Those who are working to defend free societies should not suffer the attacks of dishonest establishment media hacks in silence. These people need to be called out
Graeme Hamilton’s National Post story about supposed conspiracy theories cropping up in the wake of the Toronto van attack is so sloppily written that it refutes itself. Hamilton writes melodramatically that “in the darker corners of the web…alt-right voices cling to the flimsiest evidence to suggest Canadian authorities are covering up what was actually an Islamist attack.” One of those alleged “alt-right voices” is me: “Robert Spencer of the Jihad Watch web site drew on courtroom sketches to imply that the man who was charged Tuesday was not the same one arrested Monday.” I never said that: here is the original post, you can see for yourself. All I said was that he was bald in arrest photos and had a full head of hair in courtroom sketches, suggesting that Canadian authorities were covering something up. But did I say they were covering up what Hamilton calls an “Islamist attack”? No. In fact, I said that it was “likely that this was not a jihad attack,” and Hamilton even quotes me saying this.
So he quotes me saying this was not a jihad attack in an article in which he uses me as Exhibit A in a story about how the “alt-right” is claiming this was a jihad attack. That’s not just sloppy journalism. That’s malicious dishonesty.
And then there is the “alt-right” label. I find it odd to be termed “alt-right,” as I’ve been publishing articles and books since the 1990s, and I never heard the term “alt-right” until 2016. I guess I got grandfathered in to the “alt-right” movement. But since this term is usually used to refer to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, I wrote to Hamilton asking for a public retraction and apology.
Hamilton shot back an email dripping with condescension and contempt, in which he said:
I refer you to the Oxford Dictionaries definition of alt-right https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/alt-right. Oxford defines the alt-right as “an ideological grouping associated with extreme conservative or reactionary viewpoints, characterized by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate deliberately controversial content.” That is the sense of the term that I had in mind in writing my story yesterday. And whatever you may think of “journalists,” I assure you that my goal in everything I write is to be as clear and concise as possible, not to adhere to some code discernible to select readers.
Now, aside from the fact that virtually everyone uses “alt-right” as shorthand for “white supremacist neo-Nazi,” and not in the way Oxford defines the term, I don’t fit into the Oxford definition of the term, either. “Extreme conservative or reactionary viewpoints” — which of my viewpoints are “extreme conservative or reactionary”? Is it my contention that societies should protect and defend the principles of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law? It is likely that Hamilton has in mind my observation that Islam is not a religion of peace: despite its obvious and demonstrable truth, this idea has been so stigmatized and demonized by the likes of Hamilton and his ilk that it is today the third rail in American politics — to touch it is death. But that doesn’t make it any less true, or any more “conservative or reactionary.”
Another part of the Oxford definition of “alt-right” is that it is “characterized by a rejection of mainstream politics.” When did I reject mainstream politics? Have I called for the overthrow of the U.S. government? Hostage-taking at embassies? In reality, I have repeatedly told people to vote, and to try to influence their elected representatives to take a more realistic approach to the jihad threat. That’s a rejection of mainstream politics? This is sheer fantasy, as well as defamation.
Finally, the “alt-right,” says Oxford, is characterized by “the use of online media to disseminate deliberately controversial content.”
“Deliberately” controversial? No, Mr. Hamilton. Nothing I’ve ever said or written should be remotely controversial, if the world were willing to face the uncomfortable truths that “journalists” such as Graeme Hamilton would prefer to ignore or obfuscate.
In the Toronto van attack case, I stand by what I said: it is odd that the attacker had hair the day after he was photographed as bald. I have no explanation. I wish Canadian authorities would have enough respect for their people to provide one. But to claim that I was thereby stating that this was a jihad attack while quoting me saying it wasn’t a jihad attack isn’t remotely journalism by any standard.
The National Post used to be a decent publication. I published some articles there myself, years ago. But more recently it has retreated from its former willingness to tell the truth about the jihad threat into the fictions and fantasies of the dominant Leftist media. If it had any journalistic integrity left, it would retract this article and fire Graeme Hamilton. But it will do neither, because it does not.
Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email firstname.lastname@example.org
The Truth Must be Told
Your contribution supports independent journalism
Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.
Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.
Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.
Please contribute here.
Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.