More On Pam Geller
More is coming out on Pam Geller and the recent tragedy in Norway:
“Pamela Geller, the reigning queen of anti-Muslim hysteria, has been feeling intensifying heat since Anders Breivik’s deadly rampage in Norway – and she’s not handling it well.
Geller was one of several prominent anti-Muslim activists cited by Breivik in the 1,500-word manifesto he posted on the Internet hours before his murderous bomb and shooting attack that left 77 Norwegians, mostly teenagers, dead. When news of the attack first broke, Geller published a post on her Atlas Shrugs website all but gloating that she had presaged Islamic violence in Scandinavia – only to discover, embarrassingly, that the attacker was not a jihadist Muslim but a Norwegian national who admired and studied her own rhetoric. Geller awkwardly backtracked, posting a rambling self-defense asserting that Breivik had only mentioned her by name once – while downplaying that he had cited her blog a dozen times, mentioned her co-founding partner of Stop Islamization of America, Robert Spencer, 64 times, and suggested that Spencer should win the Nobel Peace Prize. “
I am reminded that the CST got Geller’s number ages ago.
Update 1: Whenever I post around this topic my moderation queue invariably gets filled with the views of neo-Nazis, Far Rightists, anti-Muslim bigots and other cranks (yes, you know who you are…) wishing to push their racist agenda.
Again, I recommend that they read my comments policy and then sling their hooks.
Update 2: Anders Behring Breivik’s manifesto has been picked apart by the CST and here are a few extracts of their preliminary findings:
“Breivik’s basic narrative, therefore, is one of grievance, resistance to political oppression, conspiracy theory and self-defence of vital interests; and the desperation of the moment demands violence. This is a very common theme in justifications for all forms of terrorism. Moreover, the idea that immigration is a tool used by elites to destroy the white race has been common on the European far right for decades. What is different, and important, in Breivik’s politics is one word: culture.”
…
It is striking that, even as someone who describes himself as “pro-Israel”, Breivik believes that half of all Israeli Jews are enemies who, presumably, must be killed, imprisoned or punished in some other way; as are three-quarters of European and American Jews. Classical antisemitism constructs an image of a typical Jew which bears no relation to reality, but is simply a cipher for all that the antisemite hates and fears. Breivik’s categorisation of the different types of Jews (and Israel) fits this way of thinking perfectly. “
ModernityBlog 
“Breivik believes that Jews should be treated like every other European: those who are multiculturalist traitors are enemies, while those who are culturally conservative are potential allies. But what are the proportions of Jews who fall into these two categories?”
A mirror image of Mearsheimer’s preferred classification between “Righteous Jews” and the “New Africaaners”. Yet everyone has been reluctant to call him an antisemite while no such scruples seem to apply in Breivik’s case. Something tells me that these two have a lot in common, as far basics go. But wait and see how Mearsheimer will exploit these quotes to further his war on Israel’s legitimacy.
Noga
05/08/2011 at 11:21
I think we should focus on Breivik and the issues that arise around him, his actions and views.
modernityblog
05/08/2011 at 12:02
She is an utterly revolting character.
jams o donnell
05/08/2011 at 19:26
No disagreement from me there, Jams.
modernityblog
05/08/2011 at 23:04
To paraphrase CC’s take on things – “Gellar is not a racist, just a bit schrill”
Arseholes, both of them
socialrepublican
06/08/2011 at 14:05
Socrep,
I PREFER that my posters don’t get into bun-fights 🙂
But I think that if anyone made a serious attempt to analyse Geller’s attitudes then they’d see she’s either a racist in one form or other or sympathizes with neo-fascists (make your own mind up).
That is clear from the way she attacks people and defends others, as evidence of this, Geller on the EDL:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/in_england_a_victory_for_freed.html
[Apologies for the dodgy link, but it explains my point.]
modernityblog
06/08/2011 at 15:43
I haven’t followed the Dudley Mosque story – just looked it up – it’s interesting to compare it with the situation in Cambridge where there seems to be no opposition to our planned new Mosque to speak of – I don’t know whether that’s more to do with differences between the two towns/populations – or differences between the two planned mosques.
Sarah AB
07/08/2011 at 07:34
Sarah,
Take whatever Geller says with a bucket of salt.
If she told me the time of day, I’d double check it and then some.
modernityblog
07/08/2011 at 12:54
No bunfight here. Just the recalling of previous.
“For example, Pamela Geller is not racist against Muslims because they are Muslims but because she perceives them as being against American values and against Israel. She could be described as rigid and implacable in her view. Maybe even anti-liberal, but why go all the way to “racist”? ”
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10131050&postID=4754568445255056196
I just don’t like a water carrier for bigots (like Skidmarx for instance) being treated with kid gloves, especially one so easy to smear those who call out their BS as jew haters.
On Gellar, i’ll repeat what I said at Osler’s,
“The narrative of Eurabia, of an actual policy/conspiracy to “Islamify” Europe between Muslims and the internal forces of decadence and arrogance i.e Euro-technocrats, Socialists and “Homo Cultural Marxist Feminists” is no a crank belief on the right. It is the widescale cartography on the right was much as the particular forms of “anti-Imperialism” are on the left. It’s contours demand radical action, I mean, the very existence of civilisation is at stake, it posits. Breivik made the clear distinction between him and a keyboard warrior like Fjordman; he was a warrior who would carry out the necessary actions, Fjordman was a voice, who was to make clear the danger for others to follow Breivik’s campaign. So all these sudden claims of total commitment to non-violence that have sprung from the SOIE/SOIA crowd over the last few days and the water carrying done for them by sections of the wider right are, at the very least, inconguous. They don’t chim well with the rhetoric of the years before, of an absolute historical struggle, of praise for mass murderers like Mladic, of vital choices in “interesting times”.”
socialrepublican
07/08/2011 at 22:36
Socrep,
I am well aware of your and Noga’s exchanges… I do *read* Bob’s even if I don’t comment there at the moment.
I too was very surprised by Noga’s assessment of Geller and I would hope that Noga would revise it after investigating Geller’s rabble rousing and connections to the Far Right.
And I would agree with you that it is rather incongruous of the SOIE/SOIA crowd to express their commitment to nonviolence, when for the last few years their language has been so inflammatory, and barely distinguishable from that of the Far Right.
modernityblog
07/08/2011 at 23:11
I haven’t change my mind about Geller. I was thinking of quoting myself but your other poster beat me to it. I see no reason to reconsider just because Breivick quotes a couple of lines from her blog. Imagine someone reading and quoting your blog comments trying to shoot Geller. Would that serve as proof that you are a violent anarchist terrorist?
In the conversations here and elsewhere, “Racist” is used in the way “witch” was employed to arouse fear and loathing in seventeenth century Salem. You don’t like the woman. Neither do I, for the reasons I explained. I will not join the mobs of demonizers. This has become an extremely dangerous world, as you could have glimpsed from that ugly thread at Bob’s. Everyone should learn to restrain themselves a bit.
Noga
08/08/2011 at 02:14
Modernity – I have no time for Geller – my comment was a bit off at a tangent from her as I was interested to read a bit about the Dudley Mosque in the light of attitudes in Cambridge. In Dudley they’ve had a huge petition against it – in Cambridge (it’s smaller, admittedly) people aren’t bothered as far as I can tell.
Sarah AB
08/08/2011 at 08:21
Sarah,
Sorry, I was getting at Geller’s view of the world. She makes elementary misrepresentations (see the “the dhimmi government” comment, etc) and twists everything, as bigots do.
I wouldn’t take *anything* she says about Dudley Mosque or the opposition to it as accurate, that’s what I was trying to get at….
modernityblog
08/08/2011 at 11:04
Noga,
I’m surprised that you can’t bring yourself to make the effort to analyse Geller’s output and then compare it with previous demagogues, racists and the like.
Should you employ your obvious intelligence on Geller then I find it hard to see how you could come to the conclusion that she was anything else but a racist, that is the direction in which all of her efforts are aimed.
I fully appreciate the many people don’t like admitting they’re wrong, that’s why Gilad Atzmon has such a good time, many otherwise intelligent people don’t think he’s a racist either, when clearly he is.
Please, for your own sake, study Geller’s views and try and draw an objective conclusion.
modernityblog
08/08/2011 at 11:08
“… and draw an objective conclusion.”
You mean, your kind of conclusion 🙂
Noga
08/08/2011 at 11:59
Noga,
I really didn’t want to have an argument but if you insist on sneering and assuming bad faith then there’s not much alternative.
Here’s how you do it, and I’m sure that as an educated person you could work this out yourself:
1. Firstly, you define what is racist conduct.
2. Next you apply it to your favourite bunch of racists.
3. Then you draw conclusions accordingly, bearing in mind that there are different intensities of racism and various ways it can be foisted onto the world.
For example, if the subject matter were Pat Buchanan then you would point to:
1. His consistently negative portrayal of Jews.
2. How his work demonises Jews.
3. How he makes disparaging remarks about Jews.
4. How he lumps all Jews together.
5. How he sees conspiracies under every stone.
etc etc
Equally, if you were to take Geller, then you would see:
1. She constantly portrays Muslims in a negative light
2. That she demonises Muslims daily.
3. That she makes defamatory remarks about them, regularly
4. She lumps all Muslims together.
5. She sees “Dhimmi” conspiracies under every stone.
Etc etc
Agree or disagree, but please don’t be blind to Geller’s bigotry or you risk emulating those you dislike the most.
modernityblog
08/08/2011 at 13:33
I offered a smile, not a sneer. If this is your idea of exemplifying the way you interpret texts, then of course there is nothing more for us to say to each other.
Noga
08/08/2011 at 16:42
Noga,
Sneer with your words and put a smiley on it?
That’s not particularly guaranteed to win people over.
If you had taken the trouble to read what I’ve written you’d understand that I don’t like people drawing the same conclusion, I like variety of views. I don’t like anyone shoving their views down my throat and I certainly won’t do it to anyone else, but what I like to see is analysis and thought.
It is clear to me that you either have never read Geller with your eyes open or that you share some of her prejudices, only you know which it is.
I have run across many people on the Left who can’t see the prejudices within Hamas, and on the other side of the political spectrum many who can’t see anti-Muslim bigotry when its 2 inches from their faces.
In both cases I often surprised how comparatively intelligent individuals will ignore the bleeding obvious.
PS: No, it wasn’t an exemplary form of textual analysis, but I suspect if I had a written 8000 words and gone into every subtlety and nuance it would not change your mind, would it?
Your attitude to Geller is not that dissimilar from many peoples attitude to Hamas, they won’t acknowledge them as racists, they confuse the issues and don’t draw logical conclusions.
It is a pity, that you manage much the same feat with Geller.
modernityblog
08/08/2011 at 17:29
So Pamela Geller’s website is now the moral equivalent of Hamas Charter? Where will you go next with your ever-swelling analogies? Der Sturmer, perhaps?
Noga
08/08/2011 at 17:51
Er, no.
But some people are unwilling to see Hamas’s racism.
And others are blind to Geller’s racism.
Make your own mind up on the two.
modernityblog
08/08/2011 at 18:30
“Make your own mind up on the two.”
Exactly.
Noga
08/08/2011 at 20:01
“So Pamela Geller’s website is now the moral equivalent of Hamas Charter?”
Well she does call for massive ethnic and sectarian cleansing and openly celebrates those who have carried out mass murder. She puts far less god into her text tho
socialrepublican
14/08/2011 at 11:46
I can see why you’d want to move to something more productive than engage with Noga about Geller. She’s poison, but stupid poison.
Owen
22/08/2011 at 00:37