Obviously, he's never expressly called himself a white nationalist - that does not happen these days, as you know. I can only refer to the totality of knowledge on Bannon and the constant racism and xenophobia expressed by his kin and on his (formerly official) platform. He's only bordered on the topic (such as praising a new return to the nation states of yore), but I think it's fairly obvious to anyone familiar with him. And, frankly, I'm surprised you disagree.
Not really that surprising. I still have yet to see a single piece of proof being offered about Bannon being a white nationalist. I'm pretty sure I recall Shapiro, a Jewish guy, who does not exactly have much love for Bannon, denying that he's a white nationalist. Just a dick. But not a Nazi. He rather criticized Bannon for being too left-leaning, too "European" in his views regarding social welfare and such.
His site had controversial stuff in it, but the occasional race-hustling for clicks is not really that different from the Huffington Post types.
I have no problem identifying Churchill's ideological proximity to Nazism. I think the entire idea that WWII was an ideological war is fucking hysterical. It was no more an ideological war than any other. At its core, it was just another clash of national interests that had run into each other.
Fair enough. But you do agree then, that the men who beat Nazis back, were in many case, quite similar to the Nazis themselves?
If modern Antifa is to be believed, it was LGBT groups and women that pushed them back towards the Rhine.
You'll need to expand on this before I write it off as nonsense.
Are you saying that Obama wasn't the subject to atleast some level of hero worship by the left?
I recall him being much, much bigger than the Don, during his "Yes We Can" campaign. He was adored by all the world. Of course, as always tends to happen, his popularity waned a bit throughout his presidency, now that he had to weigh his promises next to the crude reality of pragmatic politics.
I'm calling BS on this, again. Bannon and his movement have used Christianity in the same way as the Nazis did: as a barely-opaque veneer for reactionary politicking. The Nazis were not openly anti-Christian, nor is Bannon (nor have I seen any evidence that Bannon is himself sincerely devout).
Eh, Hitler could barely hide his distaste for Christianity. He wanted to abolish the entire religion and replace it with Neo-Paganism, or even Islam (Mohammed was one of Hitler's greatest idols). Anything more war-like to suit his needs.
I have not seen any indication that Bannon has such motives. In fact he seems to be more of an isolationist than an expansionist, and seemingly advocated Trump to avoid being "bogged down" in useless wars, rather focusing on building up the infrastructure of the country.
As far as the democratic process, Bannon was a particularly powerful voice in the early Trump administration against the procedural protections of the democratic process i.e. immigration. Furthermore, the Fire & Fury book described his intentions behind the first draft of the Muslim ban to stir up as much outrage and fervor along identity lines as possible to put as much smoke in the air as possible while pushing through policy objectives.
He was against the protection of illegals, not that of immigrants. Democratic processes and institutions cannot function if the law is not obeyed, so in that sense, he's not really going against the ideals of democracy.
He ran some populist slogans during the presidential campaign but he's hardly the first one to do it.
"Fascist" is a varied term, and Bannon/Trump's economic policy is discernibly closer to that of the Nazis than, say, that of Mussolini or Franco. But, regardless of policy in action, I was talking about the Nazi campaign platform specifically - which I am most familiar with. Perhaps, yes, there were fascists who rose to power in a more similar way (after all, it's reactionary politics that is the main category here), but I don't think there's any coherent or honest way to present any other notable US political figure who is more similar to the Nazis on a policy basis than Bannon. And that was my original point: that remarking the label as being some sort of arbitrary slur is least fitting when defending Bannon (as opposed to, say, Ted Cruz, George W. Bush, etc.)
Even if Bannon is or isn't closer to Nazis than some of those guys, it's still a universe apart from where the Nazis actually resided.
Militarism was one of the the leading Nazi policies, the one that they came to be defined by (alongside genocidal racism) and Bannon is far from the biggest war-hawk out there.
However causally related his pre-revolution pastimes, that is irrelevant to policy platform or ideology. People who use "Stalinism" to mean murder are idiots.
Murder is a pretty important part of Stalinism.
Also, somewhere in your post you mentioned Bannon's "economic nationalism" and raging against the rich. Or so I thought. I have no intention of entertaining that facade, as we both know it is horseshit. Bannon's platform has never had even a single note of actual economic substance: it's purely cultural, national, and ethnic.
Did I? I'm pretty sure that's your own invention.
This is what I said:
Bannon is hardly alone in raging against elites (which obviously exist in America, as we can see from the wealth disparity). He is hardly alone in wanting to expand governmental power (so does most of the left, and even the right).
He is an advocate for what he sees are the glory days of America, you know, back when the 0,1% didn't own most of the wealth in the country.
Some people think that he means a return to the good old days of the KKK in the South, but those people are nuts.
Outrage culture is what is being used to prevent Bannon from speaking
