Interesting food for thought:
Accusers also reference the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says Bannon promotes white supremacy, yet the SPLC’s credibility is in question. Indeed, just last month SPLC published a list of anti-Muslim extremists that fraudulently included Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. For those unfamiliar with this case, allow me to quickly explain.
Nawaz, a former recruiter for an Islamist group who spent nearly five years in an Egyptian prison, now dedicates his life to challenging the Islamist narrative. He co-founded the world's first counter-extremism think tank, the Quilliam Foundation.
Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch Member of Parliament and human rights activist, is a champion of women’s rights and spirited critic of several practices extant throughout the Muslim world such as honor killings and female genital mutilation (which she personally endured).
Hirsi Ali was even named as one of the world’s most influential people by Time magazine.
The decision to add these heroes who defend liberal values to an “extremist” list sparked widespread outrage and a petition that was created urging them to be removed has received thousands of signatures. Are the folks at SPLC unfamiliar with Aesop's fable, The Boy Who Cried Wolf?
“Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States of America,” he said, pushing back on charges that the right-wing outlet had trafficked in anti-Semitism. “I have Breitbart Jerusalem, which I have Aaron Klein run with about 10 reporters there. We’ve been leaders in stopping this BDS movement” -- referring to boycott, divestment and sanctions -- “in the United States; we’re a leader in the reporting of young Jewish students being harassed on American campuses; we’ve been a leader on reporting on the terrible plight of the Jews in Europe.”
As for headlines like the one that labeled conservative pundit Bill Kristol a “renegade Jew,” Bannon said it was written by author David Horowitz.
Bannon also rejected the label of “white nationalist,” as some on the left have described him. “I’m an economic nationalist. I am an America first guy. And I have admired nationalist movements throughout the world, have said repeatedly strong nations make great neighbors. I’ve also said repeatedly that the ethno-nationalist movement, prominent in Europe, will change over time. I’ve never been a supporter of ethno-nationalism,” he told Strassel.
... Steve Bannon, Trump's senior advisor—this new administration's own Karl Rove, who helped make Breitbart the home cesspool of the racist, sexist alt-right, and whose appointment to the White House has been celebrated by the KKK and the American Nazi Party.
Re-read the two sources above, and then ask yourself whether that last snippet is painting with a brush that's too broad.
“Like [Andrew] Jackson’s populism, we’re going to build an entirely new political movement,” he told Wolff. “It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a 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. 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.”
(For my own sanity, I'd like to think that Bannon is thinking of the New Deal's public works when he references the 1930s, as opposed to the rise of European fascism. But I'm not 100 percent confident.)
The last paragraph in that last snippet shows poor reading skills or gross ignorance or both. First and foremost, the fascism of 1930's Europe was ethnocentric. Bannon is guilty of retaining neoclassical economic theories but is careful to say "economic nationalist."
The Left flings charges of anti-Semitism and racism at pretty much anyone they dislike. Bannon has been one of their targets, the evidence adduced being some of Breitbart's content and allegations made during a heated child custody battle. But the Anti-Defamation League acknowledges there is no definitive example of Bannon ever saying anything anti-Semitic, and his Jewish former employees at Breitbart have strenuously defended him from the charge.
Bannon said he wanted to make Breitbart News "the platform for the alt-right," and the alt-right is undeniably streaked with strands of racism and anti-Semitism. The name sounds like "alternative right," suggesting merely a conservative option to Bushism or the neoconservatism of the last decade. Many well-meaning people who reject globalism, free trade, liberalized immigration, or Bush-era foreign policy might be attracted to both the idea and the label.
But "alt-right" is a clever marketing term intended to rebrand white nationalism. Assuming Bannon means it when he describes himself as "an economic nationalist" and not a racist or white nationalist, what is the proper response to the fact that the movement includes enthusiastic subscribers to views that all decent people reject? Racism is not something to co-opt, sanitize or attempt to marry to conservative ideals, with which it is incompatible.
... some pundits absurdly suggest 61 million people were inspired by racism to choose Trump. The many small cities and counties that voted for President Obama once or even twice but then helped flip five key blue states to the Republican nominee did not do so out of racial animus.
But there are racist supporters of Trump, and now that he is to be president it's more important than ever that he prevent the idea that racism is a majority idea from growing and that racists have won. He must distance himself from their vile propaganda.
Let's look at the following:
... "alt-right" is a clever marketing term intended to rebrand white nationalism. Assuming Bannon means it when he describes himself as "an economic nationalist" and not a racist or white nationalist, what is the proper response to the fact that the movement includes enthusiastic subscribers to views that all decent people reject? Racism is not something to co-opt, sanitize or attempt to marry to conservative ideals, with which it is incompatible.
"... "alt-right" is a clever marketing term intended to rebrand white nationalism." Is it? "... alt-right is undeniably streaked with strands of racism ...." Look at what is done in the name of Christianity that flies in the face of Jesus's words and deeds. Plenty of people run around using the term Christian as a pejorative on account of it, as if Christians are simply people who say of themselves that they are Christians and contrary to Jesus's own teaching on what it means to be a Christian (what defines the very term) and regardless of whether they follow Jesus's words and deeds at all.
Alt-right does stand for alternative right, which in Bannon's case means alternative to neoclassical "free trade." Just because there are other "right-wing" alternatives to recently established right-wingism doesn't mean that it is proper to lump all "alt-right" together as being under the banner of racism or that all those who subscribe to right-wing alternatives to that recently established right-wingism are of, by, or for racism.
Look at the term "Zionism." There are Zionists in Israel who are in favor of BDS. Then there are Zionists there who want to literally exterminate all Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza so Israelis may move into those areas without any opposition. Is it proper to denounce anti-BDS Zionism because of those Zionists who are beyond supremacists to the point of being genocidal against an entire ethnic group for not being Jewish? No, it is not; and I say that as one who opposes Zionism because of its ethnocentric "democracy."
The extreme attacks on Bannon really are reaching/stretching. Here's one from Mother Jones: "Here's Evidence Steve Bannon Joined a Facebook Group That Posts Racist Rants and Obama Death Threats: Another clue about his politics?." Wow! Grow up. Being a member of a Facebook group where some people post stupid things would sink almost anyone who isn't walking on eggshells in fear of being painted due to supposed "associations." Guilt by association? Notice how Mother Jones leaves itself a tiny out: "Another clue about his politics?" That question mark is completely overwhelmed by the article. Anyone reading it who believes that the authors aren't engaging in false propaganda attempting to get all readers to believe the guilt by association is either stupid, ignorant, or both. I've joined FB groups just to see what people with whom I disagree are saying. Also, some of the statements posted by Mother Jones as evidence of awfulness really aren't that unreasonable. Some of them are downright sensible.
Here's the article that got this latest wave started on the Internet and in the mainstream media. It's worth the read: "Ringside With Steve Bannon at Trump Tower as the President-Elect's Strategist Plots "An Entirely New Political Movement" (Exclusive)."
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)