Category Archives: Strategy

An insight into global satanic strategy – part 2

Posted on by
5

Timing in publishing this follow-on, 700th post is exceptionally fascinating not only for its confirmation in directly related news from Washington but also in other details. I will explain in next post; meanwhile, may you too be blessed with insights as you read:

Hand Holding Puzzzle PieceContinuing from Part 1 let’s consider further the revelatory ‘jigsaw piece’ found whilst musing upon satan’s strategy to avoid the Lake of Fire. It came whilst reading specialist historian Paul Crawford’s  Four Myths About The Crusades.  His solid, illuminating essay on president Bill Clinton’s unsound premise to his remarks on the 9/11 attack also apply to Barack Obama’s recently equating Christianity to Islamist butchery of Christians. Paul’s paper exposes falsehoods behind and adroitly disposes of the following:

  • Myth #1: The Crusades represented an unprovoked attack by Western Christians on the Muslim world.
  • Myth #2: Western Christians went on crusade because their greed led them to plunder Muslims in order to get rich.
  • Myth #3: Crusaders were a cynical lot who did not really believe their own religious propaganda; rather, they had ulterior, materialistic motives.
  • Myth #4: The Crusades taught Muslims to hate and attack Christians.

Part 1 of this post briefly summarised Myth #3 and I concluded:

“The period of the Enlightenment with its liberal intellectual and philosophical attitudes nourished a growing rejection of religion, agnosticism and atheism. So a jaundiced view of Christian scripture and history developed. Thus, the Western intelligentsia began to put a twist upon the Crusades.”

His paper deserves to be studied in full and in view of its importance in this part I shall quote more extensively, adding emphases where appropriate:

The Muslim Attitude to the Crusades

Dr Crawford begins answering Myth #4 by stating part of the answer lies in that for Myth #1 – ie. Muslims had attacked Christians for centuries ever since the inception of Islam. His answer to the first myth succinctly summarises what was happening, as itemised on 7 pages by Dr Bill Warner on Political Islam, and which show that ‘jihadic’ attacks and strategic advances occurred on average every 5 years for 460 years!

Paul continues by stating Muslims “needed no further incentive to continue (jihad). But there’s a more complicated answer here…”.

“…until quite recently, Muslims remembered the crusades as an instance in which they had beaten back a puny western Christian attack…(One) of Lawrence of Arabia’s letters (describes) a confrontation during post-World War I negotiations (over) a case for French interest in Syria going back to the crusades, which Faisal (later Faisal I of Iraq). dismissed with a cutting remark: “But, pardon me, which of us won the crusades?”

He goes on to state that before WW1 most Muslims had a similar, if any, attitude to the Crusades,

“…that is, when Muslims bothered to remember them at all, which was not often. Most of the Arabic-language historical writing on the crusades before the mid-19th century was produced by Arab Christians, not Muslims, and most of that was positive…There was no Arabic word for “crusades” until that period, either…It had not seemed important to Muslims to distinguish the crusades from other conflicts between Christianity and Islam…As Carole Hillenbrand has noted, “The Muslim response to the coming of the Crusades was initially one of apathy, compromise and preoccupation with internal problems”.

“The first Muslim crusade history did not appear until 1899. By that time, the Muslim world was rediscovering the crusades — but it was rediscovering them with a twist learned from Westerners.”

At this point our author has introduced a new angle: the influence of modern European schools of thought. This was covered in Part 1 of this post for the purpose of leading into an appreciation of how Muslims’  attitudes towards the Crusades  changed radically in the early decades of the 20th Century. As Crawford explains:

“At the same time, nationalism began to take root in the Muslim world. Arab nationalists borrowed the idea of a long-standing European campaign against them from the former European school of thought – missing the fact this was a serious mischaracterization of the crusades and using this distorted understanding as a way to generate support for their own agendas.

“This remained the case until the mid-20th century, when, in Riley-Smith’s words, “a renewed and militant Pan-Islamism” applied the more narrow goals of the Arab nationalists to a worldwide revival of what was then called Islamic fundamentalism and is now sometimes referred to, a bit clumsily, as jihadism.

“This led rather seamlessly to the rise of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, offering a view of the crusades so bizarre as to allow bin Laden to consider all Jews to be crusaders and the crusades to be a permanent and continuous feature of the West’s response to Islam.

“Bin Laden…is no more accurate in his view about the crusades than he is about the supposed perfect Islamic unity which he thinks Islam enjoyed before the baleful influence of Christianity intruded. But the irony is that he, and those millions of Muslims who accept his message, received that message originally from their perceived enemies: the West.

“So it was not the crusades that taught Islam to attack and hate Christians. Far from it. Those activities had preceded the crusades by a very long time, and stretch back to the inception of Islam. Rather, it was the West which taught Islam to hate the crusades. The irony is rich.”

Conclusion

The last leads Paul Crawford ‘back to the present’ in asking how much of president Bill Clinton’s Georgetown speech of 2001 was accurate, especially his emphatic assertion that the story of the Crusades was “still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it!”.

“This is the most serious misstatement of the whole passage. What we are paying for is not the First Crusade, but western distortions of the crusades in the nineteenth century which were taught to, and taken up by, an insufficiently critical Muslim world.

In drawing everything together, this specialist in the history of the Crusades offers his opinion:

“The problems with Mr Clinton’s remarks indicate the pitfalls that await those who would attempt to explicate ancient or medieval texts without adequate historical awareness, and they illustrate very well what happens when one sets out to pick through the historical record for bits—distorted or merely selectively presented—which support one’s current political agenda. This sort of abuse of history has been distressingly familiar where the crusades are concerned.

Thank you Paul Crawford for such an excellent examination and clarification of a crucial current issue. (Paul is an Associate Professor at California University of Pennsylvania –  also see his bio at Queen Mary University of London, and The Intercollegiate Review.)

The Diabolical Spin

Clearly, as shown above, the “Father of Lies” has been spinning his worldwide web of deceit, to which a surprising confirmation has been given this week and will be revealed in the next post.

Out of the post-Reformation intellectual freedom that eventually led to the rejection of most Judeo-Christian values, was born an anti-Christian mind-set that deliberately warps any spiritual understanding. It eventually affected not only traditional Christian beliefs but also associated historical facts.

Into his engineered ungodliness Satan could sow seeds of disbelief to twist and poison intellectual integrity. This serves his strategy to disunite and weaken Christianity further by falsified history harnessed to intellectual dishonesty and arrogance to belittle, blame and persecute the church of Jesus Christ.

“But Jesus…”

UPDATE: current security concerns led to a relevant development upon this thesis, as revealed in Anti-terrorism summit confirms this week’s insight.

MORE: this theme develops further in 1 of 3: the ‘End-game’ gets ramped up a level.

[‘Hand Holding Puzzle Piece’ by Ponsulak, courtesy Freedigitalphotos.net]

An insight into a global satanic strategy – part 1

Posted on by
8

A nuance new to me of our enemy’s tactics has come to light which seriously affects politicians’ and public’s perceptions. As in the caveat to Paws 4 thought, it’s a topic I’d much rather not blog about, but current events require this information to be shared. It should help you to understand the huge, beguiling deception blinding national leaders.

An “aha!” moment instigated continuation of those musings. Long-standing readers may recall, like my friend and fellow End-times teacher-author ‘Neil Mac’, that ‘jigsaw pieces’ occasionally bring revelation ‘out-of-the-blue’.

Hand Holding Puzzle Piece by PonsulakAfter popping a small ‘piece’, the last link, into my brief comment to the re-blog of Joel Rosenberg’s post on the war against Christianity, it struck me that link is part of an ‘invisible’ jigsaw. Not exactly as depicted in this photo by Ponsulak, it seemed like I’d inserted a ‘piece’ into a large puzzle, part of which covers Islamist actions.

Puzzle - Salvatore VuonoTo the first ‘puzzle pieces’, or links to comments on US National Prayer Breakfast, I added two more on the Crusades. It was upon later reading the last of these four at leisure that I was struck by it’s being like a piece connecting one area to another (rather  like Salvatore Vuono’s picture here).

That ‘piece’ connects the modern revival of Islam in all its original barbarity that overflowed from Arabia 1,500 years ago with my musings on the Devil’s plot to avoid the Lake of Fire. Now, it’s not the fact that this phenomena is part (5) of my historical evidence, but more the facts emerging from further analysis that brought a better perspective.

Historical Evidence cont’d

In those musings we considered just a few events to support my thesis that satan is the source of anti-Semitism and Christian disunity. There’s a ‘rationale’ to such a strategy.  Nowadays,we’re brainwashed into ignoring the historical facts behind Christianity’s massive reaction 920 years ago to 460 years of jihad – widespread strategic attacks and invasions. That is, it all started 1,380 years ago – and ISIS/ISIL want the whole world to regress not improve! (Hence, my re-blog’s link to Dr Warner’s itemised listing.)

Also, militant Muslims, backed by mendacious academics in Western universities, use that twisting of historical facts to pretend they’re victims of the Crusades: but in actual fact, Muslims came out as the winners!!

What is deeply disturbing is the fact that presidents Clinton and Obama were duped, or else wallowed in self-imposed ignorance, about the Crusades – and displayed this in public!  My readers in the States will be aware of the outcry following Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on 5th February when Mr Obama said, and I underscore the cause of the issue:

“…we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it.  We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism…and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions…[examples of sectarian wars] a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion

“So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities…operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends? 

“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.  And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ…”

To his credit the President didn’t refer to deep anti-Semitism that had riddled European churches since the ‘early Church fathers’ and led up to the Holocaust. (Reformer Martin Luther was renowned for his strident, ungodly dislike of Jews!)

Elliott AbramsEven so, cluelessness masks deep disingenuity over the recent anti-Semitic murders of French and Danish Jews, as Elliot Abrams (Senior Fellow at the CFR and just one among myriad experts) pointedly questions and explains, Why can’t the White House see Terrorism and anti-Semitism? (see his linked lead-in post too).

Franklin Graham, outspoken son of Billy Graham, took issue with Obama’s comments, as emphasised above. On his Facebook page the evangelist sought to correct them:

“Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, the President implied that what ISIS is doing is equivalent to what happened over 1000 years ago during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Mr. President–Many people in history have used the name of Jesus Christ to accomplish evil things for their own desires. But Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give His life for the sins of mankind, not to take life. Mohammad on the contrary was a warrior and killed many innocent people. True followers of Christ emulate Christ—true followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.”

A fortnight later Franklin asks about the butchery in Libya,

“…In a statement the White House even called the 21 Christians who were beheaded “Egyptian citizens,” refusing to identify them as Christians. The truth is–their barbaric murderers openly said they killed them because they were “people of the cross.” Why is the President seemingly continuing to protect Islam and refusing to open his eyes to the truth?” (emphasis added)

The essential point, as in several earlier posts, is to compare the founders of both faiths – that of Islam just doesn’t, and cannot, bare comparison with Jesus.

William Koenig’s perspective on this as an accredited journalist at the White House and editor-in-chief of World Watch Daily is worth noting too:

“An important point to remember is that President Obama’s speeches have a specific audience or audiences in mind. At the National Prayer Breakfast…he equated the Christian (ie. Catholic) Crusades with radical Islam’s brutality. Moreover, he neglected to contrast the sacrificial love of Jesus Christ, who came as the Savior to the world, with the brutality of Mohammed, who attempted to dominate and terrorize the world…

 “What did Muslims hear? A Muslim apologist who happens to be the President of the United States, and who calls himself a Christian, lectured Christians not to be on a “high horse”. He equated horrific Muslim violence with Christians who resorted to violence in two specific periods in history.”

This furore comes as no surprise. I questioned the President’s claims to be “a student of history” in his 2009 Cairo speech, which benefitted the Muslim Brotherhood. To the very deep disquiet and legitimate suspicion of many Americans, the MB since infiltrated and became too influential within the US administration, as lawyer and author Joseph Klein recently maintained in Obama Bolsters the Brotherhood.

Also refer to Tuesday’s article by Ephraim Karsh, professor emeritus of Kings College London, on White House Delusions, Islamist Realities, wherein he tells what happened after Cairo. UK readers will find relevant material by searching on ‘Cordoba foundation’ and ‘UK islam and democracy conference’ by Global MB Watch.

‘Four Myths About The Crusades’

Historian Paul Crawford’s above-titled article is the revelatory ‘jigsaw piece’ referred to above. It was first published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in 2011, but I found it through the Catholic News Agency. It gave me a new perspective into another tactic used by the Devil against Christianity. This scholarly paper should be recommended reading for every serious student of history; click to read in full.

The author, a specialist teacher of medieval history, opens by referring to Bill Clinton’s speech in 2001 where he, like Obama, excused the perpetrators of 9/11 by comparing them to medieval crusaders!

Crawford’s well-reasoned and illuminating essay exposes the falsehoods behind and adroitly disposes of:

  • Myth #1: The crusades represented an unprovoked attack by Western Christians on the Muslim world.
  • Myth #2: Western Christians went on crusade because their greed led them to plunder Muslims in order to get rich.
  • Myth #3: Crusaders were a cynical lot who did not really believe their own religious propaganda; rather, they had ulterior, materialistic motives.
  • Myth #4: The crusades taught Muslims to hate and attack Christians.

What opened my eyes to a nuance in the devilish scheme to avoid the fiery lake was a scenario cloaked within the facts underlying Myths #3 and #4, for which the scholar’s opening gambit to the first (#3) reads:

“This has been a very popular argument, at least from Voltaire on. It seems credible and even compelling to modern people, steeped as they are in materialist worldviews. And certainly there were cynics and hypocrites in the Middle Ages…

“In the modern period, there were two main European schools of thought about the crusades. One school, epitomized by people like Voltaire, Gibbon, and Sir Walter Scott, and in the twentieth century Sir Steven Runciman, saw the crusaders as crude, greedy, aggressive barbarians who attacked civilized, peace-loving Muslims to improve their own lot. The other school, more romantic…saw the crusades as a glorious episode in a long-standing struggle in which Christian chivalry had driven back Muslim hordes. In addition, Western imperialists began to view the crusaders as predecessors, adapting their activities in a secularized way that the original crusaders would not have recognized or found very congenial…”

Free from church controls, the Enlightenment’s intellectual and philosophical liberality nourished a growing rejection of religion, agnosticism and atheism. So a jaundiced view of Christian scripture and history developed. Consequently, Western intelligentsia put their own twist upon the Crusades.

Part 2 will look at how this diabolical spin generated Myth #4; that the Crusades taught Muslims to hate and attack Christians – and the implicit activity of the “Father of Lies” in avoiding his ultimate demise.

[‘Hand Holding Puzzle Piece’ and ‘Puzzle’ courtesy Freedigitalphotos.net]