Really? Seriously? You’re concerned that there are all these “liberal/ left wing commentators” saying… What exactly? That Christians are a dangerous threat to humanity and civilization that must be destroyed at all costs? Where exactly are you reading these things, because I haven’t seen anything even remotely like this.

BTW, I don’t know about Spencer, but Geller and Horowitz are Jewish, I believe. I, however, am a Christian and decidedly left-wing, and I can tell you categorically that the problem with Spencer, Geller, Horowitz, Breivik, and Bin Laden is not their religion, but their ideological fanaticism that causes them to distort reality and dehumanize others.

It’s the dehumanization and fanaticism that is being criticized. No one is suggesting that they are subhuman or should be destroyed. Quite the opposite, in fact. We’re saying that because they are human and adults they should start acting like it.

Justin-I’ve followed the Charles Johnson saga fairly closely also and while he may bare some blame for letting the evil genie out of the bottle, I think he has made an honest attempt in the last couple of years to express remorse for his role therein.

And also, if you have difficulty following the moral thrust of this article, well, it’s that Muslim-baiting bloggers are brave when people who cite them are not killing people, but when it is brought to their attention that their work is cited as an inspiration for a mass-murderer, they claim like Inspector Renault in “Casablanca” that they are shocked, shocked, that gambling might go in a casino.

Spencer, Pipes, Geller, and Yerushalmi are Islamophobic propagandists who characterize all Muslims with a broad brush, as a universal threat to all freedom everywhere. Their ideology is base, simple-minded hatred.

Those who spout hate on their websites, blogs, talk shows, etc., like to pretend they have no culpability. Suddenly, they “forget” the reason they use public forums to share their dogma is to INFLUENCE others’ opinions. The problem is when the seeds of thought they plant take root in a troubled mind. The farmer has to take some responsibility for his crop.

If memory serves Kaczinsky, the Liberal Socialist Darling of the Green Movement and ecological role model for VP Al Gore is a troubling connection. Oh yes Ted K “Unabomber” did kill several people to further green political Marxist agenda.

Ahhh – the inconvenient truth of Unabomber Ted K – mucking up the waters for the SPLC to take a full wack at Geller, Spencer, Pipes, etc…

It makes me feel dirty how the SPLC is using the dead corpses this psychopath murdered to further their political point of view.

Some wacko can be inspired by anything he or she reads, sees or hears, and the source of the inspiration
is at fault? Was the movie Taxi Driver responsible for Reagan being shot? It inspired Hinckley.

It’s not rocket science. It can be summed up in the pithy phrase, “If the shoe fits, wear it.” Or, “If it looks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, and it walks like a duck…It’s a duck!” Or, if you prefer the sexist rendition, “Man up!” Racist, hateful vitriol, of the kind spouted by Geller et al inspired Breivik. They should own up to it, not try to deflect the blame elsewhere.

The only one being political here is you. You seem bent on trying to blame critics of Breivik and his islamophobic brethren for something, anything, rather than admit that when you train people to hate and dehumanize another group – liberals, Muslims, feminists, gays, whatever – it’s very likely that you end up with situations like the one in Norway.

did you not read the article? The evidence is in his manifesto, where she, or her organization, is mentioned many times.

Breivik and Geller did not need to have direct contact in order for Breivik to have been an ardent admirer, and to have been highly influenced by her ideas.

Where is all this evidence of contact between the two? Where are the links to all of the posts Breivik left on Geller’s website? How much contact did Geller and the mass murderer have?

charles was indeed “initially” part of the anti-muslim chorus, but initially should not taken to mean “breifly” and his “part” in it was kingpin. his website, littlegreenfootballs, was the hub of the “counter-jihadist” movement. pamela geller herself was a protege johnson plucked from his own commenting community. this was also the case of fjordman, who initially began as “norwegian kafir” at littlegreenfootballs. when he changed his name to “fjordman” and opened his own blog, johnson featured fjordman’s essays as headline items more than two dozen times on his blog, giving fjordman de facto “guest-blogger”credit by prefixing his authorship to the headlines. these posts (i.e.; “Fjordman – Scandinavian Rape Epidemic”) were not less racist or extreme than what fjordman writes contemporaneously, and johnson’s own lead-ins to these pieces, as it was with his own rhetoric, often surpassed fjordman’s and geller’s with luridly racist vitriol (i.e.; “If you’re a Western material girl thinking of marrying that exotic Muslim guy who’s been treating you like a princess, you may want to read the fine print.”).

with that in mind, there is some confusion as to whom breivik does and does not apparently admire in his manifesto, as the bulk of it’s 1500 pages is comprised of reproductions of others’ works. breivik mentions geller in his own pen only once. he also mentions chalres johnson only once in a neutral citation. at no point does breivik “attack” or “condemn” charles johnson. these passages, as well as all of the rest of the citations, are second-hand from essays written by fjordman. in this collection, one can easily find breivik quoting fjordman praising johnson, and even breivik quoting fjordman quoting johnson’s own hate-speech directly and admiringly.

by this method, johnson and his website are supportively referenced in the breivik manifesto more than twenty times, more than geller in fact. the bulk of these are because when breivik reproduced a fjordman essay, he referenced the essay as hosted by johnson, because johnson’s site is apparently where breivik read them. this should surprise no one. breivik, geller, flordman, spencer (who’s blog, “jihad watch” was coded pro-bono by johnson himself) are the crowd which johnson cultivated.

it’s sickening to see johnson is being allowed to exculpate himself with a couple of convenient denunciations. johnson has never chosen to have an “i was a racist, and now i regret it” moment. only a sustained “those people over there are racists and i’m going to make them regret it” moment with his finger pointed at the figures of a movement he created from the ground up and has only recently parted company with.

absolution comes after reconciliation.

Yes. Because on the internet, nobody could make posts using the same alias as somebody else. Or even share an alias or account with anyone.

what you’re saying is that the people mentioned in breivik’s manifesto bear additional shame because they’ve condemned breivik and sought to distance themselves from him?

it would almost appear that the cold-blooded massacre of more than seventy people is just a tertiary instrument in a political narrative.

There’s enough culpability and affinity in ideology that nobody needs to embellish the truth. Fjordman has been posting the whole time Breivik’s been in jail. I don’t doubt that they know each other however.

We all tend to forget this bitter truth about hate speech — sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can really kill you.