The hypocrisy of the enemedia is stunning. Robert Spencer explains how it is not my ads, but the leftists and Islamic supremacists who are opposing them, and their enemedia cheerleaders, who think all Muslims are savages:Washington Post: Don't deface pro-freedom ads, just surrender to jihadists instead Jihadwatch
How much has our public discourse degenerated? This much: one of the most prominent, popular and respected Muslim spokesmen on the scene is Reza Aslan, who has recently been unmasked as a Board member of a front group for Iran's bloody Islamic regime. Aslan is also a Left-fascist who has called for obstruction of our freedom of speech by means of vandalism of our pro-freedom ads. Aslan employs Nathan Lean, a thug who has threatened me repeatedly, repeats what he knows to be falsehoods about my record, and has been arrested for shouting obscenities at a city council meeting.
In a sane world, people like Reza Aslan and Nathan Lean would be regarded with suspicion and disdain by all free people. In ours, Lean gets space in the Los Angeles Times and New York Daily News to defame me and my colleagues, and to call for restriction of our freedom of speech. But even someone as obviously dull-witted as Nathan Lean has apparently realized that calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech still don't sit well with most Americans, and so now in the Washington Post he has taken another tack, broken with his boss Aslan and called for our ads not to be vandalized -- which doesn't at all mean that he has suddenly gained an appreciation for Constitutional freedoms.
"Don’t deface anti-Muslim Metro ads," by Nathan Lean in the Washington Post, October 8 (thanks to all who sent this in):When vitriolic advertisements that equated Muslims with “savages” recently appeared in 10 New York City subway stations, some who were irked by the incendiary message took matters into their own hands.
Lean follows the constant Islamic supremacist/Leftist line that the ad refers to all Muslims. No one seems to notice that this contradicts the politically correct dogma that the vast majority of Muslims abhor jihad terrorism. If jihad terror against innocent civilians is the province only of a despised tiny minority of extremist Muslims, why should the vast majority of peaceful Muslims, and their Leftist allies, object to an ad opposing that extremism?The posters, which read, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Defeat Jihad. Support Israel,” became targets for vandals who plastered them with stickers, sprayed them with spray paint, and in some cases, ripped them into pieces.
The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), an anti-Muslim organization founded by bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, paid for the ad campaign — the latest in a long line of Muslim-bashing campaigns led by the duo. After several weeks of dispute over the legality of the ads’ placement, AFDI won an injunction to have them displayed. The hateful words, a federal district court in Manhattan ruled, are protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
"Anti-Muslim": Lean apes his masters in equating our work to defend the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights of all people with being against Muslims. In doing so, he hopes to buttress his flimsy claim that what we do is somehow "racist." In reality, it is pro-Muslim, and pro-human in general, to stand for these rights and freedoms. Those who oppose us in our work to defend them are the ones who want Muslims and others to live under oppression and tyranny. That would be Nathan Lean.Now, the provocative placards are set to appear in four Metro stations throughout the nation’s capital. On Friday, District Judge Rosemary Collyer issued a one-page ruling ordering that the Washington Metro Transit Authority install the posters immediately.
The aim of these advertisements is to provoke — to elicit an emotional outburst that their proponents then use as evidence of the very culture war they seek to advance. They begin with the presupposition that Muslims are violent, they mercilessly antagonize and taunt them, and then, when a fringe few react poorly, they complete the self-fulfilling prophecy by patting themselves on the back and saying “we told you so.”
Nathan Lean here again demonstrates that it is he who is actually anti-Muslim, and even considers them inferior subhumans -- not surprising considering that the guy is an anti-free speech fascist, but still stunning. Lean, after all, has made it his business to "mercilessly antagonize and taunt" people like me and Pamela Geller -- hence his repeated defamation in large forums like the LA Times, and his veiled threats to me, sending me information he thinks is about my family, and addresses he thinks are where I live and work, etc. But he can do all this secure in the knowledge that I will never harm him physically, because I am, after all, a civilized human being, and no amount of antagonism and taunting could ever possibly make me physically attack Nathan Lean, much less attack innocent people because of his taunts and threats.
But Nathan Lean clearly doesn't think Muslims are civilized. He is the one who thinks them savages, like apes that will lash out if one pokes them with a stick enough times. He is essentially saying that we have to be quiet, censor ourselves and not anger the poor dears, because, you know, they just can't control themselves.
His words also take on a bitter irony in light of recent headlines. Look how the 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai mercilessly antagonized and taunted the Taliban until finally they shot her -- because she was calling for peace. And the Jews of Paris mercilessly antagonized and taunted the local Muslims until twelve of them began plotting jihad attacks against Jewish targets -- how did they antagonize and taunt them? By being Jews. Then there were the Buddhist rubber tappers in Thailand who mercilessly antagonized and taunted the local Muslims by being Buddhist rubber tappers, and were duly murdered.
Clearly the proper response to this jihadist savagery is not to silence ourselves and cower in fear, but to stand up for ourselves and our principles of freedom. And if some Muslims do think our ad is a merciless antagonistic taunt that must be met with violence, the responsibility for that violence will be entirely theirs, not anyone else's. Unlike Nathan Lean, I believe Muslims are free human beings who are capable of making choices and are responsible for their actions.
Lean then goes on to call for "an overwhelming societal refrain that emphasizes peace and pluralism, and condemns the divisive rhetoric of these bullies with alternative public messages that are forceful and clear." In other words, surrender to the jihad, don't make any "Islamophobic" moves, and all will be well with you. Is that an inaccurate summation of what Nathan Lean really means? Absolutely not. Until he demonstrates the slightest interest in going after jihad murderers with the same zeal with which he pursues those who oppose them, it is more than apt.