Conservative Marc Theissen column: Trump built a winning coalition. White nationalists will destroy it.

[Hans Blaster]

I'm assuming the recent GOP fracturing over Israel funding/support.

Could be, but I only really care about the response from the person I asked.

I tried to search for my old post where I cited the stats from Politico/Pew Research... but alas, the site issues are impeding my ability to do so.

But in a nutshell, prior to 2020.
GOP support for Israel was north of 85%, and Democratic support was over 60%, which, when you combine those, made it a third rail.

Fast forward to now:
Well over half of Democrats are now critical of it, and due to pundits like Megyn Kelly and Tucker breaking down the taboo, so are about 30-35% of Republicans.

...meaning, it's no longer "political suicide" to be critical of Israel anymore like it was a decade ago.

The days of merely labelling one an Antisemite for being critical of Israel isn't going to be the political slam dunk it used to be, and the Ben Shapiros and Mark Levins of the world are going to contend with that.

Evidence of that would be what happened in the NYC mayoral race. When each of the candidates who were still using the "old thinking" got the question about "Do you plan to visit Israel if you win?", one at a time, they all raised their hand and bragged about how many times they'd been there.

Mamdani said "no, there's no need for me to go to Israel, there are Jewish people here in New York I can talk to if I need a Jewish perspective" (paraphrased)

Mamdani won. (in a city that has the 2nd largest Jewish population in the world)

 

[zippy2006]

Which position is it that Shapiro needs to contend with because a sizeable contingent agrees with it?

The point is general, but it would apply to Israel, Fuentes in particular, or anything. As I said, "It doesn't matter what the position is."

So suppose for the sake of argument that a large portion of the conservative base formally adopts Nazism. Shapiro's position is apparently to shun them because Nazis should be shunned. What I am saying is that you have to contend with sizeable contingents, and it doesn't matter what their position is. I think Shapiro knows this. I think he is hoping that the groups he wants to shun are tiny minorities, so that they can actually be shunned without being engaged. I mostly think he's wrong. He's certainly wrong about the growing unease with strong support for Israel. Of course, substantively I agree with Shapiro, but he needs to make the arguments. They can't be taken for granted any more.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The point is general, but it would apply to Israel, Fuentes in particular, or anything. As I said, "It doesn't matter what the position is."

If there is no specific position, then you comment about Shapiro is useless.

So suppose for the sake of argument that a large portion of the conservative base formally adopts Nazism. Shapiro's position is apparently to shun them because Nazis should be shunned. What I am saying is that you have to contend with sizeable contingents, and it doesn't matter what their position is. I think Shapiro knows this. I think he is hoping that the groups he wants to shun are tiny minorities, so that they can actually be shunned without being engaged. I mostly think he's wrong. He's certainly wrong about the growing unease with strong support for Israel. Of course, substantively I agree with Shapiro, but he needs to make the arguments. They can't be taken for granted any more.

Hypotheticals about Nazis don't work real well when you've already mentioned an actual Nazi-fan in the post.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Could be, but I only really care about the response from the person I asked.

Why? Because you think it'll be easier to provide a dismissive rebuttal against?

If I'm providing substantive answers to the questions you're asking, then why not address my post?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why? Because you think it'll be easier to provide a dismissive rebuttal against?

If I'm providing substantive answers to the questions you're asking, then why not address my post?

No, because I want to know what they meant by that statement. You not being them can't properly answer. (I am also not particularly interested in your half-baked amateur political analysis.)

[ETA: this thread has been about Fuentes from the start. You response was not.]

 

[zippy2006]

If there is no specific position, then you comment about Shapiro is useless.

That doesn't follow at all. And as I said, it applies to every specific position, bar none. To say this is inconsequential is strange. Picking one specific position would be a great deal less consequential (despite the fact that I provided two specific examples).

Hypotheticals about Nazis don't work real well when you've already mentioned an actual Nazi-fan in the post.

That's why I picked it. That's why the hypothetical has force.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That doesn't follow at all. And as I said, it applies to every specific position, bar none. To say this is inconsequential is strange. Picking one specific position would be a great deal less consequential (despite the fact that I provided two specific examples).


That's why I picked it. That's why the hypothetical has force.

Then there is no need for hypotheticals. Use a real example involving Shapiro.

 

[zippy2006]

Then there is no need for hypotheticals. Use a real example involving Shapiro.

It seems like you're complaining because I provided a steelman. The Nazi case provides the strongest argument against Fuentes, despite the fact that everyone will disagree about whether he is a Nazi. The reason Shapiro doesn't like Fuentes is because of his anti-Semitism, and if we grant for the sake of argument that Shapiro is willing to oppose bona fide Nazism—without needing to explore the factual question of whether Fuentes fits that bill—then my argument still works against Shapiro. It's an "a fortiori" argument.

The only real question is whether what is at stake is a "sizeable contingent." I think it is indisputable that the group of people who oppose strong support for Israel constitute a sizeable contingent, and that it is much more arguable whether the Groypers count. So it's easier to critique Shapiro on the former, but the point is that his modus operandi is similar on many different issues.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The only real question is whether what is at stake is a "sizeable contingent." I think it is indisputable that the group of people who oppose strong support for Israel constitute a sizeable contingent, and that it is much more arguable whether the Groypers count. So it's easier to critique Shapiro on the former, but the point is that his modus operandi is similar on many different issues.

Shapiro (on this issue) tends to lack any allowance for nuance and that's where his major blind spot exists.

To him, there's no difference between a Tucker Carlson or a Nick Fuentes. (if we operate on the premise that Fuentes is a full blown nazi)

And ironically, it's that kind of attitude and stance by Shapiro that's creating more of the Fuentes types.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Shapiro (on this issue) tends to lack any allowance for nuance and that's where his major blind spot exists.

To him, there's no difference between a Tucker Carlson or a Nick Fuentes. (if we operate on the premise that Fuentes is a full blown nazi)

Not much. One is a cackling fool with a web show, the other is Nick Fuentes.

And ironically, it's that kind of attitude and stance by Shapiro that's creating more of the Fuentes types.

Does not follow.

(I have a direct response to Zippy, but the board keeps rejecting it.)

 

[zippy2006]

(I have a direct response to Zippy, but the board keeps rejecting it.)

I don't have any problems submitting when I submit raw BBCode, although this can be a pain if your post contains formatting.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't have any problems submitting when I submit raw BBCode, although this can be a pain if your post contains formatting.

I've been using raw BB code myself. The only "formating" was in the quoted text. It seem sometimes like once you start having problems with a post or page it continues.

(BB code, blech. I'd rather write it up in proper LaTeX if I am going to manually typeset.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not much. One is a cackling fool with a web show

...a web show that's #3 in the charts and has even had a few weeks where he's surpassed Rogan in terms of views/listens.

Regardless of how much of a cackling fool you see him as, he has a large conservative following and has been instrumental in getting a sizeable portion of the GOP base to finally start questioning our unconditional monetary and military support for the Israeli government.


The "we think so & so is stupid, so we'll just talk past him" approach hasn't been a very good one for democrats.

 

[essentialsaltes]

In a series of posts to X on Tuesday, Dec. 23, Loomer raised concerns about what she described as a growing neo-Nazi presence on the right and urged Republicans to take a firmer stance against antisemitism and racism within the party.

"Maybe some of those Democrats were right when they called some people on the so called right Nazis," Loomer wrote. "It’s kind of undeniable at this point that we do have a neo-Nazi problem on the right."

"Jew hate is not an electoral strategy," she wrote in another post on Tuesday. "It’s sad I have to say that, but the GOP has a Nazi problem."

Meanwhile, concerns about the rise of neo-Nazism have been raised more broadly. The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism warned earlier this year of an "explosion" in active chapters of neo-Nazi Active Clubs in the U.S. and abroad.

https://people.com/laura-loomer-says-democrats-were-right-about-some-conservatives-being-neo-nazis-11875801

 

[Hans Blaster]

...a web show that's #3 in the charts and has even had a few weeks where he's surpassed Rogan in terms of views/listens.

And I am supposed to care, why?

Regardless of how much of a cackling fool you see him as, he has a large conservative following and has been instrumental in getting a sizeable portion of the GOP base to finally start questioning our unconditional monetary and military support for the Israeli government.

That would put Tucker in the faction of the GOP that isn't pretending to support Israel or Jews anymore. On that he is only less outspoken and perhaps less extreme than Fuentes.

The "we think so & so is stupid, so we'll just talk past him" approach hasn't been a very good one for democrats.

I don't know if Tucker is stupid or not, but he is a fool and a bigot.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In a series of posts to X on Tuesday, Dec. 23, Loomer raised concerns about what she described as a growing neo-Nazi presence on the right and urged Republicans to take a firmer stance against antisemitism and racism within the party.

"Maybe some of those Democrats were right when they called some people on the so called right Nazis," Loomer wrote. "It’s kind of undeniable at this point that we do have a neo-Nazi problem on the right."

"Jew hate is not an electoral strategy," she wrote in another post on Tuesday. "It’s sad I have to say that, but the GOP has a Nazi problem."

Meanwhile, concerns about the rise of neo-Nazism have been raised more broadly. The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism warned earlier this year of an "explosion" in active chapters of neo-Nazi Active Clubs in the U.S. and abroad.

https://people.com/laura-loomer-says-democrats-were-right-about-some-conservatives-being-neo-nazis-11875801

Yesterday I learned that LL got her start in right wing outrage media by making a "gotcha" video for "project veritas" (sic) in which she told an official at her university that she wanted to start an "ISIS club" and used the officials vague non-committal response to imply that the university supported ISIS. (i.e., standard PV dishonesty). It looks like the leopard has caught up with her too.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Zippy,

here is a short version of my reply on the nature of Fuentes without the context of your earlier post. (I give up on trying to post a full response.)

It is Fuentes himself that gives his bona fides in those category. He mocks the holocaust. He speaks well of Hitler. He is *open* about his anti-semetism.

The Groypers are literally Fuentes fan club/followers.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And I am supposed to care, why?

Perhaps I was mistaken in assuming you guys didn't want to lose again in 2028

That would put Tucker in the faction of the GOP that isn't pretending to support Israel or Jews anymore. On that he is only less outspoken and perhaps less extreme than Fuentes.

No, just Israel... he hasn't suggesting anything suggesting that he doesn't like Jews.

The reason why that's important is because he also has economic populist tendencies.

There are people who were begrudgingly voting for democrats because of economic and non-interventionism reasons (but weren't crazy about some of the other social positions of the Dems)

If they're presented with a populist coalition option (that takes into account those factors, but without bending the knee to a bunch of goofy stuff that came out of a college pot circle), many will take that option.

 

[Hans Blaster]

(Given how the board is working and that it won't take my reply on "coward" in another thread right now. I'm going to limit to just the "Tucker Carlson antisemitism" item.)

It's not just having Fuentes on his show (which is pretty bad all by itself), or his opposition to supporting Israel. I found many links to essays and articles with that search line above and even taking into account that many of them are pro-Israel sites or authors, they did ask themselves if there was more than just interviewing a notorious anti-Jewish bigot (what kind of person would do that, Tucker?) and they found some.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here's one I found:

Tucker and the Jews - Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry

As is often the case in contemporary American politics, the scene could be considered great entertainment, if only there wasn’t so much at stake. Tucker Carlson, one of the leading MAGA voices, humiliated the anti-Trump turned Trump-vassal Texas Senator Ted Cruz on his talk show. Carlson, the...

cst.tau.ac.il

A few quotes:

During his career, Carlson has emerged as a key promoter of the white supremacist “Great Replacement” theory – the belief that elites are deliberately replacing white Americans with immigrants.

Carlson’s portrayal of George Soros, the Hungarian Jewish philanthropist and democracy advocate, followed a similar playbook. He repeatedly presented Soros as a shadowy puppet master bent on destabilizing the West through mass immigration

Holocaust revisionists have been welcomed guests on his show.