The "two corners of the White House" part is totally in line with the "heads on pikes". It is all part of the same figure of speech.
The part everybody is missing is "I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England", which provides the context to understand the stuff people is having a meltdown about. This is not "heads on pikes" by a bunch of salvages; it is "heads on pikes" as part of the official policy of an absolutist State.
The way I read it, Bannon said: "I would have them face the death penalty, if there was a legal way to do so. And I would use their cases as deterrence from other would be traitors."
I don't see it as a call to have civilian supporters attempting against the lives of those two high ranking officials; but could be interpreted as a declaration of intent to pursue and extend draconian powers for the (Executive Branch of the) US Government. I will let you decide which of the two interpretation is gravest.
> I’d put the heads on pikes. Right. I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you are gone.
It’s silly to summarize this as Bannon urging Fauci to literally be beheaded. To “put [someone’s] head on a pike” is a figure of speech meaning to punish someone publicly as a warning to others, and the next line corroborates that intent.
If the conversation ended there, in it's most favorable light Bannon could be assumed to be using "heads on pikes" as a euphemism for "getting tough / serious".
However, immediately after this quote, the other speaker and Bannon discuss historical political hangings and how the death penalty for treason is necessary during a civil war.
> Steve Bannon Under Massive Attack
> - Steve Bannon’s Twitter Account Suspended After Calling for Execution of Dr Fauci and FBI Director Wray
Regardless of where you come down on the free speech side of calling for a public figure's execution, Bannon seems to concede that he meant what he said.
>I think I would of agreed if I hadn't read a larger quote giving the actual context here. It's very hard to brush it off in the same way:
BANNON: Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now, I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I'd put the heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you're gone -- time to stop playing games. blow it all up, put Ric Grenell today as the interim head of the FBI, that'll light them up, right.
JACK MAXEY (CO-HOST): You know what Steve, just yesterday there was the anniversary of the hanging of two Tories in Philadelphia, these were Quaker businessmen who had cohabitated if you will with the British while they were occupying Philadelphia. These people were hung. This is what we used to do to traitors.
BANNON: That's how you won the revolution. No one wants to talk about it. The revolution wasn't some sort of garden party, right? It was a civil war. It was a civil war.
>The call to replicate actual specific events in the American Revolution really makes it feel real, along with the mention of a civil war being on.
"I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I'd put the heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you're gone — time to stop playing games. Blow it all up, put [Trump aide] Ric Grenell today as the interim head of the FBI, that'll light them up, right."
Jack Maxey, the podcast's co-host, responded: "Just yesterday there was the anniversary of the hanging of two Tories in Philadelphia. These were Quaker businessmen who had cohabitated, if you will, with the British while they were occupying Philadelphia. These people were hung. This is what we used to do to traitors."
To this Bannon replied: "That's how you won the revolution. No one wants to talk about it. The revolution wasn't some sort of garden party, right? It was a civil war. It was a civil war."
--------
I think it's pretty fair to characterize this as "literal". It's hard to read this (or listen to it, it was originally in audio form) and not think they're legitimately mulling over the possibility of executions.
“I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats.”
> Steve Bannon publicly called for the beheading of Dr. Fauci
1) No, he used a metaphor. I suggest you read what he said:
“I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats,” he continued. “You either get with the program or you’re gone, time to stop playing games.”
The Tudor period was 1485 to 1603.
Maybe somebody can comment on whether leftists misunderstand what a metaphor is, or whether it's a dishonest narrative to discredit Bannon?
2) Frankly, Fauci was useless, so no great loss either way.
He admitted that he's only interested in covid-19 medical information, without context for any other public policy (educational, economic, non-corona health, etc.)
The original post starts with the phrase "I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England." before getting into the beheading bit. Do you believe Bannon is actually pining for a time machine as well?
I think taking quotes out of context does not present things as they actually happened or provide a fair analysis. We have to be careful of cherry-picking.
Here's the full context: “fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” ... “We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we’ve been forced to believe over the past several weeks.”
Per legal scholars, like Jonathan Turley,[1], "those words could be equally consistent with calling for a protest, not violence, as many groups routinely do at state and federal capitals." which explains why the legal system has not been able to convict Trump.
People seem to have varying opinions on this topic, but at the end of the day if you look at the facts, it becomes much simpler to understand.
> Do you seriously think any reasonable person would ever do that
As the other reply points out, this really isn't treason. The President is not the country.
> and assume they would get away with it?
I don't think they even thought that far. They probably wrote this in an emotional state after watching (or even attending) John McCain's funeral. McCain's referenced with respect near the end of the article.
This seems like a short-sighted attempt to announce heroism as an inspiration to others. It certainly hasn't had that effect, but I try to keep Hanlon's razor in mind:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
> It isn't hard to understand what the President is saying.
The most generous interpretation of his words is that he meant it's a political attack from his political opponents.
The fact that his first instinct is his own political fortunes and has to preemptly whine like a baby about it is evidence of shit leadership.
The President and all leadership should be focused on the right response that minimizes loss of life, political fortunes be damned. I mean, seriously. If a sheriff's first instincts in every crisis were his reelection chances, he'd be out on his ass. But sadly, yes, here we are, arguing stupid shit, in the middle of a completely unnecessary distraction because he felt threatened and needed to lash out. So he pitted us against each other at the least opportune time. It is the one of the worst possible things to do in a crisis. Find a way to divide us!
He don't even know what that is. He has already demonstrated that he was surprised that he can't rule the government as a CEO-king. Bannon believes in big war that cleansing the system, so maybe he does. Attorney General Sessions has shown clear contempt against civil rights.
>or commit genocide?
Of course not. Fascism is not equal to genocide. He want's to kill families of those who he opposes. So he is probably with some mass murders, but I don't think it's on the top of his mind.
Compare two fascist states in Europe, Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini. They took two different paths. In Germany fascism developed without restraints into self destructive expansion. In Italy fascism turned into normal authoritarian rule and dictatorship under Mussolini.
If the assumption is that comparisons to fascists and Hitler all suggest some kind of holocaust, they are meaningless.
He had repeatedly called for an ethnic cleansing of America. And now his buddy, Steve bannon is in the white house. The state has a monopoly on violence, and they aren't on our side
The man just unilaterally stranded thousands of permanent residents outside of the country - and the departments enforcing this are disobeying legal court orders to halt the ban.
This is a fundamental attack on the rule of law. How exactly do you negotiate with that? "Please, sir, could you stop destroying lives?"
Do you think that he is too stupid to understand the consequences of his actions?
> Because it eludidates the hypocrisy of trying to claim that Lin Wood's call for Pence's execution was "technically" a call for a legal trial and execution and not for the mob violence that actually resulted.
> The disturbing thought is "would they be in jail had they succeeded in dragging
Pence bodily out and hanging him?"
We're fully into the realm of hypotheticals now, but I suspect not,
and we would be in a new history written by the victors - terrifying
as that would be.
> As an engineer, that makes me question the robustness of the
protections.
Rightly so. And maybe we would be in another rotten phase of bloodshed
and chaos. But as a fellow engineer, maybe with a little more
scepticism, I question whether an engineering approach to human destiny
is such a great stance. Without asking "Protection of what, for whom,
from who, and to what end?" we're trying to engineer against change in
the abstract, without a full understanding of what that might be.
After all that's happened, all those people who supported Trump are
still around, and still harbouring their disaffected ideas. We must
deal with them as we find them, as fellow humans.
Silencing any group, no matter how much we disagree with them is only
a road to more trouble.
Anyway, I'll probably miss further in this thread, so an interesting
and thoughtful exchange, Thankyou.
> Giuliani "meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition"?
I think it takes a particularly steelman interpretation to see the content of Giuliani's "trial by combat" speech as not insurrectionist.
“So let’s have trial by combat! I’m willing to stake my reputation, the president is willing to stake his reputation on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there.”
> last summer
Sure, there are democrats who turned too much of a blind-eye to violence over the past summer. But I find it fallacious in the extreme to equate reducing a police budget with insurrection. For the particular New York exception, the budget cut to NYPD came to about 10% of the budget, which very closely tracks New York's budget shortfall as a result of the Covid exodus from the city (12% budget shortfall) [0].
> head-on-a-pike
“I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I’d put the heads on pikes. I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats,” he explained, as Media Matters for America first reported.
“You either get with the program or you’re gone - time to stop playing games,” Bannon added. “Blow it all up.”
“That’s how you win the revolution,” Bannon said. “The revolution wasn’t some sort of garden party. It was a civil war.”
Even when one takes that statement as charitably as you do, it doesn't help the level of discourse.
> Left leaning celebrities
I said upthread, I believe we should be moving corporate moderation etc into a local government due process. IMO the Texas DA (for example) should be able to ask Twitter to moderate a statement like that, and have the moderation heard in court. But Snoop Dogg doesn't hold nuclear codes, or hold the ear of the person who does.
> Then when Biden said he wants to take Trump behind the bleachers and knock him out, we should construe that as a threat of violence against the President,right?
No, just like I never said Bannon's statement should be taken as a threat.
> People never, ever use hyperbole for effect
I never said that. What effect so you think Bannon was going for? I've explained what I think, and that that the statement was a neither literal nor hyperbolic.
If you want a productive dialog, you need to respond to what people actually say, rather than fantasies of what you'd like them to have said because it is convenient to argue against.
The part everybody is missing is "I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England", which provides the context to understand the stuff people is having a meltdown about. This is not "heads on pikes" by a bunch of salvages; it is "heads on pikes" as part of the official policy of an absolutist State.
The way I read it, Bannon said: "I would have them face the death penalty, if there was a legal way to do so. And I would use their cases as deterrence from other would be traitors."
I don't see it as a call to have civilian supporters attempting against the lives of those two high ranking officials; but could be interpreted as a declaration of intent to pursue and extend draconian powers for the (Executive Branch of the) US Government. I will let you decide which of the two interpretation is gravest.
reply