First of all, of course, there is no anti-Islam movement yet.
There only exists an amorphous movement with many disparate groups and many disaffected, troubled individuals, profoundly disturbed and concered by the metastasizing problem of Islam, spread out over the world internationally. (Part of the reason why they remain disorganized may reflect the fact that, relatively, they are few in number, compared with their pleasantly myopic fellow Westerners; but that is a somewhat tangential problem.)
One important part of this amorphous movement exists, or at least has its intellectual center, in the Blogosphere.
In this far-flung, amorphous context, there are certain individuals who are like cream that rise to the top, and have more influence, by virtue of their talented skills in communication and activism (Spencer, Geller, Wilders, and many others). In this context, there are motions made now and then in the direction of forging a unity; but thus far, no unity has been forged yet.
Also in this context, almost precisely because it is not yet organized in any systematic way but remains amorphous, the intellectual dimension -- the "war of ideas" -- remains a crucial part of the process.
As long as this is our situation ("our" meaning those of us who are fed up with Muslims, and fed up with our West for bending over backwards in defense of Muslims), we have an interest in quality control in terms of our agenda.
Certainly, this concern for quality control is less pressing in our amorphous situation, than it would be if we had an actual organization getting things done in a concerted, official capacity.
(Why am I articulating unremarkably obvious things...? Sigh...)
However, it is also important in our amorphous situation -- perhaps even more important; to, so to say, get our shit together as we anticipate a major paradigm shift in our West in the coming decades.
Okay, in these terms, and considering, again, the important Blogospheric component of the situation, we have to think about the concept of the "Big Tent".
This concept concerns who rightfully belongs with us, and who does not. Certainly, this concept itself is not flawed. Every movement, every group, has a right to determine who should be a member and who should not, and what ideas or positions make or break such a determination. It's not the concept itself that is in question; but only the criteria, and whether or not the criteria are unreasonable.
And of course, the Tent is "Big" because ideally we want to have as many people with us as we possibly can, because we operate in a beleaguered context, where we need numbers to help tip the balance with a West still idiotically laggard in its recognition of the problem of Islam. However, our concern for "Bigness" should not trump any concerns for acceptable ideology among members. I mean, we don't want Nazis, or antisemites, or unreconstructed PC MCs (let alone Leftists), or conspiracy theorists, or flabby softies hobnobbing with us and rubbing our elbows, do we?
Anyway, when I have brought this up in Jihad Watch comments over the years, and when I have pointed out that certain ideas or positions should be considered outside the bounds of the "Big Tent", more often than not I seem to elicit prickly reactions from those in the Counter-Jihad, as though my concern is threatening the Tent itself.
But if the Tent is so Big it includes people who are really not anti-Islam -- and whose positions and ideas actually tend to enable Islam rather than fight against it -- then is that a Tent we would want to call our own?
So, again; the question is not: Should we have standards that exclude certain types of ideas from the Big Tent? But rather: What should be our standards by which we do exclude certain types of ideas from the Big Tent?
Why this distinction seems lost on so many Jihad Watchers, I remain baffled.