Steve Bannon at the Oxford Union

[Alex_Krycek]

Even as a liberal I was impressed by Steve Bannon's speech recently at the Oxford Union (published November 16th, 2018).  He clearly has a formidable analytical mind and a deep and comprehensive knowledge of history, economics, and geopolitics.  Really interesting to listen to and ponder.

This was Trump's lynchpin, the man who won him the election.  The man who we were all told is a racist monster, and yet he clearly seems to be looking at the world through an objective, logical lens.

If you saw the talk, what were your thoughts on it?

[Carrock]

 Like almost everyone, I didn't see the talk.

A quote, with reference, indicating why you think Steve Bannon is objective and logical might make a response possible.

Youtube video not acceptable....

[CharonY]

Also, no one has an objective view on matters. Everyone has their own experiences and knowledge which will affect how things are seen and perceived. In addition, a speech does not necessarily reflect ones view on the world. Actions are often more accurate than that.

[iNow]

I appreciate that he's an articulate and well informed representative of that set of views. It's important to listen to what he has to say and rebut things that don't represent who we are or what type of people we wish to be. 

All that said, there's a mistaken stereotype underlying the OPs central premise, which seems to conflate racist with ignorant. While I abhor racist views and do find them deeply ignorant, many extremely intelligent very well read people are also racists.

[Ten oz]

The intentions behind what someone says matters more than how well they say more. More lover how well ones words are perceived often a matter of cultural, social, or familural preference. Communication is complex and words alone only make up a portion it. 

@Alex_Krycek can you highlight some of the things Bannon said that impressed you? I am familiar with Steve Bannon and have heard him speak many times but not at the specific event you referenced.

[Alex_Krycek]

A couple quotes from the talk.  It's only the tip of the iceberg - he went into a lot more detail - but unfortunately there's not a transcript on the Oxford Union site that I could find and nor do I have the typing skills of a court stenographer.  There's only the youtube talk for a reference.  The quotes are cited below.  Overall nothing that he said leads me to believe he's the crazed lunatic that the media paints him to be.  Quite the contrary, actually.

1.  The left and the right both have fringes that are radical and violent.  We can’t let violence win.  My goal is to defeat them [the left] at the ballot box.
2.  (Responding to accusations of being a fascist):  Facism is worshipping the state.  State capitalism combined with big government is facism.  It is the scariest system in the world, because you take the worst elements of capitalism, and combine it with the worst elements of authoritarian government, and you’ve got problems.
3.  I’m a nationalist but I don’t worship the nation.  I’m a nationalist because I believe that it is the unit that serves us best, and that citizens have the most control and the most ability to control.
4.  I’m the guy who keeps saying that Facebook should be broken up, Google should be broken up.  We should take the data and drop it down into a public trust.  I’ve said that for over a year.
5.  This populist movement and Donald Trump; they’re not the cause of this.  They’re the product of this.
6.  September 18th, 2008 the Oval Office.  Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Seceretary of Treasury Hank Paulson, a guy I used to work for at Goldman Sachs, a couple of days after Lehman Brothers was put into bankruptcy.  They tell him:  “By five o’clock tonight we need 1 trillion dollars in cash.  1 trillion dollars in cash or the American financial system is going to implode in 48 hours.  The world’s financial system will implode in 72 hours.  And in two weeks we’ll have global anarchy and chaos.  1 trillion dollars.  Or the American financial system.  The British financial system.  The EU.  The Bank of Tokyo.  All of it will come down in 4 to 5 days.  They accomplished what Kaisder Wilhelm, and the Japanese militart Junta, and Mussolini, and Hitler, and Mao Zedong, and the Soviets, and Stalin.  They accomplished what the West’s greatest enemies could not.  Who’s been held accountable?  Name me one banker, one CEO, one law firm, one accounting firm that has been punished.  
7.  Why is it the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican establishment that I fight on immigration?  Because they want more labor.  They understand that it suppresses wages and increases margins in industries like construction, oil field services, and agriculture.
8.  The big bad headline on the Wall Street journal is: “Wages Rise”.  I think wages rising is a great thing.  That’s the dichotomy between ourselves and traditional Republicans.
9.  I get called a fascist, but when Salvini of the Northern League won I was the one who encouraged him to make a deal with the Five Star movement.  Why?  Because they need to be working together, they’ve got shared goals.  
10.  We’ve been told by the elites that the rise of China is the second law of thermodynamics, that it is physics.  That there was nothing you could change.  And they were dead wrong.
11.  The second extinction level event for the working class was the 7 trillion dollars that we spent on the wars in the middle east.  I’m a former naval officer, my daughter is a West Point grad who fought with the 101st airborne in Iraq.  I’m as much a militarist as any right winger.  But 7 trillion dollars, and this is not Breitbar, this is not Bannon, this is the Watson Center at Brown University on two wars that we didn’t win, and we’re still spending 62 billion dollars a year in Afghanistan.
12.  I’m here today against the established order.  And that’s why it frightens people.  So I’m here today to take any questions that you’v got.
13.  I believe in diversity.  Our movement needs diversity to win.  We need 25 % of the Bernie people. 30-40% of African Americans who won't vote for Hillary.  35% of the working class Hispanic community.  And we will get them.

 

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

nothing that he said leads me to believe he's the crazed lunatic that the media paints him to be

We must have different media diets. I've never heard him painted as a crazed lunatic. In fact, architect is the most common adjective I recall hearing/reading

Note: FRONTLINE did a great piece on him about a year and a half ago: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/bannons-war/

[Carrock]

1 hour ago, Carrock said:

 Like almost everyone, I didn't see the talk.

A quote, with reference, indicating why you think Steve Bannon is objective and logical might make a response possible.

Youtube video not acceptable....

 

34 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

A couple quotes from the talk.  It's only the tip of the iceberg - he went into a lot more detail - but unfortunately there's not a transcript on the Oxford Union site that I could find and nor do I have the typing skills of a court stenographer.  There's only the youtube talk for a reference.

Quotes 'referencing' 'youtube talk' without a youtube reference.

Complete waste of time.

[CharonY]

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

We must have different media diets. I've never heard him painted as a crazed lunatic. In fact, architect is the most common adjective I recall hearing/reading

Note: FRONTLINE did a great piece on him about a year and a half ago: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/bannons-war/

Indeed. He has been portrayed as the strategic mind of the far right and the most extreme and biased reports would perhaps paint him as a white nationalist master mind. It goes to the broader point that some folks thing of hooligan, torch carrying, raving lunatics as racists. The average racist is more the seemingly reasonable folks who use economic anxiety and fear of open borders and crime as justification to enact policies that affect certain folks (never themselves) and get into position of power to make them real. Sure, in direct conversation they are polite, even friendly. And then they make their own website (such as Breitbart) and warp reality in order to get those aforementioned torch bearers out on the streets. Why would they rave or behave lunatics? They have tons of folks doing that instead.

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, Carrock said:

 

Quotes 'referencing' 'youtube talk' without a youtube reference.

Complete waste of time.

I tried to post the link but for some reason it wouldn't embed.

It's pretty easy to find if you just search for"Steve Bannon at the Oxford Union" on youtube.  Like I said there is no transcript.

[Carrock]

15 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I tried to post the link but for some reason it wouldn't embed.

It's pretty easy to find if you just search for"Steve Bannon at the Oxford Union" on youtube.  Like I said there is no transcript.

LMGTFY.

For some reason the link embedded.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Carrock
Misspelled LMGTFY

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

Indeed. He has been portrayed as the strategic mind of the far right and the most extreme and biased reports would perhaps paint him as a white nationalist master mind. It goes to the broader point that some folks thing of hooligan, torch carrying, raving lunatics as racists. The average racist is more the seemingly reasonable folks who use economic anxiety and fear of open borders and crime as justification to enact policies that affect certain folks (never themselves) and get into position of power to make them real. Sure, in direct conversation they are polite, even friendly. And then they make their own website (such as Breitbart) and warp reality in order to get those aforementioned torch bearers out on the streets. Why would they rave or behave lunatics? They have tons of folks doing that instead.

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

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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

There are a lot of racists out there who think he's one of them. And Breitbart was racist under his leadership

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/steve-bannon-racist-lets-find-out/

"Bannon was ‘the main driver behind Breitbart becoming a white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill,’ according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

A couple quotes from the talk.  It's only the tip of the iceberg - he went into a lot more detail - but unfortunately there's not a transcript on the Oxford Union site that I could find and nor do I have the typing skills of a court stenographer.  There's only the youtube talk for a reference.  The quotes are cited below.  Overall nothing that he said leads me to believe he's the crazed lunatic that the media paints him to be.  Quite the contrary, actually.

For the sake of this thread are you expected poster to ignore Steve Bannon's other public statements and strictly focus on those made in the Oxford Union engagement? 

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

There are a lot of racists out there who think he's one of them. And Breitbart was racist under his leadership

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/steve-bannon-racist-lets-find-out/

"Bannon was ‘the main driver behind Breitbart becoming a white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill,’ according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

The article clearly has a strong viewpoint against Bannon, and that's fair enough.  I know Mother Jones is a fairly liberal publication.   As far as direct quotes from Bannon himself proving his racist views, the article has none.  It's more or less just conjecture and "explanations" from convenient third parties. 

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

For the sake of this thread are you expected poster to ignore Steve Bannon's other public statements and strictly focus on those made in the Oxford Union engagement? 

I don't mind.  I'm open to discussing anything Bannon has purportedly said or done.  The Oxford Union talk was simply the first time I've heard him speak at length in an unfiltered manner.  If he's on record saying egregious or blatantly racist things then I'd like to know. So far I've been told by liberal news sources (the ones that I mainly read and watch) that he's a white nationalist bigot.  It might not be true.

[John Cuthber]

Are we talking about the man who said "“I do not believe we have a major race problem in this country. I just don’t," "?

Because he's either racist or dimwitted, and I think we can rule out the second option.

To say that  implies that you simply do not value the opinions of all those who point out racism in daily life and, of course, most of those people (in the US) are not white.

He's simply writing off the experience of a whole section of society, and the basic defining  aspect of that section is race.

If he has said " I think all the black guys complaining about racism are liars" would people notice the racism there?
How different is it from what he did say?
 

[Alex_Krycek]

11 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Are we talking about the man who said "“I do not believe we have a major race problem in this country. I just don’t," "?

Because he's either racist or dimwitted, and I think we can rule out the second option.

To say that  implies that you simply do not value the opinions of all those who point out racism in daily life and, of course, most of those people (in the US) are not white.

He's simply writing off the experience of a whole section of society, and the basic defining  aspect of that section is race.

If he has said " I think all the black guys complaining about racism are liars" would people notice the racism there?
How different is it from what he did say?
 

Not necessarily.  If we dissect that quote there's a qualifier, which is the word "major".  "I do not believe we have a major race problem in this country.  I just don't."  He didn't say there isn't a problem with race in the United States, just that he doesn't believe there is a major problem.  Neither of the implications that you stated:  (to say that  implies that you simply do not value the opinions of all those who point out racism in daily life and, of course, most of those people (in the US) are not white. and He's simply writing off the experience of a whole section of society, and the basic defining  aspect of that section is race.) are objective conclusions stemming from that statement.  You can infer that there's a racist undertone to the statement, but such an inference is framed by your subjective viewpoint that he's already prejudiced.  I think its doubtful that someone who reaches out to the black and hispanic communities at the grassroots level would be racist.

People have different viewpoints on race in the US.  Some people think racism is still a major problem; others that it is less of an issue in the modern era.  I tend to think that it's a more serious problem than most people want to admit, but thinking that it's not a major issue doesn't necessarily make a person racist.  There are quite a few black and hispanic youtubers who denounce Black Lives Matter and blame Democrats for constantly "race baiting".  Again, that's not how I see it (I support BLM generally and think they are an important movement - especially with respect to criminal justice reform), but the fact is there are varying views on racism in American in all demographics.  We tend to see extreme examples on the news, which can lead many people to think America has a widespread problem with racism, but having lived here for several decades the day to day reality is quite different.  The vast majority of the time I see people of different races coexisting peacefully.  Perhaps this is what Bannon sees also.  That doesn't make him a racist though. 

[swansont]

15 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The article clearly has a strong viewpoint against Bannon, and that's fair enough.  I know Mother Jones is a fairly liberal publication.   As far as direct quotes from Bannon himself proving his racist views, the article has none.  It's more or less just conjecture and "explanations" from convenient third parties. 

Mother Jones being liberal has nothing to do with the Breitbart headlines generated under Bannon. They would be the same headlines if FOX were to report on the story.

There's also the info his wife provided.

15 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I don't mind.  I'm open to discussing anything Bannon has purportedly said or done.  The Oxford Union talk was simply the first time I've heard him speak at length in an unfiltered manner.  If he's on record saying egregious or blatantly racist things then I'd like to know. So far I've been told by liberal news sources (the ones that I mainly read and watch) that he's a white nationalist bigot.  It might not be true.

Not saying something racist in prepared remarks for an hour on a Tuesday when he knows he's going to be scrutinized is not a sample you can use to draw that conclusion.

[Alex_Krycek]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

There's also the info his wife provided.

Should we really expect an estranged spouse going through a divorce to be impartial?

 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Not saying something racist in prepared remarks for an hour on a Tuesday when he knows he's going to be scrutinized is not a sample you can use to draw that conclusion.

Sure.  But can you provide documented evidence when he did say something racist?

[iNow]

Must it have come from his mouth, or can it come from the large media outlet where he was grand wizard in control of content?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 Sure.  But can you provide documented evidence when he did say something racist?

That's a fairly narrow requirement. You're only racist if you say something racist?

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

That's a fairly narrow requirement. You're only racist if you say something racist?

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

Edited November 28, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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

How about something you write? Or have others write that you put your stamp of approval on?

[John Cuthber]

18 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Not necessarily.  If we dissect that quote there's a qualifier, which is the word "major".  "I do not believe we have a major race problem in this country.  I just don't."  He didn't say there isn't a problem with race in the United States, just that he doesn't believe there is a major problem.  Neither of the implications that you stated:  (to say that  implies that you simply do not value the opinions of all those who point out racism in daily life and, of course, most of those people (in the US) are not white. and He's simply writing off the experience of a whole section of society, and the basic defining  aspect of that section is race.) are objective conclusions stemming from that statement.  You can infer that there's a racist undertone to the statement, but such an inference is framed by your subjective viewpoint that he's already prejudiced.  I think its doubtful that someone who reaches out to the black and hispanic communities at the grassroots level would be racist.

People have different viewpoints on race in the US.  Some people think racism is still a major problem; others that it is less of an issue in the modern era.  I tend to think that it's a more serious problem than most people want to admit, but thinking that it's not a major issue doesn't necessarily make a person racist.  There are quite a few black and hispanic youtubers who denounce Black Lives Matter and blame Democrats for constantly "race baiting".  Again, that's not how I see it (I support BLM generally and think they are an important movement - especially with respect to criminal justice reform), but the fact is there are varying views on racism in American in all demographics.  We tend to see extreme examples on the news, which can lead many people to think America has a widespread problem with racism, but having lived here for several decades the day to day reality is quite different.  The vast majority of the time I see people of different races coexisting peacefully.  Perhaps this is what Bannon sees also.  That doesn't make him a racist though. 

Fine, except that the racism in the US is, in fact, major.
So, all you do is move the dishonesty to saying "the black guys are lying about the severity of the racism".

[Alex_Krycek]

10 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Fine, except that the racism in the US is, in fact, major.
 

You live in England.  How do you know what the race situation is really like in the United States?  Because you watch the BBC?  Does not the news cover only the most extreme cases of racism, outliers in a nation of 330 million people, while ignoring the vast majority of interactions that are peaceable and harmonious?

Quote

So, all you do is move the dishonesty to saying "the black guys are lying about the severity of the racism".

You put that line in quotes as if I actually wrote that, when in fact I never made such a statement, nor did Bannon.  Further, to suggest that because a white person doesn't think race is a major problem means they are also calling black people liars is a racist statement in itself.  You're assuming some kind of malevolent intent on the part of the person who doesn't immediately agree with your assumptions.  There are countless scenarios where blacks, hispanics, whites, and asians coexist peaceably in the same neighborhoods / cities.  If you were to poll a white person in those neighborhoods and ask them if racism is "a major problem" and that person said "no", they would be answering truthfully within the realm of their own experience.  Similarly, if a black or hispanic person answered in the same way, would they also be liars?