense and my gut is telling me that Michael Wolff is FOS.

David Claytor , 4 hours ago

so glad that the mainstream news media is focusing on the issues that matter most to hard-working Americans---gossip and hearsay. anyway, enjoy your tax cut everyone. If your tax cut is crumbs, your tax bill is probably crumbs too. BTW, 85% of all taxes are paid by 10% of Americans and the majority of Americans pay $0 in taxes. have a great day

Janet , 4 hours ago

Christiane Amanpour is a reporter. She's asking stupid questions. She should have done a better job doing her homework. Example: No President in modern history has ever sent a cease and desist letter. I mean, even that notion is ridiculous.

MrRicochet9 , 35 minutes ago

The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming! If that doesn't work , cry "impeachment"....If that does not work, cry "unstable"...OMFG, the world is gonna end!!! "News" has gone right down the F'ing toilet!!! I can not believe, the brain dead that follows this dribble! BRAINWASHED USA!!!

Marmaduke Carruthers , 6 hours ago (edited)

This guy is a male version of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and almost as slimy. Armanpour is one of the most blatantly anti Trump persons you could find. Unlike previous presidents Trump and his antics have been public knowledge in America since the 1980s. So this book is bullshit.

M. Smith , 6 hours ago

Political porn for the Democrats. Fantasy yes, but is sounds like FAP, FAP time.

abelucious , 4 hours ago

Trump firing missiles on the Syrian army under the false pretext that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people was the same type of lie as the Iraq weapons of mass destruction lie , Trump did it to appease the Zionists that control the American government , Assad is a hero that's fighting terrorism while America openly funded the terrorists in Syria and named them revolutionaries , numerous times American fighter jets attacked the Syrian army while in the middle of battle against ISIS, yes ISIS , and admitted to it but called a mistake , one of those so called American mistakes killed over 90 Syrian army soldiers in one attack , which gave ISIS the air support they needed to overtake a government airport , has any American wondered why was Russia condemned by the US for deciding to attack ISIS in Syria in 2015 ?

shouldn't have the Americans welcomed the help if they were truly fighting ISIS ? why is it when ISIS invaded Iraq from Syria 2 years ago , the Americans who patrol that border with drones 24/7 allowed an ISIS convoy of around 1000 vehicles go through without firing 1 bullet at them ? why does ISIS have thousands of American TOW missiles and no one in America mention it ? why did America strictly warn Russia not to attack the terrorists that are east of the Euphrates river making it a safe zone for ISIS to roam free and prepare for suicide bombings inside Syria and Iraq ? and finally , why did the CIA just give ISIS in Syria mini attack drones to use against anyone they want ?

alreadythen1 , 7 hours ago

I knew this guy is a liar when he claims " it's everybody & 100% against Trump".

Gypsy Dog , 1 hour ago

of course CNN his got this guy on the air it's made up just like the dossier you could tell it's fake you should have stuck with Donald Trump pissing on the two hookersdid Donald Trump sign his yearbook did he sign his yearbook

Bob , 5 hours ago

not to defend Mr. Wolff for we have no real idea of who he is. however , this was said unwillingly confirming Mr. Wolff had total access . this man said "Gorka revealed that he'd been asked to comply with the author: "When I met Michael Wolff in Reince Priebus' office, where he was waiting to talk to Steve Bannon, and after I had been told to also speak to him for his book, " so peckerwoods how do you like the orange baboon now. oh if you watch fox white washing of the so called tax over haul. please learn to read so you can find the truth for your selves. we could tell you that this was a tax cut for the 1% and that in a couple years your taxes will go up 12% and point out how tax cuts screwed Kansas but its better if you learn to read and comprehend for your fat lazy drugged abusing selves

That guy over there , 7 hours ago

This guy is very two faced. If this guy writes in his book that Trump and Melania didn't want to be president, why did he collude like all the crusty libs think?

Leon Rod , 8 hours ago

Obama calling his wife "Micheal" was Obamas mental state from all the Cocaine he did with Obamas gay boyfriend Larry Sinclair ever come into question the CNN/MSM pussys protected Obama

Laura Zugaro , 7 hours ago

Michael Wolff is a Wolf.🐺 Wolff's book only confirms the fact that Wolff is a disgrace to his profession.

sweet rocka , 25 minutes ago (edited)

Christiane Amanpour interviewing a guy whose book has been shown to be false on many levels, this is journalistic integrity at CNN folks, Christine is a JOKE

[Jan 09, 2018] Tapper cuts off Trump adviser interview "I've wasted enough of my viewers time"

Look at what MSM interview Wolff and you can compile the list of MSM controlled by color revolution headquaters.
This pile of garbage about Vesselinskaya just suggest that Wolff is a tool of color revolution against Trump. This is what was not said during the interview.
Michael Wolf: ... If he really consider Trump so unfit and dangerous while you are sitting on this material for more then a year.
Trump team looks complexly amateurish: Gabriel Sherman, a writer for Vanity Fair, said Thursday that it was "baffling" that Trump's team gave such access to Wolff, who conducted more than 200 interviews over the course of 18 months from his perch on a West Wing couch. "[A]ll they needed to do was call Murdoch and he would have said don't cooperate [because] Wolff had written nasty book on him," Sherman tweeted on Thursday. Wolff responded to Sherman saying, "I kept waiting for that call to be made."
Jan 09, 2018 | www.youtube.com

John Liberty , 1 day ago

Tapper really hates the truth, new slogin for CNN, " If it's not Fake News it's not CNN".

Bryan Nelson , 22 hours ago

Anybody doubt CNN will win President Trump's fake news award on Wednesday. They do however have some real competition from MSNBC, ABC, WaPo, NYT

Bryan Nelson , 22 hours ago

Wow Miller destroyed globalist Fake Jake. Hahahhahahahahaha he will NEVER live this down. Miller is outstanding.

Laura Zugaro , 1 day ago

Excellent job, Stephen Miller. Bravo! You just slammed Jake Tapper. JAKE CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH....

Ken Stahl , 1 day ago (edited)

The interviewer does most of the talking, then asks yes/no questions?? Pure crap TV. CNN is only good for the comedy material it spawns.

[Jan 09, 2018] Wolff in the Henhouse by Michael Gross

Yeah, we know it's almost entirely ludicrous exaggerations and outright lies, ... Why believe Michael Wolff? Well that his the agenda: people who believe him want to remove Trump and for them "mend justifies the means"
Wolff did exactly what he always does: collect and rehash slasious gossip.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... "How many fairly grievous lies had I told?" he wrote in that book. "How many moral lapses had I committed? How many ethical breaches had I fallen into?" Only after Wolff's tech business collapsed in 1997, did he decide to return to a post-collegiate writing career he'd abandoned long before. ..."
Dec 04, 2018 | www.avenuemagazine.com
For what it's worth, Wolff is not without journalistic credentials. Like me, he's a former columnist for New York , where we ovelapped. (We also both attended Vassar at the same time. Make of all that what you will.) But Wolff's latest work of "journalism" was immediately marked questionable, and not just by Sarah Huckabee Sanders , Trump's lawyers , and other presidential puppets .

The Washington Post , hardly a Breitbart subsidiary, ran not one but two articles questioning the book's veracity and its author's credibility. The mistakes and exaggerations the Post catalogued are legion -- Trump asking who John Boehner was, despite a long history between the two; recounted conversations that simply couldn't have been witnessed firsthand; impossible financial donations -- but the passage that most raised our eyebrows comes from the Wolff himself, from a revenge memoir he penned about his time in the tech business.

"How many fairly grievous lies had I told?" he wrote in that book. "How many moral lapses had I committed? How many ethical breaches had I fallen into?" Only after Wolff's tech business collapsed in 1997, did he decide to return to a post-collegiate writing career he'd abandoned long before.

A reminder for liberals: the enemy of my enemy isn't always my friend. Fake news from the left doesn't help anybody. And fake news from an opportunist may be even worse.

The moral here? Caveat lector.

[Jan 09, 2018] Gorka says he was told to cooperate with Wolff book TheHill

Jan 09, 2018 | thehill.com

The book has already destroyed the relationship between Trump and Bannon, who disparaged Trump's son-in-law and son in the book

But many of the other aides and advisers quoted in the book have disputed Wolff's account, claiming that he took them out of context or made up stories entirely.

"I can tell you unequivocally is that the allegations and insinuations in this book, which are a pure work of fiction, are nothing but a pile of trash through and through," White House adviser Stephen Miller said on CNN on Sunday.

Trump's lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter to Wolff's publisher last week, but the publisher ended up moving the release date up to Friday. The book is now a best seller.

Attorneys for Wolff's publisher fired back at Trump's attorneys on Monday, calling the legal threats against the author "a gross violation of the First Amendment" and saying that publication of the book would continue.

Wolff's lawyer Elizabeth McNamara said Wolff had been permitted "extraordinary access" to the Trump campaign and White House between May of 2016 and October of 2017 and that the more than 200 interviews with Trump and members of his inner circle informed Wolff's reporting.



"We have no reason to doubt -- and your letter provides no reason to change this conclusion -- that Mr. Wolff's book is an accurate report on events of vital public importance," McNamara wrote. "Mr. Trump is the president of the United States, with the 'bully pulpit' at his disposal. To the extent he disputes any statement in the book, he has the largest platform in the world to challenge it."

[Jan 08, 2018] Who is Michael Wolff What to know about the Fire and Fury author who took on Trump

"He is needy and amoral enough to just, you know, insult people for attention" -- Gawker
"Long a media provocateur Wolff has optimized his barbed bitching for the Internet" -- New York Magazine
How WH allowed such an amoral and dangerous person to wander around is completely unexplainable. Were was the generals?
Notable quotes:
"... Wolff's proximity to power has been one of the common threads throughout his professional life. In "The Man Who Owns the News," Wolff was said to have had "unprecedented access to Rupert Murdoch himself, and his associates and family." ..."
"... For "Fire and Fury," Wolff was a fly on the wall in the White House throughout the early, tumultuous months of the Trump presidency. The book, and its bombshell quotes from former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, has roiled the administration. ..."
"... "Possibly the bitchiest media bigfoot writing today," read one of the blurbs. Wolff did not respond to CNN's request for comment. ..."
"... Wolff's reporting has drawn criticism, too. In a review of the Murdoch biography, the late New York Times media critic David Carr wrote that "one of the problems with Wolff's omniscience is that while he may know all, he gets some of it wrong." ..."
Jan 04, 2018 | money.cnn.com

For coastal denizens operating in the worlds of media, business and politics, he needs no introduction. But much of the country, poring over juicy excerpts from his tell-all book about the Trump presidency, may be learning about Michael Wolff for the first time.

The book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," has consumed all of the oxygen of the current news cycle with its arresting details about the chaos and drama surrounding President Donald Trump. Due to hit shelves next week, "Fire and Fury" skyrocketed from 48,449 to number one on Amazon's best-selling books list on Wednesday, forcing publisher Henry Holt & Company to accelerate its rollout plan.

It isn't Wolff's first page-turner on a high-profile subject. In 2008, he offered up "The Man Who Owns the News," a biography of the billionaire conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

But "Fire and Fury" is poised to become the most commercially successful book -- and perhaps one of the defining elements -- of Wolff's long and polarizing career.

Related: Michael Wolff's Trump book hist #1 on Amazon

Wolff, 64, is a fixture of New York media and a regular of the cocktail party circuit. He has most recently been a columnist and media critic for USA Today and The Hollywood Reporter, and before that Vanity Fair. In 2010, Wolff took over as editor of Adweek but lasted about a year due to reported friction with ownership. He has also written for New York Magazine and The Guardian.

Wolff's proximity to power has been one of the common threads throughout his professional life. In "The Man Who Owns the News," Wolff was said to have had "unprecedented access to Rupert Murdoch himself, and his associates and family."

For "Fire and Fury," Wolff was a fly on the wall in the White House throughout the early, tumultuous months of the Trump presidency. The book, and its bombshell quotes from former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, has roiled the administration.

Gabriel Sherman, a writer for Vanity Fair, said Thursday that it was "baffling" that Trump's team gave such access to Wolff, who conducted more than 200 interviews over the course of 18 months from his perch on a West Wing couch.

"[A]ll they needed to do was call Murdoch and he would have said don't cooperate [because] Wolff had written nasty book on him," Sherman tweeted on Thursday. Wolff responded to Sherman saying, "I kept waiting for that call to be made."

Related: Trump lawyer sends cease-and-desist to Michael Wolff

A 2013 television advertising campaign for USA Today struck a similar note.

"Read Michael Wolff," the ad said, "and thank your lucky stars he's not writing about you."

Wolff isn't universally celebrated, or beloved. In a critique of "Fire and Fury" on Wednesday, Splinter's David Uberti wrote that Wolff would likely land a top seed in a "March Madness-style bracket to find the most loathed man in media."

For years, Wolff was a favorite punching bag of the now-shuttered website Gawker.

Wolff attracts some of those insults with an abrasive personality. A cursory scan of his Twitter feed reveals pugnaciousness and arrogance; his columns are often laced with invective.

He also seems to revel in the hatred. The dust jacket of Wolff's 2015 book "Television is the New Television" showcased the vitriol he's drawn over the years, not the critical acclaim.

"Possibly the bitchiest media bigfoot writing today," read one of the blurbs. Wolff did not respond to CNN's request for comment.

Wolff's reporting has drawn criticism, too. In a review of the Murdoch biography, the late New York Times media critic David Carr wrote that "one of the problems with Wolff's omniscience is that while he may know all, he gets some of it wrong."

Carr noted a pair of errors in the book, including Wolff's assertion that the Times had nixed a series after Murdoch's News Corp had attacked the paper.

Wolff's reporting is now being challenged by Trump, whose lawyer has sent a cease and desist letter to Wolff over purportedly "false/baseless statements" about the president.

For some, like Poynter's media columnist Jim Warren, it's a match made in media heaven. "Donald Trump and Michael Wolff deserve one another," Warren wrote Thursday. "They're like conjoined twins tied at the ego."

[Jan 08, 2018] Who Is Michael Wolff The 'Fire And Fury' Author's Career May Have Been Destined For This Story

"Wolff's book on Murdoch fueled similar questions about his reporting practices. "Like the man he writes about, Wolff is a gossip who is very skilled at extracting information and sensing weakness," the late media writer David Carr wrote in a New York Times review of the book in 2008."
Jan 08, 2018 | www.newsweek.com

In her 2004 New Republic profile of Wolff, Michelle Cottle wrote, "Wolff is the quintessential New York creation, fixated on culture, style, buzz, and money, money, money."

"For Wolff, nothing is more erotic than a multibillionaire," she wrote. If true, what could be more intriguing for Wolff than writing about a billionaire's White House?

[Jan 08, 2018] Rush to defend Trump from book's claims creates more debate

Wolff probably has some powerful sponsors. It is impossible that second rate sleasy gossip columnist took in the POTUS without powerful sponsor. It would be interesing to analyse who granted him the access to WH. Some staffers reported that calls they recieved the calls to meets with Wollf from outside WH.
Miller definition of the author and book is very apt: a "grotesque work of fiction" and a "pile of trash" written by a "garbage author."
Notable quotes:
"... Miller slammed the book during his CNN interview, calling it a "grotesque work of fiction" and a "pile of trash" written by a "garbage author." ..."
"... CIA Director Mike Pompeo also rejected an allegation in the book that the president does not read. "This president reads material that we provide to him. He listens closely to his daily briefing," Pompeo said during an interview on "Fox News Sunday." ..."
"... Wolff's book included a quote attributed to White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, in which the administration aide claims Trump will not read policy papers and memos. ..."
Jan 08, 2018 | thehill.com

Miller slammed the book during his CNN interview, calling it a "grotesque work of fiction" and a "pile of trash" written by a "garbage author."

But the interview took a turn when Miller began to spar with Tapper over CNN's coverage of the Trump White House. After several minutes, Tapper cut off the interview, telling Miller he was not answering his questions.

... ... ...

CIA Director Mike Pompeo also rejected an allegation in the book that the president does not read. "This president reads material that we provide to him. He listens closely to his daily briefing," Pompeo said during an interview on "Fox News Sunday."

"This president is an avid consumer of the work product that our team at the CIA produces and we do our best to convey that to him every day," he continued.

Wolff's book included a quote attributed to White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, in which the administration aide claims Trump will not read policy papers and memos.

[Jan 08, 2018] Don't believe Michael Wolff's book about Trump if you want the truth TheHill

Notable quotes:
"... Unless we had a preexisting relationship, I didn't trust any journalist. And if you came from an outlet that belonged to what President Trump calls #FakeNews, I really wasn't interested in becoming your friend. To those few persistent journalists from news organs like the Washington Post who wouldn't give up, I was upfront: Sorry, I don't do "deep background" and I'm using my phone to record this conversation. ..."
"... First, Wolff is a partisan self-promoter with credibility issues the likes of which we haven't seen in a very long time. We are used to Washington being divided, but the contents of this politically-motivated publication are so obviously false that the "swamp" has descended to a new unimaginable low with its release. ..."
"... Wolff actually admits on page 10 of his prologue that he cannot verify anything that he details in his book, and that what he has provided is a "notional truth," the merits of which the reader will have to decide upon by themselves. With this one statement, Wolff has done more to illuminate the political left writ large than any right-wing op-ed writer ever could. ..."
"... For Wolff and all the Trump haters who buy his book and endorse what is, in practice, a smear campaign, the philosophy is crystal clear: Facts don't matter. It's the narrative that is king. Trump must be incompetent or mentally unwell because, well, we want him to be. "Notional truth" is another phrase for my ideological "reality," a phrase that George Orwell would have recognized instantly. ..."
"... Lastly, and most important, by tying together a tissue of lies and half-truths which will progressively be debunked in the coming days and weeks, the author of "Fire and Fury" will in fact strengthen the position of President Trump and reinforce the public's already remarkably high distrust of the media. ..."
"... As he does so, I would like to remind my colleagues still inside the White House: You don't have to be friends with each and every journalist who seeks you out. But if you do engage, remember that smartphones make excellent recording devices. ..."
"... Sebastian Gorka Sebastian Lukacs Gorka Gorka contracted to deliver Heritage Foundation speeches Sebastian Gorka joins Fox News as contributor Gorka: NYC attack reinforces president's work on reforming immigration MORE Ph.D. is the author of the New York Times bestseller " ..."
"... Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War ..."
"... " and former deputy assistant and strategist to President Trump. Follow him on Twitter ..."
Jan 08, 2018 | thehill.com

When I worked in the White House, I was viewed as strange by many of my colleagues on Sean Spicer 's press team. Although, as a deputy assistant to President Trump, I could regularly be seen on the major news networks, standing on the North Lawn of the White House and discussing some aspect of the administration's latest policy, I maintained a rather different relationship with the press than all of my other politically-appointed colleagues.

Unless we had a preexisting relationship, I didn't trust any journalist. And if you came from an outlet that belonged to what President Trump calls #FakeNews, I really wasn't interested in becoming your friend. To those few persistent journalists from news organs like the Washington Post who wouldn't give up, I was upfront: Sorry, I don't do "deep background" and I'm using my phone to record this conversation.

As a result, you'd never see Jim Acosta coming out of my office or Maggie Haberman buying me an espresso at Peet's around the corner from the West Wing. So, when I met Michael Wolff in Reince Priebus ' office, where he was waiting to talk to Steve Bannon, and after I had been told to also speak to him for his book, my attitude was polite but firm: "Thanks but no thanks." Our brief encounter reinforced my gut feeling that this oleaginous scribe had no interest in being fair and unbiased.

Now, the chattering classes are gripped in an hysterical fever over Wolff's tell-all book, "Fire and Fury," with Wolff actually saying that its publication will bring down the duly-elected president of the United States. I refuse to buy the book of a man who so avowedly holds what, in a previous age, we would have called treasonous goals, but I have read the publicly released excerpts and therefore feel that we can all draw some practical conclusions. First, Wolff is a partisan self-promoter with credibility issues the likes of which we haven't seen in a very long time. We are used to Washington being divided, but the contents of this politically-motivated publication are so obviously false that the "swamp" has descended to a new unimaginable low with its release.

Not only is it replete with simple "mistakes," such as President Trump having no idea who John Boehner is when they were previously golfing partners, it is built upon assertions that go counter to all that we know about the president. The most obvious of these is that a man whose reputation for 50 years has been defined around the concept of winning, at everything he set out to do, had no intention of winning the election to the highest office in the land. (An accusation that, ironically and critically, undermines an additional outrageous assertion that the book is being used to support, that there was in fact "collusion" between team Trump and the Russian government. What is the logic of conspiring with Moscow in an election, if you never intended to win?)

Second, at a time when the credibility of the inappropriately termed "mainstream" media is in tatters, its leading lights and editorial masters are doubling down on their hysterical counterfactual coverage instead of pausing to examine just how professionally and morally bankrupt they have become and what can be done about rebuilding their reputations.

Wolff actually admits on page 10 of his prologue that he cannot verify anything that he details in his book, and that what he has provided is a "notional truth," the merits of which the reader will have to decide upon by themselves. With this one statement, Wolff has done more to illuminate the political left writ large than any right-wing op-ed writer ever could.

For Wolff and all the Trump haters who buy his book and endorse what is, in practice, a smear campaign, the philosophy is crystal clear: Facts don't matter. It's the narrative that is king. Trump must be incompetent or mentally unwell because, well, we want him to be. "Notional truth" is another phrase for my ideological "reality," a phrase that George Orwell would have recognized instantly.

Lastly, and most important, by tying together a tissue of lies and half-truths which will progressively be debunked in the coming days and weeks, the author of "Fire and Fury" will in fact strengthen the position of President Trump and reinforce the public's already remarkably high distrust of the media.

When CNN devotes almost all of its domestic coverage to the absurd accusations in the book, and Jake Tapper shuts down White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller on live television, while the Dow breaks 25,000 and young protesters are being killed on the streets of Iran, then the name #FakeNews is no longer just a rhetorical device.

We are just one week into 2018, yet it is clear that those who expected Hillary Clinton to win the presidential election still do not fully comprehend what happened in America on Nov. 8, 2016. This especially includes the majority of the American press. Their willful blindness and intransigence will empower President Trump, as he proceeds to implement the "Make America Great Again" agenda.

As he does so, I would like to remind my colleagues still inside the White House: You don't have to be friends with each and every journalist who seeks you out. But if you do engage, remember that smartphones make excellent recording devices.

Sebastian Gorka Sebastian Lukacs Gorka Gorka contracted to deliver Heritage Foundation speeches Sebastian Gorka joins Fox News as contributor Gorka: NYC attack reinforces president's work on reforming immigration MORE Ph.D. is the author of the New York Times bestseller " Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War " and former deputy assistant and strategist to President Trump. Follow him on Twitter @SebGorka .

[Jan 08, 2018] Bannon Betrayal Latest Deep State Attack On MAGA

Jan 08, 2018 | www.capitolhilloutsider.com

Purposeful Distraction

The leftist nest of vipers loves this distraction because it keeps us from concentrating on the 2018 primaries, our President's goals to build the wall, stopping the cultural changes to our country via illegal immigration and refugees, i.e, DACA, the need for revitalized infrastructure and so much more

Primaries are the most important elections we have , and they start throughout the country in early March for the 2018 elections. We need to support the conservative candidates in this important election.

Way too much work needs to be done to waste time with this goofy Wolff book nonsense. The Democrats lost, the people have spoken. The reason Democrats were defeated across the board in 2016 is their propensity towards lies and their lack of substance beyond anything but mindless violence, identity politics, worship of jihad, abortion on demand, and the planned decimation of U.S. sovereignty, and the Wolff book is just more of the same.

Since the 2016 election rejection, the Democrats have doubled down on each and every one of these things and blocked the will of the American people. They will continue to slap the U.S. middle class in the face and they will continue to lose. Our efforts need to be focused on rebuilding our government and helping our President pass the legislation he campaigned on.

The populist hero to conservatives has now fallen out of favor with most conservatives, and we're all sad about it, and we don't even know if any of this garbage is true, but Bannon needed to immediately deny Wolff's statements and in not doing so, he is destroying his own reputation.

Steve has made inflammatory claims and the President's lawyers have told him to cease and desist. It is a real distraction because finally, after a long stonewall, we are going to find the truth about the infamous dossier. Was it used as an excuse for domestic spying on the Trump campaign? It sure looks like it.

Was it the reason the FBI began the investigation in the first place? Looks like it. Don't forget that dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton, and it contains scurrilous and fake material that the President has described as a pile of garbage. Now we'll get the documents that will reveal how the FBI and Justice Department used that dossier. This is political dynamite, and far more important than Bannon's provocations.

Before the election, the Clinton team paid millions of dollars to Fusion GPS. They were looking for dirt on Trump. Fusion comes up with a pack of lies called the dossier and created by British spy, Christopher Steele. They release it to the media. And it gets worse. The FBI got that dossier and what did they make of it pack of lies, and did they use it to spy on the Trump campaign? Yes! Is this how Russia, Russia, Russia got started? We're going to find out.

This week the establishment media is all over Bannon's comments, and it is a distraction. The real story is about the cabal of the Obama supporters buried in the FBI and the Justice Department who interfered with a presidential election. Hats off to the handful of Republicans who have pushed to get to the truth. It's not about Trump and Russia, it's about a Deep State conspiracy.

The entire Wolff book is nothing but made up allegations to distract us from our goals and the President's campaign promises. Discard it and move on.

[Jan 08, 2018] Wolff 100% of the People Closest to Trump Think There's 'Something Fundamentally Wrong' with Him That 'Scares Them' - Breitbar

Jan 08, 2018 | www.breitbart.com

On Monday's broadcast of MSNBC's "Morning Joe," "Fire and Fury" author Michael Wolff stated that everyone closest to President Trump believes there is "something fundamentally wrong" with the president and they stay in the White House because they are "scared" of what the president's capable of and believe they have a responsibility to the country to stay in.

Wolff said, "Everybody in this White House, and I keep saying this, 100%, because it is 100% of the people closest to the president, to Donald Trump. believe that there is something wrong here, something fundamentally wrong, something that scares them. As a matter of fact, they went from -- if there was -- if there is any reason they stay in the White House now, it's because they are scared. They believe they have a responsibility to the American people."

[Jan 08, 2018] Steve Bannon Issues Statement My Support Is 'Unwavering' for Trump and His Agenda

Jan 08, 2018 | www.breitbart.com

Stephen K. Bannon, executive chair of Breitbart News and former White House chief strategist, issued the following statement on Sunday:

"Donald Trump, Jr. is both a patriot and a good man. He has been relentless in his advocacy for his father and the agenda that has helped turn our country around.

"My support is also unwavering for the president and his agenda -- as I have shown daily in my national radio broadcasts, on the pages of Breitbart News and in speeches and appearances from Tokyo and Hong Kong to Arizona and Alabama. President Trump was the only candidate that could have taken on and defeated the Clinton apparatus. I am the only person to date to conduct a global effort to preach the message of Trump and Trump_vs_deep_state; and remain ready to stand in the breach for this president's efforts to make America great again.

"My comments about the meeting with Russian nationals came from my life experiences as a Naval officer stationed aboard a destroyer whose main mission was to hunt Soviet submarines to my time at the Pentagon during the Reagan years when our focus was the defeat of 'the evil empire' and to making films about Reagan's war against the Soviets and Hillary Clinton's involvement in selling uranium to them.

"My comments were aimed at Paul Manafort, a seasoned campaign professional with experience and knowledge of how the Russians operate. He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning and not our friends. To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr.

"Everything I have to say about the ridiculous nature of the Russian 'collusion' investigation I said on my 60 Minutes interview. There was no collusion and the investigation is a witch hunt.

"I regret that my delay in responding to the inaccurate reporting regarding Don Jr has diverted attention from the president's historical accomplishments in the first year of his presidency."

[Jan 08, 2018] There is a difference between defamation and reporting

Jan 05, 2018 | www.youtube.com

President Trump's first press secretary speaks out on "GMA" about the salacious details in "Fire and Fury" and the fallout between President Trump and Steve Bannon.

[Jan 08, 2018] Book Claim Starting 'All-Encompassing War' with China Topped Bannon's White House Agenda - Breitbart

Notable quotes:
"... Robert Delaney and Zhenhua Lu write at the South China Morning Post that Steve Bannon identified China as the greatest challenge to the United States while serving as Donald Trump's Chief Strategist: ..."
"... Read the rest of the story at the South China Morning Post . ..."
Jan 08, 2018 | www.breitbart.com

Robert Delaney and Zhenhua Lu write at the South China Morning Post that Steve Bannon identified China as the greatest challenge to the United States while serving as Donald Trump's Chief Strategist:

An "all-encompassing" war with China was one of the earliest objectives of President Donald Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, according to Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, a controversial, behind-the-scenes-account of the US leader's first year in office.

"China is where Nazi Germany was in 1929 to 1930," Wolff quoted Bannon as saying. "The Chinese, like the Germans, are the most rational people in the world, until they're not. And they're gonna flip like Germany in the 'thirties. You're going to have a hypernationalist state, and once that happens, you can't put the genie back in the bottle."

Although Bannon left his White House role in August, Washington is on the verge of a trade war with Beijing, a path that aligns with Wolff's account of Bannon's over-arching foreign policy goal: conflict with China. Trump ordered investigations into China's trade and investment policies, moves which may result in punitive action against Chinese goods and investors.

Read the rest of the story at the South China Morning Post .

[Jan 08, 2018] Sarah Sanders GOES OFF on Michael Wolff s Trump Book Claims

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvWg7WD8qAg
Looks like Wolff book is continues Hillary Clinton line of attack "unfit for office". The guy is really sleazy -- see Michael Wolff Finally Shuts Down Kellyanne Conway - You're The Darkness
Jan 04, 2018 | www.youtube.com

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders held a Press Briefing today 1/4/2018 where she answer questions on Michael Wolff's Trump Book and trump's feud with Steve Bannon after he said his Admistration is in Chaos on wolff's book, on this press briefing Sarah Sanders was also asked about Trump's Mental Fitness to Serve as Commander in Chief 1/4/2018

Sarah Sanders press briefing on president Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Michael Wolff's book this is the latest on trump's white house press briefings other current events and top stories today are Wolff's book that reveals the Trump's white house is in a chaotic state these are the latest breaking news today January 4, 2018

[Jan 08, 2018] Jake Tapper KlCKS Trumpster Steven Miller 0FF His SH0W, I've Wasted EN0UGH of My Viewers Time

"A garbage author of the garbage book". Bannon betrayed the president
Jan 07, 2018 | www.youtube.com

CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday cut off a contentious interview with White House senior adviser Stephen Miller, as the two sparred about President Trump and the news network. Miller slammed the network over a mistake it made last year in a report about the Russia investigation and accused CNN of not covering issues he said are important to Americans.

"You have 24 hours a day of anti-Trump material and you're not going to give three minutes for the American people to hear the real experience of Donald Trump?" Miller asked.

Andrew Egan , 13 hours ago

What kind of dystopian world do we live where a MSM presenter can't cope with a truth challenge. I'm 60 and in all my life I could never have imagined such blatant propaganda and bias as we are living through now. This is truly scary stuff.

Notorious L-I-N , 16 hours ago

When the interview doesn't go your way, run away or shut it down! Just like the fake news KING,

[Jan 08, 2018] Wikileaks Publishes Michael Wolff s Entire Sold Out Trump Book As A PDF Zero Hedge

Should probably be named LIAR & FURY. Available Fire_and_Fury_-_Michael_Wolff.pdf - Google Drive but it not worth the electron waited on its download. This is just a gossip comumnist trying to make quick buck out of hate of Trump by Clinton wing of the Democratic Party
the real question is who is standing behind this gossip columnist. We now know who is standing behind Steele dossier. Probably the same people.
Notable quotes:
"... Since, somewhat ironically, WikiLeaks picked a google drive to host the leaked pdf, it will unlikely remain available for an extended period, as it would mean substantial lost revenue for book published Henry Holt and Company. So for those who wish to read what all the hoople is about - for free - they are advised to do so sooner rather than later. ..."
"... Not worth the electricity to download. btw, here is the unedited Tapper cut off interview with Trump Adviser Miller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-OLYswSY0I ..."
"... That's some free shit I am not wasting my time on. How about a free pdf As We Go Marching by John T Flynn which describes the tactics used by Mussolini and how eerily similar they are to vicious antifa and Hillary supporters today: ..."
"... Libtards will continue to buy the book and pound it on the table demanding impeachment nullification of the election so the Queen witch can take the throne. ..."
"... . The disrespect the media has for our country and its institutions and offices is beyond the beyond. They show their true colors... destroyers, traitors, seditionists. ..."
"... What they assert as being "freedom of speech" is a very very low harmonic of the actual concept. Out of control, evil children. The nation should boycott the news media until they all collapse and go away. They are a major obstacle to the forward progress of our nation. ..."
"... Wolff really shouldn't miss the money, cuz it was all done out of his love of country, right? His altruistic concern for our democracy, and all that MSM bull shit, right? And who really needs all their income anyway, it's cool to give it away to Team Blue, right? Shouldn't miss the cash whatsoever. ..."
Jan 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Considering that Wikileaks made its name by leaking confidential and/or hard to find documents and information, and also considering the reversal in the Trump administration vis-a-vis Julian Assange, whom it first lauded only to threaten with incarceration in recent months, it is perhaps not surprising that moments ago the official Wikileaks twitter account published Michael Wolff's controversial - and largely sold out - book, "Fire and Fury" in pdf format.

New Trump book "Fire and Fury" by Michael Wolff. Full PDF: https://t.co/sf7vj4IYAx

-- WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) January 7, 2018

Since, somewhat ironically, WikiLeaks picked a google drive to host the leaked pdf, it will unlikely remain available for an extended period, as it would mean substantial lost revenue for book published Henry Holt and Company. So for those who wish to read what all the hoople is about - for free - they are advised to do so sooner rather than later.

IntercoursetheEU -> fauxhammer Jan 7, 2018 3:29 PM

Not worth the electricity to download. btw, here is the unedited Tapper cut off interview with Trump Adviser Miller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-OLYswSY0I

Sanity Bear -> Sanity Bear Jan 8, 2018 1:30 AM

OK my last attempt to protect the idiots.

Here's Open VPN, it creates a VPN connection to whatever server you choose. Pick one from a country that does not cooperate with the US government's surveillance apparatus: Russia, China, Iran are good choices. Then whatever IP that GOOGLE (jesus fucking christ people) gets won't be your IP but some IP abroad they can't chase down.

https://openvpn.net/

Sanity Bear -> Come On Puu See Jan 8, 2018 12:19 AM

OK, I'll play along. Let's say I am a Deep State agent. What could I possibly aim to achieve by telling people not to download a book that we all know is a pack of lies and that few if any here have any real interest in reading? Isn't that the exact opposite of what the Deep State wanted when they produced the book?

IridiumRebel -> BaBaBouy Jan 7, 2018 3:43 PM

I grew up in Reagan's America. There are parallels.

itstippy -> IridiumRebel Jan 7, 2018 4:35 PM

Reagan was suffering from Altziemers Disease for much of his second term. I was pissed off when he kept saying "I don't recall" when asked about details of the Iran/Contra/Ollie North fiasco. I remember thinking, "Just what DO you recall, Mr. President?"

But it turned out he wasn't lying or covering for anybody. He honestly couldn't recall. I think at that point Vice President George H.W. Bush was pretty much running the administration.

tyberious -> itstippy Jan 7, 2018 8:09 PM

CIA Dir. Bush. Never forget that!

JustPastPeacefield -> itstippy Jan 7, 2018 9:30 PM

For one thing, presidents don't need to be chief bureaucrats with knowledge of all the details. Reagan knew how to manage from the top, and was rather successful in his long career. Carter and Clinton were known for their detailed management style, and ... enough said.

The quiet talk of Reagan's Alzheimer's started when he made moves to radically reduce nuclear weapons and put the Cold War firmly in the past. Anyone who doesn't want the world in a constant state of warfare must be a little crazy.

After reading the Reagan Diaries, which he kept from day one until the end, I didn't see a hint of early AD, and I'm quite familiar with the disease.

And finally, as scandals go, by today's standard, Iran-Contra doesn't rate a 1 on a ten point scale. What Obama did on a routine basis would put that 'scandal' to shame.

MK13 -> itstippy Jan 7, 2018 10:23 PM

Look, he had hypoxic brain injury from the gunshot he took from a leftist. His cognitive function wasn't the same after that. Stop blaming Alzheimer's disease.

swamp -> itstippy Jan 8, 2018 1:16 AM

Regan was pushed to his limit but he did so much that is unknown to save us. He ended up working for them but continued to work for us behind the scenes in so many ways. I lived in DC at the time and know behind the curtain

847328_3527 -> [email protected] Jan 7, 2018 5:42 PM

That's some free shit I am not wasting my time on. How about a free pdf As We Go Marching by John T Flynn which describes the tactics used by Mussolini and how eerily similar they are to vicious antifa and Hillary supporters today:

https://mises.org/system/tdf/As%20We%20Go%20Marching_2.pdf?file=1&type=

AllBentOutOfShape -> fauxhammer Jan 8, 2018 1:50 AM

More odd than bold, for Wikileaks to do such a move. It doesn't make much sense considering the book would eventually be available for free at a number of pirate sites. A move like this can only damage the credibility they have with some of their fans. Maybe WL's twitter was hacked?

andrewp111 -> max2205 Jan 7, 2018 5:19 PM

I wouldn't buy this thing, but for free, I put it in my "bullshit" folder.

SilverRhino -> max2205 Jan 7, 2018 6:14 PM

Apparently the Quota was exceeded so you cannot direct save it to PDF from google drive. Go to the end (Page 327) ... page back up to page 1. Print to PDF then works like the charm.

Masher1 -> SilverRhino Jan 7, 2018 7:19 PM

https://vk.com/doc16929061_457122032?hash=c3fd32d00d1d90bd48&dl=GQ4TONR

WFO -> takeaction Jan 7, 2018 7:47 PM

Downloaded it - the tripe couldn't keep my attention. Not worth the paper it isn't written on.

Lumberjack -> takeaction Jan 7, 2018 7:49 PM

Tom Steyer hand delivering book to congress...

http://amp.dailycaller.com/2018/01/07/tom-steyer-is-hand-delivering-535-copies-of-wolffs-book-to-congress/#click=https://t.co/psHbO4Lsij

redmudhooch -> Fritz Jan 7, 2018 8:07 PM

Some things never change... Heres an eye opening film I just ran up on, my grand father grew up on one of these farms, no wonder he was always angry or sad....never very happy.

All slaves. Not much different in 2018. The "media" would never do this kind of story now.

1960: "Harvest of Shame"
https://hooktube.com/watch?v=yJTVF_dya7E
1960's "Harvest of Shame," in which Edward R. Murrow exposed the plight of America's farm workers.

joego1 Jan 7, 2018 3:30 PM

Libtards will continue to buy the book and pound it on the table demanding impeachment nullification of the election so the Queen witch can take the throne.

WillyGroper Jan 7, 2018 3:33 PM

best seller in germany & france...never released in the ussa. operation james bond. https://www.amazon.com/Op-JB-Christopher-Creighton/dp/0671855654

alfbell Jan 7, 2018 3:35 PM

Back in the good old days a shill whore like Wolff would've been beheaded and his head put on a pike outside the White House. The disrespect the media has for our country and its institutions and offices is beyond the beyond. They show their true colors... destroyers, traitors, seditionists.

What they assert as being "freedom of speech" is a very very low harmonic of the actual concept. Out of control, evil children. The nation should boycott the news media until they all collapse and go away. They are a major obstacle to the forward progress of our nation.

PrintCash Jan 7, 2018 3:37 PM

Wolff really shouldn't miss the money, cuz it was all done out of his love of country, right? His altruistic concern for our democracy, and all that MSM bull shit, right? And who really needs all their income anyway, it's cool to give it away to Team Blue, right? Shouldn't miss the cash whatsoever.

FluffyDog6 -> ludwigvmises Jan 7, 2018 7:27 PM

My guess is this was released by Trump supporters to completely tank sales of the book. Very Machiavellian play.

Travis McGee -> Vageling Jan 7, 2018 4:39 PM

If you have Windows, just print-to-pdf by selecting the printer "Microsoft Print to PDF" rather than your ink printer. You then have the pdf. Copy it to a Kindle or read on your pc.

MsCreant -> BGO Jan 8, 2018 1:31 AM

Kuchner was actually portrayed pretty negatively, as a loser douche bag who is afraid of his father and had nothing going until he married Ivanka. I don't think anyone in that book has been portrayed in a sympathetic way except maybe Ivanka and Melania. And that is not flattering, just sympathetic.

RiverDrifter Jan 7, 2018 5:10 PM

Even free, I have no interest. You'd have to pay me to read this crap & even then, it'd have to be worth my time or I wouldn't do it.

Wolff himself said some info in it is from sources while some is what HE BELIEVES to be true...in other words, his opinion. No way to quantify what some means in either case...could be 5% sources and 95% what HE BELIEVES to be true for all we know.

Why download any uber liberal anti-American drivel, even if it's free? I don't get it....

djrichard Jan 7, 2018 7:11 PM

This was a mistake by wikileaks. Wikileaks should have stayed on path to being a portal to liberate information, and stayed neutral with respect to how it was weaponized. Now they're showing their partisanship, which makes it easier to remove them from the playing field IMO, e.g. as part of a side deal between Trump and Dems.

MsCreant -> djrichard Jan 8, 2018 1:36 AM

I think Wiki thinks you should read it and judge for yourself.

If folks are going to say this book is reason to take down this president, then everyone should have a look.

Wikileaks gets accused of being partisan (supporting Trump) when they say the Russians did not provide the leaked info. Publishing this looks neutral to me.

[Jan 08, 2018] 'Fire And Fury' Author Michael Wolff 'I Absolutely' Spoke To President Donald Trump TODAY

YouTube video
Very sleazy gossip columnist. Looks like questing fitness of the President of the essence of the book. Why nobody asked Trump if this guy presence is authorized.
Notable quotes:
"... Michael Wollf is a parasite.............human garbage......some one saw him running for the garbage truck "am I too late for the garbage" the men said no "jump in" ..."
Jan 08, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Gary A Lindley, 2 days ago

What a sleaze ball. This guy is smoked

War Criminal, 2 days ago

Fake news. Meanwhile, Obama goes unprosecuted for his war crimes.

Michael McIntyre, 2 days ago

Michael Wollf is a parasite.............human garbage......some one saw him running for the garbage truck "am I too late for the garbage" the men said no "jump in"

Peter Rodriguez III , 1 day ago

So basically people,

He walked into the White House with his mind already made up. Spoke to people who he claims speak to Trump on a "minute to minute basis" trying to justify his views. Comes out with essentially an anti trump book. All while spending a TOTAL of 3 or less hours just in the presence of the president, without direct interaction.

Railroads Across Maine, 2 days ago (edited)

This guy is a joke just like his book. Looking forward to seeing the lawsuit results due to slandering a president with a bunch of lies, and smear tactics. This so called author is not only unethical, but very stupid as well. People that buy this book are going to be funding trump in the end! Brilliant!

Dennis Gerald, 2 days ago

Dirt bag Bannon campaigning for Mueller lmao!

Peter Jansen

The DNC and the deep state started the 2020 election campaign already at the election night - everything is planned to the last detail to win 2020, this book is part of a larger fabricated propaganda in the longest and most dirty election campaign ever seen.

[Jan 08, 2018] Steve Bannon Backpedals On Comments In New Book On Trump by Igor Bobic

Too little, too late. Also Bannon by demonizing Russians has shown that his is a dangerous warmonger. And a weak politician.
Notable quotes:
"... Bannon added that his comments to Wolff were "aimed at Paul Manafort," the former Trump campaign manager who has been charged as part of an investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and members of Trump's team. Manafort was also at the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. Manafort, Bannon said, "should have known how the Russians operate. He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning and not our friends. ..."
"... Bannon released the statement after a three-day barrage of criticism from Trump and his allies. The president dubbed Bannon "Sloppy Steve." Bannon's statement also followed a CNN appearance on Sunday by Stephen Miller, the president's senior policy adviser and former Bannon ally, who eviscerated his comments to Wolff as "grotesque." ..."
Jan 08, 2018 | www.huffingtonpost.com

The former White House aide said Donald Trump Jr. is a "patriot and a good man." Steve Bannon backpedaled on comments to journalist Michael Wolff, whose explosive new book sparked a backlash against the former top Donald Trump aide over his remarks about a meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016. According to the book, released a week early due to high demand, the former White House strategist called the infamous meeting in New York between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian operatives at Trump Tower "treasonous."

In a statement to Axios on Sunday, Bannon heaped praise on Trump and his agenda, and called Don Jr. a "patriot and a good man." "My comments about the meeting with Russian nationals came from my life experiences as a Naval officer stationed aboard a destroyer whose main mission was to hunt Soviet submarines to my time at the Pentagon during the Reagan years when our focus was the defeat of 'the evil empire' and to making films about Reagan's war against the Soviets and Hillary Clinton's involvement in selling uranium to them, " Bannon said in the statement.

Bannon added that his comments to Wolff were "aimed at Paul Manafort," the former Trump campaign manager who has been charged as part of an investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and members of Trump's team. Manafort was also at the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. Manafort, Bannon said, "should have known how the Russians operate. He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning and not our friends.

To reiterate, those comments (about the meeting with the Russians) were not aimed at Don Jr." In the statement, Bannon again denied that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. And though he did not deny any of the remarks that were attributed to him in the book, Bannon said he regretted "that my delay in responding to the inaccurate reporting regarding Don Jr has diverted attention from the president's historical accomplishments in the first year of his presidency."

Bannon released the statement after a three-day barrage of criticism from Trump and his allies. The president dubbed Bannon "Sloppy Steve." Bannon's statement also followed a CNN appearance on Sunday by Stephen Miller, the president's senior policy adviser and former Bannon ally, who eviscerated his comments to Wolff as "grotesque."

Earlier Sunday, Trump railed about what he called Wolff's "Fake Book" on Twitter:

[Jan 07, 2018] Deep State Coup Roger Stone and Stefan Molyneux

Great interview. Information about Veselitskaya is starting from 2:16
Jan 05, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Neo Roman0 , 16 hours ago

What a wonderfully clear and uncompromising analysis of the current political situation in the US. And done by two of the sharpest and most charismatic truth-telling figures of the news landscape! Thank you both, it's such a pleasure to listen to you. I pray to our God that 2018 will be the year that sees the beginning of the swamp draining! God bless you both and God bless America!

hermanus hulsen , 2 hours ago

It seems the USA intelligent service is not very intelligent.

deplorable Dan , 4 hours ago

Take all of the clintons money, and don't let them leave the country. And never hold any government position. And life probation and monitoring on their bank funds from their minimum wage job. That would probably be the worst thing they could be made to experience. Reduced to commoners.

sos , 7 hours ago

Remarkable people remarkably capable of flipping on the light at a pivotal milestone in our time.

Andrew Benner , 8 hours ago

I'm concerned, irrationally, about how much Stone is shining right now, as a person. Like fire burning brightest before the light goes out. Christopher Lee was the same way; embraced the youth culture, wore a funny hat, and did awesome things then died. I'm selfishly desperate for Stone to stay alive and remain a champion in this fight.

WindWipper , 9 hours ago

Roger Stone continually blames Bannon as the one who brought globalist McMaster into the Trump admin. Yet McMaster was the reason Bannon was booted out, because the two of them did not agree on the agenda & did not get along. Doesn't make sense.

joe v , 16 hours ago

Sessions is a scum! He's a traitor, who needs to be brought up on charges. An act that would kill two birds with one stone! Prove the Russian Wikileaks allocations fraudulent, and get Sessions fired. Inturn getting us, an honest new AG!... Preferably one willing to do his job!

[Jan 07, 2018] Bannon's Target Isn't Trump, It's Still Kushner

In foreign coverage, where is Guardian you also probably can find MI6. In other words they dig under trump. and it might be interesting to analyze how this reporter got such a broad access. Aren't recorders prohibited in WH grounds?
Jan 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The January 3 rd edition of the British newspaper Guardianopens with "explosive revelations". Michael Wolff interviews Steve Bannon about the latter's book "Fire and Fury: inside the Trump White House" , which calls Donald Jr's (Trump's first born son) meetings with the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya "treasonous" and "unpatriotic" .

Most media stop there. Most liberals, fueled by their hatred towards Donald Trump, also stop there and take it to Twitter because that's how far their political slacktivism can go. Then Trump replied on the wave of emotions and everything went nuclear. Since everyone seems to be too emotional not only to read through the lines, but actually to simply read the lines, we'll offer some strategic analysis and put everything into context.

Let's start with Bannon's quotes: "Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately. ( )You realise where this is going. This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner It's as plain as a hair on your face."

If you want to know what Bannon thinks, you either ask him or read Breitbart, which presents the same revelations with a rather different focus , ignoring Donald Jr. while highlighting Kushner's role.

A second article on the topic targets the power couple Jared and his wife Ivanka.

Most importantly, the first article on the home page, highlighted in capital letters, is again about Jared Kushner. The article is penned by Adam Shaw, who happens to be one of Bannon's most trusted writers, and lists essentially everything that's wrong with Kushner, suggesting what Trump should do with him.

The opening is nothing short of an insult, underscoring how the husband of Trump's daughter Ivanka appeared to the US troops in Iraq: under the flak jacket, Jared sported his typical rich-boy blazer and khakis, because that's all he is about and he can't renounce his materialistic symbols not even when on a military trip. As such, in the eyes of Bannon, Jared Kushner is nothing but a spoilt heir, who never had a real job in his life, owes everything he has to his family's wealth and connections and is exclusively preoccupied with his own lavish lifestyle; he's not fit to understand the problems of marines overseas, nor the middle-class American, who would be the main beneficial of Bannon's economic nationalist platform.

... ... ...

The second and third paragraph present how Kushner is not a conservative at all, but a Democratic mole in the Trump administration, for his support for open borders immigration policies and LGBT causes; he's also a fountain of bad advice, as allegedly Trump himself called him.

The fourth to sixth paragraphs are a hint of Donald Trump himself: if Mueller's special counsel is ever going to find anything, it'll be Kushner, therefore Trump should get rid of him as soon as possible. Kushner is involved in too many shady deals like those in real estate and very much like the Democrat mole he is, he'll repeat the same lax behaviour Hillary had in her use of non secure servers to handle confidential emails.

The last one highlights Kushner's alleged poor understanding of geopolitics.

In conclusion, for Breitbart and therefore Bannon, Kushner is a spoilt rich heir, with no real life skills whatsoever that could be useful to the Trump presidency, a source of bad advice, detached from the real problems afflicting middle America, focusing on frivolous issues like LGBT or his preppy shoes, a person who could be used to incriminateTrump. He's the perfect representative of the out of touch globalist elites and their policies that Trump ran against and won. If Trump wants to achieve anything with his presidency, Kushner must go. Otherwise Kushner will destroy the Trump presidency and drag Trump down with him.

Paragraph three also has a hint for Kushner and Ivanka themselves: leave of your own will.

Fortunately for them, Trump has taken the assault on them as a declaration of war against himself. He fired back at Bannon the same way he fires back and forth with Kim-Jong-Un, had already got his lawyers involved and didn't get the message at all. Bannon's New Year's first shot against Kushner backfired and ended up hitting Trump.

[Jan 07, 2018] I hate Trump but this book is bad

Notable quotes:
"... This book doesn't ring true and it doesn't serve a purpose. It's like listening to Alex Jones or reading National Enquirer on steroids, just gleeful childish destruction. Wolff writing is the journalistic equivalent of the straw-men he portrays. ..."
Jan 07, 2018 | www.amazon.com

Jeffrey Murray on January 6, 2018

Only a few pages in and I will probably stop reading this book. I caught a factual error that shouldnt have been missed. Wolff states that Boehner was ousted by the Tea Party in 2011. Not true. He resigned frustrated by the Tea Party in 2015. When you write a book about the president, especially one who constantly disparages the press for being wrong, you better damn well be meticulous. Shame on the author and the publisher for giving Trump and his followers an opening to further call the press fake.

J. FRY LOFTON on January 6, 2018
Badly written and nothing new

This book is nothing more than a rehashing of publicly available information about the Trump administration with a few shock quotes thrown in to get headlines and sell the book. I'm neither a never-Trumper nor am I a supporter, and was hoping to gain some insight through Wolff's supposedly exclusive access. Instead, there is hardly anything in this book that we didn't already know. I suppose there is some value in hashing it all together in one place, but not a lot. In addition, it's very poorly written. Wolff uses hip-hop slang words like "dis" and pens confusing sentences like: "She and Jared, or Jared, but by inference she too, were in effect the real chief of staff-or certainly as much a chief of staff as Priebus or Bannon, all of them reporting directly to the president." Goodness, where is the editor? Regardless of whether you like or hate President Trump, don't waste your money on this book, as you won't learn anything.

Frantastic on January 5, 2018
Lazy writing and editing.

Fire and Fury reads like a book-length blog entry. The insider perspective is interesting and entertaining but Henry Holt and Co. should be ashamed of themselves for being quick to release a book that is filled with awful writing habits and A LOT of typos and grammatical errors. The lack of editing is frustratingly distracting. The author constantly interrupts his sentences with tidbits of mildly interesting, but not crucial, information and he has a bizarre fondness for parenthetical "fun facts." THEY'RE CALLED FOOTNOTES. USE THEM. To write in the voice of the author, "I can't even believe he writes for GQ and Vanity Fair."

Read it, or don't read it, but I'd advise keeping your expectations low.

Comorant on January 6, 2018
Michael Wolff-Clairvoyant or Clever Profiteer

It would be an understatement to simply indicate that Trump demonstrates the characteristics of a short sighted, pompous ego driven narcissist; A conclusion easily reached by his daily Twitter rants combined by his apparent inability to intelligently string multiple words together and not sound like a 12 year old child. I concede that he is far from presidential and further admit that he received my vote, not a vote of support but a vote against Hillary, basically the lesser of two evils.
Michael Wolff's book adds little to my impression of the Trump organization but is an affront to my intelligence in his attempt to sell this rubbish as the result of investigative reporting. Short of Mr. Wolff having a supernatural gift of clairvoyance and thought reading, it would be impossible for him to create a factual representation of Trump and staff as throughout the book he references the collective and inner thoughts of groups and individuals. I suggest the reader highlight the terms " everyone", "they", "in Trump's view", etc. Somehow Mr. Wolff is able to discern the unspoken thoughts of essentially every member of the Trump team, Trump's wife, daughter, son-in-law and acquaintances without them actually saying what is written in the book. The author liberally takes every opportunity to inform the reader what an individual or collective group of people are not saying but "believe", "think", "in their view", etc.
While there may be much truth in the story that the White House is far from organized and the President has few redeeming attributes, this book falls short in meeting the standards of credibility based on well researched facts. Mr. Trump's questionable character, demeanor and erratic behavior should give reason for concern for our nation. The impossible perspective and insight required for Mr. Wolff to present this as a factual account of the Trump organization is an insult to any one of average intelligence.

kmk427 on January 5, 2018
That's pure crap. The whole books is like that

I can barely get through this book. While there are some surprising admissions, most of what is in the book, we already know or assumed. The rest of the book is a tribute to Bannon and creates more smoke screen for Trump.

At one point Wolff mentions the alleged collusion with Russia. He asserts that if there was collusion, Trump was an unwitting victim of it, not realizing how his praise of Russia was affecting them and their actions. When Wolff writes about the Steele dossier, he addresses two positions. The dossier is either true or false but believed true by a rabid press. He also mentions that the Trump administration was advised not to piss off the Intel community or they'll have a 2-3 yr Russia investigation with daily leaks. This implies that there's no validity to the Russia investigation. It's just vengeance being taken by an angry Intel community.

Wolff describes the speech Trump made to the CIA shortly after his inauguration. He says, "Witnesses would describe his reception at the CIA as either Beatles-like emotional outpouring or a response so confounded and appalled that, in the seconds after he finished, you could hear a pin drop." While, the latter description is accurate, Wolff slips in a positive reaction that sounds completely false. I can't believe anyone at the CIA responded to Trump's speech with a 'Beatles-like emotional outpouring'. That's pure crap. The whole books is like that. It's supposed to be a tell-all, but there is this undercurrent of praise and 'alternative facts' about Trump. I've only read about 20% of the book and I don't think I can go any further.

Lars H on January 5, 2018
The book doesn't ring true

This book doesn't ring true and it doesn't serve a purpose. It's like listening to Alex Jones or reading National Enquirer on steroids, just gleeful childish destruction. Wolff writing is the journalistic equivalent of the straw-men he portrays.

The story started as an article and just grew endlessly. There is little structure, pointless mean gossip and no analysis. Wolff is lacking focus and strategy. He doesn't know why he wrote the book and he feels surprised about the success of the book. The juiciest parts of the book has already been published for free in The Guardian, New York Magazine and GQ.

I'm not American and I don't live in the US so I have no personal agenda writing this review. I follow American politics and have read several good books about the subject and the characters involved, including biographies of key people in US history. Trump is "the great white hope" for many conservative populist voters in Europe. We have suffered much worse leaders and are 40-50 years ahead of US in disaster immigration politics. Compared to most ultra-liberal leaders in Europe, Trump is full of wisdom

I read 4-5 chapters. The beginning and the end and some chapters in the middle. I asked for a refund and was granted one of this sad tabloid. Thank you Amazon. Wolff just won a lottery ticket and is now running around ruining his life and reputation.

[Jan 07, 2018] A Wolff in the West Wing - How Fire and Fury Was Reported

Notable quotes:
"... I'm still trying to wrap my head around this image: Michael Wolff, middle-aged, bald-headed guy with screaming "I'm a New York media elite" glasses sitting on a crumb-strewn couch in the West Wing hallway, taking notes. Not one day, not two days, but according to his account, week after week over the first eight months of the Trump administration. Sitting, watching, more than occasionally getting briefed on the soap opera going on around President Chaos. And (did I mention) taking notes? ..."
Jan 07, 2018 | www.thewrap.com

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this image: Michael Wolff, middle-aged, bald-headed guy with screaming "I'm a New York media elite" glasses sitting on a crumb-strewn couch in the West Wing hallway, taking notes. Not one day, not two days, but according to his account, week after week over the first eight months of the Trump administration. Sitting, watching, more than occasionally getting briefed on the soap opera going on around President Chaos. And (did I mention) taking notes?

"Shortly after January 20, I took up a semi-permanent seat on a couch in the West Wing," he writes in the introduction to his book. "Since then I have conducted more than 200 interviews."

... ... ...

Wolff and Trump deserve each other in every way. They are both symptoms and products of the toxic sick ward where the values are money and fame, and hubris and backstabbing are the norm. The crown jewel is a winning headline in Page Six.

In one of his savviest passages in "Fire and Fury," Wolff points this out:

"Media is personal. It is a series of blood scores. The media in its often collective mind decides who is going to rise and who is going to fall, who lives and dies. If you stay around long enough in the media eye, your fate, like that of a banana republic despot, is often an unkind one -- a law Hillary Clinton was not able to circumvent. The media has the last word."

burphelsonAFB • 9 hours ago

the fact that this administration allowed a journalist unfettered access to the West Wing for months shows how clueless, arrogant and AMATEUR they are. They deserve what they're getting.

[Jan 06, 2018] NYT Is Banner trying to help Mueller?

It's Mueller move, as they say in chess.
Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice, which he regards as singularly unjust.
Now he is fraternizing with former enemy
Meantime the Trump machine, continues to function with indignant disdain toward the old Obama establishment. As long as that lasts, he will thrive.
Jan 06, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

peter , Jan 3, 2018 9:16:51 AM | 75

It was always about the money laundering.
From today's Guardian:

Trump predicted in an interview with the New York Times last week that the special counsel was "going to be fair", though he also said the investigation "makes the country look very bad". The president and his allies deny any collusion with Russia and the Kremlin has denied interfering.

Bannon has criticised Trump's decision to fire Comey. In Wolff's book, obtained by the Guardian ahead of publication from a bookseller in New England, he suggests White House hopes for a quick end to the Mueller investigation are gravely misplaced.

"You realise where this is going," he is quoted as saying. "This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner It's as plain as a hair on your face."

Last month it was reported that federal prosecutors had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank, the German financial institution that has lent hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kushner property empire. Bannon continues: "It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me."

[Jan 06, 2018] Bannon version of history is history written by the victors.

Feb 16, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

John C Massachussets January 10, 2017

"Once there was a collection of Judeo-Christian nation-states, Bannon argued, that practiced a humane form of biblical capitalism and fostered culturally coherent communities."

The history of 18th and 19th century capitalism is rife with open Anti-Semitism. Jews were tolerated (barely) and periodically subjected to everything from mild prejudicial social-shunning to exclusion from certain fields of endeavor to ...progroms.

"Judeo-Christian" is mythological revisionism that is currently advantageous politically to the Right Wing since it features a pro-Israel, anti-Muslim, and radical Christian "End-of-Days" cultism that relies on the "rise of Israel" fulfillment of prophecy.

As for the "humane form of biblical capitalism" that relied on slavery as an economic engine, famine as an expedient solution (India during WW II) and other depredations such as intolerable working conditions and starvation wages--how is that better than Davos-style Globalism?

Bannon is a proto-fascist opportunist -- dangerous, big-league. The day he gets Trump distracted from Meryl Streep and has Trumps attention for that minute will be the first of many disasters. You can pine for the boiler-plate Paul Ryan version of predictable and consistent management of Capitalism.

We must have better.

Paulo Austin January 10, 2017

Judeo-Christian forces vs Islamofascism -- there's a faint whiff of Crusade in that juxtaposition, but don't be naive- the real Crusade has already begun, besieging the fundamental values of honesty, decency, and humanism.

Duane McPherson Groveland, NY January 10, 2017

Dugin's contempt for human rights is consistent with his belief in a social order based on religion (likeiwse Bannon). Trump could hardly care less about that, he's more of a libertine.

What Trump, Bannon, Dugin, and Putin can all agree on is consolidation of national government and corporate interests, a kind of corporatism, similar to Fascism under Mussolini. Which had also a strong element of "Make Italy Great Again", with the Roman Empire as its nostalgic anchor.

The uncertain economic and social times we are in make some people yearn for a strong leader. A large minority of Americans seems to see that in Trump. What I see coming forward is not at all chaos, but rather the systematic and organized looting of our economy under a government that puts corporate interests above all else.

Terence Gaffney Jamaica Plain January 10, 2017

A very perceptive column. This makes the mission of the Christian left very clear. Globalism at its best is the attempt to harness the creative energy of humanity to build a world which is just, in harmony with itself, and advancing its understanding of the natural world and human behavior for the benefit of all. The Christian left must provide the spiritual vision to energize this effort, covering all of our efforts with compassion. Otherwise, Bannon's perception of a vacuum at the heart of what we are doing will be proved true.

J. Raven Michigan January 10, 2017

The suggestion that once in office, Trump and his acolytes will simply abandon their closely held philosophical and actual prejudices and fall lovingly into the arms of more traditional, establishment advisors is ridiculous. There is nothing in the history of either Trump or his fire-breathing true believers to indicate that compromise is a notion that comes easily, if at all, to them. More likely, the gridlock disease that has long plagued Congress may be transmitted to the White House, where we'll then find that an emotional and experientially ill-equipped president reaches into his resentment-filled gut to make a decision that reflects not considered judgment, but his very own biases that can be communicated in a 140 character tweet.

Bruce Abbott Marin County, CA January 10, 2017

Where we agree we can move forward where we disagree is the work we need to do. To move forward with disagreement leads to anger, violence and ultimately war.

Michael McCune Pittsburgh January 10, 2017

What's important to remember about Trump, as Brooks points out here, is that he is "basically uninterested in anything but his own status at the moment." In 10 days, Trump's status at the moment will be subject to the opinions of all Americans. If things turn south--and most times in a presidency things eventually turn south--who will Trump listen to in order to improve his "status at the moment'? Remember, it was Steve Bannon who he turned to when his campaign was on the rocks, not General Mattis.

A problem for Trump the campaigner (though it may in fact have been a strength among his most ardent supporters) was his willingness to say/do seemingly anything in order to get elected, i.e. jail his opponent, extra-constitutional surveillance of Muslims, mock a disabled reporter, retweet white supremacists, etc.

To me, the question is, once in power, will Trump be willing to do anything in order to maintain or improve his "status at the moment." For thin-skinned, needy leaders like Trump, when people at home turn on him, finding enemies abroad is usually the answer. It's troubling to imagine who will have his ear then.

Sabre Melbourne, FL January 10, 2017

Bannon mentioning Christianity makes me wonder what he really thinks about Christ and his teachings. The same goes with his boss, Donald Trump. I fail to see anything at all in their behavior that reflects what Jesus taught. All this makes me question what supposedly Christian conservative Trump supporters think about their faith and how it matches up with the behavior of Bannon and Trump.

LA Reader Los Angeles, CA January 10, 2017

How is globalism de-spiritualized? What about loving your neighbor as yourself? That is a fundamental teaching of Christianity, and it doesn't stop at our borders.

I don't know how Mr. Bannon considers historical capitalism to have been humane. Child labor? Oppression of local workers across the globe? Extreme pollution to the point of rivers burning (Cuyahoga River in Cincinnati) or choking smog (London, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Delhi)? His version is history written by the victors.

[Jan 06, 2018] Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant: Ethno-nationalism -- it's losers. It's a fringe element.

Notable quotes:
"... Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade. It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies. ..."
"... Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production. ..."
"... Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario. ..."
"... Here is Bannon's latest: Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more." "These guys are a collection of clowns," he added. Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists. ..."
"... I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so, then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan in the 80s nd 90s. ..."
"... Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist. ..."
"... Bannon does not seem himself as an "ethno-nationalist". Yet his slanderous contempt for the liberal ethos/values of many Americans would tend to make one question if he can be called a Nationalist. ..."
"... If Bannon was a Zionist, he would never make the comments he does against the financial sector ..."
"... Isn't exceptionalism the same as narcissism? ..."
"... At least the concern for 10 million in Seoul (mostly missing in the discussion of other leaders) show he is not a psychopath ..."
Aug 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
psychohistorian | Aug 17, 2017 1:53:13 AM | 4
So lets start parsing this economic nationalism that Bannon is making happen with Trump.

Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade. It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies.

Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production.

Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario.

At least now, IMO, the battle for a multi-polar (finance) world is out in the open.....let the side taking by nations begin. I hope Bannon is wrong about the timing of potential global power shifting and the US loses its empire status.

psychohistorian | Aug 17, 2017 2:19:03 AM | 5
I thought that maybe Bannon was being a bit too forthright in his recent comments and perhaps he has just painted a big bullseye on his back for the racist clowns he has used to aim at. Check this out: Bannons colleagues disturbed by interview with left wing publication
Realist | Aug 17, 2017 3:18:01 AM | 8
Here is Bannon's latest: Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more." "These guys are a collection of clowns," he added. Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists.

Clueless Joe | Aug 17, 2017 5:24:06 AM | 13

Bannon can be perfectly mature, adult and realist on some points and be totally blinded by biases on others - him wanting total economic war against China is proof enough. So I don't rule out that he has a blind spot over Iran and wants to get rid of the regime. I mean, even Trump is realist and adult in a few issues, yet is an oblivious fool on others.

Kind of hard to find someone who's always adult and realist, actually. You can only hope to pick someone who's more realist than most people. Or build a positronic robot and vote for him.

fairleft | Aug 17, 2017 6:35:17 AM | 15

I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so, then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan in the 80s nd 90s.

likklemore | Aug 17, 2017 10:51:54 AM | 28

@ Everybody who bought into the MSM Steve Bannon promoted white supremacy and through Breitbart. Suggested you read his world view expressed in remarks at Human Dignity Institute, Vatican Conference 2014

Progressives and Steve Bannon have something surprising in common: hating Wall Street

Pop quiz! Which major American political figure said the following:

  • "The 2008 crisis is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks."
  • "I think the bailouts in 2008 were wrong."
  • "[N]ot one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis."
  • "The Republican Party "is really a collection of crony capitalists that feel that they have a different set of rules" and are "the reason that the United States' financial situation is so dire."

LINK

and here is BusinessInsider's analysis of Bannon's worldview:

LINK

In the Vatican talk, Bannon described in length and detail how he views the biggest issues of the day:

  • He wants to tear down "crony capitalism": "a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people.[.]
  • He is against Ayn Rand's version of libertarianism: "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.[.]
  • He believes the West needs to wage "a global war against Islamic fascism": "They have a Twitter account up today, ISIS does, about turning the United States into a "river of blood" if it comes in and tries to defend the city of Baghdad. And trust me, that is going to come to Europe.[.]
  • He believes the capitalism of the "Judeo Christian West" is in crisis: "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.[.]
  • He believes the racists that are attracted to Trump will become increasingly irrelevant: [.]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

this recent Bannon interview with The American Prospect will now go viral. Drudgereport headlines the WAPO spin.

fastfreddy | Aug 17, 2017 11:05:47 AM | 31

Except for the selective Zion-flavored warmongering, Bannon appears to be an intelligent and thoughtful person. Also crafty. Is he not "Trump's Brain" in the way that Rove was Bush's Brain?

RUKidding | Aug 17, 2017 12:23:40 PM | 34

@30 Just Sayin'

Agree. I think Bannon's quite bright and very very clever and crafty.

However, if anyone believes the lies he spewed yesterday about white supremacists, let me enlighten you that that's what's called "good PR" or something. Bannon is someone whom I hold quite responsible for contributing to the rise of White Supremacy in the USA, which I consider a clear and present danger. Bannon's dismissive hand waving yesterday is meant to dissemble. Guess some are willing to buy what he was selling yesterday. Not me.

Caveat Emptor.

karlof1 | Aug 17, 2017 12:30:01 PM | 36

The first group to call themselves Progressives were the 19th century Populists. Their mantle was adopted by T. Roosevelt and other like-minded Republicans. Lafollette and Wallace are perhaps the best remembered Progressives--yes, FDR is portrayed as one, but when examined really isn't: Eleanor was far more Progressive and since she was people also thought he was too. Once Wallace was ousted from government, Democrats reverted to their old ways, although Truman did order the military to desegregate--perhaps his only Progressive act. JFK was in the process of becoming a Progressive in the months prior to his murder. LBJ very reluctantly made some Progressive noises in his War on Poverty that he was essentially forced into thanks to massive ethnic strife and related riots during the 60s. But essentially since the beginning of WW2, Progressives and their goals vanished from the political landscape. Nader brought it back to the fringe from the wilderness, but the so-called Progressive Caucus really isn't Progressive thanks to its war promotion.

Admittedly, I don't know much about Steve Bannon; he certainly isn't a Progressive, but he doesn't seem to be a Regressive either. The points he made at the Vatican Talk supplied by likklemore @28 are rather encouraging in an anti-Deep State manner. So, his interaction with The American Prospect I don't see as surprising--he's seeking allies: "'It's a great honor to finally track you [Robert Kuttner] down. I've followed your writing for years and I think you and I are in the same boat when it comes to China. You absolutely nailed it.'... Bannon explained that his strategy is to battle the trade doves inside the administration while building an outside coalition of trade hawks that includes left as well as right. Hence the phone call to me." I think Kuttner will discover Bannon will "still [be] there" after Labor Day, so he might as well make his travel plans.

likklemore | Aug 17, 2017 12:45:43 PM | 38
@ Just Sayin' 30

I won't give you a pass. Your bias and lack of intelligence is on great display.
Read and understand as Bannon is proven right on events.

The $28 - trillion (US dollar) global bailouts in 2008 is proven to have failed. A handful on Wall Street became trillionaires instead of being suited in special stripes.
Negative interest rates steal the retirement savings of seniors. Pensions and Insurance companies cannot meet promised payouts.

And all is fine. Corruption flourishes. Judeo-Christian moral values are not in crisis.

les7 | Aug 17, 2017 12:27:02 PM | 35

@12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an alliance of corporate and state powers... but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist.

@ 8 as you say... Bannon does not seem himself as an "ethno-nationalist". Yet his slanderous contempt for the liberal ethos/values of many Americans would tend to make one question if he can be called a Nationalist.

@ 9 If Bannon was a Zionist, he would never make the comments he does against the financial sector (see @28).

@28 Bannon would never call himself a Socialist, but the most logical expression of his individualist views when applied to the business world are expressed by none other than Ayn Rand. The financial world simply got legal cover to act on the views that he rails against. Bannon does not like what he sees when the rules he claims for himself are given to the rest of the world. Which makes him an "Exceptionalist"??

Isn't exceptionalism the same as narcissism?

At least the concern for 10 million in Seoul (mostly missing in the discussion of other leaders) show he is not a psychopath.

[Jan 06, 2018] Donald Trump Did not Want to Be President by Michael Wolff

Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing. The neoliberal elite was desperate for such a stooge, and in Wolffe they've found one.
This is clearly a hatchet job of Democratic operative. Judging from "burn rate" he is not bad writer, but here he really does not understand what he is writing about and what fighte with neocons and intelligence agencies Trump WH was forced for fight. His attempt to present Bannon as the person who runs White House is pathetic and wrong.
Kushner (if it was he) was actually right about firing Comey, but it was done clumsily and too late. It should have been done on the first day of the presidency.
Still while I view the book highly negatively, as a typical hatchet job, he sometimes provide some interesting bits of information, which might or not be true. But his exaggeration of the role of Bannon is very annoying. The campaign actually was greatly promoted the universal disgust at Hillary and the crisis of neoliberalism in the country. With those drivers who can make huge mistakes and still win because you are on the right side of the history. which is what happened.
Wolff provides a lot of dirty laundry style information but none of importance from the point of view of Trump election promises and neocon attempt to subdue him (in close cooperation with intelligence agencies). His is hired gun.
His praise of Bannon looks disingenuous and he essentially burned his source, ending his political career.
Notable quotes:
"... His longtime friend Roger Ailes , the former head of Fox News, liked to say that if you want a career in television, first run for president. Now Trump, encouraged by Ailes, was floating rumors about a Trump network. It was a great future. He would come out of this campaign, Trump assured Ailes, with a far more powerful brand and untold opportunities. ..."
"... "This is bigger than I ever dreamed of," he told Ailes a week before the election. "I don't think about losing, because it isn't losing. We've totally won." ..."
"... Bannon, who became chief executive of Trump's team in mid-August, called it "the broke-dick campaign." Almost immediately, he saw that it was hampered by an even deeper structural flaw: The candidate who billed himself as a billionaire -- ten times over -- refused to invest his own money in it. Bannon told Kushner that, after the first debate in September, they would need another $50 million to cover them until Election Day. ..."
"... Michael Flynn , the retired general who served as Trump's opening act at campaign rallies, had been told by his friends that it had not been a good idea to take $45,000 from the Russians for a speech. "Well, it would only be a problem if we won," ­Flynn assured them. ..."
"... Not only did Trump disregard the potential conflicts of his own business deals and real-estate holdings, he audaciously refused to release his tax returns . Why should he? Once he lost, Trump would be both insanely famous and a martyr to Crooked Hillary. His daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared would be international celebrities. Steve Bannon would become the de facto head of the tea-party movement. Kellyanne Conway would be a cable-news star. Melania Trump, who had been assured by her husband that he wouldn't become president, could return to inconspicuously lunching. Losing would work out for everybody. Losing was winning. ..."
"... From the moment of victory, the Trump administration became a looking-glass presidency: Every inverse assumption about how to assemble and run a White House was enacted and compounded, many times over. The decisions that Trump and his top advisers made in those first few months -- from the slapdash transition to the disarray in the West Wing -- set the stage for the chaos and dysfunction that have persisted throughout his first year in office. This was a real-life version of Mel Brooks's The Producers , where the mistaken outcome trusted by everyone in Trump's inner circle -- that they would lose the election -- wound up exposing them for who they really were. ..."
"... Ailes, a veteran of the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41 administrations, tried to impress on Trump the need to create a White House structure that could serve and protect him. "You need a son of a bitch as your chief of staff," he told Trump. "And you need a son of a bitch who knows Washington. You'll want to be your own son of a bitch, but you don't know Washington." Ailes had a suggestion: John Boehner , who had stepped down as Speaker of the House only a year earlier. "Who's that?" asked Trump. ..."
"... As much as the president himself, the chief of staff determines how the Executive branch -- which employs 4 million people -- will run. The job has been construed as deputy president, or even prime minister. But Trump had no interest in appointing a strong chief of staff with a deep knowledge of Washington. Among his early choices for the job was Kushner -- a man with no political experience beyond his role as a calm and flattering body man to Trump during the campaign. ..."
"... It was Ann Coulter who finally took the president-elect aside. "Nobody is apparently telling you this," she told him. "But you can't. You just can't hire your children." ..."
"... So Trump turned to Reince Priebus, the RNC chairman, who had became the subject of intense lobbying by House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. If congressional leaders were going to have to deal with an alien like Donald Trump, then best they do it with the help of one of their own kind. ..."
"... "Here's the deal," a close Trump associate told Priebus. "In an hour meeting with him, you're going to hear 54 minutes of stories, and they're going to be the same stories over and over again. So you have to have one point to make, and you pepper it in whenever you can." ..."
"... Priebus demonstrated no ability to keep Trump from talking to anyone who wanted his ear. The president-elect enjoyed being courted. On December 14, a high-level delegation from Silicon Valley came to Trump Tower to meet him. Later that afternoon, according to a source privy to details of the conversation, Trump called Rupert Murdoch, who asked him how the meeting had gone. ..."
"... "Oh, great, just great," said Trump. "These guys really need my help. Obama was not very favorable to them, too much regulation. This is really an opportunity for me to help them." "Donald," said Murdoch, "for eight years these guys had Obama in their pocket. They practically ran the administration. They don't need your help." "Take this H-1B visa issue . They really need these H-1B visas." ..."
"... Ailes's Fox News, with its $1.5 billion in annual profits, had dominated Republican politics for two decades. ..."
Jan 03, 2018 | nymag.com

On the afternoon of November 8, 2016, Kellyanne Conway settled into her glass office at Trump Tower. Right up until the last weeks of the race, the campaign headquarters had remained a listless place. All that seemed to distinguish it from a corporate back office were a few posters with right-wing slogans.

Conway, the campaign's manager, was in a remarkably buoyant mood, considering she was about to experience a resounding, if not cataclysmic, defeat. Donald Trump would lose the election -- of this she was sure -- but he would quite possibly hold the defeat to under six points. That was a substantial victory. As for the looming defeat itself, she shrugged it off: It was Reince Priebus 's fault, not hers.

She had spent a good part of the day calling friends and allies in the political world and blaming Priebus , the chairman of the Republican National Committee. Now she briefed some of the television producers and anchors whom she had been carefully courting since joining the Trump campaign -- and with whom she had been actively interviewing in the last few weeks, hoping to land a permanent on-air job after the election.

... ... ...

How He Got the Story

This story is adapted from Michael Wolff's book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House , to be published by Henry Holt & Co. on January 9. Wolff, who chronicles the administration from Election Day to this past October, conducted conversations and interviews over a period of 18 months with the president, most members of his senior staff, and many people to whom they in turn spoke. Shortly after Trump's inauguration, Wolff says, he was able to take up "something like a semi-permanent seat on a couch in the West Wing" -- an idea encouraged by the president himself. Because no one was in a position to either officially approve or formally deny such access, Wolff became "more a constant interloper than an invited guest." There were no ground rules placed on his access, and he was required to make no promises about how he would report on what he witnessed.

Since then, he conducted more than 200 interviews. In true Trumpian fashion, the administration's lack of experience and disdain for political norms made for a hodgepodge of journalistic challenges. Information would be provided off-the-record or on deep background, then casually put on the record. Sources would fail to set any parameters on the use of a conversation, or would provide accounts in confidence, only to subsequently share their views widely. And the president's own views, private as well as public, were constantly shared by others. The adaptation presented here offers a front-row view of Trump's presidency, from his improvised transition to his first months in the Oval Office.

*Excerpted from Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff (Henry Holt and Co., January 9, 2018). This article appears in the January 8, 2018, issue of New York Magazine. Subscribe Now!

*This article has been updated to include more information from Wolff's book about the nature of Trump's conversation with the Mercers.

Related

[Jan 06, 2018] Michael Wolff My Insane Year Inside Trump s White House

Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing. The neoliberal elite was desperate for such a stooge, and in Wolffe they've found one.
Looks like a hatchet job by Hillary camp. And that was pretty Machiavellian idea to use Trump weakness for self-promotion is such a devastating for him way. But as in any good hatchet job some details are probably true, while the whole story is not.
He overplays his hand trying to present Trump as a complete moron.
He oversell Bannon.
And he bought into Russiagate story.
Notable quotes:
"... By July, Jared and Ivanka, who had, in less than six months, traversed from socialite couple to royal family to the most powerful people in the world, were now engaged in a desperate dance to save themselves, which mostly involved blaming Trump himself. It was all his idea to fire Comey! "The daughter," Bannon declared, "will bring down the father." ..."
"... Most succinctly, no one expected him to survive Mueller. Whatever the substance of the Russia "collusion," Trump, in the estimation of his senior staff, did not have the discipline to navigate a tough investigation, nor the credibility to attract the caliber of lawyers he would need to help him. (At least nine major law firms had turned down an invitation to represent the president.) ..."
Jan 06, 2018 | www.hollywoodreporter.com
interviewed Donald Trump for The Hollywood Reporter in June 2016, and he seemed to have liked -- or not disliked -- the piece I wrote. "Great cover!" his press assistant, Hope Hicks, emailed me after it came out (it was a picture of a belligerent Trump in mirrored sunglasses). After the election, I proposed to him that I come to the White House and report an inside story for later publication -- journalistically, as a fly on the wall -- which he seemed to misconstrue as a request for a job. No, I said. I'd like to just watch and write a book. "A book?" he responded, losing interest. "I hear a lot of people want to write books," he added, clearly not understanding why anybody would. "Do you know Ed Klein?" -- author of several virulently anti-Hillary books. "Great guy. I think he should write a book about me." But sure, Trump seemed to say, knock yourself out.

Since the new White House was often uncertain about what the president meant or did not mean in any given utterance, his non-disapproval became a kind of passport for me to hang around -- checking in each week at the Hay-Adams hotel, making appointments with various senior staffers who put my name in the "system," and then wandering across the street to the White House and plunking myself down, day after day, on a West Wing couch.

... ... ...

[Jan 06, 2018] Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House

Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing. The neoliberal elite was desperate for such a stooge, and in Wolffe they've found one.
From the quote below looks like a sensationalist book. I could understand that level of disappointment of Trump, but it does not look like a complete slander. More like yet another intelligence operation against him, which played Bannon narcissism like a violin. Bannon appears in the book both stupid, disloyal and self-absorbed. What was his motivation to give all this information to hostile to Trump reporter, especially a mole send to undermine Trump, other the plain vanilla vanity. If so he is extremely, fatally stupid and vain.
As for his economic nationalism he has nothing but slogans. no any plan of actions no real efforts to built a party. absolutely nothing. He is naked king of economic nationalism. If he was the initial author of Trump anti-Muslim bill he is in addition to that incompetent (although the main blame is on Trump, who should know his staff better)
Bannon is a very strange creature and his pro-Israeli position does not correlate with with the economic nationalism and isolationalism. But the even stranger things can happen in politics. The problem with Bannon that the does not really have an economic program for his "economic nationalism". It is mostly slogans. How really to decrease unemployment and recover manufacturing are much more complex things them slogans. And who will support a "New New Deal". What social forces?
The book portraits Bannon even bigger narcissist then Trump. And are not conversation with the President a privileged information? How this guy got such a free access to the WH with the tape-recorder. Where was Secret service.
there is also a definite antipathy to Kushner that is evident from the book. So it is not only hatchet job on Trump, but also on Kushner.
Notable quotes:
"... When you take out all the never-Trump guys who signed all those letters and all the neocons who got us in all these wars ... it's not a deep bench ..."
"... Bannon was curiously able to embrace Trump while at the same time suggesting he did not take him entirely seriously. ..."
"... when he took over the Trump campaign, Bannon, beyond a few interviews he had done with Trump for his Breitbart radio show, was pretty sure he hadn't spent more than ten minutes in one-on-one conversation with Trump. ..."
"... "I think Comey is a third-rate guy. I think Brennan is a second-rate guy," Bannon said, dismissing the FBI director and the CIA director. ..."
"... "Donald might not be Nixon in China," said Ailes, deadpan, suggesting that for Trump to seize the mantle of global transformation might strain credulity. Bannon smiled. "Bannon in China," he said, with both remarkable grandiosity and wry self-deprecation. "How's the kid?" asked Ailes, referring to Trump's son-in-law and paramount political adviser, thirty-six-year-old Jared Kushner. ..."
"... "He's my partner," said Bannon, his tone suggesting that if he felt otherwise, he was nevertheless determined to stay on message. "Really?" said a dubious Ailes. "He's on the team." "He's had lot of lunches with Rupert." "In fact," said Bannon, "I could use your help here." Bannon then spent several minutes trying to recruit Ailes to help kneecap Murdoch. Ailes, since his ouster from Fox, had become only more bitter towards Murdoch. Now Murdoch was frequently jawboning the president-elect and encouraging him toward establishment moderation -- all a strange inversion in the ever-stranger currents of American conservatism. ..."
Jan 06, 2018 | read.amazon.com

At nine-thirty, three hours late, a good part of the dinner already eaten, Bannon finally arrived. Wearing a disheveled blazer, his signature pairing of two shirts, and military fatigues, the unshaven, overweight sixty-three-year-old joined the other guests at the table and immediately took control of the conversation. Pushing a proffered glass of wine away -- "I don't drink" -- he dived into a live commentary, an urgent download of information about the world he was about to take over.

"We're going to flood the zone so we have every cabinet member for the next seven days through their confirmation hearings," he said of the business-and-military i950s-type cabinet choices. "Tillerson is two days, Session is two days, Mattis is two days...."

Bannon veered from "Mad Dog" Mattis -- the retired four-star general whom Trump had nominated as secretary of defense -- to a long riff on torture, the surprising liberalism of generals, and the stupidity of the civilian-military bureaucracy. Then it was on to the looming appointment of Michael Flynn -- a favorite Trump general who'd been the opening act at many Trump rallies -- as the National Security Advisor.

"He's fine. He's not Jim Mattis and he's not John Kelly... but he's fine. He just needs the right staff around him." Still, Bannon averred: " When you take out all the never-Trump guys who signed all those letters and all the neocons who got us in all these wars ... it's not a deep bench ."

Bannon said he'd tried to push John Bolton, the famously hawkish diplomat, for the job as National Security Advisor. Bolton was an Ailes favorite, too. "He's a bomb thrower," said Ailes. "And a strange little fucker. But you need him. Who else is good on Israel? Flynn is a little nutty on Iran. Tillerson" -- the secretary of state designate -- "just knows oil."

"Bolton's mustache is a problem," snorted Bannon. "Trump doesn't think he looks the part. You know Bolton is an acquired taste." "Well, he got in trouble because he got in a fight in a hotel one night and chased some woman." "If I told Trump that, he might have the job."

* * *

Bannon was curiously able to embrace Trump while at the same time suggesting he did not take him entirely seriously. He had first met Trump, the on-again off-again presidential candidate, in 2010; at a meeting in Trump Tower, Bannon had proposed to Trump that he spend half a million dollars backing Tea Party-style candidates as a way to further his presidential ambitions. Bannon left the meeting figuring that Trump would never cough up that kind of dough. He just wasn't a serious player. Between that first encounter and mid-August 2016, when he took over the Trump campaign, Bannon, beyond a few interviews he had done with Trump for his Breitbart radio show, was pretty sure he hadn't spent more than ten minutes in one-on-one conversation with Trump.

But now Bannon's Zeitgeist moment had arrived. Everywhere there was a sudden sense of global self-doubt. Brexit in the UK, waves of immigrants arriving on Europe's angry shores, the disenfranchisement of the workingman, the specter of more financial meltdown, Bernie Sanders and his liberal revanchism -- everywhere was backlash. Even the most dedicated exponents of globalism were hesitating. Bannon believed that great numbers of people were suddenly receptive to a new message: the world needs borders -- or the world should return to a time when it had borders. When America was great. Trump had become the platform for that message.

By that January evening, Bannon had been immersed in Donald Trump's world for almost five months. And though he had accumulated a sizable catalogue of Trump's peculiarities, and cause enough for possible alarm about the unpredictability of his boss and his views, that did not detract from Trump's extraordinary, charismatic appeal to the right-wing, Tea Party, Internet meme base, and now, in victory, from the opportunity he was giving Steve Bannon.

* * *

"Does he get it?" asked Ailes suddenly, pausing and looking intently at Bannon. He meant did Trump get it. This seemed to be a question about the right-wing agenda: Did the playboy billionaire really get the workingman populist cause? But it was possibly a point-blank question about the nature of power itself. Did Trump get where history had put him?

Bannon took a sip of water. "He gets it," said Bannon, after hesitating for perhaps a beat too long. "Or he gets what he gets." With a sideways look, Ailes continued to stare him down, as though waiting for Bannon to show more of his cards.

"Really," Bannon said. "He's on the program. It's his program." Pivoting from Trump himself, Bannon plunged on with the Trump agenda. "Day one we're moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Netanyahu's all in. Sheldon" -- Sheldon Adelson, the casino billionaire, far-right Israel defender, and Trump supporter -- "is all in. We know where we're heading on this." "Does Donald know?" asked a skeptical Ailes. Bannon smiled -- as though almost with a wink -- and continued: "Let Jordan take the West Bank, let Egypt take Gaza. Let them deal with it. Or sink trying. The Saudis are on the brink, Egyptians are on the brink, all scared to death of Persia ... Yemen, Sinai, Libya ... this thing is bad.... That's why Russia is so key.... Is Russia that bad? They're bad guys. But the world is full of bad guys." Bannon offered all this with something like ebullience -- a man remaking the world. "But it's good to know the bad guys are the bad guys," said Ailes, pushing Bannon. "Donald may not know."

The real enemy, said an on-point Bannon, careful not to defend Trump too much or to diss him at all, was China. China was the first front in a new cold war. And it had all been misunderstood in the Obama years -- what we thought we understood we didn't understand at all. That was the failure of American intelligence. "I think Comey is a third-rate guy. I think Brennan is a second-rate guy," Bannon said, dismissing the FBI director and the CIA director.

"The White House right now is like Johnson's White House in 1968. Susan Rice" -- Obama's National Security Advisor -- "is running the campaign against ISIS as a National Security Advisor. They're picking the targets, she's picking the drone strikes. I mean, they're running the war with just as much effectiveness as Johnson in sixty-eight. The Pentagon is totally disengaged from the whole thing. Intel sendees are disengaged from the whole thing. The media has let Obama off the hook. Take the ideology away from it, this is complete amateur hour. I don't know what Obama does. Nobody on Capitol Hill knows him, no business guys know him -- what has he accomplished, what does he do?"

"Where's Donald on this?" asked Ailes, now with the clear implication that Bannon was far out ahead of his benefactor. "He's totally on board." "Focused?" "He buys it."
"I wouldn't give Donald too much to think about," said an amused Ailes. Bannon snorted. "Too much, too little -- doesn't necessarily change things."

"What has he gotten himself into with the Russians?" pressed Ailes. "Mostly," said Bannon, "he went to Russia and he thought he was going to meet Putin. But Putin couldn't give a shit about him. So he's kept trying." "He's Donald," said Aies.

"It's a magnificent thing," said Bannon, who had taken to regarding Trump as something like a natural wonder, beyond explanation.

Again, as though setting the issue of Trump aside -- merely a large and peculiar presence to both be thankful for and to have to abide -- Bannon, in the role he had conceived for himself, the auteur of the Trump presidency, charged forward: "China's everything. Nothing else matters. We don't get China right, we don't get anything right. This whole thing is very simple. China is where Nazi Germany was in 1929 to 1930. The Chinese, like the Germans, are the most rational people in the world, until they're not. And they're gonna flip like Germany in the thirties. You're going to have a hypernationalist state, and once that happens you can't put the genie back in the bottle."

"Donald might not be Nixon in China," said Ailes, deadpan, suggesting that for Trump to seize the mantle of global transformation might strain credulity. Bannon smiled. "Bannon in China," he said, with both remarkable grandiosity and wry self-deprecation. "How's the kid?" asked Ailes, referring to Trump's son-in-law and paramount political adviser, thirty-six-year-old Jared Kushner.

"He's my partner," said Bannon, his tone suggesting that if he felt otherwise, he was nevertheless determined to stay on message. "Really?" said a dubious Ailes.
"He's on the team." "He's had lot of lunches with Rupert." "In fact," said Bannon, "I could use your help here." Bannon then spent several minutes trying to recruit Ailes to help kneecap Murdoch. Ailes, since his ouster from Fox, had become only more bitter towards Murdoch. Now Murdoch was frequently jawboning the president-elect and encouraging him toward establishment moderation -- all a strange inversion in the ever-stranger currents of American conservatism.

Bannon wanted Ailes to suggest to Trump, a man whose many neuroses included a horror of forgetfulness or senility, that Murdoch might be losing it. "I'll call him," said Ailes. "But Trump would jump through hoops for Rupert. Like for Putin. Sucks up and shits down. I just worry about who's jerking whose chain."

The older right-wing media wizard and the younger (though not by all that much) continued on to the other guests' satisfaction until twelve-thirty, the older trying to see through to the new national enigma that was Trump -- although Ailes would say that in fact Trump's behavior was ever predictable -- and the younger seemingly determined not to spoil his own moment of destiny. "Donald Trump has got it. He's Trump, but he's got it. Trump is Trump," affirmed Bannon.

[Jan 06, 2018] Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing.

Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing. The neoliberal elite was desperate for such a stooge, and in Wolffe they've found one.
You can like Trump, you can hate Trump, but what Bannon did is called a betrayal.
Civil War MAGA: President Donald Trump vs. Steve Bannon
Jan 06, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Kenn Daily, 17 hours ago

What a great way to sell books. :-)

thatMimosaGrove, 17 hours ago

Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing.

thatMimosaGrove, 16 hours ago

Trump is right. Bannon lost his job AND HIS MIND!

William Brown, 16 hours ago

BRUTUS BANNEN!

serge schouterden , 17 hours ago

This is why, when I taught to 16-18 year olds I urged them to keep their feet firmly on the ground. Don't be cocky, arrogant etc. Let your actions speak for you. Bannon is arrogant and thinks he is better than anyone else. Being humble is not in his book.

Matthew KsE , 15 hours ago

Everyone who wants to save Western Civilization, I'm with you 100 percent. Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative, every damn thing right of center and even part of the center, WE NEED TO COME TOGETHER! Or the frothing at the mouth hardcore leftists and democrats will gang rape this country until it goes from a beautiful, productive, sexy, free woman, to a filthy gender fluid 2 dollar whore used and abused by the pimps known as socialists and communists.

"This is war, you can't be choosy" -George Carlin

G Buz, 15 hours ago (edited)

Bannon had his own selfish reasons for leaking information and untruths to whoever and others aren't necessarily fully on Trump's side. You mentioned one reason Trump did this, Bannon's attack on his family. But I think Trump sees Bannon as "Bannon the loose cannon". His attack takes Bannon out of the game. Selling lefty BS books is a small price.

Daniel Bohl, 14 hours ago

Sigh

It's either incompetence or conspiracy. I don't know which to believe.Or which is worse.

Kimberly Weaver, 17 hours ago

Bannon is dirty! I am not buying this was a plan by the deep state that Bannon knew nothing about OR a planned distraction by Trump.

GySgt DD Barton Ret, 15 hours ago

Don't follow the media's lead and perpetrate the false narratives ffs. I have listened to hours of video today. I am thinking that Ben Shapiro and President Trump pretty much nailed the situation down. Listen to them. Like Trump said, Bannon is out for himself.

Shapiro backed that up with his Bannon experiences from Breitbart. Bannon was the leaker in the Whitehouse. He was also the one who brought the fox in the henhouse so to speak.

I almost believe Trump played them both and will make the media look like the idiots they are once again. In fact, some aren't falling for the fake news .... Already see some saying the book is unbelievable, literally. Trump's got this. Bannon is history.

Anonymous Sources, 17 hours ago

Stefan, it's called, "Political Theatrics" I find it hard to believe Mr. Bannon has turned on a dime, something deeper is in play here.

Great Doofus, 15 hours ago (edited)

Bannon stood by Trump during the pussy tape incident, when even Pence was about to stab him in the back. Trump throws his people under the bus all the time. See Flynn for example. So he's the most disloyal. Bannon is just a mini-Trump.

Jason Collins, 11 hours ago

Trump has shown himself to be quite a brilliant psychological tactician. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the reason he allowed this author to write this book was for the specific purpose of triggering and thereby uncovering the Machiavellian nature of members of his staff specifically so he could get rid of them. I've watched Trump do this sort of thing many times, and almost no one realizes it. Trump is way more deliberate than most people think.

Gus Evening, 16 hours ago

Trump gave into the neocons months ago. Bannon was the last of the nationalists. It's over folks, Trump is a globalist stooge now.

Whytebio, 17 hours ago (edited)

Bannon has been a tumor in the Trump administration that got cut out - and the administration is better for it. While Bannon was with the White House it struggled to do anything productive and it accomplished its major legislative overhaul (massive tax cuts) after he left and in contrast to what Bannon wanted, which was a massive tax hike and infrastructure bill and protectionists tariffs. Now that Bannon is out of favor with Trump and out of favor with the Mercer family and helped the GOP lose a safe Republican senate seat it had held for 30 years, he bites the hand that fed him in an attempt to remain relevant and now it's blown up in his face because he doesn't have 1/100th the backing he thought he did.

Bannon was a slimy political opportunist and always has been, with a toxic brand that drives people away. He attached himself to Palin then left her when she was no longer useful, he hijacked Brietbart and fashioned it into an outlet for the alt-right then threw them under the bus when they were no longer convenient, then he attached himself to Trump and tried to throw him under the bus when he thought doing so would get him ahead. He was an albatross around the neck of the administration and the massive improvement and productivity of the white house since his departure shows it. Good riddance Bannon, you won't be missed and Trump and his agenda is miles better off without you.

Dumisani Tsotetsi, 16 hours ago (edited)

Stefan is starting to disbelief. Trump might not be that smart. You chose the wrong white guy to be president.

[Jan 06, 2018] Wolff insured that Bannon now is a political zombie

Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing. The neoliberal elite was desperate for such a stooge, and in Wolffe they've found one.
But his book is actually a political death sentence for Bannon.
Look also how this pressitute promotes Russiagate: "Steve Bannon was openly handicapping a 33.3 percent chance of impeachment, a 33.3 percent chance of resignation in the shadow of the 25th amendment and a 33.3 percent chance that he might limp to the finish line on the strength of liberal arrogance and weakness."
And the statement "Insiders believed that the only thing saving Mueller from being fired, and the government of the United States from unfathomable implosion, is Trump's inability to grasp how much Mueller had on him and his family." reminds me Beria approach to justice.
Notable quotes:
"... Insiders believed that the only thing saving Mueller from being fired, and the government of the United States from unfathomable implosion, is Trump's inability to grasp how much Mueller had on him and his family. ..."
"... At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends. ..."
"... That gossipy last detail will have set off alarms in intelligence agencies around the world. ..."
Jan 06, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Originally from: Mr. Trump, He Crazy The American Conservative

More:

As the first year wound down, Trump finally got a bill to sign. The tax bill, his singular accomplishment, was, arguably, quite a reversal of his populist promises, and confirmation of what Mitch McConnell had seen early on as the silver Trump lining: "He'll sign anything we put in front of him." With new bravado, he was encouraging partisans like Fox News to pursue an anti-Mueller campaign on his behalf. Insiders believed that the only thing saving Mueller from being fired, and the government of the United States from unfathomable implosion, is Trump's inability to grasp how much Mueller had on him and his family.

Steve Bannon was openly handicapping a 33.3 percent chance of impeachment, a 33.3 percent chance of resignation in the shadow of the 25th amendment and a 33.3 percent chance that he might limp to the finish line on the strength of liberal arrogance and weakness.

Donald Trump's small staff of factotums, advisors and family began, on Jan. 20, 2017, an experience that none of them, by any right or logic, thought they would -- or, in many cases, should -- have, being part of a Trump presidency. Hoping for the best, with their personal futures as well as the country's future depending on it, my indelible impression of talking to them and observing them through much of the first year of his presidency, is that they all -- 100 percent -- came to believe he was incapable of functioning in his job.

At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends.

That gossipy last detail will have set off alarms in intelligence agencies around the world.

Here's the thing: even if you deny that everything Wolff writes in this adaptation from his book is true, all of it has the ring of truth. The inside-the-White-House stuff sounds exactly like what I was hearing second-hand from an unnerved insider last spring, though with more detail in Wolff's telling. Would you bet money that Wolff's tale is entirely a lie?

A "cease and desist" letter on Wolff and his publisher from the president's lawyer is the best possible thing a writer and a publisher can hope for. It's pointless, but it makes it look like Wolff inserted his proton torpedo into the Trump White House's exhaust chute.

[Jan 06, 2018] Looks like Bannon self-immolated himself by his cooperation with Wolff

Notable quotes:
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Feb 15, 2017 | www.unz.com
... ... ..

Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them.

The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.

Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."

Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.

Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."

Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated."

I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration.

It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."

Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.

I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment.

But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.

- John Fund is NRO's national-affairs correspondent . https://twitter.com/@JohnFund

[Jan 06, 2018] Looks like Bannon self-immolated himself by his cooperation with Wolff

Notable quotes:
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Feb 15, 2017 | www.unz.com
... ... ..

Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them.

The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.

Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."

Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.

Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."

Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated."

I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration.

It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."

Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.

I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment.

But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.

- John Fund is NRO's national-affairs correspondent . https://twitter.com/@JohnFund

[Jan 05, 2018] Mr. Trump, He Crazy

Hatchet job.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump's small staff of factotums, advisors and family began, on Jan. 20, 2017, an experience that none of them, by any right or logic, thought they would -- or, in many cases, should -- have, being part of a Trump presidency. Hoping for the best, with their personal futures as well as the country's future depending on it, my indelible impression of talking to them and observing them through much of the first year of his presidency, is that they all -- 100 percent -- came to believe he was incapable of functioning in his job. ..."
"... At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends. ..."
"... A "cease and desist" letter on Wolff and his publisher from the president's lawyer is the best possible thing a writer and a publisher can hope for. It's pointless, but it makes it look like Wolff inserted his proton torpedo into the Trump White House's exhaust chute. ..."
"... Verily, a New Hope ..."
Jan 05, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

What Wolff reports in the new installment (and oh boy, you're gonna want to read the whole thing ) is jaw-dropping, certainly, but also weirdly familiar, the kind of things that make you shake your head as if to say, "I knew it!" Excerpts:

Reigning over all of this was Trump, enigma, cipher and disruptor. How to get along with Trump -- who veered between a kind of blissed-out pleasure of being in the Oval Office and a deep, childish frustration that he couldn't have what he wanted? Here was a man singularly focused on his own needs for instant gratification, be that a hamburger, a segment on Fox & Friends or an Oval Office photo opp. "I want a win. I want a win. Where's my win?" he would regularly declaim. He was, in words used by almost every member of the senior staff on repeated occasions, "like a child." A chronic naysayer, Trump himself stoked constant discord with his daily after-dinner phone calls to his billionaire friends about the disloyalty and incompetence around him. His billionaire friends then shared this with their billionaire friends, creating the endless leaks which the president so furiously railed against.

More:

As the first year wound down, Trump finally got a bill to sign. The tax bill, his singular accomplishment, was, arguably, quite a reversal of his populist promises, and confirmation of what Mitch McConnell had seen early on as the silver Trump lining: "He'll sign anything we put in front of him." With new bravado, he was encouraging partisans like Fox News to pursue an anti-Mueller campaign on his behalf. Insiders believed that the only thing saving Mueller from being fired, and the government of the United States from unfathomable implosion, is Trump's inability to grasp how much Mueller had on him and his family.

Steve Bannon was openly handicapping a 33.3 percent chance of impeachment, a 33.3 percent chance of resignation in the shadow of the 25th amendment and a 33.3 percent chance that he might limp to the finish line on the strength of liberal arrogance and weakness.

Donald Trump's small staff of factotums, advisors and family began, on Jan. 20, 2017, an experience that none of them, by any right or logic, thought they would -- or, in many cases, should -- have, being part of a Trump presidency. Hoping for the best, with their personal futures as well as the country's future depending on it, my indelible impression of talking to them and observing them through much of the first year of his presidency, is that they all -- 100 percent -- came to believe he was incapable of functioning in his job.

At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends.

That gossipy last detail will have set off alarms in intelligence agencies around the world.

Here's the thing: even if you deny that everything Wolff writes in this adaptation from his book is true, all of it has the ring of truth. The inside-the-White-House stuff sounds exactly like what I was hearing second-hand from an unnerved insider last spring, though with more detail in Wolff's telling. Would you bet money that Wolff's tale is entirely a lie?

A "cease and desist" letter on Wolff and his publisher from the president's lawyer is the best possible thing a writer and a publisher can hope for. It's pointless, but it makes it look like Wolff inserted his proton torpedo into the Trump White House's exhaust chute.

Michelle January 4, 2018 at 11:51 am

Wolff reportedly recorded hundreds of hours worth of conversations with Bannon and other Trump administration officials, so good luck with that lawsuit. If anything, as you indicate, Trump's bellowing will serve to increase sales as people rush to buy the book Dear Leader doesn't want them to read. I know I will.

I've read the two Wolff articles and, while salacious, they don't differ in kind from numerous articles about the inside workings of Trumpworld that have come out since the election. While the book might contain numerous exaggerations, there's no doubt lots of truth contained therein, which is why Trump, for all his posturing, probably won't sue. As Kevin Drum writes, we won't get lucky enough to see the ultimate feces-slinging contest between Trump and Bannon. Too bad.

If Trump has succeeded in one thing, it's in turning the presidency into the ultimate reality TV show. Unfortunately, unlike the usual variety, this one has serious consequences for the actual world.

Bernie , says: January 4, 2018 at 11:59 am
"Would you bet money that Wolff's tale is entirely a lie?"

On the other hand, how much money would you bet as to what percent of Wolff's writing about Trump is entirely accurate? Ten percent? 30 percent? 60% percent? I hate to see this type of post on Rod's blog. It's tabloid quality and in all probability includes scandalous information. You can argue with my conclusion, but can you prove otherwise? This post is disappointing.

[NFR: A prominent pro-Trump conservative with White House access told me two months into the Trump administration that the place was a "snake pit" with all Trump's advisers out to destroy each other, and an incompetent and disconnected president at the center of the maelstrom. "All he wants to do is watch TV," said my source, who predicted disaster, and that GOP bigs would blame the eventual collapse of the Trump presidency on Christian conservatives, because they were suckers, and the only ones who had no wider support in the Establishment. I believed him then and that has something to do with why I believe Wolff. -- RD]

Franklin Evans , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:02 pm
I never condone trial and conviction by innuendo and implication. I will, however, in this case engage in a bit of personal gloating that the King of "fake news!" accusations is having his own credible (better than plausible) statements of the recent and not so recent past coming back to haunt him.

Trump is more than a symptom of the degeneration of American politics and society. He is the poster child, nay the divine avatar of my patron deity Momus, heaping scorn and ridicule on every aspect of America that so richly deserves it.

Upon his certification as the Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States, I publicly (and with significant backlash) predicted that Trump was going to be the enema so sorely needed by a constipated American electorate, gladly feasting on the indigestible roughage of decades of partisan polarizing rhetoric. The first flood of expulsion is already in full swing. It is odorous, scummy, and glorious.

The story of Momus is sketchy at best, but what is known explains the sketchiness: Zeus was well-entertained by Momus' take-downs of the other deities, until the day Momus set his sights on Zeus, and did his job too well. Zeus banished Momus, who quickly faded into obscurity (and never had much in the way of a human following anyway).

I see Trump on that very same path, the only problem being that there is no Zeus to act decisively at the appropriate moment.

Momos (Momus) .
Mardi Gras society and krewe Knights of Momus .

Youknowho , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:08 pm
Does anyone STILL has to justify having voted for Hillary?
charles cosimano , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:15 pm
Anyone who wants the job of President is a little crazy. Personally, I think crazy is fun. Sanity is too boring for words but nothing here points to crazy at all. It's all seriously inside baseball and there is nothing there that the voters give a damn about.

You still don't get it. His supporters in their many millions love Trump for the very reasons you can't stand him.

Patrick , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:16 pm
Yeah, boy: wait until everyone finds out Trump is self-centered and know nod of nutty! You really got him now!
collin , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:25 pm
I am with Matt Yglesias on this Is there really anything new here? Doesn't Daniel Drezner have a twitter feed of 200 occasions where Trump staff is treating him like a toddler? Heck, just read Trumps's twitter feed for evidence! (Are you going to watch the Trumpies on Monday 5:00?)

The Wolff book is like the Steele dossier with lots salacious over the top stories but nothing really new.

HildaMary , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:25 pm
None of this has "the ring of truth". What it does have is the ring of propaganda. I suppose it might appear to have the ring of truth if one was predisposed to believe the worst kind of caricatures of Trump.

It would be very easy to rewrite these excerpts using the same factual statements but framing them in a positive light rather than the negative spin preferred by Mr. Wolff. As a writer yourself, Rod, you should know this.

The last part, about Trump being heavily made-up and "failing to recognize old friends", is obviously blatant disinformation intended to undermine the administration. Publishing it is an act of political sabotage and borders on treasonous.

This is some deep-state *excrement* we're dealing with here, Rod, and I'm honestly surprised you've been suckered by it.

Adamant , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:27 pm
I have no idea if some of the more eye-opening quotes are legit or if Wolff is a fantasist, but what in God's name was the WH's thought process in letting a journalist just hang out in the West Wing for months on end? The incompetence is staggering.
DM , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:31 pm
Wow, too bad we elected the batty old man instead of the batty old woman.
EngineerScotty , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:35 pm
A "cease and desist" letter on Wolff and his publisher from the president's lawyer is the best possible thing a writer and a publisher can hope for. It's pointless, but it makes it look like Wolff inserted his proton torpedo into the Trump White House's exhaust chute.

Of course, "small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port" is one of the dirtiest lines in cinema, as brilliantly exposed in this college production of Verily, a New Hope , a brilliant Shakespearean retelling of Star Wars that was publish'd some years back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdUEF5i_hpc

(NSFW, skip to 40 minutes in for the relevant scene)

But a "cease and desist letter" against Bannon, I think, would be pointless. Wolff's book is in the can already. When it comes to what Bannon knows, the horse has already left the barn.

VikingLS , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:45 pm
"Does anyone STILL has to justify having voted for Hillary?"

Um, no.

And nobody has to justify voting for Trump. Not if we're being fair. Particularly not in the light of a book that hadn't been written yet.

You don't want to be fair though. You want to come here and take over the conversation and make certain it's always you that's the center of attention.

You know, sort of like Trump.

grumpy realist , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:45 pm
Bernie–it makes no difference how much is actual truth in Wolff's writings. The fact is, it all is horribly plausible, based on what we've already seen from this clown car of an administration. Screeching about said reports as being "tabloid!" doesn't work very well in such a case .

And do you think that Trump is ever going to allow himself to go under the laser beam of discovery if he DOES actually insist on suing for libel? Ho ho ho.

Alex Curbelo , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:47 pm
I wouldn't worry too much about the GOP "bigs" blaming Christians, and I would encourage you not to let them get away with scapegoating social conservatives who have been betrayed and abused enough over the years by the establishment. They don't need Rod Dreher piling on. Trump is in fact a creation of the GOP bigs; he is only in the presidency in the first place because they made a point of ignoring for decades the legitimate concerns and grievances of the typical non-rich Republican voter.

[NFR: My source is a conservative Christian, and he was not saying that blaming us (himself) is fair, but that it is going to be what the GOP establishment does to shift blame from itself. -- RD]

Simon James , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:52 pm
I can't see the "gossipy last detail" causing any alarm, nor any of the rest of these gossipy details. What is so "jaw-dropping" about an admittedly unreliable reporter sprinkling a few context-free alleged quotes into a substrate of invective in order to destroy Trump? My jaw dropped into a yawn.
minimammal , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:53 pm
Incidentally, have you seen the new Star Wars, Rod? What did you think of it?

[NFR: I have not. I was going to take the kids today, but two of them seem to be coming down with flu. -- RD]

JonF , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:55 pm
Re: It's tabloid quality and in all probability includes scandalous information.

Bernie, is "scandalous" a synonym for "false" in your usage? Because scandalous news can sometimes be factual news. (See: Watergate; Monica Lewinsky)

Alex Curbelo , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:57 pm
As for the book, there is just no way to know to what extent the claims are colored by embellishment, exaggeration, subjective interpretation, cognitive bias, quotes taken out of context and outright lies.
Andrew , says: January 4, 2018 at 12:59 pm
This time, Trump is truly done for! Lol :-).

I'm not sure how much of the allegations are true, but regardless, most of this is typical Trump street theater. He's provoking chaos and allowing his adversaries (especially the news media) to be focused on distractions. Meanwhile, he and his administration are getting things done behind the scenes.

I have no way of knowing this, but my instinct is that this is a set-up, and Trump and Bannon are on the same side. There are plenty of good political reasons why Trump would rather the two of them be seen as enemies. I could be completely wrong, and there really is bad blood between them. But it just seems so contrived. One more laser pointer to distract all the cats. And even if it is all genuine and legitimate, Trump will still use it to his advantage.

Remember when the whole world was in danger of nuclear war because of a Trump tweet? That was, what, two days ago? Trump is "crazy" like a fox, he enjoys being underestimated by his opponents, and he is engaging in very effective strategies that allow him to accomplish a great deal.

Does anyone else notice that the economy is improving, burdensome regulations are being undone, government corruption is being exposed, ISIS is virtually defeated on the ground, North Korea is reaching out to South Korea, etc.? Trump is a very peculiar president, but he is a lot more intelligent than people give him credit for.

I personally think that the Trump era is very much like the book of Esther. The plot to kill Trump and his supporters will eventually trap and kill the plotters themselves. (I mean "kill" only in the political sense.) The Russia-collusion conspiracy is the most obvious example.

Mark VA , says: January 4, 2018 at 1:00 pm
My mind is fairly resistant to apocalyptic imagery. Rather, I see this:

[Jan 05, 2018] Report 'Fire and Fury' Author Wolff Has 'Dozens of Hours' of Tape Recordings Confirming Quotes in Book

Michael Wolff (born August 27, 1953)[1] is an American author, essayist, and journalist, and a regular columnist and contributor to USA Today, The Hollywood Reporter, and the UK edition of GQ.[2] He has received two National Magazine Awards, a Mirror Award, and has authored seven books, including Burn Rate (1998) about his own dot-com company, and The Man Who Owns the News (2008), a biography of Rupert Murdoch. He co-founded the news aggregation website Newser and is a former editor of Adweek.
Michael Wolff was born in Paterson, New Jersey, the son of Lewis Allen Wolff (October 10, 1920 - February 18, 1984)[5], an advertising professional, and Marguerite "Van" (Vanderwerf) Wolff (November 7, 1925 – September 17, 2012)[6] a reporter for Paterson Evening News.[7][8] He attended Columbia University in New York City, and graduated from Vassar College in 1975.[9] While a student at Columbia, he worked for The New York Times as a copy boy
How Michael Wolf managed to tape people in WH?
Notable quotes:
"... "Michael Wolff has tapes to back up quotes in his incendiary book -- dozens of hours of them," Allen reports. "Among the sources he taped, I'm told, are Steve Bannon and former White House deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh." ..."
"... Soon after the Axios report dropped Thursday morning, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced a ban on personal cell phones inside the White House -- "for both guests and staff." ..."
"... Wolff wrote in The Hollywood Reporter that he collected the material for his book as a "fly on the wall" over 18 months. Allen says that the White House concedes that Wolff received access to the building less than 20 times since Trump's inauguration. ..."
Jan 05, 2018 | www.breitbart.com

Mike Allen writes at Axios that Michael Wolff, author of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, has "dozens of hours" of recordings to corroborate the controversial quotes attributed to senior White House personnel in the new book -- including former White House Chief Strategist and Breitbart executive chairman Stephen K. Bannon.

"Michael Wolff has tapes to back up quotes in his incendiary book -- dozens of hours of them," Allen reports. "Among the sources he taped, I'm told, are Steve Bannon and former White House deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh."

Soon after the Axios report dropped Thursday morning, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced a ban on personal cell phones inside the White House -- "for both guests and staff."

Wolff wrote in The Hollywood Reporter that he collected the material for his book as a "fly on the wall" over 18 months. Allen says that the White House concedes that Wolff received access to the building less than 20 times since Trump's inauguration.

[Jan 05, 2018] Mercer Family Sides With Trump, Distances Itself From Steve Bannon

Notable quotes:
"... "I support President Trump and the platform upon which he was elected," Mercer said. "My family and I have not communicated with Steve Bannon in many months and have provided no financial support to his political agenda, nor do we support his recent actions and statements." ..."
"... Per a Wall Street Journal report, the board of the far-right Breitbart News is also considering ousting Bannon from his position as executive chairman there. ..."
Jan 05, 2018 | www.huffingtonpost.com

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has apparently lost the support of billionaire Republican donor and longtime Donald Trump supporter Rebekah Mercer.

Mercer made her differences with Bannon clear in a statement to The Washington Post on Thursday.

"I support President Trump and the platform upon which he was elected," Mercer said. "My family and I have not communicated with Steve Bannon in many months and have provided no financial support to his political agenda, nor do we support his recent actions and statements."

Per a Wall Street Journal report, the board of the far-right Breitbart News is also considering ousting Bannon from his position as executive chairman there.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders encouraged the move during Thursday's press briefing.

"I certainly think that it's something they should look at and consider," she said of Bannon's potential dismissal.

[Jan 05, 2018] Roger Stone says Sloppy Steve Bannon committed a stunning act of betrayal

Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing. The neoliberal elite was desperate for such a stooge, and in Wolffe they've found one.
"Stunning act of betrayal" is an apt definition of Bannon did via Wolff.
(Video)
Jan 05, 2018 | theduran.com

Former Trump Roger Stone was on Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight to refute Steve Bannon's statements, and just about everything else in the upcoming book "Fire and Fury".

[Jan 03, 2018] Bannon Goes Nuclear Calls Don Jr. Meeting In Trump Tower Treasonous Zero Hedge

Jan 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The ongoing feud between Steve Bannon and various members of Trump's inner circle, including family members Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr., is hardly a secret (we wrote about it here: Steve Bannon In "Self-Imposed Exile" After Disputes With Trump's Inner Circle ). But, if The Guardian 's reporting on excerpts from an explosive new book penned by Michael Wolff are even directionally accurate, then Bannon has just taken his White House feud to a whole new level.

According to The Guardian, which apparently got its hands on a copy of "Fire and Fury" ahead of its expected release next week, Bannon unloads on Don Jr. and Kushner saying that their meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in New York was "treasonous" and/or "unpatriotic" and the FBI should have been called immediately.

Donald Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting between the president's son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as "treasonous" and "unpatriotic", according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian.

The meeting was revealed by the New York Times in July last year, prompting Trump Jr to say no consequential material was produced. Soon after, Wolff writes, Bannon remarked mockingly: "The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers.

"Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately."

Bannon went on, Wolff writes, to say that if any such meeting had to take place, it should have been set up "in a Holiday Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire, with your lawyers who meet with these people". Any information, he said, could then be "dump[ed] down to Breitbart or something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate publication".

... ... ...

Trump is not spared in the new book either. According to The Guardian, Wolff writes that Thomas Barrack Jr, the billionaire founder of Colony Capital who counts himself as one of Trump's earliest supporters, allegedly told a friend: "He's not only crazy, he's stupid."

All of which should make for some very entertaining Trump tweets once the book drops next week.

Meanwhile, even Drudge couldn't avoid getting dragged into the fray and on Wednesday morning tweeted: "No wonder schizophrenic Steve Bannon has been walking around with a small army of bodyguards..."

[Jan 03, 2018] Bannon statement about meeting with Russian lawyer doesn't pass the smell test. One minute he's against deep state and the next minute he wants to call the FBI?

Another possibility that it was attempt of entrapment
See also Natalia Veselnitskaya, Russian lawyer at Donald Trump Jr. meeting, ready to testify to Senate - CBS News "In the lengthy interview with RT, Veselnitskaya was dismissive of the tumult in the U.S. surrounding her meeting with Trump campaign officials, and she denied again links with top Russian government officials close to President Vladimir Putin. " ... "She called the controversy a "very well-orchestrated story concocted by one particular manipulator," whom she identified repeatedly as American businessman Bill Browder ."
Jan 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

John , Jan 3, 2018 2:14:44 PM | 112

Off topic:

Bannon is being quoted in the Guardian from his forthcoming book, paraphrasing: "they had (sic) top officials from the new administration meeting with Russians in Trump Tower and nobody thought to have a lawyer present? The minimum they could've done was call the FBI."

This statement doesn't pass the smell test or Bannon is smoking some Colorado grass. One minute he's against deep state and the next minute he wants to call the FBI? I don't think so.

The Guardian Article

[Jan 03, 2018] Natalia Veselnitskaya, Russian lawyer at Donald Trump Jr. meeting, ready to testify to Senate

Interesting possible Browder-MI6 trace to Veselnitskaya Scandal
Jul 19, 2017 | www.cbsnews.com

She called the controversy a "very well-orchestrated story concocted by one particular manipulator," whom she identified repeatedly as American businessman Bill Browder.

Browder was once the biggest foreign investor in Russia, but he has since become a vocal critic of the country's leadership and has clashed with Putin's inner circle.

Browder was a driving force behind the Magnitsky Act, a U.S. law passed in 2012 that imposes economic sanctions and travel restrictions on Russians named as human rights abusers. Browder believes it is Putin's No. 1 priority to get the U.S. to lift the sanctions imposed under the act, which currently affect 44 Russians.

In her interview with Russian government-funded RT, Veselnitskaya called Browder "one of the greatest experts in the field of manipulating the mass media," and said she had "no doubt that this whole information campaign is being spun, encouraged and organized by that very man as revenge" for a legal settlement earlier this year which effectively saw his efforts to expose alleged Russian money-laundering in the U.S. hit a brick wall.

During Browder's appearance on "CBS This Morning" Tuesday, co-host Charlie Rose called attention to Browder's description of Veselnitskaya as "probably the most aggressive person I have ever encountered in all of my contacts with Russians" -- to which Browder replied, "Yes, she's a remarkable person. I should caveat that: she's not aggressive in a physical way."

[Jan 03, 2018] Watch Live First White House Press Conference Since Wolff Book Excerpts

Jan 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

BritBob Jan 3, 2018 2:52 PM

Bannon, speaking to author Michael Wolff, warned that the investigation into alleged collusion with the Kremlin will focus on money laundering and predicted: "They're going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV."

besnook Jan 3, 2018 3:20 PM

bannon hasn't lost his mind. he never had one. he is just another wacko evangelical wingnut of the 4th turning theory who think they will witness the second coming of Christ this turning if only they can make enough war in the Mideast with the goal of getting Israel directly involved since their participation is a prerequisite.

breitbart is nuts.

[Jan 03, 2018] REPORT Bannon Says Mueller Investigation Will Target Kushner, Manafort s Greasy Money Laundering Deals

Notable quotes:
"... Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House ..."
Jan 03, 2018 | www.breitbart.com

Former Trump Chief Strategist Steve Bannon says the Mueller investigation is targeting the alleged "greasy" money laundering of Trump associates like Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort as a path to attack President Trump, according to a new book by Michael Wolff called Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House .

David Smith reports in the Guardian :

Bannon has criticised Trump's decision to fire Comey . In Wolff's book, obtained by the Guardian ahead of publication from a bookseller in New England, he suggests White House hopes for a quick end to the Mueller investigation are gravely misplaced.

"You realise where this is going," he is quoted as saying. "This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner It's as plain as a hair on your face."

Last month it was reported that federal prosecutors had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank, the German financial institution that has lent hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kushner property empire. Bannon continues: "It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me."

Scorning apparent White House insouciance, Bannon reaches for a hurricane metaphor: "They're sitting on a beach trying to stop a Category Five."

Read the rest here .

[Oct 16, 2017] Don't Be Afraid of Steve Bannon by David Atkins

Economic nationalism in key ideas is close to Mussolini version of corporatism. It is about the alliance of state with large corporation but of less favorable to large corporations terms then under neoliberalism, which is a flavor of corporatism as well, but extremely favorable to the interests of transactionals.
So grossly simplifying, this is Mussolini version of corporatism (Make Italy Great Again), minus foreign wars, minus ethnic component (replacing it with more modern "cultural nationalism" agenda).
Bannon is definitely overrated. It is jobs that matter and he has no real plan. Relying on tax cutting and deregulation is not a plan. In this sense, yes, he is a paper tiger. And not a real nationalist, but some kind of castrated variety.
One thing that plays into Bannon hands in the DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats led by Hillary Clinton) were completely discredited during the last elections.
Notable quotes:
"... But his statements show that it's all bluster and no real strategy. Democrats seem poised to take back Congress precisely because of Republican extremism, not because institutional Republicans are inadequately racist and nationalist. ..."
"... Like Karl Rove before him, Steven Bannon is a paper tiger. ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | washingtonmonthly.com

There is a tendency on the left to overestimate the abilities of conservative campaign gurus and spinmeisters after a bitter defeat. In the aughts, Karl Rove was seen as the Svengali mastermind of Republican politics, a nefarious force smarter and more cunning than all the left's braintrust put together. It turned out not to be true. Karl Rove didn't have "the math" and never really did: Rove mostly got lucky by a combination of butterfly ballots in Florida, and happening to hold power during a terrorist attack that saw Democrats cowed into submission rather than holding the president and his team accountable for their failure to protect the country.

Steve Bannon is taking on a similar mystique for some. But Bannon is no more special than Rove...

... ... ...

Bannon is going to war " with the GOP establishment, even going so far as to countermand Trump's own endorsement in the Alabama Senate race and force the president to back a loser.

But his statements show that it's all bluster and no real strategy. Democrats seem poised to take back Congress precisely because of Republican extremism, not because institutional Republicans are inadequately racist and nationalist.

And his prediction to the Values Voter Summit that Trump will win 400 electoral votes in 2020 is simply preposterous on its face. It's no better than even odds that Trump will even finish out his term, much less sweep to a Reaganesque landslide in three years. During the same speech, Bannon quipped a line destined to be fodder for the inevitable 2018 campaign commercials accusing Trump of actively blowing up the ACA exchanges and driving up premiums in a bid to kill the program.

Like Karl Rove before him, Steven Bannon is a paper tiger. Democrats need only muster courage, conviction and hard work to teach him the same lesson they taught Rove in 2006.

David Atkins is a writer, activist and research professional living in Santa Barbara. He is a contributor to the Washington Monthly's Political Animal and president of The Pollux Group, a qualitative research firm.

[Oct 15, 2017] Is Trump the Heir to Reagan? by Patrick J. Buchanan

Bastard neoliberalism by Trump (and Bannon) are inconsistent. You can't be half pregnant -- to be a neoliberal (promote deregulation, regressive taxes) and be anti-immigration and anti-globalist. In this sense words Trump is doomed: neoliberal are determined to get rid of him.
Reagan was a former governor of California before becoming the President. hardly a complete outsider. Trump was an outsider more similar to Barak Obama in a sense that he has no political record and can ride on backlash against neoliberal globalization, especially outsourcing and offshoring and unlimited immigration, as well as ride anti-globalism sentiments and popular protest against foreign wars. Only quickly betraying those promised afterward. Much like king of "bait and switch" Obama .
Notable quotes:
"... Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy designed to prosper Americans first. ..."
"... Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot. ..."
"... He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally, but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can't control its borders isn't really a country any more. ..."
"... Reagan and Trump both embraced the Eisenhower doctrine of "peace through strength." And, like Ike, both built up the military. ..."
"... Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security. ..."
"... Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time. ..."
"... As Ingraham writes, Trump_vs_deep_state is rooted as much in the populist-nationalist campaigns of the 1990s, and post-Cold War issues as economic patriotism, border security, immigration control and "America First," as it is in the Reaganite issues of the 1980s. ..."
"... Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war with GOP leaders on the Hill. ..."
"... And both are fans of the tinkle-down theory of economics, where the govt cuts taxes on the rich and increases them on the poor and middle class, since the rich will do a better job of spreading around the extra money they get to keep, thereby stoking the economy, supposedly. Or as 'Poppy' Bush called it, "voodoo economics." ..."
"... It's a failed regressive tax program that only creates more billionaires while the number of poor swells, due to an influx of the steadily declining middle-class. ..."
"... Bizarrely, comically ignorant of reality. Though the really bizarre thing is the degree to which the same obtusely ignorant world-view permeates the establishment media and the political establishment. ..."
"... There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism. Reagan's opposition to the Soviet Union was very much bound up in resistance to that ideology, even if that resistance was often as much a pretext as a real motive. ..."
"... Today neither Russia nor China subscribes to any such universalist ideology. It is the US, today, that seeks to impose its liberal democratic political correctness ideologies and its manufactured taboos upon the world and which harasses and menaces any country that tries to live differently. ..."
"... As for Trump supposedly being wrapped up in "America First", that's particularly comical this week as he demonstrates that his idea of "America First" is acting as Israel's bitch, and as he makes ever louder noises about undermining the Iran deal – a policy as clearly counterproductive to any interest plausibly attributable to the American nation (as opposed to the identity lobbies that run the US government politics and media) as it is self-evidently in the self-perceived interests of the Israel Lobby and the foreign country that lobby serves. ..."
"... Trump is an egotistical jackass, nothing else. A liar from the git-go, and a completely ineffective leader, ideologue and President. He's not going to last much longer. I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety. But, he has molted into a complete fuckup. ..."
"... Goodbye, good riddance. Let's get ready to deal with the next wacko -- Pence. ..."
"... you're forgetting that Trump wasn't a war monger while on the campaign trail, far from it. Which is the only reason he won the election. In other words he fooled just enough people (like you and me) long enough to get elected. Same thing happened with peace candidate, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Hussein Obama. It's clearly a rigged process. ..."
Oct 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

Both men were outsiders, and neither a career politician. Raised Democratic, Reagan had been a Hollywood actor, union leader and voice of GE, before running for governor of California.

Trump is out of Queens, a builder-businessman in a Democratic city whose Republican credentials were suspect at best when he rode down that elevator at Trump Tower. Both took on the Republican establishment of their day, and humiliated it.

Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy designed to prosper Americans first.

Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot.

He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally, but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can't control its borders isn't really a country any more.

Reagan and Trump both embraced the Eisenhower doctrine of "peace through strength." And, like Ike, both built up the military.

Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security.

Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time.

And both were regarded in this capital city with a cosmopolitan condescension bordering on contempt. "An amiable dunce" said a Great Society Democrat of Reagan.

The awesome victories Reagan rolled up, a 44-state landslide in 1980 and a 49-state landslide in 1984, induced some second thoughts among Beltway elites about whether they truly spoke for America. Trump's sweep of the primaries and startling triumph in the Electoral College caused the same consternation.

However, as the Great Depression, New Deal and World War II represented a continental divide in history between what came before and what came after, so, too, did the end of the Cold War and the Reagan era.

As Ingraham writes, Trump_vs_deep_state is rooted as much in the populist-nationalist campaigns of the 1990s, and post-Cold War issues as economic patriotism, border security, immigration control and "America First," as it is in the Reaganite issues of the 1980s.

Which bring us to the present, with our billionaire president, indeed, at the barricades.

The differences between Trump in his first year and Reagan in 1981 are stark. Reagan had won a landslide. The attempt on his life in April and the grace with which he conducted himself had earned him a place in the hearts of his countrymen. He not only showed spine in giving the air traffic controllers 48 hours to get back to work, and then discharging them when they defied him, he enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history with the aid of boll weevil Democrats in the House.

Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war with GOP leaders on the Hill.

Greg Bacon , Website October 13, 2017 at 10:24 am GMT

And both are fans of the tinkle-down theory of economics, where the govt cuts taxes on the rich and increases them on the poor and middle class, since the rich will do a better job of spreading around the extra money they get to keep, thereby stoking the economy, supposedly. Or as 'Poppy' Bush called it, "voodoo economics."

It's a failed regressive tax program that only creates more billionaires while the number of poor swells, due to an influx of the steadily declining middle-class.

The only parts of the economy it helps are the builders of luxury mansions, antique and pricey art dealers, and the makers of luxury autos and private jets.

Randal , October 13, 2017 at 12:24 pm GMT
@Mark James

when the US Government is trying to prevent alien forces from interfering in our electoral process

Bizarrely, comically ignorant of reality. Though the really bizarre thing is the degree to which the same obtusely ignorant world-view permeates the establishment media and the political establishment.

Two pieces here at Unz you ought to read, and fully take on board the implications of, if you want to even begin the process of grasping reality, rather than living in the manufactured fantasy you appear to inhabit at the moment:

Randal , October 13, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT

Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time.

There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism. Reagan's opposition to the Soviet Union was very much bound up in resistance to that ideology, even if that resistance was often as much a pretext as a real motive.

Today neither Russia nor China subscribes to any such universalist ideology. It is the US, today, that seeks to impose its liberal democratic political correctness ideologies and its manufactured taboos upon the world and which harasses and menaces any country that tries to live differently.

As for Trump supposedly being wrapped up in "America First", that's particularly comical this week as he demonstrates that his idea of "America First" is acting as Israel's bitch, and as he makes ever louder noises about undermining the Iran deal – a policy as clearly counterproductive to any interest plausibly attributable to the American nation (as opposed to the identity lobbies that run the US government politics and media) as it is self-evidently in the self-perceived interests of the Israel Lobby and the foreign country that lobby serves.

Here's the German government being unusually blunt yesterday about the stupidity of the Trump regime's seeming plans in this regard:

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel on Thursday said that any move by US President Donald Trump's administration to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal would drive a wedge between Europe and the US.

"It's imperative that Europe sticks together on this issue," Gabriel told Germany's RND newspaper group. "We also have to tell the Americans that their behavior on the Iran issue will drive us Europeans into a common position with Russia and China against the USA."

http://www.dw.com/en/germany-warns-donald-trump-against-decertifying-iran-deal/a-40933703

It's difficult to know whether the likes of Gabriel actually believe all the boilerplate nonsense they talk about a supposed Iranian nuclear program – the real reason the European nations want the deal to continue is that it stopped them having to pretend to believe all the outright lies the US told about Iran, and having to kowtow t0 costly and counterproductive sanctions against Iran that did immense general harm for the benefit only of Israel and Saudi Arabia and their US stooges.

The US pulling out of the deal would at least bring that issue of US dishonesty on Iran and past European appeasement of it to a head, I suppose.

John Jeremiah Smith , October 13, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT
Trump is an egotistical jackass, nothing else. A liar from the git-go, and a completely ineffective leader, ideologue and President. He's not going to last much longer. I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety. But, he has molted into a complete fuckup.

Goodbye, good riddance. Let's get ready to deal with the next wacko -- Pence. Assuming they won't kill Pence with the same bomb.

YetAnotherAnon , October 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT
@Mark James

"As for Trump I think it's crystal clear his campaign involved the Russians in our election. "

It's crystal clear that some people will believe any crap that The Media Formerly Known As Hillary's broadcast.

reiner Tor , October 13, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT
@John Jeremiah Smith

I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety.

Often I feel like it'd be better if Hillary did the same insane policies. It's always worse when our guy does something wrong, and better when the hated enemy does it.

Hillary was a danger that she would start WW3 in Syria, but I don't think we can be certain she'd have started it. Given how risk-averse women are in general, I think the only issue was whether the Russians could've made it clear that shooting at Russian soldiers would mean war with Russia. And I think even Hillary's advisers would've blinked.

On the other hand, I don't think Hillary would be nearly as insane on North Korea or Iran. As a bonus, she would be accelerating the demise of the US, by introducing ever more insane domestic policies, things like gay, transsexual and female quotas in US Special Forces. This would ultimately be a good thing, destroying or weakening US power which is currently only used to evil ends in the world.

reiner Tor , October 13, 2017 at 5:07 pm GMT
@Randal

Unfortunately I can see Orbán and the Poles torpedoing a common EU stance. I'm sure that will be the price for Netanyahu's meeting with the V4 leaders a few months ago.

reiner Tor , October 13, 2017 at 5:15 pm GMT
I think one good thing would be if US conservatives stopped their Reagan worship. He was certainly not a bad person, but he allowed the amnesty to happen, couldn't stop the sanctions on Apartheid South Africa, didn't (or couldn't?) do anything against the MLK cult becoming a state religion, and started the free trade and tax cuts cults, he's also responsible for promoting the neocons to positions of power. So overall he was a mixed bag from a nationalist conservative viewpoint.
Chris Mallory , October 13, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT
@Mark James

Private citizens are forbidden to ask for help from a foreign country, when the US Government is trying to prevent alien forces from interfering in our electoral process.

You forgot the Clintons, Bush, McCain, Romney, and Obama. China and Israel worked on behalf of all five of them, even though three of them lost

Randal , October 13, 2017 at 5:33 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Yes, that's quite possible, but a common EU stance is not really all that important. What really matters is how far the Germans, and to a lesser extent the less relevant but still big European nations such as France and Italy and the more subservient US tool, the UK, are prepared to continue to kowtow to US and Israeli dishonesty on Iran.

All the signs seem to be that repudiating the deal and trying to return to the days of the aggressive and counter-productive US-imposed sanctions will be a step too far for many of those players.

As a bonus, she would be accelerating the demise of the US, by introducing ever more insane domestic policies, things like gay, transsexual and female quotas in US Special Forces. This would ultimately be a good thing, destroying or weakening US power which is currently only used to evil ends in the world.

Actually I suspect that repudiating the JCPOA, whether openly or by de facto breach, will go immensely farther, and much faster, towards destroying practical US influence and therefore power globally than any of those domestic policies, at least in the short run.

You can see that Trump is at least dimly aware of that likelihood from the way he keeps bottling and postponing the decision, despite his clearly evident and desperate desire to please his pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian advisers and instincts.

John Jeremiah Smith , October 13, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

On the other hand, I don't think Hillary would be nearly as insane on North Korea or Iran.

An election of Hillary meant open borders. That is official, rapid and deliberate national suicide. All foreign policy issues pale before such a horror.

reiner Tor , October 13, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT
@John Jeremiah Smith

1) There's a chance foreign policy insanity starts a nuclear war, in which case all domestic policy issues will pale before such horror.

2) The US already has de facto open borders. Why does it matter if it becomes majority nonwhite in 30 or just 20 years?

3) For non-American whites, it's better the earlier the US sphere disintegrates. I bet you it's better for American whites as well. As long as this political/cultural center holds, the rot cannot be stopped.

The Alarmist , October 13, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT
I watched the movie Independence Day last night: Can we have that guy for President after Trump, or do we have to have an obligatory Democrat (Chelsea Clinton?) President for the next 8 years?
German_reader , October 13, 2017 at 6:57 pm GMT
@John Jeremiah Smith

An election of Hillary meant open borders. That is official, rapid and deliberate national suicide. All foreign policy issues pale before such a horror.

That's understandable, but obviously the calculation must be somewhat different from a non-US perspective. Given how strongly many white Americans are in favor of pro-war policies and mindless Israel worship (how many US blacks or Hispanics care about Israel or confronting Iran?), I'm not even sure nationalists in Europe should really lament the Hispanicization of the US. It might at least have a positive effect in restricting US interventionism and eroding US power. The sooner the US is unable to continue with its self-appointed role as a global redeemer nation, the better.

RadicalCenter , October 13, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT
@Mark James

Glad you think it's "crystal clear." How about evidence?

nsa , October 13, 2017 at 9:10 pm GMT
History repeats first as tragedy (crushing the spoiled unionized mostly white air traffic controllers), then as farce (crushing the spoiled unionized mostly afro NFL jocks). Reagan was at least an American Firster. Trumpenstein is an obvious traitorous Izzie Firster, with little concern for the so-called deplorables except to convert them into deployables at the service of his jooie sponsors. Maybe Paddy should have titled his screed "Heir to Begin, not Reagan"?
Aren Haich , October 13, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT
Pat Buchanan points out that " it is far more likely that a major war would do for the Trump presidency and his place in history what it did for Presidents Wilson, Truman, LBJ and George W. Bush."

As for President Trump; Let us hope that war DOES NOT BECOME "The Last Refuge Of This Scoundrel"!

John Gruskos , October 13, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Orban has been critical of regime change wars.

John Gruskos , October 13, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT
@German_reader

Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).

If only non-White votes were counted, Hillary Clinton would have been elected unanimously by the electoral college, and Hillary is more of a war-monger than Trump is.

The few reliable voices for foreign policy sanity in congress, such as Senator Rand Paul and Congressmen Walter Jones, John Duncan, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash, represent overwhelmingly White, Protestant, old-stock American districts.

German_reader , October 13, 2017 at 10:39 pm GMT
@John Gruskos

Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).

Maybe, but is there any data indicating many blacks in Washington DC actually voted in the Republican primaries? Why would they when most of them are a solid Democrat voting block? I'd guess Rubio got his votes from white elites in DC.
As for Puerto Rico, I didn't know they actually have primaries, seems odd given they don't vote in US presidential elections.

Hillary is more of a war-monger than Trump is.

Hillary was horrible all around, and I agree she might well have been disastrous as president given her dangerous proposals for no-fly zones in Syria, and the potential of conflict with Russia this entailed. But I'm no longer sure Trump is really better regarding foreign policy. His behaviour on the North Korea issue is irresponsible imo, and his willingness to wreck the nuclear deal with Iran at the behest of neoconservatives and Zionist donors like Sheldon Adelson is a big fat minus in my view. Sorry, but I think you guys who hoped for something different have all been (neo-)conned.

Jonathan Mason , October 13, 2017 at 11:42 pm GMT
Reagan said: My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.

Trump said: We will totally destroy North Korea if the United States is forced to defend itself or its allies.

Reagan was a joker, Trump is a wildcard.

Carroll Price , October 14, 2017 at 1:51 am GMT
The only similarities I see between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump is that both live (lived) in a sort of la-la land, totally out of touch with reality. The only difference between them is that Reagan had sensible people around him (like Pat Buchannan) who wrote good speeches and make good decisions which he took full credit for. Trump, on the other hand delivers abbreviated, one-sentence speeches via Twitter while surrounded by mental midgets with military minds.
Carroll Price , October 14, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT
@Randal

There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism

Not really Randal. The Cold War was an invented war like the War on Terror that replaced just in the nick of time, and for the same purpose, which is to justify unlimited defense budgets necessary to sustain a bloated MIC that would not otherwise exist.

Carroll Price , October 14, 2017 at 2:35 am GMT
@John Gruskos

Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).

but you're forgetting that Trump wasn't a war monger while on the campaign trail, far from it. Which is the only reason he won the election. In other words he fooled just enough people (like you and me) long enough to get elected. Same thing happened with peace candidate, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Hussein Obama. It's clearly a rigged process.

Randal , October 14, 2017 at 7:48 am GMT
@Carroll Price

Not really Randal. The Cold War was an invented war like the War on Terror that replaced just in the nick of time, and for the same purpose, which is to justify unlimited defense budgets necessary to sustain a bloated MIC that would not otherwise exist.

Well, yes and no. In both cases. It really is more complicated than that.

KA , October 14, 2017 at 11:18 am GMT
Reagan didn't undo Arab Israel Camp David Peace Treaty He didn't keep the Israeli side and undo the Egyptian side of the American obligation . He kept both.

Trump is dangerous malevolent anti-American and anti- anything that hurts his ego or pocket . He has malcontent displaced sycophants as inner circle supporters who want a piece in the pie denied to them by the establishment .

Here is a quote from antiwar -"In other words, it's all about the war that Trump and his still-loyal lieutenant Steve Bannon, assisted by UN ambassador Nikki Haley, have declared on the "deep state."

Also, Trump and Bannon aren't really interested in draining the foreign policy swamp in DC. They simply want to install their own cronies who will ensure that war and globalization benefit them rather than Kissinger and his ilk. It's a shell game designed to fool Trump's base, but the rest of the world has kept its eye on the ball." http://original.antiwar.com/feffer/2017/10/13/trump-signaling-unprecedented-right-turn-foreign-policy/

This war between elites have been predicted by a CT professor in an article in 2016 , to get more serious and dangerous by 2020 . The fights among elites are not new but another pathway an empire takes additionally to the final fate of the destruction from within

KA , October 14, 2017 at 11:49 am GMT
@KA

"A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable, has been denied access to elite positions."

Another visible sign of increasing intra-elite competition and political polarization is the fragmentation of political parties

cliodynamic research on past societies demonstrates that elite overproduction is by far the most important of the three main historical drivers of social instability and political violence (see Secular Cycles for this analysis).

But the other two factors in the model, popular immiseration (the stagnation and decline of living standards) and declining fiscal health of the state (resulting from falling state revenues and rising expenses) are also important contributors.

: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-social-instability-lies.html#jCp

polskijoe , October 14, 2017 at 1:04 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Ideally Europe would be strong together, without US and more sane policies on morals and immigration.

Yes v4 is connected to CC, Neocon, Zios.

While Polands stance on immigration, and trying to hold on to old values is good, problem is depending on US too much, and being stuck between Russia and Germany which would isolate it from Europe in some ways. Obviously Poles are not uniform, views on US, Russia, Germany, Ukraine are all over the place. I wish Poland was just European (in politics) but the US-EU connection is still strong.

polskijoe , October 14, 2017 at 1:16 pm GMT
Commenting on US presidents. Presidents are puppets. All of them. Modern leaders in Western world are unlikable. Reagan at least had some balance, had some Catholic and Paleocon involvement. It wasnt all Neocons and Zios. Im quite sure Reagan (and his dad), people like Buchanan had connections to groups like Knights Malta or Knights Colombus. Cant prove it though. Kennedy was KC.

Today Neocon/Zionist influence is even stronger. Trump policies on NK and Iran are nuts. At best a war is avoided.

On the other side you have Clintons, Obamas. They would destroy the US, and have similar policies because again they are puppets. Clinton would likely be involved in Syria, just like Obama was.

German_reader , October 14, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT
@polskijoe

While Polands stance on immigration, and trying to hold on to old values is good, problem is depending on US too much

Yes, that's a problem, and I think Polish national conservatives are somewhat in denial about what the modern US stands for the "values" pushed by the US establishment today are incompatible with the Polish right's vision for Poland (e.g. conservative values in sexual morality – no homo-lobbyism and transgender nonsense -, strong public role of Catholicism, restrictive and selective immigration policies that keep out Muslims).

I can understand to some degree why the Polish right is so pro-US, given history and apprehensions about Germany and Russia, but they should at least be aware that alliance with the US could have a rather pernicious influence on Poland itself.

[Oct 01, 2017] Republican civil war looms as Steve Bannon takes aim at the establishment

Notable quotes:
"... Bardella said Bannon had helped villainise McConnell, making him a toxic symbol of the Republican establishment and an albatross around the necks of vulnerable Republicans such as Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada. A seat in Tennessee following Senator Bob Corker's announcement that he would not seek re-election in 2018 could also be a target. ..."
"... Among the "establishment" donors likely to oppose Bannon in a series of running battles are the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. Bannon himself has admitted there is not "a deep bench" of viable candidates to represent his agenda. ..."
"... "The floodgates are open. You'll see a lot of this, one after another, and Steve Bannon's going to be at the centre of it. He's one for one. It'll be a civil war; it has been for quite some time." ..."
"... Andrew Surabian, a political strategist who worked under Bannon at the White House, told USA Today: "Bannon is plotting a strategy to launch an all-out assault on the Republican establishment. I think it's fair to say that if you're tied to Mitch McConnell, any of his henchmen in the consulting class, or were a Never-Trumper during the campaign, you're not safe from a primary challenge." ..."
"... Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs ..."
Oct 01, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Already Bannon is touring the country and meeting with candidates who will carry forward such an agenda. He told the Bloomberg agency: "The populist-nationalist movement proved in Alabama that a candidate with the right ideas and a grassroots organization can win big. Now, our focus is on recruiting candidates to take over the Republican party."

The election eve rally in Alabama was a reunion of sorts of those in Bannon's political orbit. Two potential candidates, Chris McDaniel of Mississippi and Mark Green of Tennessee, attended along with Paul Nehlen, a primary challenger last year to the House speaker, Paul Ryan, whose campaign was heavily promoted by Breitbart.

McDaniel described Moore's win as "incredibly inspiring" for his own challenge to Senator Roger Wicker in 2018. "We know Mitch McConnell was rejected tonight and Roger Wicker is just another part of Mitch McConnell's leadership apparatus," McDaniel told the Associated Press.

"We supported Donald Trump because he was an agent of change, and he's still an agent of change. In this instance, he must have been given bad advice to retain this particular swamp creature."

On Thursday, Bannon spent two hours with Tom Tancredo, who worked on Nehlan's behalf and is considering a run for Colorado governor next year. Tancredo, a former congressman, told the Guardian: "He was encouraged by what happened in Alabama and was certainly hoping he can replicate it.

"He's trying to establish an awareness of the fact the Republican party should be standing for the values he and others have tried to articulate over the years. It's a hugely difficult undertaking when you consider the power of the establishment and the swamp. He just kept reiterating: 'I need to try to save the country.'"

Asked about the prospect of a Republican civil war, Tancredo replied: "A good philosophic blood letting is not necessarily a bad thing."

... ... ...

Bardella said Bannon had helped villainise McConnell, making him a toxic symbol of the Republican establishment and an albatross around the necks of vulnerable Republicans such as Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada. A seat in Tennessee following Senator Bob Corker's announcement that he would not seek re-election in 2018 could also be a target.

"Every dollar that is spent on a candidate by Mitch McConnell and the Republican party is a dollar spent against them," Bardella added. "And that's because it plays right into the theme that they're bought and paid for by the establishment."

Among the "establishment" donors likely to oppose Bannon in a series of running battles are the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. Bannon himself has admitted there is not "a deep bench" of viable candidates to represent his agenda.

But he can expect at least tacit backing from Trump, who was said to be furious about having backed the wrong horse in Alabama: the president even deleted three tweets that endorsed Strange. Bannon also has powerful benefactors in the shape of the billionaire hedge fund investor Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah Mercer. The New York Times reported that Bannon and Robert Mercer began working out a rough outline for a "shadow party" that would advance Trump's nationalist agenda during a five-hour meeting last month at the family's Long Island estate.

Bannon has also been consulting with Henry Kissinger and other foreign policy veterans, Bloomberg reported, and is preparing make the threat posed by China a central cause. "If we don't get our situation sorted with China, we'll be destroyed economically," he said.

Rick Tyler, a political analyst and former campaign spokesman for the Texas senator Ted Cruz, said: "Roy Moore has demonstrated that the establishment and all its money can be beaten. You can only spend so much money in Alabama before it becomes irritating: you can only stuff so much in people's mailboxes or run so many ads on TV.

"The floodgates are open. You'll see a lot of this, one after another, and Steve Bannon's going to be at the centre of it. He's one for one. It'll be a civil war; it has been for quite some time."

Republican memories are still raw from 2014, when the House majority leader, Eric Cantor, was beaten in a primary contest by Dave Brat, a little-known professor backed by the Tea Party. But Bannon could make the establishment versus Tea Party battle look like a mere skirmish.

Andrew Surabian, a political strategist who worked under Bannon at the White House, told USA Today: "Bannon is plotting a strategy to launch an all-out assault on the Republican establishment. I think it's fair to say that if you're tied to Mitch McConnell, any of his henchmen in the consulting class, or were a Never-Trumper during the campaign, you're not safe from a primary challenge."

Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs

[Oct 01, 2017] Tea Party Patriots against Neoliberalism by Bhaskar Sunkara

Notable quotes:
"... The Tea Party recognizes that "one of the primary sort of marks of the triumph of neoliberalism in the US is a very high tolerance of illegal immigration, and that illegal immigration is the kind of one plus ultra of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires." The rise of illegal immigration represents a new form of capitalism, as opposed to the old "meritorious" capitalism of the post-war period. When right-wing ideologues attack "communism," the argument goes, they are actually conceptualizing neoliberalism. ..."
"... Michaels concedes that the Tea Party is a disproportionately upper middle class movement, but argues that even segments of the top twenty percentile of Americans by income have been hit hard in recent decades. ..."
"... The top one percent have been the big winners of the neoliberal era, while the other 19 percent in that bracket anxiously see their position falter in comparison. ..."
"... people in the Tea Party movement have a problem that is realer than "White male status anxiety," that the economic shifts that are taking place, the more and more extreme inequality, the more and more going to the top, no doubt some people may be unhappy because of loss of status, but many millions more are going to be unhappy because of the loss of actual money. ..."
Oct 01, 2017 | www.jacobinmag.com

Ideas spread in all sorts of directions. I've heard Christian right "intellectuals" haphazardly invoke Gramsci and counter-hegemony and I myself have spent more of my youth than I'm willing to admit reading back issues of National Review . It's probably less of a stretch that some Tea Partiers have favorably nodded toward the ideas on their movement that our friend Walter Benn Michaels expresses in his interview in the inaugural Jacobin .

Here's my summary of Michaels's argument on the Tea Party and immigration, which brings up the question, a question that shouldn't really be a question at all, about the left and open borders. (My thoughts on the over-hyped and over-exposed Tea Party can be found over at New Politics .)

Michaels identifies the Tea Party as a reaction against neoliberalism. He doesn't view the challenge as a serious one, but also stresses that the movement, "is not simply a reaction against neoliberalism from the old racist right." Michaels contests the American left's desire to summarily reduce the Tea Party to racists: "They're thrilled when some Nazis come out and say 'Yeah, we support the Tea Party' or some member of the Tea Party says something racist, which is frequently enough." Michaels finds the subversive content of their political program in an opposition to illegal immigration.

The Tea Party recognizes that "one of the primary sort of marks of the triumph of neoliberalism in the US is a very high tolerance of illegal immigration, and that illegal immigration is the kind of one plus ultra of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires." The rise of illegal immigration represents a new form of capitalism, as opposed to the old "meritorious" capitalism of the post-war period. When right-wing ideologues attack "communism," the argument goes, they are actually conceptualizing neoliberalism.

Michaels concedes that the Tea Party is a disproportionately upper middle class movement, but argues that even segments of the top twenty percentile of Americans by income have been hit hard in recent decades.

The top one percent have been the big winners of the neoliberal era, while the other 19 percent in that bracket anxiously see their position falter in comparison. Responding to those who place the roots of this angst in the growing diversification of the elite, Michaels says:

. . . people in the Tea Party movement have a problem that is realer than "White male status anxiety," that the economic shifts that are taking place, the more and more extreme inequality, the more and more going to the top, no doubt some people may be unhappy because of loss of status, but many millions more are going to be unhappy because of the loss of actual money. So my point isn't really to deny the phenomenon of status anxiety, it's just to point out the extraordinary eagerness of American liberals to identify racism as the problem, so that anti-racism (rather than anti-capitalism) can be the solution.

Michaels's conclusion is, in sum, that students of Friedrich Hayek and exalters of Ayn Rand are the most visible source of resistance to neoliberalism on the American scene. Such a view, I believe, is as contradictory as it appears...

Bhaskar Sunkara is the founding editor of Jacobin .

[Sep 27, 2017] Moore Victory Shows Populist Movement Bigger Than Trump by James Kirkpatrick

Notable quotes:
"... If Only The God-Emperor Knew: Using Trump_vs_deep_state Against The Trump Administration" ..."
"... Republican Sen. Corker announces he won't seek re-election ..."
"... Associated Press, ..."
"... Corker's departure is widely being interpreted as a sign of the Establishment's inability to control the GOP base, as the election of President Trump, the rise of nationalism and the emergence of alternative media outlets (such as Breitbart and VDARE.com) make it harder for cuckservatives to Republican primary voters in line [ Sen. Bob Corker's retirement is notable for when it's happening ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... And now, we have the ultimate proof in Alabama. Judge Roy Moore, one of the most persistent targets of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is now the Republican nominee for the Senate. And he defeated incumbent Senator Luther Strange despite Strange being endorsed by President Donald J. Trump himself. ..."
"... Of course, Strange didn't just have Trump in his corner. He also had Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell using his PAC to run negative ads against Moore, ads which conservative websites called "defamatory" and which cost many millions of dollars [ McConnell's Super PAC accused of 'defaming ' Roy Moore ..."
"... McConnell's mortal enemy might soon be in his caucus ..."
"... Alabama rally: Trump campaigns in last-ditch effort for Senate candidate Luther Strange ..."
"... President Trump admits he doesn't 'know that much' about Alabama Senate contender Roy Moore, gets his name wrong in interview ..."
"... New York Daily News, ..."
"... During a debate with Strange, Moore suggested President Trump was being "redirected" by Mitch McConnell and others who "will not support his [Trump's] agenda" [ Alabama Senate debate erupts over whether McConnell is manipulating Trump ..."
"... Brexit Hero Farage in Alabama: Judge Roy Moore 'Not Going To Be Sucked Into The Swamp' ..."
"... Sarah Palin endorses Judge Roy Moore for US Senate ..."
"... Western Journalism, ..."
"... Ben Carson Splits With Trump, Basically Endorses Roy Moore in Alabama ..."
"... Talking Points Memo, ..."
"... Gorka: Trump Was Pressured to Endorse 'Swamp Dweller' Strange ..."
"... , Fox News, ..."
"... The Breitbart Universe Unites For Roy Moore ..."
"... The Atlantic, ..."
"... Trump's advisors seem to know this. In the Fox News ..."
"... Roy Moore Wins Senate G.O.P. Runoff in Alabama ..."
"... How Alabama Senate Election Results Could Trigger Trump's Impeachment ..."
"... Trump supports Strange, but says it may be "mistake," ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... Roy Moore: 'I can't wait' for Trump to 'campaign like hell' for me ..."
"... Washington Examiner, ..."
"... Chamber of Commerce: 'Shut Down' Roy Moore & 'Remind Bannon Who's In Charge' ..."
"... Trump should seize on the narrative of his supposed opponents. He is unquestionably being given objectively poor political counsel by his aides!not surprising how utterly incompetent the Republican Establishment is when it comes to political strategy. [ Steve Bannon: We Need A Review After This Alabama Race To See How Trump Came To Endorse Someone Like Luther Strange ..."
"... Trump's N.F.L. Critique a Calculated Attempt to Shore Up His Base ..."
"... New York Times, ..."
"... Today, those who defeated Trump in the Republican army are still proclaiming their loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief. But Donald Trump, memes aside, is not a sovereign or just a symbol. He is a man who created a political movement!and that movement expects results. The movement he created, and which put him in office, is desperate for him to lead on an America First agenda. ..."
"... If Trump does not give it results, the movement will eventually find a new leader. Roy Moore is almost certainly not that leader on a national scale. But in Alabama tonight, Moore proved he is stronger than the president himself. ..."
"... James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc. ..."
Sep 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

[See: If Only The God-Emperor Knew: Using Trump_vs_deep_state Against The Trump Administration" by James Kirkpatrick]

He must have known what was coming. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, a pillar of the cowardly GOP Establishment , announced he would not be running for re-election on Tuesday [ Republican Sen. Corker announces he won't seek re-election , by Richard Lardner and Erik Schelzig, Associated Press, September 26, 2017]. Corker's departure is widely being interpreted as a sign of the Establishment's inability to control the GOP base, as the election of President Trump, the rise of nationalism and the emergence of alternative media outlets (such as Breitbart and VDARE.com) make it harder for cuckservatives to Republican primary voters in line [ Sen. Bob Corker's retirement is notable for when it's happening , by Amber Phillips, Washington Post, September 26, 2017]

And now, we have the ultimate proof in Alabama. Judge Roy Moore, one of the most persistent targets of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is now the Republican nominee for the Senate. And he defeated incumbent Senator Luther Strange despite Strange being endorsed by President Donald J. Trump himself.

Of course, Strange didn't just have Trump in his corner. He also had Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell using his PAC to run negative ads against Moore, ads which conservative websites called "defamatory" and which cost many millions of dollars [ McConnell's Super PAC accused of 'defaming ' Roy Moore , by Bob Unruh, WND, August 3, 2017] As a result, Judge Moore openly campaigned against his party's own Senate leader during the primary, claiming a victory for him would mean the end of McConnell's hapless leadership. [ McConnell's mortal enemy might soon be in his caucus , by Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim, Politico, September 18, 2017]

However, and significantly, Moore never campaigned against President Trump himself. Yet Trump certainly gave Moore ample cause. He openly campaigned for Luther Strange, speaking with the incumbent Senator at a major rally, with Strange sporting a red MAGA hat [ Alabama rally: Trump campaigns in last-ditch effort for Senate candidate Luther Strange , by Alex Pappas, Fox News, September 22, 2017]. Trump also said Moore would have a hard time beating the Democrats because they would pour in so much money. He even called Moore by the wrong first name [ President Trump admits he doesn't 'know that much' about Alabama Senate contender Roy Moore, gets his name wrong in interview , by Jason Silverstein, New York Daily News, September 25, 2017]

And yet, revealingly, Moore and his allies framed their insurgency against Trump's wishes as an act of loyalty.

During a debate with Strange, Moore suggested President Trump was being "redirected" by Mitch McConnell and others who "will not support his [Trump's] agenda" [ Alabama Senate debate erupts over whether McConnell is manipulating Trump , by Alex Isenstadt and Daniel Strauss, Politico, September 21, 2017]

UKIP's former leader Nigel Farage said "absolutely" that "the point is to help the president" by electing Roy Moore and suggested The Judge would help deliver on President Trump's agenda [ Brexit Hero Farage in Alabama: Judge Roy Moore 'Not Going To Be Sucked Into The Swamp' by Ian Mason, Breitbart, September 25, 2017]

Sarah Palin channeled Trump's rhetoric by saying Moore would take on "DC's swamp monsters" and "help Make America Great Again" [ Sarah Palin endorses Judge Roy Moore for US Senate , by Randy DeSoto, Western Journalism, August 24, 2017]

Some of President Trump's best-known advisors also backed Moore.

Ben Carson, one of President Trump's own Cabinet secretaries, essentially endorsed Moore, saying he was "delighted" he was running and that he "wished him well" [ Ben Carson Splits With Trump, Basically Endorses Roy Moore in Alabama , by Cameron Joseph, Talking Points Memo, September 22, 2017]. Sebastian Gorka endorsed Moore, hinted the president was pressured into backing Strange, and said it would be a "very great day" for Trump if Strange was defeated [ Gorka: Trump Was Pressured to Endorse 'Swamp Dweller' Strange , Fox News, September 23, 2017]. And of course, Breitbart's Steve Bannon endorsed Moore, but said "we did not come here to defy Donald Trump, we came here to praise and honor him" [ The Breitbart Universe Unites For Roy Moore , by Rosie Gray, The Atlantic, September 26, 2017]

Even before Trump's inauguration, when there were troubling signs the new President was surrounding himself with the Republican Establishment, it was clear that the President's supporters would need to rise against Trump in his own name . The victory of Roy Moore is the best example so far of how this insurgency will play out.

And most importantly, it shows how the populist and nationalist movement is larger than Trump himself.

Trump's advisors seem to know this. In the Fox News interview referenced above, Dr. Gorka claimed "no one voted for Trump, we voted for his agenda." And during his speech in support of Moore, Bannon referenced Jeff Sessions, not Trump, as the "spiritual father of the populist and nationalist movement."

But does Trump himself know this? Already, the Main Stream Media is trying to present this as a devastating defeat for the president personally. The New York Times kvetched about Moore's social views and sneered that his victory "demonstrated in stark terms the limits of Mr. Trump's clout" [ Roy Moore Wins Senate G.O.P. Runoff in Alabama , by Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, September 26, 2017]. Jason Le Miere at Newsweek suggested Trump had suffered his first major political defeat at the ballot box and hinted his political weakness could trigger his impeachment. [ How Alabama Senate Election Results Could Trigger Trump's Impeachment , September 26, 2017]

This wildly overstates the case. Trump had hedged his bets, suggesting at one point he made a "mistake" in endorsing Strange [ Trump supports Strange, but says it may be "mistake," Washington Post, September 25, 2017]. He also said he would "campaign like hell" for Moore if Moore won [ Roy Moore: 'I can't wait' for Trump to 'campaign like hell' for me , by Sean Langille, Washington Examiner, September 25, 2017].

It's hardly a devastating defeat for President Trump when his supposed enemies are fanatically loyal to him and his "allies" can't wait to stab him in the back.

But there is still a lesson for Trump. The Chamber of Commerce and Republican Establishment picked this fight to "shut down" Moore and show populists who was in charge. [ Chamber of Commerce: 'Shut Down' Roy Moore & 'Remind Bannon Who's In Charge' by Joel Pollak, Breitbart, September 24, 2017] They just got their answer. It's not them.

Trump should seize on the narrative of his supposed opponents. He is unquestionably being given objectively poor political counsel by his aides!not surprising how utterly incompetent the Republican Establishment is when it comes to political strategy. [ Steve Bannon: We Need A Review After This Alabama Race To See How Trump Came To Endorse Someone Like Luther Strange , by Allahpundit, Hot Air, September 26, 2017]

Tellingly, Trump in his messy intuitive way is already embarking on a movement to shore up his base by taking on the pro-Black Lives Matter and anti-American antics of the National Football League [ Trump's N.F.L. Critique a Calculated Attempt to Shore Up His Base , by Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman, New York Times, September 25, 2017]. But such symbolic fights are meaningless unless they are coupled with real action on trade and immigration policy.

Today, those who defeated Trump in the Republican army are still proclaiming their loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief. But Donald Trump, memes aside, is not a sovereign or just a symbol. He is a man who created a political movement!and that movement expects results. The movement he created, and which put him in office, is desperate for him to lead on an America First agenda.

If Trump does not give it results, the movement will eventually find a new leader. Roy Moore is almost certainly not that leader on a national scale. But in Alabama tonight, Moore proved he is stronger than the president himself.

Trump has given the Establishment Republicans their chance and they have failed him. It's time for him to return to the people who have supported him from the very beginning.

James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

Parsifal > , September 27, 2017 at 7:44 am GMT

Look people, it's time to grasp some basic politics. The heart might have said Roy Moore but a leader can not think with his heart alone. Whatever happened in the GOP primary, Luther Strange was going to remain in the Senate until January. There are big, important votes coming up in Congress and Trump's margin of error in the Senate is virtually non-existent. What sense does it make to alienate, even slight, a sitting Senator that has always voted your way and has never trashed you in public?

Realist > , September 27, 2017 at 8:13 am GMT

Moore's victory means nothing. If Moore is elected it will change nothing. The Deep State rules .they will eat Moore for lunch.

"Trump has given the Establishment Republicans their chance and they have failed him."

Trump has caved to the Establishment Republicans. He will never return.

Randal > , September 27, 2017 at 9:20 am GMT

All seems pretty much directly on target.

It's hardly a devastating defeat for President Trump when his supposed enemies are fanatically loyal to him and his "allies" can't wait to stab him in the back.

As a man who supposedly highly values personal loyalty, does Trump really not understand that the men who pushed him to support Strange are also the men who will be first in line to vote for impeachment the moment it looks as though the leftist establishment has found a pretext that will succeed?

Greg Bacon > , Website September 27, 2017 at 9:28 am GMT

Like Bannon said, the Trump people voted for is gone. If he was ever around, or just being smart enough to know what to say to get votes.

President Kushner, er Trump will not be draining any Swamp anytime soon, not until he drags himself out of the Swamp and back onto sane, dry land.

WhiteWolf > , September 27, 2017 at 9:41 am GMT

The movement better start paying attention to the thoughtcrime laws being passed right now under the banner of "hatespeech". The first amendment isn't just a nice concept. People in other countries are jailed for speaking their mind in the way Americans take for granted.

[Sep 27, 2017] Bannon Roy Moore Is a Bannonite on Foreign Policy Too by Curt Mills

Notable quotes:
"... We should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President, Moore writes on his site. We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated. ..."
"... It's too early to tell whether the nationalist hawks will be more or less interventionist overall than the internationalist, neocon hawks were, Daniel McCarthy, editor-at-large at the American Conservative ..."
Sep 27, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

...Steve Bannon told me Wednesday afternoon that he and Moore, who defeated Sen. Luther Strange (whom President Trump had backed) for the Republican primary nomination in Alabama on Tuesday, see eye to eye on global affairs, as well, and that, yes, he is every bit the Bannonite on foreign policy.

Moore, the twice-ousted Alabama Chief Justice, is likely headed to the United States Senate. Bannon and the Trump movement have often been depicted as essentially non-interventionist. My recent reporting indicates a caveat to that, however. While Bannon and his cohort might differ with the blob on confronting Kim Jong Un in North Korea or Bashar al-Assad in Syria or Vladimir Putin in Russia, they are much more suspicious of the government of Iran. ...

... ... ...

The judges website, Roymoore.org, features such language. We should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President, Moore writes on his site. We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated.

But there are notable divergences from the paleocons. Like Bannon, Moore is a hawk for Israel. We should pass the Taylor Force Act and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. His writing that the U.S. should not rely on nuclear reduction treaties which leave us vulnerable to foreign powers and that it should reject agreements or policies that undermine Israel's security clearly alludes to the Iran deal. The pair would part company with Buchanan on that.

And like President Trump, Moore, a graduate of West Point, wants a bigger military. More funding should be available to develop a missile defense system and to provide our Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines, and Coast Guard with the most modern technology including weapon systems. Respect for our strength is the best defense. Walk softly and carry a big stick is and should be our guide.

... ... ...

It's too early to tell whether the nationalist hawks will be more or less interventionist overall than the internationalist, neocon hawks were, Daniel McCarthy, editor-at-large at the American Conservative , tells me. My guess is that while the nationalists will speak more provocatively, abort diplomatic agreements, and ramp up `political warfare, they'll engage in fewer large-scale, nation-building interventions. McCarthy adds that religion is important here, as well. Moore and Bannon are both on record as deeply religious. Neoconservative foreign policy is sold as a scheme for secular salvation, bringing the blessings of liberalism and democracy and human rights to a world that eagerly awaits them, says McCarthy. Moore's religious convictions might help to immunize him against a belief in worldly salvation through American arms and advisers...

Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on Twitter: @CurtMills.

[Sep 03, 2017] Steve Bannon and Trumps Populist Victory

Notable quotes:
"... over $100 million ..."
"... Jeb's 2016 departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , ..."
"... Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency ..."
"... Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyon ..."
"... Tensions Between and Within the Two Parties, ..."
"... When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years." ..."
"... Devil's Bargain ..."
"... the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules!for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days. ..."
"... Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017] ..."
"... But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing. ..."
"... Nixon's White House Wars ..."
get=

Republished from VDare.com

Throughout 2016, I would occasionally turn on the television to see how the punditocracy was responding to the mounting Trump tsunami . If you get most of your news online, watching cable news is frustrating. The commentary is so dumbed down and painfully reflective of speaker's biases, you can always basically guess what's coming next. With a few exceptions!above all Ann Coulter 's famous June 19, 2015 prediction of a Trump victory on Bill Maher !these pundits again and again told us that Trump would eventually go away, first after he made this or that gaffe, then after he "failed" in a debate, then after people actually started voting in the primaries.

Finally, after having been wrong at every point during the primaries, they just as confidently predicted that the Republican primary voter had foolishly done nothing more than assure that Hillary Clinton would be the next president.

The most interesting cases to me: the " Republican strategists ," brought on to CNN and MSNBC to give the audience the illusion that they were hearing both sides: Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Ana Navarro, Rick Wilson, Margaret Hoover, Todd Harris. Mike Murphy even convinced donors to hand him over $100 million to make Jeb Bush the next president! [ Jeb's 2016 departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , By Maeve Reston, February 22, 2016]

With campaigns and donors throwing money at these people, and the Main Stream Media touting them, it was easy to assume they must know what they were talking about. Significantly, each of these pundits was a national security hawk, center-right on economic issues, and just as horrified by " racism " and " sexism " as their Leftist counterparts . By a remarkable coincidence, the " strategic " advice that they gave to Republican candidates lined up perfectly with these positions. Their prominence was a mirage created by the fact that the MSM handed this token opposition the Megaphone because they did not challenge the core prejudices of the bipartisan Ruling Class.

And of course they were all humiliated in a spectacular fashion, November 8 being only the climax. Joshua Green begins his book Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency by giving us a view inside the Trump campaign on election night, before tracing Steve Bannon's path up to that point. Reliving the journey is one of the joys of Green's work, which is mostly an intellectual biography of Steve Bannon, with a special focus on his relationship with Trump and the election.

Bannon joined the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016 without any previous experience in electoral politics. But like the candidate himself, the Breitbart editor showed that he understood the nature of American politics and the GOP base better than Establishment Republicans. The "strategists'" supposed "expertise," "strategic advice," and "analysis" was in reality built on a house of cards. (In fact, the Bannon-Trump view of the electorate is closer to the consensus among political scientists that, unlike more nationalist and populist policies, Republican Establishment positions have relatively little popular support. [ Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyon d | Tensions Between and Within the Two Parties, Voter Study Group, June 2017]).

One key example: Green recounts how after Obama's re-election, the GOP Establishment was eager to surrender on immigration, supporting the bipartisan Amnesty/ Immigration Surge Gang of Eight bill . GOP leaders had neutralized Fox News, leaving Breitbart.com, talk radio and guerilla websites like VDARE.com as the only resistance. But the bill died due to a grass-roots revolt, partly inspired by Breitbart's reporting on the flood of Central American "child" refugees t he Obama Regime was allowing across the southern border. GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his congressional seat in a shock upset in the primaries. And little over a year later, Donald Trump became a candidate for president with opposition to illegal immigration as his signature issue.

Bannon at Breitbart.com gave the Republican base what it wanted. Moral: in a democracy, you always have a chance at winning when public opinion (or at least intraparty opinion) is on your side.

Green traces Bannon's journey from his Irish-Catholic working-class roots and traditionalist upbringing, to his time in the Navy, at Harvard Business School and Goldman Sachs, and finally Breitbart.com and the pinnacle of American politics. The picture that emerges is of a man with principles and vigor, refusing to submit to the inertia that is part of the human condition, with enough confidence to realize that life is too short to not make major changes when staying on the current path is not going to allow him to accomplish his goals.

For example, Bannon originally wanted a career in defense policy, and took a job in the Pentagon during the Reagan administration. Yet he was off to Harvard Business School when he realized that the rigid bureaucracy that he was a part of would not let him move up to a high-level position until he was middle-aged. Decades later, after taking over his website upon the unexpected death of Andrew Breitbart in 2012, it would have been easy to go low-risk!sticking to Establishment scripts, making life comfortable for Republican elites, implicitly submitting to the taboos of the Left. Instead , he helped turn Breitbart News into a major voice of the populist tide that has been remaking center-right politics across the globe.

When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years."

From Green, we learn much about Bannon's intellectual influences. Surprisingly, although he was raised as a Roman Catholic and maintains that faith today, we find out that Bannon briefly practiced Zen Buddhism while in the Navy. There are other unusual influences that make appearances in the book, including Rightist philosopher Julius Evola and René Guénon, a French occultist who eventually became a Sufi Muslim. Although not exactly my cup of tea, such eccentric intellectual interests reflect a curious mind that refuses to restrict itself to fashionable influences.

It's incorrect to call Devil's Bargain a biography. There is practically no mention of Bannon's personal life!wives, children. I had to Google to find out that he has three daughters. His childhood is only discussed in the context of how it may have influenced his beliefs and political development.

Rather, we get information on Bannon's intellectual and career pursuits and his relationships with consequential figures such as mega-donor Robert Mercer, Andrew Breitbart and Donald Trump.

As Bannon exits the White House and returns to Breitbart, we must hope that Bannon and the movement he's helped to create accomplish enough in the future to inspire more complete biographies.

But the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules!for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days.

Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017]

But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing.

In his memoir Nixon's White House Wars , Pat Buchanan writes about how, despite playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was mostly shut out of high-level jobs:

Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were

playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was mostly shut out of high-level jobs:

Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were veterans of a victorious presidential campaign, few of us had served in the executive branch. We lacked titles, resumes, credentials Our pool of experienced public servants who could seamlessly move into top positions was miniscule compared to that of the liberal Democrats who had dominated the capital's politics since FDR arrived in 1933.

History repeated itself in 2016, when Donald Trump would win the presidency on a nationalist platform but find few qualified individuals who could reliably implement his agenda.

If nationalists want to ensure that their next generation of leaders is able to effectively implement the policies they run on, they are going to have to engage in the slow and tedious project of working their way up through powerful institutions.

Bannon may have been and remains an "outsider" to the political Establishment. But nonetheless, throughout his life he has leveraged elite institutions such as Harvard, Goldman Sachs, the Republican Party, and even Hollywood in order to become financially independent and free to pursue his political goals.

If enough of those on the Dissident Right forge a similar path, we can be sure that future nationalist political victories will be less hollow. Jeremy Cooper is a specialist in international politics and an observer of global trends. Follow him at @NeoNeoLiberal .

Clyde Wilson > , August 29, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the offices?

Jobless > , August 30, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT

@Clyde Wilson Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the offices? Having dabbled ever so slightly in this process in the spring, my impression is that there is a mechanism run largely by lawyers from the big DC law firms (presumably one for each party) who are the gatekeepers for applicants. The result of this system, which I have little doubt that the "Trump Team" did not try to take on (after all, they had only a couple of months to put together the beginnings of a team, and that left little or no time replacing The Swamp Machine ) is that the key positions throughout the administration are largely filled with lawyers from connected law firms. After all, who better to administer the government than lawyers!?!?

At any rate, my experience with the process was: on your marks, get set, nothing. 30 years experience in and around federal government, but not a lawyer. Don't call us, we don't want to talk to you. (I also made clear in my cover letter that the key motivator for my application -- and first ever political contributions -- was Trump and his agenda. In retrospect, this "admission" was probably a kiss of death. I was a Trumpite. Eeeewww!!! (I may well not have been qualified for anything, but I'm SURE I was disqualified by my support for Trump )

The triumph of the Swamp.

Clyde Wilson > , August 30, 2017 at 9:08 pm GMT

We have here perhaps the key to Trump's tragic failure. It was our last shot.

Sep 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

[Aug 26, 2017] Economic Nationalism Theory, History and Prospects

Aug 26, 2017 | www.globalpolicyjournal.com

In its aftermath, commentators warned of a resurgence of economic nationalism, that is, protectionism. Some states did increase tariff levels but this has not led to a generalised increase in barriers to trade in the pursuit of national economies for interrelated reasons: (1) the integration and therefore interdependency of economies; (2) the complexity of the global economy, making it all but impossible to separate by nationality; (3) the greater extensity of world markets compared to the mid-20th century; (4) the redundancy of the various models of economic nationalism.

Policy Implications

[Aug 26, 2017] What the Alternative Right is

Anti-globalism of alt-right is very important...
See discussion at "16 Points Of The Alt Right" That Invert The Alt Right Into Leftism
Notable quotes:
"... neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right. ..."
"... The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives. ..."
"... The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means. ..."
"... The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. ..."
"... The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | voxday.blogspot.com

  1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right.
  2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles , but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
  3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
  4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.
  5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
  6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
  7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
  8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
  9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
  10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
  11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
  12. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
  13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
  14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
  15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
  16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.

The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote: "The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."

This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change.

[Aug 26, 2017] The Alt-Right Is Not Who You Think They Are by George Hawley

Rejection of globalization by alt-right is very important. that's why make them economic nationalists. And that's why they are hated neocon and those forces of neoliberalism which are behind Neocon/Neolib Cultural Revolution -- promotion of LGBT, uni-gender bathrooms, transsexuals, etc, identity wedge in politics demonstrated by Hillary, etc. (modeled on Mao's cultural revolution, which also what launched when Mao started to lose his grip on political power).
Aug 26, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
In my experience with the alt-right, I encountered a surprisingly common narrative: Alt-right supporters did not, for the most part, come from overtly racist families. Alt-right media platforms have actually been pushing this meme aggressively in recent months. Far from defending the ideas and institutions they inherited, the alt-right!which is overwhelmingly a movement of white millennials!forcefully condemns their parents' generation. They do so because they do not believe their parents are racist enough

In an inverse of the left-wing protest movements of the 1960s, the youthful alt-right bitterly lambast the "boomers" for their lack of explicit ethnocentrism, their rejection of patriarchy, and their failure to maintain America's old demographic characteristics and racial hierarchy. In the alt-right's vision, even older conservatives are useless "cucks" who focus on tax policies and forcefully deny that they are driven by racial animus.

... ... ...

To complicate matters further, many people in the alt-right were radicalized while in college. Not only that, but the efforts to inoculate the next generation of America's social and economic leaders against racism were, in some cases, a catalyst for racist radicalization. Although academic seminars that explain the reality of white privilege may reduce feelings of prejudice among most young whites exposed to them, they have the opposite effect on other young whites. At this point we do not know what percentage of white college students react in such a way, but the number is high enough to warrant additional study.

A final problem with contemporary discussions about racism is that they often remain rooted in outdated stereotypes. Our popular culture tends to define the racist as a toothless illiterate Klansman in rural Appalachia, or a bitter, angry urban skinhead reacting to limited social prospects. Thus, when a white nationalist movement arises that exhibits neither of these characteristics, people are taken by surprise.

George Hawley (@georgehawleyUA) is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama. His books include Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism , White Voters in 21st Century America , and Making Sense of the Alt-Right (forthcoming).

Nate J , says: August 24, 2017 at 10:35 pm

It boggles my mind that the left, who were so effective at dominating the culture wars basically from the late 60s, cannot see the type of counter-culture they are creating. Your point about alt-righters opposing their parents drives this home.

People have been left to drift in a sea of postmodernism without an anchor for far too long now, and they are grasping onto whatever seems sturdy. The alt-right, for its many faults, provides something compelling and firm to grab.

The left's big failure when all the dust settles will be seen as its inability to provide a coherent view of human nature and a positive, constructive, unifying message. They are now the side against everything – against reason, against tradition, against truth, against shared institutions and heritage and nationalism It's no wonder people are looking to be for something these days. People are sick of being atomized into smaller and smaller units, fostered by the left's new and now permanent quest to find new victim groups.

DonChi , says: August 25, 2017 at 5:17 am
I'm disappointed to read an article at The American Conservative that fails to address the reality behind these numbers. Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein white people are depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward identity politics themselves in not surprising, and it's a bit offensive to attribute this trend to the eternal mysteries of inexplicable "racist" hate.

The young can see through the fake dynamic being depicted in the mainstream media, and unless The American Conservative wants to completely lose relevance, a light should be shone on the elephant in the room. For young white kids, The Culture Wars often present an existential threat, as Colin Flaherty shows in Don't Make the Black Kids Angry–endorsed and heralded as a troubling and important work by Thomas Sowell.

Nicholas , says: August 25, 2017 at 7:44 am
From the 16 Points of the Alt-Right:
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

It is important to remember that nations are people, not geography. The current American Union, enforced by imperial conquest, is a Multi-National empire. It has been held together by force and more recently by common, though not equal, material prosperity.

With the imposition of Globalism's exotic perversions and eroding economic prospects the American Union is heading for the same fate as all Multi-National empires before it.

Nation(Identity) > Culture > Politics.

KD , says: August 25, 2017 at 9:15 am
Mysteriously absent from the scholarly discussion seems to be the pioneer of sociology, Ludwig Gumplowicz. Incredibly so, as the same factors that led to the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire abound in contemporary America.
Steve , says: August 25, 2017 at 9:25 am
I have two teenage sons – we live in Canada – and they tell that, no matter what they say, who they hang out with, what music they listen to, no matter how many times they demonstrate they are not racist, they are repeatedly called racist. They are automatically guilty because they are white. They are beaten over the head with this message in school and in the press and are sick and tired of it.
Todd Pierce , says: August 25, 2017 at 10:48 am
What might also be considered is the cultural effect upon a generation which has now matured through what the government calls "perpetual war," with the concomitant constant celebration of "warriors," hyper-patriotism as demanded of all public events such as shown in the fanaticism of baseball players engaged in "National Anthem standouts," such as were popular a couple years ago in MLB, the constant references in political campaigns to the "enemy," to include Russia as well now, and the "stab in the back" legend created to accuse anyone opposed to more war and occupation of "treason." We've "radicalized" our own youth, with Trump coming along with his links to Israel's ultra militarist, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli "Right," and created a cultural condition much like this: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/conservative-revolutionaries-fascism/
Doc Broom , says: August 25, 2017 at 10:49 am
Odd, you write "How did the youngest white Americans respond to the most racially polarizing election in recent memory?" In reality it was less racially polarized than 2012, when 93 % of African Americans and 71% of Hispanics voted for Obama while in 2016 88% of Blacks and 65% of Hispanics voted from Hillary. So Trump won a higher percentage of African American votes and Hispanic votes than Mitt Romney. In 2008 Obama won 95% of Blacks and 67% of Hispanics, in 2004 the numbers were 88 and 53 for Kerry so the three elections between 2004 and and 2016 were all more polarizing than the 2016 race.
Eric Mader , says: August 25, 2017 at 10:55 am
Yes, you make many important points, Mr. Hawley, but that you feel the need to join the chorus of those who see our president's reaction to Charlottesville as somehow inappropriate or even itself racist–that is sad. I don't see what else you may be implying in your opening paragraphs, since you move directly from the number of "likes" Obama's bromide received to this: "[Obama's reaction] also offered a stark contrast to that of President Trump."

In spite of many liberals' frantic desire to read whatever they want into President Trump's words, he very clearly condemned the neo-Nazis and the evil of Heather Heyer's murderer. That he also condemned the violence coming from Antifa ranks does not lessen his condemnation of that coming from the alt right side. Rather, condemning the rising illiberalism on both sides of this growing conflict was both commendable and necessary.

Many Americans see these recent events in a context stretching back years. Myself, at fifty, having watched especially the steady empowerment of a demagogic left on our campuses, I'm not much surprised that a racist "white nationalist" movement should burst into flame at just this point. The kindling is right there in the anti-white, misandrous virulence of our SJW left.

Sane conservatives have strongly condemned the new alt-right racism. The problem is that we are not seeing anything similar from the left. Our left seems incapable of condemning, let alone even seeing , its own racist excesses. Which are everywhere in its discourse, especially in our humanities departments.

I would say that in the recent decades the American left has grown much more deeply invested in identity politics than the right has ever been during my lifetime. In my view, our left has grown more enamored of identity issues precisely because it has abandoned the bread and butter issues that really matter to most Americans.

I have many left-liberal friends and regularly read the left press. Surveying the reactions to Charlottesville and the rising conflict between alt-right extremists and a radicalized Antifa left, I see nowhere a step toward acknowledging the obvious: our rabid identity politics is by no means just a problem of the right.

Racial identity politics is a curse. Sadly, it seems we've been cursed by it well and and good. The poison's reaching down to the bone. Unless both smart moderates and people on the left start to recognize just how badly poisoned our left has been by this curse, no progress will be made. Identity politics needs to be condemned on both sides of this growing national street brawl, and it should start NOW.

But I'm afraid it's not going to happen. I see my friends on the left, and they're nowhere near acknowledging the problem. And I'm sad to see our president's attempt to call out both sides has gotten such negative reactions. I'm afraid this isn't going to end well.

Todd Pierce , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:21 am
Should read: "National Anthem standoffs," not "standouts."
Siarlys Jenkins , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:29 am
Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein white people are depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward identity politics themselves in not surprising

One of many good reasons for rejecting "identity" politics generally.

CampNouidiote , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:34 am
A white friend attended a Cal State graduate program for counseling a couple of years ago; he left very bitter after all his classes told him that white men were the proximate cause of the world's misery. Then a mutual Latina friend from church invited him to coffee and told him that he was the white devil, the cause of her oppression. You can conclude how he felt.

The liberal universities' curricula has caused a storm of madness; they have unleashed their own form of oppressive thought on a significant portion on American society:white men. There is now an adverse reaction. Of course, even more opprobrium will be heaped upon on men who might question the illogicality of feminism and the left. How can all of this end well if the humanity of white men is denied in universities, public schools and universities?

G. K. , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:39 am
The Alt Right simply believes that Western nations have a right to preserve their culture and heritage. Every normal man in these United States agreed with that premise prior to the Marxist takeover of our institutions in the 1960's. And you know it's true.
Cornel Lencar , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:41 am
Maybe at the bottom of it is not racism as in they are the wrong colour, but about cultural traits and patterns of behaviour that are stirring resentment. Plus maybe the inclusion towards more social benefits not available before (Obamacare?).

The current rap music, as opposed to the initial one, that emphasized social injustice is such that one feels emptying his own stomach like sharks do.

The macho culture that black gangs, latin american gangs manifest is a bit antagonistic to white supremacists gangs and attitudes towards women. After all, vikings going raiding used to have shield maidens joining, and Celtic culture is full of women warriors. Northern European culture, harking back to pre-Christian times was more kinder to women than what women from southern Europe (Greece, Rome) experienced (total ownership by husbands, the veil, etc., all imported from the Middle East: but one must not judge too harshly, the book "Debt, the first 5000 years" could be an eye opener of the root causes of such attitudes).

Also, the lack of respect for human life expressed in these cultures is not that palatable, even for white supremacists (while one can point to Nazi Germany as an outlier – but there it was the state that promoted such attitudes, while in Japan the foreigner that is persecuted and ostracized could be the refugee from another village around Fukushima – see the Economist on that).

So I think there are many avenues to explore in identifying the rise in Alt right and white supremacists in the U.S. But colour is definitely not it.

Joe Beavers , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:50 am
Come now. There were the same types around me years ago at school, work, society. They just did not march around like Nazis in public, probably because the Greatest Generation would have kicked their butts.

Now, with the miracle of modern technology, a few hundred of them can get together and raise hell in one place. Plus they now get lots of encouraging internet press (and some discouraging).

A better article on this is:

http://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/keillor-my-advice-be-genial-dont-take-lunacy-too-seriously/

Jack V , says: August 25, 2017 at 12:17 pm
This article says virtually nothing.
The author fails to define his terms, beginning with Alt-Right.
And he seems to operate from a dislike of Trump underneath it all. This dislike is common among pundits, left and right, who consider themselves to be refined and cultured. So it was that the NYT's early condemnation of Trump led with complaints about his bearing and manners – "vulgar" was the word often used if memory serves.
This gets us nowhere. Many in the US are disturbed by the decline in their prospects with a decrease in share of wages in the national income ongoing since the 1970's – before Reagan who is blamed for it all. Add to that the 16 years of wars which have taken the lives of Trump supporters disproportionately and you have a real basis for grievances.
Racism seems to be a side show as does AntiFa.
KD , says: August 25, 2017 at 12:24 pm
Richard McEvoy writes:

"The accusation of being racist because you are white is a misunderstanding of structural racism."

I agree, but I notice that Jews have the same misunderstanding when you mention structural "Zionist Occupied Government" or "Jewish Privilege".

Perhaps because they are both conspiracy theories rooted in hatred and ignorance, which is where we descend when the concept of a statistical distribution or empirical data become "controversial", or "feelings" overtake "facts".

Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says: August 25, 2017 at 12:36 pm
And progressives still refer to KKK when they seek an example of a white supremacist group. Amazing. They are too lazy even to learn that the Klan lost its relevance long ago, and the most powerful white supremacist organization of today consists of entirely different people, who are very far from being illiterate.

***

Todd Pierce,

Israel's ultra militarist, Benjamin Netanyahu

I won't deny that Bibi is a controversial figure, but calling him an ultra militarist is quite a bit of a stretch.

haderondah , says: August 25, 2017 at 1:35 pm
Elite sports. After reading this article and it's underlying thesis, it occurs to me that the way sports have evolved in this country is very likely to be the experience that millennial whites have had that fosters their "out group" belief systems. It is very common, using soccer as my frame of reference, for wealthy suburban families to spend a fortune getting their children all the best training and access to all the best clubs. Their children are usually the best players in their community of origin and usually the top players all the way through the preadolescent years only to find all of that money and prestige gone to waste once their kids get to around sixteen at which point their children are invariably replaced on the roster by a recent immigrant -- mainly from Africa or south of our border and usually at a cut rate compared to the one they are bleeding the suburban families with. I'm assuming this is becoming more common across all sports as they move toward a pay to play corporate model. In soccer, the white kids are, seriously, the paying customers who fill out the roster that supports the truly talented kids (from countries who know how to develop soccer talent.)
sedric , says: August 25, 2017 at 8:20 pm
The thing is when blacks begin to feel power and a secure place in America then their true colors show-at least among many. Left unchecked they would become the biggest racists of all. You can see that now. So what it comes down to are white people going to give away their country? Until blacks become cooperative and productive things need to stay as they are. Sad maybe but that's just the way it has to be.
vato_loco_frisco , says: August 25, 2017 at 8:18 pm
There have always been fringe, rightwing groups in the US. Nothing new there. But the so-called alt-right, comprised of Nazi wannabes and assorted peckerwoods, is truly the spawn of the looney left, whose obsession with race has created the toxic environment we find ourselves in.

[Aug 24, 2017] The Economist Exclusive -- The Future of Bannonism 'The Judeo-Christian Liberal West Won'

Notable quotes:
"... Bannon openly acknowledged his animus for the "Party of Davos" editorial positions of The Economist ..."
"... For Mr Bannon, who went from a working-class Virginian family to careers in Wall Street and Hollywood, those agreements epitomised the folly of globalisation, which he considers disastrous for American workers and avoidable. He hardened this critique after returning to America from a spell in Hong Kong; China, whose gaming of WTO rules Mr Bannon considers tantamount to an "economic war" against America, remains at the heart of it. ..."
"... When some of Mr Bannon's early schemes failed -- including the shabbily planned travel ban, now snarled up in the courts -- Mr Trump turned increasingly to his more conventional advisers, including Mr Kushner and Mr McMaster. ..."
Aug 24, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
President Trump's former chief strategist and current Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon invited the editors of The Economist to his home for a candid discussion about the future of the populist economic nationalist movement and the civilizational challenges that will pit "the Judeo-Christian liberal West" against globalist "mercantilist" forces from China to Silicon Valley.

Bannon openly acknowledged his animus for the "Party of Davos" editorial positions of The Economist , referring to them as "the enemy" of economic nationalism for their "radical" obsession with free trade at all costs.

He also affirmed his loyalty to Trump and his desire to help him. Breitbart "will never turn on [Trump]," Bannon said, "But we are never going to let him take a decision that hurts him."

Bannon acknowledged that in the White House he had "influence," but outside at Breitbart he has "power." He said he intends to use that power to "rally the base" and "have [Trump's] back. The harder he pushes, the more we will be there for him."

The discussion soon turned to what Bannon sees as the inevitable civilizational struggle between the Judeo-Christian classical liberalism of the West -- which affirms human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and self-governance -- versus the "mercantilist, Confucian system" of an ascendant China.

From The Economist :

Among the particular opponents he has in his sights, said Mr Bannon, seated in a dining-room decorated with Christian iconography and political mementos, are congressional Republicans ("Mitch McConnell, I'm going to light him up"), China ("Let's go screw up One Belt One Road") and "the elites in Silicon Valley and Wall Street -- they're a bunch of globalists who have forgotten their fellow Americans." Despite his departure -- voluntarily, he insists, though his resignation is reported to have been demanded of him -- Mr Bannon says he will never attack his former boss. Yet Breitbart will caution Mr Trump to stick to the populist nationalist course Mr Bannon charted. "We will never turn on him. But we are never going to let him take a decision that hurts him." The website offered an early taste of this in its disparaging coverage of Mr Trump's "flip-flop" decision to send more American troops to Afghanistan, which was announced on August 21st and Mr Bannon strongly opposes (see article ).

As Mr Trump's campaign chief (his third in two months, the campaign having been roiled by scandals) Mr Bannon urged him to redouble that effort [to campaign on as a populist economic nationalist taking on the politically correct establishment]. "The American people understood his foibles and understood his character flaws and they didn't care," he says. "The country was thirsting for change and [Barack] Obama didn't give them enough. I said, we are going for a nationalist message, we are going to go barbarian, and we will win."

For Mr Bannon, who went from a working-class Virginian family to careers in Wall Street and Hollywood, those agreements epitomised the folly of globalisation, which he considers disastrous for American workers and avoidable. He hardened this critique after returning to America from a spell in Hong Kong; China, whose gaming of WTO rules Mr Bannon considers tantamount to an "economic war" against America, remains at the heart of it.

A zealous Catholic who believes in the inevitability of civilizational conflict, he considers China's growth to be an additional, overarching threat to America, which it must therefore dial back. "I want the world to look back in 100 years and say, their mercantilist, Confucian system lost. The Judeo-Christian liberal West won."

The president has, if not fixed intellectual differences with Mr Bannon, different predilections, including his slavish regard for the military and business elites now stocking his cabinet, whom his former adviser derides. ("What did the elites do?" asks Mr Bannon. "These are the guys who gave us happy talk on Iraq, who let China into the WTO and said it would sign up to the rules-based order.")

When some of Mr Bannon's early schemes failed -- including the shabbily planned travel ban, now snarled up in the courts -- Mr Trump turned increasingly to his more conventional advisers, including Mr Kushner and Mr McMaster.

On trade and security in particular, they have edged him towards the mainstream. Whereas Mr Bannon urged the president to withdraw from NAFTA and Afghanistan, for example, he has launched a modest-looking review of the former and will send more troops to the latter. Increasingly isolated, Mr Bannon's departure from the White House was predicted.

Read the rest here .

[Aug 24, 2017] Civil War inside the US Far Right by Tamar Pileggi

www.defenddemocracy.press
'I'm not going to breathe the same air as that terrorist'
Bannon boycotted Trump meet with 'terrorist' Abbas -- report

Days after his ouster from the White House, the extent of the animosity between divisive strategist Steve Bannon and the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner is steadily emerging in US media reports, with an article in Vanity Fair detailing their disputes and asserting that Bannon is now planning his "revenge."

Bannon, a hero of the so-called "alt right" whose presence in the West Wing was controversial from the start, had become the nucleus of one of several competing power centers in a chaotic White House. During his six-month tenure as Trump's chief strategist, Bannon and Kushner reportedly clashed on numerous policy issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

... ... ...

Hours after he was fired, Bannon returned to his previous job as editor of the ultra-conservative Breitbart News, where he declared war on Ivanka, Kushner and fellow "globalist" Gary Cohn.

The Vanity Fair article was headlined: "Steve Bannon readies his revenge: The war on Jared Kushner is about to go nuclear."

... ... ...

"Jared and Ivanka helped push him out. They were concerned about how they were being viewed by the Jewish community," The Mail reported on Sunday.

Read more http://www.timesofisrael.com/bannon-boycotted-trumps-meeting-with-terrorist-abbas-report

SOURCE www.timesofisrael.com

Commnets from Bannon boycotted Trump meet with 'terrorist' Abbas -- report The Times of Israel

Jossef Perl · Nahariyah, Hazafon, Israel Yes, this time it is Tamar Pileggi who gives us Time of Israel's typical Trump's blasting story quoting "Vanity Fair detailing their (i.e. Kushner vs. Bannon) disputes and asserting that Bannon is now planning his 'revenge."" If it comes from Vanity Fair that Bannon is planning a revenge (albeit without a single named source) it must be true right? But this is what the US fake news media has decended to, while the Israeli fake news media goes one step lower, just quoting the US fake media. Any 7 years old can see the that intent here continues to be to creat an impression that the Trump white is out of control and everything around Trum is falling apart. How can this kind of media continue to think the public believes a word from them? Tamar Pileggi, if all you do is quoting Vanity Fair, which is typical to the rest of the staff at TOI, why don't you all just include a link to the original articles in your TOI webpage? Who need all of you filling your paper by quoting other publications without any due diligence? How can you call yourselves journalists when all you do is cut and paste? Audrey Travis · Works at Music Teacher - Retired Perhaps, but 90% of the world knows nothing about the extreme violence of the ultra left Antifa and the fact the y brought and used weapons in Charlottesville. What Trump should have done was be explicit in the detailsof why he was condemning both side. His broadsided condemnation of both sides was the problem. Albert Reingewirtz · Works at Happily Retired He did not do any equivalence between two despicable gangs of mobsters. He talked about BOTH of their VIOLENCE. You listen too much to propaganda. The more they repeat the more people believe their lies. Steve Klein · Works at Self-Employed Albert Reingewirtz, do you believe there were "some very fine" people marching with the Nazis in Charlottesville? Like · Reply · 2 · Aug 21, 2017 5:17am Steve Klein · Works at Self-Employed 'Bannon: Mahmoud Abbas is a terrorist, I'd never meet with him'

Ousted WH strategist Steve Bannon reportedly lobbied hard for Jerusalem embassy move, tougher line against PA - but was opposed by Kushner.

David Rosenberg, 21/08/17 11:23 (Israel National News)

[Aug 24, 2017] Reports Globalists in White House Oppose Trumps Border Wall, Reforms

Notable quotes:
"... The "West Wing Democrats" in the White House are eager to sacrifice President Donald Trump's top campaign promise in exchange for Democratic approval of the tax cuts sought by wealthy donors and business interests, according to an article in Politico. In an August 23 article about Trump's push to get funding for an extended border wall, Politico described the lack of support for the wall among his business-affiliated aides: Few staff members in the West Wing are as concerned about it [as the President], senior administration officials said. Some in the White House have urged Trump not to focus as much on the wall, try to pass a clean debt-ceiling bill and move to tax reform. "You have barely anyone here saying, 'Wall, wall, we have to get the wall at all costs,'" one White House official said. Two people who have spoken to Trump said he sees not building the wall as a personal embarrassment -- and that he has shown more interest in building the wall than in other issues, like the upcoming budget negotiations. "You don't want a government shutdown," the White House official said. "He is told that. He says, 'I want money for the wall.'" The same emphasis on tax cuts for the elite before immigration reform for voters was also cited by Axios on August 20, in an article which claimed to explain why top staff chose to stay in the White House amid elite hatred of his populist, wage-boosting, pro-American priorities. Axios reported : We talked to a half dozen senior administration officials, who range from dismayed but certain to stay, to disgusted and likely soon to leave. They all work closely with Trump and his senior team so, of course, wouldn't talk on the record. Instead, they agreed to let us distill their thinking/rationale: "You have no idea how much crazy stuff we kill": The most common response centers on the urgent importance of having smart, sane people around Trump to fight his worst impulses. If they weren't there, they say, we would have a trade war with China, massive deportations, and a government shutdown to force construction of a Southern wall. "General Mattis needs us": Many talk about their reluctance to bolt on their friends and colleagues who are fighting the good fight to force better Trump behavior/decisions. They rightly point out that together, they have learned how to ignore Trump's rhetoric and, at times, collectively steer him to more conventional policy responses. This situation leaves Trump dependent on a few aides -- such as immigration reformer Steve Miller -- and his supporters at his rallies to help fend off the insistent demands by his globalist aides for a back-room surrender of his presidential goals. ..."
"... the pro-American immigration reformers who backed Trump in the election fear his globalist aides will push Trump to accept and establish former President Barack Obama's DACA amnesty in exchange for minor concessions, such as a modest amount of funds to build a short distance of border wall. ..."
Aug 24, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
The "West Wing Democrats" in the White House are eager to sacrifice President Donald Trump's top campaign promise in exchange for Democratic approval of the tax cuts sought by wealthy donors and business interests, according to an article in Politico.

In an August 23 article about Trump's push to get funding for an extended border wall, Politico described the lack of support for the wall among his business-affiliated aides:

Few staff members in the West Wing are as concerned about it [as the President], senior administration officials said.

Some in the White House have urged Trump not to focus as much on the wall, try to pass a clean debt-ceiling bill and move to tax reform. "You have barely anyone here saying, 'Wall, wall, we have to get the wall at all costs,'" one White House official said.

Two people who have spoken to Trump said he sees not building the wall as a personal embarrassment -- and that he has shown more interest in building the wall than in other issues, like the upcoming budget negotiations. "You don't want a government shutdown," the White House official said. "He is told that. He says, 'I want money for the wall.'"

The same emphasis on tax cuts for the elite before immigration reform for voters was also cited by Axios on August 20, in an article which claimed to explain why top staff chose to stay in the White House amid elite hatred of his populist, wage-boosting, pro-American priorities. Axios reported :

We talked to a half dozen senior administration officials, who range from dismayed but certain to stay, to disgusted and likely soon to leave. They all work closely with Trump and his senior team so, of course, wouldn't talk on the record. Instead, they agreed to let us distill their thinking/rationale:

"You have no idea how much crazy stuff we kill": The most common response centers on the urgent importance of having smart, sane people around Trump to fight his worst impulses. If they weren't there, they say, we would have a trade war with China, massive deportations, and a government shutdown to force construction of a Southern wall.

"General Mattis needs us": Many talk about their reluctance to bolt on their friends and colleagues who are fighting the good fight to force better Trump behavior/decisions. They rightly point out that together, they have learned how to ignore Trump's rhetoric and, at times, collectively steer him to more conventional policy responses.

This situation leaves Trump dependent on a few aides -- such as immigration reformer Steve Miller -- and his supporters at his rallies to help fend off the insistent demands by his globalist aides for a back-room surrender of his presidential goals.

That surrender would help his aides win Democratic support for their goals -- but it would leave Trump with few friends heading into the 2018 midterm elections and the crucial 2020 reelection, says D.C. insiders. For example, the pro-American immigration reformers who backed Trump in the election fear his globalist aides will push Trump to accept and establish former President Barack Obama's DACA amnesty in exchange for minor concessions, such as a modest amount of funds to build a short distance of border wall.

"If [Trump's aides] are left to their own devices, they would exchange this for a few trinkets," so violating Trump's campaign promise before the 2018 and 2020 elections, said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The suggested deal was outlined in a Tuesday article by Anita Kumar, a reporter for the McClatchy news service. She uses the Democrats' term -- 'dreamers' – to describe the 800,000 DACA illegals as she wrote:

White House officials want Trump to strike an ambitious deal with Congress that offers Dreamers protection in exchange for legislation that pays for a border wall and more detention facilities, curbs legal immigration and implements E-verify, an online system that allows businesses to check immigration status, according to a half-dozen people familiar with situation, most involved with the negotiations.

The group includes former and current White House chiefs of staff, Reince Priebus and John Kelly , the president's daughter, Ivanka Trump , and her husband, Jared Kushner , who both serve as presidential advisers, they said. Others who have not been as vocal publicly about their stance but are thought to agree include Vice President Mike Pence , who as a congressman worked on a failed immigration deal that called for citizenship, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohn, a Democrat who serves as director of the National Economic Council.

There is no evidence that Democrats will accept that ambitious deal before the 2018 election, and much evidence that Trump's aides will quickly give up wall funding and the popular RAISE Act to win Democratic support for tax cuts. So far, top Democrats have responded that they would not offer anything as they demand a permanent DACA amnesty.

However, Trump's determination to resist his aides is likely boosted by the cheering he gets at rallies when he promises to build the wall.

"We are building a wall on the southern border, which is absolutely necessary," he told roughly 30,000 cheering supporters at an August 22 rally in Phoenix, Ariz. "The obstructionist Democrats would like us not to do it, believe me, [but] if we have to close down our government, we are building that wall We're going to have our wall. We're going to get our wall."

There you have it, @realDonaldTrump -- Your own 30k focus-group. LIKE: deportations, a wall, jobs; DON'T LIKE: Media, Afghan War & tax cuts.

-- Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) August 23, 2017

Trump later thanked the crowd.

Phoenix crowd last night was amazing – a packed house. I love the Great State of Arizona. Not a fan of Jeff Flake, weak on crime & border --

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 23, 2017

Read the Axios article here , and the Politico article here .

Under current immigration policy, the federal government accepts 1 million legal immigrants each year, even though 4 million young Americans enter the workforce to look for decent jobs. Each year, the government also hands out almost 3 million short-term work permits to foreign workers. These permits include roughly 330,000 one-year OPT permits for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges, roughly 200,000 three-year H-1B visas for foreign white-collar professionals, and 400,000 two-year permits to DACA illegals.

The current annual flood of foreign labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up r eal estate prices , widens wealth-gaps , reduces high-tech investment , increases state and local tax burdens , hurts kids' schools and college education , pushes Americans away from high-tech careers , and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families.

Many polls show that Americans are very generous, they do welcome individual immigrants, and they do want to like the idea of immigration. But the polls also show that most Americans are increasingly worried that large-scale legal immigration will change their country and disadvantage themselves and their children. Trump's "Buy American, Hire American" policies are also extremely popular , including among Democratic-leaning voters.

<

[Aug 23, 2017] Good Riddance to Steve Bannon by Karl Rove

The fact that Karl rove is allowed to write for WSJ makes WSJ a yellow publication...
Aug 23, 2017 | www.wsj.com

The country is better off with him out of the West Wing, but now Trump has to step up.

After departing his post as White House chief strategist last week, Steve Bannon told the Weekly Standard that "the Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." The clear suggestion is that Mr. Trump's chance at success had followed Mr. Bannon out the door.

Trying to recast his ouster as a personal choice, Mr. Bannon bragged "I can fight better on the outside." He promised "to crush the opposition," saying "I built a f! machine at Breitbart."

The former adviser also told a Bloomberg reporter he would be "going to war for Trump against his opponents!on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America."...

[Aug 22, 2017] His exit is a win for backers of a more traditional -- and interventionist -- US foreign policy by Michael Crowley

Notable quotes:
"... Bannon's exit clears an obstacle for backers of an active U.S. foreign policy in line with recent presidencies -- and is a resounding win for Bannon's internal rival, national security adviser H.R. McMaster. Bannon was a regular participant in national security debates, often as an opponent of military action and a harsh critic of international bodies like the United Nations and the European Union. ..."
"... He has also been a withering critic of diplomatic, military and intelligence professionals -- "globalists" he says have repeatedly shown bad judgment, particularly when it comes to U.S. military interventions abroad. That put him at loggerheads with Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, as well as McMaster. ..."
"... "If you look at the balance of power of isolationists versus internationalists in the White House now, it seems safe to say that the pendulum has swung towards the internationalists," said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. ..."
"... In the immediate term, foreign policy insiders agreed, Bannon's departure also could increase the chances of a U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan!a plan championed by McMaster but strongly opposed by Bannon, who managed to draw out debate on the issue with direct appeals to Trump. ..."
"... Bannon is not totally conflict averse: He calls for a far stronger U.S. posture against China and has warned that war with Beijing could be inevitable. But he pressed Trump to take economic, not military action against Beijing. ..."
"... "Bannon's departure probably means a return to normalcy, where the State and Defense Departments will have greater influence on foreign policy," Abrams said. ..."
"... Bannon also told the Prospect that he was "changing out people" on the Pentagon's China desk. Mattis, too, has had personnel disputes with the White House. "Anything that Tillerson and Mattis really push for will now have a better chance of winning out -- for better and for worse," Abrams added. Abrams and others said that Bannon's exit makes it more likely that McMaster and Mattis will convince Trump to send more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the subject of a meeting among Trump and his national security team at Camp David today. ..."
"... God help us when Bannon is the voice of reason ...... ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | Information Clearing House

Stephen Bannon may have been a political adviser to President Donald Trump, but his firing Friday could have an impact on U.S. foreign policy from Europe to the Middle East and Asia.

Bannon's exit clears an obstacle for backers of an active U.S. foreign policy in line with recent presidencies -- and is a resounding win for Bannon's internal rival, national security adviser H.R. McMaster. Bannon was a regular participant in national security debates, often as an opponent of military action and a harsh critic of international bodies like the United Nations and the European Union.

He has also been a withering critic of diplomatic, military and intelligence professionals -- "globalists" he says have repeatedly shown bad judgment, particularly when it comes to U.S. military interventions abroad. That put him at loggerheads with Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, as well as McMaster.

"If you look at the balance of power of isolationists versus internationalists in the White House now, it seems safe to say that the pendulum has swung towards the internationalists," said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Though Bannon has not described himself as an "isolationist," he has proudly adopted Trump's "America First" motto, which he says argues for spending less blood and treasure overseas for anything less than America's most vital interests.

He has also alarmed European leaders with his criticism of the EU and his expressed support for some European nationalist movements. Bannon actively backed Great Britain's 2016 "Brexit" from the E.U. and introduced Trump to its chief political advocate, the populist British politician Nigel Farage.

"Our European allies are happy about Bannon's departure," said Jorge Benitez, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council.

In the immediate term, foreign policy insiders agreed, Bannon's departure also could increase the chances of a U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan!a plan championed by McMaster but strongly opposed by Bannon, who managed to draw out debate on the issue with direct appeals to Trump.

More generally, it will remove an internal brake on U.S. military action abroad. Bannon has argued greater U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria and was among the few White House officials to oppose President Donald Trump's early-April missile strike in Syria.

Bannon is not totally conflict averse: He calls for a far stronger U.S. posture against China and has warned that war with Beijing could be inevitable. But he pressed Trump to take economic, not military action against Beijing.

And on Wednesday, Bannon told the American Prospect magazine that there is "no military solution" to Trump's standoff with North Korea -- undermining the president's recent military threats against that country, and echoing China's view of the situation.

Beyond the policy realm, Bannon's exit is a clear victory for national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who at times seemed to be in zero-sum struggle with the Trump adviser for power and influence in the White House.

Foreign policy veterans were startled when, in early February, Trump designated Bannon as a member of the National Security Council's elite principals committee -- calling it unprecedented for a White House political adviser to have a reserved seat at the table for life-and-death debates.

McMaster stripped Bannon of his official NSC position in April, after succeeding the ousted Michael Flynn!a Bannon ally -- as national security adviser. Bannon continued to attend NSC meetings and debates about foreign policy in the Oval Office. But Bannon resented McMaster for demoting him, and for purging several Flynn allies from the NSC.

Bannon and McMaster also sharply differed on how Trump should discuss terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda. Bannon favors using the phrase "radical Islamic extremism," but McMaster has largely prevented Trump from saying it in public on the grounds that it could alienate moderate Muslims who hear it as an attack on their religion.

McMaster's defenders have accused Bannon of spearheading a campaign of leaks meant to undermine the top national security aide.

"The campaign to get him out was clearly coming from Bannon or his allies," said Brian McKeon, a former NSC chief of staff and senior Pentagon policy official in the Obama administration. "The national security adviser's job is hard enough without having to always look over your shoulder to see who's trying to knife you.

"This will make McMaster's days a little easier," he added.

Likely to share McMaster's satisfaction at Bannon's ouster is Tillerson, who chafed at Bannon's role in State Department personnel decisions. Speaking to the American Prospect this week, Bannon boasted that he was working to remove Tillerson's top official for China and East Asia.

"I'm getting Susan Thornton out at State," Bannon said in the interview.

In a pointed show of support the next morning, Tillerson shook Thornton's hand in front of television cameras.

And when Tillerson recommended in February that Trump nominate former Reagan and George W. Bush administration official Elliott Abrams to be his deputy, Bannon intervened to block the choice, according to Abrams.

"Bannon's departure probably means a return to normalcy, where the State and Defense Departments will have greater influence on foreign policy," Abrams said.

Bannon also told the Prospect that he was "changing out people" on the Pentagon's China desk. Mattis, too, has had personnel disputes with the White House. "Anything that Tillerson and Mattis really push for will now have a better chance of winning out -- for better and for worse," Abrams added. Abrams and others said that Bannon's exit makes it more likely that McMaster and Mattis will convince Trump to send more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the subject of a meeting among Trump and his national security team at Camp David today.

Some sources downplayed the significance of Bannon's departure, however -- noting that, on military and diplomatic issues, Bannon was more dissenter than policy maker.

Ben Rhodes, a former top national security aide to former President Barack Obama, said Bannon's main contributions was his backing for Trump's early executive orders restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries. Bannon was also a defender of his friend and ally Sebastian Gorka, a controversial White House adviser who often appears on television.

"On national security, it was hard to see Bannon's influence anywhere other than the Muslim ban and Gorka doing cable hits, so I don't think it changes that much," Rhodes said, adding: "It does suggest a greater likelihood of a troop increase in Afghanistan."

And several sources cautioned that while Bannon may not longer occupy the White House, his worldview is still frequently reflected in the words of the most powerful policymaker of all: President Trump.

European allies "will not be popping champagne corks because their main source of worry remains in the White House, Donald Trump," Benitez said. "Most Europeans blame Trump personally rather than Bannon or other subordinates for damaging transatlantic relations."

"The president gets the last vote," McKeon added. "And he has a different approach to foreign policy than all his predecessors."

Eliana Johnson contributed reporting

Felix · 7 hours ago

As long as there is disagreement there is hope for compromise and moderation. If everyone in the Executive branch were in agreement, there would be no hope for moderation..
DrS · 6 hours ago
Our 'dear' leaders are NOT in control.

North Korea ia a distraction as is Trump.

Examine the military buildup by Nsto against Russia.

Time for Germany, Russia and China to work together militarily for harmony/peace in our world.

andrewboston · 4 hours ago
God help us when Bannon is the voice of reason ......
Bill Malcolm · 4 hours ago
330 million people and a bunch of nutbars in charge of the place, very few of whom have ever had a vote cast for them in any election, Trump being the exception. Some guy like Bannon sits around formulating a wanker worldview and somehow gains power for seven months. I don't suppose the EU gives a tinker's damn that he dislikes it, it's none of his business. Fulminating on it just exposes his acceptance of Imperial America, muttering threats because in his blinkered mind that's not the way the US would have organized Europe - I am unaware that anyone with a brain regards Bannon as an intellectual, merely a weirdo. Then you have all these generals running around thinking they're political geniuses or something, all unelected bozos with little exposure to real life. Giving and taking orders and salutes all around, living a regimented life - just the thing for running the civilian part of the USA.

Why is it that in the US you vote for dogcatchers, sheriffs and judges which no other country bothers with, yet all these high cabinet posts are filled from unelected dorks out there who somehow got noticed, picked by the president, nominated and agreed to by the Senate? The argument has been, well because they're specialists. So what - they're not responsible to the electorate in any direct manner. There's a fat chance that they are managerial competents if they are from the military, a big chance they have developed some warped theory about the world, and few of them are in the slightest bit interested in domestic politics as it relates to the average citizen. 50% of the budget goes to running the armed forces, by nature always measuring foreign "threats" as if diplomacy was a competition or something. The business types picked as cabinet secretaries are invariably from the big business side of the ledger and find foreigners annoying when they don't hand over their natural resources for next to nothing royalties, leading to the government bashing these foreigners over the head until they put someone in charge who sees the "light" and becomes a US ally.

It's a formula for bad government for the domestic population from beginning to end. So up ramps the patriotism to make the people keep the faith which many are happy to do, and then they crap all over the way other countries are organized, their food, customs and "only in America can a hobo be elected President" and there's no opportunity anywhere but in the USA memes. Mesmerized by their own propaganda into thinking the US is the best there is. Cough.

GivingUpOnTrump · 4 hours ago
Tonight if Trump order more troops to Afghanistan, he'd put the last and hardest nail on his own coffin.

I do not understand, how long Americans will let the Deep State win, making them sacrificial animals at the mercy of a perpetual power.

[Aug 22, 2017] Hawks Soaring After Bannons Departure by Michael Crowley

Notable quotes:
"... Stephen Bannon may have been a political adviser to President Donald Trump, but his firing Friday could have an impact on U.S. foreign policy from Europe to the Middle East and Asia. Bannon's exit clears an obstacle for backers of an active U.S. foreign policy in line with recent presidencies -- and is a resounding win for Bannon's internal rival, national security adviser H.R. McMaster. ..."
"... More generally, it will remove an internal brake on U.S. military action abroad. Bannon has argued greater U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria and was among the few White House officials to oppose President Donald Trump's early-April missile strike in Syria. ..."
"... Tonight if Trump order more troops to Afghanistan, he'd put the last and hardest nail on his own coffin. I do not understand, how long Americans will let the Deep State win, making them sacrificial animals at the mercy of a perpetual power. ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

His exit is a win for backers of a more traditional -- and interventionist -- U.S. foreign policy.

Stephen Bannon may have been a political adviser to President Donald Trump, but his firing Friday could have an impact on U.S. foreign policy from Europe to the Middle East and Asia. Bannon's exit clears an obstacle for backers of an active U.S. foreign policy in line with recent presidencies -- and is a resounding win for Bannon's internal rival, national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

Bannon was a regular participant in national security debates, often as an opponent of military action and a harsh critic of international bodies like the United Nations and the European Union.

He has also been a withering critic of diplomatic, military and intelligence professionals -- "globalists" he says have repeatedly shown bad judgment, particularly when it comes to U.S. military interventions abroad. That put him at loggerheads with Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, as well as McMaster.

"If you look at the balance of power of isolationists versus internationalists in the White House now, it seems safe to say that the pendulum has swung towards the internationalists," said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Though Bannon has not described himself as an "isolationist," he has proudly adopted Trump's "America First" motto, which he says argues for spending less blood and treasure overseas for anything less than America's most vital interests.

He has also alarmed European leaders with his criticism of the E.U. and his expressed support for some European nationalist movements. Bannon actively backed Great Britain's 2016 "Brexit" from the E.U. and introduced Trump to its chief political advocate, the populist British politician Nigel Farage.

"Our European allies are happy about Bannon's departure," said Jorge Benitez, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council.

In the immediate term, foreign policy insiders agreed, Bannon's departure also could increase the chances of a U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan -- a plan championed by McMaster but strongly opposed by Bannon, who managed to draw out debate on the issue with direct appeals to Trump.

More generally, it will remove an internal brake on U.S. military action abroad. Bannon has argued greater U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria and was among the few White House officials to oppose President Donald Trump's early-April missile strike in Syria.

Bannon is not totally conflict averse: He calls for a far stronger U.S. posture against China and has warned that war with Beijing could be inevitable. But he pressed Trump to take economic, not military action against Beijing.

And on Wednesday, Bannon told the American Prospect magazine that there is "no military solution" to Trump's standoff with North Korea -- undermining the president's recent military threats against that country, and echoing China's view of the situation.

Beyond the policy realm, Bannon's exit is a clear victory for national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who at times seemed to be in zero-sum struggle with the Trump adviser for power and influence in the White House.

Foreign policy veterans were startled when, in early February, Trump designated Bannon as a member of the National Security Council's elite principals committee -- calling it unprecedented for a White House political adviser to have a reserved seat at the table for life-and-death debates.

McMaster stripped Bannon of his official NSC position in April, after succeeding the ousted Michael Flynn -- a Bannon ally -- as national security adviser. Bannon continued to attend NSC meetings and debates about foreign policy in the Oval Office. But Bannon resented McMaster for demoting him, and for purging several Flynn allies from the NSC.

Bannon and McMaster also sharply differed on how Trump should discuss terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda. Bannon favors using the phrase "radical Islamic extremism," but McMaster has largely prevented Trump from saying it in public on the grounds that it could alienate moderate Muslims who hear it as an attack on their religion.

McMaster's defenders have accused Bannon of spearheading a campaign of leaks meant to undermine the top national security aide.

"The campaign to get him out was clearly coming from Bannon or his allies," said Brian McKeon, a former NSC chief of staff and senior Pentagon policy official in the Obama administration. "The national security adviser's job is hard enough without having to always look over your shoulder to see who's trying to knife you.

"This will make McMaster's days a little easier," he added.

No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

Get Your Free Daily Newsletter You can't buy your way onto these pages

Likely to share McMaster's satisfaction at Bannon's ouster is Tillerson, who chafed at Bannon's role in State Department personnel decisions. Speaking to the American Prospect this week, Bannon boasted that he was working to remove Tillerson's top official for China and East Asia.

"I'm getting Susan Thornton out at State," Bannon said in the interview.

In a pointed show of support the next morning, Tillerson shook Thornton's hand in front of television cameras.

And when Tillerson recommended in February that Trump nominate former Reagan and George W. Bush administration official Elliott Abrams to be his deputy, Bannon intervened to block the choice, according to Abrams.

"Bannon's departure probably means a return to normalcy, where the State and Defense Departments will have greater influence on foreign policy," Abrams said.

Bannon also told the Prospect that he was "changing out people" on the Pentagon's China desk. Mattis, too, has had personnel disputes with the White House.

"Anything that Tillerson and Mattis really push for will now have a better chance of winning out -- for better and for worse," Abrams added.

Abrams and others said that Bannon's exit makes it more likely that McMaster and Mattis will convince Trump to send more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the subject of a meeting among Trump and his national security team at Camp David today.

Some sources downplayed the significance of Bannon's departure, however -- noting that, on military and diplomatic issues, Bannon was more dissenter than policy maker.

Ben Rhodes, a former top national security aide to former President Barack Obama, said Bannon's main contributions was his backing for Trump's early executive orders restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries. Bannon was also a defender of his friend and ally Sebastian Gorka, a controversial White House adviser who often appears on television.

"On national security, it was hard to see Bannon's influence anywhere other than the Muslim ban and Gorka doing cable hits, so I don't think it changes that much," Rhodes said, adding: "It does suggest a greater likelihood of a troop increase in Afghanistan."

And several sources cautioned that while Bannon may not longer occupy the White House, his worldview is still frequently reflected in the words of the most powerful policymaker of all: President Trump.

European allies "will not be popping champagne corks because their main source of worry remains in the White House, Donald Trump," Benitez said. "Most Europeans blame Trump personally rather than Bannon or other subordinates for damaging transatlantic relations."

"The president gets the last vote," McKeon added. "And he has a different approach to foreign policy than all his predecessors."

Eliana Johnson contributed reporting

===

Click Here To Support Information Clearing House

Felix · 7 hours ago

As long as there is disagreement there is hope for compromise and moderation. If everyone in the Executive branch were in agreement, there would be no hope for moderation..
DrS · 6 hours ago
Our 'dear' leaders are NOT in control. North Korea ia a distraction as is Trump. Examine the military buildup by Nsto against Russia. Time for Germany, Russia and China to work together militarily for harmony/peace in our world.
andrewboston · 4 hours ago
God help us when Bannon is the voice of reason ......
Bill Malcolm · 4 hours ago
330 million people and a bunch of nutbars in charge of the place, very few of whom have ever had a vote cast for them in any election, Trump being the exception. Some guy like Bannon sits around formulating a wanker worldview and somehow gains power for seven months. I don't suppose the EU gives a tinker's damn that he dislikes it, it's none of his business. Fulminating on it just exposes his acceptance of Imperial America, muttering threats because in his blinkered mind that's not the way the US would have organized Europe - I am unaware that anyone with a brain regards Bannon as an intellectual, merely a weirdo. Then you have all these generals running around thinking they're political geniuses or something, all unelected bozos with little exposure to real life. Giving and taking orders and salutes all around, living a regimented life - just the thing for running the civilian part of the USA.

Why is it that in the US you vote for dogcatchers, sheriffs and judges which no other country bothers with, yet all these high cabinet posts are filled from unelected dorks out there who somehow got noticed, picked by the president, nominated and agreed to by the Senate? The argument has been, well because they're specialists. So what - they're not responsible to the electorate in any direct manner. There's a fat chance that they are managerial competents if they are from the military, a big chance they have developed some warped theory about the world, and few of them are in the slightest bit interested in domestic politics as it relates to the average citizen. 50% of the budget goes to running the armed forces, by nature always measuring foreign "threats" as if diplomacy was a competition or something. The business types picked as cabinet secretaries are invariably from the big business side of the ledger and find foreigners annoying when they don't hand over their natural resources for next to nothing royalties, leading to the government bashing these foreigners over the head until they put someone in charge who sees the "light" and becomes a US ally.

It's a formula for bad government for the domestic population from beginning to end. So up ramps the patriotism to make the people keep the faith which many are happy to do, and then they crap all over the way other countries are organized, their food, customs and "only in America can a hobo be elected President" and there's no opportunity anywhere but in the USA memes. Mesmerized by their own propaganda into thinking the US is the best there is. Cough.

GivingUpOnTrump · 4 hours ago
Tonight if Trump order more troops to Afghanistan, he'd put the last and hardest nail on his own coffin. I do not understand, how long Americans will let the Deep State win, making them sacrificial animals at the mercy of a perpetual power.

[Aug 21, 2017] Problems Too Big And Too Many To Fix: Trump Will Be The Fall Guy

Notable quotes:
"... Stephen K. Bannon has always been more comfortable when he was trying to tear down institutions -- not work inside them. ..."
"... With his return to Breitbart News, Mr. Bannon will be free to lead the kind of ferocious assault on the political establishment that he relishes, even if sometimes that means turning his wrath on the White House itself. ..."
"... Mr. Bannon's exit is, of course, a relief. As the well-financed Pied Piper of the alt-right Breitbart crowd, Mr. Bannon at the pinnacle of White House policy making was a nightmare come to life. ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The axe fell on Steve Bannon Friday.

Mid-day, mainstream media proclaimed stocks were up because of the firing. Stocks closed the day down. Apparently, stocks were both up and down due to Bannon.

Now Bannon is Back on the Outside , back at Breitbart, and happy to be there.

Stephen K. Bannon has always been more comfortable when he was trying to tear down institutions -- not work inside them.

With his return to Breitbart News, Mr. Bannon will be free to lead the kind of ferocious assault on the political establishment that he relishes, even if sometimes that means turning his wrath on the White House itself.

Hours after his ouster from the West Wing, he was named to his former position of executive chairman at the hard-charging right-wing website and led its evening editorial meeting. And Mr. Bannon appeared eager to move onto his next fight.

"In many ways, I think I can be more effective fighting from the outside for the agenda President Trump ran on," he said Friday. "And anyone who stands in our way, we will go to war with."

Among those already in Mr. Bannon's sights: Speaker Paul D. Ryan; Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader; the president's daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law, Jared Kushner; and Gary D. Cohn, the former president of Goldman Sachs who now directs the White House's National Economic Council.

Thanks But No Thanks

Trump thanked Bannon for his help during the campaign, but not for his tenure in the White House

I want to thank Steve Bannon for his service. He came to the campaign during my run against Crooked Hillary Clinton - it was great! Thanks S

! Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 19, 2017

Trump explicitly thanks Bannon for his time on the campaign. Not his 7 months in the W.H. as chief strategist.

Nothing to see here. https://t.co/gqDRj5I2zJ

! Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) August 19, 2017

New York Times Parting Shot

The New York Times editorial, Exit Steve Bannon , gave Banon a swift kick on his way out the door.

Mr. Bannon's exit is, of course, a relief. As the well-financed Pied Piper of the alt-right Breitbart crowd, Mr. Bannon at the pinnacle of White House policy making was a nightmare come to life.

But Mr. Bannon, who promptly returned to Breitbart as its executive chairman on Friday, still poses a danger for our broader politics. Outside the White House, he is freer to rally his forces against anyone who doesn't toe his nationalist-protectionist line. A Bannon-led right-wing backlash against Mr. Trump, who unleashed the worst impulses of nationalists in service to himself, would be a fitting comeuppance.

More Fun to Throw Mud

Clearly, it's far more fun to throw mud than have it thrown at you.

Lost in the Bannon and Trump bashing is one key question: Who is really the bigger threat, Hillary, Trump, or Bannon?

Why We Are Where We Are

We are in this mess because Obamanomics, war-mongering, Fed policies, and social handouts created a budget mess but did not solve any problems. People revolted, and Trump got elected.

When it comes to trade and protectionism, Trump is wrong. So is Bannon.

Those who think Hillary would have been any better on trade policy are mistaken. If you believe differently, then please take Today's Quiz: Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton – Who Said It?

We would have a no-fly zone over Syria, had Hillary won. That would have risked a confrontation with Russia. Hillary wrecked Libya, and of course Obama and Bush had extremely misguided warmongering policies in the Mideast.

Obamacare was a failure, but no one on either side seems able or willing to fix it.

So here we are, with everything broken, and we still cannot get anything done. Republicans want more military spending and Democrats want more social spending. Warmongers on both sides want more war.

Art of Compromise

Compromise in Washington is more military spending and more social spending.

Repetitive "compromises" sent deficits soaring out of sight. On top of it all, the Fed blew massive bubbles in just about everything.

Problems Too Big and Too Many To Fix

One thing I expect Trump will get right, at least from a public union standpoint, regards appointments to the supreme court.

Overall, I hoped Trump would do better on many fronts. It was not to be. Trump could not drain the swamp. Partisan politics interfered, there was too much infighting, and there is nonsensical Russia bashing on both sides of the aisle.

The problems are too big and too many to fix. If you think Hillary would have fixed them you are delusional

To the victor, goes the blame. Trump will be the fall guy when this mess blows up. https://t.co/99d7BrUfak

! Mike Mish Shedlock (@MishGEA) August 19, 2017

[Aug 21, 2017] Bannon Firing Proves Trump is Winging It by Robert W. Merry

To a certain extent Bannon firing was his own foult as perchant for self-promition proved to be quite destructive.
But it was also a stage of Trump conversion into Bush III. Globalist coalition won but this is a Pyrrhic victory.
The problem that brought Trump to the White house -- crisis of neoliberalism and first of all neoliberal globalization is unsolvable within the neoliberal framework. And Trump administration has now nothing but his bastard version of neoliberal and deregulation and all that staff.
And to this "Javanka" problem and Trump looks doomed to be failure.
Notable quotes:
"... He has failed. While he moved quickly on the immigration issue, he did so in such a ham-handed way that any prospect for momentum was lost before it could begin. On foreign policy he has belied his own campaign rhetoric with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia's nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO membership for Montenegro, his consideration of troop augmentations in Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement in Venezuela's internal affairs. On trade, it must be said, he has sought to move in the direction of his campaign rhetoric, though with limited results thus far. ..."
"... In the meantime, he suffered a tremendous defeat with the failure of congressional Republicans to make good on their vow to end and replace the Affordable Care Act. His tax-overhaul initiative is far behind the kind of calendar schedule needed for smooth success (by this point in 1981 Reagan had secured both his big tax package and an even more controversial spending-reduction program). And Trump's infrastructure program must be seen as residing currently in Nowheresville. ..."
"... What we see in these defeats and stalled initiatives is an incapacity on the part of the president to nudge and herd legislators, to mold voter sentiment into waves of political energy, to fashion a dialectic of political action, or to offer a coherent vision of the state of the country and where he wishes to take it. Everything is ad hoc. No major action seems related to any other action. In a job that calls for a political chess master, Trump displays hardly sufficient skills and attentiveness for a game of political checkers. ..."
"... It's telling, but not surprising, that Trump couldn't manage his White House staff in such a way as to maintain a secure place on the team for the man most responsible for charting his path to the White House. This isn't to say that Bannon should have been given outsized influence within West Wing councils, merely that his voice needed to be heard and his connection to Trump's core constituency respected. ..."
"... But that's not the way Trump operates -- another sign of a man who, over his head at the top of the global power structure, is winging it. ..."
"... ...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech... ..."
"... The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal ..."
"... "There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel" ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com August 21, 2017

In the wake of Stephen Bannon's firing, it has become almost inconceivable that President Trump can avoid a one-term fate. This isn't because he sacked Bannon but because of what that action tells us about his leadership. In celebrating Bannon's dismissal, The Wall Street Journal wrote in an editorial: "Trump can't govern with a Breitbart coalition. Does he see that?" True enough. But he also can't govern without the Breitbart constituency -- his core constituency -- in his coalition. The bigger question is: Does he see that ?

It's beginning to appear that Trump doesn't see much of anything with precision or clarity when it comes to the fundamental question of how to govern based on how he campaigned. He is merely a battery of impulses, devoid of any philosophical coherence or intellectual consistency.

Indeed, it's difficult to recall any president of recent memory who was so clearly winging it in the Oval Office. Think of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, both of whom made huge mistakes that cost them the White House. But both knew precisely what they wanted to accomplish and how to go about accomplishing it. The result was that both accomplished big things. Ronald Reagan propelled himself into governing mode from campaign mode as if he had shot himself out of a cannon. Even Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush, who stumbled into one-term diminishment, demonstrated more leadership coherence than the current White House occupant.

Trump's political challenge on Inauguration Day was simple but difficult. He had to galvanize his political base and build from there to fashion a governing coalition that could give propulsion to his agenda. Further, that agenda had to give a majority of Americans a sense that the economy was sound and growing, that unnecessary foreign wars would be avoided, that domestic tranquility would prevail, that the mass immigration of recent years would be curtailed, that the health care mess would be fixed, and that infrastructure needs would be addressed.

He has made little or no progress on any of it. And now, with Bannon banished from the White House, the president even seems to be taking a cavalier attitude toward his core constituency, America's white working class, beset by sluggish economic growth, the hollowing out of America's industrial base, unfair competitive practices by U.S. trading partners, unchecked immigration, the opioid crisis, and a general malaise that accompanies a growing sense of decline.

Trump became president because he busted out of the deadlock crisis that had gripped America for years, with both parties rigidly clinging to shopworn nostrums that fewer and fewer Americans believed in but which precluded any fresh or original thinking on the part of the party establishments. Consider some of the elements of conventional wisdom that he smashed during the campaign.

  1. Immigration: Conventional thinking was that a "comprehensive" solution could emerge as soon as officials convinced voters that they would, at some point soon, secure the border, and then the 11 million illegals in the country could be granted some form of amnesty. After all, according to this view, polls indicated solid support for granting illegals a path to citizenship or at least legal residence. Thus the issue was considered particularly hazardous to Republicans. But Trump demonstrated that voter concerns about the magnitude of immigration -- both legal and illegal -- were more widespread and intense than the political establishment wanted to believe. He transformed the dynamics of the issue.
  2. Foreign Policy: Trump railed against George W. Bush's Iraq invasion, the ongoing and seemingly pointless war in Afghanistan, Barack Obama's actions to help overthrow Libya's President Muammar Qaddafi, and the previous administration's insistence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must leave office even though his toughest enemies, ISIS and al-Nusra, were also our enemies. He sought to sooth the tensions then gaining momentum between the United States and Russia, and he did so in the face of widespread hostility from most of the foreign policy establishment. In all this he signaled that, as president, he would formulate an entirely new grand strategy designed to align U.S. policy with U.S. power and avoid foreign wars with little connection to U.S. vital interests.
  3. Trade: Trump took on the establishment view that globalized free trade provided an automatic benefit to the U.S. economy and U.S. workers, even when big trading partners, particularly China, imposed non-tariff trade barriers that slammed America's waning industrial core and the country's working classes. Here again he demonstrated a strong body of political sentiment that had been ignored or brushed aside by the country's economic and financial elites.

The important point about these issues is that they all cut across partisan lines. That's what allowed Trump to forge a nontraditional coalition that provided him a slim margin of victory -- but only in the Electoral College. His challenge was to turn this electoral coalition into a governing one.

He has failed. While he moved quickly on the immigration issue, he did so in such a ham-handed way that any prospect for momentum was lost before it could begin. On foreign policy he has belied his own campaign rhetoric with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia's nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO membership for Montenegro, his consideration of troop augmentations in Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement in Venezuela's internal affairs. On trade, it must be said, he has sought to move in the direction of his campaign rhetoric, though with limited results thus far.

In the meantime, he suffered a tremendous defeat with the failure of congressional Republicans to make good on their vow to end and replace the Affordable Care Act. His tax-overhaul initiative is far behind the kind of calendar schedule needed for smooth success (by this point in 1981 Reagan had secured both his big tax package and an even more controversial spending-reduction program). And Trump's infrastructure program must be seen as residing currently in Nowheresville.

What we see in these defeats and stalled initiatives is an incapacity on the part of the president to nudge and herd legislators, to mold voter sentiment into waves of political energy, to fashion a dialectic of political action, or to offer a coherent vision of the state of the country and where he wishes to take it. Everything is ad hoc. No major action seems related to any other action. In a job that calls for a political chess master, Trump displays hardly sufficient skills and attentiveness for a game of political checkers.

And now Stephen Bannon is gone. The rustic and controversial White House strategist represented Trump's most direct and compelling tie to his political base, the people who flocked to his rallies during the campaign, who kept him alive when his political fortunes waned, who thrilled to his anti-establishment message, and who awarded him the states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. As the Journal says, Trump can't govern only with this electoral base. But if his support among these people wanes or dissipates, he will have no base from which to build -- and no prospect for successful governance.

It's telling, but not surprising, that Trump couldn't manage his White House staff in such a way as to maintain a secure place on the team for the man most responsible for charting his path to the White House. This isn't to say that Bannon should have been given outsized influence within West Wing councils, merely that his voice needed to be heard and his connection to Trump's core constituency respected.

But that's not the way Trump operates -- another sign of a man who, over his head at the top of the global power structure, is winging it.

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative . His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due out from Simon & Schuster in November.

doctor10 Aug 20, 2017 9:06 PM Its all about ideas-and which ones are adopted by society.

The USA has a very poor prognosis-has yet to shed its 20th century Bolshevick Baggage. Occident Mortal doctor10 Aug 20, 2017 9:17 PM It's mostly down to culture.

Some people are more culturally predisposed to exploring and trying new things.

If you believe the future will be better than the past then you will be prepared to work to improve things, if you believe the world is in terminal decline and that the glory days were some time ago, either when gods or prophets did all the important stuff or when your locale was more prosperous then you will not be as encouraged to work on improvements and you will thend to hoarde meagre resources and live by thrift with minimal expenditure. Oracle of Kypseli Occident Mortal Aug 20, 2017 10:00 PM I think that colonialism is in play again as the advance societies are starving for resources and will invest in these countries in exchange. This will change the trend into better education, better jobs and everything that comes with it for the middle classes but perpetuate slave wages for the uneducated masses.

The world is not changing but morphing. It's the nomenclature that changes for the sake of political correcteness and feel good predisposition.

DjangoCat Oracle of Kypseli Aug 20, 2017 10:15 PM

The history of western investment in third world resources does not make for a pretty read. Look now at what has happened just in the last months of a major silver mine being closed in a small Central American country, where the local manager has been accused of murdering protestors and objectors to the mines presence in their midst, destroying the countryside.

The CIA seems to have had, as it's primary objective, the job of clearing the way for US and British, and Canadian industrial, infrastructure and mining interests to come in and take the resources. A good payoff to the man in power greases the wheels, and the people get nothing but a degraded environment and mammoth debt.

The next step is to restructure the debt, in the process privatizing state infrastructure at cut rate prices. This is nothing but mass rape and pillage.

Wake up.

Unknown User DjangoCat Aug 20, 2017 10:54 PM

England never freed its colonies. It simply changed the means of enslavement from physical to financial.

Eeyores Enigma DjangoCat Aug 21, 2017 12:38 AM

Too true DC but that truth doesn't work well with "American Exceptionalism" so we get articles like this one.

Ayreos Eeyores Enigma Aug 21, 2017 3:57 AM

"American exceptionalism" is just a small-time ugly consequence of the actual phenomenon: good old imperialism, taught by the British. And there's nothing wrong with it. All European countries have accepted NATO and american influence on them willingly. They have all recognized and validated American exceptionalism themselves. As subjects of an empire they now complain that the Emperor is quickly losing its clothes,

Crazy Or Not Occident Mortal Aug 21, 2017 5:38 AM

True you have to have "Ambition & Will" for change to stomach the difficult period of creating that change.
(eg Gandhi, US independence etc).

...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech...

This however while a factor is also bias. Post WWII no weapons (other than US) were permitted in Pacific war region and a decisive factor in limiting the influence of the Brits in their pre war colonies. Post colonials also saw war as a way out of colonial rule, using US leverage to oust Brit influence.

edit - probably BritBob will go apoplectic with this? Cue "Rule Britania"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRwj1SmPF5w

...and other jingoistic bollocks ;)

buttmint Oh regional Indian Aug 21, 2017 12:41 AM ...

all ZHers owe themselves trek to Mother India, quite a head turning experience. One comes to appreciate the West's "can-do philosophy."

This approach to problem solving is in small measure in India. India's fine burgeoning medical capital in Chennai (old Madraas) is a testament to talented Indians being schooled in Occidental universities and then returned to Mother India to set up shop. In many ways, India will lead the West OUT of their self-imposed medical nemesis. There is much progress in India. All Indians love to ORATE. You betcha, they stand on the corner and begin lecturing. A much better approach than USA's 535 idiots and grifters that make up the US Congress.

My own hunch is that India will eclipse the remarkable progress of China. Stay tuned as the world squirms.....

Oh regional Indian Koba the Dread Aug 21, 2017 2:54 AM

Unfortunately, it has become quite the living hell....

Western model of development + rampant corruption + poor engineering standards have made this a hotch-potch of a rending screech of a marriage between east and west....

Ayreos Oh regional Indian Aug 21, 2017 3:51 AM

Perhaps it's time to admit Indians got a chance to take their country back and move their society forward, seen through nationalist Gandhi, but Indians neither want nor understand the concept of moving forward.

Without the "western model of development" there would be no development in India for millennia. Kobe Beef Ayreos Aug 21, 2017 5:20 AM Without the Aryan colonization/admixture of many millennia ago, there would never have been any civilization on the Indian Subcontinent.

The Second Aryan invasion (ie British colonialism) left barely enough behind to last more than the coming century.

The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal . But there is huge amount of paper profits to be derived from pretending otherwise. There is a lot of ruin to be extracted from the Commons. At home, The African Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. Abroad, The Afghan Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. No signs of progress with either hominid population. And yet, we still have people arguing that culture is somehow separate from biology.

But back to the topic at hand..

Prediction: India returns to barbarism and warring superstitions.

asstrix Ayreos Aug 21, 2017 5:21 AM

The western way of moving forward is about consuming, using up resources. Once the resources are gone, they have to find a new place to plunder, in order to again move forward.

The eastern culture is in general about living in a sustainable manner, in harmony with nature. Their way is more about trade and not war. This is why they got conquered so easily.

Now I can't say which is better. Plundering and moving forward or staying put and living in peace with nature. My only hope is that the easterners have enough of the western values already in them to not repeat the old mistakes again.

Tallest Skil doctor10 Aug 20, 2017 9:40 PM

Reminder that Europe (((gave up))) the entire colored portion of the map above because Germany wanted a land corridor to East Prussia.

Son of Captain Nemo Aug 20, 2017 9:32 PM

"...the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual growth. They couldn't have been more wrong..."

Anyone who tracked the likes of Hans Adler a German/Brazilian Jew who worked for the World Bank in the 60s and 70s and who I studied under at George Mason University in the 80s knows that the "Latifundio/Minifundio" land tenure structure was the mechanism and means to exploit the gold fillings "literally" out of the mouths of the natives that owned and tended their lands throughout Latin America from the 40s through the 80s doing what the World Bank and IMF always has done it's best to get the multinationals in to take over the most important arable land for exploitation through "incentivized" loan deals that ended up robbing them of all their ownership for worthless "shit paper" -- ... Rinse and repeat for the "model" used everywhere else especially Middle Eastern oil.

John Perkins solidified it in his work "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" 25 years later...

Too little too late I'm afraid. Only wish there were many more like him --

DemandSider Son of Captain Nemo Aug 21, 2017 1:05 AM

I only wish Perkins had explained the role of the dollar. This book, 'The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony' 'Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets' explains that better. He does explain how The IMF and World Bank keep them in line with debt, though.

The Cooler King Aug 20, 2017 9:23 PM

"There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel"

But they can balance a mean jug of water on their head, which makes make them perfect candidates to GET RICH buying cryptos

Moe Hamhead The Cooler King Aug 20, 2017 9:30 PM

Obummer removed Churchill's bust from the Oval office -- He was offended by his graven image. I recall that it has since been brought back.

TuPhat Jason T Aug 20, 2017 11:20 PM

I agree, except for the part about the internet being responsible for wealth. That part is garbage. Internet wealth is non productive and eventually a drain on any economy.

DjangoCat Aug 20, 2017 10:02 PM

Read "The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". IMF, USAID and BIS have worked in unison to rape and pillage the "Third World"

This is not a problem of the colonies falling apart, it is a problem of deliberate overselling of debt with a side of mandated privatisation, followed by ruin and sale of government assets, followed by grinding povery and tax to pay the interest on the ever climbing debt.

This is a system of overt debt slavery disguised as aid.

I think this piece is white wash propaganda. Tylers??

Koba the Dread DjangoCat Aug 21, 2017 2:00 AM

Well said, Cat -- The occupying nations left a cadre of native criminals behind to enslave their countrymen. The cadre of native criminals take their cut and pass the rest uphill to London, Paris or New York. They call it "Independence" -- Sort of like what happened in the new United States of America where farmers and artisans fought for freedom from Great Britain and New York, Massachusetts and Virginia aristocrats took over the country.

Oh regional Indian Scanderbeg Aug 20, 2017 10:40 PM

You need to read up on a litle history my friend..... your post is ignorant at so many levels, it's laughable. The number of highly advanced concepts that were stolen from the east over the centuries is legion. India and the ME were the root of all great knowledge, astrology, astronomy, metallurgy (Damascus steel came from India), mathematics (Zero came from India)......

Whites were shitting on the streets and eating their dead not 300 years ago.

Jhonny come lately with a gun, get it? And all your scientific wonders are toxic to the world and humans. All of them, including your "medicine"....

[Aug 21, 2017] Steve Bannon Plots Fox News Competitor As He Goes To War With Globalists, Report

Notable quotes:
"... Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power. ..."
"... "That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying." ..."
"... The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free. I've got my hands back on my weapons ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Axios: that part of that war effort might include a brand new cable news network to the right of Fox News.

Axios' Jonathan Swan hears Bannon has told friends he sees a massive opening to the right of Fox News , raising the possibility that he's going to start a network. Bannon's friends are speculating about whether it will be a standalone TV network, or online streaming only.

Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power.

Now he has the means, motive and opportunity: His chief financial backer, Long Island hedge fund billionaire Bob Mercer, is ready to invest big in what's coming next, including a huge overseas expansion of Breitbart News. Of course, this new speculation comes after Bannon declared last Friday that he was " going to war" for Trump ...

" If there's any confusion out there, let me clear it up. I'm leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents... on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,

Meanwhile, with regard his internal adversaries , at the departments of State and Defense, who think the United States can enlist Beijing's aid on the North Korean standoff, and at Treasury and the National Economic Council who don't want to mess with the trading system, Bannon was ever harsher...

"Oh, they're wetting themselves," he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has big plans to marginalize their influence.

"That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying."

Finally, perhaps no one can summarize what Bannon has planned for the future than Bannon himself:

"The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free. I've got my hands back on my weapons.

I am definitely going to crush the opposition. There's no doubt. I built a f***ing machine at Breitbart. And now we're about to rev that machine up."

[Aug 20, 2017] Conservatives react with fury to Bannons departure. Bannos lost the war with the globalist wing of the White House, represented by Trumps son-in-law Jared Kushner, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and national security adviser H.R. McMaster by Jonathan Easley

Globalists here means neoliberals and often neocons.
That means that Trump administration has strong neocon/neolib "fifth column" -- the "enemy within" that tries to mold him into Republican version of Obama -=- professional "bait and switch" artists with his fake slogan "Change we can believe in".
Obama simply used anti-racism as a tool to further his own image. His actions while in office proved beyond a doubt that he certainly never gave a damn about racism. All he ever did was pay lip service to anti-racism ideals. He was about as trustworthy as a snake.
Notable quotes:
"... The chief strategist had been involved in a nasty tug-of-war with what his allies view as the "globalist" wing of the White House, represented by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. ..."
"... On Friday, conservatives lashed out at what they viewed as Trump selling out his base and surrendering to those "liberal" forces. ..."
"... "Steve's allies in the populist nationalist movement are ready to ride to the gates of hell with him against the West Wing Democrats and globalists like [national security aide] Dina Powell, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster," said one Bannon ally. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.msn.com

Originally from The Hill

A number of conservatives expressed fury and dismay on Friday after news broke that President Trump has parted ways with his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon.

Bannon is a hero on the right and credited with harnessing Trump's message of economic populism during the campaign.

The chief strategist had been involved in a nasty tug-of-war with what his allies view as the "globalist" wing of the White House, represented by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

On Friday, conservatives lashed out at what they viewed as Trump selling out his base and surrendering to those "liberal" forces.

"I'm very upset," said Tea Part activist Debbie Dooley. "The deep state globalists won. They forced out Steve Bannon. I had a 'CNN is fake news protest' scheduled for tomorrow at their headquarters in Atlanta that I'm canceling because I'm so disheartened. It's a betrayal of his base. I'll continue to support Trump and his policies but I'll no longer be on the front lines defending him."

There are rumors that Bannon could be headed back to Breitbart News, where as chairman he is credited with turning the outlet into a right-wing juggernaut.

Breitbart has been explicitly pro-Trump since the GOP presidential primaries and has vigorously defended the president through his tumultuous first months in office. Regional editors at the internet publication made clear that their loyalties lie with Bannon over Trump. There are some fears among Trump allies that Bannon could wreak havoc on the administration from outside of the White House.

For months, Breitbart has been running attacks against Kushner, Cohn and McMaster in an effort to boost Bannon's standing in the West Wing. The sense of urgency to protect Bannon grew after McMaster ousted several of Bannon's allies from the national security council.

Now, with Bannon gone, his allies are cutting loose.

"Steve's allies in the populist nationalist movement are ready to ride to the gates of hell with him against the West Wing Democrats and globalists like [national security aide] Dina Powell, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster," said one Bannon ally.

"They should all be very worried that their efforts to undermine the president will be exposed. If they think what's happened with Steve is rough, wait until they see what he does outside the White House," the ally said.

Last week, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, spoke to Trump, urging him not to fire Bannon, GOP sources said.

A senior White House official told The Hill that the president had been inundated in recent days from "high-level Republican donors and activists" pleading with the president to keep Bannon on.

With both Bannon and former chief of staff Reince Priebus out, "a lot of GOP lawmakers are confused and nervous about who they are supposed to talk to in the administration," said one GOP source. "They both did the bulk of Hill outreach."

[Aug 20, 2017] Bannon Was Set for a Graceful Exit. Then Came Charlottesville.

Notable quotes:
"... "Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the desk and cry," he told multiple people. ..."
"... Mr. Bannon made little secret of the fact that he believed "Javanka," as he referred to the couple behind their backs, had naïve political instincts and were going to alienate Mr. Trump's core coalition of white working-class voters. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.msn.com

With little process to speak of, tensions over policy swelled. Ideological differences devolved into caustic personality clashes. Perhaps nowhere was the mutual disgust thicker than between Mr. Bannon and Mr. Trump's daughter and son-in-law.

Mr. Bannon openly complained to White House colleagues that he resented how Ms. Trump would try to undo some of the major policy initiatives that he and Mr. Trump agreed were important to the president's economic nationalist agenda, like withdrawing from the Paris climate accords. In this sense, he was relieved when Mr. Kelly took over and put in place a structure that kept other aides from freelancing.

"Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the desk and cry," he told multiple people.

Mr. Bannon made little secret of the fact that he believed "Javanka," as he referred to the couple behind their backs, had naïve political instincts and were going to alienate Mr. Trump's core coalition of white working-class voters.

[Aug 20, 2017] Bannon's interview with the American Prospect last week was his shot across the proverbial bow aimed directly at the globalists fomenting more wars

With Bannon Gone, Trump Loses Key Anti-War Aide Trump Loses Anti-War Aide In Bannon The Daily Caller
Notable quotes:
"... For the record, Mr. Bannon gave notice on 8/7 to POTUS. As well, Mr. Bannon, when appointed to Trump's cabinet, stated for any who bothered to read/listen that he would accept under one condition, which was he'd be leaving the WH in eight months. Eight months brings us to 8/7. No one fired him. He is back at Breitbart as its Chairman. ..."
"... Bannon's interview with the American Prospect last week was his shot across the proverbial bow aimed directly at the globalists who are determined to keep their march toward raping the world from all her resources aka the NWO/neocon/neolib mafia while fomenting more war(s). ..."
"... If you are unaware of the current round of NAFTA negotiations, now in its fourth day, w/Canada and Mexico OR if you are unaware that on Friday the Trump administration formally launched a Section 301 Trade investigation into China's trading practices, then you are not paying attention to what the right hand is doing. ..."
"... Oh, and btw, it was Kushner and his data operation who carried Trump over the finish line not Bannon and his policy positions. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | t-room.us

h | Aug 20, 2017 12:52:39 PM | 122

Francis @68 - Refreshing to read a comment by someone who obviously has made it her/his business to understand Trump and Team from the conservative perspective. Great comment and spot on IMHO.

For the record, Mr. Bannon gave notice on 8/7 to POTUS. As well, Mr. Bannon, when appointed to Trump's cabinet, stated for any who bothered to read/listen that he would accept under one condition, which was he'd be leaving the WH in eight months. Eight months brings us to 8/7. No one fired him. He is back at Breitbart as its Chairman.

Bannon's interview with the American Prospect last week was his shot across the proverbial bow aimed directly at the globalists who are determined to keep their march toward raping the world from all her resources aka the NWO/neocon/neolib mafia while fomenting more war(s).

Bannon with Mercer and et al backing (and I can make a pretty solid educated guess that there are others) have been developing a new media platform of some kind which will be launched in weeks not months (another educated guess). Sinclair broadcasting has been mentioned on other conservative platforms as getting ready to make a move of some kind as well.

As Breitbart's editor wrote on Friday following the Bannon announcement - "WAR" - is unequivocally that sites way of saying the Swamp in DC is going to be drained. Indeed, Trump and Team have already begun to roll out their 2018 election strategy.

Any who hold the belief that Trump is stupid, naive, or whatever derogatory statement conjured up is just plain wrong and shouldn't be taken seriously by any here who know better.

Trump is a businessman. Trump is not a politician. And he certainly wasn't elected to serve as America's grandpa-he ain't gonna hold your hand...ever.

If you are unaware of the current round of NAFTA negotiations, now in its fourth day, w/Canada and Mexico OR if you are unaware that on Friday the Trump administration formally launched a Section 301 Trade investigation into China's trading practices, then you are not paying attention to what the right hand is doing.

There is always much going on behind all of the noise the insufferable Left makes on a daily basis. Apparently, they don't want you to know about any of the plethora of Executive Orders signed, the roll back of regulations zero and czars put in place, the trade negotiations and so, so much more.

On the other hand, conservative sites are all over the blogosphere report daily what this administration is doing and how it is succeeding. Bannon remains a phone call away.

Oh, and btw, it was Kushner and his data operation who carried Trump over the finish line not Bannon and his policy positions.

[Aug 20, 2017] Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise

Notable quotes:
"... The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.msn.com

Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise. The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon.

The strategist denied involvement, but he also did not speak out against them.

By the time Charlottesville erupted, Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump had a powerful ally in Mr. Kelly, who shared their belief that Mr. Trump's first statement blaming "many sides" for the deadly violence needed to be amended.

Mr. Bannon vigorously objected. He told Mr. Kelly that if Mr. Trump delivered a second, more contrite statement it would do him no good, with either the public or the Washington press corps, which he denigrated as a "Pretorian guard" protecting the Democrats' consensus that Mr. Trump is a race-baiting demagogue. Mr. Trump could grovel, beg for forgiveness, even get down on his knees; it would never work, Mr. Bannon maintained.

"They're going to say two things: It's too late and it's not enough," Mr. Bannon told Mr. Kelly.

[Aug 20, 2017] Breitbart Goes After Ivanka And McMaster

Aug 20, 2017 | dailycaller.com

The first earlier in the day was " Report: Powerful GOP Donor Sheldon Adelson Supports Campaign to Oust McMaster ." This article detailed how major Republican donor Sheldon Adelson reportedly is supporting a campaign against McMaster that claims the national security adviser is anti-Israel.

Later in the day, the lead story on the site was " McMaster Of Disguise: Nat'l Security Adviser Endorsed Book That Advocates Quran-Kissing Apology Ceremonies ." This piece from frequent McMaster critic Aaron Klein said that McMaster endorsed a book that "calls on the U.S. military to respond to any 'desecrations' of the Quran by service members with an apology ceremony, and advocates kissing a new copy of the Quran before presenting the Islamic text to the local Muslim public."

The article went on to say that McMaster has "troubling views" on Islamic terrorism.

The site also published two articles Sunday critical of Ivanka. One of them is an aggregate of a Daily Mail report that claimed Ivanka helped push Bannon out of the White House. Shortly after the story was published, the article received an update that said a White House senior aide stated the Daily Mail report is "totally false."

Breitbart also wrote a piece that highlighted six times Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner's displeasure with President Trump had been leaked to the media.

Bannon said in interviews after his departure from the White House that he will use Breitbart to fight for the president's agenda.

"In many ways, I think I can be more effective fighting from the outside for the agenda President Trump ran on," Bannon told The New York Times . "And anyone who stands in our way, we will go to war with."

[Aug 18, 2017] Steve Bannon s work is done. Donald Trump doesn t need him now

Notable quotes:
"... Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class. ..."
"... There's more to it than that. Its true that the white working class in America are the only group that the media feels it is acceptable to insult/denigrate. What was it Obama said - People in small towns clinging on to their religion & guns. ..."
"... The white middle class has to walk the walk with respect of social justice. Due to the economics of it, multiculturalism has affected the working classes far more than the middle classes. As I say, I'm prepared for the consequences personally, but I wonder how many others would be. ..."
"... People may underestimate the populist element in Bannon's make up. As Scaramucci tells it, both he and Bannon had white middle class fathers who had played with a straight bat and had their retirement savings wiped out in 2008 and all that, while the fat cats were saved by Uncle Sam. Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there. ..."
"... "In Bannon's view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon, the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now. ..."
"... I got the strong sense that Trump was hunkered down defensively and baring his teeth like a feral dog trapped in a corner. ..."
"... Trump is not Mussolini or Franco in that he is not a true believer ..."
"... With the exception of the military which at this point is a state unto itself the government is a paradox of being both omnipresent and nowhere and thus truly Kafkaesque...utterly opaque and completely visible at all times... ..."
"... The left's focus on identity politics is the reason this Bannon chump is relevant at all. The switch in focus from class to race and gender has segmented the working class from the common struggle. A people divided. This is about the only strategic fact Bannon understands. But it is an important one. ..."
"... Identity politics at its core is mostly untenable and while it might treat the symptoms of disease in the short run it will always collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies. The blind squirrel Bannon has found his nut. Continuing to assert that poor white men have it made is demonstrably false and offensive. And gives the alt-right plenty of tools to recruit. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

jessthecrip , 18 Aug 2017 09:16

Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class.

So a billionaire like Trump, with Bannon's aid, does whatever he can to focus the disatisfaction of the population on people who have a different skin colour, rather than the vastly rich elites who have grabbed such a massive share of US wealth and power - and demand yet more

joey2000 -> jessthecrip , 18 Aug 2017 09:29

There's more to it than that. Its true that the white working class in America are the only group that the media feels it is acceptable to insult/denigrate. What was it Obama said - People in small towns clinging on to their religion & guns.

Must have gone down really well in those rustbelt towns where everyone is on oxycontin out of sheer despair. But hey, they're only rednecks so who cares right ?

JerHig -> jessthecrip , 18 Aug 2017 09:36

Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class.

Exactly, it's all about creating a group you can point to and say "at least you're not as bad off as them!"

When your entire existence is predicated on 'at least I'm not the worst off' it becomes frightening when those who were previously 'worse off' start improving. But instead of improving themselves they try and bring the others down again.

MattSpanner -> Isomewhatagree , 18 Aug 2017 09:34

That's what I don't get about the Nazis who turned up in Charlottsville: they chanted "Jews will not replace us" and also "we're going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump". How can Nazis believe Trump is on their side when his daughter is married to a Jew? There are so many contradictions in this situation that I can't get my head around it.

asparagusnextleft -> MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 09:40

It's simple. They're fucking idiots.

Fwaffy -> BrokenLogic , 18 Aug 2017 09:34

It's remarkable isn't it, the man appears to be visibly decomposing. It's been suggested that the statue of Robert E Lee was his penultimate Horcrux.

MattSpanner -> Fwaffy , 18 Aug 2017 09:49

He looks like an alchy.

therebythegrace -> MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 10:13

Or Dorian Gray's picture. Maybe the more evil Trump gets, the worse Bannon looks?

Ravenblade -> Bjerkley , 18 Aug 2017 10:35

Someone has to lose out in a redistribution of anything, be it political power or wealth. I mention the white middle classes because they tend to the the keyboard warriors refusing to tackle the insecurities and concerns of the white working class, and simply resorting to calling them racist.

The white middle class has to walk the walk with respect of social justice. Due to the economics of it, multiculturalism has affected the working classes far more than the middle classes. As I say, I'm prepared for the consequences personally, but I wonder how many others would be.

Agree with your latter point and I'm sensitive to the fact that within class groups, minorities and women remain disadvantaged; I'm not saying we don't continue to look at that. But realistically, on an economic level, you're not going to get white working class men accepting that middle class minorities or women are disadvantaged compared to them, are you? The only reason this distinction doesn't seem to happen (class lines) is because most of the SJW contingent suddenly have to check an aspect of privilege they're unkeen to pay attention to.

tamborineman , 18 Aug 2017 09:27

People may underestimate the populist element in Bannon's make up. As Scaramucci tells it, both he and Bannon had white middle class fathers who had played with a straight bat and had their retirement savings wiped out in 2008 and all that, while the fat cats were saved by Uncle Sam. Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there.

As to Bannon still in the job, I think LBJ's story about tents and which way the piss goes applies.

Bjerkley -> tamborineman , 18 Aug 2017 09:31

Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there.

As others have noted, given that both of them worked in finance/had some background in finance, it's odd that their fathers lost savings which could have been avoided (Bannon's father, for instance, only lost out because he sold his stock but it regained its value shortly afterwards, i.e. it was a bad financial decision). But as you say, its out there.

KeithNJ -> Bjerkley , 18 Aug 2017 09:54

Indeed. If you held on through the crash you now have double the money you had in 2007.

There are some pretty basic retirement rules (60/40 equity to bonds or less, keep 2 years in cash) which if anyone followed would have resulted in no pain from the crash, just some anxiety.

If he got greedy, had 100% in equities and sold at the bottom of the market because he had not kept a cash cushion - well he cannot blame the Chinese for that.

Of course he was bitter before his son became a billionaire, but to still be bitter is more about character than the economy.

MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 09:28

"In Bannon's view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon, the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now.

"What we are witnessing," Bannon told The Washington Post last month, "is the birth of a new political order.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-apocalypse_us_5898f02ee4b040613138a951

...and along comes N.Korea and makes all Bannon's dreams come true.


richmanchester
-> MattSpanner
, 18 Aug 2017 09:34

Though in Bannon's last interview he explicitly stated there was no military option available wrt North Korea.

Dwaina Tembreull -> userforaday , 18 Aug 2017 09:54

An interesting interpretation of his behavior. I got the strong sense that Trump was hunkered down defensively and baring his teeth like a feral dog trapped in a corner.

ID4524057 , 18 Aug 2017 17:49

" and it has forged an indefatigable core of support that will stay with Trump through the next general election and beyond."

Except that atavistic and uneducated people can and will change their sense of allegiance on a dime or a whim and given the fact that Trump is not an ideologue but rather an unstable pathological narcissist and a bigot (versus espousing a coherent racist plan of action because he has a particular ideological agenda) there is no way to effectively predict what his actions will echo in that part of his base and therefore no way to predict what his base will do if Trump is untethered from Bannon. Trump is as likely to make a boneheaded deal with China that pleases Wall Street as he is to accidentally start a war. He is as likely to break his support as he is to cement it.

As Christopher Hitchens said:

"A feature, not just of the age of the end of ideology, but of the age immediately preceding the age of the end of ideology, is that of the dictator who has no ideology at all."

Trump is not Mussolini or Franco in that he is not a true believer though he is a bigot and clearly dictatorial. Trump is all expediency first and faith second even if he has consistently been a racist.

The second problematic issue is that if you assert that Axelrod and Rove "achieved" anything of lasting consequence then Axelrod could not have followed Rove and Bannon could not have followed Axelrod.

Unlike in France where the president serves far longer the reelection cycle here with its utterly corrupt need to raise massive amounts of cash which then forces candidates to constantly be in race mode (and effectively reduces the period of actual governance to around 18 months) has created a perpetually unstable and ineffective bureaucracy that has more in common with late Ottoman inefficiency than it does with a contemporary "modern" state.

With the exception of the military which at this point is a state unto itself the government is a paradox of being both omnipresent and nowhere and thus truly Kafkaesque...utterly opaque and completely visible at all times...

Further, there is this: "There's another reason why firing Bannon wouldn't be a huge loss: his work is largely done."

In fact, Trump has achieved nothing and done nothing of lasting change to the bureaucracy. In a sense it is analogous to the situation with North Korea where, despite Trump's pale Strangelove imitation it was noted in the media that the military had made no changes to its posture.

... ... ...

jmad357 , 18 Aug 2017 17:53

The only time I have ever agreed with Bannon is that his analysis of the potential for N Korea to destroy S Korea with an artillery barrage. With about 12,000 artillery prices the North could launch somewhere around 50,000 shells per minute into Soul. Do the arithmetic for a 10 minute shelling. Any grandstanding by the US military is simply folly.

MasMaz , 18 Aug 2017 17:59

The left's focus on identity politics is the reason this Bannon chump is relevant at all. The switch in focus from class to race and gender has segmented the working class from the common struggle. A people divided. This is about the only strategic fact Bannon understands. But it is an important one.

Identity politics at its core is mostly untenable and while it might treat the symptoms of disease in the short run it will always collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies. The blind squirrel Bannon has found his nut. Continuing to assert that poor white men have it made is demonstrably false and offensive. And gives the alt-right plenty of tools to recruit.

[Aug 18, 2017] Allies of National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster hold Bannon responsible for a campaign by Breitbart News, which Bannon once led, to vilify the security chief by Robert Kuttner

Notable quotes:
"... Contrary to Trump's threat of fire and fury, Bannon said: "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ..."
"... "To me," Bannon said, "the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able to recover." ..."
"... Bannon's plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. "We're going to run the tables on these guys. We've come to the conclusion that they're in an economic war and they're crushing us." ..."
"... "The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." ..."
"... For ideas on how to counter the far-right agenda in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville, click here . ..."
Aug 16, 2017 | prospect.org
You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of events in Charlottesville, he is widely blamed for his boss's continuing indulgence of white supremacists. Allies of National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster hold Bannon responsible for a campaign by Breitbart News, which Bannon once led, to vilify the security chief. Trump's defense of Bannon, at his Tuesday press conference, was tepid.

But Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of taking a harder line with China, and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury. "They're wetting themselves," he said, proceeding to detail how he would oust some of his opponents at State and Defense.

Needless to say, I was a little stunned to get an email from Bannon's assistant midday Tuesday, just as all hell was breaking loose once again about Charlottesville, saying that Bannon wished to meet with me.

Needless to say, I was a little stunned to get an email from Bannon's assistant midday Tuesday, just as all hell was breaking loose once again about Charlottesville, saying that Bannon wished to meet with me. I'd just published a column on how China was profiting from the U.S.-North Korea nuclear brinkmanship, and it included some choice words about Bannon's boss.

"In Kim, Trump has met his match," I wrote. "The risk of two arrogant fools blundering into a nuclear exchange is more serious than at any time since October 1962." Maybe Bannon wanted to scream at me?

I told the assistant that I was on vacation, but I would be happy to speak by phone. Bannon promptly called.

Far from dressing me down for comparing Trump to Kim, he began, "It's a great honor to finally track you down. I've followed your writing for years and I think you and I are in the same boat when it comes to China. You absolutely nailed it."

"We're at economic war with China," he added. "It's in all their literature. They're not shy about saying what they're doing. One of us is going to be a hegemon in 25 or 30 years and it's gonna be them if we go down this path. On Korea, they're just tapping us along. It's just a sideshow."

Bannon said he might consider a deal in which China got North Korea to freeze its nuclear buildup with verifiable inspections and the United States removed its troops from the peninsula, but such a deal seemed remote. Given that China is not likely to do much more on North Korea, and that the logic of mutually assured destruction was its own source of restraint, Bannon saw no reason not to proceed with tough trade sanctions against China.

Contrary to Trump's threat of fire and fury, Bannon said: "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." Bannon went on to describe his battle inside the administration to take a harder line on China trade, and not to fall into a trap of wishful thinking in which complaints against China's trade practices now had to take a backseat to the hope that China, as honest broker, would help restrain Kim.

"To me," Bannon said, "the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able to recover."

Bannon's plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. "We're going to run the tables on these guys. We've come to the conclusion that they're in an economic war and they're crushing us."

But what about his internal adversaries, at the departments of State and Defense, who think the United States can enlist Beijing's aid on the North Korean standoff, and at Treasury and the National Economic Council who don't want to mess with the trading system?

"Oh, they're wetting themselves," he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has big plans to marginalize their influence.

"I'm changing out people at East Asian Defense; I'm getting hawks in. I'm getting Susan Thornton [acting head of East Asian and Pacific Affairs] out at State."

But can Bannon really win that fight internally?

"That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying."

"We gotta do this. The president's default position is to do it, but the apparatus is going crazy. Don't get me wrong. It's like, every day."

Bannon explained that his strategy is to battle the trade doves inside the administration while building an outside coalition of trade hawks that includes left as well as right. Hence the phone call to me.

There are a couple of things that are startling about this premise. First, to the extent that most of the opponents of Bannon's China trade strategy are other Trump administration officials, it's not clear how reaching out to the left helps him. If anything, it gives his adversaries ammunition to characterize Bannon as unreliable or disloyal.

More puzzling is the fact that Bannon would phone a writer and editor of a progressive publication (the cover lines on whose first two issues after Trump's election were "Resisting Trump" and "Containing Trump") and assume that a possible convergence of views on China trade might somehow paper over the political and moral chasm on white nationalism.

The question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up. This is also puzzling, since Steve Bannon is not exactly Bambi when it comes to dealing with the press. He's probably the most media-savvy person in America.

I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the ugly white nationalism epitomized by the racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump's reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of using Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump's base.

He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."

"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.

From his lips to Trump's ear.

"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."

I had never before spoken with Bannon. I came away from the conversation with a sense both of his savvy and his recklessness. The waters around him are rising, but he is going about his business of infighting, and attempting to cultivate improbable outside allies, to promote his China strategy. His enemies will do what they do.

Either the reports of the threats to Bannon's job are grossly exaggerated and leaked by his rivals, or he has decided not to change his routine and to go down fighting. Given Trump's impulsivity, neither Bannon nor Trump really has any idea from day to day whether Bannon is staying or going. He has survived earlier threats. So what the hell, damn the torpedoes.

The conversation ended with Bannon inviting me to the White House after Labor Day to continue the discussion of China and trade. We'll see if he's still there.

For ideas on how to counter the far-right agenda in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville, click here .

[Aug 18, 2017] Steve Bannon goes as the military takes over the Trump administration by Alexander Mercouris

Notable quotes:
"... Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one. ..."
"... Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense. ..."
"... Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual. ..."
"... n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills. ..."
"... The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland. ..."
"... I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it. ..."
"... As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration. ..."
"... In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway. ..."
"... The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise. ..."
"... The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | theduran.com

The announcement of the 'resignation' of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon represents the culmination of a process which began with the equally forced 'resignation' of President Trump's first National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.

Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one.

Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense.

In the case of Bannon, it is his clear that his ousting was insisted on by General Kelly, who is continuing to tighten his control of the White House.

Bannon's removal – not coincidentally – has come at the same time that General H.R. McMaster is completing his purge of the remaining Flynn holdovers on the staff of the National Security Council.

Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual.

I n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills.

Bannon is sometimes credited as being the author of the President's two travel ban Executive Orders. I am sure this wrong. The Executive Orders clearly originate with the wishes of the President himself. If Bannon did have any role in them – which is possible – it would have been secondary to the President's own. I would add that in that case Bannon must take some of the blame for the disastrously incompetent execution of the first of these two Executive Orders, which set the scene for the legal challenges that followed.

The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland.

I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it.

However it is the closest thing to an ideological statement the President has made since he took office, and Bannon is widely believed – probably rightly – to have written it.

As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration.

In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway.

It is in a completely different respect – one wholly independent of President Trump's success or failure as President – that the events of the last few weeks give cause for serious concern.

The events of the last year highlight the extent to which the US is in deep political crisis.

The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise.

All this is happening at the same time that there is growing criticism of the economic institutions of the US government, which since the 2008 financial crisis have seemed to side with a wealthy and unprincipled minority against the interests of the majority.

The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots.

It is striking that the only officials President Trump can nominate to senior positions who do not immediately run into bitter opposition have been – apart from General Flynn, who was a special case – senior soldiers.

Now the military in the persons of Kelly, McMaster and Mattis find themselves at the heart of the US government to an extent that has never been true before in US history, even during the Presidencies of former military men like Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant or Dwight Eisenhower.

The last time that happened in a major Western nation – that the civilian institutions of the state had become so dysfunctional that the military as the only functioning institution left ended up dominating the nation's government and deciding the nation's policies – was in Germany in the lead up to the First World War.

Time will show what the results will be this time, but the German example is hardly a reassuring one.

[Aug 18, 2017] Pentagon took over White house: The firing of Bannon leaves the Generals without an opposing view. They will no longer be contradicted

Bannon does not have a well defined economic policy. And he was a suspected leaker. For a former military officer he also have pretty lose lips (which tend to sink ships) and penchant for self-promotion as we later discovered from Wolff's book
Notable quotes:
"... Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/ ..."
"... US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity." ..."
"... We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow. ..."
"... Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera. ..."
"... Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality. ..."
"... The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes. ..."
"... Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Are we a step closer to War?

jawbone | Aug 18, 2017 2:19:23 PM | 97

Well, with Bannon gone who will have most influence over Trump now? Will the rest of the Alt-Righters stay at the White House? Hhhmmm...

Meanwhile, while the MCM (mainstream corporate media) is unable to focus on more that one or two things, Trump has signed an executive order which will have real work consequences as sea levels rise. Under Obama, a rule was developed to require infrastructure projects to consider the effects of global warming on flooding, effects of storms, etc. Now, developers are free to build what and where they want, with no consideration for the possible damage which might destroy those projects in the future.

Throw-away society on a grand --and expensive-- scale.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-scrap-rule-protect-094700052.html

Oh, my. Things ought to be interesting in DC in the near future. Dangerous all over in the long run.

jawbone | Aug 18, 2017 2:20:53 PM | 98
Oops. Real work consequences should have been real world consequences. Preview is a good tool to use....
karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 2:29:00 PM | 99
Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/

Now it appears that Trump's completely surrounded by the former generals he appointed--a different version of Seven Days in May? Or is it the fantastical number of contradictions finally coming home to roost as The Saker seems to think, http://thesaker.is/the-neocons-are-pushing-the-usa-and-the-rest-of-the-world-towards-a-dangerous-crisis/

When Trump got elected, I thought the best outcome would be total gridlock in DC; and in some ways, that's what's occurred. Yet, as The Saker points out, something's afoot if the propaganda published by Newsweek--which is owned by Bezos--is any indication.

It's Friday. The Syrian Army is making huge gains. Congress is in recess. And the weather forecast for Monday's eclipse here on the Oregon coast is looking positive--no fog!

karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 2:37:52 PM | 100 previous page
Yeah jawbone, it's a good tool. I should've used it prior to my comment being grabbed by the spambot. Al Gore's opined Trump should resign, indicating he favors Pence, which send s what sort of message given the context Gore opined? https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/al-gore-has-just-one-small-bit-advice-trump-resign As most barflys know, Pence is far worse on most things than Trump. Did Gore just out himself as a previously closeted Neocon?
Anonymous | Aug 18, 2017 2:40:58 PM | 101
Another "grown up"?:

Mattis to back Kiev's claim to Crimea during Ukraine visit

US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

fastfreddy | Aug 18, 2017 2:42:16 PM | 102
Manifest Destiny and Religious Zealotry (extremism) were manifested in recent history by America's Great Leaders. Here's General Boykin:

You know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his [about Muslims in Somalia]. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.

Many other quotes here:

http://www.azquotes.com/author/39645-William_G_Boykin

Greg M | Aug 18, 2017 2:55:25 PM | 103
@96, I view this as part of an effort to push back against anti Iran pro Israel hard liners. First with Flynn, then McMaster forcing out Flynn allies, and now Bannon. Not that McMaster and his people are not pro Israel or possess any redeeming qualities, but it is important to understand that Bannon and those in his circle are NOT anti interventionists.
@Madderhatter67 | Aug 18, 2017 3:21:06 PM | 104
Thirdeye & Fastfreddy

Thirdeye "The third eye is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye which provides perception beyond ordinary sight." Wikipedia ;)

This is a good read. Especially for Thirdeye blind.

Pardon Me! High Crimes and Demeanors in the Age of Trump By Tom Engelhardt

Let me try to get this straight: from the moment the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 until recently just about every politician and mainstream pundit in America assured us that we were the planet's indispensable nation, the only truly exceptional one on this small orb of ours.

We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow.

Who could doubt that this was now our world in a coming American century beyond compare?

And then, of course, came the attacks of 9/11................ The rest below.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/

Anonymous | Aug 18, 2017 3:34:25 PM | 105
Greg D

You couldnt be more wrong: Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera.

karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 3:37:18 PM | 106
@Madderhatter67 @104--

Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality.

smuks | Aug 18, 2017 6:50:43 PM | 107
Nah...don't quite agree on this one. The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes.

Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times.

[Aug 18, 2017] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/steve-bannon-trump-white-house.html

Notable quotes:
"... Lots of dunces, but chief strategist Steve Bannon, sadly, isn't one of them. The intellectual leader of the alt-right movement is no genius – nobody with his political views could be – but neither is he an idiot. He's one of the few people in that White House with even a primitive grasp of long-term strategy, which makes his impulsive-seeming decision to call The American Prospect this week curious. ..."
"... In the interview, Bannon said there was "no military solution" to North Korea's posturing. He stressed his efforts to fight economic war with China, adding, in a Scaramuccian touch, that his intramural foes on that front were "wetting themselves." ..."
"... "The longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em," he said. "I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:19 AM

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-fire-steve-bannon-w498354

Fire Steve Bannon

The Trump administration's stubbly race warrior reminds us why he's so dangerous

By Matt Taibbi
21 hours ago

The list of nitwits in the Trump administration is long. Betsy DeVos, in charge of education issues, seems capable of losing at tic-tac-toe. Ben Carson thought the great pyramids of Egypt were grain warehouses. Rick Perry, merely in charge of the nation's nuclear arsenal, probably has post-it notes all over his office to remind him what things are: telephone, family photo, souvenir atomic-reactor paperweight, etc.

Lots of dunces, but chief strategist Steve Bannon, sadly, isn't one of them. The intellectual leader of the alt-right movement is no genius – nobody with his political views could be – but neither is he an idiot. He's one of the few people in that White House with even a primitive grasp of long-term strategy, which makes his impulsive-seeming decision to call The American Prospect this week curious.

In the interview, Bannon said there was "no military solution" to North Korea's posturing. He stressed his efforts to fight economic war with China, adding, in a Scaramuccian touch, that his intramural foes on that front were "wetting themselves."

When asked about the Charlottesville tragedy, Bannon called the neo-Nazi marchers "a collection of clowns." He also called them "losers" and a "fringe element."

This theoretically should be a dark time for Bannon, since Charlottesville reminded the whole world of his inexplicable and indefensible presence in the White House. The story has even the National Review howling for his dismissal.

But Prospect writer Robert Kuttner noted with surprise in his piece that Bannon seemed upbeat. He essentially told Kuttner he believed the Charlottesville mess and stories like it were a long-term political windfall for people like himself.

"The longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em," he said. "I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."

...
Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:20 AM

The president and senior White House officials were debating when and how to dismiss Stephen K. Bannon as chief strategist.

Mr. Bannon had clashed for months with other senior West Wing advisers and members of the president's family.

Trump Tells Aides He Has Decided to Remove Stephen Bannon https://nyti.ms/2vKGSNG

NYT - MAGGIE HABERMAN - August 18

President Trump has told senior aides that he has decided to remove Stephen K. Bannon, the embattled White House chief strategist who helped Mr. Trump win the 2016 election, according to two administration officials briefed on the discussion.

The president and senior White House officials were debating when and how to dismiss Mr. Bannon. The two administration officials cautioned that Mr. Trump is known to be averse to confrontation within his inner circle, and could decide to keep on Mr. Bannon for some time.

As of Friday morning, the two men were still discussing Mr. Bannon's future, the officials said. A person close to Mr. Bannon insisted the parting of ways was his idea, and that he had submitted his resignation to the president on Aug. 7, to be announced at the start of this week, but the move was delayed after the racial unrest in Charlottesville, Va.

Mr. Bannon had clashed for months with other senior West Wing advisers and members of the president's family.

But the loss of Mr. Bannon, the right-wing nationalist who helped propel some of Mr. Trump's campaign promises into policy reality, raises the potential for the president to face criticism from the conservative news media base that supported him over the past year.

Mr. Bannon's many critics bore down after the violence in Charlottesville. Outraged over Mr. Trump's insistence that "both sides" were to blame for the violence that erupted at a white nationalist rally, leaving one woman dead, human rights activists demanded that the president fire so-called nationalists working in the West Wing. That group of hard-right populists in the White House is led by Mr. Bannon.

On Tuesday at Trump Tower in New York, Mr. Trump refused to guarantee Mr. Bannon's job security but defended him as "not a racist" and "a friend."

"We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Bannon's dismissal followed an Aug. 16 interview he initiated with a writer with whom he had never spoken, with the progressive publication The American Prospect. In it, Mr. Bannon mockingly played down the American military threat to North Korea as nonsensical: "Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ...
Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:37 AM
Trump on North Korea https://nyti.ms/2vI6smj
NYT - MARK LANDLER - August 17

WASHINGTON -- For all his fire-breathing nationalism -- the demands to ban Muslims, build a wall on the Mexican border and honor statues of Confederate heroes -- Stephen K. Bannon has played another improbable role in the Trump White House: resident dove.

From Afghanistan and North Korea to Syria and Venezuela, Mr. Bannon, the president's chief strategist, has argued against making military threats or deploying American troops into foreign conflicts.

His views, delivered in a characteristically bomb-throwing style, have antagonized people across the administration, leaving Mr. Bannon isolated and in danger of losing his job. But they are thoroughly in keeping with his nationalist credo, and they have occasionally resonated with the person who matters most: President Trump.

Mr. Bannon's dovish tendencies spilled into view this week in unguarded comments he made about North Korea to a liberal publication, The American Prospect. Days after Mr. Trump threatened to rain "fire and fury" on the North Korean government if it did not curb its belligerent behavior, Mr. Bannon said, "There's no military solution here; they got us." ...
Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:43 AM

The casualties are not worth the little chance of blunting Kim.

Beside look: with all that money and training and so forth....DDG 62, an Aegis destroyer could not stay safe in peaceful water!

US can't poke ISIS out of Raqqa in 3 years, what would happen with 2 million soldier tough as VC?

+outside of Lemay/MacArthur nukes. Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 02:12 PM

"When asked about the Charlottesville tragedy, Bannon called the neo-Nazi marchers "a collection of clowns." He also called them "losers" and a "fringe element.""

Maybe that was it? Why would he call the Prospect? Did he think he was calling the American Conservative and it was off the record? Did he know he was out?
Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:45 AM

Stephen K. Bannon's exit was described in a White House statement as a mutual decision between Mr. Bannon and Chief of Staff John Kelly.

Critics of Mr. Bannon, a right-wing nationalist, bore down after the violence in Charlottesville.

Stephen Bannon Out at the White House After
Turbulent Run https://nyti.ms/2vKGSNG

Stephen K. Bannon, the embattled chief strategist who helped President Trump win the 2016 election but clashed for months with other senior West Wing advisers, is leaving his post, a White House spokeswoman announced Friday.

"White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said in a statement. "We are grateful for his service and wish him the best." ... Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 11:31 AM

What kind of talk doesn't threaten the money and power of the 0.1%?

What kind of talk do we get and from whom? Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:55 AM

"The Democratic Party isn't going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer
....................
"The Democratic Party isn't going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill," Warren said. "We're not going back to the days of being lukewarm on choice. We're not going back to the days when universal healthcare was something Democrats talked about on the campaign trail but were too chicken to fight for after they got elected."

"And," Warren concluded, "we're not going back to the days when a Democrat who wanted to run for a seat in Washington first had to grovel on Wall Street."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/centrist-democrats-riled-warren-says-days-lukewarm-policies-are-over

[Aug 18, 2017] What Bannon s exit might mean the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism

To a certain extent Bannon symbolized backlash against neoliberal globalization, that is mounting in the USA. With him gone Trump is a really emasculated and become a puppet of generals, who are the only allies left capable to run the show. Some of them are real neocons. What a betrayal of voters who are sick and tired of wars for expansion and protection of global neoliberal empire.
Notable quotes:
"... What Bannon's exit might mean, however, is the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism -- and I think giving up the pretense matters, at least a bit. ..."
"... The basics of the U.S. economic debate are really very simple. The federal government, as often noted, is an insurance company with an army: aside from defense, its spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (plus some ACA subsidies). ..."
"... Conservatives always claim that they want to make government smaller. But that means cutting these programs -- and what we know now, after the repeal debacle, is that people like all these programs, even the means-tested programs like Medicaid. Obama paid a large temporary price for making Medicaid/ACA bigger, paid for with taxes on the wealthy, but now that it's in place, voters hate the idea of taking it away. ..."
"... So if Bannon is out, what's left? It's just reverse Robin Hood with extra racism. On real policy, in other words, Trump is now bankrupt. ..."
"... with Bannon and economic nationalism gone, he will eventually double down on that part even more. If anything, Trump_vs_deep_state is going to get even uglier, and Trump even less presidential (if such a thing is possible) now that he has fewer people pushing for trade wars. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

Christopher H. , August 18, 2017 at 01:24 PM

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/whither-Trump_vs_deep_state/

Whither Trump_vs_deep_state?

by Paul Krugman

AUGUST 18, 2017 1:48 PM

Everyone seems to be reporting that Steve Bannon is out. I have no insights about the palace intrigue; and anyone who thinks Trump will become "presidential" now is an idiot. In particular, I very much doubt that the influence of white supremacists and neo-Nazis will wane.

What Bannon's exit might mean, however, is the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism -- and I think giving up the pretense matters, at least a bit.

The basics of the U.S. economic debate are really very simple. The federal government, as often noted, is an insurance company with an army: aside from defense, its spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (plus some ACA subsidies).

Conservatives always claim that they want to make government smaller. But that means cutting these programs -- and what we know now, after the repeal debacle, is that people like all these programs, even the means-tested programs like Medicaid. Obama paid a large temporary price for making Medicaid/ACA bigger, paid for with taxes on the wealthy, but now that it's in place, voters hate the idea of taking it away.

So what's a tax-cutter to do? His agenda is fundamentally unpopular; how can it be sold?

One long-standing answer is to muddy the waters, and make elections about white resentment. That's been the strategy since Nixon, and Trump turned the dial up to 11. And they've won a lot of elections -- but never had the political capital to reverse the welfare state.

Another strategy is to invoke voodoo: to claim that taxes can be cut without spending cuts, because miracles will happen. That has sometimes worked as a political strategy, but overall it seems to have lost its punch. Kansas is a cautionary tale; and under Obama federal taxes on the top 1 percent basically went back up to pre-Reagan levels.

So what did Trump seem to offer that was new? First, during the campaign he combined racist appeals with claims that he wouldn't cut the safety net. This sounded as if he was offering a kind of herrenvolk welfare state: all the benefits you expect, but only for your kind of people.

Second, he offered economic nationalism: we were going to beat up on the Chinese, the Mexicans, somebody, make the Europeans pay tribute for defense, and that would provide the money for so much winning, you'd get tired of winning. Economic nonsense, but some voters believed it.

Where are we now? The herrenvolk welfare state never materialized, in part because Trump is too lazy to understand policy at all, and outsourced health care to the usual suspects. So Trumpcare turned out to be the same old Republican thing: slash benefits for the vulnerable to cut taxes for the rich. And it was desperately unpopular.

Meanwhile, things have moved very slowly on the economic nationalism front -- partly because a bit of reality struck, as export industries realized what was at stake and retailers and others balked at the notion of new import taxes. But also, there were very few actual voices for that policy with Trump's ear -- mainly Bannon, as far as I can tell.

So if Bannon is out, what's left? It's just reverse Robin Hood with extra racism. On real policy, in other words, Trump is now bankrupt.

But he does have the racism thing. And my prediction is that with Bannon and economic nationalism gone, he will eventually double down on that part even more. If anything, Trump_vs_deep_state is going to get even uglier, and Trump even less presidential (if such a thing is possible) now that he has fewer people pushing for trade wars.

[Aug 18, 2017] Alt-Right and Ultra-Zionist Alliance against National Security Advisor McMaster

Notable quotes:
"... He was then moved quickly to contain the influence of chief strategist Steve Bannon, who McMaster removed from the National Security Council. If you recall, he was appointed to contain other Trump loyalists such as Michael Flynn, as well. ..."
"... Recently, a campaign accusing him of being anti-Israel has been waged with the support of billionaire Sheldon Adelson by a coalition of alt-right nationalists that includes Steve Bannon ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | therealnews.com

Remember Lieutenant-General Herbert Raymond McMaster? He was appointed as President Trump's national security adviser back in February. He was then moved quickly to contain the influence of chief strategist Steve Bannon, who McMaster removed from the National Security Council. If you recall, he was appointed to contain other Trump loyalists such as Michael Flynn, as well.

Recently, a campaign accusing him of being anti-Israel has been waged with the support of billionaire Sheldon Adelson by a coalition of alt-right nationalists that includes Steve Bannon and extreme right-wing Zionists such as the president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, as well as by Israeli journalist Caroline Glick from the Jerusalem Post. President Trump, in response to all of this, called McMaster "a good man, very pro-Israel," and Israeli officials have also come forward calling McMaster a friend of Israel.

On to talk about these connections and tensions is Shir Hever. Shir is a Real News correspondent in Heidelberg, Germany. Of course, he covers Israel and Palestine for us extensively. I thank you so much for joining us, Shir.

SHIR HEVER: Thanks for having me, Sharmini.

SHARMINI PERIES: Shir, President Trump is now six months into his office as president. He initially has appointed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to take up the Israel file, but there are these allegations flying against General McMaster. Explain to us what's going on. Why are these individuals like Sheldon Adelson even concerned about how Trump is responding in terms of Israel and Israel policy?

SHIR HEVER: I think there's very little that General McMaster can actually do about Israel or against Israel. It really doesn't matter much. The only issue that has come up was the Iran nuclear deal, and I think this is going to be a decision taken directly by President Trump and not by McMaster. Also, what exactly is the Israel interest regarding the Iran nuclear deal? It is not so clear. Obviously, Prime Minister Netanyahu has a certain opinion, but other Israeli politicians have other opinions.

I think this is really a symbolic issue. There are people in the alt-right and also the extreme Zionism who are using this old worn-out accusation that somebody is anti-Israel in order to get their own people into the National Security Council, in order to exert influence on the Trump administration. This coalition between extreme right nationalists, white nationalists in the United States, and Jewish Zionists, which traditionally were on opposing sides, are now working together because of this very strange rise of this alt-right.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Now, give us a greater sense of the connection or the tensions between these alt-right organizations and McMaster and Bannon. Map this for us.

SHIR HEVER: Yeah. I've been looking through these accusations that Caroline Glick, deputy editor of the Jerusalem Post, and Steve Bannon himself, and also Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America. What problem do they have with McMaster? They make very vague things about some statements that he made, but they couldn't put them in context. He said that Israel is an occupying power. Of course, Israel is an occupying power, but they couldn't place that statement. The only thing that their criticism boils down to is they say McMaster is a remnant of the Obama administration. He continues the Obama policies, and therefore he's not loyal to Trump.

I think this is the crux of the matter, because actually, for people like Caroline Glick and I think also for Sheldon Adelson, their relation to Trump borders on religious. They consider Trump to be some kind of messiah or savior that will allow Israel once and for all to annex the occupied territory, expand its borders, and then the land will be redeemed. They talk about this in religious terminology.

Here's the problem. Trump has been president for six months now, and Israel did not annex the territory. It did not expand its borders. In fact, it has gone from one crisis to the next, and the Israeli government is not able to cement its power over the Palestinians. Palestinian resistance is not tied down. They're looking for an explanation. The explanation is that something is not pure in the Trump administration, and they're pointing the finger at McMaster saying, "Because of people like him who are sabotaging Trump's own policies from the inside, then this is preventing the Trump administration from reaching its full potential."

SHARMINI PERIES: Right. Obviously, Netanyahu and the Israeli government doesn't agree with this assessment. In fact, they have come out supporting McMaster as being a good supporter of Israel. How does this play out here?

SHIR HEVER: Absolutely. Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing real politics. He knows that there's nothing that President Trump can do that will actually make Israel suddenly conquer more territory. That's not the point. Netanyahu is trying to balance a very complicated system with pressure from different points, and he is a populist, and he's only in power because of his populism. Now, his administration is under threat because of corruption allegations, so this is a problem for him. When people expect that the Trump administration will free his hands to do whatever he wants, Netanyahu suddenly has a problem because he needs to come up with a new excuse. Why doesn't he annex all the occupied territory?

Of course, for him, it's not a good time to get into a fight with the Trump administration. He wants to create the impression that things are happening under the surface, that he is in the know, that his friends are involved in this, but I think the fact that Sheldon Adelson, the big financial supporter of Netanyahu, is now switching to support extreme right groups that have nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli current administration, but are actually trying to push the Israeli administration to move further to the extreme right and to annex territory, that puts Netanyahu in trouble. I think it also spells some clouds over the warm relationship between Netanyahu and Adelson.

SHARMINI PERIES: Coming back to this side of things here in the United States, in light of the events of Charlottesville, Shir, showing a direct link between the alt-right and hardcore racists and neo-Nazis, why would extreme right-wing Zionist Jewish organizations and individuals like Glick and Klein agree to cooperate with the alt-right in this way?

SHIR HEVER: I think people on the left tend to forget that, just like the left considers itself to be a kind of universalist movement, and that leftists around the world should have solidarity with each other, the right also has a kind of solidarity, especially the extreme right. Extreme right movements in different countries consider the extreme right in other countries to be their allies. One of the things we saw in Charlottesville is that some of these neo-Nazi groups and white nationalist groups are big supporters of Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, because they see him as the kind of strong leader they would like to see in the United States as well.

For people who see Donald Trump talking about America first, then they're saying, "Okay, that's exactly the kind of administration we want to see in Israel, somebody taking about Israel first." For Caroline Gluck or for a Morton Klein, they are willing to accept a very heavy load of racism and even anti-semitism against Jews from the Trump administration and from its supporters in exchange for being allowed to copy that same kind of racism and that same kind of right-wing policy towards their minorities. Just like the American administration has its minorities, Muslims, Mexicans which are being targeted, Israel also has its minorities, Palestinians and asylum-seekers, and they want those people to be targeted in the same harsh language and the same harsh policies, so that we can [inaudible] a great compromise.

I have to say, the events in Charlottesville had a profound impact on Israeli public opinion. In fact, there are a lot of Israelis who are very concerned about this kind of coalition. They are saying, "No, there's not that much that we're willing to take in order to keep the relations with the Trump administration on good footing." Because of that, the president of Israel, President Rivlin, and also the education minister Naftali Bennett issued statements condemning white nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville. I think Naftali Bennett, who is the head of the Jewish Nationalist Party in Israel, and he's actually of the same political camp as Caroline Glick, as Morton Klein, when he makes that statement, that shows that even he thinks that they have gone too far.

SHARMINI PERIES: Interesting analysis, Shir. I thank you so much for joining us today. I guess the situation in Charlottesville is evolving, and it would be interesting to continue to keep an eye on what's developing here against what's happening in Israel as well. Thank you so much.

SHIR HEVER: Thank you, Sharmini.

SHARMINI PERIES: Thank you for joining us here on the Real News Network.

Jibaro 4 hours ago

Confusing, at least to me, in any case I believe that the Zionists learned a lot from the Nazis and there is very little difference between the two groups. I would say that the main difference lies in the fact that the Zionists are sneakier and know how to play with popular opinion. That's why it doesn't surprise me that they are making a common cause with the white supremacists groups.

The only surprise here is that they are doing it openly now. They have become brave and have decided to take the backlash. Perhaps they are doing so because they know they have the support of Trump.

Divide and conquer. Soon we will be fighting on our own streets against each other. It will be the death of the US...

Donatella 10 hours ago

"For Caroline Gluck or for a Morton Klein, they are willing to accept a very heavy load of racism and even anti-semitism against Jews from the Trump administration and from its supporters in exchange for being allowed to copy that same kind of racism and that same kind of right-wing policy towards their minorities."

I have great respect for Shir Hever, he has great insight into Israel society and politics. However, his statement that Klein and Glick (and maybe Adelson) want to be "allowed" to copy Trump's supporter's racism and right-wing policies towards minorities in Israel is beyond hilarious. Minorities in Israel have been and continue to be subjected to racist and supremacist policies (much worse than anything Trump supporters can even imagine) by the Zionists since the theft of Palestinian's land in 1948. The Israelis are not just pursuing racist policies but as Israeli historian Ilan Pappe said, they are committing slow motion genocide against the Palestinians.

[Aug 18, 2017] The Corporate fascist - with grains of salt - USA. The democracy part is fiction, camouflaged via a fools theatre two-party system and ginormous social re-distribution, amongst others.. the Core (PTB) found itself through miscalculation and loss of power subject to a challenger who broke thru the organised/fake elections, to attempt some kind of readjustement - renewal - reset...

Ethnic nationalism rises when the state and the nation experience economic difficulties. Weimar republic is a classic example here.
Notable quotes:
"... That's exactly nationalism, for sure. The work of that wealth creation by the way is done by the all the classes below the rentier class, from working to middle class. The funneling upwards thing is actually theft. ..."
"... The middle class is shrinking and being pushed down closer to rage because the wealth-stealing mechanisms have become bigger and better, and saturated the entire national system, including its electoral politics. This real face of capitalism has driven out the iconic American Dream, which was the essence of upward mobility. ..."
"... Nationalism is an ugly word, but it's easily reached for when there aren't any better words around. In Russia, they already went through what faces the US, and they figured it out. ..."
"... "In our view, faster growth is necessary but not sufficient to restore higher intergenerational income mobility," they wrote. "Evidence suggests that, to increase income mobility, policymakers should focus on raising middle-class and lower-income household incomes." ..."
"... Advocating smoothed-out relations with Russia (for commercial perso reasons, Tillerson, etc. and a need to grade adversaries and accept some into the fold, like Russia, instead of Iran ), a more level playing field, multi-polar world, to actually become more dominant in trade (China etc.) and waste less treasure on supporting enemies, aka proxy stooges, to no purpose (e.g. Muslim brotherhood, Al Q kooks, ISIS) and possibly even Israel -- hmmm. ..."
"... The old guard will do much to get rid of the upstart and his backers (who they are exactly I'd quite like to know?) as all their positions and revenues are at risk ..."
"... The Trump crowd seems at the same time both vulnerable and determined and thus navigating à vue as the F say, by sight and without a plan An underground internal war which is stalemated, leading to instrumentalising the ppl and creating chaos, scandals, etc. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Tay | Aug 18, 2017 6:56:05 AM | 82

The US has no problem generating wealth, and has no need to force conflict with China. The US's problem is that that wealth is funneled upwards. Wealth inequality is not a meme. "Shrinking middle class" is a euphemism for downward-mobility of the middle class, an historical incubator for Reaction. And that's what we have here, reactionaries from a middle class background who now are earning less than their parents at menial jobs, or who are unemployed, becoming goons; aping the klan, appropriating nazi icons, blaming the foreigner, the negro, the Jew, the Muslim, for their circumstances. A "trade war" will not help them one iota, it will make their lives worse, and Bannon will go out and say it's the fault of the foreigner and the immigrant, their numbers wool swell. More terror, depper culture wars. I suppose that's nationalism to some people.

Grieved | Aug 18, 2017 9:51:21 AM | 83

@82 Tay

That's exactly nationalism, for sure. The work of that wealth creation by the way is done by the all the classes below the rentier class, from working to middle class. The funneling upwards thing is actually theft.

The middle class is shrinking and being pushed down closer to rage because the wealth-stealing mechanisms have become bigger and better, and saturated the entire national system, including its electoral politics. This real face of capitalism has driven out the iconic American Dream, which was the essence of upward mobility.

Nationalism is an ugly word, but it's easily reached for when there aren't any better words around. In Russia, they already went through what faces the US, and they figured it out.

Since we're looking for the grown-ups, let's turn to Vladimir Putin, always reliable for sanity when direction is lost.

Putin recalled the words of outstanding Soviet Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachev that patriotism drastically differs from nationalism. "Nationalism is hatred of other peoples, while patriotism is love for your motherland," Putin cited his words.

-- Putin reminds that "patriotism drastically differs from nationalism"

somebody | Aug 18, 2017 11:00:25 AM | 86
83
Upward mobility has fallen sharply
"In our view, faster growth is necessary but not sufficient to restore higher intergenerational income mobility," they wrote. "Evidence suggests that, to increase income mobility, policymakers should focus on raising middle-class and lower-income household incomes."

Interventions worth considering include universal preschool and greater access to public universities, increasing the minimum wage, and offering vouchers to help families with kids move from poor neighborhoods into areas with better schools and more resources, they said.

Is there any political party or group in the US that suggests this?

Noirette | Aug 18, 2017 11:56:04 AM | 90
The Corporate "fascist" - with grains of salt - USA. The 'democracy' part is fiction, camouflaged via a fools theatre two-party system and ginormous social re-distribution, amongst others.. the Core (PTB) found itself through miscalculation and loss of power subject to a challenger who broke thru the \organised/ fake elections, to attempt some kind of re-adjustement - renewal - re-set - review...

Advocating smoothed-out relations with Russia (for commercial perso reasons, Tillerson, etc. and a need to grade adversaries and accept some into the fold, like Russia, instead of Iran ), a more level playing field, multi-polar world, to actually become more dominant in trade (China etc.) and waste less treasure on supporting enemies, aka proxy stooges, to no purpose (e.g. Muslim brotherhood, Al Q kooks, ISIS) and possibly even Israel -- hmmm.

Heh, the profits of domination are to be organised, extracted and distributed, differently. One Mafia-type tribe taking over from another! Ivanka will be The Sweet First Woman Prezzie! Style, Heart, Love, Looks! Go!

The old guard will do much to get rid of the upstart and his backers (who they are exactly I'd quite like to know?) as all their positions and revenues are at risk, so they are activating all - anything to attack. The Trump crowd seems at the same time both vulnerable and determined and thus navigating à vue as the F say, by sight and without a plan An underground internal war which is stalemated, leading to instrumentalising the ppl and creating chaos, scandals, etc.

[Aug 17, 2017] Grown-ups Versus Ideologues The Media Narrative of the White House May Be All Wrong

Notable quotes:
"... McMaster's was spewing nonsense. The same was said about the Soviet Union and China when they became nuclear weapons states. North Korea just became one . Conventional deterrence of both sides has worked with North Korea for decades. Nuclear deterrence with North Korea will work just as well as it did with the Soviet and Chinese communists. If North Korea were really not deterrable the U.S. should have nuked it yesterday to minimize the overall risk and damage. It is the McMaster position that is ideological and not rational or "grown up" at all. ..."
"... Compare that to Steve Bannon's take on the issue: ..."
"... "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ..."
"... But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained from an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China), perhaps a leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US. Third generation at war with the US and his seen his father was fucked over when trying to make a deal with the US. NK's nuke and missile tech have come a long way in the few short years Kim Jong Un has been in power. ..."
"... "Deterrence is a strategy intended to dissuade an adversary from taking an action not yet started, or to prevent them from doing something that another state desires." ..."
"... Classic deterrence strategy IS working for NK perfectly. ..."
"... All one has to do to know what Bannon's position on Iran is to read Breitbart on any given day. Unless we are supposed to believe that Bannon's opinions are not reflected by the website he ran for four years. Bannon is for war against Islam in general, there is nothing "realist" about his foreign policy. ..."
"... @12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an alliance of corporate and state powers... but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they [the corporate sector] are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist. ..."
"... Bannon makes sense. That must be why many want him gone especially the neocons. As to North Korea, the US should have admitted "facts on the ground" long ago and worked to sign the official end of the war and work to get the two Koreas talking and working together. ..."
Aug 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The Democrats and the media love the Pentagon generals in the White House. They are the "grown ups":

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., had words of praise for Donald Trump's new pick for national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster -- calling the respected military officer a "certified, card-carrying grown-up,"

According to the main-stream narrative the "grown ups" are opposed by " ideologues " around Trump's senior advisor Steve Bannon. Bannon is even infectious, according to Jeet Heer, as he is Turning Trump Into an Ethno-Nationalist Ideologue . A recent short interview with Bannon dispels that narrative.

Who is really the sane person on, say, North Korea?

The "grown-up" General McMaster, Trump's National Security Advisor, is not one of them. He claims North Korea is not deterrable from doing something insane.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But your predecessor Susan Rice wrote this week that the U.S. could tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea the same way we tolerated nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union far more during the Cold War. Is she right?

MCMASTER: No, she's not right. And I think the reason she's not right is that the classical deterrence theory, how does that apply to a regime like the regime in North Korea? A regime that engages in unspeakable brutality against its own people? A regime that poses a continuous threat to the its neighbors in the region and now may pose a threat, direct threat, to the United States with weapons of mass destruction?

McMaster's was spewing nonsense. The same was said about the Soviet Union and China when they became nuclear weapons states. North Korea just became one . Conventional deterrence of both sides has worked with North Korea for decades. Nuclear deterrence with North Korea will work just as well as it did with the Soviet and Chinese communists. If North Korea were really not deterrable the U.S. should have nuked it yesterday to minimize the overall risk and damage. It is the McMaster position that is ideological and not rational or "grown up" at all.

Compare that to Steve Bannon's take on the issue:

"There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us."

It was indeed the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which "got" the United States and stopped the U.S. escalation game. It is wrong to think that North Korea "backed off" in the recent upheaval about a missile test targeted next to Guam. It was the U.S. that pulled back from threatening behavior.

Since the end of May the U.S. military trained extensively for decapitation and "preemptive" strikes on North Korea:

Two senior military officials -- and two senior retired officers -- told NBC News that key to the plan would be a B-1B heavy bomber attack originating from Andersen Air Force Base in Guam.
...
Of the 11 B-1 practice runs since the end of May, four have also involved practice bombing at military ranges in South Korea and Australia.

In response to the B-1B flights North Korea published plans to launch a missile salvo next to the U.S. island of Guam from where those planes started. The announcement included a hidden offer to stop the test if the U.S. would refrain from further B-1B flights. A deal was made during secret negotiations . Since then no more B-1B flights took place and North Korea suspended its Guam test plans. McMaster lost and the sane people, including Steve Bannon, won.

But what about Bannon's "ethno-nationalist" ideology? Isn't he responsible for the right-wing nutters of Charlottesville conflict? Isn't he one of them?

He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."

"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.

Bannon sees China as an economic enemy and wants to escalate an economic conflict with it. He is said to be against the nuclear deal with Iran. The generals in Trump's cabinet are all anti-Iran hawks. As Bannon now turns out to be a realist on North Korea, I am not sure what real position on Iran is.

Domestically Bannon is pulling the Democrats into the very trap I had several times warned against:

"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."

This worked well during the presidential election and might continue to work for Trump. As long as the Democrats do not come up with, and fight for, sane economic polices they will continue to lose elections. The people are not interested in LGBT access to this or that bathroom. They are interested in universal healthcare, in personal and economic security. They are unlikely to get such under Bannon and Trump. But, unlike the Democrats, the current White House crew at least claim to have plans to achieve it.

Posted by b on August 16, 2017 at 11:51 PM | Permalink

Peter AU 1 | Aug 17, 2017 1:05:52 AM | 1

A couple of very interesting links from the last thread were the one to the Bannon article, and also the link to the Carter/NK article.

Kim Jong Un, 3rd generation like his father and grandfather leader of NK. From what I have read this is a cultural thing t hat predates communism and the Japanese occupation prior. Many pictures of Kim show an overweight youngster amongst gaunt hungry looking generals. Gave the impression of a spoilt kid simply handed power. Not going to the May 9 parade in Russia when invited also gave the impression he was paranoid.

But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained from an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China), perhaps a leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US. Third generation at war with the US and his seen his father was fucked over when trying to make a deal with the US. NK's nuke and missile tech have come a long way in the few short years Kim Jong Un has been in power.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Kim Jong Un and Trump have a meet one day.

The link to the Carter article http://www.fox5atlanta.com/national-news/273096065-story

ben | Aug 17, 2017 1:22:28 AM | 2
b said: "The people are not interested in LGBT access to this or that bathroom. They are interested in universal healthcare, in personal and economic security. They are unlikely to get such under Bannon and Trump. But, unlike the Democrats, the current White House crew at least claim to have plans to achieve it."

With that statement b, you nailed it..

V. Arnold | Aug 17, 2017 1:32:51 AM | 3
"There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us."

Doesn't that at least show Bannon as the adult in the room?
I would say so.

psychohistorian | Aug 17, 2017 1:53:13 AM | 4
So lets start parsing this economic nationalism that Bannon is making happen with Trump.

Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade. It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies.

Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production.

Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario.

At least now, IMO, the battle for a multi-polar (finance) world is out in the open.....let the side taking by nations begin. I hope Bannon is wrong about the timing of potential global power shifting and the US loses its empire status.

psychohistorian | Aug 17, 2017 2:19:03 AM | 5
I thought that maybe Bannon was being a bit too forthright in his recent comments and perhaps he has just painted a big bullseye on his back for the racist clowns he has used to aim at. Check this out: Bannons colleagues disturbed by interview with left wing publication
Copeland | Aug 17, 2017 2:30:36 AM | 6
Bannon thinks the bombast on display between the Kim and Trump has been "a sideshow". The real show, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the dramatic sparring between the two leaders. The Mother Of All Policies, according to Bannon, is an all-bets-on trade war with China, whose endgame admits to only one outcome,--that is to say-- that only one hegemon will remain standing at the end of this struggle.

There can be only one King-of-the-Hill. But where is the Greek Chorus?--the prophetic warning that goes by the name of necessity?-- that tries to ward off hubris? "One must never subscribe to absurdities" (it was Camus who aptly said that).

V. Arnold | Aug 17, 2017 2:39:11 AM | 7
psychohistorian | Aug 17, 2017 2:19:03 AM | 5

I had read this before; interesting to say the least.
Truth be told, I'd never heard of Bannon prior to Trumps election and still know little about him.
Politics aside Bannon seems a straight shooter; I certainly can't argue his statement re: what would happen if we attacked NK. His statement is echo'd by many long before today.
I do plan to start paying attention from this point forward.
Oh, and I did read that Trump is afraid of Bannon, but don't remember the reason stated.

Realist | Aug 17, 2017 3:18:01 AM | 8
Here is Bannon's latest:

Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant:

"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."

"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.

Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists.

somebody | Aug 17, 2017 4:49:34 AM | 12
No, whoever planned that "United Right" rally walked Trump into the trap.

As Trump was incapable to disassociate himself clearly from people who protest against the take down of a statue of General Lee. Trump now owns the race issue.

Steve Bannon is a fascist . That does not mean he is stupid.

The generals are clearly dangerous. They have the power to walk everybody to world war III. Trump has pledged to spend even more on the US military, the military already has the highest spending world wide. The generals don't want to admit that they cannot solve anythings by military power.

Trump going off script in that press conference into a stream of consciousness was bad. He reminded everybody of their rambling demented great-grandfather. He tried to get the discussion to economic issues, he did not succeed.

Veterans Today is a dubious source, but this here sounds genuine Washington behind the mirrors

In stepped more lies and garbage, this time more fake than the other, with chaos theory and psychological warfare organizations drowning in capabilities from the overfunded phony war on terror and too much time on their hands now lending their useless talents toward disinforming the general public.

The result has been a divided US where "alternative facts" fabricated for a vulnerable demographic now competes with the "mainstream" now termed, and I believe rightly so, "fake news" to support different versions of a fictional narrative that resembles reality only in the most rarified and oblique manner.
...

America has left itself open to dictatorship. It long since gave up its ability to govern itself, perhaps it was the central bank, the Federal Reserve in 1913 or more recent erosions of individual power such as the Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2005. Whatever milestone one chooses, the remains of democratic institutions in the US are now difficult to find.

What we are left with is what increasingly seems to be factions, mistakenly defined as "right" or "far right" jockeying for control over America's military, and with that, control over the planet itself.

You see, whoever controls the American military controls the world, unless a power bloc appears that can challenge, well, challenge what? If the Pentagon controls America's military and the Pentagon is controlled by a cabal of religious extremists as many claim or corporate lackeys as most believe, then where does the world stand?

Then again, if Trump and his own Republican congress are at war over impeachment, and I assure you, little else is discussed in Washington, two sides of the same coin, servants of different masters, has all oversite of the newfound military power over American policy disappeared?

To this, we reluctantly say "yes."

Clueless Joe | Aug 17, 2017 5:24:06 AM | 13
Bannon can be perfectly mature, adult and realist on some points and be totally blinded by biases on others - him wanting total economic war against China is proof enough. So I don't rule out that he has a blind spot over Iran and wants to get rid of the regime. I mean, even Trump is realist and adult in a few issues, yet is an oblivious fool on others.

Kind of hard to find someone who's always adult and realist, actually. You can only hope to pick someone who's more realist than most people. Or build a positronic robot and vote for him.

somebody | Aug 17, 2017 6:16:13 AM | 14
There is something to that interview by Steve Bannon with a left wing website .
More puzzling is the fact that Bannon would phone a writer and editor of a progressive publication (the cover lines on whose first two issues after Trump's election were "Resisting Trump" and "Containing Trump") and assume that a possible convergence of views on China trade might somehow paper over the political and moral chasm on white nationalism.

The question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up. This is also puzzling, since Steve Bannon is not exactly Bambi when it comes to dealing with the press. He's probably the most media-savvy person in America.

I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the ugly white nationalism epitomized by the racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump's reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of using Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump's base.

He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."

Explanation a) He wants to explain the climbdown of his boss on North Korea.
Not really helpful to Trump.

b) He wants to save his reputation as the association with the KKK and White Suprematists has become toxic.

Checking on what Breitbart is doing - splitting the Republican Party

A trade war with China would mean prices in the US would become very expensive. It is a fool's strategy.

In other news Iran is threatening to leave the nuclear agreement, and Latin America unites against the US threatening Venezuela with war.

The generals are completely useless.

fairleft | Aug 17, 2017 6:35:17 AM | 15
I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so, then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan in the 80s nd 90s.
c | Aug 17, 2017 6:51:35 AM | 16
psychohistorian a
c | Aug 17, 2017 6:59:32 AM | 17
psychohistorian at 4: 'as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting...'

as a sovereign currency issuer of that size the usa can not run out of dollars
to default on their obligations would be a voluntary mistake the federal reserve will avoid
meanwhile the chinese are investing in africa and other countries securing their position in the world

V. Arnold | Aug 17, 2017 7:43:30 AM | 18
c | Aug 17, 2017 6:59:32 AM | 17
as a sovereign currency issuer of that size the usa can not run out of dollars
to default on their obligations would be a voluntary mistake the federal reserve will avoid
meanwhile the chinese are investing in africa and other countries securing their position in the world

Very good; and I agree with your POV; the usa can not run out of dollars.
And therein lies its power; a very dangerous situation that I do not think the world is equipped to deal with in toto...

steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2017 8:18:55 AM | 19
Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead of the Electoral College, including Steve Bannon. It is the Republican Party, not Trump and his Trumpery who holds majorities in the House, the Senate and the nation's statehouses. Anybody who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has forgotten that Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.

It appears that as a purely nominal Republican, an owner in a hostile takeover, Trump has no qualms about trashing the system. Practically speaking, this is the very opposite of draining the swamp, which requires effective leadership.

Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 8:51:55 AM | 20
Kim Jong Un, 3rd generation like his father and grandfather leader of NK. From what I have read this is a cultural thing that predates communism and the Japanese occupation prior.

But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained from an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China), perhaps a leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Aug 17, 2017 1:05:52 AM | 1

OR, looked at another way:

Perhaps the gurning wunderkind Kim's ascent to the North Korean Throne was completely predictable and was predicted a long time ago, and plans were set in motion to ensure that he was co-opted as a kid, and now works with the US to help counter the rising Chinese power.

Perhaps the alleged face-off Trump, Kim and the western MSM treated the world to over the past while, was merely nothing but a pre-scripted choreographic display, a piece of theater agreed upon beforehand by all participants except China

I wouldn't be surprised to see Kim Jong Un and Trump have a meet one day.

I wouldn't be surprised if Kim Jong Un and Trump actually play for the same side.

Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 8:59:31 AM | 21
Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead of the Electoral College, i

Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2017 8:18:55 AM | 19

Actually as far as I can tell the real political swindlers are the ones who refuse to acknowledge that a US Presidential election is, (and has been for nearly whole time the US has been in existence, which is more than 200 years for those who have problems keeping track of such simple matters) decided NOT by the popular vote but by the results of the Electoral College voting.

Anybody who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has forgotten that Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.

Again, just to repeat the actual reality regarding US Presidential elections: They are decided on the basis of Electoral Collage voting and NOT on the basis of the popular vote, as political swindlers would now like everyone to believe.

Thegenius | Aug 17, 2017 9:08:56 AM | 22
Economics PhDs are resisting the only thing that can actully cause higher inflation rate: trade war
somebody | Aug 17, 2017 9:45:00 AM | 23
19

He is doubling down now defending General Lee statues as beautiful. He is doing the same strategy as he did in his duel with Hillary Clinton when everybody thought he was insane, playing to his core Republican base to make sure Republicans have to stay in line or face a primary challenge.

Breitbart is doing the same threatening "Republican traitors".

The problem with this strategy is that Trump won because Hillary Clinton was so unpopular, because their pollsters outsmarted Nate Silver and Co. and possibly because she was a woman.

But Republicans who have to pretend they are religious right wing nuts in the primaries, then have to appeal to independents to win the actual election.

So they cannot go against Trump but cannot defend him. They are paralysed.

That what it comes down to. That the main aim of the president of the United States is to paralyze the party he hijacked.


somebody | Aug 17, 2017 9:58:52 AM | 24
add to 23

Breitbart has gone full culture wars. It is comical, have a look.

john | Aug 17, 2017 10:26:02 AM | 25
Just Sayin' says:

They are decided on the basis of Electoral Collage voting and NOT on the basis of the popular vote, as political swindlers would now like everyone to believe

indeed, though, speaking of political swindlers, there's mucho evidence that Trump may have won the popular vote as well.

likklemore | Aug 17, 2017 10:32:06 AM | 26
Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2017 8:18:55 AM | 19

Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead of the Electoral College, including Steve Bannon. It is the Republican Party, not Trump and his Trumpery who holds majorities in the House, the Senate and the nation's statehouses. Anybody who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has forgotten that Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.

Have you read the Constitution of the USA? The Electoral College elects the President by the rank and file voters electing the Electors to the College on November election day. That's how the system works.

Ask Al Gore; he won the popular vote.

Oh and btw, the Hillary won the popular 2016 vote meme. Take a look at Detroit, MI heavy Democrats' precints - more votes than voters - and the millions of illegal aliens' vote in California who voted after the invite of Obama.

WJ | Aug 17, 2017 10:50:13 AM | 27
Trump won the election. Period. End of story. Done. Finished. Get over it and get on with your life. He didn't compete to win the popular vote. He competed and campaigned to win the election. Advice to Democrats - nominate a candidate beside a senile old neocon woman who is corrupt to her ugly core, and then maybe you can beat a former reality show star.
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 10:56:25 AM | 29
The problem with this strategy is that Trump won because Hillary Clinton was so unpopular, because their pollsters outsmarted Nate Silver and Co. and possibly because she was a woman.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 17, 2017 9:45:00 AM | 23

Nope - first part of the sentence is correct but the rest of is just you, as usual, repeating crap you found on the Internet and then repeating it here pretending it is profound and that you actually understand what you are talking about, which you clearly don't as evidenced by the fact that you then go on to reference Nate Silver whose fame was never anything but media created hype with little or nothing to back it up.

Silver's feet of clay were evident long before the latest Prez election. It became obvious that his alleged electoral statistical prowess rested as much on luck as anything else. Lucky in prediction when it came to the 2008 election but by 2010 things started to go wrong but the media ignored his feet of clay and kept hyping him as a stats genius.

By the time 2016 rolled round Silver was exposed for the lucky fraud he is.

The real truth of Hillarys inability to win lies not in her being female as you and many others disingenuously (at best) try to claim, but simply lies in the fact that she is a thoroughly unpleasant person with a complete lack of charisma and a massive sense of entitlement.

Blacks and others, minorities generally and independents, who came out in droves for the Obama elections simply refused to go and vote for her.

The Republican vote however changed very little - pretty much the exact same demographic voted republican as voted for Romney.

Trump won partly because of Clintons massive hubris in refusing to campaign in several key states. Cambridge analytical were not required to give him the win, no matter what you read, without analysing it, elsewhere on the web and are now repeating here in an effort to pretend you know what you are talking about.

CA probably helped somewhat but it unlikely that they were central to the win. Clintons hubris and her complete lack of charisma, ensured low black/minority/independent for her in key states, especially those where she had refused to even bother to campaign, which was enough to seal the win for Trump

You simply repeating crap you heard on the net and pretending that if you say it in an authoritative fashion it will magically become true, just ends up making you look completely clueless, as usual. (or dishonest)

Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 11:01:18 AM | 30
@ Everybody who bought into the MSM Steve Bannon promoted white supremacy and through Breitbart. Suggested you read his world view expressed in remarks at Human Dignity Institute, Vatican Conference 2014

Posted by: likklemore | Aug 17, 2017 10:51:54 AM | 28

Anyone with any intelligence would be wise to treat with great caution anything Bannon claims in public interviews about himself or his alleged political beliefs,

RUKidding | Aug 17, 2017 11:21:24 AM | 32
US politics is a great big clusterfeck - worse than ever, which is hard to believe. Bannon's big liar. He did heaps to create this very situation with the White Supremacists. Of course the Democrats are worse than useless. All they're doing is presenting themselves as "We're not Trump" and whining about Putin. All of them are clowns. Every last one. Including the so-called "Generals." Worthless.
Pnyx | Aug 17, 2017 11:27:14 AM | 33
"Since then no more B-1B flights took place and North Korea suspended its Guam test plans."
but: "Yesterday (...) two US B-1 strategic bombers, operating with Japanese fighter jets, conducted exercises to the southwest of the Korean Peninsula." says WSWS. ?
james | Aug 17, 2017 12:32:00 PM | 37
@2 ben.. i agree!

everything about the usa today is divisive... i can't imagine the usa being happy if this didn't continue until it's demise..the 2 party system hasn't worked out very well as i see it.. failed experiment basically.. oh well..

anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 12:51:38 PM | 39
@19

If I remember correctly, wasn't it both the President Elect and the Republican Congressmen who won clear majorities in nearly 80 percent of congressional districts? Presuming an issue like the gerrymandering of districts wasn't significant, that's a far more legitimate victory than an extra million Democrats voting in California (determining the future of national policy). I'm not a fan of the Republicans, but denying the short term efficiency of 'populist rhetoric' isn't helping the left win any substantial electoral victories in the future.

Morongobill | Aug 17, 2017 1:03:36 PM | 40
Good Lord. Can't people read anymore? The election is all about the EC. Keep talking and running for the popular vote, and Trump will keep winning the Electoral College. You either want to win or you don't. I hope you keep preaching the popular vote personally.
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 1:06:52 PM | 41
@ Just Sayin' 30

I won't give you a pass. Your bias and lack of intelligence is on great display.


No pass for little ol me? Aw shucks, I'm heart broken.

The fact that you think Bannon&Trump are going to do anything about Wall Street and the Banking System in general is quite amusing.

Perhaps you could list a few of Bannon&Trumps anti Wall Street achievements or initiatives since Trump took office?

It should by now be clear to anyone paying attention that while both Bannon & Trump certainly TALK a lot, they seem to actually do very little.

So, do please tell us: what have they actually done?

Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 1:15:57 PM | 42
@2 ben.. i agree!

everything about the usa today is divisive...

Posted by: james | Aug 17, 2017 12:32:00 PM | 37

As the CIA might say: "Mission Accomplished!!"

Keep the proles spilt in their little "identity groups", their micro-tribes, and continue building the Kleoptocracy/Prison/Military State while the dumbed down demos are busy hunting micro-aggressions/fighting gender & race wars etc etc

During the last 5 Prez Election cycles the population spilt on utterly retarded lines such as Gay-marriage, Gender-free toilets etc. All this while the US fought or financed numerous very expensive wars in the Middle East ukraine etc, resulting hundreds of thousands of lives lost.

anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 1:16:15 PM | 43
@26

The 2008 elections had one of the highest ever voter turnout rates for the Democrats and the 2016 elections had one of the lowest ever. The turnout rates (abysmal if ever compared to voter turnout rates in Germany and Japan) easily explain the initial victory and the eventual defeat, not 'Detroit fraud' or 'the millions of illegals' voting in your head. Racial gerrymandering against black voters in the Southern States is a far more real issue.

ben | Aug 17, 2017 1:33:55 PM | 44
somwbody @ 12: Good link thanks..Interesting read about "The Forth Turning"

psycho @ 5: good link also..

WJ @ 27 said:" Advice to Democrats - nominate a candidate beside a senile old neocon woman who is corrupt to her ugly core, and then maybe you can beat a former reality show star."

Yep, so-called "Russian hacking" wasn't the problem, HRC was the problem...

ben | Aug 17, 2017 1:40:34 PM | 45
Just Sayin' @ 41 said:"It should by now be clear to anyone paying attention that while both Bannon & Trump certainly TALK a lot, they seem to actually do very little."

Kinda' waitin' myself to see all those "accomplishments"....

anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 2:01:34 PM | 46
@40

I'll assume this was directed to me.

I understand and respect your point, but I was responding to the initial comment's implicit argument on public opinion: "a common argument is the lower-middle-to-upper-middle-class social base of the Republicans is less receptive to the short term effects of Protectionist policy and this would reduce political morale, as well as grassroots and voting organization. However, the Democrats 'won the popular vote.' So, it's 'obvious' in saying the classless definition of 'the American people' oppose this Republican policy, and naturally, the social base of the Republican Party isn't especially relevant to consider when organizing voters and grassroots movements for a renewed Democratic Party."

To be fair, I think like the early Unionist and Communist circles, and presume public opinion translates to expressions of grassroots politics between conflicting classes (more so than it actually happens in American class society).

Mina | Aug 17, 2017 2:32:30 PM | 47
From Syria with love

https://arabic.rt.com/liveevent/894352-%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%AD-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%B6-%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%82-%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A-5-%D8%B3%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%A8/

Sad Canuck | Aug 17, 2017 2:52:38 PM | 48
If one proceeds on the assumption that politics in the United States closely follows themes, scripts and production values pioneered by WWF, then all becomes clear. It's simply pro-wrestling on a global scale with nuclear weapons and trillions of dollars in prize money.
james | Aug 17, 2017 2:58:51 PM | 49
@42 just sayin'.. yes to all you say - it is quite sad actually.. not sure of the way out at this point, short of complete rebellion in the streets which looks like a longs ways off at this point..
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 3:12:27 PM | 50
not sure of the way out at this point, short of complete rebellion in the streets which looks like a longs ways off at this point..

Posted by: james | Aug 17, 2017 2:58:51 PM | 49

Most of the younger generation seem to be much to busy, obsessing over non-existent things like "Micro-agressions" or "hetero-normative cis-gender oppression", to pay attention to, let alone acknowledge, the enormous global macro-aggressions their own country is engaged in on a world-wide scale.

Thirdeye | Aug 17, 2017 3:24:12 PM | 52
But, unlike the Democrats, the current White House crew at least claim to have plans to achieve it.
Is there a "don't" missing from that sentence?

I must disagree that DPRK nuclear missiles are a qualitatively similar threat to those possessed by the Soviet Union and China. DPRK's guiding Suche ideology is a literal cult that goes far beyond the cult-of-personality that held sway over the Soviet Union and China when Stalin and Mao ruled. And by the time the Soviets developed delivery capabilities Stalin was dead and his cult was done. By the time the Chinese developed delivery capabilities Mao was declining into figurehead status and Zhou Enlai, who as commander of the PLA realized how weak China really was militarily, had no illusions about what would happen in a military confrontation with the US. But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the Kims are ordained with supernatural powers that allowed them to drive the Japanese off the peninsula then fight off an American "invasion." They truly don't mention the role of the Soviets and the Chinese in saving their bacon. In terms of face-saving, the Kims have set the bar pretty high for themselves by fostering their cult. Their legitimacy would be threatened if their statecraft as rational actors undermined their Suche cult.

DPRK have been rogue actors against ROK and Japan out of sheer spitefulness, fully exploiting the umbrella provided by the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Assistance with China. They have done extraterritorial kidnappings and murders not for perceived strategic reasons but merely to intimidate. DPRK has pointedly refused to enter talks for a formal peace between them and the ROK. Those kinds of motives do not bespeak of someone who can be trusted with nukes.

Charles R | Aug 17, 2017 3:39:13 PM | 53
Posted by: RUKidding | Aug 17, 2017 12:23:40 PM
Bannon is someone whom I hold quite responsible for contributing to the rise of White Supremacy in the USA, which I consider a clear and present danger. Bannon's dismissive hand waving yesterday is meant to dissemble. Guess some are willing to buy what he was selling yesterday. Not me.

What are your reasons for believing this about Bannon? What counts as contributing, and how did you come to your decision?

It's not that I don't believe you. It's rather important to establish in what way his words (whether the ones you found or the recent ones in American Prospect ) are lies or misdirection, so that I, and anyone interested, can evaluate this for ourselves and come to similar or different conclusions.

stonebird | Aug 17, 2017 3:40:47 PM | 54
I don't think Bannon wants a "trade" war with China but he is right that there is an economic war going on. The "silk roads" and the various new organisations that the Chinese-Russians have set up, (Major Banks, "Swift" equivalent, Glossnass satellites, card payment systems, industrial independence, and food self-sufficiency etc), plus the use of currencies other than the dollar - are all examples of a break-away from a US-EU domination.

However, they have not suddenly introduced everything at once to "bring the US house down". Why? One possible reason could be that they are expecting the US to collapse anyway. Another is that viable alternatives also take time to set up.

b has mentioned the "grown ups" v the Idealogues". The impact of the military on the economic war seems to be underestimated. How much longer can the US afford the more than trillion dollars per year of the "visible" arms? This does not include hidden costs ("Intelligence agencies and pork). Nor does it include costs borne by other countries. ie. Italy has about 80 US bases (the most in the EU) and about 77 nuclear warheads on its soil. Italy PAYS for those bases, and even that does not include infrastucture (roads, increased airport capacity, sewage, water mains, etc) which are paid for by the Italians themselves. Other countries will have similar systems. Some like Kuwait are "paying" back the amounts spent on arms for example.
The total cost is astronomical.

A brief reminder the USSR collapsed because of massive overspending on arms and military projects - leaving the rest of the economy in the lurch. Presumably the Chinese and Russians are expecting the same thing to happen again.

(Aside - yes, you can print dollars as a sovereign state, but printing roubles didn't help the soviets either)
So McMasters and the others are in fact just spoilt brats who think that the good times are forever.
----
One example of the new "bluff-calling" cheaper method of economic warfare (*NK is the another) were the recent NATO/US manoeuvres in Georgia (country) on the anniversary of the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. The number of troops and means involved would have been enough to carry out a "surprise" attack this time too. The Russians - sent in Putin, who declared that the Russians supported S.Ossetia and were ready to deal with any threat - exactly as they did "last" time. Cost? One plane trip.

(*The NK threat by the US would have seen about 40'000 men from S. Korea and Japan sent against about 700'000 motivated local troops and massive artillery arrays. It was a non-starter, even with nukes)

Tom in AZ | Aug 17, 2017 4:03:19 PM | 55
thirdeye @52

You are forgetting to mention the main sticking point to talks is our refusal to halt our annual̶d̶e̶f̶e̶n̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶d̶r̶i̶l̶l̶s̶ invasion practice before they will come to the table. At least from what I read.

Thirdeye | Aug 17, 2017 4:04:22 PM | 56
54

Even with China's international financial position growing more robust with SWIFT independence, AIDB, the New Silk Road and such, they still have an interest in the Dollar-based western financial system as long as they can make money off of it. They are not going to shoot themselves in the foot by deliberately causing it to collapse. They might even prop it up in a crisis, but I suspect they would drive a hard bargain.

@Madderhatter67 | Aug 17, 2017 4:09:49 PM | 57
Thirdeye says, "But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the Kims are ordained with supernatural powers." What is American Exceptionalism?


MCMASTER: Says classic deterrence strategy won't work with NK.

"Deterrence is a strategy intended to dissuade an adversary from taking an action not yet started, or to prevent them from doing something that another state desires."

Classic deterrence strategy IS working for NK perfectly.

RUKidding | Aug 17, 2017 4:31:17 PM | 60
@53 Charles R: fair enough question.

What I base my analysis of Bannon is his leadership at Bretibart which may or may not be continuing right now. Just read Breitbart if you think Bannon isn't fully behind the White Supremacists rising up right now.

somebody | Aug 17, 2017 5:26:37 PM | 64
35
Steve Bannon is a fascist.

exhibit A
Steve Bannon Allies with Catholic Theo-Fascism Against Pope Francis

exhibit B
Steve Bannon shares a fascist's obsession with cleansing, apocalyptic war. And now he's in the White House

exhibit C
Generation Zero - Bannons Film using the theory of the fourth turning

The idea that people (a people) have to suffer a big war in order to cleanse themselves from moral depravity is fascism pure and simple as who should force people to do this but a dictator.

Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:15:08 PM | 67
All one has to do to know what Bannon's position on Iran is to read Breitbart on any given day. Unless we are supposed to believe that Bannon's opinions are not reflected by the website he ran for four years. Bannon is for war against Islam in general, there is nothing "realist" about his foreign policy.
Thirdeye | Aug 17, 2017 6:15:20 PM | 68
55 Tom in AZ

That's a different issue from entering talks for a formal peace with with ROK. DPRK has been refusing that for years. Did you ever consider that DPRK's constant saber rattling against ROK was what lent impetus to US exercises in the region in the first place? The US knows that China would not tolerate a US invasion of DPRK. Why take the risk of invading across great defensive terrain when you can simply destroy?

57 Madhatter67

Thirdeye says, "But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the Kims are ordained with supernatural powers." What is American Exceptionalism?

That's a dumb analogy and a pathetic attempt at deflection. Criticize American Exceptionalism all you want, but don't compare it to a supernaturalist cult. That's just stupid.

DPRK has a history of doing whatever they think they can get away with, exploiting their treaty with China. If their delusional Suche ideology leads them to miscalculate or paints them into a corner trying to prop it up, it could lead to war.

If there's any bright spot in the whole picture it's China's chilly stance towards DPRK after recent events. The excesses of DPRK's ruling cult have occurred largely because they figured China had their back. But China's regional interests have changed dramatically over the past 30 years. ROK is no longer a competitive threat to China and is economically more important to China than DPRK ever was. DPRK's military power is of much less benefit to China than it was in the past. It might even be considered a liability.

61 Stonebird

It wouldn't be cash, it would be be assets and/or the means of controlling them. Big Chinese money is already coming into the west coast of the US and Canada. Oh well, we fucked things up here; maybe the Chinese will do a better job.

Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:20:48 PM | 69
@10, this article was written while Bannon was heading Breitbart, bragging about being "conceived in Israel." http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/11/17/breitbart-news-network-born-in-the-usa-conceived-in-israel/

Bannon is against the nuclear deal, and is one of the top people in the administration arguing for Trump to move the Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Bannon has been cited as promoting Sheldon Adelson's Israel policy in meetings with Trump. http://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-abbas-lauder-hawkish-adelson-battling-to-influence-trump-on-mideast/ If anything Bannon/Breitbart push an even harder line on Israel than most politicians and media do.

blues | Aug 17, 2017 6:27:33 PM | 70
First of all, I will now declare that I am 99% confused! So please let me review the 1% that comes through my little keyhole. What has been said?

/~~~~~~~~~~
<< = Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 11:01:18 AM | 30

Anyone with any intelligence would be wise to treat with great caution anything Bannon claims in public interviews about himself or his alleged political beliefs,
\~~~~~~~~~~

Well sure! The guy's a political operative -- One does not get to be a political operative by being some kind of a Dudly Do-Right. Damn.

/~~~~~~~~~~
<< = les7 | Aug 17, 2017 12:27:02 PM | 35

@12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an alliance of corporate and state powers... but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they [the corporate sector] are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist.
\~~~~~~~~~~

Well since we can't believe anything from Bannon... And aside from that I am sick of hearing Mussolini's definition of fascism -- After all, he was a psycho-villain -- so why believe it?!

UNTIL WE HAVE STRATEGIC HEDGE SIMPLE SCORE VOTING WE WILL BE SADDLED WITH THE TWO-PARTY "SYSTEM" (really only one party). Who cares if we really have no choice whatsoever. We are held hostage to the false alternatives of the vast legion of the election methods cognoscenti.

See my simple solution soon at Global Mutiny!

Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:30:54 PM | 71
@31, "except for the Zion-flavored warmongering." I don't know about you but completely disqualifies him in my view.
Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:34:43 PM | 72
@35, please refer to post 69. If Bannon was not a Zionist, he would not have ran a site which brags of being conceived in Israel and which pushes a harder line on Israel than almost any other, and he would not be promoting Adelson's Israel policy within the administration.
Curtis | Aug 17, 2017 7:03:10 PM | 73
Bannon makes sense. That must be why many want him gone especially the neocons. As to North Korea, the US should have admitted "facts on the ground" long ago and worked to sign the official end of the war and work to get the two Koreas talking and working together.
anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 7:41:46 PM | 74
"That's a different issue from entering talks for a formal peace with with ROK. DPRK has been refusing that for years."

I doubt any substantial transcripts from early talks will ever be released, so whoever had diplomats offering the 'fairest' compromises for terms of an early framework (resulting in a later settlement) cannot be known (regarding specifics).

If I remember correctly, there has been at least three Chinese-sponsored peace conferences (on Korea) since 2007, where the general position of the U.S. was: North Korea had to freeze total nuclear production, accept existing and additional (U.N.) verification missions, and dismantle all warheads PRIOR to the signing of any peace treaty. How is demanding unconditional surrender not intransigence? Are we going to just pretend the United States hadn't sponsored military coups in Venezuela and Honduras and hadn't invaded Iraq and Libya (in a similar time frame)?

During peace talks, any terms are argued, refused, and eventually compromised (usually over years and sometimes over decades). Why presume the United States and South Korea had the fairest offers and general settlements in a handful of conferences (especially when we have no transcripts)?

"Did you ever consider that DPRK's constant saber rattling against ROK was what lent impetus to US exercises in the region in the first place?"

You're presuming your case and not giving specific information on what you might know.

Personally, I don't know who 'started it' (I would guess Japan 'started it' by forcing through the Protectorate Treaty of 1905, or the United States 'started it' by forcing through the Amity and Commerce Treaty of 1858), but if North Korea isn't testing missiles near Guam and the United States isn't flying specific planes over South Korea, a compromise WAS made this last week, and more can be made to ensure peace.

Why do any Americans oppose this?

[Jul 19, 2017] Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya says Magnitsky Act lobbyist Browder behind Trump Jr. scandal

Jul 19, 2017 | gravatar.com
  1. Moscow Exile says: July 19, 2017 at 2:44 am

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZlT3kaxIlgw?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

    Reply

[Jul 12, 2017] The Trump Jr. Russia Scandal Ain t No Big Deal by Stefan Molyneux

(Video)
Notable quotes:
"... The best analysis of what is really going on in the world is coming out of the alternative media. Molyneux is one of the heavy hitters in this world - with his 700k Youtube subscribers and similar numbers of podcast listeners, he matters. ..."
"... One of his points is this: How could this possibly be a serious Russian government effort if they have a fat Brit moron convey the message over unencrypted email? Our staff of Russian-trained intelligence experts has to concur. ..."
www.theamericanconservative.com
The best analysis of what is really going on in the world is coming out of the alternative media. Molyneux is one of the heavy hitters in this world - with his 700k Youtube subscribers and similar numbers of podcast listeners, he matters.

One of his points is this: How could this possibly be a serious Russian government effort if they have a fat Brit moron convey the message over unencrypted email? Our staff of Russian-trained intelligence experts has to concur.

Say hi to Rob Goldstone. This will be over in a few days, and as before, the dummies who are chasing this idea, will just look stupider than they already do.

Save this video and watch it over your Wheaties tomorrow morning. Molyneux nails it.

https://youtu.be/wohYNCD4u-E

Tommy Jensen , 3 hours ago

Karl Rove said in the middle of year 2000 to VIP lawyers in Washington, that they no more would be occupied with analises of facts but forward with analising the reality Washington defined.

Due to the unipolar position Washington would from early year 2000 define the reality the world should face and spend (waste) their time on analising.

Molyneux is good to hear and see on many subjects, but this subect is in my opinion irrelevant, irrelevant as the Russia hacking US election is, the Assad Chemical attack, the HitlerPutin, the Crimea annexion hoax, the NK threat, man made clima change hoax, etc.

People with true intelligent capabilities should of course not spend their time on finding evidences on and document all Washington´s lies and defined realities.

Both Molyneux, RI and many others must have the right to dismiss obvious lies and propagandas, and go straight to the subject, that anybody with power that lie to us and the public should and must be removed and replaced.

Otherwise we are using our powers, intelligence and energy in an un-constructive way and we never learn, because we jump on the joke and hot air train again again.

[Jul 11, 2017] Russian Lawyer Who Met With Trump Jr. I Didn t Have Clinton Info They Wanted

Looks like recent leak is another fake...
www.unz.com

MOSCOW - The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. during the presidential campaign denied in an exclusive interview with NBC News that she had any connection to the Kremlin and insists she met with President Donald Trump's son to press her client's interest in the Magnitsky Act - not to hand over information about Hillary Clinton's campaign.

"I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that," Natalia Veselnitskaya said.

When asked how Trump Jr. seemed to have the impression that she had information about the Democratic National Committee, she responded:

"It is quite possible that maybe they were longing for such an information. They wanted it so badly that they could only hear the thought that they wanted."

Trump Jr. has confirmed that the meeting occurred, saying in a statement to The New York Times that he attended "a short introductory meeting" with the lawyer, where the topic of conversation was primarily about adoption.

On Monday, Trump Jr. seemed to confirm that he had been offered information about Hillary or her campaign but insisted that nothing untoward in the meeting had occurred.

"Obviously I'm the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent... went nowhere but had to listen," he tweeted, seemingly sarcastic.

The New York Times on Monday reported that Trump Jr. was told in an email before the meeting that the information Veselnitskaya had was part of a Russian government effort to help his father's candidacy.

But Veselnitskaya flatly denied any connection to the Russian government.

[Jul 11, 2017] The Consequences of Donald Trump Jr.s Stupidity

This female lawyer probably can be characterized as anti-Russian lawyer. She is more probably MI6 asset then FSB asset ;-) (connection with William F. Browder ).
But attempts to stir the pot of Purple Color Revolution ( aka Russiagate) will continue. Neocons are pretty tenacious.
Notable quotes:
"... That it was, yes, ethically promiscuous!but, worse, incredibly stupid. One recalls the line, often incorrectly attributed to Talleyrand, in response to a burgeoning scandal at the French court: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.'' ..."
"... But he didn't give up. At last week's G-20 Summit in Hamburg, in a long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump sought to get beyond the matter of Russia's U.S. political interference and take up other serious matters of mutual interest to the two countries, with a hope of easing tensions. It was an important development in a crucial area of U.S. foreign policy. Now the president is back on the defensive, his back to the wall, with his opponents positioned to immobilize him on his Russian policy. ..."
"... But, in terms of Trump's command of his policy toward Russia, it almost doesn't matter because the new revelations will constrict his range of action irrespective of what may lie behind them. The forces that have wanted to destroy the president, or at least destroy his ability to bring about a détente with Putin, are once again in the saddle. One has to wonder at, perhaps even marvel at, the timing in all this. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

During a post-dinner cigar session at his elegant Cleveland mansion, Hanna reported back to McKinley on the results of his mission. Another participant recalled that the excited Hanna seemed "as keen as a razor blade.''

"Now, Major," said the political operative, addressing the governor by his Civil War title, "it's all over but the shouting. You can get both New York and Pennsylvania, but there are certain conditions." He didn't show any discomfort with the conditions, but McKinley was wary.

"What are they?" he asked. Hanna explained that Quay wanted control of all federal patronage in Pennsylvania, while others wanted to dominate government jobs in New England and Maine. But Platt wanted a bigger prize!the job of secretary of the Treasury!and he wanted a promise in writing.

McKinley stared ahead, puffing on his cigar. Then he rose from his chair, paced the room a few moments, and turned to Hanna.

"Mark," he said, "there are some things in this world that come too high. If I were to accept the nomination on those terms, the place would be worth nothing to me, and less to the people. If those are the terms, I am out of it.''

Hanna was taken aback. "Not so fast," he protested, explaining that, while it would be "damned hard" to prevail over the powerful bosses, who would surely not take kindly to a rebuff, Hanna thought it could be done and he welcomed the challenge. The men in the room pondered the situation and came up with a slogan: "The People Against the Bosses.''

McKinley ultimately beat the bosses, stirring a Washington Post reporter to write that "the big three of the Republican Party hoped to find McKinley as putty in their hands. When they failed, they vowed war on him." But now, said the reporter, their war was sputtering. "And over in the Ohio city by the lake, one Mark Hanna is laughing in his sleeve.''

This little vignette from the mists of the political past comes to mind with the latest development in the ongoing saga involving suspected Russian interference in last year's presidential campaign and the search for evidence that President Trump or his top campaign officials "colluded" with Russians to influence the electoral outcome. Now it turns out that the president's son, Donald Jr., met with a Russian lawyer, at the behest of a Russian friend, with an understanding beforehand that the lawyer could provide "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and be very useful to your father." For good measure, Donald Jr. took along his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, a top Trump adviser, and his father's campaign manager at the time, Paul Manafort.

This is no small matter, and it is certain to roil the waters of the ongoing investigations. More significantly, it will roil the political scene, contributing mightily to the deadlock crisis that has America in its grip. White House officials and Trump supporters are defending young Trump with pronouncements that nothing was amiss here; every campaign collects dirt on opponents; nothing done was against the law; we must get beyond these "gotcha" political witch hunts, etc., etc.

Meanwhile. Trump opponents see skulky tendencies, nefarious intent, moral turpitude, and likely illegality. Both sides are trotting out criminal lawyers declaring, based on their prior political proclivities, that no laws were broken!or that laws were clearly broken. The cable channels are crackling with competition over who can be more definitive and sanctimonious on the air!Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity at Fox in defending the president; or Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews in attacking him on MSNBC.

Meanwhile, the country will continue to struggle with the question of what all this Sturm und Drang actually means. What to think? Whom to believe?

Let's stipulate, for purposes of analysis, that what we see is what there is, that what we know is not a harbinger of worse to come. How should we assess what we know thus far? What should we make of that meeting with the Russian lawyer?

That it was, yes, ethically promiscuous!but, worse, incredibly stupid. One recalls the line, often incorrectly attributed to Talleyrand, in response to a burgeoning scandal at the French court: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.''

Consider that, after months of investigation, with leaks all over the place from those conducting the probe, no serious evidence emerged of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The collusion story was receding in the national consciousness, and even in the Washington consciousness, with questions of "obstruction of justice" supplanting collusion as the more significant avenue of inquiry. Now the question of collusion is once again in the air.

The fate of Donald Trump Jr. is a puny matter in the scheme of things, but the state of the union is a huge matter. And the young man's stupidity of a year ago will have!indeed, is already having!a significant impact on the president's leadership. He campaigned on a pledge to improve relations with Russia, with an implicit acknowledgment that the West was probably equally responsible, along with Moscow, for the growing tensions between the two nations. He was right about that. Then came the evidence of Russian meddling in the U.S. election and the allegations of collusion, and Trump's effort at improving relations was killed in the crib.

But he didn't give up. At last week's G-20 Summit in Hamburg, in a long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump sought to get beyond the matter of Russia's U.S. political interference and take up other serious matters of mutual interest to the two countries, with a hope of easing tensions. It was an important development in a crucial area of U.S. foreign policy. Now the president is back on the defensive, his back to the wall, with his opponents positioned to immobilize him on his Russian policy.

Now let's set aside, for just a moment, the previous stipulation that what we see is all there is. It's possible, of course, that this unfortunate meeting actually was part of a much bigger conspiracy that, if disclosed in full, could engulf the administration in revelations of such magnitude as to bring down the president. It's possible, but not likely.

But, in terms of Trump's command of his policy toward Russia, it almost doesn't matter because the new revelations will constrict his range of action irrespective of what may lie behind them. The forces that have wanted to destroy the president, or at least destroy his ability to bring about a détente with Putin, are once again in the saddle. One has to wonder at, perhaps even marvel at, the timing in all this.

Actions, even more than ideas, have consequences. That's what Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort ignored when they accepted an invitation to meet with a Russian representative with "official documents" that could harm the candidacy of the Democratic contender.

And that's precisely what William McKinley had in mind when he said he wouldn't enter into unsavory bargains with the Eastern bosses even if it meant giving up his presidential dream. Of course, McKinley was thinking in part about his own personal code of conduct!his inability to live with a decision that was beneath his concept of rectitude. But note that he also invoked the American people when he recoiled at the thought. He wouldn't take an action that he considered inconsistent with his duty to the electorate.

That was a long time ago!and a world away. Today we have the likes of the Trumps!and, for that matter, the Clintons, who leave nearly everyone in their wake when it comes to moral and ethical laxity in matters of public policy. And so it must have seemed perfectly normal for those three men, part of Donald Trump's inner circle of campaign confidantes, to accept the idea of sitting down with someone from a foreign power and talk about how official documents from that power could help upend their opponent. Did Trump himself know about all this as it was unfolding? We don't know, but probably. In any event, it probably wasn't a crime, but it was a hell of a blunder.

... ... ...

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative. His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due out from Simon & Schuster in November.

[Jul 03, 2017] War for Blair Mountain

Jul 03, 2017 | www.unz.com
Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 3:09 pm GMT

And where did Hitler worship get us?

Blonde hair blue eyed Waffen SS soldiers .I assume baptized Christian .being wasted by beautiful blonde haired Conservative Orthodox Christian Women Russian Snipers. This is what you will always get when you fall for the lies of the worshippers of Franco.

Hitler and Franco .enablers of the Mohammadan Gang Rape Army .Hitler's Waffen SS-Werhrmacht gang rape Army

Short tiny Andrew Anglin doesn't realize how much he has in common with the Jewish Antifas on a fundamental Level ..

War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT

History offers up important lessons for the Alt Right

There is a historic precedent for the Alt Right in US History:look no further than the late 19th-early 2oth Century US Labor Movement it was racially xenophobic .isolationist and economically progressive .The late 19th-early 2oth century Labor Movement gave us such wonderfull things such as The Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act and the Sihk Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act .not bad!!!

And let's honest The Alt Right kiddie brigade that worships Hitler Franco Pinochet .also swims in the sewage of JFK and Ronnie Reagan worship two scoundrels who unleashed race-replacement immigration policy on The Historic Native Born White American Working Class..

[May 16, 2017] Donald Trump may finally begin THE PURGE Today!

Notable quotes:
"... Trump may finally begin THE PURGE. This is good! Hopefully this is true! Fire everyone except Steve Bannon! Begin with the Kushners, fire them all, no actually that's not enough, arrest everyone. Arrest John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton, George Soros. Clean the system Mr. president, that's why the people voted for you, so you can do serious damage in Washington DC. ..."
"... Incensed by leaks that have come from within his own inner circle, President Donald Trump is about to take the gloves off in a purge of White House advisers that could begin as early as today. ..."
"... Speculation continues to swirl around White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who has hindered Trump with a series of high profile gaffes. As Infowars reported first (before the rest of the mainstream media followed suit), Trump is seriously considering replacing Spicer with Fox News host Kimberley Guilfoyle. ..."
"... Former Trump adviser Roger Stone said the establishment "made the mistake of hitting (Trump) too hard," despite the fact that Trump attempted to extend an olive branch during the early months of his presidency. "Now he understands, the gloves will be off, this is a fight to the finish – I can tell you this, don't ever push Donald Trump into a corner – he is a fighter," said Stone. ..."
"... Other names potentially on the chopping block include Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Steve Bannon, and counsel Don McGahn, according to Axios' Mike Allen, who cites White House sources. ..."
"... Jettisoning Bannon would rile Trump's base, whereas an exit for Priebus would be met with widespread support. ..."
"... However, the Daily Mail reports that Trump is "relying more" on Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, something that won't sit well with Trump's base given that both have advocated globalist policies like man-made global warming and importing "refugees". ..."
May 16, 2017 | www.eutimes.net

HURRAY! This is good news! Donald Trump could be back after taking a long 4 month bath in the swamp and playing with crocodiles, piranhas and other vicious creatures.

Trump may finally begin THE PURGE. This is good! Hopefully this is true! Fire everyone except Steve Bannon! Begin with the Kushners, fire them all, no actually that's not enough, arrest everyone. Arrest John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton, George Soros. Clean the system Mr. president, that's why the people voted for you, so you can do serious damage in Washington DC.

Incensed by leaks that have come from within his own inner circle, President Donald Trump is about to take the gloves off in a purge of White House advisers that could begin as early as today.

Speculation continues to swirl around White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who has hindered Trump with a series of high profile gaffes. As Infowars reported first (before the rest of the mainstream media followed suit), Trump is seriously considering replacing Spicer with Fox News host Kimberley Guilfoyle.

In an eyebrow-raising move, Guilfoyle 'liked' one of my tweets in which I linked to a story about the fact that Trump was considering her for the post, alongside the comment, "I had this story 2 days ago, lazy MSM late again." Could mean nothing. Could mean something. When approached for comment, Guilfoyle didn't respond.

According to Mike Cernovich, who has scooped the media repeatedly thanks to his White House sources, the base will be very happy with the decisions Trump is about to make.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/FTT8RUVv4aw

"His media team, they don't do anything, they're ineffective. Spicer is afraid to confront the media, afraid to call them out," said Cernovich.

Former Trump adviser Roger Stone said the establishment "made the mistake of hitting (Trump) too hard," despite the fact that Trump attempted to extend an olive branch during the early months of his presidency. "Now he understands, the gloves will be off, this is a fight to the finish – I can tell you this, don't ever push Donald Trump into a corner – he is a fighter," said Stone.

Other names potentially on the chopping block include Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Steve Bannon, and counsel Don McGahn, according to Axios' Mike Allen, who cites White House sources.

Jettisoning Bannon would rile Trump's base, whereas an exit for Priebus would be met with widespread support.

However, the Daily Mail reports that Trump is "relying more" on Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, something that won't sit well with Trump's base given that both have advocated globalist policies like man-made global warming and importing "refugees".

Source

[Apr 24, 2017] The Honeymoon of the Generals

Notable quotes:
"... As the 100-day mark of his presidency approaches, there's been no serious reassessment of America's endless wars or how to fight them (no less end them). Instead, there's been a recommitment to doing more of the familiar, more of what hasn't worked over the last decade and a half. ..."
"... Like those generals, he's a logical endpoint to a grim process, whether you're talking about the growth of inequality in America and the rise of plutocracy – without which a billionaire president and his billionaire cabinet would have been inconceivable – or the form that American war-making is taking under him. ..."
"... As the chameleon he is, he promptly took on the coloration of the militarized world he had entered and appointed "his" three generals to key security posts. Anything but the norm historically, such a decision may have seemed anomalous and out of the American tradition. That, however, was only because, unlike Donald Trump, most of the rest of us hadn't caught up with where that "tradition" had actually taken us. ..."
"... Hence, Steve Bannon, his dream strategist while on the campaign trail, is now reportedly on the ropes ..."
"... Think of Trump as a chameleon among presidents and much of this makes more sense. ..."
"... Donald Trump isn't either a politician or a trendsetter. If anything, he's a trend-senser. (In a similar fashion, he didn't create reality TV, nor was he at its origins. He simply perfected a form that was already in development.) ..."
"... What happens, then? What happens when the war honeymoon is over and the generals keep right on fighting their way? The last two presidents put up with permanent failing war, making the best they could of it. That's unlikely for Donald Trump. When the praise begins to die down, the criticism starts to rise, and questions are asked, watch out. ..."
Apr 24, 2017 | antiwar.com
Institutionalizing War and Its Generals

Above all, President Trump did one thing decisively. He empowered a set of generals or retired generals – James "Mad Dog" Mattis as secretary of defense, H.R. McMaster as national security adviser, and John Kelly as secretary of homeland security – men already deeply implicated in America's failing wars across the Greater Middle East. Not being a details guy himself, he's then left them to do their damnedest. "What I do is I authorize my military," he told reporters recently. "We have given them total authorization and that's what they're doing and, frankly, that's why they've been so successful lately."

As the 100-day mark of his presidency approaches, there's been no serious reassessment of America's endless wars or how to fight them (no less end them). Instead, there's been a recommitment to doing more of the familiar, more of what hasn't worked over the last decade and a half. No one should be surprised by this, given the cast of characters – men who held command posts in those unsuccessful wars and are clearly incapable of thinking about them in other terms than the ones that have been indelibly engrained in the brains of the U.S. military high command since soon after 9/11.

That new ruling reality of our American world should, in turn, offer a hint about the nature of Donald Trump's presidency. It should be a reminder that as strange okay, bizarre as his statements, tweets, and acts may have been, as chaotic as his all-in-the-family administration is proving to be, as little as he may resemble anyone we've ever seen in the White House before, he's anything but an anomaly of history. Quite the opposite. Like those generals, he's a logical endpoint to a grim process, whether you're talking about the growth of inequality in America and the rise of plutocracy – without which a billionaire president and his billionaire cabinet would have been inconceivable – or the form that American war-making is taking under him.

When it comes to war and the U.S. military, none of what's happened would have been conceivable without the two previous presidencies. None of it would have been possible without Congress's willingness to pump endless piles of money into the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex in the post-9/11 years; without the building up of the national security state and its 17 (yes, 17!) major intelligence outfits into an unofficial fourth branch of government; without the institutionalization of war as a permanent (yet strangely distant) feature of American life and of wars across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa that evidently can't be won or lost but only carried on into eternity. None of this would have been possible without the growing militarization of this country, including of police forces increasingly equipped with weaponry off America's distant battlefields and filled with veterans of those same wars; without a media rife with retired generals and other former commanders narrating and commenting on the acts of their successors and protégés; and without a political class of Washington pundits and politicians taught to revere that military.

In other words, however original Donald Trump may look, he's the curious culmination of old news and a changing country. Given his bravado and braggadocio, it's easy to forget the kinds of militarized extremity that preceded him.

After all, it wasn't Donald Trump who had the hubris, in the wake of 9/11, to declare a "Global War on Terror" against 60 countries (the " swamp " of that moment). It wasn't Donald Trump who manufactured false intelligence on the weapons of mass destruction Iraq's Saddam Hussein supposedly possessed or produced bogus claims about that autocrat's connections to al-Qaeda, and then used both to lead the United States into a war on and occupation of that country. It wasn't Donald Trump who invaded Iraq (whether he was for or against tht invasion at the time). It wasn't Donald Trump who donned a flight suit and landed on an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego to personally declare that hostilities were at an end in Iraq just as they were truly beginning, and to do so under an inane " Mission Accomplished " banner prepared by the White House.

It wasn't Donald Trump who ordered the CIA to kidnap terror suspects (including totally innocent individuals) off the streets of global cities as well as from the backlands of the planet and transport them to foreign prisons or CIA " black sites " where they could be tortured. It wasn't Donald Trump who caused one terror suspect to experience the sensation of drowning 83 times in a single month (even if he was inspired by such reports to claim that he would bring torture back as president).

It wasn't Donald Trump who spent eight years in the Oval Office presiding over a global " kill list ," running " Terror Tuesday " meetings, and personally helping choose individuals around the world for the CIA to assassinate using what, in essence, was the president's own private drone force, while being praised (or criticized) for his "caution."

It wasn't Donald Trump who presided over the creation of a secret military of 70,000 elite troops cossetted inside the larger military, special-ops personnel who, in recent years, have been dispatched on missions to a large majority of the countries on the planet without the knowledge, no less the consent, of the American people. Nor was it Donald Trump who managed to lift the Pentagon budget to $600 billion and the overall national security budget to something like a trillion dollars or more, even as America's civilian infrastructure aged and buckled .

It wasn't Donald Trump who lost an estimated $60 billion to fraud and waste in the American "reconstruction" of Iraq and Afghanistan, or who decided to build highways to nowhere and a gas station in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan. It wasn't Donald Trump who sent in the warrior corporations to squander more in that single country than was spent on the post-World War II Marshall Plan to put all of Western Europe back on its feet. Nor did he instruct the U.S. military to dump at least $25 billion into rebuilding, retraining, and rearming an Iraqi army that would collapse in 2014 in the face of a relatively small number of ISIS militants, or at least $65 billion into an Afghan army that would turn out to be filled with ghost soldiers .

In its history, the United States has engaged in quite a remarkable range of wars and conflicts. Nonetheless, in the last 15 years, forever war has been institutionalized as a feature of everyday life in Washington, which, in turn, has been transformed into a permanent war capital. When Donald Trump won the presidency and inherited those wars and that capital, there was, in a sense, no one left in the remarkably bankrupt political universe of Washington but those generals.

As the chameleon he is, he promptly took on the coloration of the militarized world he had entered and appointed "his" three generals to key security posts. Anything but the norm historically, such a decision may have seemed anomalous and out of the American tradition. That, however, was only because, unlike Donald Trump, most of the rest of us hadn't caught up with where that "tradition" had actually taken us.

The previous two presidents had played the warrior regularly, donning military outfits – in his presidential years, George W. Bush often looked like a G.I. Joe doll – and saluting the troops, while praising them to the skies, as the American people were also trained to do. In the Trump era, however, it's the warriors (if you'll excuse the pun) who are playing the president.

It's hardly news that Donald Trump is a man in love with what works. Hence, Steve Bannon, his dream strategist while on the campaign trail, is now reportedly on the ropes as his White House counselor because nothing he's done in the first nearly 100 days of the new presidency has worked (except promoting himself ).

Think of Trump as a chameleon among presidents and much of this makes more sense. A Republican who had been a Democrat for significant periods of his life, he conceivably could have run for president as a more nativist version of Bernie Sanders on the Democratic ticket had the political cards been dealt just a little differently. He's a man who has changed himself repeatedly to fit his circumstances and he's doing so again in the Oval Office.

In the world of the media, it's stylish to be shocked, shocked that the president who campaigned on one set of issues and came into office still championing them is now supporting quite a different set – from China to taxes, NATO to the Export-Import Bank. But this isn't faintly strange. Donald Trump isn't either a politician or a trendsetter. If anything, he's a trend-senser. (In a similar fashion, he didn't create reality TV, nor was he at its origins. He simply perfected a form that was already in development.)

If you want to know just where we are in an America that has been on the march toward a different sort of society and governing system for a long time now, look at him. He's the originator of nothing, but he tells you all you need to know. On war, too, think of him as a chameleon. Right now, war is working for him domestically, whatever it may be doing in the actual world, so he loves it. For the moment, those generals are indeed "his" and their wars his to embrace.

Honeymoon of the Generals

Normally, on entering the Oval Office, presidents receive what the media calls a "honeymoon" period. Things go well. Praise is forthcoming. Approval ratings are heart-warming.

Donald Trump got none of this. His approval ratings quickly headed for the honeymoon cellar or maybe the honeymoon fallout shelter ; the media and he went to war; and one attempt after another to fulfill his promises – from executive orders on deportation to repealing Obamacare and building his wall – have come a cropper. His administration seems to be in eternal chaos, the cast of characters changing by the week or tweet, and few key secondary posts being filled.

In only one area has Donald Trump experienced that promised honeymoon. Think of it as the honeymoon of the generals. He gave them that "total authorization," and the missiles left the ships, the drones flew, and the giant bomb dropped. Even when the results were disappointing, if not disastrous (as in a raid on Yemen in which a U.S. special operator was killed, children slaughtered , and nothing of value recovered), he still somehow stumbled into highly praised "presidential" moments .

So far, in other words, the generals are the only ones who have delivered for him, big-league . As a result, he's given them yet more authority to do whatever they want, while hugging them tighter yet.

Here's the problem, though: there's a predictable element to all of this and it doesn't work in Donald Trump's favor. America's forever wars have now been pursued by these generals and others like them for more than 15 years across a vast swath of the planet – from Pakistan to Libya (and ever deeper into Africa) – and the chaos of failing states, growing conflicts, and spreading terror movements has been the result. There's no reason to believe that further military action will, a decade and a half later, produce more positive results.

What happens, then? What happens when the war honeymoon is over and the generals keep right on fighting their way? The last two presidents put up with permanent failing war, making the best they could of it. That's unlikely for Donald Trump. When the praise begins to die down, the criticism starts to rise, and questions are asked, watch out.

What then? In a world of plutocrats and generals, what coloration will Donald Trump take on next? Who will be left, except Jared and Ivanka?

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture . He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com . His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World .

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Book, John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II , as well as John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands , Nick Turse's Next Time They'll Come to Count the Dead , and Tom Engelhardt's Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World .

[Apr 21, 2017] Trump has lost control over the Pentagon

thesaker.is

On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon", and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:

  1. March 14th, the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada.
  2. April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan
  3. On April 7th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists
  4. April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border
  5. April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command.
  6. April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO
  7. April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe
  8. On April 13th, the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB)
  9. April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zor killing hundreds of people
  10. April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea
  11. April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe
  12. April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan. The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region".
  13. April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively
  14. April 16th, the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s.

[Apr 19, 2017] Trump Moves Away From Bannon And Populist Base

Notable quotes:
"... If we Americans could tolerate the three past stooges – fornicator, idiot, liar - then we can easily embrace a man of high passion and good family values who knows how to read a financial balance sheet. From the very beginning of Trump's race to the White House, I have admired the deftness of Corey Lewandowski, a brash NH Yankee who had little patience for fools and naysayers. He was and is a no-nonsense type of guy who means what he says and says what he means. ..."
Apr 19, 2017 | www.eutimes.net

... ... ...

None of the former POTUSs in the last thirty years had the vaguest notion of what presidential propriety meant.

These aforementioned three candidates all became less than competent POTUSs.

Now, America has a person of no small amount of accomplishments. Yet, the biased media acted as a surrogate psychiatrist pronouncing Donald 'completely unfit by temperament to become POTUS.'

Nonsense!

If we Americans could tolerate the three past stooges – fornicator, idiot, liar - then we can easily embrace a man of high passion and good family values who knows how to read a financial balance sheet. From the very beginning of Trump's race to the White House, I have admired the deftness of Corey Lewandowski, a brash NH Yankee who had little patience for fools and naysayers. He was and is a no-nonsense type of guy who means what he says and says what he means.

Now, a Stephen Bannon was brought in to shake up the Trump team, once again. I don't know Bannon but I do like his profile. He was a naval officer, investment banker, entrepreneur, and a political agitator [Breitbart News]. That is precisely what Trump needs right now.

... ... ...

Source

[Apr 19, 2017] Bannons Worldview Dissecting the Message of The Fourth Turning

This four seasons theory looks to me like some king of amateur dialectics...
80 years is close to Kondratiev cycles length.
Notable quotes:
"... Stephen K. Bannon has great admiration for a provocative but disputed theory of history that argues that the United States is nearing a crisis that could be just as disruptive and catastrophic as the most seminal global turning points of the last 250 years. ..."
"... This prophecy, which is laid out in a 1997 book, "The Fourth Turning," by two amateur historians, makes the case that world events unfold in predictable cycles of roughly 80 years each that can be divided into four chapters, or turnings: growth, maturation, entropy and destruction. Western societies have experienced the same patterns for centuries, the book argues, and they are as natural and necessary as spring, summer, fall and winter. ..."
"... In an interview with The Times, Mr. Bannon said, "Everything President Trump is doing - all of it - is to get ahead of or stop any potential crisis." But the magnitude of this crisis - and who is ultimately responsible for it - is an unknown that Mr. Trump can use to his political advantage. This helps explain Mr. Trump's tendency to emphasize crime rates, terrorist attacks and weak border control. ..."
"... We should shed and simplify the federal government in advance of the Crisis by cutting back sharply on its size and scope but without imperiling its core infrastructure. ..."
"... One of the authors' major arguments is that Western society - particularly American culture - has denied the significance of cyclical patterns in history in favor of the more palatable and self-serving belief that humans are on an inexorable march toward improvement. They say this allows us to gloss over the flaws in human nature that allow for bad judgment - and bad leaders that drive societies into decline. ..."
"... The authors envision a return to a more traditional, conservative social order as one outcome of a crisis. They also see the possibility of retribution and punishment for those who resist or refuse to comply with the new expectations for conformity. Mr. Trump's "with us or against us" attitude raises questions about what kind of leader he would be in such a crisis - and what kind of loyalty his administration might demand. ..."
Apr 19, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

Stephen K. Bannon has great admiration for a provocative but disputed theory of history that argues that the United States is nearing a crisis that could be just as disruptive and catastrophic as the most seminal global turning points of the last 250 years.

This prophecy, which is laid out in a 1997 book, "The Fourth Turning," by two amateur historians, makes the case that world events unfold in predictable cycles of roughly 80 years each that can be divided into four chapters, or turnings: growth, maturation, entropy and destruction. Western societies have experienced the same patterns for centuries, the book argues, and they are as natural and necessary as spring, summer, fall and winter.

Few books have been as central to the worldview of Mr. Bannon, a voracious reader who tends to see politics and policy in terms of their place in the broader arc of history.

But what does the book tell us about how Mr. Bannon is approaching his job as President Trump's chief strategist and what he sees in the country's future? Here are some excerpts from the book, with explanations from The New York Times.

'Winter Is Coming,' and We'd Better Be Prepared

History is seasonal, and winter is coming. The very survival of the nation will feel at stake. Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history, one commensurate with the American Revolution, Civil War, and twin emergencies of the Great Depression and World War II. The risk of catastrophe will be high. The nation could erupt into insurrection or civil violence, crack up geographically, or succumb to authoritarian rule.

The "Fourth Turning" authors, William Strauss and Neil Howe, started using that phrase before it became a pop culture buzzword courtesy of HBO's "Game of Thrones." But, as the authors point out, some winters are mild. And sometimes they arrive late. The best thing to do, they say, is to prepare for what they wrote will be "America's next rendezvous with destiny."

In an interview with The Times, Mr. Bannon said, "Everything President Trump is doing - all of it - is to get ahead of or stop any potential crisis." But the magnitude of this crisis - and who is ultimately responsible for it - is an unknown that Mr. Trump can use to his political advantage. This helps explain Mr. Trump's tendency to emphasize crime rates, terrorist attacks and weak border control.

The 'Deconstruction of the Administrative State,' and Much More, Is Inevitable

The Fourth Turning will trigger a political upheaval beyond anything Americans could today imagine. New civic authority will have to take root, quickly and firmly - which won't be easy if the discredited rules and rituals of the old regime remain fully in place. We should shed and simplify the federal government in advance of the Crisis by cutting back sharply on its size and scope but without imperiling its core infrastructure.

The rhythmic, seasonal nature of history that the authors identify foresees an inevitable period of decay and destruction that will tear down existing social and political institutions. Mr. Bannon has famously argued that the overreaching and ineffective federal government - "the administrative state," as he calls it - needs to be dismantled. And Mr. Trump, he said, has just begun the process.

As Mr. Howe said in an interview with The Times: "There has to be a period in which we tear down everything that is no longer functional. And if we don't do that, it's hard to ever renew anything. Forests need fires, and rivers need floods. These happen for a reason."

'The American Dream Is Dead'

James Truslow Adams (wrote) of an 'American Dream' to refer to this civic faith in linear advancement. Time, they suggested, was the natural ally of each successive generation. Thus arose the dogma of an American exceptionalism, the belief that this nation and its people had somehow broken loose from any risk of cyclical regress . Yet the great weakness of linear time is that it obliterates time's recurrence and thus cuts people off from the eternal - whether in nature, in each other, or in ourselves.

One of the authors' major arguments is that Western society - particularly American culture - has denied the significance of cyclical patterns in history in favor of the more palatable and self-serving belief that humans are on an inexorable march toward improvement. They say this allows us to gloss over the flaws in human nature that allow for bad judgment - and bad leaders that drive societies into decline.

Though he probably did not intentionally invoke Mr. Strauss and Mr. Howe, Mr. Trump was channeling their thesis when he often said during his campaign, "The American dream is dead." One of the scenarios the book puts forward is one in which leaders who emerge during a crisis can revive and rebuild dead institutions. Mr. Trump clearly saw himself as one of these when he said his goal would be to bring back the American dream.

Conform, or Else

In a Fourth Turning, the nation's core will matter more than its diversity. Team, brand, and standard will be new catchwords. Anyone and anything not describable in those terms could be shunted aside - or worse. Do not isolate yourself from community affairs . If you don't want to be misjudged, don't act in a way that might provoke Crisis-era authority to deem you guilty. If you belong to a racial or ethnic minority, brace for a nativist backlash from an assertive (and possibly authoritarian) majority.

The authors envision a return to a more traditional, conservative social order as one outcome of a crisis. They also see the possibility of retribution and punishment for those who resist or refuse to comply with the new expectations for conformity. Mr. Trump's "with us or against us" attitude raises questions about what kind of leader he would be in such a crisis - and what kind of loyalty his administration might demand.

[Apr 12, 2017] With Bannon and Kushner not getting along, well, it's a slam dunk that Bannon's out.

Serial betrayer...
Notable quotes:
"... Oldtimers from the 1980 remember reading China, Russia and Iran were the great enemies of USA and to keep boss Israel safe her neighbors had to be splintered into mini statelets. Warring is a racket and lunacy obfuscates the racket; makes for good profits. So "sanity" will not be restored. ..."
"... Jane Meyer wrote in the New Yorker recently about the wealthy hedge funder, Robert Mercer, and his daughter Rebekah, who are big sponsors of Breitbart. They backed Cruz in the Primary, but once he lost to Trump, they began to back Trump with lots of money. For their "donations," they more or less demanded that Trump take on Bannon as an advisor. Meyer posits that it's largely due to the Mercers and Bannon that Trump won. They started working with Trump in August when Trump was seriously lagging in the poles. Although many criticized and/or jeered Trump's hiring of Bannon, the rest, as they say, is history. It is believed that Bannon and the Mercer's are largely behind and responsible for his success. ..."
"... I have read somewhere that Bannon always said he'd be out within a year. I don't believe that Trump had much loyalty to Bannon beyond whatever "good" Bannon did for him on any given day. So it's not all that surprising that Bannon is out, as are most of Trump's other initial picks as his "inside" advisors. ..."
"... Clearly and quite simply, it can't unless something majorly serious happens. We all had some slim hope that Trump could be the disrupter who made at least some levels of serious change. Clearly, that ain't gonna happen. ..."
"... Syria's just some sort of side show distraction. US citizens - at least a certain siginificant percentage of them - can be relied on to rally 'round the Flag, boys, just one more time if the tomahawks are flying at brown people "over there." ..."
"... Frankly ALL of the media here, as everyone knows, is insanely corrupt and complete and ridiculous propaganda 24/7/365. Otherwise reasonably "sane" friends of mine knee-jerked into saluting the flag and frothing at the mouth about the horrors of Assad - about whom they know bupkiss - because they listened to propaganda about it. It's pretty frightening - really - at how George Orwell it all is. I definitely keep FAR AWAY from any tvs and radios when this crap is happening. I listened to about 3 sentences that some propagandist on NPR was spewing out. It was so over the top evident that they were propagandizing the listeners that I had to turn it off immediately. It's pretty appalling. ..."
www.moonofalabama.org

x | Apr 12, 2017 10:28:48 AM | 3

Elvis has (almost) left the building...

quote
----
Goodwin says he asked Trump if he still has confidence in Bannon, who is reportedly feuding with Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner. And Trump didn't exactly disabuse Goodwin of the idea that Bannon is embattled. In fact, he did quite the opposite.

"I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late," Trump said. "I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve. I'm my own strategist, and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/11/trump-just-made-some-very-strange-comments-about-stephen-k-bannon

likklemore | Apr 12, 2017 10:56:15 AM | 7
Thanks b,
Lunacy has truly taken over the White House but even more so the U.S. media. How can sanity be brought back to town?

Oldtimers from the 1980 remember reading China, Russia and Iran were the great enemies of USA and to keep boss Israel safe her neighbors had to be splintered into mini statelets. Warring is a racket and lunacy obfuscates the racket; makes for good profits. So "sanity" will not be restored.

I am reading the release of an ex see-i-aye officer that McCain, McMaster, Brennan are in a huddle and Bannon is out. Somewhat confirming Where is Trump's loyalty? I was winning before he rescued me: In an interview with Michael Goodwin of NYPOST

Trump won't definitively say he still backs Bannon

"I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late," Trump said. "I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve. I'm my own strategist and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary."
He ended by saying, "Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will."

~ ~ ~ ~
My take is Trump has given too much of his presidential responsibility to Jared. Israel and Family are always First.

RUKidding | Apr 12, 2017 12:20:29 PM | 26
Vis Trump and Bannon in terms of Bannon apparently being tossed out:

Jane Meyer wrote in the New Yorker recently about the wealthy hedge funder, Robert Mercer, and his daughter Rebekah, who are big sponsors of Breitbart. They backed Cruz in the Primary, but once he lost to Trump, they began to back Trump with lots of money. For their "donations," they more or less demanded that Trump take on Bannon as an advisor. Meyer posits that it's largely due to the Mercers and Bannon that Trump won. They started working with Trump in August when Trump was seriously lagging in the poles. Although many criticized and/or jeered Trump's hiring of Bannon, the rest, as they say, is history. It is believed that Bannon and the Mercer's are largely behind and responsible for his success.

I have read somewhere that Bannon always said he'd be out within a year. I don't believe that Trump had much loyalty to Bannon beyond whatever "good" Bannon did for him on any given day. So it's not all that surprising that Bannon is out, as are most of Trump's other initial picks as his "inside" advisors.

With Bannon and Kushner not getting along, well, it's a slam dunk that Bannon's out.

"How can sanity be brought to town?"

Clearly and quite simply, it can't unless something majorly serious happens. We all had some slim hope that Trump could be the disrupter who made at least some levels of serious change. Clearly, that ain't gonna happen.

Syria's just some sort of side show distraction. US citizens - at least a certain siginificant percentage of them - can be relied on to rally 'round the Flag, boys, just one more time if the tomahawks are flying at brown people "over there."

Frankly ALL of the media here, as everyone knows, is insanely corrupt and complete and ridiculous propaganda 24/7/365. Otherwise reasonably "sane" friends of mine knee-jerked into saluting the flag and frothing at the mouth about the horrors of Assad - about whom they know bupkiss - because they listened to propaganda about it. It's pretty frightening - really - at how George Orwell it all is. I definitely keep FAR AWAY from any tvs and radios when this crap is happening. I listened to about 3 sentences that some propagandist on NPR was spewing out. It was so over the top evident that they were propagandizing the listeners that I had to turn it off immediately. It's pretty appalling.

How will this end? No doubt, not well, especially if you're brown skinned in the ME. The dog help us all.

[Apr 12, 2017] When asked Monday by Post columnist Michael Goodwin if he still had confidence in Bannon, Trump didn t exactly give a ringing endorsement

Was Bannon one of the leakers?
Notable quotes:
"... In the same interview, Trump told Goodwin that, despite last week's airstrike, U.S. policy toward Syria has not changed. "We're not going into Syria," Trump said. "Our policy is the same - it hasn't changed. We're not going into Syria." ..."
"... Trump also acknowledged a growing rift with Russia - "We're not exactly on the same wavelength with Russia, to put it mildly" - again called the nuclear deal with Iran "the single worst deal ever," and said of the worsening nuclear situation with North Korea: "I knew I was left a mess, but it's worse than I thought." ..."
Apr 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc , April 12, 2017 at 08:20 AM
The biggest problem with Trump is his total dishonesty and the ease with which he lies with complete abandon to suit his Fake News Spin

Here he fails to endorse Bannon, but hasn't tossed him from the WH and says he likes "Steve", the US won't go into Syria once again giving Assad and Putin a win in Syria, that the US and Russia are at odds, calls the Iran Nuclear Deal the worst deal ever declaring "the mess he inherited worse than he thought", yet has done nothing to help Tillerson in Moscow or sent a message to Iran's government.

Trump is a fraud as president and human being, imo. The GOP deserves every day he's president.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-declines-to-endorse-bannon-says-us-not-going-into-syria-2017-04-11

"Trump declines to endorse Bannon, says U.S. 'not going into Syria'"

By Mike Murphy, Editor...Apr 11, 2017...11:00 p.m. ET

"President Donald Trump declined to give top adviser Steve Bannon a vote of confidence during a New York Post interview published Tuesday, in which he also said the U.S. was not headed toward a ground war in Syria.

There have been reports of discord among Trump's top White House advisers, and rumors that controversial chief strategist Bannon may be on the way out. Last week, Bannon and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were reportedly told to iron out their differences.

When asked Monday by Post columnist Michael Goodwin if he still had confidence in Bannon, Trump didn't exactly give a ringing endorsement: "I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late. I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve. I'm my own strategist and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary."

"Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will," Trump said.

In the same interview, Trump told Goodwin that, despite last week's airstrike, U.S. policy toward Syria has not changed. "We're not going into Syria," Trump said. "Our policy is the same - it hasn't changed. We're not going into Syria."

Trump also acknowledged a growing rift with Russia - "We're not exactly on the same wavelength with Russia, to put it mildly" - again called the nuclear deal with Iran "the single worst deal ever," and said of the worsening nuclear situation with North Korea: "I knew I was left a mess, but it's worse than I thought."

[Apr 09, 2017] Trumps chief strategist Steve Bannon stripped of national security council role just before Syria attack

Was he one of the leakers ?
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon stripped of national security council role Tuesday memorandum also restores traditional roles on council of chairman of joint chiefs of staff and director of national intelligence ..."
"... A bitter turf war is said to under way in the White House between Kushner and Bannon, former head of the rightwing Breitbart News. ..."
"... When officials released a picture on Friday of a national security briefing on Syria, Kushner had a seat at the table while Bannon was behind Trump, his back to the wall. ..."
Apr 08, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
-> Steve Bannon The Observer Bannon and Kushner locked in White House 'power struggle'

David Smith in Washington

8 April 2017 07.00 EDT Last modified on Saturday 8 April 2017 17.01 EDT The sun shone on Donald Trump's debut in the rose garden. As reporters filed in for the time honoured White House tradition, the president's aide Omarosa Manigault stood in the Palm Room, speaking urgently into her phone. Vice-president Mike Pence and secretary of state Rex Tillerson shared a joke on the front row. And the president's senior adviser and son-in-law, -> Jared Kushner , exuded confidence, nodding and smiling at a fellow guest as he took his place.

But as Trump held a joint press conference with King Abdullah of Jordan, -> denouncing a chemical weapons attack on children in Syria that would lead to a US missile strike a day later, there was a glaring absence. Chief strategist Steve Bannon, mocked by Trump's critics as "President Bannon" on Twitter, had lost his place in the sun.

Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon stripped of national security council role Tuesday memorandum also restores traditional roles on council of chairman of joint chiefs of staff and director of national intelligence

A bitter turf war is said to under way in the White House between Kushner and Bannon, former head of the rightwing Breitbart News. In the past week there were indications that the latter, -> who once declared himself "Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors", could be heading for a fall like Cromwell's, albeit without the gore that accompanied the English minister's violent end.

While Kushner paid a surprise visit to Iraq, beating Tillerson to the photo opps aboard a military helicopter, Bannon was unceremoniously demoted from the national security council (NSC). When officials released a picture on Friday of a national security briefing on Syria, Kushner had a seat at the table while Bannon was behind Trump, his back to the wall.

[Apr 09, 2017] Bannon was removed from the National Security Council at McMasters behest

Looks like Bannon was one of the leakers. He also was instrumental in bringing Wolff into White House.
Apr 09, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
Steve Bannon

Keeper of the flame for the isolationist "America first" doctrine, a backlash against the neocons' invasion of Iraq and other US attempts to meddle in world affairs. A month ago the ex-head of Breitbart News was rumoured to be the second most powerful man in the world. But last week Bannon, left, was removed from the National Security Council at McMaster's behest.

Mike Cernovich, blogger

A peddler of conspiracy theories said to be influential with the administration, he describes himself as "new right". Last week Trump's son, Donald Jr, tweeted: "In a long gone time of unbiased journalism he'd win the Pulitzer." But Cernovich has promoted the hashtag #SyriaHoax and said: "This is appalling really. This is unbelievable. This is not what we voted for. This is definitely not what we voted for ."

Ann Coulter, author and broadcaster

The author of In Trump We Trust and tireless media champion of the president expressed bitter disappointment to her 1.46m Twitter followers. She posted: "Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV."

Rand Paul, senator for Kentucky

The libertarian senator played golf with Trump last weekend and appeared to be forming an unlikely alliance over allegations of surveillance by the Obama administration.

But he told CNN on Saturday: "He really, clearly ran on the Iraq war was a mistake, regime change hasn't worked, and that involving ourselves in civil wars throughout the world is really not the job of America's foreign policy.

"Some will say maybe this is an exception to the rule, and I hope frankly that this is an exception, that he won't believe that we can actually solve the Syria war militarily."

[Apr 06, 2017] Bannon no longer on Trump's National Security Council

Notable quotes:
"... "regular attendees" ..."
"... "Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized," Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal. ..."
"... "General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function," he added. ..."
Apr 06, 2017 | www.rt.com
President Donald Trump has reorganized the National Security Council, and his Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon is apparently no longer on the Principals Committee, according to a memo that has surfaced. Bloomberg has posted a memo from Trump, dated April 4, reorganizing the National Security Council and updating the list of officials who sit on its Principals Committee. The document shows no role for Bannon and a reduced role for Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, are again considered "regular attendees" of the principals committee.

In addition to Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, the regular attendees will be the secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security and the Attorney General; the national and homeland security advisers; and the US envoy to the UN, as well as the CIA director, in addition to the Joint Chiefs chair and the DNI.

The White House chief of staff, counsel and deputy counsel for national security, and the director of the Office of Management and Budget are also invited to attend any NSC meeting, the memo says.

"Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized," Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal.

"General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function," he added.

[Mar 03, 2017] Evola framework allows for a shared nationalistic struggle that is simultaneously individualistic and universal in the chivalric sense that true warriors always recognize and respect each other even when serving different causes.

Notable quotes:
"... The two thinkers, recently in the news thanks to Steve Bannon, had different views on human nature. ..."
"... if human nature is universal, cultural convergence seems to be the logical outcome of a globalized world. ..."
"... Spengler's views can be seen in the context of a movement known as historicism, the idea that human societies were the products of historical and material circumstances, which arose as a result of the universalism propagated by the Enlightenment and spread by the French Revolution. While Spengler makes some valid points, particularly in arguing against the idea that history is goal-oriented and directional, his view denies the very concept of empathy, that one can look at, say, Caesar, and see things through his eyes. ..."
"... In other words, Evola believed that there was a common core to human beings, a set of higher principles and heroic "traditional" values that lay at the root of every successful civilization. Even when eclipsed, these values remained in a dormant form, waiting to be reactivated. It is not surprising, then, that Evola is popular among nationalists and reactionaries today, because his framework allows for a shared nationalistic struggle that is simultaneously individualistic and universal in the chivalric sense that true warriors always recognize and respect each other even when serving different causes. ..."
"... The problem is that the mere existence of human nature is no guarantee of its consummation. Human beings may live pathetic or ignoble or fragmentary lives. Evola's concern (whatever one might think of it) was with encouraging the perfection of human nature through political means. That perfection may have little to do with the commonest "material, psychological, and emotional factors"; indeed, it most certainly requires their overcoming. ..."
"... This is important, because it forms one of the strongest critiques that the far right brings against democratic republics: namely, that they are materialistic and emotionally hollow; that they provide no transcendental or ennobling vision of the life of human beings and the destiny of societies. ..."
Feb 25, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Akhilesh Pillalamarr

The two thinkers, recently in the news thanks to Steve Bannon, had different views on human nature.

The apocalyptic worldview promoted by prominent political figures such as Steve Bannon in the United States and Aleksandr Dugin in Russia is premised on the notion that ordinary political and legislative battles are more than just quibbles over contemporary issues. Rather, political debates are fronts in a greater battle of ideas , and everything is a struggle for the meaning of civilization and human nature. Bannon's worldview is preceded by the thought of two early-20th-century thinkers, Oswald Spengler and Julius Evola-and his passing mention of the latter in a 2014 speech has caused some controversy in recent weeks, including a New York Times article entitled "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists."

These thinkers wrote at a time when the Western narrative of progress and improvement was shattered after World War I. Interest in both Spengler and Evola has recently revived, though Spengler was always fairly well-known for his thesis that civilizations grew and declined in a cyclical fashion.

Although both Spengler and Evola shared a pessimism over the direction of modern Western civilization, they differed on human nature. Is there a way to reconcile two vastly different observations?

The first is that people in different eras and locales display a remarkable degree of behavioral similarity; id est , human nature is universal and constant. However, on the other hand, the peculiarities and differences between some cultures are so great that it is hard to see how these are derived from a common source. This question is really what lies at the root of the current argument between cosmopolitanism and nationalism. For if human nature is universal, cultural convergence seems to be the logical outcome of a globalized world.

Are there alternatives? Building off of ideas introduced in the early 19th century by Hegel, Spengler argued that the very framework of human experience was limited by the time and the civilization in which the person lived:

"Mankind" has no aim, no idea, no plan [and] is a zoological expression, or an empty word. But conjure away the phantom, break the magic circle, and at once there emerges an astonishing wealth of actual forms. I see, in place of that empty figment of one linear history which can be kept up only by shutting one's eyes to the overwhelming multitier of facts, the drama of a number of mighty Cultures. There is not one sculpture, one painting, one mathematics, one physics, but many, each in its deepest essence different from the others, each limited in duration and self-contained.

Spengler's views can be seen in the context of a movement known as historicism, the idea that human societies were the products of historical and material circumstances, which arose as a result of the universalism propagated by the Enlightenment and spread by the French Revolution. While Spengler makes some valid points, particularly in arguing against the idea that history is goal-oriented and directional, his view denies the very concept of empathy, that one can look at, say, Caesar, and see things through his eyes.

Age after age, people look back on history for inspiration, and it is hard to accept this lack of commonality with historical figures: the idea of a common human nature is a compelling concept. It also has the weight of historical, literary, and anthropological evidence behind it. But it does not follow that the idea of a fixed human nature leads to a form of neoliberal universalism.

One alternative was provided by Evola, who sought to reclaim the idea of human nature from the Enlightenment and reconcile it with the observations described by Spengler and Hegel. Instead of the liberal, convergent universalism championed by the Enlightenment, Evola advocated a traditionalist universalism, because "there is no form of traditional organization that does not hide a higher principle." In an argument that echoes Plato's Theory of Forms, he wrote:

The supreme values and the foundational principles of every healthy and normal institution are not liable to change. In the domain of these values there is no "history" and to think about them in historical terms is absurd even where these principles are objectified in a historical reality, they are not at all conditioned by it; they always point to a higher, meta-historical plane, which is their natural domain and where there is no change.

In other words, Evola believed that there was a common core to human beings, a set of higher principles and heroic "traditional" values that lay at the root of every successful civilization. Even when eclipsed, these values remained in a dormant form, waiting to be reactivated. It is not surprising, then, that Evola is popular among nationalists and reactionaries today, because his framework allows for a shared nationalistic struggle that is simultaneously individualistic and universal in the chivalric sense that true warriors always recognize and respect each other even when serving different causes.

... ... ...

Akhilesh Pillalamarri is an editorial assistant at The American Conservative . He also writes for The National Interest and The Diplomat .

John Bruce Leonard , says: February 21, 2017 at 4:15 pm
"But the truth is probably a lot simpler: people are motivated by similar and fixed material, psychological, and emotional factors across time and space, not by any liberal or 'meta-historical' purposes."

Yet it seems to me that everything depends on just who the "people" in question are, and what their relation is to the wellsprings of power. The motivations of the American electorate are not those of a Napoleon; and these motivations in turn are not identical to those those of, say, the Venetian Doge in the Renaissance. The character of the very social order changes dramatically on the basis of the motivations of its rulers.

The problem is that the mere existence of human nature is no guarantee of its consummation. Human beings may live pathetic or ignoble or fragmentary lives. Evola's concern (whatever one might think of it) was with encouraging the perfection of human nature through political means. That perfection may have little to do with the commonest "material, psychological, and emotional factors"; indeed, it most certainly requires their overcoming.

This is important, because it forms one of the strongest critiques that the far right brings against democratic republics: namely, that they are materialistic and emotionally hollow; that they provide no transcendental or ennobling vision of the life of human beings and the destiny of societies.

Until democratic republics can answer that charge, which is a poetic, a spiritual, a philosophical charge, they will remain vulnerable to the peril of "fascist revolt."

[Feb 27, 2017] New York Times 'What Does Steve Bannon Want'

Notable quotes:
"... When Mr. Bannon spoke on Thursday of "deconstructing the administrative state," it may have sounded like gobbledygook outside the hall, but it was an electrifying profession of faith for the attendees. It is through Mr. Bannon that Trump_vs_deep_state can be converted from a set of nostalgic laments and complaints into a program for overhauling the government. ..."
"... Mr. Bannon's film features predictable interviews with think-tank supply siders and free marketers fretting about big government. But new, less orthodox voices creep in, too, from the protectionist newscaster Lou Dobbs to the investment manager Barry Ritholtz. They question whether the free market is altogether free. Mr. Ritholtz says that the outcome of the financial crisis has been "socialism for the wealthy but capitalism for everybody else." ..."
"... By 2014, Mr. Bannon's own ideology had become centered on this distrust. He was saying such things about capitalism himself. "Think about it," he said in a talk hosted by the Institute for Human Dignity. "Not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis." He warned against "the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism," by which he meant "a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people." Capitalism, he said, ought to rest on a "Judeo-Christian" foundation. ..."
"... If so, this was bad news for the Republican Party. By the time Mr. Bannon spoke, Ayn Rand-style capitalism was all that remained of its Reagan-era agenda. Free-market thinking had swallowed the party whole, and its Judeo-Christian preoccupations - "a nation with a culture" and "a reason for being" - along with it. A business orientation was what donors wanted. ..."
Feb 27, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
Weekly Standard senior editor Christoper Caldwell writes at the New York Times :

President Trump presents a problem to those who look at politics in terms of systematic ideologies. He is either disinclined or unable to lay out his agenda in that way. So perhaps it was inevitable that Mr. Trump's chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who does have a gift for thinking systematically, would be so often invoked by Mr. Trump's opponents. They need him not just as a hate object but as a heuristic, too. There may never be a "Trump_vs_deep_state," and unless one emerges, the closest we may come to understanding this administration is as an expression of "Bannonism."

Mr. Bannon, 63, has won a reputation for abrasive brilliance at almost every stop in his unorthodox career - as a naval officer, Goldman Sachs mergers specialist, entertainment-industry financier, documentary screenwriter and director, Breitbart News cyber-agitprop impresario and chief executive of Mr. Trump's presidential campaign. One Harvard Business School classmate described him to The Boston Globe as "top three in intellectual horsepower in our class - perhaps the smartest." Benjamin Harnwell of the Institute for Human Dignity, a Catholic organization in Rome, calls him a "walking bibliography." Perhaps because Mr. Bannon came late to conservatism, turning his full-time energy to political matters only after the Sept. 11 attacks, he radiates an excitement about it that most of his conservative contemporaries long ago lost.

Many accounts of Mr. Bannon paint him as a cartoon villain or internet troll come to life, as a bigot, an anti-Semite, a misogynist, a crypto-fascist. The former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, have even called him a "white nationalist." While he is certainly a hard-line conservative of some kind, the evidence that he is an extremist of a more troubling sort has generally been either massaged, misread or hyped up.

There may be good reasons to worry about Mr. Bannon, but they are not the ones everyone is giving. It does not make Mr. Bannon a fascist that he happens to know who the 20th-century Italian extremist Julius Evola is. It does not make Mr. Bannon a racist that he described Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right" - a broad and imprecise term that applies to a wide array of radicals, not just certain white supremacist groups.

Where Mr. Bannon does veer sharply from recent mainstream Republicanism is in his all-embracing nationalism. He speaks of sovereignty, economic nationalism, opposition to globalization and finding common ground with Brexit supporters and other groups hostile to the transnational European Union. On Thursday, at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, he described the "center core" of Trump administration philosophy as the belief that the United States is more than an economic unit in a borderless word. It is "a nation with a culture " and " a reason for being."

...

When Mr. Bannon spoke on Thursday of "deconstructing the administrative state," it may have sounded like gobbledygook outside the hall, but it was an electrifying profession of faith for the attendees. It is through Mr. Bannon that Trump_vs_deep_state can be converted from a set of nostalgic laments and complaints into a program for overhauling the government.

...

Mr. Bannon adds something personal and idiosyncratic to this Tea Party mix. He has a theory of historical cycles that can be considered elegantly simple or dangerously simplistic. It is a model laid out by William Strauss and Neil Howe in two books from the 1990s. Their argument assumes an 80- to 100-year cycle divided into roughly 20-year "highs," "awakenings," "unravelings" and "crises." The American Revolution, the Civil War, the New Deal, World War II - Mr. Bannon has said for years that we're due for another crisis about now. His documentary about the 2008 financial collapse, "Generation Zero," released in 2010, uses the Strauss-Howe model to explain what happened, and concludes with Mr. Howe himself saying, "History is seasonal, and winter is coming."

Mr. Bannon's views reflect a transformation of conservatism over the past decade or so. You can trace this transformation in the films he has made. His 2004 documentary, "In the Face of Evil," is an orthodox tribute to the Republican Party hero Ronald Reagan. But "Generation Zero," half a decade later, is a strange hybrid. The financial crash has intervened. Mr. Bannon's film features predictable interviews with think-tank supply siders and free marketers fretting about big government. But new, less orthodox voices creep in, too, from the protectionist newscaster Lou Dobbs to the investment manager Barry Ritholtz. They question whether the free market is altogether free. Mr. Ritholtz says that the outcome of the financial crisis has been "socialism for the wealthy but capitalism for everybody else."

By 2014, Mr. Bannon's own ideology had become centered on this distrust. He was saying such things about capitalism himself. "Think about it," he said in a talk hosted by the Institute for Human Dignity. "Not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis." He warned against "the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism," by which he meant "a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people." Capitalism, he said, ought to rest on a "Judeo-Christian" foundation.

If so, this was bad news for the Republican Party. By the time Mr. Bannon spoke, Ayn Rand-style capitalism was all that remained of its Reagan-era agenda. Free-market thinking had swallowed the party whole, and its Judeo-Christian preoccupations - "a nation with a culture" and "a reason for being" - along with it. A business orientation was what donors wanted.

But voters never more than tolerated it. It was Pat Buchanan who in his 1992 run for president first called on Republicans to value jobs and communities over profits. An argument consumed the party over whether this was a better-rounded vision of society or just the grousing of a reactionary. After a generation, Mr. Buchanan has won that argument. By 2016 his views on trade and migration, once dismissed as crackpot, were spreading so fast that everyone in the party had embraced them - except its elected officials and its establishment presidential candidates.

Mr. Bannon does not often go into detail about what Judeo-Christian culture is, but he knows one thing it is not: Islam. Like most Americans, he believes that Islamism - the extremist political movement - is a dangerous adversary. More controversially he holds that, since this political movement is generated within the sphere of Islam, the growth of Islam - the religion - is itself a problem with which American authorities should occupy themselves. This is a view that was emphatically repudiated by Presidents Obama and George W. Bush.

Mr. Bannon has apparently drawn his own views on the subject from intensive, if not necessarily varied, reading. The thinkers he has engaged with in this area tend to be hot and polemical rather than cool and detached. They include the provocateur Pamela Geller, a campaigner against the "Ground Zero Mosque" who once suggested the State Department was "essentially being run by Islamic supremacists"; her sometime collaborator Robert Spencer, the director of the website Jihad Watch, with whom she heads an organization called Stop Islamization of America; and the former Department of Homeland Security official Philip Haney, who has argued that officials in the Obama administration had compromised "the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness."

Read the complete column at the New York Times .

[Feb 26, 2017] He approves definition of neoliberalism as socialism for the wealthy but capitalism for everybody else.

Feb 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

libezkova February 26, 2017 at 10:46 AM

NYT about Bannon "economic nationalism"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/opinion/what-does-steve-bannon-want.html

He approves definition of neoliberalism as "socialism for the wealthy but capitalism for everybody else."

Looks like his views are not very comparable with Republican Party platform (or Clinton wing of Democratic Party platform, being "small republicans" in disguise)

== quote ==

"Think about it," he said in a talk hosted by the Institute for Human Dignity. "Not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis." He warned against "the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism," by which he meant "a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people." Capitalism, he said, ought to rest on a "Judeo-Christian" foundation.


== quote ==

If so, this was bad news for the Republican Party. By the time Mr. Bannon spoke, Ayn Rand-style capitalism was all that remained of its Reagan-era agenda. Free-market thinking had swallowed the party whole, and its Judeo-Christian preoccupations - "a nation with a culture" and "a reason for being" - along with it. A business orientation was what donors wanted.

[Feb 21, 2017] Globalisation and Economic Nationalism naked capitalism

Notable quotes:
"... Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers', and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation. ..."
"... From an energy point of view globalisation is a disaster. The insane level of fossil fuels that this current world requires for transportation of necessities (food and clothing) is making this world an unstable world. Ipso Facto. ..."
"... Those who believe that globalisation is bringing value to the world should reconsider their views. The current globalisation has created both monopolies on a geopolitical ground, ie TV make or shipbuilding in Asia. ..."
"... Do you seriously believe that these new geographical and corporate monopolies does not create the kind bad outcomes that traditional – country-centric ones – monopolies have in the past? ..."
"... Then there is the practical issue of workers having next to no bargaining power under globalization. Do people really suppose that Mexican workers would be willing to strike so that their US counterparts, already making ficew times as much money, would get a raise? ..."
"... Basically our elite sold us a bill of goods is why we lost manufacturing. Greed. Nothing else. ..."
"... So proof is required to rollback globalization, but no proof was required to launch it or continue dishing it out? It's good to be the King, eh? ..."
"... America hasn't just gotten rid of the low level jobs. It has also gotten rid of supervisors and factory managers. Those are skills you can't get back overnight. For US plants in Mexico, you might have US managers there or be able to get special visas to let those managers come to the US. But US companies have shifted a ton, and I meant a ton, to foreign subcontractors. Some would put operations in the US to preserve access to US customers, but their managers won't speak English. How do you make this work? ..."
"... The real issue is commitment. Very little manufacturing will be re-shored unless companies are convinced that it is in their longterm interest to do so. ..."
"... There is also what I've heard referred to as the "next bench" phenomenon, in which products arise because someone designs a new product/process to solve a manufacturing problem. Unless one has great foresight, the designer of the new product must be aware there is a problem to solve. ..."
"... When a country is involved in manufacturing, the citizens employed will have exposure to production problems and issues. ..."
"... After his speech he took questions. I asked "Would Toyota ever separate design from manufacturing?" as HP had done, shipping all manufacturing to Asia. "No" was his answer. ..."
"... In my experience, it is way too useful to have the line be able to easily call the designer in question and have him come take a look at what his design is doing. HP tried to get around that by sending part of the design team to Asia to watch the startup. Didn't work as well. And when problems emerged later, it was always difficult to debug by remote control. ..."
"... How about mass imports of cheap workers into western countries in the guise of emigrants to push down worker's pay and gut things like unions. That factor played a decisive factor in both the Brexit referendum and the US 2016 elections. Or the subsidized exportation of western countries industrial equipment to third world countries, leaving local workers swinging in the wind. ..."
"... The data sets do not capture some of the most important factors in what they are saying. It is like putting together a paper on how and why white men voted in the 2016 US elections as they did – and forgetting to mention the effect of the rest of the voters involved. ..."
"... I had a similar reaction. This research was reinforcing info about everyone's resentment over really bad distribution of wealth, as far as it went, but it was so unsatisfying ..."
"... "Right to work" is nothing other than a way to undercut quality of work for "run-to-the-bottom competitive pay." ..."
"... I've noticed that the only people in favor of globalization are those whose jobs are not under threat from it. ..."
"... First off, economic nationalism is not necessarily right wing. I would certainly classify Bernie Sanders as an economic nationalist (against open borders and against "free" trade). Syriza and Podemos could arguably be called rather ineffective economic nationalist parties. I would say the whole ideology of social democracy is based on the Swedish nationalist concept of a "folkhem", where the nation is the home and the citizens are the folk. ..."
"... So China is Turmpism on steroids. Israel obviously is as well. Why do some nations get to be blatantly Trumpist while for others these policies are strictly forbidden? ..."
"... One way to look at Globalization is as an updated version of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty which imposed reparations on a defeated Germany for all the harm they caused during the Great War. The Globalized Versailles Treaty is aimed at the American and European working classes for the crimes of colonialism, racism, slavery and any other bad things the 1st world has done to the 3rd in the past. ..."
"... And yes, this applies to Bernie Sanders as well. During that iconic interview where Sanders denounced open borders and pushed economic nationalism, the Neoliberal interviewer immediately played the global guilt card in response. ..."
"... During colonialism the 3rd world had a form of open borders imposed on it by the colonial powers, where the 3rd world lost control of who what crossed their borders while the 1st world themselves maintained a closed border mercantilist regime of strict filters. So the anti-colonialist movement was a form of Trumpist economic nationalism where the evil foreigners were given the boot and the nascent nations applied filters to their borders. ..."
"... Nationalism (my opinion) can do this – economic nationalism. And of course other people think oh gawd, not that again – it's so inefficient for my investments- I can't get fast returns that way but that's just the point. ..."
"... China was not a significant exporter until the 2001 inclusion in WTO: it cannot possibly have caused populist uprisings in Italy and Belgium in the 1990s. It was probably too early even for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who was killed in 2002, Le Pen's electoral success in the same year, Austria's FPOE in 1999, and so on. ..."
"... In the 1930s Keynes realized, income was just as important as profit as this produced a sustainable system that does not rely on debt to maintain demand. ..."
"... "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system." ..."
"... The Romans are the basis. Patricians, Equites and Plebs. Most of us here are clearly plebeian. Time to go place some bets, watch the chariot races and gladiatorial fights, and get my bread subsidy. Ciao. ..."
"... 80-90% of Bonds and Equities ( at least in USA) are owned by top 10 %. 0.7% own 45% of global wealth. 8 billionaires own more than 50% of wealth than that of bottom 50% in our Country! ..."
"... Globalisation has caused a surge in support for nationalist and radical right political platforms. ..."
"... Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be a move in that direction. ..."
"... Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers' ..."
"... and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. ..."
"... The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation. ..."
Feb 21, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
DanielDeParis , February 20, 2017 at 1:09 am

Definitely a pleasant read but IMHO wrong conclusion: Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers', and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation.

From an energy point of view globalisation is a disaster. The insane level of fossil fuels that this current world requires for transportation of necessities (food and clothing) is making this world an unstable world. Ipso Facto.

We need a world where goods move little as possible (yep!) when smart ideas and technology (medical, science, industry, yep that's essential) move as much as possible. Internet makes this possible. This is no dream but a XXIth century reality.

Work – the big one – is required and done where and when it occurs. That is on all continents if not in every country. Not in an insanely remote suburbs of Asia.

Those who believe that globalisation is bringing value to the world should reconsider their views. The current globalisation has created both monopolies on a geopolitical ground, ie TV make or shipbuilding in Asia.

Do you seriously believe that these new geographical and corporate monopolies does not create the kind bad outcomes that traditional – country-centric ones – monopolies have in the past?

Yves Smith can have nasty words when it comes to discussing massive trade surplus and policies that supports them. That's my single most important motivation for reading this challenging blog, by the way.

Thanks for the blog:)

tony , February 20, 2017 at 5:09 am

Another thing is that reliance on complex supply chains is risky. The book 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed describes how the ancient Mediterranian civilization collapsed when the supply chains stopped working.

Then there is the practical issue of workers having next to no bargaining power under globalization. Do people really suppose that Mexican workers would be willing to strike so that their US counterparts, already making ficew times as much money, would get a raise?

Is Finland somehow supposed to force the US and China to adopt similar worker rights and environmental protections? No, globalization, no matter how you slice it,is a race to the bottom.

digi_owl , February 20, 2017 at 10:12 am

Sadly protectionism gets conflated with empire building, because protectionism was at its height right before WW1.

Altandmain , February 20, 2017 at 1:35 am

I do not agree with the article's conclusion either.

Reshoring would have 1 of 2 outcomes:

  • Lots of manufacturing jobs and a solid middle class. We may be looking at more than 20 percent total employment in manufacturing and more than 30 percent of our GDP in manufacturing.
  • If the robots take over, we still have a lot of manufacturing jobs. Japan for example has the most robots per capita, yet they still maintain very large amounts of manufacturing employment. It does not mean the end of manufacturing at all, having worked in manufacturing before.

Basically our elite sold us a bill of goods is why we lost manufacturing. Greed. Nothing else.

Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 3:07 am

The conclusion is the least important thing. Conclusions are just interpretations, afterthoughts, divagations (which btw are often just sneaky ways to get your work published by TPTB, surreptitiously inserting radical stuff under the noses of the guardians of orthodoxy).

The value of these reports is in providing hardcore statistical evidence and quantification for something for which so many people have a gut feeling but just cann't prove it (although many seem to think that just having a strong opinion is sufficient).

Yves Smith Post author , February 20, 2017 at 3:27 am

Yes, correct. Intuition is great for coming up with hypotheses, but it is important to test them. And while a correlation isn't causation, it at least says the hypothesis isn't nuts on its face.

In addition, studies like this are helpful in challenging the oft-made claim, particularly in the US, that people who vote for nationalist policies are bigots of some stripe.

KnotRP , February 20, 2017 at 10:02 am

So proof is required to rollback globalization, but no proof was required to launch it or continue dishing it out? It's good to be the King, eh?

WheresOurTeddy , February 20, 2017 at 1:05 pm

KnotRP, as far as the Oligarchy is concerned, they don't need proof for anything #RememberTheHackedElectionOf2016

/s

Yves Smith Post author , February 20, 2017 at 6:48 am

You are missing the transition costs, which will take ten years, maybe a generation.

America hasn't just gotten rid of the low level jobs. It has also gotten rid of supervisors and factory managers. Those are skills you can't get back overnight. For US plants in Mexico, you might have US managers there or be able to get special visas to let those managers come to the US. But US companies have shifted a ton, and I meant a ton, to foreign subcontractors. Some would put operations in the US to preserve access to US customers, but their managers won't speak English. How do you make this work?

The only culture with demonstrated success in working with supposedly hopeless US workers is the Japanese, who proved that with the NUMMI joint venture with GM in one of its very worst factories (in terms of the alleged caliber of the workforce, as in many would show up for work drunk). Toyota got the plant to function at better than average (as in lower) defect levels and comparable productivity to its plants in Japan, which was light years better than Big Three norms.

I'm not sure any other foreign managers are as sensitive to detail and the fine points of working conditions as the Japanese (having worked with them extensively, the Japanese hear frequencies of power dynamics that are lost on Westerners. And the Chinese do not even begin to have that capability, as much as they have other valuable cultural attributes).

Katharine , February 20, 2017 at 10:24 am

That is really interesting about the Japanese sensitivity to detail and power dynamics. If anyone has managed to describe this in any detail, I would love to read more, though I suppose if their ability is alien to most Westerners the task of describing it might also be too much to handle.

Left in Wisconsin , February 20, 2017 at 10:39 am

I lean more to ten years than a generation. And in the grand scheme of things, 10 years is nothing.

The real issue is commitment. Very little manufacturing will be re-shored unless companies are convinced that it is in their longterm interest to do so. Which means having a sense that the US government is serious, and will continue to be serious, about penalizing off-shoring.

Regardless of Trump's bluster, which has so far only resulted in a handful of companies halting future offshoring decisions (all to the good), we are nowhere close to that yet.

John Wright , February 20, 2017 at 10:52 am

There is also what I've heard referred to as the "next bench" phenomenon, in which products arise because someone designs a new product/process to solve a manufacturing problem. Unless one has great foresight, the designer of the new product must be aware there is a problem to solve.

When a country is involved in manufacturing, the citizens employed will have exposure to production problems and issues.

Sometimes the solution to these problems can lead to new products outside of one's main business, for example the USA's Kingsford Charcoal arose from a scrap wood disposal problem that Henry Ford had.

https://www.kingsford.com/country/about-us/

If one googles for "patent applications by countries" one gets these numbers, which could be an indirect indication of some of the manufacturing shift from the USA to Asia.

Patent applications for the top 10 offices, 2014

1. China 928,177
2. US 578,802
3. Japan 325,989
4. South Korea 210,292

What is not captured in these numbers are manufacturing processes known as "trade secrets" that are not disclosed in a patent. The idea that the USA can move move much of its manufacturing overseas without long term harming its workforce and economy seems implausible to me.

marku52 , February 20, 2017 at 2:55 pm

While a design EE at HP, they brought in an author who had written about Toyota's lean design method, which was currently the management hot button du jour. After his speech he took questions. I asked "Would Toyota ever separate design from manufacturing?" as HP had done, shipping all manufacturing to Asia. "No" was his answer.

In my experience, it is way too useful to have the line be able to easily call the designer in question and have him come take a look at what his design is doing. HP tried to get around that by sending part of the design team to Asia to watch the startup. Didn't work as well. And when problems emerged later, it was always difficult to debug by remote control.

And BTW, after manufacturing went overseas, management told us for costing to assume "Labor is free". Some level playing field.

The Rev Kev , February 20, 2017 at 2:00 am

Oh gawd! The man talks about the effects of globalization and says that the solution is a "a more inclusive model of globalization"? Seriously? Furthermore he singles out Chinese imports as the cause of people being pushed to the right. Yeah, right.

How about mass imports of cheap workers into western countries in the guise of emigrants to push down worker's pay and gut things like unions. That factor played a decisive factor in both the Brexit referendum and the US 2016 elections. Or the subsidized exportation of western countries industrial equipment to third world countries, leaving local workers swinging in the wind.

This study is so incomplete it is almost useless. The only thing that comes to mind to say about this study is the phrase "Apart from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" And what form of appropriate compensation of its 'losers' would they suggest? Training for non-existent jobs? Free moving fees to the east or west coast for Americans in flyover country? Subsidized emigration fees to third world countries where life is cheaper for workers with no future where they are?

Nice try fellas but time to redo your work again until it is fit for a passing grade.

Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 3:00 am

How crazy of them to have used generalized linear mixed models with actual data carefully compiled and curated when they could just asked you right?

The Rev Kev , February 20, 2017 at 4:19 am

Aw jeez, mate – you've just hurt my feelings here. Take a look at the actual article again. The data sets do not capture some of the most important factors in what they are saying. It is like putting together a paper on how and why white men voted in the 2016 US elections as they did – and forgetting to mention the effect of the rest of the voters involved.

Hey, here is an interesting thought experiment for you. How about we apply the scientific method to the past 40 years of economic theory since models with actual data strike your fancy. If we find that the empirical data does not support a theory such as the theory of economic neoliberalism, we can junk it then and replace it with something that actually works then. So far as I know, modern economics seems to be immune to scientific rigour in their methods unlike the real sciences.

Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 4:38 am

I feel your pain Rev.

Not all relevant factors need to be included for a statistical analysis to be valid, as long as relevant ignored factors are randomized amongst the sampling units, but you know that of course.

Thanks for you kind words about the real sciences, we work hard to keep it real, but once again, in all fairness, between you and me mate, is not all rigour, it is a lot more Feyerabend than Popper.

The Rev Kev , February 20, 2017 at 5:41 am

What you say is entirely true. The trouble has always been to make sure that that statistical analysis actually reflects the real world enough to make it valid. An example of where it all falls apart can be seen in the political world when the pundits, media and all the pollsters assured America that Clinton had it in the bag. It was only after the dust had settled that it was revealed how bodgy the methodology used had been.

By the way, Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend sound very interesting so thanks for the heads up. Have you heard of some of the material of another bloke called Mark Blyth at all? He has some interesting observations to make on modern economic practices.

susan the other , February 20, 2017 at 12:03 pm

I had a similar reaction. This research was reinforcing info about everyone's resentment over really bad distribution of wealth, as far as it went, but it was so unsatisfying and I immediately thought of Blyth who laments the whole phylogeny of economics as more or less serving the rich.

The one solution he offered up a while ago was (paraphrasing) 'don't sweat the deficit spending because it is all 6s in the end' which is true if distribution doesn't stagnate. So as it stands now, offshoring arms, legs and firstborns is like 'nothing to see here, please move on'. The suggestion that we need a more inclusive form of global trade kind of begs the question. Made me uneasy too.

Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 10:58 pm

Please don't pool pundits and media with the authors of objective works like the one we are commenting :-)

You are welcome, you might also be interested in Lakatos, these 3 are some of the most interesting philosophers of science of the 20th century, IMO.

Blyth has been in some posts here at NC recently.

relstprof , February 20, 2017 at 4:30 am

"Gut things like unions." How so? In my recent interaction with my apartment agency's preferred contractors, random contractors not unionized, I experienced a 6 month-long disaster.

These construction workers bragged that in 2 weeks they would have the complete job done - a reconstructed deck and sunroom. Verbatim quote: "Union workers complete the job and tear it down to keep everyone paying." Ha Ha! What a laugh!

Only to have these same dudes keep saying "next week", "next week", "next week", "next week". The work began in August and only was finished (not completely!) in late January. Sloppy crap! Even the apartment agency head maintenance guy who I finally bitched at said "I guess good work is hard to come by these days."

Of the non-union guys he hired.

My state just elected a republican governor who promised "right to work." This was just signed into law.

Immigrants and Mexicans had nothing to do with it. They're not an impact in my city. "Right to work" is nothing other than a way to undercut quality of work for "run-to-the-bottom competitive pay."

Now I await whether my rent goes up to pay for this nonsense.

bob , February 20, 2017 at 11:24 pm

They look at the labor cost, assume someone can do it cheaper. They don't think it's that difficult. Maybe it's not. The hard part of any and all construction work is getting it finished. Getting started is easy. Getting it finished on time? Nah, you can't afford that.

Karl Kolchak , February 20, 2017 at 10:22 am

I've noticed that the only people in favor of globalization are those whose jobs are not under threat from it. Beyond that, I think the flood of cheap Chinese goods is actually helping suppress populist anger by allowing workers whose wages are dropping in real value terms to maintain the illusion of prosperity. To me, a more "inclusive" form of globalization would include replacing every economist with a Chinese immigrant earning minimum wage. That way they'd get to "experience" how awesome it is and the value of future economic analysis would be just as good.

The Trumpening , February 20, 2017 at 2:27 am

I'm going to question a few of the author's assumptions.

First off, economic nationalism is not necessarily right wing. I would certainly classify Bernie Sanders as an economic nationalist (against open borders and against "free" trade). Syriza and Podemos could arguably be called rather ineffective economic nationalist parties. I would say the whole ideology of social democracy is based on the Swedish nationalist concept of a "folkhem", where the nation is the home and the citizens are the folk.

Secondly, when discussing the concept of economic nationalism and the nation of China, it would be interesting to discuss how these two things go together. China has more billionaires than refugees accepted in the past 20 years. Also it is practically impossible for a non Han Chinese person to become a naturalized Chinese citizen. And when China buys Boeing aircraft, they wisely insist on the production being done in China. A close look at Japan would yield similar results.

So China is Turmpism on steroids. Israel obviously is as well. Why do some nations get to be blatantly Trumpist while for others these policies are strictly forbidden?

One way to look at Globalization is as an updated version of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty which imposed reparations on a defeated Germany for all the harm they caused during the Great War. The Globalized Versailles Treaty is aimed at the American and European working classes for the crimes of colonialism, racism, slavery and any other bad things the 1st world has done to the 3rd in the past.

Of course during colonialism the costs were socialized within colonizing states and so it was the people of the colonial power who paid those costs that weren't borne by the colonial subjects themselves, who of course paid dearly, and it was the oligarchic class that privatized the colonial profits. But the 1st world oligarchs and their urban bourgeoisie are in strong agreement that the deplorable working classes are to blame for systems that hurt working classes but powerfully enriched the wealthy!

And so with the recent rebellions against Globalization, the 1st and 3rd world oligarchs are convinced these are nothing more than the 1st world working classes attempting to shirk their historic guilt debt by refusing to pay the rightful reparations in terms of standard of living that workers deserve to pay for the crimes committed in the past by their wealthy co-nationals.

And yes, this applies to Bernie Sanders as well. During that iconic interview where Sanders denounced open borders and pushed economic nationalism, the Neoliberal interviewer immediately played the global guilt card in response.

Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 3:23 am

Interesting. Another way to look at it is from the point of view of entropy and closed vs open systems. Before globalisation the 1st world working classes enjoyed a high standard of living which was possible because their system was relatively closed to the rest of the world. It was a high entropy, strongly structured socio-economic arrangement, with a large difference in standard of living between 1st world and 3rd world working classes. Once their system became more open by virtue (or vice) of globalisation, entropy increased as commanded by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics so the 1st world and 3rd world working classes became more equalised. The socio-economic arrangements became less structured. This means for the Trumpening kind of politicians it is a steep uphill battle, to increase entropy again.

The Trumpening , February 20, 2017 at 3:56 am

Yes, I agree, but if we step back in history a bit we can see the colonial period as a sort of reverse globalization which perhaps portends a bit of optimism for the Trumpening.

I use the term open and closed borders but these are not precise. What I am really saying is that open borders does not allow a country to filter out negative flows across their border. Closed borders does allow a nation to impose a filter. So currently the US has more open borders (filters are frowned upon) and China has closed borders (they can filter out what they don't want) despite the fact that obviously China has plenty of things crossing its border.

During colonialism the 3rd world had a form of open borders imposed on it by the colonial powers, where the 3rd world lost control of who what crossed their borders while the 1st world themselves maintained a closed border mercantilist regime of strict filters. So the anti-colonialist movement was a form of Trumpist economic nationalism where the evil foreigners were given the boot and the nascent nations applied filters to their borders.

So the 3rd world to some extent (certainly in China at least) was able to overcome entropy and regain control of their borders. You are correct in that it will be an uphill struggle for the 1st world to repeat this trick. In the ideal world both forms of globalization (colonialism and the current form) would be sidelined and all nations would be allowed to use the border filters they think would best protect the prosperity of their citizens.

Another good option would be a version of the current globalization but where the losers are the wealthy oligarchs themselves and the winners are the working classes. It's hard to imagine it's easy if you try!

What's interesting about the concept of entropy is that it stands in contradiction to the concept of perpetual progress. I'm sure there is some sort of thesis, antithesis, synthesis solution to these conflicting concepts.

Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 6:07 am

To overcome an entropy current requires superb skill commanding a large magnitude of work applied densely on a small substratum (think of the evolution of the DNA, the internal combustion engine). I believe the Trumpening laudable effort and persuasion would have a chance of success in a country the size of The Netherlands, or even France, but the USA, the largest State machinery in the world, hardly. When the entropy current flooded the Soviet system the solution came firstly in the form of shrinkage.

We need to think more about it, a lot more, in order to succeed in this 1st world uphill struggle to repeat the trick. I am pretty sure that as Pierre de Fermat famously claimed about his alleged proof, the solution "is too large to fit in the margins of this book".

susan the other , February 20, 2017 at 12:36 pm

My little entropy epiphany goes like this: it's like boxes – containers, if you will, of energy or money, or trade goods, the flow of which is best slowed down so everybody can grab some. Break it all down, decentralize it and force it into containers which slow the pace and share the wealth.

Nationalism (my opinion) can do this – economic nationalism. And of course other people think oh gawd, not that again – it's so inefficient for my investments- I can't get fast returns that way but that's just the point.

Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 10:51 pm

I like your epiphany susan.

John Wright , February 20, 2017 at 1:25 pm

Don't you mean "It was a LOWER entropy (as in "more ordered"), strongly structured socio-economic arrangement, with a large difference in standard of living between 1st world"?

The entropy increased as a consequence of human guided globalization.

Of course, from a thermodynamic standpoint, the earth is not a closed system as it is continually flooded with new energy in the form of solar radiation.

Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 10:49 pm

Yes, thank you, I made that mistake twice in the post you replying to.

Hemang , February 20, 2017 at 4:54 am

The Globalized Versailles Treaty -- Permit me a short laughter . The terms of the crippling treaty were dictated by the victors largely on insecurities of France.

The crimes of the 1st against the 3rd go on even now- the only difference is that some of the South like China and India are major nuclear powers now.

The racist crimes in the US are even more flagrant- the Blacks whose labour as slaves allowed for cotton revolution enabling US capitalists to ride the industrial horse are yet to be rehabilitated , Obama or no Obama. It is a matter of profound shame.

The benefits of Globalization have gone only to the cartel of 1st and 3rd World Capitalists. And they are very happy as the lower classes keep fighting. Very happy indeed.

DorDeDuca , February 20, 2017 at 1:22 pm

That is solely class (crass) warfare. You can not project the inequalities of the past to the unsuspecting paying customers of today.

Hemang , February 20, 2017 at 1:35 pm

The gorgon cry of the past is all over the present , including in " unsuspecting" paying folks of today! Blacks being brought to US as slave agricultural labour was Globalisation. Their energy vibrated the machinery of Economics subsequently. What Nationalism and where is it hiding pray? Bogus analysis here , yes.

dontknowitall , February 20, 2017 at 5:40 am

The reigning social democratic parties in Europe today are not the Swedish traditional parties of yesteryear they have morphed into neoliberal austerians committed to globalization and export driven economic models at any cost (CETA vote recently) and most responsible for the economic collapse in the EU

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/austerity-was-a-bigger-disaster-than-we-thought/?utm_term=.e4b799b14d81

disc_writes , February 20, 2017 at 4:22 am

I wonder they chose Chinese imports as the cause of the right-wing shift, when they themselves admit that the shift started in the 1990s. At that time, there were few Chinese imports and China was not even part of the WHO.

If they are thinking of movements like the Lega Nord and Vlaams Blok, the reasons are clearly not to be found in imports, but in immigration, the welfare state and lack of national homogeneity, perceived or not.

And the beginnings of the precariat.

So it is not really the globalization of commerce that did it, but the loss of relevance of national and local identities.

Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 4:41 am

One cause does not exclude the other, they may have worked synergistically.

disc_writes , February 20, 2017 at 5:34 am

Correlation does not imply causation, but lack of correlation definitely excludes it.

The Lega was formed in the 1980s, Vlaams Blok at the end of the '70s. They both had their best days in the 1990s. Chinese imports at the time were insignificant.

I cannot find the breakdown of Chinese imports per EU country, but here are the total Chinese exports since 1983:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/exports

China was not a significant exporter until the 2001 inclusion in WTO: it cannot possibly have caused populist uprisings in Italy and Belgium in the 1990s. It was probably too early even for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who was killed in 2002, Le Pen's electoral success in the same year, Austria's FPOE in 1999, and so on.

The timescales just do not match. Whatever was causing "populism", it was not Chinese imports, and I can think of half a dozen other, more likely causes.

Furthermore, the 1980s and 1990s were something of an industrial renaissance for Lombardy and Flanders: hardly the time to worry about Chinese imports.

And if you look at the map. the country least affected by the import shock (France) is the one with the strongest populist movement (Le Pen).

People try to conflate Trump_vs_deep_state and Brexit with each other, then try to conflate this "anglo-saxon" populism with previous populisms in Europe, and try to deduce something from the whole exercise.

That "something" is just not there and the exercise is pointless. IMHO at least.

The Trumpening , February 20, 2017 at 5:05 am

European regionalism is often the result of the rise of the EU as a new, alternative national government in the eyes of the disgruntled regions. Typically there are three levels of government, local, regional (states) and national. With the rise of the EU we have a fourth level, supra-national. But to the Flemish, Scottish, Catalans, etc, they see the EU as a potential replacement for the National-level governments they currently are unhappy being under the authority of.

Sound of the Suburbs , February 20, 2017 at 4:28 am

Why isn't it working? – Part 1

Capitalism should be evolving but it went backwards. Keynesian capitalism evolved from the free market capitalism that preceded it. The absolute faith in markets had been laid low by 1929 and the Great Depression.

After the Keynesian era we went back to the old free market capitalism of neoclassical economics. Instead of evolving, capitalism went backwards. We had another Wall Street Crash that has laid low the once vibrant global economy and we have entered into the new normal of secular stagnation. In the 1930s, Irving Fisher studied the debt deflation caused by debt saturated economies. Today only a few economists outside the mainstream realise this is the problem today.

In the 1930s, Keynes realized only fiscal stimulus would pull the US out of the Great Depression, eventually the US implemented the New Deal and it started to recover. Today we use monetary policy that keeps asset prices up but cannot overcome the drag of all that debt in the system and its associated repayments.

In the 1920s, they relied on debt based consumption, not realizing how consumers will eventually become saturated with debt and demand will fail. Today we rely on debt based consumption again, Greece consumed on debt. until it maxed out on debt and collapsed.

In the 1930s Keynes realized, income was just as important as profit as this produced a sustainable system that does not rely on debt to maintain demand. Keynes was involved with the Bretton-Woods agreement after the Second World War and recycled the US surplus to Europe to restore trade when Europe lay in ruins. Europe could rebuild itself and consume US products, everyone benefitted.

Today there are no direct fiscal transfers within the Euro-zone and it is polarizing. No one can see the benefits of rebuilding Greece, to allow it to carry on consuming the goods from surplus nations and it just sinks further and further into the mire. There is a lot to be said for capitalism going forwards rather than backwards and making the same old mistakes a second time.

Sound of the Suburbs , February 20, 2017 at 5:25 am

Someone who has worked in the Central Bank of New York and who Ben Bernanke listened to, ensuring the US didn't implement austerity, Richard Koo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk

The ECB didn't listen and killed Greece with austerity and is laying low the Club-Med nations. Someone who knows what they are doing, after studying the Great Depression and Japan after 1989. Let's keep him out of the limelight; he has no place on the ship of fools running the show.

sunny129 , February 20, 2017 at 6:42 pm

DEBT on Debt with QEs+ ZRP ( borrowing from future) was the 'solution' by Bernanke to mask the 2008 crisis and NOT address the underlying structural reforms in the Banking and the Financial industry. He was part of the problem for housing problem and occurred under his watch! He just kicked the can with explosive credit growth ( but no corresponding growth in the productive Economy!)and easy money!

We have a 'Mother of all bubbles' at our door step. Just matter of time when it will BLOW and NOT if! There is record levels of DEBT ( both sovereign, public and private) in the history of mankind, all over the World.

DEBT has been used as a panacea for all the financial problems by CBers including Bernanke! Fed's balance sheet was than less 1 Trillion in 2008 ( for all the years of existence of our Country!) but now over 3.5 Trillions and climbing!

Kicking the can down the road is like passing the buck to some one (future generations!). And you call that solution by Mr. Bernanke? Wow!

Will they say again " No one saw this coming'? when next one descends?

Sound of the Suburbs , February 20, 2017 at 4:31 am

Why isn't it working? – Part 2

The independent Central Banks that don't know what they are doing as can be seen from their track record.

The FED presided over the dot.com bust and 2008, unaware that they were happening and of their consequences. Alan Greenspan spots irrational exuberance in the markets in 1996 and passes comment. As the subsequent dot.com boom and housing booms run away with themselves he says nothing.

This is the US money supply during this time:
http://www.whichwayhome.com/skin/frontend/default/wwgcomcatalogarticles/images/articles/whichwayhomes/US-money-supply.jpg

Everything is reflected in the money supply.

The money supply is flat in the recession of the early 1990s.

Then it really starts to take off as the dot.com boom gets going which rapidly morphs into the US housing boom, courtesy of Alan Greenspan's loose monetary policy.

When M3 gets closer to the vertical, the black swan is coming and you have an out of control credit bubble on your hands (money = debt).

We can only presume the FED wasn't looking at the US money supply, what on earth were they doing?

The BoE is aware of how money is created from debt and destroyed by repayments of that debt.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneyc
reation.pdf

"Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system."

The BoE's statement was true, but is not true now as banks can securitize bad loans and get them off their books. Before 2008, banks were securitising all the garbage sub-prime mortgages, e.g. NINJA mortgages, and getting them off their books. Money is being created freely and without limit, M3 is going exponential before 2008.

Bad debt is entering the system and no one is taking any responsibility for it. The credit bubble is reflected in the money supply that should be obvious to anyone that cares to look.

Ben Bernanke studied the Great Depression and doesn't appear to have learnt very much.

Irving Fisher studied the Great Depression in the 1930s and comes up with a theory of debt deflation. A debt inflated asset bubble collapses and the debt saturated economy sinks into debt deflation. 2008 is the same as 1929 except a different asset class is involved.

1929 – Margin lending into US stocks
2008 – Mortgage lending into US housing

Hyman Minsky carried on with his work and came up with the "Financial Instability Hypothesis" in 1974.

Steve Keen carried on with their work and spotted 2008 coming in 2005. We can see what Steve Keen saw in 2005 in the US money supply graph above.

The independent Central Banks that don't know what they are doing as can be seen from their track record.

Jesper , February 20, 2017 at 4:51 am

Good to see studies confirming what was already known.

This apparently surprised:

On the contrary, as globalisation threatens the success and survival of entire industrial districts, the affected communities seem to have voted in a homogeneous way, regardless of each voter's personal situation.

It is only surprising for people not part of communities, those who are part of communities see how it affects people around them and solidarity with the so called 'losers' is then shown.

Seems like radical right is the preferred term, it does make it more difficult to sympathize with someone branded as radical right . The difference seems to be between the radical liberals vs the conservative. The radical liberals are too cowardly to propose the laws they want, they prefer to selectively apply the laws as they see fit. Either enforce the laws or change the laws, anything else is plain wrong.

Disturbed Voter , February 20, 2017 at 6:31 am

Socialism for the upper classes, capitalism for the lower classes? That will turn out well. Debt slaves and wage slaves will revolt. That is all the analysis the OP requires. The upper class will respond with suppression, not policy reversal every time. Socialism = making everyone equally poor (obviously not for the upper classes who benefit from the arrangement).

J7915 , February 20, 2017 at 11:15 am

Regrettably today we have socialism for the wealthy, with all the benefits of gov regulations, sympathetic courts and legislatures etc. etc.

Workers are supposed to take care for themselves and the devil take the hind most. How many workers get fired vs the 1%, when there is a failure in the company plan?

Disturbed Voter , February 20, 2017 at 11:59 am

The Romans are the basis. Patricians, Equites and Plebs. Most of us here are clearly plebeian. Time to go place some bets, watch the chariot races and gladiatorial fights, and get my bread subsidy. Ciao.

Sound of the Suburbs , February 20, 2017 at 5:39 am

Globalization created winners and losers throughout the world. The winners liked it, the losers didn't. Democracy is based on the support of the majority.

The majority in the East were winners. The majority in the West were losers.

The Left has maintained its support of neoliberal globalisation in the West. The Right has moved on. There has been a shift to the Right. Democracy is all about winners and losers and whether the majority are winning or losing. It hasn't changed.

sunny129 , February 20, 2017 at 6:54 pm

CAPITAL is mobile and the Labor is NOT!

Globalization( along with communication -internet and transportation) made the Labor wage arbitration, easy in favor of capital ( Multi-Nationals). Most of the jobs gone overseas will NEVER come back. Robotic revolution will render the remaining jobs, less and less!

The 'new' Economy by passed the majority of lower 80-90% and favored the top 10%. The Losers and the Winners!

80-90% of Bonds and Equities ( at least in USA) are owned by top 10 %. 0.7% own 45% of global wealth. 8 billionaires own more than 50% of wealth than that of bottom 50% in our Country!

The Rich became richer!

The tension between Have and Have -Nots has just begun, as Marx predicted!

Sound of the Suburbs , February 20, 2017 at 5:50 am

In the West the rewards of globalisation have been concentrated at the top and rise exponentially within the 1%.

How does this work in a democracy? It doesn't look as though anyone has even thought about it.

David , February 20, 2017 at 6:33 am

I think it's about time that we stopped referring to opposition to globalization as a product or policy of the "extreme right". It would be truer to say that globalization represents a temporary, and now fading, triumph of certain ideas about trade and movement of people and capital which have always existed, but were not dominant in the past. Fifty years ago, most mainstream political parties were "protectionist" in the sense the word is used today. Thirty years ago, protectionism was often seen as a left)wing idea, to preserve standards of living and conditions of employment (Wynne Godley and co). Today, all establishment political parties in the West have swallowed neoliberal dogma, so the voters turn elsewhere, to parties outside the mainstream. Often, it's convenient politically to label them "extreme right", although in Europe some left-wing parties take basically the same position. If you ignore peoples' interests, they won't vote for you. Quelle surprise! as Yves would say.

financial matters , February 20, 2017 at 8:00 am

Yes, there are many reasons to be skeptical of too much globalization such as energy considerations. I think another interesting one is exchange rates.

One of the important concepts of MMT is the importance of having a flexible exchange rate to have full power over your currency. This is fine as far as it goes but tends to put hard currencies against soft currencies where a hard currency can be defined as one that has international authority/acceptance. Having flexible exchange rates also opens up massive amounts of financial speculation relative to fluctuations of these currencies against each other and trying to protect against these fluctuations.

""Keynes' proposal of the bancor was to put a barrier between national currencies, that is to have a currency of account at the global level. Keynes warned that free trade, flexible exchange rates and free movement of capital globally were incompatible with maintaining full employment at the local level""

""Sufficiency provisioning also means that trade would be discouraged rather than encouraged.""

Local currencies can work very well locally to promote employment but can have trouble when they reach out to get resources outside of their currency space especially if they have a soft currency. Global sustainability programs need to take a closer look at how to overcome this sort of social injustice. (Debt or Democracy)

Gman , February 20, 2017 at 6:35 am

As has already been pointed out so eloquently here in the comments section, economic nationalism is not necessarily the preserve of the right, nor is it necessarily the same thing as nationalism.

In the UK the original, most vociferous objectors to EEC membership in the 70s (now the EU) were traditionally the Left, on the basis that it would gradually erode labour rights and devalue the cost of labour in the longer term. Got that completely wrong obviously .

In the same way that global trade has become synonymous with globalisation, the immigration debate has been hijacked and cynically conflated with free movement of (mainly low cost, unskilled) labour and race when they are all VERY different divisive issues.

The other point alluded to in the comments above is the nature of free trade generally. The accepted (neoliberal) wisdom being that 'collateral damage' is unfortunate but inevitable, but it is pretty much an unstoppable or uncontrollable force for the greater global good, and the false dichotomy persists that you either embrace it fully or pull up all the drawbridges with nothing in between.

One of the primary reasons that some competing sectors of some Western economies have done so badly out of globalisation is that they have adhered to 'free market principles' whilst other countries, particularly China, clearly have not with currency controls, domestic barriers to trade, massive state subsidies, wage suppression etc

The China aspect is also fascinating when developed nations look at the uncomfortable 'morality of global wealth distribution' often cited by proponents of globalisation as one of their wider philanthropic goals. Bless 'em. What is clear is that highly populated China and most of its people, from the bottom to the top, has been the primary beneficiaries of this global wealth redistribution, but the rest of the developing world's poor clearly not quite so much.

Eustache de Saint Pierre , February 20, 2017 at 7:11 am

The map on it's own, in terms of the English one time industrial Midlands & North West being shown as an almost black hole, is in itself a kind of " Nuff Said ".

It is also apart from London, where the vast bulk of immigrants have settled.

The upcoming bye-election in Stoke, which could lead to U-Kip taking a once traditionally always strong Labour seat, is right in the middle of that dark cloud.

Anonymous2 , February 20, 2017 at 7:51 am

The problem from the UK 's position, I suggest, is that autarky is not a viable proposition so economic nationalism becomes a two-edged sword. Yes, of course, the UK can place restrictions on imports and immigration but there will inevitably be retaliation and they will enter a game of beggar my neighbour. The current government talks of becoming a beacon for free trade. If we are heading to a more protectionist world, that can only end badly IMHO.

Eustache de Saint Pierre , February 20, 2017 at 11:30 am

Unless we get some meaningful change in thinking on a global scale, I think we are heading somewhere very dark whatever the relative tinkering with an essentially broken system.

The horse is long gone, leaving a huge pile of shit in it's stable.

As for what might happen, I do not know, but I have the impression that we are at the end of a cycle.

sunny129 , February 20, 2017 at 7:04 pm

That 'CYCLE" was dragged on ' unnaturally' with more DEBT on DEBT all over the World by criminal CBers.
Now the end is approaching! Why surprise?

Ignacio , February 20, 2017 at 8:15 am

This is quite interesting, but only part of the story. Interestingly the districts/provinces suffering the most from the chinese import shock are usually densely populated industrial regions of Europe. The electoral systems in Europe (I think all, but I did not check) usually do not weight equally each district, favouring those less populated, more rural (which by the way tend to be very conservative but not so nationalistic). These differences in vote weigthing may have somehow masked the effect seen in this study if radical nationalistic rigth wing votes concentrate in areas with lower weigthed value of votes. For instance, in Spain, the province of Soria is mostly rural and certainly less impacted by chinese imports compared with, for instance, Madrid. But 1 vote in Soria weigths the same as 4 votes in Madrid in number of representatives in the congress. This migth, in part, explain why in Spain, the radical rigth does not have the same power as in Austria or the Netherlands. It intuitively fits the hypothesis of this study.

Nevertheless, similar processes can occur in rural areas. For instance, when Spain entered the EU, french rural areas turned nationalistic against what they thougth could be a wave of agricultural imports from Spain. Ok, agricultural globalization may have less impact in terms of vote numbers in a given country but it still can be politically very influential. In fact spanish entry more that 30 years ago could still be one of the forces behind Le Penism.

craazyman , February 20, 2017 at 8:44 am

I dunno aboout this one.

All this statistical math and yada yada to explain a rise in vote for radical right from 3% in 1985 to 5% now on average? And only a 0.7% marginal boost if your the place really getting hammmered by imports from China? If I'm reading it right, that is, while focusing on Figure 2.

The real "shock" no pun intended, is the vote totals arent a lot higher everywhere.

Then the Post concludes with reference to a "surge in support" - 3% to 5% or so over 30 years is a surge? The line looks like a pretty steady rise over 3 decades.

Maybe I'm missing sommething here.

Also what is this thing they're callling an "Open World" of the past 30 years? And why is that in danger from more balanced trade? It makes no sense. Even back in the 60s and 70s people could go alll over the world for vacations. Or at least most places they coould go. If theh spent their money they'd make friends. Greece even used to be a goood place people went and had fun on a beach.

I think this one is a situation of math runing amuck. Math running like a thousand horses over a hill trampling every blade of grass into mud.

I bet the China factor is just a referent for an entire constellatio of forces that probably don't lend themselves (no pun intended) partiicularly well to social science and principal component analysis - as interesting as that is for those who are interested in that kind of thing (which I am acctually).

Also, I wouldn't call this "free trade". Not that the authors do either, but trade means reciprocity not having your livelihood smashed the like a pinata at Christmas with all your candy eaten by your "fellow countrymen". I wouldn't call that "trade". It's something else.

Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 12:36 pm

Regarding your first point, it is a small effect but it is all due to the China imports impact, you have to add the growth of these parties due to other reasons such as immigration to get the full picture of their growth. Also I think the recent USA election was decided by smaller percentage advantages in three States?

Steve Ruis , February 20, 2017 at 9:00 am

Globalisation is nothing but free trade extended to the entire world. Free trade is a tool used to prevent competition. By flooding countries with our cheaper exports, they do not develop the capacity to compete with us by making their own widgets. So, why are we shocked when those other countries return the favor and when they get the upper hand, we respond in a protectionist way? It looks to me that those countries who are now competing with us in electronics, automobiles, etc. only got to develop those industries in their countries because of protectionism.

Why is this surprising to anyone?

craazyman , February 20, 2017 at 10:41 am

Frank would never have sung this, even drunk! . . . .even in Vegas . .

Trade Be a Lady

They say we'll make a buck
But there is room for doubt
At times you have a very unbalanced way of running out

You say you're good for me
Your pickins have been lush
But before this year is over
I might give you the brush

Seems you've forgot your manners
You don't know how to play
Cause every time I turn around . . . I pay

So trade get your balances right
Trade get your balances right
Trade if you've ever been in balance to begin with
Trade get your balances right

Trade let a citizen see
How fair and humane you can be
I see the way you've treated other guys you've been with
Trade be a lady with me

A lady doesn't dump her exports
It isn't fair, and it's not nice
A lady doesn't wander all over the world
Putting whole communities on ice

Let's keep this economy polite
let's find a way to do it right
Don't stick me baby or I'll wreck the world you win with
Trade be a lady or we'll fight

A lady keeps it fair with strangers
She'd have a heart, she'd be nice
A lady doesn't spread her junk, all over the world
In your face, at any price

Let's keep society polite
Go find a way to do it right
Don't screw me baby cause i know the clowns you sin with
Trade be a lady tonight

Gaylord , February 20, 2017 at 10:56 am

Refugees in great numbers are a symptom of globalization, especially economic refugees but also political and environmental ones. This has strained the social order in many countries that have accepted them in and it's one of the central issues that the so-called "right" is highlighting.

It is no surprise there has been an uproar over immigration policy in the US which is an issue of class as much as foreign policy because of the disenfranchisement of large numbers of workers on both sides of the equation - those who lost their jobs to outsourcing and those who emigrated due to the lack of decent employment opportunities in their own countries.

We're seeing the tip of the iceberg. What will happen when the coming multiple environmental calamities cause mass starvation and dislocation of coastal populations? Walls and military forces can't deter hungry, desperate, and angry people.

The total reliance and gorging on fossil energy by western countries, especially the US, has mandated military aggression to force compliance in many areas of the world. This has brought a backlash of perpetual terrorism. We are living under a dysfunctional system ruled by sociopaths whose extreme greed is leading to world war and environmental collapse.

sunny129 , February 20, 2017 at 7:01 pm

Who created the REFUGEE PROBLEMS in the ME – WEST including USA,UK++

Obama's DRONE program kept BOMBING in SEVEN Countries killing innocents – children and women! All in the name of fighting Terrorism. Billions of arms to sale Saudi Arabia! Wow!

Where were the Democrats and the Resistance and Women's march? Hypocrites!

Anon , February 21, 2017 at 12:12 am

"Our lifestyle is non-negotiable." - Dick Cheney.

Ignacio , February 20, 2017 at 2:40 pm

What happened with Denmark that suddenly dissapeared?

fairleft , February 21, 2017 at 8:08 am

Globalisation has caused a surge in support for nationalist and radical right political platforms.
Just a reminder that nationalism doesn't have to be associated with the radical right. The left is not required to reject it, especially when it can be understood as basically patriotism, expressed as solidarity with all of your fellow citizens.

Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be a move in that direction.
Well, that may be true as far as Trump's motivations are concerned, but a major component (the most important?) of the TPP was strong restraint of trade, a protectionist measure, by intellectual property owners.

Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers'
Japan has long been 'smart' protectionist, and this has helped prevent the 'loser' problem, in part because Japan, being nationalist, makes it a very high priority to create/maintain a society in which almost all Japanese are more or less middle class. So, it is a fact that protectionism has been and can be associated with more egalitarian societies, in which there are few 'losers' like we see in the West. But the U.S. and most Western countries have a long way to go if they decide to make the effort to be more egalitarian. And, of course, protectionism alone is not enough to make most of the losers into winners again. You'll need smart skills training, better education all around, fewer low-skill immigrants, time, and, most of all strong and long-term commitment to making full employment at good wages national priority number one.

and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies.
Growth has been week since the 2008, even though markets are as free as they've ever been. Growth requires a lot more consumers with willingness and cash to spend on expensive, high-value-added goods. So, besides the world finally escaping the effects of the 2008 financial crisis, exporting countries need prosperous consumers either at home or abroad, and greater economic security. And if a little bit of protectionism generates more consumer prosperity and economic stability, exporting countries might benefit overall.

The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation.
Well, yes, the world needs more inclusivity, but globalization doesn't need to be part of the picture. Keep your eyes on the prize: inclusivity/equality, whether latched onto nationally, regionally, 'internationally' or globally, any which way is fine! But prioritization of globalization over those two is likely a victory for more inequality, for more shoveling of our wealth up to the ruling top 1%.

[Feb 20, 2017] Globalisation and economic nationalism

Notable quotes:
"... The revival of nationalism in western Europe, which began in the 1990s, has been associated with increasing support for radical right parties. This column uses trade and election data to show that the radical right gets its biggest electoral boost in regions most exposed to Chinese exports. Within these regions communities vote homogenously, whether individuals work in affected industries or not. ..."
"... "Chinese imports" is only an expression, or correlate, of something else - the neoliberal YOYO principle and breakdown/deliberate destruction of social cohesion ..."
"... As a side effect, this removes the collective identity, and increased tribalism is the compensation - a large part it is an attempt to find/associate with a group identity, which of course gives a large boost to readily available old identities, which were in the past (ab)used by nationalist movements, largely for the same reasons. ..."
Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
RC AKA Darryl, Ron : February 20, 2017 at 04:15 AM , 2017 at 04:15 AM
RE: Globalisation and economic nationalism - VoxEU

[The abstract below:]

The revival of nationalism in western Europe, which began in the 1990s, has been associated with increasing support for radical right parties. This column uses trade and election data to show that the radical right gets its biggest electoral boost in regions most exposed to Chinese exports. Within these regions communities vote homogenously, whether individuals work in affected industries or not.

[I am shocked, shocked I say!]

cm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , February 20, 2017 at 11:55 AM
"Chinese imports" is only an expression, or correlate, of something else - the neoliberal YOYO principle and breakdown/deliberate destruction of social cohesion.

As a side effect, this removes the collective identity, and increased tribalism is the compensation - a large part it is an attempt to find/associate with a group identity, which of course gives a large boost to readily available old identities, which were in the past (ab)used by nationalist movements, largely for the same reasons.

cm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , February 20, 2017 at 12:08 PM
It seems to be quite apparent to me that the loss of national/local identity has not (initially?) promoted nationalist movements advocating a stronger national identity narrative, but a "rediscovery" of regional identities - often based on or similar to the geography of former kingdoms or principalities prior to national unification, or more local municipal structures (e.g. local administrations, business, or interest groups promoting a historical narrative of a municipal district as the village or small town that it descended from, etc. - with the associated idyllic elements).

In many cases these historical identity narratives had always been undercurrents, even when the nation state was strong.

cm -> cm... , February 20, 2017 at 12:12 PM
And I mean strong not in the military or executive strength sense, but accepted as legitimate and representing the population and its interests.

In these days, national goverments and institutions (state/parties) have been largely discredited, not least due to right wing/elite propaganda (and of course due to observed corruption promoted from the same side).

ilsm -> cm... , February 20, 2017 at 12:56 PM
Clinton and Obama have discredited the deep state.... using it for politics and adventuring.
cm -> ilsm... , February 20, 2017 at 01:36 PM
I'm not aware that either have discredited any deep state (BTW which Clinton?). The first thing I would ask for is clarification what you mean by "deep state" - can you provide a usable definition?

Obama has rejected calls for going after US torturers ("we want to move past this").

ilsm -> cm... , February 20, 2017 at 05:03 PM
Do not take treason lightly.

And if you don't know where the 6 months of innuendo about the Russians comes from since Aug 16 you are reading the treasonous agitprop from the democrat wind machine centered in NY, Boston and LA.

A background:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/deep-state-trump-dangerous-washington/

The most rabid tea partiers were correct about Obama and his placing the deep state attempting to ruin the US.

cm -> ilsm... , February 20, 2017 at 06:03 PM
I'm not sure this answers my question, and it seems to accuse me of something I have not said or implied (taking treason lightly) - or perhaps cautioning me against such?

Are you willing to define the terms you are discussing? (Redirecting me to a google search etc. will not address my question. How exactly do you define "deep state"? You can quote from the internet of course.)

From a previous life I know a concept of "a state within the state" (concretely referring to the East German Stasi and similar services in other "communist" countries in concept but only vaguely in the details). That is probably related to this, but I don't want to base any of this on speculation and unclear terms.

[Feb 16, 2017] The frightening common ground between a Trump adviser and white nationalisms favorite philosopher

Feb 16, 2017 | thinkprogress.org

The frightening common ground between a Trump adviser and white nationalism's favorite philosopher Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, sees Dugin's ideology as an ally against liberalism.

Aleksandr Dugin 's ideology has influenced white nationalists and supremacists . His thinking also echoes that of a key player in the Trump administration.

A few days after securing the nomination to be the 45th President of the United States, Trump announced Steve Bannon, a man Politico labeled "an insurgent firebrand," would be his chief strategist.

Prior to accepting the role in Trump's administration Bannon was his campaign CEO. And before that, he ran Breitbart, a news platform that he once called the "platform for the alt-right."

The term "alt-right" was popularized by Richard Spencer, head of the racist National Policy Institute, and an avowed fan of both Dugin and Trump .

While Bannon may have no direct ties to Dugin, he is acutely aware of the Russian's ideology. Bannon referred to Dugin while answering questions at a talk hosted by the religious right wing Human Dignity Institute in the summer of 2014.

"When Vladimir Putin, when you really look at some of the underpinnings of some of his beliefs today, a lot of those come from what I call Eurasianism," said Bannon. "He's got an adviser [Dugin] who harkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the supporters of what's called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian fascism. A lot of people that are traditionalists are attracted to that."

Bannon is referring to Dugin here. Dugin is a proponent of traditionalism - a philosophy in which all moral and religious truths come from divine revelation and are perpetuated by tradition - and counts Evola, an influential Italian fascist, as one of his influences. This speech took place in 2014, when Dugin's support for the annexation of Crimea had him prominently in the news.

Bannon may have little love for Putin. In his speech, Bannon calls Putin a kleptocrat; and when he oversaw Breitbart, coverage of Putin and Russia was largely negative . But just because he disagrees with some of Putin's goals, it doesn't mean he disputes all of Putin's methods, as he made clear during the Human Dignity Institute event.

"[W]e the Judeo-Christian West really have to look at what [Putin] he's talking about as far as traditionalism goes - particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism - and I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing," said Bannon. "I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong neighbors, and that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States, and I think it's what can see us forward."

For Bannon, Putin's form of traditionalism can be used as a bulwark against what he believes to be America's gravest threats - liberalism and "radical Islam." Bannon said:

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.

Despite the shared ideology, Bannon clearly doesn't lionize Putin or Dugin on the same level as others in the racist alt-right circles. Putin and Dugin recognize parts of Islamic culture as closer to Russian than Western culture, whereas Bannon's view of traditionalism has no place for Islam - as evidenced by his frequent references of a "Judeo-Christian west."

"Mr Dugin and his ideological camp, by contrast, see parts of the Islamic world as a potential ally against the liberal-humanist demon," according to a November report in the Economist, "and this, in turn, influences Mr Putin, who once said that in the view of 'certain thinkers' Russian Orthodoxy stood closer to Islam than to Western Christianity."

Bannon seems to be ambivalent when it comes to Putin. On the one hand, he sees Putin as fighting jihadists in Syria ( though the reality is more complicated ), while on the other, Putin is clearly not a proponent of Bannon's vision of a powerful "Judeo-Christian West."

But that doesn't mean Bannon isn't above forming a partnership to fight liberalism, something held in equal contempt by Dugin . As the Economist reported , "whatever the differences [between Dugin, Putin, and Bannon, they] do want to be in vanguard of a fight against certain common enemies, including secularism, multi-culturalism, egalitarianism and modernity."

Strands of Bannon's ideology resembles Dugin's. That being said, it may not be a coincidence that many online pro-Trump supporters also posts pro-Putin messaging. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Dugin's name also makes frequent appearances in these messages.

"In one example, anonymous pro-Russia Twitter account holder @Ricky_Vaughn99 , who has been acknowledged as one of the most influential tweeters for Trump, was interviewed on Radix Journal , edited by racist 'alt-right' figure Richard Spencer, which itself hosts numerous articles by and about Dugin ," the Herald reported in June. "The Ricky Vaughn 99 account has even retweeted videos in Russian . It's like one big happy family generating social media buzz for Trump, Dugin and the cause of white identity."

This is part of a series focusing on the links between white nationalists in Russia and the West. Read part one here and part two here .

[Feb 15, 2017] He also said the media was the opposition party to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
Feb 15, 2017 | www.unz.com
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them.

The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.

Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."

Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.

Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."

Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated."

I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration.

It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."

Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.

I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment.

But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.

- John Fund is NRO's national-affairs correspondent . https://twitter.com/@JohnFund

[Jan 11, 2017] Remarks of Stephen Bannon at a Conference at the Vatican

See http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/11/18/remarks-of-stephen-bannon-at-a-conference-at-the-vatican
Notable quotes:
"... Dugin is positively millenarian: "We must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ." ..."
Jan 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne -> Julio ... , January 10, 2017 at 10:20 AM
Again, I know nothing about Steve Bannon but the column of David Brooks does not seem to be connected to the Vatican speech referred to:

http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/11/18/remarks-of-stephen-bannon-at-a-conference-at-the-vatican/

Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , January 10, 2017 at 10:53 AM
Putin and Trump could be on the same side in this troubling new world order https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/trump-putin-same-side-new-world-order
The Guardian - Matthew d'Ancona - Dec 19

Russian hacking, White House warnings, angry denials by Vladimir Putin's officials: we are edging towards a digital Cuban crisis. So it is as well to ask what is truly at stake in this e-conflict, and what underpins it.

To which end, meet the most important intellectual you have (probably) never heard of. Alexander Dugin, the Russian political scientist and polemicist, may resemble Santa's evil younger brother and talk like a villain from an Austin Powers movie. But it is no accident that he has earned the nickname Putin's Rasputin. ...

The purpose of operations like the hacking of the US election has been to destabilize the Atlantic order generally, and America specifically. And on this great struggle, Dugin is positively millenarian: "We must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ."

anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 10, 2017 at 12:03 PM
I do appreciate the reference, but the language of the column portion is too much for me. I stopped reading a few words after "Santa's."
Julio -> anne... , January 10, 2017 at 11:27 AM
At the end of your linked article there is a link to the full speech, including the Q&A. It takes you here:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.wn06r4OX5#.eqzLQEa5M

In the Q&A he discusses Russia and Putin; his comments include this: "I'm not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy. "

John San Vant -> Julio ... , January 10, 2017 at 11:26 AM
Bannon is a zionist shill and always will be. He has tried to blur that point away. But that kind of crap is pure zionism. Putin's ties with Ashkenazi jews is well well known. He has had much support from the extreme wings of the Lukud for years, yet the idiots don't pay attention. Putin sold himself and they bought it up. The myth he purged the Oligarchs from Russia cracks me up. He made sure the winners power was firmly planted.

From a "conservative revolutionary" (Renee Guenon aka real traditionalism) pov, this is pure bunk. Nationalism is semitic by its very nature and collectivist. What they want is a global plutocracy with the bible as its whip. Now, not everybody agrees with that version of "plutocracy". Thus comes the adversaries, the Jesuits.

anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 10, 2017 at 09:58 AM
http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/11/18/remarks-of-stephen-bannon-at-a-conference-at-the-vatican/

2014

Remarks of Stephen Bannon at a Conference at the Vatican

[May 13, 2014] Michael Wolff Files for Divorce Without Telling His Wife by J.K. Trotter

Notable quotes:
"... Financial Times ..."
Jan 11, 2018 | gawker.com

...media critic and Rupert Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff is legally married to Cold Spring lawyer Alison Anthoine, from whom he famously separated in 2009 to pursue a then-28-year-old Vanity Fair intern named Victoria Floethe (pictured above with Wolff).

While it's not clear what happened with Wolff and Floethe -- the pair were photographed at a Financial Times party in 2012 -- the former's marriage remained intact, at least by the courts.

No more.

Tom Scocca · 10/21/13 11:47AM New York policy expert Michael Wolff believes you can take the subway " from Red Hook to Wall Street ." (Also: the Guardian believes "sleaze balls" should be two words.)

[Sep 27, 2011] The Michael Wolff Era at Adweek Is Over by Hamilton Nolan

Sep 27, 2011 | gawker.com
Media bomb-thrower has been editor of Adweek for less than a year. Earlier this month, rumors began circulating that he would soon be replaced. Now, we hear, Wolff's days at Adweek are definitively coming to an end.

Recommended Links

Google matched content

Softpanorama Recommended

Top articles

[Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders Published on Nov 19, 2018 | www.rt.com

[May 24, 2018] Most probably Veselnitskaya was a false flag operation to entrap Trump campaign played by British intelligence Published on May 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

[Jan 22, 2018] The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised Published on Jan 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

[Jan 19, 2018] Bannon will do interview with special counsel, avoiding grand jury for now Published on Jan 18, 2018 | www.cnn.com

Sites



Etc

Society

Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

Quotes

War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

Bulletin:

Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

History:

Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

Classic books:

The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

Most popular humor pages:

Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

Disclaimer:

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Last modified: August, 21, 2020



Etc

Society

Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

Quotes

War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

Bulletin:

Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

History:

Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

Classic books:

The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

Most popular humor pages:

Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

Disclaimer:

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Last modified: August, 21, 2020