Is Steve Bannon really anti-semitic?

JoyInTheMorning

Wed, Nov 16 2016, 4:18 am

I did some quick Googling. The American Renaissance organization that rfeig613 speaks so highly of is a white supremacist organization. Unlike other white supremacist organizations, however, which view Jews, blacks, Latinos, and other people of color *** all inferior to the supreme white race, American Renaissance counts Jews as white. (All Jews? I don't know. Is this restricted to Ashkenazic Jews? Are Sephardic Jews acceptable if they are light enough? Presumably the Jews of India or the Falashas would not be considered good enough to be included among the whites.)

Seriously, rfeig13? You think that makes it okay? You get to be in the club so you're okay with them?

I am disgusted that this organization is being justified on imamother.com. I would like imamother moderators to weigh in on this.

PinkFridge

Wed, Nov 16 2016, 5:57 am

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

I wrote something else, trying to be dan lekaf zechus, but having done some quick googling myself, I am extremely disturbed and have to agree with this.
rfeig613, perhaps you are thinking that you can do the "tocho achal ukelipaso zarak" thing here. Perhaps there are some writers whom you know well enough to have personal respect for, and I can appreciate that. But odious is not a strong enough word for the site and the minimum I've read.

rfeig613

Wed, Nov 16 2016, 6:01 am

I hold by Rabbi Schiller's writings and torah. Quite a few boys in our family had him as a rebbi in MTA. Sure, it's controversial, but shouldn't we judge ideas based on their veracity rather than what's PC or acceptable in the eyes of others?

You owe Rabbi Schiller mechila for making such awful accusations against him. He's one of the sharpest and most reflective Jewish minds out there.

Read Levin, Weissberg, Gottfried, Neusner, Steinlight for yourself and judge the merits of their research. I'm sure any intelligent reader will find their research more academically sound than that of Elizabeth Warren, who was sanctioned for shoddy scholarship by highly regarded Rutgers Law Professor Philip Shuchman and others.

If Rabbi Schiller becomes forbidden, who's next? The ZOA? Rav Kahane, hy"d?

PinkFridge

Wed, Nov 16 2016, 6:16 am

rfeig613 wrote:

I hesitated to post what I did because I didn't want this to be a referendum on Rabbi Schiller, whose A Road Back was a profound inspiration for some people I've been close to.
I did some googling. The first article I read was interesting. He posits that it's natural to want to maintain one's identity and find a group to live among. Then he cautions that in doing so one not vilify the Other. All this is noble and good. Though his words are very open to be taken out of context and abused. But maybe we can chalk that up to naivete.

I couldn't open the Am. Ren. site (and I have less than no interest in overriding the filter for it) but I did read an article that appeared on it and I feel like crying. I am profoundly disturbed. Chachamim hizaharu bedivreichem.

As I said, when one knows someone personally one will react differently, and I validate your feelings as in the line I bolded. I will try to maintain some detachment from my gut reaction to the little I've read and be dlkz that there might be more that I'm missing.

rfeig613

Wed, Nov 16 2016, 6:23 am

PinkFridge wrote:

Maybe just accept that a big talmid chacham has views on racial issues that differ from yours, and that you shouldn't demonize those views and those yidden who adhere to those views.

If you really feel that his ideas are so terrible, he's very receptive to input and criticism.

rfeig613

Wed, Nov 16 2016, 6:34 am

One thing that's actually pretty interesting to note is that Jews continue to be the main intellectuals behind all sorts of political movements.

R' Schiller, Levin, Weissberg, Steinlight, Rothbard, Valberg, Joel Pollak, and Neusner are some of the great Paleoconservative minds.

Bill Kristol, Midge Decter, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Norman Podhoretz, et. al. are some of the leading neoconservative thinkers.

Milton Friedman, Yisroel Kirzner, Ludwig Von Mises, Yuval Levin, Paul Rosenstein, Walter Block, Robert Aumann some of the leading right wing economists.

Paul Krugman, Janet Yellen, Stiglitz, leading Keynesians.

And of course the Frankfurt School, all the Marxists, etc.

Regardless of where you stand, I think this is just pretty interesting. Mi k'amcha yisrael [gentile] echad ba'aretz.

SixOfWands

Wed, Nov 16 2016, 7:04 am

The American Renaissance Organization:

"In fact, blacks and Hispanics are, compared to whites, far more likely to be poor, illiterate, on welfare, or in jail; they are far more likely to have illegitimate children, be addicted to drugs, or have AIDS. By no definition of international competitiveness can the presence of these populations be anything but a disadvantage."
— "‘Who Speaks for Us?' (A Word of Introduction to Our Readers)," American Renaissance, 1990

"There is a difference between blacks and whites — analogous to the difference in intelligence — in psychopathic personality considered as a personality trait. ... For psychopathic personality, the mean and distribution are higher among blacks. The effect of this is that there are more black psychopaths and more psychopathic behavior among blacks."
— Richard Lynn, American Renaissance, 2002

"Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears."
— Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, 2005

They support the creation of a "white homeland."

Anyone who supports this organization and its goals is a loathsome human being.

Fox

Wed, Nov 16 2016, 7:25 am

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

I also find Fox's contention that Breitbart's hateful (misogynist, anti-Muslim, racist) posts are ironic to be unbelievable. She has nothing to back it up, except for a very weak attempt to compare these third-rate writers to Jonathan Switft.

I'm beginning to wonder if some of the posters on this thread actually read Breitbart articles or just read what HuffPo has to say about Breitbart.

When you refer to "Breitbart's hateful (misogynist, anti-Muslim, racist) posts," are you referring to their headlines, their articles, or comments? It's a news and opinion site, not a forum.

If you're referring to their headlines and/or articles, I would suggest reading Adam Gabbatt's analysis in The Guardian (Reading Breitbart . . .). You don't get much further to the left in the MSM than The Guardian, so it is not a fawning portrayal.

Gabbatt's conclusion was that the stories behind the screaming headlines are "quite benign." He accurately points out that Breitbart's intentional bias is demonstrated through the selection of stories, placement of stories, and juxtoposition of pictures and articles.

How do I know the headlines are supposed to be ironic? Because every single writer at Breitbart says so. Because they joke about making the headlines as outrageous as possible. Breitbart headlines are the direct descendants of George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, and Richard Pryor.

Perhaps I didn't flesh out my analogy well enough: I am certainly not comparing Breitbart writers with Jonathan Swift. I am comparing the reaction to Breitbart of people who should know better with the reaction of literal-minded high school sophomores' reactions to Jonathan Swift.

I am honestly curious about all this mysogynism, anti-Muslim rhetoric, and racism you find in Breitbart articles, because I see quite the opposite. In fact, I starting reading Breitbart initially because I liked the inclusion of Orthodox Jewish writers and the recognition of Israel's value as a democracy in a region of despots. I loved the interesting studies and research that they ferreted out.

Listen, Esav soneh Yaakov. Breitbart is not in business to advance Jewish interests. That said, I don't see evidence of active anti-Semitism, either. Sure, people say anti-Semitic things in the comments section. However the anti-Semites are often shouted down or ignored by fellow contributors, which is more than I can say for the late Gawker.

In truth, though, this is not about Steve Bannon. It's about a hotly contested election and a narrative that was rejected at the ballot box.

SixOfWands

Wed, Nov 16 2016, 8:31 am

DrMom wrote:

I think all the left-wingers who are upset at Trump's victory are looking for a new outlet for their rage, and Steve Bannon is their chosen target for a smear campaign.

He's been condemned by the ADL, the Southern Poverty Law Project, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, People for the American Way, and others. As did the National Democratic Jewish Committee. While AIPAC has declined to comment, reports are that it is “privately apoplectic” at the appointment.

Republican strategist Ana Navarro called him a "vindictive, scary-a$$ dude." William Kristol, stated, "Is there precedent for such a disreputable & unstable extremist in WH senior ranks before Bannon? Sid Blumenthal? But Bannon [is] more powerful." Glenn Beck stated, “When people really understand what the alt-right is, this neo-nationalist, neo-Nazi, white supremacy idea that Bannon is pushing hard ... It’s — I hope they wake up because, if not, we are racist. If that’s what we accept and we know it, then we are racist. I contend people don’t know what the alt-right is yet.”

Its an odd day when Navarro, Kristol and Beck are called left-wingers.

I finally understand how Nazi Germany came about.

rfeig613

Wed, Nov 16 2016, 8:48 am

SixOfWands wrote:

These are all left wing organizations. ADL is led by an Obama Administration official. CAIR is a terrorist organization. Soros funds all of them.

Their evaluations reflect nothing but partisan bias. If Trump blew his nose the wrong way, they'd say it's part of some Nazi conspiracy.

Ana Navarro is a Jeb Bush surrogate who attacked Trump because she was upset that her boss could never get more than 4% of the vote in the primaries, despite having a war chest of over $160 Million. She's a sore loser in the same way all the Hillarybots are being sore losers.

Glenn Beck is a mental case.

Navarro and the Bushes oppose any immigration crackdown because Navarro herself is the stock of Nicaraguan immigrants, and both George and Jeb are married to Mexican wives. These are people with clear negios. Just like the judge who's part of La Raza, the Aztlan Reconquista organization that sees illegal immigration as a means of getting even with us because they lost the Mexican-American War.

Why can't people just lose graciously, cut their losses, and move on?

rfeig613

Wed, Nov 16 2016, 9:09 am

SixOfWands wrote:

Do you realize the absurdity of citing CAIR (an anti-semitic organization) as proof against someone you allege is anti-semitic?

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad has accused Israel supporters in the U.S. of promoting “a culture of hostility towards Islam” and CAIR chapters continue to partner with various anti-Israel groups that seek to isolate and demonize the Jewish State.

CAIR’s anti-Israel agenda dates back to its founding by leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a Hamas affiliated anti-Semitic propaganda organization. While CAIR has denounced specific acts of terrorism in the U.S. and abroad, for many years it refused to unequivocally condemn Palestinian terror organizations and Hezbollah by name, which the U.S. and international community have condemned and isolated.

In a 2004 interview with Al Jazeera, Nihad Awad said, “If they want us to condemn a liberation movement inside Palestine or inside Lebanon they should condemn Israel tens of times on all levels at all times, and we will not condemn any organization.”

CAIR’s more recent criticism on Hezbollah began only when the terrorist organization’s stopped focusing solely on Israel.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has distanced itself from CAIR over the years. In an April 2009 letter to the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, the FBI explained that it suspended contact with CAIR because of evidence introduced during the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, demonstrating that CAIR and its founders were part of a group set up by the Muslim Brotherhood to support Hamas. The trial ended with guilty verdicts on all charges against HLF and five of its officers, including a 65 year sentence for Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR’s Dallas chapter.

“Until we resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,” the letter read. In September 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a review of the FBI’s interactions with CAIR to reaffirm the FBI policy prohibiting non-investigative cooperation with the group.

Questions about CAIR’s links to the Holy Land Foundation and the Muslim Brotherhood also led some elected officials to request “federal officials to investigate the actions and non-profit status” of CAIR.

CAIR’s activity has also been the subject of controversy abroad. In November 2014, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) placed CAIR and a number of other American Muslim groups on a list of terrorist organizations. The UAE decision followed a campaign by the UAE government against the Muslim Brotherhood.

Fox

Wed, Nov 16 2016, 9:26 am

SixOfWands wrote:

Republican strategist Ana Navarro called him a "vindictive, scary-a$$ dude." William Kristol, stated, "Is there precedent for such a disreputable & unstable extremist in WH senior ranks before Bannon? Sid Blumenthal? But Bannon [is] more powerful." Glenn Beck stated, “When people really understand what the alt-right is, this neo-nationalist, neo-Nazi, white supremacy idea that Bannon is pushing hard ... It’s — I hope they wake up because, if not, we are racist. If that’s what we accept and we know it, then we are racist. I contend people don’t know what the alt-right is yet.”

Its an odd day when Navarro, Kristol and Beck are called left-wingers.

Can I take a wild guess that you don't follow political drama among conservatives very closely? That's not a criticism; I probably follow it too closely. Basically, though, Bannon probably has more enemies among conservatives than liberals.

Whenever people like Navarro, Kristol, and even Beck are eager to share their opinions, you have to ask,"cui bono?"

The three conservatives you mention believed Trump would lose and hedged their bets, thinking their prospects would be better if they weren't associated with him. Breitbart bet on a Trump victory, probably believing the downside for them was limited. They relentlessly called out Republicans whom they felt were acting out of cowardice rather than conviction.

Well, Breitbart won. The people at the top of the pile, like Paul Ryan, are valuable enough to the victors to bare their necks like submissive wolves, claim, "let's go on from here," and regain some standing. But lower-level apparatchiks and pundits have to scramble to save face. That's how it goes in politics whether conservatives or liberals happen to be in power. The only difference is that there had been a great deal of measuring for drapes among Democrats and anti-Trump conservatives, and they had neglected to update their resumes.

So now Navarro and Kristol must distance themselves from the NeverTrumpers, and Beck is busy trying to salvage his seriously financially strapped media holdings (news that was broken by Breitbart, btw).

Claiming someone in political media life is "vindictive" is redundant. I don't think anyone doubts that Bannon is a "scary-a$$ dude." But letting anti-Semitism be used as a bludgeon in right wing/left wing squabbles or even in conservative internecine warfare will make it a lot harder to be taken seriously when we experience true, 1488er-style anti-Semitism.

sushilover

Wed, Nov 16 2016, 3:53 pm

Fox wrote:

Thanks for the link! Someone mentioned this article a few days ago and I just couldn't find it.

youngishbear

Wed, Nov 16 2016, 7:45 pm

Hatemywig wrote:

https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/11/16/the-borking-of-bannon-or-why-trumps-breitbart-pick-bests-the-new-york-times-arthur-sulzberger/

I think I'm developing a bad case of vertigo from all the spinning.

I don't know enough about Bannon, the alt-right, Breitbart, and white nationalism to know the absolute truth of what's in individual members'/leaders' hearts. Fox insists on the content being mostly satire. Wonderful, what a relief. Their sense of humor includes disgusting language about specific groups.

To me it's the legitimization of hate speech - even ironically - that I object to. And in that he certainly played a role.

There is plenty of exaggeration and whitewashing in this article. I honestly don't know whom to believe anymore.

To me, it's not about his antisemitism per se, but his entire approach to journalism, and the fact that white nationalists/supremacists were given a voice under the banner he carries.

I'd rather not have our future president legitimize that further.