I'm not sure there's a third explanation for his dogged (albeit elliptical) insistence that the monstrously mountainous problem of Islam has pretty much nothing to do with Muslims per se.
Concerning a recent notice on Jihad Watch reporting a Chris Wallace interview with Trump's senior national security advisor, H.R. McMaster, Spencer editorialized:
Wallace adds: “But his tweets were all about anti-Muslim — about Muslim violence, he was making it.” That he would buy into the establishment narrative that opposing jihad terror is “anti-Muslim” betrays a massive confusion on his part.
Au contraire, my dear counter-jihad-mainstream frère: Wallace is actually being more logical than Spencer is. Spencer is either pretending that Muslims (or most Muslims) aren't a problem and only Islam is, or he really believes this. Either way, his mission in life obviously implies, to anyone with the elementary capacity to ingest & digest the mountain of damning data he has been reporting for some 14 years now, that Muslims are a problem and that any attempt to granularize Muslims into Harmless Muslims and Dangerous Muslims is essentially flawed. The fact that Spencer won't concede this, but routinely denies it, only makes matters worse for any understanding that might be cultivated between the two Mainstreams -- the Counter-Jihad Mainstream and the broader Western Mainstream of which Chris Wallace and H.R. McMaster (and practically everydamnbody else in the West with opposable thumbs) are members.
Further Reading:
Various essays I've written about paradigm shift that never seems to happen "in the Counter-Jihad" -- particularly this one, Third piece of the puzzle.
No comments:
Post a Comment