“On the evening of Nov. 14, the Stanford College Republicans organized a lecture given by Mr. Robert Spencer, a controversial critic of Islam. A colleague and I wished to attend the lecture because such viewpoints are rare on Stanford campus and we wanted to evaluate the merit of the speaker’s opinion on our own without being told what not to listen to. However, we were denied entry and were told that the event was full.”
Remember: after the walkout, Stanford deans Nanci Howe and Snehal Naik, both of whom should have been fired immediately, refused to allow students who wanted to attend enter the hall where I was speaking.
“The actions of the walking-out attendees at the Robert Spencer lecture certainly did not facilitate dialogue, understanding or compromises. Had they instead joined the protesters outside the event or, even better, stayed in the lecture and challenged the speaker during the Q&A session, not only would their opinions be better clarified but more members of the Stanford community would also be included in the dialogue. There was nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by purposely walking out of the lecture as an organized group.”
Yes. Bravo.
Find out how it came to be that opposing jihad terror makes one a notorious villain in my new book Confessions of an Islamophobe. Preorder your copy here now.
“Open letter to the President and Provost on last week’s events,” by Qi Yang, Stanford Daily, November 20, 2017:
Dear Dr. Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Dr. Persis Drell,
As a graduate student at Stanford, I would like to voice my concern over recent phenomena on campus and file a complaint against the actions of some fellow members of the Stanford community. Such actions include denying access to a lecture and displaying of the Antifa symbol on academic buildings. It is my opinion that these actions do not befit an institution of learning and intellectual discussions, and may have violated the University’s Policy on Campus Disruptions. I do not seek punitive action against people involved; however, I feel that it would be beneficial if the administration’s position on these particular matters are known to the members of the community.
On the evening of Nov. 14, the Stanford College Republicans organized a lecture given by Mr. Robert Spencer, a controversial critic of Islam. A colleague and I wished to attend the lecture because such viewpoints are rare on Stanford campus and we wanted to evaluate the merit of the speaker’s opinion on our own without being told what not to listen to. However, we were denied entry and were told that the event was full.
Later on, we read in the news that a large proportion of the audience walked out in an organized fashion in the middle of the lecture. While leaving an ongoing event is certainly within an individual attendee’s rights, we believe that doing so in a planned manner by a large group of people at a fully booked event unfairly denies access to members of the Stanford community who are genuinely interested in attending. Such action defeats the purpose of the lecture and prevents the effective carrying out of a University-approved activity and therefore is likely a violation of the University’s Policy on Campus Disruptions. Lastly and very importantly, such action in effect impedes freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech on campus.
You have pointed out in your recent blog that freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech are fundamental to the mission of the University. In addition to that, we believe that freedom of speech is crucial to the functioning of any modern civil society, Western or otherwise. Good opinions should be heard so that they may inspire. Bad opinions should be heard so that they may be refuted. Even polarizing or extreme opinions should be heard in public, so that they do not ferment in private into extreme actions. Dialogue, understanding and compromises are the only antidotes to polarization and extremism.
The actions of the walking-out attendees at the Robert Spencer lecture certainly did not facilitate dialogue, understanding or compromises. Had they instead joined the protesters outside the event or, even better, stayed in the lecture and challenged the speaker during the Q&A session, not only would their opinions be better clarified but more members of the Stanford community would also be included in the dialogue. There was nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by purposely walking out of the lecture as an organized group.
My colleague and I observed and talked to some protesters outside the Robert Spencer lecture, and found them both passionate and civil. We believe that they were voicing what they believed to be true and just. Their protest was therefore not only healthy but laudable. At the same time, however, we have noticed a banner hanging from the window above the lecture room featuring the Stanford logo and the Antifa symbol side by side that, on the next day, was moved to the exterior of the Earth Sciences building (picture attached). [Editor’s note: In reality, the Stanford Daily, at least in its online edition, did not include this photo.] We found such a sight extremely troubling, as Antifa has been widely reported to be a group that advocates violence and was responsible for violent offenses in multiple parts of the United States.
While we absolutely defend the right of the person or organization behind the banner to express their own alignment to Antifa, we found such alignment itself morally objectionable. Furthermore, by using the Stanford logo alongside the Antifa symbol, and by displaying the banner on the University’s academic buildings, they have purported to represent the Stanford community, which they by no means have the right to and therefore is nothing but reprehensible.
I hope you find these concerns constructive and helpful.
— Qi Yang, Ph.D. candidate in physics
Beagle says
“Physics”
And that sums up the terrible crisis in western scholarship in a nutshell. Only STEM students seem to defend the western traditions of free inquiry, thought, and the marketplace of ideas.
warmac9999 says
Anyone who studies a STEM field knows that solutions are often found in the smallest of places. Essentially, they are searchers of small and large truths
mortimer says
You science snobs are reading too much into a science degree supposedly promoting moral clarity. Scientists can be as morally confused as anyone else. And great literateurs (like Churchill…Nobel Prize for literature) can possess very clear moral vision. Qi Yang (Ph.D. cand.), has expressed his concern very correctly in perfect English.
What we are looking at on the Left today is a cult-like religious delusion which focuses on a small, erroneous political delusion, namely that all patriotism is a form of Nazism that deserves to be persecuted forcefully, thereby denying patriotic, non-globalist people their human rights.
The enemy of facts today is this cocksure delusion of righteous on the Left which leads to the cocksure, proud smugness we saw in Nanci Howe.
Westman says
I could be quite in error. However, what I see is a polarization between the frightened who feel they must have group support and its entitlements and those who want the continuation of, what once was, a meritocracy.
None of these globalist “antifa types”, protestors, or their liberal-promoting professors would give their lives to sustain their nation, nor do they have any expectation of serving in any way for a country whose history they have re-written to be a world villian. They believe that disolving nations is the way to peace – without learning the lesson of Neville Chamberlain.
At the crux is a belief that the natural condition of humans is peace when historical evidence proves that it is competition; the most severe of it leading to war.
Islam is the natural companion of such beliefs, claiming oppression, victimhood, and minority status until such time it can successfully move into its openly competition mode. It is a dangerous fellow traveler, in the mode of Trotsky and Stalin.
And this is the great danger of Islam – its chameleon modes of operation. Its written books give it authority for peace, subterfuge, and war against people solely based on whether believing, or not, in its own prophet and its own, “god”.
The student support for BDS is little more than fear of war that they would be unwilling to fight. If they really had any credibility they would be in “Palestine” leading the charge. But as is the usual case with “armchair warriors”, to quote a newspaper journalist friend, “Intellectual commitment is the weakest kind”. So, instead they work as a mob to stifle any speech that might remind them that competition with Islam is inevitable.
It is a truism that there are few liberals after a war in the homeland, regardless of the cause. And the chance that these misguided liberals will see it in their lifetime, considering they will live for another 60 years, is 100%. It might not even involve Islam. Come, it will.
Gail griffin says
Eastman well written!
gravenimage says
As I have said before, we do not want to cede philosophy and the humanities to those who hate Western civ. This is ultimately quite disastrous.
maghan says
Given that Bertrand Russel and Anthony Flew wrote very candidly about Islam–as a very pernicious ideology.
Saleem Smith says
We ex-Muslims living with Islam’s formal and informal death penalty for apostasy know that one does not need a Ph.D. of any kind to understand that Mohammedanism is a terribly dangerous and harmful fraud that needs to go the way of the dinosaur.
The Reality of Friendship in Islam>>
Friendship is only possible in Islam if both parties remain in the religion forever. For Muhammad has ordered that Muslims who leave the fold of Islam are to be put to death.
If there are two Muslims sitting in front of the computer reading this article, they must admit that they should kill their friend if he or she tried to leave Islam.
Whether a person is born into Islam or becomes a Muslim through conversion, they must remain in the religion for the rest of their lives or risk being killed by their former Muslim “brothers and sisters”. Both Muhammad the prophet of Islam and the Qur’an state that those who leave the religion are to be killed:
Hadith, Sahih Bukhari: Vol.9, Bk.84, No.57:
Narrated ‘Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”
Quran 004:089 ‘They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.’
In Verse 009:023 of the Quran, Muhammad is claiming that God has commanded him to inform “his followers” that they must rank Islam ahead of their own family in importance. In other words, Muhammad has said that Muslims should virtually disown their own family members should they simply choose not to remain Muslim. At minimum the family member is to be heartlessly ostracized.
Quran 009.023 ‘O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief. And whoever does so among you – then it is those who are the wrongdoers.’
There can be no true friendship between Muslims. Friendship in Islam is contingent upon continued adherence to the religion. In other words, if a Muslim simply chooses to leave Islam for his own reasons, his Muslim friends must consider him a traitor to the Muslim Ummah, an enemy of God, a worthless failure and an Apostate that should be killed.
Let us now further consider the reality of friendship amongst Muslims themselves. This topic concerned me greatly when I was a Muslim. For inside I knew the answers to the questions that I was asking myself…. and the truth was deeply disturbing. Some of the questions that I asked myself were as follows:
If I were to leave Islam would my Muslim friends have to dump ME? Does this mean that if one of my Muslim friends chose to leave Islam that I would have to dump THEM?
The answers to these fundamental questions helped open the door for me and leave Muhammad’s Islam. These and other “Islamic realities” led me to a critical study of Islam that helped free me from its perverse falsehoods. Many Muslims still do not understand this basic fact but are beginning to sense that something is very wrong with their religion.
More lovey sentiments on friendship from the supposedly perfect Quran:
003.028
Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
005.051
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
005.080
Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the Unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah’s wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide.
058.014
Turnest thou not thy attention to those who turn (in friendship) to such as have the Wrath of Allah upon them? They are neither of you nor of them, and they swear to falsehood knowingly.
060.013
O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) to people on whom is the Wrath of Allah, of the Hereafter they are already in despair, just as the Unbelievers are in despair about those (buried) in graves.
In conclusion, it should be obvious to all decent human beings that Islam’s treatment of friendship and other matters is severely perverse. There are many valid reasons why a person would choose to leave Islam. Upon close inspection, it is obvious that Islam is the fraud of a deranged con man named Muhammad.
Terry Gain says
Thank you Saleem. I have long believed that ex-Muslims are in the best position to make the case against Islam – which I submit is obvious. The notion that someone may be punished because they reject an ideology is outrageous,
carpediadem says
Oh really? Science “genius” Stephen Hawking joined the immoral and psychopathic BDS movement – while using an Israeli component in his voice box.
Hugo Hackenbush says
Notice that the letter writer is a PhD candidate in PHYSICS and not sociology or (name your BS field here)studies.
maghan says
Alexis de Tocqueville is a central figure in sociological and political theory and he was most scathing in his critique of Islam. See too what philosopher David Hume had to say about Islam. His contempt and scorn are very palpable.
DBM echo says
Hmmmmm, not wishing to be subjected to the Shariah’s numerous cruel and wildly disproportionate punishments for normal human behavior,from the chopping off of body parts to death, and somehow that’s considered Islamophobic.
Well, I guess I’m Islamophobic.
mortimer says
DBM, you are in fact Islamo-perceptive and Islamo-discerning.
mgoldberg says
It’s all very nice and very civil. Especially of course, what wasn’t civil at all… the purposeful disruption of the Standford U Lecture. So all these charming letters are of course welcomed for their concern, but they are so much fluff. The administration could care less, except maybe for getting caught, and having to go into denial. They haven’t had to answer for anything as yet because it is unwritten law that no politicly incorrect speech will be allowed anymore.
And that…. is an outrage. Not just the notion of ‘incorrectness’ but the dimwitted tyranny currently accepted, nurtured and paid for by students, and parents. What a sick joke.
Higher education, indeed. Until that President is exposed, along with the dimwitted smirking deans, who smirked along with this pile bovine fertiliizer, and maybe, just maybe get if not fired, then at least humiliated, publicly as the phony scoundrals that they are.
Only if R Spencer is allowed to return, and paid to return, and challenge these dim bulbs with their correct ignorance and progressive tyranny, will any of this be meaningful.
mortimer says
AGREE. ‘CIVIL’ WITH THE PURPOSE OF INFORMATION CONTROL: STANFORD GLEICHSCHALTUNG … an assault on the freedom of speech by stealth.
The smirking, smug dean Nanci Howe denied the conservative students their paid-for services on campus, namely the right to have meetings on campus.
She intentionally sabotaged the meeting without having the right to do so.
Robert Spencer is correct that this is a form of fascism to try to control information.
The Nazi program of GLEICHSCHALTUNG (implementation of conformity) is what this was.
A Nazi program to enforce rigid ideological conformity was implemented throughout all businesses, schools and organizations in Germany between 1933 and 1934. All information and all opinions were monitored and non-official opinions were all suppressed.
That is exactly what Nanci Howe was doing. Due to the Stanford GLEICHSCHALTUNG, calling her a ‘fascist’ is a reasonable accusation.
Jayell says
“It is my opinion that these actions do not befit an institution of learning and intellectual discussions…..”
Good God, really? What a novel idea! Whoever would have thought that? Truly amazing! I really am impressed!! I’m sure there can’t possibly be more than about a few hundred million round the globe (at least) who might just about have had the originality to come up with a something a bit like that! Give this person their Ph.D.now, then preserve them for posterity. They must be a very rare species indeed at Stanford!!
(PS – Dear JW reader, if any of them were actually to read this, do you think the authorities at Stanford might just get an inkling of the subtext skilfully hidden in the subtle sarcasm there?)
Kay says
It is brave to speak up against the prevailing (pc) opinion.
gravenimage says
Very much agree, Kay.
Westman says
We have little doubt about the future success of this student who requires discussion and analysis to make reasoned decisions, and was deprived of them by the herd mentality.
He is brave indeed, yet his future lies upon a non-political, provable, foundation rather than the approbation of gate keepers who develop a “science” of populist, inconsistent, and unrepeatable statistical conclusions that fail miserably when applied to the individual.
His future is in a meritocracy, wherever he goes.
eduardo odraude says
Jayell, it was very original of Qi Yang to have the guts to stand up for what seems to be a very unpopular position at Stanford. To be sarcastic toward him is to shoot yourself in the foot, unless you are on the other side.
gravenimage says
+1
TheBuffster says
Spot on, Eduardo.
jihad3tracker says
THE STANFORD DAILY IS VERY FAIR ABOUT PUBLISHING COMMENTS CRITICIZING ADMINISTRATION AND STUDENTS.
Click on Robert’s red hotlink, choose a path (I use Diqus) and get going !
Keep remarks civil & to the point, of course, even tossing in some history about Muhammad and bloodthirsty Allah, with citations from the Trilogy if you are feeling extra energetic.
We all should bombard that web newspaper with truth about the disgusting conduct of deans Snehali Naik and Nanci Howe until they are fired.
gravenimage says
+1
Gail griffin says
Eastman well written!
thomas says
The Standford thought police have printed this letter. I do not understand what this means.
Custos Custodum says
The coded message is that only ethnic minorities (the letter writer is Chinese) will be allowed, for a little while longer, to protest the loss of old liberties, before they, too are silenced.
This is what is behind the tireless, frantic demonisation of “white” people that we have been seeing since the early Obama years.
BTW kudos to Qi Yang!
eduardo odraude says
It means that the Stanford students value openness, and rejected Robert Spencer because they were under the misimpression that he is a xenophobe, the opposite of open. Somewhat as I reject Islam because I believe that Islam produces a closed society, some students reject “Islamophobes” because Islamophobes are thought to be xenophobes. But I’m no xenophobe: I support multiculturalism but I think the growth of Islam tends to substitute a totalitarian monoculture for multiculturalism. I am open to legal immigration from every part of the world, but not from the Islamic world.
warmac9999 says
The objective of the protestors was to prevent an opposing point of view from being exposed – good or bad did not matter. Apparently, antifa was allowed to hijack Stanford, and was extremely proud that it did so.
Terry Gain says
Yes. And ironically to impose Islamic blasphemy laws. Professors Naik and Howe behaved in a manner consistent with people who support Islamic blasphemy laws. They shut down Spencer because he dares to tell the truth about Islam.
Sarah says
STEM degrees. The only ones really worthwhile spending all that money and all those years in a University.
There’s a marketing opportunity here.. For a private university, to advertise that they operate as an educational institution that applies a strict policy of political neutrality on campus, within the staff and courses – and places the same expectations on students.
Firstly, it protects the rights of those who attend the campus, whether as a student, faculty member or visitor, to freely and RESPECTFULLY practice their own political dogma without judgement, protest or discrimination and secondly – there has GOT to be a large number of people out there who just want the goddamn degree – and not all the political infighting, pressure and nonsense forced on them, especially whilst they’re paying through the skin of their teeth for their education.
IF it were a success – you watch how fast the other boutique, private universities started to follow. If it makes money – they’ll do it.
mariam rove says
An excellent letter. This guy is brave. m
eduardo odraude says
Agreed. Thank you, Qi Yang, for writing an excellent letter.
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
fido says
Stanford, and indeed a preponderance of Western universities, are now violating the very principles on which they were supposedly founded.
Best way to turn the corner on this cancer of ignorance is to simply quit attending these institutions. Don’t send your kids and work to defund them in any manner possible. It’s time to face the fact that we’re at war not only with islam but with academia as well.
Kasch Mir says
“Mr. Robert Spencer, a controversial critic of Islam”
I do not understand the purpose of “controversial” here… Robert Spencer, a well-informed critic of islam would be more to the point.
“Even polarizing or extreme opinions should be heard in public”
It is indeed time we heard more people like Mr. Spencer, because his opinions show an abhorrence of extremism, or should denouncing nazism in the 1930s have been considered “polarizing” or “extreme”?!
C T says
“Controversial” is fairly used, for there was much controversy about him coming to speak and his message in the Stanford community. The sad thing is that it is controversial in the Stanford community for someone to read Islamic doctrinal sources and come to logical conclusions about their effect.
eduardo odraude says
“Controversial” is both a good thing to be and accurate about what Robert Spencer is.
tim gallagher says
I agree, C T. The readers of Jihad Watch and commenters, recognise Robert Spencer as a person, with great knowledge of the truth about Islam, who just tells the unvarnished truth about Islam’s nature, and always talks in a calm, pleasant manner while getting the truth out. To me, these leftist PC types, who spend all their time trying to sugar-coat Islam, and continually seem to support Islam, are insane. Don’t they see that they, as non-Muslims, will be right in Islam’s firing line, if Muslims ever attain power? They truly seem to be intent on committing suicide. Maybe they are truly so blind that they think Islam is peaceful. How can anyone be so blind? As you say, “the sad thing” is that Robert’s calm and logical truth telling about Islam is controversial. It is so weird. This sort of thing seems to be happening at universities throughout the western world.
Barry says
I agree with you kasch. Being a critic of islam is not only not being controversial, on the contrary, it’s being utterly rational and pragmatic.
mike9a says
Likely action taken by the university establishment: bye bye PhD candidate you’ll never earn it here, you might know how world is functioning but you do not know how we at SU are working around it.
eduardo odraude says
It’s true that Qi Yang is brave to write this letter, but I doubt it can put in doubt his being granted his physics Ph.D. Unlike the humanities, the sciences are still (somewhat) insulated from politics.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Eduardo.
gravenimage says
Stanford Ph.D. candidate says disruption of Robert Spencer event does “not befit an institution of learning”
……………………..
Bravo Qi Yang! A fine and measured letter.
mortimer says
Exactly correct. The right ‘tone’. I still think the conservative students should be given another chance to hold their event without let or hindrance and Nanci Howe should no longer be involved in student activities or Snehal Naik.
mortimer says
Snehal Naik.and Nanci Howe acted as thought police and had no right to act as they did. They should lose their positions. What they did is a breach of trust.
Lydia says
As with the nazi’s, all civilized conduct, all educated enlightenment, all rational sophistication, all academic acumen, reason, logic, critical thinking, common sense, well mannered politeness, and all other things of a well groomed person went right down the drain and descended into brutal, depraved, aggressive, belligerent, erratic, irrational madness and thuggery.
And now again…
Peter says
But it does befit an institution purporting to be a university that is engaged in deliberate ideological indoctrination.
underbed cat says
Hillary and Obama chanted “resist”, after the election, as if to protect the Islamic doctrine, sanctuary cities, and refugee mass migration school educators. heard the message..right on cue resisted….for the party. That took a lot of thought …..to decide not to inquire or be curious. Information warfare works to prevent the exposure of misinformation warfare.
Norger says
“A colleague and I wished to attend the lecture because such viewpoints are rare on Stanford campus and we wanted to evaluate the merit of the speaker’s opinion on our own without being told what not to listen to.”
And that’s what truly free speech is supposed to be all about.
Robert_k says
Perhaps Stanford could sponsor a university book burning of Robert Spencer’s books in the name of academic freedom. It worked for Goebbels.
HOWARD ALEXANDER STAFFORD says
Thank God, finally a good and true article! I so admire Qi Yang, Ph.D. and reinforces my hope that there are still College students who have open minds and are searching for the real truth.
So very happy to see this!
God bless freedom of speech and freedom of thought, God bless America!
David says
Read the Koran and learn the truth! It will set you free (from Islam)
Take a look at this: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
TassieR says
I repeat myself but: first of all we must learn the truth not about any mad dogs’ deceases, but about the peoples who welcome them into our homes (the dogs may be crazy with Koran, with Das Kapital, with some Proud LGBTQ alphabet sickness or anything even more deadly – it doesn’t really matter for the open doors’ devotees).
TassieR says
…disruption of Robert Spencer event does “not befit an institution of learning” – of course! However, Stanford is no more “institution of learning” now than any Soviet or Nazi universities were. They were producing some few real scientists too, but in general they were purely hate schools with the highest level of propagandist indoctrination possible.
UNCLE VLADDI says
It’s pretty obvious what’s happening in these so-called “institutes of higher learning,” these days.
Here’s how the so-called “soft” sciences aka “humanities” (anthropology, psychology, sociology, and even criminology) really work: They all started off by examining the various symptoms and EFFECTS of human behavior, thinking, group-thinking behavior, and of criminal free-will CHOICES, respectively, but then self-invalidated by looking for hidden mysterious predestined and predetermined inevitable force “CAUSES” of it all, which degraded them all into only one criminal, excuse-making alibi topic: “VICTIMOLOGY!”
So we get these two, permanently opposed philosophical poles:
Law-abiding Conservatives: “Criminal behavior is an effect of free-will choice!”
Criminal libertines: “But what CAUSED that choice? There’s always a cause!”
Their implication is that there are no crimes nor criminals because we’re all “victims.”
In short: they went from studying HOW people CHOOSE to act, to focusing on WHY (ruling out free will choice entirely)! And that “why” PRESUMES a fear of pain will ALWAYS trump rationality! “So” we are all really ever only helpless victims! Asking “why” people (‘always’) give in to the fear of pain, presumes that: “SINCE anything CAN go wrong, SO it WILL always go wrong, SO we MUST forgive everyone for their mistakes, as being helpless victims!”
But in reality, the only reason WHY people commit crimes, is that they still think they can have rights without responsibilities, and so they weigh all the risks and rewards in different situational circumstances first!
And they only try to do so in each and every separate circumstantial situation, because they haven’t learned that rights ALWAYS only come with responsibilities, causes with effects, and effects with causes, and so they either remain ignorant of, or choose to ignore, the simple Golden Rule of Law moral Principle:
“Do Not Attack First.”
BOTTOM LINE:
These days, PITYING the victims (and the criminals AS “fellow victims,”) is held up as the highest moral virtue, while being ANGRY at, (or “hateful” towards) criminals and crime is deemed to be the most vile sin.
But what is more useful in solving problems and remedying crime: being angry at criminals for their predatory choices, or encouraging them to commit more crimes, by pitying them as helpless victims too?
The answer is obvious.
So it’s high time to educate these higher-learning “educators” of their mistakes!
In always asking “But WHY?” like perverse little children bedevilling their parents, they can always step back any given answer and exploit it into a whole new and lucrative “specialized” academic field of study! But the focus they pretend to thereby gain in minutae actually loses the focus on the big picture or “unified field” of science itself – by deliberately reducing everything they become absurd, or “reducio ad absurdum,” to the Latins.
And, while the simple answer IS obvious to us, unfortunately so is their own criminally negligent desire to “fail upwards” by ignoring the simple easy and permanent solutions to any and all problems, in favor of exploiting and selling the almost infinite number of mere symptoms and effects of unsolved problems as causes in them selves, as eternal crises for which only temporary band-aid therapy reliefs can ever be applied.
After all, the motto of all responsibility-averse and willfully delinquent libertine “liberal” criminals must be: “There’s No Money In Solutions, so Please Give Generously – AGAIN!”
So their final message these days seems to be:
“Anyone who doesn’t automatically pity all criminals as fellow victims should be hated!”
George says
Great, we get a bonus from this StanfoRd grad, because he’s not one of us, the allegedly angry white men subject to left wing bigotry. I dare Stanford to make an ad hominem attack.