I usually avoid posting about hot topics, figuring that anything I say will have already been said by others, maybe better. I'm tempted to ignore Anders Breivik for that reason.
But since Gates of Vienna and Jihad Watch have long been on my blogroll, I feel a duty to stand with them when they're subject to a hate campaign.
Those two sites (among many others) appeared in Breivik's book-length, cut-and-paste manifesto. Now the LA Times, along with the rest of the leftist/multi-culti propaganda collective, is ecstatic to have an excuse to label the anti-jihad movement "right-wing extremists," "Muslim-bashers," and "bigots."
According to the LA Times:
What Spencer [of Jihad Watch] failed to address is the fact that his site, and others cited by Breivik such as The Gates of Vienna, make a habit of blaming all Muslims for the actions of a minority of violent jihadists. As an example of Spencer's thinking, he wrote in November that the Transportation Security Administration should profile and give extra screening attention to Muslim males at airports, because this is the likeliest group to commit acts of terrorism. One could as easily argue that special attention should be paid to white males. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Unabomber's reign of terror, the Tucson shootings and, now, the mass murder in Norway, this population also appears prone to terrorist violence.
The Times's illogicality should be obvious. Giving extra screening to Muslims is not "blaming all Muslims." If the TSA's aim is actually to deter terrorists from boarding planes -- and not, as many of us believe, to be a jobs program for otherwise unemployables and to create a new class of government dependents -- it is only common sense to give a little more attention to a population responsible for an endless stream of terrorist activities worldwide, even while recognizing that most individuals of that population won't fit the profile.
I have read Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal (also mentioned in the manifesto) for years; Jihad Watch less often recently, simply because it doesn't tell me much that's new. On none of those sites have I ever seen advocacy of a lunatic act such as Breivik's, or anything that could be interpreted by a sane person as advocacy.
Ah, but what about influencing the insane? the anti-anti-jihad left would reply. That is irrelevant. People who are paranoid or schizophrenic can be influenced by anything: "hidden messages" in advertising, voices in their minds, the patterns of window cracks.
Gates of Vienna, its frequent contributor Fjordman, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, "cultural conservatives" and many others who oppose the Islamization of the west are extremists only in the eyes of the leftist/Muslim united front. They ask us to face an uncomfortable truth: that there are almost no positives about Muslim immigration and many negatives; that Muslims will not "integrate," except in the most superficial ways, into Western cultures; and that Islam is an all-embracing politico-religious system stuck in a stage of intolerance that other cultures have long since gotten over.
The anti-jihad movement has nothing to apologize for.