The Trump GOP is affirmatively antisemitic and racist

“President Donald Trump stepped into a growing internal battle in the Republican Party on Monday, defending right-wing media figure Tucker Carlson from fellow conservatives angry that he had hosted Nick Fuentes, the openly fascist podcaster known for his racist, misogynist, pro-Hitler and antisemitic rants, for a softball interview. 

“If he wants to [interview Fuentes], get the word out,” Trump said, while asserting he didn’t know who Fuentes is. “People have to decide.”

 

“The president actively entered the fray of an unfolding battle within the Republican Party, as the right wing struggles to deal with the rising influence of antisemitism and unvarnished bigotry against racial minorities and women in the conservative movement. On Oct. 27, Fuentes’ appearance on Carlson’s online show launched the ongoing row into high gear: Fuentes was given a platform on one of the most important online shows in the conservative ecosystem where he could declare that “the main challenge” of American society is “organized Jewry.”

 

“We do need to be right-wing. We do need to be Christian. We do, on some level, need to be pro-white,” Fuentes said. “Not to the exclusion of everybody else, but recognizing that white people have a special heritage here, as Americans.”

The POTUS is the leader of his party, and Trump is the leader of his political cult. As for his statement that he didn’t know who Fuentes, he’s just lying. He hosted Fuentes at Mar-A-Lago. If you accept Trump’s embrace of Fuentes, shame on you.

There’s nothing Christian about being pro-white—Christ wasn’t white and he explicitly treated all humanity equivalently. Any real Christian repudiates Fuentes. And the only special heritage white Americans have here is as murderers of indigenous peoples and slavers. Nothing to be proud of, in my view. YMMV.

Honest people, including honest Christians, have to decide that Nick Fuentes is anathema. Full stop.

http://huffpost.com/entry/republicans-antisemitism_n_691b963fe4b0023259f6893a

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more