If you’ve read anything by Robert Spencer, you already know that he will blatantly lie when cornered.

Today he responds to my piece for the Guardian, with a ridiculous article that calls Pamela Geller a defamed freedom fighter. Spencer leaves out all the childish insults that he normally posts at his own site, because he’s trying to seem rational. And failing miserably.

The “freedom” Pamela Geller fights for is the freedom to hate. Her entire blog is dedicated to relentlessly demonizing all Muslims, and Spencer seems to think that by tossing out a storm of pure bullshit he can make people look the other way and not see the insanity that drips from every page of her website. Here’s a partial list of the crazy conspiracy theories and hateful ranting that is Geller’s daily fare.

Lie #1:

Johnson called her an “extreme rightwing blogger” and claimed, without offering any evidence, that she had “arguably done more than anyone else to incite fear and hatred over the so-called ‘Ground Zero Mosque’”.

This is ludicrous. Pamela Geller has been all over the news media for her opposition to the Cordoba House, and has organized two demonstrations against it. She’s unleashed a steady stream of hateful posts about everyone connected to the project, every single day for months on end. It’s not even debatable that she’s one of the loudest, most persistent hate mongers in this issue.

But Spencer wants you to think she isn’t. Why? Why not be proud of how successful she’s been at drumming up hatred for Muslims? Spencer will lie even when it’s not necessary.

And with a puritanical distaste that he would sneer at if it came from any conservative, he claimed that the New York Times profile of her featured a photo of Pamela “posing in her bikini”. This, too, was false.

And again, Spencer lies about something that’s quite easily checked. Here’s the photo spread to which I referred:

What do you see in the bottom right corner of that montage? Why, it’s Pamela Geller in her bikini. Why would Spencer lie about this?

Still more lies; Spencer claims that Pamela Geller really “loves” Muslims, and does not demonize them as a group:

…by claiming that Geller’s “target” was “all Muslims”, rather than Islamic supremacists who wish to destroy the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience and the equality of rights of women – and particularly, by his vicious equation of her with al-Qaida, Johnson betrays a breathtaking disregard for the facts. Perhaps he hasn’t caught any of the numerous media appearances in which Geller explained that it was love for Muslims, but hatred of oppression (the Islamic death penalty for apostasy, the widespread tolerance for honour killing in the Islamic world) that led her to take the stands that she has.

Again, all you have to do is read Geller’s own words to see how dishonest Spencer is being. For example, last December she wrote this:

How dare they use the word “extremists”? That is islamophobic! These are devout Muslims. There are no moderates. There are no extremists. Only Muslims.

And last November, she equated all “devout” Muslims with Nazis, and called for them to be banned from serving in the US military:

Devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service. Would Patton have recruited Nazis into his army?

Right, Mr. Spencer. She just loves her some Muslims.

Spencer goes on to dissemble about his and Geller’s relationships with far right European groups — the same transparently obvious rationalizations we’ve seen from him many times before.

Johnson (who used to refer to the Guardian as “al-Guardian”) claims that he broke with Geller and me “because of their increasing radicalisation and willingness to make alliances with far rightwing anti-Islam parties in Europe, such as Belgium’s Vlaams Belang and Britain’s English Defence League”. In reality, neither Geller nor I ever made any alliances with Vlaams Belang or the EDL (nor did she invite EDL leaders to attend our 11 September rally, as Johnson claims).

That should not be taken as a repudiation of either group…

Indeed, it shouldn’t be seen as a repudiation at all, because it isn’t. As I pointed out in my Guardian article, both Spencer and Geller have made it very clear that they support both the Vlaams Belang and the English Defence League, in no uncertain terms. Yet here’s Spencer again, trying to trick people into believing it isn’t true.

Two examples: Geller gushed about the EDL here:

How I wish I could be there to stand with the English Defense League.

Robert Spencer has called for “all free people” to support the EDL:

The EDL deserves the support of all free people.

As for the Belgian Vlaams Belang (the renamed version of an openly neo-Nazi party called the Vlaams Blok), Geller doesn’t just support them — she idolizes them. For example: VLAAMS BELANG: THE JEWISH PARTY! - Atlas Shrugs.

Spencer says his attempt to mislead you about this “should not be taken as a repudiation of either group” because he simply does not repudiate either group. He supports them. Openly. And yet, he’s trying to lie about it to the Guardian audience. Why not just come out and be honest, Mr. Spencer?

More lies:

Johnson also claims that “Geller often supports and glorifies people who can only be described as white supremacists and genocidal war criminals.” She “defended South African apartheid advocate and convicted terrorist Eugene Terreblanche,” he says. In fact, what Geller has written on the subject is this: “Insofar as my sanctioning of white supremacists in South Africa – that is a blatant libel. I do not… I vehemently disagree with Terre’blanche’s ideas…” She wrote that last April, seven months ago, but apparently it has escaped Johnson’s attention.

Here’s Geller’s post on Eugene Terreblanche. It’s impossible to read this any other way than as a defense of Terreblanche — and a racist defense to boot, starting with the article’s title: Genocide of White South Africans - Atlas Shrugs.

And here’s what she wrote:

The genocide of Boers taking place in South Africa is never spoken of. Particularly the Boer Farmers — it is called Plaas Moorde. In America you find little to no dialogue about the genocide of thousands of farmers in South Africa, because it’s black against white. It is politically incorrect to call attention to the deaths of these human beings. And we have been taught to believe that the ANC and Nelson Mandela are the “good guys.” The western media has made all whites in South Africa out to be racist monsters. This is simply not the case, and I would remind people that one of the steps to genocide is to dehumanize the target — dehumanize the Boer. (more)

What is happening in South Africa against the White population is a crime against humanity. Savage. And no one will speak of it.

It’s astounding that Spencer is trying to make excuses for this, but that, after all, is what he does.

And to end his piece, another transparently false statement:

Johnson likewise claimed that “Geller posted an ode of support to genocidal Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic.” In reality, she posted a piece that said quite clearly: “I am not defending Radovan Karadzic…”

Spencer links to a completely different post at Geller’s site, because the one to which I referred makes it overwhelmingly clear that she was indeed supporting Karadzic and praising him for his anti-Muslim genocidal activities: The Real Criminals Presiding over the International Criminal Court Part II of Nuremberg II - Atlas Shrugs.

Notice that she’s calling the International Court the “real criminals.” But Spencer wants you to believe Geller wasn’t supporting Radovan Karadzic.

In closing, I invite you to read the comments for Spencer’s article, because it’s pretty clear that his attempt to promote a series of Big Lies isn’t fooling anyone.

Questorade
18 October 2010 1:52PM

You have to be joking!

Geller paints Muslims as either participants in a plot against the West, or alternatively dupes of the conspiracy.

My experience is the opposite. Although most Muslims are socially conservative, they are by no means default supporters of jihadist and Islamist political parties.

In fact, the battle against Islamist and jihadist politics is being fought - in this country and abroad - primarily *by* Muslims (some practicing, some “culturally” Muslim).

Instead of working to oppose the specific Islamist political parties - the Ikhwan, Jamaat e Islami, Hizb ut Tahrir, and their various fronts - Geller treats every Muslim as presumptively the enemy.

Not only is this hugely counter-productive - as you’re attacking my friends and allies who in some cases are literally putting their lives on the line - it is also a disgusting and sickening way to treat people.

[…]

Gareth100
18 October 2010 1:53PM

Johnson likewise claimed that “Geller posted an ode of support to genocidal Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic.” In reality, she posted a piece that said quite clearly: “I am not defending Radovan Karadzic…”

The next word in the piece is “however……….” and then goes on to justify Serbian atrocities as a war against Islamic jihadism. Both the author and Geller are nasty little rabble rousers seeking to whip up intolerance in the ignorant. It won’t wash.

Exactly right.