Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Historians Run Amok


Historians Run Amok

by Daniel Pipes
Apr 4, 2017
Cross-posted from National Review Online
Be the first of your friends to like this.
The eminent historian Niall Ferguson has devastatingly skewered his (and my) field of study in a talk for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, subsequently published as "The Decline and Fall of History."
He starts with the empirical fact that undergraduates are running away from studying history: compared with 1971 (coincidentally, the year I got my A.B. degree), "the share of history and social sciences degrees has halved, from 18% in 1971 to 9%. And the decline seems likely to continue."
Niall Ferguson delivering ACTA's Merrill Award at the Folger Shakespeare Library on Oct. 28, 2016.
Why so? Data from the American Historical Association finds that the past 40 years have seen
a very big increase in the number of historians who specialize in women and gender, which has risen from 1% of the total to almost 10%. As a result, gender is now the single most important subfield in the academy. Cultural history (from under 4% to nearly 8%) is next. The history of race and ethnicity has also gone up by a factor of more than three. Environmental history is another big winner.
The losers in this structural shift are diplomatic and international history (which also has the oldest professors), legal and constitutional history, and intellectual history. Social and economic history have also declined. [Almost] all of these have fallen to less than half of their 1970 shares of the profession.
This means that the most significant events are ignored. Limiting oneself to modern Western history, courses barely cover such topics as the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. Instead, one encounters a course such as Harvard's History 1954: "Emotions in History" whose course description reads:
What is the place of emotion in history? The question itself holds multiple meanings, and in this course we consider two in particular: how to write the history of emotion(s), and how the historian's emotions affect the writing of history. Do historians benefit more from proximity to, or distance from, their historical subjects? Should historians of emotion suppress, or cultivate, their feelings of empathy? Does emotive writing inevitably fail the test of scholarly rigour and balance? We will explore some possible analytic frames for the history of emotion and debates over the subjectivity of history, and consider their application to case studies drawn from Australian history.


Ferguson reports the "not wholly surprising" fact that "Emotions in History" boasts a total enrollment of one student. Yale competes with its own offerings such as "Witchcraft and Society in Colonial America" and "History of the Supernatural."
Ferguson delicately asserts that he does "not wish to dismiss any of these subjects as being of no interest or value. They just seem to address less important questions than how the United States became an independent republic with a constitution based on the idea of limited government."
Not only does this new type of history take on minor concerns but it deals with them in miniature ways that amount to what a student dubs "heirloom antiquarianism" and Ferguson calls Microcosmographia Academica – focusing on topics like "the habits of New York restaurant-goers in the 1870s or the makeup of various Caribbean ethnic groups in areas of Brooklyn that made up the West Indian Day Parade in the 1960s" (real examples).
Finally, there's the politicizing, moralizing, and anachronistic insistence on judging "the past by the moral standards of the present—and indeed to efface its traces, in a kind of modern-day iconoclasm, when these are deemed offensive."
In all, as historians "neglect the defining events of modern world history in favor of topics that are either arcane or agitprop, sometimes both," students flee and the "United States of Amnesia" looms.
Bravo to Niall Ferguson for pointing out the hollowing out of a once-great field of study. (April 4, 2017)
Related Topics:  Academia, History
The above text may be reposted, forwarded, or translated so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information about its author, date, place of publication, as well as the original URL.



TUESDAY Security Update: Obama National Security Advisor SUSAN RICE Behind Unmasking Of Trump Transition Team

FSM Must Reads + 2012 site

In a massive scoop, Eli Lake of Bloomberg reported that Obama's national security advisor, Susan Rice, repeatedly requested information from the intelligence community on members of the Trump transition team and campaign, unmasking them to an audience beyond the intelligence community in the process.


This raises the ominous possibility that the Obama administration deliberately spread raw wiretap intercepts of Donald Trump phone calls and communications throughout the government in Obama's twilight days so that Hillary's people could do the leaking of the intercepts, thus giving Obama officials "plausible deniability."


The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally.


Some liken Russian President Vladimir Putin to the SPECTRE Criminal Organization; charging him with the disruption of the American political system. Putin does not resemble Doctor Zhivago, but he certainly is not an omnificent evil Doctor No.


"Republicans don't give a s**t" about you" - DNC Chairman Tom Perez, addressing attendees at a rally    Of course, we shouldn't be surprised...Perez was Obama's labor secretary.


During the 2016 U.S presidential campaign, senior leadership figures of the United States Council of Muslim Organizations began strategic planning to ensure the advancement and protection of the group's objectives, no matter who won the White House.


Unfortunately, in the aftermath of a March 23 terrorist attack on Westminister Bridge, in which a Muslim jihadist ploughed a vehicle into a crowd of pedestrians, Britain's leadership refuses to identify the cause of the problem in order to appropriately resolve it.


One of the blasts came from a device that appeared to be filled with shrapnel, according to Sky News. Watch LIVE coverage.


MOST VIEWED

Rogue intelligence agencies remind me of the Kennedy assassination

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD
Interestingly, less than two years before he was to leave office, Barack Obama authorized CIA Director John Brennan to reorganize the agency, a man who admittedly, as late as 1980, voted for the Communist Party and reportedly converted to Islam.

  CAIR Orders U.S. Air Force to Ditch "Anti-Muslim" Counterterrorism Instructor

by JUDICIAL WATCH
The Islamic terrorist front group that transformed the way U.S. law enforcement agencies conduct anti-terrorism training is ordering the Air Force to sever ties with an instructor it considers to be anti-Muslim. The question is will the Trump administration cave into its demands?

FSM video  picks + 2012 site
tucker carlson _ twitter photo

·  TUCKER: Rice unmasked as Team Trump unmasker: What it really means (Tucker Grills Obama Aide)

·  Circa News' Sara Carter and Bloomberg's Eli Lake break down the Susan Rice revelations
·  Hannity: Susan Rice 'Has a Lot of Explaining to Do' About Intel 'Unmasking'
·  Mark Levin Interviews FNC's Housley: We ‘WILL KNOW' If Obama, Valerie Jarret, Loretta Lynch Knew About ‘UNMASKING'
·  Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say

Monday's (April 3rd)White House Daily Briefing: Press Secretary Sean Spicer

SEAN SPICER WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING PRESS

Confused by fake news? Get the real story here: Sean Spicer full press briefing.


REMINDER: Please "like" our Facebook page:
facebook

and Don't forget to share some tweets!


twitter+bird+wink

donate now _button_blue

As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, The Family Security Foundation relies upon the thoughtfulness and (tax-deductible!) generosity of visitors like you.
donate now _button_blue
10 year FSM Anniversary
We certainly couldn't do it without you!

Checks may be sent here:

Family Security Foundation, Inc.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #298
Washington, D.C. 20006 




Another Attempt at "Extreme Vetting"



Another Attempt at "Extreme Vetting"

by Daniel Pipes
Apr 4, 2017
Cross-posted from National Review Online
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Donald Trump first coined the phrase "extreme vetting" in July 2016, in the aftermath of the truck attack in Nice, France. For nine months, he and his advisors have been trying to figure out what this means in practice.
Their first iteration, announced on Jan. 27, just days after their coming to office, focused on countries, not individuals. This approach has twice been shot down by the courts; further, it inherently makes no sense: some Iranians are friends and some Canadians are enemies. Looking at countries is crude and ineffective.
Today, the Wall Street Journal reports on the second try at "Trump Administration Considers Far-Reaching Steps for 'Extreme Vetting'" by Laura Meckler.
It's good to hear that the authorities are taking this issue seriously. The new approach has two halves. The first is excellent, requiring that foreigners who wish to visit the United States "to answer probing questions about their ideology." In more detail: the "ideological test" will, according to a Department of Homeland Security official working on the review, include questions such as
whether visa applicants believe in so-called honor killings, how they view the treatment of women in society, whether they value the "sanctity of human life" and who they view as a legitimate target in a military operation.
These questions echo some of the 93 I laid out in "Smoking Out Islamists via Extreme Vetting." But I also discussed related research efforts and the manner of interviewing would-be visitors. So, this is a good start but it needs much more thought.
The other half focuses on electronic devices:
The biggest change to U.S. policy would be asking applicants to hand over their telephones so officials could examine their stored contacts and perhaps other information. ... A second change would ask applicants for their social-media handles and passwords so that officials could see information posted privately in addition to public posts.
"If they don't want to give us that information," Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said in February, "then they don't come."
DHS Secretary John Kelly testifying before Congress.
But this emphasis on electronics, especially mobile phones, won't work. With time, word will get out and anyone intending to make trouble will delete information or leave the device at home and get a burner phone. Leon Rodriguez, Obama's head of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, notes that "The real bad guys will get rid of their phones. They'll show up with a clean phone. Over time, the utility of the exercise will diminish."
It won't be just "real bad guys" who take those steps. As a foreign policy analyst who frequently travels to other countries, I am a good guy; but I emphatically will not turn over my private information to foreign policemen and intelligence agencies; I'll do what is needed to avoid that, whether adjusting my devices or staying within the United States.
The person, not his country or telephone, must be the focus of attention. (April 4, 2017)
Related Topics:  Immigration, US policy
The above text may be reposted, forwarded, or translated so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information about its author, date, place of publication, as well as the original URL.


Robert Spencer in FrontPage: The Islamic State Strikes in Russia

Robert Spencer in FrontPage: The Islamic State Strikes in Russia

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/04/robert-spencer-in-frontpage-the-islamic-state-strikes-in-russia

“Listen, Putin, we will come to Russia and will kill you at your homes” – and subways. My latest in FrontPage:

Ten people were killed and many others injured Monday when an Islamic jihadi exploded a bomb filled with shrapnel on the St. Petersburg metro. Another bomb was found in a different train station but was defused before it exploded. According to Reuters, “authorities had established the identity of the suspected suicide bomber and that the suspect was a 23-year-old from central Asia who had carried an explosive device into the St Petersburg metro in a rucksack” and had links to the Islamic State. And so this jihad attack looks to be the fulfillment of a vow the Islamic State made last summer: to strike in Russia, and strike hard.

In a video released last August, an Islamic State jihadi declared: “Listen, Putin, we will come to Russia and will kill you at your homes … Oh Brothers, carry out jihad and kill and fight them.” The video also showed Islamic State jihadis, according to a subtitle, “breaking into a barrack of the Rejectionist military on the international road south Akashat [Anbar province, Iraq].”

“Rejectionists” are Shi’ites, who in the view of Sunnis are guilty of rejecting the legitimate authority of the first three caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. The Russians in Syria are backing the Alawite regime of Bashar Assad, which is aligned with the Shi’ites of Iran (and the Alawite religion is itself an offshoot of Shi’ite Islam), and fighting the Islamic State. Hence the rage of the Islamic State against Russia – although Western analysts would do well to avoid the pitfall of thinking that if Russia were not involved in Syria, the Islamic State would not have struck in St. Petersburg.

In reality, the Islamic State’s enmity toward Russia goes much deeper than anger at its presence in Syria. On July 1, 2014, just after the Islamic State had declared itself the new caliphate – that is, the sole legitimate government for all Muslims anywhere on earth – its new caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, issued a declaration entitled, “A Message to the Mujahedin and the Muslim Ummah in the Month of Ramadan.” In it, he said:

O ummah of Islam, indeed the world today has been divided into two camps and two trenches, with no third camp present: The camp of Islam and faith, and the camp of kufr (disbelief) and hypocrisy – the camp of the Muslims and the mujahidin everywhere, and the camp of the jews, the crusaders, their allies, and with them the rest of the nations and religions of kufr, all being led by America and Russia, and being mobilized by the jews.” – Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s caliph Ibrahim, in his message upon being named caliph, “A Message to the Mujahedin and the Muslim Ummah in the Month of Ramadan,” July 1, 2014 (capitalization as in the original).

The self-styled caliph couldn’t have been clearer: as far as he is concerned, the greatest enemies of the Muslims are the Jews, as he knows from his Qur’an (5:82). This sinister enemy of the Muslims has mobilized the United States and Russia to lead “the camp of kufr (disbelief) and hypocrisy” against “the camp of Islam and faith.” As far as the Islamic State is concerned, this is an eschatological struggle, the apocalyptic showdown between good and evil.

And given the exultant brutality of the Islamic State, they may very well have a point. But Western analysts would do well to realize that no adjustment of foreign (or domestic) policy is going to prevent attacks such as the one in St. Petersburg Monday, or the recent Islamic State jihad attack in London, or any of the others. Nor will the destruction of the Islamic State itself end this conflict: not only will its jihadis in Iraq and Syria be dispersed throughout the world to wage jihad in new countries, but other Muslims will also take up this cause, and enlist in the war between Islam and unbelief.

This is not just one way that the Islamic State and other like-minded Muslims look at the world. It is the only way. It is the prism through which they view all political events and issues. It is, likewise, the one aspect of this broad and spreading conflict that Western analysts continue to minimize, downplay, or ignore outright. And so as long as we fail to heed Sun Tzu’s adage that one must know one’s enemy in order to defeat him, we will continue to fail to defeat him.

Prof. At Rollins College Involved In Suspending Christian Student Has Ties To Islamic Extremists

Prof. At Rollins College Involved In Suspending Christian Student Has Ties To Islamic Extremists



New details shed light on the controversy.

7
New details surfacing regarding a Muslim Rollins College professor who was involved in the wrongful suspension of a Christian student show that she has multiple ties with radical Islamic individuals and organizations, most notably through an ex-lover under FBI investigation and in her position as the spokesperson for the Islamic Society of Central Florida (ISCF).

The College Fix reported last Monday that the professor, Areej Zufari, falsely accused the student, sophomore Marshall Polston, of violating the terms of his suspension by setting foot on campus, resulting in a disciplinary hearing with the university conduct system. Polston has since been exonerated of all charges after providing surveillance footage of where he really was at the time and has been officially reinstated at the college.

Polston claims he was originally suspended after sending a strongly worded email refuting his professor’s claims that Jesus’s crucifixion never happened and that his followers never believed he was the son of God. Rollins College refused to answer questions on whether they would investigate these claims and Zufari’s potential ties to Islamic extremists.

Zufari served as the spokesperson and Director of Communications for the Islamic Society of Central Florida (ISCF) from 2001 to at least 2004, according to the author bio from her 2012 book “Beyond the Headlines” and press communications from the organization. ISCF's main mosque, Masjid al-Rahman, is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which was classified by federal prosecutors as both an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case and as an entity that is or was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In this case, the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals were identified as “establish[ing] a network of organizations in the U.S. to spread a militant Islamist message and raise money for Hamas,” and “eliminating the State of Israel through violent jihad.” Former FBI special agent Robert Stauffer stated that NAIT’s role in the Muslim Brotherhood is that of a nonprofit financial holding company, according to the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel.

Security policy expert Alex Alexiev reports in the National Review that NAIT is “the proprietor of hundreds of radical mosques and Islamic institutions in the U.S., including some that have been closed down by the government as criminal enterprises.” According to the Hudson Institute, NAIT is the title owner of at least 25% of all Islamic facilities in the United States with some estimates reaching up to 79%. ISCF has not responded to multiple calls and emails asking if Zufari still holds a position with the organization.

In recent years ISCF has received notable publicity for terrorism fundraising activities. In 2009, ISCF sponsored and held an event at Masjid al-Rahman that raised at least $55,000 for George Galloway’s Viva Palestina, which has been criticized as being a financial conduit for the terrorist organization Hamas. Indeed, in 2009 Galloway held a public press conference where he handed a bag of cash over to Hamas leadership.

In a 2011 interview with the Ronald Reagan Republican Assemblies of Florida (RRRAF), Imam Muhammad Musri, president of ISCF, was hounded with questions regarding his knowledge of the fundraiser, according to the United West, a nongovernmental counter-jihad organization.

During the interview, Musri’s story changes many times. At first, he claims not to have known Galloway, who had his visa revoked in 2010, but admits that Galloway goes around the world gathering money for Hamas a few minutes later, though continuing to stick to with his story of not knowing that the money raised was going to Hamas.

That same year Musri came under fire again with claims that since he became president of ISCF 15 years ago, “members, donors and contributors are not allowed to see how much money is collected and how it is spent,” and “there have been no elections for the society's president or its nine board members,” according to the Orlando Sentinel.

While its website claims that the organization is for peaceful practitioners of Islam, earlier this year Imam Musri welcomed Sheikh Mohammed Rateb Al-Nabulsi, a radical Muslim cleric who openly calls for the death of Jews and gays, according to Heritage Florida Jewish News.

In recent years Rollins College appears to have forged deep connections with ISCF and the two have engaged in affiliated projects dating as far back as 1998. Rollins has collaborated on several events with the ISCF, including one as late as September of 2016, according to the ISCF’s Twitter page.
Aside from publicly representing ISCF, between at least 2004-2007, Zufari was caught up in the middle of a divorce case between Rosine Ghawji and her husband, Maher Ghawji, a Syrian-born endocrinologist, whom Rosine has exposed as a supporter of and donor to radical Islamic activities.
Proof of the affair, found in the affidavit of counter-terrorism expert Joe Kaufman, showed that Zufari had been planning a trip to a nudist resort with Maher Ghawji, a man who admitted in court to giving money to his brother, who ended up being a part of a terrorist-linked organization, according to page 32 of the court filing. Specifically, a receipt shows that Maher has donated to Mercy International, a charity that was involved with an Al Qaeda terrorist attack, according to the Washington Institute.
Six years prior to their divorce, Rosine began acting as an FBI informant leaking information about her ex-husband, who she claims revealed himself to her to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood early on in their relationship.

Email evidence uncovered in the court filing shows that the two were so deeply involved that Zufari had gone to Syria and visited with Ghawji’s family. This past Wednesday, Zufari’s sister confirmed in a comment on a Facebook post that at one point they were even engaged to be married, but claims “their relationship didn’t last for other reasons” after the court trial had ended.

According to point 20 of her lawsuit against Zufari, Rosine alleges that throughout the affair Zufari was aware of her ex-husband’s extremist beliefs, and was even complicit in the plan to radicalize Ghawji’s two children, Louis and Tarek “K.K.” Ghawji.

On page 47 of the court filing Ghawji admitted that he had told his wife that he did not want Jewish children in his home. In fact, both of Ghawji’s sons have mentioned his father’s disdain for Jews multiple times. On one occasion, Louis Ghawji, their oldest son, sent an email to a friend in 2004 saying, “And because he [Maher Ghawji] wants to get rid of all the Jews and everybody should be muslim and if not all others are idiots and...wants me to go blow up myself so he would be proud of me[.]”

In an interview conducted by a court reporter with both children present, K.K. Ghawji is on record saying, “When he watches the TV and hears about Jews, he doesn’t, - he’s like saying I hate the Jews,” to which Louis interrupts and says, “He's always wondering like every time there is one Jew dead, it is always a big fuss, and there is a Palestinian, they don’t care; that’s what he says.”
Both of his children have corroborated these statements, and pleaded with the court on multiple occasions not to be forced to live with their father. K.K. Ghawji explained their relationship with his father in a school paper, saying his father was a “fanatic Muslim and he doesn’t care if my brother and I get blown up for Islam and if I say that I am not a Muslim he will rather see me dead in the street.”

According to World Net Daily, despite Rosine providing a substantial amount of evidence and her children pleading for Judge Donna Fields, who presided over the case, not to send them with their father, Judge Fields refused to grant their requests. Although the boys made it clear that they wished to live as Christians, Judge Fields declared, “Those children will have to follow the Muslim religion,” during her final ruling on the divorce case. They were also ordered to accompany their father on the Hajj, the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca.

Rosine Ghawji filed an ethics complaint against Judge Fields through her general counsel’s office for refusing to acknowledge her assertions that her husband was involved in terrorist activities. This was not the first-time Judge Fields had been criticized over ethics. There are several online petitions that were created in the late 2000s that call for Judge Fields to be removed from her bench. Judge Fields recently retired from her duties, despite having six years left in her term, according to Ballotopedia.
When asked to respond to the situation and Zufari’s ties to radical Islam, Rollins College spokeswoman Jo Marie Hebeler said the following in a statement:
Rollins College is welcoming and respectful of all religious and cultural beliefs. As an institution of higher education, we value and encourage diversity of opinions and respectful discourse. In accordance with FERPA and our institutional policies, it is our responsibility to respect the privacy and confidentiality of all involved in this incident, students and faculty alike. The safety and fair treatment of all members of our campus community is of utmost concern.”
Rollins College stated there will be no further comment on the situation

It's Good To Be Anti-Islam

Australia: Muslim MP says offending Muslims is “racist” even though Islam isn’t a race

SICK TO DEATH OF THIS INSANE SHIT!!!

YOU STUPID TWAT!!!

 I HATE YOU FEEBLE MINDED NUTTERS MORE EACH DAY!!

Australia: Muslim MP says offending Muslims is “racist” even though Islam isn’t a race



This is from BuzzFeed, and so the vicious bias is not surprising, but this is a particularly striking, and revolting, example of a hard-Left propagandist running interference for the imposition of Sharia blasphemy laws. Muslim MP Anne Aly explains that “anti-Muslim hatred” should be considered racist.

No violence against any innocent person is ever justified, whether it’s called “racism” or not. The problem here is that numerous Islamic groups have made clear that in referring to “anti-Muslim hatred,” they mean not just attacks on or harassment of innocent Muslims, but also any honest analysis of how jihad terrorists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. Thus to label this racist is an attempt to shut down all critical analysis of the jihad terrorists’ motivating ideology; they will then be able to advance unopposed and unimpeded.

Anne Aly would have you believe that those who oppose jihad terror and Sharia supremacism “have the same motivations as racism.” Yes, that’s right: in Anne Aly’s world, opposing jihad terror and speaking about its Qur’anic justifications stems from the same impulse as segregated drinking fountains. She doesn’t even entertain the possibility that someone might oppose jihad terror and Sharia oppression out of a concern to preserve and defend societies that respect human rights and the freedom of speech.

More below.

“This Muslim Politician Nailed Why The ‘Islam Is Not A Race’ Argument Doesn’t Work,” by Mark Di Stefano, BuzzFeed, April 1, 2017:
Last week Labor’s Dr Anne Aly sparked conservative outrage as parliament debated reforming Australia’s Racist Discrimination Act, by suggesting attacks aimed at Muslims should also be covered under the law.
Aly sat down for the latest episode of BuzzFeed Australia’s political podcast Is It On?, laying out *her* argument for anti-Muslim hatred being considered racist.
BuzzFeed wouldn’t dream, of course, of letting opponents of her measure explain themselves.
She is also well aware of the “but Islam is not a race” retort used by trolls online:
You see, it’s only “trolls online” who dare to assert that Islam is not a race. No serious person would think such a crazy thing.

Aly explains:
Because (attacks on Muslims) have the same motivations as racism and the same impacts of racism. So you can define racism as only being about a certain category or in terms of its mobilisers and its impacts. If you look at its mobilisers then you would consider hate speech against Muslims, racism.
BuzzFeed then bats down another objection to Aly’s absurd argument:
Dr Aly, who worked as de-radicalisation expert
On “deradicalization,” see here.
before entering parliament last year, brushed off a claim by Liberal MP Tim Wilson that she’s actually arguing for blasphemy laws.
She pointed to the fact that hatred against Jewish people and Sikhs could both be protected under the Act’s controversial 18C, despite neither being “a race”….
Australia needs to clarify what exactly a “race” is, and how it proposes to distinguish between legitimate criticism and “racism.” In any case, if Aly’s proposal is adopted, it will be the death of Australia as a free society.