Spencer for Hire
Robert Spencer is making something of a nuisance of himself these days. I don't know much about Spencer. I do not spend a lot of time looking at websites and hardly ever visit Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch. It is not that I particularly disagree with him on the Muslim threat; it is only that he is a bit of a Johnny One-Note, and that note is not always sounded properly.
As a journalist, he is a dull writer at best, and, far from being a disciplined scholar, he is one of those people who leave graduate school without finishing a doctorate (in his case the field is "religious studies") and then enter the murky world of think tanks and advocacy polemics. Free Congress, where he spent some time, was an amazing fund-raising operation whose founder was constantly coming up with new programs based on news hooks. He leapt from one faltering project to another, beginning always with lofty pronouncements about saving the family or promoting light rail and then letting old programs dwindle and fade as he took up the cudgels for a new front page cause.
Spencer learned the art of mercenary journalism in a good school, and his mentor, Paul Weyrich, would be delighted with the alacrity with which he he has promoted himself as the official opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. Dick Viguerie, though possessed of genuine personal dignity, knew how get the rubes riled up. All you needed was a front-page story, a letter from an alcoholic skirt-chasing conservative congressman, and the money would pour in.
It is not that the Barnums of the conservative movement are necessarily liars, though too many of them are, but that they are forever making strategic moves dictated by career interests or their employers' current concerns. They have a quasi-Marxist definition of truth as whatever serves the interest of the movement, their employers, and, ultimately, themselves. They may often have a side they actually believe in, but in the long run they are guns for hire who shoot the people they are told to shoot.
Caution and prudence are not bad things in this business. I know what it is to have to raise money, and an independent minded scholar or writer like Sam Francis, Andre Navrozov, or Srdja Trifkovic can alienate donors, board members, and influential friends. They can even anger their editor. Of course, the same has been said about me by all of my bosses and board members. Chesterton once quipped, when someone complained that GK was always in hot water that he liked hot water because it kept him clean. That is why I try to support friends and colleagues when their enemies attack them. Spencer has another approach. This past week he has taken to attacking Srdja Trifkovic.
Srdja does not need my defense. He is a fine scholar and writes much better English than many native writers, including Robert Spencer. Ordinarily, I try to stay out of these squabbles, because, up to a point, I accept the motto that "He who is not against us is with us." And anyone critical of the Jihadists, unless he advocates violence and hate, should be generally regarded as at least an ally.
With some people, however, a "live and let live" attitude is impossible. These are the ideological game-players who do not think they can make any progress except at the expense of colleagues and rivals. One of the least attractive aspects to Robert Spencer's career is his constant jockeying to define his position as anti-Jihad, though not anti-Muslim, and to represent himself as a neoconservative who can stay on good terms with the right without being compromised by them--or the other way around. Like actors who have to maintain the value of their screen identity, people like Spencer are forever dissociating themselves from colleagues and allies whose opinions they suddenly find inconvenient. And when you are the protégé of David Horowitz, anyone to the right of David Frum can be inconvenient. Constantly sucking up to the Left, as he has done, Spencer, first, has to misrepresent his own associations or support for rightists in South Africa or Belgium, but, finally, he must repudiate people who have done him favors. It's a living, I suppose, but so is selling heroin to children.
Spencer's former associates reduce his behavior to a pattern: First, he publishes something by an extremist friend or ally, then when attacked by someone--no matter how obscure or insignificant--who labels him a fascists or a friend of fascists, he throws his friend or ally under the bus. When he is attacked in the blogosphere, he retreats into narcissism and derides any and all criticism as smears and libels. Meanwhile, in private, he circles the wagons, demanding that his remaining supporters denounce the former ally. The outlines of this portrait are familiar to anyone who has studied leftist movements, whose fissionings are always accompanied by denunciations of rightwing or leftwing deviations. So far, he has maintained faith with the kookiest of his colleagues, Pamela Geller, a reckless anti-Muslim bigot who libels opponents and who is also a disciple of Ayn Rand. That's right, a veritable trifecta of filthy zaniness.
Spencer's latest episode in backstabbing appears to have backfired. Someone named Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi (a particularly obscure young Muslim) was looking for dirt to throw against Srdja Trifkovic, one of the few serious scholars who have opposed the Jihadist movement. The obscure young Muslim apparently is or was Spencer's friend--Spencer's friendships are of short duration--and he told his pal that Trifkovic's remarks, on an internet discussion of why Jews support the Left, were anti-Semitic. True to form, Spencer ran howling like a whipped dog, endorsing the libel and accusing a man he had repeatedly praised in the past, of anti-Semitism, and disclaiming any connection with him. The obscure young Muslim, unfortunately, does not buy Spencer's newfound holiness and has more or less given him the lie. Considering Spencer's strange connections with groups he later denounced as fascist and racist, the Muslim had reasons for his skepticism: Spencer's previous attempts to position himself have similarly backfired, a fact noted by The Guardian.
I would go into greater detail, but you can follow Spencer's twisted path on his own website. He well illustrates the old adage that it is better to deal with a strong enemy than a feeble and faithless ally. I have wasted a lot of time, in private and public, warning against forming alliances or even making contact with reprehensible people like David Horowitz and his satellites. In a crisis, they will never support an ally, whom they will inevitably sacrifice to the enemy, hoping to curry a little favor or gain a little mercy from the Left.
Ordinarily, I would prefer not to soil the pages of Chronicles or the bandwidth of this website with a discussion of this sort of people, but Spencer's dishonest and ill-advised attack on our foreign affairs editor made it necessary. Srdja Trifkovic is one of the few writers in America who has been critical of bad Israeli policies without falling into either conspiracy theories or anti-Semitism. On his frequent trips to Israel, he has been welcomed by political intellectuals across the political spectrum, and his well-informed and principled opposition to the spread of Islam has been appreciated by Jewish intellectuals, in and out of Israel, as a helpful contribution to to serious debate. Naturally, the enemies of our civilization--Jihadists, Leftists, and Neoconservatives--will use any weapon they can find to defame such a man. When a self-appointed spokesman for the Anti-Jihad movement joins this croaking chorus, he reveals himself as the ally and pawn of the Left.
Entries(RSS)
Mr. Spencer: "I Don't Know the Man !!!"
( A Rooster in the background:) "Cock-a-doodle Doooo!!
(Fade to Ash Wednesday Services.)
All of this friendly betrayal reminds me of the old Clint Eastwood movie, the recent stir at National Public Radio and the current congressional debate in Washington ---
FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE!!
I certainly appreciate Dr. Fleming's support of a colleague; I value loyalty very much but it seems that it is a disposable virtue in our society today particularly among those dwelling in the neo-con precincts. Just a brief reflection upon the death of Messrs Sobran and Francis provide ample evidence of that sad fact.
Having Spencer -whose work I have always found one-part tedious, one-part hysterical and many parts soporific - criticize Dr. Trifkovic isn't hard to believe but it's hard to stomach. Of course, the scenario reminds me of Mr. Kingsley's diatribes against John Newman a century ago; no one recalls what he said but it prompted Newman to write Apologia Pro Vita Sua.
Long after Spencer's books are being burned for heat, Dr. Trifkovic's works on the subject will still have resonance and meaning. (Provided we heed them enough to still be around!)
I thought Pamela Geller was the brains behind Jihad Watch -- she's a big enough contributor. Maybe her daddy helped finance the operation, and, naturally she got to be a professional loudmouth to boot. She did have an annoying posse following her around like a roving scrum at CPAC last month as she cashed in on 9/11 again and again and .... You could almost smell the Tay-Sachs around all those silly Hillel hats.
At least I can admit when I'm wrong. But the best feature about JW is the bumper-sticker comments following the cut-and-paste linked articles. There are funnier xenophobic sites out there, though.
Here's that supposedly incriminating article of mine (July 2010):
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-the-traditionalist-right-anti-semitic
Survival Strategy, by Srdja Trifkovic
To claim that the traditional Right is “anti-Jewish” is to imply that it is gripped by an irrational prejudice. Such accusation is untrue and unfair.
It is true, however, that the traditional Right is inevitably antipathetic to certain modes of thought and feeling, to a peculiar Weltanschauung and the resulting forms of public and intra-communal discourse, which are quite properly perceived as specifically Jewish.
Historically, Talmudic Judaism’s insistence on the Jews’ racial uniqueness -- emphasized by the ritual and dietary laws of Talmudic Judaism and on its view of Christians as idolaters -- has ensured that a Jew steeped in his own tradition could not view traditional European or American conservatism with sympathy. His tradition was a form of elaborate survival mechanism based on the zero-sum view of a world divided into “us” and “them.” The Gentile was "the Other" ab initio and for ever.
In addition, since the late 1800’s the Jews have had a disproportionate impact on a host of intellectual trends and political movements which have fundamentally altered the civilization of Europe and its overseas offspring in a manner deeply detrimental to the family, nation, culture, racial solidarity, social coherence, tradition, morality and faith. Spontaneously or deliberately, those ideas and movements -- Marxism (including neoconservatism as the bastard child of Trotskyism), Freudianism, Frankfurt School cultural criticism, Boasian anthropology, etc. -- have eroded “the West” to the point where its demographic and cultural survival is uncertain.
The erosion is continuing, allegedly in the name of propositional principles and universal values, and it is pursued with escalating ferocity. Only one group and one nation-state remain exempt from the dictates of pluralism and diversity, and from the condemnation (heading towards criminalization) of any form of group solidarity based on blood, culture and faith.
In our own time, however, the process of erosion has reached the stage where it is to be expected that increasing numbers of Jews -- those who love their own people more than they loath what the traditional Right loves -- will realize that, in the long term, their only viable survival strategy is to support the principles and objectives of the traditional Right.
To put it bluntly, the survival of the West, which is recognizably Christian in spirit and European in genes, is "objectively" becoming the optimal survival strategy for the Jewish community as a whole, Israel included. (I've known several Jews who understand, notably my late friend Sir Alfred Sherman.) In the postmodern mélange of races, cultures and cults still desired by the likes of Abraham Foxman, the narrative of victimhood and its associated claims will carry little weight with the brown, black, and yellow multitudes blissfully devoid of European self-loathing, guilt and shame. The results may easily exceed in ferocity and magnitude the events of 1942-45.
It is essential for the Jews to grasp that the survival of European gentile identity and institutions is a sine qua non of their own survival. It is desirable for the traditional Right to overcome its instinctive impulses, historically justified as they are, and to consider this possibility and its implications.
Jihad Bob's book is great. If you're a modern reader with ADD.
... and the reason Srdja can whip Spencer the way he did D'Souza is that his education was "un-American."
Well I reckon Spencer has had his 10 minutes of fame. From now on he'll have to stick to writing begging letters.
So technically, it would be a correct to assert that Robert Spencer practices “Taqiyya” when it comes to friendship, yes?
I do not read “American Thinker” (I use the term facetiously) and became aware of this incident by a commenter on this site. Well, the entire debacle read like a two adolescents arguing back-n-forth. Spencer demonstrated his continued unprofessionalism by carrying the incident over to his own blog to “rally” support. Despite repeatedly referencing Dr. Trifkovic on his own site over the years, his flock of sheep never questioned “why” he decided to suddenly strap a suicide bomb to Trifkovic’s jacket. With such “dubious” friends, who needs terrorists?
Nature of the biz? Perhaps. But as a business owner, I understand the importance of branding, reputation, and ethics. Therefore, when an egotistical creature threatens your lifeblood with shameless lies, that brand must be defended with earnest. Spencer emphatically crossed the line of ethics.
Loyalty and integrity are lost characteristics in today’s society, and I admire Dr. Fleming for writing this piece. Principled and a true class act . . . as is Dr. Trifkovic.
Mr. Spencer may need a refresher course on the definition of integrity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9pYu6fBRlE
I appreciate Dr. Fleming's calm, reasoned analysis. I'm much more emotional and have always disliked people like Spenser, Geller and Charles Johnson They seem more motivated by hatred of Muslims and self-interest than concern for Western Civilization.
And I hope Pam Geller has called Dr. Fleming an "Anti-Semite" - coming from her the label is almost a badge of honor and wisdom.
THe term anti semite could also apply to being anti Arab. It is funny how no one that supports the Palestinian cause never mentions this when they start receiving the anti semite smears. It is total hypocrisy that the very globalists that encouraged Muslim immigration into Europe and N America, now want to get the sheeple all pissed off against them. THe whole scenario is nothing more than a divide and conquer strategy. The economy might have a year to 18 months left til it tanks and the AMerican people will blame the Muslim world and Muslims. One form of anti semitism will be replaced for another.
I remember reading this article some time ago and wondering when Dr.S will get into trouble for it. The implication that the Jews, (that is the Zionists in the minds of those who feel ofended by the article) should depend on Gentile culture and ideology, whether conservative or not, is inherently unacceptable as it is tantamount to admitting inferiority. Therefore, it would end up being construed as anti-semitism.
Inasmuch as the charge of anti-semitism is difficult to defend, ignoring it might be even worse.
This has nothing to do with Dr. Fleming's article but to all Chronicles contributors and readers may I please, on behalf of the vast majority of Australians who would rather cross the street than meet the dreadful woman, apologise for the masterpiece of cant, hypocrisy and humbug delivered by our socialist Prime Minister at the joint sitting of Congress today.
I don't know much of anything about Robert Spencer, but I can attest that monomania on any subject is a turn off. Also, why is it that conservatives are so quick to abandon allies to curry favor with the left? Do they just have no integrity or loyalty, or are they just not serious in the first place? I suppose they do save their careers, even as they undercut their own cause. Perhaps that's why conservatism in America is such a failure; it's made up almost entirely of self-centered hucksters.
The obscure young Muslim wrote in to say we got it all wrong. He's not a Muslim but something else. He says he is 18 years old but complains that I don't know anything about him. What's to know about a kid? I don't know what is more amazing, the effrontery of an adolescent presuming to make judgments on his superiors or the cowardice of Spencer in taking him seriously.
The obscure young non-Muslim was kind enough to supply a link to a website that will wise me up about the Bosnian War. This was a war that ended when he was three. I have visited and driven all over Bosnia-Hercegovina many times, once during the conflict. I have interviewed and conversed with Serbs, Croats, Muslims, and foreign officials (EU, UN, US) who were there during the war. I have read a fair amount, both of history and of recent events, and have learned enough Serbo-Croatian to read some things that have not been translated. I have seen the devastation inflicted by all three sides upon each other, but I am still an ignoramus compared with people like Dr, Trifkovic, and yet this kid is going to wise us all up. What sort of schools turn out these arrogant little ignoramuses?
Semitic, properly speaking, is a linguistic category, though it undoubtedly reflects an ethnic reality. Israelis claim, on the basis of their own genetic studies, that the Zionist settlers of Israel are Semites and descendants of the ancient Israelites. As Horace would say, credat Apella Iudaeus. One does not have to accept the Khazar theory either fully or in part to realize that there was so much intermarriage in Europe between Jews and Gentiles--as here in the USA--it would be quite hard to speak properly of a Jewish race or ethnicity. There is, in every tradition, some ethnic component, but Jews are bound by tradition far more than race, and here in the States it is not always easy to know to what extent they are bound by tradition. A Jewish friend of mine was once helping a friend of his, who was doing a book on synagogues. He asked me to accompany him to check out a Reform synagogue. Being completely ignorant of Judaism, I asked if it was not forbidden for a non-Jew to enter. He laughed and said it would like a Jew visiting a temple of ethical culture.
At my age I have grown tired of the Zionist/anti-Semite debate. I pretty much take people as I find them. If people can behave politely and with decency, I respect them, even if their opinions (e.g. Islamism, Zionism or Marxism) offend me or if my opinions offend them. A few years ago, I spent several days with an excellent and good-humored Israeli scholar, and we agreed on many things, and he only got ticked when I alluded to the Christian core of our civilization. I just changed the subject to something more palatable to him. One has to do the same thing with atheists, feminists, rabid Calvinists, etc. I am not much as a missionary and leave every man to find his own way to Hell. I can enjoy the company of intelligent and well-bred Jews as I can enjoy the company of intelligent and well-bred people who don't like Jews, but I refuse, any longer, to ruin my digestion by having dinner with a ranting Zionist--as I once did in Tel Aviv--or with ranting Jew-haters. I know a fairly well-known Catholic conspiracy theorist whom I like personally but can no longer abide because of his monomania.
I am reminded of the old joke about the elephant. An international class is asked to write a paper on the elephant. The German writes on the taxonomy of the elephant; the Frenchman writes on the sex life of the elephant; (You can prolong this with as many ethnicities you like) and the Jew writes on "The elephant--and the terrible problem of anti-Semitism." What the teller of the joke never adds is that the anti-Semite will write on how the International Jewish Conspiracy is killing off the elephants.
These days I do not know many Jews or Marxists or libertarians, because their obsessions are boring, but over the years I have had quite close relations with Jewish friends. In truth, however, any normal person is most comfortable with people with whom he shares not so much ideology as traditions and manners. We don't realize how different we are, Jews and Christians, until we spend time together. As an atheist I fell for and nearly married a lovely intelligent Jewish girl. Her parents absolutely loathed the idea--and me--though my parents were perfectly willing. During that period, I learned that as many silly things as we believe about them, they often believe even sillier things about us. My girlfriend was astonished that I bathed every day, because she had always been told that gentiles were dirty and did not change their underwear more than once a week--perhaps her family had lived in France. Some day I shall have to write up the Seder I celebrated with her family, but, believe me, I was the Egyptian for the night.
It is absolutely silly to pretend that we are not different or that many, even most Jews do not feel themselves aliens in Christendom, but it is equally silly to blame Jews for the problems we have inflicted on ourselves or to resent their success in making their way through a corrupt civilization. American Jews--like other minority groups--use their minority status (as wealth as their wealth and influence) for leverage. Most people would, which is why there are repulsive movements purporting to represent men or European Whites. The people to blame are not the minorities who take advantage of a situation that gives them easy pickings, but our own people who cave at the first sign of criticism. The old joke was that an anti-Semite was anyone who beat Norman Podhoretz in an argument. Now it is any ignorant kid who threatens Robert Spencer. Who cares?
For the little it is worth, here are my operating principles. First. know who you are and what you believe. Defend your family, your friends, your faith; Second, learn and speak the truth without going out of your way to offend anyone--answer no unasked questions. Do not go looking for trouble with "the other" but if trouble finds you, don't back down but fight the good fight and fight fairly. Third, do not give way to the temptation to hate. Fourth, whatever you expect from "the others," accord it to them--and vice versa. I admire the Jews who created Israel, recovered their language, and insist on making it a Jewish state. But all I ask from them is to permit us the same freedom, not the freedom to subjugate the Palestinians and impose a religious test for full enjoyment of civil rights, but only the freedom to teach our religion in the schools our taxes pay for. Put simply, they are not the only people to have a tradition. If they want respect, they should give it in return, but if they do not, that is no reason for us to be Jerks.
Finally, don't waste much time, energy, or attention on the problems cause by the other, however you wish to define that--Jews, Communists, Blacks, Mexicans, Women, Gays, Anti-Semites, Vegetarians, Global Warmingists--but work hard to cultivate your own virtues and capacities. One of the few true things Voltaire ever said was his advice to cultivate your own garden. This would mean not wasting much time resenting someone else's bigger garden or the fact that he bribed the judges to win best garden of the year.
Is Robert Spencer related to Richard Spencer?
I believe the comment that got Dr.Trifkovic in trouble is the reference to "European in genes." People are not evil or decadent because of their DNA, but because of their rejection of Logos. Rejection of the rejection of Logos solves the problem of individuals seeking to overthrow a legitimate social order.
Muslims see Jesus of Nazareth as a prophet and not as divine, so their rejection is implicit rather than explicit. In other writings, Dr. Trifkovic's solution for the Muslim challenge is more secular leaders like Ataturk or Hoxha. We should not wish this "survival strategy" on our worst enemies, for it breeds incredible resentment and blowback. May the Muslims shame the West to rediscover their authentic roots, rejected by the heirs of Spinoza and Voltaire alike. The secular right lead by persons like ridiculous bleached blonde Geert Wilders is a disaster for a rebirth of a historically recognizable, authentic Christian society.
No connection whatsoever. Richard Spencer is mainstream American, but I don't know what Robert Spencer is or even if his real name is Spencer. His family were, he says, Melkite Christians from somewhere in the Middle East.
I don't think Dr. Trifkovic has much use for either Ataturk or Enver Hoxa. His position is quite simple. Islam is a religion dedicated to our extermination and should be kept out of Europe and the US, but we, while maintaining treaty commitments and alliance, leave them alone in their neighborhood. Above all, we should not encourage or support Islamic movements that seem in the short run to converge on some imagined American interest. We are better off with a secularist dictator like Saddam or the more benign Mubarak than with a rabid fundamentalist.
#17
I don't think even rabid fundamentalists are necessarilly going to endanger America or the West either.
Iran, for example, is an inward looking autarky. Its establishment is busy protecting its own interests, and their biggest victories are in suppressing their own populace. For the rabid fundamentalist, there is a hard enough time engineering his own society that he has to take over matters abroad as well.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is still old enough to remember living through the Iran-Iraq war. Presumably, he remembers seeing some teenage friends return with fewer limbs, Tehran shelled over and over by Iraqi bombs, and neighbours fighting over scarce food supplies. Even brutal hard-hearted men don't willingly revisit that. In his grasp, he holds power over a giant precious territory. Fight a foreign war, even with a tinier country like Iraq, and the Iranian leaders could lose everything, including their hold on Iranian society that they worked so hard to build.
To me, it seems highly unlikely that a rabid fundamentalist in a Middle Eastern country would unleash an attack on any American interest.
A secularist dictator like Saddam got away with sinking an American cruiser, in fact, while such pardons are yet to be given to any Islamist republic.
I think you are missing the point. It was believing Saudis, not secularist Iraqis who staged the attacks on September 11, and it is believing Saudis and their stooges who are preaching militant Islam around the world including here in the United States. What punishment, by the way did Jimmy Carter inflict on Iran during or after the hostage crisis? Of course we do not expect Iran to launch a missile attack on the US, nor have we argued for supporting rebellion against Islamist regimes. The core of our argument is to determine the American interest and to pursue it insofar as it is compatible with both justice and peace.
@ Tom Fleming, #13
Absolutely correct.
I wonder why the obscure young muslim was allowed to have his article published by American Thinker. His austere knowledge of the Yugoslav wars is an embarrasment. At the American Thinker they pride themselves at being more thorough and unbiased than regular media outlets, yet here they accept a notoriously flawed narrative. Besides, if OYM is truly just a kid, where does he get the right to pass judgement on someone decades his senior, on abilities of someone known for his scholarly accomplishments. Why would they tolerate such gratuitous attacks at the American Thinker? I thought of them, up till know, as a group that aspired to quality.
OYM's attempt to differentiate between the good antijihadists and bad antijihadists is as sophomoic and risible as anything I have read in a long time. And Robert spencer's knee-jerk reaction to being possibly linked with someone accused of anti-semitism is pathetic. The trashing delivered by Dr. Fleming is fully deserved. But to put matters to rest, perhaps Dr. S should expand on his thesis of why Jews and "Conservatives" should have common values to protect. The point that is being made has no intention of being antisemitic and I am sure would provide an interesting read. Dr. S, might as well take the tiger by the tail
The fact that OYM is using statements from a round table, perhaps even informal give and take, to construe an antisemitic pattern is preposterous. Given the sensitivity of the topic, such attempt needs to be refuted line by line.
Enlightening thoughts!!!
It is claimed that Mohammed Atta was a moderate, until he was radicalized by the sheer pornographic godlessness of Hamburg, the "sin city" of Germany. If his target was Christian society, he could have found millions in his native Egypt, who have endured in a difficult situation for a millenium, without extermination. The central thesis of the Old Testament is when the people of God abandon the moral code, they are punished by the Babylonians, Assyrians, Canaanites, Philistines. etc. The abortion/eugenics culture of Europe is why they are at a tipping point of Muslim immigration. A Europe that laughed at Humanae Vitae, is paying a price. A humbled France built the Sacred Heart Cathedral in reparation for their godlessness and loss in the Franco-Prussian War. The answer is not a "lacite" that bans the hijab. The answer is to read Pascal and Bousset and escape the souless Ayn Rand society.
TJF - "One of the least attractive aspects to Robert Spencer’s career is his constant jockeying to define his position as anti-Jihad, though not anti-Muslim".
I've read Jihad Watch for several years and cannot recognize any semblance of Spencer in this charge. He consistently states that Islam is unredeemable. In a debate with Dr Peter Kreeft recently he argued that "the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim" -- that you can't be a true Muslim and be acceptable in our society as a good Muslim; the Koran just plain has too much incontrovertible hostility to Western institutions and Christianity, so that only a heretic can be acknowledged by the West as a good Muslim.
I also think think that Spencer has a pretty interesting translation and commentary on the Koran buttressed by the arguments of the dozen or so traditional schools of Islamic thought.
(For me, jihadwatch.com is mainly valuable as a resource for stories to be used to counter the political correctness that clouds the debate. It's not much use for policy.)
That said, I won't quibble with the rest of the charges. Spencer is obviously a neo-conservative and strong Zionist and it's the latter that unbalances him. I'm not going to bother reading his attack on Srdja Trifkovic because it will be predictable. S.T. cannot be bested by such as R.S.
I have spent comparatively little time looking at Jihad Watch, but every time a leftist has attacked Spencer or his zany colleague Pamela Geller, they have responded with protestations. We only oppose extremism. Now, it is true that in his book and on his site, Spencer is resolutely critical of Islam per se, but neither he nor Geller maintain this posture in the face of enemy fire.
Oh, and I should add, Catholics who admire Peter Kreeft need to read a real book for a change.
The biggest obstacle to understanding other religions today is a failure to understand our own. Especially during this season of Lent which is a preparation for a deeper understanding of our own redemption. I would recommend a thirty day exercise in which one reads nothing but the New Testament and the early Church Father's commentary such as the "Catena Aurea". The last thing I would read is something written by nice guy neo-cons like Peter Kreeft, George Wiegel, or Black Jack Bill Bennnet. It is always easier to face the wolf within when he is dressed in his native wolfskin rather than modern shepherd's skin.
Dr. Fleming,
Would you be willing to expand your criticism of Dr. Kreeft? I have not read much of anything by Kreeft, but have heard countless Catholics sing his praises. Kreeft's performance at the aforementioned debate with Spencer did not seem to merit these praises.
This is not the place for a detailed critique of Peter Kreeft. Let us just say that I find him pretentious and self-centered--one more would-be guru--and find his positions on immigration, Islam, and animals absurd. As a great 18th century scholar and wit once told a poet, "Your work will be read when Homer and Vergil are forgotten." Kreeft will be remembered only when Chesterton, Belloc, and C.S. Lewis are forgotten?
It's laughable for Dr. Trifkovic to be accused of anti-Semitism, especially since what was actually quoted by him was not bad.
I'd personally never survive in this field. One slip of the tongue and a career is killed - not that this incident involved such a slip.
A.K. Chesterton is an another courageous writer who insisted on bathing in hot water.
"It’s laughable for Dr. Trifkovic to be accused of anti-Semitism"
Why, isn't everybody? When a definition becomes so broad as to make itself meaningless(as in this case)what does it matter? The ironic thing about this whole affair is that for most Americans the only place you could find this type of serious commentary on Jewish -- Christian relations is in an Israeli newspaper, like Haeretz. The self-appointed censors in America, mostly Gentile leftist types, posing as protecting their "Jewish brothers and Sisters", remind me of Catholics for Free Choice protecting orthodox doctrine from modernism and neo-modernism.
Sirja would have better luck getting his thoughts heard and protected in America if he would carry chartreuse and blaze orange placards at his neighbor's funerals with blasphemous statements about who G-d loves and hates. Intelligent and thoughtful commentary is not wanted by our elites and in fact wants for protection --- even constitutional protection.
#27 Dear Robert. Excellent suggestions.
I rely on The Douay Rheims and one can find Catena Aurea and Biblical Commentary by Cornelius a Lapide and Haydock's Biblical Commentary both online. In addition, I can not recommend Dom Gueranger's "The Liturgical Year" highly enough.
Without that Saint-to-be,, Dom Gueranger, I'd not be able to say to my friends through a sly smile "I am sure you know that today's Station, St Peter's ad Vincula, possesses the venerable relic of St. Peter's Chains"
"You are a jerrk,, they respond.
Tis true...
As for being called an antisemite, I can not imagine being such a compromised and craven Christian that I'd never be called an antisemite. Sobran was right when he observed that antisemitism once meant a label describing those who hated Jews but now it has come to be a label used to identify those whom Jews hate.
Robert Spencer posted (on jihadwatch.org) yesterday an article by Julia Gorin which vigorously supports Trifkovic. She absolves him of anti-semitism and attacks the instigator of the brouhaha (Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi) as anti-Trifkovic due to ST's denial of the so-called "Srebrenica Genocide."
She also gives the first part of ST's speech (which Spencer injudiciously and blindly repudiated) and the continuation of the speech which Spencer did not see.
I see this as an attempt by Spencer to clear the record but would very much like to see him apologize to Srdja -- alas: per TJF's insight above, this is not likely to happen.
I think I can say with some certainty that Julia Gorin decided of her own accord to come to the defense of a scholar she respects, without at the same time insulting an ally. She had to walk a very fine line, and I am very impressed by her diligence and her poise. We would have already posted a link if our webmaster were not out of the office.
Well, I've had personal run-ins with Spencer, as have many others-- the guys from Christian Action Network, Gates of Vienna, Andrew Bostom, Hugh Fitzgerald, Phyllis Chesler, and more (including me, who will remain anonymous). And, all remain silent for whatever personal reasons they have. I really have to hand it to you, Mr. Fleming. I'm very very impressed with your accurate article. You described Spencer's MO to a tee. This is his constant behavior. I wouldn't be surprised to see you slammed next on both jihadwatch and Geller's Atlas blog.
I should have added that Serge Trifkovic's book, The Sword of the Prophet, is the ONE book I recommend to both beginners and intermediate readers if they agree to read more about Islam. This is the best book on the subject. The book's impeccably sourced and covers so much information in a compact size. I can't recommend his book enough.
Mr. Fleming,
Thank you for your sane remarks about Robert Spencer. In general, I thoroughly enjoy your contributions to the Chronicles Magazine and am always amazed at your wit and wisdom.
I have to disagree, however, with the spirit of your final remarks in comment 13. You point to a radical turning inward in order to save oneself from the insanities of our age. While I certainly know the temptation involved in such a move, I believe one must resist it.
Your remarks point to one of the great contradictions of our age- the only real change and growth we can make is within ourselves, and yet, and yet- we are radically dependent on others to make up for our lack- and in all of us there is something lacking. We cannot turn inward completely because we are all in need of something- of love, conversation, learning, contact, a twinkle in a curious eye, a challenge, the truth, and when our bodies and the health gods fail us, we are often in need of others to sustain our lives. Yes, an important part of our needs are filled by the wise voices of the past, by the friends we have made in great books and by living companions whose manners and traditions are exactly our own. But that isn’t the full story of our humanity, not by far.
I am reminded of BXVI's words in Caritas in Veritate
"In every truth there is something more than we would have expected, in the love that we receive there is always an element that surprises us. We should never cease to marvel at these things. In all knowledge and in every act of love the human soul experiences something "over and above," which seems very much like a gift that we receive, or a height to which we are raised. The development of individuals and peoples is likewise located on a height, if we consider the spiritual dimension that must be present if such development is to be authentic."
It is on this height that we must engage with others, even those who antagonize us or actively work against us. And it is only on this height that the other will know our love- and it is on this height that we will know ourselves.
Despite your somewhat solipsistic words, I don’t think you actually believe them- you are still writing, still teaching and, I trust, still maintain a curiosity that does not permit one to close up shop just yet.
I wish you the best in all your endeavors.
Much of the discussion on the Chronicles these days is personal attacks rather than a discussion of ideas. Even the truth is rejected when it comes from someone who is not a member of a certain group that is on an approved list. A little like a conversation of middle school girls.
K Smith's comment translated from the sniffs in which it was expressed would read in polite English: "Sir, I beg to differ. Spencer was right to bow to his enemies and call Trifkovic a bigot because....". But no cause is given, just a childish unsubstantiated personal attack. Ironic, ain't it?
There is nothing solipsistic in the advice to cultivate one's own virtues and understanding before condemning other groups as destroyers of the common good, not is it even quietistic. If we do not mind our own business but prefer to mind others', then others will be minding ours pretty quick. We have obligations to each other, but these obligations are not universal and abstract; they are concrete and vary with both relationship and profession. As husband and father, I have a set of particular duties, while as a scholar and writer I have another set. What I do not have is the duty (and certainly not the means) to bend the world to my ethical and political will. I can only change others for the good by discharging my responsibilities, and when I step outside the sphere of my real duties in order to tilt at windmills in a foreign country, I am abandoning my real obligations in order to pursue chimaeras. I am not the Pope, nor a priest, nor a head of state or even a state representative, but only a philologist and essayist.
Dr. Fleming, was KSmith referring to the sections where you say quite frankly that you don't consider Robert Spencer to be a very good journalist?
While it's possible that Robert Spencer himself may welcome such criticism, isn't it a great blow to a person when we say that the work to which he has dedicated his whole life is probably of no value? On top of which, you say you suspect him to be out for the quickest buck rather than dedication to his field. Perhaps that's also damaging.
I remember a scientist on an internet message board saying that others can trash his relatives, his race, his ethnic background, but never his job or professional competency.
I don't know, because the fellow never said. I don't know that Spencer can properly be described as a journalist, not, at least, in its better senses. He is somewhere between policy analyst and blogger. There is not necessarily anything wrong with either job, but the responsibilities and professional ethics are (in principle) somewhat different. It is the difference between, say, a sports reporter who describes a game he has seen and includes interviewers with coaches and players, and someone working for an organization promoting, say, more soccer in the states or more black coaches. Now, admittedly, most reporters have an agenda and, admittedly, newspapers, magazines, and networks impose a point of view on reporters, but still, in principle, there should be a possible distinction between reporting and shilling. Personally speaking, I have always found it a questionable practice, when a journalist or columnist becomes a speech writer or political advisor. It raises question about what they are willing to sell. I am far from saying that it always or even usually involves something discreditable, only that it might be a subject worth discussing.
in many news and comments in israel we have much explicit opinions. no holding back. but america you haves many censorings (too polite i think) sometimes. i find the comment correct you say ''antisemitism once meant a label describing those who hated Jews but now it has come to be a label used to identify those whom Jews hate.'' now we have little distinction between those in middle east who like to destroy me and those in us or europe who called antisemitic. regards. (sorry my english i struggle little bit)