Erdogan: Turkish intelligence orchestrated anti-Saudi campaign in Western media over Khashoggi murder

Erdogan wanted to weaken the Saudis in order to strengthen Turkey’s bid to be once again the leader of the Islamic world. The Western media eagerly played along, wanting to use the Khashoggi murder as a stick they could use to beat Trump, as well as to weaken the opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and burnish Obama’s legacy, the Iranian nuclear deal. So Turkish intel and the Western establishment media happily cooperated with each other, their goals coinciding.

This indicates once again that the establishment media is not by any stretch of the imagination an actual news source. It’s just a propaganda organ for the Left.

RELATED ARTICLE: Saudi Prince Leaves G20 Confident After Khashoggi Scandal

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images first appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Meriç Dağlı on Unsplash.

Netherlands: Labour Party opposed anti-Semitism definition to woo Muslims

Welcome to the new, multicultural Europe.

“Chief rabbi says Dutch Labour Party opposed an anti-Semitism definition to woo Muslims,” JTA, November 30, 2018:

AMSTERDAM (JTA) — Dutch Chief Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs said he was “shocked” that the Labour Party rejected a motion calling for the adoption of a definition of anti-Semitism, saying its vote aimed to curry favor with some Muslim voters.

On Tuesday, a majority of lawmakers in the lower house of the Dutch parliament, the Tweede Kamer, passed a nonbinding motion calling on the government to adopt the definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. But Labour, along with all the other left-wing parties, voted against it.

The definition has been adopted as official policy by the United Kingdom, Germany and five others in the European Union, as well as the EU as a whole.

Some pro-Palestinian activists have opposed the definition because it says that some forms of vitriol against Israel are anti-Semitic.

Jacobs, a member of the Rabbinical Center of Europe, rarely comments on political votes. He made an exception here.

The lawmakers who voted against the motion, he said, “did so out of political considerations.” Asked whether he meant that Labour opposed the motion to woo some Muslim voters, he said “Yes.”…

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Ian on Unsplash.

Germany: Police to prosecute mother for posting photo of her daughter’s sex attacker on Facebook

A sexual assault by a migrant? Get used to it. Posting a photo of the migrant perpetrator? A serious crime, warranting prosecution. Danke, Merkel!

“German mother could face prosecution for posting picture of daughter’s ‘dark skinned’ sex attacker on Facebook,” Voice of Europe, November 22, 2018:

German police stopped a mother from searching for the alleged sexual molester of her 12-year-old daughter on Facebook.

Her post was soon shared thousands of times containing pictures of a black man. The post did not go into further detail other than asking if people knew this man.

The man supposedly sexually molested her daughter on a train from Freiburg to Schiengen on Sunday. A police spokesperson confirmed the incident and that further steps will be taken.

The police gave reasons of protecting the victim and the ongoing investigation not to elaborate further. On Monday morning the police posted a strongly censored picture of the original post with lettering reading: “Not like this!”

The police further stated that the release of picture without the consent of the pictured person is a crime and will be prosecuted….

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by DAVIDCOHEN on Unsplash.

UK: Parents who complain about 30-year-old Muslim migrant posing as 15-year-old in high school dismissed as racist

Britain’s collapse and imminent death as a free society will be at the hands of those who were above all things, concerned not to appear “racist” and “Islamophobic.”

“Parents were ‘dismissed as racist’ by school officials when they complained about 6ft 1ins Iranian migrant posing as a 15-year-old who appeared in their children’s classroom,” by Guy Adams, Daily Mail, November 23, 2018:

A couple of weeks after the start of this term, pupils at Stoke High School in Ipswich were told that a new boy was joining their GCSE class.

His name was Siavash, and he had quite a life story: Born in Iran, the teenager had been forced to flee the Middle Eastern theocracy in mysterious circumstances, and had since managed to cross Europe, with only a younger brother for company.

Having arrived in the UK – it’s not clear how – the duo promptly claimed asylum, declaring themselves to be 15 and 12 years old respectively.

Around the same time, they appear to have come to the attention of a refugee charity, which helped to house them in Suffolk, where there is a small but well-established Iranian immigrant community.

Like any unaccompanied child refugees, the boys were informed that, should they remain in full-time education, they’d be looked after by the local authority until reaching the age of 25.

Should they gain sufficient qualifications, the taxpayer would even be required to foot the bill for them to attend university.

Siavash could speak only broken English, but by all accounts he threw himself into school life, turning up at the start of each day with smartly brushed hair and a spotless blazer, tie and V-neck sweater.

In class, he worked diligently and talked politely to teachers. Unlike many a teenager, the bespectacled youngster even managed to tuck his shirt in.

There was, however, a problem.

Namely: Large numbers of the 668 girls and boys at Stoke High, an under-performing academy in a gritty neighbourhood of Ipswich just south of the city centre, came rapidly to the conclusion that the supposed new boy was not actually a boy at all, but very much a fully-grown man.

At 6ft 1in, he stood head and shoulders over many classmates, while his chin was flecked with stubble.

He also boasted a protruding Adam’s apple and a hairline that, from a certain angle, was starting to recede. In the cold light of day, many suspected he was nearer 30 than 20.

‘As soon as he started at the school, we all thought he looked far too old,’ a girl in Siavash’s year later recalled.

‘You could see the shadow of his beard on his face. He was wearing glasses, but they did not look prescription. It was almost as if he had them to make himself look younger. Everyone was making jokes as we went into registration saying, “What is a man doing in our school?”’

It didn’t take long for the rumour mill to creak into action, as students began to speculate that the Iranian asylum seeker was brazenly lying about his age in order to get a free education, and indeed remain in the country.

According to playground gossip, Siavash even confided to one contemporary that he was a married father of two who had decided to pose as a teenager because his academic qualifications weren’t recognised in the UK.

The parent of a GCSE pupil was told the Iranian had confessed to being in his mid-20s. ‘My son asked him how old he was and he replied that he was aged 25 and married with two kids,’ she told the Daily Mail.

This being 2018, the rumours soon hit social media. Around the time of half term, an image of Siavash in a Year 11 classroom appeared on Snapchat, a networking app popular with teenagers, accompanied by the caption ‘How is there a 30-year-old man in our maths class?’

Around the same time, parents began asking awkward questions, taking an understandably dim view of the potential presence of a grown man being educated alongside their children.

‘So my son’s school now let’s [sic] in 30-year-old men,’ wrote a woman calling herself Hollie Dayinn on Facebook. ‘That’s some huge security breach. Apparently, he sits on a bench at break times close to where a group of girls hang out, just looking.’

Desmond Newby, a 51-year-old father of two Stoke High pupils, was one of several reported to have removed their children from the school. ‘In one of the pictures I’ve seen of him, he has more of a beard than I do. I don’t want my kids there any longer until he is out.’

A third parent observed: ‘It’s not a nice thought that this man is around children and sitting with them at lunch.’

Eventually, the school passed on concerns about his age to the Home Office. On November 2, the day Siavash was due to sit a mock maths exam, it emerged that both he and his younger brother had been pulled out of Stoke High pending a full investigation.

The case immediately began to make headlines, with parents and politicians quick to raise concerns that the safety of potentially impressionable children had been seriously compromised.

‘He started FaceTiming my friend [using an online video link], sending her messages, asking how close she lived to the school,’ said one GCSE student.

‘She was a bit concerned because he seemed so old. He kept messaging her during the night, and in the morning he texted her saying, “Hello, how are you?” She told the maths teacher and was taken to the safeguarding teacher who looked at the messages and said there was nothing sinister about them.’

Serious questions were also raised about the school’s handling of the case, amid claims that complaints about Siavash had been blithely dismissed by staff, who in some cases had claimed the objections were motivated by racism.

‘I went in [to] complain but I was fobbed off. They are deluded and seem more worried about how the bloke might feel,’ said a father of two girls from Stoke High. ‘I am not aware of this lad having done anything inappropriate, but it’s clearly wrong that he should be in a class with children.’…

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission. The featured image is from Twitter.

UK MEP Janice Atkinson: “No one asked the people of the UK if we wanted our culture and way of life destroyed”

Joshua Winston – Janice, for the most part, the majority of world religions live side by side in peace, with occasional clashes. Are you seeing that Islam is the only religion which seems unable to live in peace and harmony with anyone without demanding special status and privileges far outweighing its percentage of the population or the contribution Muslims make within their host country and culture?

Janice Atkinson – I think the problem with Islam, as reinforced on the BBC recently by a Sikh priest, is that they work on ancient scriptures that they take as literal and convey this to uneducated and therefore vulnerable people. Literal interpretations take no account of the modern world. But that suits many jihadist imams for their own political and jihadi aims. If you can keep the poor and uneducated masses joined by a medieval doctrine, you have a ready-made audience, a united audience, united in hate and mistrust. Look at Pakistan and the case of Christian woman Asia Bibi. The uneducated masses are calling for the death sentence by stoning to death. The saddest part of this is that Western governments were not prepared to offer her asylum because they are afraid of upsetting the uneducated Pakistanis in their own countries, particularly the UK, where I feel so ashamed that my government have pandered to a loud, intolerant and hateful minority.

We have allowed this minority to exist in their own multicultural bubble which has festered hate, mistrust, misogyny and abhorrent practices such as FGM, child marriage, arranged marriage and Sharia law. And, of course, child sexual grooming, which is conducted by 80% Pakistani/Pakistani heritage men.

JW – You have correctly broken down all of the crime statistics caused by migrants in your last book, and you’ve spoken of the sectarian violence that certain cultures bring with them. This violence would still occur in a Muslim-dominant, Sharia-compliant world. It’s also right to note all of the Muslim-majority countries that are not living in, or knowing, peace in this period of time today. Why are Muslims blind to the fact that their ideology does not, never has, and never will work, and yet they seek to recreate it, whilst claiming to be running from it, in every land in which they settle?

JA – The Middle East is a complex place and competes for dominance for particular Muslim sects. The UAE is tolerant of Westerners because they chose to be economically, it works for them. However, as Westerners, we know the rules and obey them. In other states, it is a cruel and barbaric system. However, what amazes me is that they migrate to Western countries, presumably to live a free existence for their families, but then revert to living under Islamic rule. This is unacceptable, and Western governments should be clear on this. Sharia is unacceptable under any circumstances, the rule of law of the host nation has supremacy. If not, there are many Sharia-compliant countries that they could live in.

JW – I always say that Islam is the liberal left’s viagra. It’s the thing that gets them the angriest and sees them rise up en masse. I believe that the left are the true racists. They use Islam as a political tool. Many a rally I’ve been to, and I recall one where a man told me that Christians have the Ten Commandments (love thy neighbour [which is actually from the Great Commandment], don’t covet your neighbour’s wife, etc.), and this was his way of telling me that Sharia (stone your wife) is simply Islam’s Ten Commandments. For me, there seems to be a disconnect in the left’s brains. Reason, reality, facts and logic seem to play no part in their agenda. Any thoughts?

JA – It’s the left’s voter base. They courted the Muslims decades ago when they first arrived here, and to be fair, they have been loyal. I find it deeply troubling that the left are not standing up for Jews, and the anti-Semitism is sickening and frightening, so much so that British Jews are leaving the UK, as indeed they are across Europe. The left choose not to see the link between national socialism and Nazism, which is the same thing, that they are supporting. The left’s women disgust me. They march against Trump, Brexit and populism while sipping their organic chia lattes, in their designer pussycats, marching in designer trainers, with the kids in tow, or they leave them at home with the cheap immigrant nanny. Yet these feminazis are silent on the crimes committed by Muslim men in the name of religion. Where is their voice against child sexual grooming, FGM, child marriage, stoning and forced marriage? They are sickeningly silent and complicit. Let’s get outraged about pink clothes for little girls, blue toys for boys, or sexy underwear advertised on the subway. Yet let’s stay silent on barbaric Islamic practices. I detest them.

JW – I came across a new world recently – Islamo-denier. Would you call yourself an Islamo-denier, meaning that you don’t believe Islam is a religion at all? We’ve all been beaten over the head with the word ‘Islamophobia’, and I’ve heard several people use the term ‘Islamophilia’ (which means an irrational urge to coddle and care for and adhere to and protect Islam). Do you like the word ‘Islamo-denier,’ and is it a word that might be capable of combating all of the -isms and -phobias that the media throw at and accuse us of?

JA – I hate the branding of ‘isms’ and phobias. Again, it is a made-up construct as part of our cultural wars which are raging at the moment. Yet what we are fighting for is our culture, history and way of life. The majority in this country are sick and tired of these attacks from the left calling everyone who would like curbs on migration and Muslim migration and support controlling our borders and leaving the EU as racists and xenophobes. The so-called Conservatives and the UK socialists do not understand, and that is why they are losing votes to the so-called ‘populists.’ There is a quiet revolution going on. We are at a tipping point in this country; we have to win the culture wars and go back to common sense. We have to ditch the hate crime laws, brought in by Blair and being reinforced by the UN, EU and other supra-national organisations, which are all designed to dilute our culture and language. They have to learn that people are decent, sometimes they make mistakes, but to imprison and fine people for joking about a religion is a very slippery slope.

JW – And lastly, is Britain sinking, and not just because of Theresa May and her Brexit sellout? Is Islam the iceberg that will break us? What is your vision for the future of Britain? Living in London, all I see are different cultures spending 30 years and more building up their own enclaves. Muslims are political animals, and they push for Sharia wherever they are in positions of power, and their positions of power are rising in the UK, with more and more self-identifying Muslim MPs and mayors and councilors. If you have enough people voting for a thing, then you’ll have to give it to them, and the rest of us will have to live under it. I see Britain being divided – Sharia to the left, rule of law to the right. Do you see the UK as sinking? Is there a solution for the UK in relation to living harmoniously, if at all, with Islam?

JA – Sinking? We are sinking under the weight of Brussels’ bureaucracy, high taxes, green taxes and identity politics. Mrs May does not have a vision for our country, and she is a proven liar on Brexit. She was a disastrous Home Secretary, again caught out by lying; she let the police and border force down by forced redundancies, and the Conservative party should not have vote for her as Prime Minister. The writing was on the wall when the police booed her at their conference. When you do not have the support of the emergency services, and policing is by consent in the UK, that should have been obvious that she was not suitable to be PM. I don’t blame the Muslims for seeking office, they at least like to take part in shaping our country, it’s just that it’s shaping it in the wrong direction. Voter fraud is rife in their communities — as demonstrated in Tower Hamlets — that’s why the left are so opposed to voter identity at elections.

Islam, if not curbed, will be a huge problem. We should halt all new mosques; shut down those financed by Saudi Arabia, deport hateful Imams and tell the adherents that they have to live by the law of our land, not Sharia. We should also consider a ban on Muslim migration from countries like Pakistan.

London is a big issue because of migration. Knife crime and murders are rife, mainly committed by migrants or the children of migrants. We have imported the third world, and are now suffering from third world practices. Tower Hamlets is Sharia-compliant and burkas are de riguer. No one asked the people of London, or indeed, the UK, whether we wanted to have apartheid in our towns and cities. No one asked us if we wanted our culture and way of life destroyed, so much so that British people — black and white — have moved out of these ghettos. Our London Mayor, Khan, is presiding over this. At today’s count, we have seen 119 murders of young people in London since the beginning of the year. The rogue roll call shows migrant children with machetes, guns and knives. There were always violent criminals, but this has taken it to a new level. With the left and even the so-called Conservatives calling for an ‘holistic’ and healthcare approach to the problem, they are admitting defeat.  That’s not what I want as a Londoner, and neither do the majority of decent people. We want effective policing, more police who will take the drug dealers, the gang members and their useless parents off the streets to keep us safe. We need a Mayor Rudy Giuliani; instead, we have a spineless Mayor who likes a photo call with meaningless platitudes. To label these crimes as a ‘healthcare’ issue is abrogating responsibility from the parents, making excuses. There have always been poor people who live in deprived areas, but they didn’t take up arms against each other as normal in our schools, public transport system and estates. There is right and wrong, the parents have lost control, there are not enough police and prisons. Machete attacks are not the result of being poor.

My future for Britain would be an off-shore Singapore-like country. Very low taxes, prisons that work, death penalty for jihadi terrorists, an increased police, border and armed forces, a country that chooses its migrants on merit, an attractive place for business with low corporation tax, a reformed NHS that works for the people, not the consultants and healthcare tourists, to provide housing and support for our armed forces and veterans who will take priority over immigrants, abolish Foreign Aid, and instead contribute to educational and water projects and emergency disaster relief, to care for our elderly in dignity, an education service that excels in STEM subjects and trains our own engineers, scientists and health staff, to abandon transgender teaching in schools and public servants, so we will not see the spectacle of our police in painted nails and high heels, and our children not tainted by sexual abnormalities and persuaded they are transgender when they are little children, to ban halal slaughter and the export of live animals, to believe in Britain and Make Britain Great Again.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Chris Lawton on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Interpretations of Sharia — Does It Matter?

Apologists for Islam use desperate methods to make Islam look more attractive. For instance, some support Sharia by saying that Sharia has a long history of reinterpretation and so can be reinterpreted today so it is more compatible with Western law.

Another argument is that there are different schools of Sharia. There are six different schools of Sharia, but all the schools agree on the vast majority of rulings, particularly in dealing with the Kafir.

The problem is that every interpretation must be based on Koran and the Sunna (found in the Sira and the Hadith). For instance, jihad is a large part of the Koran, Sira and Hadith so no matter how many times you reinterpret the Sharia it must include jihad, the jihad of war against the Kafir. Nothing will remove wife beating, FGM, deception of the Kafir, hating the Kafir, and cruel punishments.

We don’t need to reinterpret Sharia; we need to leave it behind.

ON ISLAMIC MIGRATION

This UN Migration Compact is an attempt to make hijra (Islamic migration) a human right, while at the same time undermining a nation’s sovereignty. All Western nations should withdraw unless their goal is to establish Sharia.

The seeds of this UN Compact were planted back in the 70’s when the Economic European Community (which later became the European Union) and the Arab League established their vision for “Eurabia“.

Please read this short one-page explanation of the United Nations Human Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) Compact for Migration, written by my research team, CSPI International…[read more]

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Acceptance of Islam is Leading to the Suicide of the West

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

Islamic State encourages Muslims in ‘butchering and bayonet,’ telling them to ‘trust in Allah’

The Islamic State continues to couch all its exhortations to violence in Islamic terms. Western law enforcement and intelligence officials continue to ignore this or downplay its significance.

“ISIS Supporters Encourage ‘Easier Ways’ for Fellow Jihadists, Like ‘Butchering and Bayonet,’” by Bridget Johnson, PJ Media, November 16, 2018 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Lone jihadists are encouraged to pick “deadly and easier ways” of attacks in new tips circulated online among ISIS supporters, with an image depicting a woman walking on the Palais de Chaillot framed in crosshairs.

The crudely photoshopped image, with the Eiffel Tower in the background, also depicts three victims on the ground at the popular tourist spot as a terrorist sporting a black T-shirt and face mask wields a bloody knife.

“Lone wolves” are advised to “prepare a plan and study it correctly,” and “if the plan is prepared, trust in Allah.”

The first suggested method of attack is running over people with a heavy truck, like Nice in 2016, “if available.” Then comes “butchering and bayonet” and attacking “their gatherings.” That’s followed by “snatched [sic] them from their house one by one.”

France frequently figures into propaganda from ISIS and their online support network, as the November 2015 Paris attackers are lionized as key examples of a waging an assault on one’s home turf.

A recent call to arms from ISIS-backing media group Al-Abd Al-Faqir, issued after last week’s Melbourne attack, depicted the Eiffel Tower in flames with the “Just Terror” slogan that ISIS has long used in its publications to inspire lone jihad. A black-clad jihadist wearing a leather, zip-front vest stood before the scene, with the message, “Terrorize them in their lands. O Crusaders, we have prepared for you what never crossed your mind. For our goal is to horrify you and terrorize you and harm you.”

Muharir al-Ansar, another ISIS-supporting media group that creates and disseminates propaganda as well as incitement and recruitment materials on behalf of the group, in their own post-Melbourne imagery vowed “soon” painted on the side of a white cargo truck like that used in the Nice attack, with a masked jihadist popping out of the top.

“Soon, the vehicle attacks will be witnessed on your streets, by Allah’s permission,” read the text.
Sponsored

The same group circulated another poster declaring “Soon: the White House under fire: Just Terror.” The image showed a jihadist pointing a rifle outfitted with a scope through a defensive position in a broken wall, though it depicts the U.S. Capitol as the target instead of the White House….

Read the rest here.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Valentin Salja on Unsplash.

Washington Post Op-ed Contributor Ordered the Deaths of 26 Journalists in Yemen

In rushing to show how much they oppose the Saudis after their killing of their pro-jihad “journalist” Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post has embraced Iran, its clients the Houthis, and the Shi’ite jihad.

Mohammed al-Houthi

“WashPo contributor Mohammed al-Houthi pictured with rifle in past interviews,” Al Arabiya, November 11, 2018 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Users on Twitter were able to unearth past photos and videos of Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, the controversial Yemeni militant leader who published an op-ed piece on the Washington Post, showing him with his gun as he conducted televised interviews.

The op-ed by al-Houthi, the head of the so-called the Supreme Revolutionary Committee of the Houthi militia, was published by the US newspaper on November 9.

Al-Houthi is implicated in issuing directives for killing more than 26 Yemeni journalists, while there are 16 journalists until this day in detention centers.

The shocking images of al-Houthi dating back to 2016 shows him with his AK-47 placed either on his lap or on a table during multiple interviews that were aired on pro-Houthi channels….

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

Twitter gave Saudi Arabia information about journalist; he was arrested and died after torture

“Twitter has become insecure for dissidents or critics. Everyone speaks under threat and pressure.”

Indeed. Foes of jihad terror and Sharia oppression are shadowbanned (as in my case) or have their accounts removed altogether. Clearly, as this story shows, Twitter is on the other side, and increasingly only one point of view is allowed there, as with the other social media giants as well. People will say “Just don’t go to Twitter,” but it isn’t that simple. Unfortunately, these evil corporations have a virtual monopoly on the means of communication today. If that monopoly is not soon broken, the freedom of speech will be a dead letter, sacrificed to “hate speech guidelines” that are subjective and politically biased.

“Twitter ‘gave Saudi Arabia information about journalist who ended up dead,’” by Lucy Middleton, Metro, November 9, 2018:

Twitter has come under fire after another dissident journalist was reportedly tortured and killed in Saudi Arabia.

Turki Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Jasser was arrested on March 15 for allegedly running a Twitter account called Kashkool, which exposed human rights violations by Saudi authorities and royals.

He then died while being tortured in detention, The New Khaleej states – prompting fresh outrage over an alleged leak of information that lead to his capture.

‘They got his information from the Twitter office in Dubai. That is how he was arrested,’ a source, who wishes to remain anonymous, told Metro.co.uk.

‘Twitter has become insecure for dissidents or critics. Everyone speaks under threat and pressure.

‘The accounts of Saudi dissidents are spied on. We are not safe using Twitter.’

The source also claimed that Saud al-Qahtani, the former adviser to the Royal Court, leads a ‘cyber spy ring’ and has contacts inside the Dubai Twitter office. They allege that a so-called ‘Twitter mole’ handed over information on Al-Jasser, leading to his arrest earlier this year….

EDITORS NOTE This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished, with images, with permission.

Washington Post: SPLC has “undermined its own credibility with a couple of blunders”

It is astonishing that this evisceration of the SPLC would appear in the Washington Post, and it indicates that even the Leftist media is finding the SPLC too partisan, too unfair, and too biased to continue to defend. We can only hope that this article will prove to be a bellwether, and that the groups that rely on the SPLC’s “hate” designation — Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, Amazon, Patreon, GoFundMe, and the rest — will reconsider their reliance on this dishonest, hate-filled group, and begin to treat all organizations fairly.

Washington Post writer David Montgomery likes the SPLC, and wants to admire it, but finds it difficult to do so. One telling passage in this extremely lengthy piece:

I left Gaffney’s office with a tote bag full of 14 books buttressing his worldview. A 15th came later in the mail. In thinking about my interview, I was struck by just how little he had disputed the SPLC’s claims about the frankly disquieting positions he has taken. To some extent, it was similar to my experience at the FRC and ADF. They simply saw those positions as admirable, or at the very least defensible, expressions of truth — whereas, to the SPLC, they were expressions of hate.

“Frankly disquieting”? That shouldn’t be the criterion. The criteria should be: are those positions based on fact or not? Are they reasonable or not? There is a massive problem with the SPLC demonizing as “hate” what are indeed “at the very least defensible, expressions of truth.” It’s the same in my case. I’m on the SPLC’s “hate” list, and their rap sheet on me is a mixture of falsehood, smear propaganda, and demonstrably true statements presented as if they were self-evidently false and hateful. Here is an overview of the SPLC’s main charges against me, with responses:

“Robert Spencer,”

  1. “Spencer is one of the most prolific anti-Muslim figures in the United States.”

I am not “anti-Muslim.” I oppose jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims, and others. I am no more “anti-Muslim” than foes of the Nazis were “anti-German.”

  1. “A career anti-Muslim figure, Spencer has devoted much of his life to writing books, countless articles, and producing other content all with the goal of vilifying and maligning Muslims and the Islamic faith.”

My goal is not now and has never been “vilifying and maligning Muslims and the Islamic faith.” My goal is to convey Islamic doctrines and beliefs accurately in order to help people understand the phenomenon of Islamic jihad terror.

  1. “He considers these texts to be innately extremist and violent, and refuses to acknowledge nonviolent passages and centuries of adapted interpretations.”

Actually, I’ve published online a commentary on the entire Qur’an, including the nonviolent passages, and written extensively within it about nonviolent interpretations of various passages. That’s here:

  1. “Spencer argues that extremists, like Osama bin Laden and ISIS, are the most authentic interpretation and practice of Islam, despite being actively rejected by the overwhelming majority of the world’s Muslims. He brushes this fact off by bombastically claiming the majority of Muslims, either do not understand their own holy book or are masking their extremism.”

I’ve never made such claims, and have in fact spoken of a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor among Muslims that accounts for why most do not wage jihad.

  1. “By painting Rauf as an extremist who was striving to build a ‘victory mosque’ to celebrate the destruction of the World Trade Center, the two leaders of SIOA sought to block the project while portraying all Muslims as radical – an assertion simply not supported by facts.”

Rauf had links to the Muslim Brotherhood — see here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2010/07/raufs-dawa-world-trade-center-rubble-andrew-c-mccarthy/

We never stated or implied that “all Muslims” are “radical.”

  1. “Spencer also attacks individuals and organizations that claim to represent mainstream Muslims. This is most commonly done through accusations of those entities acting as secret operatives to destroy the West.”

In reality, I merely note the abundantly documented ties of groups such as CAIR to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. See, for example, here: https://www.investigativeproject.org/2340/federal-judge-agrees-cair-tied-to-hamas

  1. “Spencer is known to have associations with European racists and neo-fascists. However, he claims that his contact with them is merely incidental.”

I have no associations with European racists or neo-fascists, and never have. I have had some associations with people who were falsely accused of being racist and neo-fascist.

  1. “In Spencer’s 2017 book Confessions of an Islamophobe, a memoir that among other things dives into the nuances of being an anti-Muslim hate monger, he reveals he has no plans of slowing down.”

In reality, the book explains why opposing jihad terror and Sharia oppression do not make one an anti-Muslim hate monger.

Muslim Basher Robert Spencer Shows White Nationalist Colors,”

  1. “Proving yet again that nothing is beneath him, anti-Muslim propagandist Robert Spencer has put himself firmly in the camp of open white nationalists with an article published yesterday in Crisis magazine, a conservative Catholic publication.”

I am not a white nationalist, openly or secretly, and that article simply criticized multiculturalism. It did not discuss race at all.

  1. “Spencer’s piece is punctuated with a recommended reading list that might have been taken from the bookshelf of John Tanton, the racist architect of the modern nativist movement.”

I had nothing to do with the compilation of that reading list, and did not see it before the piece was published. None of the books on it are genuinely racist; they’re simply against mass migration of non-Europeans into Europe, the devastating effects of which we are seeing now.

  1. “Anthony M. Esolen’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization, which was published by the white nationalist Regnery Press…”

Regnery Publishing is not “white nationalist.” It is a leading mainstream conservative publishing house that has published books by numerous mainstream conservative figures, including David Horowitz, Dinesh D’Souza, Ann Coulter, etc.

What I write is based on the facts of Islamic theology and history. I’d be glad to send Richard Cohen and Heidi Beirich copies of these two books (free of charge, of course, although they could afford to wallpaper the entire earth’s surface with copies of each one), and then would travel to the SPLC headquarters to discuss their contents and accuracy, and whether they really constitute “hate.” They will, of course, ignore this offer.

“The State of Hate: Researchers at the Southern Poverty Law Center have set themselves up as the ultimate judges of hate in America. But are they judging fairly?,” by David Montgomery, Washington Post, November 8, 2018:

See that speck there?” retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin says, directing my gaze to the ceiling of the Family Research Council’s lobby in Washington. I spy a belly-button-size opening in the plaster. “That’s a bullet hole.”The blemish has been preserved for six years. “See that?” he asks, now indicating a cratered fire alarm panel near the reception desk. “That’s a bullet hole. That’s the first round. The second went through the arm of the building manager. The third round hit the ceiling. … Fired on August 15th, 2012, by Floyd Lee Corkins.”

The hero of that day was the building manager, Leo Johnson, who tackled Corkins and was shot in the arm as they scuffled. Asked by an FBI agent how he came to single out the FRC, Corkins replied: “Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups.” The gunman, who was found to be mentally ill, was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

“He came in here to kill as many of us as possible because he found us listed as a hate group on the Southern Poverty Law Center website,” continues Boykin, FRC’s executive vice president, who is dressed today in a leather vest over a shirt and tie. “We and others like us who are on this ‘hate map’ believe that this is very reckless behavior. … The only thing that we have in common is that we are all conservative organizations. … You know, it would be okay if they just criticized us. … If they wrote op-eds about us and all that. But listing us as a hate group is just a step too far because they put us in the same category as the Ku Klux Klan. And who are they to have a hate-group list anyhow?”

Eight hundred miles south, the modernist, glass-and-concrete headquarters of the Southern Poverty Law Center etches the skyline of Montgomery, Ala., just up a hill from Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church, where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. used to preach. On display in the SPLC’s lobby is a melted clock. It marks the time at 3:47 a.m., July 28, 1983, when Klansmen torched a previous SPLC headquarters. Over the years, according to the organization, more than two dozen extremists have been jailed for plots to kill its employees or damage its offices.

Richard Cohen, president of the SPLC, decries Corkins’s assault on the FRC when I ask him about it in his office, with its view of King’s church. But he says the SPLC’s hate list — which doesn’t include the FRC’s address or any call for violence — shouldn’t be held responsible. “Labeling people hate groups is an effort to hold them accountable for their rhetoric and the ideas they are pushing,” says Cohen, who is dressed in a polo shirt, khakis and running shoes.

“Obviously the hate label is a blunt one,” Cohen concedes when I ask whether advocates like the FRC, or proponents of less immigration like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or conservative legal stalwarts like the Alliance Defending Freedom, really have so much in common with neo-Nazis and the Klan that they belong in the same bucket of shame. “It’s one of the things that gives it power, and it’s one of the things that can make it controversial. Someone might say, ‘Oh, it’s without nuance.’ … But we’ve always thought that hate in the mainstream is much more dangerous than hate outside of it. The fact that a group like the FRC or a group like FAIR can have congressional allies and can testify before congressional committees, the fact that a group like ADF can get in front of the Supreme Court — to me that makes them more dangerous, not less so. … It’s the hate in the business suit that is a greater danger to our country than the hate in a Klan robe.”

The SPLC was founded in 1971 to take on legal cases related to racial injustice, poverty and the death penalty. Then, in the early 1980s, it launched Klanwatch, a project to monitor Klan groups, neo-Nazis and other white supremacists. Their hate seemed self-evident. But eventually the SPLC began tracking — and labeling — a wider swath of extremism. And that’s when things became more complicated.

Today the SPLC’s list of 953 “Active Hate Groups” is an elaborate taxonomy of ill will. There are many of the usual suspects: Ku Klux Klan (72 groups), Neo-Nazi (121), White Nationalist (100), Racist Skinhead (71), Christian Identity (20), Neo-Confederate (31), Black Nationalist (233) and Holocaust Denial (10). There are also more exotic strains familiar only to connoisseurs: Neo-Volkisch (28; “spirituality premised on the survival of white Europeans”) and Radical Traditional Catholicism (11; groups that allegedly “routinely pillory Jews as ‘the perpetual enemy of Christ’ ”). Then there are the more controversial additions of the last decade-and-a-half or so: Anti-LGBT (51), Anti-Muslim (113), Anti-Immigrant (22), Hate Music (15), Male Supremacy (2). Finally, the tally is rounded out by a general category called Other (53) — “a hodge-podge of hate doctrines.”

For decades, the hate list was a golden seal of disapproval, considered nonpartisan enough to be heeded by government agencies, police departments, corporations and journalists. But in recent years, as the list has swept up an increasing number of conservative activists — mostly in the anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim categories — those conservatives have been fighting back. Boykin, of the FRC, recently sent a letter to about 100 media outlets (including The Washington Post) and corporate donors on behalf of four dozen groups and individuals “who have been targeted, defamed, or otherwise harmed” by the SPLC, warning that the hate list is no longer to be trusted. Mathew Staver, chairman of the Christian legal advocacy group Liberty Counsel, told me 60 organizations are interested in suing the SPLC.

There are signs the campaign is having an impact. Last year GuideStar, a widely consulted directory of charitable organizations, flagged 46 charities that were listed by the SPLC as hate groups. Within months, under pressure from critics, GuideStar announced it was removing the flags. The FBI has worked with the SPLC in the past on outreach programs, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions has signaled a very different attitude. At a meeting of the Alliance Defending Freedom in August, Sessions said, “You are not a hate group,” and condemned the SPLC for using the label “to bully and to intimidate groups like yours which fight for religious freedom.”

Along the way, the SPLC undermined its own credibility with a couple of blunders. In 2015, it apologized for listing Ben Carson as an extremist (though not on the hate list), saying the characterization was inaccurate. Then, this past June, the group paid $3.4 million to Muslim activist Maajid Nawaz and his Quilliam organization to settle a threatened lawsuit. The SPLC had listed them in a “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists” (again, not on the main hate list). The SPLC apologized for misunderstanding Nawaz’s work to counter Islamist extremism….

The Georgia office has about 10 researchers working on the hate list and other hate monitoring. They are paired with writers and editors working mostly out of Montgomery. My visit in September came as the researchers were preparing the list of hate groups for 2018, which will be published early next year. Clustered at desks according to their specialties — anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT, anti-government and so forth — they were trying to determine who still belongs and prospecting for new entries….

Back in Washington, I paid a visit to the Center for Security Policy, four blocks from the White House. Founder Frank Gaffney greeted me warmly. Coincidentally, the date was Sept. 11. “Perhaps it’s not accidental,” Gaffney said. The SPLC calls the former Reagan administration Pentagon official an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist, and even some conservatives in town want nothing to do with him. But the Center for Security Policy’s allies include Ron Dermer, Israeli ambassador to the United States, who in a 2016 speech to Gaffney’s group said: “If you have enemies, Frank, it’s because you have stood up for something, many times in your life. … The SPLC and others who asked me not to come here tonight claim to support free and open debate. But in reality, they seem to want to stifle debate.”

Gaffney’s concern about Islam, he explained to me, is sharia, or Islam’s legal framework. Sharia is a “totalitarian ideology,” he said, and “sharia supremacists” including the Muslim Brotherhood want to make it the law of this land.

He listened patiently as I read to him from the SPLC’s five-page dossier on him and its seven-page dossier justifying his group’s listing as an anti-Muslim hate group. The SPLC claims this statement comes from a 10-part video course hosted by Gaffney: “America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad another, even more toxic danger — a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls ‘civilization jihad.’ ”

“Accurate quote,” Gaffney said. “But that has nothing to do with hatred. That has to do with intelligence analysis of the threat. It is a straightforward exploration based on the factual evidence of a peril to our country, as I say. And the only thing that I think you can conclude from the insistence [of SPLC] that nobody can say anything like that — and anybody who does say anything like that is not just a national security professional with whom they disagree, but is a racist and a bigot and a hater and an Islamophobe — is they’re trying maybe to get me killed. … I’m quite sure that if a jihadist decides to kill me, part of the inspiration will come from the hateful things they’ve said about me.”

Another quote, by a colleague of Gaffney’s at the center: “When people in other bona fide religions follow their doctrines they become better people — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews. When Muslims follow their doctrine, they become jihadists.”

Gaffney nodded. Even peaceful forms of jihad can undermine the United States, he said, and not all are peaceful. “It’s not that we’re trying to offend Muslims by pointing this out. That, unfortunately, is the doctrine they follow.”

I left Gaffney’s office with a tote bag full of 14 books buttressing his worldview. A 15th came later in the mail. In thinking about my interview, I was struck by just how little he had disputed the SPLC’s claims about the frankly disquieting positions he has taken. To some extent, it was similar to my experience at the FRC and ADF. They simply saw those positions as admirable, or at the very least defensible, expressions of truth — whereas, to the SPLC, they were expressions of hate.

Next, I visited the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington. The CIS supports reduced legal immigration and tougher border security. The lobby is decorated with executive director Mark Krikorian’s collection of kitsch renderings of the Statue of Liberty — Barbie, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, covers of the New Yorker and the Saturday Evening Post, Eddie Murphy in the movie poster for “Coming to America,” even a vintage Peace Corps recruiting poster that says: “Make America a better place. Leave the Country.”

The CIS has testified before Congress 100 times and publishes studies purporting to show the burden of immigration. The center supports a policy “that admits fewer people but does a better job of welcoming and incorporating those people,” Krikorian said. Among the factors that got CIS added to the SPLC’s hate list: the center’s habit of circulating links to articles from arguably noxious sources in its regular email roundup. Also, a series of harsh-sounding quotes about immigrants by Krikorian and some of his colleagues.

Krikorian indulged my desire to go deep into the SPLC’s 14-page hate dossier. The SPLC (with research help from the civil rights group Center for New Community) found that in 450 emails over 10 years, the CIS circulated 2,012 pieces from what the SPLC deems white nationalist websites. The total includes more than 1,700 from Vdare.com, an anti-immigration site that promotes white-identity politics. Popular article tags on Vdare include “minority occupation government,” “anti-white hate crimes,” “immigrant mass murder” and “white guy loses his job.”

“If they had just sent around one Vdare piece, for example, that wouldn’t matter at all,” Beirich had told me back in Georgia. “But we documented 2,000 hate-group things. … When you get into the thousands, it’s like, ‘How come you’re always on these hate sites and you’re sending it to your membership?’ You’re telling people to read hate material over and over and over again. At some point you have some responsibility for that relationship.”

The dossier leaves unclear how many of the 2,012 articles themselves were hateful, as opposed to having been published on platforms that the SPLC deems hateful. It offers only a handful of examples of the actual articles, and Krikorian maintains that most were legitimate immigration commentary. “The point is to cast a wide net,” he said. “There’s all kinds of stuff on Vdare that I have problems with. … But you know it is one of the main sources of commentary on immigration, and I’d be doing a disservice to readers not including immigration-related stuff that appears at Vdare.”

Beirich countered that readers who clicked on the links still found themselves on hateful websites, and the center’s aggregation helps legitimize those sites. Moreover, according to the SPLC, dozens of the pieces the CIS circulated were by authors whose work elsewhere is hateful.

“Providing links to immigration articles written by people who in other venues wrote things on other topics that are objectionable, and that I myself almost certainly would object to — so what?” Krikorian says. “You’ve got to admire the Inspector Javert-like obsession to go through hundreds of these links and find out who the author was and then Google the author and see what he — I mean it’s just, get a life, people!”…

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch.