Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer Thinks Garibaldi is Nathan Lean

Spencer resembles someone here.

by Garibaldi

Hate group leader, Far-right Catholic fanatic and anti-Muslim Crusader/terrorist-inspirer, Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer of Our Lady of the Cedars Church, a full-time paid shill for racist David Horowitz has been pretty sore that I exposed the fact he is an ordained deacon. The only person that he should be upset at however is himself, he’s the one who irresponsibly left an internet trail that could easily be found by anyone with basic google searching abilities.

It is understandable why Rev. Deacon Spencer, who claims to be an objective “reporter” on so-called “Islamic violence” was so upset, any remaining veneer of “objectivity” and feigned concern for “freedom” was permanently abolished; once again Robert Spencer’s sectarianism was exposed through his own words and deeds.

This point is buttressed in a post yesterday by Rev. Deacon Spencer in FrontPageMagRag, it is the first post by Rev. Spencer on new Pope Francis I. What does the good Deacon have to say? Well, he slams the Second Vatican council’s positive statements regarding Islam as reflecting “the outlook of a vanished age,” equal in its irrelevance as statements by the likes of Pope Benedict XIV of the 18th century and Pope Callixtus III of the 15th century. (By the way, Rev. Spencer is opposed to Vatican II for more reasons than just statements regarding Islam).

Bizarrely, Spencer still cites the two Popes quite approvingly, the hostility they had towards Islam and Muslims is strikingly evident in two quotes Spencer reproduces,

…Pope Benedict XIV, in 1754, reaffirmed an earlier prohibition on Albanian Catholics giving their children “Turkish or Mohammedan names” in baptism by pointing out that not even Protestants or Orthodox were stooping so low: “None of the schismatics and heretics has been rash enough to take a Mohammedan name, and unless your justice abounds more than theirs, you shall not enter the kingdom of God.” Pope Callixtus III, in a somewhat similar spirit, in 1455 vowed to “exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet in the East.”

Spencer absurdly believes the Vatican II reforms are in parity with quotes about “extirpating” Islam. Look up “Extirpate” in the dictionary, it still means “to root out and destroy completely.”

It appears Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer is setting himself up for a lifetime of disappointment. Pope Francis I will not be the kind of fanatical anti-Islam/Muslims-rolling-back-Vatican-II-type-pope that Spencer wants him to be. After all, the new pope is named after St. Francis of Assisi whose two chief concerns were to convert people to Christianity and to help the poor.

In fact, St. Francis came to oppose the Crusades (read: The Saint and the Sultan by Paul Moses) which Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer falls all over himself to defend, as he loves to remind us of the Crusader slogan, God wills it!

The story goes that St. Francis’ parents wanted him to go out on the Crusade so that he could be knighted.

He later set out for the Crusades in Northern Africa, but while on his way to join up with his batallion he heard a voice that asked him where he was going.

Francis responded “to the Crusades” and the voice asked him “why he served the squire instead of the Master.” The voice told him to return to Assisi where he would be told what to do. Later, after much prayer and penance, Francis was praying at a small chapel outside of Assisi, San Damiano and he thought he heard a voice that came from the crucifix. The voice said, “Francis, go repair my Church, can’t you see that it’s falling into ruins.”

The new Pope Francis I will focus on repairing the Catholic Church which is struggling in many ways and will not focus on breeding Crusader-esque civilizational conflict.

Rev. Deacon Spencer thinks I am Aslan Media editor Nathan Lean, I reveal my true identity

Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer’s irrelevance both to Catholicism and scholarship on Islam is only matched by his delusional indulgence in conspiracy theory. Unable and unwilling to respond to numerous Loonwatch rebuttals of his faulty pseudo-scholarship and “police blotter reporting,” and a very long outstanding fear to debate Danios has now given way to Spencer claiming to have uncovered my identity–unbeknownst to me I am actually supposed to be Aslan Media editor Nathan Lean!

What is Rev. Spencer’s smoking gun? A cross-post from the hate site Logan’s Warning claiming “evidence” that I, Garibaldi, am Nathan Lean. Recall the only time we’ve mentioned Logan’s Warning, a post titled, Amusing Islamophobia Blog Wars: Logan’s Warning vs. Brigitte Gabriel, in which Christopher Logan attacked Brigitte Gabriel for even hinting that there might be such a thing as a “moderate Muslim.” The heresy! Logan’s website is replete with an abundance of commenters who call for Crusading violence against Muslims and racism against Arabs, as was shown in screenshots in my post.

So it’s no surprise that Spencer would cross-post from Logan’s Warning, as we know “birds of a feather flock together.” It is also unsurprising that Spencer, with a track record for weak scholarship would be so gullibly convinced by Christopher Logan’s “evidence.”

Logan’s “evidence”:

Evidence 1:
Recently in writing about Mr. Spencer, Garibaldi wrote this in a comment on his own article about Spencer’s private life: 

GaribaldiOfLoonwatch Mod Leftwing_Muslim_Alliance • 13 days ago

He is not celibate, he’s married. In the course of digging on the internet, I also learned the name of his wife and children, though that isn’t really germane to the discussion so I won’t advertise it.

Who else has dug on the Internet and found the names of Mr. Spencer’s wife and children? Nathan Lean. Spencer has written of Lean: Nigeria Jihadists threaten country’s top spies by publishing their home addresses and names of family 

Four months after that, he sent Mr. Spencer an email calling him a “dumb fuck” and adding “But, having a look at this, I kind of pity you,” which was followed by a link containing a photo of a woman in the same city. The woman has the same surname Spencer; apparently Lean thought she was his wife.

Spencer apparently thinks this is evidence. Anyone who has access to google can find out the names of Rev. Deacon Spencer’s family, it’s all over the internet. I thought Spencer was supposed to be in mortal fear for his life? If so he’s doing a poor job of covering up the identities of his family and place of residence. The fact is we have had people who’ve wanted to share information regarding his personal life and whereabouts since 2010.

One commenter on Spencerwatch named “Abdullah” wrote on the site in 2010 saying:

Abdullah says:

I have all the information on Spencer, his address, real date of birth, and information on his family. I want nothing more than to share it, please e-mail me.

We responded to Abdullah by letting him know that we were not interested in Spencer’s personal information:

admin says:

Abdullah,

That will be unnecessary. We have no interest in Spencer’s private life. We are only interested in exposing the shallow, deceptive, and bigoted nature of his anti-Muslim work.

- SW Admin

My comment is consistent with our long-held position that our only interest is rebutting and exposing Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer’s faulty arguments, lies, hate, deception and distortions, we can care less about Spencer’s family.

Evidence 2:
Garibaldi wrote of Mr. Spencer in a comment:

But the shaggy walrus beard and so forth indicates its him.

Reza Aslan said to Mr. Spencer: The Incredilbe Reza Aslan automated insult generator

I told you. I’m into women not walruses.

Nathan Lean works for Aslan.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I freely admit here and now that I actually picked up the walrus reference from my interview with Reza Aslan, it still gives me a chuckle!

Evidence 3:
Garibaldi interviewed Aslan for Loonwatch. Most of the interview was made up of nasty ad hominem attacks on Mr. Spencer: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/exclusive-loonwatch-interview-with-reza-aslan/

I’ve also interviewed Haroon Moghul. Does that mean I’am Haroon Moghul as well? And why am I Nathan Lean and not Reza Aslan? Or maybe I am all three-in-one, like a super stealth Islamist-Leftist trinity?

Evidence 4:
Jonathan Schanzer wrote a scathing review of Lean’s book for the Wall Street Journal. Loonwatch published a petulant and defensive response piece viciously attacking Schanzer. Who wrote it? Garibaldi.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/01/bush-era-neo-con-schmuck-jonathan-schanzer-shills-for-nasty-islamophobia-movement/

Yes, Schanzer did get the vicious Garibaldi treatment, but that was more so because he’s a Bush era, warmongering neo-Con schmuck who wrote an Islamophobia-denial piece in the mainstream Wall Street Journal that sought to exonerate war criminals like his former boss George W. Bush and Islamophobe pals such as Daniel Pipes and the useful idiot Zuhdi Jasser. I fail to see how this can be described as evidence and not more appropriately as “worthless conjecture 4.”

Evidence 5:
Nathan Lean has frequently called for opponents of jihad terror to be denied free speech rights:

Editor-in-Chief of moderate Aslan media endorses cyber terrorism

Nathan Lean is a Thug

Garibaldi wrote a piece at Loonwatch celebrating the vandalism of AFDI’s anti-jihad ads:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/09/mona-el-tahawy-and-spray-painting-pamela-gellers-hate-ads/

Reza Aslan also called for that vandalism: Reza Aslan Calls for fascist vandalism of AFDI pro-freedom ads 

Loonwatch is actually consistent in its opposition to hacking, we ourselves have been victim to vile hatemongering “counterjihad” hackers. As for my article it actually did not celebrate Mona Eltahawy’s protest of the racist AFDI/SIOA hate ads. In fact I was critical of her, writing,

Mona’s method of protest was therefore ineffective, aesthetically unappealing and not the best expression of street art. It is unclear if Mona was going to spraypaint a message before her confrontation with Hall, but using a hot pink spraypaint can to completely erase or cover the hate ad, which is what she was doing, is a bad way to register such a protest. It is poorly planned, poorly executed and at the end of the day strays from the goal of highlighting the most important aspect of such a protest: the message.

I happily admit however that I am not really moved to condemn any protest against the racist AFDI/SIOA hate ads. Just as I wouldn’t condemn protests against ads describing Native Americans as “savages,” or Blacks as “N—–s.”

Interestingly, this most recent foray into conspiracy theory by Rev. Deacon Spencer wasn’t even convincing to Spencer’s most ardent fans. Kinana of Khaybar, in what could be the most understated comment on JihadWatch ever wrote,

This is entertaining, but to me does not add up to sufficient evidence that Nathan Lean is Garibaldi.

One also has to wonder if Logan and Spencer even thought about asking themselves why Nathan Lean, who has been speaking, writing and publishing publicly for quite some time would decide he needed to be anonymous? He is already calling out Spencer, Geller and other Islamophobes under his own name.

As for my real identity…

I am actually….

<drum roll>….

the second love child of Malcolm X and Stanley Ann Dunham, and my name is Barack Hasan Shabazz!

There you go, the secret is finally out! Thanks a lot Spencer!

Amusing Islamophobia Blog Wars: Logan’s Warning vs. Brigitte Gabriel

Brigitte Gabriel

by Garibaldi

Time for a history lesson on the anti-Muslim Islamophobia blog wars.

It has been a while since we reported on “intra-Counter Jihad blog wars,” which are really nothing more than pitiful, though amusing, little soap operas. Our first exposition of the phenomenon occurred several years ago when Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs repudiated Ned May of Gates of Vienna, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer in a very public way, for their associations with neo-Fascists and White Supremacists. In fact, there used to be a whole blog about it, Gates of Vienna vs.the World vs. LGF.

The invective and mudslinging got really nasty, but eventually Charles Johnson utterly abandoned the hate machine for greener, more sane pastures. Ever since that time Johnson has been a stalwart anti-bigot and has continuously exposed Spencer, Geller and other leading lights of the trans-Atlantic Islamophobia Movement.

There were also extremely amusing blog wars involving Spencer, Geller and Debbie Schlussel. Spencer at one time termed Schlussel a “freedom fighter” on par with his friend Pamela Geller. However, when Schlussel went after Geller, calling her a “charlatan” and “pseudo-warrior,” Spencer magically deleted any reference to Schlussel as a “freedom fighter.” Schlussel has also gone on the hunt against Walid Shoebat, Steven Emerson and Brigitte Gabriel, calling them “frauds” and “phonies” of the worst kind. We were happy to agree.

We also broke out the popcorn when bigot Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer started viciously sniping at one another. Bostom called out Spencer as a “plagiarist,” and “swine.”

It might be too early to call it the end but it looks like ex-booze buddies Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer are at each others throats. Bostom is accusing Spencer of plagiarism, and Spencer is replying that he is “miffed” by the accusation.

The sorry fact is that both of them plagiarize from Orientalists who have made the same arguments and presented the same research centuries ago.

The intra-fighting amongst the anti-Muslim Movement continues, perhaps a sign that this unstable movement is fracturing and will hopefully disintegrate under the weight of their own hate. The newest manifestation is the anti-Muslim website Logan’s Warning going after ACT! for America‘s Brigitte Gabriel, in a post titled, ACT!’s Brigitte Gabriel, $elling America a Bridge to Nowhere! Now that is a title that we can agree with! Whodathunkit, the truth from Islamophobes!

In something you don’t hear everyday, Christopher Logan, the “brains” behind “Logan’s Warning” criticizes Brigitte Gabriel for being too “moderate.” Really, according to Logan, Gabriel is too “moderate.” That’s like saying David Duke is a “moderate” anti-Semite.

Logan writes,

Well unfortunately the Queen of False Hope, Brigitte Gabriel, is back to doing her thing. Spreading false hope and censoring those who call her on her “moderate” Muslims are coming to the rescue nonsense.

Isn’t Brigitte the same bigot who said multiple times, “there is no moderate Muslim”? Isn’t she the same person who argued that a Muslim who practices or believes in the five pillars is a radical?

“a practising Muslim who goes to mosque every Friday, prays five times a day, and who believes that the Koran is the word of God, and who believes that Mohammed is the perfect man and (four inaudible words) is a radical Muslim.”–Brigitte Gabriel, Australian News

Logan goes on,

apparently the queen’s ego is too big, and or the money coming in from telling people what they want to hear is just too good to give up. Either way, her message of “moderates” coming the rescue is detrimental to America.

Logan also wants to point out,

I remember when I first took on this issue, there were plenty of Brits who did not want to lay the blame on Islam itself. They also were saying “radical Islam”. How did that work out?

Logan, don’t worry, in her heart of hearts Brigitte also doesn’t differentiate between something called “radical Islam” and “Islam.”

Logan continues to pile on,

Gabriel reminds me of a politician who will say anything to just to get through the moment…We are not going to win this war with your message. It is the equivalent of going to the doctor and being told you have a life threatening disease, but the problem will end up resolving itself…How much more time should be wasted in promoting that notion [moderate Islam]? How much longer until Gabriel, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, and Brooke Goldstein admit they need to change course? Five years, 10, 20?…Speaking of debate Brigitte. Instead of sending your two henchman or the naive and ignorant Chris Slick here, why don’t you come out of the shadows and debate me on this? Explain how Islam will reform. If you are being honest with America you will be able to back up your argument, right? (Emphasis mine)

This has to be one of the strangest and silliest debates in history. Bigots arguing amongst one another about who is more “moderate” in bashing Islam and Muslims. What Logan is pointing out however is Gabriel’s inconsistent and contradictory statements and positions, a common phenomenon with hatemongers. One we noted in a previous article on Gabriel,

So Brigitte, what is it? Are there any moderates or not? Brigitte seems to be telling us that the only acceptable Muslims are the ones who don’t practice Islam altogether? Or perhaps, she’s even implying that the only good Muslim is an ex-Muslim?

Logan should really be coming out and saying, why not be honest Brigitte and just admit, as you have a million times in the past that you hate Islam and want to see it destroyed. Either take back your bigoted statements that you believe “Arabs have no soul,” that there is no “moderate” Islam or “moderate” practicing Muslim or reaffirm those positions.

What I find as interesting as Logan’s blogpost slamming Gabriel are the comments. Take for instance Sarah Elkins comment, she thinks Arabs are no good unless they convert to Christianity,

Spoken like a true Brigitte Gabriel inspired Judeo-Christian Civilizational Crusader. Who can forget Brigitte’s “Arabs have no soul” comment,

“The difference, my friends, between Israel and the Arab world is the difference between civilization and barbarism. It’s the difference between good and evil [applause]…. this is what we’re witnessing in the Arabic world, They have no SOUL !, they are dead set on killing and destruction. And in the name of something they call “Allah” which is very different from the God we believe….[applause] because our God is the God of love.”–Brigitte Gabriel, CPAC

A commenter by the handle “Christ possession” rails, accusing some Islamophobes of slowing down the fight against the “beast” of “Islam,” and impeding the fight to stop “mosques” from being built and “sharia law” from replacing the Constitution.

Abdul Ameer posts about the “counter-Jihad” strategy and the usefulness of using “merry Muslims” like Zuhdi Jasser to stave off accusations that they are bigoted,

“eib” wants to focus on fighting Prophet Muhammad. Maybe he missed the memo, but Muhammad passed away over 1400 years ago,

Then we have “Brit is exile” who goes on about the Crusades, implying there needs to be a return to them,

These people are some of the most disturbingly deluded individuals of our time, and expose not only their bigotry but their own dissimulation and attack on basic freedoms and liberties. It is no surprise that with all these frankly ignorant and expansive egos competing that they would turn on each other. I say pass the popcorn and let me watch.