Sunday Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 3/11/2018: Baseball, Bannon, and Chaos

Good Morning!

1 Great. Now I have to defend Steve Bannon. What greeted me this morning, as I surfed the Sunday news shows, Diogenes-like, searching for an honest journalist, but the sight of Steve Bannon in France, addressing the far-right National Front party yesterday and saying, speaking of the party’s effort to stem unrestrained immigration, particularly from Muslim countries,  “Let them call you racist. Let them call you xenophobes. Let them call you nativists. Wear it as a badge of honor.” On every channel, this was interpreted as if Bannon was endorsing racism, xenophobia and nativism. Naturally this was then reflected on Trump as part of the “Trump is a racist” Big Lie that Democrats and the news media push virtually every day.

Bannon has certainly made testaments at other times that raise a rebuttable presumption that he is a racist, but this wasn’t one of them, and the fact that so many journalists would intentionally represent the statement to the public as if it was tells us either that they can’t be trusted to analyze news events, or that they can be trusted to spin them to advance an anti-Trump narrative even when it defies language and reality. From NBC in a typical fake history description: “Bannon’s appearance in France was part of a European tour as he seeks an international platform for his closed-borders, anti-foreigner message that helped Donald Trump win the U.S. presidency.”  Trump did not advocate “closed borders,” nor was his platform “anti-foriegner.” That was the dishonest characterization of “America should enforce its immigration laws” by Democrats and the allied news media.

The words Bannon referenced have been part of the ongoing efforts to silence and demonize legitimate positions that oppose progressive cant, such as condemning rather than welcoming illegal immigration. What  Bannon was obviously saying —and I do mean obviously—is “Don’t let their reflex race-baiting and demonizing tactics discourage you or deter you. Calling sensible immigration laws “xenophobic” is a desperate lie. Calling it racist is a lie. Calling it nativist is a lie. Recognize that their tactics mean you are winning the argument. Be proud, not intimidated.”

The fact that many of those he was addressing may be racists, xenophobes and nativists doesn’t change the meaning of what Bannon said. The news media’s job is to report, not read minds.

I could imagine making the same kind of statement to a colleague who has been savaged as a racist on Facebook for opposing affirmative action, or attacked as a sexist for questioning #MeToo tactics, or called a “Trump apologist” (or a Bannon apologist) for demanding fair and honest treatment from the media for politicians regardless of who they are. “Be proud that they are stooping to name-calling. It means they can’t rebut you on the merits.”

Oh: Bannon also said, “History is on our side.” This really upset the “journalists,” because everyone knows that history is on their side.

2.  The Chaos President. Trump has had an unusually turbulent couple of weeks, and the latest leitmotif from the news media is that he creates chaos, as if this is 1) inherently a bad thing  2) accidental, and 3) undermines his administration and credibility. Are there no management experts in the hire of news organizations that are familiar with the chaotic management style? Even “Dilbert” creator Scott Adams, the iconoclastic management guru who has  warned all along that Trump is not the bumbling fool Democrats and Never Trumpers think, seems to be unfamiliar with the style, which is difficult and rare, but not necessarily a sign of incompetence.

The head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Thomas J. Donohue, surely understands Trump, because he too is a successful chaos manager. Tom may have been the most brilliant manager I ever worked for, though he was also the most stress-producing. He intentionally disrupted the organizations he oversaw with sudden changes in policy and direction, personnel shuffling, and mercurial decision-making. I finally asked him why he managed this way. And he told me (I’m paraphrasing):

“I learned early in life  that if I was in a room and the lights went off and somebody set off a bomb, when the lights came on I was the one individual who was in a better place than when it went dark. Most people don’t function well in chaos. I function better in chaos. And when the people who are panicking and confused are looking for a leader, who will they gravitate to? The one person who is calm, confident, and who says, “Don’t worry. I’ll show the way.”

I must emphasize that this is a highly risky management style, and it inflicts a horrible toll on subordinates. It also takes a brilliant individual to pull it off, and while Tom Donohue is brilliant, Donald Trump is not. Nonetheless, for some managers and leaders, chaos management works. Journalists, almost all of whom have never managed anything in their lives, don’t understand it, like so much of what they report on. That doesn’t mean that President Trump doesn’t know exactly what he’s doing when he sets off bombs in darkened rooms.

3. A Spring Training baseball ethics note. I have written already about the bellyaching from self-styled working class hero sportswriters about how darned unfair it is that some free agent ballplayers who turned down a 17 million dollar one year contract to be able to auction their services found less of a market than they expected. The season is fast approaching, so every day brings news of a new discouraged millionaire who has been forced to accept a low-ball single season deal far beneath their expectations. Writing about the contract just inked by the latest of these, former St. Louis starting pitcher Lance Lynn, the much-read baseball site “Major League Trade Rumors” writes,

The pact, which is pending a physical, makes Lynn the latest victim of a slow-moving offseason in which a number of high-profile players have been forced to settle for one-year deals that look diminutive in comparison to those they were expected to receive. At the outset of the offseason, we ranked Lynn ninth on our list of the top 50 free agents, predicting that he’d receive $56MM over four years. More recently, our player profile for the righty suggested he could even achieve a $60MM deal. Obviously, the meager $12MM guarantee from the Twins falls significantly short of those expectations.

The use of the word meager to describe a 12 million dollar salary for six months of work at playing a game is offensive. Synonyms for the word include inadequate, scanty, scant, paltry, limited, restricted, modest, insufficient, sparse, deficient, negligible, skimpy, slender, poor, miserable, pitiful, puny, miserly, niggardly, and beggarly. Even in comparison to the riches Lynn was expected to recive, none of these is appropriate for a guaranteed half-year salary of 12 million dollars. The average salary for an American worker is $44,564 per year for a 40-hour workweek, 12 months a year. If 12 million dollars for six months is “meagre,” what is that?

I don’t begrudge elite athletes their salaries at all.  They make a multi-billion dollar industries possible, and they are unique and rare talents. I do object to them and others poor-mouthing compensation that is more than most Americans will make in their lifetimes.

4. Ethics Alarms poll results! The March 6th polls on the ethics hypothetical I gave the Boy Scout troop are complete.  The question involved professional theater company withs limited funds that offered its actors the option of a flat fee for their roles, or a percentage of the show’s profits, if there are any, on top of a much smaller base fee.

The company completes an extremely profitable production, the biggest hit the theater has ever had. Nine of the show’s ten cast members chose the percentage of profits option, a gamble, because most of the shows lose money. One, the star, who  could not afford to gamble, took the flat fee for the role. After the accounting for the production is complete, you, as the theater’s manager, realize that every member of the cast will make $1000 more than the star, because of the show’s profits.

Question 1: What do you do?

  1. Give him the extra $1000. It’s only fair.
  2. Pay him the flat fee. A deal’s a deal.

Question 2: You remount the production, and the exact same thing happens. The actor chooses the flat fee, the show is again a huge money-maker,,and the rest of the cast will make much more than him because they chose the percentage. Do you give him the extra amount again?

  1. No. Now he’s taking advantage of me.
  2. Yes. Nothing has changed.

As you can see, the results were not close.

(I gave the actor the full amount the first time, but only what he bargained for after the second production.)

30 thoughts on “Sunday Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 3/11/2018: Baseball, Bannon, and Chaos

  1. Those ballplayers are as poor as Bannon’s comments are racist. This problem seems to run throughout all branches of journalism. Arrogance. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Journalists are inherently dangerous.

  2. Regarding 2. There is hope

    Here are my reflections on this ethical (hypothetical) issue.

    Question 1

    Some personal background influencing my thinking: In the early years of my career I worked at a small company (about 40 employees). After having worked there for 2 years the owners sold the company, probably for a very good price, because they decided to give every employee about $ 200 for each year that he had worked with the company. Some of my colleagues worked with them for 15 years and more.
    For me it would be a nice $ 400 but to my surprise I received $ 1.000 with a handwritten note which stated something like, “We’ll give you $600 extra because we are very pleased with your performance with us. Please do not discuss this with your colleagues.”

    Back to the question.

    I would go for a third option. First, Pay him the flat fee. A deal’s a deal.
    But at the same time, give him in some personalized way, about $500 extra.With personalized I mean, fitting the situation. Why couldn’t he gamble with his reward? For instance, his car is broke, he needs it very bad for whatever reason. Offer to pay a part of the bill, etc.

    Question 2
    In my opinion the set-up of the first situation (question 1) was already tainted.
    Just as we expect of journalists that they don’t “interview people who are drunk, drugged, impaired, or not in a mentally or emotionally stable state.” one should also not ask an employee who you know could not afford to gamble to just do that, gamble with his income.

    Except when you are Rick and give a hint knowing for sure that history is on your side.
    ( )

    But certainly after the first show the manager of this professional theater company (in this fictitious case that would be me) should have learned from the complications arising out of the proposed options and come up with a better proposal.
    For instance, Give the actors involved again the two options but maximize the pay-out for those who choose a percentage of the show’s profits, if there are any, on top of a much smaller base fee. Let’s say, that those will get a maximum of 4 times the difference between the normal flat fee and the much smaller base fee. In the case, that there is still some money left, divide that evenly (or based on some relevant criteria) over all involved.

  3. “Calling sensible immigration laws “xenophobic” is a desperate lie. Calling it racist is a lie. Calling it nativist is a lie.”

    It’s not a lie, it’s an opinion. An opinion that Bannon and his supporters and you are free to reject. But still an opinion.

      • As Jack has pointed out many times, it’s not a lie if the person saying it believes it. Do you really think progressives don’t believe that immigration opponents are nativists, xenophobes, and/or racists? Do you really think they’re just saying it to score points?

        • I think that if challenged, that the average person hurling those epithets couldn’t point to an individual utterance from the people they’re besmirching that would back them up.

          Maybe they’re not telling lies, maybe they’re just crippled by bias into an arrested development of political juvenilism. That’s so much better. They don’t MEAN to be thoughtless, destructive, childish distractions, they just HAPPEN to be.

            • Difficult to find? Perhaps. I think that Bannon is generally smart enough not to step both feet in that bear trap, so what you’d end up finding would be more dog-whistle-esque than overt, but you’d find something. But that’s not really what I asked… When I call Hillary dishonest or corrupt, I have this mental storehouse of shit she’s said and done that back those assertions up. I don’t think that’s true of people flinging “-phobic” or “-ist” labels like ticker tape at a Macy’s Day parade. Asking you doesn’t really work because we’re on the internet, and you can just Google things, but how about this: Look over at your fiancee and ask her to name a specific thing Bannon has said that is obviously racist. Fora all I know, she might actually be able to come up with something, and good on her… But do you REALLY believe that’s true of even most people in #TheResistance.

              • The issue was Steve Bannon, whether he’s a racist, and whether it’s fair to call his “let them call us racists” speech was a dogwhistle to actual racists. He is, and it is. Changing the subject to “reasonable immigration restrictions” or whether an average citizen can instantly name a racist thing Bannon has done is a deflection.

                My fiance barely follows politics.

        • What in the ‘wide wide world of sports’ makes you think this is BETTER?

          I will split the difference with you, if a distinction that makes no difference is really a distinction: Most politicians, many reporters, and leadership of progressive organizations know it is lying; the rest really believe it which makes them useful idiots, you know, morons.

          Either way, what does it say about the progressive species?

          You got the ‘blazing saddles’ references for free 🙂

          • Unless the proponents of the immigration restrictions are unable to offer any convincing justification for the restrictions, in which case they are just acting out of an irrational dislike of foreigners, you know, bigotry.

            • Again, WHAT?!?

              It is not ‘proponents of the immigration restrictions’ it is called ‘enforcing the existing laws.’ And that is convincing enough by itself, because, you know, it is the law and such.

              You lost the discussion, Windy, when you pulled the ‘racist’ card.

              • The discussion started with Jack’s claim that “sensible immigration laws” were not racist, xenophobic, or nativist. So your attempt to justify the law because “it is the law” is circular reasoning. That’s where you lose the discussion.

                If you want to try to win a different argument, if you’re saying that wanting to enforce sensible immigration laws (as opposed to, say, sanctuary cities) is not racist, xenophobic, or nativist, then you maybe have a leg to stand on. Although, “It’s the law, so I don’t have to justify it,” sounds like a bit of a dodge. Just because somebody got a policy passed into law doesn’t make it right. Otherwise, by that argument, you could support punishing escaped slaves in pre-Civil War America while claiming you had nothing against blacks, or you could support imprisoning people for having gay sex before 2003 while claiming not to be anti-gay. I suppose it would be consistent.

                • Hold on, let’s clarify something: If the “sensible immigration laws” really are sensible, then there’s no reason to call the law itself NOR its supporters racist, xenophobic, nativist, etc. (…which I’ll abbreviate as “RXN”).

                  If you think a particular law is NOT sensible, then you are right to object to it and explain why you think the LAW is RXN . . . but that doesn’t automatically make the law’s supporters RXN as well. There could be other genuine reasons to support this hypothetical law itself.

                  But even if said law is objectively RXN, it’s nothing but unfair ad-hominem to go after the law’s supporters. “They support this RXN law, therefore they are RXN, therefore they are bad people and should be ignored/shunned/whatever.”

                  While it may or may not be true, it accomplishes zero zilch nada nothing in the way of actually making the case that the law is RXN.

                  So make your case about the law and JUST the law. When you go after your opponent directly, you’re just being a dick. (They might even wear it as a badge of honor.)


                • …and to more directly address something else:

                  “Enforce the law” is not circular reasoning. It’s a shorthand for the following:
                  1) We have a problem.
                  2) We passed a law containing a new policy to address the problem.
                  3) Though we passed a law, we are not actually implementing that policy.
                  4) Because we are not implementing the policy, the problem persists unchanged.
                  5) Because the problem persists, some people claim that the policy is a failure and/or that additional policy changes are required.
                  6) In contrast, we point out that #5 is a fallacy: A policy which was never actually implemented cannot be credibly claimed to have failed. Furthermore, the history of ignoring the existing policy makes us concerned that new policies will also not actually be implemented, making the whole cycle a cynical tool for passing yet ANOTHER law, and ANOTHER, and ANOTHER . . . all while the problem STILL persists unchanged.


                • We addressed the problem with a law. That justified the policy all by itself. (The fact that the law is not followed is another issue)

                  If you think that law unjust, make the case, without attacking those who support the law personally. It is on YOU to make the case to change the law, not the law abiding. Justification was already done when the law was passed, or it would not have been made law.

                  Following established law does not make a person racist, or xeno, or whatever. This is an unethical tactic.

                  Okay, so far you have 1) asserted that lying is not lying if you believe it, a deflection, 2) called those who support long existing laws bigots if they don’t prove otherwise (impossible to prove a negative), and 3) attributed motives to your opponents not in evidence (irrational dislike of foreigners) as a straw man for those who simply disagree with your political stance.

                  In short, you are using unethical progressive tactics, moving goalposts, and in general cheating in the discussion.

                  I could go further, but Dwayne covered the rest pretty well.

                  • Thanks…Windy’s comment drove me crazy. I read it on the plane, and there was no way to answer it. It was like Louis Black’s “If it hadn’t been for that horse…” story, where he worried that a remark that lodges in his head will kill him. I was going to jump a post about this in front of the Warm-Up, but Dwayne and you hit enough of the notes that I feel my head will survive.

                    Preview: when Hanlon’s Razor doesn’t work: a statement that sounds like a stupid opinion but that is really a bad faith slur designed to discredit and smear…like the “xenophobe” tactic.

                  • Justification was already done when the law was passed, or it would not have been made law.

                    Now this is just downright adorable.

                    Especially from a small government conservative.

                    • Chris has proven himself a smug hypocritical party hack, not interested in actual discussion, debate, or fair treatment. He is unethical, as as such I will not dignify his responses any further. Do not feed the trolls.

  4. I guess I’ll have to take No 1 …

    The discourse of Steve Bannon, and many others like him, contains incipient ideas which are tremendously threatening to various power-structures. Because this is so there is no way for ‘the system’ and its media agents to do anything but distort what he and they say. If they presented what he and they say as he and they say it, they would not be so successful in influencing people to have prejudiced opinions.

    What is interesting about Bannon has not really to do with Bannon but rather that from all corners of Europe, and among some Americans capable of free thinking, is that an entire machinery of the present is being questioned or is on the verge of being examined. The key to understanding many different things is in that. The better one understands this, the better one will be in a position to understand developing events. This involves critical thinking skills to examine ‘outcomes’ of ideas and policies that have been practiced and imposed in the postwar era.

    These emerging voices should not be seen in the polarized manner that they are presented when the distorting media misrepresents them to us. As Bannon says in the talk below there is a false dichotomy established between Left and Right. These designation do not serve good and clear understanding. The following segment of Bannon’s speech reveal, to my mind, what ‘the system’ actually fears:

    The larger aspect of the emergence of nationalist movements, of contrarians, of individuals and groups in Europe and throughout the English speaking world, has to do in my opinion with the recovery of the capability of seeing the world accurately and being able to describe it. Telling the truth (seeing the truth) is in itself a threatening act and it is shown to be just that by the reaction to it, the distortions, the lies, the harrassment, the police activity, the shutting down of web-sites, the arrest and detainment of activists, the attempts to demonetize political platforms and individuals.

    There are independent political organizations (‘Antifa’ is the general term) that take independent actions to defame and silence those who speak contrarily, but it must be understood to be The State that stands behind them. State power, the police, the para-militaries, the media-systems, and corporate industry: that is where is located the shrill voice that announces how events will be interpreted.

    If you are really and truly going to allow ‘free speech’, you will also have to allow ‘free-thought’. And if you are going to allow free-thought you are going to have to value the intellectual and moral power that enables a truthful thing to be perceived, and then stated.

    But if, fundamentally, you are really not much interested in the basis of free thinking, nor what results from it, then it is more proper and more accurate if you are labeled for what you are: standing against it and in pro of sophistry and the propaganda-machinations of raw power. I would suggest (and I do suggest) that the prime moral and ethical question for those of today, and defintely in America where thought-control and coercion are enormously powerful and successful, is a group analytical questions that have to do with one’s own complicity within a system that functions through lies, misperceptions, distortions and coercions. To what degree am I bound to that, and then to what degree am I free from it?

    I am just now looking over a new book I got called ‘Documents of America’s Prejudice: An Anthology of Writings on Race from Thomas Jefferson to David Duke’ (1999, Edited by ST Joshi and with a forward by Derrick Bell who wrote ‘Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanance of Racism’). The puropse of the book appears to be to demonstrate how fundamental race-designations have been in America’s history, and its purpose is to *expose* these eveil errors for those in the present. From Tocqueville to Ralph Waldo Emerson to Houston Chamberlain to Madison Grant to David Duke. Including Darwin, Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrenstein and Charles Murray: 100 various selections spanning more than 300 years of ideation on the topic.

    Now the curious thing is that I am *supposed* to read this as it is presented: as fuel for condemnation. But I will not read it that way! I will read it a resource to see again how it is that free men engaged in free-thinking in order to clearly see and distinguish their world and to present their ideas to a free people capable of free-reasoning. Having read already at least some of these people (Chamberlain, Darwin, Tocqueville, Duke, Grant among them) I already have familiarity with the ideas they deal on.

    At one time people could and did ‘think freely’ in regard to race and cultural issues. Now, one is not allowed. It is not so much that some special truth is now ascendent that negates former ideas or opinions, but much more that no one is allowed to think (research, opine) within certain contentious areas.

    Now, what amazes me has to do with this Thought Regime of the Present. First one has to propose that such a regime exists before one can begin to examine what it is, how it functions, and what is ends are. But this is not my point here. My point is to indicate that free thought is no longer allowed and then to simply indicate an area and then the areas where it is not allowed. If it can be seen in one area, it can then possibly be seen in other areas, and thus its ubiquity is referenced. There can be no important and meaninguful conversation on any important and controversial subject without 1) encountering a wall of politically correct opinion coming from outside (shrill noise), and 2) one’s own self-imposition of politically corrected thought-control entering in to the picture.

    • Hi Alizia,
      You wrote,

      ” is a group analytical questions that have to do with one’s own complicity within a system that functions through lies, misperceptions, distortions and coercions. “

      Can you give some pointers regarding these questions?

      Or do you mean with this group analytical questions the follwing two questions:

      To what degree am I bound to that, and then to what degree am I free from it?

      • Zanshin asks: Can you give some pointers regarding these questions

        Thanks for asking, tell me what you think:

        I said: ”I would suggest (and I do suggest) that the prime moral and ethical question for those of today, and defintely in America where thought-control and coercion are enormously powerful and successful, is a group analytical questions that have to do with one’s own complicity within a system that functions through lies, misperceptions, distortions and coercions. To what degree am I bound to that, and then to what degree am I free from it?”

        Yes, I think I can. Please keep in mind that I only wound up here on EA about just over 2 years ago. I was attracted for the larger philosophical question (ethics) but also because it is a blog so involved in topical issues.

        One of my main areas of interested has to do with the analysis of causation. So, it is generally recognized that social conditions are not in the best shape, that there are explosive crises, and as is natural most everyone has an opinion as to ‘how things wound up like this’. But I find the issue and the problem of both causation and complicity to be under-addressed. Briedly, if one cannot understand causation I do not think that one can remediate.

        I have begun to conclude that one of the largest problems assailing American right now has a root in its misguided military adventures. I regard the Iraq invasion and the destruction of Iraq as the defining evil event of the millenium. I see it literally as an unprovoked murder of somewhere between 200-350 thousand peoples and with catastrophic after-effects. I am trying to understand if a nation can be and is held responsible at a metaphysical or supernatural level for the evils that are conducted by that nation. Presently, I have begun to conclude that the unackowledged crime of open murder —- at a mass level —- is not recognized nor understood as a causal event in myriad of problems and mental sickness that are evident in the present. If I began to make a list it would obviously be speculative, for how can one trace what are invisible effects of a national crime into and through a nation’s psychology and then out into the manifest world? One can only do it through ‘guessing’.

        In my view, an unrecognized sin or crime — this is verified in folktale, in legend, in Biblical story, in literature, in a more general popular understanding, and then also in psychology (Jungian for example) — will always tend to *haunt* the perpretrator until it is addressed, amended and confessed. And ‘confession’ involves a profound self-analysis where ‘complicity’ is recognized and dealt with. If the subject cannot or will not come to honest confession and rectification there stands on his road punishment: ‘He who will not heed will be made to feel’. I think that a nation can begin to show signs of schizophrenic division with the danger of psychotic eruption when it cannot come to terms with itself.

        Now, with that said, you can read again what I wrote and better understand.

  5. “The words Bannon referenced have been part of the ongoing efforts to silence and demonize legitimate positions that oppose progressive cant, such as condemning rather than welcoming illegal immigration. What Bannon was obviously saying —and I do mean obviously—is “Don’t let their reflex race-baiting and demonizing tactics discourage you or deter you. Calling sensible immigration laws “xenophobic” is a desperate lie. Calling it racist is a lie. Calling it nativist is a lie. Recognize that their tactics mean you are winning the argument. Be proud, not intimidated.”

    “The fact that many of those he was addressing may be racists, xenophobes and nativists doesn’t change the meaning of what Bannon said. The news media’s job is to report, not read minds.”

    The response here is interesting

    It has to be stated that France’s situation is somewhat more critical than just controlling immigration. By clarifying what is going on in France one will also clarify what is going on in Europe and why there is not a ‘xenophobia’ represented as a disease and an accusation that one must defend oneself against, but as a necessary and positive cultural development that involves 1) defining France as a majority white country which has a race problem brought about by Sixties activists (to put it in simple terms), 2) defining the French nation as a nation created by and for the French, 3) redefining and recovering all aspects of cultural identity that are (chaunistically) French, Christian, Greco-Christian, etc. And 4) defining a platform where it will become possible not only to limit immigration but to reverse it and to reclaim France from an invasive non-French popoulation.

    The National Front represents just those concerns.

    It must be stated as a fact, because it is true, that the French in general, and the right-leaning reactionaries of the National Front, are a great deal more conscious of what they are up against, and intellectually capable of expressing it, than their American analogues. If you desire to get a better sense of what France (white France that is) is up against, watch the film La Haine. There, one can see the infection of culture by racial and cultural elements that must be resisted, repulsed. And there is a growing sector in French population that is getting ready to carry out that struggle. In order to *see* it and understand it, it has to be accurately seen and expressed. What is going on in Europe is a reaction to terrible policies that are destructive and harmful. Once one clarifies that, one quickly sees that it has a great deal to do with culture and race, disposition and intentionality.

    The fact that Steve Bannon is there, and is inserting himself there, is in my view a very positive step toward creating a bridge between America and Europe and of building relationships. That Marichel gave such a rousing speech at CPAC is also a very good sign. But in the eyes of American progressives, the Left generally, and the ‘establishment’ of the US, the implications of this bridge is alarming. And so it should be.

    The so-called American ‘conservative’, who is more properly a somewhat right of center progressive, cannot see ‘the writing on the wall’ and does not desire to see it, nor understand that the day will come, is coming, when America will struggle all the more visibly for its own ‘definition’. The factionalism developing will not abate. It will grow more acute.

    There is no doubt in my mind that that is what and whom Steve Bannon is speaking to. He has a good deal of awareness, and is also foxy enough not to overtly state what he thinks. In America you cannot do that! If you have an unfavored viewpoint you have to be crafty and sophistic. And for that reason, as is seen in the CNN clip, those Black women are alamred or concerned and this makes good sense. There in the middle you see ‘two subservient white men’ who, looked at in a certain way, portray what ‘the powers that be’ allow to be thought and said as their country is turned, day by day, month by month, year by year, into a colored republic similar, I suppose, to Brazil. (Who could ever bring out an argument against that? What in Heaven’s name would you say?)

    But this is what is being engineered in the present. Government, industry, intelligence and para-militaries all in collusion. This is the postwar liberal project. (The postwar project in a nutshell). There are 3 choices in the face of that: 1) you accept it and join in, 2) you resist it and ideate against it, and 3) you do nothing at all and choose to have no opinion.

    What is ‘winning the argument’ (yet the argument is no sense ‘won’, yet, and that hurly-burly is far from done…) is just a glimmer of consciousness and awareness among Europeans and people of European descent. It is entirely partial at this moment, especially in America where one cannot state positions and opinions openly. Groupthink is Americathink.To ‘win an argument’ is really not much of consequence. To reestablish an ideological position, then backed by social and cultural awareness, in which European Identity, values and power are recaptured — now that is something altogether different!

    This is what must happen, and a war is being waged to be sure that it doesn’t. Fact.

    My personal understanding is one of empathetic sympathy for those who face their fear of this, meaning that I fully understand how this beginning movement is alarming. One is forced when confronting it to take a position, one side or another. You cannot remain neutral. Yet the view of ‘it’ (this movement in Europe) cannot really be seen because it is always mediated by political groups and ideological stances that mediate how it is perceived.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.