Steve Bannon Says America Was Built on ‘Nationalism’ – What Does That Mean?

Former White House adviser Steve Bannon unleashed some shocking quotes in a recent interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” including seeming to call for bigger government in the U.S.

“Economic nationalism is what this country was built on, the American system,” Bannon said, explaining that this nationalist system included lending to manufacturers to support American production and controlling the border.

On radio Monday, Glenn Beck parsed this particular segment of the interview to take a look at the word “nationalism.”

“Is anybody noticing what he’s just done?” Glenn asked. He explained the link between nationalism and white supremacy that was realized under the Nazi regime.

“The Nazis are white nationalists; they’re not just white supremacists,” he said.

In the same interview, Bannon said that President Donald Trump was fighting for a “populist, economic nationalist agenda.” People have long been accusing Bannon and other members of the Trump administration of racism, but they are forgetting that fascism also focused on a nationalist economic system. Nationalism, as explained by Bannon, includes a tariff on overseas imports intended to protect American industry; a national bank; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other infrastructure elements.

“What he is fighting for … is tariffs, a central bank, infrastructure bailouts and federalized schools,” Glenn said. “That is the American system that he just quoted.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Where does America go from here?

We are at a crossroads. And we have more things that are coming our way -- economic troubles. We have more decisions to make, and there's a lot of things that the media is just not paying attention to.

Last night, on 60 Minutes, Steve Bannon -- they did an interview with Steve Bannon. And you're going to hear a lot of talk about it. Probably not with you. But you'll hear talk about it with radio and television. And the media will have the story all wrong. Because what they're going to focus on is Steve Bannon and racism.

They want to focus -- and Charlie Rose did this. They wanted to focus on immigration and racism and everything else. I want you to listen to what he said here. Because the media won't. And somebody needs to point this out. Listen.

VOICE: There's no path to citizenship. No path to a green card. And no amnesty. Amnesty is non-negotiable.

VOICE: America was in the eyes of so many people. And it's what people respect America for, it is people have been able to come here, find a place, contribute to the economy. That's what immigration has been in America.

And you seem to want to turn it around and stop it.

VOICE: You couldn't be more dead wrong. America was built on her citizens.

VOICE: We're all immigrants, except for the Native Americans who were here.

VOICE: America was built -- this is the thing of the left: Charlie, that's beneath you.

America is built on her citizens. Look at the 19th century. What built America is called the American system. From Hamilton, to Polk, to Henry Clay, to Lincoln, to the Roosevelts. A system of protection of our manufacturing. Financial system that lends to manufacturers. Okay? And a control of our borders. Economic nationalism is what this country was built on. The American system. Right? We go back to that. We look after our own. We look after our citizens. We look after our manufacturing base, and guess what, this country is going to be greater, more united, more powerful than it's every been. This is not astrophysics.

GLENN: So as I'm watching this last night, I'm thinking to myself, "Is anybody noticing what he's just done?" He starts out with something like, "Amnesty is off the table."

And there's a lot of conservatives -- and I'm one of them. I don't agree with amnesty. However, we have to have a discussion on what do we do? What does an actual plan look like going forward?

So we get stopped there. But we're not listening to what he's saying. Remember, he's talking about white supremacists. White nationalists.

The Nazis are white nationalists. They're not just white supremacists. And that's where this is getting lost. You just stop at the white part.

Well, those guys are racist. Okay. Well, that's kind of a big deal.

But that's not all the Nazis are. They're white nationalists. So Donald Trump or Bannon or whoever -- I don't know. He may be racist. He may not be racist. I don't think the president is a racist.

I've -- I've heard that when you speculate on the president and if he's a racist or not, you get into trouble. Well, that was the last one. Everybody can speculate on this one.

I do know this: That the president and Steve Bannon do believe in economic nationalism. What is that?

You know, it's -- it's strange because I've never heard from conservatives say, "You know, Alexander Hamilton and Polk -- well, Polk was great." The Polk talk I've missed. And then to hear, Polk, Clay, Hamilton, FDR, Lincoln.

Okay. Wait a minute. Hang on just a second. You'll notice he called it the American system. The American system is Henry Clay's system. Now, this is what he said built America. The American system is three parts: One, a tariff on other countries to protect all American industry. Two, a national Federal Reserve Bank. A national bank. Three, federal subsidies for roads, canals, infrastructure. And, by the way, Hamilton added one extra and that was public schools. An American federal public school.

So if you are sitting here listening to him, I want you to know what he is fighting for and what the president -- he says -- at least he says the president is fighting for is tariffs, a central bank, infrastructure bailouts, and federalized schools.

That is the American system that he just quoted. You know who is for that? Socialists. In particular, national socialists.

And the -- the third thing to add to that would be supremacists. White, black, it doesn't matter. People who believe that they are better than everyone else, and they can form a nationalized system that will control everything. It usually ends up being, well, we've got to get rid of some of these inferior people.

That is what Bannon is pushing for. That is what nationalism and the American system actually means.

GLENN: It's really interesting, this economic nationalism that Steve Bannon was talking about on 60 Minutes. And I want you to understand that white nationalism, the -- the racist part, is only half of it. That's only half.

The reason why -- the reason why the Nazis are so spooky is, they have the ability, through a nationalized government of every strong centralized government, to kill everybody they disagree with. That's the problem.

You know, Bill the Nazi down the street is a problem. I don't like Bill the Nazi. I don't know Bill the Nazi. And I want my kids to stay away from Bill the Nazi. But Bill the Nazi is not rounding people up, because he doesn't have the government to do it.

STU: You need that infrastructure to be able to accomplish those tasks. That's why we argue for small government all the time.

GLENN: Correct. Yes.

So you can say, "Well, I disagree with all that, that racist part." But if you're not paying attention to the nationalist part, that's a problem. That's a real problem.

STU: It's -- it creates the conditions that terrible things like that, like the Holocaust are possible. Right? Now, obviously we're not talking about the exact same system here. But it's that strain of nationalism that led in Germany and many other places.

GLENN: With the Nazis here in America, you are talking about exactly the same strain. You're not talking about it with Bannon, per se.

STU: No.

GLENN: I don't know if -- I don't want to say that Bannon is a racist, you know, or a white supremacist at all. I don't think he is. But --

STU: He --

GLENN: He is playing footsy with those people and only condemning half of the ideology. And the scary part of the ideology is having the conditions to where you can force that ideology on others. And that's the nationalist part.

STU: One of the things Bannon did before he came into the political eye was he worked for a company, I think it was World of Warcraft, the video game. And in there, you mine for fake video game gold. And he started working for a company that hired farms of people to mine the fake video game gold and sell the gold -- the fake gold, to people for real money that played the game.

So they would have people go in by the thousands and play the game to get these credits, right? And sell the credits to people who liked playing the game, but didn't want to work so hard for the credits. And they'd pay money for them.

Now, the business was a complete disaster, as many of his have been. And it fell apart in a sort of catastrophe situation. However, the interesting part of it was that was where he sort of found the fuel. Because that gaming community was so insular and so passionate, that he found, those sort of quirky weird movements could provide a lot of fuel for a much larger movement. And that's where it's believed he got the idea to bring in the movements like the alt-right and take the energy that they had through these really passionate niche sort of beliefs, to drive a candidate, if he could -- if he could find -- if he could convince them that this candidate was friendly to them.

GLENN: See, here's the problem with this, is the average person is being driven right into the arms of -- of these spooky people, quite honestly. Driven right into them. And I don't think most people understand how that is happening.

Can we play cut three? Mike Lee. Mike Lee is fighting for religious freedom. And the reason why this is happening is -- something we're going to address next hour, that happened on Capitol Hill, where senators were questioning a person's Catholicism and saying, "I'm not sure if you're qualified to be able to serve in the federal government," because you are a Catholic.

It was crazy. Now, listen to what the warning is here from Mike Lee.

MIKE: Another one of my colleagues, he even went so far as to ask Professor Barrett to confess her faith under oath in the committee.

"What's an orthodox Catholic," this committee member asked. "Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?" If these remarks had been some sort of bizarre, one time aberration, I probably would have passed them over, in silence.

But I feel compelled to speak out. Because I wonder whether a pattern might be emerging, a pattern of a hostility toward people of faith who come before this body.

Just a few months ago, another eminently qualified nominee, Russell Vought appeared before the Budget Committee to be considered for a post at the Office of Management and Budget.

One of my Senate colleagues used his time to question this nominee. Not about managements. Not about management or about budgets, but about the nominee's evangelical Christian beliefs.

"In your judgment," asked this senator, "Do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?"

Now, Mr. Vought explained to the committee that he is an evangelical Christian and that he adheres to the beliefs espoused by evangelical Christians. But that apparently wasn't good enough for the questioner who later stated that he would vote against Mr. Vought's nomination because he was not -- and I quote, what this country is supposed to be about.

This is disturbing. This is not what the country is supposed to be about. Some sort of inquiry into one's religious beliefs, as a condition precedent for holding office in the United States government. These strange questions have nothing to do with the nominee's competence or patriotism, or ability to serve among and for Americans of different faiths, equally.

In fact, they have little to do with this life at all. Instead, they have to do with the afterlife, what comes after we die, in this life.

To my knowledge, the ONB and the Seventh Circuit have no jurisdiction over that. This country is divided enough. Millions of Americans feel that Washington, DC, and the dominant culture despise them. And how could they not when they see their leaders sitting here, grilling patriotic citizens about their faith, like inquisitors? How could they not feel like their values are not welcomed in this chamber, within this government?

Religious freedom is of deep concern to me, as a Mormon.

GLENN: Did you hear what he just said, that people feel like their leaders despise them.

This is a very dangerous seed to plant. And, quite honestly, both parties -- and not just on religious terms -- you know and I know, Mitch McConnell, he doesn't like you.

The people who are the upper ends of the party, they don't like you. They're embarrassed by you. That is a dangerous seed to plant.

And they've been planting those seeds in Washington for a while. And that's what gives people like Bannon and white nationalists, black nationalists, Antifa -- it gives them the opportunity to grow, because you need a protector. We need to change that culture.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.