The Response of the American Right to their part in the Ideological Grooming of Anders Breivik
by Omar Shtewi
How has the US anti-Muslim contingent of bloggers and hate-mongers responded to their part in the ideological grooming of Anders Breivik? If you imagined even for a moment that they may have toned down their hate rhetoric out of respect for the Norwegian victims’ families who are yet to bury their dead, you would be wrong.
While it has been scarcely two weeks since Breivik embarked on his blood-soaked rampage to rescue Norway from ‘Islamization’ and ‘Dhimmitude’, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and others appear to have resisted any temptation whatsoever to engage in any sort of reflection as to their part in the development of Breivik’s siege mentality. If anything, the murders appear to have given these people a perverse boost.
Geller: Do not be distracted by the insignificant Breivik – Islamization Continues
In between providing lame and sordid excuses for her rhetoric and vitriol, Pamela Geller had indeed updated her blog with 14 new posts a mere four days after the massacre. These posts dealt with the ongoing Islamization of the Western world and beyond – precisely the delusion that led Breivik to carry out his terrifying massacre.
Among this new ammunition for the Breivik-minded among us are: a glorious victory against the “Islamization” of Australia (yes, the Muslim contagion has spread Down Under); an alleged hanging of 8-year old child in Afghanistan by the Taliban (though quite where Islam mandates infanticide is not obvious to me or any other sober individual); protests in Jordan which are part of the ongoing and righteous Arab Spring but which Geller has renamed “the Islamic Spring”, suggesting that democratisation efforts by the Arab peoples are yet another facet of the gargantuan conspiracy of Muslims to take over the world and – who knows? – the Universe itself; the building of a mosque in Greece which is no doubt another forward base of the Muslim onslaught; the arrest of Pakistanis (read Muslims) in Washington DC engaging in alleged illegal advocacy on behalf of Islamabad; a report on the latest ramblings of an obscure Islamic scholar in Malaysia and a new phenomenon that Geller has identified and dubbed “Vehicular Jihad”, the premise of which is that Muslims only crash their cars as an act of war against Western civilisation.
But this should come as no surprise to anyone who has read Geller’s defence of her hate-speech. Anyone who harbours any concern that Breivik may well not be the last to commit such an act should be highly concerned about her response.
Echoing Robert Spencer (since these days it is not clear where she ends and he begins), she claims, in an interview with the Daily Caller website, that blaming her, Spencer and the other anti-Muslim ideologues for the Breivik massacre is like blaming the Beatles for the Manson murders (because Charles Manson indentified their song Helter Skelter as an inspiration).
This reasoning (and I use the term lightly) could only apply if Helter Skelter where a song about the Black conquest ofAmerica (which Manson viewed as a reality) and that Manson took the idea to an extreme and decided to commit murder.
The difference – and Geller and Spencer know this and are actively deceiving their readers – is that their writing is explicitly about a wide-ranging and coordinated Muslim attack on the Western world, couched in the language of warfare: “colonisation”, “occupation”, “fifth column”, “invasion” and so on. The comparison is at best facile and, at worst, a deliberate attempt to trivialise their role in the most serious attack onNorway since the Second World War.
For the sane and compassionate among us, it is clear that the victims of this tragedy are the innocent people who were slaughtered by Breivik. Not for Pamela Geller. For her, she is the victim, along with her ideological colleagues. She is, indeed, the prey of “an agenda-driven media hellbent [sic] on destroying the freedom-loving voices on the right”, wielding the massacre as “a club to bludgeon the voices of freedom” because the media is “shariah-compliant”.
And there we have it. The media is shariah-compliant. The media is an instrument of Islamic law, imposed on the West by an invading enemy. It should chill anyone to the bone that in denying her ideological role in the development of the Breivik mentality, she reinforces the very beliefs that he discusses in detail in his manifesto.
She goes on to accentuate her status as victim by suggesting that anti-Semitism is at play. The shariah-compliant fifth-column media propaganda wing of the Islamic conquerors is engaged in a “blood-libel” against Geller, who is indeed Jewish. She clearly has no qualms about exhuming the corpses of those Jews who have been murdered as a result of historical (that is, real) blood-libels, if it helps her case.
Who is to blame for Breivik’s actions (apart from Breivik himself), if not the latter-day Ghandi that is Pam Geller? Muslims, of course. She states that “if anyone incited him to violence, it was the Islamic supremacists [Muslims]”. Pamela Geller is a woman who clearly does not know when to stop.
Robert Spencer: It’s a Leftist/Islamic Conspiracy
The response of Robert Spencer – the brains of the outfit, so to speak – took longer in coming. While he himself was largely absent in the aftermath of the massacre from the Jihad Watch blog that he runs, other contributors kept up the work of anti-Muslim hysteria.
If Pamela Geller’s decision to proceed with reports on the ongoing “Islamization” of the West when the people of Norway were hardly beginning to come to terms with a massacre committed on that premise, then the activities of the Jihad Watch blog can only be described as astonishing.
A mere four days into the aftermath of the Breivik massacre Jihad Watch contributors had posted no less than thirty-six entries dealing with the “Islamization” that Anders Breivik saw fit to kill to stop. Among topics too numerous to mention are: the Greek mosque mentioned by Geller (see above); alleged “jihad” in China also mentioned by Geller (see above); the ravings of the obscure Islamic scholar in Malaysia presented as earth-shattering news also mentioned by Geller (see above); the alleged beating of a young Sikh man by a Muslim youth here in the United Kingdom (because all violence committed by Muslims has its foundation in Islam and this young man was, presumably, acting on direct instructions from Mecca); a humorous story of the murder of a Muslim doctor in Pakistan by another Muslim and various other tales of the murderous and coordinated Islamic onslaught. This is the context of Spencer’s response to suggestion that he played some role in forming the ideas that led Breivik to take murderous action to “change Norwegian society”.
I had hoped that Spencer’s period of relative quiet was due to some measure of soul-searching and reflection as to how to handle his Crusade against every Muslim on earth in light of the Breivik massacre.
No such decency. What finally arrived instead – on the website of the hardly august right-wing blog Human Events – was a bizarre seven-paragraph affirmation of precisely the views that Breivik espoused, which simultaneously denied even the possibility that he – who is quoted many, many times in the Breivik manifesto – could possibly have contributed to the anti-Muslim hysteria that drove Breivik to attack his treacherous (or should that be shariah-compliant?) government.
In his article, he writes a mere two words before the key phrase arrives: “jihad terror and Islamic supremacism”. He states, in a tasteless display that is frankly horrifying even by his standards, “Don’t resist jihad terror and Islamic supremacism – just surrender, for the sake of the children”. I won’t dwell here on how insensitive such a statement is when the children in question (who appear to have insulted and affronted Spencer by being murdered) are yet to be buried. Suffice to say that this is the best indication that one can hope for that Spencer’s hatred of Muslims (and anyone who does not hate them also) is so single-minded and obsessive that the Breivik massacre will not stand in his way.
Spencer is not Jewish, which means that he cannot claim, like Pamela Geller, that anti-Semitism is at play here. He can stoop lower though. Yes, for it is anti-white racism that has characterised media reports of this massacre. Anders Breivik is a mere “pawn” of “the Left and its Islamic supremacist [read Muslim] allies” who are using him on account of his blond hair and Nordic looks.
He goes on to the Breivik-minded assertion that the intent of media coverage is not to get to the bottom of why the killer did what he did (as if discussion of his motivations should be out-of-bounds), but rather to smear “The scholars, politicians and activists who have spoken out about the threat to human rights and constitutional principles that jihad and Islamization pose”. By “scholars” he is presumably referring to himself (who has published nothing in peer-reviewed academic journals and has contributed no original research to any field in which he pretends to have expertise), Bat Ye’or (who is also totally absent from academia) and the other members of the anti-Muslim hate movement. They are, in fact, the victims of the Breivik massacre.
He completes this hate-filled article by warning that the Islamic supremacists [Muslims] will eventually turn on their Leftist enablers and complete their conquest of the West, overturning all forms of freedom. When Breivik’s term of solitary confinement is complete, he will no doubt agree.