Rep. Cummings: MLK Would Be Disappointed 'White Supremacist Type' Bannon In WH...

[Plutarch]

I still think that talk like that is largely bullshit (and obviously politically-motivated if not altogether counterproductive), but I wouldn't be surprised to see MLK, if he were alive, handling the situation in a lot more reasonable and productive manner than many of the people who claim to speak for him.

As for me, I never liked the idea of speaking for the dead, unless I truly knew said dead like family.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Man, they need to let that man li...I mean...be dead. It's like race can't even come up without someone trying to evoke MLK's name. He's been dead for going on half a century now. We can't find another way to condemn racist shit than to speak a man who's been dead for a longer time than he actually lived.

 

[SneakDZA]

not inb4 the usual contrarian suspects would find something ... anything to be critical about in a pretty cut & dry statement such as MLK would be disappointed in a white supremacist in the white house in 2017.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

not inb4 the usual contrarian suspects would find something ... anything to be critical about in a pretty cut & dry statement such as MLK would be disappointed in a white supremacist in the white house in 2017.

The shit didn't need to be said man. Why does everything have to go back to MLK? How about you quit with the ad hominem attacks and address a point for once.

 

[Plutarch]

not inb4 the usual contrarian suspects would find something ... anything to be critical about in a pretty cut & dry statement such as MLK would be disappointed in a white supremacist in the white house in 2017.

Heh, very few things are rarely cut and dry, imo, and this isn't one of those things, unless you're not open-minded.

But if you disagree with what I've said, then please provide a counterargument.

If you'd rather not, then that's fine, but you really wouldn't be saying anything, imo. Like giving a monologue during a conversation. Echo-chamber shit.

 

[marc123]

I still think that talk like that is largely bullshit (and obviously politically-motivated if not altogether counterproductive), but I wouldn't be surprised to see MLK, if he were alive, handling the situation in a lot more reasonable and productive manner than many of the people who claim to speak for him.

As for me, I never liked the idea of speaking for the dead, unless I truly knew said dead like family.

Any other time i would agree with you. But trump aint no every day kinda nigga. Desperate times call for desperate measures. All measures need to be taken to get trump n his cronies outta office. Before they destroy the world. No bullshit.

 

[Plutarch]

I still think that talk like that is largely bullshit (and obviously politically-motivated if not altogether counterproductive), but I wouldn't be surprised to see MLK, if he were alive, handling the situation in a lot more reasonable and productive manner than many of the people who claim to speak for him.

As for me, I never liked the idea of speaking for the dead, unless I truly knew said dead like family.

Any other time i would agree with you. But trump aint no every day kinda nigga. Desperate times call for desperate measures. All measures need to be taken to get trump n his cronies outta office. Before they destroy the world. No bullshit.

I respect your opinion, and I'm certainly no Trump fan, but I still believe that all this Trump-is-the-Antichrist-who-will destroy-the-world is a tad bit hyperbolic.

 

[marc123]

I still think that talk like that is largely bullshit (and obviously politically-motivated if not altogether counterproductive), but I wouldn't be surprised to see MLK, if he were alive, handling the situation in a lot more reasonable and productive manner than many of the people who claim to speak for him.

As for me, I never liked the idea of speaking for the dead, unless I truly knew said dead like family.

Any other time i would agree with you. But trump aint no every day kinda nigga. Desperate times call for desperate measures. All measures need to be taken to get trump n his cronies outta office. Before they destroy the world. No bullshit.

I respect your opinion, and I'm certainly no Trump fan, but I still believe that all this Trump-is-the-Antichrist-who-will destroy-the-world is a tad bit hyperbolic.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Undefeatable]

Bannon does indeed seem to be a white supremacist (no overstatement), and MLK would indeed be disappointed, so Cummings is right.

 

[Colin$mackabi$h]

Oh.

Freepost.

 

[Undefeatable]

@Plutarch What the fuck is wrong with you?

You are pretending to be oh-so-reasonable, but you're just burying your head in the sand and in effect letting Trump and the officials in his administration off the hook.

Have you followed what has come out about Bannon? Do you know much about him?

 

[Plutarch]

@Undefeatable

@Plutarch What the fuck is wrong with you?

Heh, and here I wanted to ask you the same question, but for other questionable moves you've made.

You are pretending to be oh-so-reasonable, but you're just burying your head in the sand and in effect letting Trump and the officials in his administration off the hook.

Sigh. I don't pretend to be "oh-so-reasonable." I am reasonable. If you disagree, it's very, very simple: all you have to do is prove otherwise, and I will gladly concede. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but saying things =/= proving things.

Oh, and how can you not notice that I'm a critic of Trump and his administration (and anyone else worthy of criticism as well)? Letting them off the hook? Don't be ridiculous.

No disrespect, but I can very well do without all the emotions, e-beef, etc. Like I always say, just present your counter evidence, and then we can engage in a hopefully civil debate and hopefully come to a resolution, even if we have to agree to disagree. I know this is the internet and all, but this is the g'n's forum section, right?

If you have a problem with what I'm saying, quote what I've said and explain your problem. I'm not even sure what your beef is. What have I actually said that has you so "upset"?

Have you followed what has come out about Bannon? Do you know much about him?

Obviously very fair questions. I have "moderate" knowledge of him. I have found little-to-no evidence that he is a racist or anti-Semite, two popular accusations against him. Even people close to him who hate him have disagreed with those claims.

I think it's almost obvious that he is an American nationalist and populist (and manipulator), much like Trump. Meh. But is he a white nationalist? I think it's very easy (perhaps too easy) to jump to that conclusion. However, it could still be true, but I don't see strong evidence for this. I see even less evidence that he is a white "supremist."

But hey, I can certainly be wrong, and that's perfectly fine with me. You seem to be confident that he is a white supremacist (despite your odd way of saying that he "does indeed seem" to be one). I can't prove a negative, and you have the burden of proof.

So again (this is like my tenth time saying this throughout many threads), just present your evidence. If it's as strong as your apparent confidence seems to suggest, then I will simply agree with you that Bannon is a white supremacist, and I will thank you for properly informing me. Very simple. No biggie. Ball's in your court, hombre.

 

[thegreatunknown]

Bannon is indeed a white supremacist. All Cummings did was steal some Neocon's thunder anyway, we all know how they love to MLK-shame to promote their agenda...

 

[Undefeatable]

@Undefeatable

@Plutarch What the fuck is wrong with you?

Heh, and here I wanted to ask you the same question, but for other questionable moves you've made.

You are pretending to be oh-so-reasonable, but you're just burying your head in the sand and in effect letting Trump and the officials in his administration off the hook.

Sigh. I don't pretend to be "oh-so-reasonable." I am reasonable. If you disagree, it's very, very simple: all you have to do is prove otherwise, and I will gladly concede. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but saying things =/= proving things.

Oh, and how can you not notice that I'm a critic of Trump and his administration (and anyone else worthy of criticism as well)? Letting them off the hook? Don't be ridiculous.

No disrespect, but I can very well do without all the emotions, e-beef, etc. Like I always say, just present your counter evidence, and then we can engage in a hopefully civil debate and hopefully come to a resolution, even if we have to agree to disagree. I know this is the internet and all, but this is the g'n's forum section, right?

If you have a problem with what I'm saying, quote what I've said and explain your problem. I'm not even sure what your beef is. What have I actually said that has you so "upset"?

Have you followed what has come out about Bannon? Do you know much about him?

Obviously very fair questions. I have "moderate" knowledge of him. I have found little-to-no evidence that he is a racist or anti-Semite, two popular accusations against him. Even people close to him who hate him have disagreed with those claims.

I think it's almost obvious that he is an American nationalist and populist (and manipulator), much like Trump. Meh. But is he a white nationalist? I think it's very easy (perhaps too easy) to jump to that conclusion. However, it could still be true, but I don't see strong evidence for this. I see even less evidence that he is a white "supremist."

But hey, I can certainly be wrong, and that's perfectly fine with me. You seem to be confident that he is a white supremacist (despite your odd way of saying that he "does indeed seem" to be one). I can't prove a negative, and you have the burden of proof.

So again (this is like my tenth time saying this throughout many threads), just present your evidence. If it's as strong as your apparent confidence seems to suggest, then I will simply agree with you that Bannon is a white supremacist, and I will thank you for properly informing me. Very simple. No biggie. Ball's in your court, hombre.

Here is my advice. Read the news, and follow the political blogs. The term "white supremacist" probably gets thrown around too easily, but in Bannon's case the label seems quite appropriate.

Right now I will just leave this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...aints-immigration_us_58b75206e4b0284854b3dc03

And remind you that he was in charge of Breitbart before he joined the Trump campaign.

 

[Plutarch]

Here is my advice. Read the news, and follow the political blogs.

Can't tell if you're being an asshole or being serious, but I do read "the news" (though I largely avoid mainstream news) and blogs. Hell, I take in all kinds of sources, from news stories to podcasts by different kinds of professionals. Even then, I still have to check up on the sources' sources.

The term "white supremacist" probably gets thrown around too easily,

I think it does as well.

but in Bannon's case the label seems quite appropriate.

Right now I will just leave this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...aints-immigration_us_58b75206e4b0284854b3dc03

Thank you. I will definitely read this closely.

And remind you that he was in charge of Breitbart before he joined the Trump campaign.

I'm well aware of this. If you're implying that being in charge of Breitbart = being a white supremacist, then I don't follow you. But just in case, I'll do more research on Breitbart to see whether this is the case.

 

[Plutarch]

@Undefeatable

Just for reference purposes, I will include a “standard” definition of “white supremacy”:

the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial groups, especially black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society.

And you seem to be suggesting that this article supports or proves your claim that Bannon is a white supremacist. OK.

Just for the record, I will say that I don’t think that Huffington Post is a particularly “fair” source, but meh. All sides deserve to be heard. With that said, I’ll look for opposing views and any response Bannon might’ve given as well.

 

[Plutarch]

“It is really shockingly racist,” Chavez told The Huffington Post, “and to have the counselor to the president see this as one of his touchstones, I think, says volumes about his attitude.”

I can’t say that I’m familiar with the respective book, which might be good thing. The book does sound terrible (both its form and content) at worst and parodic at best, and I do agree that Bannon’s apparent taste for the book does speak volumes about his attitude.

But does it prove him to be a white supremacist? The above quotation isn’t strong evidence imo, but again, it doesn’t mean that he isn’t. This clearly isn’t a “President Wilson loved Birth of a Nation” case. Instead, what I see is that he’s a xenophobe, which is different from being a white supremacist.

Bannon has agitated for a host of anti-immigrant measures. In his previous role as executive chairman of the right-wing news site Breitbart — which he called a “platform for the alt-right,” the online movement of white nationalists — he made anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim news a focus

Much is made of him being the former head of Breitbart and Breitbart being a bastion for the alt-right. That’s not irrelevant, and there are certainly white supremacists associated with Breitbart and the alt-right, but let’s not pretend that Breitbart and the alt-right don’t represent a vast array of ideologies, some of which are in opposition to each other. The same generalization is still associated with the Tea Party movement, which is just as diverse.

Nevertheless, Bannon is clearly a panderer, and even if he wasn’t a white supremacist, I’d be happy to indict him (as well as Breitbart) just for pandering to white supremacists. Also, again, xenophobes =/= white supremacist.

Tanton, who insists his opposition to immigration is not connected to race at all, told The Washington Post in 2006 that his mind “became focused” on the issue after reading The Camp of the Saints.

Well, here’s a possible example of xenophobia and white supremacy being differentiated and not being one-in-the-same. Is it not possible that Bannon is a xenophobe but not a white supremacist?

 

[Plutarch]

Bannon’s alt-right-loving Breitbart has run multiple articles over the past three years referencing the novel. When Pope Francis told a joint session of Congress that the U.S. should open its arms to refugees in September 2015, Breitbart’s Julia Hahn, now an aide to Bannon in the White House, compared his admonition to Raspail’s liberal Latin American pontiff. And the novel’s thesis that migration is invasion in disguise is often reflected in Bannon’s public comments.

Bannon has also echoed the novel’s theory that secular liberals who favor immigration and diversity weaken the West.

“Do you believe the elites in this country have the backbone, have the belief in the underlying principles of the Judeo-Christian West to actually win this war?” he asked Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), now the attorney general, in June 2016.

“I’m worried about that. … They’re eroding, regularly it seems to me, classical American values that are so critical to our success,” Sessions replied.

I think that this can be considered good evidence that Bannon and, generally, the White House are xenophobic and – by extension because of his disapproval of the “Third World” – “racist.” In this manner, I can concede that Bannon is a racist.

But I think the “white supremacist” claim lacks evidence. For instance, do you have evidence to suggest that Bannon believes that American blacks are inferior?

Chavez, who supports some of Trump’s economic policy proposals, called the direction the White House is taking on immigration and race “extremely dangerous.” She said Trump’s immigration moves are “a kind of purging of America of anything but our Northern European roots.” Bannon, she added, “wants to make America white again.”

I agree with the first statement, but the rest is confusing.

“North European roots”? Does she not mean Western European roots or, more generally, “Western roots”?

If Bannon wants to make America white again (and I can agree with this to an extent since I believe he wants to make America more “homogenously Westernized,” and the West obviously happens to mostly comprise whites), then what exactly are his plans for the sizable and growing minority of non-white American citizens already living in the country?

Also, if Bannon wants to make America white again, do you think Bannon would support a mass migration of Russians or Serbians into America (I’m assuming that you believe that Russians and Serbians are white)?

 

[Plutarch]

I do believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Bannon is a “racist,” (white/Western) nationalist, and xenophobe, and really, that is more than enough to say fuck him.

Still, I think it’s important to distinguish between ethnicity, nationality, culture, and race, so if we were to split hairs and call him a white supremacist, then I just see no strong evidence for the claim (i.e., Bannon hates black Americans and deems them inferior and worthy of oppression), even though it’s certainly not implausible that he is a white supremacist, so I’m not saying that he is not one.

I simply see no strong evidence and even see some evidence that he is not one. Obviously, he can use his (white/western) nationalism as a cover for white supremacy, but all evidence points to (white/western) nationalism as being the foundation of his philosophical outlook.