Guardian Trots Out 8-Year-Old Big Lie to Defame Geller, Spencer, and Other Foes of Jihad Terror


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 [sic] scared 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.


Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email tips@thegellerreport.com

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.


Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Pin It on Pinterest