Your thoughts TrumpSet/Conserv: "I Told Steve Bannon: ‘We Are Not At War With Islam.’ He Disagreed.

[Althalucian]

I Told Steve Bannon: 'We Are Not At War With Islam.' He Disagreed. | The Huffington Post

In late May 2016, I was invited to a private home in New York for a chat. Like a lot of other people, the host was concerned about Islam’s growing influence in Europe, and she wanted to meet because back in 2005 and 2006, I had been been at the center of the Danish cartoon controversy, one of many clashes between Islam and the secular values of freedom of speech and the right to criticize and satirize religion.

A man whom I’d never met before entered the living room. He sat at the table across from me. He was about my age, maybe a little older, burly but not overweight. His face was a bit ruddy. He was unshaven and barefoot with long and greying hair.

During our conversation, he introduced himself as Steve. It turned out that his last name was Bannon, and he was then the chief executive of Breitbart News, an alternative U.S. media outlet, which has become one of the most read and watched news websites and has recently expanded to Europe. A couple months after our encounter, Bannon joined Donald Trump’s presidential campaign as a top adviser. The rest is history.

Just a few weeks into Trump’s administration, it is clear that Bannon’s influence in the White House is far-reaching. He co-wrote the president’s inaugural speech, in which Trump promised to stop the “carnage” in America, take the country back from a globalized elite and rebuild it on the principles of “America First.” Bannon is the only political adviser to a president in recent memory who gained a permanent seat on the National Security Council. He was also one of the key drivers behind the travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries and asylum seekers from Syria. An editorial in The New York Times called Bannon “the de facto president” and Time magazine put Bannon on its cover with the headline “The Great Manipulator.”

When we met, Bannon had just returned from the Cannes Film Festival in France where his film “Clinton Cash” had screened. Our conversation began calmly enough, but pretty soon it became heated at times. Bannon apparently assumed that we were on the same page when it comes to confronting the threat from Islamic terrorism, the challenge from parallel Muslim societies in Europe, and European countries’ failure to integrate many Muslims.

When he discovered that we held different views, our conversation became intense. Bannon is energetic; his lively body language is very much part of the way he expounds his opinions. And he doesn’t shy away from profanities.

...

Bannon is angry. The object of his anger is the “globalized elite.” He argued that Trump is just the beginning of a rebellion that will grow increasingly aggressive in the coming years. In a way, he told me, Trump is not the real thing ― only a premonition of what will ultimately come. “Just wait and see,” he said.

...

Ronald Radosh, a social historian affiliated with the conservative Hudson Institute, wrote recently about talking to Bannon at a book party in November 2013. According to Radosh, the guy who is now Trump’s chief strategist proclaimed himself a “Leninist.” According to Radosh, Bannon explained his Leninist tactics this way: “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.”

Bannon didn’t mention Lenin in our conversation, but I certainly recognized the rebellious, even revolutionary, fervor in his manner. Of course, Bannon isn’t a Leninist in the ideological sense. Quite the opposite. But his conviction that the way to a better world sometimes necessitates blowing things up sounds alarmingly Leninist.

What disturbed me the most in our conversation was Bannon’s apparent belief that violence and war can have a cleansing effect, that we may need to tear down things and rebuild them from scratch. He made it clear he had lost faith in Europe as secularism and arriving Muslim immigrants had eroded traditional Christian values as the founding pillar of our civilization. Losing the Christian faith, in his view, has weakened Europe ― it’s neither willing nor able to confront Islam’s rising power and some European Muslims’ insistence on privileged treatment of their religion.

...

Bannon is of the belief that, if Europe is to be saved, there is no way to avoid armed conflict. The power of Islam cannot be stopped by peaceful means. In short, Bannon told me in no uncertain terms that the West is at war with Islam.

...

Bannon disagreed. He shook his head. After another emotionally charged verbal tirade, he looked at me, slightly embarrassed. Then he said: “Flemming, I hope we can do it your way, but I am not sure.”

 

[Pressure]

Bannon disagreed. He shook his head. After another emotionally charged verbal tirade, he looked at me, slightly embarrassed. Then he said: “Flemming, I hope we can do it your way, but I am not sure.”

I see this a lot in pieces about Bannon. He seems to go off on provocative rants and then when someone questions him on it or he realizes he's gone too far he immediately tries to down it back, but never quite condemning what he said before,

 

[Pressure]

I also see a lot from Conservatives talking about the erosion of Christian values and the rise of the power of Islam. The angle always seems to place blame on Islam radical or otherwise for being able to sustain a movement and that is a threat to Christianity. Shouldn't Christians instead, self-evaluate and determine why so many people are turning away from Christianity more so than attempting to run the us vs them narrative?

 

[Starman]

I also see a lot from Conservatives talking about the erosion of Christian values and the rise of the power of Islam. The angle always seems to place blame on Islam radical or otherwise for being able to sustain a movement and that is a threat to Christianity. Shouldn't Christians instead, self-evaluate and determine why so many people are turning away from Christianity more so than attempting to run the us vs them narrative?

I think secularism is the bigger threat.

 

[Pressure]

I think secularism is the bigger threat.

Interesting. You think we need more religion involved in our government? What area do you fill this will address the most that is currently lacking? Or areas?

 

[Althalucian]

I think secularism is the bigger threat.

Bannon thinks both Islam and securalism are threats, though Islam is the more actionable threat to him.

It's funny - to me, America becoming more secular is something I've always thought would be inevitable. Perhaps it still is, but it looks like it won't stop Christian conservatives from going full-on Machiavelli into the White House to somehow stop it.

 

[714562]

I see this a lot in pieces about Bannon. He seems to go off on provocative rants and then when someone questions him on it or he realizes he's gone too far he immediately tries to down it back, but never quite condemning what he said before,

He lived and worked in Hollywood so he knows how to rein himself in around mixed company.

 

[Maschine_Man]

I also see a lot from Conservatives talking about the erosion of Christian values and the rise of the power of Islam. The angle always seems to place blame on Islam radical or otherwise for being able to sustain a movement and that is a threat to Christianity. Shouldn't Christians instead, self-evaluate and determine why so many people are turning away from Christianity more so than attempting to run the us vs them narrative?

Religion is just another way to have power over someone else. Republicans are starting to see that power being taken away so they want to instill that, and keep it from eroding to maintain that power.

the other side however, is that immigration from Muslim countries counters that. Unlike other religions that can fit in to our society easier(Sikh, hindu, Judaism, etc.) Islam needs to have power as well.

Neither side is willing to give up on that power, they both want to maintain that control.


now, to find a solution that works best...that is going to be the hard part.

 

[Pressure]

He lived and worked in Hollywood so he knows how to rein himself in around mixed company.

I imagine it's a very good way to find people sympathetic to your cause without actually pushing others too far away. I imagine for many he just came across as all talk until he ended up in the White House. Scary

 

[Pressure]

Religion is just another way to have power over someone else. Republicans are starting to see that power being taken away so they want to instill that, and keep it from eroding to maintain that power.

the other side however, is that immigration from Muslim countries counters that. Unlike other religions that can fit in to our society easier(Sikh, hindu, Judaism, etc.) Islam needs to have power as well.

Neither side is willing to give up on that power, they both want to maintain that control.


now, to find a solution that works best...that is going to be the hard part.

That's fine and understandable, but why aren't Christians asking questions of themselves. Not to make it overly politicized, but many of the same people criticizing Democrats from not being able to attract the interest of the working class fail to convince people in the benefits of Christianity. It would seem to be a requirement if you want to use the country as a vehicle for a religion war of ideals.

 

[Pressure]

Religion kind of guarantees that your country's population are all aligned in the same train of thought. Even when black and whites were segregated in this country, you could still count on both sides being opposed to homosexuality, because both sides upheld "Christian" values.

That make sense. Do you yourself, outside of group think benefits, see any other prima facie benefits of a non-secular government?

 

[Maschine_Man]

That's fine and understandable, but why aren't Christians asking questions of themselves. Not to make it overly politicized, but many of the same people criticizing Democrats from not being able to attract the interest of the working class fail to convince people in the benefits of Christianity. It would seem to be a requirement if you want to use the country as a vehicle for a religion war of ideals.

That's why I said republicans.

THe Democrats lost those voters not because they failed to preach religion but that they failed to at least attach to those same values that they believe in..

They don't need to preach Christianity, but in this country you can't dismiss it either...

 

[Family Man]

Ofcourse it's a war against Islam. Islam is the only real global threat to white supremacy. It's also a battle that the CACs will surely lose.

 

[ORDER_66]

What is Secularism???

 

[David_TheMan]

I don't understand how anyone can demonize someone by religious choice or lack of choice.
Its the institution of power that seek to spread compliance of its belief by force or threat of force that is the problem and it doesn't matter if those beliefs are religious or "scientific"