Robert Spencer’s Pal, Former Torturer Allen West Thinks White House is Islamic

Allen West Pretty Sure Bowe Bergdahl’s Dad Made The White House A Mosque

By Doktor Zoom (Wonkette)

OMG you guys! Disgraced former torturer Allen West, super-patriot and Muslim-Hunter extraordinaire, has been tipped off to some earth-shattering proof of Muslim perfidy and scary creeping — or galloping! — sharia law! After spending the weekend calling Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl a “deserter” and hinting that there’s something “nefarious” about his release from the Taliban, and about Bergdahl’s father, Bob Bergdahl (who apparently doesn’t hate Muslims enough at all), West has revealed a “bombshell”: Bob Bergdahl spoke Arabic at the White House! Not only that, but he pretty much made the White House a holy Muslim shrine by doing that, according to a very smart person who emailed Allen West.

West says that he got an email from Clare Lopez, a “former CIA operations officer” who knows all sorts of stuff about Islam and the Middle East, and who is a personal friend of one Allen West. Lopez completely blows the lid off a huge cover-up, he says!

She emailed me this morning a very poignant analysis that only someone knowing language and Islam could ascertain. She wrote:

“What none of these media is reporting is that the father’s (SGT Bowe Bergdahl’s father Bob) first words at the WH were in Arabic – those words were “bism allah alrahman alraheem” – which means “in the name of Allah the most gracious and most merciful” – these are the opening words of every chapter of the Qur’an except one (the chapter of the sword – the 9th) – by uttering these words on the grounds of the WH, Bergdahl (the father) sanctified the WH and claimed it for Islam. There is no question but POTUS knows this.”

Folks, there is a lot to this whole episode — like Benghazi — that we may never know. And this is not conspiracy theory, it is truth based upon Arabic and Islamic dogma and tradition.

Is America going to continue to let Barack Hussein Obama invite parents of rescued POWs to the White House and claim it for Islam? This is not a conspiracy theory, this is genuine honest-to-god disloyalty to America. Or maybe — and we’re going to go out on a limb here — it’s a routine phrase in Muslim Prayer that doesn’t actually have any magical power whatsoever, except perhaps the power to freak out wingnuts.

Get ready for a lot more of this idiocy, folks; somehow, the fact that Bowe Bergdahl’s dad is sympathetic to Muslims has also been Very Big with the Stupidest Man on the Internet. Here’s how terrifying Bob Bergdahl is: He said a phrase in Arabic, and then OBAMA HUGGED HIM! That just doesn’t wash off, you know.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. And while you’re at it, maybe you should buy some more guns.

[Allen West / Gateway Pundit]

Follow Doktor Zoom on Twitter. He only hugs people who say certain phrases in French. Like, “Royale With Cheese.”

(via. LoonWatch)

Robert Spencer Lies About Praising Angola’s “Ban on Islam”

Angola Bans Islam Destroys Mosques

Omar Sacirbey, a journalist for the Religion News Service has a blog post summarizing Islamophobia and Muslim news over the past week in which he gives us a very nice commendation,

Loonwatch.com, an excellent website keeping tabs on the Islamophobe industry, reported this week that the anti-Muslim blog FreePatriot.org published a story about a Muslim mob in Egypt that threw a 15-year-old Christian girl out a third-floor window. The FreePatriot story came with a photo of a woman falling out a window. Pretty enraging stuff, except that the story is completely made-up. The 2011 photo of a woman jumping from a fifth-floor window was shot in Shanghai.

Sacirbey also noted that Islamophobes Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller both welcomed the, as it turns out, inaccurate news about Angola’s ban on Islam,

Speaking of false reports, did you catch the one about how Angola had banned Islam and was planning to raze mosques in the country? Anti-Muslim bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer both welcomed the false news. At The Daily Beast, Jacob Mchangama writes how the bloggers’ praise of Angola’s purported Islam ban contradicts their self-styled images as defenders of free speech.

There is a lot more that plainly showcases the anti-freedom bona fides of Spencer and Geller and can easily be found detailed on Spencerwatch.

In the comments section Spencer showed up, addressing Sacirbey in his usual arrogant and ego-driven tone, Spencer decided he would lie,

Robert Spencer

“Fabricating stories to demonize people is nothing new” — and you should know, Omar Sacirbey, since you’re a master at it yourself. Here, you are retailing the falsehoods of other smear artists, but are you too lazy to do any fact-checking? In reality, I never praised the supposed ban on Islam in Angola, and actually condemned it: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/11/angola-denies-it-banned-islam-destroyed-mosques.html

You’re a disgrace to journalism.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Other commenters pointed out Spencer’s hypocrisy and called him out for being a despicable liar,

Robert Spencer,

The hypocrite is YOU.

You did indeed welcome the possibility of the ban of Islam in Angola when news first broke of it, or at the very least did anything but condemn or even criticize it. From your own blog:

“This is extraordinarily strange news, given that the world is racing in the other direction, to accommodate and appease Islam. It will be interesting to see, if these reports turn out to be accurate, how the mainstream media and Islamic supremacist groups will find a way to accuse the Angolans of “racism.” In any case, clearly this is a national security issue, with Islamic supremacists and jihadists wreaking havoc in Nigeria and spreading elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa. There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity. However, censure from the UN and the world “human rights” community will probably soon compel Angola to change its stance, and allow the jihadis free rein.”

Let’s analyze your statement here:

1 – The alternative to a ban of Islam (“the other direction” as you put it) is to “to accommodate and appease Islam.” And since your entire blog rants and shills about the prevalence and evil of such accommodation and appeasement, one can easily conclude which of the two “options” in your binary world view you prefer.

2 – You scoffed at the possibility – that if the ban turns out to be true – “how the mainstream media and Islamic supremacist groups will find a way to accuse the Angolans of “racism.”” You are clearly stating you would disagree with such opposition and in fact go further to mock those who would.

3 – You justify the possibility of the ban to be “clearly this is a national security issue”

4 – Incredibly, you argue that there is no way to distinguish between bad Muslims and good Muslims in Angola or anywhere in the world, essentially endorsing the ban as the final solution not only in Angola, but everywhere in the world: “There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity.”

5 – You put those who would seek to oppose the ban on human rights grounds in quotes (“human rights”) suggesting that you do NOT agree that this would be a human rights issue. You indicate that the consequence of reversing the ban on a human rights ground is: “the free reign of Jihadis.” Now, unless you are now changing your mind that “the free reign of Jihadis” is an undesirable thing, you are explicitly warning against the reversal of the ban.

The full quote: “However, censure from the UN and the world “human rights” community will probably soon compel Angola to change its stance, and allow the jihadis free rein.”

In conclusion, the claim by Omar Sacirbey is 100% true.

You either have a painfully low IQ, are a shameless hypocrite, or suffer from severe amnesia when you come here to deride this fine journalist and accuse him of lying about your first response to the news of the ban when it is so clearly documented.

Moreover, if you are ashamed of your own views, why hold them, let alone parade them so proudly, in the first place? Time for a psychiatric evaluation.

Cordially,

Richard

It’s good to know that sane and well informed voices are willing to push back more and more against the hate brigades.

Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller Banned From the UK For Inciting Hatred

By Garibaldi

The United Kingdom has a very explicit policy of not allowing hate preachers and inciters of violence to enter their nation. It is in this vein that the UK has announced another massive blow to the merchants of Islamophobic hate and fear; Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer and his close companionPamela Geller have been banned from entering the UK to speak at a rally for the extremist English Defence League.

Guardian political columnist Sunny Hundal has the initial details,

Both Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have been banned from entering the UK by the Home Office, after a campaign by the anti-racist group Hope Not Hate.

Both bloggers posted letters to their websites today, from the Home Office, stating that they had been banned from entering.

Letter to Robert Spencer

Letter to Pamela Geller

The duo were invited to speak at a rally by the English Defence League.

The letter stated:

After careful consideration, she [the Home Secretary] personally directed that you should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that your presence here is not conducive to the public good.

The Home Secretary has reached this decision because you have brought yourself within the scope of the list of unacceptable behaviours by making statements that may foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

Pamela Geller has been exposed as repeatedly publishing false stories about Muslims in order to stir up hatred.

The BBC and Huffington Post have also covered the story.

Hope Not Hate presented a dossier to the Home Office on the anti-Muslim Crusader ideology that spurs both Spencer and Geller as well as a petition signed by 10,000 concerned UK citizens that decisively persuaded the Home Office to condemn and ban the pair.

The work of Loonwatch and Spencerwatch were also used by the Home Secretary as major sources that informed them of the vile, Islamophobic nature of the two hate group leaders, aiding in today’s outcome.

Of course the predictable reaction from Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller has been to madly rant and rave at Hope Not Hate and its founder Nick Lowles about “darkness” and “untold misery” and “subjugation and enslavement.” They just cannot countenance that their brand of hate is continuously being defeated and relegated to the dustbin of hate history–where it belongs.

Tom “Nuke Mecca” Tancredo thinks Rick Perry is Soft on Muslims, Cites Robert Spencer

You’ll note that the main authority Tancredo cites in his attack on Perry is “Islam scholar [sic] Robert Spencer, head of Jihad Watch”.

For all you need to know about the terror inspirer and terror linked Robert Spencer visit: www.spencerwatch.com

(via. Islamophobia-Watch)

Tancredo accuses Perry of being soft on migrants and Muslims

Since Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s debate debacle last week, commentators and conservatives alike have been questioning his readiness and looking for another presidential alternative to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Now, Colorado’s Tom Tancredo is piling on.

In a column for the Daily Caller, Tancredo, who ran twice for his party’s presidential nomination in an effort to inject the illegal immigration issue into the larger debate, is slamming Perry for his soft policies on illegal immigration in Texas – and what Tancredo calls his “Muslim blind spot.”

“What is not yet as widely known about Perry is that he extends his taxpayer-funded compassion not only to illegal aliens but also to Muslim groups seeking to whitewash the violent history of that religion,” Tancredo writes. ”Perry endorsed and facilitated the adoption in Texas public schools of a pro-Muslim curriculum unit developed by Muslim clerics in Pakistan.”

Tancredo cites a study by The Center for Immigration Studies, which shows that 81% of the 279,000 jobs created in Texas in the past four years went to non-citizens, a high number of them illegal aliens, to discredit Perry’s central presidential argument – that he’s overseen a “Texas miracle” of job growth while the national economy continues to decline.

And in 2008, as Tancredo points out, Perry helped expand the Muslim Histories and Culture Project, a teacher-training program spearheaded by Texas Ismailis that introduces Islamic history and culture curricula into Texas schools.

While many of the GOP’s 2012 contenders have sought to distance themselves with Islam, Perry, Tancredo points out, refused to endorse a proposal in the Texas legislature to outlaw Sharia law in the state.

“What is it with Republican elites like Perry?” Tancredo writes. “Do they think Republican primary voters are stupid? Does Perry think he can talk tough in defending the Texas death penalty and then waffle on border security and taxpayer support for illegal alien children? Why does he think he can claim to be the ‘tea party candidate’ while endorsing a whitewash of Islamic extremism in Texas schools?”

KWGN, 28 September 2011

Nutjob Robert Spencer Suggests Barack Obama is an “Islamist Jihadist” with a “remarkable, unqualified and obvious affinity for Islam” who believes that 911 was “an act of God”

Nutjob Robert Spencer Suggests Barack Obama is an “Islamist Jihadist” with a “remarkable, unqualified and obvious affinity for Islam” who believes that 911 was “an act of God”

Terrorist inspirer Robert Spencer’s proclivity to engage in anti-Muslim Islamophobic conspiracy theories is well known. Recently, he dallied once again in the nutty conspiracy that Barack Obama is a ‘radical undercover Mooslim’ hell bent on destroying America.

In a post titled, Obama reads Biblical passage at 9/11 ceremonies implying that 9/11 was an act of God Spencer writes,

Obama reads Psalm 46, including verse 8: “Come, behold the works of the LORD, how he has wrought desolations in the earth.”

The only people who think that 9/11 was an act of the Supreme Being wreaking desolations on the earth are…Islamic jihadists.

Robert Spencer, just like his comrade Pamela Geller believes Obama is a Muslim. They have repeated this claim numerous times, both implicitly and directly, though Spencer has reverted again to not saying it clearly.

Spencer, unlike his friend Geller knows that such a belief is bats*** loony so he attempts to couch his language in euphemism and hints.

It is interesting to note Spencer’s false claim that the “only people who think that 9/11 was an act of the Supreme Being are Islamic jihadists.” Spencer isn’t that stupid, just a week ago he was on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, the same loon pastor who “in the wake of 9/11, had a now (in-)famous exchange with the late Jerry Falwell in which the two religious leaders suggested that the United States ‘deserved’ the attacks for its tolerance of secularism, gays, abortion, feminists and pagans.”

Maybe Spencer thinks that Robertson is an Islamic Jihadist?

However, when have facts ever stopped Spencer in the past? So, with single-minded drive to prove Obama’s radical Islamic Jihadism he continues:

So why did Barack Obama pick this psalm out of 150 psalms, and out of innumerable appropriate Biblical passages, to read at the 9/11 ceremonies? 9/11, after all, was a day when there were indeed wrought desolations on the earth. Did Obama really mean to say that God did it, that it was an act of divine judgment, rather than a monstrous and unmitigated evil?

Or is this just another one of those funny coincidences, of which there are so very, very many when it comes to Barack Obama and his remarkable, unqualified and obvious affinity for Islam?

Robert Spencer long ago went off the rails when he solidified his alliance with Pamela Geller and the fascist anti-Muslim Right-wing network. Ever since then it has been downhill for the anti-Muslim polemicist. No longer does he care to present the facade of impartiality, scholarliness or truth. He has been savaged for it in the mainstream media, it only remains for the national security complex, which still allows him to instruct its employees to catch up to this soon to be bygone “counter-jihad” blogger.

Wallowing in his own self-righteousness, Spencer declares the President of the United States Barack Obama, a professed Christian, the commander-in-chief of forces occupying two Muslim nations and bombing the hell out of several more of being an “Islamist Jihadist.”

Is that called “chutzpah” or just plain right-wing anti-Muslim loonacy?

Hypocrisy Alert: Jihad Watch Gets Desperate Against LoonWatch Yet Again

Hypocrisy Alert: Jihad Watch Gets Desperate Against LoonWatch Yet Again

JihadWatch just published this:

Incitement to violence against Robert Spencer at “Spencer Watch”

Spencer Watch is a site affiliated with an larger propaganda outfit that had to go and steal the name of a perfectly nice site about birds.

Yes, idiotic comments happen, and here, we delete them as soon as we are aware of them. Ordinarily, we have better things to do than read anything Spencer Watch puts out, but a reader kindly brought this comment to our attention, which has remained for over a year on a rather major page within the site, intended to imitate our “Why Jihad Watch?”

Wow. Way to refute everything about Acts 17, “RefutingActs17.” You totally put St. Paul in his place there, dude.

Robert Spencer always enjoys giving himself an air of mystique by boasting that his life is in mortal danger, which is why his books such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) say that “He lives in a Safe, Undisclosed Location.”  This, even though he quite openly says here that “I live in New England.”  Couldn’t his book have said that, instead of the melodramatic “He lives in a Safe, Undisclosed Location” (all capitalized for some odd reason)? It’s not really “Undisclosed” then, is it?

The reason for this fraud is obvious: nothing boosts ratings more than a fatwa on one’s head.  So, it is no wonder then that Robert Spencer has been desperately trying to accuse LoonWatch (or its affiliate site SpencerWatch) of threatening him.  For the first time, Spencer and the Islamophobes have an organization that is really sticking it to them.  He has to find a way to discredit us. Unfortunately, nothing sticks!

The fact that JihadWatch has absolutely nothing to use against us–that Robert Spencer has no substantive responses to issue whatsoever–is painstakingly clear to see when we look at the frustrated, almost pathetic, attacks on our site.  Awhile ago, he published an article condemning a comment Mosizzle posted [“Like all cancers, this one needs to be cut out before it spreads”] which wasn’t even posted by a LoonWatch or SpencerWatch writer.  Not only that, but Mosizzle explained that his sentence was meant to be understood in a proverbial, not literal, way.

Once again, JihadWatch couldn’t find a single sentence written by a LoonWatch or SpencerWatch writer to take issue with, so it has to once again dig up a comment by some random posterRefutingActs17–who says: “It’s time Robert Spencer got schooled–the hard way.”  Apparently, that’s supposed to constitute “an incitement to violence.”

According to urbandictionary.com, “taking someone to school” means:

Being taken to school means that you have been owned, pwnt, ownt, pwned, beaten, defeated, SHOWN HOW ITS DONE. Nubs usually get taken to school in games such as Counter-Strike.

Oh my God!  Maybe RefutingActs is challenging Robert Spencer to a game of Counter-Strike!  (I’m going to hazard a guess that Spencer will play with the Counter-Terrorists.)

As I pointed out previously in response to Spencer’s spazzing out over Mosizzle’s comment, all of this reeks of profound hypocrisy:

Robert Spencer, on the other hand, physically threatened me (Danios), calling for me to be lashed 100 and 101 times on two different occasions respectively, saying about me (“the slick liar”):

The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 100 lashes

And:

The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 101 lashes

Calling for someone to get lashed 100 or 101 times cannot really be understood as “proverbially speaking” nor is it a common saying. (Admittedly, I think it was nothing more than him just losing his temper…) So basically on the one hand we have on LoonWatch a comment using a phrase most commonly used in the proverbial sense by a random reader of our site who is not even a part of the LoonWatch team…(Nowhere in the quote by Mosizzle is violent action called for.)  And on the other hand we have a threat that explicitly says I should be lashed, a threat issued not by some random reader of JW, but by the main man himself!

I smell something: it’s the smell of desperation.

All of this desperation coming from JihadWatch just because LoonWatch and SpencerWatch are really getting under their skin.  Most humiliating of all, of course, is that Robert Spencer is scared to debate us here at LoonWatch. But I guess whining about a comment here and there posted by random visitors to our site is just as good as facing me in debate?

Instead of defending the arguments he raised in his book (many of which I have refuted and will continue to refute), Spencer’s site spends time analyzing the name of our website. Oh no, we stole the name of a bird site (even though our site existed beforehand).  To respond using the words of JihadWatch: Wow.  Way to refute everything about LoonWatch.  You totally put Danios in his place there, dude.  You just refuted us, and now we give up.  All our base are belong to you.

Note: Make sure to read our earlier article on a very similar topic, Robert Spencer of JihadWatch Becomes Desperate Against LoonWatch

Thousands Protest Robert Spencer in Germany: “It was like looking into the pit of hell”

Catholic anti-Muslim polemicist and hate blogger Robert Spencer was in Germany once again at the invitation of the Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa (BPE). We have previously exposed the supremacist and fascist nature of the BPE in a previous article, Robert Spencer Teams up with Euro-Supremacists Once Again:

Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa

Looking at the BPE site reveals that it is just another organization using the title and badge of human rights to add an air of legitimacy to the real intent behind their work: demonization and marginalization of Europe’s Muslims.

Thanks to one of our German readers, Morakot, we were able to see for ourselves the true nature of this group that Spencer attempts to trump up. It is a group whose aims are undifferentiated from those of neo-Fascists like Geert Wilders and the BNP.

In “Der Verein” (The Association) section of their website they claim that they are not “anti-Muslim” but the facts speak otherwise. Similar in substance to neo-Fascists and Euro supremacist groups, they take up the mantle of proclaiming themselves to be the vanguard and champions of “European Culture.” They define this as being “exclusively committed to the preservation of the Christian-Jewish tradition of their European culture” and opposed to the so called “creeping Islamization” of Europe, which is nothing less than the perpetuation of the debunked Eurabiaand Muslim Demographics conspiracy theories.

Their solutions to the so called problem of “creeping Islamization” are elucidated in a document they released titled De-Islamization program which states amongst its main points,

– Organizations of islam critics as well as of people who left islam shall be funded by the state and have an adaquate say in the media.

Lets think about this for a second. They want the state to reward critics of Islam (who defines “critics of Islam?” Would anti-Muslim Geert Wilders of “tax-the-hijab-fame” be considered an acceptable “critic?”) and people who leave Islam with funding, essentially lobbying the government to take an official position in opposition to Islam. Does this not cross the boundary of separation of Church and State, and the fundamental tenets of secularism? It seems the “Christian-Jewish values” that this organization wants to protect bears more of a resemblance to a theocratic “Holy Roman Empire” rather than a pluralistic Democracy.

-All islamic organizations following a political instead of a religious agenda and/or on behalf of a foreign governement shall be disbanded.

Who will decide if an “Islamic organization is following a political agenda?” This is really a concealed attempt to disband all Muslim organizations. Everything the BPE represents indicates that they agree with a Geert Wilder-esque concept that  ’Islam is not a 1500 year old religion at all but rather a political movement,’ so no matter what you do as an organization you will be labeled a political organization.

It also highlights the double standards they advocate: on the one hand you have the Christian Democrats (CDU) led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, which is “Christian-based, applying the principles of Christian Democracy and emphasizes the ‘Christian understanding of humans and their responsibility toward God.’” CDU is a political party which heads the German government, imagine the firestorm that would be created if Muslims even attempted to create a party which “emphasizes the ‘Muslim understanding of humans and their responsibility toward God.”

-Persons supporting djihad or installment of sharia in Germany shall undergo a de-islamization training or must suffer severe sanctions.

Who would define what “supporting djihad” or installing “sharia” consists of and what would be the scope of these definitions? As we well know Robert Spencer and the advocates of the conspiracy theory of Eurabia believe that many law abiding Muslims, by the very fact of their increasing presence and visibility in the West, are pushing a “stealth djihad.” For example there are people in Europe who think  wearing a headscarf, or installation of footbaths is an act of “djihad,” would such acts entail implementation of the “severe sanctions” being proposed, and of what would these “severe sanctions” consist?

– Quran-schools are to be forbidden.

They should just go a step further with their fascistic ideas and follow their brethren in Europe who have called for the Quran to be banned. If in some fairyland-Democracy-minus-religious-freedom envisioned by these jokers this is okay, then why are: Bible schools, Torah schools,  Bhagavad Gita schools not similarly forbidden?

– Islamic head cloths are to be banned in kindergardens, schools, campusses, workplaces, public buildings and events.

This was another predictable point, the obsession with hijab for Islamophobes is unending. Not only have laws been proposed such as the above (and passed in places like France) infringing on a woman’s right to wear what they want and follow their conscious, not only have proposals been made to tax it, but it also has led to violence such as murder and assault.

– Parents who submit their children to forced marriage or deny them proper education have to be deprived of child custody.

Everyone can agree that forced marriages are terrible and have to be fought, and many Muslims are leading the fight against the practice. It is curious though that this issue is being painted as springing from Islam, which condemns the practice. It is also a phenomenon that is not peculiar to Muslims but rather affects women and men from Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Christian and Gypsy backgrounds and cultures.

As far as the vague idea of “deny them proper education,” what does that mean? Knowing what we know from the above proposals, would a family that taught their children the Quran be considered as “denying a proper education?” Would they then advocate the child be ripped from their family for studying the Quran?

– Mosques are to be built only with approval of the neighbourhood. Minarettes and the call of the muezzin are to be forbidden. Sermons are to be held solely in German.

It is usually a good policy to have the involvement of a neighborhood when any religious structure is built, as it will become a major landmark bringing in more traffic and people into the area. It goes without saying that religious groups should prioritize good relations with their neighbors, something all religions believe in because they all teach the golden rule.

However, the wording in this proposal is very confrontational and seeks to legislatively limit the construction of the traditional mosque with minarets; it is an attempt to make the Muslim presence in essence invisible. What is the difference between such proposals and what goes on in some of the theocratic Muslim nations that Islamophobes regularly complain about when facts seem to indicate that they are two peas in the same pod?

This time Spencer and his friends in the BPE were in Stuttgart, Germany where we are told by Spencer they held a “well advertised” event that was to have “Middle Eastern Christian musicians,” and other anti-Muslim “activists,” all gathering together to “fight the jihad.”

So what happened? Did thousands of newly “enlightened” and “awakened” Europeans show up to signal their solidarity with the BPE and Spencer and “fight” Islam and Muslims in the guise of a new front against the phantom threat of “jihad?”

No. In stark contrast to the much propagated idea pushed by xenophobic Islamophobes that “the West is waking up to the ‘threat’ of Islam,” it seems more people are waking up to the threat posed by anti-Freedom activists and Euro-supremacists such as the BPE and Spencer.

Thousands of anti-fascists protesters showed up at the event and stood down the hatred that was being promoted on Spencer’s side (video coming soon). Spencer was clearly shaken up as his side only attracted a few dozen aging fans. He likened his experience to “looking into the pit of hell.”

For this Germany has received Spencer’s diagnosis of being a country on the “brink.” The brink of what you may ask? Well, full blown radical-Islamization-jihad-creeping-sharia-evil-darkness-take-over of course.

Spencer spells this out in an interesting lecture he gives a few days after the failed BPE event in Stuttgart. The lecture is about “Islamization” and how he now doesn’t believe “Muhammed” actually existed (a regurgitation of age old Orientalist arguments such as those of Klimovich):

Robert Spencer: The process of Islamization is of course very advanced. And we are now entering into a different stage of it, and we saw this two days ago. In the Quran there are three stages of development, as many of you no doubt know, in the doctrine of Jihad. And the first is when Muhammad first became a prophet and preached in Mecca that he was the new prophet of the One true God. Most people paid no attention, he got a small band of followers together. The Quraish, they were the pagan Arabs of Mecca and the Quraish leaders did not like what he was saying at all because it challenged them, they had the Kaba, it was there at that time too before Islam and it was full of idols, 360 pagan idols, and the Arabs from all over Arabia would go there to venerate their gods. So the Quraish had a shrine, you know if you’ve ever been to Rome or Jerusalem or Fatima or Lords you know its a big tourist trap and so was Mecca and the Ka’ba, and so they didn’t like this…but in any case at that time he taught tolerance and peace and whenever you see the Imams on TV talking about tolerance and peace they are quoting from a time when Muhammad was weak and his enemies were strong and he had no military or political power. So he was not preaching tolerance and peace for non-Muslims, he was preaching tolerance and peace for them, he was asking to be tolerated.

Man from the crowd: same as what happens now…

Robert SpencerPrecisely, that’s the stage we are in now in Europe and America…So in other words when there is a small group of Muslims without military or political power then they preach tolerance and peace, just like Muhammad did when he was a small group in Mecca, when they gain more political and military power then they get more aggressive. I believe now we are moving from the first stage to the second stage in Europe and in America to a lesser degree. And ultimately of necessity there will come the third stage as well and this will be open warfare. Its a very sad situation but if we stand it down now then the game is already over. (emphasis added)

In the bolded portion above Spencer makes no distinction between Islam and Muslims, nor does he speak about “radical Islam” or “radical Muslims.” He speaks clearly, dropping all caveats and says Muslims are the problem and can’t be trusted, “when there is a small group of Muslims without military or political power then they preach tolerance and peace…when they gain more political and military power then they get more aggressive.”

Spencer tells us that “it isn’t too late for Europe.” Islam and Muslims can still be stopped with the help of anti-Muslims like the BPE, René Stadtkewitz and his new Freedom Party, etc.

Hollow words from a shallow man on the losing side of history.