The Bannon Conundrum and Linguistic Idiocracy
By Kaiter Enless.
According to Solomon Jones of the Philadelphia Inquirer, President-Elect, Donald Trump’s newest pick for Chief Strategist, Brietbart’s Stephen K. Bannon is, “Like another hateful propagandist, Joseph Goebbles.” Mr. Jones is far from alone in this kind of fearful trumpeting, consider also the tonal similarities of headlines from The National Review and Haaretz, respectively:
“Steve Bannon Is Not a Nazi – But Let’s Be Honest About What He Represents!” and, “Bannon’s Not an Anti-Semite – But He Is An Anti-Muslim, Anti-Woman Bigot!”
This is blatant, ostentatious shock-jockeying at it’s finest, all of it stemming from the belief that Bannon, is a bigoted xenophobic white supremacist. Yet none of these journalistic platforms ever provide even the simplest pieces of evidence to back their extravagant claims.
Let’s tackle the white supremacy angle first since it’s the most commonly raised. Definitionally speaking, one is a “White Supremacist,” if one believes that the white race (whatever that means) has some divinely granted or inherent phenotypic advantage which positions them above all other races and, as such, gives the so-called white race, license to dominate all other racial groups.
This then begs the obvious question, has Steve Bannon ever attempted or done anything to physically suppress or censor other racial groups? No. Has he ever said anything which suggests that be believes whites should dominate and rule all other races and ethnic groups? No.
Now, to be sure, Bannon has said some controversial things, such as that he’s an unabashed, “Economic Nationalist,” as well as that the site he inherited from the fiery conservative mainstay, Andrew Brietbart, Brietbart News, was to become a, “Platform For The Alt-Right,” a group which does undoubtedly contains a white nationalist element.
But there is a enormous distinction to be made between a white nationalist and a white supremacist, just as there is a big difference between making one’s media outlet a platform for a particular group and agreeing wholeheartedly with that group. The problem with the conflation of the former terms is that they are not mutually inclusive, for instance one can easily be a racial nationalist without any ill-desire upon another racial group or one could be a white supremacist globalist or white supremacist anarchist, both of which are positions utterly antithetical to nationalism. What is also important is that one need not agree in the slightest with either position to have the intellectual uprightness to admit that there can be a difference.
In regard to the latter examples, simply making Breitbart News a platform for members of the Alt-Right does not mean that Brietbart must then back everything (or indeed, anything) that they say. For instance, take Noel Ignatiev, a professor of the Massachusetts College of Art as well as a extremely controversial anti-racist author who has made such eyebrow raising statements as, “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Should we then assume that Dr. David Nelson, President of the Massachusetts College of Art and Design holds these same views without providing any evidence of the fact? No, this would be starkest lunacy – a leap of logic so vast and quick and head-spinning as to, quite accurately be described as madness. Yet this is exactly what such media outlets as the National Review, Mother Jones, CNN and Haaretz Israel News are doing. But in attempting to drag their ideological opponents through the muck and slime they are unwittingly creating a totalitarian idiocracy of words, for in a world where words are deprived of any and all meaning, nothing can truly mean anything. This is the very reason (obvious as it should be) that we in The West must, as a people, fiercely cleave to the meanings of our words. This is not mere semantic jiggery – it is structurally crucial to the very foundations of civilization itself.
The remedy to this entire situation is always, always force these sniveling, craven weasels to make the appropriate linguistic distinctions. If they refuse to do so then put the onus on them, but don’t just stop their – attack and do so ceaselessly. For if these despicable so-called “journalists” casts upon any individual some baseless and defamatory remark, the person upon which it is cast is not the the bad guy – it’s the caster. For in throwing out spurious accusations, the mainstream media is acting out in a fashion that is not just disingenuous, but utterly morally reprehensible. For in endlessly repeating the same lies over and over again, like some kind of shamanic incantation, these wretched cretins are not just devaluing their own language and ruining their target’s careers, they are creating a world of mist and fog which cloaks the mossy, hungry bog below.
To quote the aforementioned, Joseph Goebbles,
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”
Does that sound like Bannon or the Mainstream Media? You tell me.