Thursday, February 02, 2017

Leonard Susskind's dumb attack on Steve Bannon

Half a year ago, Leonard Susskind wrote a childish letter attacking Donald Trump. It was a part of the political confrontation that Trump later won while the likes of Susskind have lost it. Now, when Trump is already the president, Leonard Susskind continues in his weird war against the new administration.

As recently as three days ago, the YouTube channel Susskind Lectures contained ten lectures about supersymmetry and grand unification. Ten is the spacetime dimension in superstring theory. What will you learn about in the 11th video? M-theory whose dimension is eleven? No, instead, what we got was
What Worries Me Most: Susskind's diatribe about Bannon
We learn that Susskind wasn't happy to transform his physics channel to a forum for cheap personal attacks but he has a shrew at home who ordered him to do so. She demanded that a political video had to be posted there and she must be referred to as a "brave woman" instead. To avoid the spanking, he did everything she asked for. (Susskind started to teach in order to impress his wife, too.)

Susskind was also ordered to mention the new U.S. president under the flattering name "Orange Godzilla". He got the task to explain the shortened name for "national socialists" because the people in this environment apparently don't know the relationship. (Needless to say, it's an oversimplification to say that "the Nazi Party" and "the National Socialist Party" are synonymous. Dozens of non-Nazi and sometimes anti-Nazi parties with this name exist or have existed in many countries. Ms/Dr Milada Horáková, the hero executed by the communists, was a member of the most famous Czechoslovak party of that name.)

Most importantly, Susskind's vlog had to say that all the stories about crowds are just a coverup for something more sinister: the melodramatic rise of the new Nazism in which Trump and Bannon play the role of Hitler and Himmler. The leftist protest movement should focus on Steve Bannon personally, Susskind suggests.




Sorry jako but can't you see how utterly childish, stupid, and unfair all these comments are? These attacks aren't justified by any substance – except for painful stereotypes about the appearance of the politicians and similarly superficial things.

Is Trump's skin orange? It's surely more orange than the average white man's skin. But so many people have dreamed about getting a suntan like that. More importantly, is it right to constantly repeat these references – which are meant to be unflattering – about someone's appearance? Susskind is one of the people who love to launch a world war whenever someone indirectly mentions that someone's skin is black or something like that. But to repeat that Trump's skin is orange (which probably has similarly genetic reasons, at least partly) on a daily basis is OK, isn't it?




The same comments apply to Susskind's extremely oversimplified statements about Trump's and Bannon's political opinions. The neverending repetition of the cliché that Bannon is a racist is substantiated by nothing. It's an insulting stereotype spread by the left. Bannon is a standard conservative and because he is white and non-Jewish, he must be a white supremacist.

This logic and the missing justification are completely equivalent to the steps that were needed to classify people like Susskind as Judeo-Bolsheviks in Germany of the 1930s and early 1940s. Does Susskind deserve this label? Well, he surely deserves the label at least as much as Steve Bannon deserves to be called a "white supremacist" or a "Nazi". But does it mean that we should use this label for Susskind as frequently as he and his soulmates are using their slurs for Steve Bannon? I don't think so. Such cheap oversimplified and unambiguously hostile labels simply cripple the political culture and reduce the intellectual standards that participants of the political debates expect from each other. This dumbing down and constant repetition of hostile slogans was an important reason why most Germans gradually lost their democratic instincts during the 1930s.

Bannon has taken over Andrew Breitbart's famous website after Breitbart died. Breitbart was literally an anti-racist fanatic. Bannon is neutral about these issues. You can find tons of deeper analyses of Bannon's relationships to "racism" and "white supremacism" on the Internet. Virtually all of them end up concluding that it's just inaccurate or unfair to label him in this way. Some examples:
No, Stephen Bannon is not a white supremacist (Spiked Online)

Is Steve Bannon Racist? Let's Find Out! (Mother Jones, ends up with a photo of a black guy in Bannon's team)

I know Steve Bannon – he is not a racist crackpot like Rev. Wright or a terrorist bomber like Bill Ayers (Breitbart)

Stephen Bannon is not a white supremacist, and the media helps racists by saying he is (Rare.us)

Trump’s Chief Strategist Steve Bannon: ‘I’m a Nationalist,’ Totally Not Racist! (The Daily Beast)

Bannon Says He Is Not Racist or Anti-Semitic (MSN)

Jonathan Gilliam: Steve Bannon is an 'Extreme Conservative,' But No Racist (Newsmax)

Why the Big Lie About Steve Bannon? (PJ Media)

Ignore the Lies: Stephen Bannon is a Mainstream Conservative (Canada Free Press)

Stephen Bannon in 2014: racism will get "washed out" of nationalist right (Jerusalem Post)
You may find tons of texts like that, with his actual quotes, details about his acts, and many things. He seems to be a rather standard conservative who considers himself a "nationalist" – in the sense that he has an attachment to his nation and the concept of a nation state and he finds it right – and who favors lots of other conservative principles. Everyone who isn't as extreme a leftist as Lenny Susskind has been insulted as a Nazi in the past and Susskind's rant is just another example of that. And in fact, all articles and monologues claiming that "he is racist" are based on someone's statement that "he is racist".

But there is a huge difference between a conservative and a Nazi. From an appropriate Western perspective, a Nazi is really much closer to a Marxist or a fan of another belief system that Susskind would be likely to endorse than to a conservative.

If you study Bannon's actual quotes, sentiments, and acts, you will realize that he likes black folks who work with him, has lots of Jewish friends, is a big supporter of Israel, and expects the racist elements to become irrelevant within the political Right.

So again, I find Susskind's insults directed against Steve Bannon painful, unjustified, and vicious and I am terrified that the people who have conventional conservative ideas similar to Bannon's – or mine – and who are still working in the Academia are exposed to a similar terror as Steve Bannon – except that their exposure is much more intimate because it's their environment. This insanity should stop. Susskind and others should simply get used to the fact that the only thing that has happened is that they have lost the election. And they may want to impose a quota on themselves – at least 30% of their students should be Trump supporters.

Steve Bannon is just a strategist of Donald Trump – a man who plays a very similar role as Karl Rove has played for George W. Bush – and just like Rove hasn't caused another Holocaust, Bannon won't cause one, either.



Of course, Susskind is extremely far from being the only person whose behavior towards the representatives of the American nation is unacceptable. For example, Guy Verhofstadt had an incredible tirade against Trump, Bannon, Farage, and everyone in Europe who has similar views on politics. This top Belgian psychopath has basically refused to recognize Trump as the U.S. president and demanded the creation of Gulags for these people who oppose him. Whenever I watch similar monologues, I realize that my signature – if it were needed – under the decree to nuke Brussels could be a formality.

Farage gave a sensible reply in which he also conjectured that this anti-Trump hysteria shows that a key driver beneath the EU project is genuine anti-Americanism.



Meanwhile, violent anti-Trump "student" scum in Daesh uniforms began to destroy the University at Berkeley just because the famous (gay) Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos came there to give a speech. They succeeded. The talk was shut down, no one was there to make sure that the criminal activity ends. As you can see, it was right for Trump to ban the imports of Syrians and similar folks. America doesn't need these imports – it has enough domestic filth that can do the job, too. And when I heard that the mayor of Berkeley has encouraged the violence that also destroys their common assets – because it allows to tell him "I told you" – I was just laughing loud. The city is clearly dysfunctional.

A hot blond babe was pepper sprayed into her eyes – in front of cameras after an interview! – for for being politely pro-Trump. These anti-Trump people are really starting to brag about their overt violence – and intimidate the people whom they disagree with in ways that approximately emulate Daesh.

Trump has creatively yet fairly tweeted that universities opposing the free speech such as UC Berkeley may lose the federal funding.

No comments:

Post a Comment