Unwavering Support for Humpty Dumpty

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

             — from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll

Pace Humpty Dumpty, this essay will examine the phrase “unwavering support”, and who is to have the mastery of it.

Before venturing into those turbulent waters, however, a brief update on the Recent Unpleasantness is in order.

During the last few days I have been accused of many wrongdoings. Last night, within the space of three hours, I was publicly identified as a “garden variety anti-Semite” and also accused of “surrendering to the Eretz Zionists”.

So which is it to be? Hitler’s worthy heir? Or tool of the Jews?

I have just one thing to say to my masters in Tel Aviv: Hey, Binyamin: I need a raise!

</sarc>

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
The criticism most frequently leveled at me since the whole mess began is that I have been “needlessly divisive”, “caused a rift among allies”, “created unnecessary internecine conflict”, and similar malfeasances.

But is that really what I did?

If there is any “internecine conflict”, how did it begin?

Let’s go back to Pamela Geller’s original indictment of the English Defence League (which I have separated by sentence to make it more readable; the full text is included as an appendix to this post). As part of her condemnation, she said:

They [the EDL] now have clearly been infiltrated by the worst kind of influences, something that had successfully staved off for years, and they’re no longer staving it off.

[…]

Now that the person whom I most trusted in the EDL, Roberta Moore, has resigned, as she was increasingly uncomfortable with the neo-fascists that had infiltrated the administration of the group, I too am withdrawing my support from the EDL.

I hope that genuine anti-jihadists in Britain will also leave the EDL and work with Roberta on starting a new group that will resist definitively and firmly all attempts to divert it from its mission of fighting against jihad and for human rights. [emphasis added]

Now, this is a blatant call for division within a particular Counterjihad group, the EDL. Ms. Geller stated her opinion quite clearly: “I hope that genuine anti-jihadists in Britain will also leave the EDL.”

In effect, she called for the EDL to be divided into factions, one of which would be headed by a dissatisfied former member who had left or been forced out of the organization, and for whom Ms. Geller declared her complete support. Atlas Shrugs is a widely-read and influential blog, so her declaration of support — for what had previously been a tiny faction in a intramural conflict — had an enormous effect, leveraging a minor spat into major trouble.

So who’s being “divisive” here? What caused the latest “internecine conflict”?

You decide.

Pamela Geller responded to our open letter by declaring that

My support for the EDL has been unwavering…

And this is where Humpty Dumpty makes a cameo appearance.

Do Ms. Geller’s previous words — “I too am withdrawing my support from the EDL” — mean exactly what she chooses them to mean, neither more nor less?

Or has she forgotten that she said them?

Or does she simply not understand self-contradiction?

The fact of the matter is that her support for the EDL did waver. To be more precise, it evaporated as soon as a single person having her own agenda put forward the completely unsubstantiated charge that “neo-fascists” had infiltrated the group at the leadership level. Ms. Geller then published this charge — which, in these PC times, is the most deadly accusation that can be leveled against an organization — without doing her own investigation, without undertaking due diligence, and without supplying a dram of evidence.

Once again: Who is causing a “rift among allies”?

Lawrence Auster has written an excellent analysis of these events. He first notes Ms. Geller’s words:

In contrast, I spoke to Tommy Robinson at length; he issued his statement to SIOA. Considering his statement, I am not withdrawing my support for the EDL, [emphasis added] but I continue to be deeply concerned and will be watching how events unfold.

Mr. Auster then observes:

…but she did, most emphatically, withdraw her support from the EDL. See her statement above. Now, with her misleading phrase, “I am not withdrawing my support for the EDL,” she’s acting as though her withdrawal of support and total denunciation of the organization and her call for people to create a different organization that will replace the EDL never happened, but was, at most, merely a possibility she had raised, rather than a done deal.

[…]

To sum up: Geller, backed by Spencer, has stonewalled the entirely correct and reasonable demand by the signers of the open letter that she apologize for and withdraw her document denouncing the EDL. Geller and Spencer have also engaged in character assassination of the signers. At the same time, Geller has, very adroitly, claimed that because Robinson has admitted the guilty facts which she herself failed to provide (not true), and because Robinson has stated his determination to keep fighting against the anti-Semitic elements in his organization (true), she is not, as she previously had stated she had done, withdrawing her support from the organization. By saying this, she has in effect withdrawn her denunciation of the EDL, as the signers of the open letter demanded that she do, but she has done so without admitting that she is acceding to their demand.

Precisely.

In addition, there’s no way that a reasonable observer could conclude that Tommy Robinson’s statement “admits that there is a problem” in the EDL of the type alleged by Ms. Geller. Mr. Robinson admitted nothing of the sort, given that she referred to “neo-fascists that had infiltrated the administration of the group” — that is, that neo-fascists were part of the EDL’s leadership.

• That is false.
  
• That is why our open letter was first composed.
  
• That is why an apology and a retraction were requested.

I’ll go out on a limb once again: Ms. Geller, if there is a “neo-fascist” in the leadership of the EDL, publish clear, unambiguous, factual evidence supporting your accusation.

If you do this, I will apologize and retract my previous criticisms on these matters. I will publish my apology and retraction in this space.

If you cannot produce this evidence, then I repeat what the signatories requested last Thursday in the open letter: Apologize for your calumnious words, and retract them.

The EDL deserve nothing less.

Afterword

It is distressing to see the vilification, name-calling, and general nastiness that have accompanied the events described above.

Ultimately, however, none of that matters. It’s not really important whether you like me or hate me. My intentions and motivations are irrelevant. This is about facts — or their absence.

Those readers who are interested in uncovering the truth of the matter should look at the evidence presented here, follow the links, check out the sources, and then make up your own minds. Either the EDL has been unjustly accused by Ms. Geller and Mr. Spencer, or it hasn’t.

I have been made aware that Robert Spencer has been sending out emails to various prominent writers, bloggers, and activists, soliciting public support for a statement against our open letter and those who signed it. It may even have been published already; I haven’t done any reading yet today.

For the record: I sent out no emails soliciting support for our open letter. Those who signed it were either part of the group that originally composed it, or they read the letter later and asked to be included.

When Ms. Geller’s post first appeared, a real-time meeting was convened. Those who participated are concerned about the Islamization of Europe. They were deeply alarmed by Ms. Geller’s gratuitous attack on the EDL, which is leading the grassroots European resistance to Islam. Most of the collaborators were Europeans, but Americans, Canadians, and Australians were also involved. The open letter was composed collectively, and then published simultaneously at various sites.

The current unpleasantness bears a close resemblance to the LGF Wars back in 2007 and 2008. For that reason, I don’t expect to get much support from prominent American writers and bloggers. If you look at the list of signers, you’ll notice that with the exception of Diana West — who, God bless her, is always willing to stick her head up over the parapet when the cause is just — no widely-known writer from the American MSM has signed on.

This is to be expected. Just as with Charles Johnson, well-known writers are unwilling to stand up to powerful people who have shown themselves to be relentless when publicly disagreed with. Prominent bloggers have seen what happens to people who have differences of opinion with Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

I can’t say that I blame them. If this were a large and important blog, I would probably have to make the same decision myself.

The upshot of all this is that only the “little people” are willing to stand up for the truth about the EDL and push back against the unfounded accusations that have been thrown at it.

Most of us who signed the letter are free to do so because we have nothing left to lose. We have no funding that can be cut off, and no major advertisers who can withdraw their custom. We don’t have book contracts that can be cancelled. We are never invited to be talking heads on TV news programs, and have no columns on major right-wing opinion sites from which we can be ousted. No doubt all of us have long since been excommunicated from any linkage at Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs, not to mention all the sites with which they have influence.

No, this group is made up of the little guys. We’re what I call the “Army of Midgets”. We’re runty, but feisty. And there are a lot more of us than the thirty or so who have so far signed the open letter.

Whether or not our efforts are successful, our integrity demands that we give voice to the truth.

Appendix: The original condemnatory post about the EDL, separated into sentences for clarity, and with notable phrases emphasized.

I was an early supporter of the EDL.

I liked who they were and what they were doing.

When the EDL first came on the scene, I noted their strong support of Israel: Israeli flags at their rallies, and forthright expressions of solidarity with the Jewish State in its resistance to the same relentless jihad that is advancing in Britain.

Almost immediately there came the inevitable charge from the jihad-loving Left that the group was “neo-Nazi,” “neofascist,” “white supremacist,” and more.

So I started investigating.

I found that they rejected the British National Party’s racial orientation, and that they had members who were Sikhs, Pakistanis, gays and other minorities, and even, eventually, a Jewish division.

The idea of pro-Israel neo-Nazis is a myth of the Left, and so the presence of the Jewish division was decisive.

I was troubled by the photos of EDL members giving the Nazi salute, but discovered that the EDL was aware of neo-Nazi attempts at infiltration, and had a policy of expelling anyone who expressed any kind of antisemitic or neofascist sentiments.

They even refused to allow people to be members of both the EDL and the BNP.

So it seemed to me at the time that the EDL was a genuine anti-jihad group, strongly pro-Israel as every legitimate anti-jihad group must be, since Israel is at the front lines of the global jihad, and resolutely rejecting racism and any form of actual neofascism.

However, it has become increasingly clear that the EDL has morphed and diverged from its original course.

They now have clearly been infiltrated by the worst kind of influences, something that had successfully staved off for years, and they’re no longer staving it off.

Roberta Moore, the leader of the Jewish Division, has broken with the EDL.

Perhaps the decentralization of the group or the loose grip Tommy Robinson held on its tether is responsible for this terrible shift in the EDL’s direction -- I don’t know.

But whatever the case may be, the EDL has done a Charles Johnson.

And they are now unrecognizable to me.

I am sure regular Atlas readers have noticed that some time ago I stopped covering their events -- I was waiting to see how things would shake out.

I was waiting to see if the forces of good would recapture the heart and soul of the group.

Alas, it was not to be.

Now that the person whom I most trusted in the EDL, Roberta Moore, has resigned, as she was increasingly uncomfortable with the neo-fascists that had infiltrated the administration of the group, I too am withdrawing my support from the EDL.

I hope that genuine anti-jihadists in Britain will also leave the EDL and work with Roberta on starting a new group that will resist definitively and firmly all attempts to divert it from its mission of fighting against jihad and for human rights.