Robert and Pamela in the bunker

REVISED AND EXPANDED ENTRY:

In fact, while their behavior is extremely bunker-like, they have indirectly evaded a complete bunker or stonewall. Pamela Geller, while denying that her attack on the EDL lacked facts, has falsely constructed EDL leader Tommy Robinson’s letter yesterday, in which he totally denied that the EDL is an anti-Semitic organization, as an admission by Robinson that Geller’s charges of an anti-Semitic takeover of the organization were true. But, Geller continues, since Robinson re-affirms his continuing opposition to anti-Semitism and his determination to kick all anti-Semites out of the EDL, she retracts her withdrawal of support for the organization. But she doesn’t actually say that she retracts anything. So, though Geller and Spencer have stonewalled the open letter, they may have managed to extricate themselves from the hole they put themselves in. See, below, my detailed discussion of Geller’s statement, which was added after this entry was initially posted.

Daniel S. writes:

Both Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have responded to the open letter to Geller concerning her previous unproven accusations against the EDL.

I feel that the Spencer-Geller duo are being drown deeper and deeper into their own narcissism. Geller still hasn’t substantiated her accusation of serious anti-Semitic infiltration in the EDL and now she is accusing her critics of undermining the anti-jihad movement—because, as she see it, she and Spencer are the anti-jihad movement. And Robert Spencer, who I used to have quite a bit of respect for, blindly parrots everything Geller says. In totalitarian manner, Spencer and Geller will brook no criticism, their fragile egos will not allow it.

LA replies:

Unbelievable. Having published a denunciation of the EDL which adduced not a single fact to support the charges of neo-fascism and anti-Semitism, and having been called on to apologize for this deplorable document, Geller and Spencer’s response is to … stonewall. Thus assuring a complete break between themselves and the signers of the open letter. [Note: I modify this statement in my below discussion of Geller’s response.]

I would add that my own decision not to join the signers, one of the reasons for which was to spare the signers the accusation of being a bunch of malcontents who are just out to harm Spencer, has not done the signers any good, at least in Spencer’s eyes. Spencer dismisses the open letter as nothing but the “desperate” effusions of jealous people who are willing to tear the anti-jihad movement apart for nihilistic reasons of pure ego—the sort of response Spencer would routinely make to me, and, really, with variations, to everyone who has ever criticized him. I can’t think offhand of a single instance in which Spencer has acknowledged that a substantive criticism of himself was made reasonably and in good faith.

As for Geller, in her response at Atlas Shrugs she goes on at great length about her past problems with Baron Bodissey of Gates of Vienna, by way of proving his ill intent toward her. No one but the parties immediately involved could care to follow this long, detailed rehearsal, which in any case is besides the point. The point of the open letter was that Geller’s denunciation of the EDL contained no facts. Instead of admitting this, Geller engages in a degree of blatant double talk I have rarely or never seen. First, she says that her denunciation didn’t need to contain any facts, because the facts were provided by EDL leader Tommy Robinson’s statement yesterday, which, Geller asserts, confirms Geller’s charges that the organization has been so “infiltrated” by neo-fascist and anti-Semitic elements that the organization itself has effectively become neo-fascist and anti-Semitic, and therefore she withdraws her support from it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Robinson affirms over and over that his organization has always eschewed anti-Semitism and continues to do so. He says that recently

… some people have jumped on the EDL bandwagon and tried to use our platform to express anti-Semitic views. These statements are not in accord with the fundamental beliefs of the English Defence League. These people are not welcome, never have been welcome, and never will be welcome within the EDL. We reject all anti-Semitism. The EDL stands where it always has stood, which is side-by side with Israel.

So Robinson is saying that his organization is completely against anti-Semitism, and that any anti-Semitic elements that have infiltrated are not welcome and will be kicked out. Geller, in the manner of a Stalinesque mouthpiece, interprets this as an admission of her charge that the EDL has become sucn an anti-Semitic, neo-fascist organization that it deserves to be destroyed.

Second, in her statement today, Geller flat out changes her “withdrawal of support” statement of yesterday, without admitting that she is changing anything. Yesterday she said,

Now that the person whom I most trusted in the EDL, Roberta Moore, has resigned, as she was increasingly uncomfortable with the neo-fascists that had infiltrated the administration of the group, I too am withdrawing my support from the EDL. I hope that genuine anti-jihadists in Britain will also leave the EDL and work with Roberta on starting a new group that will resist definitively and firmly all attempts to divert it from its mission of fighting against jihad and for human rights. [Emphasis added.]

So she stated unambiguously yesterday not only that she has withdrawn her support from the EDL but that she wants the organization to be destroyed.

But today she writes, on the basis of Robinson’s supposed admission of guilt combined with his statement of determination to exorcise the bad elements:

Everyone on that list should be deeply concerned about the hijacking of the EDL. By ignoring it, these bloggers are sanctioning this vile racism. [LA replies: No, they didn’t ignore the supposed hijacking of the EDL which Robinson had supposedly confessed to. They simply didn’t see in Robinson’s statement what Geller claims to see in it, an admission by Robinson of the guilty facts which Geller failed to include in her denunciation.] They completely disrespected Tommy Robinson by disregarding and ignoring his statement, which confirmed the concerns I had expressed in my own statement—the very concerns this group claims are without supporting evidence. Is there more to that? Is this cabal working to undermine his leadership?

In contrast, I spoke to Tommy Robinson at length; he issued his statement to SIOA. Considering his statement, I am not withdrawing my support for the EDL, [emphasis added] but I continue to be deeply concerned and will be watching how events unfold. [LA replies: but she did, most emphatically, withdraw her support from the EDL. See her statement above. Now, with her misleading phrase, “I am not withdrawing my support for the EDL,” she’s acting as though her withdrawal of support and total denunciation of the organization and her call for people to create a different organization that will replace and EDL never happened, but was, at most, merely a possibility she had raised, rather than a done deal.] Instead of working to purge the EDL of these vile elements, the signers of this Open Letter are trying to destroy those of us who seek to maintain the proper focus of our mission and the EDL’s mission, which is fighting for freedom. [LA replies: No, the signers of the open letter were not seeking to destroy anyone. They were calling on Pamela to withdraw her irresponsible, outrageous, fact-free denunciation of the EDL, which now—though in a very dishonest and indirect way, in which she denies that she is doing what she is actually doing—she has done.] I support the EDL’s original mission, but we cannot sanction evil and cover it up. We should expose it to the sunlight, so as to ensure that the group stays true to its original mission, and so that that mission is not compromised. These Machiavellian bloggers ought to know that. There is a struggle for the soul of the EDL. Which side do you come down on? [LA replies: There’s Pamela Geller in her favorite role or roles, a combination of Enjolras at the barricades, Henry the Fifth at Agincourt, Dagny Taggart at the John Galt Line, and Madame La Farge at La Place de La Concorde knitting in furious satisfaction as the guillotine blade drops on the neck of her enemies.]

To sum up: Geller, backed by Spencer, has stonewalled the entirely correct and reasonable demand by the signers of the open letter that she apologize for and withdraw her document denouncing the EDL. Geller and Spencer have also engaged in character assassination of the signers. At the same time, Geller has, very adroitly, claimed that because Robinson has admitted the guilty facts which she herself failed to provide (not true), and because Robinson has stated his determination to keep fighting against the anti-Semitic elements in his organization (true), she is not, as she previously had stated she had done, withdrawing her support from the organization. By saying this, she has in effect withdrawn her denunciation of the EDL, as the signers of the open letter demanded that she do, but she has done so without admitting that she is acceding to their demand.

I have previously suggested that Pamela Geller is not very smart. I have to amend that. Only a very smart person, or, let us say, a person with smarts, could have carried out such a devious escape from the impossible position in which Geller had placed herself.

- end of initial entry -

A reader writes:

Robert muses:

“I guess for some people, gaining market share by denigrating more effective warriors is more important than fighting the actual war”

Introspective, to say the least.

LA replies:

Does Spencer really believe that the motive of the signers of the letter is to gain “market share”? Does he really believe that?

But the question is pointless. We’re not dealing with a rational person here but with an extreme narcissist and his rationalizations to protect his narcissism.

Karl D. writes:

Pamela Geller writes this:

“It seems to me that this Open Letter that was written to me has a far different agenda from its stated purpose. [Baron Bodiseey’s real name, deleted by VFR], who is “Baron Bodissey” of Gates of Vienna, is the Machiavellian plotter behind this attack on me—and he himself described himself as such in the EDL forum/channel. ”

Unless Baron Bodissey or someone else outed his real name this is absolutely outrageous, reckless and downright dangerous considering the nature of work that the Baron is engaged in. I have been a reader of GoV and corresponded with Dymphna and the Baron for almost seven years now and up until quite recently did not even know his first name. Like I said I could be wrong on this. But if I am not, this is damning evidence as to the real character of Pamela Geller.

Van Wijk writes:

Spencer is obviously infatuated with Geller. I experienced the same sort of infatuation with a young woman … when I was 16 years old.

I know of no man who would stoop to this level of subservience to a woman without some level of romantic interest. Even if he comes to his senses tomorrow and starts acting like a man again, Spencer has done permanent damage to his reputation and will never be the champion he once was.

Stogie of Saberpoint writes:

It is amazing. I used to be a big fan of Geller’s. I even designed a blog banner for her that she used for a couple of years. I defended her against all foes and critics. I believed in her.

Over the last couple of years, however, she has dissolved my bonds of affection for her and my belief in her. She has shown a lot of bad judgment and has shown herself to be selfish and careless about the reputations of former allies.

I now see her as a loose cannon. I think one of your commenters is correct in saying that Robert Spencer is in heat for her, and that explains his mindless sycophancy. I have read five of his books, but he has lost a lot of credibility with me too.

July 2

LA to Stogie:

How has Pamela’s behavior gotten worse specifically in the last two years? What was the beginning of her change to the worse?

Stogie replies:

I think she has become more insensitive to friends and allies. For me personally, she asked me to do some graphic work for her (like create a blog banner for her Sarah Palin blog), then she used someone else’s work without even telling me to stop working. I spent eight hours on her blog banner one weekend (at her request), only to find she was using one created by I Own The World (again, without warning me or telling me to stop work). I told her then I would do no further work for her.

There’s other stuff too, stuff you have mentioned, like her strange partnership with Spencer, their weak approach to Islam, basically, the liberal approach, namely, it isn’t Islam that’s the problem, but a few bad apples, no reason to condemn the whole religion or devise a plan to protect America from it. Then her slamming that anti-Ground Zero mosque demonstration about a year ago, selling like-minded people down the river, which seemed to me to be merely market positioning, posing herself as the legitimate anti-jihad voice vs. the crazies.

Then there was that rant she directed towards a conservative political candidate for removing a reference to Atlas Shrugs on her website. It began to dawn on me that it’s all about Pamela, not the cause per se.

LA writes:

My analysis of Geller’s response has met with approval at the Gates of Vienna discussion.

Also, a GoV commenter adds this key point:

One thing that Auster missed was that Geller accused the EDL’s administration of having been infiltrated when all that Robinson admitted to was that there were some anti-semites in the organization.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 01, 2011 03:01 PM | Send