Paul Brinkmann of the Orlando Sentinel cited me in the story below about the motives of Orlando jihad mass murderer Omar Mateen, and he did so without the usual mainstream media defamation. That was too much for the Saudi-funded Bridge Initiative, which has partnered with a Muslim organization linked to Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and Hamas; Bridge acts as a kind of sheepdog, yapping at mainstream media reporters to get back in line if they stray too far from the pack. Brinkmann and the Sentinel, in citing a source that tells the truth about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, rather than the usual establishment media lies, got out of line, and Bridge had to bring them back in:
This is outright libel, and typical of Lean, who is the most hate-filled human being I have ever encountered. A longtime foe of the freedom of speech, Lean has dedicated his life to defaming and lying about anyone and everyone who dares to utter a critical word about the religious ideology that guides Islamic jihadists and incites them to commit mass murder. His targets have included Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz and me, and in every case, Lean plays fast and loose with the facts, cheerfully purveying falsehoods even when he has been shown that they are false (the images are gone from that old post, but it still conveys the substance), so desperate is he to clear away all obstacles to the advance of jihad terror.
In this case, he is referring to my being poisoned with amphetamines and Ecstasy by an Icelandic Leftist; he’s claiming that I used the drugs myself. In reality, I’ve never used amphetamines or Ecstasy. Lean’s libelous claim is based solely on his hatred of me, and abundantly illustrates the preferred tactic of Leftists and Islamic supremacists in dealing with those whom they hate: they attempt to assassinate our character, since they cannot refute us on the facts. Lean smears me as a drug user and invokes the hard-Left SPLC’s defamation of me as a “hate group leader” because he cannot do what would be the most effective response to what I say: prove it to be false.
Then Lean’s partner at Bridge, Jordan Denari Duffner, a self-described “Christian who loves the Qur’an,” goes after Brinkmann with the Bridge Initiative’s new “factsheet” on me:
The Bridge “factsheet” contains fourteen points about me and my work, but contrary to its name, there is one thing that is glaringly absent from it: facts. The points include smears from other Leftist organizations and other false charges that are answered here and in 100 other places, plus some inept attempts at guilt by association (“Trump Administration chief strategist Steve Bannon has often praised Spencer and considers him an ‘expert,’ ‘probably the most renowned, or among the most renowned, of folks that are on the watch tower to make sure that we’re fully aware of this threat, this existential war'”) and some presentation of statements I’ve made that are demonstrably true as if they were obviously false (“he claims that ‘Islamophobia was a term designed as a weapon to stigmatize and silence anyone who opposed jihad terror'”). The “factsheet” makes no attempt, of course, to explain why these statements are false. It fails to do the obviously easiest thing it could have done in order to discredit me: quote even one false claim that I have made and prove it to be false.
It does not because it cannot. The Bridge “factsheet” on me, and Bridge’s targeting of Brinkmann for his citation of me in this article, is character assassination pure and simple, and a succinct illustration of why the establishment media all marches in lockstep, with no diversity of opinion ever voiced: anyone who steps out of line and gives voice to a view that actually opposes the establishment line is targeted with libel and defamation, and anyone who cites such voices is put on notice that he better not stray off the reservation again.
Meanwhile, the Iceland poisoning that Lean libels me about shows where this leads: the Left’s character assassination is now shading over into outright assassination attempts.
If any of this has come to the attention of Paul Brinkmann, he should reflect carefully on what is being done here, and on the essentially authoritarian character of what Bridge is trying to do: they want only one point of view represented in the mainstream. Anyone who states a dissenting point of view will be destroyed.
“Pulse gunman’s motive: Plenty of theories, but few answers,” by Paul Brinkmann, Orlando Sentinel, June 4, 2017:
….But Robert Spencer, a speaker and author of a blog called Jihad Watch, said the idea that Mateen was motivated partly by self-hatred or repressed sexuality has been used to divert attention from the problem of Islamic extremism.He warned that the world should be concerned about more attacks every year at Ramadan, the holy month for Muslims, when Mateen chose to attack.
“If Mateen was gay, which is completely hypothetical and bereft of evidence, he could possibly have been aware of sinning before Allah and knew that he could outweigh all his sins by one great act of jihad,” Spencer said. “In other words, if he was gay, this wouldn’t necessarily mean that his murders weren’t motivated by Islam’s doctrine of jihad.”
David Baker Hargrove, an Orlando psychologist who specializes in LGBT issues, said he believes sexual orientation may have been a factor in Mateen’s violence.
“Violence is not the norm. Normally they suffer in silence,” Baker Hargrove said. He said better mental health counseling could help prevent more mass shooters.
Spencer flatly rejected that idea: “No amount of gun control or health care would have stopped Mateen.”
Mateen’s threats of violence, and the fact that he made threats about having ties to terrorist organizations, were clear warning signs, O’Toole said. The FBI has previously confirmed that Mateen was investigated for making statements about having terrorist ties, starting in 2013….
Dum Spiro says
Keep speaking the truth with conviction, Robert.
Others can then do the same…
— Spero
bob says
Robert we stand behind you !
Montedoro44 says
Why not sue Mr. Lean or CAIR for $100,000,000 or so for slander?
john spielman says
I agree! sue BOTH!
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“Ecstacy-using”
Actionable words if I’ve ever seen them. A letter of apology and retraction from him and his organization would be worth the legal fees. Not taking action might embolden others to go further.
Terry Gain says
The correct term is libel. Slander is Spoken defamation. Libel is written defamation. Even though Mr. Spencer is being defamed suing carries the risk that the defamation will become more widespread.
montedoro44 says
Yup, libel — I typed too fast. IMO there is nothing for R.S. to fear about further defamation. Of course that will happen. But there will also be an airing of the currently taboo side of the story, likely some MSM interviews, exposure of the hidden values of CAIR, &c. All to the good. Assuming that Lean loses the case, this lie of his and other of his attacks and similar attacks by others will get publicity. The underlying principle of attacking & demonizing informed infidels may be addressed. It’s really an opportunity.
Keith says
I am a lawyer and have been involved in defamation lawsuits. This statement is actionable. Robert, we have no right to ask you to do more than you already do for the public, but you should give strong thought to filing a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Lean. Not only is the case a guaranteed winner, it’s going to give you a magnificent platform to spread the truth. Good luck and godspeed, whatever you decide.
Robert Spencer says
Keith, if you are really a lawyer, please contact me at director@jihadwatch.org. Thank you.
Larry A. Singleton says
Your comment is another reason these Comments need a “thumbs up” feature.
TL says
Maybe you should challenge Nathan Lean to debate, in Arabic, his many claims. It appears that he has some knowledge of the language acquired through an immersion program in N. Africa. “In 2009,” it reads at his web site, “he was awarded a Critical Language Scholarship that allowed him to study Arabic in Tunisia.”
https://nathanlean.com/nathan/
JawsV says
You have to pity the Georgetown dhimmis. The Islam-admirers are sick in the head.
somehistory says
Sue for libel. The proof is abundant.
mortimer says
MEANWHILE, Nathan Lean would be FLATTENED and DEFLATED if he were to debate with Robert Spencer who has written 16 books and thousands of articles about Islam.
Nathan Lean is an agent of Saudi Arabia and operative of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Reporter Paul Brinkman refers to “Ramadan, the holy month for Muslims”. This is the same error I was laboring under, until a commenter here set me straight. The Islamic “Hijri” calendar has twelve months, and does not have one holy month, but four (months #1, 7, 11, 12). And Ramadan, which is month #9, is not one of the four holy months. The Wikipedia article on the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_calendar
is a little misleading, because it calls Ramadan “the most venerated month of the Hijri calendar”. Apparently it is possible to venerate a month which is not even holy. (What does it even mean to “venerate” a time-period?)
Also, I read somewhere that jihad activity during Ramadan is rewarded 70 times as much as the same jihad activity during any other month. Is this really an Islamic doctrine? If so, somebody please cite the relevant hadith or Quran passage.
Larry A. Singleton says
“This is outright libel, and typical of Lean, who is the most hate-filled human being I have ever encountered.”
Next to Reza As(s)lan.
Larry A. Singleton says
Letter to The Bridge Initiative 6-8-17
Just copying and getting ready to print out an article about you frauds over at Jihad Watch:
“Orlando Sentinel Cites Robert Spencer, Saudi-Funded Bridge Initiative Starts Defamation Campaign”
I’ll read it with the rest of my “morning reading” tomorrow. Along with a few chapters from Ibn Warraq’s new book that I got in the mail the other day The Islam in Islamic Terrorism: The Importance of Beliefs, Ideas and Ideology along with Ibn Khaldun’s The Muqaddimah, that arrived with it. Ibn Warrag is a guy who is a “hero” to people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and “courageous” to people like Bernard Lewis.
To tell you the truth, I can’t remember off hand where I got the idea to get this Khaldun book. I read so many articles and essays and books on these issues it’s honestly hard to keep track.
And I actually should thank God for that in some small way because at least I’m not one of those liberals I deal with day in and day out who respond to my requests to read these articles, essays and books I submit by calling me names. That’s it. They just call me names. Not once have I had a “professor” or “Islamic expert” or student from one of those College Fakebook pages or You Tube videos I post on EVER respond to me and refute, dispute and debunk these articles by Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, Soeren Kern, Raymond Ibrahim, Daniel Greenfield, Matthew Vadum, Phyillis Chesler, Caroline Glick, Bat Ye’or, Andrew Bostom, etc.
Why do you think that is? You’d think they’d be jumping out of their skins in an effort to show just how misguided and misled I am.
I’m not an “expert” or academic. I’m just a self-described “dumb-ass construction worker” who reads. Who keeps informed on the issues.
Spencer’s article above mentions Nathan Lean who says he “is the most hate-filled human being I have ever encountered”.
And he is too. Lean, (as well as Reza As(s)lan) will go on and on about how “racist”, “hate-mongering” and of course “Islamophobic” Robert Spencer is, but for some strange reason can never seem to come up with any actual examples of Spencer saying or writing anything remotely “racist” or “hate-mongering”.
Robert Spencer is a “just the facts ma’am” kind of a guy. That’s what I like about him and the others I mentioned above who write for FrontPage Magazine, Gatestone Institute, Middle East Quarterly and others. And they write in plain English. As opposed to the utter BS and oftentimes academic gobbledeegook you get from these academic quacks.
“Beyond dispute” are the first words that pop up in my brain when I think of Spencer and the others.
“Wishful thinking” and “kinda-sorta” leaps up when I think of these liberal idiots.
Especially when it comes to Muslim apologists of which I could go on all day long. Suffice it to say that it’s all about blowing smoke up your ass when it comes to the Koran and Islamic history.
You and people like Nathan Lean aren’t prepared for people like me who have a set of Bukharis and a Reliance of the Traveller on their shelves. Who have studied “jihad” and the “spread of Islam from such people as Bat Ye’or, Ibn Warraq, Raymond Ibrahim and Andrew Bostom. You simply don’t have any defense. Because much of the history they relate comes straight from the Islamic historians and theologians themselves. Which is probably the reason I got that Khaldun book. Like I’ve gotten Taha’s Second Message and Sayyid Qutb’s Social Justice in Islam and SK Malik’s The Quranic Concept of War and studied Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid’s article on Jihad in the Koran and Sunnah I found in of all places, my Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. (I’ve never been able to get a Muslim to explain that one. Not even the publishers Dar-Us-Salam whom I’ve repeatedly contacted)
I can contrast Qutb’s book on “social justice” with Ann Mayer’s book Islam and Human Rights and……….compare.
That’s the key word by the way; “compare”. Compare the BS you get from terror front groups like CAIR. Compare the BS from mouthpieces about Islam to what I read from Bat Ye’or. Compare Muhammad to Jesus. Islam to Christianity, the Crusades to Jihad, the Koran to the Bible. What people like John Esposito and Norman Finkelstein and Richard Falk write compared to those I mentioned. It’s all about comparing.
Who’s blowing smoke up my ass and who’s not. For me that’s what it’s all about. And let me tell you something; As someone who used to BE a racist “hate-monger”. Whose only word for blacks when I was young was “those fuckin’ niggers”, as a youngster getting jumped and stomped by groups of black kid in junior high. And then finally realizing that, in short, you don’t judge people by the color of their skin, someone who realizes that racism is just another word for prejudice. And prejudice is simply judgment prior to investigation.
Well, this guy has got a keen Bullshit Detector. I love it; love it, Love it, LOVE it when someone calls me a racist. Because on top of my personal experience, and finally emersing my young self in books on black history and the Civil Rights movement, I’m fortunate enough to have read articles by Humberto Fontova, Matthew Vadum, Daniel Greenfield and John Perazzo, who all discuss “racism” a lot better than I can.
Speaking of which, I suggest those just getting introduced to these Bridge hacks and their “Islamophobia” BS, download the essay/booklet Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future by David Horowitz and Robert Spencer From the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Along with some other booklets they put out:
The New Shame of the Cities by John Perazzo.
Occupy Wall Street: The Communist Movement Reborn by David Horowitz and John Perazzo.
Government Unions: How They Rob the Taxpayer, Terrorize Workers and Threaten Our Democracy by Matthew Vadum.
Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model by David Horowitz.
The Emperor President: How Barack Obama’s Unconstitutional Lawlessness is Trampling Your Life, Your Liberty and Happiness.
Subversive Mosques: Why Barack Obama Won’t Declare War on Radical Islam by Pamella Geller and Robert Spencer.
Obama’s Immigration Fiasco and National Security by FrontPage Magazine.
The Blood on Obama’s Hands by David Horowitz.
Obama’s 1984 by Mark Tapson.
The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration by Frank Gaffney.
Domestic Terrorism and Washington Denial by Robert Spencer.
Occupy Wall Street: The Communist Movement Reborn by David Horowitz and John Perazzo.
Obama and Islam: Updated and Revised by Robert Spencer and David Horowitz.
Now let’s see you read one of these, find one refute, dispute and debunk one “racist” word.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Hello, Larry A. Singleton. Thank you for your thoughtful posting. But I got lost in the prose at one spot:
“You and people like Nathan Lean aren’t prepared for people like me who have a set of Bukharis and a Reliance of the Traveller on their shelves. Who have studied “jihad” and the “spread of Islam from such people as Bat Ye’or, Ibn Warraq, Raymond Ibrahim and Andrew Bostom. You simply don’t have any defense. Because much of the history they relate comes straight from the Islamic historians and theologians themselves. Which is probably the reason I got that Khaldun book. Like I’ve gotten Taha’s Second Message and Sayyid Qutb’s Social Justice in Islam and SK Malik’s The Quranic Concept of War and studied Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid’s article on Jihad in the Koran and Sunnah I found in of all places, my Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. (I’ve never been able to get a Muslim to explain that one. Not even the publishers Dar-Us-Salam whom I’ve repeatedly contacted)”
What is “that one” which you have not been able to get a Muslim to explain? What are you referring to?
Larry A. Singleton says
I ordered a Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari online. Here’s an excerpt from a comment I posted on a Muslim’s You Tube who was advocating cutting off hands of drug dealers:
I found an article on “JIhad” in a Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari I’d ordered online:
The Call to Jihad (Fighting for Allah’s Cause) in the Qur’an (Or the politically correct title used for public consumption: Jihad in the Qur’an and Sunnah) by Sheikh Abdullâh bin Muhammad bin Humaid. And yes,”(Fighting for Allah’s Cause)” is in the title. And “(Holy Fighting for Allah’s Cause)” is in the title of the nine volumes editions.
For six years I’ve been unable to get either the publishers or any Muslims to explain why this article on war was in this book of “religion of peace”, “Exhibit A”, second only to the Koran and submitted almost as an Introduction. This article is in both Dar-Us-Salam’s Summarized and full nine volume set of hadiths. Nor can I get anyone to explain to me what I use as “Exhibit B” in this “religion of peace” farce:
The 4th Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research: Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel. Sept. 1968. Translated by D.F. Green/David G. Littman.
As an aside; I’ve been trying to get Spencer to suggest a set of Bukharis that are in line with the verses I see cited by people like Hugh Fitzgerald. These Bukharis from Dar-Us-Salam not only have no index but the verses don’t match with those cited online. Here’s an excerpt from a letter I wrote:
I bought a Summarized Sahih Al Bukhari and a nine volume set of Bukharis from Dar-Us-Salam.
Long story short these books are next to useless. First of all, and most important; they have no index!
Add to that the numbering system is different from those that I’ve seen online.
Here’s the problem. Even when people cite say, Number “1234”. I’m looking at an article about Islam and dogs as “Sahih Bukhair 4.54.50”. Or again, I’ll see something like “Volume 9, Book 93, Number 644”. And here I’m just picking numbers and verses out of a hat. Or the number “1234”; won’t correspond to the number and verse “1234” in MY Sahih Al-Bukhari!
My point is that the Bukharis doesn’t seem to be STANDARDIZED in any way. For example you can cite a verse out of the Bible and Koran and be confident of finding that verse, or numbers of the verse, in the Bible and Koran.
This can’t be done with Dar-Us-Salam’s Bukharis.
It drives me nuts when I’m reading articles from Gatestone or Jihad Watch and see these hadith verses cited that I can’t reach up and grab one of these books and find the verse. It’s probably hard for people to understand, but I need the actual BOOKS so that I can make notes and slip in relevant articles etc. It’s nice when I see quotes from Reliance of the Traveller. I can just get down my volume, open up to the right page and wallah!
I wish Spencer would do an article on how to read these hadiths. Because, like I said, and maybe it’s just me, I can’t find the verses in these books I’ve got. Like I said, I’ve contacted the publishers. I’ve posted these questions on Muslim websites and college and university “Middle East Studies” Facebook pages for almost six years. Never gotten an answer.
Larry A. Singleton says
Letter to The Bridge Initiative 6-8-17
Just copying and getting ready to print out an article about you frauds over at Jihad Watch:
“Orlando Sentinel Cites Robert Spencer, Saudi-Funded Bridge Initiative Starts Defamation Campaign”
I’ll read it with the rest of my “morning reading” tomorrow. Along with a few chapters from Ibn Warraq’s new book that I got in the mail the other day The Islam in Islamic Terrorism: The Importance of Beliefs, Ideas and Ideology along with Ibn Khaldun’s The Muqaddimah, that arrived with it. Ibn Warrag is a guy who is a “hero” to people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and “courageous” to people like Bernard Lewis.
To tell you the truth, I can’t remember off hand where I got the idea to get this Khaldun book. I read so many articles and essays and books on these issues it’s honestly hard to keep track.
And I actually should thank God for that in some small way because at least I’m not one of those liberals I deal with day in and day out who respond to my requests to read these articles, essays and books I submit by calling me names. That’s it. They just call me names. Not once have I had a “professor” or “Islamic expert” or student from one of those College Fakebook pages or You Tube videos I post on EVER respond to me and refute, dispute and debunk these articles by Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, Soeren Kern, Raymond Ibrahim, Daniel Greenfield, Matthew Vadum, Phyillis Chesler, Caroline Glick, Bat Ye’or, Andrew Bostom, etc.
Why do you think that is? You’d think they’d be jumping out of their skins in an effort to show just how misguided and misled I am.
Con’t
Larry A. Singleton says
Con’t
I’m not an “expert” or academic. I’m just a self-described “dumb-ass construction worker” who reads. Who keeps informed on the issues.
Spencer’s article above mentions Nathan Lean who says he “is the most hate-filled human being I have ever encountered”.
And he is too. Lean, (as well as Reza As(s)lan) will go on and on about how “racist”, “hate-mongering” and of course “Islamophobic” Robert Spencer is, but for some strange reason can never seem to come up with any actual examples of Spencer saying or writing anything remotely “racist” or “hate-mongering”.
Robert Spencer is a “just the facts ma’am” kind of a guy. That’s what I like about him and the others I mentioned above who write for FrontPage Magazine, Gatestone Institute, Middle East Quarterly and others. And they write in plain English. As opposed to the utter BS and oftentimes academic gobbledeegook you get from these academic quacks.
“Beyond dispute” are the first words that pop up in my brain when I think of Spencer and the others.
“Wishful thinking” and “kinda-sorta” leaps up when I think of these liberal idiots.
Especially when it comes to Muslim apologists of which I could go on all day long. Suffice it to say that it’s all about blowing smoke up your ass when it comes to the Koran and Islamic history.
You and people like Nathan Lean aren’t prepared for people like me who have a set of Bukharis and a Reliance of the Traveller on their shelves. Who have studied “jihad” and the “spread of Islam from such people as Bat Ye’or, Ibn Warraq, Raymond Ibrahim and Andrew Bostom. You simply don’t have any defense. Because much of the history they relate comes straight from the Islamic historians and theologians themselves. Which is probably the reason I got that Khaldun book. Like I’ve gotten Taha’s Second Message and Sayyid Qutb’s Social Justice in Islam and SK Malik’s The Quranic Concept of War and studied Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid’s article on Jihad in the Koran and Sunnah I found in of all places, my Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. (I’ve never been able to get a Muslim to explain that one. Not even the publishers Dar-Us-Salam whom I’ve repeatedly contacted)
I can contrast Qutb’s book on “social justice” with Ann Mayer’s book Islam and Human Rights and……….compare.
That’s the key word by the way; “compare”. Compare the BS you get from terror front groups like CAIR. Compare the BS from mouthpieces about Islam to what I read from Bat Ye’or. Compare Muhammad to Jesus. Islam to Christianity, the Crusades to Jihad, the Koran to the Bible. What people like John Esposito and Norman Finkelstein and Richard Falk write compared to those I mentioned. It’s all about comparing.
Who’s blowing smoke up my ass and who’s not. For me that’s what it’s all about. And let me tell you something; As someone who used to BE a racist “hate-monger”. Whose only word for blacks when I was young was “those fuckin’ niggers”, as a youngster getting jumped and stomped by groups of black kid in junior high. And then finally realizing that, in short, you don’t judge people by the color of their skin, someone who realizes that racism is just another word for prejudice. And prejudice is simply judgment prior to investigation.
Well, this guy has got a keen Bullshit Detector. I love it; love it, Love it, LOVE it when someone calls me a racist. Because on top of my personal experience, and finally emersing my young self in books on black history and the Civil Rights movement, I’m fortunate enough to have read articles by Humberto Fontova, Matthew Vadum, Daniel Greenfield and John Perazzo, who all discuss “racism” a lot better than I can.
Speaking of which, I suggest those just getting introduced to these Bridge hacks and their “Islamophobia” BS, download the essay/booklet Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future by David Horowitz and Robert Spencer From the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Along with some other booklets they put out:
The New Shame of the Cities by John Perazzo.
Occupy Wall Street: The Communist Movement Reborn by David Horowitz and John Perazzo.
Government Unions: How They Rob the Taxpayer, Terrorize Workers and Threaten Our Democracy by Matthew Vadum.
Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model by David Horowitz.
The Emperor President: How Barack Obama’s Unconstitutional Lawlessness is Trampling Your Life, Your Liberty and Happiness.
Subversive Mosques: Why Barack Obama Won’t Declare War on Radical Islam by Pamella Geller and Robert Spencer.
Obama’s Immigration Fiasco and National Security by FrontPage Magazine.
The Blood on Obama’s Hands by David Horowitz.
Obama’s 1984 by Mark Tapson.
The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration by Frank Gaffney.
Domestic Terrorism and Washington Denial by Robert Spencer.
Occupy Wall Street: The Communist Movement Reborn by David Horowitz and John Perazzo.
Obama and Islam: Updated and Revised by Robert Spencer and David Horowitz.
Now let’s see you read one of these, find one refute, dispute and debunk one “racist” word.
Joy D. Brower says
All i can say is that I hope that rotten little pimple, Nathan Lean, burns in Hell for eternity! He is definitely a spawn of the Devil!! Keep on keeping on, Robert, you’re an amazing voice of knowledge and reason in a sea of hatred, stupidity, arrogance and ignorance!!