Colin Dickey, “an associate professor of creative writing at National University,” read ten books published by my current publisher, Bombardier Books, and he is bored, poor lamb, but not so bored that before he settled down on the couch with a box of Krispy Kremes for an evening of Star Trek: Lower Decks, he couldn’t take to Politico to warn all his fellow Leftist lemmings not to read, under any circumstances, any of these books containing double-plus ungood wrongthink.
Dickey has me preemptively banned on Twitter, although I never heard of him before a few hours ago, when his Politico piece was sent to me. I think people who block those with whom they have never interacted manifest a peculiar insecurity, and Dickey only compounds this impression with his assessment of my book Confessions of an Islamophobe.
Dickey is bored, for as far as he is concerned, the book doesn’t contain anything new, but the same things Pim Fortuyn was saying in 2002. (Actually, I was saying these things in 2002 as well, and in 2001, and earlier, but Dickey can be pardoned for not knowing much about someone he is so afraid of that he forecloses on any interaction before any interaction was even contemplated.) He summarizes these arguments thusly: Islam is “bad and dangerous, intolerant and violent, and poses a threat to Christians, Jews and women everywhere.”
Dickey then says that “these arguments are odious,” which is not at all the same thing as saying “these arguments are false.” He does not and cannot honestly assert that what I say about Islam is false. Islam really is, quite obviously to anyone who is informed about the status of Christians, Jews, and women in Sharia states, intolerant and violent. In saying my arguments are “odious” but not refuting them, Dickey is semaphoring to the hapless Leftists who take Politico seriously that they must shun such arguments as well, even if they are true.
But in leaving my arguments unrefuted, Dickey is opening himself up to charges of “Islamophobia,” which he would no doubt dread and fear. For if my statements about Islam are “odious,” and yet true, is Islam itself then “odious”? Will Politico get an angry letter from the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)? Here’s hoping.
It’s certain, of course, that Dickey doesn’t have the faintest idea what the Qur’an says or what the Qur’an teaches. He just knows that my book came out from a publisher whom those he trusts says is a source he shouldn’t believe. So he assumes that what I say must be wrong. This is an inverse form of the argument from authority, which is the weakest of all arguments: I am someone he has been told (and he is an obedient boy) to hate and despise, so he does. No actual intellectual investigation is needed.
Dickey also finds me hypocritical: “Spencer devotes a whole chapter, for example, attacking Islam as a homophobic religion, while of course remaining silent on American rightwing evangelicals’ attitudes on the LGBTQI community.” Well, the book wasn’t about American rightwing evangelicals. Does he excoriate a book about the “homophobia” of “American rightwing evangelicals” for not discussing Islam? I bet not. And when “American rightwing evangelicals” start hanging homosexuals from cranes, give me a call, Colin. But I won’t be waiting by the phone.
Dickey notes with some surprise that Confessions of an Islamophobe doesn’t contain any “additional vitriol or hate.” Clearly a groupthinker and conformist of the highest order, Dickey assumes, because he has been told so often by the likes of CAIR and Politico, that opposing jihad violence and Sharia oppression is “hate.” When he finds that a reasoned defense of such opposition isn’t actually hateful at all, he can’t get his mind around it.
Politico readers were unlikely to go searching through my back catalogue for a good read, but I’m sure some people who are clearer-sighted than Colin Dickey and yet stumbled upon his diatribe will have their curiosity piqued. Thanks, Colin. Get the book here.
Colin Dickey, “The New Conservative Books Are Angry. But Why Are They So Boring?,” by Colin Dickey, Politico, March 6, 2022:
…As for the ideas contained in these books, Spencer’s Confessions of an Islamophobe seems to be par for much of the course. Beyond its incendiary title, the book’s stated positions don’t veer too far from the standard rightwing talking points regarding Islam: It’s bad and dangerous, intolerant and violent, and poses a threat to Christians, Jews and women everywhere. These arguments are odious, to be sure, and they are often hypocritical. Spencer devotes a whole chapter, for example, attacking Islam as a homophobic religion, while of course remaining silent on American rightwing evangelicals’ attitudes on the LGBTQI community.
But what’s most salient about this attack on Islam is not its hypocrisy but how tired it is. The Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was the first to articulate it from the right in 2002. From Dutch politician Geert Wilders to French politician Marine le Pen to Trump, the attack has been used so regularly it’s an old classic by now. Spencer’s treatment brings nothing new to it — not even additional vitriol or hate. The same goes for the rest of his arguments; Confessions of an Islamophobe reads, at best, like a greatest hits piece.
somehistory says
“evangelicals’ attitudes on the LGBTQI community.” For his information “right-wing American” are words not necessary for this sentence. The “attitude” comes from what the Bible says…not “right-wing or American” at all…and God’s condemnation of those activities. Along with lying.
And, furthermore, though Christians disapprove of deviant sex….in all its forms…we don’t go about physically harming those who engage in any of its forms; we don’t toss them off roofs, or beat them up, or call for them to be killed or refuse medical attention.
Yes, islam is “odious.” But pointing out that islam is “odious,” is not “odious” at all. islam is “evil” too, and making that point clear is Righteous.
James Lincoln says
somehistory says,
“And, furthermore, though Christians disapprove of deviant sex….in all its forms…we don’t go about physically harming those who engage in any of its forms; we don’t toss them off roofs, or beat them up, or call for them to be killed or refuse medical attention.”
Yes, and as a devout Christian, I pray for them.
somehistory says
Yes, we pray for all to come to have the “knowledge of God and His Son” so as to get life eternal. As Paul wrote to a Christian congregation in his time about such ones, “That is what some of you were.” People can change, if they wish to.
bill says
Prof. of ‘creative writing’ I wonder how many great writers had guidance from professors? Like Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Standhal, Goethe, Dickens, Hardy, Thurber, Longfellow, Steinbeck, Scott Fitzgerald, Alcott and Emerson to name only a few
GreekEmpress says
There’s a big difference between Evangelicals’ disagreeing with LGBTQ lifestyles and the Islamic method of dealing with them by throwing them off rooftops, imo.
Is he even aware of the slaughter of African Christians? Or the history of the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocide?
Wellington says
+1.
Leftists, GreekEmpress, ultimately are not only destructive but extremely simple-minded. They have no capacity to think “outside the box,” no capacity to look at matters from a different point of view, all the while they engage in nauseating virtue-signaling, which, per an update of a Samuel Johnson assessment, is the “last refuge of a scoundrel.”
libertyORdeath says
I love the update to that previously insulting and false quote.
The original quote is “PATRIOTISM is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
Your version is much more appropriate…”VIRTUE SIGNALING is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
We have seen this maxim in action, most notably when Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked by a career criminal and a child molester, both scoundrels whose last refuge was virtue signaling on race as an attempt to make or cover-up their disgusting past.
libertyORdeath says
I love the update to that previously insulting and false quote.
The original quote is “PATRIOTISM is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
Your version is much more appropriate…”VIRTUE SIGNALING is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
We have seen this maxim in action, most notably when Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked by a career criminal and a child molester, both scoundrels whose last refuge was virtue signaling on race as an attempt to make or cover-up their disgusting past.
Btw, I like the new title “the left column” much more than “left watch”
PMK says
Politico called Robert’s arguments “odious”. That’s not the same as calling Islam odious. I thought someone at WAPO had finally seen the light. At least that’s what the headline suggested.
somehistory says
I thought taht too, until I began reading what Mr. Spencer posted about it.
Robert Spencer says
Saying an argument is “odious” without refuting it is tacitly admitting it’s true, and hence that the thing described in the argument, Islam, is itself “odious.”
somehistory says
Thank you. I did get that while reading what you wrote. It was just the headline before reading what you had to say that made me think they had actually said, “islam is odious.”
Thank you, Mr. Spencer.
PMK says
Thank you.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Mr. Spencer.
Infidel says
Dickey is a dick! Good name
Abdul says
We Muslims have a scripture and Jews and Christians don’t have a scripture. This is the difference between us.
somehistory says
HUH? Jews and Christians have the Holy Scriptures, inspired by God through His Holy Spirit…the Hebrew, Aramaic and Christian Greek Scriptures;
while islam has a book that makes a very awful, feeble attempt at being “scripture” from an angel, and commanding rape, murder, lies and other crimes against humanity.
There are so many “differences,” it would take a book to list them all. In fact, the Bible is such a Book.
Infidel says
Sorry, cobbling together myriad stories and rants from different sources and putting it together in a book doesn’t qualify as ‘scripture’. You don’t have a scripture. Jews, Hindus and others do
gravenimage says
What Abdul is saying here is that “love your neighbor as yourself” is not scripture, but “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” is. *Ugh*.
Wilgre says
Typical Evil Cultist response!!
Let me send u some toilet paper!!!
tunde says
Get him, Spencer!
Prince Eugene says
When Leftists or apologists for Islam and orthodox Muslim attitude realize that they are on the losing side of the argument, they change the subject and obfuscate their subterfuge with ad hominem attack that any proficient high school debater can recognize. Usually calling out this fallacious thinking ends the debate with the offended opponent adding abusive denunciations that also will have nothing to do with the argument. A similar strategy is used when reviewing books with the facts of what Islam teaches, warns and enforces through oppression. An indiscriminate liberal reviewer being forced to face the historical facts about Muslims acting out of hatred for all things and beliefs deemed un-Islamic is the nightmare a progressive liberal would call “odious.” A liberal rarely, if ever, mentions a Muslim’s responsibility for hateful acts. The liberal will call assassins mentally incompetent or disturbed, and this has nothing to do with an aggressor’s belief in Islam. But dare to pin Muslims to their hateful deeds, a modern liberal will blame the color of the sky, or the motives of the harbinger, before admitting that the fault is with the perpetrators.
Wilgre says
+10
gravenimage says
Politico calls Islam ‘odious’
………….
Grimly amusing!
Johnny B says
It may be “boring” to leftists that I – as a Christian – feel threatened that my country is becoming Islamized while being harassed and stigmatized as the agressor and bigot (a socalled Islamophobe) for being open about it. But to me and other Christians here in Europe it IS going to become a matter of life and death if it isn’t already, so I actually could care less if this character think it’s “boring” or whatever…