Campus Free Speech

Young America's Foundation Excommunicates Michelle Malkin for Defending Nick Fuentes

"There is no room in mainstream conservatism or at YAF for holocaust deniers, white nationalists, street brawlers, or racists."

|

Young America's Foundation (YAF) has removed Michelle Malkin, a right-wing writer and pundit, from its roster of featured speakers. Malkin, the author of a number of books—including, most recently, Open Borders Inc: Who's Funding America's Destruction?—has toured campuses as part of YAF's speakers bureau for 17 years.

The firing comes as a result of Malkin's vocal support for 22-year-old far-right provocateur Nick Fuentes and his allies, the groypers (yes, that's what they call themselves).

"YAF gives a platform to a broad range of speakers with a range of views within the mainstream of conservative thought," wrote YAF. "Immigration is a vital issue that deserves robust debate. But there is no room in mainstream conservatism or at YAF for holocaust deniers, white nationalists, street brawlers, or racists."

Fuentes, a former fellow traveler of alt-right leader Richard Spencer, has a long history of racist and anti-Semitic comments. While he has attempted to distance himself from the alt-right—he characterizes his views as nationalist rather than racialist—it's clear that what he means by "America First" is white nationalism. Indeed, he called conservative writer Matt Walsh a race traitor for inveighing against the El Paso shooter, and he has opined that Jim Crow was no big deal.

Needless to say, the intellectual leaders of the campus conservative movement should be working to expel the groypers. But Malkin has come to their defense, recently describing Fuentes favorably as "one of the New Right leaders" and deriding his critics as "cringe." After YAF tweeted the above statement condemning racists and Holocaust deniers, Malkin fired back that the "keepers of the gate" were trying to silence her for defending "unjustly prosecuted Proud Boys, patriotic young nationalists/groypers & demographic truth-tellers."

YAF then fired Malkin. (She did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

This was clearly a necessary move, though it is likely to further inflame the groypers, who have recently turned several events featuring more mainstream conservatives into embarrassing spectacles for the right. The groypers have been targeting Ben Shapiro, Turning Point USA, and even Donald Trump Jr.

Malkin's supporters are likely to argue that mainstream conservatism—what she calls Conservatism Inc., as there is always some shadowy corporate agenda at work in the minds of the immigration restrictionists—is attempting to silence or cancel her, and that this is hypocritical given the conservative outrage whenever the left does this. But no one is obligated to extend a speaking platform, especially when that platform is supposed to represent a particular point of view. It's not censorship for YAF to declare that it would rather feature a less xenophobic author.

If someone does invite Malkin to speak on a campus, the anti-censorship coalition is obliged to object if a public university tries to cancel the talk or if student-activists try to shut it down. But no one needs to defend Malkin's actual ideas. On the contrary, conservatives who care about individual liberty and racial equality should denounce and disassociate from them as swiftly as possible.

NEXT: If Biden Won't Support Legalization Until We Know Whether Marijuana Is a 'Gateway Drug,' He Will Never Support Legalization

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When the YAF starts virtue signaling, then it’s all over for the holocaust deniers, white nationalists, street brawlers and racists.

    1. Fuentes appears to be a moron. But, YAF have no one but themselves to blame for his rise. YAF is terrified of their leftists friends calling them “racists” and thus won’t stand up and tell the truth about the left’s appalling racism against whites and white men in particular. This allows people like Fuentes to become truth tellers and attract a following because he is the only one willing to tell the truth on some things. In the process he then also gets a hearing for his other views which seem to be entirely loathsome.

      1. What truth did Fuentes tell that no one else will? Inquiring minds…

        1. That Conservative Inc is a joke and that the left loathes whites and wants to see them destroyed.

      2. When a dirty hippie runs it’s mouth at you, the correct response is not to appease the aforementioned dirty hippie. The correct response is to slap the dirty hippie down. And hard.

        America went to hell when that practice began to stop.

        1. Unprovoked violence for the win. Is that the libertarian way?

          1. He’s no libertarian. The furthest edge of the Authoritarian Right.
            Beyond ANYTHING on the Authoritarian Left.
            His ilk have been burning books and witches for centuries, and TRYING to censor each new advance in communication. But now FAILING.

      3. This.

        When the Establishment Right tells whites to bend over and take their second class status, good and hard, whites who feel no guilt for the crime of being born white will make common cause with whites similarly opposed to their subjection.

        Racists against you, or racists for you?

        When those are the only options on the menu, people will take the latter.

    2. Worth remembering that the current YAF are the heirs to the YAF faction who called the nascent libertarian offshoot “lazy fairies”.

      1. They are, but those who called libertarians “lazy fairies” would have embraced Malkin and the white nationalists.

    3. Is this the same Michelle Malkin that wrote a book justifying the concentration camps of Japanese-Americans during WW2? I am not surprised she likes these racists.

      1. Who cares? She’s hot!!!!

        1. I wouldn’t mind being locked in a desert encampment with *her*!

          1. With that tight, toned little body of here’s I’m sure she loves rough sex.

            1. I am not surprised that you sound like a virgin.

      2. No one gives a fuck what surprises you Chippie. I’m sure it doesn’t are much.

    4. The Holocaust happened, but there was no way on God’s Green Earth that 6 million Jews were killed!….Heck, there were not even 6 million Jews in Europe during this time….More like 500,000 to 1 million were killed!

      1. How do you arrive at that number?

        1. Red Cross has submitted numbers & there is other proof out there!…The 6 Million is a Hoax!

        2. How do you arrive at that number?

          Pulled it out of his ass … pulling his head out first, of course.

      2. Yeah, WTF, who cares about a mere million?

        Even if it were true (its not), it would not change the picture or our revulsion.

      3. (The) gas chambers are a lie.

        As for (the best) numbers, consult W. N. Sanning’s “The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry.” Amazon has delisted it (along with all Holocaust revisionism), but you can get it at http://www.holocausthandbooks.com.

    5. Since when did street brawlers get lumped in with the really bad guys? Some of my best relatives were street brawlers.

  2. Fuentes is proof that everyone under 30 is retarded and knows nothing about history. For years I have made fun of the woke millennials for walking around in Che shirts even though he had homosexuals murdered for fun and for nothing nothing of the history of communism. Fuentes now comes along and proves that the entire generation left and right is full on retarded.

    The guy seems to actually think Jim Crow was just no big deal. Yeah, it wasn’t as bad as communism but it most certainly was a very bad thing. Jim Crow made it illegal to run anything but a segregated business. You couldn’t serve both races in a business if you wanted to because doing so was a crime. It was also violent and lawless. Dozens of people were lynched every year under Jim Crow, some of the white actually. If you were accused of a crime in the Jim Crow south that made the local populace angry enough, a mob would come down pull you out of jail and lynch you. And people celebrated it and took pictures and made them into postcards.

    People remember the Emmet Till case, but that case was so exceptional in its violence and brutality that it almost causes people to forget the daily and less notable brutality of the Jim Crow South. If a black man so much as looked at a white woman in a way some white man didn’t like, he likely got the shit beat of of him and there was nothing he could do about it. No black man who was beaten by the white mob was ever going to get any justice. To claim that Jim Crow was no big deal is to engage in a profound level of ignorance equal to any of that found on the left.

    I do think the left bears some responsibility for Fuentes. They have spent so long slandering one reasonable disagreement after another as “the rise of Jim Crow” that young people no longer see Jim Crow as being that bad. The left thought it was rendering arguments it didn’t like illegitimate by associating them with Jim Crow. But what they have done is make Jim Crow legitimate by associating it with so many other reasonable positions and disagreements.

    1. I think Trump bears far more responsibility than anyone on the current left for the mainstreaming of white nationalist views. When the president gets up and calls immigrants vermin, rapists, etc., it sets a tone. When he has someone like Steven Miller setting policy, it sets a tone. When you go after and deport Vietnamese refugees from our failed war, it sets a tone. When you separate families needlessly, it sets a tone. When you set up camps where children sleep on concrete floors and adults are detained indefinitely, it sets a tone. When you hold creepy, brown shirt reminiscent rallies for your 90% white audience to cheer violent fantasies, it sets a tone.

      We didn’t see nearly as many street brawls during Obama’s time. It is undeniable that Trump is a purposefully divisive president. He hardly speaks without denouncing liberals, immigrants, etc. as the enemy. His fucking inauguration speach was jaw-dropping xenophobic hostility. These are timeless political tactics: scapegoat the other, dehumanize them, use the fear of a perceived threat from an outside group to rally your support.

      I recommend the latest South Park for a pretty funny but insightful take down of the situation.

      1. Amazing. Literally not one thing you said is factual, and so far a distortion of the truth that you could obtain the truth by literally inverting everything you said.

        Don’t worry though cytotoxic, they’ll line you up against the wall last.

      2. “I think Trump”

        We know.

        1. Pretty sure it’s “Trump is my obsession”

          1. It is not so much that he is wrong as it is that he is completely incoherent. What any of that post had to do with mine is a mystery known only to him.

            1. Well you said the left should bear responsibility for Fuentes & Co. He argued that Trump has been setting the tone recently, and calling for a return to our past, so he bears some responsibility for a radical, xenophobic influencer.

              Personally, I’m with you. The Left is responsible for overzealous Lefties, AND for hateful Righties. It’s like that old libertarian saying, “I get the credit, you get the blame.”

      3. He hardly speaks without denouncing liberals, immigrants, etc. as the enemy. His fucking inauguration speach was jaw-dropping xenophobic hostility. These are timeless political tactics: scapegoat the other, dehumanize them, use the fear of a perceived threat from an outside group to rally your support.

        Even if you accept this characterization it essentially mirrors the tactics of academia and left-activists have used since they began their institutional takeovers as the Vietnam War protests ended. It’s revealing left wingers don’t believe any of their own actions are divisive or even think it’s a legitimate standard when it comes to their own actions.

      4. During Obummy’s time, there were numerous black flash gangs that beat the shit out of white people for absolutely no reason in malls & other public places, many times in broad daylight!…..But, of course being white they had it coming!!

        Truth be told, there has been way more violence by Trump haters against Trump supporters than the other way around!

      5. You stupid little bitch, he did none of those things. And honestly Pedo Jeffy, we all know it’s you.

        Seriously, you should be bull whipped to death for your idiocy.

      6. “When the president gets up and calls immigrants vermin, rapists,”

        Once upon a time, ENB used to write articles about the rape trees of the human smugglers across the border.

        Was she a white nationalist too?

        Ever looked up the legal age of sexual consent in Mexico?

        “Diversity is our strength!”

      7. “When he has someone like Steven Miller setting policy, it sets a tone.”

        Yeah, I too am concerned about the overrepresentation of Ashkenazi Jewish people in Washington, D.C. like Stephen Miller, which is why I hate white nationalism.

    2. Considering that multiple hundreds of right wing activists have had the shit beat out of them with no repercussions just in the span of the last 3 years sort of demonstrates how a few dozen lynchings in all of a dozen of the 50 states where Jim Crow was a thing wasn’t exactly the Holocaust that it’s made out to be. In that sense he’s right. We have candidates for the presidency right now who are seriously considering proposals for racial reparations and have deep financial ties to groups directly responsible for terrorist violence from the 1970s right up to the present time and you’re concerned about kids posting pepe the frog memes on 4chan. If Jim Crow was a national shame then what’s happening now is an equal or greater one.

      1. >>>multiple hundreds of right wing activists have had the shit beat out of them with no repercussions just in the span of the last 3 years

        like while golfing?

        1. Like while trying to host conservative speakers on campus, at conservative public protests, republican club events, etc.. the left wants to silence all dissent.

      2. It is not even close to Jim Crow. That doesn’t make it right but in trying to compare it to Jim Crow you make yourself look Like an idiot.

        1. He is Insane Bolt, after all.

    3. BRAVO John, well said!!!!

      1. Fuck off SQRLSY.

  3. Product differentiation 101.


  4. Needless to say, the intellectual leaders of the campus conservative movement should be working to expel the groypers.

    If these people don’t have any point, wouldn’t it be more to the point to rebut them than trying to shut them up?

    Keep that up and people are going to start wondering if they’re on to something.

    1. That is exactly it. What the campus right should be doing is figuring out why these people are attracting a following and co-opting them such that there is no reason for people to follow them.

      The reason why they have a following is because the mainstream right won’t stand up to the left’s racism against whites. This gives people like Fuentes an opening and a chance to mix truth in with their lies.

    2. i don’t want to know what a groyper is I just wanted to comment I had to scroll up to see you didn’t misspell grouper

    3. No, you don’t have to let bad-faith wackjobs into your club. After a certain point, you can just tell the wacko’s you don’t want to hear it. If they have to let racists speak, then why shouldn’t they let communists speak? And then what would be the point in calling it conservative?

      1. cytotoxic is just ever so concerned about these goings on in the conservative movement. See, he’s totally not opposed to legitimate conservative opinions, he just has these slight concerns

      2. “If they have to let racists speak, then why shouldn’t they let communists speak?”

        He stupidly thinks he has a point here.

        “And then what would be the point in calling it conservative?”

        He dick head, it’s NOT ABOUT CALLING YOURSELF THINGS.

        Jfc you just cannot stop proving you don’t get anything.

    4. Disinviting someone to give a speech representing you as a group is different than “shutting them up.” This event isn’t a debate, it’s a hosting event so people can listen to your speakers. If you don’t think what someone is likely to say is in line with your group’s values, you’re completely right to avoid letting them speak for you.

      If this was an open forum or a debate setting, they’d do well to invite these dissenting voices in order to prove their own stance. It’s not that.

  5. Buttigieg Just Pulled the Biggest Bull Crap With His Supposed List of Black Endorsements

    Mayor Pete, as he likes to call himself, tried touting a list of 400 black South Carolinians supporting what he calls his “Douglass Plan.” This plan is aimed specifically at helping black people in America. The only problem with his 400 endorsements were that 42 percent of the people were white, many on the list never recalled endorsing Buttigieg, and he used generic stock photos from black people in Kenya on his campaign website.

    1. His staff used stock photos from Kenya. White gentry Progs always turn out to be racist when the truth is known.

      1. To be fair to the small-town mayor, he looked through his photo album of friends and realized he didn’t have any black friends.

        He should have just used the photo of the muscular, MAGA country Nigerians who so brutally assaulted Jussey.

    2. Essentially, the campaign sent an email saying, “If you don’t want to to endorse Buttigieg, please let us know.” This means, if you did not respond to their email saying, “No, I don’t endorse Buttigieg,” then the campaign took your non-response as a sign you did actually endorse him.

      “If you don’t want to pay your fair share in taxes, please let us know.”

      “If you don’t want to have your guns conf–that is, bought back, please let us know.”

  6. The Keepers of the Gate have spoken. #AmericaFirst is not “mainstream.” My defense of unjustly prosecuted Proud Boys, patriotic young nationalists/groypers & demographic truth-tellers must not be tolerated. SPLC is cheering. https://t.co/yYyqocx1T5

    — Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) November 17, 2019

    You need a bit more practice playing your victim card. You played it way too early here.

    1. Fuck Malkin. American first is not the same thing and has no relationship to retards who run around claiming the Holocaust never happened and Jim Crow was no big deal. Fuck her for implying it does.

      1. Every time I’d ever seen her on a news show she always left me feeling that she was completely fake. Between what she would say and the way she would say it, it was like a bad caricature of whatever viewpoint she was going on about at the time. In short, she’s creepy.

        1. I get that same feeling. She is one of the many people in the media that I am left with no idea why I know who they are. Other than an absolutely shameless ability to promote herself, why does she have any kind of a platform more an anyone else who has an opinion?

        2. Fake? Not feeling that. Creepy though? Nailed it.

    2. Doesn’t it suck when the steal your material?

  7. Nick Fuentes doesn’t deny that the holocaust happened. I don’t agree with the guy, but lets be honest here. He explicitly said he believes the holocaust happened.

    1. Yes. I am not sure what people’s bitch with him about that is beyond his failure to sufficiently genuflect about it. The real problem with Fuentes is his complete ignorance and dismissal of Jim Crow.

      1. What the fuck dude, you literally just called him a Holocaust denier 2 posts up from this one. Shut the fuck up.

        1. No I didn’t. I talked about his views of Jim Crow. Learn how to read dumb ass.

      2. The real problem with Fuentes is his complete ignorance and dismissal of Jim Crow.

        As badly as Ron Paul?

        https://reason.com/2019/11/18/young-americas-foundation-michelle-malkin-nick-fuentes/#comment-8018713

  8. When I brought up Fuentes’ Holocaust/Cookie baking remarks (look them up), I got a reply that he was simply reading some viewer’s comments, which he was supposedly supposed to do for any reader who sent him enough money for that purpose.

    Has anyone non-hysterical looked into the accusations vs. Fuentes?

    1. Of course they haven’t. He is “alt right”. He is the enemy. What is the point of any of this if you can’t hysterically slander someone and virtue signaling?

      That said, it appears he did say a bunch of really stupid things about segregation and Jim Crow. I have seen the video where he says something to the effect of “so you had to drink from a different water fountain, big deal”. Maybe he was reading a letter then too but it doesn’t look like he was.

      1. Eddy also posted an informative video where he essentially downplays holocaust numbers through a smug, jokey video where he discusses “baking cookies in ovens” in relation to the math of how many Jews really could have been killed.

        Dude seems totes creepy.

        1. I saw his riff on segregation and he is a fucking moron. he is just as big of a moron as the campus leftist who run around thinking Che was a hero or that Stalin and Mao were nothing as bad as Hitler.

    2. do the non-hysterical care?

    3. Why would anyone care?

      “22 yr old shithead says stuff” isn’t news.

      1. You know, just using this as the title would have saved me a lot of reading.

  9. groypers.

    Ok, I heard this term for the first time like, yesterday, now I can’t get away from it.

    1. variations of which are commonly used as profile avatars among the alt-right and new right on Twitter and the alternative social networking service WrongThink.

      Additionally, Groypers (also known as Groyper Army) is the name of a group of far-right and alt-right nationalists and conservatives critical of the mainstream conservatism and led by political commentator Nicholas J. Fuentes.

      Alt-right, new right, alt-right nationalists and conservatives critical of mainstream conservatism. But lead by white hispanic, Nick Fuentes. This is all getting very confusing.

      What’s the diff between alt-right and new-right?

      1. You can’t tell anymore. Assholes on the left and mainstream right have slandered so many reasonable positions as “alt right” or “white nationalist”, the terms have no meaning anymore. And a whole lot of very nasty views are now in danger of becoming respectable again because of their association with so many reasonable ones.

      2. What’s the diff between alt-right and new-right?

        The media hyped the ‘alt-right’ label but it failed to really scare anyone since it described literally less than 300 people in a country of 350 million led by a fat McDonald’s addicted tweed blazer wearing dilettante in the shape of Richard Spencer, so they had to invent a new term and find a new poster boy in the hopes that it’ll actually catch on this time.

        Don’t be afraid of a couple dozen multibillionaires who exercise total control over the world’s financial institutions, technology platforms, and media. You need to be scared of a kid posting pepe the frog memes on 4chan.

        1. That Epstein story isnt’ going to disappear itself.

      3. Michael Malice wrote a book to help out

        1. That book is fucking awful.

    2. College Republicans are such uptight nerds, they manage to make Neo Nazis seem fun and subversive by comparison. Why are so many young people leftists, the mystery continues.

      1. Kids are insecure, and look for quick and easy validation. It’s not terribly mysterious. The cathedral is a real thing, and most college kids haven’t known anything else in their lives.

    3. Ok, I heard this term for the first time like, yesterday, now I can’t get away from it.

      Weird. It’s almost like there’s a coordinated narrative being built by every single media outlet in the country to menace the public with the imaginary hobgoblin of white nationalism for the 40 millionth time since Charleston.

      1. And we can always count on Rico to deliver the goods.

        1. It’s almost as if there is some system he uses to keep up.

  10. To riff on one of John’s comments, instead of being on the defensive about racism (“you’re the *real* racists,” to quote the mocking leftist paraphrase), conservatives ought to take up liberal values of equal opportunity and anti-racism – together with respect for the presumption of innocence and sound science – and throw it all in the left’s fact, calling them bigoted race-baiters.

    And not in the context of replying to race-baiting from the left, but in the context of demanding the left justify its racialist policies. Invite them to debate affirmative action, reparations, lowered standards of proof, etc., on their own merits, in an Oxford debate format. Offer them a real platform where their assertions are actually considered debatable propositions to be defended and criticized with logic and reason.

    Expose them if they refuse to debate.

    1. That is exactly it. Just tell the damn truth and make the left be honest about and defend its views. Just what the hell is the problem with “whiteness” and how do you square that contention with their claims they are not racialists?

    2. If you want to be provocative, the most provocative thing to do would be to invite some camera-hungry left-wing racialists to formal debates – invite some of the whiteness studies professors, Al Sharpton types, open-borders-is-the-only-nonracist-policy agitators, etc.

      If the invitees accept, eviscerate their arguments, If they don’t show up, use an empty chair or someone reading from their works to give their perspective.

      Then turn the tables on the left by demanding that their “mainstream” institutions disavow the silliness of the racialists.

      That’s how to be provocative.

      1. “That’s how to be provocative.”

        Al Sharpton. Provocative. What a joke.

        1. Seriously, he’s just a garden variety black racist.

          1. He’s the house negro of American conservatism. There’s a lot more money in that than garden variety black racism.

            1. “house negro”

              You guys are still doing that huh?

              1. Al Sharpton isn’t Reason’s go-to negro for nothing.

    3. Yes yes, conservatives that are being institutionally excluded from participation in publishing, banking, and education should conduct a scholarly debate with the left’s public intellectuals. Certainly it would result in wide-ranging coverage by the very media, business and higher ed communities from which they’ve been excluded in the first place.

      “If those dumbass Jews didn’t want to get exterminated they should have just had an Oxford style debate with prominent Nazi intellectuals!”

      1. Whatever the solution to the things you point out is, it isn’t running around saying stupid and historically ignorant things about Jim Crow and the Holocaust. So Fuentes isn’t helping no matter what the solution

        1. My overall impression of what passes for Holocaust denial is just as much an issue as what passes for racism.

          I want to hear the actual claims and why they are not factual. I get the general idea reasonable questions are getting smeared as bad think just because we don’t like where they go.

          Is questioning the number 6 million jews holocaust denial?

          Is questioning whether the jews dying from gas chambers was an accident or not holocaust denial?

          Is ruminating on the existence of other genocides and that the Holocaust wasn’t particularly unique in that regard holocaust denial?

          Is pointing out that all the other groups targeted for genocide being extinct while the Jews are still around holocaust denial?

          Are any of these questions even legitimate? Or they just the musings of a sick and twisted mind that hates Jews?

          1. “Is pointing out that all the other groups targeted for genocide being extinct while the Jews are still around holocaust denial?”

            No, but they live in the same neighborhood.

          2. Is questioning the number 6 million jews holocaust denial?

            If your contention that five million and not six million did, no it is not. If your contention is that none did or few did or that the Holocaust was somehow not targeted at Jews, then yes it is.

            Is questioning whether the jews dying from gas chambers was an accident or not holocaust denial?

            Yes. It wasn’t an accident.

            Is ruminating on the existence of other genocides and that the Holocaust wasn’t particularly unique in that regard holocaust denial?

            No it is not unless your point for doing that is to diminish the truth of what actually happened. Have there been other genocides? Sure, but damn few and none of them since Caesar conquered Gaul that occurred in the West.

            Is pointing out that all the other groups targeted for genocide being extinct while the Jews are still around holocaust denial?

            If you think pointing that out means anything, yes. Yes, that is true but what does it have to do with anything. If someone beats and robs you, what is the point of me pointing out that other people have been beaten and robbed other than to diminish what happened to you?

            I think any question is legitimate to ask. And any truthful answer legitimate to give. Not every question, however, is useful or worth asking.

            1. “Not every question, however, is useful or worth asking.”

              Often, the questions are more telling than the answers. Or, as Leon Trotsky told us, some questions answer themselves.

            2. You’ve never heard of the Albigensian crusade?

              1. Yeah – that one was pretty nasty.

          3. “Is questioning the number 6 million jews holocaust denial?”

            There were certainly fewer than 6 million Jews that died in the holocaust. Serious scholarship has recognized this for decades now. It’s closer to 5 million if memory serves.

            “Is questioning whether the jews dying from gas chambers was an accident or not holocaust denial?”

            I doubt the Jews who died in gas chambers were there by accident.

            “Is ruminating on the existence of other genocides and that the Holocaust wasn’t particularly unique in that regard holocaust denial?”

            No. Better to call it holocaust apologetics, holocaust minimizing, or holocaust normalizing.

            1. “Is ruminating on the existence of other genocides and that the Holocaust wasn’t particularly unique in that regard holocaust denial?”

              No. Better to call it holocaust apologetics, holocaust minimizing, or holocaust normalizing.

              The argument for the prevalence of holocaust education (as opposed to Armenian or Ethiopian) is that it was, in some ways, by magnitudes more heinous then the others.

              I find that argument kind of repugnant and it smacks of a kind of chauvinism and sense of superiority that is demonized when seen in other groups.

              So it isn’t specifically about minimizing but calling attention to others’ plights. If that serves to minimize, then perhaps it held to high a place to begin with.

              1. No it doesn’t. We talk about the Holocaust more than we do those because we are connected to it in ways that we are not to those genocide. We fought a war against the people who perpetrated it. It happened as a result of ideologies that Europe unleashed on the world. We are still a Western country. And that makes the holocaust relevant to us in ways the Armenian genocide is not. If we were a Muslim nation, it would be the Armenian genocide that would be relevant, though we likely would celebrate it rather than revile it.

                1. Plus the Armenian and Ethiopian genocides happened during the course of war.

                  The Holocaust is the only major example I know of where a population decided that another part of their population needed to be wiped out and systematically rounded them up in time of peace to enslave and exterminate them.

                  The attempted genocide of the Tutsi in Rwanda was maybe analogous, but that was also less systematic and more spontaneous (and considerably less successful).

                  1. “where a population decided that another part of their population needed to be wiped out and systematically rounded them up in time of peace to enslave and exterminate them.”

                    Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge?

                    China during the Cultural Revolution?

                    1. Both might be better characterized as post-revolutionary purges rather than genocide, no?

                      But the Khmer Rouge comes pretty close to what happened in the Holocaust. Closer than what happened to the Armenians and Ethiopians, anyway.

                    2. “China during the Cultural Revolution?”

                      The casualties only add up to a tiny percent of the total population. The cultural revolution was more a political move by Mao against his more conservative opponents in the party. Killing the rooster to frighten the monkey, so to speak.

                    3. The fact that it’s called “The Holocaust” rather than the “Shoah” or “Jewish Holocaust” should at least raise some eyebrows.

                  2. ” a population decided that another part of their population needed to be wiped out and systematically rounded them up in time of peace to enslave and exterminate them. ”

                    This didn’t happen with the European Jews until 1941, when WWII was well under way. And it wasn’t the German population who decided to exterminate the Jews, but Hitler, Himmler and a relatively small group of their minions.

                    1. This didn’t happen with the European Jews until 1941, when WWII was well under way.

                      Huh. Wasn’t aware of that.

                      Still think it resembles what happened to the Tutsi more than it resembles what happened to the Armenians and Ethiopians, who were on the other side in active wars.

                      Trying to wipe out your enemies that you’ve been at war with is a different thing from trying to racially purify your country.

                    2. Trying to wipe out your enemies that you’ve been at war with is a different thing from trying to racially purify your country.

                      Pretty sure Hitler didn’t think Jews were innocents who nevertheless had to be murdered.

                2. Both Armenians and Ethiopians are Christian nations and have been so longer than any European nation, western or not.

                3. “No it doesn’t. We talk about the Holocaust more than we do those because we are connected to it in ways that we are not to those genocide. We fought a war against the people who perpetrated it.”

                  If the reasoning is so benign, then it doesn’t make much sense to me why young Americans, radically disconnected by the dimensions of time and space from what happened in 1940s Germany, are treated with such hatred and contempt – not even for asking questions – but simply *making jokes* about the whole affair.

                  “It happened as a result of ideologies that Europe unleashed on the world.”

                  Sounds like a white guilt narrative.

              2. “The argument for the prevalence of holocaust education (as opposed to Armenian or Ethiopian) is that it was, in some ways, by magnitudes more heinous then the others.”

                No actually, that isn’t the argument.

              3. I get what you are saying and sympathize to some extent. This holocaust question is often politically motivated, depending on our relationship with the victims and the perpetrators. Congress for years refused to label the Turkish actions against the Armenians as genocide, but did so only very recently after the Turkish moves against Kurds in Syria. Another case could be the famines resulting from Stalin’s actions in the 30’s. Ukrainians have claimed this for themselves even though similar policies wreaked even greater damage against the people of Kazakhstan where half the population were victims. Check carefully the next time the horrors of communism is discussed here.

                1. In 20 countries around the world, saying the wrong things about the Holocaust will get you thrown in jail. Worldwide, dozens of people are in jail for exactly that crime, while in many other countries (and US states), you’ll be charged with “hate speech” crimes.
                  All this is FAR more-important than ANY historical question by itself on the subject. And unique to the subject.
                  Easily enough to make a denier out of me. Just in order to RESIST.

      2. “Yes yes, conservatives that are being institutionally excluded from participation in publishing, banking, and education should conduct a scholarly debate with the left’s public intellectuals.”

        Why not? Hysteria notwithstanding, there’s still a First Amendment, and if there are gatekeepers, there are still holes in the gate. Trump walked through one of these holes, so we know the holes are there.

        We know the gatekeepers would like to build a great, big, beautiful wall to keep out dissent, but we still have enough of the First Amendment left that that wall hasn’t been finished.

        So wall, gate, whatever, you can still get through it, especially (if I may say so) with provocative ideas like this.

        Have some “moderate” like Jonathan Haidt preside over a series of debates on the order of “RESOLVED, that affirmative action based on race (and sex) is a good policy and should be continued.” Or “RESOLVED, that white supremacy is pervasive in American and is a major factor in many of the country’s problems” or other nonsense culled from the ultra-woke.

        If nobody is camera-hungry enough to take the affirmative, have an empty chair and have some staff member quote from actual sources supporting the affirmative, choosing the strongest, most emotionally compelling arguments the wokesters can make. Then refute it.

        You think that won’t get at least some publicity?

    4. As is usual, the mainstream narrative of Republican “white nationalism” is not merely false, but the *opposite* of the truth.

      Republicans can’t even bring themselves to publicly question government mandated anti white racial quotas and preferences, nor oppose the relentless anti white hatred of the Leftist establishment.

      Worst. White Nationalists. Ever.

  11. As a libertarian who wants the early 2000s neocons like David Frum to regain control of American conservatism, I consider this a positive development.

    #LibertariansForABetterGOP
    #PutTheNeoconsBackInCharge

  12. This is a historical moment when mainstream white people think racism is shameful. It wasn’t always thus – it used to be shameful for whites to *oppose* racism (“would you want your daughter etc.”).

    One the one hand, these white folks are pulled toward the “antiracist” Democratic party. On the other hand, other white folks may conclude that if everything is racist, nothing is, and anyway other people get to be racist, so they may as well be racists too. To avoid both scenarios, there should be a liberal party which preaches genuine nonracism and single standards. The people who used to call themselves “liberals” are no good at this, it’s the conservatives if anyone who should be aggressively defending (American-style) liberalism, otherwise we’ll devolve into everything-is-racist versus nothing-is-racist and things will be shittier than today.

    1. You’d almost think there was a coordinated effort on the part of a couple dozen multibillionaires to foment racism, conflict and war in Western societies or something. That can’t be it though.

      1. Divide and conquer.

  13. YAF, a private organization, fired a contributor. This matters why?

    If you want to be a racist or racialist or mysogynist or anti-gay or antisemitic or whatever…I frankly don’t care. Go to the public square and make your case (in English, please). I mean, freedom of speech means just that; we are free to speak our minds.

    What Ms. Malkin discovered is that free speech does not mean free of consequences. You made your choice, now you have to live with it.

  14. it’s clear that what he means by “America First” is white nationalism.

    Is it? If it is so clear why is your only link to Vox? Doesn’t the lack of reputable linked material suggest it is not clear? And since the left thinks white nationalism includes everything outside their diversity framework citing their house organ doesn’t seem a legitimate place to start.

    I had never heard of this guy until last week but with this shoddy reporting I still don’t know anything about him. We seem to be citing extremist conclusions and expecting everyone else to agree without even seeing any evidence.

    he has opined that Jim Crow was no big deal.

    Was no big deal or is no big deal in the sense something that ended 50 years ago isn’t having much effect on today’s issues? I can’t tell from the twitter clip so your discipline in not citing first hand evidence is becoming a problem. If we’re supposed to cut off people just for having a different opinion on this guy shouldn’t you first provide some evidence your conclusions are reasonable?

    1. The talking points hit the journolist, what else do you need to know?

    2. Robby is from the “accept leftist talking points at face value” wing of the Libertarian party.

      However, this guy is a fucking nobody, and deep analysis of his positions will probably not reveal much worthwhile. He seems to have several ideas that aren’t fully fleshed out, and he also has some positions that seem to be for the purpose of provocation.

      In short, he’s a 22 yr old shithead. A very banal, not particularly noteworthy one at that.

      1. Like I said above, he is just proof that everyone under 30 is a moron regardless of politics. Maybe that has always been the case.

    3. He opined it was no big deal. You NBA re right that it is no big deal today. It was59 years ago

      1. “He opined it was no big deal.”

        I didn’t check the source, but you seemed to have missed that that wasn’t fully established.

        “50 years ago isn’t having much effect on today’s issues? I can’t tell from the twitter clip so your discipline in not citing first hand evidence is becoming a problem”

        Marshal appears to be asking for source material that will clarify his question, and definitely not your absolutely worthless opinion.

        1. The tape of what he said is all over the internet. It can be found in less than a minute on Google

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHgm-7nW0Y0
          Now why don’t you do everyone a favor and stop fucking lying. Go back to whatever hole you crawled out of where you can talk to people stupid enough to believe your lies.

  15. Malkin’s supporters are likely to argue that mainstream conservatism—what she calls Conservatism Inc., as there is always some shadowy corporate agenda at work in the minds of the immigration restrictionists

    You know, they can both be right. I’ve never heard of Fuentes or “groypers” (I guess they were the ones who disrupted DJT Jr’s talk the other day) but there’s no reason that they can’t be crypto-racists while “Conservative Inc” remains an SPLC-like fundraising con-job with no serious intentions to pursue electoral victory. If Malkin knows Fuentes & Co espouse actual racist views and still defends them, well, “my country right or wrong” is an occupational hazard of being a partisan talking head. I mean, Jonah Goldberg (partisan stripe: never-Trump) apparently actually said that the President works for Congress the other day.

    1. +1000. Both sides are clowns. If Conservative Inc doesn’t like people like Fuentes getting a following, they need to stop being such worthless, lying sacks of shit and giving him an opening to get one.

  16. MM is the Cookie Kwan of conservatives — number one on west side.

  17. Robby keep believing in that false equivalence; with the conservatives are just as bad nonsense. Keep hammering at it and maybe you can succeed like George Costanza.

  18. When did John take a break from sperging on the internet long enough to become a Jim Crow expert?

    1. Gee, Sid, sorry you are so stupid and ignorant you find even a basic grasp of American history to be impressive. You should work on that.

      1. How many after school specials did you watch?

  19. I wasn’t very familiar with him before but based on John’s description Fuentes sounds like an old-school crank, the type of guy who in the pre-internet days would live in a beat-up trailer and write dozens of bizarre ranting letters to his local paper about the hidden dangers of the Trilateral Commission and Rothschilds’ control of the Federal Reserve.

    Although YAF is probably wise in PR terms to distance themselves from Fuentes himself, I’m not sure how excommunicating anyone who happens to share his opinions from their movement is going to make the Left like them more. If anything, such weak support for your political ideals breeds contempt, not respect.

    Mainstream Conservatism did the same thing to the Buchanan wing of their movement and the result was not a friendly entente with the Left but a bitterly divided party that turned to Trump and left them out in the cold.

    The point has been made before: if the people are told by their politicians that their opinions are not respectable or worthy of consideration, then they will turn to disrespectable politicians who promise to get the job done.

    1. “Although YAF is probably wise in PR terms to distance themselves from Fuentes himself, I’m not sure how excommunicating anyone who happens to share his opinions from their movement is going to make the Left like them more.”

      I think you are misconstruing the YAF strategy. It’s not the Left they want to appeal to, it’s non racists. Once upon a time they were the same people but things change. Young Americans tend to catch these things before old Americans.

      1. “It’s not the Left they want to appeal to, it’s non racists.”

        Well, they’re clearly going the wrong way about it. “Non-racism” shouldn’t require throwing so many people of color and Jewish people under the bus, all in the pursuit of proving that you, too, believe Whitey Is Bad.

  20. Read Ron Unz and American Pravda @ UNZ REVIEW for some commentary on the Holocaust. Also, “Breaking the Spell” by Nicholas Kollerstrom provides valuable insight on the subject.
    Someone said that people have the strongest opinions about subjects they know the least about, so read up before you form an opinion.

  21. “immigration restrictionists”?!? You mean, people who think immigration laws should be enforced?

  22. Well, what do you expect from the pro-immigration Koch-owned Reason Mag? Reasonable border controls?

  23. Israel is a bigger threat to peace and liberty in the U.S. than Iran is. Prove me wrong.

    Pro Tip: you can’t.

  24. Malkin should have been kicked out long ago, for advocating concentration camps for Arabs.

  25. I knew MIchelle in the late 90s, when she was still a local newspaper columnist in Seattle. Her husband, Jesse, was quite active in the LP. Michelle was almost always with him and — Seattle being Seattle — she was close to “libertarian-leaning.”

    Then she went national, and become one of THE biggest hate-mongers on the authoritarian right … as if she was competing against Limbaugh for the Nastiness Trophy. Or Tucker/Jeanine/Hannity today.

    This will likely cause her to get even crazier … which will play well to her base. She can just copy Trump’s “Witch Hunt” screeching.

    1. I knew MIchelle in the late 90s, when she was still a local newspaper columnist in Seattle. Her husband, Jesse, was quite active in the LP. Michelle was almost always with him and — Seattle being Seattle — she was close to “libertarian-leaning.”

      I guess she didn’t lean hard enough, eh Mikey? If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it. Oh oh oh.

      1. How’d you miss THIS: Her husband, Jesse ….”

  26. Great.

    Looks like it’s time for another Conservative inc purge of anyone who actually opposes the worst PC cult marxists, Lib Leftists, Black street gangs, islamic terrorists, media monopolists.

    Seems like it was just last year that Reason Magazine here was trying purge Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporters for the terrible, unforgivable sin of just “Noticing” Black AA race riots in the Rodney King LA riots of 1991, and also just “noticing” that AIPAC is the most powerful foreign interest lobby and doesn’t always have USA’s best interest and also the Ron Paul newsletter published some negative comments about Saint Martin Luther King Jr noting the MLK was sexually immoral for a Christian “reverend” and that MLK had too many Communist associations.

    These Conservative purges have been a recurring event since Bill Buckley Jr. purged Conservatives in the John Burch Society and anyone who took Ayn Rand seriously. And then when the J Neo Conservatives took over National Review and most of Conservative Inc the purges took on Trotsky vs Stalin proportions.

    Remember when very New/Neo Conservative Canadian David Frum purged all the honest Conservatives who opposed the endless J Neo Conservative wars, interventions, regime changes in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya?

    This piece of S*** David Frum’s “Unpatriotic Conservatives” “we turn our backs on them” Levantia Beria would have been proud. Frum is of course the writer of THE worst ever presidential speech George W Bush’s “Axis of Evil” that somehow the United States had to lead the entire free world (Saudi Arabia? Haiti?) in a crusade for American style democracy and freedom against a secret Axis of Evil conspiracy of Iraq, Iran and North Korea?

    WTF?

    But, anybody that wrote or said this was utter BS – they got purged.

    OK so it’s purge time again – the terrible sinners are anybody that opposes open borders immigration to the USA/the West – we’re talking the mass migration of the entire populations of Central America, India, Haiti, Nigeria and the Congo!

    Also purged is anybody that objects to Confederate Statues/Graves and Statues of Christopher Columbus being defaced/destroyed by open Antifa, BlackLiesMatter Communists!

    Also being purged is any White male with a set of balls that won’t allow himself, women and the elderly from being physically attacked by masked Antifa Communists attacking regular Americans with bicycle locks and bear mace!

    OK folks – so that’s the purge of the week by YAF. I shudder to think how the editors of Reason Magazine are going to go on this one.

    “That’s not who we are”!

    Who are you?

    1. “Who are you?”

      I’m Al Sharpton and I resent your mention of Martin Luther King Jr. and Rodney King. So my family name is not King, I’m still Reason’s house negro.

      1. Clever. Plus, his “history” is .. psycho bigotry.
        He SEEMS to have swallowed Trump’s shameful bullshit on WHO initiated the violence, beating and murder in Charlottesville.

    2. “Who are you?”

      I’m Lavrentiy Beria and I resent your mangling my name. Also I’m not Jewish.

    3. You mean the freaking psycho Ron Paul …. who BRAGS about having sponsored a bill to forbid SCOTUS from even hearing any challenges to DOMA

      “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, … I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts

      Listed as cosponsor
      https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/3313/cosponsors

      Homosexuals would have been the first entire group denied the defense of their constitutional rights since … slavery.
      Niggers and fags, just like your manifesto here.(/sarc)

      When THAT failed, he snarled that “Rogue Judges” had overturned DOMA …. ALSO fascist. Denies Checks and Balance … Balance of Power and three COEQUAL branches. Hello? Hello? Have you taken US History?

      His bullshit on the 10th Amendment is the SAME JIM CROW states rights of his youth … says states have powers never delegated … and the Constitution leaves us DEFENSELESS from state abuses. That is NOT federalism. It’s the same bullshit used by Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, who activated his state militia — armed force to keep 9 black kids from registering at Little Rock’s Central High, in violation of their constitutional rights … until President Eisenhower jammed GREATER force up Faubus’s ass. EQUAL, UNALIENABLE AND/OR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS

      Ron Paul Denies the very existence of the NINTH AMENDMENT … the LIBERTARIAN Amendment … that incorporates the Declaration’s Unalienable Rights into the Bill of Rights …, and SEVERELY limits the 10th.

      We don’t purge conservatives … THEY’RE NOT LIBERTARIANS. Libertarian is the noun form of LIBERTY … and Ron Paul and Orval Faubus are enemies of liberty, as is your manifesto here . Spare us your bullshit history lesson.

      1. “Liberty” is the noun form of “Liberty”.

        Because “Liberty” is a noun.

        Just sayin’.

      2. It’s Mighty White and Kreeeeeeshchaaan of the Tenthers to conveniently pretend to forget to mention that the “States Rights” they are advocating for was already tried and sent to the trash heap of history by the Founding Fathers when they scrapped the failed Articles of Confederation.

        1. I guess you never heard of Jim Crow, or Ron Paul (today’s version)

  27. Mainstream Conservatism is the alt-Right

    Conservatives forget, we have a taped deathbed (after he found out that he was dying) confession from the architect of the Reagan Revolution:

    “You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ni@@er, ni@@er, ni@@er.” By 1968 you can’t say “ni@@er” – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. . . . You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Ni@@er, ni@@er.”

    We have known for decades, even before all the evidence came in that proved trickle-down/supply side Satanomics, aka Conmanitalism, is nothing but a jihad against shared prosperity and the middle class by the economic terrorists who hate us for the freedoms that strong unions, high marginal tax rates on the parasite class, and proper financial regulations (aka “a mixed market economy” aka Capitalism) gave us in the late 30s, the 40s, the 50s, the 60s, and the early 70s until the economic terrorists used the economic upheaval caused by the oil embargo to launch their attack against the middle class and shared prosperity, that “cutting taxes” and/or “tax cuts” was nothing more, or less, than Conservatives repeatedly yelling out the N-Word.

    1. You may be correct about the n word, with some hyperbole.
      Trickle down is crazy, but even crazier to link it with Reagan. His cuts were identical to Kennedy’s, which Kennedy described as “across the board, top to bottom, personal and corporate.” Their two tax cuts launched the ONLY two postwar booms, since WWII ended, and both began from the worst economies since 1945. BOTH inherited an industrial base in collapse. So both included a targeted incentive for new investments there, and both restored industrial jobs.
      And BOTH were attacked by the far left, “tax cuts the rich,” because the same people who brainwashed you think ANY tax cuts for the rich are evil.

      The 1986 tax cuts, now considered as Reagan’s, were authored by Democrats, Bradley in the Senate, Gephart in the House. In that election, they campaigned on having repealed Reaganomics accelerated depreciation — but they also repealed Kennedy’s bonus investment tax credit, restoring the destruction of our industrial base that Kennedy partially restored, with Reagan getting us back to even with our trade competitors. In 1986,they said they repealed tax loopholes for corporations. We were then roughly equal to all our major trade competitors. They had, literally, INCREASED TAXES on new investments in manufacturing. which either create factory jobs or increase productivity. THAT is when we started losing manufacturing jobs. Today, they blame Reaganomics, which they repealed, for the damage THEY caused.

      Later, the loons attacked Bush2’s as “TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH” — but 85% of the cut went to taxpayers with UNDER $250,000, who had been paying only 45% of the tax! They were paying less than than half the tax, but got almost the entire cut. So you’ve been TOTALLY suckerd … just as badly as Trumpsters.

      You’re a troll. running around pasting slogans and soundbites you cannot possibly understand. Just like the alt-right does. So you’ll never see this.
      But curious and/or thoughtful readers need a break from the hatred now destroying America. And the truth

  28. YAF clearly a woke commie organization.

    1. HE SAID “WOKE”!!!!!

  29. Don’t laugh. There was a time when only YAF and the LP stood up for nuclear energy. Nobody knew abt the LP, so all you could find were these mystical girl-bulliers whose saving grace was that they were in no hurry for the US to ban energy or join the Soviet Union.

  30. Wait a minute! IMMIGRATION is an issue that deserves robust debate, but the HOLOCAUST is not (in fact, anyone daring to undertake such is to be condemned, along with anyone else who fails to condemn them)?

Please to post comments