, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Anyone involved with the CounterJihad movement will be familiar with the Website ‘Loonwatch’. As its name would imply, the site is intended to be a satirical antidote to Jihadwatch (and other similar websites).

Normally, the articles posted on Loonwatch are of scant interest (most simply recycle the garbage idea that Islamophobes are somehow guilty of racism), but this past week, a more analytical piece was uploaded that demands greater attention. The piece is titled ‘Crumbling “Counterjihad”? EDL, SION, SIOA and the Transatlantic Kerfuffle’, and its main contention is that the ‘Islamophobic’ movement is falling apart.

The author of the post – ‘Garibaldi’ – writes that “The reasons for the inherent instability in the “counter-Jihad” reflects the fissures in ideological make up between the various personalities, as well as incongruities between their inflated egos.” (Note: ‘Reflects’ in this sentence should be singular)

Garibaldi then cites a history of ‘internecine civil wars amongst the counter-Jihad’ including the following perceived confrontations..  “Debbie Schlussel vs. Brigitte Gabriel, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Zuhdi Jasser, Walid Shoebat, etc… (Robert) Spencer vs. Andrew Bostom. Roberta Moore of the JDL vs. the EDL and now the latest kerfuffle: Geller and Spencer vs. Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll.”

While many of the schisms mentioned were (and in some cases still are) real, they are nothing more than symptomatic of a vibrant, democratically-spirited movement with a tolerance for dissent. Indeed, this might contrast sharply with the almost cult-like uniformity typical of Leftist movements.

Debbie Schlussel, to take one example, is a proudly independent cultural critic. The same is true of Pamela Geller. The fact that they sometimes disagree seems hardly worthy of comment. Both espouse the same kind of opinion, face down the same bullies and name-throwers, and expose themselves to the same risks.

Ms Geller’s accusations against Tommy Robinson similarly have been taken out of context here. Both Geller and Robinson remain essentially in agreement over the need to tackle radical Islam, and even if they don’t see eye-to-eye on each other’s methodology, both are one and the same from an Islamist point-of-view.

As for the talk of clashing ‘egos’, this is pretty rich coming from a Left-wing source.  The Anglo-American Left contains such icons of humility as Michael Moore, Laurie Penny and Barack Obama, and unlike those on the right, Left-leaning parties are dominated by University-educated Toffs (try standing for the Democratic Party without a degree).

Garibaldi goes on to offer this catch-all assessment of the CounterJihad tendency:

“All that binds them is Islamomisia and Islamophobia. On the surface their ideological backgrounds provide a motive: a belief in the need to preserve Christianity in the face of post-Modernity and a rise in Secular Humanism, a belief that it is good for Israel and Zionism, a desire to keep White Europe pure, the nostalgic belief that they are the vanguard “defenders of freedom” who will not only save the “West” from a resurgent Islam but harken in a golden age and if not–Armageddon.”

This is a very bizarre attempt to transform virtue into sin. That the CounterJihad tendency attracts a plurality of people from different backgrounds is presented as a flaw. “All that binds them…” is the very subject under consideration. Why wouldn’t it be? 

Regarding the perceived motive of keeping ‘White Europe pure’, this is a pretty hackneyed accusation. If it applies at all, it is only to the wildest Nick Griffin-ite fringe. While such people certainly exist, to tar Pamela Geller with the same brush as the BNP is absurd.

The future of the CounterJihad movement is not something that can be safely predicted in detail, but it would take a very uninformed mind to reason that it doesn’t have one. The Jihadist threat is mounting across Europe, and the cause of resistance will grow alongside it.