Republican Moore defeated by Democrat Doug Jones is super Republican State. Neo-Confederacy, Steve Bannon defeated

I stay up last night until 100% of the precincts were in to make absolutely sure that Roy Moore was defeated. Turns out that Doug Jones defeated Roy Moore by 1.5% so there won't be an automatic recount. Roy Moore didn't concede but started talking about God being in control. Well maybe God is in control and he wanted Moore defeated.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/elections/2017/alabama/special-election/dec-12/?lo=ap_b1

However, before celebrating too much, Roy Moore did win with the white electorate. It was the turn out of the African American community which saved us. Moore won white voters "by more than-2-to-1 margin, 68 to 30 percent," according to the article of the following link.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/13/alabama-jones-moore-exit-polls-294159?lo=ap_c1

The article referenced by the above link said that African Americans voted for Doug Jones by "96 to 4 percent." Hopefully Doug Jones appreciates fully that fact. Perhaps the Republicans are not going to defend the Confederacy so much.

This is a big loss for Steve Bannon whose Breitbart has campaigned strongly in defense of Confederate monuments as well as for Donald Trump who has also campaign strongly in defense of Confederate monuments.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-think-bannon-made-an-ass-of-himself-republicans-rejoice-in-breitbart-chiefs-alabama-humiliation


This is Politico's take on the election. Key item is that Republicans are now fearing what the 2018 mid-terms will bring. Though it is a long ways away.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/13/alabama-senate-jones-moore-takeaways-294163

I can tell you that it has energized Democrats. Locally on Facebook they see 2018 mid-terms as having a tremendous potential.

Who is Stephen Bannon?

Given Breitbart's pro-Confederate writing and that its editorial policy seems to be directed by Stephen Bannon, I have been trying to learn what I can about Bannon.  Bannon is in the White House in a prominent position where he can defend the Confederacy.

Breitbart isn't simply neo-Confederate. Breitbart articles regard Lincoln favorably and recently there was an article about Frederick Douglass. These are thing that neo-Confederates would find an anathema.

It might be argued that Breitbart is just a grab bag of incoherent rage, and it might be to some extent. Maybe Lincoln is respected since not to would be lethal to Breitbart's influence.

This article certainly represents how some Breitbart articles are just concatenations of rage.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/12/21/walmart-drops-black-lives-matter-bulletproof-clothing/

To review the whole article's lack of logic would be lengthy but this extract should give a good picture of Breitbart's writing.

Micah Xavier Johnson, the Nation of Islam sympathizer and former Houston New Black Panther member who gunned down 11 police officers in Dallas in July said he wanted to kill cops, especially white cops, as reported by Breitbart Texas. Johnson started shooting at the close of a Black Lives Matter protest. A BLM activist thanked the cop killer on Twitter. Bill O’Reilly called Johnson “a hater and a terrorist.”

But Michael Xavier Johnson was in no way a member of any BLM organization and it turned out that radical African American groups thought he was crazy. So Bill O'Reilly's statement that Johnson was a terrorist is very correct, but not relevant to discussing the BLM movement.

Additionally, there isn't an official BLM national organization, it is more of  a movement. So the statement of a person who is "A BLM activist," without a name given doesn't mean much as an isolated incident. Even if it was an officer of an organization, we would have to see if the person was expelled from the group.  Large groups often have individual members saying things that the organization rejects, sometimes these offending members are expelled or censored.

It seems that BLM is a group of people who don't want to see African Americans indiscriminately shot by law enforcement. I don't think any group would stand for that.

However, thinking of Breitbart as being completely an incoherent rage machine I don't think is correct. I think there is very likely an agenda, and possibly a very reactionary pre-modern agenda.

I have read these articles:

https://qz.com/898134/what-steve-bannon-really-wants/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/steve-bannon-books-reading-list-214745

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/bannon-trump-muslim-travel-ban-breitbart-generation-zero/ Jacobin is a socialist magazine, but at least it is not filled with the Democratic Party line.

Of course Quartz is the publication of the globalists and I think Politico is likely to be so.

It is proving really hard to find out who Bannon is given the extreme polarization on reporting on him.

A lot of web newsites are full of the worst junk. Slate actually published this rubbish.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/20/donald_trump_s_horrifying_signature_is_a_cry_for_help.html

Ironically Slate had in the past published an article debunking signature analysis. In this article the history of what the Slate article calls a pseudoscience is given and debunked.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/explainer/2013/01/jack_lew_s_loopy_signature_how_much_can_you_tell_about_someone_from_handwriting.html

As a scientific person this is especially dismaying. With new pseudo-sciences coming into being you would hope that some of the old ones would die out. They don't.

So Slate at the present time is just grasping for anything at hand. Maybe tomorrow they will have an article about the examination of entrails and tell what it signifies for the Trump administration.

This stuff and nonsense isn't confined to the globalists. I was astonished earlier this week when a Trump supporter told me with all seriousness, that newspaper political editorials that were biased were illegal in the 40s, 50s, and 60s.

Understanding Bannon's ideology is important. It is just proving to be difficult to do so. It might be that he is a believer in the "Dark Enlightenment," a neo-Reactionary, or it might not.

I see from Generation Zero movie trailer that Bannon believes in historical cycles. It is a common enough failing. There are historians who try to press history into some mold. But I am not sure this movie actually explains where he is coming from.

Perhaps figuring out who Bannon is will take some time. What I mean by this, is finding out where he fits in the political taxonomy. Or maybe I will focus on outputs, behaviors and leave it at that. I will have to see what information there is.

Council of Conservative Citizens Considers Steve Bannon a Friend

http://conservative-headlines.com/2016/11/the-truth-about-steve-bannon/


Quoting from the article

Steve Bannon isn’t one of us, but he isn’t an enemy either. He has gone out of his way to stick up for the Deplorables. If politics is about friend vs. enemy, then we definitely count Steve Bannon as a friend. He is on the side of the national populist revolution. His enemies are our enemies.

Stephen Bannon in the White House

The rise of the alt-right with recent events made me think of this video.

Raising up of all sorts of things. Lets hope for a similar ending.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLCuL-K39eQ

Click on the screen below to see the whole thing.

Steve Bannon, executive director of Breitbart, appointed to be Donald Trump's chief strategist. The Confederacy will now be inside the White House

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/stephen-bannon-breitbart-backlash-231371

The above link is to an article about the appointment by Donald Trump of Steve Bannon to be his chief strategist. Bannon is the executive director of www.Brietbart.com.


Breitbart is pro-Confederate.