Pamela Geller’s free speech bloodfest

The aborted assault by two would-be jihadists on the ‘Muhammad art contest’ at the Curtis Culand Center in Garland, Texas on Sunday has added another grim chapter to a screechingly dishonest ‘free speech versus Islam’ debate that continues to gain deadly traction from one country to the next.   First things first: there is no doubt that the two ‘jihadists’ would have perpetrated a Charlie Hebdo-style massacre had not they not been shot dead first.     That’s what they went there to do, and that objective deserves nothing but contempt and outrage.

But what about the event itself.     What was it trying to do?   The contest was sponsored by the American Freedom Defence Iniatiative (AFDI), a ‘counterjihadist ‘ organization, whose president Pamela Geller   told   CNN yesterday, ‘ Islamic jihadis are determined to suppress our freedom of speech violently. They struck in Paris and Copenhagen recently, and now in Texas.’

To say that Geller is not a particularly appealing figure does not begin to describe her.         The Southern Poverty Law Center describes her as the ‘anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead’ who is ‘relentlessly shrill and coarse in her broad-brush denunciations of Islam’.   Few people familiar with her track record or her website Atlas Shrugged will find much reason to differ from this judgement.

In the past Geller has suggested that the teenagers murdered by Anders Breivik on Utoya Island deserved what they got because they expressed solidarity with Gaza; that Obama is a Muslim who once had sex with a ‘crack whore’; and that Muslims who pray five times a day are ‘cursing Christians and Jews five times a day.’

Geller did not choose the Culwell Center by accident.   In January this year, just over a week after the Charlie Hebdo murders,   the Chicago-based Islamic multimedia organization Sound Vision staged its annual ‘Stand With the Prophet in Honour and Respect’ conference at the same center.   The conference took place just over a week after the Charlie Hebdo murders, and its specific message ‘Stand with the Prophet Against Terror and Hate.’   was supported by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The conference was intended to raise funds to educate young Muslims on how to counter Islamophobia, and its Facebook page explained its intentions in the following terms:

‘Prophet Muhammad inspires love and devotion in the hearts of Muslims, peace be upon him. Unfortunately, Islamophobes have turned him into an object of hate. The fight in defense of our Prophet against the $160 million Islamophobia machine is continuous, and groups like ISIS and Boko Haram only increase the media”s ammunition to incriminate Muslims. Let us stand against terrorism and hate together with the Prophet and his path of mercy, peace and blessings be upon him.’

The conference was loudly denounced by leading figures in ‘counterjihadist’ circles such as Frank Gaffney as yet another sinister Muslim attempt to silence free speech and Islamicize American society, and the AFDI staged a ‘Free Speech Rally’ outside the event.   Some 2,000 people attended that rally and waved American flags at the attendees, many of whom also waved American flags at the conference.

But Geller clearly wanted to make a more compelling statement, and so in February she announced that she would be staging the First Annual Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest at the same center, in order, as she put it, ‘to show how insane the world has become — with people in the free world tiptoeing in terror around supremacist thugs who actually commit murder over cartoons. If we can”t stand up for the freedom of speech, we will lose it — and with it, free society.

A noble and courageous stance?   Not really, because Geller is not Voltaire, except insofar as Voltaire couldn’t stand Islam either.     And her concerns were not so much with free speech per se, but in using the issue as a pretext to stage a very deliberate provocation aimed at advancing her a very specific loathing of Islam and a ‘counterjihadist’ narrative that presents violent Islamist extremism as part of a broader Islamic assault on western civilisation.

To give the statement a bit more clout and publicity, she also invited Gert Wilders, the peroxide-blonde Dutch Islamophobe who is cut very firmly from the same cloth.     Wilders was star speaker at the Culwell Center on Sunday, where he told the audience   that depicting Muhammad was ‘ an act of liberation’ in a ‘clash between civilization and barbarism.’   How so? Because

‘Our Judeo-Christian culture is far superior to the Islamic one. I can give you a million reasons. But here is an important one. We have got humor and they don’t….Islam does not allow free speech, because free speech shows how evil and wrong Islam is. And Islam does not allow humor, because humor shows how foolish and ridiculous it is.’

The fun-loving imp went on to tell his audience

‘I am not saying that there are no moderate Muslims. Fortunately, there are Muslims who do not live according to the Islamic commands. But there is no moderate Islam!…Let us de-islamize our societies!   No more Islam, no more mosques, no more Islamic schools. It is time for our own culture and heritage.’

All this was necessary because

‘Moderation in the face of evil is evil. This is not what our age needs. We must uncap our pens; we must speak words of truth. We are facing a determined enemy who is striving through all means to destroy the West and snuff out our traditions of free thought, free speech, and our Judeo-Christian values.

Here are some of the ‘words of truth’ that The Daily Beast correspondent observed:

‘One cartoon featured a minimalist cartoon desert and, in the foreground, Muhammad suspended in the fetal position on a pencil skewering his entire body; another had “Islam, religion of peace” written across a man juggling severed heads; another featured Muhammad wearing a green turban with eyes that look bewitched, open-jawed snakes coming out of his neck; another had a grumpy Muhammad in black turban holding a bloody, serrated knife, captioned: “when it comes to religion… I”ve got the edge.” ‘

I’m sorry, call me a humourless dick and a closet jihadist enslaved in a state of mental Dhimmitude, but I don’t see how these caricatures have anything to do with any form of   ‘truth’, except the truth of bigots.   They have nothing to do with combating extremism, because they are extremist.   They don’t have much to do with humour either, except the sniggering laughter of hatemongering frauds, who have hijacked and debased the whole notion of free speech as a common social good and transformed it into a deliberate provocation.

That doesn’t mean that I regard the two would-be murderers as devout Muslim believers seeking to express their hurt and indignation at the latest ‘insult to the Prophet’, anymore than I regard the murders in Paris or Copenhagen as such.   You don’t respond to insults against your religion by killing the person who insulted it.     That is the logic of moral imbeciles – or tyrants.

So let’s not give these murderers any legitimacy whatsoever.   They – and the organizations they support or subscribe to – know perfectly well that every act of violence in response to the ‘drawing Muhammad’ culture wars is likely to bring more hatred and loathing towards Muslims in general, and European and American Muslims in particular.     They actively seek this outcome because they believe that the great ‘war’ they have been seeking will be best served by promoting hatred and division.

This is an agenda that Geller and her gang of provocateurs are only too willing to serve, and they see the ‘Muhammad cartoons’ as a useful vehicle in promoting it.     They aren’t defending ‘civilisation’ or ‘free speech’ – they are debasing these terms and weaving them into their own ‘war’ – a war fuelled by an extremist agenda of bigotry, hatred and discrimination.

They might say that their war is fought with laughter and humour rather than bullets.   But I suspect that their humour is intended to invite bullets, and there is nothing very funny about that at all.




The Terror Brothers

So now we know that the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombings were Muslim ‘jihadists’ after all – or at least they thought they were.  And law enforcement officials, the media and assorted experts and terrorologists are engaging in the familiar post-atrocity search for an explanation and a motive.

Were they ‘self-radicalized lone wolves’ who planned and prepared the whole ghastly spectacle by themselves?    Or were they ‘radicalized’ by foreigners or by some charismatic evil influence,  such as the ‘mysterious radical’ known as ‘Misha’, who Tamerlane Tsarnaev’s uncle in Maryland now says ‘    ‘steered the religiously apathetic young man toward a strict strain of Islam’?

These distinctions matter, and not only because of the entirely logical impulse to try and understand what would lead two young Chechen refugees with reasonably promising futures in their adopted country would perpetrate an act of ‘terrorism’ with ‘weapons of mass destruction’ – as pressure cooker bombs with nails and shrapnel are now somewhat bizarrely categorised.

After all, we’ve just seen an entire city shut down and placed under curfew in a search for one wounded teenager – and this in a country where young men with guns commit murder virtually on a daily basis without any such response – and these developments may well be the shape of things to come.

Predictably,  the ‘counter-jihad’ movement has seized on the bombings,  with Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) unveiling what her cohort Robert Spencer calls a new programme for ‘defending free societies.

This programme, according to AFDI’s ‘executive director’ ie. Geller, calls for the recognition that

‘Islam in its mainstream theological formulations and its dominant form throughout its history, not “extremist Islam” or “hijacked Islam” or “Islamism,” but Islam in the Qur’an and Sunnah as understood by Islamic jurists and theologians, can and should be regarded as an author’itarian and supremacist political system as well as a religion, and thus that Muslim groups should be subject to all the scrutiny and legal requirements of political organizations, without being able to shield their political activities behind the protection of religious freedom.’

So there you are: it’s Islam’s fault again, and what we need is no Islam – or at least an Islam under lock and key.    Thus the AFDI’s prescriptions for ‘defending free societies’ includes  profiling of Muslims at airports, ‘ surveillance of of mosques and regular inspections of mosques in the U.S. and other non-Muslim nations to look for pro-violence materials’,  ‘ curriculum and Islam-related materials in textbooks and museums to describe the Islamic doctrine and history accurately, including its violent doctrines and 1,400-year war against unbelievers’.

Geller and her fellow ‘human rights activists’  also want ‘  an end to the ‘crippling rules of engagement under which our soldiers are forced to labor’ in order to give them ‘the freedom to defend themselves and protect their comrades.’

How nobly patriotic.   In fact American soldiers have been killing quite a lot of Muslims over the last decade with the rules of engagement that they already have,  but not enough for La Geller, it seems.

Let’s be clear here: the idea that these proposals have anything to do with ‘human rights’ or ‘free societies’ is a delusion, a fantasy and a lie; what Geller, Spencer are talking about is victimization, repression, unlimited violence and something that will look a lot like fascism – if it ever gets off the ground.    And they are using the Boston atrocity as just one more pretext to promote that agenda.

Geller and her cohorts are always eager to link any of these events to ‘Islam’ – or at least their version of it.  But even the few details that have emerged so far reveal nothing of the kind.   According to a written statement from the younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,  the bombings were a response to the ‘US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq’.

This explanation suggests another form of ‘blowback’ from the terrorwars of the last decade – which isn’t the same thing as saying that murdering Americans at an athletics race it is some kind of logical or legitimate response to them, let alone that the Tsarnaevs reflect a mainstream Muslim consensus.

On the contrary, the concept of ‘Islam’ that Tsarnaev supposedly adhered to,  and made him believe that he was engaged in ‘God’s business’ was rejected by most of those who knew him – and his co-religionists at the mosque that he attended.

Did Geller and her dimwit bigots notice that Tsarvaev was thrown out of his local mosque because he called out his local Imam for praising Martin Luther King and for telling his listeners it was religiously acceptable to celebrate American national holidays?  Or was that just too inconvenient for them?

Muhammed Merah justified his murder spree in Toulouse last year as a response to the war in Afghanistan and acts of violence carried out by ‘the Jews’ in Palestine, and he and the Tsarnaev brothers seem to share a depressingly familiar profile.

There is the same process of ‘Westernization’ accompanied by alienation, cultural ambiguity, guilt and resentment towards their surrounding society;  the same sudden re-conversion to a garbled and reactionary politicized notion of Islam and  the primeval bin Ladenism of the ‘you killed our people so I can kill yours’ variety; the same search for ‘meaning’ through an essentially narcissistic act of heroic mass murder directed towards fifteen minutes of media notoriety.

And all of it washed down with scraps of religious gibberish that could easily be fitted onto the back of a fag packet, in order to inflict yet another revolting act of random violence on a world that is already saturated with such events.

Beyond the question of personal motivation, the political and strategic ‘logic’ for such acts (assuming that these half-baked ‘holy’ warriors even stopped for long enough to think of one in their rush to martyrdom/stardom) belongs to an old tradition of non-state terrorism that goes beyond al-Qaeda and its various tributaries, namely that civilians who remain indifferent to the wars that their governments are engaged in have no right to neutrality or security.

Was that what the Terror Brothers thought they were doing when decided it would be a good idea to murder and mutilate some marathon runners and their spectators?  Did they believe that they were called upon by God to defend Muslims  in Afghanistan by killing Americans in Boston?   Or was it merely a nihilistic act of revenge with no longer term intentions except to glorify its protagonists – in their own eyes at least?

We may or may not find out some of these answers during Tsarnaev’s trial.  In the meantime we must wash down the bitter and disgusting contribution to the seemingly endless tit-for-tat game of terror and counterterror, and reject not just the act itself, but the pseudo-explanations placed upon it by the likes of  Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and Lindsey Graham, who would – if they could – use the Terror Brothers to make the world even darker than it already is.




Pamela Geller Quotes the Quran

Over the last week psycho-bigot Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) has been regaling commuters in New York City with pithy insights into Islam and the politics of the Middle East.

First there was this advert, which the Metropolitan Transportation Authority allowed in 10 subway stations after a court case overruled its attempts to block it:

Geller’s binary formulation has not gone uncontested.   A coalition of United Methodist Women, the Christian social-justice organization Sojourners, and Rabbis for Human Rights have paid $6,000 for the following 10 subway ads:

Some commuters have expressed their opposition more directly:

Not that criticism of this or any other kind is likely to bother the Queen of Counter-jihad, who is not one to shun the limelight:

Or the other defenders of the civilized world, like ‘Tommy Robinson’ or ‘Stephen Yaxley Lennon’ or ‘Paul Harris’ or whoever the hell he is,   tanning-shop owner and head of the English Defence League.     Here is the great man on Geller’s left,   attending her recent SION (Stop Islamization of Nations) conference in New York:

Geller carroll robinson

One can only hope that this was a memorable occasion for the EDL leader, who was given   a 10-month jail sentence for entering the United States illegally   as a result – a development Geller’s blog describes as ‘political persecution.’

Meanwhile the AFDI has continued its attempts to enlighten the American public about Islam with   a new subway advertisement, containing a less strident but no less poisonous and inflammatory juxtaposition:

This advert was co-sponsored by JihadWatch, the anti-Muslim organization formed by Geller’s mentor Robert Spencer, and it is a variant on the ‘quotation’ game favored by Spencer and many other bigots from the same stable.

This game consists of quoting violent texts from the Quran and the Hadith as a pseudo-explanation for any acts of violence involving Muslims in any part of the world, in order to paint an essentialist view of Islam as a barbaric and inherently bloodthirsty religion/culture in which all acts of ‘jihadist’ violence are the result of a religious imperative.

These assertions are based on an argument which has been endlessly repeated in ‘counter-jihad’ circles; that unlike other religions, Muslims believe that the Quran is the revealed word of God and all of them believe and accept every word in it unquestioningly.

Therefore, ipso facto, all Muslims belong to the same unbroken continuum of violence and bear direct or indirect responsibility for the September 11 attacks, and are collectively engaged in an attempt to take over Europe/the United States/ Israel/ the whole world,   that may take the form of terrorist attacks or various forms of ‘stealth jihad’.

Violent quotations can certainly be found in the Quran,   admittedly accompanied by qualifications or rooted in a very specific historical context that is routinely ignored by the manipulations of Spencer, Geller et al.   But equally bloodthirsty pronouncements can also be found in other religions, without acquiring the same essentialist or universalist connotations.

The Old Testament is filled with startlingly unrepentant celebrations of extreme violence, particularly those sections that deal with the Israelite conquest of Canaan.   Thus Deuteronomy, Chapter 4: 34, celebrates the defeat of Sihon, king of Heshbon, in the following terms:

‘ And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.’  

The same fate meets the inhabitants of Bashan, where Chapter 3: 6 tells us that the Israelites ‘ utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.’

In Chapter 13: 15, Moses exhorts the Israelites to punish the idolatrous inhabitants of Belial in the same way:

‘Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.’

The inhabitants of Jericho fare no better, according to Judges: Chapter 6: 21, where the Israelites follow their victory by massacring the entire population:

‘And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.’

And Joshua: Chapter 8: 26 relates how the Israelites pursued and slaughtered the surviving warriors of Ai, who they had defeated in battle,   before massacring the population of the city:

‘For Joshua drew not his sword back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.’

There is a lot more where this came from.     And were I minded to do so, I could also   juxtapose some of these quotes, say, with pictures of missile strikes on Gaza, the aftermath of the two sieges of Fallujah, or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, or the victims of death squads in Guatemala or El Salvador, in order to suggest that all these actions were the result of some kind of religious imperative, and that Jews and Christians bore collective responsibility through their membersship of a barbaric and primitive religion that condones and even glorifies massacre and killing in the name of God.

At various points in history, the Bible – like the Quran – has provided justification/inspiration for acts of extreme violence.   In the first Crusade, the Christian knights who slaughtered the population of Jerusalem believed that their acts were divinely sanctioned.     Seventeenth century Puritan settlers in America frequently compared their situation to the Israelites in Canaan and quoted from the Bible to justify massacre and conquest.       Today Jewish settlers in the West Bank routinely cite the Old Testament as a justification for their occupation of ‘Judea and Samaria.’

References to the Almighty are a powerful legitimizing force for violence and war in all religious traditions, which can be drawn on depending on the situation.   But the ‘Islam is evil’ school of thought argues that Muslims, unlike Jews and Christians, are obliged to accept and act upon everything that is written in the Quran, and that because Muslim leaders have not renounced its violent messages, they are somehow complicit in violence.

To my knowledge, the Old Testament has not been disclaimed by the Catholic or Anglican Church, or by major Jewish religious figures.     Priests and rabbis do not – and indeed cannot – look through the Bible and the Torah and pick and choose which parts of it are ‘true’ and which parts are to be rejected. This is not how things work.

Nevertheless, the fact that the unapologetic celebration of massacre and slaughter contained   in Deuteronomy, Numbers, Judges, or Joshua has not been ‘officially’ rejected does not mean that all Jews and Christians continue to believe or act upon these texts, or that they are even aware of them.     Nor do these texts define the essence of their faith or religious practices, or ‘explain’ every act of violence with a Jewish or Christian component.

These are standards that are imposed uniquely on Muslims by hatemongers and bigots like Geller and Spencer, who would have the world believe that the Quran is responsible for 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,   ‘jihad’, ‘stealth jihad’ and the ‘Islamization of Nations.

In fact their crude and manipulative use of Quranic texts tells us more about them than it does about Islam.   And the New York ads are merely one more manifestation of the new forms of hatespeech and gutter scholarship that have emerged in the early 21st century,   in which conservatives and the far-right have embarked on a common attempt to frame ‘the Muslim enemy’ as the antithesis of civilization.











Twilight in Gellerland

As an example of callous brutality and gimlet-eyed hatred, the latest take on the Norway killings by American ‘counter-jihadist’ Pamela Geller takes some beating. According to Geller, the Labour Party summer camp at Utoeya was in fact an ‘anti-semitic indoctrination centre.’

How does she know this?  Because one of the survivors of the massacre told ABC news immediately afterwards how ‘Some of my  friends  tried to stop him [Breivik] by  talking  to him. Many people thought that it was a test …comparing it to how it is to live in Gaza.’  Well that proves it, doesn’t it?   But in case there was any doubt, Geller reports a visit to Utoeya by the Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store, who told the assembled youth that the Palestinians ‘must have their own state, the occupation must end, the wall must be demolished and it must happen now.’

Still uncertain about the dark purpose behind this seemingly innocent island, you skeptics? Geller has definitive proof, in the form of a photograph of smiling youths in a boat with Palestinian flags and banners calling for the defeat of the Gaza blockade.   All of which demonstrates that ‘ Glenn Beck was not that far off when he compared it to the Hitlerjugend or Young Pioneers.’

No he really wasn’t, was he?  And all this kinda puts Anders Breivik’s decision to massacre these kids in perspective don’t you think?   You don’t?   Well consider what Auntie Pamela has to tell y’all

[stextbox id=”alert”]Breivik was targeting the future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, who commit major violence against Norwegian natives, including violent gang rapes, with impunity, and who live on the dole… all done without the consent of the Norwegians.
The day before the shooting, a pro-Palestinian rally was held.[/stextbox]

So there you have it.   Quid pro quo.   But don’t you go thinking that Pam approves of what Breivik did.   She makes it clear that she doesn’t, telling us that

[stextbox id=”alert”]Of course, the genocidal leftists will twist what I write here; I am not condoning the slaughter in Norway or anywhere. I abhor violence (except in regard to  self defense). But the jihad-loving media never told us what antisemitic war games they were playing on that island. Utoya Island is a Communist/Socialist campground, and they clearly had a pro-Islamic agenda.  Only the malevolent media could use the euphemism summer camp and get away with it.  The slaughter was horrific. What these kids were being taught and instructed to do was a different kind of grotesque.  There is no justification for Breivik’s actions whatsoever. There is also no justification for Norway’s antisemitism and demonization of Israel.[/stextbox]

Do you see now readers?   There is no justification for Breivik’s actions, but then Norway is antisemitic and demonises Israel, so maybe in fact there is some justification after all.   And if Geller approves of violence as self-defence, and if the pretend summer campers were really brainwashed communist kids playing anti-semitic ‘wargames’, and if Breivik was responding to an act of cultural aggression/betrayal (something he himself argued), then doesn’t that mean that his actions were legitimate?

Far be it from a genocidal leftist like me to jump to the conclusions of the malevolent media.  But then why did Geller’s photograph of the youth gathering at Utoeya originally contain the caption ‘Note the faces which are more MIddle [sic] Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian’ – a caption that has since been removed?  What exactly was her point here?

And  just in case any of you were still so disturbed or distracted by the mass slaughter of teenagers on Utoeya that you were in danger of taking your eye off the ball,  Geller reminds us where the real danger lies

[stextbox id=”alert”]Only days after a deranged Anders Breivik claimed creeping Islamization of Norway as an excuse for cold-bloodedly murdering 76 people, the majority of which were children, a group of British Muslim extremists have seemingly mocked the tragedy by hanging bright yellow posters in several  London  boroughs declaring them “Sharia-controlled zones.”
One has to wonder about the timing.[/stextbox]

One really does.    And one also has to wonder why this ridiculous and utterly marginal Muslims Against Crusades outfit does anything at all, or what its yellow posters were intended to achieve except to reflect back and magnify the fantasies of bigots like Geller and the EDL.    But what one really has to wonder about is the hypocrisy, the glib illogic and underlying savagery of the Queen of the counter-jihadists and her fellow ‘freedom-fighters’, who claim that they wish  to save civilisation, even as they sink deeper and deeper into their own dank swamp.