Steve Bannons appointment does NOT show Trump is a racist

So for those of you who don't know, Trump appointed one of his campaign advisors Steve Bannon to the position of senior counsel within his administration.

Bannon was famous for being the head of Breitbart news, what has been called an "alt right" news outlet.

After this announcement, liberal outlets such as CNN, the New York Times, The Huffington Posts, have all been going crazy because Trump has put a "white nationalist" in a position of power in his administration. Even right wing pundits are questioning this decision.

Well folks, I am about to tell you something so shocking that you won't believe it, so brace yourselves....

It turns out, that these main stream media outlets are full of it once again!

I know, shocking right!? After there so fair coverage in the election, and their impeccable accurate positions, the main stream media would like you to go ahead and trust them this time. Steve Bannon is a racist bigot and this proves that Trump is like basically a grand wizard for the KKK!!!!!

Lets take a look at one article and see what their proof is.

Huffington Posts headline story on their website today is this article, A White Nationalist Is The New White House Chief Strategist.

Lets take a look at it shall we.

Steve Bannon, the Breitbart News Network executive chairman known for having white nationalist views ― and who has himself been accused of anti-Semitism ― was named chief strategist and senior counselor to President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday.

My goodness, he haas been accused, well that must mean its true then! I mean, Hillary was accused of being a pedophile, so I am sure the Huffington post was outraged by that too right? Oh wait no, they demand proof of people when making these claims (rightfully so) when its a democrat, but for Bannon, the accusation is enough to prove to them he hates jews.

Now if you go to the article, they have hyperlinks attached to these words, supposedly to prove their assertions that he is a white nationalists. Clicking on it shows their proof and shows a link to Breitbarts most offensive articles.

I will type some of them out "Planned Parenthoods bodycount is up to half of the Holocaust", "Red diaper babies: Trump protestors adopt safety pin as symbol" Political correctness protects Muslim rape culture" "Racist pro nazi roots of planned parenthood revealed" and then the rest are a bunch of Milo trolling articles such as "Dangerous Faggot tour returns to campuses" "The solution to online harrassment is simple, women should log off"

The point is all of the liberal outlets post just as offensive articles on their sites, its just that they are from the lefts point of view, so they are not considered offensive. You can see the anger and hatred as the outlets post articles about the evils of men, the stupidity of rednecks, the racism of whites voting in high percentages for someone. But heaven help any outlet that does the same on the right.

And yes, Milo works for Breitbart, and he is intentionally offensive to progressives, much in the same way as many on the left are intentional provocative to the right.

Further down in the article.

David Axelrod, who served as senior advisor to President Barack Obama during his first term, said via Twitter Sunday that picking Priebus over Bannon as chief of staff could signal Trump taking a more “conventional” approach, but later said that having Bannon in the White House at all was “deeply troubling.”

Bannon’s name appeared above Priebus’ in the release, suggesting his significance in the Trump administration could rival that of the chief of staff. A president’s top strategist and senior counselor typically control access to the president and help set and carry out his agenda.

Well Obamas chief strategist, a paid CNN contributor has a problem with Bannon. Go figure. Did Axelrod have a problem with Obama appointing racial huckster Eric Holder to attorney general? Nope, not at all! But boy he is troubled by Bannon.

At Breitbart, Bannon helped make the hardline populist website a go-to resource for white nationalists and the alt-right, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups.

Breitbart served as a mouthpiece for the Trump campaign and an attack dog against conservatives like House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who were critical of Trump.

The southern poverty law center thinks they are extremists! Well that does it then.

Oh wait no, the SPLC is a left wing shill group that labels anyone who has any disagreements with far left as racists. Do they think BLM memebers that shout to kill cops are a dangerous group? Nope not at all, see the real dangerous people to the SPLC are the people that have a problem with BLM calling for dead cops. You see how that works!

Breitbart has propagated conspiracy theories, like Planned Parenthood having Nazi ties or Clinton aide Huma Abedin being a spy for Saudi Arabia. The website traffics in misogynist and racist stories; it frames women who push back against harassment or gender bias as weak and incompetent and portrays people of color and immigrants as inherently criminal.

Ok so questioning Humas ties to extremist Muslims groups is racist, but trying questioning Trumps ties to Russia or claiming he has KKk ties (as this article will do in a minute) is great journalism. This is the hypocrisy that is causing people to lose trust in the main stream media at a record pace.

Their hyper link to misogynists is a satirical article by Milo (not steve bannon) saying if women don't like to be harassed online they should log off. He is responding to the absurdity of social justice warriors such as anita sarkeesian demanding safe spaces online and in video games. Bu we know we know, its ok for places like the huffington posts and all other liberal outlets to make jokes about men, or white people, or fly over country and its perfectly harmless, but when someone makes jokes at causes they like it is racists or bigoted.

The people of color thing is by linking to an article that used FBI crime statistics to show that young black men commit violent crime in disproportionate numbers. Oh the horror! Those facts don't fit the liberals narrative, so they must be racists facts!

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) spokesman Adam Jentleson said Trump’s choice of Bannon “signals that White Supremacists will be represented at the highest levels in Trump’s White House. “

“It is easy to see why the KKK views Trump as their champion,” he added.

The SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League expressed concern over the appointment as well, with the ADL saying Bannon and “his alt-right are so hostile to core American values.”

Oh no, Harry reid too! I mean, he would have no reason to be biased right.

The article ends by showing that Ben shapiro quit Breitbart, and he is conservative, so it must be true that Bannons a racist. Shapiros problem with Breitbart was that they were to cozy to trump, and that may be a fair criticism. But that is hardly saying Bannon is a KKK member.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Continue on next post...

a reply to: Grambler

do trump followers think he can do anything wrong?

but i applaud the move. its the right move to make America great again. im dying to see the next 6 months in the US.

So what is the real reason behind these attacks on Bannon. I think there are two.

The first is that far left progressives are afraid that people are finally done being shamed into silence on these issues. If people are able to openly discuss issues, then the far lefts narrative of the country being mostly made up of racists and misogynistic people will be shattered.

The SJWS that run campuses will be faced with a true horror; universities may once again become a place were differing ideas and opinions when be discussed, and their dogmatic monopoly on controlling all thoughts and ideas on campuses will be broken. What a shame it would be to be able to have someone speak up with a conservative point of view and actually having to listen to them instead of just shouting "RACIST!" and moving on. My goodness, even the "safe spaces" could be effected!

Open debate is good for society, and allows the best ideas to flourish. In fact, free speech is how many of the progressive movements in this country were able to have such significant accomplishments (civil and womens rights etc.). But now these progressives want to stifle that speech by calling anyone who disagrees with them a racist.

Breitbart and other alternative news outlets challenge this censorship, and the appointment of Bannon represents a huge step is shattering this censorship. And so these far left progressives are fighting back by doing the only thing they know how to do, shout "RACIST!" even louder.

The second reason that people are upset about Bannon is that he represents a move away from the establishment. This is why you see even right wing people questioning this.

You see, as many of us on ATS really know, this election wasn't so much about left vs right as it was establishment vs anti establishment.

Breitbart symbolizes the anti establishment, and went after Hillary and never trumpers on the right during the election. I think many on both sides were hoping that Trump would just appoint Washington insiders, and it would go back to business as usual. The fact that he is keeping Bannon around scares them, maybe Trump is serious about changing the establishment.

And so they will spread fear and say Bannon is a racists and dangerous, because they would rather see the same old insiders take all of these positions.

All in all, I think the hysteria behind Bannons appointment is a great thing. It shows that Trump is already making waves against the establishment and the radical progressives, and they are worried. We have seen the lies and hatred spewed forth by the mainstream media all election, and seen how they smear anyone who disagree with them as bogots and racists, and guess what, thee people are tired of it.

So I hope they keep up the hysterics about bannon; it is this type of attitude that got Trump elected in the first place.

At this point the old story of the boy who cried wolf should be replaced with "The left who cried Racist". I don't think most rational people take Huffpo, CNN, or any other MSM outlet that serious these days.

Great write up!

a reply to: Grambler

SPLC: "Steve Bannon has no business in the White House"

Anti-discrimination groups are fighting back following president-elect Donald Trump's announcement that Stephen Bannon, executive of Breitbart News, would be his future chief strategist and senior counselor.

The Southern Poverty Law Center released a statement Monday saying that Bannon's appointment goes "directly against Trump's pledge to be a president to 'all Americans."

A post on SPLC's website read, "Bannon has a long history of bigotry. He has insinuated that African-Americans are 'naturally aggressive and violent' and under his leadership, Breitbart’s publishing strategy turned to one that has made it the media arm of the racist Alternative-Right movement, publishing articles promoting popular white nationalist tropes such as 'black on white crime' and that 'rape culture' is inherent in Islam."

The group posted their statement in a tweet that also read, "Steve Bannon has no business in the White House."

www.thehill.com...

I notice that you left out his history of anti-Semitism. Just look into his 2007 divorce. His ex-wife mentioned a number of troubling statements Bannon had made regarding Jews during the proceedings.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Grambler

SPLC: "Steve Bannon has no business in the White House"

Anti-discrimination groups are fighting back following president-elect Donald Trump's announcement that Stephen Bannon, executive of Breitbart News, would be his future chief strategist and senior counselor.

The Southern Poverty Law Center released a statement Monday saying that Bannon's appointment goes "directly against Trump's pledge to be a president to 'all Americans."

A post on SPLC's website read, "Bannon has a long history of bigotry. He has insinuated that African-Americans are 'naturally aggressive and violent' and under his leadership, Breitbart’s publishing strategy turned to one that has made it the media arm of the racist Alternative-Right movement, publishing articles promoting popular white nationalist tropes such as 'black on white crime' and that 'rape culture' is inherent in Islam."

The group posted their statement in a tweet that also read, "Steve Bannon has no business in the White House."

www.thehill.com...

Right I covered that. The Southern Policy Law Center is a joke. They are so slanted to the left it is ridiculous.

Here are some articles showing how ridiculous they are.

www.dailywire.com...

www.thesocialcontract.com...

They admit that the do not put left wing hate groups on their list. They label right wing groups as hate groups that have just a few of their members say hate filled things, but not others.

They have the constitution party listed as a hate group for some reason, but when BLM members shout to kill all cops, or occupy wall street members were plotting to blow up a bridge, they weren't considered hate groups.

Citing the SPLC to prove a right wing group is a hate group would be the same as me citing Rush Limbaugh that Obama is an ISIS sympathizer.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
I notice that you left out his history of anti-Semitism. Just look into his 2007 divorce. His ex-wife mentioned a number of troubling statements Bannon had made regarding Jews during the proceedings.

I did not leave that out. I mentioned that he was accused of being an anti semite. Hillary has been accused of being a pedophile, Obama has been accused of being a Muslim, so we must take these staements at face value right.

Its not like his wife the he was divorcing would have any reason to say negative things about him, right?

Here we go from the left again. Supposedly Bannon made comments in 1996 that he didn't want his kids to go to school with too many Jewish people because they raised their kids whiney. He denies this, and she can not be reached for comment, but we must assume its true right?

So comments that made twenty years ago prove this guy is a white nationalist. yet people on the lefts obvious contempt for white people, or religious people, or men is perfectly acceptable.

I am sorry, this fear mongering of unsubstantiated claims of things said twenty years ago is a joke.

Have you been on BreitBart?
Nope - nothing racist about it at all.
Can't slam you for your opinion.
From what I have seen Breitbart leans so far right it's hanging trying not to fall.
The comments there also made on any articles that includes a minority - i'll let you guess.
Let's hope whatever decisions made - that in the end - they benefit us rather than hurt us.
In the end though we do know the "culture" they have fostered there.
It's not by mistake that white supremacist/nationalist LOVE BreitBart.

You know, it doesnt really matter. I have racist friends and family but it doesnt make me racist. Rather Bannon is racist or not, just let it ride. There is no point in complaining. Trump will do what Trump wants. I wish people will stop complaining. I also wish people will stop riding Trump's shlong. Its not that serious. Just be cool and let it ride.

a reply to: Grambler

End there I was under impression that ATS motto was "Deny Ignorance".

But as Trump has said, his followers would not care even if he kills someone... which reminds me of another president that has this racist agenda and blind followers, first half of previous century, different country. Did not work well for them, wonder why do you think will work for us...

bannon after January 20th, will slowly, but steadily, begin to make democrats, liberals, and the media "the cause" of all ills in America... that sentiment is already being written about on ATS....the right on ATS already think that ALL protestors do not have jobs, and ALL of them are violently destroying cities.....for the first time in my life, I'm considering how I can leave America without losing too much of what I have worked for.

a reply to: Grambler

And yes, Milo works for Breitbart, and he is intentionally offensive to progressives, much in the same way as many on the left are intentional provocative to the right.

I'm so glad you pointed this out. It saves me the trouble of having to point it out to you.

But seriously, these MSM networks are doing major damage control. This includes but is not limited to, defamation of character, asymmetric racism, sensational tabloids, portrayal of rural America as being white & uneducated, the list goes on...

It's crazy how they're starting to believe their own lies. It's like they project their emotional insecurities into the news vacuum, then in a reciprocal manner they feed on it only to perpetuate a cascade effect of blatant disinformation.

I haven't checked but I'd reckon their Neilson ratings have plummeted since Nov 8th.

a reply to: Grambler

Next time, might I suggest a more suitable title for a thread like this?

"Fear and Loathing in the Authoritarian Left".

Huffington Post is currently suggesting that voting for Trump should be made illegal.

I see nothing but hated and fear and divisiveness from the authoritarian leftists.

a reply to: Grambler

Bannon was famous for being the head of Breitbart news, what has been called an "alt right" news outlet.

I would note here that Bannon himself has as recently as the Republican National Convention referred to Breitbart as "the home of the alt-right" and "the platform for the alt-right" so this isn't a spurious label — this is how Bannon see's Breitbart under his leadership (and with Robert Mercer's money).

The person who coined the term "alt-right" was Richard B Spencer and of course, he's one of its most influential figures. Spencer sees Breitbart as a vehicle for bringing the alt-right to the mainstream. Here's Spencer posting an interview with a Daily Beast reporter in his own (alt-right) Radix Journal:

RS: Breitbart has elective affinities with the Alt Right, and the Alt Right has clearly influenced Breitbart. In this way, Breitbart has acted as a “gateway” to Alt Right ideas and writers. I don’t think it has done this deliberately; again, it’s a matter of elective affinities.

For years, I was skeptical of Breitbart (the man and the website). The man was clearly talented and interesting, but I associated him with a kind of extreme version of American “conservatism” (think Dubya and the neocons et al.), which I’ve always opposed. The fact that Ben Shapiro was a major Breitbart.com writer made me highly suspicious of the website.

But Breitbart (again, the man and website) always had a populist edge. And the anti-White animus, present in almost every major institution, is so obvious that it would be hard not to notice it and write about it. And as is evident with Milo’s piece on the Alt Right, Breitbart has people on board who take us seriously, even if they are not Alt Right themselves.

So, yes, Breitbart has raised our profile; after all, it’s a major news outlet with millions of views. But the story is complicated.

Notice the use of the term "elective affinities" repeatedly? Elective Affinities (German: Die Wahlverwandtschaften) is the title of a novel by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. In the novel, the concept of "chemical affinities" (aka "elective affinities"), which actually predates modern chemistry by centuries, is used to compare human relationships to chemical reactions. In later years, the term was used frequently by German sociologist Max Weber.

In this context, he's referring to a sort of synergistic interplay of independent actors, causing a (social) reaction — like two chemicals that react well together. Personally, I would have been tempted to use a term popularized by adherents to another of the fathers of sociology (Marx), fellow traveler. Though in all honesty, according to what I've read about Bannon, he seems far less concerned about ideology than influence so I would say making Breitbart the "platform of the alt-right" was probably equal parts business decision and natural attraction.

Richard B Spencer's goal is to bring about a European ethno-state:

"In the mid 19th century, many Jews in Central Europe had an idea of an ethno-state, an idea of Zionism, and they were considered ridiculous and insane,” Spencer said. “But they had that dream, and that dream came into reality. Our dream is a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans. It would be a new society based on very different ideals than, say, the Declaration of Independence."

Say what you will but as the old adage goes, if you sleep with dogs, you're going to get fleas. I don't believe it's unfair to call out Bannon on what he's done with Breitbart.

a reply to: Grambler

What's interesting here is that you've posted a link from The Social Contract Press. The Social Contract Press was founded by John Tanton who happens to be a eugencist and the nexus of the US anti-immigration "movement" (he's the founder of CIS, FAIR, Numbers USA, etc).

SCP is run by Wayne Lutton, who is on the editorial advisory board of the publication of the Council of Conservative Citizens. The CofCC's current spokesperson is none other than white nationalist, Jared Taylor, the founder (and editor-in-chief) of American Renaissance. The CofCC's international director is Paul Fromm, a Canadian white supremacist who used to have a podcast on Stormfront.

CofCC's statement of principles:

(1) We believe the United States is a Christian country.

[...]

(2) We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people. We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime. We believe that illegal immigration must be stopped, if necessary by military force and placing troops on our national borders; that illegal aliens must be returned to their own countries; and that legal immigration must be severely restricted or halted through appropriate changes in our laws and policies. We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.

CofCC is in fact, a white nationalist organization that was founded by a group of segregationists from among the leadership of the former White Citizens' Council.

My point here is that even as you are making your argument, you've inadvertantly stepped in exactly what you believe is being overblown because that's how prevalent it really is. The mainstream media and Clinton herself went way too far in painting Trump supporters, I'll readily concede that, but we shouldn't swing to the other extreme which is to dismiss the very real presence of a disturbingly large network of folks whose ultimate goal isn't unity at all — but quite the opposite — racial deintegration and the formation of a "white homeland."

originally posted by: jimmyx
bannon after January 20th, will slowly, but steadily, begin to make democrats, liberals, and the media "the cause" of all ills in America...

And he might be able to prove it too.

a reply to: theantediluvian

theantediluvian, your posts are so thorough and extraordinary! I just love reading them and I so wish this level of intelligence and depth were in even one-tenth of the posts on ATS. You have stripped the facade back to the bone, once again, and I thank you for it.

originally posted by: theantediluvian



I would note here that Bannon himself has as recently as the Republican National Convention referred to Breitbart as "the home of the alt-right" and "the platform for the alt-right" so this isn't a spurious label — this is how Bannon see's Breitbart under his leadership (and with Robert Mercer's money).

The person who coined the term "alt-right" was Richard B Spencer and of course, he's one of its most influential figures. Spencer sees Breitbart as a vehicle for bringing the alt-right to the mainstream. Here's Spencer posting an interview with a Daily Beast reporter in his own (alt-right) Radix Journal:

RS: Breitbart has elective affinities with the Alt Right, and the Alt Right has clearly influenced Breitbart. In this way, Breitbart has acted as a “gateway” to Alt Right ideas and writers. I don’t think it has done this deliberately; again, it’s a matter of elective affinities.

For years, I was skeptical of Breitbart (the man and the website). The man was clearly talented and interesting, but I associated him with a kind of extreme version of American “conservatism” (think Dubya and the neocons et al.), which I’ve always opposed. The fact that Ben Shapiro was a major Breitbart.com writer made me highly suspicious of the website.

But Breitbart (again, the man and website) always had a populist edge. And the anti-White animus, present in almost every major institution, is so obvious that it would be hard not to notice it and write about it. And as is evident with Milo’s piece on the Alt Right, Breitbart has people on board who take us seriously, even if they are not Alt Right themselves.

So, yes, Breitbart has raised our profile; after all, it’s a major news outlet with millions of views. But the story is complicated.

Notice the use of the term "elective affinities" repeatedly? Elective Affinities (German: Die Wahlverwandtschaften) is the title of a novel by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. In the novel, the concept of "chemical affinities" (aka "elective affinities"), which actually predates modern chemistry by centuries, is used to compare human relationships to chemical reactions. In later years, the term was used frequently by German sociologist Max Weber.

In this context, he's referring to a sort of synergistic interplay of independent actors, causing a (social) reaction — like two chemicals that react well together. Personally, I would have been tempted to use a term popularized by adherents to another of the fathers of sociology (Marx), fellow traveler. Though in all honesty, according to what I've read about Bannon, he seems far less concerned about ideology than influence so I would say making Breitbart the "platform of the alt-right" was probably equal parts business decision and natural attraction.

Richard B Spencer's goal is to bring about a European ethno-state:

"In the mid 19th century, many Jews in Central Europe had an idea of an ethno-state, an idea of Zionism, and they were considered ridiculous and insane,” Spencer said. “But they had that dream, and that dream came into reality. Our dream is a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans. It would be a new society based on very different ideals than, say, the Declaration of Independence."

Say what you will but as the old adage goes, if you sleep with dogs, you're going to get fleas. I don't believe it's unfair to call out Bannon on what he's done with Breitbart.

This is all just a matter of labeling. I caan point to BLM activists, people that call for the wiping out of all men from earth, people that call for the killing of Christians, etc that all call themselves progressives. So does that mean that any outlet that claims they are progressive is for these things? No.

And ask yourself, why is it deemed acceptable to have main stream news sources blame white people for this election, or support organizations that call white people or men evil? These people were appointed all through Obamas adminstration, and yet I don't recall the media screaming fears of Obama having Black nationalists in his adminstration.

As far as this spencer guy, he sounds like a racist and a fool. But I don't see Bannon celebrating this guy anywhere. All I see is this guy saying I like breitbart and it has goven me a voice.

How did it give him a voice? By pointing out the anti white bias in most media. So is your claim that to point out racism is wrong because it can cause racist obn the other side to support you?

So the media that reported on the racism of Jim Crow laws were actually doing a bad thing, because radical blacks may have read that and agreed that these laws were racist?

If you want to call Bannon out on what he did with Breitbart, fine. But then to be fair you must also call out every democrat for associating with the mainstream liberal press that has slandered, demeaned and fear mongered about white people, straights, religious people, men and many other groups.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler



CofCC is in fact, a white nationalist organization that was founded by a group of segregationists from among the leadership of the former White Citizens' Council.

My point here is that even as you are making your argument, you've inadvertantly stepped in exactly what you believe is being overblown because that's how prevalent it really is. The mainstream media and Clinton herself went way too far in painting Trump supporters, I'll readily concede that, but we shouldn't swing to the other extreme which is to dismiss the very real presence of a disturbingly large network of folks whose ultimate goal isn't unity at all — but quite the opposite — racial deintegration and the formation of a "white homeland."

Interesting to know. It sounds like they are a racist group. I simply googled for articles on what I had read and knew from many cites before, that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a bias group that admits it is only set up to find right wing radical groups.

I understand the source of the article seems to be racists, but do you dispute the facts within the article that are sourcing things the SPLC has actually said about themselves.

In fact, is it your assertion the the SPLC is in fact an unbiased source that is worth citing as proof someone is a hate filled person?

I have no problem decrying the CofCC. Any group that seeks to drive a wedge between the races and force segregation is a disgusting and should be decried.

But that doesn't change the fact that the SPLC is garbage.