Homeland Security

For the Left, ‘Islamophobia’ Is a Much Bigger Threat Than Jihad Terror

Recently I spoke at Stanford University, but few people were in attendance. This was not because my appearance had aroused little interest, but because Stanford administrators and Leftist students made sure that as few people as possible heard me.

Why did they do this? Because for the academic Left and the Left in general, “Islamophobia” is a much bigger threat than jihad terror.

The jihad threat is real, and growing worldwide, as the evidence of 30,000 jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11 shows. TheReligionOfPeace.com keeps a sourced and documented database of all those attacks, complete with the number of people reported killed and wounded in each. During each Ramadan, the site tracks the number of people killed by Islamic jihadis; Ramadan, of course, is the time when Muslims are supposed to redouble their efforts to please Allah. The site also keeps track of the number of people killed by “Islamophobes.”

That latter number remained at zero for years, until the Finsbury Park Mosque attack last June. Meanwhile, the number of jihad attacks increased daily. During Ramadan 2017 there were 161 jihad terror attacks, leaving 1,483 people dead and another 1,557 wounded.

Nonetheless, “Islamophobia” is treated as a larger threat than jihad terror.

Consider, for example, the aftermath of the jihad attack at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, that murdered 22 people and injured 59. MI5 revealed shortly after the attack that as many as 23,000 jihad terrorists are on the streets of Britain today. British Prime Minister Theresa May announced that British troops would be deployed on the streets of the country’s major cities to try to head off another catastrophic jihad attack.

But the British authorities had other priorities as well. The UK’s Cambridge News reported this in the wake of the Manchester attack:

[P]olice are increasing patrols at two mosques in Cambridge after strips of bacon were … left on the car windscreens to insult fasting Muslims.

This was what the British police were concerned about in the wake of the jihad massacres in Manchester and London: bacon. They were protecting Muslims and mosques from supposed “hate crimes” and “Islamophobia.”

Not that any such hate crimes, whenever they actually occur, are ever justified. But the proportions were off. Twenty-two people were dead in Manchester and seven in London at the hands of Islamic jihadists. One would have thought, in light of that, the Cambridge police would not have prioritized a few strips of bacon in front of a mosque. One would have thought the Cambridge police might have told the mosque leaders to direct their attention to more important matters, such as rooting out jihad terror sympathizers and plotters from their communities.

But one would have thought wrong.

At Stanford, the same assumptions about “Islamophobia” prevail. I am certain that a Guantanamo inmate screaming “Death to America” would have been welcomed and lionized, yet my coming to campus was treated as the imminent arrival of Josef Goebbels. In the days before I arrived on campus, the student-run Stanford Daily and Stanford Review published article after article denouncing me in the most lurid terms. My work was characterized — without any specific examples — as being not only inaccurate but inflammatory, offensive, hateful, and dishonest.

At the event itself, Associate Dean and Director of Student Activities and Leadership Nanci Howe and Assistant Dean and Associate Director of Student Activities and Leadership Snehal Naik made sure that the hall was packed with students who had no intention of attending the lecture. These students were there 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.

The Leftist students stood up and walked out after just a few minutes of hearing me.

After the walkout, now that those seats were empty, Howe and Naik refused to allow in people who actually wanted to attend, refusing repeated requests to do so.

Here is video: Watch Nanci Howe happily circulating among the Stanford students walking out of my event, patting them on the back and chatting with them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAEHdRwrKZ0

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 Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Provost Persis 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 the Young America’s Foundation to livestream the event, too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgkG9sPgHk8

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.” And here we are again.

What were these Stanford administrators enabling? More jihad attacks. By stigmatizing and demonizing everyone who calls attention to the jihad threat as “Islamophobic,” the Left is making itself ultimately responsible for those attacks. I discuss this peculiar phenomenon, and the risks in general of the “Islamophobia” narrative, in my new book Confessions of an Islamophobe. Get your copy here now.