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. “

Anti-Muslim Cranks And Anders Behring Breivik.

Hatewatch has an insightful post on some anti-Muslim bigots and the recent events in Norway:

“The irony is, had Anders Behring Breivik merely posted his manifesto without killing at least 76 innocent children and adults in Norway, he probably would have emerged as a rising star among the anti-Muslim activists he so admired.

As it happened, America’s most fanatical anti-Muslim activists quickly retreated behind walls of denial upon discovering that the perpetrator of Friday’s stunning act of terror was committed not in the name of Islam, but in response to their own mission: Whipping up paranoia about Islam.

Breivik on Monday admitted responsibility for the attack, telling a court that he did it to “save Europe” from Islam. His 1,500-page manifesto, which he posted on the Internet shortly before launching the rampage, confirmed his motivation in no uncertain terms. But in the aftermath of the tragedy, the very people whose anti-Muslim polemics Breivik admired and studied were pathetically incapable of any introspection whatsoever regarding the influence their inflammatory anti-Muslim paranoia might have had on Breivik.

When the news first broke Friday, along with an early, unsubstantiated report that a Muslim terrorist group had claimed responsibility, Pamela Geller, executive director of the anti-Muslim hate group Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), prepared to indict all of Islam for the carnage.

Her first post, at 12:57 p.m. Friday was headlined, “Jihad in Norway?” Mocking her critics, she wrote, “But remember, jihad is not the problem. New York’s 911, London’s 7/7, Madrid’s 3/11, Bali, Mumbai, Beslan, Moscow … is not the problem. ‘Islamophobia’ is the problem. Repeat after me as you bury the dead, ‘Islamophobia is the problem, Islamophobia is the problem.’” “

Geller is exceedingly predictable and so despicable, nakedly exploiting the death of innocent Norwegians for her own political purposes.

Norway, Recognising The Threat.

There is a regrettable tendency, when multiple atrocities like that which occurred in Norway recently, for pundits to go off half cocked. To push their agenda on top of a tragedy, or make unnecessarily crude political points on the back of the deaths of others.

That’s part of the reason that I deliberately chose not to post on these events.

I wanted the dust to settle and for a better understanding of what actually happened to come out.

I am still reluctant to comment but I think the CST’s contribution is pertinent and deserves a wider airing:

The appalling and tragic events in Norway on Friday have served as an horrific reminder that Europe’s far right is capable of producing terrorists, who are just as willing to kill in large numbers as any jihadi terrorist group.

Previously, most attempts by neo-Nazis or other adherents of far right ideologies to perpetrate terrorist attacks have failed for logistical reasons, but there are enough examples that succeeded – for example, David Copeland here in the UK, or the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing in the United States – to dispel any complacency. The growing list of prosecutions and convictions in Britain of would-be terrorists from the far right in recent years shows that this is a real and growing problem.”

The point that they make that political violence is intrinsic to the Far Right needs greater acceptance amongst the media and political classes, who will often gloss over this issue without any real understanding of its implications.