Saturday, 19 August 2017

Another view of Steve Bannon

Steve Bannon, Unrepentant

Trump’s embattled strategist phones me, unbidden, to opine on China, Korea, and his enemies in the administration.

ROBERT KUTTNER

(Rex Features via AP Images)
Steve Bannon on the phone, December 9, 2016


18 August, 2017

What follows is the article that likely pushed Steve Bannon, President Trump’s chief strategist and architect of his white nationalist messaging, out the White House door. Robert Kuttner, the co-founder and co-editor of this magazine, never expected a phone call from Bannon; the Prospect, after all, is a proudly liberal and defiantly anti-Trump journal. Nonetheless, Bannon called him on Tuesday afternoon, and on Wednesday, we posted Kuttner’s piece—a careful report of what Bannon said and an insightful analysis of why he said it. You can read it below.


You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of events in Charlottesville, he is widely blamed for his boss’s continuing indulgence of white supremacists. Allies of National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster hold Bannon responsible for a campaign by Breitbart News, which Bannon once led, to vilify the security chief. Trump’s defense of Bannon, at his Tuesday press conference, was tepid.
But Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of taking a harder line with China, and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury. “They’re wetting themselves,” he said, proceeding to detail how he would oust some of his opponents at State and Defense.
Needless to say, I was a little stunned to get an email from Bannon’s assistant midday Tuesday, just as all hell was breaking loose once again about Charlottesville, saying that Bannon wished to meet with me. I’d just published a column on how China was profiting from the U.S.-North Korea nuclear brinkmanship, and it included some choice words about Bannon’s boss.
In Kim, Trump has met his match,” I wrote. “The risk of two arrogant fools blundering into a nuclear exchange is more serious than at any time since October 1962.” Maybe Bannon wanted to scream at me?
I told the assistant that I was on vacation, but I would be happy to speak by phone. Bannon promptly called.
Far from dressing me down for comparing Trump to Kim, he began, “It’s a great honor to finally track you down. I’ve followed your writing for years and I think you and I are in the same boat when it comes to China.  You absolutely nailed it.”
We’re at economic war with China,” he added. “It’s in all their literature. They’re not shy about saying what they’re doing. One of us is going to be a hegemon in 25 or 30 years and it’s gonna be them if we go down this path. On Korea, they’re just tapping us along. It’s just a sideshow.”
Bannon said he might consider a deal in which China got North Korea to freeze its nuclear buildup with verifiable inspections and the United States removed its troops from the peninsula, but such a deal seemed remote. Given that China is not likely to do much more on North Korea, and that the logic of mutually assured destruction was its own source of restraint, Bannon saw no reason not to proceed with tough trade sanctions against China.
Contrary to Trump’s threat of fire and fury, Bannon said: “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” Bannon went on to describe his battle inside the administration to take a harder line on China trade, and not to fall into a trap of wishful thinking in which complaints against China’s trade practices now had to take a backseat to the hope that China, as honest broker, would help restrain Kim.
To me,” Bannon said, “the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able to recover.”
Bannon’s plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. “We’re going to run the tables on these guys. We’ve come to the conclusion that they’re in an economic war and they’re crushing us.”
But what about his internal adversaries, at the departments of State and Defense, who think the United States can enlist Beijing’s aid on the North Korean standoff, and at Treasury and the National Economic Council who don’t want to mess with the trading system?
Oh, they’re wetting themselves,” he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has big plans to marginalize their influence.
I’m changing out people at East Asian Defense; I’m getting hawks in. I’m getting Susan Thornton [acting head of East Asian and Pacific Affairs] out at State.”
But can Bannon really win that fight internally?
That’s a fight I fight every day here,” he said. “We’re still fighting. There’s Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying.”
We gotta do this. The president’s default position is to do it, but the apparatus is going crazy. Don’t get me wrong. It’s like, every day.”
Bannon explained that his strategy is to battle the trade doves inside the administration while building an outside coalition of trade hawks that includes left as well as right. Hence the phone call to me.
There are a couple of things that are startling about this premise. First, to the extent that most of the opponents of Bannon’s China trade strategy are other Trump administration officials, it’s not clear how reaching out to the left helps him. If anything, it gives his adversaries ammunition to characterize Bannon as unreliable or disloyal.
More puzzling is the fact that Bannon would phone a writer and editor of a progressive publication (the cover lines on whose first two issues after Trump’s election were “Resisting Trump” and “Containing Trump”) and assume that a possible convergence of views on China trade might somehow paper over the political and moral chasm on white nationalism.
The question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up. This is also puzzling, since Steve Bannon is not exactly Bambi when it comes to dealing with the press. He’s probably the most media-savvy person in America.
I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the ugly white nationalism epitomized by the racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump’s reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of using Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump’s base.
He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: “Ethno-nationalism—it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more.”
These guys are a collection of clowns,” he added.
From his lips to Trump’s ear.
The Democrats,” he said, “the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”
I had never before spoken with Bannon. I came away from the conversation with a sense both of his savvy and his recklessness. The waters around him are rising, but he is going about his business of infighting, and attempting to cultivate improbable outside allies, to promote his China strategy. His enemies will do what they do.
Either the reports of the threats to Bannon’s job are grossly exaggerated and leaked by his rivals, or he has decided not to change his routine and to go down fighting. Given Trump’s impulsivity, neither Bannon nor Trump really has any idea from day to day whether Bannon is staying or going. He has survived earlier threats. So what the hell, damn the torpedoes.
The conversation ended with Bannon inviting me to the White House after Labor Day to continue the discussion of China and trade. We’ll see if he’s still there. 
For ideas on how to counter the far-right agenda in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville, click here

Max Blumenthal and Paul Jay live on firing of Steve Bannon



Background on Brennan Gilmore who happened to be on hand to film Charlottesville

Charlottesville, Brennan Gilmore, and the STOP KONY 2012 Psyop



Scout.com,
17 August, 2017


Absolutely MUST SEE ARTICLE. I actually noticed the preparedness and immediacy of this video on Saturday along with the readiness of MacAullife. This is almost certainly a DNC Soros operation.



The videos mentioned are at the link


https://www.sott.net/article/359361-Charlottesville-Brennan-Gilmore-and-the-STOP-KONY-2012-Psyop


Charlottesville, Brennan Gilmore, and the STOP KONY 2012 Psyop


Scott Creighton
American Everyman
Sun, 13 Aug 2017 17:26 UTC


Go back and look at the video Brennan Gilmore posted of the Charlottesville attack. Go back and look at it. Something very odd and OBVIOUS is staring us in the face and all we have to do is step back and take a breath and see what's right there for us to see.




The numbers from the Charlottesville attack are in and one individual is dead with another 30 or so injured. Two more deaths are attributed to the event in an effort to make it bleed more so to speak, but they were killed when their helicopter crashed. I'm not sure how they link that to the protests, but, there you go.


I will do some research on the suspect and publish it a little later but right now I wanted to share with you some things I found out about Brennan Gilmore, the former State Department employee who just HAPPENED to be at the exact right place at the exact right time already filming with his camera to capture the entire event from beginning to end.


And he just HAPPENED to have the pre-approved establishment message canned and ready to go for a CNN interview on the scene. Funny, his video hadn't gone viral yet and CNN was already interviewing him? What a coincidence there, huh? Notice he says the counter-protesters were "peaceful". I guess that means Soros' ANTIFA provocateurs had been told to avoid that particular march. Also notice he equates "alt-right" with "terrorists" and "racists" with ease.


Brennan Gilmore's video is viral now. It's been hijacked by more YouTubers than you can imagine. It really was perfect. Not only did he HAPPEN to be at the right place at the right time, but he was ALREADY recording with his camera and it was focused on that car, for SOME REASON as it drove by the corner at a reasonable rate. Why he would focus on that vehicle right then and there BEFORE IT DID ANYTHING is a mystery to me. It was traveling down the street at about 25 miles and hour which is not out of place for that road. Certainly it may be for the situation, but remember, the march was not planned and or sanctioned, so the street was not blocked off, and in fact, there were two more cars in front of the Dodge Charger that were stuck in the middle of the protest on that same street. Those are the ones hit from behind by the Charger. But Brennan wasn't filming them was he? No. But he did film the Charger heading all the way down the street into the crowd of protesters... almost as if he knew it would run into them rather than simply brake and sit and wait like the other cars in front of it.


Again, not a smoking gun in and of itself, but when combined with all the other coincidences surrounding his video PLUS the fact that he was ready to go with the divide and conquer establishment version of events for CNN while people were still lying on the hot pavement, it kind of makes you wonder doesn't it?


PLUS... Brennan says it is "definitely terrorism"... no doubt about it. HAS to be "terrorism", right?


Let me take a second to explain something to you. Terrorism is an act of violence or the THREAT of violence designed to prompt a change in a country in terms of it's economic, political or social structure.


How is ramming a car into a crowd of protesters you don't like to be considered an effort by that ONE PERSON to bring about a change in this country's social structure? Are we to assume the driver thought that running over a few counter protesters would make the rest of the country step back and say "yeah, the Robert E. Lee statue is history, not racism" and let it stand?


A terrorist blows up an airport because he wants to DISRUPT commerce and travel. A terrorist runs a campaign like GLADIO because he wants to prevent a nation from slipping too far to the left. A racist might run over "goddamned hippies" because he HATES THEM. But that's NOT terrorism.


However... if the event, the mass casualty event, was PLANNED to destabilize the nation, to DIVIDE the "alt-left' and the "alt-right"... then THAT IS TERRORISM.


Moving on...


"The violence and hatred in our society is out of control. We like to think that it's better than places like Africa and Asia, but it's not," said Mr. Gilmore, who worked in Africa as a U.S. State Department foreign service officer before leaving to manage the campaign of Tom Perriello for Virginia governor earlier this year. "I'm worried." New York Times

Given Brennan's rather suspicious positioning before the fact and his former employer (a State Department that is wholly disgusted with BOTH Trump and Tillerson for firing a number of 7th floor entrenched State Department career "soft power" activists) I thought I would look him up and see if I could find some more background on who is really is and what he did for them.


This is what I found:


Brennan M. Gilmore | Embassy of the United States Bangui, CAR


Prior to this, Mr. Gilmore served as the Special Assistant for Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) Issues in the Bureau of African Affairs, coordinating the development ...


The link is dead. They scrubbed it from the interwebs. But as you can probably imagine, when I saw he was linked somehow to the whole "STOP KONY 2012" psyop, I was amazed.


Then I found some more (not an easy thing to do mind you):


State/OIG recently posted its inspection report of the US Embassy in Bangui, a 15% danger pay post, as well as a 35% COLA and 35% hardship differential pay assignment. The inspection took place in Washington, DC, between September 10 and 28, 2012, and in Bangui, the Central African Republic, between November 5 and 12, 2012.


The diplomatic mission is headed by Ambassador Laurence D. Wohlers, a career diplomat. The deputy chief of mission (DCM) is Brennan M. Gilmore. The embassy temporarily suspended operations on December 28, 2012, as a result of the security situation in the country...


The Ambassador arrived in September 2010 and the deputy chief of mission (DCM) in July 2011. They constitute a team that is particularly strong in outreach and reporting and have successfully weathered a series of management challenges. They are not as successful when it comes to leadership and morale.


The DCM has broad executive responsibilities. He supervises the reporting agenda assigned to the first-tour political/economic/consular officer. The officer meets weekly with the DCM and usually the Ambassador as well. The DCM is responsible primarily for military affairs, which include the U.S. Special Forces deployment to the eastern Central African Republic and a rotational U.S. Africa Command liaison officer position. Diplopundit archive on Brennan Gilmore


The STOP KONY 2012 psyop was all about using the Joseph Kony boogieman to justify letting Barack Obama send Special Operations troops into Africa to run around and squash any and all resistance to our new imperialism campaign. It was a fraud. A show. And Brennan was part of it.


He was also part of the campaign of Tom Perriello's in Virginia to become the next governor. Perriello also has ties to the new African imperialism campaign that was waged under the watchful eyes of our first black president. Tom lost the primary two months ago in spite of the fact that he was backed by every establishment unDemocratic Party leader and even that Khan guy who was rolled out by Hillary Clinton to paint Trump as a racist way back when.


In July 2015, President Obama appointed Tom Perriello to succeed former US Senator Russell Feingold as Special Envoy to the Great Lakes Region and the Democratic Republic of Congo. As Special Envoy, Perriello was the US representative to a region including Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, and Rwanda, countries working to overcome a recent legacy of civil war and genocide.


In December 2016, Perriello indicated that he would run for Governor of Virginia in the 2017 election on a platform centered around economic justice as well as resistance to the Trump Administration.[51]


Perriello is currently CEO of Win Virginia a PAC dedicated to helping Democrats win back the Virginia House of Delegates in 2017.


And there's one more thing about the man Brennan Gilmore tried to make the next governor of Virginia... he's a centrist neoliberal linked to the CIA's USAID.


During the 2009 legislative session, Perriello voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,[31] (he voted for TARP) the American Clean Energy and Security Act,[32] and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March 2010.33 During debate over the health care bill in the House, he voted for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, which would have prohibited the use of federal funds to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion (and he voted for fascist ObamaCare but didn't want abortion to be paid for under it)...



Tom Perriello was selected by Secretary of State John Kerry to lead the 2015 Quadrennial Diplomacy & Development Review, a strategic planning process intended to be conducted every four years for the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)...



He has worked as a consultant to the International Center for Transitional Justice in Kosovo (2003), Darfur (2005), and Afghanistan (2007) where he worked on justice-based security strategies.13 Perriello has also been a fellow at The Century Foundation



Ah, so Tom worked mopping up resistance in places like Kosovo, Darfur and Afghanistan before becoming such a stalwart "progressive" huh?



And what's that about The Century Foundation? Who are they you ask?


The Century Foundation is a progressive think tank headquartered in New York City with an office in Washington, D.C.1 It was founded as a nonprofitpublic policy research institution on the belief that the prosperity and security of the United States depends on a mix of effective government, open democracy, and free markets


Ah, the Global Free Market Wars, a.k.a. the Global War on Terrorism a.k.a. Overseas Contingency Operations. And Tom, and apparently our "convenient witness" Brennan Gilmore, were all over it.


Gilmore has spent a lot of time Tweeting since the event unfolded yesterday. As expected, he is quick to label it terrorism and cast blame on the "alt-right" which he equates with Nazism.


It's important to put into context Brennan Gilmore's time in CAR when they were fighting "KONY"


They weren't fighting KONY. He was there in support of the brutal military dictatorship of General François Bozizé who took over in coup from the elected president of the country, Ange-Félix Patassé


Our puppet dictator Bozize was trying to hold onto power in the face of a 2012 uprising from Séléka CPSK-CPJP-UFDR not "KONY". But of course, that would have been a harder sell to the fans of President Peace Prize so "KONY" the boogieman. In the end, Special Operations and all the propaganda we could muster did little to stem the tide of CHANGE in CAR and the start of 2013 saw folks like Brennan Gilmore and Bozize flee the country.


Gilmore has said on multiple occasions since the event yesterday that you would think hatred and violence is more widespread in "African nations" than it is right here in the states, but "you would be wrong" which is quite an amazing statement coming from a man who resided in a country that routinely killed opposition leaders and who was forced to FLEE THE COUNTRY when the people finally took it back from us.


All this being said, is it possible this man with links to Special Ops and CIA and various other black ops kinds of actors just HAPPENED to be there at that particular moment in history?


Yeah, I guess that's possible, if you're into coincidence theories I suppose.


But I'm not into such things.


Clearly the State Department has a lot of disgruntled former employees who would delight in destabilizing Trump's tenure even more than they already have. And Gilmore, like Tom, seem particularly invested in undermining the "alt-right" in the lead-up to the next round of elections.


Waaaaaay too much coincidence for me folks. Waaaaaay too much.


UPDATE: Moon of Alabama blog makes some valid comparisons between this event and those that took place in Kiev during our color revolution


(of course, those were REAL Nazis throwing fire bombs at the police as opposed to FAKE NAZIS, probably police provocateurs, whom the police didn't bother with and were given a stand-down order to stay out of the way till some good violence unfolded


This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by JJKetemi 20 hours ago

PS The heads-up for this came from Debbie, Sane Progressive





Pulling down statues

Now The Vandals Are Attacking Statues Of Catholic Saints

I think the statue should come down"








As President Trump said, the totalitarian mob rule of removing statues people find offensive has a slippery slope descending into darkness.

On top of people calling for the removal of George Washington's statue and the Jefferson Memorial, vandals in California have pointed their crosshairs at recently-canonized St. Junipero Serra.

According to a CBS Local report, a photo circulating the rounds on Facebook shows that a statue of Junipero Serra alongside a Native American boy in a park across from Mission San Fernando was vandalized with red paint and the word "murder" written in white. The Native American boy had a swastika painted across his chest.

City officials could not confirm the photo's authenticity. However, when investigators went to the site, they did indeed see red paint on Serra's arm and a swastika painted on the child next to him, which means the neighboring Catholic mission apparently cleaned the statue as best they could to avoid drawing controversy.

That would make perfect sense, considering that whenever the Left gets their hands on controversy like this, they always show up to get their inner Bolshevik on.

Some of the people interviewed by CBS expressed disapproval of the statue's presence, falsely claiming that St. Junipero Serra sought the destruction of Native American culture.

I think the statue should come down from this park, and then put some appreciation to the Native people that live here,” Cristian Ramirez said. “We don’t want this violent history to be praised in our community."

Ever since Pope Francis canonized Father Junipero Serra for Sainthood in 2015, the Left and SJW snowflakes claim he had a violent history toward Native Americans. The LA Times said that "glossing over Junipero Serra's inhumanity was insult to Native Americans."

Archaeology professor Reuben Mendoza of Cal State Monterrey Bay debunked this garbage during the controversy.

"When he died, many native peoples came to the mission for his burial. They openly wept. Others of his colleagues and even colonists believed that he would be made a saint because of the way he had lived his life, a self-effacing life of a martyr,” said Mendoza.

Because of what he had achieved in his life, even then they had talked about his impending canonization."


New Orleans' Joan of Arc Statue Vandalized With 'Take It Down


















https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/08/17/new-orleans-joan-arc-statue-vandalized-take/


Another day, yet another statue of a military hero is reportedly under fire. This figure astride a horse was vandalized with the spray-painted words "Tear It Down."


Who was this historical figure? General Lee? Stonewall Jackson? Nathan Bedford Forrest?


No, this was a figure who hails from the north.


Of France:


The phrase "Tear it Down" was hastily sprayed in black paint across the base of the golden Joan of Arc statue on Decatur Street in the French Quarter sometime earlier this week. It has since been removed, with only the vaguest traces of the paint remaining.

The "Tear it Down" tag would seem to relate to the debate surrounding the city's ongoing removal of four Confederate monuments. But the statue of Joan of Arc, a 15th-century military leader, martyr and Catholic saint, hasn't been mentioned in the controversy to this point.


Amy Kirk Duvoisin, the founder of the annual Joan of Arc parade that ceremonially pauses at the statue on the first day of Carnival season, says she's confused by the vandalism.


"Surely, people realize she's not related to American history," she said referring to the French icon.


Nah, I wouldn't be so sure.


In the last 24 hours, I've heard someone declare the Constitution was passed in the middle of a war, and that the Second Amendment was there solely so farmers could defend their crops from enemy aggression. And someone else declared that the NRA is selling black-market fully automatic weapons that also release poison gas. So I assume nothing.


It's also possible that this was the result of someone being intentionally ridiculous. After all, while removing statues of Confederate leaders is the big thing, there are also movements to remove a Thomas Jefferson monument from outside of Columbia University and a Teddy Roosevelt from outside of the American Museum of Natural History in New York. So maybe someone is just trolling these lunatics.



That said, it's more likely that someone really thinks Joan of Arc is problematic. Maybe she was against transgender women using the women's room.