On Tuesday, I wrote here about how the Stanford Daily, a student newspaper at Stanford University, libeled me by calling me an “agitator for violence,” amid several other false claims, in a column by hard-Left student activist Terence Zhao. The Stanford Daily has been publishing numerous lies about me since it was first announced that I was going to speak at Stanford (which I did last November, although fascist administrators and students staged a mass walkout and then prevented students who wanted to attend the event from entering), but this one crossed the line: I’ve never called for or approved of violence, and to claim otherwise was outright defamatory, as well as increasing the likelihood that I would be a victim of violence from the Leftist Antifa thugs who are dedicated to committing violence against those whom they hate.
But now the Stanford Daily’s Editor-in-Chief Hannah Knowles and Terence Zhao have caved. They still have the “right-wing bigot” smear in their article, but that is their assessment (however ill-informed) of my work, just as my assessment of theirs is that they are inveterate foes of free discourse and energetic advocates of the fascist suppression of the freedom of speech. But they have edited their article to remove the defamatory claim that I am an “agitator for violence,” and added this note about some of their other false claims:
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this article stated that The Stanford Review provided Robert Spencer with their article on Professor Palumbo-Liu for publication on his blog, however the Review and Mr. Spencer have denied this and the Daily could not confirm the columnist’s claim. In addition, Mr. Spencer was banned from entering the UK for statements with the potential to cause “inter-community violence” and “foster hatred”, not because he was deemed a “national security threat”. The Daily regrets these errors.
Yeah, I bet you do. And you can be sure I’ll be paying attention should you choose to libel me again.
(By the way, I was in reality banned from Britain for observing quite accurately that Islam has doctrines calling for warfare against unbelievers. If that, in the opinion of the British government, would cause “inter-community violence,” it would have been from Muslims being violent and thereby proving the correctness of my observation.)
Kessler says
Leftists feel empowered to smear and defame those they identify as “right wing” and they are not used to having much opposition. Many are intimidated by their slurs. Thank you Robert for standing up to these fascists
mortimer says
Yes, Kessler. Leftards say, “It isn’t DEFAMATION when WE do it.”
Joseph Thaddeus (Stanford) says
Indeed… stand up Robert Spencer to those who have wrongfully used Islam as a pretext to create violence and terror.
+Joseph Thaddeus (Stanford)
Metropolitan Archbishop, Primate Emeritus
MFritz says
Congratulations, Mr. Spencer!
Alas, they will try again.
WorkingClassPost says
Ouch!!!!
That must’ve hurt…
Terry Gain says
Hardly. The bastards didn’t apologize for their clear defamation of Mr. Spencer.
JawsV says
Hopefully the last we’re seeing of this grinning idiot.
CRUSADER says
Hassan Chop!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBQ48MeRBqc
Hassan Chop!
StellaSaidSo says
Oh happy day!
Congratulations, Robert!
Bet the Stanford safe spaces are full of fainting snowflakes, and the teddy bears are sodden with lefty tears.
mortimer says
Yes, congratulations. Snowflakes MELT in the temperature of HIGHER THOUGHT FORMS.
Empirical data and fact-based reasoning contradict their whole neo-Marxist agenda. Stanford’s herd of PARTY-LINE propagandists have NO ARGUMENT with which to debate the mighty Robert Spencer.
An emotional argument in favor of Islamic supremacism is NOT an intellectual argument.
CRUSADER says
Snowflakes certainly do melt!
Their once cherished individual exquisiteness disappears and soon forgotten….
Libtards need to step out of the kitchen once things get cooking!!!
elee says
Why……..it’s enough to make a man believe in free & open inquiry! Hey I got an idea: let;s set up some institutions for that free & open inquiry and debate business!
CRUSADER says
Let’s hold a party in honor of this momentary victory!
“Cheers” Around the World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSbuBIR6Nm0
CRUSADER says
DILLY !
DILLY !
Andy says
Hip Hip Hooray Mr. Spencer on your VICTORY!!!
Cheers!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SymJ1-yEHhM
Westman says
I see no correction of the intent to discredit Mr. Spencer to the largest extent possible. I see weasels who will continue the destruction of anything that could form a bulwark of moral behavior or stability; sustained adolescents. Shooting flaming arrows with friends in a publication may be as fun as skateboarding but it has additional consequences to others that cannot be fully rectified.
Jordan Peterson has written a book, “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos”, that might help these budding “journalists” reach maturity. One could imagine that certain behavioral “science” interests at Stanford would also deprive students from hearing his lecture on becoming responsible.
Tjhawk says
I kind of like Robert’s half hearted acceptance of this half hearted apology. He informs them of how wrong they still are. I like that he warns them against future libels.
mortimer says
TJ, there is NO argument with which to defend Islam!
No MORAL argument, because Islam is AMORAL. No HISTORICAL argument, because Islam has NO PROVENANCE. No INTECTUAL argument, because Islam is totally OBSCURANTIST.
Zhao’s innuendos about Robert Spencer are facile and trite. Robert Spencer’s ban from UK was not due to anything offensive in Robert Spencer’s books, speeches or articles. Nothing offensive was found. MUSLIM LEADERS object to Robert Spencer IRREFUTABLE FACTS and his INDISPUTABLE CONCLUSIONS about the MEANING, MOTIVE and METHODS of JIHAD WARFARE against disbelievers.
Islamic leaders do not wish the dirty KUFAAR to learn what the Muslim Brotherhood is up to.
Tjhawk says
I’m with you on this Mortimer.
mortimer says
And yes, agreeing with you again, TJ.
Zhao MADE UP HIS OWN ‘FACTS’ … namely, that Robert Spencer has advocated violence in response to VIOLENT JIHAD WARFARE AGAINST DISBELIEVERS.
This is by far the most EGREGIOUS FALSEHOOD and most easily shown to be false!
ZHAO will not find ONE SINGLE REFERENCE advocating VIOLENCE in response to violent jihad in the ENTIRETY of Robert Spencer’s writings.
The UK Home Office SCOURED THROUGH Robert Spencer’s writings and FAILED TO FIND ONE SINGLE REFERENCE advocating violence. The Canadian border control were instructed to find such references also and they also FAILED to find ONE SINGLE REFERENCE to Robert Spencer promoting or advocating violence.
mortimer says
ZHAO made an absurd CLAIM and so, ZHAO has the BURDEN of PROOF.
A claim of evil without EVIDENCE or PROOF of that evil is called SLANDER, Mr. ZHAO.
Terence Zhao is a measly little SLANDERER who clearly SLANDERED Robert Spencer. Please tell that to everyone who knows him. I am sure they will concur.
Is SLANDER what Sanford U. is promoting?
CRUSADER says
To “bar” someone from a University or private setting/property is one thing.
To BAN someone from an entire country, one which our own freedoms have been based on: U.K.
— this is bewildering!!
roberta says
Kind of an off subject, but not too far off considering that at first chance the Muslims this guy is standing for would toss his flamboyant backside off a building head first.
Does anyone know what happens to the belongings (money, cloths, home) of a homosexual
when they murder them for Allah’s sake?
Are the Righteous Tossers profiting?
Ive done my study, I just dont recall this being covered.
gravenimage says
Oh, yes. Often the immediate motive for charges of “blasphemy” and being gay are Muslims wanting to get their hands on the victim’s property. In places like Pakistan, legal and property disputes often precede charges of “blasphemy”.
roberta says
Thanks for responding. I like to know the ”cut” (who gets what percentage) also.
Dont know if that changes from country to country, regions, or if there is a set percentage throughout Islam. But common sense says there is a profit in it, there has to be a money trail, and I bet it leads back to the mosque.
LB says
Oh wow, it actually worked! This should at least make the leftist students at Stanford Daily at least second-guess themselves the next time they publish a libeling hit piece about people they don’t like.
By the way, their original statement that you, Mr. Spencer, are a “security threat” is technically correct. Can you imagine what would happen if you showed up in the middle of London trying to educate people about the truth of islam? Well… it’s worth remembering the fact that UK is one of the biggest Western contributors of jihad fighters to ISIS… and many have come back home free of charge. And that’s not counting the ones who chose not to go to Syria in the first place!
Yeah… Part and parcel indeed.
jan sobieski says
..however the Review and Mr. Spencer have denied this and the Daily could not confirm the columnist’s claim.
In other words, the ‘columnist” Terence Zhao is a LIAR.
Norger says
So Spencer was banned from the UK because his (objectively truthful) observation—that Islam mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of imposing a societal model that is incompatible with Western civilization—has the potential to cause inter community violence. Really? Meanwhile the UK routinely ignores actual exhortations to violence by Islamic hate preachers in deciding it’s just fine and dandy to admit them to the UK.
Saudi hate preacher Mohammed al-Arefe was allowed to enter the UK after Spencer’s van. He has said the following:
“Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”
Whoa, now THAT sounds like it has some real potential for inciting inter-community violence, no? Robert Spencer was banned from the UK because he is exceptionally adept at showing the connection between Islamic theology and Islamic terrorism (e.g. why a devout Muslim would chop a UK soldier’s head on the streets of London in broad daylight.
What utter and complete hypocrisy, both from the UK and Stanford.
Norger says
I meant “after Spencer’s ban.”
CRUSADER says
Still seems like backhanded remarks by the Stanford “Palely” ….
Reading their words, a poor impression of Spencer is still palpable.
Despicable for an academic institution as Stanford… But then, Sayyid Qutb did “study” there.
Wouldn’t take this slight too kindly, and it is good to keep vigilant on their slant.
UK, up next!
Free Spencer.
Free Geller.
“The Wind of Freedom Blows!”
(“Die Luft der Freiheit weht”)
++++++++++++++++++
FAIL, Stanford, FAIL!
New lyrics to the traditional Stanford “Fight” song…
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwUjCWk85DI )
===============
“Fail, Stanford, Fail”
Where the rolling libel rises,
Up t’wards shit-heaps higher,
Where at eve the caustic “Daily” lies,
In the slander pyre,
Flushing deep and paling;
Here we sink our voices failing,
REFRAIN:
From the stumbling to the bray
We shall trip,
As we slip;
It shall stink and float away;
Fail, Stanford, Fail!
Fail, Stanford, Fail!
Pretentious viewpoints ever grew
Thru’ the darkness meet the lies,
Where the red roofs ream the true,
Of the crap-steeped cries,
Fleck’d with falseness flailing,
Hear our dumb voices tailing,
Thee, our Allah Vader.
REFRAIN:
When the doomlight-bathed farce-ade
Stalls in uneven qualms,
When the dank wind so afraid
Whispers in doldrums,
Far off baneful cursing,
Student voices rehearsing
Thee, our Allah Vader.
Fail, Stanford, Fail!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernie Banks says
I went to grad school at Stanford and only live a few miles away from campus. The Stanford Daily is a silly rag that no one reads. Robert is giving them too much attention and too much publicity on JW. The Stanford Daily loves it because Robert increases their visibility. Robert would be helping himself if he ignored the Stanford Daily in the future.
CRUSADER says
It’s still good training ground, however…
The point is that enough folks on campus were ginned up, and the Daily enabled that to occur.
When idiots who can read well enough to get into Stanford find a matter in print, regardless of it being a rag, it somehow legitimizes things…
Did you hear much of this debacle in and around Palo Alto, E.B. ?
Give regards to Sand Hill Road….
gravenimage says
I take your point, Ernie, but think it is important to stand up for the truth.
StellaSaidSo says
You’re right, Ernie, Robert could have trounced these twerps without giving them any free publicity. But a victory is a victory, even if against a puny foe, and deserves to be celebrated.
Georg says
Good to see such a worm get pushback. Too little, too late, but something nevertheless.
Norger says
It is just so Orwellian that Spencer is accused of making statements that could potentially cause “inter-community violence,” when so much of his work consists of verbatim quotes from well-established Islamic authorities. He is accused of somehow inciting violence by demonstrating how Islamic theology in fact encourages violence against non-Muslims. It’s just crazy.
Bezelel says
If you look up, S### eating grin, in the dictionary, It will say, See Zhao. With this photo from above.
Art Telles says
Shallow…
“Victory! Stanford Daily and Terence Zhao cave, remove their libel of Robert Spencer” and ‘the Stanford Daily, a student newspaper at Stanford University, libeled me by calling me an “agitator for violence,’
Has Sanford, STANFORD OF ALL PLACES!!!, has Stanford become so freedom of speech shallow that the “journalists” at the student newspaper dissemble and deliberately misrepresent an erudite pro-American freedom of religion defender like Robert Spencer?
Do the “erudite” student journalists really believe the “religion of peace” rhetoric of the enemies of the U.S. Constitution and the freedom “of” religion, NOT “from” religion as atheists advocate, but freedom “of” religion, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, even the atheist “religion” of NO religion, and the free speech inherent in the 1791 1st Amendment?
The Qur’an, the “how-to-be-holy” book of the Muslim “religion of peace…WITHOUT opposition”, is the premiere ancient “agitator for violence” text that is second to none.
Art
gravenimage says
Victory! Stanford Daily and Terence Zhao cave, remove their libel of Robert Spencer
…………………….
Glad to see this.
eduardo odraude says
Sister Religions, a great 5-part video series mainly about Islam, is available for rental or purchase at Vimeo, so you can watch it online. The best is that three of the parts are by Mark Durie, who is in the very top tier of Islam critics. See his book The Third Choice.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Mr Spencer, how victorious are you ? Your hate propagandas against muslims remain as dangerous as that of Nazis. you just intimidated the professor to withdraw the true statement without countering It with intellectual réfutation.
StellaSaidSo says
Your goat is crying, Ibrahim, you forgot to kiss her goodbye before you went to visit that attractive little camel around the corner.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Aparthedist stellasaidso, are you still in It with your racist underating blacks as low IQ ? you want savage mad devil Trump to recolonise /deprive black Africa, revive cruel transatlantic slave trade and bring back White apartheidism in south Africa ?
LeftisruiningCanada says
You and your brothers can have them, seeing how much you all seem to like having slaves.
Joseph Thaddeus (Stanford) says
How ignorant or stupid can one be?
eduardo odraude says
Itace,
Spencer has been nothing but supportive of Israel and the Jews. Islam, on the other hand, is full of hatred of the Jews and murder of the Jews that goes right back to the Qur’an. That is why the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during World War II was allied with Hitler and pushed a Jewish Holocaust. Spencer on the other hand has scrupulously adhered to democratic values and norms in all his statements and proposals. Islam, on the other hand, is unlike any other major religion in having hundreds of millions of adherents who understand it as a violent, expansionist, totalitarian global movement that suppresses freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Muhammad said, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
He is quoted thus in the most authoritative hadith collection, Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 84, Hadith 57. See muflihun.com/bukhari/84/57
Various other authoritative hadiths attest that Muhammad called for death to those who leave Islam. That’s why even today all the schools of Islamic law prescribe death for apostasy from Islam. See the David Wood video on this subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju3HsWLyVlQ
Iain says
I’ve lived in Japan for a long time and visited all parts of Eastern Asia and one does not see people smile like that in Zhou’s picture. The only times I have ever seen this type of smile is of the past (and only now in North Korea) from Communist states where there is hatred covered by a false smile, those people went on to cause mass murder, etc. Is that the mindset of Zhou?
StellaSaidSo says
Interesting observation, Iain. Zhao’s smile is so excessive it can only be fake, but I hadn’t thought to connect it directly with his politics – which of course are far Left, if not Communist.
LeftisruiningCanada says
“Big Smile! Big Smile!”
Politicianophobia says
The thighing master has returned, have a sweet day Ibrahim.