Unfortunate shape of CPAC stage

has anyone kept up with this. First of all…this is ridiculous and is just more evidence that the ENEmedia has TDS and is looking for anything. And isn’t it interesting that the left is aware of obscure nazi symbolism. hmmmm

Now for facts. the company that designed the stage is a liberal company. THe owner is a big liberal and a biteme supporter. She says it was not done on purpose. if you can believe a liberal. This has hurt her company. She was being cancelled by the left until they found out she is a democrat donor/supporter.

you guys. You are so full of it. You act like people who are scared to death. Your leaders and i use the term loosely have locked themselves in DC scared of their own shadows. Rather looks like they’re using national guard troops from leftist states to prop up their illegitimate government.

Man schemes, God laughs.

Alright, buckle up for this I’m jumping into the far side for a second. On symbolism, I feel like there’s just been too many “close calls”

One of the craziest examples was a 2018 DHS release, here’s the archived version:

Check out this wikipedia page

Prominent Nazi callout is the number 14 in reference to the “14 words” slogan by David Lane:

“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children”

Now look at the DHS release title:

“We Must Secure The Border And Build The Wall To Make America Safe Again”

Also 14 words, eerily similar. It gets worse though. 14 is often used in conjunction with 88. H being the 8th letter of the alphabet, 88 is used as a symbol to mean “Heil Hitler” by white supremacists. Now note one of the bullet points near the bottom:

“On average, out of 88 claims that pass the credible fear screening, fewer than 13 will ultimately result in a grant of asylum.”

13/88= 14.77273%

It’s like they’ve gone out of there way to include a fraction with 88. Why not “less than 15/100” instead? There’s no reason to use 88 here I can see.

Just for fun, there’s also 14 core points to the release (one not bulleted).

So, off the deep end a bit? Yeah, I think so. I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that these symbols appear, and I don’t believe it’s signaling a large conspiracy behind the scenes within the Trump administration. However, I do believe they were put there intentionally, most likely by a staffer or aide who thought sneaking these into documents would be funny.

Missing the point.

I never said I believed that I could say this was done on purpose, but using your example, if the monkeys eventually type out Mien Kampf (or some other piece of universally detested piece of literature) and I point out that, “hey, your monkeys have just typed something really offensive, maybe you wanna do something about that?”. And you say, nawwww, let it be.

That is the problem. And again, to be 100% crystal clear, not wanting to do anything on first glance, isn’t really the issue.

But when you realize that the words in your book, or in this case, the shape of your stage has people that most people in society agrees are worthless pieces of garbage thinking that secretly you meant to send this message, that should be the impetus to change. Because now, the decision to leave it like it is knowingly and actively courting the very people that most decent people agree are filth.

So given the sheer number of blatant dog whistles that appear over and over and over again on the right…If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig…It’s probably a pig.

And you know what they say…If you roll around with pigs, you’re probably going to get dirty.

You will literally say anything to avoid accountability on the right.

I’m aware of a lot of symbolism from lots of cultures, religions, products and political movements, so what?

Hahahaha…See above. What a gas…CPAC hires a “liberal company”, as if there is such a thing.

And again, I’d like to point out that the design of the stage isn’t the issue. I already granted that it could be an honest accident, but once made aware of the design and the symbol it represented, a change wasn’t made. I mean it would have been pretty easy to change the shape very subtly to avoid direct comparison. The issue is even after Republicans at CPAC were made aware and they realized the people in the white supremacy movement that believed this was a sign to them, the decision was made to leave it be.

If you roll around with pigs…

If I had been in charge of acquiring a stage design [side point: why in hell does CPAC waste money on this nonsense?], and if I had been shown the proposed design which, seen from the right perspective, looked like an obscure fascist not-a-swastika-but-sort-of-a-disassembled-and-reconstituted-one-tease, and if someone had pointed out that this was what it looked like … maybe, in retrospect, I would have said, ‘Show me something else’. Maybe … but as someone who grew up and spent most of his adulthood in a world of adults (Leftwing and Rightwing), I might probably have just said, “Don’t be silly. Even our modern Progressives couldn’t be that ridiculous.”

Well, had I done that, I would have been wrong, obviously. No need to give ammunition to a dishonest enemy.

I have the same attitude to the Confederate Flag, which for some people is a bit of redneck nostalgia and a symbol of general rebellion against pointy-heads. But now, in practice, it will be used by the dishonest Left as proof that you want to bring back slavery – and in any case, carried at demonstrations of our side, means, in practice, ‘non-whites not wanted’. So leave it for private family reunions.

Now … playing the balance game, let me say, that the Right sometimes goes along with this. We had a couple of instances recently, when prominent Lefty politicians – one a Canadian and one the governor of North Carolina (?) – were embarrassed by photos from years back, showing them in blackface.

Many conservatives leaped on the bandwagon to shout ‘Aha, racism!’ … or at least they didn’t do what they should have done, and say, “What total nonsense! Let’s argue about something real.”

I haven’t followed it closely – life is too short – but I think something similar has happened with Joe Biden’s tendency in the past to be touchy huggy with people, especially females. Big deal. [I’m not referring to serious charges of sexual assault that some woman has made against him, by the way. That’s an independent issue and we should be just as skeptical as we were with the Supreme Court nominee – which doesn’t mean rejecting the possibility, just not automatically assuming it’s true because the charge is made about a political opponent.]

I know the Left eats this stuff up when they can do it to us, but we needn’t get down in the gutter with them and contribute to the infantalization of America. Actually, ‘the gutter’ is not the right metaphor here – the kindergarten, maybe.

Again, you’ve missed the point. It’s not the progressives you need worry about. Sure troll sensitive Libs and watch them get their delicate sensibilities all worked up. Go for it, have some fun. It’s not the Libs…It’s the White supremacists, many of which show up to right wing causes that give the right a bad name that’s the issue here. They see stuff like this and they think you are with them.

And look, honestly, I’m like you but opposite. If the right-wing wants to associate itself, directly or in a “plausibly deniable” way. Let them. They want to roll with pigs, let them because the dirt will rub off on all of you.

Certainly you must realize this.

Of course. It’s ABC. We don’t want communism, we don’t want fascism. ABC.

But … we pretty much already do this. Are fascists invited to speak at CPAC conferences? Are Nazis invited to speak to conservative youth groups on campus? No and No.

Are Communists invited to speak to liberal groups on campuses? Are they invited to be keynote speakers, officially, at liberal colleges? Yes and yes.

And yet… it’s OUR side who have liberal fingers shaken at us, for NOT doing re fascists what liberals do re Communists.

Here’s the problem. The Left lies. Consciously, deliberately, with malice aforethought.

We are called ‘white supremacists’. No evidence of that is necessary. If you’re on the Right, you’re a ‘white supremacist’. Attempts to deny this are taken as proof of it. The Republican Party of Texas can choose Allen West [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_(politician) ]as its chairman and this shows that they are … white supremacists.

The American Left are just carrying on an old Stalinist tradition: lie brazenly about your political rivals – call Trotskyists ‘agents of Hitler’, say it over and over, and plenty of gullible liberal fools will believe that ‘where there’s smoke there must be fire’. (The Moscow Trials of 1936 resulted in the execution of half of the original Central Committee of Lenin’s Bolshevik Party, an obvious frame-up. The two flagship journals of American liberalism, the New Republic and The Nation, both endorsed these trials.) [https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/sidney-hook-2/memories-of-the-moscow-trials/]

So … we just need to carry on as we’re doing. Fascists and white supremacists are not welcome in our organizations. They’re not conservatives, and they’re not American patriots.

And this is true, no matter what the lying Left say. There’s not much more that we can do.

Well … there is something we can do that we’re not doing: there is a layer of white workingclass, non-college young men who are ‘red-pilled’. They don’t like the PC bs they’re being bombarded with. They feel shut out of American society, socially, politically and economically.

They are being actively courted by neoNazis and anti-Semites, in places like 4Chan and on YouTube. And there are some pretty sophisticated anti-Semites out there, and some people who are very smooth advocates for a white ethno-state, without being openly racist in the KKK manner. (They contrast ‘ethnic nationalism’ to the ‘civic nationalism’ that has been the core of genuine American patriotism.)

My side needs to compete actively with these people, for the allegiance of these young white males. Contrary to the views of the Left, ‘racists’ are made, not born. American patriotism is the only genuinely effective anti-racism for ordinary white Americans.

We are not doing this at the moment, because we do not have an effective national organization.

But this has nothing to do with the conscious, deliberate, lies told by the Left and its lackies in the mainstream media about us.

I would sooner associate myself with a communist then a white supremist.

But let’s be fair here, Communism, for all its flaws is a legit form of economic and political thought. White supremacy is, well…You know.

That said, I agree with you and I’ll admit your right. And its not just the communists that left has to stop embracing. It’s the social justice warriors who get offended at literally everything. While I think that racism is a thing, the fix isn’t to couch every social ill we have in racial terms. “White privilege” if there is such a thing, is a decisive term that does not accomplish the goals of the people who employ the term.

So yeah, if you want to tit-for-tat, sure, I won’t side-step or deny these things (like many here). The left has its problems.

Are you aware that Nazis used to have arms, legs and a head? And EYES and EARS?

This means that you’re all nazis. If you have any of those you’re a nazi. You can’t argue with facts.

I give Send the strawman, you get:


Now, you’ve had some constructive comments in the past, but these sorts of comments are worth the thousands words that is the pic above…(in case you live in a box, that’s a troll)

Yes it is.

There is no widespread White supremacist movement, there are no politicians in power who could be called white supremacists.

There are progressives in power who mean equity in the very manner Tim Pool describes it.

Proportionally, Progressives are the bigger threat. White Supremacists cannot get books pulled off shelves, they cannot convince mainstream media to sell their narrative, they cannot gather sympathy when they riot. They don’t set personnel rules or threat awareness for the military.

That’s the just the facts. WS are at the margins, Progressives are in power, front & center.


We could have an interesting discussion on Communism and Communists, vs Fascism and Fascists/White Supremacists. There are several sub-topics worth going into: motives of the people who believe these things, for example – on all sides. For instance, ‘white supremacist’ is a very broad term, even when used legitimately. But it’s too far off the topic.

My point is: no matter what conservatives do to distinguish ourselves from white supremacists (of all varieties), our enemies will continue to call us that, because it’s useful to them. They are not entirely consciously dishonest in this: for them, if you don’t acknowledge that all problems of Black America are caused by white racism, then you’re a white racist to one degree or another. But basically it’s just dishonesty. (So ‘AntiFa’ is misnamed: they hate everyone on the Right and do not distinguish between genuine fascists, and conservatives.)

Not in power, not expected to win (and in fact didn’t, that’s from 2018). So you admit I’m right.

Progressives are in power and actively taking institutions apart to attain more power. They are the bigger threat.

You said that

Now, I’m not sure how you define “widespread”, but apparently, there are enough that some of them are running for office.

As far as:

Do you we need a person to openly acknowledge white supremacy in order for it to be a problem?

What books?

All and all, radical progressivism is a movement and I admit that it’s real, but I don’t think it’s on the same level as something like White Supremacy, so trying to compare them as if they are equal and the opposite is a red herring, but I think you know that.

Your article points out I’m right.

So you either didn’t read it, or you didn’t read my post.

Either way, you are in no position to argue here. Bret Weinstein has widely documented the bad actors that exist within the left, who are trying to turn the tables (not fix) on racial inequity, and use center-left people as foot soldiers or patsies to further their aims. They get to scream at people in their homes, set fires, riot in the faces of officers, and nothing is done about them.

WS meanwhile doesn’t have clout or control to do any of this. They have no control over cultural institutions, they hold no offices, they gather no sympathy in mainstream media, and when they riot (tiki torches anyone?), no one defends them.

They are at the margins, radical progressives are front & center.

Nothing you’ve brought attention to changes these things.

So radical progressives are the bigger threat by virtue of their scale. They hold far more power, gather far more sympathy, and can far more easily operate in the open. This is 100% correct.

That requires nothing. They just have to register, and run.

Winning or even making it close would require something, and yet they lose in lopsided contests.

So your evidence is just that they exist, and got the idea to run. The result shows they’re at the margins, and nothing changed.

Meanwhile Radical Progressives do win elections, and are in power, and are excused for in media when they say anti-Semitic BS, or excuse or justify rioting.

Night to day. Clearly one holds more pull in narratives and culture than the other.

Riots still kill and destroy. So your preference for one vs the other does not produce better results.

And this is the problem; the right does in fact police itself of the fascist, white supremacist sort, but the left doesn’t know how to do same for people who embrace shades of communism or marxism, or racism pointed at Asian or whites, and see rioting as a proper means of bringing those desires about.

Given the history of those ideas, claiming allegiance to them should be just as bad, and result in the same social marginalization, as saying you’re a Neo-Nazi, or a WS, but it doesn’t. So people with crap ideas that maim and destroy get to rise up through the cracks and take entire campuses, or even cities for a ride.

Portland is the prime example of what happens. Police held away by a Mayor who won’t crack down, businesses regularly destroyed at night, shooting into a bar for putting up pictures of 1st responders, Federal authorities left to fend for themselves while being repeatedly threatened.

If the left can’t gather itself together enough to stand against crap like this because the ones doing it claim to be motivated by “compassion”, Portland’s case will be continually repeated, and things will only get worse.

Holding up the Boogieman of WS who would be stopped within a day if they tried anything of the same, does nothing to change that reality.

I would add one tiny amendment this absolutely on-target statement: in the event of a serious national military humiliation abroad, added to a big economic catastrophe at home, and goaded by the continued advance of the militant anti-white Left … I believe that there is the serious possibility that we could see the growth of a genuine racist reaction among America’s whites.

The word ‘racist’ is not really the right one here … what I mean is, we can could see the growth of politics based around ‘race’, but for white people … one that, like identity politics for other groups, sees the world as a zero sum game among groups.

For the last fifty years, white racial identity politics has been taboo. You can have Black Student Association, an Asian Student Association, a Hispanic Student Association … but not a White Student Association.

Whites tend to politely overlook things like the Black crime rate. They have accepted Affirmative Action and have looked the other way when Blacks have been promoted into positions for which they are not ready. No doubt white guilt has played a part here, along with the sensible acknowledgement that we are necessarily a multi-cultural country.

They either look the other way, or positively approve, the fact that non-white immigrants from India do much better than whites here, as do other non-white Asian immigrants and their descendants. A strange kind of white racism, that makes not-white Blacks do worse, and non-white Asians do better!

Although the Left does not want to spark the growth of white identity politics – it naively assumes it can make whites grovel indefinitely – it very definitely could.

There might be some conservatives who would not be totally unhappy at this, just as there were some conservatives who thought the rise of Hitler was not something to object to, too strongly, since Hitler certainly crushed Communists much more thoroughly than old-fashioned conservatives did.

This would be a great mistake. A Fascist America would be like a Communist America, without the fake internationalism rhetoric.

Unfortunately, we have no national conservative organization to focus our energies. But if we did, we would want to spend some of our time and money waging political war against the fascists, as well as against the anti-American hard Left.

I’ll make a bet, that in the next election cycle that at least one self-proclaimed white supremacist running as a republican wins a seat in the house. Nothing radical, just a friendly bet.

What do you say?

I’d say that the violence on the far right is much more distilled and less justified.

Fighting for racial justice or economic equality, no matter how misguided, isn’t in the same chapter or even the same book as fighting for racial supremacy or purity.

I’m not excusing either side, but I won’t equate them.

This is why one side has made further inroads into our politics than the other. Economic disparity and racial injustice is a real thing, the problem is that there are many who don’t know how to properly express their feelings on these issues or accomplish the goals they set for themselves.

Again, they aren’t the same no matter how hard you try. The result does not determine the legitimacy of the actions taken.

Take the situation with Kyle Rittenhouse, the result of his actions left people dead, that doesn’t mean that what he did was necessarily wrong.

Because only one starts with legitimate premisses.

Racial injustice a real thing, even if the political left overplays that fact to their own detriment.

Economic disparity is a real thing that has real causes.

White supremacy isn’t legitimate. Most of us agree people who think that whites are supreme over other races are filth and deserve our ire.

So while the progressive movement has gained more traction, it’s because it has at its core legitimate issues, even if we can agree that the means by which they carry out their objections is misguided.

That’s a laugh. Where was the right when Trump failed to disavow David Duke. Trump claimed he didn’t know Duke, but there are photos and maybe videos of them together.

Look, there are countless examples of Trump trying to do what you’re doing which is equate social movements with racist ones and say they are the same.

They aren’t, and the right doesn’t call it out if it does it’s after the fact.

I agree those people were wrong, but those are no more “Progressives” than the guy wearing the “Camp Auschwitz” T-Shirt at a Trump rally is a “Republican”.

The difference once again, is what people are fighting for.

@CSBrown28 raises an interesting point. He says " Most of us agree people who think that whites are supreme over other races are filth and deserve our ire."

The phrase “supreme over” is a bit awkward, but on a forum like this no one is required to write a college essay.

So let me ask: is it ever legitimate to say: “Culture ‘X’ is superior to Culture ‘Y’” ??? Or … "With respect to desirable characteristic/behavior ‘Z’, “Culture ‘X’ is superior to Culture ‘Y’”?

By ‘legitimate’, in this context, I mean ‘possibly true’, not necessarily ‘is true whenever someone says it’. (Analolgy: “Specimen X is heavier than Specimen Y.”)

And by ‘legitimate’ I don’t mean ‘is politic’ or ‘is wise’ or ‘is unkind’. Just ‘is possibly true’. There are things which are said, and not believed. There are things which are believed, and not said. Society probably depends on this being so.

The word ‘culture’ is tricky, of course, and someone who wants to dodge the question can divert the discussion into the ‘exact’ meaning of the word – and of course like all words it’s better not to think in terms of a word ‘having’ a meaning, like a tin of beans contains beans and not rice, but rather in terms of how we use the word – understanding that different people can use the same word in different and even contradictory ways. … and in fact the same person can do that as well.

I’m using it in the dictionary sense. Here are a couple of dictionary definitions: >

The arts, beliefs, customs, institutions, and other products of human work and thought considered as a unit, especially with regard to a particular time or social group.

Culture :- the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (such as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time.

Of course, all kinds of caveats are necessary here: cultures change over time; the can contain contradictory elements; they can contain elements to which more lip-service is paid than actual observance; peoples’ observance of them is often not ‘binary’, but shmoozed out, with some people adhering more to a particular custom than others. There is not a single national culture – there can be competing cultures within the boundaries of a state; there can be ‘sub-cultures’ immersed in broader cultures. All of these things and more make this concept slippery – and yet, I believe it’s a valid and useful concept.

Here’s another way to see what is meant by ‘culture’. Suppose a brand-new city were built somewhere, with its architechtural styles etc being a kind of ‘world average’. In other words, were you to be sat down in this city, you wouldn’t be able to say, “Ah, I’m in China” or “Looks like a small Midwestern American town to me”.

Now suppose it was populated by people wearing masks, all speaking through a voice synthesizer that translated their words into English. So you could not tell what nationality or race or tribe they were from their looks or voice.

Let’s take 100 000 of each group.

However, their behavior would be the same as their behavior in their native land. The only observable thing about them would be their behavior.

You are sat down in such a city, for a week at a time, over a period of five weeks, to experience life among five different cultures, say China Chinese, village Nigerians, New York Jews, Blacks from South Chicago, whites from a small town in Mississippi.

Each group acts like it did in its original environment. We haven’t chosen exceptional individuals, but ‘average’ ones, although in every case we have a normal distribution of behaviors within that group.

Another diversion for anyone wanting to dodge the real question: probably every distinguishable cultural element that exists, is held, to some extent, by a few people in every possible distinguishable culture-bearing group. We’re talking general trends, dominant beliefs, averages, typicalities.

Could you tell the difference? Let’s give you fly-on-the-wall powers, so you can see inside police stations, schools, people’s apartments, a police roadblock, a bar, etc. You see men and women reacting with each other, children and teachers, a policeman who has stopped someone for a driving offence, children with homework. Anything you like.

Could you tell that you were in one culture as opposed to another? Could you tell which culture you were in? Let’s assume you have had a year or two living among New York Jews, white small-town Mississipians, a South Chicago housing project, a Nigerian city, and a Chinese one, so that you were familiar with the attitudes towards authority, towards education, which TV programs were watched, how men behaved towards women and vice versa …

Would you be able to say, after a week, which (disguised) group you were in?

Or let me put it another way: is there anyone, of the thousands of people who follow this famous forum, who thinks, “No, it would not be possible to distinguish among these five groups.”