By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Republican congressional candidate Jace Yarbrough, who has acknowledged his views might be described as “bigoted and backward and oppressive and Nazi-ish,” has received an endorsement from President Donald Trump. Yarbrough, an Air Force veteran and lawyer, previously drew attention for a federal lawsuit against the military concerning remarks he made about biological realities and gender identity, which resulted in a Letter of Admonishment. Additionally, tech billionaire Peter Thiel has contributed $7,000 to Yarbrough’s campaign, aligning with a pattern of Thiel supporting right-wing figures who advocate for ideological disruption rather than incremental policy changes.
Read the original article here
It’s quite something to witness a former President, Donald Trump, throwing his weight behind a Texas Republican congressional candidate who has, shall we say, an interesting way of describing his own views. This particular candidate, Jace Yarbrough, has apparently mused that critics might label his perspectives as “bigoted and backward and oppressive and Nazi-ish.” Now, that’s a mouthful, isn’t it? And to add another layer to this unfolding narrative, the influential tech billionaire and co-founder of Palantir Technologies, Peter Thiel, is also reportedly backing Yarbrough’s bid for Congress.
The notion of a politician embracing language that even skirts the edges of Nazism is, to put it mildly, a jarring development. It’s the kind of phrase that immediately raises eyebrows and sparks a flurry of questions about the candidate’s underlying beliefs and what it signifies for the political landscape. The fact that such a descriptor, even self-applied in a qualified manner, is being entertained in the context of a congressional run is a stark reminder of how the Overton window in political discourse has shifted for some.
Adding to this complex picture is the involvement of Peter Thiel, a figure who has become increasingly prominent in conservative politics and whose financial backing can certainly open doors. Thiel’s support for this particular candidate, especially given the candidate’s own characterization of his views, raises further concerns for many. It suggests a willingness on Thiel’s part to align with candidates who might be seen as pushing boundaries, and it fuels discussions about the influence of wealthy donors on political outcomes.
Many are quick to point out the concerning implications of this endorsement, seeing it as indicative of a larger trend within a segment of the Republican party. The language used by Yarbrough, combined with Thiel’s financial backing, leads some to believe that this is less about representing the average American and more about serving the interests of a wealthy elite. This perspective suggests that politicians endorsed by figures like Trump and Thiel might be seen as beholden to their benefactors rather than to their constituents.
There’s a palpable sense of unease about the direction some political movements are taking, with critics expressing alarm at what they perceive as a growing acceptance of extreme ideologies. The term “Nazi-ish” itself is a flashpoint, with some arguing that there’s no such thing as being “sort of” a Nazi; you either are or you aren’t. This viewpoint emphasizes the gravity of even hinting at such affiliations, suggesting that any proximity to such beliefs should be an automatic disqualifier for public office.
This situation is also being viewed through a historical lens, with some drawing parallels to past instances where radical or fringe ideas have found their way into mainstream politics. The argument is made that when figures associated with wealth and influence begin to align with candidates employing such controversial rhetoric, it signals a potentially dangerous trajectory for democracy itself. The fear is that a gradual erosion of democratic norms could be accelerated by such endorsements.
For many, the association of a candidate with such language, coupled with the financial muscle of individuals like Peter Thiel, evokes a sense of déjà vu or a chilling premonition. There’s a feeling that certain historical patterns are repeating, perhaps this time with a darkly satirical twist. The idea that a candidate who uses terms like “Nazi-ish” could be receiving endorsements from prominent political figures is, for many, deeply unsettling and speaks to a broader cultural and political moment.
The concern extends to the potential for these actions to normalize or legitimize ideas that many find abhorrent. When prominent figures lend their support to candidates who employ such language, it can inadvertently signal to others that these views are acceptable or even desirable. This can create an environment where divisive and potentially harmful rhetoric becomes more commonplace in public discourse.
Moreover, the idea that some billionaires are actively influencing politics to their own ends is a recurring theme in these discussions. The concern is that figures like Peter Thiel, through their financial power, can effectively “buy” influence and ensure that politicians favorable to their agenda are elected. This dynamic, where wealth plays such a significant role in shaping political outcomes, is seen by many as a threat to the democratic process and to the interests of ordinary citizens.
The involvement of Peter Thiel, in particular, is drawing scrutiny. His past associations and business dealings have led to him being described in strong terms by some, with accusations of undermining democracy and prioritizing personal gain. When such a figure backs a candidate whose language is so inflammatory, it amplifies these concerns and raises questions about what motivates such support and what the ultimate goals might be.
The phrase “Filth recognizes filth” is a sentiment that emerges when discussing such alliances, reflecting a strong disapproval of the perceived moral character of those involved. It suggests that individuals with questionable ethics or intentions are drawn to each other, forming alliances that are detrimental to the public good. This kind of language highlights the emotional and visceral reactions that these political developments can provoke.
Ultimately, the endorsement of a self-described “Nazi-ish” candidate by Donald Trump, with the financial backing of Peter Thiel, is a development that has sparked significant debate and concern. It raises profound questions about the state of political discourse, the influence of wealth in politics, and the potential implications for democratic values and institutions. The situation serves as a potent reminder for voters to scrutinize candidates and their supporters, and to consider the broader implications of their choices at the ballot box.