↓
 
Home » Here’s a challenge I’d like to see the NY Times take up

Here’s a challenge I’d like to see the NY Times take up

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s a very simple one.

The august editors of the Times write:

…[T]he Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.

Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims…

Geller revels in assailing Islam in terms reminiscent of virulent racism or anti-Semitism…

As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.

Well now, there’s a tightly reasoned argument for you, worthy of the Times.

You may think I’m leaving out something important—some reason the Times gives for all this invective against Geller, some quotes or proofs or examples. Something other than the bald assertion of the editors, the argument from authority with the editors as the authority.

So here’s my challenge to the Times editors: give us some quotes from Geller. Some, you know, evidence of her hatred. Surely there must be reams and reams and reams. What has Geller said that’s so venomous and bigoted? About whom did she say it, all Muslims or Muslim terrorists? What was so hateful about the cartoon that won the contest, and why is it so obvious it wasn’t about free speech?

And while you’re at it, watch this video, and then tell us again that Geller’s Garland conference wasn’t about freedom of speech and that the very idea that it might have been is hogwash and pretense, and that it’s she who is the hater:

I realize that the Times editors will never do any of this, and it’s not just because they don’t read this blog. They will never feel the need to back up what they are saying in their editorial about Geller because they don’t have to do it—their readers neither demand nor expect it.

Comments

Here’s a challenge I’d like to see the <i>NY Times</i> take up — 39 Comments

  1. The New York Times would have to raise its game several notches before I would consider using it as fish wrap. To call it a rag is to insult all pieces of used cloth that have labored admirably to assist in the completion of a task.

  2. “They will never feel the need to back up what they are saying in their editorial about Geller because they don’t have to do it–their readers neither demand nor expect it.”
    Nor do the parakeets that walk on it in their cages demand it. 🙁

    I’m always at a loss when interacting with my liberal relatives. They are good doing monologues where they drone on and on about the “good intentions” of their leaders. But to have any dialog of facts and honest communication with them is a lost cause. Hence I simply chat with them about superficial stuff. A loss for both sides. 🙁

  3. They will never feel the need to back up what they are saying in their editorial about Geller because they don’t have to do it–their readers neither demand nor expect it….

    I blame the readers.
    I blame the voters, very personally, very individually ….

    Almost immediately after the Normandy landing, purges started.
    We keep names.

  4. That slimy smirk as he pronounces death to Pamela tells it all …

    The editorial has the same slimy smirk on it.

  5. The Times editors and others of their ilk, if they get their way, have a date with destiny and that destiny intersects with Islamist Anjem Choudary and others of his ilk. The willful blindness of leftists like the Times editors to the Islamist threat is another illustration of just how short-sighted humanity can be. It is a ‘willful’ blindness because the Times editors are fully aware of Islam’s totalitarian nature. They rationalize the Islamic threat to be ‘manageable’ and in their hubris, they are planting the seeds of their own destruction. ISIS is eagerly anticipating the day when Allah arranges an introduction.

  6. And, there they are, Folks…Pravda aka the NYTimes, with their near vacant news room is how many blocks from Ground Zero of 9-11-2001?? Nearly 3,000 innocent civilians butchered by those loving, tolerant Islamists.

    ‘Nuff said or I’d start cussin’,Yo.

  7. The NY Times editors already ‘know’ that they have proof she is a hater. She disagrees with them. She disagrees with a generally held liberal opinion. By definition for the Times, that is all the proof they need that she is a hater.

  8. I should note the same goes for their readers. They don’t demand proof because, in their morally immature minds, they already have it.

  9. The use of the term “hogwash” in a piece related in any way to Islam could well be considered a “micro-aggression.”

  10. Why are the elites up in arms over what a *private*
    citizen wants to do ?
    Is this some sort of *warning * to the rest of us,
    not to be *considering* doing something similar, because we will risk their disdain?
    Are the elites all perturbed that the 99% are not
    taking *direction* from them?
    This was a fairly small event, it seems to me there should be more of these, was there not a world wide *draw Mohammed* call about a year ago ?
    Someone has suggested more of these to draw the
    *lurkers* out & snipe them one by one !
    I kinda like that !

  11. Neo, you’re challenging the New York Times to commit an act of journalism.

    I fear this may be simply beyond their capabilities. In fact, it’s probably racist and sexist of you to even make such a microaggressive request.

  12. Here is the perfect spear to use to stab a liberal who is whining about Ms. Geller:

    “[You]… should realize that … she shares something in common with civil rights leader the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.”

    … says Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz:

    “I don’t want to make any comparisons morally or legally, but from a constitutional law point of view, there’s no difference,” Dershowitz said Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File.”

    “King purposely picked some of the cities he led protests in precisely in order to bring out the racists and show what kind of violent people they are…It’s part of the American tradition to provoke so that the world can see…”

  14. Here is the perfect spear to use to stab a liberal who is whining about Ms. Geller:

    Leftists wanted to get rid of Malcom X and MLK J, that’s why they helped Nation of Islam put the hit on them, and later blame it on whiteys. So maybe not all Leftists know this, but it’s not a perfect spear. They don’t really care. Never did.

  15. Lefties know they are intellectually and morally superior people so if you disagree with them you must be stupid or evil. Presenting evidence that contradicts their beliefs just enrages them, they don’t change their mind.

  16. The mad mullahs must be in joy. With just the slightest hint of threats they’ve already accomplished much of sharia. That the NYT and other members of the leftist group-think are eager disciples of their hate must encourage them to reach further.

  17. If you have a spare hour, I recommend her recent speech at Brooklyn College with the Q&A:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_OI0WhbSjo

    I do not recommend it so much for what *she* has to say, but for how the *audience* behaves and reacts. The “fun” begins somewhere around 15 minutes into the video.

  18. A bit off topic, but relevant as background.

    I once made a list of approximate casualties in the various Muslim wars during my lifetime just to understand why people beat on Israel so much. The list is shocking and makes you wonder why the lefties are such friends of Islam.

    Arab-Israeli wars, Muslims versus Jews: 10,000
    Pakistan/India partition, Hindu versus Muslim, 1948: 1,000,000
    Black September, Oct 1970, PLO tries to take over Jordan: 10,000
    Lebanonese civil war, Muslims versus Christians: 500,000
    Iran-Iraq war, 1980-1988: 1,000,000
    Iraq Kurdish repression, 1991: 500,000
    9/11, Muslims versus Christians: 3,000
    Syrian civil war, ongoing: 200,000

    These are the biggest ones off hand with a total of over 3,000,000 dead due to Muslims. Pam Gellar is right, there’s a good reason to be very wary of the followers of Muhammed and not just their crazed reaction to cartoons.

    Feel free to correct the numbers if you have better sources than my memory 😉

  20. Naah.

    The “Keepers of The Narrative” *MUST* keep “The Narrative” alive. That’s their whole purpose. They EXIST to disseminate the Groupthink du jour.

    Asking them to commit “journalism” is asking them to commit suicide!!! (– Kind of like when Capt Kirk forced ‘V-ger’ to destroy itself by demonstrating that it had violated its own Prime Directive.)

  22. The NY Times is the implicit target for many of Geller’s actions.

    They do get that much.

    &&&&&&

    A Nonny…

    V-ger didn’t die: it climaxed.

    NOMAD is the puppy that blew itself up.

    While dramatic, a true self-destruct for a digital beast would be that of a re-boot or power-off switch.

    That’s the kind of coding that would’ve been laid down from the beginning — by the creator. (of Nomad)

    However, it’s a convention in Sci Fi that dying circuits always explode like Primacord.

  24. blert,

    I had to re-familiarize myself with that episode’s details. NOMAD was not merely a ‘digital device’, it was a merger between a damaged digital device and an ‘alien probe’.

    “Nomad was launched from Earth in 2002 as the planet’s first interstellar vessel to seek out new life. It was a prototype and the only one of its program built.

    During its mission, Nomad was damaged by a meteoroid and lost contact with Earth. It later encountered an alien probe called Tan Ru in deep space. The two units merged, resulting in a powerful new construct with faulty programming, which destroyed anything that was perceived as imperfect, a condition that apparently applied to any organic living being.

    Nomad was eventually discovered by the USS Enterprise in 2267, shortly after it wiped out four billion inhabitants of the Malurian system.

    Captain Kirk managed to convince Nomad that it was imperfect after it mistook Kirk for Roykirk, its creator. This led Nomad to eventually destroy itself, though Kirk was able to beam it out into space before it did so.”

    To be certain of its own destruction, arguably it would have to blow itself up. Just as we can’t ‘think’ ourselves to death, there’s no certainty that an alien AI could either.

  25. Did you notice that there is no screaming and stamping for more gun control? Why are Muslim fanatics exempt when a non-Muslim white guy doing this sort of thing would produce howls of rage about the viscious gun culture of the unwashed and the need for strict regulation? It appears that there is some clash of shibboleths here and Islam trumps gun control.

  26. Actually it is easy to find hateful things in what Pamela Geller says and writes. Her writings are so filled with evil things about the Muslims that leftists are appalled. Those who know Pamela Geller will undoubtedly ask for proof that her posts are filled with hate – easy. The adds that she puts on the sides of buses is also filled with hate. Those statements are filled with hate – not because Pamela hates anyone – but because the Muslims she quotes are filled with hate.

    The left are liars through and through, and since they have adopted the Muslims as their primary victim group the left will protect them at all costs. Therefore the left blames Pamela Geller for the hatred in those statements she quotes as if it were her fault that the Muslims she quotes made those statements. That psychological defense is called projection. Although the left secretly like the violence in Islam they know it would be detrimental to them to acknowledge their affinity for Islamic violence right now so they project the hatred and violence onto the intended victims.

  27. Anyone who can watch that video of Choudary debating Pam Geller and not be convinced that Muslim imams of his ilk are evil, would have to have earmuffs and blinders on. The man both frightens and enrages me. He is as slick as a snake with an oily tongue and fangs that are filled with poison. Western civilization isn’t safe with the likes of him among us.

  28. JJ,

    I just read Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s take on the law and policy basis of the Iraq mission in chapter 6 concluding Making War to Keep Peace. (I skipped ahead, so if she covered the issue elsewhere in her book, I haven’t read it yet.)

    You’re right. Kirkpatrick and I share similar takes. Closer than ball park; she and I bat in the same line-up on the issue.

    We share the main point that Operation Iraqi Freedom was enforcement of the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) in order to “bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (Public Law 105-235) as mandated by the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire. And the casus belli was Iraq’s evident noncompliance with UN mandates, ie, material breach of the ceasefire in Saddam’s “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441).

    That being said, working from the shared main point, our approaches are not identical. She skims areas where I give more attention and vice versa.

    Her take flows from her personal engagement as US representative on the UNHRC in 2003.

    My take flows from the seminal question that unlocked the door to my understanding of the Iraq enforcement: “How did President Clinton deal with the intelligence for Operation Desert Fox?”

    In that regard, my take has a better contextual picture of the progressed path to OIF from HW Bush to Clinton to Bush with attendant policies, precedents, and conditions.

    My major criticism of Kirkpatrick is her suggestion, exemplified by a Rumsfeld quote, that the Bush administration brushed aside the post-war in the pre-war planning. That belief, more than the actual post-war struggle, informed her statement, “why President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war has troubled me deeply”.

    Kirkpatrick, like many others, believed Bush officials were negligent by not planning for the post-war. She was wrong. The Bush administration did not brush aside the post-war. They did plan for it. The problem was the pre-war “humanitarian reconstruction” plan, while state-of-the-art doctrine at the time, proved to be insufficient versus the enemy. The fundamental error was shifting the military to a support role for civilian humanitarian GOs and IGOs in a ‘soft’ occupation instead of the military immediately dominating the post-war with a lead role in a ‘hard’ occupation. The enemy beat our Plan A, and as enemies have taught us before, the enemy in Iraq taught us for the COIN “Surge”.

    Kirkpatrick and I, along with Arthur Borden (who mainly cites to the Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine), could have had fruitful discussion to round out the law and policy basis for OIF. They’ve both passed away, though.

  29. Pingback:Pam Geller | freedom of speech | liberty

  30. Implicit, and not particularly hidden in its implicitness, is the implication that we must expect Islam to generate a certain percentage of violent nutcases who can’t keep themselves from killing others on the basis of one or another presumed offense.
    No other group is thus vilified and stereotyped….
    Considering none of the other homegrown terrorist actions, successful or not, have been in response to cartoons, it appears that, for Islam, “offense” is a pretty broad concept.
    Or, perhaps, after the fact of murder for its own sake, some apologists try to gin up some act or another by the victims as “offensive”.

  31. Pingback:Who is defending Pam Geller’s liberty? - Freedom's Floodgates

  32. Richard Aubrey: “Or, perhaps, after the fact of murder for its own sake, some apologists try to gin up some act or another by the victims as “offensive”.”

    The “perhaps” in their assigning cause to perpetrator, victim, or even 3rd party in the Narrative contest of the activist game depends on cost/benefit political calculation.

  33. Eric,
    I hope you’re still monitoring this thread. I’ve been very busy the last few weeks and haven’t had much time to read/comment.

    Glad you got into Jean Kirkpatrick’s book. It occurs to me that you have a book, or at least a very long essay, in you covering the same ground with your particular viewpoint. Maybe Regnery would be interested. They publish conservative books. They’re at: http://www.regnery.com

    Such a book at this time might have some influence on narrative. It couldn’t hurt to try.

  34. JJ: “It occurs to me that you have a book, or at least a very long essay, in you covering the same ground with your particular viewpoint.”

    At least. My FAQ-style explanation, intended for breadth more than depth, alone amounts to about 40 pages single-spaced, and that doesn’t include the handful of linked posts that provide extra depth in key areas such as the UNSCR 688 humanitarian mandates, ISG findings of disarmament violations, and international controversy carried over from Operation Desert Fox. My take is scalable.

    JJ: “Such a book at this time might have some influence on narrative.”

    Right now, Iraq, the Middle East, and the War on Terror are leading current events, and to guard against regression and reinforce their gains, Left activists have ramped up their narrative of OIF that’s the cornerstone premise for their current political advantage. With the GOP’s weak stance on the Iraq issue, the Left emphasis on their narrative of OIF is only rational. But the intensified Left activist attention opens a window to ‘re-litigate’ the justification for OIF that could be seized by counter-Left activists wielding my take.

    Moreover, the current front-runners for the 2016 presidential campaign happen to be leading members of houses Clinton and Bush, and my explanation of the law and policy, fact basis for OIF is based primarily on the Clinton-to-Bush nexus that enforced the UNSCR 660-series resolutions with Clinton’s Iraq enforcement as center of gravity, “Bush’s case against Saddam was really Clinton’s case against Saddam”.

    We don’t get to rewind the clock back to November 2008 nor undo every catastrophic American error with Iraq since 2009. But maybe we can clean out the festering infection of the Left’s false narrative of OIF at the premise level in order to begin re-righting American leadership and heal our nation’s policy decision-making.

  35. Geller excoriates Islam in milder terms than homosexuals excoriate Christianity and feminists excoriate the imaginary patriarchy. Terminate all homosexual and feminist speech, then we’ll worry about Geller.

  36. Pingback:In Praise of Gerard Vanderleun @Van_der_Leun » Today's America

  37. And for some more exposure of the wrong headed Bill ORongly and Gang….see this three part discourse on the media fools…

    “O’Reilly Gang Wrong to Condemn Pamela Geller”
    Part 1
    http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/05
    Ω/08/oreilly-gang-wrong-to-condemn-pamela-geller/

    “Laura Ingraham, Allysin Camerota, and Martha McCallum hiding behind Pam Geller’s Skirta” Part 2
    http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/05/09/laura-ingraham-allysin-camerota-and-martha-mccallum-hiding-behind-pam-gellers-skirt/

    “The O’Reilly/Fox Gang, Pt. 3: Siding Against Geller and WesternCivilization” Part 3
    http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/05/09/the-oreillyfox-gang-pt-3-siding-against-geller-and-western-civilization/

  38. The first link above didn’t copy correctly….copy the entire link and paste it into your browser. The other two work just fine…

  39. Pingback:Pamela Geller & The Enemy Within - Dennis G Hurst

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑