“His mere presence was alleged to make Muslims feel unsafe – and yet only Spencer needed a sizeable security detail. His contention all along has been that detractors resort to smear tactics because they cannot engage on the level of facts and ideas. Stanford’s walkout proved his point in spades…”
Yes. Find out where the entire “Islamophobia” deception leads in my new book, Confessions of an Islamophobe. Preorder here now.
“Enabling Jihad at Stanford, Georgetown, and Beyond,” by Matthew Hanley, The Catholic Thing, November 21, 2017:
…But more needs to be said about the fact that it is harder to broach uncomfortable facts about Islam at Stanford than it is to be admitted. Robert Spencer could tell you all about it.
A group of students invited him to come talk about his meticulous elucidation of the Islamic sources that justify and even mandate jihad. This sparked a flurry of indignation, including calls for the event to be canceled and boycotted. Though he is more knowledgeable than most imams, agitated students dismissed him as “not intelligible,” “not scholarly,” – in a word – “trash.” Administrators libelously bemoaned his supposed history of stirring up hatred.
Is standing against hideous things – jihad murder, slavery, the manifold indignities Sharia visits upon women, etc. – suddenly discouraged at Stanford when they happen to be embedded into the fiber of a religion deemed so worthy of uncritical adulation that they must be willfully overlooked?
Stanford did not mimic Berkeley by canceling the event or resorting to thuggery to prevent a curiously unwelcome voice from being heard. They just hatched a subtler plan – weeks in advance – to achieve the same end.
Shortly after his talk began, an Islamic chant was let loose for a tense moment – apparently on someone’s phone. A lot of people sure were looking at their phones, which was odd given that the room was so packed that many were denied entry. A few minutes later, the majority walked out in choreographed unison – with the aggressive, supremacist undertone of Islamic chant blaring from devices: Allahu Akbar without the violence. Those who had originally been barred due to lack of capacity were then denied the opportunity to occupy the vacated space.
Spencer had just finished relaying an objective fact that belongs at any institution of higher learning: a key feature of jihad, according to the highest Sunni authority of jurisprudence (Al-Azhar University in Cairo) is that one’s blood and one’s possessions are only safe if one succumbs to the rule of Islam; nobody outside it merits protection. Substantively, this could qualify as an ingrained, religiously sanctioned form of “hate speech,” which the students imagined they were virtuously heading outside to condemn.
Spencer maintains that administrators abetted the disruption and that, in any case, it amounted to a quintessential display of fascism; that may seem a loaded term, but by first mounting a defamation campaign against him and then forcibly preventing others from being exposed to his ideas, Stanford earned the characterization.
His mere presence was alleged to make Muslims feel unsafe – and yet only Spencer needed a sizeable security detail. His contention all along has been that detractors resort to smear tactics because they cannot engage on the level of facts and ideas. Stanford’s walkout proved his point in spades, just as surely as those who committed violence in response to Pope Benedict critically remarking at Regensburg upon the violent tendencies associated with Islam proved him right.
By not allowing the examination of jihad on its own terms Stanford chose to enable it. Apparently, Islamic figures, approvingly repeating binding Islamic texts that, say, urge the wiping out of Jews must go unremarked. Only calling this out is problematic – the secular sin of “Islamophobia” (a Saudi-manufactured term).
Corporations also nurture this climate of conformity. Just down the road from Stanford, the boors at PayPal blocked Spencer’s web site from using their services, thereby depriving him of a source of financial support. Exactly what the Southern Poverty Law Center, specialists in declaring organizations it doesn’t like as “hate groups,” wanted. They merely declare Spencer’s outfit a “hate group” and the media dutifully echo it despite SPLC’s obvious bias.
Stanford, however, is far from being alone. Catholic Georgetown University hosts Saudi-funded initiatives designed to propagate the best spin on Islam. Threatening aspects are, it seems, of marginal concern. But what some people consider minor can be very consequential; New York, London, Paris, Brussels, Nice, Madrid, Barcelona, Berlin, even Scandinavia now can testify to that.
The stakes are similarly high when some allege that Spencer’s “marginal” stance does not align with the overall conciliatory thrust of the modern Church vis-à-vis Islam:
I disagree with Pope Francis’ claim that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” as any sane and informed person, Catholic or non-Catholic, should. If that is indeed “Church teaching,” then the Catholic Church has a massive problem: it is presenting outright falsehood as “Church teaching,” and cannot be trusted by Catholics or anyone else….
jihad3tracker says
AWARENESS IS RAPIDLY SPREADING ABOUT THE IMMENSE MISTAKE MADE BY STANFORD ADMINISTRATORS.
As I wrote in a comment for one of the hit-pieces launched at Robert, PANIC LEADS TO STUPIDITY, and we really saw proof of that.
jihad3tracker says
PLEASE TAKE A FEW MINUTES FROM BUSY SCHEDULES TO THANK MATTHEW HANLEY, the author of this item up on Jihad Watch. Click Robert’s red hotlink at the top of the post. That will lead to the original article and a “CONTACT US” page.
Yes, it’s a pain in the butt to fill out such templates, BUT WE NEED ALLIES IN THE COUNTER-JIHAD WAR, and he certainly seems to be a current bright participant.
Also, give a short bio of YOUR OWN PROGRESS FROM CLUELESSNESS INTO KNOWLEDGE, and include INTERNET WEBSITES WHICH TELL THE TRUTH about Islam.
DFD says
Somewhat of topic, but I have to share this with you. Adam & Eve, according to the Bible and the Koran… (I hope it works, if not I try again differently. Don’t know if one can attach images or not) Here I go:
c879b2455498a8fe848aeed7b4f9c63f.jpg
James says
The link takes one to the Pinterest site. and that’s it.
jay says
Robert, Pamela, and whomever else looks critically at Islam are, by this very work, slandering Islam according to Shari’a concepts of slander*. If an accepted imam, or any Muslim for that matter, takes the same facts and presents them to a friendly audience, their scholarship will be accepted and these same facts do not constitute a slander on Islam. That is how the student goons and brownshirts see it, too, and they are therefore accepting Shari’a. Which is of course, to the critical thinker, precisely the point.
* “Slander” in common law can be shown only if the facts are shown to be wrong and the slanderer knows it. Robert: please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe “Slander” in Islam is divorced from the facts whatever they are, and is based on what side you take. Orwell had nothing on Muhammad when it came to doublethink.
Terry Gain says
The incompetent drooling media never bothered to ask Obama what he mean by slander when he said “the world must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”
I wish just one reporter had had the knowledge and courage to ask how does one slander a caravan robber, sexual slave- taker, slave trader, rapist, pedophile and mass murderer. Or why Obama is so concerned about this evil man being “slandered”.
jihad3tracker says
HELLO TERRY —
Everyone with IQs higher than field mice KNEW OBAMA’S FAITH CENTERED ON MUHAMMAD. But because the majority of mainstream U.S. media are Democrats, they were elated that we elected an African American, and would NEVER ask hard questions.
Of course, about ZERO of the “journalists” and “reporters” actually were neighbors of, or friends with, Muslims. MSM whiteys thus continued their privilege-guilt fantasy: that worshippers of Allah were peaceful, just like Christians and Jews.
Charles says
Great observation. I have often discussed Islam with believing Muslims and they are unable to defend the untenable details. They are usually taken aback when I ask them if the Muhammad’s attacks on the Banu Qurayza, or Banu Nadir tribes were “exemplary” after I explain the genocidal details. I ask if they think princess Safiya consented to have sex with Muhammad the same day he killed her father, her tribesmen, and had her husband Kinana tortured to reveal the location of tribal treasure, then beheaded. I ask if the assassination of contemporary critics like Asma Bint Marwan, or the Jewish poets are acceptable. Or, is it okay to marry a 9 year old without her consent, but by only asking the father for possession. They can easily see where my adroit questioning leads and usually become defensive. I certainly would be charged with blasphemy in an Islamic majority country, as many have. The alleged “slander” is a simple act of telling the truth by reading the Islamic source material.
Leftist and “academic” defenders of Islam are typically ignorant of its tenets, narratives, or exhortations. They envision Muhammad as some kind of Gandhi, or Buddha, being wise and peaceful. They resort to simple minded tactics to shut down the debate rather than take the time to examine the points.
Jaladhi says
I am convinced all these academics and leftists are brain dead!!
Shirley says
Charles you are SO very right. Discuss islam with a moslem and first they listen and reply nicely, next, if you persist, they get defensive, but if you still aren’t ”obedient” with your acceptance of the bullshit they feed you, then they get downright nasty…….THEN and only then do you get the TRUE moslem who has been taught in the mosques how to answer the dhimmis they just start to lose it because they are uneducated in what mohammed was really like, and refuse to educate themselves further in fear of being an apostate….. brainwashed from birth, out of fear. I have massive respect for EX-moslems who remove themselves from this cult.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Jay, you are right that slander and the Islamic concept of ghiba (sometimes translated as “slander”) are different. Here is an explanation of the Islamic definitions of slander, ghiba, talebearing, and calumny:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-islam-means-by-slander.html
Norger says
Thanks Mark, I knew that “slander” in Islam (or in the Arabic sense)is the disclosure of something about a person (or about Islam) that the offended party does not wish to be disclosed; I was looking for citations to authority.
It is also noteworthy that Islam has never tolerated critical inquiry or even satire—outspoken critics of Islam, like Spencer (or Gert Wilders or Ayan Hirsi Ali) live under a constant threat of violence. Similarly, Islamists don’t want opponents of Islam to study their doctrine. It’s absolutely disgraceful that American universities overwhelmingly aid and abet the silencing of legitimate critics of this cult.
James says
Communist thinking, basically. Reality is what the ideology says it is, not what is real,
RichardL says
Today I had a conversation with another Catholic, Martin Rhonheimer, who writes about islam as a religion of hatred and violence.
mgoldberg says
I remember reading the Catholic writer, George Weigel’s book, Faith Reason and the war against Jihadism
back in 2007, and I can only wonder how this Catholic cleric and scholar is treated today with the Pope of Rome and his folks peddling appeasement.
mortimer says
Agree. There are notable RC clergy with solid study of Islam. They are not heeded by SHALLOW Pope Frank, because he is a neo-Marxist globalist. Many RC clergy have read the source texts of Islam, like Robert Spencer and they analyze Islam on sound theological principles.
Pope Frank hasn’t a CLUE about the theological difficulties of Islam. Islam’s deity is self-referentially incoherent and totally inscrutable. He is antithetical to Christian theology. THAT is the basis of Pope Frank’s obtuse determination not to learn anything that contradicts his smug SPONTANEITY about Islam.
James says
The present Pope’s view is not just his – every Pope since 1964 has had the same attitiude. And unless the relevant passages in the documents of Vatican 2 are corrected, his successors will take the same view. In no way is the HF’s POV a mere personal quirk.
There are two passages, and they are short enough to quote in full:
Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. *****But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind*****. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.
– Lumen Gentium 16 (1964), entire paragraph.
English translation here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Discussion here: http://www.catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?32756-Lumen-Gentium-16-Islam
And there is this, which has also been adopted as paragraph 841 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting…
– from the Declaration Nostra Aetate, 1965
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
The problem with NA 3 in particular, is that although Catholics and Muslims do worship “the One God”, what Catholics mean by affirming that God is One, contradicts what Islam means by affiirming allah is One. The Koran and Sunnah could not be clearer that the Tawhid of allah absolutely excludes all notion or possibility of plurality in allah – but for Catholics, as for almost all Christians, to affirm the Unity of God includes affirming plurality in God.
The supposed agreement that God is One, is a purely verbal agreement, at best; it conceals a profound disagreement as to what belief in the Oneness of God entails. It is no true agreement at all. This ambiguity, which masks complete contradiction between Islamic and Christian theism, is bad enough. What makes matters worse, is the deliberate decision by the CC at V2 not to condemn errors, but to look for points of agreement. It may seem absurd to deplore such a decision, but it has led to seeing agreement where none exists, and to ignoring the many features of Islam that are absolutely incompatible with Christianity. That it can be seen as similar to Christianity in a few isolated respects, ignores allah’s hatred of all unbelievers, taqiyya, polygamy, jihad, its Koranic denials about Christ, and much more. If one insists on ignoring how vastly Nazism differs from Judaism, they too can be seen as similar.
Yet this fallacious, ambiguous, Christianised notion of Islam has been the Catholic idea of Islam since 1964. With the greatest possible respect to the Popes and bishops since then, it is fallacious, ambiguous, deceptive, dangerous, incorrect, and untrue, and intolerable. The Church and the human race deserve the honest truth about Islam, not this attractive but deceptive fiction.
makmorn says
Being awake is painful, it would be so much easier to just go back to sleep like the multitudes around us and slumber til doomsday.
rubiconcrest says
If, after 9/11 and the thousands of attacks since, people don’t have a fire in the belly about this I’m not sure what can be done. Are they dead to the suffering? John Donne’s famous poem has powerful near religious significance to me ‘.. never send to know for whom the bells tolls … ‘ I have dedicated much time to seeing that the evil behind these attacks be exposed and defeated. Who does Stanford think they are protecting and from whom? They certainly do not defend the thousands of unwitting victims of Jihad terror since that fateful day. What will it take for Universities across the country to stand up for the victims of Islamic sanctioned Jihad in all it’s forms?
Jaladhi says
This is the problem- the entire Western world has become jihad enabler( with the exception of a few like Robert Spencer, Pamella Gellar, etc). Stanford University is not alone in the academia – you will find almost all universities are jihad enablers as they all curtail free speech and truth about Islam.
I just wonder what will happen to these braindeads if Muslims take over the world – you think will have a chance to survive with their phony PC, diversity world outlook. Nah, they will convert with fear of losing their heads if they don’t. That will be the day their chickens will come home to roost!! Ha, ha,..
mortimer says
Matthew Hanley has written a SUPERB analysis of the issues in “The Catholic Thing”.
Robert Spencer should be invited back to the venue to speak. Berkeley was forced to invite Milo Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro back to speak with improved security.
I would like Mr. Spencer to publish the text of the speech he wanted to deliver at Stanford.
Would anyone else like to read Robert Spencer’s speech? Show of hands, please.
Vic says
Yes, Mortimer, RS should be invited back to speak at Stanford. We can all help continue the dialogue with the Young Republicans at the university.
Mr. Spencer, please publish the text of the speech you intended to deliver at Stanford and we can take care to republish it far and wide to all our sources.
Comment: Never in the history of Islam has there been the opportunity of the many (Muslims and non-Muslims) to actually read and study the Islamic texts in a variety of approved translations giving people the ability to communicate the texts openly, discuss and critique them empirically, analyze and compare them to other religious doctrines and political systems, use avenues such as blogs and social media to access the widest audience ever, and allow this wide audience to filter the information through their own experience and reality and give them the opportunity to draw their own conclusions.
Amazingly, after being exposed to rational discussions, many people are struck by the truth of their findings and cannot believe they have been blinded (bamboozled) for so long by the ‘echo-chambers’ of the so-called MSM, the progressives and ignorant academic giants (in their own minds) who have refused to do the research needed and have succumbed to ME endowments and political correctness. It’s very difficult to come down from an ivory tower. Eventually, the fall will be hard and nasty because it cannot stand to the critical inquiry of reason.
Islamophobia is the creation of SA and the OIC to keep the world from this inquiry. They see the writing on the wall if people like RS, Geller, Warner, Glazov, Dershowitz, and many others in the EU persist on their quest to expose the truth… The Muslim Brotherhood, its partners and these countries are desperate to control those “rogue” western minds and shut down free speech in the West. Why else?
Norger says
Yes. The MSM, our institutions of “higher learning” and the vast majority of our political class won’t touch the disturbing aspects of Islamic theology with the proverbial 10 foot pole. I don’t like Trump, but to quote another poster here, at least he has a pulse on this issue. I recall when Trump said that “Islam hates us,” and essentially invited the media to assess the truthfulness of that statement, not a single MSM outlet even attempted to evaluate that statement in light of orthodox Islamic doctrine (e.g. al wara wal bara).
We live in the Information Age, but don’t dare learn more about Islam than you’re supposed to know.
Alon Zionist says
“Would anyone else like to read Robert Spencer’s speech? Show of hands, please.”
-Yes Iwould like.
James says
Hand shown. Is it available on video ?
mortimer says
Matthew Hanley is correct. The Leftards at Stanford are enabling violent jihadists. Most probably don’t know enough about Islam to realize it.
DRHazard says
Imagine being a U.S. Citizen and having knowledge of basic Islamic doctrines, the ones agreed upon by 99% of all so called Muslim “scholars” and 100% by all Muslim terrorists. Now imagine that you know all about these doctrines but don’t want anybody else to know about them. You know you can’t argue publicly against the fact that among the clear and repeated goals for Muslims, as laid down by Allah, one of the most attested to and repeated is to kill or subjugate ALL non-believers and hypocrites (:”fake” Muslims). You know that Islam wants to dominate the World and you also know that attacking your enemies (again, all non-Muslims) is the “outer” jihad demanded by Allah of all able bodies Muslims.
But, you really are disinclined to do anything that might make Islam and Muslims look bad. Your reason for this secrecy may be that you don’t want your peers to think of you as a backward, racist Islamophobe. Or maybe you appreciate the fact that Muslims share your dislike for Western democratic and capitalist countries (the enemy of my enemy…).
Fortunately you are completely comfortable with lying in order to sway the opinions of others. Another tactic that doesn’t trouble your conscience includes frequently engaging in ad hominem attacks (name calling and labeling) against the person revealing the facts you wish to remain hidden or obscured. If you have the power to do so, you will also make it logistically difficult or impossible for the person telling the truth about Islam to have any kind of platform for doing so. No worries, the end justifies the means.
This is the sad state of affairs prevalent throughout the Western world; a hardcore group of non-Muslim Westerners lying about the character and intentions of others, cooperating with terrorists and their supporters, and doing everything they can to shut down or destroy their “enemies”. All so they can feel superior to other people. While doing all this these people continue to signal their virtues of open mindedness and egalitarianism. Oddly, most of them also claim to be supporters of free speech.
During the period of time that they have successfully suppressed any discussion of the truth behind the motives of Islamists and terrorists thousands of people have been killed in the name of Allah. And when confronted with this fact they just double down on the lying, name calling, suppressing and oppressing.
These people are accomplices to murder. But they will never, ever let you know the real reason for all the destruction, mayhem and slaughter caused by Muslims who are just following Islam. And what makes this defiant display of ignorance so tragic is that the very same people they seek to shield from the light of truth harbor only hatred towards them and want them to die. The Muslim terrorrists freely admit it. It is in all their suicide videos. It is agreed upon by virtually all honest Muslim “scholars”. They would kill you and your children or, perhaps, turn your daughters, wives and mothers into sex slaves whenever the opportunity to do so presents itself. Pretty much everything a liberal stands for is considered haram in Islam and among knowledgeable Muslims.
Stop helping them.
Richard says
No one wants to hear negativism. When a prophetess tried to warn the Trojans, they refused to listen: “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts!” I guess she was just a mean-spirited racist.
Bridget Ames says
Pope Francis is deeply uninformed when he defend Islam, and many Catholics know their history. I don’t know why he is just an apologist for Islam, he should be one for His own Faith. But we know there have been many Bishops unworthy of the name.
Benedict says
Don’t antagonize the Muslims, seems to be the Stanfords Officials strategy, enthusiastically endorsed by the SS within their jurisdiction. If the religion of Muslims is prevented form being scrutinized it might take longer before Muslims come out in full Jihadi apparition. Don’t irritate the Trojan Camels in our midst with their domes and minarets; their peaceful members might decide to rent an entire fleet of lorries in order to silence the unjustifiable accusations of their prophet and his holy war manual, and then we have only ourselves and Robert Spencer to blame.
Carolyne says
It could be that Stanford does not wish to offend the Muslims because of a reason as old as man. Follow the money. The oil money. Does Stanford receive a substantial amount from Saudi Arabia to fund some sort of “Islamic Studies” department?
I did send an email to the woman who was egging these idiots on but received an automated reply that she was on vacation but would answer personally when she returned on the 27th. Nothing insulting, just asked her if she knew about the fate of women under Sharia and if not, she should educate herself.
Benedict says
Strange, Carolyne. Just a moment before I read your comment, I commented on the horrifying story : https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/anni-cyrus-video-sharia-hunting-the-survivor-to-the-west#comment-1779221
Anni Cyrus’ testimony against Islam should also be heard at Stanford. Maybe you could mail a link to “the woman”? –
You are certainly right about the money. Money makes Islam go around.
Lydia says
This is why we have the motto: SOLA SCRIPTURA
It eliminates a lot of fools inbetween.
Read it and you will be set free.
tgusa says
Universities of the past used to welcome men like Robert Spencer. Those men would then set about the world trying to make that world better. Now, they are harassed and attacked. The world has been turned upside down.
Keep up making a difference, Sir.
henner720 says
enable something they effectively fo not want , rendering them powerless and incompetent
Norger says
“Is standing against hideous things – jihad murder, slavery, the manifold indignities Sharia visits upon women, etc. – suddenly discouraged at Stanford when they happen to be embedded into the fiber of a religion deemed so worthy of uncritical adulation that they must be willfully overlooked?”
Devastating commentary. Let me add to the list of things so embedded in the fiber of this religion they must be willfully ignored at Stanford and other institutions of “higher learning:” death penalty for blasphemy, death penalty for apostasy, death penalty for homosexuality, second class citizenship for non/Muslims, and last but not least, extreme hostility, backed by violence, of any criticism of Islam. A disgraceful chapter in Stanford’s history.
Norger says
“A few min later themajority walked out in choreographed unison – with the aggressive, supremacist undertone of Islamic chant blaring from devices: Allahu Akbar without the violence.”
And in that moment as the Islamic chants were blaring, I wonder if that symbolism was completely lost on these lemmings; whether it even occurred to any of them that they were being cynically used by a totalitarian ideology at odds with virtually everything these students claim to stand for.
Bill Shackelford says
Robert Spencer, a true patriot, should consider utilizing “closed captioning,” at each of his speeches. Captioned speeches guarantee each party a set time to speak, or respond. Mr. Spencer’s words would be displayed word-for-word. Shouting, screaming, or any other response from the audience would ALSO be recorded/documented. Over time, the intrusive, naieve, bullying tactics of the left will be revealed, IN WRITING, courtesy of closed captioning.