RUTHFULLY YOURS

This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Louis Lionheart Moment with Louis Lionheart, a scholar of Islam and Christian preacher who is the Founder of TruthDefenders.com.

Louis discussed Lucifer, Lies and Lust: The Dark Reality of Muslim Paradise, unveiling what Jihadists are killing and dying for.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch Louis discuss Muslim Woman Attacks Christian Preacher, in which he shares the incident that occurred with him when he dared to tell the truth about Mohammed and Aisha. (Video clip of the assault is played in the program):

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel and to Jamie Glazov Productions. Also LIKE us on Facebook and LIKE Jamie’s FB Fan Page.

Journalist and Philos Project contributor Ralph Dexter Van Zile takes to task Christians worldwide who “practice Christianity as if it were a submissive, anti-Semitic slave religion.” This assessment comes in his new book Submitted under Protest: Essays Written in Defense of Freedom, an insightful anthology documenting one Christian’s intellectual defense of religious freedom against jihad.

Van Zile examines how old discredited anti-Semitic sentiments have gained new vibrancy among Christians as the global “human rights community has promoted a pornographic obsession with the Arab-Israeli conflict.” Amongst America’s historically socially predominant Protestant denominations like the United Church of Christ in which the Catholic Van Zile grew up, “progressive mainline churches have become a storehouse of anti-Jewish invective.” Internationally, the “World Council of Churches [WCC] speaks about the modern state of Israel in a manner similar to the way Christians spoke about Jews in Medieval Europe—as a uniquely sinful nation.”

WCC materials, writes Van Zile, “portray Israel’s creation as a mistake or irredeemable injustice against the Palestinians.” In America, the “implicit message offered by mainline peace and justice activists” is that “maybe the world would be better off if the Jewish nation were banished from community of nations and ultimately dismantled.” Often this “anti-Zionism expressed by mainline churches is a consequence of disappointed millennial hopes” as Judaism’s historic encounters with a fallen, murderous world negate what he calls “messianic pacifism.”

Van Zile also analyzes surprising parallel developments among anti-Zionist Jewish groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). “If they were alive in the 1930s, JVP’s supporters and allies would argue that if only Herschel Grynszpan hadn’t killed that German diplomat on November 6, 1938, Kristallnacht would never have happened.” Van Zile disbelievingly writes that “maybe the Holocaust could have been averted through rational discussion.”

Such distorted biases result in “portraying Israel as if it has the human rights record of China and the security concerns of Canada,” writes Van Zile. Yet Israeli democracy “sets the gold standard for human rights in the Middle East,” while the region’s dictatorships and terrorist movements commit often ignored atrocities against which Israeli sins pale. Demands that Israel achieve peace with its Arab neighbors similarly ignores that “Israel has been attacked from every inch of territory from which it has withdrawn in the past two decades.” This reflects the security reality that “Israel was created in response to a mass killing of Jews in Europe in the twentieth century that part of Arab and Muslim world seem intent on repeating in the twenty-first century.”

Yale English majors are demanding a safe space from Chaucer.

In a petition to the English department, Yale undergraduates declare that a required two-semester seminar on Major English Poets is a danger to their well-being. Never mind that the offending poets – Shakespeare, Chaucer, Donne, Milton, Wordsworth, et al. – are the foundational writers in the English language. It’s as if chemistry students objected to learning the periodic table or math students rose up against the teaching of differential calculus.

The root of the plaint against the seminar is, of course, the usual PC bean-counting, where prodigious talents who have stood the test of time and explore the deepest questions about what it means to be human are found wanting because they wouldn’t be suitable models for a United Colors of Benetton ad.

The petition whines that “a year spent around a seminar table where the literary contributions of women, people of color, and queer folk are absent actively harms all students, regardless of their identity.”

This is a variation on the widespread belief on campus that unwelcome speech is tantamount to a physical threat. In this case, the speech happens to be some of the most eloquent words written in the English language. One can only pity the exceedingly fragile sensibility it takes to feel assaulted by, say, “Lines Composed a Few Miles above Tintern Abbey.”

The petition’s implicit contention is that the major poets are too circumscribed by their race and gender to speak to today’s socially aware students, when, in point of fact, it is the students who are too blinkered by race and gender to marvel at great works of art.

It takes a deeply impoverished imagination to read Shakespeare and regard him simply as an agent of the patriarchy. It is safe to say that the bard is better at expressing what it is like to be a teenage girl in love, or a woman disguised as a man who falls for a man, or a bloody tyrant than almost every actual teenage girl in love, woman disguised as a man, or bloody tyrant.

The poet Maya Angelou said in a lecture once that as a child she thought, “Shakespeare must be a black girl.” It was because, growing up in the Jim Crow South, a victim of unspeakable abuse, Sonnet 29 spoke so powerfully to her. (“When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes, / I all alone beweep my outcast state, / And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries, / And look upon myself and curse my fate.”)

Islamic violence is nearly impossible to deny. But why is Islam violent? The usual answer is to point to Koranic verses calling for the conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims. That certainly covers the theological basis for Islamic violence. But it fails to explain why Muslims continue to practice it. Even against each other. Violence has become the defining form of Islamic exceptionalism.

Optimists speak of reforming Islam. But such reforms had over a thousand years in which to take place.

Islam is an ideology. Its violence is a strategy. That strategy fit the needs of Mohammed. Mohammed chose to use force to spread his ideology. He needed to recruit fighters so he preached the inferiority of non-Muslims, the obligation for Muslims to conquer non-Muslims and the right of his fighters to seize the property and wives of non-Muslims as incentive for them to join his fight. Furthermore he even promised them that if they should fall in battle, they would receive loot and women in paradise.

The strategy was barbarous, but quite effective. Mohammed had created a new super-tribe in a tribal society. The tribe of Islam united different groups in a mission of conquest. The Islamic religion allowed the varying clans to be more effective and ambitious than their victims. Within a surprisingly short amount of time the chain of conquests made Islam into a world religion. The most effective Islamic conquerors could not only claim vast territories, carving up civilization into fiefdoms, but they could prepare their sons and grandsons to continue the chain of conquests.

Islam made the standard tactics of tribal warfare far more effective. Its alliance was harder to fragment and its fighters were not afraid of death. But at the same time Islam remained fundamentally tribal. It made tribal banditry more effective, but didn’t change the civilization. It codified the tribal suspicion of outsiders and women into a religious doctrine. That still drives Islamic violence against non-Muslims and women today.

And yet Islam could have reformed. All it had to do was choose a different civilizational strategy.

This academic year will be remembered for its psychological crack-ups over Halloween costumes (Yale), faculty intimidation of student journalists covering protesters (the University of Missouri) and purges of single-sex social clubs (Harvard). But the dishonor roll isn’t complete without documenting how the Obama Administration is further eroding due process on campus.

The Education and Justice Departments have already gone far to subvert the norm that students accused of sexual assault retain individual rights. Now they are targeting the few rights that are left. Under new standards promulgated this spring, students can be punished before any disciplinary hearing has been held, and sometimes after anonymous allegations.

Starting with a 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter, the Education Department has reinterpreted the Title IX law that prohibits sex discrimination at educational institutions, creating legal obligations that do not exist in federal statutes. Schools can now lose taxpayer funds if they use a “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard for adjudicating assaults instead of the less rigorous “preponderance of the evidence.”

A new round of federal letters appeared starting in April. The one that expanded the definition of sexual harassment the most—and how schools must respond—was the finding of a Justice Department investigation into the University of New Mexico’s grievance protocol.

Justice said UNM violated Title IX in part because of a “failure to provide effective interim safety measures.” Interim measures are imposed on an accused student before any official ruling on guilt. They can include provisional suspensions for the accused; no-contact instructions akin to a restraining order; restrictions on when students can use libraries, dining halls and athletic facilities; evictions from dorms; and bans on extracurricular activities. CONTINUE AT SITE

“The subject is gloomy, but the food will be good—and the music spectacular.”http://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2016/06/is-anti-zionism-on-campus-a-passing-nuisance-or-a-fundamental-threat/

Thus, in late January, spoke Alvin Rosenfeld, a professor at Indiana University and director of its Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism. He was describing a four-day international scholars’ conference scheduled for late spring on the university’s Bloomington campus. In the event, the conference did not disappoint in its food, its music—or its gloom, which rose like a miasma from the days-long rehearsals of the varied and abundant forms of anti-Semitism, particularly in the form of anti-Zionism, in today’s world.

As if to reinforce the gravity of the occasion, the conference took place in the interval between the November 2015 terrorist massacres in Paris and the disclosure in April of the social-media posts by Naz Shah, a Labor member of the British parliament, advocating the forcible “relocation” of all Israeli Jews to America and the even greater uproar a month later over anti-Semitism among senior party leaders. Although the focus of the conference was mainly on Europe, both the academic setting and the topic, “Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and the Dynamics of Delegitimization,” inevitably launched attendees into the middle of an issue that many American Jews have strenuously tried to avoid: namely, the anti-Israel activity now rampaging through U.S. universities. Is this a fundamental threat, or a nasty but passing nuisance?

The answer suggested by the conference deliberations—“both of the above”—may sound like another evasion, but reflects an understanding of the still-relevant distinction between the seemingly ineradicable persistence of European anti-Semitism and the contrasting benignity of American social and political institutions. It also suggested the need to exploit that distinction before it becomes too late.

I. The European Scene

That today’s anti-Semitism is intimately connected with anti-Zionism is a virtually axiomatic proposition. Still, there are variations, and Europe specializes in them. The scholars at the conference—mostly from outside the United States—did a thorough job of filling in the European background, anatomizing the beast’s profile in individual countries, and connecting it in each case with the details of local politics. Without pretending to do justice to the richness of these presentations, it’s possible to sketch a few main themes before returning to the American scene.

That Old-Time Religion

There are places in Europe—and especially in Eastern Europe—where anti-Semitism is still so unreconstructed, and the sanctions against its open expression so few, that it doesn’t bother to cloak itself in “mere” anti-Zionism. One of these places appears to be the Czech Republic.

Thus, according to Zbyněk Tarant, an expert in cyber-hate at the University of West Bohemia, anti-Semitism on the Czech Internet, once chiefly a staple of neo-Nazi websites but now also part of the arsenal of more general conspiracy theorists, has recently specialized in resuscitating more ancient tropes in order to “explain” current events.

Two Israeli celebrations in recent days underscore the uniqueness and heroism of the Jewish state, while highlighting the concerted effort on the part of its enemies to undermine and delegitimize it.

The first was Gay Pride Week, which culminated in a massive parade in Tel Aviv. The second was the anniversary of the liberation of Jerusalem, capped off by a flag march through the streets of the Old City.

Though unrelated in content and focus, what these annual events have in common is their misrepresentation by ill-wishers.

Let’s begin with what Israel’s detractors concocted to counter the consensus, revealed in numerous tourist and other surveys, that Tel Aviv is among the most LGBT-friendly cities in the world. Coming up with the clever catch-phrase “pinkwashing,” left-wing activists accuse Israel of flaunting its gay-rights record so as to obfuscate its abuse of the Palestinians, including those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Never mind that such Palestinians sneak into Israel, where they can be free to be who they are without fear of rejection or slaughter for their sexual preferences. All one has to do to cast aspersion on the Jewish state is spread lies. It’s an effective propaganda tool, which works like a charm — though in this case, the fun that is had by all during Pride Week appears to trump the mud-slinging.

When it comes to marking the reunification of Israel’s capital 49 years ago, the lies are even more pronounced, as they have had many more years to take hold in the hearts and minds of people who don’t know any better, not to mention many whose motives are impure.

Former NSA head Michael Hayden recently joined a chorus of Trump’s critics blasting him for offending Muslims. “The jihadist narrative is that there is undying enmity between Islam and the modern world, so when Trump says they all hate us, he’s using their narrative,” he said.

That’s true. It’s also meaningless because in this case the narrative is reality.

Jihadists do hate us. Islam has viewed the rest of the world with undying enmity for over a thousand years. Some might quibble over whether a 7th century obsession really counts as “undying”, but it’s a whole lot older than Hayden, the United States of America, our entire language and much of our civilization.

Islam divides the world into the Dar Al-Islam and the Dar Al-Harb, the House of Islam and the House of War. This is not just the jihadist narrative, it is the Islamic narrative and we would be fools to ignore it.

The White House is extremely fond of narratives. The past month featured Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy guru, taking a victory lap for successfully pushing his “narrative” on the Iran deal. Rhodes takes pride in his narratives. His media allies love narratives. But none of the narratives change the fact that Iran is moving closer to getting a nuclear bomb. Narratives don’t change reality. They’re a delusion.

Narratives only work on the people you fool. They don’t remove the underlying danger. All they do is postpone the ultimate recognition of the problem with catastrophic results.

Islamic terrorism is a reality. Erase all the narratives and the fact of its existence remains.

Instead of fighting a war against the reality of Islamic terrorism, our leaders have chosen to fight a war against reality. They don’t have a plan for defeating Islamic terrorism, but for defeating reality.

The day after Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, the new nation was invaded from all sides by Arab armies. That failed. So humiliated Arab governments turned on their own Jewish citizens to exact the revenge they had publically promised: confiscation of assets, denaturalization, and finally expulsion to the new state of Israel as a demographic time bomb. Iraq was the model. Here’s how they did it.

On July 19, 1948, Iraq amended Law 51 against anarchy, immorality, and communism, adding the word “Zionism.” Zionism itself now became a crime, punishable by up to seven years in prison. Every Jew was thought to be a Zionist, thereby criminalizing every Jew.

After The Third Reich fell, some 2,000 ex-Nazis escaped to Arab countries to continue the war against the Jews. Soon, the familiar sequence of Nazi-style pauperization began in Baghdad. Jewish businesses were boycotted; their owners were systematically arrested. Their funds dried up

The once genteel and gracious life of Jews in Iraq was about to terminate. Zionist groups stepped up activities. Thanks to big bribes paid to Iranian officials, Iraqi Jews in large numbers were now permitted to transit via Iran, eventually 1,000 per month.

With the escapees went their remnant money and some possessions. Quickly, the rapid subtraction of Jews from the financial, administrative, retail, and export sectors proved devastating to Iraq’s economy. Over 26 centuries, Jews had become essential to the economy. An estimated 130,000 Jews lived in the Iraq of 1949, with about 90,000 residing in Baghdad. Jewish firms transacted 45 percent of the exports and nearly 75 percent of the imports.

The Obama presidency has been among the worst in American history but will the disaster be remembered? No easy task, given the Left’s cultural domination. Conceivably, in a few decades millions of youngsters might well learn that our first African-American president was a hero who wonderfully uplifted America.

To overcome this awaiting beatification, let me suggest a Washington DC museum cataloging his ineptitude. Here grade-schoolers on class trips and other visitors could listen to his error-filled speech celebrating Islam’s contribution American life or learn how with only a pen and phone he rewrote the U.S. Constitution.

Especially prominent will be a spacious Policy Wing exhibiting his countless ill-advised schemes, everything from ObamaCare to the transgendered bathroom fiasco. But, with so many possibilities, it is not easy to pick the worst but let me nominate one candidate: a recent White House directive that requires colleges and universities to cease asking applicants about their school disciplinary and criminal past since minorities (i.e., African Americans) are more likely to be “justice involved individuals.” The aim is to remove “barriers” to college (actually, at Colorado College a criminal past may be judged a plus in the admission process).

College admission officers are further being asked to ignore academic dishonesty, e.g., cheating on exams, plagiarism, because here, too, offenders are disproportionately minorities. These criminal encounters, moreover, are not necessarily indicators of flawed character — they could easily be a result of racial profiling, stereotyping, and similar biases. Once admitted, these students will receive extra counseling and legal advice plus coaching to assure a smooth transition to graduation. In fact, so pressing is America’s need for minority college graduates that the White House missive suggests universities dispatch recruiters to jails to ferret out college applicants.

Clearly, White House experts now have a novel and mind-boggling view of fighting crime. To wit, sending former miscreants to college will push them away from crime, so punishing them can only increase crime since colleges will reject those with a criminal record. That is, the greater the retribution the more the crime. So, according to the new logic, if Michael Brown were not incarcerated for stealing a box of Philly Blunts, he would be more likely to be admitted to college and with diploma in hand, live a crime-free life.

Whether a specific miscreant will benefit from this non-punitive policy is indisputable, but what about his neighbors who do not commit crimes? Tough luck. A more plausible argument is that swapping college for prison will only boost crime in largely black neighborhoods and predominantly black schools. In other words, Obama has it backwards.