My primary (or only) goal is “provocation”? Only if the truth provokes you, as it does so many in the totalitarian indoctrination camp that Stanford and most other American universities have become. I challenge Andrew Ziperski to find one untruth in anything I’ve ever said or written about Islam. He thinks that the truth is “provocation” because he has been so relentlessly bombarded with lies from every quarter that he was told to trust and learn from that he now thinks, like the well-programmed bot that he is, that a reasoned and documented presentation of unwelcome truths is “provocation.”
But unfortunately for young Ziperski, reality is reality despite the lies he has imbibed and the fantasies he has embraced. Jihad violence and Sharia oppression are real, and the “Islamophobia” he so hates and fears isn’t. The truths I have told are likely to confront this young man and his fellow sheep sooner or later, at a time when it will likely be too late for them to realize that they have been lied to and change course.
“A Way Forward For Cardinal Conversations,” by Andrew Ziperski, Stanford Review, January 23, 2019:
…My primary piece of advice to the administration is simple yet essential: those who are invited to speak as part of the Conversations must be provocative, and they must make us uncomfortable. This does not mean, of course, that speakers whose primary (or only) goal is provocation ought to be invited; people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Robert Spencer add no value to a campus like ours, and I would strongly oppose an invitation extended to them or those who employ their tactics….