All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 18, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:17:04
3502 The Untruth About Steve Bannon | Donald Trump's Chief Strategist
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
We are going to dive into the rumpled history world of Steve Bannon for the untruth about Steve Bannon.
Quite in the news these days.
Let's dive straight in.
The recent announcement that former Breitbart executive chairman and recent chief executive of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, Steve Bannon, would be president-elected.
Donald Trump's, quote, chief strategist and senior councillor, end quote, has led to a string of new accusations and attacks from the Mainstream media, I guess also known as the hoax media, the lying media, and the leftist media, who seem to have learned nothing from the fact that the right has turned into a Jedi, knight of the highest order, a true Obi-Wan Kenobi.
That which does not kill them, make them stronger.
If you try to strike them down, they become stronger.
These attacks only strengthen the beast of the right, so they're back at it again.
Here are some.
The Washington Post says, How Donald Trump and Stephen Bannon could weaponize Breitbart?
The National Review...
Oh, National Review, have you learned nothing from these attacks?
The National Review said, Steve Bannon is not a Nazi, but let's be honest about what he represents.
The Philadelphia Inquirer said, Bannon, like another hateful propagandist, Nazi's Joseph Goebbels.
So, he's not a Nazi.
Oh, wait, no.
No, he is a Nazi.
According to Haaretz, quote, Bannon's not an anti-Semite, but he is an anti-Muslim, anti-woman bigot.
The Atlantic, the radical anti-conservatism of Stephen Bannon.
Slate, is Donald Trump Steve Bannon's puppet?
Yeah, good luck with that.
USA Today, turn on the hate?
Question mark, Steve Bannon's cynicism spreads online.
New York Times, Steve, turn on the hate Bannon in the White House.
Yeah, I guess they really, really kept by that apology for being non-objective and renewed commitment to objectivity seems to have gone by the wayside.
CNN. Why Steve Bannon's white nationalism should scare America.
The Daily Beast.
Is Trump's man, Steve Bannon, too shady to handle secrets?
Oh.
So, Chelsea Clinton is on the board of the Daily Beast, and the Daily Beast is really, really concerned about someone who can't handle secrets.
Do you see yourselves at all?
Is there a mirror in the building you can look in and see?
The Independent says, Bernie Sanders calls on Donald Trump to fire Stephen Bannon.
Hey!
I don't know a lot of the calls that Donald Trump wouldn't take.
I know he wouldn't see Michael Moore.
I don't know if Michael Moore could wedge himself into the revolving door to Trump Towers, but I'm pretty sure I put good money on the fact that Donald Trump did not take either Bernie Sanders' call or his advice.
You couldn't even beat Hillary.
Ah, Bernie panders.
So the NPR said, Ex-Breitbart executive brings alt-right ties to the White House.
Yeah, I wonder if they talked about that when...
Was it Obama met with all the Black Lives Matter activists and some of the radical black activists?
Was that ever mentioned in any negative way?
No!
You see, because white privilege.
Anyway, we go on to that.
So, alt-right.
It can be many things to many people.
Let's put it that way.
So, a single quote made by Bannon is at the root of many of the mainstream media's attacks as they attempt to tie him to the most controversial elements of the alt-right.
So Steve Bannon said, regarding his Breitbart, named of course after the late Andrew Breitbart, who kind of worked himself to death in opposition to political correctness, he said, we are the platform for the alt-right.
He also went on to say, are there racist people involved in the alt-right?
Absolutely!
Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right?
Maybe.
Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted?
Maybe.
Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right?
But that's just like there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements.
Now, you're going to see a lot of this over the next, I'm going to guess, eight years and following that probably even longer.
This is a game that people play.
It's not an argument!
And the game that they play is You have expressed a certain affinity to a particular belief set so I'm going to troll everyone who has also claimed affinity to a particular belief set that particular belief set and I'm going to find something crazy they said and use that to smear the entire belief set it's not an argument it's really boring it's very predictable but of course remember these are not the smartest people in the known universe who are doing this kind of stuff if they had really good arguments they wouldn't need to smear right smear When
the debate is lost, as the saying goes, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
Now, here's the thing, too.
I just sort of want to mention this, and I'm going to mention it a couple of times because it really bears repeating.
The Communist Party of the United States loved Hillary Clinton.
You don't understand how important this is.
The Communist Party, Nazism, National Socialism, which we'll talk about in a few minutes, well, caused the death of 40 million people.
Terrible, terrible stuff.
However, communism, yes, two and a half times more at close to a hundred million people murdered by communists.
So think of Nazism two and a half times worse.
So the Communist Party of the United States of America loved Hillary Clinton.
We'll put the sources, of course, to all of this below.
And this is just very boring non-arguments.
And we see it all the time.
Just stop consuming it, basically.
What you do is you say, ah, you've identified with a particular movement.
I'm going to find some crazy person in that movement who said some crazy things and then used that to smear the entire movement.
So boring.
And, of course, you could far more apply it to the crazy radical leftists than you could to people on the right.
But it's a sports game, right?
I mean, it's trash-talking.
It's got nothing reality to anything moral.
It's just a, you know, weaponizing slander.
Sarah Posnet from Mother Jones said, Trump's new campaign chief denies that the alt-right is inherently racist.
He describes its ideology as nationalist, though not necessarily white nationalist, likening its approach to that of European nationalist parties such as France's National Front.
Yes, there's that woman who's running.
to be the head of the French government.
Now, France has actually never had a female head of the government, so if you're opposed to her, you must be a sexist.
Yes, yes, I think that's how it works.
Steve Bannon said, if you look at the identity movements over there in Europe, I think a lot of them are really Polish identity or German identity.
Okay, time out for reality check here, right?
So, when you hear the phrase white nationalism, of course, it's Nazism, KKK, all that kind of stuff.
But nationalism is a real phenomenon around the world.
And nationalists, even if they're white nationalists, don't generally not want anyone else to have their own countries, right?
I mean, if you want to look at a very non-diverse country, you can look at Japan.
Or you can look at South Korea, which is like 99% ethnically homogenous.
And white nationalists aren't saying, well, those people shouldn't have their own country.
And if you are opposed to ethno-nationalism, then you must be really opposed to places like Japan, to places like South Korea, which are ethnically almost completely homogenous.
You must really, really criticize those people for their ethnic homogeneity and their desire to keep it that way.
Now, if you don't criticize those countries, but you only criticize white nationalists, then you are two things.
Number one, you are a hypocrite because you are attacking the least ethnically self-interested group in the world.
Whites are notoriously not ethnically self-interested, opening their countries to just about everyone.
So you are criticizing, you're saying ethno-nationalism is really bad, but you're criticizing the least ethno-nationalist group in the world.
That's number one, that makes you a hypocrite.
And number two, you're a racist because you're only attacking whites for expressing preferences that you allow all the other races and all the other groups to have without criticism.
You're singling out whites for criticism, which you're giving a free pass to all the other ethno-nationalist groups in the world.
And therefore you're a racist, right?
Because you're applying higher standards to whites and you're attacking only whites for something which you perfectly...
Except that other groups and ethnicities can claim a preference for ethno-nationalism You have no problem with that.
So just the reality.
Hypocrite and racist.
And you can disagree with ethno-nationalism.
Of course you can.
But then you have to go and attack South Korea and Saudi Arabia and Muslim countries where there's a very strong preference for Islamic law and Japan.
And you have to really, really go for those other countries long before you'd ever get to white countries.
But of course, if you are only attacking, oh, you're also a coward because you know that those other countries might get back at you in some way.
Or those other groups and whites generally don't.
So, yeah, a hypocrite, racist and coward.
Other than that, I have no problem with the position.
So, Glenn Bex.
Ah, dishonesty.
Here we go.
So, media pundits are frequently pointing to the article, An Establishment Conservative's Guide to the Alt-Right.
Written by Alan Bukhari and Milo Yiannopoulos as evidence of alt-right support on Brightwater.
Ah, Alan Bukhari, a wasp name if I've ever heard one.
Maybe he should be the third.
Okay, so what are they talking about?
So in the article, Bukhari and Yiannopoulos describe various elements of the alt-right, including rifts and disagreements between many of those who associate with the label.
Recently, famed Cheetos aficionado, Look up Glenn Beck Cheetos on YouTube if you haven't seen it.
Well, let's just say you can't unsee it.
So Cheetos aficionado Glenn Beck appeared on CNN and reiterated Bannon's one-time comment about Breitbart being a platform for the alt-right.
And by the by, Milo is gay, he's Jewish and he prefers the company of black men in the evening and Alan Bukhari is half Pakistani but somehow Anti-Semitic and racist is the...
Oh, Lord.
So dull.
So, what was Glenn Beck talking about?
So, Beck cherry-picked quotes from two of the many individuals listed in the guide to the alt-right, even applying selective editing to create a, quote, degree of separation, end quote, scenario with Bannon.
Glenn Beck said, This is from Richard Spanser.
Our dream is a new society, an ethnostate that would be the gathering point for all Europeans.
It would be a new society based on very different ideals than, say, the Declaration of Independence.
Now, Beck curiously omitted the first part of Richard Spencer's quote, which was this.
In the mid-19th century, many Jews in Central Europe had an idea of an ethnostate, an idea of Zionism.
And they were considered ridiculous and insane, but they had that dream, and that dream came into reality.
And this is the basic fact that everybody who's shocked and appalled about the potential for white nationalism is like, okay, well, if you disagree with white nationalism, then of course you must be enormously opposed to Israel, which is an ethnostate.
If you're not opposed to and criticizing Israel for being an ethnostate, Then shut up about white nationalism because you're a racist, a coward, and a hypocrite.
I just really wanted to point that out.
And again, disagree with white nationalism all you want, but it's way down on the list of...
Whites are way down on the list of groups you would criticize for ethno-nationalism.
So, that's important to remember and to recognize.
Glenn Beck continued to quote Richard Spencer.
Then in 2013, Today, in the public imagination, ethnic cleansing has been associated with civil war and mass murder.
Understandably so, but this does not mean...
Sorry, but this does not need to be the case.
End quote.
And again, just taking things out of context, Ben, back again, curiously omitted significant portions of Spencer's quote, which give it greater and important context.
So what Spencer said in context for this, he said, quote, In 1919, following the Great War, the world statesmen met in Paris to, for lack of a better term, remap the world after the dissolution of the defeated empires.
New countries were invented, the kingdom of Croats, Serbs, Slovenes, and old ones were reborn, Poland, and ethnicities got their day in the sun, Czechoslovakia.
So, he's talking about the divvying up of Europe after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and other empires in the First World War.
Richard Spencer went on to say, related to this process was the Balfour Declaration and British mandate for a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.
Nationalists of many stripes captured the hearts and minds of political actors.
So, again, you can criticize this all you want, but you're basically criticizing the foundation of the state of Israel.
People don't generally like to do that because they will be attacked as anti-Semitic.
And if you want to know, in my opinion, what some of the drivers for the alt-right is, it's noticing that if you play nice and don't attack people, all that happens is attacks upon you.
And so, yeah, I mean, people don't want to criticize the ethnocentrism of other countries because they'll be attacked as anti-Semitic or racist or whatever.
And, you know, after seeing this for half a century or so, I think white people are kind of like, okay, so being nice is not working, so we have to not be nice and, you know, don't blame us.
This is just the reality of the world that we're living in.
So, if you understand this, right, if you understand that Richard Spencer was talking about Ways in which ethnicities could be divvied up without civil war, mass murder, and so on.
He goes on to say, right, understand, after talking about the peace treaties in 1919, you can actually read a great book called Paris 1919 about this, really well done.
So Richard Spencer goes on to say, today, in the public imagination, ethnic cleansing has been associated with civil war and mass murder, understandably so.
But this need not be the case.
In 1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution done by Fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully.
Okay, well, that's the context of the argument.
But of course, Glenn Beck doesn't put in the before, he doesn't put in the after, he just takes out the bit, I assume, to associate Richard Spencer with Mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and civil war, even though he's saying that it really doesn't have to be that way and was done relatively peacefully after the First World War, and we should remember that.
These are historical facts, not in dispute, and again, This is also partly designed to have people, A, stay away from any controversial topics, and B, constantly self-police themselves to make sure they never say anything that could ever be taken out of context, sliced and diced to make them look bad.
It's just a way of paralyzing original thinkers from public discourse.
And again, it's a boring and pointless game, but I think its time is running out.
So, Glenn Beck went on to say, Richard Spencer then later went on with Ceylon, where he was talking about the government partnering with the government for sterilization of races.
Ooh, boy, that sounds terrible.
Let's find out.
So what is Richard Spencer's actual quote in Ceylon?
He said, We are undergoing a sad process of degeneration.
We will need to reverse it using the state and the government.
You incentivize people.
With higher intelligence, you incentivize people who are healthy to have children.
And it sounds terrible and nasty, but there would be a great use of contraception.
Okay, let's keep going.
So, salon author Lauren M. Fox editorialized, saying, he didn't mean the government should encourage people to use birth control pills and condoms.
He was advocating for some type of government forced sterilization.
No, Lauren, that's not what he said.
First of all, if you look at Richard Spence's quote, he says nothing about race whatsoever.
He's saying that, I'm going to assume, right, that some of what he's talking about is that right now the least irresponsible people often will have the most children.
And a lack of deferral of gratification is associated with lower intelligence, so the government is right now paying for people who have, in general, less intelligence and less foresight and less planning capacities.
To have children, and they're taxing more responsible people who are out there working and getting up early and going to jobs to pay for that irresponsibility.
The welfare state is a eugenics program.
It is a way of altering the gene pool of society through government force.
So Richard Spencer responded to the article, and Glenn Beck didn't seem to quote any of this, of course, because that's not the goal.
So he said, First off, when speaking with Fox and afterwards via email, I made it quite clear that I advocated the promotion of contraception technologies like the Norplant system and that I do not support sterilization.
That said, I never shied away from the fact that for contraception to have a positive eugenic effect, it must be programmatic.
So, this is his argument that right now, We have a process of government force of government redistribution of wealth from the more responsible to the least responsible which is a eugenics program because intelligence is to a large or significant degree genetic and we've got a whole bunch of experts who've been on this show and we've got presentations that are well sourced with data you can look at the playlist below if you've not been told any of this stuff it's it's for a good reason but you need to know it if you are going to enter into public discourse you need to know the reality of
a human biodiversity so anyway He's saying that we have a eugenics program at the moment.
I'm paraphrasing, and so I'm sorry if I get it wrong, but my understanding is he's saying, well, we kind of have a eugenics program at the moment where the government's paying for less intelligent people to have more children and disincentivizing more intelligent people from having children, and that's not good.
And maybe incentives could be changed to reverse that.
Again, argue or not argue, agree or disagree, that's fine.
But I mean, don't just boringly mischaracterize people's arguments.
All you're saying is you don't have a rational response when you do that.
And I think that's becoming increasingly clear.
So Richard Spencer said, mankind has reached what could be called an evolutionary singularity in which natural selection no longer plays a role in human reproduction.
Due to modern medicine and the revolution in agriculture and food production, there are few evolutionary pressures preventing those with congenital defects, or quite frankly, those who are moronic or criminal in nature, from reproducing.
And again, I'm sort of paraphrasing from my perspective, which is that if you have a free market, then The most intelligent will generally gather the most resources, become the wealthiest, and therefore have the most children.
And this is exactly how Jewish intelligence, particularly in language skills, verbal intelligence, has advanced so significantly, is that the most intelligent Jews had the most children, and then you get a whole bunch of Ashkenazi Jews, you get a whole bunch of very, very intelligent Jews.
I mean, this is just how it works.
This is evolution.
This is how it works.
So, in a free market, the most intelligent would have the most resources and therefore have the most children.
Nobody's talking about banning poor people from having children, but in a free market, poor people would generally have fewer children and that's how things would work and so there would be a positive Advancement of human intelligence, which is kind of necessary for the maintenance of civilization.
We've had Professor Helmuth Nyborg on the show talking about how when IQ dips below 90, you can't have any kind of democracy anymore.
You can't really have any kind of political freedom anymore.
It's just a basic reality.
So if you like these things, if you like freedom and equality under the law, separation of church and state, All that kind of good stuff.
If you like the free market, then you need an intelligent population.
And if you have pressures bringing down the intelligence of the population, you won't get to keep these things for very long.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to, you know, shoot the messenger.
These are just basic facts in the world.
And again, I don't mean to shock you, but you should ask yourself why these basic things have not been explained to you before.
So Richard Spencer went on to say, In fact, in the context of the egalitarian welfare state, there are incentives for such individuals to reproduce with abandon, right?
These moronics and criminals and so on.
He goes on to say, the cult comedy idiocracy is based on this premise, and the film is funny because it's true, right?
And the man who made the film has never been accused of being some Nazi eugenicist and so on.
I mean, it's just a reality.
And again, nothing has been said about race here.
He goes on to say, Today, contraception and birth control are nothing less than a curse.
Those with the foresight to engage in family planning are exactly the kind of responsible, intelligent people who should be reproducing.
And increasingly, middle-class white families are so overburdened with taxation and the rising costs of housing, healthcare and education that they don't feel they can afford children.
This is not only a dysgenic catastrophe, but a moral one as well.
Okay so here we're talking about race and in white countries white men pay the vast majority of taxes.
Males pay for the government as a whole in general and women receive the benefits of the state that protects their rights paid for by men and of course in a majority white country the white males in particular but whites as a whole are paying the majority of taxes and particularly with regards to immigration immigrants receive welfare at vastly higher rates than the native population so Again, it's not racism if you're pointing out empirical facts about ethnic differences.
I mean, it's just facts.
I hate facts, I guess, if you're on the left, but anyway.
He goes on to say, on the other hand, individuals with low innate intelligence or even criminal personalities, those who should be limiting their reproduction, can't be bothered to purchase a condom, right?
And yeah, the welfare state subsidizes the least responsible to have the most children right because if you're smart you look at the welfare state and say well you know might give me a bit of a benefit for the short run we're going to get trapped in poverty and a low-rent lifestyle and the free market's going to reward my intelligence much more than welfare ever will but if you're not intelligent right you've got an iq of like 85 or 90 or whatever welfare is probably the best deal that you're going to have right because uh you know a woman with a couple of kids on welfare makes the u.s equivalent of like 65 000 a year because of welfare and
benefits and free stuff and all that and that's probably better than she'd ever have in the free market so Again, this is why welfare is so disastrous, as all compulsory government programs are, and why charity should focus on this stuff.
But this is my particular perspective.
So, Richard goes on to say, Understandably, talking about population control makes people queasy, but whether we like it or not, overpopulation may be the most consequential social phenomenon of our time.
So, he's making a series of arguments.
Of course, he's not got all the sources, although it's a very well-sourced article originally.
But he is making an argument based on facts and you can agree or you can disagree.
You, of course, need to make arguments or find counterfacts and I'm sure Richard Spencer would be open to any counterfactual arguments that came his way.
But, you know, just screaming at people, I mean, I mean, you've already given up on civilization if you're taking that approach.
So, Glenn Beck continued.
Steve Saylor said, quote, look, let the good times roll.
is especially or, he said that, risky message for African Americans.
The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better educated groups.
Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society." All right.
African Americans have an IQ, a standard deviation or so, below white Americans and further than that below Asian Americans and further than that below Ashkenazi Jews.
And this is a fact.
And it's been talked about for many, many years.
It's well accepted in the intelligence community.
We have tons of people on the show who've talked about this and provided the data.
And I feel great sympathy for this.
And there have been charter schools that have helped to close this IQ gap.
So I think that there's some significant hope that giving black parents control over education for their children will help to close this gap.
Government schools seem to be making it worse.
But he's not talking about genetics here.
Less well-educated groups.
He could be talking about...
Terrible inner-city schools.
Could be any number of things, right?
The effects of the war on drugs.
Who knows, right?
So, again, facts.
So, the head of the collapsing the Blaze Empire, that would be Glenn Beck, exhumed this Steve Saylor quote from a 2005 article which focused on criticizing nation-building President George W. Bush for being unprepared for domestic troubles in light of Hurricane Katrina.
The heavily sourced, data-driven article also discussed the diminishment of social trust within communities and the nature of in-group preference voting patterns.
And I can't say this point too often.
But when the left criticize other groups for a lack of diversity or for hostility to people who don't think like themselves or act like themselves, again, complete hypocrisy.
Look at the damn mirror.
Go be a conservative and try and get a job at a leftist or democrat organization.
Go!
Go try!
Just go try and see what happens.
They won't hire you, almost for certain.
And go try and be an academic.
Be on the right and try and get a job in a women's studies program or some sort of arts-driven curriculum.
Good luck with all of that, right?
And they're ferociously loyal to their own in-group and they ferociously reject anybody who thinks differently than they do, right?
There's a pretty funny picture of the Huffington Post editorial board, which you can Google and have a look at just to bathe in the diversity, right?
So, yeah, they like all groups to think like themselves, which is not diversity by definition.
So the context of the quote Beck used to smear Saylor, Breitbart, and Steve Bannon was around the inability to solve social problems when they involve politically incorrect truths.
Steve Saylor said,"...because to anticipate the problems would require noticing that racial differences are relevant, and that can ruin one's career.
Governmental bodies naturally decay rapidly in competence, especially when free discussion of unpleasant realities is suppressed." He said, New Orleans should remind us that we still live in a harsh world.
The make-believe that passes for public discourse, even at the elite level, simply isn't adequate for protecting American citizens.
So, just for those of you trying to keep track of this maze, this mental, truly mental maze, if you're keeping notes, Donald Trump is bad.
Because, why?
Because he hired Steve Bannon, who once mentioned something about Breitbart being a platform for the alt-right, where a gay Jew and a half-Pakistani man Wrote one article attempting to explain the alt-right, which featured the names of endless people, two of which Glenn Beck cherry-picked quotes from and read without context to show that Steve Bannon was racist or something.
Is that clear it up nicely for you?
Now, using this exact same logic, what could I do?
I guess I could tootle on over to The Blaze, which is the website that Glenn Beck heads.
I could tootle over to The Blaze and I could find a story that was describing some controversial subject.
I could pick a few names.
from the article.
I could dig over every public statement made by anybody mentioned in that article.
I could find some old quotes.
I could take them out of context and use them to smear Glenn Black for owning the blaze and I mean, this is just social justice warrior tactics and it's shameful to anybody with half an ounce of intellectual integrity.
Again, you can be offended if you want, you can argue against this stuff if you want, you can find faults with these people, but just screaming immorality at people who are bringing facts to the table shows that you are, well, you're not deserving of a place at the adult table and you need to go where the forks are plastic and the soup is lukewarm.
The crackers are right by the table for you to enjoy yourself after your little jello dessert.
So, this is funny.
So Steve Madden said, we don't believe there is a functional conservative party in this country and we certainly don't think the Republican Party is that.
It's going to be an insurgent center-right populist movement that is virulently anti-establishment, and it's going to continue to hammer this city, both the progressive left and the institutional Republican Party.
Now, for those of you who haven't heard this criticism, they call it the Uniparty, right?
The Democrats and Republicans traditionally just work in hand in glove to screw the American people for the sake of Political correctness, foreign voters, debt, all this kind of crap, right?
I mean, if the Republicans were really into fiscal conservatism, they would have pushed back not having a budget for the last eight years so they could spend their extra trillion dollars a year to make believe there was an economy under the first black president.
But if you've not heard of this stuff, the Uniparty, I mean, you're just out of touch.
All you're doing is going to the echo chamber of your own preconceived data sources and just not veering off the grid to find anything that might startle your sensibilities.
So, yeah, he's heavily criticized.
Oh, he's not a true conservative!
It's like criticizing the Republican Party, who's rolled over consistently for leftist agenda politics.
I think that is being a true conservative.
So Steve Bannon said, We think of ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly anti the permanent political class.
We say Paul Ryan was grown in a petri dish at the Heritage Foundation.
Ronald Radosh from the Daily Beast claims that in 2013, Bannon told him, I'm a Leninist.
Lenin wanted to destroy the state and that's my goal too.
I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today's establishment.
You guys know there's an internet out here, right?
People can actually find correlations that might startle your Victorian fainting couch, hissy fit.
See, first of all, We'll get to this in a sec.
That's kind of hearsay, right?
And oh, apparently it's really, really bad to be a Leninist.
It's really, really...
Oh, being a Leninist is the worst thing ever.
The Communist Party of the United States of America loved Hillary Clinton.
You don't have any problem with people who are Marxists.
Lenin was a Marxist.
And Hillary Clinton's member, as I mentioned, was a long-time KKK member.
But...
Doesn't matter about that.
Now, if the Nazi Party had endorsed Donald Trump, everybody would be going mental.
But the Communist Party endorsing, well, not endorsing, but being very pro, Hillary Clinton, well, it don't matter.
Keep moving.
Don't turn around.
Something in the car?
No, just keep driving.
When asked about the statement, Bannon responded, I don't remember meeting you and I don't remember the conversation.
And as you can tell from the past few days, I'm not doing media.
Wise decision.
Ah, more controversial quotes.
So Steve Bannon was discussing attacks on conservative women and he said, These women cut to the heart of the progressive narrative.
That's one of the unintended consequences of the women's liberation movement.
That in fact, the women that would lead this country would be feminine.
They would be pro-family.
They would have husbands.
They would love their children.
They wouldn't be a bunch of dykes that come from the Seven Sisters schools up in New England.
That drives the left insane.
And that's why they hate these women.
And again, if you don't know about this, just look at what has been said about Sarah Palin or Margaret Thatcher or Ayn Rand or Kellyanne Conway for that matter or Ann Coulter or any of the other ferociously intelligent and able women who are not on the left and they're just roundly attacked.
They don't care that they're women.
They care that they're Not leftists.
And if you're not a leftist, it doesn't matter.
So they're not pro-women.
Feminists are not pro-women in general.
They're pro-leftist.
And it was Betty Friedan, actually one of the founding feminists who was concerned about the influence of lesbians on feminism.
She called it the lavender menace and said it was a great danger to feminism.
And she, I mean, okay, the word dykes is a little bit coarser than the phrase the lavender menace.
Have you seen Steve Bannon?
I don't think you're going to get a lot of refined language out of that rumble-tongue-overlook, but it's just my particular perspective.
Yeah, so Steve Bannon is complaining that women are being unjustly attacked, and I don't know, does that make him anti-women?
I don't know.
Steve Bannon on the liberal victimhood mentality.
They're either a victim of race, they're a victim of their sexual preference, they're a victim of gender, all about victimhood, and the United States is the great oppressor, not the great liberator.
And yeah, the cult of victimhood is a very strong problem.
And what it does, of course, is it takes a very empathetic group of people and the majority population in America and it exploits their natural sympathy for the underdog to undermine and attempt to destroy their entire society.
I'm telling everyone it's not going to end well if we don't prevent it with language.
Steve Bannon on Occupy Wall Street.
After making the Occupy movie, when you finish watching the film, you want to take a hot shower.
You want to go home and shower because you've just spent an hour and 15 minutes with the greatest, greasiest, dirtiest people you will ever see.
What is that even?
Okay.
I don't mean to shock everyone out there.
People who are living in a park smell.
Yes, it's true.
There's not enough rain in the world to wash away the stink of living in a park.
And trust me, I spent a year and a half Up in the northern wastes of Canada as a gold panner and a prospector and you get a little gamey after a while.
It's just, I don't know, it's the way things are.
Now I just can't bathe enough.
But back then, don't need sunscreen, I've got grit.
Domestic dispute.
So Steve Bannon was involved in an ugly discipline.
We're going to be upfront about all of this.
Okay, more than 20 years ago.
But the media has unearthed the Santa Monica Police Department crime report from January 1st, 1996.
Nothing changes on New Year's Day, apparently.
Detailing a domestic dispute between Steve Bannon and his second wife, Mary Louise Picard.
Wife, I assume, of John Luke as well, but...
The police report said the following.
On my arrival, I was met at the front door by Redacted, and she appeared as if she was very upset and had been crying.
I saw that her eyes were red and watery.
She first said, Oh, thank you, you were here.
How did you know to come?
As I started to tell her about the 911 hang-up call, she started to cry and it took three to four minutes for her to calm down so she could tell me what happened.
Redacted said she had just been married on 4-15-95 and her twins were born on 4-18-95.
Her husband and father of the twins is Stephen Bannon.
Redacted said she has been seeing Mr.
Bannon for approximately six and a half years.
In the beginning of their relationship, she said, they, three or four arguments that became physical, and they have been going to counseling.
There has not been any physical abuse in their arguments for about four years.
Redacted, said, they have been arguing a lot, but no violence.
Redacted, said, on 1231.95, Mr.
Bannon slept on couch in the living room.
On 1196, early in the morning, she got up to feed the twins, their twins, and Mr.
Bannon got upset at her for making some noise.
At approximately Oh wait, 15 hours.
Mr.
Bannon started to leave and, redacted, asked him for the American Express card so she could go grocery shopping.
He said she did not need it, just for her to write a check.
He went out to his car and she followed.
She asked him why he was playing these games with the money and he said it was his money.
She told him that maybe he should find another place to live, that she wanted a divorce.
Redacted.
Redacted, he said.
He laughed at her and said he would never move out.
Redacted?
said she spit at him and reached up to her from the driver's seat of his car and grabbed her left wrist.
He pulled her down as if he was trying to pull into the car over the door.
Redacted, said Mr.
Bannon, grabbed at neck, also pulling her into the car.
She said that she started to fight back, striking at his face so he would let go of her.
After a short period of time, she was able to get away from him.
Now again, I'm no lawyer or cop, but...
Spitting is a form of assault, is it not?
I mean, if you spit on someone, that's a form of assault.
So she initiated the violence against her.
They were going back and forth in a naggy way, a naggy way and a horrible way.
And then she initiated violence by spitting on him.
And then maybe she was trying to hit him.
We don't know.
I mean, this is her side of the story.
Remember, this is her side of the story.
And there's always another perspective, which we don't really have.
The police report continues.
She ran into the house with him following her.
She told him she was calling 911 and she grabbed the portable phone as she headed for the living room where the twins were.
She was dialing 911.
When she got to the twins, Mr.
Bannon jumped over her and the twins to grab the phone from her.
Once he got the phone, he threw it across the room.
After this, Mr.
Bannon left the house, redacted, found the phone in several pieces and could not use it.
She complained of soreness to her neck.
I saw red marks on her left wrist and the right side of her neck.
There were photographed by ID Tech.
Senna Brown, redacted, declined an emergency protective order.
NBC News said, Bannon was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, battery, and dissuading a witness.
He pleaded not guilty to the charges.
And about six months later, the case was dismissed after prosecutors said they could not find his wife.
Court documents show.
The couple initiated divorce proceedings in 1997, but the divorce proceedings were messy, dragging on for over a decade and included several unflattering claims by Bannon's second ex-wife.
So, yeah, this is important, right?
So, did the wife go into hiding?
Let's find out, shall we?
Mary Louise Picard said, The criminal attorney threatened me, indicating that if respondent went to jail, I would have no money and no way to support the children.
Respondent told me I had to leave town.
That if I wasn't in town, they couldn't serve me and I wouldn't have to go to court.
He also told me that if I went to court, he and his attorney would make sure I would be the one who was guilty.
Again, I'm no lawyer.
I'm just looking at this from the outside.
But yeah, I think pretty much if you send a guy to jail, he's not able to earn a living.
I don't understand it when she says, I would have no money and no way to support the children.
Can't you get a job?
Oh, no way to support the children if I can't get child support and alimony out of my ex-husband.
No way, no possible way to support the children.
And yeah, again, I'm going to assume he and his attorney would make sure that I would be the one who was guilty.
Well, if she spat first, which she admitted to the cop, she was the first sign of physical violence in the altercation was her spitting.
She initiated it.
And, you know, just for those who don't know, domestic abuse always considered to be male on female.
It's about 50-50 in terms of who initiates the male or the female.
So, I don't know.
Is pointing out consequences a threat?
I guess for some.
Mary Louise Picard went on to say, I was told that I could go anywhere in the world.
His attorney, along with respondent, arranged for me to leave town until the trial was over and it was okay for me to return home.
I left town for two weeks with the children and was an hour and a half away by car until the attorney phoned me and told me I could come back.
Because I was not present at the trial, the case was dismissed.
Again, just looking at this from the outside, she wanted the money and therefore acted in a way that the charges would be dismissed.
So she really wasn't that upset, relative to wanting the money, that upset about him, the...
Breaking of the phone and stuff like that.
Anyway, once you invite the government into your marriage, you tend to be, you kind of have a third wheel for a long time.
Now, she later also elaborated on the 1996 incident, adding the claim that Bannon threatened to kidnap the children.
She said, I took the phone to call the police and he grabbed the phone away from me, throwing it across the room and breaking it as he screamed that I was a crazy effing C. He then left.
So this was not in the original police report, which was of course the moment of, but you know how sometimes stuff that happens, it's really, really vivid.
You don't remember at the time when talking to the cops, but years later, years later, it suddenly comes back to you.
No, me neither.
So Politico said, Bannon was ordered to pay her legal fees related to the divorce, child and spousal support, including childcare and housekeeping, medical insurance and costs, school and extracurricular activity dues, and the children's undergraduate tuition, room and board.
According to the divorce settlement, Bannon was already paying spousal and child support to a wife and child from a previous marriage.
It's just possible we might have an advocate close to Donald Trump who might be interested in family court reform, divorce reform.
It's possible.
It's possible.
And given how much he's paying, I can see why she might not want him in jail.
Mary Louise Picard, June 27, 2007, court declaration.
The biggest problem he had with Archer School for Girls is the number of Jews that attend.
He said that he doesn't like the way they raise their kids to be whiny brats and that he didn't want the girls going to school with Jews.
Okay, so, look, we have statements from an ex-wife, we have an angry, long, ugly divorce, there's terrible drama going on and it's a mess.
Are we, I mean, I take divorce proceedings with a fair amount of skepticism.
My parents were divorced and the stuff I heard, man, and the stuff that I later found out, anyway, that's a topic for another time.
I'm just telling you my particular experience.
I don't necessarily assign 100% veracity to statements made in divorce proceedings, especially when there's a huge amount of money involved.
So, Mary Louise Picard, June 27, 2007, court declaration.
I told him That there are children who are Jewish at a competing school and he asked me what the percentage was.
I told him that I didn't know because it wasn't an issue for me as I am not raising the girls to be either anti-semitic or prejudiced against anyone.
Now, at Westland School, Bannon, quote, asked the director why there were so many Hanukkah books in the library.
So, the New York Magazine, to their credit, followed up on this and said, in a phone conversation yesterday, the former director of Westland School confirmed the Hanukkah book exchange took place.
The director didn't interpret the question as anti-Semitic, so the person who wasn't in a bitter divorce, custody, financial harangue with the guy didn't find it anti-Semitic at all.
So, the unnamed former Westland School director said, I think the context was Different from what I've read in the papers.
The school doesn't celebrate holidays.
We celebrate all holidays and no holidays.
Oh no.
Subjectivist relativist goop.
I think I might have some idea why Steve Bannon didn't want to send his children to this place.
Sorry.
The school doesn't celebrate holidays, this person said.
We celebrate all holidays and no holidays.
So we don't have costumes at Halloween, but when a holiday comes up, we talk about it.
And there are books in classrooms and they...
Put them away for the next holiday.
So I thought he was referring to how come you say you don't celebrate holidays?
There were all these books about Hanukkah.
Bannon spokeswoman.
At the time, Mr.
Bannon never said anything like that and proudly sent the girls to Archer for their middle school and high school education.
The bottom line is he has a great relationship with the twins.
He has a great relationship with the ex-wife.
He still supports them.
And the moral of the story is be very careful who you marry.
a lot of us who've dated a lot of people who've dated a lot of different people every now and then you'll come across someone they just kind of drive you crazy now don't marry them don't marry them but it happens they kind of get under your skin they're button pushers extraordinary and it can go both ways and in my outside opinion this was a marriage that was a mess and lots of button pushing lots of frustration and they separated they got divorced and it was ugly for a long time a lot of money took place a lot of allegations a lot of money transfer took place allegations took place Be
very, very careful who you marry.
But again, this is 20 years ago.
It's not appeared to happen since.
It was a bad marriage.
He got out, she got out.
The violence stopped.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this may have actually even been better for the children rather than the brawls that may have occurred otherwise.
But let he who's without sin, as I cast the first stone, as I would say.
But these are the facts about the divorce battle.
So the anti-Semitism accusations.
So Milo Yiannopoulos, who's a great guy who's been on this show, he said, I'm a gay Jew and Steve Bannon helped turn me into a star.
Literally nothing the left is saying about him.
It makes any sense to me at all.
The guy's a hero.
Okay.
Well, see, here's the thing.
No, no, no, I'll get to it in a second.
I'll get a better place for it.
Breitbart editor-at-large, Joel B. Pollock.
I have worked with Steve Bannon in close quarters for five years.
Steve Bannon has not only not said anything against Jews or any other person, But has, in fact, been overly sensitive towards concerns affecting Jewish communities around the world.
Now, for those who don't know, Joel B. Pollack is like super Jew, maximum Jew, and that's important as well.
Breitbart Jerusalem Bureau Chief Aaron Klein.
Now, I haven't looked this up, but Jerusalem Bureau Chief Aaron, I'm going to go with Jewish as well.
Just, you know, going to go out on a limb here.
So, Aaron Klein said, It was with Bannon's encouragement that we opened Breitbart Jerusalem.
To hear the word anti-Semitism associated with Bannon, I would say the only association in a sentence that it should have is that Steve Bannon fights anti-Semitism because that's what I have personally experienced.
I can tell you scores of stories that he pushed for us to do at Breitbart Jerusalem highlighting, in fact, he was deeply concerned about the growing trend of anti-Semitism on US college campuses.
Republican Jewish coalition board member Bernie Marcus.
I've known Steve Bannon for many years.
I have been shocked and saddened to see the recent personal attacks on Steve.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I have known Steve to be a passionate Zionist and supporter of Israel, who felt so strongly about this that he opened a Breitbart office in Israel to ensure that the true pro-Israel story would get out.
What is being done to Steve Bannon is a shonder.
Now, shonder is a Yiddish word meaning a fool or a shame.
A shonder for the Goyen means to do something shameful, publicly witnessed by non-Jews, thus bringing shame upon Jews in general because the theory goes we are all held accountable for the worst deeds of the worst of us.
I know this because I looked it up, not because I'm Jewish.
I don't know.
There's this rumor out there that I'm Jewish.
It's not true.
Not true at all.
But anyway.
So, yeah.
So, okay, as far as I understand it, is that the media is taking the word of a non-Jew against a wide variety of Jewish experts.
So I have a question for the media.
How many Jewish experts who've worked with this guy for many years, or have known him for many years, how many Jewish experts does it take to overturn the hearsay of one non-Jew?
Is it five Jewish experts versus one non-Jew?
Is it ten I'm just curious what the ratio is because that seems pretty anti-Semitic to me.
Well, you are a Jewish expert and you've worked with them for many years, but we're going to completely discount you because the non-Jew said something in divorce proceedings that has no validity, no proof.
Just a question.
How many Jews do you have to stack up to overturn the hearsay of one non-Jew?
If it's more than one, hey, you might be an anti-Semite.
Israel Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer.
Again, I'm going to go with Jewish.
Israel has no doubt that President-elect Trump is a true friend of Israel.
We have no doubt that Vice President-elect Mike Pence is a true friend of Israel.
He was one of Israel's greatest friends in the Congress, one of the most pro-Israel governors in the country.
And we look forward to working with the Trump administration, with all of the members of the Trump administration, including Steve Bannon, and making the U.S.-Israel alliance stronger than ever.
Again, He's a Jew.
What would he know about anti-Semitism?
Let's take the word of the non-Jew.
Anyway.
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.
Jewish!
I don't know if he's an anti-Semitic or not.
I just don't think you should toss that phrase around casually unless there is overwhelming evidence.
He has hired Joel Pollack, who worked with him for four years.
Who...
An Orthodox Jew who is married to has a mixed-race marriage.
He has been very positive towards Jews and towards Israel.
I think the evidence that he is an anti-Semite is just not there.
Huh!
The left using a term that is emotionally loaded and thus diminishing of its power to target real manifestations of the wrongdoing it describes.
Sexism, racism, anti-Semite, Islamophobia.
Huh!
Now, I'm sure they'll learn tomorrow.
I'm sure they'll learn tomorrow.
Zionist Organization of America Special Projects Director Liz Burney.
I think so many people who actually know Steve Bannon, including people that we know, have said that...
have said he is a very decent person and he actually helped in our difficulties with CUNY with the anti-Semitic protests at CUNY. We've also analyzed the articles that he has in Breitbart and so many of them have been pro-Israel.
Just this week he wrote an article talking about the pain of a Jewish student who found a swastika on her doorway.
This is not something that an anti-Semite would write about.
It's very painful to feel, see somebody smeared who doesn't deserve it and who's a fine human being.
So, seems to be okay with the Jews.
I'm guessing there are other groups who now have a problem with it.
Anti-Defamation League said, While there is a long fact pattern of evidence that Breitbart served as a platform for a wide range of bigotry, and there is some controversy related to statements from Mr.
Bannon's divorce proceedings in 2007, we are not aware of any anti-Semitic statements made by Bannon himself.
In fact, Jewish employees of Breitbart have challenged the characterization of him and defended him from charges of anti-Semitism.
Some have pointed out that Breitbart Jerusalem was launched during his tenure.
Nevertheless, Bannon essentially has established himself as the chief curator for the alt-right.
I don't know what that means.
The hangstress of Ham in the window, I don't know.
Under his stewardship, Breitbart has emerged as the leading source for the extreme views of a vocal minority who peddle bigotry and promote hate.
You know how they say picks or it didn't happen, arguments or it didn't happen.
It's not an argument.
Pedal hate.
Racism accusations, because you know, it's the backup.
Breitbart, London editor-in-chief, Rahim Kassam.
Stephen K. Bannon is the man who flew to London to hire me.
This brown guy called Rahim Kassam from a Muslim family to run his London operation, and he's now put him in the seat on his radio show.
You know, when he thinks of any move, when he thinks of any policy, he's thinking about what makes people's lives better.
He doesn't care about the color of your skin or what god you choose to pray to or whether you pray to a god at all.
He doesn't nitpick over diversity or bureaucracy or even, quite frankly, ideology.
Conservatism, as a philosophy, is the antithesis of ideology.
And Stephen Bannon, as a human being, is the antithesis of ideologues.
And that's why they're calling him one.
They're projecting.
David Horowitz said, Could never have happened without someone in a position like Steve's who cared about what happened to inner-city children and who was willing to put his weight behind a program
this ambitious, which no other Republican would touch.
When the history of the 21st century civil rights movement is written, Steve Bannon's name will have a special place in its pantheon of heroes.
Horowitz.
David Horowitz is also the author of Bill Kristol, the Republican spoiler, Renegade Jew.
This is an article that was published on Breitbart.
And of course, this has also been used to call Steve Bannon anti-Semitic.
Now Horowitz, of course, is Jewish.
He spent a lot of his career fighting anti-Semitism.
The article was about whether or not Trump was going to be a positive defender of Jewish interests of the Jewish people.
So, an article about Two Jews arguing, sorry, an article which was two Jews arguing about how best to defend the Jewish people published on Steve Bannon's website is an example of his anti-Semitism.
So I guess the solution is to ban a Jewish writer from his website so that he won't be called anti-Semitic.
Yeah.
Funny game.
The only way to win is not to play.
Corporal punishment.
Spoiler!
I disagree.
The Hill.
In December 2015, weeks after Ryan became Speaker, Bannon wrote in an internal Breitbart email obtained by The Hill that the long game for his news site was for Paul Ryan to be gone by the spring.
In the December 1st email, Breitbart's Washington editor Matt Boyle suggested to Bannon via email that a story promoting Ryan's planned overhaul of the mental health system would be a good way to open a bridge to Ryan.
Bannon wasn't keen on the idea.
Steve Bannon, I've got a cure for mental health issues.
Spank your children more.
Now, I'm going to be charitable and assume that dear Steve has not seen the data.
Now, Steve, for your edification, I understand this is a position held by a lot of people on the right, a lot of conservatives.
Spare the rods, spoil the child, all that kind of stuff.
It's not spanking.
It's throwing your kids in daycare.
That is a huge problem for their mental and emotional development.
Babies put into daycare for 20 hours or more a week exhibit all the same signs as babies literally abandoned by their mothers, which is a death sentence for babies biologically, historically, from an evolution standpoint.
So, we've had experts on talking about this.
There's tons of data that spanking is harmful, lowers IQ, promotes stress, promotes dysfunction, promotes criminality, and so on.
You've not seen the data.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume.
And this was a private email.
Bad day.
You know, we all have them.
But the fact is that spanking is terrible for children.
And we'll put the links below.
Review the information because, you know, if you're going to get into education and parenting and all that kind of stuff, you need to have the facts.
Spanking is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
It is assault upon helpless children, and it produces highly negative results.
And, you know, when you put your kids through a very, very long and grueling and bitter divorce, that may have a bit more effect on them than perhaps not spanking them, which would have a positive effect.
Just giving you the facts, look them up.
I invite you to rebut if you see fit, but the facts are overwhelmingly clear in this area.
And, of course, who wants to deny facts?
You can't Attack the left for doing it and then want to do it yourself, so...
In the Picard-Bannon divorce documents, Picard, this is the ex-wife, claimed that Bannon had spanked one of his daughters as a toddler for hitting her head against her crib.
Supposedly, when Picard intervened, Bannon told her she was effing crazy and said if he hadn't been interrupted, she wouldn't be banging her head anymore.
Yeah, so, again, hitting a child to prevent her from hurting herself by hitting herself, not good.
Not good parenting and...
Bad for the children, and again, the facts are all below.
Strong, strong disagreement, and not just disagreement, it's completely counterfactual.
I'm going to again just assume the facts have not been made available to Steve.
The Biosphere Project.
Ah, Biosphere, the game that slandered objectivism.
No, wait.
Oh, that's another one.
In their effort to discredit Steve Bannon, the media has also seized upon legal actions related to the Biosphere 2 research facility.
in the 1990s so this was you know like you live in a biosphere and you can sort of sustain yourself and all that kind of stuff.
Texas billionaire Edward Base was financially backing the Biosphere 2 project and brought Bannon on as a consultant to cut the rapidly expanding expenses.
Ha!
Excessive bills!
The existing management did not allow Bannon to audit the project's records which led to Base pursuing Legal remedies, right?
So you bring someone in to find out why the spending is so high, existing management won't allow them, won't allow Bannon to order the project's records, and then you assume something not great is going on, pursue legal remedies.
So Bass received a court order to take over the project and a restraining order to bar the previous management from the faculty, facility, premises, sorry, which is when Bannon took control, right?
Court order, take over the project, restraining order, keep the previous management from the premises.
On May 5th, 1994, yeah, yeah, yeah, we're talking 22 years plus ago.
Edward Bass filed suit against Biosphere 2's former director, Margaret Augustine, accusing her of funding nearly $800,000 in company funds to her outside businesses.
Maybe he find out why the costs were so high.
Tucson Citizen said the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, also alleges that Augustine engaged in schemes and generally mismanaged the project for her own gain.
And for that, of former Biosphere 2 crew members, Abigail Alling and Mark Vanthillo.
A tangled mess.
After Bass obtained the court order and restraining order, Vanthillo and Alling were arrested on suspicion of criminal damage, trespassing and vandalism for entering the Biosphere 2 facility.
Right?
So, you can't go in.
Not allowed to go in.
It's illegal to go in.
And in they went.
Van Thillo and Alling were then fired only to later sue the company for breach of contract and abusive process.
Augustine responded by suing Bass, Bannon and others for libel, slander, sexual harassment, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and other improper acts.
In her legal complaint, Augustine said, quote, another employee and Bannon were insulting to the plaintiff and other female employees of Biosphere 2 and in their presence and Against their will, made lewd remarks, told offensive off-color stories, made disparaging remarks about females, made sexually suggestive remarks, discussed females they had known in a lewd and derogatory fashion, and in general acted with total indifference to the feelings of the plaintiff and other female employees of Biosphere 2.
Steve Bannon and another employee made comments as women walked by about the size of women's breasts and body parts in lewd tones and language.
Another employee Was she working with Jay Giles?
My angel is a centerfold.
So...
Augustine claimed to have suffered severe mental distress and anxiety that necessitated the help of medical care practitioners and the incurring of medical and hospital bills as a result thereof.
Boobs!
Sorry, I don't mean to make you go to hospital.
Buzzfeed said the judge ruled in favor of the defense on Augustine's allegation that Bass had dissociated her from the project and Augustine ultimately dropped her slander claims in addition to her claims that her privacy was invaded.
The sexual harassment count along with the countersuit against Augustine was ultimately settled.
So the judge said that Bass was right to remove her from the project as he did so there was no breach of contract that may have had something to do with missing $800,000 because removing her was not a breach of contract so something to think about.
According to a Bannon spokeswoman, the BASS organization sued Ms.
Augustine for fraud for embezzling $800,000.
She then sued two representatives of the BASS organization, having never complained about any behavior.
Subsequently, she dropped her legal action.
So, make of it what you will.
As previously mentioned, Alling and Vanthillo sued for breach of contract, defamation, abuse of process and invasion of privacy after they were fired.
During the 1996 trial, Bannon testified that he at one point called Alling a, quote, self-centered, deluded young woman, a, quote, bimbo, and acknowledged he, quote, vowed to kick Alling's ass after the restraining order was violated, right?
So after they breached the seal of the biodome, went in, caused damage, and, I don't know, kick your ass, it's a phrase!
I'm going to kick your ass in chess.
You know what men say they're going to kick someone else's ass?
You know what they don't do?
Actually kick them in the ass.
I don't know.
It's just one of these things.
According to the Tucson Citizen, Alling also angered Bannon when she was quoted in a Tucson Citizen article comparing the Biosphere 2 safety situation to management mistakes leading up to the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion of 1986.
Yeah, you know, if someone's kind of in charge of something and you...
Say that they're just like the people who led up to the space shuttle explosion.
It may not be the very best thing to get along with people.
Bannon said that the statement was improper.
I was humiliated, he said.
In preparation for a grand jury hearing, this is Tucson Citizen, in preparation for a grand jury hearing for the criminal charges, Allen claimed she had written a five-page statement about the safety problems with Biosphere 2 after new management took over.
Bannon, in turn, threatened to ram it down her blank throat, Bannon told jurors.
This was a bankruptcy, he said.
There gets to be a lot of hard feelings and broken dreams.
According to Mother Jones, at the end of the trial, the jury found for the plaintiffs and ordered Space Biosphere Ventures to pay them $600,000.
But also ordered the plaintiffs to pay the company $40,089 for the damage they had caused.
I guess that's by breaking the seal and going in.
That's just fantastic.
Wonderful, wonderful to see the left really, really concerned about scandals.
You know, after excusing, bypassing and overlooking and sweeping under the rug Bill and Hillary Clinton scandals for the past couple of decades, fantastic to see them going back over 20 years and trying to dig up scandals.
$800,000 is in question.
Didn't Bill Clinton have to pay $800,000 or a little more to Paula Jones for sexual harassment claims?
Yeah, well, of course, the really important thing is this, where a guy was brought in to try and clean something up and it got messy.
I guess that happens.
Oh, is he anti-Asian?
Ooh, let's find out.
Fusion published an article titled, Shocker!
Trump's New White Nationalist Aid.
Has some racist thoughts about Asians.
Let's find out what they are.
The article detailed the conversation which took place between Donald Trump and Steve Bannon on Breitbart Radio before their political relationship manifested.
Donald Trump.
We have to be careful of that, Steve.
You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country.
Steve Bannon.
Um, Donald Trump.
I think you agree with that.
Do you agree with that?
Steve Bannon.
When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think a country is more than an economy.
We're a civic society.
You got to remember, we're Breitbart, we're the know-nothing Bulgarians, so we've always got to be to the right of you on this.
Donald Trump, oh that's okay.
Now, I'm not trying to pick apart the man's brain, he can speak for himself very ably, but He's not anti-Asian because he's not talking about Asians born in America and raised with American values in the American context, with American philosophies and so on.
He's talking about people coming from other countries and having significant power, not just in the American economy.
Look, the IT world has been very political in US elections, particularly in the last US election.
You know, talk about rigging search results and curating particular stories, right?
I mean, Facebook got in trouble with that for having a bunch of Hyper-leftists curating the news feed and so on, suppressing conservative stories.
Now again, I'm not saying that Zuckerberg is Asian, but the IT world has significant play in American elections and you have a bunch of people coming from other countries, other cultures.
Not anti-Asian, you could say it's anti-foreigner.
Okay, well, that's a different argument, it's not anti-Asian.
And would these people have any loyalty, right, if you're from South Asia or from Asia, would you have any particular sentimental loyalty to hiring American workers or would you simply drive for the H-1B visa medieval surf typing program where people can't leave their jobs and you can basically keep their wages down that way?
I mean, would that be something that might be a factor, might be an issue?
No, just scream racism at people and try to shut them the hell up so that they don't talk about things that you might consider uncomfortable.
They're not going away.
These thoughts, these ideas are not going away.
I mean, they're not.
They're now in the ascendancy.
We can either have a rational discourse about these ideas or not.
But if not, you're just going to keep losing.
I don't know.
Maybe that's what you want to do.
Maybe it seems to me the mainstream media is now working for Donald Trump, but that's just my perspective.
So let's toss in a few conclusions here, shall we?
Thank you for your patience with this.
I appreciate that.
Well, clearly the left has learned nothing.
Screaming insults, calling in the airstrikes of racism, sexism, homophobia, whatever it is.
It doesn't work anymore, guys.
It don't work.
It don't work.
You can only shoot your machine gun so long at Superman's chest before he goes, hey, these bullets, they don't even hurt.
In fact, they make me stronger.
The left has so little credibility.
Mainstream media has so little credibility that whoever they attack now is elevated in the eyes of the people.
You understand that?
Whoever you attack now is elevated in the eyes of the people.
Something that used to work before the internet, before facts, before when you had the gatekeeper role.
You could do this stuff.
You don't have the gatekeeper role anymore.
We've seen the wizard behind the curtain.
It doesn't work anymore.
You won't get that.
I get that.
You're leftist.
That's like a little rotation thing.
So, I don't know.
Donald Trump.
Oh, yeah.
He hired a big anti-Semite because his daughter's married to a Jewish man.
And come on.
I mean, this is just stupid.
And...
Just go to Breitbart.com.
B-R-E-I-T-B-A-R-T.com.
Go to Breitbart.com.
Read the articles.
Don't listen to people tell you what the articles mean and what they're all about.
I mean, don't listen to the priests.
Read the Bible.
Don't listen to the people who are interpreting stuff.
Just go read the original.
And this question of nationalism Sorry, everyone.
It's now a big issue.
It's now front and center.
Globalism has been tried.
Collectivism has been tried.
We've got massive umbrella organizations like the EU, which are failing and falling apart and cratering and working seemingly as hard as they possibly could to destroy Western civilization.
Sorry, it's a question now.
You can be against nationalism, fine, but then you have to be against the non-white countries who are the most nationalistic and the most ethnocentric and the most ethnically focused and ethnically interested.
You know, go try and move a million Europeans to Saudi Arabia.
Go try and live in Mexico.
Go try and emigrate to Mexico.
See how well that goes.
So you can be against nationalism, but then don't talk about white nationalism, because whites are the least nationalistic people.
And of course, a lot of people criticize that whites are the least nationalistic people, and that's something to explore as well.
But it's just about nationalism.
Stop singling out white people for having a vaguely nationalistic impulse once in a while.
If you're against nationalism, go talk to a lot of other countries and cultures, and then finally, 2,000 years from now, you can work your way down to white countries.
If you're starting with white countries criticizing nationalism, hypocrite, coward, racist, and so on.
No question.
And look, here's the thing.
The left shields you from surprising arguments and surprising information.
Why do they do that?
So they can present the information out of context and have you recoil, shocked, appalled, cattle prod of contrary opinions, can't focus, must reply.
I mean, you're trained to have negative responses to certain information.
You have to participate in that process, right?
You have to actively avoid exposing yourself to opinions that differ from your own, from data that differs or opposes your worldview.
You have to participate.
I mean, they can only offer the drug.
You are the one who has to buy it and take it.
And so if you are out there and some of this information, the stuff that Steve Saylor talks about, the stuff that Richard Spencer talks about and so on, if this is like deeply shocking, offensive to you and you can't possibly understand how anyone can have these ideas, Well then you're just ill-informed.
Doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but you're just ill-informed.
So the left keeps certain ideas away from you and then BOOM! Puts them in your face, out of context, in the most negative possible way to train you against exploring these ideas.
They make it wrong or bad to explore different perspectives.
And I've given up.
I mean, if somebody comes to me with an argument I find startling, I'm just going to read it.
I'm going to try and understand what's going on and try and figure things out.
Doesn't mean I'm going to agree with it and so on.
And yeah, you can disagree with the argument that whites should have some kind of homeland if you want, sure.
But if it's only whites who shouldn't have a homeland, you're a racist.
If everyone else is allowed to have a homeland except whites, you're a racist.
Sorry, I mean, this is just a reality.
And remember, the left is not about diversity.
The left is pro all groups who vote for the left.
They don't invite people in from Mexico because they're pro-diversity.
If they were pro-diversity, maybe they'd invite a few Republicans into their organizations.
No!
Because Republicans don't vote for the left, but Mexicans in general vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.
So they're just inviting in and cheating in the election system.
So yeah, they're not about diversity.
Remember that.
They're not the one common thread.
And they're certainly not into feminism.
Look how they're going to write.
About Le Pen, the woman who's aiming to be in charge of the French government.
I mean, just look at how they're going to write about her.
She's a woman.
Look at how they wrote about Margaret Thatcher.
First woman leader of a Western country.
How did that work out?
They hated her.
Hated her.
Because she was on the right.
So forget.
It's nothing about sexism.
Nothing about, I mean, Muslims vote for the left.
I mean, it's nothing to do with anything other than political power.
Just remember.
This is very, very important to remember.
Nationalism is not the great crime.
It's not.
Look, it's called the lunchroom test.
It's called churches, right?
Churches in America don't have diversity programs, so they can't be sort of forced to equalize between races or whatever it is, ethnicities.
And so 90% of churches in America are 90% one race or another.
And the lunchroom test, where do people settle and look at it in prisons and so on?
People like to hang around people like themselves.
It's just efficient.
You know what to say.
You know what to do.
You know the kind of jokes you can make.
You know the cultural references.
It's not complicated.
You speak the same language.
You can dabble in diversity when you're young, but when you've got a job and you've got to pay your bills and you're paying taxes and you've got no time, you just need neighbors who are going to Have the same cultural references, the same language, the same religion or whatever.
It's natural.
And the left, of course, can't possibly attack anyone for not wanting to hang around with people like themselves because that's all the left does.
This is the complete confession out of this election.
This is the one great blinding white supernova in the intellectual landscape that everybody needs to stare at until they cry tears of relief from reality.
That the left can't complain about anyone else who only hangs around with their own kind because it was completely revealed in the lead-up to the election and the following of the election that the left only hang out with their own kind.
The left only hang out with their own kind and then they dare to complain that anyone else has an in-group preference or likes hanging out with their own kind.
You hear all the left people, how could Trump possibly have won?
Everybody I know was voting Hillary.
It's completely impossible.
It's incomprehensible.
That's because you're only hanging out with your own kind!
You complain about other people who have in-group preferences like hanging out with their own kind.
Bullshit!
I wish it smelled like napalm.
So yeah, expose yourself to different perspectives.
It's important.
Internationalism is the great crime.
The two ideologies that caused the most trouble and the most deaths in the 20th century were communism, which was explicitly international in scope and in nature, and Nazism.
Oh, Nazism was national socialism!
But it wasn't nationalism because it invaded other countries.
If you're a nationalist, you say, I have my own country.
I have my own preferences for my own country.
You have your country.
You have your own preferences for your own country.
The moment you go around invading other people's countries, you're no longer a nationalist.
You're an internationalist in that you want other people to not have their own countries but rather to be part of your country.
That's not nationalism.
Nationalism, it's like saying, I'm really into respecting people's property rights and therefore I'm going to go And invade my neighbor's house.
Well, no.
If you're into property rights, you have your house and they have their house.
The moment you invade their house, you're no longer into property rights.
So the moment you start invading other countries, you're not a nationalist anymore.
And this nationalism, if you say white nationalism, okay, well, but most white nationalists I've ever read, they're perfectly content with Japanese people to have their own country and for Africans to have their own country and for For the Koreans to have their own country.
They're not internationalists.
They're not saying well white people should go and invade all these countries and turn them into whatever it is.
The great crime, the great instability is internationalism and that's communism and socialism and Nazism.
And this idea that the big problem with the is the alt-right these days, come on, oh come on.
Alt-right people, they're not rioting in cities, they're not beating people up, they're not setting fire to police cars, they're not burning down Neighborhoods focus on violent people and the violent rhetoric which stimulates and protects them.
We either exchange words or we gear up with fists.
We either exchange ideas or eventually gunfire.
We must stay in the realm of civilized discourse and that means no emotional hysteria, no screaming people down, no slander, no attacks, no character assassinations, no taking things out of context.
I mean you can do all of that.
Crap if you want, but you're just undoing the ties that keep us together as a civilized society.
We must stay in the realm of facts.
We must stay in the realm of reality.
We must, we must, we must.
Words, true words, honest words, fact-based words, that is civilization.
The hysterical verbal abuse that leads to violence, I'm telling you, I've studied history a lot.
That is a dark path.
It leads downwards.
▲
Export Selection