Mark

Geller and Brook to speak at Tea Party meeting

Recommended Posts

Per the Gotham Tea Party website:

Pamela Geller & Yaron Brook are scheduled to speak at the next Gotham Tea Party meeting.

When: Tuesday, October 30, 7:30 - 9:30 pm.

Where:

Annie Moore’s Pub

50 East 43th Street (between Vanderbilt & Madison)

Midtown Manhattan, New York City.

Cost: $15 at the door or $10 in advance.

A fitting pair of speakers. Mr. Brook will probably agree with Ms. Geller as much as he does with Daniel Pipes: 99% on everything.would not be far off.

ADDED: The photo linked to under "Yaron Brook" above shows Pamela Geller in the center, flanked by Yaron Brook and Caroline Glick, all at a "Restoration Weekend" organized by David Horowitz in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per the Gotham Tea Party website:

Pamela Geller & Yaron Brook are scheduled to speak at the next Gotham Tea Party meeting.

When: Tuesday, October 30, 7:30 - 9:30 pm.

Where:

Annie Moore’s Pub

50 East 43th Street (between Vanderbilt & Madison)

Midtown Manhattan, New York City.

Cost: $15 at the door or $10 in advance.

A fitting pair of speakers. Mr. Brook will probably agree with Ms. Geller as much as he does with Daniel Pipes: 99% on everything.would not be far off.

Even though Geller propagandizes in a direction I somewhat favor, she still is a nasty piece of work. Even on the side of the angels there are pricks and bastards.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(more or less from "Birds of a Feather")

Here are two complete paragraphs from Pamela Geller's “Atlas Shrugged” blog (she steals the novel's title) entry of February 24, 2010, about Muslim immigration to Europe (bolding removed, the extended ellipses hers):

Here is more on the Jews fleeing Europe (Sweden and Paris, for example) that I have been covering. Israel is essential. And I pray dearly that in the ungodly event that Tehran or its jihadi proxies (Hez’ballah, Hamas etc) target Israel with a nuke, that she retaliate with everything she has at Tehran, Mecca, and Medina

...............

“Not to mention Europe. They exterminated all their Jews, but that wasn’t enough. Those monsters then went on to import the next generation of Jew killers.”

She goes on to criticize Muslim immigration to Europe, because the immigrants hate Jews.

One can agree that Europe’s policy of unrestricted immigration is a big mistake, but as a reaction to this mistake isn’t nuking Europe kind of, oh I don’t know, extreme?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I hear an Objectivist -- the ARI variety -- utter the word "context" I release the safety-catch on my ... uh, I meant to say: you know you're about to have the wool pulled over your eyes.

If Iran acquires a nuclear bomb and threatens Israel with it (not just in self defense, one supposes), Ms. Geller would have Israel nuke Iran and while it’s at it -- in the context of Europe having an Islamic immigration problem of their own doing -- nuke Europe too.

Why Europe? -- the naive reader might wonder. Well, a couple of generations ago the Europeans exterminated all their Jews. Today the Europeans have let in millions of Islamic immigrants in order to kill the Jews -- I mean the rest of them, I mean any that the Europeans, those monsters, missed the first time.

Therefore Europe deserves to be nuked along with Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(more or less from "Birds of a Feather")

Here are two complete paragraphs from Pamela Geller's “Atlas Shrugged” blog (she steals the novel's title) entry of February 24, 2010, about Muslim immigration to Europe (bolding removed, the extended ellipses hers):

Here is more on the Jews fleeing Europe (Sweden and Paris, for example) that I have been covering. Israel is essential. And I pray dearly that in the ungodly event that Tehran or its jihadi proxies (Hez’ballah, Hamas etc) target Israel with a nuke, that she retaliate with everything she has at Tehran, Mecca, and Medina

...............

“Not to mention Europe. They exterminated all their Jews, but that wasn’t enough. Those monsters then went on to import the next generation of Jew killers.”

She goes on to criticize Muslim immigration to Europe, because the immigrants hate Jews.

One can agree that Europe’s policy of unrestricted immigration is a big mistake, but as a reaction to this mistake isn’t nuking Europe kind of, oh I don’t know, extreme?

A little strong, but from what I have read of Ms Geller's appalling blog and worse, the comments by readers of same, your supposition of her feelings is not much of a stretch. One gets the impression that she would be happy to see anywhere nuked that contained large concentrations of Muslims-- unless, presumably, they were on American soil,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that she literally means to nuke Europe. My guess is that she is sick and tired of the Federal government and the govt's of PC/socialist Europe (Obama in particular) letting islamists run wild and unchecked throughout the world wreaking havoc and tyranny in their wake. She is using shock language more as a frustrated reaction as opposed to a literal means of action. She understands that the free world is getting smaller and smaller and the tyrannical muslim world larger and larger. She is trying to point out that at some point you have to vanquish your enemy lest you be reduced to nothing. Again, I think "nuking" is an aphorism for standing against the savages that infest the middle east and are wrestling into the western world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that meeting is in NY tomorrow, I don't think she'll be saying anything.

God has heard about it and "dark is his wrath on the wings of the storm"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs fame says, "I pray dearly that in the ungodly event that Tehran or its jihadi proxies (Hez’ballah, Hamas etc) target Israel with a nuke, that she retaliate with everything she has at Tehran, Mecca, and Medina."

She is plain, she is pointed, she is a little bit crazy. She would issue a command (via Jehovah) that Israel bomb the fuck out of Mecca and Medina (which are not in Iran but in Saudi Arabia, Iran's enemy, and America's linchpin ally in the Gulf). Why not bomb Qatar (another US ally) or Bahrain (home of the US fleet) or Calgary, Alberta, Canada (which has a >gasp< Muslim mayor)?

I guess Pam just gets all caffeinated about laying waste to Islamic cities, whether or not the cities are in enemy Iran. It just feels exciting good to pray for destruction of human lives.

This exciting event (bombing Mecca) would lie in the same crazy-purse as Bwook, who is on record calling for ferocious destruction in a pre-emptive nuclear striike. Perhaps Bwook will point out to Pam that bombing the fuck out of Mecca and Medina is kind of like targetting the Vatican when the enemy is the Russian Orthodox Church.

Of course, she might be right -- that bombing the fuck out of the holy places in Saudi Arabia would bring a complete end to any Islamic Terrorism. And Bwook may be wrong about Iran. Maybe he and she can still get together (despite the storm) and compare fantasies, and come to common ground: Let's Nuke 'Em All! Yargh!

As far as I can tell Geller is not sharing a hope/fantasy/kookrant that Europe have the fuck bombed out of it.

(incidentally, recall that Ba'al, who demurs from this particular nutty Nuke Mecca prayer, has also fantasized about Jerusalem destroyed by a meteor. So if he is trying to suggest Pam is crazier or more one-eyed than him, I just do not see it.)

Ba'al draws from the same hate bag as Pam, I think, in terms of full-on collective loathing (from his fantasy above):

[The meteor] would squash the Mosque on the Temple Mount and it would eliminate Jerusalem

In the end, I do not see much daylight between Geller, Bwook or The Avenging Angel of OL.

Who said this? Bwook, our Angel, or Geller?

I'm suggesting that we start bringing this war to the civilians, the consequences of this war, to the civilians who are harboring and helping and supporting the insurgents ... and other places. ... I would like to see the United States turn [it] into dust

The fun part of the Total War doctrine is the blind spot about future consequences. What would be the likely result of overwhelming nuclear attack on any Muslim nation? Peace? An end to 'targetting civilians' with terror and annihilation?

Magic!

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using nukes is foolish for several reason; unnecessary innocent killed, fall-out, destruction of natural resources, complete destruction of a HUGE area, etc...

If you have to use a massive explosive use this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs

Nukes are despicable. A nation can exert plenty of deterrence with an arsenal of the Father of All Bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply to blackhorse post #9: Popeye is known for "I yam what I yam." Geller should be known for saying what she says. A mind reader can argue anything otherwise. (By the way it's "metaphor" not "aphorism.")

Answer to william.scherk's question: The quote about "bringing this war to the civilians" was said by Yaron Brook during an interview on The O'Reilly Factor (link to transcript). William's point of course is that you'd be hard pressed to tell which of the three possibilities he mentions said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, William: Too true - the enemy of my enemy...is exactly that and no more.

I find only incidental commonality with Geller - that is, Israel's longevity.

But staring into the abyss of total annihilation for too long can addle anybody's judgment.

Still. What's the answer, guys? Does the US and Israel hang off until the last possible moment?

To oppose any defensive action is as morally deficient as arguing for pre-emptive assaults on civilians, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with this Israel and We?

I am not Israel. Israel is on the other side of the earth, not the 51st state. It's not America.

As for being our ally, This Is Our Ally?

What Israel does isn’t surprising given its roots in terrorism and totalitarianism.

Iran is the new excuse, after the demise of the Soviet Union, for our government to maintain a colossal military machine. Yet Iran is no more -- arguably less -- a threat to America than the Soviet Union was.

The real threat to us is our own government -- threats carried out, for example the TSA. Address that far more important problem first, then worry about "savages" who somehow have a working knowledge of metallurgy, aerodynamics, engineering mathematics and nuclear physics.

Recently I happened to read the following by Fred Reed, in “A Brief History of the United States”:

Consequences sometimes arrive tardily. After WWII, Zionists had conquered Palestine and begun mistreating its people ... . Moslems, of whom it later turned out there were quite a few, came to hate Zionists and, by extension, all Jews. Since America supplied the bombs that Israel used to kill Moslems, these came to hate the US. Thus 9/11. This was used as a pretext for war by hawkish wimps, now called Neocons. The conflicts were embraced by the Pentagon, which needed a raison d’etre in the face of the lack of enemies. The ensuing wars were enthusiastically supported by evangelicals, more Zionists, confused patriots, imperialists, military industry, and those who just wanted to kill some Arabs, any Arabs. President W. Bush with his ... yokel grasp was just the man. The military budget now was about a trillion a year in a country that owed more money than it could ever repay.

...

Americans had become the Frightened People, afraid of terror, of Moslems, of an outside world they couldn’t find or, in many cases, spell. The government used this bounty from heaven to justify rapid elimination of civil liberties, telling the public that it was to protect them. They still prided themselves on their democracy, without any longer having one, and on being a light to the world, which hated them. “The whole world hates us. What is wrong with the whole world?” they asked, deeply puzzled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

Fred Reed?

Heh.

That's a hell of a history rewrite you just quoted.

Not a word, not a peep, not even a sniffle about the leftover Nazis from the Grand Mufti's efforts to help explain local hatred of the Jews?

I once heard that the Nazis didn't like Jews. After reading Reed, you kinda wonder if that is even true...

To hell with reason. Raw bigotry is the answer...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nazis have nothing to do with Fred Reed’s point: that some Moslems have valid reasons for hating Americans, at least the Americans who instigate, support, or fail to oppose, certain actions of the U.S. government.

It’s true that it’s not all about Israel. See, for example,

The Banality of Evil

by Craig Murray.

By the way, let’s get it right: I’m a well done bigot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with this Israel and We?

I am not Israel. Israel is on the other side of the earth, not the 51st state. It's not America.

As for being our ally, This Is Our Ally?

What Israel does isn’t surprising given its roots in terrorism and totalitarianism.

Iran is the new excuse, after the demise of the Soviet Union, for our government to maintain a colossal military machine. Yet Iran is no more -- arguably less -- a threat to America than the Soviet Union was.

The real threat to us is our own government -- threats carried out, for example the TSA. Address that far more important problem first, then worry about "savages" who somehow have a working knowledge of metallurgy, aerodynamics, engineering mathematics and nuclear physics.

Recently I happened to read the following by Fred Reed, in “A Brief History of the United States”:

Consequences sometimes arrive tardily. After WWII, Zionists had conquered Palestine and begun mistreating its people ... . Moslems, of whom it later turned out there were quite a few, came to hate Zionists and, by extension, all Jews. Since America supplied the bombs that Israel used to kill Moslems, these came to hate the US. Thus 9/11. This was used as a pretext for war by hawkish wimps, now called Neocons. The conflicts were embraced by the Pentagon, which needed a raison d’etre in the face of the lack of enemies. The ensuing wars were enthusiastically supported by evangelicals, more Zionists, confused patriots, imperialists, military industry, and those who just wanted to kill some Arabs, any Arabs. President W. Bush with his ... yokel grasp was just the man. The military budget now was about a trillion a year in a country that owed more money than it could ever repay.

...

Americans had become the Frightened People, afraid of terror, of Moslems, of an outside world they couldn’t find or, in many cases, spell. The government used this bounty from heaven to justify rapid elimination of civil liberties, telling the public that it was to protect them. They still prided themselves on their democracy, without any longer having one, and on being a light to the world, which hated them. “The whole world hates us. What is wrong with the whole world?” they asked, deeply puzzled.

Mark, There's no "We" in my post. If it's implied, yes I do mean it, as "we" of the free

world - wherever we live, and despite the dilution of liberty we are seeing. But the necessary

autonomy of Israel and the USA doesn't preclude a long and beneficial alliance between them.

Those links, at a glance, are the same handful of old ones you trotted out a year or so ago.

Haven't the Israelis been up to any sneaky tricks since then?

Not all of us are either peaceniks, or warmongers. Horribly wasteful, ill-considered and pointless - therefore, irrational/immoral - foreign wars that can't be won (or if won, leave behind far bigger problems)- are one thing. (I include the bomb-'em to convert-'em, or get rid of 'em, lobby.)

Picking up one's marbles in a huff and running back home and bolting the door, because "I don't want to play anymore", is another - but not dissimilar - thing.

Both sides want to escape reality.

There has to be a third way, one of self-interest, unswerving principles and contextual action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comments ...

1st paragraph: Any alliance with Israel harms the USA.

2nd: We ought to have an attention span longer than yesterday. Israel "up to any sneaky tricks" mocks its very serious past treachery costing many billions of U.S. tax dollars and hundreds of American lives.

As for recent Israeli treachery there is plenty described on ARI Watch and on the Israel section of the Links page.

3rd: Peacenik vs. Warmonger is not a helpful dichotomy. Both terms are as derogatory as they are undefined. The issue is America First vs. U.S Imperialism and Foreign Entanglement. "Picking up ones marbles" etc caricatures an America First foreign policy.

From the general tenor of whYNOT's post I suspect that by "self-interest" etc he means just the opposite of the true meaning of those words, very like the so-called Ayn Rand Institute/Center when they couch altruism (with the Israelis as beneficiaries) in the words of self-interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel's politics are no worse than California's or New York's. They are the freest nation in the middle east and as such are a worthy ally of the USA. Or are you not worried by islam's tyranny and subjugation to sharia law...or worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Israel blackhorse says "They are the freest nation in the middle east ... ." True, but a relative evaluation is no substitute for an absolute. Here's another relative: Israel is far more statist than any country in Europe.

The fact is Israel is very statist and becoming more so. Blackhorse insults California and New York when he claims they're no better than Israel.

"This is Our Ally?" (link in post #15) argues that Israel is an unworthy, indeed treacherous, ally of the USA.

I'm concerned about the U.S. government supporting tyranny. Blackhorse might read “The Banality of Evil” -- about the U.S. in Uzbekistan -- referenced in post #17. Then there is Iran and some other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mark, you're exercising no context here. You want full perfection or nothing. Absurd. I know Israel is socialist, but so what? We are talking about comparative freedom based upon regions. Not a single damn muslim nation gets even close to the freedom, safety, or civility of Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...