Skip to comments.This Is How Steve Bannon Sees The Entire World
Posted on 11/16/2016 3:39:47 AM PST by CapitalistCrusader
The soon-to-be White House chief strategist laid out a global vision in a rare 2014 talk, one where he said racism in the far right gets washed out and called Vladimir Putin a kleptocrat. BuzzFeed News publishes the complete transcript for the first time.
Appreciate the post. Thanks
One thing that is wrong with it is that if you believe in rationalism you reject the cult of personality. And an economy exists to serve the needs of the people, not the other way around.
Indeed, a great and enlightening read.
I had heard Bannon some on Breitbart on Sirius, but this is a more sweeping and cohesive take than you’d get from him there.
And I increasingly am feeling a need to post on the various Trump threads my deep appreciation that Trump decided to run and is going to serve as president.
I really don’t think we had anyone else on the scene who could have done and will do what he’s doing for the country at this juncture.
I think it would be more productive for Bannon to use the term “materialists” rather than “atheists”.
The key point IMO is that mere materialism lends itself to looking for an authoritarian distribution of resources, since anything that promises to parcel out more evenly (even if it creates less to parcel out) has a persistent egalitarian appeal. Also, “materialist” takes the Godless implication its next logical step toward statist control.
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Certainly Rand is a larger than life personality to may Objectivists. Personally, I believe that she was the second smartest person who ever lived. Second only to Aristotle.
I think I have read nearly everything written on Objectivism and I'm very familiar with Objectivist views on Capitalism. I'm not aware of where Objectivism states that individuals exist for the needs of the economy. That concept is anathema to Objectivism.
Thanks for posting. BUMP for later read.
No expert on objectivism but it always seemed to me that those folks were attempting to figure out a way to obtain “The Blessings of Liberty” without the need to invoke God.
That is true to the extent that Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy. In Objectivism the "Blessings of Liberty" are derived from the nature of human existence using a rational process.
Irrespective of the hows and whys of individual liberty and freedom, Objectivists believe in the sovereignty of the individual as the basis of the Objectivist ethics.
Thanks for this. It really helps you understand why the “Davos crowd” and “movement conservatives” are out to get him.
But I do think this is where it unravels and I don’t think it is just a matter of taste. Making the claim that there is no higher aspiration, no higher authority than the Individual really is claiming the status of god. Which is fine, I suppose, if there isn’t one but it invites His wrath if there is. Since I, obviously, believe there IS it seems to me Objectivism can only get you so far and then you run into an intellectual swamp which, IMHO, is what has happened to Objectivism.
Very interesting reading, and essential to understand where Bannon is coming from.
He seems to be talking with allies and quite free to be frank in his comments. It’s clear after reading this that the MSM libels Bannon when it calls him an anti-Semite ... unless the MSM thinks Christian is a synonym for anti-Semite (which I am beginning to think is indeed the case.)
I pretty much agree with his critique of Randian capitalism, which I interpret to mean that capitalism without the moral Judeo-Christian precepts inevitably degrades to corporatist crony capitalism, the crapitalism of the GOPe and Democrat ruling elite.
I am no fan of Donald Trump, but this article suggests that he made a good choice. Thanks much for posting!
I don’t see Objectivism as being in an intellectual swamp. And I also don’t think that Objectivism makes the claim that the individual is some kind of deity. There are “higher authorities” in Objectivism. Reality is a higher authority than any individual. This is why Objectivists don’t lie. You can’t fake reality. It always wins. Causality is a higher authority. Reason is a higher authority.
My only point was that I disagree with Bannon’s characterization of Objectivist Capitalism. A philosophy that holds individual rights as inviolable is not consistent with the concept that any individual is subordinate to any group.
Individual liberty is a fundamental precept in Objectivism.
On what writings of Rand do you base this conclusion about Randian capitalism? I have read nearly everything written by or about her and I have never come to that conclusion.
In a philosophy where individual rights are inviolable I don't see how one can come to this conclusion.
Some 30 years ago I heard Pleikopf speak in Seattle. It was interesting and a real, serious exposure to Objectivism that was a refreshing wake up. I was pretty busy with other things for the next couple of decades and then I began to have a “wake up” of a different sort so never really was interested enough to pursue Objectivism much farther. I did read here on FR about the history of the Randians fracturing into squabbling antagonists which sort of lead me to conclude “intellectual swamp.”
Not meant to be derogatory, sort of akin to concluding that Christianity had fractured into theological swampland.
Understood. I’d love to have a real conversation about Objectivism. I think it is oft maligned.
In reality I am not an orthodox Objectivist either. Specifically, I am anti-abortion where Rand often referred to a fetus as a potential life. I find this very disappointing. I used reason and evidence to come to my conclusion but I have never read or heard an Objectivist justify the “fetus is a potential life” conclusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.