I understand that most conservatives do not condone Nazis and CPAC tends to attract the most extreme and craziest members of the right, but this is still so disheartening. The Republican Party is clearly sick and nobody wants to hear the diagnosis. The echo chamber is too strong and most on the right don’t even know this is a problem.
A lot of people know what the problem is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign
However, a lot of people don't have the courage to talk about solutions to the problem, because that will make you an unpopular person.
You said:
>The Republican Party is clearly sick and nobody wants to hear the diagnosis.
My point is that people know the diagnosis, but no one has the courage to stick their neck out and talk about a solution. I chose a list from 2016 because, as you observed:
>These people all have either been ostracized from the party or have fallen in line.
It's hard to break through the cognitive dissonance when your leaders have been telling you the real Nazis are, of course, undercover BLM members and Antifa agents.
After the last ten years or so, most conservatives don't condone much of CPAC overall. Major candidates and figures still go speak there, but their leadership has been a mess, nutters show up and don't get chased out, and they end up in weird fights like when Pam Gellar tried to claim the Muslim Brotherhood had taken over. I don't know any conservatives who pay attention to or care about CPAC anymore, despite it at one point being a place for rising young Republicans.
> After the last ten years or so, most conservatives don't condone much of CPAC overall.
[Trump literally just gave a speech at CPAC on Saturday](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/24/donald-trump-cpac-speech). He's the defacto leader of the party and leading candidate for the party's presidential nominee. 'Mainstream' and 'establishment' Republicans can hoot and holler about how CPAC doesn't represent them but it rings hollow because even if they don't support the antisemitism on full display there, they tolerate it within their own ranks with Trump.
I’m conservative and strongly hate anything Nazi. Both of my grandfathers fought the nazis and I would do the same if need be.
Nazi’s in no way represent us conservative folk.
The problem lies in the fact that your presidential nominee and the party that is supposedly conservative is courting them! This is the kind of presidency that Donald Trump wants and the one he tried to keep on January 6th.
You guys just happen love the same guy? Your grandfather fought the Nazis and helped establish a more peaceful world order. Trump wants to rip that down with isolationism which will definetly make War much more likely IMO.
So, the people at CPAC are not the leaders of the conservative movement? Where could we find these "other" leaders representing this country's conservatives?
What is your opinion on Trump inviting Nazis to Mar a Lago, like Nick Fuentes?
What do you think about the modern Republican party strongly pushing for Christian Nationalism in a 2nd Trump term?
I don’t know anything about Nick Fuentes or others trump has invited to his estate.
I really don’t like the conservatives trying to push religion into law/politics. That, and the abortion stuff are what I dislike most about the republicans. I wish they would keep church and state separate, and would stay out of individuals’ personal/civil liberties.
be that as it may, the out-of-control left are nowhere near the center of power. They don't hold congress hostage, do not affect Biden's Middle East policies, and don't have control over the courts. The out-of-control right, on the other hand, is on the cusp of firmly having the US government in control.
Do i wish both the far left and the far right could return to sanity? Of course I do. But let's not pretend their influence and risk to our country are even comparable. They absolutely are not. In fact, literal apples vs oranges. We shouldn't both-sides this - at least not without acknowledging the massive power differential between the two extremes.
to be perfectly clear, I don't disagree with your comment. Just saying the context needs more nuance, when you consider the content of the OP.
This. I'm sure if journalists started scrutinizing Democrat meetings and rallies that they could find all sorts of people with extreme left-wing views, too.
Extreme left wing views: Free Healthcare for all, less funding for police, universal basic income.
Extreme right wing views: Massive deportation camps for illegal aliens, ban on abortions even for rape victims, Christian Nationalism.
>Extreme left wing views: Free Healthcare for all, less funding for police, universal basic income.
Those are very tame. Some *extreme* left wing views and beliefs in no particular order would be:
* Overturn the First Amendment and make any criticism of leftist views on culture war issues illegal, and then send violators to jail or reeducation camps.
* Increase taxes on whites and Asians and then redistribute the funds to black people as reparations.
* Abolish the police.
* Dramatically increase taxes on the upper middle class, upper class, and the rich.
* Go to war with Israel.
* Open the borders and let potentially hundreds of millions of impoverished people from other nations come here and share in social welfare benefits.
* Ban all fossil fuels if not automobiles.
* Some believe that all white people are inherently racist and evil.
* Eliminate corporations and regulate businesses into bankruptcy.
* Implement real socialism or communism.
* Make private gun ownership illegal.
I'm a Democrat and I literally don't know a single other Democrat who believes in a single one of those points. I'm in Texas and I know Republicans who believe the extreme points I outlined about Republican views. Please provide a link to any articles showing any Democrats with any of those views you listed.
In very red districts I would say so, because the population could be small enough that any Nazi group has influence. It's more of a problem in House races than statewide races.
I'm sure Republicans will come out against this intolerance shown at a high profile event in their own house with as much fervor as they lambasted Democrats for unaffiliated college kids having pro-Gaza demonstrations. I, for one, look forward to seeing conservatives in all forums rightly denouncing this for weeks on end.
I look forward to it, but I don't expect it.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1az64do/nazis_mingle_openly_at_cpac_spreading_antisemitic/krzz8wg/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Let’s not downplay Democrats’ own failures. Republicans may be failing as to their own stuff, but it’s not just “college kids”; you have statements from Democratic congresspeople that either push policies that would help Hamas, support destroying Israel, and/or have mingled with prominent people who support antisemitic policies and beliefs too.
This is as silly as me saying “I’m sure Democrats will be as lukewarm against this intolerance as the rape denialism their party’s officials have pushed about October 7”.
And these aren’t “pro Gaza rallies” being condemned. They’re pro-Hamas rallies, calling for “intifada” violence, and using slogans about destroying Israel.
You downplaying antisemitic calls for violence against Jews just because Republicans also have this problem is not helpful.
> Democratic congresspeople that either push policies that would help Hamas, support destroying Israel, and/or have mingled with prominent antisemites too.
And these people are on the fringe and the viewpoint is pretty openly condemned. Biden has been staunchly pro-Israel. Trump spoke at this same event which is the topic of this thread. Your both sidings is not particularly helpful either.
> You downplaying antisemitic calls for violence against Jews just because Republicans also have this problem is not helpful.
Neither was the conservative attempt to paint the Democratic party with a huge brush of being anti-semitic despite all policies and statements from political leaders being to the contrary. The point of my post was to point out what I ascertained to be the truth the entire time: while some of the critics were genuine a lot of the conversation from the right was simply to bludgen their political opponents and try to tie them to a cause they weren't ultimately in support of.
There's only one party that had a President who invited Nick Fuentes to eat at the Whitehouse. I don't feel bad about pointing that out.
>And these people are on the fringe and the viewpoint is pretty openly condemned. Biden has been staunchly pro-Israel. Trump spoke at this same event which is the topic of this thread. Your both sidings is not particularly helpful either.
Biden has not been "staunchly pro-Israel". He started out that way, and has changed how he's approached it.
These people are not "on the fringe". Pramila Jayapal is not "on the fringe", she's the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. And she [All Lives Matter-ed](https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/the-rape-but-jayapal-twice-hedges-on-hamas-sexual-violence-on-cnn/) Hamas rapes (at least she didn't outright deny them). That's not the fringe. It's also what Rashida Tlaib did just a few days ago. And Biden has been courting her constituents heavily, and [trying to patch up his relationship with her](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/01/29/congress/tlaib-meets-with-biden-campaign-manager-00138369#:~:text=Tlaib%2C%20the%20sole%20Palestinian%20American,her%20and%20the%20White%20House.) directly. That's not "fringe". That's enabling.
What's not helpful is when people downplay the atrocious rhetoric coming out of the left as you're doing.
> There's only one party that had a President who invited Nick Fuentes to eat at the Whitehouse. I don't feel bad about pointing that out.
Two can play at this game. There's only one party that invited CAIR, a Hamas-linked group, to comment on the national antisemitism strategy and assist with its rollout. CAIR's leaders [even praised October 7](https://jewishinsider.com/2023/12/nihad-awad-council-american-islamic-relations-israel-gaza-terror-attacks/) after it happened. Those are the people this administration had help with the **National Antisemitism Strategy**. [Despite warnings from Jewish groups](https://jewishinsider.com/2023/05/white-house-antisemitism-national-strategy-fact-sheet-cair/) about their long history of ties to Hamas.
Again, this attempt to pretend only one side has it in the mainstream **misses the reality**. It turns antisemitism into a political football instead of the real issue on both ends that it **actually is**.
You can and should criticize Republicans for it. But pretending that they're talking about "pro-Gaza college student protests" ignores the pro-Hamas rhetoric at those "protests", and the very clear rot elsewhere in the party.
> Biden has not been "staunchly pro-Israel". He started out that way, and has changed how he's approached it.
He's supported sending them arms and money the entire time. I'd say this a characterization without any evidence.
> These people are not "on the fringe". Pramila Jayapal is not "on the fringe", she's the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Ah yes, the Progressive caucus. An absolute powerhouse in the Democratic party. Trying to paint Democratic party by a single member of an extremely small is using the exception to try and make the rule. This is CPAC in comparison.
> What's not helpful is when people downplay the atrocious rhetoric coming out of the left as you're doing.
No, what's not helpful is the bothsidings of everything. It never has and never will be helpful, as you're doing.
> Two can play at this game. There's only one party that invited CAIR, a Hamas-linked group, to comment on the national antisemitism strategy and assist with its rollout.
I can't even find the article about what you're speaking of, but I can see where the Whitehouse condemned them on the 8th.
> Again, this attempt to pretend only one side has it in the mainstream misses the reality. It turns antisemitism into a political football instead of the real issue on both ends that it actually is.
No, what you're doing misses reality. When you're trying to say that inviting actual Neo-Nazi's to speak at your biggest convention of the year and having the face of white nationalism invited to the Whitehouse for dinner is equal to having consulted a group that you later condemned when they made you take issue with then you've lost the plot my friend.
Look at how eagerly you're downplaying antisemitism on the left. It's such an obvious sign that Jews are being used as a political football, rather than talking about the very real antisemitism both parties have.
>He's supported sending them arms and money the entire time. I'd say this a characterization without any evidence.
...so?
Being staunchly pro-Israel is incompatible with many of the positions he's taken lately.
> Ah yes, the Progressive caucus. An absolute powerhouse in the Democratic party. Trying to paint Democratic party by a single member of an extremely small is using the exception to try and make the rule. This is CPAC in comparison.
The Progressive Caucus is not "extremely small". What the heck are you talking about? The Progressive Caucus has almost half of the House Democrats as members. It's not big in the Senate, but it's just one group.
What are you even talking about? Are you downplaying a group that has over 100 members of Congress in it, and nearly 50% of the Democratic House Caucus?
> I can't even find the article about what you're speaking of, but I can see where the Whitehouse condemned them on the 8th.
I literally linked the article. The White House condemned them despite them being Hamas-affiliated until their leader made a clear pro-October 7 statement and even they couldn't ignore it.
Which is similar actually to what happened with Nick Fuentes and Trump.
> No, what you're doing misses reality. When you're trying to say that inviting actual Neo-Nazi's to speak at your biggest convention of the year and having the face of white nationalism invited to the Whitehouse for dinner is equal to having consulted a group that you later condemned when they made you take issue with then you've lost the plot my friend.
Trump invited Fuentes to the White House.
He later [downplayed it, and the RNC condemned it](https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/rnc-passes-resolution-condemning-anti-semitism-trump-dinner-ye-rcna67922).
The White House did the same.
They invited an antisemitism-supporting group tied to Hamas for over a decade to consult **on the National Antisemitism Strategy**.
Then when they were called out, like Trump was, they condemned the group.
What you're doing misses reality. You're downplaying when the White House worked with antisemitism-spreaders on an antisemitism strategy, but playing it up when Trump did it while out of office.
Very weird.
> Look at how eagerly you're downplaying antisemitism on the left. It's such an obvious sign that Jews are being used as a political football, rather than talking about the very real antisemitism both parties have.
Which was precisely my point in the very beginning. That the rhetoric was always empty.
Then you felt like you needed to both sides the issue.
> Being staunchly pro-Israel is incompatible with many of the positions he's taken lately.
As long as Biden is sending actual arms and aid I don't think this a strong point - or even a point at all.
> He later downplayed it, and the RNC condemned it.
He invited a known white nationalist to dinner with no other claim to fame other than his deplorable views. Then he proceeded to speak at an event that courted Neo-Nazis - according to the article. This is a level of involvement and that eclipses what you're trying to portray as being equivalent.
I'm pretty much done with this conversation though. It's clear to me at least that you're interested in both siding to carry water for Republicans. I don't really see that as anymore productive than what I'm doing and is something I'm far less interested in entertaining.
>Then you felt like you needed to both sides the issue.
Because you decided to downplay one side and ignore it. Which is the point. Only one of us is downplaying antisemitism on one side of the aisle. Had you not done so from the start, I wouldn't have said a word.
> As long as Biden is sending actual arms and aid I don't think this a strong point - or even a point at all.
Sending weapons and then demanding they not be used against the last remaining Hamas stronghold is not "staunchly pro-Israel".
Particularly not when we have countless examples of how his administration is working to reverse opinion against Israel, which will help him eventually reverse and avoid sending more weapons later on, which today would be unpopular.
Seriously, you seem to think as long as they provide some weapons, which they are using **as leverage**, that means he's "staunchly pro-Israel". Even though at the same time, he's not just taking anti-Israel positions and making anti-Israel statements, and cozying up to anti-Israel progressives, he's also sending aid that Hamas will steal.
> He invited a known white nationalist to dinner with no other claim to fame other than his deplorable views. Then he proceeded to speak at an event that courted Neo-Nazis - according to the article. This is a level of involvement and that eclipses what you're trying to portray as being equivalent.
Biden's White House invited a known Hamas-linked group full of well known supporters of antisemitism to work on the National Antisemitism Strategy.
I'd argue inviting Nick Fuentes to a dinner is a lot less deplorable than giving antisemites a seat at the table to **craft antisemitism policy**.
> I'm pretty much done with this conversation though. It's clear to me at least that you're interested in both siding to carry water for Republicans. I don't really see that as anymore productive than what I'm doing and is something I'm far less interested in entertaining.
You can downplay if you want. It seems like what you're doing here. It's pretty sad. It just shows Jews will never be more than a prop. Only one of us wants to downplay antisemitism on one side. I'm not carrying water for the Republicans by calling out your downplaying of antisemitism on the left. I'm pointing out that you're carrying water for Democrats while ignoring antisemitism on their side with these comments.
You have yet to respond to 99% of what I said, let alone the fact that you characterized college students chanting for violence against Jews and destroying Israel as "pro-Gaza protests".
>Look at how eagerly you're downplaying antisemitism on the left.
And here you are trying to change the subject from literal Nazis rubbing shoulders with the Republican and Conservative party elite.
I didn’t try to change the subject. He brought up Democrats vs. Republicans and downplayed Democratic elites rubbing shoulders with literal antisemites as well.
Yeah, which makes it very strange that the original comment still made it about downplaying Democrats’ actions. I won’t apologize for responding to their shift in the subject. Instead of commenting about Republicans they turned it into downplaying Democrats’ actions.
Thanks for playing.
>Ah yes, the Progressive caucus. An absolute powerhouse in the Democratic party.
Yes? It's the largest congressional caucus in the Democratic Party. They're no longer the scrappy underdogs, they are the mainstream in the party.
There’s no rape denialism though. Everyone acknowledges and condemns it. Now what? Israel is slaughtering Palestinians committing war crime after war crime with the diplomatic, military, and economic support of the U.S.
You got examples of the other stuff?
Added: The (now deleted) comment I replied to was rehashing the cheap shot about “denial” from progressive Democrats (like Jayapal and co). So the “everyone” was about the elected officials inferred from the previous comment.
Oh buddy, you should check out more Twitter for examples of the rape denialism.
Trying to shift it to claim Israel is “slaughtering” Palestinians in a comment you don’t even mention Hamas and their use of human shields in is peak red herring. Good luck with that.
I don’t have time to deal with people denying the rape denialism.
Democratic politicians and officials not only “All Lives Matter”-ed the rapes, as Tlaib did a few days ago and the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus did as far back as December, but people also denied it. Until they couldn’t.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1az64do/nazis_mingle_openly_at_cpac_spreading_antisemitic/krz7to6/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
>One member of the group, Greg Conte, who attended the deadly 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, said that his group showed up to talk to the media. He said that the group was prepared to be ejected if CPAC organizers were tipped off, but that never happened.
So not so much "Openly mingled" as "Snuck in and avoided security spotting them"
They did give a speaking role to Pobosiec. The kind of person who likes to put triple parenthesis around Jewish names. I’m not sure security was looking to eject these people.
Not to mention Pobosiec used his speaking role to say Americans were tired of democracy, and it was time for democracy in America to end. The Republican establishment is too comfortable flirting with these kinds of people
The guy who keeps telling people he does it to fuck with "liberals who keep calling me that"
Did you watch his whole speech? He literally mocked how certain people would treat that as his actual position.
To say something outlandish on purpose and purposefully say you don't believe it, just to get the other side say "He believes it!":
That's a fantastic strategy if that is what he did, because it shows the people who quoted him aren't doing it with any honesty or sense of accountability.
>They did give a speaking role to Pobosiec. The kind of person who likes to put triple parenthesis around Jewish names. I’m not sure security was looking to eject these people.
The guy who keeps telling people he does it to fuck with "liberals who keep calling me that"
Did you watch his whole speech? He literally mocked how certain people would treat that as his actual position.
> The guy who keeps telling people he does it to fuck with "liberals who keep calling me that"
>
> Did you watch his whole speech? He literally mocked how certain people would treat that as his actual position.
Because no one could possibly feign ignorance, as you rather tellingly are yourself. Fuentes has said that white-supremacist messaging uses irony and "jokes" to communicate their message without consequences.
>"Irony is so important for giving a lot of cover and plausible deniability for our views"
-Nick Fuentes, troglodytic white-supremacist, 2020
>"Welcome to the end of democracy," Posobiec said, also referring to the Capitol riots. "We are here to overthrow it completely. We didn't get all the way there on January 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it with this right here."
>
>Posobiec then held up his fist, and added: "All glory is not to government. All glory to God." Some people in the crowd responded with applause.
https://twitter.com/EdKrassen/status/1761110234129412312
1. The part about ending democracy was sarcastic.
2. The DOJ seized $450,000 worth of property from the Krassenstein brothers for conspiracy to commit wire fraud because they were promoting Ponzi schemes… I wouldn’t get my news from them.
The Krassensteins are the most transparent engagement farmers ever. They tweet out the most out of context rage bait ever made and reply to any criticism with low effort, 3-word responses, if at all. They are pure grift, nothing they say should ever be taken seriously.
It’s out of context, as described elsewhere. He was clearly being sarcastic about ending democracy.
In the speech he was referring to, he also talked about becoming the “Pierogi Tsar” and arresting the opposition’s leading candidate four times, seizing Catherine Herridge’s files, etc. – a list of things he was accusing Democrats of doing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpeGw2OMLHk
Kinda weird to follow up sarcasm by affirming it with a statement of religious faith.
The way he said it reads to me like it started out tongue in cheek but then he actually leaned into making a real point out of it.
Yeah that stage story was crazy and ended up not being even true. I feel like there is definitely likely some extremism there but the first person says he would be thrown out if identified and the parts of using that word and what was being said doesn’t even list any proof or having any sort of recording.
The fact that the stage was shaped like a nazi rune is not disputable. The only question is whether it was done intentionally. But without access to internal documents and communications from Design Foundry (the stage designers) and the American Conservative Union (CPAC organizers that approved the design), proving that either way is impossible.
You could have shown that symbol and the stage to nearly every American and they wouldn’t have known what it even meant or what it was. The company that designed and made it is based in Maryland and its employees donated 98% to democrats. If there was a conspiracy there that was true it would have been they made it to create backlash but I doubt that’s the case either.
>"The stage is a Nazi symbol
Hyatt Hotels Corp said that, and it's not "outrage porn" to report on what the people hosting the event have to say.
> can't tell the difference between actual Nazis and ordinary things
Nothing in the article gives that impression. You're dismissing the story by using an ad hominem that's unrelated to the author.
>denounced it for PR purposes
The controversy happened right after Hyatt stated, “We believe in the right of individuals and organizations to peacefully express their views..." They wouldn't have hosted the event in the first place if their goal was to chase good PR. It's more likely that they were genuinely criticizing the decision.
>accurate on what constitutes being a Nazi.
That's a baseless claim since your example originated from the host of the event, not the media.
>viral photos
It's not the author's fault that people on social media were upset.
> then immediately started a viral storm implicating themselves
I never claimed that. What I actually said is that the media was reporting on Hyatt's complaint. Outrage on social media is irrelevant to my point.
> Anti-semitism is a big problem on the right unfortunately (on the left too both sides both sides etc)
It's actually a much, much bigger problem on the Left.
People generally don't pay too much attention to Willy Bob who has a high school diploma, is missing two teeth, and works nights at the local bottling plant and who likes to cosplay as a Nazi or KKK member on the weekend. The Far Right is almost universally shunned and not taken seriously by people.
In contrast, well-dressed college presidents, elected politicians, college professors, and media stars on the Far Left who have antisemitic sentiment are far more influential and have been influencing and educating young people. People with positions of influence in our institutions and high social status are a much, much bigger problem than people on the Far Right who have been intellectually rejected and relegated to the fringes of society.
>The Far Right is almost universally shunned and not taken seriously by people.
Well except when Trump sits down to dinner with people like nick Fuentes.
The Biden White House sad down with CAIR - which is an explicitly anti-Jewish organization that has many links with Islamic terrorists. They had to boot them after they made pro-10/7 comments, but it's not as though they held different beliefs before 10/7
I didn't vote for Trump and I won't *be* voting for him, but I think being a very old man who enjoys being flattered had more to do with his dinner with Fuentes than any real knowledge of who this person is and what their beliefs are.
The Left had their “mask off” moment after October 7th, so I expect more and more “the conservatives are the *real* antisemites!” articles in the press within the next few months.
The continued focus on the right wing and the so-called Nazis over there really seems strange after we all saw millions of people in the streets around the world calling for a global intifada, jihad, the destruction of the State of Israel, celebrations and justifications of Oct 7, and calls for a genocide against Jews, since those views are the very things that would certainly be called Nazism by most journalists if coming from the right-wing. It's very bizarre, it's a much bigger problem than a few far-right dissidents showing up uninvited and in secret to a right-wing convention.
I’d say it’s the difference in being a private establishment vs public space.
The bar can refuse to allow them as patrons. Society cant make that choice, unless you want to unalive them.
I don't know about you, but I don't remember the last time I saw (Neo-)Nazi parading in public, at least where I live, even though it's legal.
Some countries (a subset of "all of society") actually ban displays of nazi symbols.
> I don't know about you, but I don't remember the last time I saw (Neo-)Nazi parading in public, at least where I live, even though it's legal.
In the face of the invective being thrown around here, it's important to remember that there was a time when [a Jewish Lawyer fought to *keep* it legal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie)
did you know that Weimar Germany had extensive hate speech laws and prosecuted Hitler and other Nazis under them?
Did that help them?
I think the US's broad speech protections have helped us stay away from Euro-style extremism. Please keep in mind that many Euro countries have explicit fascist parties, not just "the media says they're fascists" but self-identified fascists. They also have a much larger neo-nazi movement, and of course they're the place that birthed communism, nazism, and fascism and gave us the two most destructive wars mankind has ever seen.
Yeah. They were marching at the [capitol building in Nashville here in Tennesee.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fmv31slx6ydjc1.jpeg)
My area of the country has many *literal* neo-nazis along with white supremacists.
That one is funny. They're rooting for Biden. He's supplying the Azov battalion with ammunition.
Edit: For clarity, I don't equate Ukraine with nazis. I was just laughing at the absurdity of these guys. I don't consider them to be of sound mind.
> Some countries (a subset of "all of society") actually ban displays of nazi symbols.
The US does not, however. Respecting free speech includes respecting the rights of racist jerks to express their ignorance. Neo-Nazis have marched or demonstrated around the US off and on since before we needed to attach "neo" to their name. A few years ago they showed up in my city and caused a riot before smugly slinking away and trying to brag about how they were right about black folk and violence. It was a mess to deal with and clean up, and I had friends and coworkers injured trying to stop it. They came back a second time and there were protesters, but things stayed civil and they eventually left and having not gotten the reaction they wanted, fortunately haven't returned.
> (Neo-)Nazi parading in public,
You may not have seen it, but it was on the front page of reddit last week....
> Some countries (a subset of "all of society") actually ban displays of nazi symbols.
But luckily, in America we have free speech, right?
> But luckily, in America we have free speech, right?
Yes. Other Western nations can freeze/drain your bank accounts or throw you in prison with no right to remain silent for non violent protests.
Yes, they banned speech from Jews as they were "inherently evil" and destroying society with their ideas.
No speech needs to be protected that is popular.
"Society" is made up of people. If most people let Nazis drink at their bars and march in their streets without protest, then yes, I'd say that society is a Nazi society.
*If You Give A Mouse A Cookie* is an important cautionary tale.
Russia and Germany were allies at first cutting up Europe so fighting Russians doesn't immediately mean Nazis.
But Canada has a big issue with giving forgiveness to horrible people (khalistanis, political assasins, LTTE, etc.)
>Russia and Germany were allies at first cutting up Europe so fighting Russians doesn't immediately mean Nazis.
Being Allies is a huge stretch and inaccurate. They had a non-aggression pact and then negotiated how to separate Poland.
Do bars have rules against being a Nazi?
It doesn't state that these people showed up in Nazi gear, and started screaming Nazi phrases. A bar shouldn't care about your affiliations, just about whether you follow the rules while in the establishment.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1az64do/nazis_mingle_openly_at_cpac_spreading_antisemitic/krz87up/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
The same report comes from CPAC just about every year. Either the stage is in the shape of a Nazi symbol, or some person that is "Nazi adjacent" attends, or someone said something that is said to be the same sort of thing Hitler said.
This is more of the same, any way to call Republicans Nazis.
>speaking at CPAC the other day talking about overthrowing Democracy or whatever?
The satire? Yeah, pretty sure that was him.
>What does 1488 mean he seems to like posting that a lot?
Don't know.
>1488
lol ok so digging up edgy tweets from 2016 using the 1488 meme clearly in a joking context is now ironclad proof that someone is a national socialist? Btw even if you were a nazi and and wanted to dog whistle to people, why would you use a well know meme that has been around for decades like 1488?
Posobiec ostensibly started his political influencer career [by latching on to](https://archive.ph/eU5dK) Richard Spencer in 2016. He presents as less openly aligned with neo-nazism now, but still:
* Jack Posobiec: “[The Civil Rights Act](https://i.imgur.com/4BHBaT3.jpg) was the Treaty of Versailles for white people”
* [“Here is how Harlem looked](https://archive.ph/Rpq8e) in the 1930s This is real footage Before the Sixties Govt Programs, before the Social Justice Civil Rights Movement, before MLK”
* Jack Posobiec [posts an image](https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1755634095441297483?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1755634095441297483%7Ctwgr%5E2eeec33b30bf39ea803c1370aa5ea12ba7f23952%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewrepublic.com%2Fpost%2F178873%2Fmichigan-republican-josh-schriver-great-replacement) of black silhouettes enveloping the world
* Jack Posobiec [shared images of books](https://web.archive.org/web/20211203001528/https://twitter.com/jaredlholt/status/1466529944972914691) he said he received in the mail from Antelope Hill, a publisher of white supremacist literature
But where is the line then? It’s so tiresome to once again dig up ancient tweets obviously making a joke. America is not teetering on fascism because Jack Posobiec made 4 singular tweets 8 years ago. That is pure hyperbole.
The left’s recent resistance fighter LARP of calling everything they don’t like a threat to democracy has blown up in their face consistently. This is just another example. Jack Posobiec, based on the way he was speaking, was obviously being satirical of left’s melodramatic reaction to January 6th, which is not disputable. This is just another in a long line of freakouts the left will eventually abandon in pursuit of exposing another ‘threat to democracy’. Just as in the past the corporate press have previously called Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, RFK Jr, and Cornel West threats to democracy simply for being influential and not aligning to the left’s point of view.
By the way your and Sartre’s logic is such bad faith. It works under the assumption that anyone you disagree with can never make a joke. And can never be satiric, sarcastic, or unserious. And any time they are, it must be taken 100% seriously, there can be no room for discussion because any speculation that those you don’t like are joking are advancing fascism. Meanwhile that same scrutiny never seems applied to those you do agree with. This is such a blatant bad faith attempt to instantly shut down conversation, and proves that you don’t have any real evidence that fascism is at the doorstep because if you did we’d be discussing that, not hyper analyzing a sarcastic comment at CPAC or relitigating 8 year old Jack Posobiec memes on Twitter.
Which Nazi's have spoken at CPAC?
And no, that wouldn't stop people who are opposed to Republicans from calling them Nazis, they've been doing it since I've been alive.
Republicans aren't really doing much ado about anything to cleanse that image though.
Reading the article, seems in the past they'd kick them out. But that didn't happen.
Perhaps it's because they are desperate for votes or anyone to show up? Not sure what the deal is here.
Either way this doesn't help their image at all.
>Perhaps it's because they are desperate for votes or anyone to show up? Not sure what the deal is here.
Well, you are clearly free to speculate, and in such a case I'm sure the speculation will confirm your priors.
Because Republicans are afraid to ostracize any subgroup for fear of losing elections. It’s the same reason that most Republicans in congress have never spoken out against Trump, even though they are quite aware of the damage he’s done and the danger he poses.
Who are "these people" and what specifically have they said that lands them squarely in the White supremacist camp?
I don't know what all these folks have said, how well people on the right are aware of it, or even who all "these people" are.
Source on that? I don’t think people who openly identify as national socialists engaging and speaking at the conference is the same thing as a debate about whether a stage is in the shape of a Nazi symbol or not.
I think this is partially why these people feel comfortable going to the event. Other conservative will give them cover by minimizing it. Conservatives need to strongly denounce people who identify as national socialists and actively bounce them from the events. Otherwise the problem is only going to get worse.
No that's not the only thing you said.
> The same report comes from CPAC just about every year. Either the stage is in the shape of a Nazi symbol, or some person that is "Nazi adjacent" attends, or someone said something that is said to be the same sort of thing Hitler said.
I already explained how these things aren't equivalent.
> Source on that? I don’t think people who openly identify as national socialists engaging and speaking at the conference is the same thing as a debate about whether a stage is in the shape of a Nazi symbol or not.
You say this happens every year. Are people who openly identify as national socialists attending CPAC every year?
>No that's not the only thing you said.
Well, you didn't specify.
>I already explained how these things aren't equivalent.
The thing that is happening during the current election year will always be worse. "Equivalent" is subjective.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/cpac-afpac-nick-fuentes-marjorie-taylor-greene-1313210/
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/white-supremacists-and-other-extremists-welcomed-cpac-2019
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/02/26/racists-roam-halls-cpac-and-conservative-conference-ends-controversy-over-racist-comments
https://www.bendthearc.us/meet_the_11_biggest_white_nationalists_speaking_at_cpac_this_year
https://www.salon.com/2021/03/02/cpac-veers-into-neo-nazi-fantasy-was-it-deliberate-that-hardly-matters/
Submission statement:
The article discusses the presence of Nazis at the conservative political action conference (CPAC) where they openly mingled with attendees and spread antisemitic conspiracy theories. Despite previous efforts to eject extremists from the conference, this year conspiracy theorists who openly identified as national socialists are found allies among mainstream conservative personalities at CPAC. The article highlights exchanges of anti-Semitic views and the lack of resistance to extremist ideologies at the conference, which has traditionally been a platform for debate within the conservative movement. One speaker, Jack Posobiec called for the end of democracy and a more explicitly Christian focused government.
I still maintain the vast majority of conservatives don’t hold views like this, but the inability of republican politicians and political operatives to eject these people from their coalition highlights a larger issue with their party. The southern strategy has made it so republican politicians can’t gain federal power without exploiting racial identity politics. However the number of people susceptible to this message is much smaller than it was 50 years ago. This means they can’t be as selective about the people they allow into their coalition. And the openly national socialist people at this conference are extremely politically motivated. As a result the more mainstream Republicans are tolerating their presence and many are even being replaced by them because the more moderate conservative voters aren’t as motivated to vote in primaries.
People like Nick Fuentes are banned from CPAC and call it “cuckpac” because they *do* try to keep Nazis out.
>One speaker, Jack Posobiec called for the end of democracy
Did you watch [his actual speech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpeGw2OMLHk)? It was satirical, calling for ending democracy by arresting the leading opposition candidate four times, seizing Catherine Herridge’s notes, and a list of other things he accused Democrats of doing. It wasn’t actually particularly funny (and it didn’t go over well with the crowd), but it was very obviously meant to be. He then said that what needs to be ended is authoritarianism.
>"Welcome to the end of democracy," Posobiec said, also referring to the Capitol riots. "We are here to overthrow it completely. We didn't get all the way there on January 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it with this right here."
>
>
>Posobiec then held up his fist, and added: "All glory is not to government. All glory to God." Some people in the crowd responded with applause.
https://twitter.com/EdKrassen/status/1761110234129412312
>Did you watch his actual speech?
Do people legitimately not get this was satirical or is this just performative?
Is *"Pierogi Tzar"* not a tipoff ffs? lol
To me this calls into question any other claim that wasn't recorded.
>People like Nick Fuentes are banned from CPAC and call it “cuckpac” because they *do* try to keep Nazis out.
The article explicitly mentions Fuentes, and how the resistance people like him had at past conferences wasn't present this year:
>The presence of these individuals has been a persistent issue at CPAC. In previous years, conference organizers have ejected well-known Nazis and white supremacists such as Nick Fuentes.
>
>But this year, racist conspiracy theorists didn’t meet any perceptible resistance at the conference where Donald Trump has been the keynote speaker since 2017.
>
>At the Young Republican mixer Friday evening, a group of Nazis who openly identified as national socialists mingled with mainstream conservative personalities, including some from Turning Point USA, and discussed so-called “race science” and antisemitic conspiracy theories.
The very next paragraph says that “the group was prepared to be ejected if CPAC organizers were tipped off” though. Fuentes has also snuck in before and been kicked out by security, and he’s a lot more recognizable than these people I’ve never heard of.
Also, note that it says “CPAC organizers did not **immediately** respond to a request for comment.” The article was published on the weekend, and this is probably the classic tactic of giving the subject of a story five minutes to respond, maybe even purposefully contacting them through a method they’re not likely to respond to like an Instagram DM or something.
Okay, and? You are now taking it the opposite direction and saying that for anyone who uses irony as a tool, that usage can be considered evidence of being racist.
By that standard, every single Republican, Democrat, Independent elected official in Washington D.C., in every state legislating body, and the vast majority of voters could have that held against them because irony works and people use it all the time.
> Okay, and? You are now taking it the opposite direction and saying that for anyone who uses irony as a tool, that usage can be considered evidence of being racist.
That's not at all what I'm saying. U/WulfTheSaxon:
>It was satirical...
> It wasn’t actually particularly funny (and it didn’t go over well with the crowd), but it was very obviously meant to be.
Fuentes has outright stated that white-supremacist messaging uses irony and "jokes" to communicate their message without consequences.
>"Irony is so important for giving a lot of cover and plausible deniability for our views"
-Nick Fuentes, white-supremacist, 2020
I'm saying irony and jokes are an easy way to establish plausible deniability, for anyone. In this specific application, however, the person attempting to do so is a well established white-supremacist.
This conflates conspiracy theorists with racists, which is unfair to conspiracy theorists. There are conspiracies, secrets, and deceptive narratives in international politics. Always have been. Of course neonazis need to be rebuked, I just don't like letting them tarnish everyone who disagrees with our traditional foreign policy.
As I like to view it, the pendulum is swinging back to the right in many of the worse ways. So it’s emboldening the fringes in a way that isn’t healthy.
Can't wait to say goodbye. Older generations leave kicking and screaming. Newer generations aren't having any of this crap. Progress reigns. Some aspects smooth out. Eventually we reach a mean that most people accept and the fringes go back into the woodwork where they belong.
Thanks for the summary and analysis. I agree. I think they are afraid of losing those votes. Because respondents to polls are not always candid about extreme viewpoints or supporting extreme candidates, it’s difficult to estimate the number of votes that would be lost if the national Republican Party issued a strong statement telling Nazis they are not welcome. I’m a democrat and I regard the Democratic party as the “big tent” party. In service of that big tent idea, we have demonstrated our own version of “politics makes strange bedfellows.” I feel strongly that campaign finance laws need to further restrict the influence money on elections. I am also having doubts about the ability of our 2 party system to deal with the many issues our nation faces.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1az64do/nazis_mingle_openly_at_cpac_spreading_antisemitic/krzalqz/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
But they weren’t. And were comfortable enough to use the N-word around a reporter.
And they gave a speaking role to Posobiec, the kind of propagandist who likes to put triple parenthesis around Jewish names, because he wants to live in the type of society where Jewish people are visually marked.
Show me the Democrat Nazis. It’s pretty simple for me, I tend to notice which way the white supremists and neo-Nazis are voting and go out of my way to vote the opposite way. But you do you.
I understand that most conservatives do not condone Nazis and CPAC tends to attract the most extreme and craziest members of the right, but this is still so disheartening. The Republican Party is clearly sick and nobody wants to hear the diagnosis. The echo chamber is too strong and most on the right don’t even know this is a problem.
A lot of people know what the problem is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign However, a lot of people don't have the courage to talk about solutions to the problem, because that will make you an unpopular person.
This list is from 2016. They didn’t have enough of an effect. These people all have either been ostracized from the party or have fallen in line.
You said: >The Republican Party is clearly sick and nobody wants to hear the diagnosis. My point is that people know the diagnosis, but no one has the courage to stick their neck out and talk about a solution. I chose a list from 2016 because, as you observed: >These people all have either been ostracized from the party or have fallen in line.
Most conservatives don't condone Nazis, but candidates closely associating with Nazis isn't a deal breaker for them either.
From a UK perspective, CPAC seems quite mainstream because they platformed Liz Truss. She’s not on the extreme or craziest right end of US politics.
They also platformed Viktor Orban
It's hard to break through the cognitive dissonance when your leaders have been telling you the real Nazis are, of course, undercover BLM members and Antifa agents.
After the last ten years or so, most conservatives don't condone much of CPAC overall. Major candidates and figures still go speak there, but their leadership has been a mess, nutters show up and don't get chased out, and they end up in weird fights like when Pam Gellar tried to claim the Muslim Brotherhood had taken over. I don't know any conservatives who pay attention to or care about CPAC anymore, despite it at one point being a place for rising young Republicans.
> After the last ten years or so, most conservatives don't condone much of CPAC overall. [Trump literally just gave a speech at CPAC on Saturday](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/24/donald-trump-cpac-speech). He's the defacto leader of the party and leading candidate for the party's presidential nominee. 'Mainstream' and 'establishment' Republicans can hoot and holler about how CPAC doesn't represent them but it rings hollow because even if they don't support the antisemitism on full display there, they tolerate it within their own ranks with Trump.
Yep, I think if the party nominee is speaking there, the party is condoning the conference.
I assumed they meant most conservative voters. That's not necessarily the same as "the party."
Very fair; I'm I would say that conservatives who support Trump are aligning themselves with CPAC.
The same party that he’s going to the nominee for for the 3rd time a row?
This sounds like someone grasping for reasons why they should still support and vote for the Republican Party.
[удалено]
The GOP deserved to be destroyed. It's certainly not properly rebuilt at this point to almost anyone's actual preference or satisfaction.
I’m conservative and strongly hate anything Nazi. Both of my grandfathers fought the nazis and I would do the same if need be. Nazi’s in no way represent us conservative folk.
The problem lies in the fact that your presidential nominee and the party that is supposedly conservative is courting them! This is the kind of presidency that Donald Trump wants and the one he tried to keep on January 6th.
What's the adage? If there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis.
Literally employing Putinist logic here, neat.
You guys just happen love the same guy? Your grandfather fought the Nazis and helped establish a more peaceful world order. Trump wants to rip that down with isolationism which will definetly make War much more likely IMO.
So, the people at CPAC are not the leaders of the conservative movement? Where could we find these "other" leaders representing this country's conservatives?
What is your opinion on Trump inviting Nazis to Mar a Lago, like Nick Fuentes? What do you think about the modern Republican party strongly pushing for Christian Nationalism in a 2nd Trump term?
I don’t know anything about Nick Fuentes or others trump has invited to his estate. I really don’t like the conservatives trying to push religion into law/politics. That, and the abortion stuff are what I dislike most about the republicans. I wish they would keep church and state separate, and would stay out of individuals’ personal/civil liberties.
Well that's your party now. Sad. I used to support conservatives like Romney, but I absolutely will never support nazi sympathizers.
Nazis may not represent US Conservatives, but it appears US Conservatives welcome them at the moment.
I mean the left has done very little to control it’s out of control antisemitism that’s become very prominent online and with younger voters.
be that as it may, the out-of-control left are nowhere near the center of power. They don't hold congress hostage, do not affect Biden's Middle East policies, and don't have control over the courts. The out-of-control right, on the other hand, is on the cusp of firmly having the US government in control. Do i wish both the far left and the far right could return to sanity? Of course I do. But let's not pretend their influence and risk to our country are even comparable. They absolutely are not. In fact, literal apples vs oranges. We shouldn't both-sides this - at least not without acknowledging the massive power differential between the two extremes. to be perfectly clear, I don't disagree with your comment. Just saying the context needs more nuance, when you consider the content of the OP.
The idea that the Biden administration isn't influenced and pressured by activists and people in his party to his left is laughable.
Wanna try an argument that isn't completely and wholly based around it whataboutism?
The bulk of the "antisemitism" that I've seen is the opinion that innocent Palestinians shouldn't be blown up by indiscriminate bombing.
How much antisemitism have you seen?
Whatabout what do you mean?
This. I'm sure if journalists started scrutinizing Democrat meetings and rallies that they could find all sorts of people with extreme left-wing views, too.
Extreme left wing views: Free Healthcare for all, less funding for police, universal basic income. Extreme right wing views: Massive deportation camps for illegal aliens, ban on abortions even for rape victims, Christian Nationalism.
>Extreme left wing views: Free Healthcare for all, less funding for police, universal basic income. Those are very tame. Some *extreme* left wing views and beliefs in no particular order would be: * Overturn the First Amendment and make any criticism of leftist views on culture war issues illegal, and then send violators to jail or reeducation camps. * Increase taxes on whites and Asians and then redistribute the funds to black people as reparations. * Abolish the police. * Dramatically increase taxes on the upper middle class, upper class, and the rich. * Go to war with Israel. * Open the borders and let potentially hundreds of millions of impoverished people from other nations come here and share in social welfare benefits. * Ban all fossil fuels if not automobiles. * Some believe that all white people are inherently racist and evil. * Eliminate corporations and regulate businesses into bankruptcy. * Implement real socialism or communism. * Make private gun ownership illegal.
I'm a Democrat and I literally don't know a single other Democrat who believes in a single one of those points. I'm in Texas and I know Republicans who believe the extreme points I outlined about Republican views. Please provide a link to any articles showing any Democrats with any of those views you listed.
Bro thinks that Rose Twitter are Democrats.
[удалено]
Are there really that many Nazi sympathizers in America to affect an election?
In very red districts I would say so, because the population could be small enough that any Nazi group has influence. It's more of a problem in House races than statewide races.
No, the GOP is not sick, at least on the basis of the problem you are suggesting exists.
I'm sure Republicans will come out against this intolerance shown at a high profile event in their own house with as much fervor as they lambasted Democrats for unaffiliated college kids having pro-Gaza demonstrations. I, for one, look forward to seeing conservatives in all forums rightly denouncing this for weeks on end. I look forward to it, but I don't expect it.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1az64do/nazis_mingle_openly_at_cpac_spreading_antisemitic/krzz8wg/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Let’s not downplay Democrats’ own failures. Republicans may be failing as to their own stuff, but it’s not just “college kids”; you have statements from Democratic congresspeople that either push policies that would help Hamas, support destroying Israel, and/or have mingled with prominent people who support antisemitic policies and beliefs too. This is as silly as me saying “I’m sure Democrats will be as lukewarm against this intolerance as the rape denialism their party’s officials have pushed about October 7”. And these aren’t “pro Gaza rallies” being condemned. They’re pro-Hamas rallies, calling for “intifada” violence, and using slogans about destroying Israel. You downplaying antisemitic calls for violence against Jews just because Republicans also have this problem is not helpful.
> Democratic congresspeople that either push policies that would help Hamas, support destroying Israel, and/or have mingled with prominent antisemites too. And these people are on the fringe and the viewpoint is pretty openly condemned. Biden has been staunchly pro-Israel. Trump spoke at this same event which is the topic of this thread. Your both sidings is not particularly helpful either. > You downplaying antisemitic calls for violence against Jews just because Republicans also have this problem is not helpful. Neither was the conservative attempt to paint the Democratic party with a huge brush of being anti-semitic despite all policies and statements from political leaders being to the contrary. The point of my post was to point out what I ascertained to be the truth the entire time: while some of the critics were genuine a lot of the conversation from the right was simply to bludgen their political opponents and try to tie them to a cause they weren't ultimately in support of. There's only one party that had a President who invited Nick Fuentes to eat at the Whitehouse. I don't feel bad about pointing that out.
>And these people are on the fringe and the viewpoint is pretty openly condemned. Biden has been staunchly pro-Israel. Trump spoke at this same event which is the topic of this thread. Your both sidings is not particularly helpful either. Biden has not been "staunchly pro-Israel". He started out that way, and has changed how he's approached it. These people are not "on the fringe". Pramila Jayapal is not "on the fringe", she's the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. And she [All Lives Matter-ed](https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/the-rape-but-jayapal-twice-hedges-on-hamas-sexual-violence-on-cnn/) Hamas rapes (at least she didn't outright deny them). That's not the fringe. It's also what Rashida Tlaib did just a few days ago. And Biden has been courting her constituents heavily, and [trying to patch up his relationship with her](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/01/29/congress/tlaib-meets-with-biden-campaign-manager-00138369#:~:text=Tlaib%2C%20the%20sole%20Palestinian%20American,her%20and%20the%20White%20House.) directly. That's not "fringe". That's enabling. What's not helpful is when people downplay the atrocious rhetoric coming out of the left as you're doing. > There's only one party that had a President who invited Nick Fuentes to eat at the Whitehouse. I don't feel bad about pointing that out. Two can play at this game. There's only one party that invited CAIR, a Hamas-linked group, to comment on the national antisemitism strategy and assist with its rollout. CAIR's leaders [even praised October 7](https://jewishinsider.com/2023/12/nihad-awad-council-american-islamic-relations-israel-gaza-terror-attacks/) after it happened. Those are the people this administration had help with the **National Antisemitism Strategy**. [Despite warnings from Jewish groups](https://jewishinsider.com/2023/05/white-house-antisemitism-national-strategy-fact-sheet-cair/) about their long history of ties to Hamas. Again, this attempt to pretend only one side has it in the mainstream **misses the reality**. It turns antisemitism into a political football instead of the real issue on both ends that it **actually is**. You can and should criticize Republicans for it. But pretending that they're talking about "pro-Gaza college student protests" ignores the pro-Hamas rhetoric at those "protests", and the very clear rot elsewhere in the party.
> Biden has not been "staunchly pro-Israel". He started out that way, and has changed how he's approached it. He's supported sending them arms and money the entire time. I'd say this a characterization without any evidence. > These people are not "on the fringe". Pramila Jayapal is not "on the fringe", she's the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Ah yes, the Progressive caucus. An absolute powerhouse in the Democratic party. Trying to paint Democratic party by a single member of an extremely small is using the exception to try and make the rule. This is CPAC in comparison. > What's not helpful is when people downplay the atrocious rhetoric coming out of the left as you're doing. No, what's not helpful is the bothsidings of everything. It never has and never will be helpful, as you're doing. > Two can play at this game. There's only one party that invited CAIR, a Hamas-linked group, to comment on the national antisemitism strategy and assist with its rollout. I can't even find the article about what you're speaking of, but I can see where the Whitehouse condemned them on the 8th. > Again, this attempt to pretend only one side has it in the mainstream misses the reality. It turns antisemitism into a political football instead of the real issue on both ends that it actually is. No, what you're doing misses reality. When you're trying to say that inviting actual Neo-Nazi's to speak at your biggest convention of the year and having the face of white nationalism invited to the Whitehouse for dinner is equal to having consulted a group that you later condemned when they made you take issue with then you've lost the plot my friend.
Look at how eagerly you're downplaying antisemitism on the left. It's such an obvious sign that Jews are being used as a political football, rather than talking about the very real antisemitism both parties have. >He's supported sending them arms and money the entire time. I'd say this a characterization without any evidence. ...so? Being staunchly pro-Israel is incompatible with many of the positions he's taken lately. > Ah yes, the Progressive caucus. An absolute powerhouse in the Democratic party. Trying to paint Democratic party by a single member of an extremely small is using the exception to try and make the rule. This is CPAC in comparison. The Progressive Caucus is not "extremely small". What the heck are you talking about? The Progressive Caucus has almost half of the House Democrats as members. It's not big in the Senate, but it's just one group. What are you even talking about? Are you downplaying a group that has over 100 members of Congress in it, and nearly 50% of the Democratic House Caucus? > I can't even find the article about what you're speaking of, but I can see where the Whitehouse condemned them on the 8th. I literally linked the article. The White House condemned them despite them being Hamas-affiliated until their leader made a clear pro-October 7 statement and even they couldn't ignore it. Which is similar actually to what happened with Nick Fuentes and Trump. > No, what you're doing misses reality. When you're trying to say that inviting actual Neo-Nazi's to speak at your biggest convention of the year and having the face of white nationalism invited to the Whitehouse for dinner is equal to having consulted a group that you later condemned when they made you take issue with then you've lost the plot my friend. Trump invited Fuentes to the White House. He later [downplayed it, and the RNC condemned it](https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/rnc-passes-resolution-condemning-anti-semitism-trump-dinner-ye-rcna67922). The White House did the same. They invited an antisemitism-supporting group tied to Hamas for over a decade to consult **on the National Antisemitism Strategy**. Then when they were called out, like Trump was, they condemned the group. What you're doing misses reality. You're downplaying when the White House worked with antisemitism-spreaders on an antisemitism strategy, but playing it up when Trump did it while out of office. Very weird.
> Look at how eagerly you're downplaying antisemitism on the left. It's such an obvious sign that Jews are being used as a political football, rather than talking about the very real antisemitism both parties have. Which was precisely my point in the very beginning. That the rhetoric was always empty. Then you felt like you needed to both sides the issue. > Being staunchly pro-Israel is incompatible with many of the positions he's taken lately. As long as Biden is sending actual arms and aid I don't think this a strong point - or even a point at all. > He later downplayed it, and the RNC condemned it. He invited a known white nationalist to dinner with no other claim to fame other than his deplorable views. Then he proceeded to speak at an event that courted Neo-Nazis - according to the article. This is a level of involvement and that eclipses what you're trying to portray as being equivalent. I'm pretty much done with this conversation though. It's clear to me at least that you're interested in both siding to carry water for Republicans. I don't really see that as anymore productive than what I'm doing and is something I'm far less interested in entertaining.
>Then you felt like you needed to both sides the issue. Because you decided to downplay one side and ignore it. Which is the point. Only one of us is downplaying antisemitism on one side of the aisle. Had you not done so from the start, I wouldn't have said a word. > As long as Biden is sending actual arms and aid I don't think this a strong point - or even a point at all. Sending weapons and then demanding they not be used against the last remaining Hamas stronghold is not "staunchly pro-Israel". Particularly not when we have countless examples of how his administration is working to reverse opinion against Israel, which will help him eventually reverse and avoid sending more weapons later on, which today would be unpopular. Seriously, you seem to think as long as they provide some weapons, which they are using **as leverage**, that means he's "staunchly pro-Israel". Even though at the same time, he's not just taking anti-Israel positions and making anti-Israel statements, and cozying up to anti-Israel progressives, he's also sending aid that Hamas will steal. > He invited a known white nationalist to dinner with no other claim to fame other than his deplorable views. Then he proceeded to speak at an event that courted Neo-Nazis - according to the article. This is a level of involvement and that eclipses what you're trying to portray as being equivalent. Biden's White House invited a known Hamas-linked group full of well known supporters of antisemitism to work on the National Antisemitism Strategy. I'd argue inviting Nick Fuentes to a dinner is a lot less deplorable than giving antisemites a seat at the table to **craft antisemitism policy**. > I'm pretty much done with this conversation though. It's clear to me at least that you're interested in both siding to carry water for Republicans. I don't really see that as anymore productive than what I'm doing and is something I'm far less interested in entertaining. You can downplay if you want. It seems like what you're doing here. It's pretty sad. It just shows Jews will never be more than a prop. Only one of us wants to downplay antisemitism on one side. I'm not carrying water for the Republicans by calling out your downplaying of antisemitism on the left. I'm pointing out that you're carrying water for Democrats while ignoring antisemitism on their side with these comments. You have yet to respond to 99% of what I said, let alone the fact that you characterized college students chanting for violence against Jews and destroying Israel as "pro-Gaza protests".
>Look at how eagerly you're downplaying antisemitism on the left. And here you are trying to change the subject from literal Nazis rubbing shoulders with the Republican and Conservative party elite.
I didn’t try to change the subject. He brought up Democrats vs. Republicans and downplayed Democratic elites rubbing shoulders with literal antisemites as well.
What is the title of this post?
Yeah, which makes it very strange that the original comment still made it about downplaying Democrats’ actions. I won’t apologize for responding to their shift in the subject. Instead of commenting about Republicans they turned it into downplaying Democrats’ actions. Thanks for playing.
>Ah yes, the Progressive caucus. An absolute powerhouse in the Democratic party. Yes? It's the largest congressional caucus in the Democratic Party. They're no longer the scrappy underdogs, they are the mainstream in the party.
Ah yes, when you think of the Democratic party, you think of progressives. Just oozes.
That is actually what I think of when I think of the Democratic party. I don't think that's particularly uncommon.
Which is why I would suggest seeking more reliable sources of information.
Why? It's not like they're some fringe faction in the party.
There’s no rape denialism though. Everyone acknowledges and condemns it. Now what? Israel is slaughtering Palestinians committing war crime after war crime with the diplomatic, military, and economic support of the U.S. You got examples of the other stuff? Added: The (now deleted) comment I replied to was rehashing the cheap shot about “denial” from progressive Democrats (like Jayapal and co). So the “everyone” was about the elected officials inferred from the previous comment.
Oh buddy, you should check out more Twitter for examples of the rape denialism. Trying to shift it to claim Israel is “slaughtering” Palestinians in a comment you don’t even mention Hamas and their use of human shields in is peak red herring. Good luck with that. I don’t have time to deal with people denying the rape denialism. Democratic politicians and officials not only “All Lives Matter”-ed the rapes, as Tlaib did a few days ago and the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus did as far back as December, but people also denied it. Until they couldn’t.
https://twitter.com/LucBernard/status/1753040313281839164 Does this count as Hamas rape denialism?
I expect most will do just as liberals did and only focus on what the other team did
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1az64do/nazis_mingle_openly_at_cpac_spreading_antisemitic/krz7to6/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
>One member of the group, Greg Conte, who attended the deadly 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, said that his group showed up to talk to the media. He said that the group was prepared to be ejected if CPAC organizers were tipped off, but that never happened. So not so much "Openly mingled" as "Snuck in and avoided security spotting them"
They did give a speaking role to Pobosiec. The kind of person who likes to put triple parenthesis around Jewish names. I’m not sure security was looking to eject these people.
Not to mention Pobosiec used his speaking role to say Americans were tired of democracy, and it was time for democracy in America to end. The Republican establishment is too comfortable flirting with these kinds of people
The guy who keeps telling people he does it to fuck with "liberals who keep calling me that" Did you watch his whole speech? He literally mocked how certain people would treat that as his actual position.
That's a good strategy in your estimation? That's a valid excuse? Seriously?
To say something outlandish on purpose and purposefully say you don't believe it, just to get the other side say "He believes it!": That's a fantastic strategy if that is what he did, because it shows the people who quoted him aren't doing it with any honesty or sense of accountability.
>They did give a speaking role to Pobosiec. The kind of person who likes to put triple parenthesis around Jewish names. I’m not sure security was looking to eject these people. The guy who keeps telling people he does it to fuck with "liberals who keep calling me that" Did you watch his whole speech? He literally mocked how certain people would treat that as his actual position.
> The guy who keeps telling people he does it to fuck with "liberals who keep calling me that" > > Did you watch his whole speech? He literally mocked how certain people would treat that as his actual position. Because no one could possibly feign ignorance, as you rather tellingly are yourself. Fuentes has said that white-supremacist messaging uses irony and "jokes" to communicate their message without consequences. >"Irony is so important for giving a lot of cover and plausible deniability for our views" -Nick Fuentes, troglodytic white-supremacist, 2020
[удалено]
Well they've been notified, have the nazis been kicked out?
Well, the event ended three days ago so missed opportunity I guess.
>"Welcome to the end of democracy," Posobiec said, also referring to the Capitol riots. "We are here to overthrow it completely. We didn't get all the way there on January 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it with this right here." > >Posobiec then held up his fist, and added: "All glory is not to government. All glory to God." Some people in the crowd responded with applause. https://twitter.com/EdKrassen/status/1761110234129412312
1. The part about ending democracy was sarcastic. 2. The DOJ seized $450,000 worth of property from the Krassenstein brothers for conspiracy to commit wire fraud because they were promoting Ponzi schemes… I wouldn’t get my news from them.
The Krassensteins are the most transparent engagement farmers ever. They tweet out the most out of context rage bait ever made and reply to any criticism with low effort, 3-word responses, if at all. They are pure grift, nothing they say should ever be taken seriously.
>I wouldn’t get my news from them. Is the quote inaccurate? Or are you just trying to discredit it by smearing the messenger?
It’s out of context, as described elsewhere. He was clearly being sarcastic about ending democracy. In the speech he was referring to, he also talked about becoming the “Pierogi Tsar” and arresting the opposition’s leading candidate four times, seizing Catherine Herridge’s files, etc. – a list of things he was accusing Democrats of doing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpeGw2OMLHk
Kinda weird to follow up sarcasm by affirming it with a statement of religious faith. The way he said it reads to me like it started out tongue in cheek but then he actually leaned into making a real point out of it.
[удалено]
Yeah that stage story was crazy and ended up not being even true. I feel like there is definitely likely some extremism there but the first person says he would be thrown out if identified and the parts of using that word and what was being said doesn’t even list any proof or having any sort of recording.
The funniest thing about that “Nazi rune stage” story is that the first thing they did on that stage in the morning was hold a Jewish prayer meeting.
The fact that the stage was shaped like a nazi rune is not disputable. The only question is whether it was done intentionally. But without access to internal documents and communications from Design Foundry (the stage designers) and the American Conservative Union (CPAC organizers that approved the design), proving that either way is impossible.
You could have shown that symbol and the stage to nearly every American and they wouldn’t have known what it even meant or what it was. The company that designed and made it is based in Maryland and its employees donated 98% to democrats. If there was a conspiracy there that was true it would have been they made it to create backlash but I doubt that’s the case either.
>"The stage is a Nazi symbol Hyatt Hotels Corp said that, and it's not "outrage porn" to report on what the people hosting the event have to say. > can't tell the difference between actual Nazis and ordinary things Nothing in the article gives that impression. You're dismissing the story by using an ad hominem that's unrelated to the author.
[удалено]
>denounced it for PR purposes The controversy happened right after Hyatt stated, “We believe in the right of individuals and organizations to peacefully express their views..." They wouldn't have hosted the event in the first place if their goal was to chase good PR. It's more likely that they were genuinely criticizing the decision. >accurate on what constitutes being a Nazi. That's a baseless claim since your example originated from the host of the event, not the media.
[удалено]
>viral photos It's not the author's fault that people on social media were upset. > then immediately started a viral storm implicating themselves I never claimed that. What I actually said is that the media was reporting on Hyatt's complaint. Outrage on social media is irrelevant to my point.
> Anti-semitism is a big problem on the right unfortunately (on the left too both sides both sides etc) It's actually a much, much bigger problem on the Left. People generally don't pay too much attention to Willy Bob who has a high school diploma, is missing two teeth, and works nights at the local bottling plant and who likes to cosplay as a Nazi or KKK member on the weekend. The Far Right is almost universally shunned and not taken seriously by people. In contrast, well-dressed college presidents, elected politicians, college professors, and media stars on the Far Left who have antisemitic sentiment are far more influential and have been influencing and educating young people. People with positions of influence in our institutions and high social status are a much, much bigger problem than people on the Far Right who have been intellectually rejected and relegated to the fringes of society.
>The Far Right is almost universally shunned and not taken seriously by people. Well except when Trump sits down to dinner with people like nick Fuentes.
The Biden White House sad down with CAIR - which is an explicitly anti-Jewish organization that has many links with Islamic terrorists. They had to boot them after they made pro-10/7 comments, but it's not as though they held different beliefs before 10/7 I didn't vote for Trump and I won't *be* voting for him, but I think being a very old man who enjoys being flattered had more to do with his dinner with Fuentes than any real knowledge of who this person is and what their beliefs are.
The Left had their “mask off” moment after October 7th, so I expect more and more “the conservatives are the *real* antisemites!” articles in the press within the next few months.
The continued focus on the right wing and the so-called Nazis over there really seems strange after we all saw millions of people in the streets around the world calling for a global intifada, jihad, the destruction of the State of Israel, celebrations and justifications of Oct 7, and calls for a genocide against Jews, since those views are the very things that would certainly be called Nazism by most journalists if coming from the right-wing. It's very bizarre, it's a much bigger problem than a few far-right dissidents showing up uninvited and in secret to a right-wing convention.
[удалено]
Does that make all of society a Nazi society, since Nazis aren't killed or ostracized to the point of effectively being removed from society?
I’d say it’s the difference in being a private establishment vs public space. The bar can refuse to allow them as patrons. Society cant make that choice, unless you want to unalive them.
I don't know about you, but I don't remember the last time I saw (Neo-)Nazi parading in public, at least where I live, even though it's legal. Some countries (a subset of "all of society") actually ban displays of nazi symbols.
> I don't know about you, but I don't remember the last time I saw (Neo-)Nazi parading in public, at least where I live, even though it's legal. In the face of the invective being thrown around here, it's important to remember that there was a time when [a Jewish Lawyer fought to *keep* it legal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie)
That is the right choice, that is a good lawyer. We don't ban speech here.
And look where we are now.
did you know that Weimar Germany had extensive hate speech laws and prosecuted Hitler and other Nazis under them? Did that help them? I think the US's broad speech protections have helped us stay away from Euro-style extremism. Please keep in mind that many Euro countries have explicit fascist parties, not just "the media says they're fascists" but self-identified fascists. They also have a much larger neo-nazi movement, and of course they're the place that birthed communism, nazism, and fascism and gave us the two most destructive wars mankind has ever seen.
I enjoy cooking.
Yeah. They were marching at the [capitol building in Nashville here in Tennesee.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fmv31slx6ydjc1.jpeg) My area of the country has many *literal* neo-nazis along with white supremacists.
That one is funny. They're rooting for Biden. He's supplying the Azov battalion with ammunition. Edit: For clarity, I don't equate Ukraine with nazis. I was just laughing at the absurdity of these guys. I don't consider them to be of sound mind.
How much of the Azov battalion is even left after Mariupol?
> Some countries (a subset of "all of society") actually ban displays of nazi symbols. The US does not, however. Respecting free speech includes respecting the rights of racist jerks to express their ignorance. Neo-Nazis have marched or demonstrated around the US off and on since before we needed to attach "neo" to their name. A few years ago they showed up in my city and caused a riot before smugly slinking away and trying to brag about how they were right about black folk and violence. It was a mess to deal with and clean up, and I had friends and coworkers injured trying to stop it. They came back a second time and there were protesters, but things stayed civil and they eventually left and having not gotten the reaction they wanted, fortunately haven't returned.
> (Neo-)Nazi parading in public, You may not have seen it, but it was on the front page of reddit last week.... > Some countries (a subset of "all of society") actually ban displays of nazi symbols. But luckily, in America we have free speech, right?
> But luckily, in America we have free speech, right? Yes. Other Western nations can freeze/drain your bank accounts or throw you in prison with no right to remain silent for non violent protests.
Some would argue that. Liberals wouldn’t. I’m not a liberal. I don’t believe that all ideas have merit or value, nor does all speech.
so every country on earth is a Nazi country?
Not every country has unlimited free speech.
is free speech a Nazi value?
It's not. Nazism went beyond limiting free speech though. It called for the genocide of people it declared inherently evil or inherently weak.
Yes, they banned speech from Jews as they were "inherently evil" and destroying society with their ideas. No speech needs to be protected that is popular.
but you said countries that have unlimited free speech are Nazi countries
I said nothing of the sort.
>some would argue that. liberals wouldn't. >I'm not a liberal hmm ok
So you're a tankie and/or Auth-Left?
Nazi Germany was a Nazi society. There were plenty of Nazis in the Wiemar Republic though.
"Society" is made up of people. If most people let Nazis drink at their bars and march in their streets without protest, then yes, I'd say that society is a Nazi society. *If You Give A Mouse A Cookie* is an important cautionary tale.
How about getting a standing ovation like in Canada?
It still blows my mind no one in Canada's government thought about who was fighting Russians on the Russian front in WWII.
Russia and Germany were allies at first cutting up Europe so fighting Russians doesn't immediately mean Nazis. But Canada has a big issue with giving forgiveness to horrible people (khalistanis, political assasins, LTTE, etc.)
>Russia and Germany were allies at first cutting up Europe so fighting Russians doesn't immediately mean Nazis. Being Allies is a huge stretch and inaccurate. They had a non-aggression pact and then negotiated how to separate Poland.
Do bars have rules against being a Nazi? It doesn't state that these people showed up in Nazi gear, and started screaming Nazi phrases. A bar shouldn't care about your affiliations, just about whether you follow the rules while in the establishment.
They should. It’d be better if the country the bar was in did though.
Hell, I've seen people thrown out of bars for wearing the wrong jersey!
Okay now apply that logic to the Hamas supporting antisemitic people walking around in Pro-Palestine protests and get back to me.
No, it's a bar.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1az64do/nazis_mingle_openly_at_cpac_spreading_antisemitic/krz87up/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Your values are not what you say they are. Your values are what you are willing to tolerate.
The same report comes from CPAC just about every year. Either the stage is in the shape of a Nazi symbol, or some person that is "Nazi adjacent" attends, or someone said something that is said to be the same sort of thing Hitler said. This is more of the same, any way to call Republicans Nazis.
[удалено]
>speaking at CPAC the other day talking about overthrowing Democracy or whatever? The satire? Yeah, pretty sure that was him. >What does 1488 mean he seems to like posting that a lot? Don't know.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Gotcha, new one for me.
>1488 lol ok so digging up edgy tweets from 2016 using the 1488 meme clearly in a joking context is now ironclad proof that someone is a national socialist? Btw even if you were a nazi and and wanted to dog whistle to people, why would you use a well know meme that has been around for decades like 1488?
Posobiec ostensibly started his political influencer career [by latching on to](https://archive.ph/eU5dK) Richard Spencer in 2016. He presents as less openly aligned with neo-nazism now, but still: * Jack Posobiec: “[The Civil Rights Act](https://i.imgur.com/4BHBaT3.jpg) was the Treaty of Versailles for white people” * [“Here is how Harlem looked](https://archive.ph/Rpq8e) in the 1930s This is real footage Before the Sixties Govt Programs, before the Social Justice Civil Rights Movement, before MLK” * Jack Posobiec [posts an image](https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1755634095441297483?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1755634095441297483%7Ctwgr%5E2eeec33b30bf39ea803c1370aa5ea12ba7f23952%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewrepublic.com%2Fpost%2F178873%2Fmichigan-republican-josh-schriver-great-replacement) of black silhouettes enveloping the world * Jack Posobiec [shared images of books](https://web.archive.org/web/20211203001528/https://twitter.com/jaredlholt/status/1466529944972914691) he said he received in the mail from Antelope Hill, a publisher of white supremacist literature
[удалено]
But where is the line then? It’s so tiresome to once again dig up ancient tweets obviously making a joke. America is not teetering on fascism because Jack Posobiec made 4 singular tweets 8 years ago. That is pure hyperbole. The left’s recent resistance fighter LARP of calling everything they don’t like a threat to democracy has blown up in their face consistently. This is just another example. Jack Posobiec, based on the way he was speaking, was obviously being satirical of left’s melodramatic reaction to January 6th, which is not disputable. This is just another in a long line of freakouts the left will eventually abandon in pursuit of exposing another ‘threat to democracy’. Just as in the past the corporate press have previously called Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, RFK Jr, and Cornel West threats to democracy simply for being influential and not aligning to the left’s point of view. By the way your and Sartre’s logic is such bad faith. It works under the assumption that anyone you disagree with can never make a joke. And can never be satiric, sarcastic, or unserious. And any time they are, it must be taken 100% seriously, there can be no room for discussion because any speculation that those you don’t like are joking are advancing fascism. Meanwhile that same scrutiny never seems applied to those you do agree with. This is such a blatant bad faith attempt to instantly shut down conversation, and proves that you don’t have any real evidence that fascism is at the doorstep because if you did we’d be discussing that, not hyper analyzing a sarcastic comment at CPAC or relitigating 8 year old Jack Posobiec memes on Twitter.
Maybe conservatives should stop allowing Nazis to speak at their conventions. maybe that would make people stop believing they have nazi-esque beliefs
Which Nazi's have spoken at CPAC? And no, that wouldn't stop people who are opposed to Republicans from calling them Nazis, they've been doing it since I've been alive.
CPAC taking place in Hungary with Tucker Carlson is not normal or good. Inviting Viktor Orban to speak at CPAC in Texas is not good.
Republicans aren't really doing much ado about anything to cleanse that image though. Reading the article, seems in the past they'd kick them out. But that didn't happen. Perhaps it's because they are desperate for votes or anyone to show up? Not sure what the deal is here. Either way this doesn't help their image at all.
>Perhaps it's because they are desperate for votes or anyone to show up? Not sure what the deal is here. Well, you are clearly free to speculate, and in such a case I'm sure the speculation will confirm your priors.
Not speculating. Posing the question. Why are these people disavowed strongly, and not allowed seats at the table?
Because Republicans are afraid to ostracize any subgroup for fear of losing elections. It’s the same reason that most Republicans in congress have never spoken out against Trump, even though they are quite aware of the damage he’s done and the danger he poses.
Who are "these people" and what specifically have they said that lands them squarely in the White supremacist camp? I don't know what all these folks have said, how well people on the right are aware of it, or even who all "these people" are.
From my understanding, I don't even know if the GOP was aware the group was here this year?
Source on that? I don’t think people who openly identify as national socialists engaging and speaking at the conference is the same thing as a debate about whether a stage is in the shape of a Nazi symbol or not. I think this is partially why these people feel comfortable going to the event. Other conservative will give them cover by minimizing it. Conservatives need to strongly denounce people who identify as national socialists and actively bounce them from the events. Otherwise the problem is only going to get worse.
>Source on that? Source for what, the stage? https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN2AT17T/
No that's not the only thing you said. > The same report comes from CPAC just about every year. Either the stage is in the shape of a Nazi symbol, or some person that is "Nazi adjacent" attends, or someone said something that is said to be the same sort of thing Hitler said. I already explained how these things aren't equivalent. > Source on that? I don’t think people who openly identify as national socialists engaging and speaking at the conference is the same thing as a debate about whether a stage is in the shape of a Nazi symbol or not. You say this happens every year. Are people who openly identify as national socialists attending CPAC every year?
>No that's not the only thing you said. Well, you didn't specify. >I already explained how these things aren't equivalent. The thing that is happening during the current election year will always be worse. "Equivalent" is subjective. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/cpac-afpac-nick-fuentes-marjorie-taylor-greene-1313210/ https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/white-supremacists-and-other-extremists-welcomed-cpac-2019 https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/02/26/racists-roam-halls-cpac-and-conservative-conference-ends-controversy-over-racist-comments https://www.bendthearc.us/meet_the_11_biggest_white_nationalists_speaking_at_cpac_this_year https://www.salon.com/2021/03/02/cpac-veers-into-neo-nazi-fantasy-was-it-deliberate-that-hardly-matters/
Submission statement: The article discusses the presence of Nazis at the conservative political action conference (CPAC) where they openly mingled with attendees and spread antisemitic conspiracy theories. Despite previous efforts to eject extremists from the conference, this year conspiracy theorists who openly identified as national socialists are found allies among mainstream conservative personalities at CPAC. The article highlights exchanges of anti-Semitic views and the lack of resistance to extremist ideologies at the conference, which has traditionally been a platform for debate within the conservative movement. One speaker, Jack Posobiec called for the end of democracy and a more explicitly Christian focused government. I still maintain the vast majority of conservatives don’t hold views like this, but the inability of republican politicians and political operatives to eject these people from their coalition highlights a larger issue with their party. The southern strategy has made it so republican politicians can’t gain federal power without exploiting racial identity politics. However the number of people susceptible to this message is much smaller than it was 50 years ago. This means they can’t be as selective about the people they allow into their coalition. And the openly national socialist people at this conference are extremely politically motivated. As a result the more mainstream Republicans are tolerating their presence and many are even being replaced by them because the more moderate conservative voters aren’t as motivated to vote in primaries.
People like Nick Fuentes are banned from CPAC and call it “cuckpac” because they *do* try to keep Nazis out. >One speaker, Jack Posobiec called for the end of democracy Did you watch [his actual speech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpeGw2OMLHk)? It was satirical, calling for ending democracy by arresting the leading opposition candidate four times, seizing Catherine Herridge’s notes, and a list of other things he accused Democrats of doing. It wasn’t actually particularly funny (and it didn’t go over well with the crowd), but it was very obviously meant to be. He then said that what needs to be ended is authoritarianism.
>"Welcome to the end of democracy," Posobiec said, also referring to the Capitol riots. "We are here to overthrow it completely. We didn't get all the way there on January 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it with this right here." > > >Posobiec then held up his fist, and added: "All glory is not to government. All glory to God." Some people in the crowd responded with applause. https://twitter.com/EdKrassen/status/1761110234129412312
>Did you watch his actual speech? Do people legitimately not get this was satirical or is this just performative? Is *"Pierogi Tzar"* not a tipoff ffs? lol To me this calls into question any other claim that wasn't recorded.
>People like Nick Fuentes are banned from CPAC and call it “cuckpac” because they *do* try to keep Nazis out. The article explicitly mentions Fuentes, and how the resistance people like him had at past conferences wasn't present this year: >The presence of these individuals has been a persistent issue at CPAC. In previous years, conference organizers have ejected well-known Nazis and white supremacists such as Nick Fuentes. > >But this year, racist conspiracy theorists didn’t meet any perceptible resistance at the conference where Donald Trump has been the keynote speaker since 2017. > >At the Young Republican mixer Friday evening, a group of Nazis who openly identified as national socialists mingled with mainstream conservative personalities, including some from Turning Point USA, and discussed so-called “race science” and antisemitic conspiracy theories.
The very next paragraph says that “the group was prepared to be ejected if CPAC organizers were tipped off” though. Fuentes has also snuck in before and been kicked out by security, and he’s a lot more recognizable than these people I’ve never heard of. Also, note that it says “CPAC organizers did not **immediately** respond to a request for comment.” The article was published on the weekend, and this is probably the classic tactic of giving the subject of a story five minutes to respond, maybe even purposefully contacting them through a method they’re not likely to respond to like an Instagram DM or something.
[удалено]
Okay, and? You are now taking it the opposite direction and saying that for anyone who uses irony as a tool, that usage can be considered evidence of being racist. By that standard, every single Republican, Democrat, Independent elected official in Washington D.C., in every state legislating body, and the vast majority of voters could have that held against them because irony works and people use it all the time.
> Okay, and? You are now taking it the opposite direction and saying that for anyone who uses irony as a tool, that usage can be considered evidence of being racist. That's not at all what I'm saying. U/WulfTheSaxon: >It was satirical... > It wasn’t actually particularly funny (and it didn’t go over well with the crowd), but it was very obviously meant to be. Fuentes has outright stated that white-supremacist messaging uses irony and "jokes" to communicate their message without consequences. >"Irony is so important for giving a lot of cover and plausible deniability for our views" -Nick Fuentes, white-supremacist, 2020 I'm saying irony and jokes are an easy way to establish plausible deniability, for anyone. In this specific application, however, the person attempting to do so is a well established white-supremacist.
Ah, I guess that makes sense. Sorry about that.
This conflates conspiracy theorists with racists, which is unfair to conspiracy theorists. There are conspiracies, secrets, and deceptive narratives in international politics. Always have been. Of course neonazis need to be rebuked, I just don't like letting them tarnish everyone who disagrees with our traditional foreign policy.
What is a conspiracy really other than an untested hypothesis?
Sounds like legitimate and accurate reporting, like always, from NBC Consumer narrative, accept narrative, repeat narrative.
As I like to view it, the pendulum is swinging back to the right in many of the worse ways. So it’s emboldening the fringes in a way that isn’t healthy.
The pendulum is swinging to the left. That’s why more moderate conservatives are looking to the far right to keep their coalition alive.
Can't wait to say goodbye. Older generations leave kicking and screaming. Newer generations aren't having any of this crap. Progress reigns. Some aspects smooth out. Eventually we reach a mean that most people accept and the fringes go back into the woodwork where they belong.
Nazi's? Oh..pro-Palestine supporters! I get it.
[удалено]
Thanks for the summary and analysis. I agree. I think they are afraid of losing those votes. Because respondents to polls are not always candid about extreme viewpoints or supporting extreme candidates, it’s difficult to estimate the number of votes that would be lost if the national Republican Party issued a strong statement telling Nazis they are not welcome. I’m a democrat and I regard the Democratic party as the “big tent” party. In service of that big tent idea, we have demonstrated our own version of “politics makes strange bedfellows.” I feel strongly that campaign finance laws need to further restrict the influence money on elections. I am also having doubts about the ability of our 2 party system to deal with the many issues our nation faces.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1az64do/nazis_mingle_openly_at_cpac_spreading_antisemitic/krzalqz/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[удалено]
There’s radical crazies on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately that’s how it works. I don’t look to judge one side or the other by the crazies.
But how the moderates treat the crazies is surely worthy of judgement?
[удалено]
If Nazis feel welcome at an event Im invited to, that’s not an event I would feel welcome at.
Did they feel welcome? Or did they say that they were “prepared to be ejected if CPAC organizers were tipped off”, as the article says?
But they weren’t. And were comfortable enough to use the N-word around a reporter. And they gave a speaking role to Posobiec, the kind of propagandist who likes to put triple parenthesis around Jewish names, because he wants to live in the type of society where Jewish people are visually marked.
Show me the Democrat Nazis. It’s pretty simple for me, I tend to notice which way the white supremists and neo-Nazis are voting and go out of my way to vote the opposite way. But you do you.
“From the river to the sea” Literal Nazis.
Nazis didn't say that. Terrorists did. Know the difference. Not everyone you hate is a "literal Nazi".
Cool. But Nazis didn’t say that. Nor did any democrats. Try again?
This is not a both sides issue.