Spencer and Geller declare the 9/11 rally to be their rally

Robert Spencer writes at Jihad Watch:

Please bring flags, not signs, to the 9/11 rally against the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero

Pamela and I respectfully request that those of you who will be attending our protest against the Ground Zero mega mosque bring American flags, not signs. 9 x 12 sized flags. Nothing with big poles: the NYPD won’t allow big poles. Please get the word out now.

We are asking that we all respect and honor that day with the flags, states flags, flags of other countries … lots of flags … PLEASE don’t bring signs. Nothing politically aggressive on a day of mourning. It is a solemn day. No signs. FLAGS. Tens of thousands of flags….

Spencer calls the protest “our” (Pamela and his) protest. Have you ever seen people claim personal possession of a political event or of a political movement the way these two do? The rally is supposed to be about the mosque, not about Spencer and Geller. But they see it as about themselves. Spencer further underlines the possessive and exclusive aspect of the event by speaking of the attendees as “those of you who will be attending our protest.”

Prior to this, notwithstanding health issues, and notwithstanding Spencer and Geller’s attacks on me (Geller has publicly and privately called me the moral equivalent of the leftist smear artist Charles Johnson, and Spencer has called me, among many other things, “the lowest form of character assassin”), I was planning to go to the rally, because of its importance, and because Geert Wilders will be speaking there. But when Geller and Spencer define the event as their event, that becomes impossible, especially when we remember Spencer’s statement that he would walk out of any room in which I was present. Well, since he regards the rally as his personal territory, I certainly can’t go. I do not go where I am not wanted.

Ironically, just this morning (before I read the Spencer item), a VFR reader wondered what it was that had brought together this odd couple of Spencer and Geller. I answered: “They are both supreme narcissists.”

What’s next? Perhaps Geller and Spencer will rename the anti-jihad movement “THE ROBERT SPENCER PAMELA GELLER ANTI-JIHAD MOVEMENT (all rights reserved).”

- end of initial entry -

Charles T. writes:

R. Spencer writes:

“PLEASE don’t bring signs. Nothing politically aggressive on a day of mourning. ”

What in the hell is he talking about? A rally against the ground zero mosque is a politically charged event. These people are trying to be as kind and as non-partisan and as multicultural as they can be. They are neutralizing their own efforts. There needs to be much anger displayed here.

You wrote:

Ironically, just this morning (before I read the Spencer item), a VFR reader wondered what it was that had brought together this odd couple of Spencer and Geller. I answered: “They are both supreme narcissists.”

Darn tootin’ they are. These people are motivated by super-big egos. They are not to be trusted. Ever since I started looking at Geller’s site, I felt she had a tremendous ego. (The masthead on her website says it all.) Her actions continue to bear this out. Ditto for Spencer. These two are feeding off each other.

LL writes:

You may not be aware that earlier today Geller’s site (and Spencer’s, judging from the comments) not only instructed protesters to bring flags only, but told them signs would be confiscated. That warning, interestingly, has since been edited off of both sites, though several of the comments touch on it.

LA replies:

Whoever heard of a protest rally without signs? If Spencer/Geller’s rule that only flags can be displayed were to become the general rule, because signs are about a message, and a message is about politics, and the imperative is to be above politics, then future anti-mosque rallies would show only American flags, and future pro-mosque rallies would show only American flags. Conservative rallies would show only U.S. flags, and leftist rallies would show only U.S. flags. No messages would be allowed, except by the speakers themselves. Talk about proprietary control of a political movement!

Roger G. writes:

I were in NY I would certainly go to the rally, and certainly bring a sign, and certainly invite any attempts at confiscation.

Why on earth would you care that Spencer regards the rally as his property? I regard it as my property, and you are welcome. In fact, you should be the featured speaker. I hope that you are well enough to go, and that you will go, and that you will bring any bloody sign you want.

LA replies:

You wrote:

“Why on earth would you care that Spencer regards the rally as his property? I regard it as my property, and you are welcome.”

Because, obviously, he is the organizer of the rally. He’s put it together. He’s invited the speakers. You are not the organizer of the rally.

LA writes:

Can you imagine James Madison and Alexander Hamilton writing in The Federalist in 1787: “We hope that YOU, the people of the states, will approve the work of OUR constitutional convention”?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 02, 2010 04:09 PM | Send