Steve Bannon’s Judeo-Christian ‘Camp of the Saints’

US Politics
on 34 Comments

“Everywhere, rivers of sperm, streaming over bodies, oozing between breasts, and buttocks, and thighs, and lips, and fingers.”

This is not a description of a hard-core porn-film. This is an excerpt from Jean Raspail’s 1973 French novel, “Camp of the Saints”.

The description is that of a fictional Indian ‘armada’ of 800,000 “wretched creatures” consisting of “scraggy branches, brown and black” with “fleshless Gandhi-arms”, who have come to take over France – that is white Europe – the ‘camp of the saints’.

The title is derived from St. John’s Revelation (20:9):

“And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”

Now get this: This rabidly racist novel is Donald Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon’s model of perception. 

Last week, the Huffington Post ran a piece, noting the numerous times (recorded in quote and audio) Bannon has referred to the white-supremacist cult favorite ‘Camp of the Saints’ as a model. It is noted that upon the novel’s release in the United States in 1975, the influential book review magazine Kirkus Reviews wrote:

“The publishers are presenting The Camp of the Saints as a major event, and it probably is, in much the same sense that Mein Kampf was a major event.”

Since October 2015, Bannon is on record for numerous references to the novel:

“It’s been almost a Camp of the Saints-type invasion into Central and then Western and Northern Europe” (October 2015).

“The whole thing in Europe is all about immigration. It’s a global issue today — this kind of global Camp of the Saints” (January 2016)

“It’s not a migration. It’s really an invasion. I call it the Camp of the Saints.” (January 2016)

“When we first started talking about this a year ago, we called it the Camp of the Saints. … I mean, this is Camp of the Saints, isn’t it?” (April 2016)

I can’t help doing a pun, and calling this one Bannon’s “My Camp”.

The narrative is perfect for Bannon and the Alt-Right, in that it mocks the left-wing and humanistic liberals who welcome the refugees. They too are tramped upon by the careless, selfish and cultureless savages.

The implication of the Christian-white-supremacist notion in the term ‘camp of the saints’ is not merely a demonization of the non-European and non-white ‘others’, but also a parallel aggrandization and sanctification of ‘us’ – the white, the western, the Christian… But wait, something doesn’t quite fit. Bannon’s “Judeo-Christian” narrative.

Bannon has regularly invoked a Judeo-Christian identity. An exchange between Bannon and now Attorney-General Jeff Sessions from last year, goes:

Bannon: “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?”

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

Bannon gave a speech in 2014 at the Vatican. He said: 

“If you look back at the long history of the Judeo-Christian west struggle against Islam, I believe that our forefathers kept their stance, and I think they did the right thing. [….] They were able to stave this off, and they were able to defeat it, and they were able to bequeath to us a church and a civilization that really is the flower of mankind”.

That should scare people, really it should – the notion of a fundamentalist ‘Judeo-Christian’ holy-war by the west, as a bulwark against a supposedly barbaric, uncivilized Islam.

But wait, where have we heard this before?

“For Europe, we would form part of a bulwark against Asia there [Palestine], we would serve as the advance post of civilization against barbarism.” – Theodore Herzl, Der Judenstaat.

Bannon’s racism is hardly worth discussing. But what about anti-Semitism? Could he be anti-Semitic even if he says ‘Judeo-Christian’? Ostensibly, the ‘Judeo-Christian’ narrative cancels that option out – I mean, Jews are in the ‘camp of saints’, right? 

As Shane Burley noted in a coverage of the Alt-Right, when Richard Spencer was asked about the very essence of the Alt-Right, he answered it first with one word: Inequality. He then elaborated that the Alt Right was built on the truth that “all men were created unequal.”

Essentially then, for the Christian white supremacists, in the more liberal case, Jews could well be described as ‘separate but equal’.

Three months ago, when Spencer was challenged by Texas Hillel Rabbi Matt Rosenberg, the rabbi said:

“My tradition teaches a message of radical inclusion and love. Will you sit down and learn Torah with me, and learn love?”

Spencer left Rosenberg speechless when he answered him:

“Do you really want radical inclusion into the State of Israel? And by that I mean radical inclusion. Maybe all of the Middle East could go move in to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Would you really want that?”, Spencer said.

It was as if Spencer had stuck a knife straight into Rabbi Rosenberg’s Jewish-Zionist heart, and Rosenberg kept losing that debate, because he really couldn’t reconcile those values of ‘radical inclusion and love’ with his other pet – Zionism.

Spencer makes no secret of his appreciation for Jews, when they are exclusivist. “Jews exist precisely because you did not assimilate,” Spencer went on. “That is why Jews are a coherent people with a history and a culture and a future. It’s because you had a sense of yourselves. I respect that about you. I want my people to have that same sense of themselves.” This is why Spencer calls his white-supremacy a kind of “white-Zionism”.

Usage of Jews in order to rebuff allegations of anti-Semitism can reach an appalling degree, as when President Trump last month (February 15th) dodged a question regarding a wave of anti-Semitic incidents, by using his family as human shields. He was asked:

“Mr. President, since your election campaign and even after your victory, we’ve seen a sharp rise in anti-Semitic — anti- Semitic incidents across the United States. And I wonder, what do you say to those among the Jewish community in the states and in Israel and maybe around the world who believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones?”

After dodging the question with a long boast of his electoral victory, Trump turned to dodge it using his family: his Jewish son-in-law (and advisor) Jared Kushner, as well as his ‘beautiful [Jewish] grandchildren’.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even backed him in that. He simply injected more schmaltz to aid Trump:

“If I can respond to something that I know from personal experience, I’ve known President Trump for many years, and to allude to him or to his people, his team, some of whom I’ve known for many years too — can I reveal, Jared, how long we’ve known you? … There is no greater supporter of the Jewish people and the Jewish state than President Donald Trump. I think we should put that to rest.”

But Trump had never addressed the central question: the wave of anti-Semitic incidents. A day later (February 16th), a Jewish-Orthodox reporter made a sincere effort to clarify that this was NOT just personal to Trump:

“So, first of all, my name is Jake Turx. I haven’t seen anybody in my community accuse either yourself or anyone on your staff of being anti-Semitic. We understand that you have Jewish grandchildren — you are their zayde [granfather in Yiddish]. However, what we are concerned about and what we haven’t being heard addressed is how the government is planning to take care of it. There are reports that 48 bomb threats have been made against Jewish centers across the country in the last couple of weeks. There are people committing anti-Semitic acts or threatening to—”

But to no avail. Trump dodged it again, this time by attacking Turx for being a ‘liar’ (because the question wasn’t as ‘straight and simple’ as it was supposed to be, according to Trump), as well as attacking the ‘press’ as a whole. 

“He said he was going to ask a easy question — okay sit down, I understand the rest of your question. So here’s the story folks, number one, I am the least anti-Semitic person that you have seen in your entire life. Number two, racism. The least racist person. We did relatively well — quiet, quiet, quiet — see he lied about what was going to be a very straight simple question. I hate the charge. I find it repulsive, I hate even the question because people that know me and you heard the Prime Minister, you heard Netanyahu yesterday. Did you hear him, Bibi, he said I’ve known Donald Trump for a long time and said forget it so you should take that instead of getting up and asking a very insulting question like that. Just shows you about the press but that’s the way the press is.”

Thus, again, Trump uses ‘Bibi’s’ endorsement of him. If ‘Bibi’ said ‘forget it’, then everyone should forget it.

Former Anti-Defamation League chair Abraham Foxman is also running the same line about the anti-semitic incidents, as noted by The Forward last week:

“I’m telling them: ‘Cool it, cool it. But it’s very tough. People are very emotional.”

The Forward further notes that

“even though Foxman believes Trump empowered haters with his appeals to far right wing white nationalists, he does not think the president himself is a bigot. “He legitimized it, but he did not create it,” Foxman said. “Trump is not an anti-Semite.”

Oh boy. Read that sentence again: “He legitimized it, but he did not create it”. Neither did Foxman create Trump – but he just legitimized his empowering of far right wing nationalist haters.

Larry Solov, the Israeli-Jewish co-founder of Breitbart News, says in his own article that

“a lot of people don’t realize this but Breitbart News Network really got its start in Jerusalem”… “One night in Jerusalem, when we were getting ready for dinner, Andrew [Breitbart, ed.] turned to me and asked if I would de-partner from the 800-person law firm where I was practicing and become business partners with him. He said he needed my help to create a media company. He needed my help to “change the world.” 

The cover photo for the article portrays what appears to be the founding group, with Netanyahu at the front.

The senior editor of Breitbart is Joel Pollak, an Orthodox Jew. Appearing a couple of weeks ago on the ABC program The View, Pollak was asked by Joy Behar to explain “the rise of anti-Semitism,” 

Pollak framed the issue as an exclusively left-wing matter (which would conveniently conflate it with Palestinian solidarity and popular protests against Israel), saying:

“I’m really glad the media finally woke up to this phenomena. It started quite a long time ago, long before Donald Trump ran for president, particularly in California where I live, on college campuses, there’s been a rising tide of anti-Semitism linked to far left-wing criticism of Israel. It’s very tough to be a Jewish student on some of these campuses nowadays.”

Pollak did the same Jewish-human-shielding trick here:

“And I think that I feel very proud that Donald Trump not only is one of the most pro-Israel presidents that we’ve ever had, but his daughter Ivanka tonight will light the Sabbath candles just like my wife will, and bring in the Sabbath. To me, that is something extraordinary in America history”, he said.

Behar didn’t give up:

“But you know that phrase, one of my best friends is Jewish, it’s meaningless really. You can still be an anti-Semite and have Jewish relatives.”

Pollack, recovering from Behar’s near-knock-out, still tries to save his soul:

“I agree with you. When people say my friends are Jewish, it doesn’t cut it”.

Behar: “Or I have a black friend”.

Pollak: “But when your in-laws are Jewish, you have a little more credibility.”

Now isn’t that interesting? The ‘some of my best friends are Jewish’ thing doesn’t really cut it – but to be married in with Jews – that’s something. That gives credibility.

I think there’s something very central to be understood here:

The old-fashioned anti-Semitism from before Israel’s existence, has historically had a predominantly Christian-white constituency, which applied hate of Jews as a general religious-ethnic target. With the rise of Zionism, and particularly with the establishment of Israel, Zionists have found common cause with anti-Semites (even with Nazis), in the notion of an exclusivist nation-state (which would dovetail with anti-Semitic wishes to concentrate the Jews elsewhere as well as act against the notion of assimilation). With the growth of Israel’s military capacity, and particularly so from 1967, the Jewish State also proved as a military power asset (nuclear no less), serving as that “advance post of civilization against barbarism” as Herzl had envisioned. So the new white-supremacists have found a model that happened to be created by a certain stream of Jews – the ‘strong Jews’ of Zionism. And the advantage that this alliance creates is far more substantial in realpolitik terms for those power-seeking white-supremacists, than the redundant old anti-Semitism. Because the ‘new Jews’ (if to make analogy to 1930’s Europe) are now predominantly the Muslims.

We therefore need to make this shift in our notions. Many Jews are colluding with the most vile racists today, because although the ‘back yard’ of these racists is full of people who are more unabashed about hating Jews, the more savvy leaders manage to keep their front lawn ‘Jew friendly’, and this brings advantages to both sides. The ‘collateral’ of actual anti-Semitism, is carefully downplayed by Jews who see Zionism as a key element in their identity and ideology. 

In the glorification of white supremacy and the ‘Judeo-Christian camp’, the Jews get to enjoy a ‘sainthood’ endowed upon them by Saint Bannon – they get to be in the ‘camp of the saints’, against those black and brown savages, whose resemblance of Gandhi is apparently beyond appalling, not only in the physical sense, but also in the ideological sense. Thus, the case is insidiously made, that left-wing ‘tolerance’ and ‘multi-culturalism’ is merely a naiveté, opening a gate to the destruction of the ‘camp’. The alignment of the administration of Trump and Bannon with Jews who seek Jewish exclusivity at the expense of Palestinians is thus no accident. Trump’s pick for ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is a major fundraiser for the Jewish settlement of Beit El, which is built entirely on stolen Palestinian private property. Friedman is on record for considering the liberal Jewish-American J Street (which generally hold liberal-Zionist positions) as “far worse than kapos” (‘Kapos’ meaning prisoners of Nazis who were assigned as guards over other prisoners – the term is used colloquially to refer to Jews who have no loyalty to ‘their own’).

Trump’s Jewish son-in-law and White House Advisor Jared Kushner sits on the board of directors for the family Kushner Foundation, which for years has been funding rabidly violent settlements and radical religious settlement institutions, such as the radical Od Yosef Chai yeshiva in Yitzhar. This particular yeshiva was banned from funding in 2011 by the Israeli Government, as it has served as a base for launching violent attacks against nearby Palestinians villages and Israeli security forces, as well. The Yeshiva published the book Torat Hamelech in 2009, advocating that babies and children of Israel’s enemies may be killed since “it is clear that they will grow to harm us.”The Yitzhar rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur further opined in the book, that the prohibition ‘Thou Shalt Not Murder’ applies only “to a Jew who kills a Jew,”, and that non-Jews are “uncompassionate by nature” and attacks on them “curb their evil inclination”.

These are the Jews who serve as part of the administration, of which Steve Bannon is Chief Strategist. The ‘shared values’ here are not to be missed. They are all about a walling out of the “barbarians from the east”, who have come to defile the Camp of the Saints. It is not clear how long Jews will retain their noble status as ‘separate but equal’ under this ideological arrangement, but it would appear that as long as they can offer the ‘Christian Whites’ that “advance post of civilization against barbarism”, then all will be well for them – at least that’s what some seem to believe. Meanwhile, the other ‘saints’ can go a bit wild back in the ‘camp’. But let’s not make a fuss. “Cool it, Cool it”, says Abe Foxman.

About Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

34 Responses

  1. Mooser
    March 11, 2017, 12:10 pm

    “as long as they can offer the ‘Christian Whites’ that “advance post of civilization against barbarism”, then all will be well for them – at least that’s what some seem to believe”

    We Jews have nothing to worry about. Those racists will never turn against us.

    You can’t make a sow’s ear out a slick purse.

    • Citizen
      March 11, 2017, 4:21 pm

      “silk purse”–at least that’s what my dad told me, many times

  2. jd65
    March 11, 2017, 1:00 pm

    I can’t help doing a pun, and calling this one Bannon’s “My Camp”.

    Yeah. It’s pretty impressive how he focuses his concentration on the camp.

    Sorry…

  3. Juan R.
    March 11, 2017, 3:58 pm

    Two arrested after Germany shuts down shopping mall over fears of terrorist attack
    http://www.dw.com/en/two-arrested-after-germany-shuts-down-shopping-mall-over-fears-of-terrorist-attack/a-37906145
    Germany remains on edge following a series of attacks over the past year, including when a failed Tunisian asylum seeker drove a truck into a Berlin Christmas market in December, killing 12 people.
    Last July, a German-Iranian man, who police say was obsessed with mass murderers, shot dead nine people at a Munich shopping mall before turning the gun on himself.
    The “Islamic State” (IS) armed group has claimed responsibility for attacks in Germany in the past year, including the murder of a teen in Hamburg, a suicide bombing in Ansbach and an ax rampage on a train in Würzburg that injured five.

    • Read_a_moon.
      March 20, 2017, 12:17 am

      “Last July, a German-Iranian man, who police say was obsessed with mass murderers”
      He was an 18 year old kid inspired by Breivik’s mass murder. This one took place on July 22 2016 – exactly five years to the day after Breivik’s attack on a summer camp. He targeted Turkish and Arabs because they had bullied him particularly harshly at school…. Not exactly your typical refugee.

      • MHughes976
        March 20, 2017, 8:55 am

        He considered it an honour to share Hitler’s birthday, reports the Daily Telegraph of July 28 last year.

  4. Juan R.
    March 11, 2017, 4:01 pm

    Hamburg ‘tear gas attack’ on packed train http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/hamburg-tear-gas-attack-on-packed-train/news-story/9440faf5411c8cafb4b6648a442d18b8
    It comes after yesterday a man from the former Yugoslavia went on a rampage with an axe at Dusseldorf station injuring seven people. He was arrested by police after trying to flee by jumping down an overpass.

  5. Juan R.
    March 11, 2017, 4:07 pm

    80-year-old attacked with machete hours after nearby train attack http://nypost.com/2017/03/10/80-year-old-attacked-with-machete-hours-after-nearby-train-attack/
    A machete-wielding lunatic attacked an 80-year-old man in Dusseldorf on Friday — only hours after a different madman injured nine people with an ax during a rampage at the German city’s railroad station.
    Nine people were injured when a man identified as Fatmir H., a 36-year-old from Kosovo who lives in Wuppertal in Germany, jumped off a train and carried out his random attack, the Mirror reported.
    The attack raised fears that terrorism had returned to Germany, less than three months after a truck killed 12 people when it plowed into a Christmas market in Berlin in an attack claimed by ISIS.
    In addition, five people were wounded in an ax attack on a train near Wuerzburg and 15 were injured in a bombing in Ansbach, both in the southern state of Bavaria. Both attackers were killed n last summer’s attacks, which were claimed by ISIS. And an 18-year-old German-Iranian fatally shot nine people and injured 21 others in a Munich shopping center in July. The killer, who also died, had been undergoing psychiatric treatment.

    • talknic
      March 11, 2017, 9:13 pm

      “attacks, which were claimed by ISIS”

      Says who?

      • MHughes976
        March 12, 2017, 9:03 am

        The BBC had a summary of the ‘Germany attacks’ back on December 20. There is the usual mixture of IS claims and records of mental illness among the perpetrators.

    • Amar
      March 12, 2017, 12:57 am

      So ISIS, a terror organization is behind this? Out of millions of immigrants, a handful of crazies were responsible? Juan Rs snippets reminds of Stormfront ‘police blotter’ style of news selection, who focus only on crimes committed by blacks or Mexicans to instill fear and loathing of them.

      Mein Kampf of the saints, indeed.

  6. Juan R.
    March 11, 2017, 4:10 pm

    The suspect, a 36-year-old man from Kosovo, was detained in Düsseldorf following a brief manhunt, senior police official Dietmar Kneip said at a press conference on Friday.
    Nine people were wounded when the man allegedly began lashing out at train passengers with an ax on Thursday night.http://www.dw.com/en/alleged-düsseldorf-ax-attacker-apparently-mentally-ill/a-37877626
    “He said in a first interview that he was trying to get police to shoot him,” Kneip said. “We call it ‘suicide by cop’.”

  7. Citizen
    March 11, 2017, 4:22 pm

    Recently Bannon was discovered sitting in an airport lounge, reading The Best & The Brightest. Now let’s spin off from there…

    • Mooser
      March 12, 2017, 11:53 am

      “Recently Bannon was discovered sitting in an airport lounge, reading The Best & The Brightest. Now let’s spin off from there… “

      Oh, that makes a lot of sense, “Citizen” Steve Bannon is all David Halberstam’s fault.

  8. Keith
    March 11, 2017, 5:41 pm

    All of this talk of racism and refugees and no mention of the fact that refugees are a serious problem and a symptom of the disaster (for the 99%) of neoliberal globalization. Imperial policy has caused a huge increase in the number of refugees fleeing their homes to escape the consequences of imperial policy. President Clinton’s construction of sections of fencing along the Mexican border and implementation of Operation Gatekeeper coincided with the passage of NAFTA. The huge negative consequences of NAFTA were known in advance but considered acceptable to the 1%. The hordes of people fleeing into Europe from the Middle East are a direct consequence of imperial wars and destabilizations in the Middle East. The rather obvious remedy would be for the West to quite creating refugees.

    • Citizen
      March 12, 2017, 6:54 am

      Yes, but that’s too obvious, too common-sensical. Nobody looks back to why, and when terrorists began to increasingly emerge, and to what they themselves have said in regard to their motivational cause (s). It does not fit with the official reasons given by the foreign intruders, who, of course would never identify themselves as imperialist exploiters or colonialists.

      • Mooser
        March 12, 2017, 12:26 pm

        “It does not fit with the official reasons given by the foreign intruders, who, of course would never identify themselves as imperialist exploiters or colonialists”

        It’s just soooo hard to tell the difference between imperialists and immigrants and refugees, isn’t it?

  9. echinococcus
    March 12, 2017, 3:07 am

    Instead of any “antisemitism”, it sounds more like vaguely Germanic-language-speaking White racial supremacists who express admiration, and envy, for the ruthless selectivity of Germanic-language-speaking White Ashkenazi-Jewish racial supremacists. The latter are just a subset of the preferred race of the former. It seems to be definitely different from the pre-war Anglo racism that used to be directed at all others, including all Europeans and any Jews.

  10. Jonathan Ofir
    March 12, 2017, 6:04 am

    Juan R has left a series of ‘reports’ on…what? Terror in the ‘west’? I opened every single article, and every story contained an unclarity about the motive. In some cases it is admittedly assumed as mental instability.
    Juan R does not provide any actual personal analysis, merely a citing of texts – where the main points appear to be not the events themselves – but a reference to earlier events. This paints over the actual cited events, which in themselves do not confirm any particular pattern, as their motives are nuclear.

    Juan R is thus appears to be attempting to make a point. One is left to wonder what it is though.
    Is he trying to say ‘Bannon was right’?

  11. JLewisDickerson
    March 12, 2017, 10:34 am

    RE: “Steve Bannon’s Judeo-Christian ‘Camp of the Saints’”

    SEE: “Has Jared Kushner Become A Steve Bannon Groupie?” | By Daniel J. Solomon | Forward.com | February 14, 2017

    [EXCERPT] Jared Kushner is widely perceived as a moderate in President Donald Trump’s White House — a socially liberal New Yorker hailing from a family of Democrats. But that impression might be wrong, according to reports that he’s become a backer of chief strategist Steve Bannon’s nationalist-populist agenda.

    The latest court gossip reports that Trump’s son-in-law – far from being furious about the Muslim ban – in fact supported it, Vanity Fair alleged based on an unnamed source said to be friendly with Kushner. The anonymous individual told the publication that Kushner has “always been far more defensive of Donald and their policies than the general public has believed. Most of the time, he is defending everything in the administration.” Kushner has even proposed knocking down the walls between his and Bannon’s office, a sign of how close the two are, the magazine claimed. . .

    LINK – http://forward.com/fast-forward/363107/has-jared-kushner-become-a-steve-bannon-groupie/

  12. AddictionMyth
    March 12, 2017, 12:35 pm

    The Bannon-Flynn-Kushner strategy has been to scare the Jews out of the US with a series of co-ordinated bomb threats against JCCs, and move to Israel where they would then get nuked by Iran (thus the fake admiration for Zionism). However 2 days after the inauguration Flynn puts Iran ‘on notice’ hoping the ‘state sponsor of terror’ would trigger a sleeping cell attack in the US for Trump to use as a pretext to purge the intel community of the ‘incompetents’, but he succeeds only in pissing off Russia (Iran’s ally) and instigating the mullahs to threaten to nuke Tel Aviv. So how many Jews are going to emigrate now? He really shot himself in the foot, and when Pence found out about their brilliant plan he flipped his lid and ousted Flynn – the first casualty of the alt-Right. It’s all really funny. They need to make a movie about it – it would probably be some combination of Homeland and A Handmaid’s Tale.

  13. RoHa
    March 12, 2017, 11:42 pm

    A Cunning Plan!

    It does, however, require the Iranians to have a nuke or two, and they haven’t.
    Allegedly, they are on the brink of building one, but I’ve been hearing that allegation for close on thirty years now, and they still haven’t got round to it. Nor is there any sign that they are even interested in developing nukes.

    And they’ve signed the NPT.

  14. Stogumber
    March 13, 2017, 2:24 am

    May I just remind you that the American translator of “Camp of the Saints” has been Norman Shapiro?
    That would probably be “Norman R. Shapiro … Distinguished Professor of Literary Translation and Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures at Wesleyan University. He is also Writer in Residence at Adams House, Harvard University”, probably the most distinguished living translator of French Poetry in the United States (by the way, he rediscovered Victor Séjour’s forgotten tragedy about “the Jew of Seville”).
    Perhaps Mr. Shapiro has understood something which Mr. Ofir hasn’t? Or is Mr. Shapiro an antisemite in his own right?

  15. Pixel
    March 13, 2017, 7:31 pm

    You’re seriously quoting something from the Huffington Post?

  16. gamal
    March 13, 2017, 9:18 pm

    “And now, what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
    They were, those people, a kind of solution.”

  17. Jonathan Ofir
    March 15, 2017, 3:02 am

    Pixel is wondering whether I seriously quoted something from the Huffington Post.
    This is of course a rhetoric quip, to suggest that this is an unreliable source.
    But you see, I check my sources. I happen to have the material, which is presented in quote (and recording) also from other sources, and I read all of Bannon’s speech to the Vatican 2014.
    When you have common sense and a basic scrutiny, it’s possible to even quote from Breitbart – as I did regarding its co-founder.
    Citing sources is not about repeating analysis of another, or taking their take on the story. It’s just a crediting of who brought forth what.

    The story then becomes mine. So if you have a problem with Huffington, Breitbart, Adelson funded Israel Hayom or religious-nationalist Arutz 7 (Israel National News) which I also quote from occasionally, then that’s your business. I use the material and provide it critically, with a transparent link, and it’s thus possible for the reader to scrutinize the news themselves. That’s how you escape the hyperbole of ‘fake news’ – you simply scrutinise whatever source.

    I hope that helps.

    • RoHa
      March 15, 2017, 5:37 am

      Use our own intelligence to evaluate the news?

      I don’t think that’s allowed any more.

      • Mooser
        March 15, 2017, 11:55 am

        “Use our own intelligence to evaluate the news?
        I don’t think that’s allowed any more.”

        Of course it isn’t, “RoHa”! As you explain here:

        “Annie, “hate” and “hateful”* are buzz words to go along with “anti-Semite”, “racist”, “bigot”, “misogynist”, and so forth. These are all valuable accusations to make” (and etc and etc),” “RoHa”: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/support-israel-official/#comment-175902

        the only logical and ethical choice is to take everything at exactly its own valuation, and not make any value judgements.
        Sounds like a cheap excuse to me, a cowardly excuse, but I’m no philosopher.

      • RoHa
        March 15, 2017, 7:08 pm

        I don’t see anything cowardly about advocating rational debate. You can always go back to screaming and fighting afterwards.

        But if you think that precision in making value judgements is the same as not making any, then you are right. You are no philosopher.

      • Mooser
        March 16, 2017, 3:46 pm

        “You are no philosopher.”

        Darn, I was hoping you wouldn’t notice.

      • Mooser
        March 16, 2017, 4:43 pm

        “but I’m no philosopher.”

        Oh shoot, it’s no wonder you noticed.

  18. Mooser
    March 15, 2017, 4:28 pm
    • Keith
      March 15, 2017, 7:35 pm

      MOOSER- “Perhaps another inspiration for Bannon is Eurasianism, the ideology of “Russian intellectual Alexander Dugin”

      Jeez, aren’t you the loyal Clinton/Obama cadre? You keep linking The Center for American Progress, formed by John Podesta and funded by George Soros among others. Well, if you can’t trust Soros, the Clintons, Podesta or the CIA, who can you trust? Color revolution, anyone?

      “The president and chief executive officer of CAP is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.[4] The first president and CEO was John Podesta, who has served as White House Chief of Staff to U.S. President Bill Clinton and as the chairman of the 2016 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.[5] Podesta remained with the organization as chairman of the board until he joined the Obama White House staff in December 2013. Tom Daschle is the current chairman.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress

    • Stogumber
      March 18, 2017, 4:01 am

      Perhaps Dugin is exclusively interested in “Eurasia” and Bannon exclusively in “America”. Which would explain why, with all scrutiny, people have found only one quotation where Bannon mentions Dugin and Evola en passant, and not in the context of Eurasianism, but in the context of traditionalism.
      Traditionalism, by the way, is fine with me; highbrow geopolitical notions don’t concern me.

Leave a Reply