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

[zippy2006]

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.

If that is your belief then my argument applies directly to Fuentes, so again, I don't understand your objection to the point I made about Shapiro. The point of the steelman is that it covers such interpretations of Fuentes. Those sorts of interpretations in no way invalidate it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If that is your belief then my argument applies directly to Fuentes, so again, I don't understand your objection to the point I made about Shapiro. The point of the steelman is that it covers such interpretations of Fuentes. Those sorts of interpretations in no way invalidate it.

There is no interpretation needed. Fuentes himself states his pro-Hitler stances quite freely.

Now, what is it about Shapiro that you were trying to say? I don't see any reason for "hypotheticals" or what you are trying to "steelman".

 

[zippy2006]

Now, what is it about Shapiro that you were trying to say?

This is what happened:

• Zippy: Shapiro needs to realize that once a sizable constituency agrees with a position, it must be contended with. It doesn't matter what it is. It could even be Nazism.
• Hans Blaster: But Nick Fuentes is an anti-Semite!

Your response just doesn't make any sense. Do you just want to keep saying that Fuentes is an anti-Semite, regardless of what everyone else is saying in the conversation? Piers Morgan made the same sort of mistake. Instead of engaging in dialogue and argument, he just kept saying, "But you're a racist!"

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is what happened:

Zippy: Shapiro needs to realize that once a sizable constituency agrees with a position, it must be contended with. It doesn't matter what it is. It could even be Nazism.
Hans Blaster: But Nick Fuentes is an anti-Semite!


Your response just doesn't make any sense. Do you just want to keep saying that Fuentes is an anti-Semite, regardless of what everyone else is saying in the conversation? Piers Morgan made the same sort of mistake. Instead of engaging in dialogue and argument, he just kept saying, "But you're a racist!"

Nor does yours. What is Shapiro supposed to be dealing with? (Fuentes *is* a Hitler fan, so I don't know why you are saying "it could be Nazism" because if you are talking about Shapiro dealing with Fuentes, he *is* dealing with a Nazi.)


There is no point of hypotheticals here.

 

[essentialsaltes]

• Zippy: Shapiro needs to realize that once a sizable constituency agrees with a position, it must be contended with. It doesn't matter what it is. It could even be Nazism.

It is Nazism. Depending what 'sizable' means.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hi Rob,

I cut out the rest of this post mostly because I am tired of the politics of opposition to Israel and this thread was more about open anti-Semites like Fuentes, for whom other poster(s) seem to be making excuses. Instead let's talk a little about the "pro"-Israel factions.

...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.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Continuation of post #106:

There may be more, but there seem to be 3 primary "pro" factions for religious reasons:

1. Zionist Jews who want a safe place (the State of Israel) for Jews to live in the Levant and may or may not be interested in pushing out all/most non-Jews from the land.
2. Zionist Jews who want to fulfill the mesianic prophecies and demonstrate the power of their god.
3. Christian Zionists who want to trigger their prophecies and end time narrative that involve the anti-Christ and the conversion of all of Israel to Jesus. (Don't ask me about the details, as an ex-Catholic I do not understand, and never have, the American Evangelical end times/rapture/etc. narratives.)

 

[zippy2006]

There is no point of hypotheticals here.

If your goal is just to keep saying, over and over again, that Fuentes is an anti-Semite, then yes, there is no point of hypotheticals. If that's your goal then apparently you should be quite satisfied with yourself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If your goal is just to keep saying, over and over again, that Fuentes is an anti-Semite, then yes, there is no point of hypotheticals. If that's your goal then apparently you should be quite satisfied with yourself.

Do you accept that fact?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Continuation of post #106:

There may be more, but there seem to be 3 primary "pro" factions for religious reasons:

1. Zionist Jews who want a safe place (the State of Israel) for Jews to live in the Levant and may or may not be interested in pushing out all/most non-Jews from the land.
2. Zionist Jews who want to fulfill the mesianic prophecies and demonstrate the power of their god.
3. Christian Zionists who want to trigger their prophecies and end time narrative that involve the anti-Christ and the conversion of all of Israel to Jesus. (Don't ask me about the details, as an ex-Catholic I do not understand, and never have, the American Evangelical end times/rapture/etc. narratives.)

I would say you're leaving out a cohort.

4. People who were sucked up in propaganda and led to believe that Israel is somehow our greatest ally in the history of allies, and playing goal-line defense against the prospect of invading Muslim hordes.

And I'd go out on a limb and suggest that #4 represented a larger share of the "support Israel at all costs" voter bloc than any of the 3 you listed that are for religious purposes.

And it is the erosion of that cohort that has the Mark Levins and Ben Shapiros of the world concerned and lashing out.

Because while they may be of the #1 and #2 ilk, the people in those groups saw the #4 group as "useful" for their cause.


If you did an average "man on the street" interview with Christians 10 years ago, you'd have found a lot more that were in #4 than in #3.

They weren't interested in "triggering prophecies", most Christian denominations don't even believe that's a thing you can do (that being, outsmarting God and forcing his hand), they were sold on the idea that 9/11's would be a bi-annual occurrence if we didn't have Israel "keeping an eye on things" over there.

 

[zippy2006]

Do you accept that fact?

I agree with your opinion that Fuentes is an anti-Semite. At the same time, the Groypers are not wrong to laugh at the Boomers who can't manage anything beyond sanctimony. It is rather funny when one attempts to run morality on nothing more than dying taboos.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I would say you're leaving out a cohort.

4. People who were sucked up in propaganda and led to believe that Israel is somehow our greatest ally in the history of allies, and playing goal-line defense against the prospect of invading Muslim hordes.

And I'd go out on a limb and suggest that #4 represented a larger share of the "support Israel at all costs" voter bloc than any of the 3 you listed that are for religious purposes.

I was specifically *only* discussing those with religious motives. My available space was short and there was a third part of my post discussing overlaps, etc. that I never got posted.

And it is the erosion of that cohort that has the Mark Levins and Ben Shapiros of the world concerned and lashing out.

Because while they may be of the #1 and #2 ilk, the people in those groups saw the #4 group as "useful" for their cause.

There was "using" all the way around. However, I suspect that those who are dropping the pretense of liking Israel and turning against it were of the #3 category.

If you did an average "man on the street" interview with Christians 10 years ago, you'd have found a lot more that were in #4 than in #3.

They weren't interested in "triggering prophecies", most Christian denominations don't even believe that's a thing you can do (that being, outsmarting God and forcing his hand), they were sold on the idea that 9/11's would be a bi-annual occurrence if we didn't have Israel "keeping an eye on things" over there.

That's why I left out the multitude of non-religious reasons people support(ed) Israel. It gets all too complicated. I don't know what my position on Israel was when I was a Christian (that was a long time ago, and Israel was never important to me), so it certainly wasn't a "religiously based" position.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I agree with your opinion that Fuentes is an anti-Semite.

Well, that's good.

At the same time, the Groypers are not wrong to laugh at the Boomers who can't manage anything beyond sanctimony.

I can't regard the Groypers with anything but disdain. They are the followers of Fuentes, after all.

It is rather funny when one attempts to run morality on nothing more than dying taboos.

I don't know what you are referring to. (Or what any of this has to do with "boomers".)

 

[essentialsaltes]

The New GOP Survey Analysis of Americans Overall, Today’s Republican Coalition, and the Minorities of MAGA

This study will help to shed light on the central question confronting the modern Republican Party: can President Trump’s coalition remain cohesive once he exits the stage? Or is it inherently unstable? The GOP is navigating generational and ideological tensions that cut across old factional lines—differences in leadership style, cultural priorities, institutional trust, and the worldview of younger, more disaffected, and increasingly diverse new entrants.

The survey’s first major finding is that the overwhelming majority of the Current GOP reject racism, antisemitism, and conspiratorial thinking in politics. But a meaningful minority—17%—meets our definition of Anti-Jewish Republicans. A respondent falls into this category if they (1) self-identify as both racist and antisemitic and express Holocaust denial or describe Israel as a colonial state, or (2) do not self-identify that way but nevertheless hold both of those extreme positions.

[In a section on Conspiracy Theories, 37% of Republicans agree with the statement "The Holocaust of Jews in Nazi Germany was greatly
exaggerated or did not happen as historians describe."]

And while it's good that a plurality of Republicans don't want racists and antisemites in the party, 12%-15% of Republicans will straight up say "I openly express racist views." or "I am an antisemite."

 

[Hans Blaster]

The survey’s first major finding is that the overwhelming majority of the Current GOP reject racism, antisemitism, and conspiratorial thinking in politics. But a meaningful minority—17%—meets our definition of Anti-Jewish Republicans. A respondent falls into this category if they (1) self-identify as both racist and antisemitic and express Holocaust denial or describe Israel as a colonial state, or (2) do not self-identify that way but nevertheless hold both of those extreme positions.

The Manhattan Institute for Race Science mischaracterizes their own survey. They claim "overwhelming majorities" "reject racism, antisemitism.
What constitutes "rejects"?

The red bars for "(haters) not welcome, don't represent me"? Sure, absolutely those are respondents who "reject".
The teal bars for "get (haters) votes, but no leadership positions"? Perhaps these fall under "reject"
The green bars for "I is (hater)"? Nope, not even close.
The yellow bars for "don't cancel (hater)s"? Nope. That is no "rejection".
The gray bars for "not sure if (haters) are bad"? Sorry, not going to allow that to count as "rejection" if someone is "not sure" if racists belong in their party.

Neither category has a majority for the unequivical rejection of "not in my party, doesn't represent me" sort.

What about the lower bar of rejecting racists/antisemites in party leadership? Well....

For "racists" a bare majority of 52%. For antisemites, 60% want them at least out of party leadership. Is that overwhelming. Frankly, no.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The Manhattan Institute for Race Science mischaracterizes their own survey. They claim "overwhelming majorities" "reject racism, antisemitism.
What constitutes "rejects"?

The red bars for "(haters) not welcome, don't represent me"? Sure, absolutely those are respondents who "reject".
The teal bars for "get (haters) votes, but no leadership positions"? Perhaps these fall under "reject"
The green bars for "I is (hater)"? Nope, not even close.
The yellow bars for "don't cancel (hater)s"? Nope. That is no "rejection".
The gray bars for "not sure if (haters) are bad"? Sorry, not going to allow that to count as "rejection" if someone is "not sure" if racists belong in their party.

Neither category has a majority for the unequivical rejection of "not in my party, doesn't represent me" sort.

What about the lower bar of rejecting racists/antisemites in party leadership? Well....

For "racists" a bare majority of 52%. For antisemites, 60% want them at least out of party leadership. Is that overwhelming. Frankly, no.

I would disagree with your analysis on the yellow (and perhaps grey) bars.

One can absolutely reject the cancellation of someone they disagree with.

And one can still reject actual racism, but answer "not sure" if they're skeptical about what's being used as a definition for the term. Especially when it's the other team that's getting to play the arbiter in defining what racism is.


If the same style poll were conducted, asking democrats whether or not they rejected communism, but we used the GOP-hardliner definition "what constitutes a communist" (which their definition is half of elected democrats), what do you suppose their responses would be?


The antisemitism question is one I could see going either way regardless of party based on the perceptions the respondent has about the person asking them the question.

While these grey areas shouldn't have to exist in a rational society (where everyone sticks to the actual definition of terms, and doesn't semantically overload everything), they do because terms have been watered down so much over the past decade or two.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I would disagree with your analysis on the yellow (and perhaps grey) bars.

Oh boy. Remember these responses are being used to characterize an overwhelming majority of conservatives that "reject racism/antisemitism".

One can absolutely reject the cancellation of someone they disagree with.

That answer constitutes an indication of this rejection? I think not.

It is probably bad survey design. The Manhattan Institute isn't known for getting its social science data right.

And one can still reject actual racism, but answer "not sure" if they're skeptical about what's being used as a definition for the term. Especially when it's the other team that's getting to play the arbiter in defining what racism is.

It wasn't the "other team". It was the leading right wing pusher of all of the cancel culture stuff (anti-woke, anti-dei, anti-CRT) for years.

If the same style poll were conducted, asking democrats whether or not they rejected communism, but we used the GOP-hardliner definition "what constitutes a communist" (which their definition is half of elected democrats), what do you suppose their responses would be?


The antisemitism question is one I could see going either way regardless of party based on the perceptions the respondent has about the person asking them the question.

Again, this is the Manhattan Institute, not the MSNBC/Harvard school of Wokeness poll. Your alternative is irrelevant.

While these grey areas shouldn't have to exist in a rational society (where everyone sticks to the actual definition of terms, and doesn't semantically overload everything), they do because terms have been watered down so much over the past decade or two.

Too much overloading? I knew this OOP nonsense would lead to trouble.

 

[zippy2006]

I would say you're leaving out a cohort.

4. People who were sucked up in propaganda and led to believe that Israel is somehow our greatest ally in the history of allies, and playing goal-line defense against the prospect of invading Muslim hordes.

If you rewrote that in an unbiased manner it would be more accurate and also more plausible. The reactionary anti-Israel crowd like Tucker is convinced that Jews are a greater ideological and demographic threat to the United States than Muslims. Their view is intellectually impoverished, and relies on a great deal of conspiratorial thinking. Like it or not, Islam does present a serious threat to the West, both ideologically and demographically. Like it or not, Israel does impede the darker currents in that Islamic movement and it is a great ally to the United States given its position and its natural aims.

 

[zippy2006]

This study will help to shed light...

I think that poll basically misses the ball:

Age divides are substantial. Among the Current GOP under 50, a notable minority report that they themselves openly express racist (31%) or antisemitic (25%) views. Among those over 50 in the Current GOP, these figures drop to just 4% for each.

The younger generations are not "racist" in some mysterious or one-off way. They are eminently logical, and the inevitability of the logic is spreading across the West. Fuentes spoke very accurately when he said that everyone is racist and it is only (certain) white people who claim they are not. For quite a long time now the society has favored pro-black racism, pro-Hispanic racism, pro-Asian racism, and anti-white racism (and the same thing has been happening as regards sexual orientation, feminism, etc.).

What this means is that the younger generations are no more "racist" than other non-white groups. They are only more "racist" than older whites, who promoted a form of anti-white racism. From the perspective of the younger generations, they are simply rejecting the anti-white racism that has reigned now for some time. In many ways, they are not wrong. If you mix in the other shibboleths of sexual orientation and sex, what you find is a kind of retribution from young, white, straight males who have been gaslighted their whole lives, having been arbitrarily discriminated against for their sex, race, and sexual orientation. The deeper level is the way that post-war liberalism tried to prop up societies that were blind to race, sex, nation, citizenship, etc., and the inevitable collapse of such a wildly stupid idea - a collapse exacerbated by forms of affirmative action and reparations.

It is very naive to frame this as, "Ah, there's a bit of unaccountable racism from youth on the right." In fact what is happening is that the pendulum of a deeply racist society is simply swinging back in the other direction (from anti-white racism to pro-white racism), with the caveat that the youth have the better part of the argument (insofar as they see nation as tied to ethnicity, and they think every nation should favor its natural ethnic heritage).

In a nutshell:

 

[Hans Blaster]

The reactionary anti-Israel crowd like Tucker is convinced that Jews are a greater ideological and demographic threat to the United States than Muslims. Their view is intellectually impoverished, and relies on a great deal of conspiratorial thinking.

We remember their slogans from Charlottesville.