The strategy of Islamic supremacists and their Leftist allies from the beginning has been to smear any opponent of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism as “hateful,” “bigoted,” etc. It’s a sign of how debased the public discourse has become today that such charges get any traction at all. Has it ever before happened in human history that virtually the entire intelligentsia of a nation decided that self-defense against a manifest threat was wrong, even evil, and that those calling attention to the threat were their real foe, not those who were working to undermine the nation’s security?
They’re aware of the absurdity of this, and it makes them desperately afraid of those of us who are calling attention to the jihad threat. Thus they work overtime to demonize and defame us, lying about what we say and do and stand for (cf. Hope Not Hate’s thoroughly mendacious campaign to keep Pamela Geller and me out of the UK) and trying to render us so toxic that no one will dare have anything to do with us. Hence stalker Nathan Lean’s smear campaigns to get me canceled where I am scheduled to speak, and similar campaigns against virtually everyone who stands against jihad terror, wherever they’re scheduled to appear.
As Saul Alinsky said, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.” His thuggish children and heirs are doing just that: picking off the defenders of freedom one by one, isolating, demonizing and marginalizing them, and making people who stage and host speakers afraid to invite them, for fear of the firestorm that is certain to ensue. And now pressure is even being put on other speakers at events where I do appear. Take this news story about the heat being put on a cowardly speaker at an American Freedom Alliance conference at which I spoke last month — for the crime of standing in the same room with me.
It’s a bit of a pity that this article is about Fraser being confronted with being in my presence, since the principle is the point here, not my work. The point is that confronted by these demonization tactics, the worst thing that freedom activists can do is acquiesce to them and allow one of their own to be destroyed. But they do, again and again, perhaps thinking that their own turn will not come. But it will. It will. And that’s why it is so important to stand firm. But few, if any, have caught on to that yet.
Anyway, I had never heard of Ronnie Fraser before this conference. I am impressed with him — with how he collapses quicker than a house of cards here. And over what? I’m identified as having been banned from Britain. One would like to think that a Western government’s decision to do such a thing would carry some moral authority, and the Jewish Chronicle certainly assumes here that it does, as apparently does Ronnie Fraser as well. But in light of their previous ban on Geert Wilders, and their recent admission of Mohammed al-Arefe, who was advocated violent jihad, Jew-hatred, and wife-beating, it is hard to sustain such an idea. What’s more, the UK Home Office sent me a letter stating I was banned for saying that Islam has a doctrine of warfare against unbelievers, which is rather obviously true.
Nonetheless, Fraser hastens to assure the Chronicle that “while I have heard of him, I did not attend Robert Spencer’s talk, nor do I in any way align myself with or advocate his particular doctrine.” What part of my “particular doctrine” does he reject? The defense of the freedom of speech? Or the freedom of conscience? Or equality of rights of all people before the law? Or is Fraser uncritically accepting the libelous claims from the Left and Islamic supremacists that I actually stand for something quite different? By not saying what it is exactly to which he objects, Fraser is certainly reinforcing the impression that I stand for some dark, sinister thing that no decent person would accept and that gets the likes of me banned from Britain.
Even more weaselly is this: “In a statement this week, Mr Fraser said he ‘would have perhaps taken a different view’ on whether to attend the conference had he known the ‘level of controversy’ surrounding Mr Spencer.” Note that he says he might not have come not because something I say or advocate, but because of the “level of controversy” surrounding me. In other words, he is saying he can’t take the heat — and signaling to the enemies of freedom that all they have to do is raise the “level of controversy” surrounding someone, and the cowards like Fraser will go scurrying away.
Henceforth I will ring a bell and shout “Unclean, unclean!” as I approach any public place. And I am busy collecting the addresses of everyone who was at In and Out Burger the day I had lunch there, so they can apologize to their respective employers and friends for being in my presence.
But this is not just about Fraser any more than it is about me. It’s about all the pressure on wimps and lily-livered cowards like him, for the simple and obvious reason that that pressure works. Note also that “Jewish community leaders had attempted to discourage Mr Fraser from taking part in the event.” Perhaps these are the same Jewish community leaders who visited the pro-jihad East London Mosque and who are now supporting Tell Mama, the new Muslim advocacy group that was recently caught artificially inflating statistics about anti-Muslim hate-crimes in the wake of the Woolwich jihad murder. They think that, as the old saying goes, if they feed the crocodile, it will eat them last. And maybe it will. But it will most assuredly eat them, after having gobbled up Ronnie Fraser some time ago.
A teacher has explained his decision to appear at a controversial American conference that featured an activist who is banned from Britain.
Ronnie Fraser said he agreed to speak at the American Freedom Alliance (AFA) event following his experience in bringing an unsuccessful employment tribunal against the University and College Union.
He appeared at the Los Angeles conference despite the presence of Robert Spencer, who was last week banned from entering Britain by Home Secretary Theresa May. She said Mr Spencer’s presence in this country would “not be conducive to the public good”.
Jewish community leaders had attempted to discourage Mr Fraser from taking part in the event.
In a statement this week, Mr Fraser said he “would have perhaps taken a different view” on whether to attend the conference had he known the “level of controversy” surrounding Mr Spencer.
Mr Fraser appeared on two panels to discuss antisemitism in Europe and the continent’s cultural, political and social future. In April, Mr Fraser lost his case against his union after accusing it of harassment and antisemitism.
The AFA describes itself as “a non-political, non-partisan movement which promotes, defends and upholds Western values and ideals”. It promotes activism on what it says is the “Islamic penetration of Europe”.
Other speakers at the two-day conference in California included Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who was cleared two years ago of inciting hatred against Muslims following comments about Islam.
Mr Fraser said: “I went to this conference to talk about antisemitism in Britain and to reflect on my own personal experiences of it, and my recent tribunal case against the UCU.
“While I have heard of him, I did not attend Robert Spencer’s talk, nor do I in any way align myself with or advocate his particular doctrine.”
Mr Spencer is director of the Jihad Watch group and author of a number of books on Islam. He had been scheduled to appear at an English Defence League march in London last weekend before his ban.
He said his exclusion was “craven capitulation on the part of British authorities to fascism and Islamic supremacism.”
The AFA event was titled “Europe’s Last Stand” and focused on “debt, demography and the abandonment of national sovereignty”.