Symposium: The Fear that Wilders is Right

A distinguished panel analyzes the mindset of rejecting a truth because its implications are too terrible to contemplate.

In this special edition of Frontpage Symposium, we have assembled a distinguished panel to discuss the question: What psychological impulses and neuroses prevent people from objectively considering whether or not Islam is a religion of peace? In other words: Why the rigid disinclination to even consider the evidence that suggests that someone like Geert Wilders might be right?

Our guests today are:

Roger L. Simon, the author of ten novels, including the eight prize-winning Moses Wine detective novels, which have been published in many editions and translated in over a dozen languages. He is also a screenwriter and has written for all the major Hollywood studios, including Bustin’ Loose with Richard Pryor, Scenes from a Mall with Woody Allen and the adaptation of his own The Big Fix with Richard Dreyfuss.  Simon received an Academy Award nomination for his adaptation of Isaac Singer’s Enemies, A Love Story in 1989. The author of Blacklisting Myself: A Hollywood Apostate in an Age of Terror, he is the co-founder and CEO of Pajamas Media.

Dr. Kenneth Levin, a clinical instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, a Princeton-trained historian, and a commentator on Israeli politics. He is the author of The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege.


Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of ten books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, is available now from Regnery Publishing, and he is coauthor (with Pamela Geller) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Simon and Schuster).

FP: Roger Simon, Robert Spencer and Kevin Levin, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Today we witness the blatant desperation in our culture and media for a “moderate Islam” -- an Islam that many non-Muslims vehemently insist exists, but that mysteriously eludes them. This moderate Islam will make everything better, we are told, once the “extremists,” who are the “minority” in Islam, will be sedated. This sedation will be most easily achieved, the argument continues, when the Islamophobes stop blaming Islam after Islamic terrorists point to Islamic scriptures in explaining what inspired them to perpetrate their terrorist attacks.

Meanwhile, in terms of the planet that we happen to be occupying, a “moderate Islam” is nowhere to be found; no school of Islamic jurisprudence exists that counsels Muslims to renounce the Qur’an’s teachings on Islamic supremacism and the obligation of violent jihad. And yet, to suggest the truth of this reality in our culture gets one only the accusation of being a racist and an “Islamophobe.”

Roger Simon, let me begin with you. What do you think of this phenomenon? You recently wrote a profound piece at Pajamas that touched on one of its crucial foundations. In analyzing why the likes of Glenn Beck and Charles Krauthammer have attacked Geert Wilders, you interpreted that these conservative individuals, from whom we might have expected something different on this score, are, what it all comes down to it, rejecting Wilders because they are afraid that he might be right.

Share your angle on this with us.

Simon: Although I have tremendous respect for my colleagues in this symposium, I can't imagine anything more depressing to write about or to discuss.  The world is in a horrible Catch-22 and Geert Wilders is the ultimate "canary in a coal mine" for trying to tell the truth about it.

Islam is an almost unsolvable conundrum.  How do you deal with a religion with a billion adherents that is expansionist in ideology and threatens to kill its apostates?   How do you get a reformation of that religion when its holy book, from which those dictums come, is reputed to be dictated verbatim by God and is therefore immutable?  Talk about "inconvenient truths," these are about as inconvenient as they get. No wonder they are buried from the discussion and ignored.  We in the West live in a society that cannot even begin to wrap its mind around that.  I know - it's hard for me.

So where does that leave Wilders?  I believe that consciously or unconsciously those who brand him as excessive, or even racist, are living in fear that he may be right.  They have to hate Wilders, because if he is correct, their whole world disintegrates.  Who would want that?

He and the small group like him have therefore morphed into our clearest contemporary examples of those poor Greek messengers to be killed for bringing the bad news. A salient recent example is Nicholas Kristof's unhinged attack on Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the New York Times Book Review - a supposed liberal going off on a woman who had a cliterodectomy for daring to dwell on how women were oppressed in the Islamic world. It's almost pathological. Another recent example are the similarly unhinged attacks on Israel over the Gaza flotilla incident while completely ignoring vastly more horrific acts occurring in the Muslim world on an almost daily basis.  We dare not insult them lest they go mad.

It's almost as if the world has become a giant dysfunctional family, enabling their huge Muslim branch to remain besotted - or drugged out - on sub-Medieval ideology. And the situation is getting worse.  The principle bastion of hope of reformation of the Islamic world - Turkey - made its turn back toward fundamentalism years ago now.

So again, where does that leave Wilders?  One lonely canary.  We have to support him, but I'm not optimistic. I hope my colleagues are.

FP: Thank you Roger Simon.

Kenneth Levin your thoughts? A species of the Oslo syndrome is involved in this phenomenon right?

Levin: I do see a form of the Oslo Syndrome operating here. In the Oslo agreements, Israel embraced Yasir Arafat and his PLO as its "peace partner" even as Arafat and those around him were making clear, in word and deed, that their goal remained Israel's annihilation. In looking at Israel's self-destructive Oslo policies, I discussed the phenomenon of segments within a minority population that is under siege - whether the situation be a minority marginalized, denigrated and otherwise attacked by the surrounding majority within a polity, or a small state under constant assault by larger neighbors - commonly embracing the indictments of their enemies, however bigoted or absurd or murderous those indictments. They delude themselves that by doing so, and promoting concomitant self-reform and concessions, their enemies will be appeased and grant them peace.

While most common among minorities at risk, the same phenomenon can be seen within large and powerful populations faced with new and dangerous external threats. This became obvious in the United States after 9/11.

The perpetrators of 9/11 and their myriad supporters quickly made clear their objective of imposing their Islamist rule worldwide and their comprehension of doing so as a religious duty. Yet many in America sought, and continue to seek, to recast the threat, to rationalize it, and to urge policies aimed at appeasing Islamist leaders and followers in the delusional hope of thereby extricating the nation from the dangers it faces.

Geert Wilders argues that Islamofascism derives directly from Islamic teachings, including Koranic exhortations. His movie, Fitna, advancing this argument, is unimpeachable in its citations of Islamic scripture and in its images of Islamofascism on the march. That those who oppose him are motivated in large part by a wish to appease the purveyors of the Islamist threat is indicated by the fact that the negative responses to Wilders have focused not on rebutting his arguments but on demonizing him and using anti-democratic means to silence him. As Roger Simon suggests, they are compelled to hate Wilders because they so want to cling to their delusional denial of the threat.

The ugly, perverse, self-destructive nature of the assault on Wilders, and the necessity to defend him, have been articulated by many. Particularly noteworthy is the stance of Daniel Pipes, in that Pipes disagrees with some of the substance of Wilders' arguments, believing in the possibility of a moderate Islam, but has forcefully supported Wilders and attacked the shoddy treatment to which he has been subjected, the anti-democratic efforts to silence him and punish him through the courts, and the broad movement - as illustrated in the indictments of Wilders - to quash free discussion of the nature of the Islamist war being waged against the West. Pipes has stated that Wilders' unique confronting of the Islamist challenge - pursued without the baggage of neo-Fascist, nativist, or conspiricist extremism that have characterized some others in Europe decrying Islamic inroads - has rendered him the most important European alive today.

Beyond the unconscionable attempts to silence Wilders, there are other indications, both in Europe and America, that the hostility directed against him is motivated primarily by a wish to deny the threats we face and to appease its agents. Thus, in both Europe and the U.S., we have a huge chorus of officials insisting Islam is a religion of peace, They insist that Islamist forces pursuing a war of world conquest have "hijacked" the religion and that the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving and tolerant. Yet these same officials give virtually no public support to those - too few - Muslims within their nations who at once declare themselves to be believing Muslims and do speak out forcefully against Islamofascism. On the contrary, such people are typically ignored and government outreach is almost invariably directed to individuals and groups linked to Islamist, hatred-promoting agendas.

In the U.S., for example, how much government attention or acknowledgement or support has been given to the likes of Zuhdi Jasser, an Arizona physician and believing Muslim who has dedicated himself to attacking the bigoted, hateful voices that have come to dominate Islamic institutions in America? Even if one is convinced that Jasser and like-minded individuals are pursuing a hopeless course because their interpretation of Islam is so starkly at odds with the religion's seminal texts and seminal message, one would still have to believe it makes sense for the nation to give such people all the support it can in advancing their perspectives. But in fact, Jasser and those like him have been essentially ignored by American officialdom and it is the allies of the Islamists who are courted and feted by officials at every level of government, including law enforcement agencies.

One can argue there is often a more venal motive behind this phenomenon. Saudi Arabia is the prime financier of Muslim extremism in the U.S., including of education in bigotry - particularly anti-Jewish and anti-Christian bigotry - in U.S. mosques and Islamic schools, and Saudi Arabia is pandered to because of its oil wealth and its readiness to use its prodigious financial resources to win official tolerance of its intolerant message. But if officials and others looked honestly at the existential threats we face from Islamofascism, the likelihood is they would be less inclined to politics as usual and to being swayed against defensive measures by Saudi blandishments. The impact of the Saudi role is a reflection of widespread official averting of eyes from the nature of the threat.

One can also argue that much of the Western accommodationist reaction to the Islamist threat, and desire to silence Wilders' message, are a product of Western leftist orthodoxy. The combination of hostility towards the West, moral relativism, and boosterism regarding virtually anything non-Western or anti-Western - all seminal doctrines of the contemporary leftist catechism - inevitably leads to denial of, or excuses for, or even defense of, the Islamist challenge.

But even among those whose ideological allegiances weigh against looking honestly at the nature of the threat, there were many individuals who responded to 9/11, and the additional terror that followed on the atrocities of that day, and the declarations of Islamofascism's leaders and minions, by reevaluating their leftist ideology and abandoning their old verities for a saner comprehension of the realities we face. Those who continue day after day to cling to their delusions regarding the nature of the threat do so by persisting, day after day - out of a desperate desire to believe reality to be otherwise, to believe the threat can be wished away or rationalized away or appeased away - to continue averting their eyes from the nature of the challenge.

FP: Robert Spencer, your thoughts on the need to hate Wilders so one can cling to one’s delusional denial of the threat we face? What do you think of Roger Simon’s and Kenneth Levin’s perspectives?

You bring a personal aspect to this as well, because your name can substitute Wilders in our own culture. You are very much hated for telling the truth that many people simply cannot accept, because the consequences are just too frightening and depressing. Share your thoughts with us on this phenomenon and also your personal experience with being a Wilders figure in our own society.

Spencer: Jamie, Roger Simon is quite right that those who call Wilders “excessive, or even racist…have to hate Wilders, because if he is correct, their whole world disintegrates.” Although I am no Geert Wilders, I’ve encountered this phenomenon many times: people essentially admitting that they don’t want to face up to the truths that Wilders and others enunciate because they believe the implications of those truths are simply too terrible to contemplate. I was told several years ago that the editorial board of a major American publication, when asked to do a profile on me and feature my writing, turned down the proposal because if what I was saying were true, “the U.S. would find itself at war with every Muslim country in the world.”

I don’t accept that as a natural outcome of what I say, but I find interesting the open avowal of the idea that what I say about Islam and jihad simply cannot be true, because if it were, the implications would be too disturbing to contemplate – and so therefore it must be false, or at least should be ignored! I encountered this again in a debate with a professor of Islamic studies at a significant American university, whose opening gambit in response to my initial presentation was to tell the audience that if what I said were true, it would be very depressing – as if that were sufficient to establish its falsity.

Contributing to the persistence of this unreality is something that Kenneth Levin alludes to – the fact that “the negative responses to Wilders have focused not on rebutting his arguments but on demonizing him and using anti-democratic means to silence him.” That demonization is a tested and true weapon in the Islamic supremacist arsenal, as well as that of the Left (here is yet more evidence confirming your own thesis, Jamie, in your excellent book, United in Hate), and it is so frequently employed because it is so very effective. There are so many spineless conformists on the Right in America – they are very easily cowed by charges that someone is a “racist,” or a “bigot,” or even worse, an “Islamophobe,” and maybe even a secret “neo-Nazi.”

It doesn’t matter if there is absolutely nothing to these charges (and in the case of Wilders and others thus charged and shunned, including my colleague and coauthor Pamela Geller and myself, there isn’t); for many prominent mainstream “conservatives,” the charges themselves are enough. They will shun any contact or association with people who have been thus tarred. They are thoughtless and cowardly enough to run in the other direction at the mere suggestion of a taint, often without even investigating the case themselves. They don’t seem to realize that by doing this they’re playing the Leftist/Islamic supremacist game -- effectively allowing the opposition to define the terms of the debate, choose the playing field, and make the rules. And that, it goes without saying, is a sure path to defeat.

FP: Thank you Robert Spencer.

Roger Simon, our concluding round begins.  What are the consequences we face with this mass psychosis and denial? What is the most effective thing we can try to do to put a crack in it?

Simon: To begin, I would like to thank my co-panelists for their excellent posts.  I think the three of us substantially agree on this issue, which pushes us immediately to the most serious question:  As Lenin put it, "What is to be done?"

Well, the answer to that is far from easy because, as a considerably better writer than Lenin - Charles Dickens - put it, these are "the best of times and the worst of times." By that I mean the very thing that could be our salvation - the unprecedented mass communication of the Internet - is the very thing that is most often used to perpetuate the Big Lie about the very problem we face. Unfortunately, the Internet often ratifies and amplifies the very societal hypnosis and self-hypnosis modern liberals undergo. This is as true for the trial of Geert Wilders as it is for anything else.

For make no mistake about it, we are engaged in a global psy-war. The question is how to win it when our side often seems uninterested in defending itself.  Indeed, the current administration seems to want the reverse - to cede victory to our adversaries by refusing to name them, an extraordinary state of affairs. It reminds me of what my colleague Glenn Reynolds used to write about opponents of the Iraq War: "They're not anti-war. They're on the other side."

But back to "What is to be done?" Well, we must redouble our efforts in the psy-war and broaden our approach.  That means not just preaching to the choir at venues like Pajamas Media and Front Page, but also finding ways to break through on their turf.  The Great American Middle must be awakened and informed logically, not heatedly, about the Islamic threat. This is not about proving we are “right.”  This is about saving our civilization.

At this moment, the failures of the Obama administration, perceived now even by his supporters, may offer a window to reach out.  We should seize it. Accusations of racism, like those habitually aimed at Wilders, also seem to be losing some of their punch - another signal it is time to go on the offensive. On top of that, the monumental Gulf oil spill - not Obama’s fault, but further evidence of his incompetence - provides further opportunity.

So perhaps I am slightly more optimistic than I was on my first post.  See what a little writing can do to make one feel better.  Let's keep doing it.  We’ll be covering the Wilders trial closely at Pajamas Media and PJTV.

FP: Roger Simon, thank you. I would like to follow up with you for a moment. Can you briefly list what you deem to be some of the failures of the Obama administration? And also, in your view, what incompetence has Obama showed in dealing with the Gulf oil spill?

Simon: I can't think of anything I like about Obama, really, but his single most repellent act ... or non-act...  was his non-response to the Iranian freedom movement at their moment of crisis, when revolution against the mullahs seemed possible.  Obama's lack of emotional connection was stunning. It was almost as if he cared more about taking the credit for some mythical negotiation with Ahmadinejad than he did about the lives of the brave democracy demonstrators thronging the streets of Teheran.  I can't recall an American president ever behaving worse in my lifetime - and that includes Watergate.

The rest of his foreign policy follows from that behavior.  His treatment of Israel is beneath contempt and seems guided by his old friend Rashid Khalidi of the missing LA Times tape, but I'm sure the readers of Front Page know that.

As for the economy, he's been an obvious failure and is clearly out of his depth.  I don't think he has a clue about what he is doing and any real discernible policy. He is also in a trap, because the only thing he does believe in (to the extent he believes is anything) is increased government spending and taxes, but the public knows, indeed many of his allies now know, that that is precisely the opposite of what the country and the world require and is doomed to failure.  The recession will only get worse.

The fortunate thing in all this is that whatever he does do domestically, can probably be reversed (with great effort).  But some of his foreign policies may be irreversible.  The damage will be done.

Regarding the Gulf oil spill, as I have written elsewhere, this is the one area he is not really culpable - anymore than Bush was for Katrina - although, ironically, it is the most likely to bring him down.  That said, however, it is evident that Obama doesn't do empathy well.  He couldn't be empathetic to the Iranian students and it took him ages to react to the people of the Gulf on a human level.  Makes you nostalgic for Clinton (Bill, I mean).  Anyway, Obama is up against it now.  Things don't look good for him.  As John Lennon once sang, "Instant karma's gonna get you.  Gonna knock you right on the head."

Karma's catching up with Barack Obama.

FP: Thank you Roger Simon.

Kenneth Levin, what is to be done? And I didn’t mean to get us off track with Obama’s failures, but in crystallizing them we can perhaps gauge, as Mr. Simon notes, how to seize the window of opportunity in terms of what to do in the context of our cultural denial.

Levin: The cultural denial of the threat we face will be overcome in one of two ways. Either it will be changed by the nation being subjected to sufficient additional carnage to force it awake or - obviously preferably - it will be abandoned in response to a sustained effort to saturate the public consciousness with images that effectively convey the threat, convey it to the point where fewer and fewer are able to cling to their denial of reality.

Israel, to its misfortune, resisted the latter path to its waking from the delusions of Oslo. Pro-Oslo governments, and the nation’s media, refused to address statements by Arafat and his associates, and by PA media, mosques and schools, that clearly demonstrated their goal remained Israel’s annihilation. Nor did Israel’s pro-Oslo leaders and media acknowledge the obvious implications of the Arafat-supported terror, unprecedented in its intensity, unleashed against Israelis during the early years of the Oslo process. It was only after Arafat, in September, 2000, rejected the offers of a comprehensive peace deal proposed by Israel and supported by President Clinton and instead unleashed his terror war, ultimately killing over a thousand Israeli civilians and horribly maiming thousands more, that Israelis in large numbers were shaken from their Oslo fantasies. For others, it required the Hezbollah terror that followed on Israel’s full withdrawal from southern Lebanon, and the intensified Hamas rocket barrages that followed Israel’s evacuation from Gaza in 2005, to disabuse them of their Oslo delusions.

The United States has, of course, experienced some additional carnage since 9/11 and numerous near misses. And many in America are open-eyed about the broader threat those incidents represent. Many were not only outraged by Nidal Malik Hasan’s murder of 13 at Fort Hood. They were hardly less disturbed by the pathetic failure to stop Hasan when there were so many indications of the danger he posed, by the flacking for him in the military, by the refusal in both government and media circles to acknowledge his more than obvious motives and the significance of his beliefs and his actions.

Much of the public reacted similarly to the government’s handling of the would-be Christmas bomber: the failure to use available intelligence to stop his attempted mass murder; the rapid granting him Miranda rights; the reluctance to acknowledge his Jihadist agenda; the unsupported assertions that he acted alone; the claims that his failure to destroy his plane demonstrated "the system worked." So too did the public react to the equally ludicrous, similar, and similarly dangerous, initial government and media responses to the Times Square bomber - the initial reluctance to associate the act or its perpetrator with any broader threat, the absurd grasping for alternative explanations of his motives, again the claims that his attempted mass murder failed because "the system worked," the ongoing refusal to name the actual threat.

But clearly public concern has not reached the level of effectively pressuring the government to abandon its prevarications and its apologetics and indeed its sympathies vis-a-vis the enemy. It is only to be wished that it won’t require a disaster on the scale of 9/11 to rouse the public to that greater determination to bring about a change in government policy.

One element of promoting that determination is not only to speak to the public about the nature of the threat but to demonstrate vividly the threat. This can be advanced by disseminating to broader audiences such works as Fitna, the documentary Obsession, and other films that offer footage both of Islamist leaders explicating their murderous agenda and Islamist cadres acting on that agenda.

Roger Simon notes that the Internet, which could be an effective tool for getting out the truth about the Islamist threat despite mainstream media silence and obfuscation, has actually largely cut the other way by being used to promote the Big Lie about the threat, the denying it and rationalizing it and prettifying it. The Internet is also used by the Islamist enemy to recruit to its cause. But the new media could be used to expose more effectively the Big Lie, with images. I agree with Roger Simon on the repellent non-response of Obama to last June’s mobilization of the freedom movement in Iran. The snapshots and film images captured on cell phones of the popular uprising and the regime’s brutal response were seen around the world, and brought home to many the nature of the Iranian branch of the enemy and the moral bankruptcy of Obama’s response.

Images of events in Darfur can also be mustered to convey the counter-message to the Big Lie. The people of Darfur, like those in the streets in Iran, are Muslims, but their tormentors, the rulers of the Sudan, are closely allied with the Iranian branch of the Islamist threat - its chief boosters are drawn from Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. Sudan’s rulers enjoy as well the unanimous backing of the Arab League, the friendship of Erdogan’s Islamic government in Turkey, and the support of additional non-state backers such as Al-Qaeda. Many on this roster, including the Sudanese government, are the object of Obama Administration blandishments and outreach and offerings of carrots, even as the slaughter in Darfur, and indeed in other minority areas in Sudan, goes on unabated. Images, in photos and film, of what is actually happening there can help promote public eye-opening to the broader threat and impatience with our government’s fecklessness.

Those who speak the truth, or convey it in photos and video, will be demonized, as Robert Spencer says. That is, indeed, the Islamist way, and leftist way. But one can challenge the censors. If their counterparts in Europe, including the indicters of Wilders, are largely able to escape serious challenge, we’re not obliged to give the censors a free pass here.

Material demonstrating the threat - in the words and deeds of the Islamists themselves - can be offered, in universities and elsewhere, as material to be discussed and debated. If it contains errors, let the critics demonstrate it. Those who refuse to allow the discussion, in whatever venue, should be called out for violating the norms of a free society, whether they are motivated by fears of the physical retaliation supporters of the Islamist threat so widely employ, or by fears of being labeled "racist" or "anti-Muslim," or - as the anecdotes cited by Robert Spencer effectively convey - by refusal to recognize the nature of the threat because it is too daunting and upsetting.

During the late thirties, Churchill was censored. He was virtually blackballed by the BBC and demonized by other major media. They were afraid to have his message aired, afraid of its implications. When Chamberlain brought "peace in our time" back from Munich, Churchill was denounced as a warmonger for criticizing Chamberlain’s capitulation to the Nazi threat.

But we do have tools to circumvent the censorship of the appeasers, and only through those tools can we hope to break the dominant self-delusion by means that will spare the nation a ruder awakening via future 9/11's.

FP: Thank you Kenneth Levin. Robert Spencer, final thoughts?

Spencer: It is indeed, as Roger Simon, a global psy-war, and it is by no means over. We have the truth on our side, and as Kenneth Levin ably adumbrates, we have the alternate media – which is still very small compared to the mainstream media, but it is growing apace as the frustration of people who realize they’re being lied to increases. The biggest challenge we face is that all too many people who no longer buy the lies of the Left still allow themselves to be cowed by this psychological manipulation, such that they’re afraid to speak out for the truth themselves, or afraid to venture outside the bounds of what the Left has delineated as acceptable discourse. The hardest obstacles to clear away are not the Left’s control of the mainstream media, but our own mind-forged manacles.

As for Obama, no one should be surprised by what is happening. As Pamela Geller and I show in our book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America (coming July 27 from Simon & Schuster), he is not only presiding over America’s decline, but is in a very real sense the apostle of that decline. The course he is taking as President could have been predicted by anyone who knew the activities and associations of his earlier career, as we outline in the book. And so it is no surprise that the list of his anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic appointees and associates just keeps growing: not just Reverend Wright, but also Samantha Power, Robert Malley, Rosa Brooks, Chuck Hagel, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and more. Likewise also his appointees who wish to give international law precedence over American law: Harold Koh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, John Holdren, Carol Browner – on and on.

In light of all this and more, the situation is very serious, and the time for appeasement, and what Levin terms “the censorship of the appeasers,” is over. William Jennings Bryan said it in 1896 in a vastly different context, but every word applies to conservatives today:

We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest; we are fighting in the defence of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned; we have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them!

We beg no more. We entreat no more. We petition no more. We defy them. We are not the aggressors. We are not haters. We are not racists. We are not bigots. We are not neofascists. Those who claim otherwise are knowingly or unknowingly abetting a monstrous evil. We withdraw our sanction from them. We must no longer treat journalists as if they were objective reporters when they are ideologues and propagandists. We must constantly call them out on their game. And refuse to play it ourselves.

FP: Roger Simon, Robert Spencer and Kevin Levin, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.