I listened to the podcast. Start at about 6 min. All I really got was that he is involved with The Government Accountability Institute which published Clinton Cash, and that he pushed a lot of reporting related to Clinton to NY Times and other mainstream outlets. I didn't hear anything about peer-reviewed research articles.

Oh, it's just a poorly-worded version of Bannon wanting to get NYT or whatever to do an article on one of his stories. It's not academic journals.

Why would it matter at all if Bannon funded liberal peer-reviewed research? And also, if he did and no one knows about it, what exactly was the gameplan?

Why do you guys have such resistance to the idea that Bannon brilliantly leveraged legitimate research to achieve his political ends?

Listen to the On The Media episode on Bannon from last week--it's only 12 minutes long and explains his methods perfectly.

Here's a rather prescient article from 2015 explaining how he does what he does. Ultimately this methodology is what took down HRC. I have little doubt she would be president if not for this man.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/g...-steve-bannon/

I read that Bloomberg article that Lord keeps sort of alluding to instead of linking(what kind of phone allows you to post on forums but doesn't have copy-paste?) and the only thing remotely close to

mentioned is that he was loosely involved with pushing Clinton Cash to the New York Times, which has hated Hillary for 30 years.

co-signed

Liberals would WANT Bannon to fund real, scientific, peer-reviewed research. That's the whole thing conservatives. If it's peer-reviewed by a real scientific community then we're all for it. But he doesn't do that. He runs Breitbart, which is hateful, misogynistic, racist, misinformative, dangrously xenophobic, and etc. It's all based on anecdotes and straight up lies.

I'm not really sure, but I was imagining the argument was supposed to be that strategic mastermind and clear thinker Bannon, who sees the world as it really is, was funding research which disproves the malignant SJW world-view, and somehow at the end we arrive at some version of ethnic nationalism being correct. But maybe that's too jaundiced a view.

I just want to add that it's nothing like a meritocracy. The explosive rise of executive pay is largely about management conspiring against the broad interests of stockholders. Large corporations are plutocracies themselves where a minority holds most of the power and uses it boost their own compensation and play the stock market. It's what happens when the finance industry takes over the country. It's people who fundamentally are not about cars or energy or steel or w/e, but about business in the abstract. It's the same in government where people who are just generally smart and interested generally in government are presumed to be the best people to run any program in any department.

Obama was only half bad at this though. He did do things like put a physicist in charge of the DoE unlike say Bill C. who put three different politicians/lawyers in charge of it. And it's not that lawyers aren't necessary as laws are involved, but laws are involved in business as well and I think most people think it's better if a car guy runs a car company and consults a lawyer rather than a lawyer running it and consulting a car guy.

Also, why the fixation on peer review? We aren't talking scholarly research. We're talking legitimate investigative journalism.

Thank you sir.

It's not research that proves anything ideological. It's research to attack individual politicians and create distrust in all sorts of publications.Then Brietbart points to this as evidence for its unrestrained and relentless attacks and conspiracy theory peddling.

This isn't ideological. It's about power, disruption, and control.

Also I don't see why peer review is being held up so highly here.

I do peer review all the time.

I have had five books through peer review.

I've acted as a reader or reviewer many times.

Bannon could easily get stuff through peer review if he wanted to. He probably has if you look at his publication history.

I thought the point was that he was funding liberal stuff, but then when it was revealed that the funding source was Bannon all along liberals wouldn't know what to believe. Liberals' world collapses around them as the line between truth and fiction blurs eternally, and we are forced to admit that white people are the caretakers of the universe.

He's been doing it for years and only a handful of mouthbreathers on the the Internet are aware of it despite the entire plan relying on everyone knowing, but it is ingenious nonetheless.

I only remarked on it because you seemed to claim that he funded peer-reviewed research too. I'm not sure how else to read that sequence with prana. I don't think anyone is surprised that Bannon sponsored oppo research into Clinton. I'm too lazy to bother arguing about "well-researched". *Shrug*

Thank you for this great post and I'll just add that Trump and Congress are definitely organizing to try to figure out to overhaul the rules on the financial industry and allow for it to be a ridiculous unregulated wasteland (even moreso than now). The kind of conditions that got us the 2008 crash, but even worse and far more extreme.

If Bannon was funding peer-reviewed research, he was wasting money. He could have carved "Hillary = Satan" into a piece of stone and smashed tea party types in the face with it to the same effect, because they are dumb and gullible.

From respected Journals...

i.e not ones you pay $2k to publish on like all the crackpot creationists and global warming deniers do.

Wait, Bannon wanted to get a negative piece on Clinton published in MSM and that's brilliant?

Ok, 1st level thinking is "publish a negative piece on Clinton".

2nd level is "try to sneak negative piece into liberal media".

You've got really low standards if that counts for brilliant.

no, not quite



lord's claim here, no one else's.

My understanding is that it was strongly implied. Did he not say journals?

But besides that knowing academia do you doubt for a single second that he could?

Do you feel you succeeded in sneaking some disinformation through peer review? Do you feel some disinformation slipped through in the reviews you did?

In what field do books go through peer review?

I love that his argument against peer review is "I get through peer review all the time."

books?

amazing that this troll is still allowed to post here...