[version_five]

Having just read it, this sounds like a mental health issue to me. It's well outside the bounds of opinion, even a ridiculous or hateful opinion.

I worry that people are running to mock this guy because they want to portray these views as the kind of things their opponents actually think, while in reality there is clearly something wrong with him and he may need some compassion. This is not a fringe opinion, there is some problem that's causing him to behave like this.

[seattle_spring]

You do realize that a non-trivial amount of politicians have publicly made similar claims about the Jews? It's not like this is some isolated incident.

[tomjen3]

According to the article he believed that Jews have managed to take over the Catholic church. We are well past standard conspiracy theories here.

[LudwigNagasena]

Can you name some politicians that claimed that the COVID-19 vaccine is part of a plot by "the Jews" to exterminate people or something similar?

[kthejoker2]

Ron DeSantis spokeswoman

https://www.thedailybeast.com/florida-governors-press-secret...

Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/...

Ohio US Senate candidate Josh Mandel

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium.HIGHLIGHT-jewish-go...

https://ktxs.com/news/local/shackleford-county-gop-chairwoma...

And these are just the outright ones, there is plenty of this stuff at rallies and protests that help fund politicians - there are hardly any condemnations unless it's so blatant it hurts their war chest.

[q1w2]

Sen. Wendy Rogers's quote was not about Jews at all. It was about latino migrants (not that that's better).

Ron DeSantis spokeswoman isn't, what I would call, a politician - and her quote was specifically about the Rothschild family. Although it's not clear which conspiracy theory she's refering too - many of them (while all irrational) are not anti-semitic. It also doesn't seem to be a serious comment.

Your other two links are for a candidate, not an active politician.

These are not good examples.

[LudwigNagasena]

>Ron DeSantis spokeswoman

There is no direct antisemitism, only some sort of wink-wink dog whistle accusations.

>Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers

Demographic concerns are common across the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_threat). There is really nothing special about it. And there are always fears of "voter importation". It is not comparable to "Jews want to exterminate others with vaccines".

>Ohio US Senate candidate Josh Mandel

I guess if he weren't Jewish, he would also be accused of antisemitism because he mentioned Soros? Thankfully for him he ticked the right box when he was born. And yeah, this seems to be the only person who openly articulated conspiracy theories. But again, that's your run-of-the-mill "deep state is puppeteering social movements to keep power", it doesn't look like "similar claims about the Jews".

[woofyman]

Majore Taylor Green thought Jewish space lasers started the California fires

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/article/marjorie-taylor-...

[TulliusCicero]

Plenty of otherwise intelligent people have believed in conspiratorial nonsense through history. Especially when that nonsense was about Jews.

[toss1]

If it is a mental health issue, then that issue affects a very substantial double-digit percentage of the population, something approximating the count of vax refusers. They don't believe in the same nuttery, but they do subscribe to one of the many flavors of anti-science aggression.

What is most fascinating and frightening is that there are many who, rather than understand that the world has serious random phenomena, or at least phenomena that are not yet fully explained (or the explanation is beyond their understanding), would choose to instead of believing scientists who spend their entire lives trying to sort it out, instead believe that there is some evil cabal of people responsible for the misery in their lives.

[raxxorrax]

This is generalization without substance is very likely part of the road that lead him develop such believes.

There are cabals among scientists that need to be questioned. On fossil fuel, tobacco, medical topics and a lot of other issues. Germany had a lot of science on why Jews are inferior. Even scientists have an agency that does not have to align with public interest. Your comment suggests blind faith which is certainly not a good idea.

> cabal of people responsible for the misery in their lives

conservatives, liberals, rock musicians, the church, homosexuals...

[toss1]

The generalization has a lot of substance, I'm just trying to be general in order to avoid political flamewars here on HN. I'm referring to the set of right-wingers who are going down the Qanon rathole, and their like in cult-like evangelical groups who are so willfully ignorant as to insist on believing easily disproven conspiracy theories such as flat-earth, chemtrails, antivaxxers, Big Lie, etc.

I am absolutely not expecting any kind of blind faith in science, but an understanding of science. I'm talking about genuine debate, not anti-science aggression with the goal of destroying the notion that truth can be known.

Voltaire got it right long ago: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Those people who willfully ignore science for conspiracy theory, etc. are the targets of the leaders of that political wing and other media and online manipulators -- they are being happily led to believe absurdities, and will commit atrocities. One example was exactly one year ago today. There is no reason to expect it will be the last or the least.

[raxxorrax]

Understandable that you reject the beliefs of Qanon, that is quite easy actually, but arguing against them is a waste of time and leaves your more elaborate opposition ignored. At some point this opposition will be firmly against you because there is no way for political discourse and no way to hold people representing your political opinion to account.

There will only be fronts that become more and more polarized. That is also true for yourself, at some point you start to believe that any objection to your position is a flat earther. Of course they are not, these beliefs aren't relevant to the tiniest degree. Same would be true for QAnon if people didn't get themselves riled up.

Again, that flat earthers or QAnon are relevant or indicative of everyone of your political opposition is indeed an absurd belief. If you look hard enough, you will find them, even in high places, out of the question. Even wackos can have success. But I am sure you would also agree that it isn't right to leverage intelligence agencies against your opposition with slanderous dossiers. I think it is understandable that this can be more concerning than someone running around asserting the earth were flat.

[toss1]

I am not fomenting polarization, I am recognizing that it exists, and why.

You overlook several key factors

1) the polarization has already been created and is being deliberately magnified

2) this is being done by a set of RW leaders, authoritarians, and some media, each for their own reasons

3) A primary tool that is being used is amplifying perceived grievances & racism and spreading desinformatsyia and distrust (where the goal isn't necessarily to get people to believe the BS, which is a nice bonus, but to get ppl to think the truth is unknowable because you can't trust anything).

>>at some point this opposition will be firmly against you because there is no way for political discourse

Have you bothered to look around? Coming from the right wing movements in US, Hiungary, France, GB, etc, is nothing but firm opposition. If you are not with them, you are the enemy. Just look at what comes out of Fox News in the US - who is the biggest enemy? Liberals. Not totalitarian states who murder their own citizens at home and abroad -- liberals, and independents who are not with them, even in The Big Lie that the loser of the election was the winner.

>>at some point you start to believe that any objection to your position is a flat earther. No, that is an utterly false and reprehensible accusation. I'm happy to openly discuss anything, and have even done so with flat earthers.

The fact is that if a party to a discussion rejects facts, or is aggressively anti-science, i.e., anti-facts and anti-reality, there is no real basis for discussion.

More importantly, this is NOT some kind of balanced failure of both parties, but specifically the fault of party rejecting reality who is making real discussion impossible.

Merely recognizing a fact such as that does not make me or anyone else the cause of the problem. In fact, your failure to recognize the problem contributes to enabling it.

I am happy to attempt to talk to even the most extreme on any side. I have in fact repeatedly attempted to do so, including with people in my own family. But when the fact is that they refuse to accept objective reality — not that they don't have the intelligence to know, but they actively remain willfully ignorant — it fits a good definition of insanity to not recognize that fact.

>>at some point you start to believe that any objection to your position is a flat earther. Of course they are not, these beliefs aren't relevant to the tiniest degree.

Again the first sentence is false. And more importantly, the beliefs like "flat-earther", "NASA is a hoax", "chemtrails", "antivaxxer", etc. are anything but irrelevant.

The spreading of these beliefs is the exact tool used to breed distrust and polarization. It leads the followers to believe that truth cannot be known, so to blindly follow their leaders, and to believe that anyone not "in" on the beliefs is an enemy.

With this group and its leaders, ordinary political discourse is not possible, as there is not even a shared reality, and no argument is ever made in good faith.

Recognizing that this is already a fact is not furthering the polarization, it is recognizing reality, and is the first step to finding a remedy.

Anything less is simply enabling authoritarians.

[raxxorrax]

Sure, they pray on the emotional need of their audience to "own the libs". Little use to deny that. But it is not a position you can engage with and win anything.

> Again the first sentence is false. And more importantly, the beliefs like "flat-earther", "NASA is a hoax", "chemtrails", "antivaxxer", etc. are anything but irrelevant.

They are irrelevant aside from being a boogeyman. Even combined you are probably talking about a very small group, although I would explicitly exclude antivaxxer here because it is another quality. I am vaccinated but against mandates and have been called antivaxxer, so you have only grown opposition. I see the opposition not holding people to account because their eyes are focused on a group that does not have the tiniest inch of political influence and therefore cannot be responsible for much in society anyway. Antivaxxer are also no authoritarians, they argue for the opposite.

I don't think they cause the distrust, the distrust is caused in how you engage with them. While the play of politics usually suggest that you should not engage with unhappy people (inhuman, I know), you conduct with them is relevant. I don't believe people blaming anitvaxxers are capable of holding leadership to account because they waste their energy in criticising people that don't have influence on policy. It would be foolish to align myself here, I don't need and image of an enemy.

I am not from the US and mostly align with the democrat party, which is still very conservative from my point of view. But a few years ago I understood the objection many US conservatives harbor. And they are just as guilty of the same thing. In the Obama years many of his initiatives were blocked out of pure spite, no factual discussion could have changed that. I disliked them doing that only to learn that this is the usual conduct between political camps. But you are just making yourself a tool of the other political side. Perhaps better than other blind followers they have, but not by much for constructive dialogue.

[neilv]

Yeah, my guess would be mental illness.

We can say "what person is saying is very wrong" simultaneous with tryign to point that person towards medical care.

Mocking someone for bad behavior could have some upside (e.g., maybe it discourages them and others from doing the same). But if we imagine mocking someone with a debilitating illness, that image of ourselves should make us reconsider.

[olliej]

Nah, it's fairly standard anti-semitism. It's not remotely outside the normal bounds.

[simplestats]

It's not like he was caught by a hot mike or something. This guy widely sent out an emotional email to politicans and others pleading them to consider his "discovery". This in a world where you are advised to never say "you guys".

[olliej]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here?

[colechristensen]

Might also be a drug problem, stimulants can make you say/do/think weird things.

[q1w2]

Does anyone have a link to the original email. I hate reading articles that just take snippets and add their outrage commentary.

[fundad]

Yeah it’s here http://Newsmax.com

[q1w2]

I do not see it anywhere on that site. Perhaps the search doesn't work. Can you link it directly?

[fundad]

Wrong link, here http://nextdoor.com

You need to log in and you can read embarrassing problematic screeds

[q1w2]

What does nextdoor have to do with this? Are you just posting random urls?