Call to Action: Stop Bannon Appointment
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Andrew Breitbart was Jewish. Jared Kushner appeared to be fine with Bannon. The guy worked in Asia and in Hollywood. He was a Navy officer. He was a MD for goldman sachs, one of the biggest supporters for Hillary Clinton. This whole fuss about Bannon is ridiculous. |
Anonymous
And I personally think that your ears are eerily similar to Stalin's, not to talk about your brain. Prove otherwise. You truely don't see how stupid your approach is? |
Anonymous
No, even the National Review acknowledges he is unfit due to his gleeful association with the alt right. |
Anonymous
National Review is in the anti trump camp. They are one of the losers in this election. |
Anonymous
Exactly. |
Anonymous
+1,000,000 |
Anonymous
| Domestic violence notwithstanding .... A creep and cretin, who panders to the KKK and Neo-Nazis and looks like a bum. What on earth could be wrong with having the White House associated with such a person? |
Anonymous
This is not true. Why do you think Priebus got the chief of staff gig and not Bannon? Bannon is a complete slime bucket whom white nationalists see as their advocate.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/white-nationalists-on-bannon/ |
Anonymous
|
Replacing Hitler with Trump via the ******
How did ***** ****** — described by one eminent magazine editor in the year *** as a “half-insane rascal,” a “pathetic dunderhead,” a “nowhere fool,” a “big mouth” — rise to power in the land of ****** and *********? What persuaded millions of ordinary ******* to embrace him and his doctrine of hatred? How did this “most unlikely pretender to high state office” achieve absolute power in a once democratic country and set it on a course of monstrous horror? A host of earlier biographers (most notably ***** ******, and *****) have advanced theories about ******’s rise, and the dynamic between the man and his times. Some have focused on the social and political conditions in *********. I *******, which ****** expertly exploited — bitterness over the harsh terms of the Treaty *********** and a yearning for a return to ****** greatness; unemployment and economic distress amid the ******** depression of the early ****; and longstanding ethnic prejudices and fears of “foreignization.” Other writers — including the ********** *******, the historian *********** — have focused on ****** as a politician who rose to power through demagoguery, showmanship and nativist appeals to the masses. In “******: ****** ***** ****,” Mr. ****** sets out to strip away the mythology that ****** created around himself in “**** ****,” and he also tries to look at this “mysterious, calamitous figure” not as a monster or madman, but as a human being with “undeniable talents and obviously deep-seated psychological complexes.” “In a sense,” he says in an introduction, “****** will be ‘normalized’ — although this will not make him seem more ‘normal.’ If anything, he will emerge as even more horrific.” This is the first of two volumes (it ends in *** with the ********** ***** birthday) and there is little here that is substantially new. However, Mr. ****** offers a fascinating Shakespearean parable about how the confluence of circumstance, chance, a ruthless individual and the willful blindness of others can transform a country — and, in ******’s case, lead to an unimaginable nightmare for the world. ******** ****** Credit s********* Mr. *******, like other biographers, provides vivid insight into some factors that helped turn a “****** rabble-rouser” — regarded by many as a self-obsessed “clown” with a strangely “scattershot, impulsive style” — into “the lord and master of the *******.” • ****** was often described as an egomaniac who “only loved himself” — a narcissist with a taste for self-dramatization and what Mr. ****** calls a “characteristic fondness for superlatives.” His manic speeches and penchant for taking all-or-nothing risks raised questions about his capacity for self-control, even his sanity. But Mr. ****** underscores ******’s shrewdness as a politician — with a “keen eye for the strengths and weaknesses of other people” and an ability to “instantaneously analyze and exploit situations.” • ****** was known, among colleagues, for a “bottomless mendacity” that would later be magnified by a slick propaganda machine that used the latest technology (radio, gramophone records, film) to spread his message. A former finance minister wrote that ****** “was so thoroughly untruthful that he could no longer recognize the difference between lies and truth” and editors of one edition of “**** ****” described it as a “swamp of lies, distortions, innuendoes, half-truths and real facts.” • ****** was an effective orator and actor, Mr. ****** reminds readers, adept at assuming various masks and feeding off the energy of his audiences. Although he concealed his anti-Semitism beneath a “mask of moderation” when trying to win the support of the socially liberal middle classes, he specialized in big, theatrical rallies staged with spectacular elements borrowed from the circus. Here, “****** adapted the content of his speeches to suit the tastes of his lower-middle-class, nationalist-conservative, ethnic-chauvinist and anti-Semitic listeners,” Mr. ****** writes. He peppered his speeches with coarse phrases and put-downs of hecklers. Even as he fomented chaos by playing to crowds’ fears and resentments, he offered himself as the visionary leader who could restore law and order. • ****** increasingly presented himself in messianic terms, promising “to lead ******* to a new era of national greatness,” though he was typically vague about his actual plans. He often harked back to a golden age for the country, Mr. ****** says, the better “to paint the present day in hues that were all the darker. Everywhere you looked now, there was only decline and decay.” • ******’s repertoire of topics, Mr. ****** notes, was limited, and reading his speeches in retrospect, “it seems amazing that he attracted larger and larger audiences” with “repeated mantralike phrases” consisting largely of “accusations, vows of revenge and promises for the future.” But ****** virtually wrote the modern playbook on demagoguery, arguing in “**** ****” that propaganda must appeal to the emotions — not the reasoning powers — of the crowd. Its “purely intellectual level,” ****** said, “will have to be that of the lowest mental common denominator among the public it is desired to reach.” Because the understanding of the masses “is feeble,” he went on, effective propaganda needed to be boiled down to a few slogans that should be “persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.” • ******’s rise was not inevitable, in Mr. ******’s opinion. There were numerous points at which his ascent might have been derailed, he contends; even as late as ******** of ****, “it would have been eminently possible to prevent his nomination ****** *******.” He benefited from a “constellation of crises that he was able to exploit cleverly and unscrupulously” — in addition to economic woes and unemployment, there was an “erosion of the political center” and a growing resentment of the elites. The unwillingness of *******’s political parties to compromise had contributed to a perception of government dysfunction, Mr. ****** suggests, and the belief of ****** supporters that the country needed “a man of iron” who could shake things up. “Why not give the ********* ********* a chance?” a prominent banker said of the ****s. “They seem pretty gutsy to me.” • ******’s ascension was aided and abetted by the naïveté of domestic adversaries who failed to appreciate his ruthlessness and tenacity, and by foreign statesmen who believed they could control his aggression. Early on, revulsion at ******’s style and appearance, Mr. ****** writes, led some critics to underestimate the man and his popularity, while others dismissed him as a celebrity, a repellent but fascinating “evening’s entertainment.” Politicians, for their part, suffered from the delusion that the dominance of traditional conservatives in the cabinet would neutralize the threat of **** abuse of power and “fence ****** in.” “As far as ******’s long-term wishes were concerned,” Mr. ****** observes, “his conservative coalition partners believed either that he was not serious or that they could exert a moderating influence on him. In any case, they were severely mistaken.” • ******, it became obvious, could not be tamed — he needed only five months to consolidate absolute power after becoming *********************** ****** states” were brought into line, Mr. ****** writes, “with pressure from the party grass roots combining effectively with pseudo-legal measures ordered by the ***** government.” Many ******s jumped on the **** bandwagon not out of political conviction but in hopes of improving their career opportunities, he argues, while fear kept others from speaking out against the persecution of the *****. The independent press was banned or suppressed and books deemed “un-******” were burned. By March *****, ****** had made it clear, Mr. ****** says, “that his government was going to do away with all norms of separation of powers and the rule of law.” • ****** had a dark, Darwinian view of the world. And he would not only become, in Mr. ******’s words, “a mouthpiece of the cultural pessimism” growing in right-wing circles in the ***** ******, but also the avatar of what Thomas Mann identified as a turning away from reason and the fundamental principles of a civil society — namely, “liberty, equality, education, optimism and belief in progress.” |
Anonymous
Bump! Call your congressmen! |
Anonymous
For the record,and I was no fan, but Andrew brietbart would be completely disgusted by brietbart today. He abhorred racism |
Anonymous
#keep23yearoldinternsbusy |
Anonymous
Do you think congressmen ignore their constituents? They do not, it's their actual job not to |
Anonymous
we are going to be hearing the squealing of the pigs for a long time as they get pushed aside. |
Anonymous
+1 |