Pamela Geller along with fellow campaigner Robert Spencer were banned by Theresa May from Britain. They were banned because they are opposed to Muslim Violence. This is the road to pólice dictatorship where the British state uses Muslim violence to attack our basic democratic rights.

Today the Stalinists and the Fascist Leftists have got things so wrong again. The “Leftists who are not Marxists” have been at the forefront of the British and French bourgeois states in encouraging Muslim immigration.

The result of this immigration of Muslims is to create very dangerous situations for the native populations and including the working class.

The Muslims coming in to countries like France, Britain and America had no intention of integration. It is written down in the Koran and in the Hadiths based on the Koran that the aim of Muslims was/is to conquer the world for Islam.

That is the basis for the non-integration. The Koran and Hadiths are political documents even though religious structures are built upon these political documents. The simple peasant type of person will create their own simple religious philosophy in so far as they are able even within those horrific confines.

Karl Marx was more clear minded on this than these Leftists. Marx said about Islam that islam divided the whole world between believers of Islam and non-believers.

In other words this harsh and cruel división led straight into the Fascism of our modern epoch.

The Leftists who are not Marxists support and supported the British and French capitalist states in introducing Muslim immigration into those countries. Then they yell racist against anybody who points out the real nature of Islam.


As Trotskyists we will return to this banning time and time again. There is also the arrest of Paul Weston for quoting Winston Churchill on Islam. And the whole campaigns of vilification against the EDL. These are important events.

Their banning points the way that the British and French states move towards military/police dictatorships inthose countries. (The Spanish case is similar and different at the same time. The Spanish never actually broke from Francoism)

There is a real danger of police/military dictatorship in all European countries and America is following an identical path in many respects.

Dictatorship comes this time from the deliberate encouragement of immigration especially of Muslim immigration, allied to the promotion by the state machine in all of these European countries plus America of Muslim violence on a wide scale.

There is also the strong factor of Antisemitism which is encouraged by these Muslims, and by the actions of what we will call those “Leftists who are not marxists or Trotskyists”

This Muslim violence allows the state in the form of deep and committed capitalist representatives like Theresa May to make huge inroads on basic democratic rights under cover of fighting what they call “extremism”.

The road to dictatorship is thus marked by the banning of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

Muslim violemce…the Jihad! And on the very streets of Britain where the British soldier was beheaded.

Robert and Pamela were banned as they prepared to speak in Britain ont he issue of the beheading of the British soldier.

Did and does Pamela Geller support beheading, or does she support violence of any kind? Absolutely and totally not! The opposite. She highlights and opposes such Muslim violence.

In that regard Pamela is acting on the basis of the warning against Islam given by Karl Marx all those years ago. The banning of Geller and of Spencer are the steps of the British state towards dictatorship. The British state used the Muslim beheading of the British soldier to ban Geller and Spencer from entering Britain.




Islam and Sex Slavery

Robert Spencer

June 2, 2014

One thing we know about Boko Haram, the Nigerian terrorist group that has appalled the world by abducting and enslaving 300 schoolgirls, is that what it has done is completely contrary to the tenets of Islam.

Or at least that’s what everyone is saying.

“The Nigerian terrorist group that kidnapped hundreds of schoolgirls has nothing to do with Islam, and it’s grotesquely irresponsible of the media to suggest it does.” So wrote Muslim comedian Dean Obeidallah in the Daily Beast. Ahmadi Muslim spokesman Qasim Rashid wrote at that “Boko Haram’s claim that Islam motivates their kidnappings is no different than Adolf Hitler’s claim that Christianity motivated his genocide. This terrorist organization acts in direct violation of every Islamic teaching regarding women.” The nation’s two Muslim Congressmen, Keith Ellison (D-MN) and André Carson (D-IN), wrote, along with a host of U.S. Muslim leaders, a scolding open letter to Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau, telling him: “Your actions have shocked Muslims across the world and have disrespected Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him).”

The only problem with these and all other Islamic disavowals and condemnations of Boko Haram’s actions is that none of them have addressed the Islamic justifications for them. For Boko Haram itself has expressly and avowedly said that its actions are based on Islamic teaching.

Shekau said in a video in February that his group was “fighting Christians wherever we meet them,” following the Qur’an’s command to wage war against “the People of the Book” (its term for Jews, Christians, and some others) “until they pay the jiza [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

And as for the abduction of the schoolgirls, the Qur’an tells Muslims to take captives when they meet unbelievers (90 percent of the girls are Christian) in battle: “Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens” (47:4). It also refers to slave women belonging to the Islamic prophet Muhammad as spoils of war: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50).   What can be done with such captives? Islamic law has elaborated from these passages four options:

As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first, to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, ‘When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [Islam] then strike [their] necks’ (Qur’an sura 47, verse 4) (Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance).  

The first of these options, putting captives to death, is such a live possibility that it is stymieing a rescue operation. As for exchanging them, Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau offered to exchange the girls who have refused to convert to Islam in return for Boko Haram prisoners held by the Nigerian government. As for the third option, enslavement, Shekau has gloated in a video: “I abducted your girls. I will sell them on the market, by Allah…There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell.” That is in line with the option of enslaving captives. The girls may be sold—if they haven’t been already—and then forcibly married to their new owners, all in accord with the Qur’an’s direction on the sexual enslavement of those taken as spoils of war:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial (Qur’an 4:3).

The twentieth-century Qur’an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains that such “enslavement is the penalty of disbelief,” and expresses a longing for the good old days:

The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that meant Muslims would take slaves. In a subsequent interview he elaborated:

Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars—there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Koran 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point—there is no disagreement from any of them. […] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.

A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth. I brought up [this man’s] situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?”

The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”

“Is this forbidden by Islam?” I asked.

“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not—she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”

The savage exploitation of girls and young women is, unfortunately, a cross-cultural phenomenon, but only in Islamic law does it carry divine sanction. Muslim leaders and media commentators who denounce Boko Haram without addressing its justifications for its actions are actually doing a grave disservice, for they are lulling non-Muslims into complacency without saying anything that might make Boko Haram (or other Muslims who believe the same way) change their views.

The abduction of the Nigerian schoolgirls could have and should have been an opportunity to call upon Muslim leaders to work for genuine reform, so that the justifications for this savagery are removed. Instead, they altogether ignore the points of Islamic doctrine that need reform.

And that only ensures that there will be more such incidents.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of ten books, including two New York Times bestsellers, The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (both

Truly a dangerous individual is this “Joe McCarthy in a skirt” Pamela Geller

Pamela Geller is a servant of US Imperialism and so she is at present totally silent on the Ukrainian issue. This means she supports Fascists. Silence here equals support. She also projects herself as an opponent of Islamic Jihad and in certain ways she is. But how can those two things go together, that is a servant of US Imperialism, and also against Islamic Jihad, remembering that Islamic Jihad is promoted by all branches of US and EU Imperialism? This is a big question for Jews who also face the Jihad of the “Palestinians”. This needs to be discussed.

The following will help us to see through this “conundrum:

Pamela Geller has opened up a big campaign against the NY Mayor Bill de Blasio. Geller calls him a “Communist”. Is that true or false? Can Geller be serious here?

Bill de Blasio from what I can learn is part of that Stalinist cum pro Islam and Antisemitic “Left”, by this I mean what is called the “Left”

The question that Geller must be forced to address is if de Blasio is Stalinist how is he Communist.

In other words is Stalinism the same as Communism?

Or is Trotskyism the same as Stalinism?

Or is what Lenin fought for the same as what Lenin and the Bolsheviks fought for.

Those are actually very basic questions and they are also questions which ARE answerable. It involves a Project in political life which is doable.

Geller and Spencer are “tricky” and an example of this is the way they use the “Sandanistas” to attack de Blasio, but there are a couple of issues here which they do not raise never mind answer. The first issue was the role of Reagan and of US Imperialism in Central America against the South American people. It is very telling that Geller and Spencer are hiding this. The second issue that these “tricky duo” do not raise is were the Sandanistas Communists or Stalinists, and if the Sandanistas were allied with the East German Stalinists does that not mean that the Sandanista Leadership was in essence a Stalinist leadership? Whatever the answer it is very clear that in Spencer and in Geller we are dealing with subterfuge which is indeed dangerous for us all, and also for Jews. As I said, “tricky”!

There are two main problems, Geller and 4international

1. Problem of Geller is that she labels people like Bill de Blasio as being a Communist. Geller thus is a big confuser of issues. She may sound good to some people but that is based on ignorance and offers no education. Geller and Spencer confuse, do not enlighten!

2. Problem of Geller for 4international is that she confuses and muddies, but in order to tackle this the 4international needs to engage in a “Project”. By this I mean that this understanding of what Geller is at, which is deliberately confusing Stalinism with Trotskyism, has to be struggled for. I am very sad to say thaat this kind of knowledge does not grow on tres and all that a Young person today has to do is reach up and grab a fruit (of knowledge). No sadly no!

Geller engages in anti-Jihad activity. But so do we on 4international. Islam is a Nazi ideology as expressed in the Muftí and Hitler coming together in the Holocaust against the Jews.

But Geller is also in that Hitler camp, because she is an anti-communist, like Diana West, another “Joe McCarthy in skirts”.

Her McCarthyism is leading her to support Fascists against Russia in a new World War.

Truly a dangerous individual is this “Joe McCarthy in a skirt” Pamela Geller

Dangerous especially to the Jews


Jews must break decisively from the Bourgeois and Imperialist Jewish leaders on the issue of Ukraine.
The now notorious Ted Belman who heads Israpundit carried articles from the total US Imperialist Palin on Ukraine.
Then it must be remembered that Belman carries the work on his site of Fascists who call for the murder of communists and especially Trotskyists.
Jews must break decisively from this.

The position of Jews on Ukraine must be the same as the Irish or any other free nation.
1. The coup was organised against the truly elected Government
2. This coup was directed and planned by Washington and the EU with NATO waiting in the wings
3. The first step therefore that Belman does not do is to defend the integrity of Ukraine from this coup
4. The next step to take is to defend the right of Russia to defend itself from this coup in Ukraine because a NATO controlled Ukraine is a direct threat to Russia
5. No more than the Jews facing genocide in 1967 the Russian Government cannot wait, sit back and do nothing.
6. The Russian Government really has no alternative but to go in with its Red Army and take control of the whole of Ukraine, depose the Fascists and return the true and former government to power. Otherwise the world is the “Wild West” where anything goes.
7. The EU cannot solve a single one of the needs of ordinary people today. Mass poverty and unemployment in Portugal, Greece, Spain, Ireland. As Bat Yeor points out growing Islamisation of Europe. Border defences as in Melilla Spain broken down totally. Youth unemployment up to 80 per cent.
8. While we defend Putin he has no answers to this crisis. It is necessary to go back to the socialist revolution of Lenin and Trotsky. The workers, youth and students must take the power from the capitalists, and use science and wealth to create an answer. This means going back to the traditions of Leon Trotsky and affirm that Trotskyism is the answer. Join us. Do not hold back.
9. The defence of Israel becomes very important. Jews who feel under any threat in Ukraine must be enabled by the workers and youth of Ukraine to get to Israel immediately. The defence of Israel against “Palestinian” Fascism thus has to be part of their struggle too.


Why is Ted Belman of Israpundit not totally in support of all of those who are opposed to the Fascist, Obama directed, coup in Ukraine?

Still not a cheep out of Pamela Geller. Brave Pamela Geller NOT!

No cheep either out of Robert Spencer!


These types above are ANTI COMMUNIST AND PRO iMPERIALIST TO THE VERY CORE. True they oppose Islam and oppose the Jihad. So do we on 4international without compromise and our considered view is Islam is pure evil.

Belman has crawled out of the undergrowth and at last said something on Ukraine, but part of what he says is to line up behind the worst sections of US Imperialism in war against the oppressed people of Ukraine and IN FAVOUR of the Fascist Coup engineered by Obama.

The world advances rapidly towards world war, and nuclear war.

It must be shouted out from every peak in every mountain range of the world that this was a Fascist coup AGAINST AN ELECTED GOVERNMENT. Everything follows from that.
The scoundrel Belman, and the scoundrels Geller and Spencer, have not addressed that, as if some day we would wake up and overlook that.

I ask most sincerely of all Jews..Can Jews be led by these kinds of scoundrels as are Belman, Geller and Spencer.


Formal portrait of white-haired man wearing dark business suit, with American flag in background

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch are running pieces that show John McCain in support of Al Qaida against the Assad Government

Their material always contain valuable information of how close that the American State Department is to Al Qaida.

You have to add to this the Cameron Government and the Labour Party Opposition as well.


But this is what I cannot understand about the position of Spencer and Geller. I do not see them supporting Assad. If there is a war by Al Qaida and US Intelligence to defeat Assad and replace Assad with a Fascist Sharia Theocracy then why are these bloggers Geller and Spencer not coming out boldly to defend Assad? That baffles me.


John McCain is featured as attacking Christians in Syria. He stormed into a meeting, jeered and roared at them, left the meeting, came back again and stood there not looking at them in the face. This man is mad but this madness extends to US President and also in a certain way to Geller and Spencer for sitting on the fence. Got it! You see sitting on the fence is actively helping US Intelligence.

I think I have called Spencer and Geller correctly on this. YOU CANNOT EVER SIT ON THE FENCE.

McCain is right there, at the top of the very US State apparatus. There is this info from Geller about his advisor.

“The veteran lawmaker is enamored with a controversial young “Syria
expert,” Elizabeth O’Bagy,

…who has managed to convince him as well as the
president and secretary of state that Syrian rebels are mostly moderate and not

…While persuading the U.S. of this, O’Bagy concealed that she was a
political director for the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF), a group that
advocates for Syria’s rebels from Washington D.C. Before getting exposed by
conservative media outlets, O’Bagy claimed to be an objective analyst at a
Washington D.C. think-tank that studies military affairs when in fact she had a
“reputation as the leading expert on the armed opposition in the Syrian
revolution,” according to SETF. 

is a talented researcher, and I have been very impressed by her knowledge and
analysis in multiple briefings over the last year,” McCain said in a statement
to the political news publication that broke the story in late September.

…Besides the fact that a Syrian Islamist group is essentially steering U.S.
policy, a number of domestic and international media outlets have confirmed
that terrorists—mainly Al Qaeda—are running opposition forces in Syria. For
instance the New York Times published a piece that reveals Islamist
rebels—including the most extreme groups in the notorious Al Nusra Front, an Al
Qaeda-aligned force—are running the show in Syria. “The Islamist character of
the opposition reflects the main constituency of the rebellion,” the story
says. “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to
speak of.”



We are living ina  world awash with lies. The question is for us how to see the truth. How can ordinary people see the truth of what is happening. The first step is to be independent  and in order to be independent you have to have an organization, that is to fight socially, not fight as an individual. this article will also feature on


WE ON 4INTERNATIONAL DEFEND RUSSIA AND PUTIN AGAINST THE JIHAD stands in defence of the Russian people as it faces the Jihad, that is the same Jihad which hit New York, London, Madrid, Nigeria and so many other places.


But it’s islamophobia — that’s the real problem.

Screen Shot 2013-12-30 at 3.08.18 AM

Screen Shot 2013-12-30 at 2.56.24 AM

2nd deadly blast hits Russian city of Volgograd ahead of 2014 Sochi Olympics,” By CNN, December 30, 2013

These Muslims are cowards and it takes no courage at all to murder innocent people as the are doing.

The Jihad is raging and it is also raging against Jews in Israel.

What a shameful thing it was then for Caroline Glick in Israel to write just days ago a spiteful article against Putin. Glick has shown herself up most seriously.

On the other hand Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer show themselves to be the most principled.


Defend Putin against these attacks! defend Russia against the Jihad!



Video footage from the scene Monday showed the twisted shell of the blue trolleybus, with debris spread around it. The impact of the blast blew out the roof of the bus, as well as windows of several nearby houses. At least 15 people were reported to be wounded.

Based on the footage, the blast appeared to have occurred in the back half of the bus. It was most likely caused by an explosive left inside the vehicle, Russia’s National Anti-Terrorism Committee told RIA Novosti.

Investigators said the train station blast Sunday appeared to have been caused by a suicide bomber, who may have been female.

Markin told Ria Novosti that DNA testing will be carried out on the remains of the bomber, who used the equivalent of 10 kilograms of TNT in a device containing shrapnel. Investigators say they also found an unexploded grenade at the scene.

Video taken from an outside security camera shows a huge fireball inside what appears to be the main entrance of the three-story stone building followed by a steady trail of smoke coming out shattered windows.

The approaching Olympics

The deadly explosions come ahead of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, which is situated less than 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) southwest of Volgograd. The Games will take place between February 7 and 24.

Once called Stalingrad, Volgograd is a major rail hub in the region, and each day thousands of passengers pass through the station, many on their way to Moscow.





Friday, February 22, 2013

AFDI #Myjihad Ads go up on Chicago Buses!

Finally, after months of wrangling and First Amendment violations, our AFDI jihad campaign hits the streets of Chicago to counter the deceptive and misleading Hamas-CAIR #myjihad propaganda


Marx was clear as to the potential Fascist nature of Islam even in his day. We Marxists recognise Fascism as a modern phenomenon, tied in with the capitalist system in severe crisis, antisemitism may be present but present always is to atomise the workers and to block all opposition.

What Geller is doing is fighting for free speech. She is NOT against Muslims and not against Muslims simply worshipping. But she is explaining the nature of Islam.

What could be wrong with that!

We as revolutionary socialists defend Pamela Geller unconditionally in this campaign to open up the dusty and very bloody pages of Islam for us to peruse.





Has the whole world gone mad? Why is this even a question? Let’s say you call me a racist, bigoted Islamophobe. I am deeply insulted. At that moment I have a huge range of options before me. I can calmly explain to you that Islamic supremacism is not a race, fighting for free speech and equality of rights for all is not bigotry, and “Islamophobia” is a manipulative concept used by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies to stifle resistance to Islamic supremacism and jihad. Or I can start yelling and calling you names. Or I can start muttering into my vodka tonic about the injustice of it all. Or I can murder you, drag your body through the streets, set fire to your embassy, and demand laws against insulting me. Or I can do any number of other things.

Which one will I choose? It’s up to me, not to you. You might have a strong hunch as to how I will react, and say to your companion, “That Spencer, he is going to come out with another windy, closely reasoned refutation of my charges that everyone will ignore,” or “That Spencer, he is going to burn down my embassy,” but you still can’t be absolutely sure what I am going to do, because I am not an automaton, I am a human being endowed with the faculty of reason, and I may always choose to react in a way that will surprise you.

Or I may not. But in any case, it is up to me. If I kill you, there is absolutely no justifiable basis on which anyone could say, “Well, he had it coming. Look how he provoked him.” My choice was my own, and only I bear responsibility for it.

But today that basic and elemental truth is lost. If Muslims rage, riot and murder for any reason, they bear no responsibility. The only ones who bear any responsibility for their raging, rioting and murdering are the non-Muslims who somehow provoked them.

That I have to take the time to explain this at all, and that it will be universally ignored, is an indication of how much our public discourse has degenerated. The road is being swiftly paved for the destruction of the freedom of speech. When, in another year or so, I am safely imprisoned for daring to speak the truth and a new era of peace has dawned between the West and the Islamic world, and yet the jihad keeps coming, and the full implications of the new “hate speech” laws start to become clear in the quashing of all political dissent, don’t say you weren’t warned.

Of course, maybe none of that will happen, and the freedom of speech will suddenly sport a thousand articulate defenders who have not yet been completely demonized and marginalized out of the public square. But I don’t see them on the horizon right now.




“‘I’m not the one going into the streets with stones and Kalashnikovs’: Charlie Hebdo editor rejects responsibility for violence over naked Mohammad cartoons,” by Nicholas Vinocur for Reuters, September 19 (thanks to Kenneth):

The editor of French magazine Charlie Hebdo has said that when his magazine ridiculed the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday by portraying him naked in cartoons, he and his organization were not responsible for fuelling the anger of Muslims around the world who are already incensed by a video depicting him as a lecherous fool.The editor, Stephane Charbonnier, also known as Charb, rejected criticism. “We have the impression that it’s officially allowed for Charlie Hebdo to attack the Catholic far-right but we cannot poke fun at fundamental Islamists,” he said.

“It shows the climate. Everyone is driven by fear, and that is exactly what this small handful of extremists who do not represent anyone want: to make everyone afraid, to shut us all in a cave,” he told Reuters.

“Muhammad isn’t sacred to me,” he said in an interview at the weekly’s offices on the northeast edge of Paris. “I don’t blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law; I don’t live under Koranic law.”

Charbonnier said he had no regrets and felt no responsibility for any violence.

“I’m not the one going into the streets with stones and Kalashnikovs,” he said. “We’ve had 1,000 issues and only three problems, all after front pages about radical Islam.”

One cartoon alluded to the scandal over a French magazine’s publication of topless photos of the wife of Britain’s Prince William. It showed a bare female torso topped by a beard with the caption “Riots in Arab countries after photos of Mrs Mohammad are published”….

“We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our constitution,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

“In other words, we don’t question the right of something like this to be published, we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it.”…


That’s the first step.


Essentially the issue in Norway is about a cold blooded murderer called Breivik who planted a huge bomb in Oslo (individual terrorism to which Marxists and Trotskyists have always been opposed, whether done by the Provisional IRA or Breivik it is all the same to us…we oppose this under each and every condition without any exception). Using the same murderous method Breivik continued his murder spree by mowing down children and youth attending a labourist youth gathering on an island. All Marxists and Trotskyists historically opposed this sort of thing and we do today, totally and completely.


There is also the situation in the world today of severe economic crisis in capitalism, causing deep political crisis


Looking at this general world economic crisis in a general sense, what do we see? One thing that is very obvious is that the ruling capitalist classes in their governments have been lining up alongside of Islam, even as Islam is always intent on Jihad. It is in the very nature of Islam to be on its Jihad. It is written deeply into the very foundational documents of Islam. Does that mean that all Muslims are on a violent Jihad? It does not, but it certainly means that a significant number of Muslims are supporters of a violent Jihad. And they are supported and defended by capitalism.


Pamela Geller is now being attacked by these very capitalist forces who are in union with the Islamic Jihad. It is an ideological issue. These defenders of capitalism are attacking Geller. They are trying to close down Geller and to close down the whole of the movement which holds the political view that Islam is a very reactionary ideology.


Geller hints at but does not make the leap that we on 4international did and do, that the Jihad is being used by very dark forces within capitalism. Geller remains a firm believer in capitalism as a system.


We saw these dark forces in the destruction of Yugoslavia.


First the CIA was the spearhead behind the Nazi Tudjman and was directly implicated in the worst crime since the Nazis, the driving of Serbs and the murder of Serbs in the Krajina region of Croatia.


Then the alliance of western capitalism with Izetbegovic in Bosnia. Then in Kosovo. Then the bombing of Serbia, all actions involving a great Lie campaign, centred on Srebrenica, Racak.

More recently the open alliance with Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood against anti Jihadists like Mubarak and gadhafi




…At the same time this was going on, the constant if you like, the Jews of Israel were being attacked time and again, and threatened, by having a Jihadist state called Palestine to be erected on their flank.


Indeed the main plotters in this regard were the Norwegian labourites, and the Norwegian so-called peaceniks, in what became known as the Oslo Accords, the result of which was the political and theoretical disarming of the Jews, and the massacre of thousands of Jews on the streets of Israeli cities and towns in the 90s, and the more Jews were murdered the more these Norwegian peace people were blaming the Jews.


So at the very least this calls for sensible people to have a close look at the history of the Norwegians, especially their role in the Holocaust, and at history in general


I repeat at the risk of boring…we are talking here all the time about particular ideological roots.


It is at this time that this particular attack has come upon Geller, and this attack is from a Jew onto another Jew.


Try to follow the argument of this guy Goldberg here. The content is a bit confusing because he laces his attack on Geller with some comments from Geller (I have placed Geller in italics to make it easier)


On Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Other Jihadists

By Jeffrey Goldberg

Jul 25 2011, 9:05 AM ET

I’m away, and it’s hard to keep up with the news, but it seems as if my arch-nemesis Pamela Geller is in a bit of a pickle because she and her partner-in-Muslim-bashing, Robert Spencer, were favorites of the Norway killer. (Btw, I call her my arch-nemesis, but I’m grateful to her for calling me what I believe to be the best epithet ever, “Jewicidal Jihadi.” Also, “Jihad Jeffro.” All I’ve ever come up with to describe her is “shrieking bigot,” which doesn’t have the same power, or alliterative quality.) Here’s The Times on Geller, and Geller’s delightful response:

Mr. Breivik’s declaration did not name Mr. Kaczynski or acknowledge the numerous passages copied from the Unabomber’s 1995 manifesto, in which the Norwegian substituted “multiculturalists” or “cultural Marxists” for Mr. Kaczynski’s “leftists” and made other small wording changes.

By contrast, he quoted the American and European counterjihad writers by name, notably Mr. Spencer, author of 10 books, including “Islam Unveiled” and “The Truth About Muhammad.”

Mr. Breivik frequently cited another blog, Atlas Shrugs, and recommended the Gates of Vienna among Web sites. Pamela Geller, an outspoken critic of Islam who runs Atlas Shrugs, wrote on her blog Sunday that any assertion that she or other antijihad writers bore any responsibility for Mr. Breivik’s actions was “ridiculous.”

“If anyone incited him to violence, it was Islamic supremacists,” she wrote.

(The above is anything but clear, from this great journalist Goldberg. I think he is counterposing the New York Times and Geller’s response)

Anyway Goldberg goes on to lay down his position clearly. He uses this tragedy for these labour children to knife Geller, remember that, and he is Jewish:


Goldblog’s position: Geller is a hatemonger, but she didn’t pull the trigger. Free speech means free speech. But she should be aware now that violent people look to her for guidance, and she should write with that in mind. Which brings me to the subject of the Murfreesboro, Tennessee, mosque, the new “Ground Zero mosque” controversy. People like Herman Cain, who vilify this mosque (and other mosques) should think carefully about the ways in which their words are heard. I worry about a violent reaction to the Tennessee mosque more than I worry about any other terrorism target in America. More on this later, when I have better access to the Web.


So Goldberg blames Geller for this murderer being born!


He is knifing Geller in the back and above all he is calling for the curtailing of the discussion on everything that matters


Who in this world want to defeat the necessary airing of views? the nazis that is who.


The action of Hitler and the Nazis on taking the power in 1933, largely thanks to the betrayals of the social democrats and the Stalinists, was to curtail (STOP LIQUIDATE END MOST DEFINITIVELY) THE POLITICAL DISCUSSION INSIDE GERMANY)


There is a real Nazi Movement developing but it has nothing to do with Breivik or any other individual terrorist. Please help. Please work to defend Pamela Geller and defend the right of free discussion.




4international has followed the reports on the Stuttgart meeting with interest. This is because the future of the revolutionary socialist movement is at stake in these reports.


Let us make things very clear: we stand totally on the side of Robert Spencer and those in Stuttgart Germany who invited Spencer to speak, especially on important work they have done to explain the role of Islam in the world today.


We do have differences with Spencer, of course we do, we are a Trotskyist movement.


We see the main enemy as being NATO/UN which with its repression of Serbs, its war on Gadhafi, its continued threat against Israel and the Jews, is working on behalf of Sharia and of Islam, because NATO/UN sees Islam, as Hitler saw Islam, as a very repressive ideology.


Which is primary…NATO is primary.


Wilders is simply very wrong on this. Wilders should be lining up alongside of the Serbs and of Ratko Mladic, and on the side of all the Serb prisoners in The Hague Kangaroo Court.


But having said that, and made our differences clear, the main thing that the Stuttgart rally which was attacked by these reactionary groups, is that the rally showed that the so called left is in the pay of Islam, with many also in the pay of the German state, if you follow the logic of the above.


We have followed and publicised this now notorious meeting very comprehensively because it gives a clear picture of the degeneration of this so called left.


In the following there is a very thoughtfully wonderful report by one of these German fighters for free speech against Islam.


I like this report very much because it hints towards the use which the ruling class (the NATO/UN/Global elite) are making of this left/Islamist/state provocateur alliance


Let me introduce this article by one of the following comments, these Germans really are clued up!


The comment goes like this:


Like everywhere else, Westerners in key positions are being paid Islamoney. Islam has purchased our freedom. We are letting it become our masters.

Where does the money lead to? Who will follow the money trail?

(following report thanks to


The Message from Stuttgart
by Monika Kaufmann

Before Robert came to Germany, he asked me about security guards; I answered that there would be plenty of police and they were on our side. When we met at the airport and rode on the train to Stuttgart, I told him there were lots of places I’d never invite him to in Germany, such as Cologne in North-Rhine Westphalia, but that Stuttgart was pretty calm. I couldn’t have been mistaken more. The times they are a-changin’, and the Stuttgart 21 project, the big reconstruction of Stuttgart’s central railway station, attracts all kinds of radicals and rioters from all over Germany. Meanwhile, you can even hire “professional” protesters; you don’t even have to pay them, they join anything they deem a Just cause — and “just” is simply anti-Western.

And these demonstrators apparently excel as brilliant minds. Here is an example: “I go to school in Neukölln (part of Berlin) and there are 20 Muslims in my class, we have no problems.” “In Neukölln the headscarf sluts beat up Polish girls.” Enraged: “How dare you call ‘em sluts!?” Not a word about the Polish girls, it escapes this brilliant mind that Poland was the first country that the Nazis invaded in World War II, and that accordingly the Germans have a certain responsibility for the protection of Poles on their soil. Or, “You’re racists!” “What race is Islam?” “You’re against everybody who looks like someone from an Islamic country, against black-haired people…” Pointing at Robert: “Is he blond?” “Uh, you know what I mean…” And so forth.

On Thursday afternoon, June 2, the idyllic Schlossplatz in the centre of Stuttgart turned into a witches’ cauldron. So-called antifas (anti-fascists) and jihadis stormed our stage and occupied it. Everything turned topsy-turvy, our agenda went down the drain, and when eventually the stage was cleared and our orators were able to speak briefly, the unleashed mob threw metal ashtrays, bottles filled with ice, eggs and horse shit at them, as there were some mounted police on the ground. Our “friends” know how to use the materials they find; they’re ecologically sensitive. But the police were not very helpful. They kept a low profile and only de-escalated when absolutely necessary.

While I was pondering this nightmarish rally in Stuttgart, I recalled another rally nearly forgotten that I had attended in Munich back in the nineties. The circumstances were similar, but not quite so. The subject was an exhibition touring Germany about the war crimes committed by the Wehrmacht during World War II. The Nazis rallied against this exhibition, and we, the democratic forces, protested against the Nazis. As clashes were to be expected, task forces from all over the Federal Republic were detached to Munich. Everything went smoothly. The two opposing parties never got any closer than 100 metres to one another. I never saw more than a few banners and a van of the Nazis, and I remember several times being told by the police not to move another step. Eventually the Nazis gave up and we won a victory. End of story.

Comparing these two rallies, some questions arise: What went wrong in Stuttgart, and why did it go right in Munich? Were the police in Stuttgart incompetent and the police in Munich efficient? The answer is that they were efficient at both locations by serving the political intention perfectly. The police are part of law enforcement; they do as they’re told. In Munich their orders were to keep the opposing parties apart by all means, and that’s what they did. In Stuttgart they were told to keep a low profile and only to interfere when absolutely necessary. The message from Stuttgart is clear: the security of some intrepid freedom fighters from all over the world standing out for our values, such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, equal rights for men and women, the right of physical integrity for apostates, etc., is not more important than the right of some radicalised moronic thugs to fight for their Muslim friends’ special rights. As Robert pointed out so many times, in our free societies Muslims are equal to other citizens, but as in Orwell’s Animal Farm, they want to be more equal. They always demand extra rights, and as rights can’t proliferate, granting new special rights to one group invariably means curtailing the rights of others. Special accommodation for Muslim customs at work places always implies some disadvantages for their non-Muslim colleagues. This is something the self-appointed fighters for tolerance and freedom of religion in our midst are not aware of, especially in Germany, where they drew the wrong conclusions from the past.

But getting back to the message that the new government of Baden-Württemberg, where Stuttgart is the capital, is sending out to the rest of the world: We accommodate undemocratic elements in our society, as long as they stand out for the poor disenfranchised Muslim community. Boohoo, can’t help it, why are Muslims always misunderstood? These freedom fighters are a nuisance. Who needs freedom of speech anyway? We prefer to stand with the simple-minded Muslim supporters.

Two dialogues with policemen can shed a light on this: “Why are these rioters here?” “They’ve got the same right to rally as you have.” True; but they should have kept them away from the stage, our stage. “Why didn’t you proceed more harshly against the rioters?” “I can give no comment.” Pretty helpless.

In the face of all this, I’m requesting the readers of Jihad Watch to copy and paste this little email to Mr. Kretschmann, the new prime minister of Baden-Württemberg, who had after coming to power replaced the police officials, such as the chief of Stuttgart police. Please feel free to modify the mail to your liking.

This is his email address: poststelle(at)

Dear Mr. Prime Minister of Baden-Württemberg, It has come to my attention that in Stuttgart, the capital of the German state of Baden-Württemberg, governed by your administration, friends of mine were terribly harassed and abused at a rally on June 2. Some people threw manure, eggs, metal ashtrays and ice-filled bottles, only because my friends peacefully protested against a violent and supremacist ideology, Islam.I shall refrain from doing any business in your state from now on. I don’t feel safe there. I’m a free American (European, Indian, Filipino, Thai, African etc.) citizen, and I thought that Germany respected freedom of opinion and other human rights. I must have been utterly mistaken. I thought that the Germans were not ausländerfeindlich, but obviously they are.

Yours sincerely


The correct translation of “ausländerfeindlich” is hostile to foreigners, not xenophobic. Those who were rejected in Stuttgart were friends from all over the world; they were not aliens to our society. Anyway, to tell German multiculturalists that they are “ausländerfeindlich” is the worst offence they can think of. Please let them feel where their weak points are.

Monika Kaufmann is a human rights activist who writes from Germany.

Posted by Robert on June 11, 2011




Pamela Geller has come under a vicious attack from the London paper, The Independent. This is the paper close to Harry’s place, close to Oliver Kamm who now writes for the Times.

In fact The Independent expresses the very worst of British hypocricy and reaction on the world stage.

It was The Independent which led in the lies against the Serbs in former Yugoslavia. So Geller is in good company (with the Serbs!)


This revealing comment appeared after the Independent attack on Geller by Johnson. It was a comment out of the blue on Libya which followed the slander against Geller by Charles Johnson. It seems out of the blue but is actually very revealing indeed!

This person wrote:

I might start doing page for Libya Updates soon, Explanation of what’s happened that day in the evening.

However, further good news. The rebels are about to enter Zliten for the next battle. And shelling of Misrata has stopped, so all sorts of supplies and shenanigans and enter the city.


“Further good news”, this man says. The Libyan “Rebels” are in reality The Muslim Brotherhood and the opposition to Muammar Gadhafi is in reality The Muslim Brotherhood

This man on Johnson’s blog Pajamas Media (unopposed)  is lining up with The Muslim Brotherhood and against Muammar Gadhafi.

Now it so happens that Obama, the Democrats, and a goodly section of the Republicans in America are also trying to create a new virtual reality, Muslim Brotherhood good, Salafists bad.

Except that this falls apart when one remembers Muslim Brotherhood IS Salafism!

Remember also that in this Obama speak world of lies this all leads to the acceptance of Hamas as a “moderate” party and therefore the acceptance by Israel of a Hamas dominated “Palestinian” Arab State on the flank of Israel.

Would that state be peaceful? Apparently so, to follow this twisted logic being promoted, promoted by Obama and the EU Establishment, also it seems by Charles Johnson.

The appearance is an attack on Geller. The essence though, which lies within and hiding behind that appearance, is that Israel must accept a Hamas dominated Sharia state on its own land, which is Judea and Samaria, but at any rate directly on its new border.

Let us take the scurrilous attack on Geller before we do the Independent. This is what Johnson wrote:

The Independent’s Robert Chalmers has a very balanced and fair look at Pamela Geller: American patriot or extremist firebrand?

And of course, any balanced and fair examination of the Shrieking Harpy can only come to one conclusion: she’s desperately unhinged.

What’s striking about this article, though, is that Geller completely lacks the courage of her convictions. When confronted about her bizarre, hate-filled posts, she invariably attempts to pretend she didn’t really say what she did really say. It’s a “joke,” or it’s somebody else’s writing that she just happened to put on her blog for no particular reason, or it’s “taken out of context.” Like many extremists and bigots, underneath the bluster and the hateful statements Geller is a coward.

For example:

Among the many new things I have learnt from the work of Pamela Geller is that President Obama reputedly used to knock around with a crack whore.

“That,” the author, blogger and broadcaster insists, “is not what I said. You are taking this out of context. The post [on her website] was pointing out how people were reporting lie after lie about Sarah Palin. I said to myself, there is so much about Obama we don’t print. In his youth,” she continues, repeating a story for which there exists absolutely no foundation, “he supposedly liked a girl who was a crack whore. I never reported it as fact. They say all these vile things about Palin but do we ever talk about Obama and the crack whore?”

The incredibly libellous post, entitled: “IT’S TIME TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA” appeared on 1 August 2009. “Why not tell the truth about Obama and his reported strange sexual predilections?” Geller wrote. “It is well known that he allegedly was involved with a crack whore in his youth. Very seedy stuff … Find the ho, give her a show! Obama allegedly trafficked in some very deviant practices.”

Pretty hard to take that out of context, wouldn’t you say?

Then Johnson adds:

Chalmers emailed me to ask for my reaction to Geller’s insults:

I would not wish to pursue Johnson’s smell any further because it is not a pleasant smell to follow.

Except to point to that  last reference (to the email made by The Independent to Johnson) that they do flock together with a sure instinct.

On the Geller blog  Atlas Shrugs I took up this reference made by The Independent above:

“the incredibly libellous blog”

as being the pivotal comment by The Independent.


I highlight this off the cuff remark by The Independent because it points to where the centre of this struggle really must be concentrated, it must focus on defence of the First Amendment

This is not to suggest that struggles in Israel or in Europe in defence of basic rights should not be fought, but to say that the focus has to be the defence in America of the First Amendment

And that is why this spokesperson for Obama, Johnson, and why this mouthpiece of British Imperialism, The Independent, attack Pamela Geller

Thus you will find my comment in defence of Pamela Geller on the Atlas Shrugs site this morning:

I defend Pamela Geller against this abomination who calls himself a journalist.

But the issue is wider even than this attack.

What is called in historical socialist circles as the United Front

As opposed to the present Fascist “Left” hatred of Pamela Geller and many others.

I take these attacks on Pamela very seriously and they are a major danger to free speech to all

Geller is leading the fight against Obama, but in essence this is leading the fight against dictatorship, which is taking a number of forms, one but only one of which is the Sharia issue

Remember the Independent led in the destruction of Yugoslavia and the hounding of its President Slobodan Milosevic, who was it must be remembered and emphasised poisoned by the NATO in his NATO jail

The most serious charge by this Independent writer was that the article by Pamela was incredibly “libellous”.

This writer is actually correct on that. If Pamela was writing in any country in Europe, any at all, it would be libellous.

Only because there exists the First Amendment is that article not libellous in America.

This points to the best way forward which centres on the defence of the First Amendment in America, where this battle now should concentrate.

I call for a United Front to defend Geller from The Independent, and to defend Spencer from threats of physical attacks, to defend Geert Wilders etc.

I represent true socialism and there is another history to this socialist movement that not everybody is aware of.


may 16 2.56 am (american time)

I wrote>