An unremarkable clarification

Recently, a commenter here who has expressed certain moderate reservations about my general agenda here asked me why don’t I also include on this blog here the good things which Spencer and Fitzgerald say on Jihad Watch concerning the problem of PC?

Well, aside from the fact that in my introductory essay, entitled “Opening Salvo”, I write—

First, let it be clear that I am, for the most part, a supporter of Jihad Watch (and of its sister site, Dhimmi Watch).

And:

Note: This blog here is not intended to be a denunciation or denigration of Jihad Watch nor of its agenda and mission as a whole.

—nevertheless, the citation of any and all good or correct things which Spencer and Fitzgerald might say on Jihad Watch concerning the problem of PC would be beside the point of this blog. It would be as though, on a blog devoted to tomatoes, someone would take me to task for not mentioning potatoes.

And furthermore, the fact is that, in my estimation, Spencer and Hugh are, as it were, apparently stuck in a certain paradigm which affects their perception of the nature and dimensions of PC, such that even the good or correct things they observe about the problem of PC suffer from a flaw of what I have called delimited focus—unduly narrowing the sphere, so to speak, of the phenomenon of PC. Thus, for me to cherrypick those good or correct-sounding things which Spencer and Fitzgerald might say on Jihad Watch concerning the problem of PC and simply present them without criticism (which is what the aforementioned commenter implied) would tend to undermine my central thesis, which is an inverse of the delimited focus.

As this particular essay here is not concerned with analysis of the problem of PC, I will leave it to the interested reader to read through my other essays here (as well as in its sister blog, The Hesperado), where he will find more amplification and clarification of the points I mention above in rather dense and terse remarks.