Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Michelle Malkin’s Disturbing Statements Could Mean for the Conservative Movement
At Stanford University last week the Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro laid waste to the alt-right. Shapiro is a popular speaker on college campuses, and almost always follows basically the same script about the Left and the idiocy of progressive ideology. But of late an alt-right brigade has coordinated a campaign to target Daily Wire staff giving speeches on college campuses across the country, and in response, Shapiro decided to spend a significant portion of his speech hitting at them directly. It’s one of the best speeches he’s ever given and is deserving of an hour of your time:
One of the alt-right figures targeting Shapiro is this guy, Nick Fuentes:
Here's Nick Fuentes denying that the Holocaust happened.
Him and his followers are scum of the earth and their bad faith, anti-Semitic attacks should be shot down by the entire conservative movement. pic.twitter.com/7wJ9S7Q6zv
— Caleb Hull 🎅🏻🎁 (@CalebJHull) October 30, 2019
Which is what makes these statements by Michelle Malkin so deeply disturbing:
Ethno-nationalist, Fox News contributor, and regular writer for the Daily Wire Michelle Malkin says Ben Shapiro targeted one of the "new right leaders," warns the Right to not denigrate white supremacists and to answer their questions to "win the culture war." pic.twitter.com/1EYgMDpILt
— Matthew Dimitri (@themattdimitri) November 12, 2019
Shapiro’s issues with Fuentes don’t stop at Holocaust denial (though that would certainly be enough). Malkin wonders what Shapiro might have against Fuentes? Well, these videos could explain a few things.
This is Fuentes playing a video game, targeting an Orthodox Jew with his car, running him over after shooting him down, and laughing that he just took down Ben Shapiro:
Or here, where he flashes a switchblade while live streaming a Shapiro event:
Malkin is aware of all of these things; it’s no secret what Fuentes is.
What is disturbing about her comments is the fact that she is running cover for him anyway. There are many who have said she’s “lost it.” But Malkin isn’t stupid, and she isn’t crazy, and therein lies the problem. Malkin is smart and has made a calculated and conscious effort to make herself a thought leader in a faction of the conservative movement that she sees on the ascent. This is disturbing for any conservative who does not want to rub shoulders with racists and Jew-haters. Here’s hoping the conservative political marketplace signals to Malkin loud and clear that partnering with anyone on the alt-right, especially Fuentes, is bad for business.
Published in General
OK, here is my perspective on racist. I have met some racist in my time on this earth. Some of them are even white, most were not. Mostly my action is to ignore them or if appropriate, ridicule them. If all they are doing is talking then who cares. They have as much right to their opinion as anybody else. If they are on social media then who cares? Just ignore or block or whatever. Don’t feed them. Let them talk. Their words make them look foolish.
My main concern is if the laws and rules of this country are racist. Which they are. Originally, we had Jim Crow laws that were institutionalized racism and needed to be stopped. Now we have Affirmative Action which is the same sort of thing just against a different group of people. We just need one set of laws for all Americans. This stuff where whites can’s say certain things or they are in trouble or illegals can basically ignore the laws need to go. Just like quotas on who companies need to hire should go. Outside that the actions of private individuals is their business. If a person wants to discriminate against another for any reason it is their business. Most likely short sighted, stupid and not very polite but still their concern.
I hopped on Malkin’s site to see if there was a rebuttal for complaints like this. If you contact her, Bethany, she might offer a public explanation with relevance beyond Malkin herself.
This topic is a big deal and it needs to be fleshed out.
The problem is the constitution only operates right when everyone follows the Judge Learned Hand quote:
You can’t let too many people in, too fast that don’t get this. Frankly a lot of it is a culture they come from. You’ve got to be anti-centralization, law abiding and productive. Too many of our own people don’t get this. Minnesota is absolutely notorious in this sense, and I mean comprehensively, notorious immigrants and everyone else. This country has too much government doing too much and it’s going to end badly. This is indisputable.
The other thing is, Ann Coulter the right that 3/4 of immigrants vote Democrat.
This is just my opinion, but I don’t think we have a libertarian enough economy to be so reckless about who we let in. There just isn’t enough dispersed prosperity like there should be. Then throw all of the safety nets.
When you talk about nationalism I think the issue is, you have to define the problems and solutions really well rather than just saying nationalism is bad. These conversations get really thorny and that’s why people like Charlie Kirk make me nervous because they really haven’t studied that much stuff.
(This is just off the top of my head but I want to get it in early because it looks like this is going to be a long one lol)
Also:
I know what you mean. I’m constantly cutting myself with my intellect . . .
This is the biggest reason we should never block folks from expressing their opinions. People should be judged by their words and deeds.
You may wonder why I include “deeds”. We need states to have the freedom to do stupid things so we can judge their actions by the results – think California.
Here’s a video of the whole event (thank you, Cliffy):
I fully support booting the worst 50% of Trumpers out of conservatism…..these groper guys and Malkin included. I’m sad it took some blatant anti-semitism by them for you to finally see how toxic these people are. At least we found the one unacceptable alt-right position.
Its laughable that Malkin accuses Ben of not answering goofy college kid questions, since thats how he got famous. He even answered the 9 standard troll questions that gropers ask him in his Stanford speech. Now he’s done and just wants to mock them. Thats mostly what they do to him anyway.
So, I’m 20 minutes in and so far all I can say about this speech is that it’s not holding my attention.
I can appreciate and understand why anti-Semitic speech upsets and scares Jews today. However, it was not free speech that ultimately led to the Holocaust. It was the exact opposite.
I do not like the term “white nationalist.” I have objected to this before. I am white, and I am a nationalist, at least in some reasonable sense of the term “nationalist.” Some people — notably Jonah Goldberg and Charles Murray, who both (I think) have quoted Bill Buckley on this point — make a distinction between a “patriot” and a “nationalist” that I find to be a distinction without a difference.
I think that it is carelessness with these terms that lends aid to precisely the sort of twisted dynamic between the so-called “alt-right” and the Wokeist radical Left that Shapiro discussed in his talk.
Rather than “white nationalist,” I recommend the terms “white supremacist” and “white separatist” for folks holding what I generally consider to be racist and reprehensible views.
Even with these terms, I have some hesitation, because they can also be misused. For example, I do not consider it to be “white supremacist” to point out facts such as the following: (1) the best civilization in the history of humanity was developed by white Europeans, and particularly by almost entirely white Anglo-Americans; (2) there is a significant IQ gap between various population groups, with the black distribution lower than the white distribution (which is generally lower than the Oriental and Jewish distributions).
Neither of these facts suggests that we should treat individual people in a racist way. We should treat each person as an individual, with their own individual traits, abilities, strengths, and weaknesses. We are all Americans, and should work toward a more perfect union by creating a society in which almost everybody has the opportunity to find a valued and respected place. (I say “almost everbody” because, sadly, there are a small number of people with such extreme disabilities that they can accomplish very little, and need to be cared for.)
Careless use of the term “white nationalist” to describe people like Fuentes, who does appear to be quite reprehensible, will alienate many good people and give ammunition to our political opposition, which I consider to be even more reprehensible.
I think that this is Michelle Malkin’s point, and it is a good point. “Calling out” an apparent buffoon like Fuentes is not a productive use of our time.
Jerry’s post is similar to what I was saying. The primary issue is defining the problems and solutions.
I have another comment about Fuentes. I saw him recently in a short video clip, asking questions of Charlie Kirk. I thought that Kirk handled the exchange poorly.
First, Fuentes raised the issue of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, in 1967 during the Six-Day War. Kirk interrupted him with a charge that this was an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory (I’m not sure if he actually used the term “anti-Semitic,” but this was the implication). I was only vaguely familiar with the incident; upon looking into it briefly, it appeared to me that there was little or no support for Fuentes’s position that the attack was deliberate, and it appeared to have been a mistake. (If you don’t know, the Israeli attack killed 34 Americans, wounded 171 others, and severely damaged the ship, according to Wikipedia.) The Israeli explanation was that they had mistaken the American ship for an Egyptian ship.
Fuentes was not without any support. Dean Rusk, who was Secretary of State at the time, did not accept the Israeli explanation, and apparently a number of American sailors on the ship took the same position. However, in my view, none of them appeared to have sufficient information to judge whether the Israeli forces involved made an error, or knowingly attacked an American ship. Of course, it is hard to imagine anything more counterproductive, for the Israelis, than an attack on the American navy.
Kirk would have done better to point out the facts and explain why Fuentes was mistaken, rather than hurling an accusation of anti-Semitism.
Second, Fuentes asked a question about immigration. I found Kirk’s response to be pure demagoguery. Kirk cited the “EB-5” visa program, which allows entry to rich aliens who invest heavily in a US business, as his example of how criticism of immigration is ignorant. I had to look into the issue, and found that about 10,000 people per year entered under the EB-5 visa program, out of an annual legal immigration total of about 1 million.
Kirk’s example, then, was literally the “1%” of immigrants. They are not representative. The EB-5 program looks like a good one to me, but it does not answer the serious question of allowing 1 million immigrants into this country every year, many of whom are poor and have low job skills, and about 75% of whom will vote Democrat if they become citizens.
Again, I think that Michelle Malkin is spot on. We should be addressing legitimate concerns, even if raised by people who are “alt-right” or adjacent thereto, and when they are wrong, explaining why they are wrong rather than demonizing them.
I agree that there is a reprehensible alt-right fringe, but I have seen nothing to suggest that it is 50% of Trump supporters. My guess is more like 1-2%, and they are irrelevant. Do you have evidence of your 50% figure?
If not, I think that you may be unfairly demonizing a lot of good people, who are generally on your side.
maybe .005%
I’ve been saying something similar since the Occupy movement. Reach out to those who share common ground and who are likely in the wrong camp simply because there was no other camp inviting them in.
Many don’t see the common ground, many don’t allow that people “in” these movements are nuanced figures – it’s easier to treat them as cartoonish stereotypes. To be sure there are cartoonish stereotypes; unfortunately reaching the reachable involves sticking your hand in some muck sometimes to pick out the salvageable.
As @romanblichar‘s support for booting is irrelevant.
1-2%? These are just the college kids…..and they’ve already flooded Youtube with videos and shouted Don Jr. out of an auditorium and are now getting shout outs from Michelle Malkin. Is this like the NT’s. where we talk about them all the time, yet we never concede they’re anything more than like 12 people?
I’m getting used to trashing people that agree with me. Many have terrible views that I won’t condone. But they’re dying to share them. So, go watch a video of the nasty stuff they say about Ben…….who also largely agrees with them. Theres just no point in playing nice with them.
What does that last bit mean? Can you give me some direct quotes?
I couldn’t agree more. And to see that stupid term on the Main Feed of this site!? Who edits the editors around here? That is a made-up term designed to conjure images of all Conservatives as skinheads. This is NOT helpful.
Can someone PLEASE tell me what this terrible thing was that Michelle Malkin said? There’s nothing alarming in the clip Bethany retweeted from someone else instructing us to be alarmed through selective quoting, and nobody in this thread is quoting this supposedly terrible thing. I can’t listen to anymore of that speech, and the sound quality is terrible.
It’s starting to stink like hearsay. I’m reserving opinion until I get more information.
I don’t think a lot of Trump supporters are conservative in the first place (perhaps more centrist).
It’s possible to be a liberal who’s fed up with the elites in Washington, who are all talk and little action. After all, Obama had the Holy Trifecta for two years, and he was only able to get Obamacare passed by hook or crook . . .
As a nationalist who by accident of birth is white, I agree. If they can’t say “white supremacist”, don’t say anything.
Neither is the GOP. I’ve posted all kinds of evidence over and over here.
Bethany,
I really haven’t followed what’s going on between Michelle Malkin, Ben Shapiro, and this white supremacist weirdo. I’m not going to comment about it off the top of my head.
I did watch the video of Ben speaking at Stanford. I was very pleased with what I saw. Ben Shapiro was impressive as usual and the information about the supremacists was good but that wasn’t what I’m talking about. It was the audience at Stanford that impressed me. They simply had decided that they were not going to be stopped by the evil leftwing nonsense that has dominated college campuses for years. They cheered Shapiro their chosen speaker. They drowned out the ridiculous disruptors with the USA chant. They asked Ben probing questions. They were comprised of not just conservative students but students who had some liberal ideas also.
This was a great victory. We can not allow the universities to be owned by the woketard mindless. Shapiro’s best comment “anyone who needed counseling because he was speaking probably needed counseling long before he came to speak”. This victory needs to be repeated again and again. Ben can do it really well but others can do it too. No more defense time to go on offense at the universities.
Regards,
Jim
In a comment on another post, I stated while the Republican Party is the home of conservatism, the Party itself is not conservative. I also stated if the Party as a whole doesn’t back Trump (the defacto party leader), the Republican Party could become extinct.
I’m not following this but FYI:
I agree with the first point but I don’t think the second is accurate. A lot of people said that electing Trump also meant the end of the Republican party. I think it’s more likely either way that the Republican party will carry on and just change with its leadership. Very few things are as important or catastrophic as originally thought.
I also think there is something to saying things aloud and getting feed back from them. Not allowing people to speak just feeds these things.
I think this is correct. At this moment it is the party of Trump. That means there is not a major political party wholly committed to conservative principles and I think that is satisfactory since there is now little agreement on what those principles are.