Geller and Spencer’s misnamed organization, and what it tells us about the anti-jihad movement as a whole

The name of Pamela Geller’s and Robert Spencer’s organization is Stop Islamization of America. Yet Geller has repeatedly declared that she is not opposed to the creation of Islamic mosques in New York City and elsewhere—she’s only opposed to mosques that are situated within two blocks of Ground Zero. In that case, shouldn’t she change the name of her organization to Stop Islamization of Those Parts of America That Are Within Two Blocks of Ground Zero?

At the website of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), there is no About Page explaining the organization’s mission, but there is a statement on the main page that says: “SIOA is a human rights organization dedicated to freedom of speech, religious liberty, and individual rights; no special rights for special classes.” So the mission of Stop Islamization of America is not to stop the Islamization of America. Its mission is to stop Muslims from having special rights, and to protect the rights of individuals (such as Rifqa Barry) from Islamic oppression. The name “Stop Islamization of America” bears no relationship, or at best it bears a minimal and glancing relationship, to the organization’s actual purpose and function.

Will anyone ask Geller and Spencer why they chose such a misleading name for their organization?

Of course, no one on the right (or at least no one who is prominent) ever asks Geller and Spencer a critical question, so it’s fruitless to hope that anyone on the right will do so in this case. The answer, however, would appear to be as follows. The innacurate and misleading name “Stop Islamization of America” fits the same pattern as that followed by the mainstream anti-jihad movement in general. The writers and speakers associated with that movement constantly cry out, in the most emotional and alarmist terms, that Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization. But then it turns out (1) that they do not actually oppose Islam, they oppose one little part of Islam which they call “Islamism,” and (2) that they do not actually oppose the spread of Islam or “Islamism” in America, because (as I’ve been pointing out for many years) they do not, as a minimally necessary policy consistent with their overall stance, call for the cessation or radical reduction of Muslim immigration. Given the fact that they do not oppose the continuing immigration of Muslims into America, that immigration of Muslims which is actually spreading Islam or “Islamism” in America, how can they be said to oppose the spread of Islam or “Islamism” in America? Similarly, given the fact that they do not oppose the creation of new Islamic mosques in America (except for mosques located within two blocks of Ground Zero), how can they be said to oppose the spread of Islam or “Islamism” in America?

What, then, is the common characteristic shared by the organization Stop Islamization of America, with its misleading name, and the mainstream anti-jihad movement as a whole? It is that they both pretend to oppose Islam, as a way of gaining support from people who actually do oppose Islam, but they do not actually oppose Islam. They only oppose certain especially disturbing excesses of Islam (such as the Ground Zero mosque, such as the campaign against Rifqa Barry), even as they do nothing and propose nothing to stop the continuing Islamization of America. The anti-jihad movement in general, and the organization Stop Islamization of America in particular, exist under false pretenses.

- end of initial entry -

Barbara V. writes:

Do you know, or know of, the talk-show host Jeff Kuhner? He has a three hour program on a DC FM station, opposite Sean Heanity. I hear that national syndication is being considered. He describes himself as “the last honest man in Washington.” In that vein, I would like to confer upon you the moniker “the last clear-thinking man in America—possibly the World”!

LA replies:

Thank you very much. :-) But this is bad news. If there’s only one clear thinking person, we are in even worse trouble than we thought.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 18, 2010 06:59 AM | Send