A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, recently spoke about his book and experiences with CAIR at the NY Divinity School, in an event arranged by the Middle East Forum. His talk provides the needed historical context for understanding the Muslim world’s rage against the Western world and its persecution of Christians. The nearly hour-long talk, followed by a Q&A moderated by MEF president, Daniel Pipes, follows:
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
Any honest and objective appraisal of Islam’s historic jihad on the Christian world must be eye-opening, to say the very least. In the first century of its existence (between 632-732) Islam permanently conquered, Arabized, and Islamized nearly three-quarters of the post-Roman Christian world, thereby permanently severing it. Europe came to be known as “the West” because it was literally the remaining and westernmost appendage of Christendom not to be swallowed up by Islam.
For roughly a millennium thereafter, Arabs, Berbers, Turks, and Tatars—all of whom called and saw themselves as Muslims—launched raid after raid, all justified and lauded as jihads, into virtually every corner of Europe. They reached as far as Iceland and provoked the U.S. into its first war as a nation. The devastation was indescribable; some regions in Europe, particularly in Spain and the Balkans, remain uninhabitable due to the incessant raiding. Some 15 million Europeans were enslaved during this perennial jihad and, according to contemporary records, treated horrifically.
In short, “if we … ask ourselves how and when the modern notion of Europe and the European identity was born,” writes historian Franco Cardini, “we realize the extent to which Islam was a factor (albeit a negative one) in its creation. Repeated Muslim aggression against Europe between the seventh to eighth centuries, then between the fourteenth and the eighteenth centuries … was a ‘violent midwife’ to Europe.”
Here the inevitable question arises: How could such a long, well-documented history of unmitigated Islamic aggression that had immense repercussions on the development of Western civilization now be presented as the antithesis of reality?
The answer revolves around a number of modern philosophies—from the Enlightenment to moral/cultural relativism—that have each contributed to an all-pervasive “Narrative” concerning the historic relationship between Islam and the West. In presenting the West as aggressor and Islam as victim—hence the latter’s ongoing “grievance”-based animosity—this history is as entrenched as it is the reverse of reality.
To understand this, one must first understand that, despite its many manifestations, permutations, and emphases over the centuries, the Narrative’s unspoken driving force has largely been the same: to demonize and thus justify a break away from Europe’s traditional heritage, religion, identity, and mores. If this sounds farfetched, consider: whereas by any objective standard the West is responsible for practically every boon taken for granted today—from scientific, technological, economic and medicinal advances, to the abolition of slavery and anti-discrimination laws—today no people of any race or civilization despise their heritage except Western people. Clearly something is amiss.
Or consider how leftists/liberals/progressives who forever whine against any vestige of Western traditionalism, habitually make common cause with Islam—despite the latter’s truly oppressive qualities. Thus feminists denounce the Western “patriarchy”—but say nothing against the Muslim treatment of women as chattel; homosexuals denounce Christian bakeries—but say nothing against the Muslim execution of homosexuals; multiculturalists denounce Christians who refuse to suppress their faith to accommodate the religious sensibilities of Muslim minorities—but say nothing against the entrenched and open Muslim persecution of Christians.
The reason for these discrepancies is simple: “The enemy [Islam] of my enemy [Christianity] is my friend.”
From here, how and why such a formally well-known history of Muslim aggression against Europe was not merely suppressed but reversed should start making sense: of all non-European, non-Christian peoples, only Muslims lived alongside and interacted with (that is, constantly encroached and warred on) Europe for over a millennium; this made Muslims the only people—the only foil—that could be used to support the Narrative’s argument against premodern Europe. But first an intellectually satisfying way of casting Muslims as victims not conquerors was needed.
Enter literary professor Edward Said’s 1978 book, Orientalism. Its central thesis is that the Orientalists—the Europeans who began the academic study of the East centuries ago—were not writing objectively about Muslims and their history, but rather intentionally slandering and stereotyping them in order to justify dominating them during the colonial era.
This made perfect sense—but only because the postmodern Western mind had already been primed for it. For if, as Marxist Materialism teaches, ideas/religions have no influence on history (and thus, economic want, not “jihad,” caused Muslims to expand); if, as Relativism and its spawn Multiculturalism teach, there are no absolute truths, religious or otherwise (and thus no culture or civilization is “better” than another); if, as pop psychology teaches, violent and negative behavior is always a product of societal injustices (and thus the more Muslims behave violently, the more that only proves they are frustrated victims)—then what does one make of the aforementioned centuries of European writings that uniformly depict Muslims as ideologically driven by violence and lust?
Simple: dismiss them all as bigoted and hypocritical lies by nefarious Christians and Europeans intent on demonizing a superior, more tolerant faith and civilization. Thus a whole new academic approach to Islam—stripped of all historic writings not conforming to the Narrative—was born. History would no longer shape ideas and attitudes; rather, preexisting ideas and attitudes—wishful thinking—would shape history.
Bernard Lewis, himself a target of Edward Said’s Orientalism, summarized this new approach—or “pseudo history”—well:
According to a currently fashionable epistemological view, absolute truth is either nonexistent or unattainable. Therefore, truth doesn’t matter; facts don’t matter. All discourse is a manifestation of a power relationship, and all knowledge is slanted. Therefore, accuracy doesn’t matter; evidence doesn’t matter. All that matters is the attitude—the motives and purposes—of the user of knowledge, and this may simply be claimed for oneself or imputed to another. In imputing motives, the irrelevance of truth, facts, evidence, and even plausibility is a great help. The mere assertion suffices” (Islam and the West, 115).
Orientalism’s success lay less in anything intrinsic to it—American classicist Bruce Thornton characterizes it as an “incoherent amalgam of dubious postmodern theory, sentimental Third Worldism, glaring historical errors, and Western guilt”—and more because it fit the West’s prevailing zeitgeist (which, of course, thrives on “dubious postmodern theory, sentimental Third Worldism, glaring historical errors, and Western guilt”).
Nor does the Narrative predominate today because people are well read or pay attention to academe; as French historian Marc Ferro demonstrated in his Cinema and History (1988), the overwhelming majority of Western people’s knowledge of history comes from movies. And almost any major film dealing with premodern Europeans and Muslims—Robin Hood (1991), Kingdom of Heaven (2005), etc.—contrasts hypocritical, intolerant, and fanatical Christians with sophisticated, advanced, and tolerant Muslims. Commenting on such films back in 1997, Lewis wrote, “The misrepresentation of the past in the cinema is probably the most fertile and effective source of such misinformation at the present time…”
Twenty years later the Narrative has only metastasized and infected all aspects of public life, including politics and so-called “mainstream news.” Meanwhile, social and other media giants—YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter—increasingly censor material that contradicts the Narrative.
Such is how a previously well-known history was turned upside down and used to weaken the West—the greatest sin of which is ever again to think or behave like its “awful” ancestors did concerning Islam.
“Conan did a fantastic job. We’re very honored to have Conan here,” Trump said, as Pence stood by petting the pup.
“Conan came over from the Middle East — just arrived with some of the great people from the special forces that did the – it was a flawless attack,” the president said. “And al-Baghdadi is gone. That was a flawless attack and I just met quite a few of them. And we just gave Conan a medal and a plaque.”
Trump added that other members of the special forces team could not be publicly celebrated “for obvious reasons.”
“But they did a fantastic job. Conan did a fantastic job. We’re very honored to have Conan here.”
The president also described Conan as a vicious attack dog when it needs to be.
“They were going to put a muzzle on the dog, and I thought that was a good idea, but then it gets even more violent,” the president joked. “But no, the dog is incredible. Actually incredible. We spent some good time with it. So brilliant. So smart.”
Trump also said he asked Conan’s handler how a “strong man” might fare against him.
“What chance would a strong man have, a really strong tough fighter, what chance would this person have against Conan without the guns?”
“The answer pretty much was none — he would have no chance,” he said. “Conan is a tough cookie. Nobody’s going to mess with Conan.”
Trump also joked to a Reuters reporter he was lucky Conan was in a good mood.
“You’re very lucky he’s not in a bad mood today,” Trump told reporter Jeff Mason.
There was some bad news for people who have been calling on the Trumps to adopt Conan, according to Fox News:
At one point while the first lady and Conan were walking back toward the White House, a reporter asked if she had any interest in adopting Conan as a pet for her son Baron, and she laughed before replying, “no.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
A small percentage of teens who are depressed or bullied will respond with violence. After reading a recent report on school violence from the U.S. Secret Service, however, you’d be led to believe that every one of them is a potential mass-murderer.
“Secret Service research findings [indicate that] targeted school violence is preventable,” the U.S. Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) Director James Murray writes in a new NTAC report. All schools have to do is treat any student in any sort of distress as a potential danger to everybody else and respond accordingly. That sounds nice, but the plan completely ignores the potential for traumatizing innocent students.
Titled “Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence,” NTAC’s report claims that administrators and teachers in the country’s publicly funded schools must take steps to preempt the possibility that any student who shows signs of depression or isolation be mobilized toward terrorizing his tormentors in a violent manner.
The Secret Service would have teachers and administrators set a tone of taking the threat of armed violence very seriously and thus increasing the depth and breadth of the monitoring and reporting of “concerning” behavior.
Lest any reader believe that this story on the Secret Service’s report is exaggerated, here are a few relevant quotes from the NTAC reports:
This approach is intended to identify students of concern, assess their risk for engaging in violence or other harmful activities, and implement intervention strategies to manage that risk. The threshold for intervention should be low, so that schools can identify students in distress before their behavior escalates to the level of eliciting concerns about safety.
Because most of these attacks ended very quickly, law enforcement rarely had the opportunity to intervene before serious harm was caused to students or staff. Additionally, many of the schools that experienced these tragedies had implemented physical security measures (e.g., cameras, school resource officers, lockdown procedures). Prevention is key.
The call here is to manage students already under the pall of being “special needs” by placing them under a suspicion of being likely to kill many of those with whom they associate in these government-funded and managed “schools.”
So, just what sorts of behavior and thoughts — yes, thoughts — are those which must be recorded and reported so that they do not lead a student to kill his classmates? The Secret Service claims:
The observable mental health symptoms displayed by attackers prior to their attacks were divided into three main categories: psychological (e.g., depressive symptoms or suicidal ideation), behavioral (e.g., defiance/misconduct or symptoms of ADHD/ADD), and neurological/developmental (e.g., developmental delays or cognitive deficits). The fact that half of the attackers had received one or more mental health services prior to their attack indicates that mental health evaluations and treatments should be considered a component of a multidisciplinary threat assessment, but not a replacement. Mental health professionals should be included in a collaborative threat assessment process that also involves teachers, administrators, and law enforcement.
The U.S. Secret Service is calling for teachers, administrators, and law enforcement to single out, isolate, and treat as a threat any student who suffers from any one of the listed mental distresses.
As a former teacher in a public school (it was styled a “charter school,” but it was funded by and dictated to by the federal government), I can tell you that the number of students who, according to the above list, would qualify as a person with a potential — a likelihood — of coming to school with the intent of murdering his peers and his teachers is disturbingly high and would serve to preemptively punish dozens of students with the taint of being potential mass-murderer.
I can personally witness that with rare exception — so rare as to be statistically irrelevant — every one of the students I taught who were being treated for any of the mental ailments listed by the Secret Service were good, humble, and hard-working young people without desire or capacity to carry out the terroristic acts of violence the federal agency that authored the NTAC report warned they might commit.
Next, we will look at two of the “risks” that the U.S. Secret Service insists must be “assessed” by administrators and teachers if they are going to stop the next school shooting before it occurs: family life and access to weapons.
First, family life. As stated in the Secret Service report:
The field of study examining adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) finds that experiencing certain adverse events in childhood can result in a range of negative outcomes later in life, particularly when a child experiences multiple ACEs. ACEs include things like parent separation and divorce, substance abuse in the home, family violence, abuse, family incarceration, and family mental illness.
The Secret Service lists the following household “difficulties” as contributing to the likelihood of a young person one day coming to school with the purpose of murdering his associates:
• Failure to Pay Child Support
• Fraudulent Check(s)
• Low Income
How many of our young men and women come from homes burdened with economic distress?
Finally, there is the familiar call for disarmament as a surety for safety:
Most attackers used firearms, and firearms were most often acquired from the home: Many of the attackers were able to access firearms from the home of their parents or another close relative. While many of the firearms were unsecured, in several cases the attackers were able to gain access to firearms that were secured in a locked gun safe or case. It should be further noted, however, that some attackers used knives instead of firearms to perpetrate their attacks. Therefore, a threat assessment should explore if a student has access to any weapons, with a particular focus on weapons access at home. Schools, parents, and law enforcement must work together rapidly to restrict access to weapons in those cases when students pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.
It will come as no surprise to regular readers of The New American that the U.S. Secret Service subtly called for the removal of guns from the homes of all those who are believed — by teachers and administrators in public and charter schools — to be on the brink of unspeakable crimes against their classmates.
Here’s the way the Secret Service sees the situation with regard to children who come from homes with weapons:
Eight of the attackers (32%) acquired a firearm on the day of the attack. Five additional attackers (20%) acquired a firearm the day before the attack, and four attackers (16%) acquired a firearm between two and seven days prior. This finding reinforces the importance of a swift response to situations involving students who may pose a risk of harm to themselves or others, especially those who have access to weapons in the home.
Just how and by whom will the children of gun owners be identified and their violent proclivities be neutralized? The U.S. Secret Service declares: “If a child poses a risk of harm to him/herself or others, it is the responsibility of parents, law enforcement, and schools to collaboratively determine the most appropriate avenue for ensuring that the child does not have access to weapons.”
Are schools now to be given the authority to make sure a child with other contributing factors does not have access to weapons in the home?
How many of you have children in public/charter schools? How many of those children have been diagnosed with one of the disorders listed above? How many of you own weapons? How many of you will leave your children in those public/charter schools knowing that the federal government that controls them has now publicly called on teachers and administrators to help ensure that your children aren’t allowed to stay in a home with access to weapons?
How much longer will conservatives, Christians, constitutionalists, and others committed to the preservation of limited government and the sanctity of the family continue to support these government schools by sending their children to them?