Geller and Spencer's Dilemma

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Geller and Spencer's Dilemma

I have wanted to write about the ban of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from entering the UK ever since it happened, but I couldn't find the angle to express what I feel.

Finally, here is a press release that touches on it and can serve as a prompt.

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to Appeal Banning from UK
Press Release
July 2, 2013
Wall Street Journal

From the press release:

Human rights activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) are challenging the decision to ban them from the United Kingdom, and have instructed lawyers in that country.

Geller and Spencer are challenging British Home Secretary Theresa May's decision to prevent them from entering the country in order to lay a wreath at a memorial for British soldier Lee Rigby on Armed Forces Day, June 29. Rigby was murdered by Islamic jihadists on a street in Woolwich on May 22.

Notice that this is not a newspaper article. It is a press release. Nobody is interested in publishing it as news.

I have no doubt their supporters will hold this up as another demonstration of a corrupt left-wing, pro-Islamist press.

But I believe this issue goes deeper.

It's not a hate-speech thing at the root, either.

Here is a defense of them on Front Page Magazine (owned by Spencer's boss, David Horowitz). It follows the hate-speech angle, noting that the real hater is Che Guevara’s daughter.

Britain Bans Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer — Welcomes Che Guevara’s Daughter

By Humberto Fontova

July 1, 2013

Front Page Magazine

When you look at the kind of story this is, does it sound like a victimization story? Well that's because it is. "We" are being oppressed while "they" are getting unfair advantages. Oh, the injustice, the injustice of it all!

The dilemma I mentioned above is that Geller and Spencer are actually right, but I predict they will keep having this kind of problem. The cause is not the ideology, but the fact that this--victimization--is the best Geller and Spencer have on the story-war level.

How is it possible they were banned in Britain yet the daughter of a person who was a bloody dictatorial communist revolutionary is celebrated not only in Britain, but the world over? Is it just a matter of Britain adopting the wrong philosophy or religion?

That's a part, but the root of how that happened is the story .

You see, Geller and Spencer mostly tell the tale of how bad the enemy is. And they do not balance it with the story of how great the world would be in freedom. Oh, they believe that and say it at times, but they don't tell the story of it.

Their dream, the story they constantly tell, is neutralizing the enemy, the brutality of the enemy, the moral wrongness of the enemy, the despicableness of the enemy, and so on. You get the feeling from reading them if this leads to wholesale extermination of the enemy, that would be all right with them. That's a subconscious warning bell for lots and lots of people.

But suppose you see the logic in their stories and agree with them. Then what?

Here's what kills their message.

They turn that storyline over to others to tell and don't even make any effort worth talking about to point out who is telling it.

One of the chief persuasion components of any major social storyline is redemption in service to an ideal. How can an enemy become "saved"? Hell, how can a normal person sign up? Is the dream--the ideal--big enough for him to abandon all he has lived up to that moment and go in a new direction?

Whether you like it, agree with it, find it boneheaded or evil, the Communist core story of a final utopia where injustice no longer has a place in society and everyone shares everything is a dream properly formatted to the human psyche to be worth fighting for. If that dream were not part of the package, people on a large scale would not buy the rest.

This is what makes Che Guevara seem like an idealist, but Geller and Spencer seem like haters. I'm not talking about the merits of their ideas. I'm talking about how they transmit them.

Look at Ayn Rand for an example of doing it right. Nobody bashed collectivism and altruism harder than she did. But if that were all she did, she would have been a forgotten footnote to history by now. Instead, her books keep selling in the hundreds of thousands.

Why?

She told the story of the dream--of a better world and painted what that would be like. She laid out a path for the enemy to redeem himself and, as a result, feel the strong pure emotions of hope and belonging--just adopt reason as your final arbitrator of reality and welcome to the brotherhood.

Rand even had an oath for people to swear in Atlas Shrugged to get into Heaven on Earth (Galt's Gulch). I'm speaking in terms of archetypes right now, not anything literal. Rand knew how to tell the story of evil, but she also knew how to tell the story of good. And she made damn sure she did.

That's why she's still around despite some of the most unfair vicious attacks and misrepresentations ever perpetrated in the mainstream on any thinker and writer.

Where are Geller and Spencer's path to redemption? Where is the glory in changing your life if you are their enemy? Just stop what you are and that's it?

How the hell is that ever going to convince anyone except true believer types?

Nobody will ever say his way of life is evil if there is no substitute for him to adopt--one in a form he can understand--to make him feel worthy and good. You make him understand--to see it--through story.

Che Guevara, like Rand, gives this alternative to people. The admirers of Guevara are misguided, sure, but getting rid of the oppressors to Guevara is only a step toward a greater dream: utopia. Fighting the enemy is not the whole dream. it is not the whole plot of the big story. it is merely one part of the plot--and it's in Act 2 of a 3 act plot to boot.

Geller and Spencer don't give this to people. Their plot-line is get rid of the enemy. Bedeh, bedeh, bedeh... That's all folks!

I don't have any high expectations for the intellectual capacity of Britain's politicians and civil servants. So I don't expect them to have reasoned the way I just did. But I do believe this was their core motivation.

If you're a dreamer who sells the dream--who constantly tells the story of the dream, you can hate and kill up a storm and the whole world will make room for you. Just look at history.

If you neglect this and only tell stories of injustice, brutality, evil, you will be defined by your enemy and the world will call you a hater.

I do not condone what Britain did. Geller and Spencer have every right to make a peaceful display at a memorial and Britain is embarrassing itself with hypocrisy. But I do understand why Geller and Spencer have this problem

It's such an easy one to fix, too. Just expand the repertoire of stories to include the dream. Bloody killers do it with half-assed dreams and get away with it all the time. Individual rights-based freedom is a much better dream--one that is attainable with a proven track record to boot. And it's a foundation for a lot of great stories. Just look at Glenn Beck's trajectory for a good example of how to do it.

But, from observing the nature of Geller and Spencer's rhetoric for a few years, I doubt they will ever go down that path.

I expect them to continue with their martyr storyline. That's a powerful one, to be sure, but without the dream, the sad truth (I believe) is they will not be remembered as a Joan of Arc or even a Don Quixote. They will become footnotes as propagandists and nothing more.

I want to say to them, "Wake up! Sell the dream, too!"

Hmmmm...

That might make a good story...

Michael

[william.scherk]

I do not condone what Britain did. Geller and Spencer have every right to make a peaceful display at a memorial and Britain is embarrassing itself with hypocrisy. But I do understand why Geller and Spencer have this problem.

Michael, thanks for forking up the press release from the self-styled "human rights activists" on Britain's barring them from the UK. This story from the UK Independent quotes the person who took the decision to bar them.

Two of the people behind a campaign against the building of the “Ground Zero Mosque” in New York have been barred from entering Britain to speak at an English Defence League rally in London this weekend, it has been announced.

The Home Secretary Theresa May has told Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, both of the anti-Islamic group Stop Islamization of America, that their presence in the UK would “not be conducive to the public good”. The decision, which they cannot appeal, will stand for between three and five years.

According to the Home Office, Mr Spencer and Ms Geller set up organisations “described as anti-Muslim hate groups” and, consequently, they have been told not to travel to Britain.

The decision follows pressure from anti-racist groups and chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee Keith Vaz, who wrote to Ms May earlier this week asking her to consider a ban.

The text of the letter from the Home secretary can be found at Little Green Footballs. It lists the 'unacceptable behaviour' policy.

There is a campaign to overturn the ban on entry, by petition, which can be found here.

[caroljane]

Geller and Spencer's Dilemma

I have wanted to write about the ban of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from entering the UK ever since it happened, but I couldn't find the angle to express what I feel.

Finally, here is a press release that touches on it and can serve as a prompt.

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to Appeal Banning from UK

Press Release

July 2, 2013

Wall Street Journal

From the press release:

Human rights activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) are challenging the decision to ban them from the United Kingdom, and have instructed lawyers in that country.

Geller and Spencer are challenging British Home Secretary Theresa May's decision to prevent them from entering the country in order to lay a wreath at a memorial for British soldier Lee Rigby on Armed Forces Day, June 29. Rigby was murdered by Islamic jihadists on a street in Woolwich on May 22.

Notice that this is not a newspaper article. It is a press release. Nobody is interested in publishing it as news.

I have no doubt their supporters will hold this up as another demonstration of a corrupt left-wing, pro-Islamist press.

But I believe this issue goes deeper.

It's not a hate-speech thing at the root, either.

Here is a defense of them on Front Page Magazine (owned by Spencer's boss, David Horowitz). It follows the hate-speech angle, noting that the real hater is Che Guevara’s daughter.

Britain Bans Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer — Welcomes Che Guevara’s Daughter

By Humberto Fontova

July 1, 2013

Front Page Magazine

When you look at the kind of story this is, does it sound like a victimization story? Well that's because it is. "We" are being oppressed while "they" are getting unfair advantages. Oh, the injustice, the injustice of it all!

The dilemma I mentioned above is that Geller and Spencer are actually right, but I predict they will keep having this kind of problem. The cause is not the ideology, but the fact that this--victimization--is the best Geller and Spencer have on the story-war level.

How is it possible they were banned in Britain yet the daughter of a person who was a bloody dictatorial communist revolutionary is celebrated not only in Britain, but the world over? Is it just a matter of Britain adopting the wrong philosophy or religion?

That's a part, but the root of how that happened is the story .

You see, Geller and Spencer mostly tell the tale of how bad the enemy is. And they do not balance it with the story of how great the world would be in freedom. Oh, they believe that and say it at times, but they don't tell the story of it.

Their dream, the story they constantly tell, is neutralizing the enemy, the brutality of the enemy, the moral wrongness of the enemy, the despicableness of the enemy, and so on. You get the feeling from reading them if this leads to wholesale extermination of the enemy, that would be all right with them. That's a subconscious warning bell for lots and lots of people.

But suppose you see the logic in their stories and agree with them. Then what?

Here's what kills their message.

They turn that storyline over to others to tell and don't even make any effort worth talking about to point out who is telling it.

One of the chief persuasion components of any major social storyline is redemption in service to an ideal. How can an enemy become "saved"? Hell, how can a normal person sign up? Is the dream--the ideal--big enough for him to abandon all he has lived up to that moment and go in a new direction?

Whether you like it, agree with it, find it boneheaded or evil, the Communist core story of a final utopia where injustice no longer has a place in society and everyone shares everything is a dream properly formatted to the human psyche to be worth fighting for. If that dream were not part of the package, people on a large scale would not buy the rest.

This is what makes Che Guevara seem like an idealist, but Geller and Spencer seem like haters. I'm not talking about the merits of their ideas. I'm talking about how they transmit them.

Look at Ayn Rand for an example of doing it right. Nobody bashed collectivism and altruism harder than she did. But if that were all she did, she would have been a forgotten footnote to history by now. Instead, her books keep selling in the hundreds of thousands.

Why?

She told the story of the dream--of a better world and painted what that would be like. She laid out a path for the enemy to redeem himself and, as a result, feel the strong pure emotions of hope and belonging--just adopt reason as your final arbitrator of reality and welcome to the brotherhood.

Rand even had an oath for people to swear in Atlas Shrugged to get into Heaven on Earth (Galt's Gulch). I'm speaking in terms of archetypes right now, not anything literal. Rand knew how to tell the story of evil, but she also knew how to tell the story of good. And she made damn sure she did.

That's why she's still around despite some of the most unfair vicious attacks and misrepresentations ever perpetrated in the mainstream on any thinker and writer.

Where are Geller and Spencer's path to redemption? Where is the glory in changing your life if you are their enemy? Just stop what you are and that's it?

How the hell is that ever going to convince anyone except true believer types?

Nobody will ever say his way of life is evil if there is no substitute for him to adopt--one in a form he can understand--to make him feel worthy and good. You make him understand--to see it--through story.

Che Guevara, like Rand, gives this alternative to people. The admirers of Guevara are misguided, sure, but getting rid of the oppressors to Guevara is only a step toward a greater dream: utopia. Fighting the enemy is not the whole dream. it is not the whole plot of the big story. it is merely one part of the plot--and it's in Act 2 of a 3 act plot to boot.

Geller and Spencer don't give this to people. Their plot-line is get rid of the enemy. Bedeh, bedeh, bedeh... That's all folks!

I don't have any high expectations for the intellectual capacity of Britain's politicians and civil servants. So I don't expect them to have reasoned the way I just did. But I do believe this was their core motivation.

If you're a dreamer who sells the dream--who constantly tells the story of the dream, you can hate and kill up a storm and the whole world will make room for you. Just look at history.

If you neglect this and only tell stories of injustice, brutality, evil, you will be defined by your enemy and the world will call you a hater.

I do not condone what Britain did. Geller and Spencer have every right to make a peaceful display at a memorial and Britain is embarrassing itself with hypocrisy. But I do understand why Geller and Spencer have this problem

It's such an easy one to fix, too. Just expand the repertoire of stories to include the dream. Bloody killers do it with half-assed dreams and get away with it all the time. Individual rights-based freedom is a much better dream--one that is attainable with a proven track record to boot. And it's a foundation for a lot of great stories. Just look at Glenn Beck's trajectory for a good example of how to do it.

But, from observing the nature of Geller and Spencer's rhetoric for a few years, I doubt they will ever go down that path.

I expect them to continue with their martyr storyline. That's a powerful one, to be sure, but without the dream, the sad truth (I believe) is they will not be remembered as a Joan of Arc or even a Don Quixote. They will become footnotes as propagandists and nothing more.

I want to say to them, "Wake up! Sell the dream, too!"

Hmmmm...

That might make a good story...

Michael

Your analysis is correct here. As they stand Geller and Spencer are pure propagandists, very skilled ones. Their agenda is to provoke fear, hatred and bigotry. The UK is sensible to ban them they have enough homegrown propagandists and bigots to deal with.

[caroljane]

I am tickled by Pam and Bob's description of themselves as human rights activists, considering their verym, very narrow definition of human, and their even narrower one of rights.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

I don't think they are bad people, nor am I sure they are true bigots--at least not in the molds of the racists I grew up around, nor do I believe they would actually support something like exterminating their enemy in genocidal terms.

I think they made a strategic mistake on leaving out the "dream" storytelling in bashing what they perceive to be evil and their message suffered as a result. This omission makes it easy for people to see bigoted hatred in between the lines.

They certainly gained a reputation for bigotry.

To use Glenn Beck as a contrast once again, he once came right out and said Obama doesn't like whites, with all due howling and gnashing of teeth in protest from just about everywhere, and his enemies still can't make a bigotry image stick to him.

The reason is he just doesn't bash his enemies. He has a dream, one that includes all humans, and he tells stories about it.

Geller and Spencer don't do that.

Michael

[caroljane]

Carol,

I don't think they are bad people, nor am I sure they are true bigots--at least not in the molds of the racists I grew up around, nor do I believe they would actually support something like exterminating their enemy in genocidal terms.

I think they made a strategic mistake on leaving out the "dream" storytelling in bashing what they perceive to be evil and their message suffered as a result. This omission makes it easy for people to see bigoted hatred in between the lines.

They certainly gained a reputation for bigotry.

To use Glenn Beck as a contrast once again, he once came right out and said Obama doesn't like whites, with all due howling and gnashing of teeth in protest from just about everywhere, and his enemies still can't make a bigotry image stick to him.

The reason is he just doesn't bash his enemies. He has a dream, one that includes all humans, and he tells stories about it.

Geller and Spencer don't do that.

Michael

Sure, I am willing to believe they are fine folks, real caring human beings, beloved of all who know them. But there comes a point where you are what you do, and what you say.

They are careerists and have made their choice.

[Darrell Hougen]

Hi Michael,

I think you've brought up a good topic. I always try to tell the positive side of the story when I'm talking to people who don't already agree with the fundamentals.

What kinds of things do people respond to? Peace is a good example. So, I try to argue that if everyone would adopt a philosophy of reason, the world could live in peace. There is your utopia, such as is it is. The world will never be a perfect place, but if people would reject force, we could all co-exist in peace.

Darrell

[Selene]

Unfortunately, Michael Savage plays the martyr story also.

He was also banned by May.

A...

Tedious - Geller's getting "long in the tooth*"

*There is evidence of Latin variations of the phrase that date to the 1600s, though the earliest recognized example in English appeared in 1852, in a novel by William Makepeace Thackeray. That novel, The History of Henry Esmond, used the phrase “long in the tooth” to describe a woman who was also described as “of more than middle age, and had nobody's word but her own for the beauty which she said she once possessed.”

[Jules Troy]

Michael, you could approach them as a "here is how to sell your story properly AND win" outside contractor kind of guy. Just charge lots for the service.