So many times I have spoken at events where other speakers have spent all their time explaining that they’re not actually racist hatemongering bigots. The impulse to do this is understandable, and I’ve done it myself, since the mainstream media so relentlessly defames those who speak honestly about the real root causes of jihad terror. At the same time, it is important not to be defensive, and never to accept the mainstream media paradigm. We are standing for human rights, for the freedom of speech, and for the equality of rights of all people before the law. “Journalists” who refuse to acknowledge that or give us a fair hearing should always be challenged. Hence this email exchange I had this morning:
“Journalist” to Spencer:
Dear Mr Spencer,
I am a trainee journalist at City University London and my colleagues and I are doing a project on anti-Muslim rhetoric. We are focusing on the rise of this in the UK and beyond and the factors influencing this by looking at the police force, right-wing activism groups and the media.
Your organisation is an intrinsic resource in learning more about this area and we would love to speak to you about the ethos of your group.
Therefore, we were wondering whether it would be possible to speak with you or a representative from Jihad Watch and discuss this issue.
We would not take up too much of your time and would just send on some brief questions via email.
Thank you very much.
Spencer to “journalist”:
I’m not interested in being demonized. If you have any interest in presenting opposition to jihad activity in a fair light, I would speak with you, but from your remarks here it is clear that you do not. I do not in reality engage in “anti-Muslim rhetoric” of any kind. Nor am I “right-wing.” I’m not interested in abetting the spread of these libels.
The idea that opposing jihad terror and Sharia oppression constitutes “anti-Muslim rhetoric” is a staple of the propaganda from groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the mainstream media eagerly parrots it. When they do this, they inadvertently shoot themselves in the foot, because they’re implying that to oppose jihad violence, legally sanctioned beating of women, the institutionalized oppression of non-Muslims, the denial of the freedom of speech, and other violent and oppressive aspects of Sharia is to be “anti-Muslim.” So all Muslims support such things? It sounds as if they’re far more “anti-Muslim” than any counter-jihadist will ever be.