Are all claims about “cabals of elites controlling the world” Nazi style conspiracies, though?
I realize you are claiming that the underlying assertion is that it’s “The Jews” who constitute this supposed Cabal, but isn’t it possible to rail against “cabals of elites” without reference to Judaism?
I agree that Platner’s rhetoric very much indicates that he believes in a “cabal of elites controlling the world”, but I don’t see where he makes the leap to something Nazi like.
That would be an example of someone lying about being against anti-Semitism, though. Which you claim you aren’t accusing Platner of doing.
I’ve never seen one that wasn’t. Maybe sometimes they do target a different group than the Jews, but it’s the same disgusting thing at the root.
Funny you should ask, did you know that the very word “Cabal” derives from “Kabbalah”, Jewish mysticism, as part of exactly such an Anti-Semitic conspiracy theory?
In our society, it’s almost always the Jews. Used to be some people in the US thought this way about Catholics, but I think that’s been out of fashion for a very long time.
I think he is truthfully against what he considers to be anti-semitism.
So your position is that Graham Platner is:
Genuinely against racism.
Genuinely against homophobia.
Genuinely against anti-Semitism, albeit with a limited understanding of everything that constitutes anti-Semitism.
But also:
Genuinely pro-Nazi.
Instead of putting strawmen in my mouth, you could read what I said my position on Platner is many times:
It’s also the message of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. No “Jews” needed.
And I find that incredibly concerning. If the Democrats fall to populism like the Republicans did to MAGA, this country is done.
No “Jews” other than their cabal of choice being AIPAC, sure. Thanks for proving my point.
And yeah, Sanders is Jewish; he also created the career of BJG.
I did read that, but it did not seem to address what I was asking you. I don’t see how my last post is strawmaning you in anyway - it is, as near as I can tell, exactly what you’re arguing in this thread.
Like, I don’t see anyway to reconcile, “Is honest when he says he’s against anti-Semitism,” with “Is also a Nazi.” I can understand how someone can take a position that is anti-Semitic without understanding how it’s anti-Semitic, but that’s not what you’ve been saying about Platner: you’ve been saying that he is explicitly and openly a Nazi, but you also say he’s not lying when he says he opposes anti-Semitism, and those are two positions that just don’t jibe.
Who?
I’ve said this before, but:
“Cabal” implies secrecy, and the progressive wing isn’t acting like this is some secret group: it’s the CEOs of the world’s largest companies.
Claiming that billionaires are in charge of our country is only a lie if Trump is lying about his wealth.
Claiming that the world’s wealthiest people control an outsize amount of the world’s resources isn’t conspiracy theory: it’s what money is. It’d be bizarre to think that, as wealth concentrates in ever-fewer hands, power isn’t doing the same thing.
Objecting to the concentration of power isn’t part of an antisemitic conspiracy. It’s part of the American tradition.
The oligarchs objected to by name by Progressives tend to be at least nominally Christian. I cited specific examples above and can cite them again if needed.
Antisemitic conspiracy theories are a problem. Conflating antisemitic conspiracy theories with all objections to oligarchy is absurd.
But certainly convenient if your actual agenda is to protect the oligarchy.
Briahna Joy Green, an insignificant dingbat Babale is obsessed with who was on Bernie’s campaign payroll for a couple months in 2020. After he dropped out, she went on to a “career” of being on a podcast, until she got fired from it for being disrespectful to family members of Israeli hostages. Since then she has had another, less popular, podcast.
Not for nothing, but I’m skeptical of claims of hidden agendas.
Much likelier is that people are hypercorrecting via generalizations. Antisemitism is awful, and antisemitism usually involves theories about people holding unjust power, so theories about people holding unjust power are awful. Trump is awful, and Trump is a populist, so populism is awful.
It really doesn’t help that Platner has at least three different dumbass moves that superficially look antisemitic–but in each move, looking deeper shows a likelier and less antisemitic explanation, viz. dumbassery. Nevertheless I don’t blame people for holding him to higher scrutiny. I just don’t think the “definitely a Nazi” conclusion is supportable.
He opposed only the forms of antisemitism that meet his limited view of what qualifies as antisemitism while happily engaging in forms of antisemitism that he does not consider antisemitic.
To be very clear, what I was getting at was that Babale would despise Platner and think his election was a harbinger of the end of it all even if he actually was just exactly what he claims to be – a progressive populist in the Bernie/AOC mode. He’s repeatedly expressed his disdain for that wing of the Party, so I’m not accusing him of having a “hidden agenda”.
Again, this has not been proven- there is no good evidence that the podcast is white supremacist.
Yep.
Doesnt really make sense, does it?
You could say that about literally anyone. Some people think criticizing Israel is antisemitic. Some people think supporting Israel is antisemitic, because it makes Jews look bad. Some people think that failure to scrupulously observe all the commandments is antisemitic because it disgraces the Name of God. Unless you’re claiming to be the Official Antisemitism Arbiter, that statement is literally meaningless.
It seems like you’re semi-implying that opposition to spiraling wealth inequality is inherently an antisemitic dog whistle, which is not a claim anyone else is prepared to take seriously.
Where exactly, in your mind, is the line between “thinking rich people have too much power” and “Nazi style conspiracy theories about cabals”, and why do you think Platner is on the wrong side of that line? Can you point to anything he’s said (recently) that you think would be a huge red flag even if you didn’t know who said it?
Yes, I get that part. The part where it breaks down for me is where you go from “Platner is genuine in his opposition to some forms of antisemitism” to “Platner is also literally a Nazi.” Again, I get people can be antisemitic in some ways and not in others, but “literal Nazi” implies, to me, active support for genocide against Jews, and I’m having trouble figuring out what forms of antisemitism someone who supports the extinction of Jews as a people might oppose.
Also, more confused than ever how my previous post was a strawman of your position.
Here’s the take by Michelle Goldberg, NY Times op-ed writer, and FWIW was born into a Jewish family:
/quote: I have a confession: I would not have recognized the skull that the Democratic Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner had tattooed on his chest as a Nazi symbol. I knew that a skull and crossbones formed part of the insignia for the Nazi SS, but had never really clocked the image’s particularities — its three-quarter profile, the bones at the side of the skull instead of underneath — that gave it meaning even when stripped of all other Nazi context. So when Platner insists that he and his military buddies, drunk on shore leave, picked it off a tattoo parlor wall without recognizing it, it’s easy for me to believe him.
I also can’t quite blame those who detest Platner’s left-wing politics for refusing to give him the benefit of the doubt. They have an easy line of attack, and naturally they’re going to use it. Still, it’s worth drawing a distinction between what is true and what makes an easy political narrative.
/end quote