Yes, I am disappointed by @jihadwatchRS throwing me under the bus, but I will always honor his work and courage. That’s just how I roll. https://t.co/YJxUcjXsJD
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) March 5, 2020
On Monday I published here at Jihad Watch “A Letter to Michelle Malkin: I urge you to rethink your defense of a Jew-hater and Holocaust-denier” by Vanessa Jones. Jones’ article is a polite request to Malkin to rethink her support for Nick Fuentes, who has been accused of antisemitism and Holocaust denial. At the top of the article I placed a video of Malkin from a recent conference of Fuentes’ America First group, where she says:
Already right out of the gate, before I even knew who Nick Fuentes was, before I knew who Groypers were, I was being tarred as an anti-Semite. It’s become a useless, meaningless term and everybody knows it. And that’s why they’re so desperate to tar all of us as that. 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.
It was when I saw that video that I decided to run Jones’ article. Malkin is right that it is ridiculous for the Left to claim that criticism of George Soros is anti-Semitic, when Soros was by his own admission a Nazi collaborator during World War II. She is also right that to charge critics of the Anti-Defamation League with anti-Semitism is likewise ridiculous, as the ADL is a Leftist propaganda organization that has frequently condemned and opposed friends of Israel who are not Leftists and even Israel itself for defending itself.
But when Malkin ridiculed the idea that it is anti-Semitic “to question whatever the precise number is of people who perished in World War II,” she is not making a disinterested historical inquiry. The only controversy over the number of people who were killed in World War II is over how many people were killed in the Holocaust. There is a place for careful historical inquiry into this. Historical investigation is always to be encouraged. Malkin was not, however, speaking to a historians’ conference. The minimization of the number of people who were killed in the Holocaust has become a political tool. The claim that Jews have exaggerated the number of people who were murdered in the Holocaust in order to claim victim status, and victim privileges, has long circulated among anti-Semites, whether they’re on the Left or on the Right, or are Islamic supremacists. It is a basis of efforts to discredit and destroy the U.S.-Israel alliance, and ultimately the State of Israel itself. Holocaust denial, as well as Holocaust minimization, thus aids the global jihad, which both the U.S. and Israel face.
That’s why I thought it important, and consistent with our mission at Jihad Watch, to make a statement by running Jones’ article: because politicized and ahistorical Holocaust minimization abets the jihad, as well as because socialist, globalist internationalism must be rejected for free societies to survive, and the America First principle is being unjustly associated with anti-Semitism. There is absolutely no reason why someone has to be anti-Semitic, or at least anti-Israel, in order to be America First and oppose open borders and mass migration. The oft-repeated claim that “the Jews” are behind the push for these things ignores the fact that many Jews dissent from the Leftist agenda, and that the Jews who do support such things are doing so because they’re Leftists, not because of their Jewish identity or Jewish principles.
When Fuentes made his classless statements likening Jews to cookies and claiming that it would have been impossible to bake so many within that short period of time, maybe he was just being a stupid kid who didn’t realize the implications of his remarks, or what forces he was abetting. His supporters insist that he isn’t anti-Semitic and doesn’t deny the Holocaust, and that these claims are exaggerated by his enemies. I didn’t know anything about him myself, so when this controversy began I searched around and found, among other things, this video. It’s not an old one, reflecting positions he may no longer hold; it’s from November. In it, he mockingly affirms that he does not deny the Holocaust, and repeats several times the baseless claim that if he did deny it, he would be killed, as others have been.
I found this video repulsive and stupid. Holocaust deniers are not being murdered, and are not cowering in fear for their lives. Fuentes is either dishonest or misinformed. This doesn’t mean I think he should be forcibly silenced. Quite the contrary. I formed this opinion of him by actually listening to him, and others should be able to do so as well, and then his arguments will stand or fall on their merits. We don’t need self-appointed guardians of acceptable opinion censoring Fuentes, or me, or Michelle Malkin, or anyone else. The best way to refute Nick Fuentes is to allow him to be heard and engage with him on the basis of evidence, not to silence him. What’s more, the Vanessa Jones piece is not some attack on Malkin, but a respectful request that she reconsider throwing her support behind those who conflate the America First label with anti-Semitism.
So I thought it rather odd that Malkin tweeted last night about my throwing her under the bus. Even odder are the people commenting on her tweet, claiming that I’m throwing her under the bus in order to silence her, or to court favor from the political and media establishment. Both claims are simply laughable. I hold those self-appointed guardians of acceptable opinion in utter contempt, and would consider it a failure on my part if they did support me. The Republicans and “conservatives” such as New Hampshire State Rep. Steven Smith who dance to the Left’s tune and respond “How high?” when Leftists say “Jump!” are even more contemptible. My belief in the freedom of speech and free inquiry are firm and consistent; I don’t believe anyone should be forcibly silenced, or canceled, or anything of the kind. As I said of Fuentes, let everyone be heard, and their arguments accepted or rejected on their merits.
In light of that, it isn’t even true that I threw Malkin under the bus. Is no disagreement allowed? I thought it was only the Left that closed off the possibility of any discussion, any give-and-take, any debate. I do believe that in the video here, Malkin is throwing red meat to juvenile Jew-haters who traffic in Holocaust denial, or at very least Holocaust minimization, and the enthusiastic applause that her World War II remark received is confirmation of that. So I thought it necessary to say something.
The principle of America First is all-important today. For seventy years or more it has been wrongfully equated with isolationism and worse, while an internationalism that is ultimately detrimental to America and Americans, and to free society in general, made great gains. America’s alliance with Israel is not a manifestation of that internationalism, but is completely in line with the America First philosophy, which does not preclude alliances with other nations. The U.S.-Israel alliance is a rational and mutually beneficial in light of the two nations’ common foe (the global jihad), shared political and societal principles, and more.
Accordingly, I thought it was important to publish Vanessa Jones’ article asking Malkin to reconsider her positions. Reconsider, not shut up or be shut up. As Theo Van Gogh said to Mohammed Bouyeri, who was murdering him for insulting Islam, “Can’t we talk about this?” Well, can’t we? Malkin said that she honors my work and courage, and I certainly honor her work and courage. That does not mean and should not mean blind, uncritical agreement or alignment, which I do not ask of anyone and do not grant to anyone. I’m as disappointed as she is, disappointed that all this has been necessary. But the America First principle is too important, at this critical moment in our national life, to let all this go by in silence.