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.
B. Katz says
Thank you Robert Spencer. Thank you for using your laser sharp mind to root out the weeds of antisemitism. You have nothing to apologize for. You are right and Michelle Malkin is wrong. It is true that sometimes the charge of antisemitism is used too broadly but not in this instance. The holocaust deniers constantly try to minimize or totally discredit the Holocaust. Comparing incinerated people with baked cookies is one way.
mortimer says
Agree with BK: ‘minimizing’ the horror of Hitler’s factories of death is unacceptable. While I don’t think Malkin is a true anti-Semite, I think she came under the charming influence of a genuine anti-Semite. She should admit her poor judgement and move forward. That will restore her well-deserved reputation for good analysis. She needs to apply the same tough analysis to herself when she has been wrong.
No one bats one thousand and she should simply take responsibility for her mistake.
Roland says
I agree with B.Katz and Mortimer. I would add that William F. Buckley made conservatism respectable when he opposed right-wing anti-Semitism.
carpediadem says
Malkin is being oversensitive and quite wrong here. I have admired her work in the past but not being able to deal with disagreement is ridiculous.
Maybe she is invested in this Fuentes character?
And who she is married to means nothing. Ray Hanania is married to a Jewish woman and freely demonises Israel, having been an adviser to the PLO.
Doc Verit says
Robert writes the following: “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.”
Many errors and/or jumping to false conclusions/suggestions in what Robert sets forth, and so he might need to apologize to M. Malkin for this if it turns out that he is wrong about her.
First Jumping to a False Conclusion/Suggestion: “Malkin was not, however, speaking to a historians’ conference.”
So what? Robert speaks at all sorts of events and does a very fine job, but I don’t believe he avoids making any kind of historical reference unless he is speaking only to historians at a historians’ conference. This being so, there is nothing wrong with Malkin making such claims to a variety of audiences, plus what is the context of her claim or question if such is posed by Malkin?
Second Jumping to a False Conclusion/Suggestion: “The minimization of the number of people who were killed in the Holocaust has become a political tool.”
Again, so what? Because some people use facts or question facts with malevolent motives does not mean that Malkin has done this in her questioning the actual numbers. What else has she written or said about this that would provide a more objective assessment instead of insinuating that Malkin falls into the category of people minimizing the number of people killed in the Holocaust for political purposes to unfairly harm Jews. This accusation by innuendo is very unfortunate, especially coming from Robert who has faced many such accusations himself over the years.
Third Jumping to a False Conclusion/Suggestion: “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.”
Did Malkin specifically speak/write in this manner? Did she claim that Jews alone have done the alleged exaggeration? Or has she claimed that many people not limited to Jews have exaggerated the number? Has Malkin claimed that Jews have exaggerated the number to claim victim status and victim privileges? If so, where has this been specifically done by her, and in what context? And why point out that such has been circulated among anti-Semites if not to indeed suggest that Malkin is indeed one of them or a useful idiot of anti-Semites? This is a sloppy and speculative “guilt by alleged association” attack on Malkin and it matters not if she actually holds the positions of others; she is to be tarred and feathered as one of them.
Fourth Jumping to a False Conclusion/Suggestion: “…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.”
Is this what Malkin has actually done, or is it just assumed to be the case? What has Malkin written or said about the US-Israel alliance and the State of Israel? Is she pro or con, and what are her reasons? And again, how does asking for actual numbers of what was done automatically mean that one is engaging in Holocaust minimization? What if the numbers are actually wrong? What happened to Jews and others murdered in the Holocaust was absolutely horrific of course, but it will not do any of us any good if we find out that actual numbers were exaggerated, because true enemies of the Jews will be able to use the flawed claims to paint a false picture of Jews and their integrity.
Might I suggest that instead of basically declaring Michele Malkin to be guilty by innuendo and by association, you invite her to write another article or letter that expresses her specific views on all of the issues wherein Robert has labeled her to be anti-Semitic or carrying water for anti-Semites. That would be the most honest and principled way to either expose Malkin as a closet anti-Semite and your assumptions about her are correct, or that you wrongly accused her or suggested something about her that is simply wrong, and in which case you would owe her an apology.
carpediadem says
I had not heard that comparison and find it utterly detestable.
The claims of antisemitism as detailed above are actually made by different people. For instance the people who often support George Soros but hate Jews and are freely antisemitic suddenly become very affectionate of that term when it’s applied to their pet Soros, but strangely silent and denying of AS when nonSoros actual practicing Jews are beaten up.
As to the questioning of the Holocaust figures, though Robert is right in what he says here I must add that the constant “discussion” or “questioning” of the numbers are a very ugly way of insinuating that Jews are liars, engaging in a giant con about the murders they have suffered and that good honest Christian white folk are never guilty of anything against Jews, let alone a horrific genocide.
That “questioning” also always implies that Jews who get angry about this are attempting to “silence” good honest inquiry rather than slamming those who defame them and deny that tragedy.
mortimer says
Reply to carpediem: Leftards are amoral and opportunistic. They are concerned with acquiring dominance and their ends justify their amoral means.
Those who refuse to denounce the Holocaust are emboldening those who wish it repeated.
Silence only helps the perpetrators.
b.a. freeman says
holy S**T, what’s going on here?!!???
mr. spencer, i could not agree more with U and ms. jones. free speech *SPECIFICALLY* means that uncomfortable, unwanted, and even *hated* speech *M*U*S*T* be allowed – not because it is right, because it often is not, but because it is *vital* that all may freely speak without fear of censure or violence. letting only what most people believe be spoken openly is a recipe for the speech that socialist/fascist germany and italy, and socialist/communist russia and her subject nations, “enjoyed.” as soon as i hear somebody say that somebody needs to stop talking or be shut up, i stop listening to them, except to make sure that my family, my friends, my community, and myself are not next up for physical attack.
ms. malkin, what ms. jones and mr. spencer said was not an attack; it was a plea for reconsideration. don’t give in to the brownshirts!
CogitoErgoSum says
Telling someone they are getting on the wrong bus is not the same as throwing them under the bus.
b.a. freeman says
well said!
+1
gravenimage says
Good point, CogitoErgoSum.
carpediadem says
Hey, well put! 🙂
mortimer says
Perfectly expressed.
On the other hand, Malkin’s remark was hyperbole. She should take an exhortation from her friend Robert Spencer.
Artist says
amen
Patrick Kelley says
Throwing red meat to anti-Semites is never a good policy/technique…??/??
Auntie Analogue says
Has the United States an alliance with Israel? If it has, when did Congress approve it, when did a U.S. President sign-off on it? When did Israel enter into and sign-off on a U.S.-Israel alliance? Does anyone know of a formal U.S.-Israel alliance?
James says
Who cares. Do we want Hamas and the PA to drive the Jews into the ocean? That is sort of asking if the US had an alliance with Great Britain in WW II, and if not who approved it.
Islam_Is Islam says
@Auntie Analogue: An alliance with the only true Democracy in the Middle East does make sense. That fact being recognized, I do not know of any formal US-Israel alliance. Is one necessary?
Tom Cheria says
I think our alliance is not because Israel is a democracy but because Israel is the first bulwark against Satan worshipers.
gravenimage says
Civilized Israel is our ally.
Westman says
Here is a good reference about the de facto alliance: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/u-s-israel-a-special-alliance
eduardo odraude says
I suppose Auntie’s implication is that our friendship with Israel is a conspiracy arranged behind the scene by evil Jewish money and influence, since after all, we don’t have a formal military alliance with Israel. Some nefarious stuff behind the scenes is responsible for our support for Israel.
The Jew haters and seekers of racial purity are a sad lot. They don’t realize that Judaism is integral to Christianity and to the West and to all that the West values. But then, the Jew haters are often neo-fascists, neo-Nazis, or Muslims, which means they dissent from the main lines of Western civilization, with its endless questioning and many long term trends rejecting authoritarianism.
Auntie Analogue says
My dear eduardo odraude, you oughtn’t read into my questions an “implication” that’s not in them. I asked plain questions devoid of ideological “implication.”
Tom Cheria says
It is the right & prudent thing for United States to have an alliance with Israel that doesn’t mean US solders should fight on behalf of Israel against Israel’s enemies. Having an alliance with Israel is America First. Israel is the FIRST bullwark against Satan worshipers.
For example if Iran is about the get the nuclear weapons USA should ask Israel to attack Iran because Israel have more to lose than USA should IRAN acquire nuclear weapons.
brenrod says
the answer to your first question is YES and to the others it is MANY TIMES. As I do not believe you are unaware of the many times congress and the US President have signed off on alliances with Israel I can only believe you are disingenuous.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
This is difficult, two of my favorite reporter/writers.
gravenimage says
Agreed.
Tom Cheria says
Agreed.
6woods says
I’ll take Spencer over Malkin. I’ve admired Malkin, but where Spencer is steadfast and unwavering in his principles, Malkin is now, sadly, waffling. She “believes” the holocaust occurred? Seriously??
mortimer says
To 6woods: We thank her for believing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MNUbt8HEaw
Matt says
Here’s a question about Israel that has nothing to do with antisemitism or Holocaust denial:
What about the attack by Israel on the USS Liberty?
“Can’t we talk about” that?
Islam_Is Islam says
@Matt: That is a good question. The crew members finally being allowed to speak about the facts of the matter is a good thing. Do you have a link to that information?
Matt says
I’m no expert on it. I watched a few YouTube videos and did some background research on the internet. I can’t see how the Israeli government isn’t culpable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZYjRREqUF0
By a guy called Black Pilled was a pretty good production. It’s the radio voices of the pilots confirming the USS Liberty’s markings and coming back to wipe them out that needs an answer.
The Holocaust doesn’t exempt the Israeli government from having to answer for crimes like this, any more than 9/11 exempts the US government from criticism about its foreign policy.
You can pick a number of other genocides even in the 20th century that people have never heard of. If they aren’t special then I don’t see why the Jews are.
eduardo odraude says
For many Christians, Jews are “special” because Christ and his disciples were all Jews. The Christian Bible includes the the Old Testament. Western civilization is based in significant part on Judaism, Christianity, ancient Greece and Rome. Many of the basic human rights Westerners today take for granted have their roots in Jewish scripture. For example, the notion that human beings are made in the image of God and that we are children of God who is conceived as our Father. Because we are conceived as made in the image of God, we can imitate God’s creativity. Whereas to create in Islam is, as Daniel Boorstin pointed out, “a rash and dangerous act.”
Terry Gain says
No Matt. There’s no reason to talk about it here. Not even if you want to disparage Israel. Reasonable and fair minded people accept that Israel made a mistake.
Matt says
You see, that’s where I think the brainwashing seeps in. I don’t think you’re being reasonable and fair and in fact I think you’re straying of your allocated plantational comfort zone.
But I’d love to meet you there…
Please presents some facts and let’s have a full scale rebuttal!
gravenimage says
Israel has already apologized and admitted they attacked the USS Liberty in error. The idea that this has never been talked about is ridiculous.
eduardo odraude says
Not only that. I recall that Israel paid damages for the accident.
Wellington says
Right on point, gravenimage. The attack on the USS Liberty was a tragic mistake, as often occurs in war (deadly friendly fire, etc.). This matter has been exhausted and I generally find that those who think what happened to the USS Liberty was intentional also fall for many other conspiracy theories, none greater than that some conspiracy was responsible for the assassination of JFK—not so, Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone and only killer.
oldschool says
Well, I was with you until you bought the Magic Bullet idea. Now you just look stupid.
oldschool says
And Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.
mgoldberg says
That and the fact that the guys bringing the Liberty incident, which was talked and talked and how this is brought up to somehow in this conversation about the holocaust, denial and the diminution where it is used as a free inquiry right. The horrors of yrs of slaughtering, human immolations and destructions directed towards the elimination of an entire people equated with the right to talk about a friendly fight incident in a war.
Wellington says
oldschool: No serious historian accepts any conspiracy theory in the killing of JFK (nor has the Kennedy family). As for the so-called magic bullet, perhaps you should read Case Closed by Gerald Posner (all 585 pages of it) before you go around calling someone stupid respecting the magic bullet theory. Bullets, you know, do all kinds of crazy things as ballistics experts have repeatedly pointed out. There was no magic about that bullet and so that second shot of Oswald’s really did hit both Kennedy and Connally and was found pretty much in tact on the gurney that brought Governor Connally to Parkland Hospital where JFK was also brought. The second bullet would not have killed Kennedy but the third one blew much of the right side of his brain away and so it was a mercy that he died. BTW, Oswald’s 6.5 mm. bullets in his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle are powerful enough to bring down an elephant. But you knew this didn’t you? Bet you also know who General Edwin Walker was? Sure you do.
Every conspiracy theory in the killing of JFK has far, far more holes in it than the official Warren Commission Report (which also has flaws but was correct in who killed Kennedy). I have studied this assassination for many decades now and am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone killer. There was no conspiracy. None. And read ALL of Posner’s work before castigating others for not accepting completely insupportable and wild conspiracy theories which no responsible and informed person accepts. Done here.
x says
Who the h*ll are you? The lone killer?? Why was Oswald assassinated?? Why did Johnson know ahead of time?? You are either a swamp creature or a complete idiot.
The fact that Oswald was assassinated was proof in itself that there was more going on. If you were a detective, every murderer would walk free. FY.
gravenimage says
Wellington is one of the finest posters here. On the other hand, I have not see the foul-mouthed “x” here before. Certainly, he has nothing to say against Jihad.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Eduardo and Wellington. Sadly, friendly fire is not uncommon even with the most sophisticated militaries. And it is pretty much only in the West that such cases are openly reported.
marc says
Matt says
“What about the attack by Israel on the USS Liberty?”
Totally off topic here, I am sure there are many other forums you can take that to, I suggest stormfront.
Islam_Is Islam says
@Robert Spencer: In regards to Nick Fuentes, thank you for allowing that “maybe he was just being a stupid kid who didn’t realize the implications of his remarks, or what forces he was abetting.” In some ways, Fuentes and the Groypers remind me a little of Tommy Robinson and the EDL hooligans when they first started up ten years ago.
Your focus on America First not being hi-jacked by the same ilk that the EDL was compromised by is a fine point to focus on. Would you be willing to speak with Mr. Fuentes? Do you realize that your point about the tactics of the Left being used to shut down the Right not being used to shut down the free give and take of ideas is the same point that Michelle Malkin was addressing in regards to the shutting down of Groypers that was happening at some Turning Point events last year?
Chris says
That clears it up. Never doubted R.S.
Terry Gain says
I like Michelle Malkin and am disappointed that she believes she was treated unfairly by Vanessa Jones or thrown under the bus by Mr. Spencer. She was politely asked for an explanation, which she has declined to give.
Tony Stark says
Bravo, Mr. Spencer! Awesome, articulate, respectful, inspirational letter! These Groypers, running around with their Rosaries, are an embarrassment to us Catholics who have shed sweat & tears opposing the Islamo-Leftist-Ignorantt- Catholic unholy axis. But I wonder if Nick Fuentes himself is not funded by Soros, as way to split the Conservative Anti-Jihad Alliance. Michelle: we love you! But you need some self reflection, hopefully in front of the Blessed Sacrament! Yes, Conservative Inc. seems reluctant to address immigration, illegal or legal. But causing a civil war in our ranks will only embolden the enemy!
gravenimage says
Did Robert Spencer Really Throw Michelle Malkin Under the Bus, Or, Can’t We Talk About This?
………………..
I don’t believe that asking Michelle Malkin to reconsider her position is “throwing her under the bus”.
Still, I am sad to see this–Robert Spencer and Michelle Malkin are both heroic Anti-Jihadists.
Wellington says
Agree with both of your points, gravenimage.
Lydia Church says
Just an observation, but I noticed an interesting pattern when one is brainwashed by tyranny or its tentacles. They view the slightest amount of dissent from their position as an “attack.” When all you are doing is asking a question or something, or simply stating that you don’t agree with their view.
Well hopefully this can be worked out!
Don’t drink the cool aid, Michelle!
: )
don vito says
indeed asking questions is……dangerous.
eduardo odraude says
The good news: Robert Spencer and Michelle Malkin, while not yet in agreement, are both showing respect and admiration for each other and are not making things worse.
MS MADELEINE DUNN says
Robert Spencer speaks respectfully but does not express admiration for Michelle Malkin. He is perplexed about her claim that she was t ‘thrown under the bus” when a letter was written to her politely pleading with her to rethink her opinion of Fuentes who is mixing America First’s powerful nationialist message with what at best can be described as crude insensitivity to Jews murdered in the Holocaust by sustituting them for cookies in a gruesome equation,.and for claiming that merely questioning Holocaust figures puts his life in danger.
Adam says
I’ve found over the years this type of issue quite easy to reason out.
With all the issues going on in the world, at any given time or year, why would you ever bring up the Jews or Israel, as bringing disorder or chaos ? Of all the nations to use as an example, why Israel ? And if semites are the problem, why never the Arabs ? After all, aren’t they semites as well ? If you have to dig so deep as to reach Israel to find problems with the world, you did it on purpose.
And it doesn’t matter how many Jews you are married too. Might be you married a Bernie Jew.
Tom Cheria says
There is nothing wrong in saying USA should have a immigration policy mirroring Israel (only admitting Jews) , India (almost only admitting Hindus), Japanese or the Arabs(Only admitting Muslims).
I agree that that is not what Nick Fuentes said.
Tom Cheria says
I don’t support Nick Fuentes view on Jews but I will support his stand about USA wanting to have a restrictionist immigration policy including legal immigration.
I will continue to support Robert Spencer, Michelle Malkin & Ann Coulter.
MS MADELEINE DUNN says
Michelle has thrown herself under the bus. I do not understand why she has a need to stand by Furentes. One can affirm free speech while acknowledging Fuentes’ insensitvity wheh he substituted cookies for humtan bodies in a dubious mathematical equation. One can support Fuentes’ right to inquire, and still question his motive for putting forth conspiriacy theories about pumped up Holocaust numbers and making a baseless remark that critics of Holocaust numbers are killed. Malkin’s lack of curiousity in this regard is difficult to understand. What is her mission? There is no honor in supporting someone who makes unsavory remarks and puts forth conspiracy theories, not with an interest in uncovering the truth but to justify personal bias.
James Wills says
Michelle Malkin threw herself “under the bus” years ago when she defended the indefensible (and unconstitutional) rounding up and interning any and all Americans of Japanese decent, then confiscating their property. I have had no interest in anything she has to say about anything, even if she does present herself as “anti-jihad”. Her standing by Nick Fuentes is actually part of a “pattern of behavior” that should surprise no one.
MS MADELEINE DUNN says
I am not surprised. She is lacking objectivity, empathy and a moral compass. But as they say a broken clock is right twice a day.
Rbla says
Very strange how this demented pajama boy has quickly risen to prominence. I wonder if he has been publicized and pushed by the forces of Soros and his leftist ilk as a very convenient foil against the patriots of the West of whom both Mr. Spencer and Ms. Malkin are members. Unfortunately Michelle appears to have been taken in by this ruse. Interesting that a kid with a Hispanic name now has a little brown Asian married to a Jew as his hero. Ain’t making them Aryan Nazis like they used to.
sheliak says
Vanessa Jones’ post was a classic guilt by association meme; the primary purpose of which was to delegitimize and discredit Nick Fuentes. It was Jones who threw Malkin under the bus by using her as an expendable tool in a coordinated ongoing effort to destroy Fuentes with accusations of anti-semitism. Malkin’s tweet was correct in that sense; but I believe Robert Spencer’s insinuation that publishing the post may have been an error in judgement. Malkin may want to rethink her remarks and follow up clarifying her perceived attack on Spencer directly.
LB says
It’s crazy how so many people here fail to see the real reason why Nick and the Groypers intentionally prod everyone by “questioning” the Holocaust. 6,000,000 is an awful and accurate number of Jews perished during WWII, everyone (or rather, the majority) knows and acknowledges it, but they do it anyway because it gets everyone’s panties in a bunch, which is obvious just by reading the comments on this page alone.
Another reason the Groypers “deny” or “minimize” the Holocaust is because it’s being showed down everyone’s throats at every occasion to the point of most people becoming sick of hearing about it. In 20th century there have been at least a dozen or so genocides in similar or even greater numbers than the Holocaust, but almost NOBODY is talking about those. Worse still is that even the people who do talk about them are open to interpretation about the number of casualties in them, but GOD FORBID that you say that 5.9 million Jews died instead of 6 million.
6 million Jews died in WWII. That’s a fact everyone knows about. You know who else got almost exterminated in WWII? The Serbs. Here’s something almost no one knows: aside from Jews, to whom Hitler pinned the blame for losing WWI, he also hated Serbs with a passion because they were the ones standing in Germany’s and Austro-Hungary’s path in reviving the Holy Roman Empire, because they provided enough unexpected resistance which caused the Eastern front with Russia to collapse and cost them the war. So during WWII it was payback time. Hitler utilized Croatians’ hatred against Serbs (for the same reason because they were, until WWI, part of Austro-Hungarian Empire) and had them, along with neighboring Bosnian and Albanian muslims as well as Bulgarians, exterminate around 1,000,000 Serbs (approximately 1/3rd of then Serbian population) in concentration camps and acts of atrocities across the region.
Where are the 1,000,000 Serbs, who were always on the right side of history in both World Wars, mentioned today? Nowhere. You know who else almost never gets mentioned? Around 2,000,000 Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians in Anatolia. While Ottoman genocide of those peoples is decently known about in general public, there is pretty much no mention of it anywhere ever, aside from alternative media outlets like JW, nor is there massive public outrage about people denying (or minimizing) it. Hell, the president of Turkey himself denies it and receives pretty much no international flak about it. In contrast to that, can you imagine what would happen if a Western leader were to deny (or minimize) the Holocaust? Yeah…
Or how about around 40,000,000 Chinese in Maoist China, or Russians in Bolshevik Russia, whose death toll is innumerable to this day but is estimated anywhere between 50 and 100 million or more. Both of those were caused by COMMUNISM!!! But you won’t hear a peep about those anywhere.
Point being, the Holocaust was a tragedy, but it’s by no means any greater tragedy than any of the examples above, and should therefore receive no special treatment or attach a special defamatory label (which doesn’t exist for any other genocide in the history of mankind) to people who dare question it.
mgoldberg says
none of the other tragedies were aimed at erasing all and the entirety of a people from the face of the earth, even by sacrificing their own for that purpose. Numbers are not the issue. The entirety and the purpose is the difference. Yes it is talked about a bit too much, but mostly it is rarely dealt with to deal with the depth of that hatred and the meaning of such hatred. Merely mentioning the ‘holocaust’ is dodge at times but you came no closer and did it injustice by just calling all tragedies the same.
Terry Gain says
Until such time as people like Fuentes and LB stop downplaying the Holocaust of the Jews, it will not have been talked about even a bit too much. The Holocaust of the Jews was not a tragedy, it was pure evil.
LB says
Where have I downplayed the Holocaust in any part of my comment? Quote me please. I specifically said that “the Holocaust was a tragedy, but it’s by no means any greater tragedy than any of the examples above”. How is that downplaying it? If anything, I wanted to “upplay” (is that even a word?) the other genocides that happened in the same century. Or are you trying to say that the Holocaust was more important than the rest? Serbs were exterminated with the exact same intent as Jews, which is to wipe them all out. Isn’t that “pure evil” as well? Or are Jews more important to you than Serbs?
In case I didn’t make myself clear enough in my OP, I don’t deny or downplay anything about the Holocaust. I’m merely pointing out that out of all genocides that happened in human history, only Hitler’s genocide of Jews has a special name (“The Holocaust”) and a special defamatory label (“anti-Semite”) that is attached to anyone daring to even question anything about it, effectively unpersonning them in the public eye. Isn’t that the exact same tactic Leftists and muslim apologists use regularly against all of us who oppose Islamic Jihad and Sharia?
Just something to think about.
gravenimage says
I can oppose the Holocaust *and* the Armenian Genocide. The implication that one cannot is grotesque.
LB says
Where have I said that you can’t oppose one if you oppose the other? C’mon GI, did you even read my comment in full? Granted, it is a bit long, but it’s important. Read my reply to Terry Gain above to get the essence of it.
Liatris Spicata says
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.
Robert, I charge you speak with a forked tongue.
Why would I say such a thing? As you may recall- this time, at least- a few years ago you banned me from your site when I commented in response to your harsh indictment of Melkite leaders who acted in a subservient manner toward Moslems. Most of my comment was a quote from Jean Pierre Peroncel-Hugoz’s insightful book, The Raft of Muhammad, in which the author presented a perspective on the Copt experience in Egypt as an example of how an oppressed minority could, by subservience, survive for centuries under Moslem rule.
Of course, the goon-squad on this site piled on me, calling me a liar, and worse. To my astonishment, you chimed in and denied banning me, calling, as I recall, my claim of having been banned “counterfactual”. So I sent you your email in which you had discussed your rationale for the ban. You wrote back and said you had forgotten our exchange.
You could have had the decency to admit being wrong, and thereby upholding my reputation. Instead of doing the decent thing, and admitting that you had misspoken, you decided to delete the entire series of comments I had precipitated. So you not only banned me from commenting on your site, but you could not bother to correct either the calumnies posted on your site about me your own calumny against me- you preferred to sweep the matter under the rug.
Robert, I once respected you. But Melkite Christian that I believe you purport to be, I now consider you to be a sleazy hypocrite whose regard for truth does not withstand challenges to your own cherished nostrums. Ok, you are probably honest about your opposition to forcibly silencing people, but you are no more a defender of the free exchange of ideas than are the censors at Google.
Terry Gain says
Does Liatris Spicata translate as Despicable Liar? The fact that your comment appears on this site disproves your calumnious allegation against Mr. Spencer.
Liatris Spicata says
The fact that your comment appears on this site disproves your calumnious allegation against Mr. Spencer.
The fact that it has remained for less than an hour proves nothing, moron. Goon reasoning at its ripest.
It will be interesting to see if the comment stands.
Wellington says
Terry Gain is certainly no goon but I do wonder about you.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Terry and Wellington.
Robert Spencer says
Hi Larry.
Sorry you were offended. I had indeed forgotten when I said I had forgotten, but clearly this incident from four or five years ago is far more important to you than it was to me, so I’ll address your points now.
I ban people all the time from Jihad Watch, and if you ask me about them ten minutes later, I will likely have forgotten what they said, because I have a lot of things to do and much that occupies my mind. Does this constitute sweeping an incident under the rug? No, it constitutes removing someone who is being a pest. Does the fact of the banning mean I am inconsistent in my commitment to the freedom of speech? No. Why? Because Jihad Watch is not a platform, it’s a content provider. You have no more right to speak here than you do to come into my living room uninvited and start berating me over the sound of the John Coltrane record that is playing at any given moment.
However, I don’t ban people for disagreeing with me. You can read through the comments on pretty much any day and see that. I do ban people for being pests. If you were banned, it was likely (I don’t remember) because you were insisting on repeatedly sounding off on your pet hobbyhorse, and that is something that will get you banned here. If I recall correctly (I just went back and found some of the emails, but apparently not all of them survive, as I could only get a partial picture of what happened from them), you made a point, and I answered it, and then you came back and back and back and kept on sounding off about it, in an increasingly abusive manner, until you wore out your welcome. You are welcome to come in and say whatever you want, even about what a sleazy hypocrite I am, although I have no obligation either legally or morally or in any other way to provide such a service, but if you say “Kill them all” or some such (which of course you did not say), or nag people with your pet ideas (which I suspect is what was happening in your case), you’re going to get pitched out.
But really, it is no big deal. To be so angry about a small incident from years ago makes me worry about you. This is a tiny site with a minuscule readership. You can go to any large platform you want and tell them what a sleazy hypocrite I am there, and repeat and repeat your ideas all you want. I invite you to do so.
And in closing, I am most certainly not a Melkite.
Warmest regards
Robert Spencer
Liatris Spicata says
Robert-
I appreciate the response. At least I find it better than simply deleting my comment and/or banning me.
Sorry you were offended. I had indeed forgotten when I said I had forgotten, but clearly this incident from four or five years ago is far more important to you than it was to me, so I’ll address your points now.
I take this as a non-apology apology- saying you are “sorry I was offended” means virtually nothing. People who you and I both disdain are perpetually offended. However, for having impugned my integrity, and “sweeping the matter under the rug” when you learned better, I do think a full apology from you is in order.
Undoubtedly the incident meant more to me than it did to you- after all, it was my integrity that you impugned. You intentionally supported “the goons” in their venomous disparagement of me- Terry Gains’ reference today to “Despicable Liar” is on the mild side of the abuse that Liatris Spicata has been subject to over the years.
Does this constitute sweeping an incident under the rug? …
Either I did not make myself clear, or you are reading with an utter lack- I might say willful lack- of discernment. You both censored and banned me for comment that was largely quote from i>The Raft of Muhammad, which offered a very different perspective on Christian leaders’ subservience to Moslem demands than your own. It was a year or so later that you denied my claim of having been banned here and, when you accepted that you both falsely accused me and supported those who attacked me, you swept the ensuing controversy under the rug.
No, it constitutes removing someone who is being a pest. … However, I don’t ban people for disagreeing with me.
I do not believe that is the case. …
My recollection is the comment that precipitated the ban received at most one or two non-controversial responses. Had you not responded in the heavy handed manner you did, the matter would have died there, as a minor sub-thread on a “tiny site with a minuscule readership”. The controversy, during which you denied I had been banned and the goons among your readers excoriated me, occurred more than a year later when I responded to what I think was a complaint (or notice) from you of one of you own instances of being silenced.
As I’ve indicated, the comment you found so offensive so as to ban me was mainly a quote from Poncel-Hugoz’ book about the Coptic experience in Egypt. Full Disclosure: Unfortunately I do not have a copy of my original censored comment that precipitated the ban, but I do vaguely recall some snarky insinuation about how easy it is for people who enjoy the (imperiled) blessings of liberty to find fault with the accommodating posture of oppressed people. There is room for reasonable disagreement on that issue, but that cannot happen when you summarily delete comments with which you disagree and ban the person making the comment.
I am most certainly not a Melkite.
Perhaps you left the Church? Your Wikipedia page says you, “joined the Melkite Greek Catholic Church in 1984”. After all, Wikipedia is never wrong, right?
If you were banned, it was likely (I don’t remember) because you were insisting on repeatedly sounding off on your pet hobbyhorse,
How convenient for you- but it’s simply not the case.
I made a single comment, mainly a brief quote from The Raft ….. It generated little in the way of response, and I’m fairly confident I did not reply to those responses- you banned me rather quickly. Your ban was in response to a comment in which I quoted a keener observer than yourself of the Moslem world and that opened your criticism of Melkite leaders to question. For that, despite your vigorous defense of the cause of liberty, I consider you to be a bit of a self-serving prima donna. The far more “colorful” exchange occurred over a year later, which resulted in censorship, but, as far as I know, no ban (until today, I had not commented here since your false witness against me).
But really, it is no big deal. To be so angry about a small incident from years ago makes me worry about you.
I see: as good as being called a liar by a respected voice in the counter-jihad movement (by explicitly denying his account of past actions) is “no big deal”. You and I have a very different idea of integrity. Spare me your crocodile tears, sir.
I am grateful, these years later, you seem to be willing to acknowledge that you misspoke about me, although you seem a bit equivocal about it. I consider the time lapse to be immaterial, and the entire episode bears on your suitability to a leadership role in the counter-jihad movement. I no longer intend to be a part of discussions where people can idiotically and savagely attack me- as gravenimage et. al., and now Terry Gain, have done with impunity, but where I am not allowed to respond to the calumnies against me.
We all make mistakes. Admit yours, make a genuine apology, and I will move on. Otherwise, I shall continue to think of you as something of a sleazebag.
marc says
@Liatris Spicata
This thread you started is totally off topic here, I also wield the ban hammer here and have a far shorter fuse.
Terry Gains and all have only gone off topic because you started this thread.
If you want to further this discussion, move it to your own blog.
This does not need a response, to make this clear, if you come back off topic again, you will be banned, again.
Liatris Spicata says
This thread you started is totally off topic here, I also wield the ban hammer here and have a far shorter fuse. Terry Gains and all have only gone off topic because you started this thread. If you want to further this discussion, move it to your own blog.
This does not need a response, to make this clear, if you come back off topic again, you will be banned, again.
Oh, I get it: good cop, bad cop routine.
I rather guess that you have not studied this subthread: you certainly show no evidence of having done so; rather you’ve threatened to take your preferred course of action, and don’t bother me with the facts or with honesty on the part of the founder of the site. His words are not to be questioned! Not surprising, given the genesis of this site.
But no, my comments were not entirely “off topic”, and it is simply dishonest for you to claim they were. I responded to something Robert said in the post prompting this discussion. Admittedly, the portion I responded to was an incidental part, but it was not irrelevant and so, almost by definition, by any reasonable standard, that is not “totally off topic”. I doubt that Robert would have taken the time he did to respond to a concern that he considered totally off topic.
Your mention of Terry Gains is risible. Based on preposterous logic, the dolt implied he had “proof” that I was a “Despicable Liar”. I don’t doubt that people with such polemical and critical thinking skills are more at home on this site than I.
Despite Robert’s very general, but highly disingenuous and self-serving account of the origin of my ban a few years, it was just plain wrong on so many levels. He simply didn’t like to be challenged as he went after Melkite leaders for what he considered to be an inadequate response to Moslem oppression. Interestingly, someone here indicated Robert is a former Melkite. That suggests to me his harsh indictment of Melkite leaders may have been based more on a personal grudge than any rigorous, fact-based analysis of their difficult situation. By all means, dude, sweep such lines of inquiry off this site!
Face it sir: you are banning me for showing Robert as an Emperor With No Clothes. My assessment of a few years ago of Robert as a prima donna, albeit one with an important message for our time, was spot on. Just don’t flatter yourself into thinking that this site is in any way dedicated to analysis of, or the free exchange of ideas pertinent to, jihad.
As if I will care to be banned from a site with the frequently pathetic intellectual content of the comments section here. (Terry Gain’s “proof” that I was a Damned Liar was case in point). So go ahead make my day, sir: BAN ME. As if I will care to be banned from a site with the frequently pathetic intellectual content of the comments section here (Terry Gain’s “proof” that I was a Damned Liar was case in point).
But the sad thing about this is you, presumably, Robert, and I largely agree on a diagnosis of the epic struggle of our time. I do demand free expression of opposing ideas to be part of any ideological movement, so I cannot be part of yours. I shall be happy to get back to Cosi Fan Tutte.
Liatris Spicata says
Correction to the below comment. Terry Gain referred to me as a “Despicable Liar”, not a “Damned Liar”. Distinction without much of a difference, but I regret the error.
marc says
Liatris Spicata says: But no, my comments were not entirely “off topic”
please come back when there is a topic is the Melkite church, and don’t be putting too much value on what you read on wikipedia.
You seem to be having trouble understanding, the topic of this post is Michelle Malkin, Nick Fuentes, anti-Semitism infiltrating the counter jihad movement and holocaust denial. your lengthy comments are not even close to on topic, you must realise that, not to agree would be very disingenuous. I do understand you feel very entitled to change the conversation to your own pet topic, but that is not normally allowed on a forum such as this.
When we see a pattern such as this, regardless of how elegantly you may write, you will be considered a troll.
gravenimage says
I see the ugly Liatris Spicata is back. And no, Robert Spencer is no longer a practicing Melkite Catholic–not that this makes any difference here.
The idea that Robert Spencer is obliged to offer a platform to every creep with an axe to grind is absurd.
underbed cat says
Simply asking a question or asking someone to reconsider examining further is hardly a crime worthty of silencing or rude remarks, however you have a right to speak here and this ‘goon” has a right to think it was a little over the top, to compare Spencers comment and behavior to the censors of google to delete speech, and press the “remove” button. Sometimes disagreements flare, hopefully, you got your “release valve of discontent” as I just read your response, just a goony thing to do. I found the reference to the book ‘The Raft of Mohammed’ interesting, since it implies survival which I do understand, but to watch the conditions of those not finding or offered a raft had dire consequences for many and living in fear after finding the raft that someday at any time, the raft could sink.
Liatris Spicata says
I am afraid I do not quite understand your comment, so I want to be circumspect.
since it implies survival which I do understand,
Christians and Jews have survived over 1000 years under Moslem rule, albeit often under appalling circumstances. When to fight, when to rebel, and when to try to endure and live your life is not an easy matter to decide. I think the perspective of those who have a long history of enduring oppression should be carefully considered, particularly by those making judgments about them from the luxury of a land of freedom of expression. I think I need not note here that that freedom is increasingly imperiled.
I am reminded of a comment Yehuda Bauer made in his history of the Holocaust regarding Hungarian Jews (I think he limited it to Hungary). Bauer claimed that Hungarian Jews’ leaders acquiescence to Nazi oppression “almost worked”. In some sense, dhimmis’ acceptance of Moslem domination has “worked”, in that they survived, as a group, for centuries. Most distressingly, today that survival is very much in doubt.
I will also note that Martin Gilbert, during a Q&A in which I asked him about Bauer’s claim, disagreed with my memory of Bauer’s position regarding Hungarian Jews.
TheMadJewess says
ADL and Soros…. lol.. Commie schtup’s…Anyone knows this.
What validity does ‘talking about the # of deaths ‘during ww2’ *eyeroll* bring to the table right now? How is it even relevant? Its not. Its Nazi canard.
‘Dual’ citizens…we all know Malkin is talking about Jews. Shes not talking about Mexican or Nicaraguan duals, either.
Come on..
‘America first’ (to these parasites) means attack the Jews. Period. Theyre not ‘pro white’, either. Lies. I posted for well over a decade on my own blog about black and minority on white crimes and the nazis and fake ‘pro whites’ attacked me when I was on twitter, endlessly, regardless.
These morons are about Jews and ONLY Jews. I was the most fervent Jewish blogger for whites besides Nick Stix and JTF. Our blog was linked on Oreilly who started covering the issue.
I spent 2 years on Gab.com.
I was one of the only Jews on there with my JEWISH moniker. At first, gab was a total blast. After Twitter kicked the nazis out, they all came to gab and my life was spent fighting 50-100 Jew hating nazis every friggin day when I logged in. Up until the night Bowers (I fought him also) murdered the Jews at the tree of life synagogue and thats when I left that forum. I didnt want to be associated with more potential murderers of Jewish people.
Anyone who fights Jew hatred knows what ‘dual’ means. Anyone knows Fuentes and those moonbats are always laughing at dead Jews during the Holocaust. Please..
Where is the info on these Jewish ‘duals’? Operating in the house/senate? No valid info on this subject anywhere…because its nazi bs. Nazis recorded the number of Jews, not the Jews themselves…how the F could they? They were busy either being gassed to death or starved to death.
Lets say, hypothetically there are 1000 more who perished, or 1000 thousand less? Would THIS finally absolve the Jew haters? Not a chance.
1st Amend…well…Let the diseased Jew haters rant…Everyone sees it and it just exposes their lunacy and Jew obsessed insanity and utter moonbattery.
Lets just hope Malkin gets free before another Bowers murders people and he/she just happens to be with the ‘AmericaFirst’ (bash Jews group).
marc says
@TheMadJewess
“I spent 2 years on Gab.com”
very brave, and a lot of hard work, and yes, that’s what I saw, most decent threads now all end the same way, somehow “the joooz made it happen, all part of their plan, it’s in their talmud”.
I suspect many are just bots.
On that case, we had records corrected at Yad Vashem, there were 2 records of my Great Grandfathers death, one at Auschwitz, one 2 months later at a slave camp in Latvia.
Clerical error or he’d been sold as a slave under the table, we don’t know. the other 55 family members we traced from my grandmother side, only had the one record. I assume Yad Vashem’s records are fairly accurate. If anyone has any discrepancies in the numbers of how many died, they are in the business of correcting them.
Skanderberg says
Sorry Mr Spencer, but I have to disagree. It is throwing someone under the bus. Vanessa and you should have contacted/confronted Ms Malkin privatly. If she resisted your crotocism and didn’t show any sign of acknowledgement, then I would have gone public, but this action here is really disappointing and unfortunately it reminds me of what the left is doing daily: accusing people of all things.
Speaking of the holocaust: it was a historical event and should as such be open for investigation and if someone is doubting certain parts of it, these doubts should be answered with proofs.
Calling someone immediately an anti-semite/nazi/ or similar because he/she questions certain parts of history is shameful and exactly the same what organisations such as CAIR do when someone criticizes Islam.
Robert Spencer says
Couple of points:
1. I said in the piece itself that the historical question should be and is open to investigation.
2. I never called Malkin an anti-Semite or a Nazi.
So in light of the fact that I didn’t actually do what you claimed, it seems that you should take your own advice about accusations.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Skanderberg says
After reading your comment, I took a second look at your article and I couldn’t find anything of what I accused you before. My apologies.
A Gnostic Agnostic says
On the whole, it is clear to me that they really have got to Mr. Spencer psychologically: his disposition is ever-increasingly a latent passive-aggressive anger that is clearly rooted in the abuse he has endured from the House of Islam (ie. poisoning, crimes committed by Muslims being blamed on him etc.)
The House of Islam religiously scapegoats their own crimes against humanity onto Jews and/or whoever their adversaries are: see the abuse of POTUS and understand the root of all such abuse is the House of Islam and their various “goyim” executing global jihad against the West (extremely large-scale “silent war”). They will accuse/blame Jews/Zionists, but ‘the accuser is the accused’ is always true in/of Islam, as theirs is the religion of the Canaanites of old: sacrifice others to wash away the sins of the tribe. That is Islam, and that is exactly what they tried to do with the recent attempts to blame Mr. Spencer for their own crimes. The practice is rooted in a pathological mental illness, and Islam is certainly the same.
The House of Islam utilizes abuse/trauma to control their opposition, and Mr. Spencer is unfortunately a victim (though part of this would likely involve his own denial of the same, as denial often accompanies abuse).
It has become clear to me that people who are themselves abused by Islam develop the same pathology as Muhammadans: anger, resentment, feeling victimized etc. and it truly is like an infection. I myself am an analyst and private researcher working for a private IP which utilizes AI algorithms to seek/parse/compile all relevant information according to user-defined query. My particular lab is responsible for parsing all historical records as they may pertain to the causal factors leading to human suffering found to have human origin(s). From this, a solution was generated which invariably ceases the ‘believer vs. unbeliever’ crises.
I gave Mr. Spencer the solution to the ‘believer vs. unbeliever’ crises that is both: inductively rooted in an existing theory of everything (with the same mathematical rigor as General Relativity, but sets the speed of light to c = 1 as unity) and is designed to progressively cease all forms of human suffering.
Not only did he not read and/or view the solution for consideration of an article I proposed to write for JW, he gave only a series of short sweeping dismissals based on (what was clearly) the first thing he disagreed with concerning what Muslims believe (despite the same being clarified by the full solution). I will reproduce these responses on another platform later on (as a retrospect) and analyze the responses according to the circumstances there.
To be sure: there truly is an infection sweeping the planet, and that infection is certainly Islam, infecting non-Muslims with the same underlying pathology that Muslims themselves suffer. Please note: Islam is not a religion, it is a *division* – to divide humanity on the basis of ‘believer vs. unbeliever’ (ie. us vs. them) which is the opposite of a religion: it divides, not unites. Despite this, Mr. Spencer clearly was not interested in pursuing a cessation of human suffering, but this is understandable given our lab is now aware he is himself a victim, and this must be transcended until any such further regard is given to/for him.
marc says
lol, another entitled joker, let’s summarize what went on here:
You submitted an article for consideration to this site, the Director, politely declined, for whatever reason, you were not entitled to a reasoning, but you were provided with one, you became quite rude in your reply, then today demanding further explanation by email, when you didn’t get your own way you post here “Mr. Spencer clearly was not interested in pursuing a cessation of human suffering”.
Yes, goto your other platform and post there, this thread you have started is totally off topic and an abuse of our platform.
BTW. I have read your submission, I believe this would probably help you https://bit.ly/3aECvW4
If you come back here, keep it on topic or you will be banned. If you are having trouble understanding the topic here, it is Michelle Malkin, Nick Fuentes, anti-Semitism infiltrating the counter jihad movement and holocaust denial.