Henry Rochejaquelein:  Robert Spencer Discovers Another Mystery “Expert”

by Sheila Musaji

Robert Spencer just posted an article by a Henry Rochejaquelein - In that Enormous Silence, Tiny and Unafraid

Spencer regularly turns up these “mystery experts” like Roland Shirk, Hugh Fitzgerald, and now Henry Rochejaquelein.  These folk

As is the case, with Spencer’s previous mystery men, doing a google search on this man that Spencer identifies as a community organizer based in the Vendée region of France. - nothing comes up except for references to historical figures - and this wikipedia entry on Italian Fascist Mottoes:

Se avanzo, seguitemi. Se indietreggio, uccidetemi. Se muoio, vendicatemi (“If I advance, follow me. If I retreat, kill me. If I die, avenge me”) Borrowed from French Royalist Gen. Henri de la Rochejaquelein.

The article is a defense of the poor “freedom fighters” who are being accused by some of having some culpability for creation the climate of Islamophobia that led to the terrible murders committed by Breivik in Norway.  Some key passages:

Meanwhile, the peaceful efforts of patriotic citizens of Western countries to limit the assertiveness of orthodox Muslims who favor sharia have come under a terrible, blood-red cloud thanks to the actions of a single, vain pseudo-intellectual, who was willing to kill in order to draw attention to himself and happy to tarnish the reputations of dozens of non-violent writers and activists, whose ideas he shoplifted to provide himself with a manifesto. Just as Nat Turner’s (much more justified) rebellion set back by decades the cause of anti-slavery activists in the South, so Breivik’s murders have for the moment threatened to smear us all with his gore.

Rochejaquelein repeats the lunatic claim made by Frank Gaffney that Breivik was somehow engaged in a purposeful effort to tarnish the reputations of those he so obviously considered fellow members of “the Vienna school” of “anti-Jihadists”.  Gaffney actually made the bizarre claim that It cries out for a thorough investigation as to whether it was in fact an authentic piece of his own creation, whether it’s a false flag operation, whether it actually was meant to do anything other than to contribute to Sharia’s efforts to suppress criticism and awareness of its agenda.

...  Robert Spencer has shown by example the right response: Express honest horror at the attacks, point out how they were in no way grounded in anything any reputable counter-jihad scholar or activist has ever written, and refuse to play the game of media hacks who are trying to silence us. Just as Martin Luther King did not fold up his non-violent movement when some black nationalists shot at cops, so we will not shelve our pens because some sociopath took up his gun. 

...  One of the things we so object to about Islam is that its own sacred scriptures endorse, even enjoin, the use of such evil means. To reject them for a Muslim is to make himself a heretic. That simple, ugly truth is so shocking to Western sensibilities that slothful citizens and cowardly politicians find it more convenient to pretend it isn’t so—to claim that when freedom-fighters like Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, and Geert Wilders simply report on acts of violence or their origins, they are inciting similar violence. Afraid of the mortal message, dhimmis would kill the messengers. In fact, they know perfectly well that real counter-jihadists aren’t dangerous.

...  Islam is a profoundly corrupt theological compromise with the vices of Wrath, Vanity, Greed, and Lust—all of which it “baptizes” and directs against unbelievers, promising jihadists rewards for conquest, subjugation, looting, and the taking of sex slaves. In this sense, it is far less delusional than Communism, and more resembles the Nazi ideology—which promised its adherents not an earthly utopia but piles of loot and peasants to plunder. The Communist ideal demanded that man (at the point of a bayonet) remake himself as an angel. Islam reaches down to groom and congratulate the thuggish primate inside each one of us. It will likely prove as stubborn as slavery.

So, after exonerating the anti-Jihad/anti-Sharia movement from any possible suggestion that they might be Islamophobic, or that their rhetoric might have gone beyond the bounds of civilized discourse, he gets to the real point of life itself for these folks - blaming the Muslims.  He repeats some false what everyone “knows” statements about Islam, focuses on purveyors of hatred as “freedom-fighters”, and calls those who might speak against their worldview as “dhimmis” who “would kill the messengers”.

And then, to make their “noble undertaking” clear he suggests that Islam is more dangerous than Communism or Nazism.  Islam itself “grooms and congratulates the thuggish primate inside each one of us.”

But, of course this isn’t inflammatory at all according to these folks.  No one could possibly take this or any of their other hateful comments as any sort of a call to action or violence.