My latest in the Geller Report:
Is the Goebbels wing of the establishment media running out of ideas? It certainly seems so: rather than concoct a fresh Big Lie, the Guardian’s Andrew Brown on Friday published a hysterical screed about what he calls “the myth of Eurabia” that relies on eight-year-old, multiply discredited smears to try to build a case for the claim that although once it was “an obscure idea confined to the darker corners of the internet,” today “the anti-Islam ideology is now visible in the everyday politics of the west.” And this is all the fault of “right wing Islamophobes.” That’s right: you’ve heard this song before.
In Brown’s world, the spread of the “anti-Islam ideology” isn’t because of the Muslim who murdered a man in broad daylight last week on a street in Stuttgart after posting an Islamic confession of faith online, or the Muslim migrant who several weeks ago was jailed for plotting a vehicular jihad massacre in Britain, or the two Muslims arrested in mid-July, also for plotting a jihad massacre in Britain, or the Muslim migrant, yet again in Britain, who asked people their nationality and then tried to stab those who identified themselves as English, or the perpetrators of large-scale jihad massacres in Paris, Nice, Manchester, Berlin, and so many other places in Europe in the last few years.
As far as Andrew Brown is concerned, the ever-rising body count of victims of jihad in Europe hasn’t caused anyone any concern, and no one, indeed, should be concerned about it. They only are concerned about the growth of Islam in Europe because of the sinister machinations of human rights activist Pamela Geller, the renowned historian Bat Ye’or, and a small group of other commentators and activists, who, despite our “inconvenient scaffolding of easily disproved facts,” have managed to convince massive numbers of Europeans that there is a problem with Islamic jihad and Sharia oppression.
All decent people, meanwhile, in Brown’s view should shun us and our nefarious influence, because, he claims, we “inspired both the violence of Breivik [the Norwegian terrorist who murdered 77 people in Norway in 2011 and quoted many of Brown’s targets extensively in his insane “manifesto”] and the message of the racist far-right parties that have transformed European politics in the past decade.” That may seem an odd line of argument for a Leftist to take, given the tens of millions of victims of far-Left ideologies: clearly an idea is not discredited if an insane or evil person claims it as his reason for committing an act of violence, and no logical or consistent Leftist could possibly claim otherwise. But logic and consistency are not hallmarks of Leftist thought today. And even worse for Brown’s argument, we didn’t really inspire Breivik at all.
In all his quotations of me, Breivik never quotes me, or any other of the people Brown vilifies, calling for or justifying violence – because we never do. In fact, Breivik even criticized me for not doing so. He said this of me, historian Bat Ye’or (whom Brown also vilifies for daring to suggest that “elites conspired to push Muslim immigration on their native populations” – that might have seemed implausible in 2011, but can any informed and honest person seriously doubt it in 2019?) and other critics of jihad terror: “If these authors are to [s[sic]cared to propagate a conservative revolution and armed resistance then other authors will have to.” (Breivik, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, p. 743)
Brown claims that the counter-jihad writers he derides “inspired both the violence of Breivik and the message of the racist far-right parties that have transformed European politics in the past decade.” In reality, however, Breivik himself explains in his manifesto that he was “radicalized” not by the counter-jihad writers he quotes, but by his experiences with Muslim immigrants in the early 1990s, before many of Brown’s targets, including Pamela Geller and me, had published anything about Islam (See Breivik, p. 1348).
Also inconveniently for Brown, Breivik recommended making common cause with jihadists, which neither I nor any other opponent of jihad would ever do: “An alliance with the Jihadists might prove beneficial to both parties but will simply be too dangerous (and might prove to be ideologically counter-productive). We both share one common goal.” (Breivik, p. 948). He even called for making common cause with Hamas in plotting jihad terror: “Approach a representative from a Jihadi Salafi group. Get in contact with a Jihadi strawman. Present your terms and have him forward them to his superiors….Present your offer. They are asked to provide a biological compound manufactured by Muslim scientists in the Middle East. Hamas and several Jihadi groups have labs and they have the potential to provide such substances. Their problem is finding suitable martyrs who can pass ‘screenings’ in Western Europe. This is where we come in. We will smuggle it in to the EU and distribute it at a target of our choosing. We must give them assurances that we are not to harm any Muslims etc.” (Breivik, p. 949)
But to Brown, facts are just inconveniences. The Big Lie must be repeated, so as to plant it in the minds of the masses. We are no different from Breivik, he contends, and in making his case offers an outrageous libel: “the anti-immigrant right had good reasons for separating itself from the anti-Muslim right. If the logic of the ‘Vienna school’ – Jensen, Spencer and Geller, May and Littman – led inexorably to civil war and the righteous slaughter of Muslims and their leftie enablers, then most of the right shrank back from it.”
I never went to a “Vienna school” and do not belong to one, but never mind. Our thought has “led inexorably to civil war”? Where, exactly? Who is fighting this civil war? And our logic has also “led inexorably” to “the righteous slaughter of Muslims”? Really? Where? By whom? Breivik didn’t kill any Muslims; he opened fire at a Leftist children’s camp. Is there any factual basis for Brown’s claims here, or are they grounded solely in his blind hatred and determination to destroy opponents of jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women and others?
If Brown succeeds in that destruction, will the jihadis he has so generously aided by clearing away obstacles to their success reward him as a good and faithful servant? Or will they seem him as just another infidel, however useful? He shoudn’t depend on their benevolence. But of course he is not going to hear that from me. He will have to learn it from them.
Angemon says
And what a sharp, swift and cut-to-the bone that one – and only one – lesson will be…
Kerry Wade says
The Guardian newspaper is deadwood, its reporters are low life. The same may be said of most if not all so-called newspapers. Ignore them and keep exposing Islam to the light of day. Like cockroaches Muslims with scatter once the light is turned on.
Me says
Dear Holy Lord… Awaken the people to the Obvious Dangers of Islam. Awaken us !!!
lebel says
“sinister machinations of human rights activist Pamela Geller, the renowned historian Bat Ye’or, and a small group of other commentators and activists, who, despite our “inconvenient scaffolding of easily disproved facts,” have managed to convince massive numbers of Europeans that there is a problem with Islamic jihad and Sharia oppression.”
A couple of points.
1. As I have said many times, your opponents have underestimated you from day one. You were dismissed as a clown to be ignored or ridiculed and all the while you were patiently distilling your ideology and today you are the majority. Not a huge majority but I would say more than 50% of westerners would agree with your public positions.
2. You are right that the actions of Islamic terrorists are to blame for the negative image of Muslims and Islam in the West but where you become important is on two aspects of your ideology.
A. The problem is not radical Islam but Islam itself.
B. We cannot trust any Muslim who claims to be against terrorism etc because of Taqqiya
This leads to a different kind of response. Now people look at ALL Muslims as objects of hate and suspicions. Now they are ALL bad. That’s the difference you made.
Buraq says
You’re a clown, lebel.
Al Qur’an commands all Muslims to ‘fight until all religion is for Allah’, not Jihad Watch. And Muslims who say they are against ‘terrorism’ NEVER say they are against terrorism and Islamic jihad. And there is no such thing as ‘radical Islam’, there is only Islam, which is radical when its savage teachings are measured against the secular moral norms of the 21st Century.
You’re the one who is guilty of twisting words, or taqqiya, not Jihad Watch and opponents of Islamic jihad.
lebel says
“You’re a clown, lebel.”
Insults are usually a sign of someone who relies on evidence based arguments.
By the way, if Taqqiya is real why DONT Muslim say they are against terrorism and Islamic jihad? why not just lie as they are ORDERED to do by Islam?
Do you ever try to think critically about these things Buraq? you know like ask yourself if there any weaknesses in your argument? Did you ever think that you could be wrong?
Mark Swan says
Lebel says’
“By the way, if Taqqiya is real why DONT Muslim say they are against terrorism
and Islamic jihad? why not just lie as they are ORDERED to do by Islam? “
As everyone seems to know, Muslims in the West, for the most part,
do publicly pretend they are against terror attacks.
You and Mr. Brown seem to have a lot in common.
You used to make more effort to blur the facts.
Read the Quran.
Angemon says
lebel, 2019: “By the way, if Taqqiya is real why DONT Muslim say they are against terrorism and Islamic jihad? why not just lie as they are ORDERED to do by Islam?
Do you ever try to think critically about these things Buraq? you know like ask yourself if there any weaknesses in your argument?”
Also lebel, 2019:
“This is the simplest answer and of course the likeliest one. Muslims like everyone else have their contradictions. They do not behave in behaviour one can predict by reading Hadith and Sira etc it just does not work that way. “
gravenimage says
lebel wrote:
“sinister machinations of human rights activist Pamela Geller, the renowned historian Bat Ye’or, and a small group of other commentators and activists, who, despite our “inconvenient scaffolding of easily disproved facts,” have managed to convince massive numbers of Europeans that there is a problem with Islamic jihad and Sharia oppression.”
A couple of points.
1. As I have said many times, your opponents have underestimated you from day one. You were dismissed as a clown to be ignored or ridiculed and all the while you were patiently distilling your ideology and today you are the majority. Not a huge majority but I would say more than 50% of westerners would agree with your public positions.
…………………..
Note that this from lebel is *far* from a compliment, but condemnation of Robert Spencer for daring to oppose the savagery of Jihad.
More:
2. You are right that the actions of Islamic terrorists are to blame for the negative image of Muslims and Islam in the West but where you become important is on two aspects of your ideology.
A. The problem is not radical Islam but Islam itself.
B. We cannot trust any Muslim who claims to be against terrorism etc because of Taqqiya
This leads to a different kind of response. Now people look at ALL Muslims as objects of hate and suspicions. Now they are ALL bad. That’s the difference you made.
…………………..
Note that lebel does not prove–nor even make a case for–it being incorrect that Islam preaches Jihad. But then, he is incapable of making such a claim.
Then, many Muslims *do* claim to be against terrorism, then make it plain that by this they mean that they are against any defense against Jihad, Note that lebel has no answer for this, either–he just condemns anyone telling the truth.
And, of course, Spencer regularly notes that opposing Jihad is not a condemnation of all Muslims–but lebel has to claim this, because he’s got nothing else.
More, in reply to Buraq:
“You’re a clown, lebel.”
Insults are usually a sign of someone who relies on evidence based arguments.
…………………..
Note that lebel does not address the rest of Buraq’s post–because he can’t.
More:
By the way, if Taqqiya is real why DONT Muslim say they are against terrorism and Islamic jihad? why not just lie as they are ORDERED to do by Islam?
…………………..
lebel has pulled this nonsense before. Muslims are not ordered to lie to Infidels on all occasions, regardless of whether it would benefit Islam or not.
Taqiyya is a *tactic*, and is used frequently by Muslims. but not in all cases. Of course, lebel knows this.
More:
Do you ever try to think critically about these things Buraq? you know like ask yourself if there any weaknesses in your argument? Did you ever think that you could be wrong?
…………………..
Can lebel make a case for Jihad being anything other than orthodox Islam? Of course not–this is why he does not even try.
Angemon says
“You are right that the actions of Islamic terrorists are to blame for the negative image of Muslims and Islam in the West but where you become important is on two aspects of your ideology.”
For a sane person, this should be the end of it. But no:
“This leads to a different kind of response. Now people look at ALL Muslims as objects of hate and suspicions”
Because of islamic terrorism – not because of Mr. Spencer’s, Mr. Fitgerald’s or Ms. Ye’or’s writings. If there were no islamic terrorism to speak of in the world, no amount of “muhammad, the example muslims are advised to emulate as closely as possible, stated war is deceive and allowed and allowed lying to infidels to advance the cause of islam” rhetoric would cause people to “ look at ALL Muslims as objects of hate and suspicions“.
BTW, why is it that, according to you, telling the truth about islamic tenets equates inciting suspicion and hatred against ALL muslims?
Angemon says
P.S.:
“all the while you were patiently distilling your ideology”
What ideology would that be?
Terry Gain says
Lebel
All Muslims are adherents of a supremacist, totalitarian, conquest ideology. Muslims are easily the world’s best propagandists and biggest liars. Abraham, Moses and Christ were Muslims! Sure. Pull my other finger. Such good propagandists that this conquest ideology is known as a religion of peace. So who in their right mind who is knowledgeable about Islamic doctrine and history would trust a Muslim?
Ernie says
Thank you Terry Gain ; a brilliant response !
James Lincoln says
Terry Gain,
Yes, a brilliant response…
The fact of the matter is, Muslims, by their collective actions over centuries, have not given us non-Muslims any good reason to trust them.
That is an undeniable, factual, evidence-based truth.
KWJ says
Level said: “2. You are right that the actions of Islamic terrorists are to blame for the negative image of Muslims and Islam in the West…”
It should be apparent that Islamic terrorism is but one factor of negative images of Muslims because the negative images have existed for centuries, and likewise Muslims have negative images of us. It’s never every single person.
Many Muslims do say they’re against terrorism and condemn it, but they don’t say they are against jihad aka Islamic expansionism. Every day I can watch Muslim demagogues or Muslim commentators on TV who portray a negative image. This is what people are seeing with their own eyes, and increasingly so in Europe.
Besides, the Qur’an repeatedly says for Muslims not to take unbelievers as friends, allies or helpers. Parasitism is ok. I have written out those verses asking Muslims what they think of those. One guy said to me, “I won’t deny those verses are in the Qur’an” and then gave me some mumbo jumbo about the real unknown Qur’an. He didn’t say he didn’t like those verses or disagrees. I talk to Muslims a lot. If they are devout enough to know they should not contradict the Qur’an or insult verses per sharia law, then what are we to think?
Giacomo Latta says
So, lebel, there is Islam and radical Islam. Pray tell where I may purchase a copy of the radical Koran. Hmm?
David Anderson says
Alberto Brandolini is reputed to have said: “The amount of energy necessary
to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” Keep up the great work, Robert…
mortimer says
Guardian’s Andrew Brown = Press-titute. Take a shower, Andrew.
Ole Pederson says
The Guardian used to be a paper in my youth. Today is a propaganda rag.
They also had Ed Vulliamy (now Observer) with claims about death camps in Omarska and Trnopolje, then Yugoslavia, in the Bosnian war.
This is long debunked as a hoax but to this day Vulliamy makes money on it selling bleeding heart books.
And guess what: even then the muslims were the victims, (and the villains Serbs).
Rueben_Singh says
The sad thing about the al guardian is that it only prints what is convenient to it. I read that FARTicle earlier this week. What I found was how curious it was that Andrew Brown left out the Paris/Belgium attacks, the Truck attacks in France & Germany, The Madrid bombings etc. Also the al guardian has now become so absurd that they disable the comments section. They can not stand to be contradicted.
When on the rare occasions Comments are allowed and which are against their views AND attract many Likes, they simply disappear.
The classic was a Owen Jones FARTicle about persecution of Gays in Chechnya, as soon as comments started appearing about how Chechnya was moslem, then comments were stopped, with the laughable explanation, and I quote “Comments on this thread were opened in error and will now close” It got to 74 comments before it was shut down.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/14/chechnya-persecution-gay-uprising-against-homophobia
The left has chosen to dance with the devil so as to speak. They just can’t admit they are wrong.
Ric says
The Guardian is a festering tumor on the hiny of Journalism. The UK’s version of the New York Times and others. If one is into fake-news, unmitigated misinformation and the Big-Lie, then, the Guardian is one’s rag of choice.
glendl says
“the anti-Islam ideology is now visible in the everyday politics of the west.” And this is all the fault of “right wing Islamophobes.”
So, I live in the “House of War” ** and because of that, I can be killed at will by a Moslem and it is not a sin nor is it a crime in the Moslem mind.
Yes, I am anti -Islam because I am against getting me and mine being killed for fun, Let them clean up their act and then we can discuss my attitude.
** for the uninitiated, the Koran places me in the House of War and as an Infidel, I can be klled at will by any Moslem.
CRUSADER says
8 year cycle of the voracious locusts.
Another sign of a changing climate.
Steve says
Brown: apt descriptor for a turd.
truthzzzz says
For over a thousand years my family, my tribe, and my nation have fought against the attacks by followers of Sharia intending to conquer us and our land. So far we have not lost.permanently
Nothing new about the demand by Sharia that its followers conquer the world. Sharia is a guide book to conquest of all others.
truthzzzz says
Murdering Merkel made it so easy for her babies to kill Germans. according to sharia…The Muslims now live in a target rich environment to achieve Paradise by killing an unbeliever or dying trying.
H.L. van Lookeren Campagne says
Sir,
Your post contains the following passage:
‘(…) given the tens of millions of victims of far-Left ideologies (…)’
This is an understatement. I refer to the book ‘Zwartboek van het communisme, Misdaden, terreur, onderdrukking’ (Dutch title), written by Stephane Courtois, e.a. (‘Black book of communism, Crimes, terror, suppression’), 1997, De Arbeiderspers, Amsterdam, Antwerp, ISBN: 90 295 5838 5 / NUGI 641. In their bulky (995 pages) book the authors review communist history and come up with a tally of (hold your breath): 100.000.000 victims: one hundred million victims. The count includes all the atrocities committed by all communist regimes, from Lenin to Stalin and Mao, from Eastern Europe to Asian Russia, from South America (including Cuba) to the Killing Fields.
Sincerely yours,
H.L. van Lookeren Campagne
AP says
No one in his right mind believes anything the Guardian Brown says he is just a apologist for the savages,
jca reid says
This Guardian Reporter is simply a dingbat! what a waste of a University Education. I doubt very much if he has read, let alone thoroughly studied, any Islamic Book, like Mr. Spencer et al have. If he’s bothered hiss arse he’s see it for what it is: a Desert Nazi, Supremacist, Racist, Enslaving Ideology. The psycho analyst, Carl Jung said that HITLER was a modern day Mohammed. From what I’ve read about on quotes on Islam etc. the ONLY historically, (in)famous, non – Muslim I’ve found to endorse it is …… HITLER! HIs book, Mein Kampf, is the #2 Bestseller in the Muslim World. #1 is, of course, the Koran. so this clearly shows the Muslim mentality. Dystopia is spreading so much that Left – Wingers are openly endorsing Fascist Policies.
CTTV15@Hotmail.com says
History repeating itself.. This is the NAZI propaganda machine all over again Mr. Brown.
gravenimage says
Guardian Trots Out 8-Year-Old Big Lie to Defame Geller, Spencer, and Other Foes of Jihad Terror
…………….
How is opposing Jihad terrorism a bad thing?