Just in case there are any people reading this who aren’t sure whether the SPLC is right or I am, the SPLC says in the article below: “Spencer and Horowitz’s records make it clear that they’re not interested in reasoned debate or the free exchange of ideas.”
Here, by contrast, is something I said when I spoke on November 14 at Stanford University:
I hope there are some people [remaining] who oppose what I stand for. The whole idea is to have a discussion. The idea of the university as a matter of fact is to engage in the discussion of ideas and ideas are supposed to be accepted or rejected on their merits. The idea that ideas are to be rejected on the basis of whether they are acceptable to various elites, that’s just the opposite of what free discourse really is. So these Stanford people, these lemmings that just left, are actually behaving in a away that is completely in opposition to what a university ought to be. A university ought to be a place where any and all ideas can be discussed freely…
These people cannot and will not engage on the level of ideas. They come in and they pack the event and then they leave so that nobody that wants to be here can be here. This again shows that these people are afraid of free discourse.
So who is in favor of reasoned debate and the free exchange of ideas, and who isn’t? I would gladly debate anyone of the SPLC’s choosing on Islam and jihad. They, however, will ignore this invitation, or deride it if they don’t ignore it.
Here is the video of the full event. Below is much more commentary from me on the SPLC piece.
Note first the SPLC’s title. Jihad terrorists who commit mass murder are commonly called “extremists” by law enforcement and the establishment. The SPLC is implying that I, who have never committed any violence, called for any violence, or approved of any violence, am their equivalent: “Anti-Muslim extremist Robert Spencer calls peaceful student protesters ‘children’ of ‘Nazis’ at Stanford,” Southern Poverty Law Center, November 22, 2017:
Notorious Muslim-basher and pretend expert on Islam Robert Spencer faced a tough crowd earlier this week at Stanford University. Hosted by the Stanford College Republicans, Spencer was unprepared for a peaceful student walkout.
“Pretend.” Name-calling is easy. Refutation is hard. I’m still waiting for someone to show my statements about Islam, jihad, and Sharia to be false. And my debate invitation stands, SPLC.
Spencer started calling students Nazis as soon as they began their silent protest. According to the Stanford Daily:
Shortly after this comment, the majority of the auditorium got up and left, accompanied by loud Arabic music and Spencer’s speech into the microphone.
Stanford Against Islamophobia clarified that the music was not associated with the original protest, which it said was intended to be a peaceful and silent reaction to the University’s decision to allow Spencer to speak on campus in the first place.
Spencer proceeded to speak loudly into the microphone, calling the students “neo-brown shirts” and “children and heirs of the fascists and the Nazis.”
Stanford administrators and Leftist students conducted a smear campaign before I arrived and made sure that as few people as possible heard me. In The Coming of the Third Reich, historian Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, Stormtroopers (Brownshirts) “organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers [and] staged mass disruptions of their lectures.” If you act like a Nazi, maybe you’re a…Nazi.
Thus ended another enlightening campus event sponsored by the billionaire-backed Young America’s Foundation.
The SPLC, with its millions in offshore accounts, is whining about its enemies having some money, no doubt less than it has? That’s rich. How many millions does YAF have in offshore accounts? Right, none.
Spencer’s ludicrous outburst and attempt to play the victim is of course a lie. According to the Daily, the campus opposition to the event, while fierce, was peaceful. It seems that what was most upsetting to Spencer was his opponents practicing their First Amendment rights….
Spencer and Horowitz’s records make it clear that they’re not interested in reasoned debate or the free exchange of ideas.
Disrupting an event is not exercising one’s First Amendment rights. Holding a rival event, or a rebuttal — that would be practicing their First Amendment rights. But that’s not what happened at Stanford. Nanci Howe, Associate Dean and Director of Student Activities and Leadership, and Snehal Naik, Assistant Dean and Associate Director of Student Activities and Leadership, made sure that the hall was packed with students who had no intention of attending the lecture, but were there only to sabotage it by denying seats to people who actually wanted to attend. They even kept out some members of the College Republicans, the group that was sponsoring the event. Then after the walkout, they refused to allow students who wanted to attend to come in to the mostly empty hall. That’s Brownshirt behavior, not exercise of one’s First Amendment rights.
Here is video of Nanci Howe happily circulating among the Stanford students walking out of my event there last Tuesday, patting them on the back and chatting with them.
Below is full video of the walkout. Howe appears at 2:44. She appears again at the end of this video, grimacing as I criticize Tessier-Lavigne and Drell for failing to teach or defend the freedom of speech, and for acting to crush dissenting opinions.
With Howe stage-managing the disruption of the event this obviously, it’s clear now why she refused to allow YAF to stream the event.
As for the SPLC’s claim that I am “not interested in reasoned debate or the free exchange of ideas,” I await their response to my debate invitation.
Wellington says
The SPLC is rather like the term, “Islamophobia,” in one very specific respect, to wit, that anyone taking said organization seriously should never be taken seriously.
Lucretius says
Islamophobia is an ideology of peace.
mortimer says
SPLC is a SLANDER factory and a LABEL factory, rather than an institute devoted to critical thought.
SPLC is mud-slinging team that hopes some of their mud will stick. They have no arguments, only slander.
No one at SPLC has the guts to challenge Robert Spencer to debate. All of the staff at SPLC are COWARDS.
SPLC admits they cannot win a debate against Robert Spencer because they have not taken his call to debate. Therefore, SPLC has lost by default.
Charles says
I’m still hoping and praying that the COMMUNIST of the SPLC are soon to be arrested and JAILED!
Now THAT, would put a smile ? on my face!
michigan man says
too bad the so called elite at stanford and the splc cannot handle common debate that threatens their little world of rainbows and unicorns.small minds are all alike within these people.their iq may be higher than mine,maybe,but without common sense about what is happening in this world today,it ill serves them.again,thanks robert for telling the truth and trying to educate people about islam.
Ronnie Lee says
It’s a shame the left isn’t as good at promoting tolerance and the free exchange of ideas as they are at creating false narratives.
jihad3tracker says
HELLO TO THE *** PUSSIES *** STAFFING THE SPLC ! ! !
I mean no insult to women or cats by using that appropriate word to describe adults unable to rise above middle-school name calling.
Who, in their private lives, probably love to be b*tch slapped — spineless cowards — in 180 degree contrast to Robert Spencer and Pam Geller.
If there is an afterlife devoted to justice during life on our astonishing planet, SPLC trolls will be far below even Dante Alighieri’s lowest rung of condemned souls.
Westman says
Yes, Spencer and Geller have put their lives on the line, always needing protection to tell the truth; even enduring, apparently, an assassination attempt allowed by the FBI, in Garland TX.
None of those gutless wonders at the SPLC make any sacrifices and throw aspersions on anything if it will get them more loot to stay afloat. These cowards will run for their lives if Islam ever comes knocking because the intellectual commitment of cowards is the weakest kind.
Westman says
The University Left and the SPLC are digging their own economic and social graves. They will watch Europe in flames and chaos as Islam turns violently against Europe’s left and openly exploits them as Stalin did Trotsky.
Only an imbecile can take a long, careful, and reasoned look at the current problems in the UK, Denmark, and Sweden without concluding this is the end of “old” Europe, and the beginning of a continual volatility that will likely lead to civil war if not revolution. The elite always think they have the upper hand until the citizens(as in France) increase the distance between heads and bodies.
When our Left finally views what is under the mask of Islam, their discredit will be indelible. Currently, they are too lazy to study its doctrines and are operating in pure ignorance; supplanted by organizations and individuals promotimg Dawa. Fortunately, it should come in time for the US to avoid the same future. We should be grateful for oceans that slow the process.
jihad3tracker says
Thank you, Westman, for that truth and many other comments here at JW during several years I have been also posting.
Your mention of “the UK, Denmark, and Sweden” reminds me of how our well-meaning but clueless fellow citizens seem to ignore events in Europe — as if “oceans that slow the process” could save us from jihad five or ten years from now.
Westman says
Tracker, that delay might save the US if the citizens wake up and the economic collapse of Europe gets the attention of our government; a government that has been run by corporate interests for as long as I can remember. Money, they understand.
Terry Gain says
The government (and academia and media) won’t understand until the people understand. The sooner Sweden falls the earlier the people will understand that the media, academia and government are wrong about Islam.
Adrian says
Disgraceful SPLC nonetheless enjoys a certain “reputation” as a reference among the sheeple public…
No amount of facts or reasoning can prevail… the brainwashing is too deep and omnipresent in most societies…
Voytek Gagalka says
Anyone reading anything the SPLC says or writes should apply a fair doze of the bullshit detector. Almost each and every statement they pronounce is distorted, a twisted lie. Always. While in one breath they have insolence to claim, allegedly, that “Spencer and Horowitz’s records make it clear that they’re not interested in reasoned debate or the free exchange of ideas,” they will clearly show themselves soon enough a notorious tendency of being absolutely “not interested in reasoned debate or the free exchange of ideas.” Unless, of course, their understanding of a “debate” is for you to shut up and accept “with willing submission while feeling yourself subdued” any bullshit they’ll proclaim to be a final and undisputed truth. No wonder they love and defend Islam so much!
Shmoovie says
Agreed! The two are, as Gramma would say, “peas in a pod”.
Had to laugh at the line about RS facing a “tough crowd” at Stanford. What a lot of guts it takes, to duck away from speech one doesn’t want to hear– and spine, to later proclaim oneself Winner of an avoided debate.
Splc LOSES again with this childish, fake victory lap.
gravenimage says
+1
RodSerling says
One odd detail now makes sense. Robert did not call those brainwashed students “neo-grouchers,” as previously reported, but “neo-brown shirts.”
roberta says
Dance, dance, dance all you can dance, while you can dance.
Before your religion of piece stops the music. Only time for jihad.
So put on your best vest. You know the one Im talking about.
gravenimage says
Music is Haram!
Suicide vest are good, though…
Bezelel says
The splc never had any credibility. There was only a brief period before their agenda was exposed. I suspect that it is more than a coincidence that their agenda reflects leftist politics. They need to include leftist in their title,(spllc). But that would be honest and they aren’t going there.
nicholas tesdorf says
It is quite amazing to see this sort of childish behaviour going on at what one thought was a serious, elite University. The ‘Elite’ at Stanford University and their allies in the SPLC will not countenance real debate as they know that they are badly equipped for it and would lose publicly. They live in a little Leftist thought bubble. Honest analysis threatens their world of rainbows and unicorns. Once again, thanks to Robert Spencer for having the fortitude to face these awful people and put the Truth of the matter out for all to see.
Jan Sobieski says
The SPLC is now the muslim and tran war machine. smearing any who criticize their favored ‘identity’ groups.
You have to have a dark heart to work there.
PRCS says
A bit off topic, but:
How is it that so many Stanford students knew about this orchestrated walkout–how far in advance, I don’t know–without the College Republicans and others also catching wind of it??
Knowing how ugly campus opposition to Spencer’s presentation was, surely some sort of disruption was anticipated.
In hindsight, what coulda/shoulda been done differently–if anything?
gravenimage says
The disruption was orchestrated by the administration. Nothing the College Republicans could have done about it.
mortimer says
SPLC is composed of COWARDS who stand behind a fence and lob stones from a safe distance where they cannot be touched with a counterargument.
They cannot stand FACE TO FACE in a debate against Robert Spencer.
SPLC = CHFD (COWARDS hiding from debate)
mortimer says
There is no pretence about knowing Islam after writing 17 books on the subject.
The fact that Robert Spencer is an expert is proved by the fact that top Islamic debaters have been routinely defeated by him and now few if any have the guts to debate him.
A mullah in London admitted on air that Robert Spencer is an expert.
Robert Spencer knows more about Islam than East London Imam on BBC radio interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XYmZ3T6c6s
Bezelel says
“There is no pretence about knowing Islam after writing 17 books on the subject.”
No brag, Just fact.
Lydia says
That’s like dancing because hitler rose to power.
They are putting the nails in their own coffins, by the time they find out, it will be too late.
They can dance all they want, but they are the real losers.
Pathetic.
Keith says
So Stanford joins Harvard, Yale, Berkeley and many other campuses in allowing juvenile fascists to undermine free speech. What a disgrace. We live in an age of mass hysteria, with the misdirected and naïve idealism of the young supported shamefully by adults with their own agendas. Congratulations to Mr Spencer, whose brave voice is needed now more than ever.
Naildriver says
I’ve seen first hand this behavior at a major university and know how frustrating it is to see the effects of mob behavior couched as righteous indignation.
Little minded busy bodies passing out flyers and yelling out their outrage to any one, or no one, as if listening to some record in their heads is a sad sight, particularly knowing their efforts will negatively impact their families and the various factions of liberals — do they not know gays are thrown from roof tops in strong Islamic states and women are but chattel?
I have seen this but still fail to understand the glue that binds such an incongruous array of inconsistentencies together in any human mind — but then there are over a billion Muslims. And in history, one can see the litter of demented thinking that goes all the way back.
Georg says
The SPLC and their ludicrous claim Robert isn’t interested in debate probably shouldn’t be dignified but, probably needless to say, it is a most vacuous and absurd claim Robert predictably offers to right while they so predictably demur from their own implied suggestion (of debate); these are losers, to be sure.
In short: The SPLC is a dangerous joke.
Their being significantly funded by a place not in the South, with money up to its eyeballs, and whose laws come from the Koran betray their intent.
SAM says
These Stanford people are so much out of touch with reality that when a Jihadi attacks them they will blame Robert and probably Trump.
I don’t know what that would be but we infidels must change our war tactics soon to defeat this total suicidal liberal ignorance.
Carolyne says
“Sin lent protest” my foot If it were silent, no one would know it was a protest and they want to call as much attention to themselves as possible. That’s why they were playing Arabic music, which, bty, doesn’t sound human..
Carolyne says
“Silent” My keyboard sometimes does things like this.
gravenimage says
Yes–how can it be “silent” when they were blaring noise?
Norger says
“Spencer and Horowitz’s records make it clear that they’re not interested in reasoned debate or the free exchange of ideas.”
That’s just incredibly rich. The SPLC has done everything in their power to deny Spencer a platform to speakl. Perhaps they’ll offer up a learned champion to engage him in “ reasoned debate” or “free exchange of ideas,” but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Lying hypocrites.
Enrique says
Question for Standford administration and professors:
If Mr. Spencer were a professor at Stanford, would the administration allow and even encourage disruptions (such as the one we see in these videos) allowed at every one of his/her class sessions, when students disagreed with a professor’s views?
If not, why not?
If it would, what should a Stanford professor do? Should the professor modify his lectures to conform to the Stanford administration’s and students’ beliefs,. however misinformed or erroneous these might be? What do Stanford professors think about this? Has any spoken out? If not, why not?
Would the administration terminate or force the resignation of a professor if he/she did not conform his or her lectures to theitr beliefs, or to those of students in his/her class? What would be the grounds for termination?
Enrique says
Stanford (not Standfor)
Enrique says
REVISED
Questions for Stanford Administration and Faculty:
If someone such as Mr. Spencer were a professor at Stanford, would the current administration allow and even encourage disruptions (such as the one we see in these videos) at every one of his/her class sessions if students disagreed with his views?
If not, why not?
If it would, what should such a Stanford professor do? Should the professor modify his lectures to conform to the Stanford administration’s and students’ beliefs, however misinformed or erroneous these might be? What do Stanford professors think about this? Has any spoken out? If not, why not?
Would the administration terminate or force the resignation of such a professor if he/she did not conform his or her lectures to their beliefs, or to those of students in his/her class? What would be the grounds for termination?
The same questions apply in the case of an existing Stanford professor who changes his views and his new ones don’t conform to those of the administration or students in his/herclass, however erroneous these may be.
Enrique says
CONTINUATION
That is not to say that any and every view should be tolerated. For example, a professor who advocates genocide of any group should not be tolerated. Nor should one who advocates that either Christians and Jews convert to Islam, or that otherwise they should be forced to pay a tax to Muslims, or be killed, as the Koran teaches.
But if Stanford were to terminate a professor or permit or encourage disruption of his lectures because his views contradict the administration’s, shouldn’t Stanford specify exactly what beliefs or views it objects to? If not, why, not?
But if so, what views does Stanford object to in the case of a Robert Spencer, and what evidence can they present that he holds said views? It’s only fair that they be transparent about this.
gravenimage says
SPLC does victory dance over fascist disruption of Robert Spencer event at Stanford
…………………………
The SPLC applauding shutting down freedom of speech? Who ever would have thought it? sarc/off
PRCS says
As Shmoovie noted above, the folks who walked out can’t really be called a tough crowd.
But, they were disciplined (secrets don”t generally remain secret for long), and the walkout was well orchestrated.
Should Stanford host a known taqiyyameister somewhere down the road, the auditorium should be “packed” by people who will remain to query and challenge that individual in the Q&A part of the presentation.
Before going outside to fire up her fellow idiots, “Deen” Howe’s co-conspirator (the girl in the red sweater) looked back at whomever said “Islam is not a race) and said “I want you to be better, I encourage you to be better”.
Perhaps that could be the rallying cry when challenging Muslims with their own texts.
Norger says
I wonder WTF that means, “I want you to be better.” It sounds like “I am so convinced of my moral superiority that I don’t need consider to whether Islam is a race (where it so clearly isn’t. The Tsarnaev brothers, for example, were quite literally Caucasians. Or Linda Sarsour magically becomes a “ woman of color” when she puts on a hijab. Incredibly delusional.
PRCS says
“It sounds like “I am so convinced of my moral superiority that I don’t need consider to whether Islam is a race (where it so clearly isn’t.”
That’s exactly the way I understood it.
Wouldn’t want facts to get in the way of her agenda.
Other than any Muslims in that walk out, have to wonder what they actually know about Islam.
PRCS says
Sorry, that was for you, Norger.
I’m generally conservative, and do watch Fox News–though they’re not perfect–for that point of view.
In addressing President Trump’s Fransen retweet, one of the excuses by a Fox reporter that as the video of the boy being pushed off that building occurred in Egypt, and that it was Muslim on Muslim, it was only partially relevant.
Long way to go.