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. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    “It is anti-Semitic to question whatever the precise number of people who perished in World War Two.”

    Laughs; someone goes “whoo!” 

    Why? Because they are sick of hearing about the Holocaust, or don’t believe it happened, or suspect they kinda had it coming, or some combination?

    Why bring that up in the context of batting away false accusations of anti-Semetism? Are there people on the right who are engaged in rigorous, empirical research on the actual number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust for the pure purpose of getting an exact number, and they are being unfairly tarred with the anti-semitism brush?

    • #61
  2. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Yes, I saw that. It is not, however the topic I mentioned: the definition of Holocaust denial.

    I thought it was defined in this point:

    • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

    ?

    • #62
  3. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    An accusation of anti-Semitism is a very big deal, and should be made very carefully, only in those cases where it’s backed by strong evidence. It should be like the emergency stop we used to have on subway trains, a pull switch covered with a sheet of glass, accompanied by a hammer to break the glass on those few occasions when it really, really matters. That sheet of glass didn’t deter the truly destructive or creepy, but for decades, by and large, that system of making you hesitate worked. And when you needed to stop the train, it was there. 

    So we have two overlapping problems: some people will break the glass at the slightest provocation. Others won’t pull that handle even when it’s absolutely justified. 

    I wouldn’t call Malkin an anti-Semite based on what I’ve seen and read. She does seem weirdly unaware of when she’s hanging out with anti-Semites, though, doesn’t seem to care that the Groypers and Proud Boys are awful, and with her sympathy gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Yes, I said the enemy. Not conservatism’s saviors, not our allies, not our friends. 

    • #63
  4. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Jager (View Comment):

    “It’s anti-Semitic to mention George Soros’s billions. It’s anti-Semitic to criticize the Anti-Defamation League. It’s anti-Semitic to question whatever the precise number is of people who perished in World War II. It is anti-Semitic for me, being married to a 100% Ashkenazi Jew, to question dual loyalties of people who are working here as agents of a foreign country.”

    This is a portion of her speech and the only real place I saw anti-semitism mentioned. I do not see the same things the OP is seeing. Questioning the precise number of people who perished is not at all denying that many people did.

    This article puts the number at 5.8 to 6.2 million.

    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/estimated-number-of-jews-killed-in-the-final-solution

    This article places the number at 5.4 to 5.8 million.

    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau7292

    Does that make the second article anti-Semitic because it has a somewhat lower number?

    This is not at all, the Holocaust did not happen or was just a few people.

    Malkin has a Jewish husband and does not seem to be claiming he has dual loyalty. She would seem to have specific people in mind not all Jews.

    Malkin is not exactly my cup of tea, but come on, lets be honest in our disagreements.

    Condemnation of disagreement over the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust makes me crazy. Germany’s outlawing of disagreement makes their anti-Semites stronger. 

    Six million was an estimate. And it’s not like people are saying, “Six million is an outrage…oh, only five and a half million? Meh.” 

    The scale is mind-boggling; millions. 

    • #64
  5. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I support Israel because it is a fellow traveler. No ally is always on our side fully or us them.

    If you have an ally who is always fully on your side you should definitely check because that ally is either a servant, or too weak to have interests that diverge from your own. 

    • #65
  6. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Zafar (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Yes, I saw that. It is not, however the topic I mentioned: the definition of Holocaust denial.

    I thought it was defined in this point:

    • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

    ?

    You’re right. I missed that because the other link suggested the definition would be there. Turns out there is such a link that does work. The only element that is relevant to Mrs Malkin’s speech is 

    2. Gross minimization of the number of the victims of the Holocaust in contradiction to reliable sources; [emphasis added]

    Since there is no reasonable interpretation of her words to mean a gross minimization of the deaths in WW II or in the Holocaust, Ms. Mandel’s charge of antisemitism is not supported by this definition. 

    If terms like antisemitism and Holocaust denial are to have any meaning whatsoever, they must not be loosely bandied about as they were in the OP.

    • #66
  7. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Bethany Mandel: 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.

    Watched the clip. It is inaccurate to say that she engaged in “Holocaust Denial” as the Holocaust isn’t mentioned.

    Nor did she “indiscriminately” throw around charges of dual loyalty. The only mention of dual loyalty was a rhetorical one that used as an example people operating as foreign agents.

    Do better Bethany.

    You’re right, Instugator, but I’m going to go further.

    I’m calling out Bethany. Bethany, you are throwing around false charges of anti-Semitism. You are blatantly mischaracterizing what Malkin said. You are lying, Bethany.

    The irony is astonishing. Malkin is speaking out about false charges of anti-Semitism, and Bethany responds with . . . false charges of anti-Semitism.

    These are the tactics of the radical Left.

    Exactly.

    Fantastic comment by Arizona Patriot. I listened to whole speech because I’m pedantic. I think that Bethany Mandel was a bit unfair by showing the one clip that made her sound like a bigot. She does have a very strong belief that Latinos cannot be convinced into a Republican or conservative party. That doesn’t mean she thinks that Latinos are inferior people that aren’t loved by G-d but I get that some folks will have beef with that. That ain’t the same as being a racist.

    That being said, I’m uncomfortable with alot of the people on the stage as well as her constant accusation that anyone that doesn’t agree with her is being paid off. Can’t Charlie Kirk simply be wrong about the most important issues?

    Some of her stuff is worrisome but she deserves to be presumed not an anti-semite until their is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I’d like to see, ‘you must be getting paid to say that’ retired unless a person can come up with the cancelled checks. 

    • #67
  8. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    “It is anti-Semitic to question whatever the precise number of people who perished in World War Two.”

    Laughs; someone goes “whoo!”

    Why? Because they are sick of hearing about the Holocaust, or don’t believe it happened, or suspect they kinda had it coming, or some combination?

    Why bring that up in the context of batting away false accusations of anti-Semetism? Are there people on the right who are engaged in rigorous, empirical research on the actual number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust for the pure purpose of getting an exact number, and they are being unfairly tarred with the anti-semitism brush?

    Before opining on the whys and wherefores, you might take the time to listen to the entire speech so as to put those 45 seconds in context. I fully appreciate that not everyone has the time or inclination to devote to this task. Fair enough but if so, perhaps it would be prudent to refrain from drawing conclusions via rhetorical questions based on scant information.

    • #68
  9. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    TBA (View Comment):
    I’d like to see, ‘you must be getting paid to say that’ retired unless a person can come up with the cancelled checks. 

    About ten seconds of web searching turns up this:

    https://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/who-funds-conservative-campus-group-turning-point-usa-donors-revealed-2620325

    I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine Mr Kirk is being paid for his job TPUSA. It’s not literally cancelled checks but the equivalent.

     

    • #69
  10. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    drlorentz (View Comment):
    Before opining on the whys and wherefores, you might take the time to listen to the entire speech so as to put those 45 seconds in context.

    Fair enough. I guess I’m just conditioned to her suspicious of anyone interested in TRUTH about the NUMBERS.  You know, just asking questions! 

    • #70
  11. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    You know, just asking questions! 

    If we’re being honest here, some of those questions were rhetorical and accusatory.

    • #71
  12. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    I am not familiar with Michelle Malkin (though she’s an effective speaker for that audience!) but this specific point seems to be that political correctness essentially bans the discussion of some questions, or comparisons, and that she’s not down with that.

    In this instance the questions were: the number of people who died in WWII, loyalty to foreign governments (rather than dual loyalty per se), and later on the consistency of opposition to ethnostates.

    It’s absolutely true that these questions have been used and misused by people who hold antisemitic views. But does that place these questions out of bounds for discussion?  Should it?  Is anybody who asks these questions definitively an antisemite?

    To use another example of this: gay people generally assume(d) that anybody who questioned marriage equality was bigoted against gay people.  Many of us dismissed the people who asked these questions as mean spirited, dishonest, mouth breathing bigots rather than engaging with them.

    We assumed bad faith on their part because the answers seemed so obvious to us.  And the answers seemed so obvious because of the historical context (what happened to us in the relatively recent past, and still happens to us in many places and families) and because the questions were about our lives, our equality with others. They felt personal.

    It was hard for us to see that any other answers to these questions could be made in good faith.   Our belief that they could only be asked by bigots was sincere.

    These questions were indeed often used and misused by bigots, but were we right to dismiss anybody who asked them as essentially mindless mouthbreathers worthy of nothing but opprobrium?

    I think the Ricochet consensus (?) on this would be that we were not – and it took me a long, long time to see it your way.  To accept that people who asked questions which seemed to me to be based on an assumption that my life was worth less were (1) not necessarily making that assumption and (2) were not necessarily raising these in bad faith.

    This doesn’t mean I thought that nobody was asking these questions in bad faith, only that the questions themselves could be asked, and could be worth engaging with and answering.  And that my context for these, how I experienced these questions, was not universal but specific.

    I have to say it was a lot easier to get there with people who took my context into account when they engaged.

    • #72
  13. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    Malkin’s statement’s really a four-parter, with the first two not really being that controversial, because George Soros has, like Bernie Sanders, selectively used his Judaism of late as a shield when  it’s served his needs, and there have been questions raised about the direction Jonathan Greenblatt has been taking the ADL, in seeming to turn it into a partisan organization dedicated to protecting Democrats more than to protecting Jews.

    It’s Parts 3 and 4 where Malkin starts getting into an area where, even if you are fine with her asking the questions, you have to wonder why she’s so intense in wanting to ask them. And Part 4 is really where we jump into Pat Buchanan “Amen Corner” trolling territory — once you mention your husband is an Ashkenazi Jew and you follow it up with questions about dual loyalty, it’s a pretty safe bet we’re not talking about Chinese ex-pats working in the U.S. sneaking corporate trade secrets back to Beijing.

    So what exactly are Bibi and/or others in the Israeli government doing where Michelle seems to think this is an issue that needs to be a major source of discussion on the right? It really does sound more like something Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar would be pushing to ask under the current climate, over their anger that the U.S. sides with  the Jews over the Palestinians.

    Buchanan’s comment 28 years ago had more of a bottom line domestic/anti-Gulf War aspect to in, in that he felt since Jews in America mostly voted Democrat, he was under no obligation to show any extra support for Israel. So I’m not sure if Malkin threw this hand grenade out there for that reason, for the Tlaib/Omar reason, or just because she was reading her audience and wanted to finish that particular part of her overall statement with a good applause line. Whichever one it is, it really demands that she flesh out her comment to remove the lack of specificity.

    • #73
  14. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    Are there people on the right who are engaged in rigorous, empirical research on the actual number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust for the pure purpose of getting an exact number, and they are being unfairly tarred with the anti-semitism brush

    The whole point of the research is because they feel like they are being manipulated into a sympathetic position with lies. Basically, propaganda.

    Which isn’t absurd… because they have been. Have you been to school?

    Also a lot of these kids were babies in 2001. They don’t remember a time when American blood wasn’t being spilled in the ME. For what reason?

    The question isn’t illegitimate if you think we are warring muslims on behalf of Israel because we feel bad about the holocaust. Simplistic? Maybe – they are young. Is it unreasonable for them to question? I don’t think so.

    You sound like a puritan wringing his hands over the youth asking if God really exists.

    • #74
  15. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    An accusation of anti-Semitism is a very big deal, and should be made very carefully, only in those cases where it’s backed by strong evidence. It should be like the emergency stop we used to have on subway trains, a pull switch covered with a sheet of glass, accompanied by a hammer to break the glass on those few occasions when it really, really matters. That sheet of glass didn’t deter the truly destructive or creepy, but for decades, by and large, that system of making you hesitate worked. And when you needed to stop the train, it was there.

    So we have two overlapping problems: some people will break the glass at the slightest provocation. Others won’t pull that handle even when it’s absolutely justified.

    I wouldn’t call Malkin an anti-Semite based on what I’ve seen and read. She does seem weirdly unaware of when she’s hanging out with anti-Semites, though, doesn’t seem to care that the Groypers and Proud Boys are awful, and with her sympathy gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Yes, I said the enemy. Not conservatism’s saviors, not our allies, not our friends.

    Gary, I “liked” this comment, then changed my mind.  It seems to me that your final paragraph is inconsistent with your first paragraph.

    I don’t think that your break-the-glass analogy is correct.  The correct analogy is the little boy who cried wolf.

    • #75
  16. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Zafar (View Comment):

    From IHRA

    On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

    Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

    “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

    To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

    Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

    Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

    • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

    • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

    • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

    • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

    • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

    • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

    • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

    • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

    • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

    • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

    • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

    Talk about Orwellian.  A vague definition that amounts to “wrongthink,” and a bunch of often vague, and certainly non-exclusive, list of examples.

    Notice how a Biblically accurate rendition of the Christian Passion story is defined as anti-Semitic.

     

    • #76
  17. V.S. Blackford Inactive
    V.S. Blackford
    @VSBlackford

    “It’s antisemitic to mention George Soros’ billions.”

    “It’s antisemitic to criticize the Anti-Defamation Leauge.”

    “It’s antisemitic to question whatever the precise number is of people who perished in WWII.”

    “It is antisemitic for me, being married to a 100% Ashkenazi Jew, to question dual-loyalty…”

    I think it is clear what statistic she is referring to in that third sentence based on the sentences both before and after it. She is not referring to the death tolls for Stalingrad or Nanjing. She is referring to the Holocaust. Her audience knows this. She is playing for the crowd, using a euphemism.

     

    • #77
  18. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    I have a few more comments about portions of this definition of anti-Semitism, which Zafar helpfully posted:

    Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

    • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

    So — no stereotypes and no jokes.  Ever.  I’m sick of this nonsense, like Liz Warren complaining about Bloomberg allegedly “calling women horse-faced lesbians and fat broads” (or something like that), based on a joke he allegedly told about two specific women (and other people — it was a joke about the British royal family).

    Here’s an old one.  Have you heard about the new Israeli car?  It not only stops on a dime, it picks it up.

    Does that make me an anti-Semite?  Or do people really need to lighten up?

    • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

    Hey, kinda like accusing every “groyper” or “Proud Boy” of being an anti-Semite, based on collective responsibility and the — generally unspecified — alleged acts of some individuals.  Oh, and not only the “groypers” — but also everyone who associates with them in any way.

    The hypocrisy here is just extraordinary.

    • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

    Notice the lack of limitation, including any denial of the “scope” of the Holocaust.

    • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

    As if this can never, ever be true.

    • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

    It is a racist endeavor, sort of.  It is the Jewish state.  It is defined ethnically.  I know that there are Arab citizens, but they seem to be a persistent thorn in the side of the state.

    I have no objection to this, by the way.  Israel is for the Jews, Japan is for the Japanese, Poland is for the Poles.

    • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

    The Jews did kill Jesus, in the sense that the Jewish leaders and crowd advocated for his death.  This is clear from the Biblical account.  So now my faith is anti-Semitic, is that it?

    This is very troubling.

    • #78
  19. V.S. Blackford Inactive
    V.S. Blackford
    @VSBlackford

    Definition of Holocaust Denial from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: “Holocaust denial is any attempt to negate the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jews. Holocaust denial and distortion are forms of antisemitism, prejudice against or hatred of Jews. Holocaust denial and distortion generally claim that the Holocaust was invented or exaggerated by Jews as part of a plot to advance Jewish interests.” 

    So yes Michelle, it would be antisemitic to question this “precise number.” For some reason I don’t think she is going to be diving into any archival research anytime soon, nor are any of the participants at that particular conference. They do not question the statistics out of any concern for the historical record. There is so much scholarship and information on this subject that can be accessed through libraries, ebooks, journals, digital archives, etc. She knows what she is doing.   

    • #79
  20. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    rgbact (View Comment):
    Its great to see Trumpism devolving to this gross level.

    I fail to see how Trump has anything to do with this.

    • #80
  21. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Jerry, all of this is driven by fear. Understandable fear. imho. It isn’t intentionally malign. That doesn’t make it right, but in order to face it and address it constructively one needs to acknowledge the fear and deal with its causes.   Otherwise people talk past each other. 

    • #81
  22. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Pertinent to this discussion, I recall a comment made by Lionel Shriver (I think it was in this discussion with Douglas Murray), but I can’t find the precise spot, so this is from a 2018 article in the Spectator:

    Post-Charlottesville, the hyperbolic proxy ‘white supremacist’ has abruptly gained such currency because it conveniently applies only to us crackers. Yet the number of card-carrying white supremacists in the US would not fill a football stadium. The ramping up of opprobrium suggests that plain old ‘racist’ is losing its punch. As leftists compete with each other over who’s more righteous, many folks tarred as prejudiced these days are the comparatively open-minded. With a black husband and two biracial kids, Ellen Pompeo, the star of the TV show Grey’s Anatomy, was attacked in late 2016 as ‘racist’ for using dark-skinned emojis. Broadly onside, other targets may not have passed the fastidious progressive litmus test on every issue. Do real racists mind being called racists? True white supremacists are proud of being bigots. Like ‘fascist’, suffering from similar inflation, might we save this slag for those who most deserve it?

    This strikes me as generally correct, particularly the highlighted portion.  It strikes me as quite plausible that true racists, or anti-Semites, do not hide this.

    • #82
  23. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):
    So yes Michelle, it would be antisemitic to question this “precise number.”

    So what precise number do you use?

    I use the estimate of 6 million, but that is an estimate. I do not mean 6,000,000 exactly.

    In this thread the number has been 5.2 to 6 million. So which is it?

    Come now, be precise.

    • #83
  24. V.S. Blackford Inactive
    V.S. Blackford
    @VSBlackford

    Instugator (View Comment):

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):
    So yes Michelle, it would be antisemitic to question this “precise number.”

    So what precise number do you use?

    I use the estimate of 6 million, but that is an estimate. I do not mean 6,000,000 exactly.

    In this thread the number has been 5.2 to 6 million. So which is it?

    Come now, be precise.

    The current scholarly estimate is 6 million.  

    “To accurately estimate the extent of human losses, scholars, Jewish organizations, and governmental agencies since the 1940s have relied on a variety of different records, such as census reports, captured German and Axis archives, and postwar investigations, to compile these statistics. As more documents come to light or as scholars arrive at a more precise understanding of the Holocaust, estimates of human losses may change.”

    Again, her audience does not question the statistic out of undue concern for history. 

    • #84
  25. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Would also, for perspective, suggest some reading at the site of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance

    Based on that site’s guidance, I’m revising my spelling of antisemitism versus the one that seems to be more common in these environs: anti-Semitism. The latter spelling always struck me as clunky.

    Unfortunately, the page most relevant to the discussion at hand, Working Definition of Holocaust Distortion and Denial returns a page not found error.

    I advise against this.  Do not let people control your language.  Even Bethany’s OP used “anti-Semite” (in making her unsubstantiated allegations).

    The site — offering its Orwellian definition, as I detailed above — has a lengthy explanation for its demand that we change the language, concluding with:

    The unhyphenated spelling is favored by many scholars and institutions in order to dispel the idea that there is an entity ‘Semitism’ which ‘anti-Semitism’ opposes. Antisemitism should be read as a unified term so that the meaning of the generic term for modern Jew-hatred is clear. At a time of increased violence and rhetoric aimed towards Jews, it is urgent that there is clarity and no room for confusion or obfuscation when dealing with antisemitism.

    So there’s no such thing as “Semitism,” huh?  Despite the existence of a Jewish state, despite the efforts of Jews in other countries to organize to preserve their distinctiveness, despite numerous Jewish groups openly advocating for Jewish causes in the name of Jews collectively?  We’re supposed to ignore all of this?

    This seems to be a manifestation of the Leftist kookiness with respect to race generally.  They simultaneously object to racism, and deny the existence of race as a “social construct.”

    Also, there is no evidence that we are in a time of increased violence aimed toward Jews.  I detailed this a few months back, in response to another one of Bethany’s posts (and a couple of others, I think).  The level of so-called “hate crimes” against Jews was vanishingly small in the US, and the rate of anti-Semitic killings of Jews was significantly lower than the rate of anti-Christian killings.

    • #85
  26. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    “It’s antisemitic to mention George Soros’ billions.”

    “It’s antisemitic to criticize the Anti-Defamation Leauge.”

    “It’s antisemitic to question whatever the precise number is of people who perished in WWII.”

    “It is antisemitic for me, being married to a 100% Ashkenazi Jew, to question dual-loyalty…”

    I think it is clear what statistic she is referring to in that third sentence based on the sentences both before and after it. She is not referring to the death tolls for Stalingrad or Nanjing. She is referring to the Holocaust. Her audience knows this. She is playing for the crowd, using a euphemism.

    A lot of people seem to think it’s clear yet they take different meanings.

    Isn’t she married to a Jewish person? Wouldn’t that make it highly unlikely that she’s antisemitic? Why doesn’t someone with access actually ask Malkin about it instead of all this speculation and accusation?

    • #86
  27. V.S. Blackford Inactive
    V.S. Blackford
    @VSBlackford

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    “It’s antisemitic to mention George Soros’ billions.”

    “It’s antisemitic to criticize the Anti-Defamation Leauge.”

    “It’s antisemitic to question whatever the precise number is of people who perished in WWII.”

    “It is antisemitic for me, being married to a 100% Ashkenazi Jew, to question dual-loyalty…”

    I think it is clear what statistic she is referring to in that third sentence based on the sentences both before and after it. She is not referring to the death tolls for Stalingrad or Nanjing. She is referring to the Holocaust. Her audience knows this. She is playing for the crowd, using a euphemism.

     

    A lot of people seem to think it’s clear yet they take different meanings.

    Why doesn’t someone with access actually ask Malkin about it instead of all this speculation and accusation?Isn’t she married to a Jewish person? Wouldn’t that make it highly unlikely that she’s antisemitic? Why doesn’t someone with access actually ask Malkin about it instead of all this speculation and accusation?

     

    If someone who knows her well enough can ask her directly, by all means ask. Not knowing her at that level, and knowing what type of audience she is currently engaging with, I think I can judge her comments accordingly. 

    • #87
  28. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    V.S. Blackford (View Comment):

    “It’s antisemitic to mention George Soros’ billions.”

    “It’s antisemitic to criticize the Anti-Defamation Leauge.”

    “It’s antisemitic to question whatever the precise number is of people who perished in WWII.”

    “It is antisemitic for me, being married to a 100% Ashkenazi Jew, to question dual-loyalty…”

    I think it is clear what statistic she is referring to in that third sentence based on the sentences both before and after it. She is not referring to the death tolls for Stalingrad or Nanjing. She is referring to the Holocaust. Her audience knows this. She is playing for the crowd, using a euphemism.

     

    A lot of people seem to think it’s clear yet they take different meanings.

    Why doesn’t someone with access actually ask Malkin about it instead of all this speculation and accusation?Isn’t she married to a Jewish person? Wouldn’t that make it highly unlikely that she’s antisemitic? Why doesn’t someone with access actually ask Malkin about it instead of all this speculation and accusation?

     

    If someone who knows her well enough can ask her directly, by all means ask. Not knowing her at that level, and knowing what type of audience she is currently engaging with, I think I can judge her comments accordingly.

    Do you know, though? In your comments on this thread you have claimed knowledge of the collective thoughts and motivations of the audience (who you don’t know any better than you know Malkin). From that knowledge of the collective you are comfortable drawing conclusions about this specific person. Isn’t that one of the very tricks that real antisemites, racists, fascists, etc employ in their rhetoric?

    • #88
  29. 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):

    “It’s antisemitic to mention George Soros’ billions.”

    “It’s antisemitic to criticize the Anti-Defamation Leauge.”

    “It’s antisemitic to question whatever the precise number is of people who perished in WWII.”

    “It is antisemitic for me, being married to a 100% Ashkenazi Jew, to question dual-loyalty…”

    I think it is clear what statistic she is referring to in that third sentence based on the sentences both before and after it. She is not referring to the death tolls for Stalingrad or Nanjing. She is referring to the Holocaust. Her audience knows this. She is playing for the crowd, using a euphemism.

     

    A lot of people seem to think it’s clear yet they take different meanings.

    Why doesn’t someone with access actually ask Malkin about it instead of all this speculation and accusation?Isn’t she married to a Jewish person? Wouldn’t that make it highly unlikely that she’s antisemitic? Why doesn’t someone with access actually ask Malkin about it instead of all this speculation and accusation?

     

    If someone who knows her well enough can ask her directly, by all means ask. Not knowing her at that level, and knowing what type of audience she is currently engaging with, I think I can judge her comments accordingly.

    Do you know, though? In your comments on this thread you have claimed knowledge of the collective thoughts and motivations of the audience (who you don’t know any better than you know Malkin). From that knowledge of the collective you are comfortable drawing conclusions about this specific person. Isn’t that one of the very tricks that real antisemites, racists, fascists, etc employ in their rhetoric?

    One of her fellow speakers was Patrick Casey, who leads the American Identity Movement (changed from Identity Evropa in 2019). If you choose to associate with white nationalists, I am going to question your association. 

    • #89
  30. 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):

    “It’s antisemitic to mention George Soros’ billions.”

    “It’s antisemitic to criticize the Anti-Defamation Leauge.”

    “It’s antisemitic to question whatever the precise number is of people who perished in WWII.”

    “It is antisemitic for me, being married to a 100% Ashkenazi Jew, to question dual-loyalty…”

    I think it is clear what statistic she is referring to in that third sentence based on the sentences both before and after it. She is not referring to the death tolls for Stalingrad or Nanjing. She is referring to the Holocaust. Her audience knows this. She is playing for the crowd, using a euphemism.

     

    A lot of people seem to think it’s clear yet they take different meanings.

    Why doesn’t someone with access actually ask Malkin about it instead of all this speculation and accusation?Isn’t she married to a Jewish person? Wouldn’t that make it highly unlikely that she’s antisemitic? Why doesn’t someone with access actually ask Malkin about it instead of all this speculation and accusation?

     

    If someone who knows her well enough can ask her directly, by all means ask. Not knowing her at that level, and knowing what type of audience she is currently engaging with, I think I can judge her comments accordingly.

    Do you know, though? In your comments on this thread you have claimed knowledge of the collective thoughts and motivations of the audience (who you don’t know any better than you know Malkin). From that knowledge of the collective you are comfortable drawing conclusions about this specific person. Isn’t that one of the very tricks that real antisemites, racists, fascists, etc employ in their rhetoric?

    One of her fellow speakers was Patrick Casey, who leads the American Identity Movement (changed from Identity Evropa in 2019). If you choose to associate with white nationalists, I am going to question your association.

    We would not hesitate to condemn a speaker at a Democratic Socialist conference if they engaged in these kind of tropes. We would question the motives of the attendees, and how the speaker is playing on their beliefs. Certainly, I have not met in person the people who attended this conference. The fact that they attended a conference headlined by Nick Fuentes and Patrick Casey does allow me to question their motives and beliefs.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.