The Fall of Michelle Malkin

 

At an alt-right conference running counter to CPAC, called AFPAC, conservative commentator Michelle Malkin fell further down the rabbit-hole:

In this short clip Malkin engages in not just Holocaust denial, but also indiscriminately throws around charges of dual loyalty. It’s part of a trend for Malkin, who also endorsed anti-Semite Paul Nehlen in his contest against Rep. Paul Ryan.

In her opening remarks, Malkin referred to herself as the “Mommy” of the group and thanked the “Groypers,” the alt-right group hosting her, for pushing back against mainstream conservatives.

It’s hard to overstate Malkin’s influence in the conservative media ecosystem; she is the founder of HotAir, Twitchy, and was a mentor to many up-and-comers over the course of her time at the helm of both.

And because of Malkin’s influence, we (as a conservative movement) need to self-reflect about how reflective Malkin’s views are of our movement as a whole. Has Malkin always questioned the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust? Has Malkin always considered Jews to be agents of the Israeli government? How mainstream are the views she’s professing now in the conservative movement? They are uncomfortable questions, but ones we need to be asking as we continue to (rightly) call out the anti-Semitism on the Left with Omar, Tlaib, etc.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 310 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Why do you think that?

    Because of the language he uses. He suggests that all of the Jews who died were killed in the extermination centers. “The math doesn’t seem to add up there…I don’t think you’d result in 6 million cookies…maybe 200,000 to 300,000 cookies (some Holocaust deniers place this as the true number, citing the Red Cross, which is why he says “Red Cookie Association”)… “If you took aerial photographs over the kitchens you would need to see certain smoke stacks” (another Holocaust denial argument, which was put forward by David Irving), he mentions other ovens intended for delousing (which Holocaust deniers claim was the true purpose of the gas chambers)… All of these are arguments put forward by those who deny the Holocaust.

    Of course he only mentions Auschwitz (when he talks about the aerial photos) but does not mention the other death camps that operated solely for mass murder, because how many casual listeners know of the existence of Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Chelmno? He does not mention the mass killing in the east that followed the Nazi invasion of the USSR that accounted for 1.2 million killed.

    But you’re assuming the very thing in question: was it serious or was it a joke? Or is this just something that can’t ever be joked about for you?

    It is not a joke. Based on the above list, it is the propagation of Holocaust denial arguments. Delivering it with a smile does not make a difference.

    So your answer is that this is forever off limits to joke about? Not only that, erring in breaking the no-joke rule gets you branded a Holocaust Denier even if you don’t actually deny the Holocaust. No thought or exchange required, just reflex. 

    Well, that’s the kind of thing that really gets my contrarian and screw-you impulse going. 

    • #271
  2. V.S. Blackford Inactive
    V.S. Blackford
    @VSBlackford

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Why do you think that?

    Because of the language he uses. He suggests that all of the Jews who died were killed in the extermination centers. “The math doesn’t seem to add up there…I don’t think you’d result in 6 million cookies…maybe 200,000 to 300,000 cookies (some Holocaust deniers place this as the true number, citing the Red Cross, which is why he says “Red Cookie Association”)… “If you took aerial photographs over the kitchens you would need to see certain smoke stacks” (another Holocaust denial argument, which was put forward by David Irving), he mentions other ovens intended for delousing (which Holocaust deniers claim was the true purpose of the gas chambers)… All of these are arguments put forward by those who deny the Holocaust.

    Of course he only mentions Auschwitz (when he talks about the aerial photos) but does not mention the other death camps that operated solely for mass murder, because how many casual listeners know of the existence of Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Chelmno? He does not mention the mass killing in the east that followed the Nazi invasion of the USSR that accounted for 1.2 million killed.

    But you’re assuming the very thing in question: was it serious or was it a joke? Or is this just something that can’t ever be joked about for you?

    It is not a joke. Based on the above list, it is the propagation of Holocaust denial arguments. Delivering it with a smile does not make a difference.

    So your answer is that this is forever off limits to joke about? Not only that, erring in breaking the no-joke rule gets you branded a Holocaust Denier even if you don’t actually deny the Holocaust. No thought or exchange required, just reflex.

    Well, that’s the kind of thing that really gets my contrarian and screw-you impulse going.

    I don’t find denying the Holocaust as a joke in good taste, to each their own at this point. I also don’t think he is making a joke here. I have stated my reasons why, based on his own words. As I said, he is propagating Holocaust denial in this clip. Nothing really funny about it to me. 

    • #272
  3. V.S. Blackford Inactive
    V.S. Blackford
    @VSBlackford

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Why do you think that?

    Because of the language he uses. He suggests that all of the Jews who died were killed in the extermination centers. “The math doesn’t seem to add up there…I don’t think you’d result in 6 million cookies…maybe 200,000 to 300,000 cookies (some Holocaust deniers place this as the true number, citing the Red Cross, which is why he says “Red Cookie Association”)… “If you took aerial photographs over the kitchens you would need to see certain smoke stacks” (another Holocaust denial argument, which was put forward by David Irving), he mentions other ovens intended for delousing (which Holocaust deniers claim was the true purpose of the gas chambers)… All of these are arguments put forward by those who deny the Holocaust.

    Of course he only mentions Auschwitz (when he talks about the aerial photos) but does not mention the other death camps that operated solely for mass murder, because how many casual listeners know of the existence of Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Chelmno? He does not mention the mass killing in the east that followed the Nazi invasion of the USSR that accounted for 1.2 million killed.

    But you’re assuming the very thing in question: was it serious or was it a joke? Or is this just something that can’t ever be joked about for you?

    It is not a joke. Based on the above list, it is the propagation of Holocaust denial arguments. Delivering it with a smile does not make a difference.

    So your answer is that this is forever off limits to joke about? Not only that, erring in breaking the no-joke rule gets you branded a Holocaust Denier even if you don’t actually deny the Holocaust. No thought or exchange required, just reflex.

    Well, that’s the kind of thing that really gets my contrarian and screw-you impulse going.

    I don’t find denying the Holocaust as a joke in good taste, to each their own at this point. I also don’t think he is making a joke here. I have stated my reasons why, based on his own words. As I said, he is propagating Holocaust denial in this clip. Nothing really funny about it to me.

    If I was in the company of someone who decided to use the language he used and behave the way he did, thinking they were being funny, I would have a lot of questions and a lot of recommended reading. Conversation would be totally necessary. 

    • #273
  4. rgbact Inactive
    rgbact
    @romanblichar

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    rgbact (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    The reason nationalists grasp at the Jews is because they want the same accordance given to Israel and support for a kind of Jewish cultural isolation and preservation that is actively fought against, specifically for white Americans

    Super. Now we’re getting somewhere. What the America Firsters really are looking for. Racial purity. Now you need to explain why I should prefer that my neighbor is a white atheist instead of a nasty Hispanic Christian, cuz I’m not seeing the real benefits.

    America first is not the same as white nationalist.

    You’ll need a little more evidence on that, cuz so far, thats exactly who they sound like. And some posters are finally admitting it. Or am I supposed to be dazzled by their oh so patriotic name and not dare say the reality of what they’re about?

    • #274
  5. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    I cannot speak to how their minds work. Or to what Michelle Malkin was thinking in agreeing to attend. I can note what she said there. I can say that Nick Fuentes revels in Holocaust denial based on his own words and behavior.

    But you are speaking to it – you’re assuming one particular characterization. And which behavior are you referring to – I thought we were talking about words?

    You’re also using different terms as if they were interchangeable. A joke about the Holocaust is not inherently Holocaust Denial. It very well could be, but it could be other things besides. You don’t seem to care to find out or even to acknowledge such a distinction. Ok, you’re not obligated to. I probably share your side-eye view of these three, but but that doesn’t justify a reflex and then a smear by association based on that reflex.

    • #275
  6. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):
    Sure, they may see themselves as resisting the left, but they are doing it way wrong. 

    Maybe they are doing it wrong. That doesn’t make them racists or antisemites. 

    • #276
  7. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):
    No one is beyond redemption

    Agreed

    • #277
  8. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Why do you think that?

    Because of the language he uses. He suggests that all of the Jews who died were killed in the extermination centers. “The math doesn’t seem to add up there…I don’t think you’d result in 6 million cookies…maybe 200,000 to 300,000 cookies (some Holocaust deniers place this as the true number, citing the Red Cross, which is why he says “Red Cookie Association”)… “If you took aerial photographs over the kitchens you would need to see certain smoke stacks” (another Holocaust denial argument, which was put forward by David Irving), he mentions other ovens intended for delousing (which Holocaust deniers claim was the true purpose of the gas chambers)… All of these are arguments put forward by those who deny the Holocaust.

    Of course he only mentions Auschwitz (when he talks about the aerial photos) but does not mention the other death camps that operated solely for mass murder, because how many casual listeners know of the existence of Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Chelmno? He does not mention the mass killing in the east that followed the Nazi invasion of the USSR that accounted for 1.2 million killed.

    But you’re assuming the very thing in question: was it serious or was it a joke? Or is this just something that can’t ever be joked about for you?

    It is not a joke. Based on the above list, it is the propagation of Holocaust denial arguments. Delivering it with a smile does not make a difference.

    So your answer is that this is forever off limits to joke about? Not only that, erring in breaking the no-joke rule gets you branded a Holocaust Denier even if you don’t actually deny the Holocaust. No thought or exchange required, just reflex.

    Well, that’s the kind of thing that really gets my contrarian and screw-you impulse going.

    I don’t find denying the Holocaust as a joke in good taste, to each their own at this point. I also don’t think he is making a joke here. I have stated my reasons why, based on his own words. As I said, he is propagating Holocaust denial in this clip. Nothing really funny about it to me.

    Ok, we’re going in circles. Good luck

    • #278
  9. V.S. Blackford Inactive
    V.S. Blackford
    @VSBlackford

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    I cannot speak to how their minds work. Or to what Michelle Malkin was thinking in agreeing to attend. I can note what she said there. I can say that Nick Fuentes revels in Holocaust denial based on his own words and behavior.

    But you are speaking to it – you’re assuming one particular characterization. And which behavior are you referring to – I thought we were talking about words?

    You’re also using different terms as if they were interchangeable. A joke about the Holocaust is not inherently Holocaust Denial. It very well could be, but it could be other things besides. You don’t seem to care to find out or even to acknowledge such a distinction. Ok, you’re not obligated to. I probably share your side-eye view of these three, but but that doesn’t justify a reflex and then a smear by association based on that reflex.

    He is talking about the Holocaust using Holocaust denial arguments and tropes, all while laughing and smiling. I don’t think he is making a joke here just because of his chosen demeanor. I think H0locaust jokes are inappropriate no matter how you would like to phrase it. But that is not what he is doing in this instance.

    I judge Michelle Malkin based on her words at AFPAC that obliquely reference Holocaust denial. 

    • #279
  10. V.S. Blackford Inactive
    V.S. Blackford
    @VSBlackford

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Why do you think that?

    Because of the language he uses. He suggests that all of the Jews who died were killed in the extermination centers. “The math doesn’t seem to add up there…I don’t think you’d result in 6 million cookies…maybe 200,000 to 300,000 cookies (some Holocaust deniers place this as the true number, citing the Red Cross, which is why he says “Red Cookie Association”)… “If you took aerial photographs over the kitchens you would need to see certain smoke stacks” (another Holocaust denial argument, which was put forward by David Irving), he mentions other ovens intended for delousing (which Holocaust deniers claim was the true purpose of the gas chambers)… All of these are arguments put forward by those who deny the Holocaust.

    Of course he only mentions Auschwitz (when he talks about the aerial photos) but does not mention the other death camps that operated solely for mass murder, because how many casual listeners know of the existence of Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Chelmno? He does not mention the mass killing in the east that followed the Nazi invasion of the USSR that accounted for 1.2 million killed.

    But you’re assuming the very thing in question: was it serious or was it a joke? Or is this just something that can’t ever be joked about for you?

    It is not a joke. Based on the above list, it is the propagation of Holocaust denial arguments. Delivering it with a smile does not make a difference.

    So your answer is that this is forever off limits to joke about? Not only that, erring in breaking the no-joke rule gets you branded a Holocaust Denier even if you don’t actually deny the Holocaust. No thought or exchange required, just reflex.

    Well, that’s the kind of thing that really gets my contrarian and screw-you impulse going.

    I don’t find denying the Holocaust as a joke in good taste, to each their own at this point. I also don’t think he is making a joke here. I have stated my reasons why, based on his own words. As I said, he is propagating Holocaust denial in this clip. Nothing really funny about it to me.

    Ok, we’re going in circles. Good luck

    Agreed. Good luck to you too!

    • #280
  11. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    rgbact (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    The reason nationalists grasp at the Jews is because they want the same accordance given to Israel and support for a kind of Jewish cultural isolation and preservation that is actively fought against, specifically for white Americans

    Super. Now we’re getting somewhere. What the America Firsters really are looking for. Racial purity. Now you need to explain why I should prefer that my neighbor is a white atheist instead of a nasty Hispanic Christian, cuz I’m not seeing the real benefits.

    So you think the Jews are all about racial purity and you think there’s nothing wrong with that?

    • #281
  12. rgbact Inactive
    rgbact
    @romanblichar

    Stina (View Comment):

    rgbact (View Comment):

    Super. Now we’re getting somewhere. What the America Firsters really are looking for. Racial purity. 

    So you think the Jews are all about racial purity and you think there’s nothing wrong with that?

    Not really. If Christianity was a tiny , all white religion that was constantly subject to oppression in every country, then I’d want to live in a Christian state too. But luckily, thats not even close to the case. That said, my question remains…..whats the benefits of living in a pure white country for me, given that whites are the least Christian race?

    • #282
  13. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    When I was growing up, one thing that I laughed at and came to dislike among liberals was a mealy-mouthed inability to see things like a normal human being. They’d see dead bodies in the street and cluck their tongues. “Gosh, the people who did this really need some help”. They’d see rapists and say, “But how can we understand and combat this way of thinking if we just lock these people away, without a chance to access their unique insights?” Like the sarcastic gang members in “West Side Story”s Officer Krupke song, there was always another excuse.

    Now, we’re doing it on the Right. It’s just as disagreeable here. 

    I judge Nick Fuentes to be antisemitic scum based on his words. I don’t go looking for ways to explain that his humorless “jokes” are actually his precious thoughts, or that his hate is constitutionally protected. A lot of things I rightly despise are constitutionally protected. It doesn’t make them right; only legal. No, Fuentes isn’t a “young seeker” of “forbidden truth”; he’s just antifa scum. I am not going to make a project out of looking up more of his moronic yappy crap about the Jews just to satisfy some threadster’s homework assignment, any more than I’d waste time studying the mindset and inner thoughts of a black antifa rioter promising to kill me. 

    Antifa is scum. But to some on this thread, it’s okay if it comes in the vanilla flavor instead of chocolate. Go ahead and reach for all the far-fetched excuses you wish. 

    • #283
  14. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    rgbact (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    rgbact (View Comment):

    Super. Now we’re getting somewhere. What the America Firsters really are looking for. Racial purity.

    So you think the Jews are all about racial purity and you think there’s nothing wrong with that?

    Not really. If Christianity was a tiny , all white religion that was constantly subject to oppression in every country, then I’d want to live in a Christian state too. But luckily, thats not even close to the case. That said, my question remains…..whats the benefits of living in a pure white country for me, given that whites are the least Christian race?

    You are assuming the argument is about a pure white country.

    I didn’t say that. Patrick Casey didn’t say that. The dissident right didn’t say that.

    You drew that conclusion based on my saying we want what Jews have.

    By claiming that’s racial purity, you must think the Jews promote racial purity and since you are defending them from the spectre of anti-Semitism, you must think that’s ok for them.

    • #284
  15. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    When I was growing up, one thing that I laughed at and came to dislike among liberals was a mealy-mouthed inability to see things like a normal human being. They’d see dead bodies in the street and cluck their tongues. “Gosh, the people who did this really need some help”. They’d see rapists and say, “But how can we understand and combat this way of thinking if we just lock these people away, without a chance to access their unique insights?” Like the sarcastic gang members in “West Side Story”s Officer Krupke song, there was always another excuse.

    Now, we’re doing it on the Right. It’s just as disagreeable here.

    I judge Nick Fuentes to be antisemitic scum based on his words. I don’t go looking for ways to explain that his humorless “jokes” are actually his precious thoughts, or that his hate is constitutionally protected. A lot of things I rightly despise are constitutionally protected. It doesn’t make them right; only legal. No, Fuentes isn’t a “young seeker” of “forbidden truth”; he’s just antifa scum. I am not going to make a project out of looking up more of his moronic yappy crap about the Jews just to satisfy some threadster’s homework assignment, any more than I’d waste time studying the mindset and inner thoughts of a black antifa rioter promising to kill me.

    Antifa is scum. But to some on this thread, it’s okay if it comes in the vanilla flavor instead of chocolate. Go ahead and reach for all the far-fetched excuses you wish.

    I’m sorry but screw you on this one Gary. Name names and give quotes or go to hell. No one is being mealy mouthed here. Not the OP, VS, Stina, me, or anyone else. There’s been some strong claims made and discussed. Try engaging instead of sniping once everyone leaves. 

    • Is the Holocaust off limits for jokes? 
    • Are they only jokes if you find them to be funny?
    • How likely is it really that Malkin (a minority and married to a Jewish man) is antisemitic or supports antisemites? Which is more farfetched?
    • Are you really comfortable concluding such a terrible thing based on your fevered inferences instead of anything that Malkin actually said? If so then stuff your indignation.
    • Are you really comfortable declaring such total judgement on Fuentes (or anybody) based on a short and admittedly cringey clip? I think you are, and that doesn’t speak well of you like you seem to think it does.

    You know, when I was growing up one thing that I laughed at and came to dislike among liberals was their slavishness to their own emotions and their unshakable conviction that they defined “normal” and “good”. Anything outside was necessarily not just wrong but either evil or stupid. It’s just as disagreeable when you do it.

    • #285
  16. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    rgbact (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    rgbact (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    The reason nationalists grasp at the Jews is because they want the same accordance given to Israel and support for a kind of Jewish cultural isolation and preservation that is actively fought against, specifically for white Americans

    Super. Now we’re getting somewhere. What the America Firsters really are looking for. Racial purity. Now you need to explain why I should prefer that my neighbor is a white atheist instead of a nasty Hispanic Christian, cuz I’m not seeing the real benefits.

    America first is not the same as white nationalist.

    You’ll need a little more evidence on that, cuz so far, thats exactly who they sound like. And some posters are finally admitting it. Or am I supposed to be dazzled by their oh so patriotic name and not dare say the reality of what they’re about?

    This is where I start to get in trouble with this stuff. I don’t know anything about these groups. So when I hear America First my first thought is well yeah. Our policies and actions should first be looking to benefit our country and then look to how we can help the World.

    Obama stated that he believed in American Exceptionalism just like the Brits or Greeks believed in their own nations exceptionalism, that is kind of how I look at this. I assume that most/all countries our look to their own people first.

    There is not a racial component in this to me. We should be looking our citizens first, regardless of their race.

    Most of the push back on this piece is kind of good. It mainly stems from the fact that we do not know who these people are. If they are truly awful then it is good I don’t know them. That said, some of this needs fleshing out. Too often it has been claimed that Republican= defacto racist or Trump voter= defacto White Nationalist. We don’t know these people and don’t accept being told anyone is racist. We need to be shown.

    This in no way means there aren’t racists, or that these groups aren’t racist. It just requires more proof then claiming them to be racist.

    For what it’s worth I found the link to Nick Fuetnes video to be disturbing and not what I want to associate with.

    • #286
  17. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Jager (View Comment):

    rgbact (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    rgbact (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    The reason nationalists grasp at the Jews is because they want the same accordance given to Israel and support for a kind of Jewish cultural isolation and preservation that is actively fought against, specifically for white Americans

    Super. Now we’re getting somewhere. What the America Firsters really are looking for. Racial purity. Now you need to explain why I should prefer that my neighbor is a white atheist instead of a nasty Hispanic Christian, cuz I’m not seeing the real benefits.

    America first is not the same as white nationalist.

    You’ll need a little more evidence on that, cuz so far, thats exactly who they sound like. And some posters are finally admitting it. Or am I supposed to be dazzled by their oh so patriotic name and not dare say the reality of what they’re about?

    This is where I start to get in trouble with this stuff. I don’t know anything about these groups. So when I hear America First my first thought is well yeah. Our policies and actions should first be looking to benefit our country and they look to how we can help the World.

    Obama stated that he believed in American Exceptionalism just like the Brits or Greeks believed in their own nations exceptionalism, that is kind of how I look at this. I assume that most/all countries our look to their own people first.

    There is not a racial component in this to me. We should be looking our citizens first, regardless of their race.

    Most of the push back on this piece is kind of good. It mainly stems from the fact that we do not know who these people are. If they are truly awful then it is good I don’t know them. That said, some of this needs fleshing out. Too often it has been claimed that Republican= defacto racist or Trump voter= defacto White Nationalist. We don’t know these people and don’t accept being told anyone is racist. We need to be shown.

    This in no way means there aren’t racists, or that these groups aren’t racist. It just requires more proof then claiming them to be racist.

    For what it’s worth I found the link to Nick Fuetnes video to be disturbing and not what I want to associate with.

    America first is a concept. America First seems to be this conference. rgbact is often loose with terms to serve his narrative, and he’s conveniently conflating all of it in order to… whatever it is he’s trying to do.

    • #287
  18. Mike Rapkoch Member
    Mike Rapkoch
    @MikeRapkoch

    Moderator’s Note

    Okay, this thread is beginning to deteriorate into personal attacks. Let’s put a stop to this and act like adults.

    • #288
  19. rgbact Inactive
    rgbact
    @romanblichar

    Stina (View Comment):

    You are assuming the argument is about a pure white country.

    I didn’t say that. Patrick Casey didn’t say that. The dissident right didn’t say that.

    You drew that conclusion based on my saying we want what Jews have.

    By claiming that’s racial purity, you must think the Jews promote racial purity and since you are defending them from the spectre of anti-Semitism, you must think that’s ok for them

    You’re the one that mentioned “ethnostate” and white Americans before. Casey is head of Identity Europa. They have a real agenda. Are you denying it? And yes, I’ve already admitted Israel’s “purity”. Now address my question I’ve asked repeatedly.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/white-nationalist-leader-plotting-take-over-gop-n920826

     

    • #289
  20. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    I am not going to make a project out of looking up more of his moronic yappy crap about the Jews just to satisfy some threadster’s homework assignment

    I don’t expect you to do a homework assignment. I do expect anyone to back up their claims.

    White Nationalist and Anti-Semite are kind of name calling to a lot of us. We have been called these things simply for being Republican or voting for Trump. As such they are exceptional claims. I don’t think they require exceptional proof, but they do require some proof.  I am not suggesting that there are not racists or anti-semites nor am I defending the clip of Fuentes that was linked here.

    It is not you that should have done the “homework” it is the author of the original piece.

    More properly formatted it should have been, Malkin gave a speech to a bad group (insert some level of proof the group is bad), with fellow speakers who are bad people ( insert some level of proof that the fellow speakers are bad people). In this speech she said bad things.

    It was a short cut to assume that most people follow twitter, or know who these people are. I also did not know that there was an alternative to youtube where Fuentes stuff can be found. Not going looking but there was just a lot that I did not know, and I think a lot of people didn’t know, that was glossed over.

    • #290
  21. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Jager (View Comment):
    This is where I start to get in trouble with this stuff. I don’t know anything about these groups. So when I hear America First my first thought is well yeah. Our policies and actions should first be looking to benefit our country and then look to how we can help the World.

    I know nothing of Fuentes except he was a quick flash in the pan and got banned from YouTube just as he was gaining momentum. What called my attention to him was the Groypers questioning TPUSA. I listened to the questions (maybe not all) and found the ones I heard to be reasonable and Kirk very cringy in response. Canceling the questioning looked more like protecting a weak Kirk than anything else.

    I have spent the last few hours listening to Patrick Casey interviews and speeches that aren’t easy to find thanks to… YouTube. Who didn’t see that coming?

    He is boilerplate exactly what he claims to be in a Shield & Wren interview (not someone you should know, just a reference to make the interview easier to find). There’s a lot the right disagrees with in his views, but nothing we haven’t hashed out on Ricochet. There is no anti-semitism.

    I may put some time into deep diving on these guys and providing information links so people can be educated about who they are smearing. In the case of Malkin and Casey, I’m not impressed by the use of the slur.

    • #291
  22. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    we defend Jewish nationalism and turn a blind eye to their ethno chauvinism.

    I think this is true, and I think it’s weird that people dont see it. Then comes the double standards.

    Although, I dont think Jewish is an ethnicity. It sometimes behaves like one, unlike say Buddhist or Lutheran.

    ‘Jew’  is a religious creed(s), a race, a sort of birthright condition, and a secular identity – and a national population. I suppose one can be anti-Semitic toward all of the above, but the implications are different in each case.  Regardless, the Constitution only properly covers the first two categories. 

    • #292
  23. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Stina (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):
    This is where I start to get in trouble with this stuff. I don’t know anything about these groups. So when I hear America First my first thought is well yeah. Our policies and actions should first be looking to benefit our country and then look to how we can help the World.

    I know nothing of Fuentes except he was a quick flash in the pan and got banned from YouTube just as he was gaining momentum. What called my attention to him was the Groypers questioning TPUSA. I listened to the questions (maybe not all) and found the ones I heard to be reasonable and Kirk very cringy in response. Canceling the questioning looked more like protecting a weak Kirk than anything else.

    I have spent the last few hours listening to Patrick Casey interviews and speeches that aren’t easy to find thanks to… YouTube. Who didn’t see that coming?

    He is boilerplate exactly what he claims to be in a Shield & Wren interview (not someone you should know, just a reference to make the interview easier to find). There’s a lot the right disagrees with in his views, but nothing we haven’t hashed out on Ricochet. There is no anti-semitism.

    I may put some time into deep diving on these guys and providing information links so people can be educated about who they are smearing. In the case of Malkin and Casey, I’m not impressed by the use of the slur.

    Yeah this comes back to the original thrust of this piece. I simply start from the premise that a minority woman married to a Jewish guy is not an anti-Semitic, white nationalist. I read/hear her speech through that prism. Regardless of the audience or the other speakers, I can not accept that Malkin is working toward a society for white people that would exclude her, her husband and her children, nor that she somehow hates her husband and feels that as  Jew he is working against her country and for Israel.

    • #293
  24. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Instugator (View Comment):
    This statement neglects the effects of “colonialism” which supersedes, in this case, all other concerns and still makes it whitey’s fault.

    Well, only in countries that are still de facto occupied or colonised.  For most countries, not any more. 

    • #294
  25. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Although, I dont think Jewish is an ethnicity.

    Prager explains that they are a religion, an ethnicity, a people, a nation and a culture.

    Wish I’d read further before my previous post. I didn’t reference Prager because I didn’t want to misrepresent him through poor memory. 

    • #295
  26. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    In the US, only whites can be racist. I understand why they say that, but I don’t think it makes much sense considering the language and practical political policies they support.

    So why do you use their language?

    Tyranny of the majority is different than racism, sexism, blah-blah-ism, etc.

    ???

    • #296
  27. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    TBA (

     

    Speaking of those guys, here is the wiki entry;

    According to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, “[a]ll the serious research” confirms that between five and six million Jews died. Early postwar calculations were 4.2 to 4.5 million from Gerald Reitlinger; 5.1 million from Raul Hilberg; and 5.95 million from Jacob Lestschinsky. In 1990 Yehuda Bauer and Robert Rozett estimated 5.59–5.86 million, and in 1991 Wolfgang Benz suggested 5.29 to just over 6 million.[ad] The figures include over one million children. Much of the uncertainty stems from the lack of a reliable figure for the number of Jews in Europe in 1939, border changes that make double-counting of victims difficult to avoid, lack of accurate records from the perpetrators, and uncertainty about whether to include post-liberation deaths caused by the persecution.

    So these historians are all a bunch of nazis.

    Timothy Snyder in his book Bloodlands puts the number at 5.7 million (page 407). The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum puts the number at 6 million. What you see in the wikipedia entry is the evolution of the historiography on the subject. The postwar calculations could not fully capture the toll because of the lack of access to mass killing sites in Eastern Europe and archival/census information because of the Cold War. In the post Cold War era that has been a great deal of recent scholarship that more fully captures the extent of the killing. I recommend taking a look at this map created by an organization that finds and documents mass killing sites in Eastern Europe. The research is ongoing. I don’t consider actual scholarly historiographical debate an issue here. I do not think that was what Malkin referred to in her comment.

    Unfortunately I cannot get access in the short term to the source discussing the reasons for the uncertainty, but it is in an Oxford University publication I have used in the past for research on another topic related to the Holocaust.

    I would point out that Holocaust deniers are not concerned with the difference between 5,700,000 and 6,000,000. They like to reduce the the numbers radically. This can be seen in this video clip of Nick Fuentes, who uses the post of a follower to riff on the actual number of Jews killed, comparing the number of Jews killed to baking cookies. In the clip he says maybe 200,000 to 300,000″cookies” could be baked in 5 years. He also likes to use euphemisms. Nick Fuentes was one of the 4 speakers at the conference.

    Had Malkin picked a low number I might be with you and @bethanymandel

    • #297
  28. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Jager (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    I am not going to make a project out of looking up more of his moronic yappy crap about the Jews just to satisfy some threadster’s homework assignment

    I don’t expect you to do a homework assignment. I do expect anyone to back up their claims.

    White Nationalist and Anti-Semite are kind of name calling to a lot of us. We have been called these things simply for being Republican or voting for Trump. As such they are exceptional claims. I don’t think they require exceptional proof, but they do require some proof. I am not suggesting that there are not racists or anti-semites nor am I defending the clip of Fuentes that was linked here.

    It is not you that should have done the “homework” it is the author of the original piece.

    More properly formatted it should have been, Malkin gave a speech to a bad group (insert some level of proof the group is bad), with fellow speakers who are bad people ( insert some level of proof that the fellow speakers are bad people). In this speech she said bad things.

    It was a short cut to assume that most people follow twitter, or know who these people are. I also did not know that there was an alternative to youtube where Fuentes stuff can be found. Not going looking but there was just a lot that I did not know and I think a lot of people didn’t know that was glossed over.

    I agree with this. Nowhere in my comments do I call Malkin an anti-semite. I sure do say that about Fuentes. My original comment was I am very disappointed in her, a writer I used to admire.

    The term “associates” is vague and often misused, as when hacks claim that Trump “associated” with Jeffrey Epstein. No, it would be unfair to turn against Malkin for merely being in the same room as someone at some time. But being on the same stage, that’s different. She’s lending them her once-good name. This wasn’t some cocktail party. Malkin knew who these people are. She deserves blame for going ahead with it anyway. This isn’t the person i used to read in 2008, that’s for sure. 

    Yeah, the OP would have been much better off using the formulation you suggest, which wouldn’t have been as sensational a headline, but would have packed 75% of the punch and only 25% of the commenting grief. 

    There’s a post defending Malkin on the Member Feed right now. It skillfully admits that perhaps it’s harder to defend Fuentes. That’s understating it greatly, and the point some of us are making: Groypers are not good people, not our friends, not fighting for us, not allies with rough edges. Endless legalistic attempts to cover up common sense with insisting that such-and-such Jew-hating statement does not quite meet a commenter’s own rather high tolerance for excessive Jew-blaming doesn’t cut it. 

     

    • #298
  29. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):
    This statement neglects the effects of “colonialism” which supersedes, in this case, all other concerns and still makes it whitey’s fault.

    Well, only in countries that are still de facto occupied or colonised. For most countries, not any more.

    Not according to the left and their intersectionality theories.

    • #299
  30. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):
    Why on earth does Israel have to play into this supposed new American nationalism? Who cares about what Israel does? Why does it matter? Because at heart this is a white nationalist movement.

    That’s why white nationalists are asking why an ethnostate is good for some but not for them.

    • #300
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.