Crusading Popes in Defense of the West

Paul Crawford’s essay, “Four Myths about the Crusades” is a wonderful antidote to the received wisdom about the Crusades. According to the standard account,

the crusades are depicted as a deplorably violent episode in which thuggish Westerners trundled off, unprovoked, to murder and pillage peace-loving, sophisticated Muslims, laying down patterns of outrageous oppression that would be repeated throughout subsequent history. In many corners of the Western world today, this view is too commonplace and apparently obvious even to be challenged.

He recounts the long history of Muslim conquest and threats against the West beginning in 632 and extending right up to the First Crusade in 1095. The Popes were key players in the defense of the West.

This is not the absence of provocation; rather, it is a deadly and persistent threat, and one which had to be answered by forceful defense if Christendom were to survive. The crusades were simply one tool in the defensive options exercised by Christians.

To put the question in perspective, one need only consider how many times Christian forces have attacked either Mecca or Medina. The answer, of course, is never.

Advertisement

Crawford also rebuts the allegation that the Crusaders saw their activity as leading to wealth. The reality was that, as always, going to war was very costly. “In short: very few people became rich by crusading, and their numbers were dwarfed by those who were bankrupted. Most medieval people were quite well aware of this, and did not consider crusading a way to improve their financial situations.” Further, the main motivation of the Crusaders was religious idealism–crusading would save their souls: Soldiers were recruited, not drafted, on the basis of sermons whose message

worked because crusading was appealing precisely because it was a known and significant hardship, and because undertaking a crusade with the right motives was understood as an acceptable penance for sin. Far from being a materialistic enterprise, crusading was impractical in worldly terms, but valuable for one’s soul. … Crusading was an act of selfless love.

This religious idealism that was so common in the Middle Ages also motivated a great deal of self-sacrificing behavior by monks and other religious personnel, providing a psychological underpinning to Medieval collectivism, as noted in “What Makes Western Culture Unique“:

The collectivism of Western European society in the late Middle Ages was real.  There was intense group identification and group commitment to Christianity among all levels of society, as indicated, for example, by the multitudes of pilgrims and the outpouring of religious fervor and in-group fervor associated with the Crusades to free the Holy Land from Muslim control. The medieval Church had a strong sense of Christian group economic interests vis-à-vis the Jews, and often worked vigorously to exclude Jews from economic and political influence and to prevent social intercourse between Christiansand Jews.

St. Louis, King of France

…There were also high levels of reproductive altruism, particularly among the mendicant friars, many other religious personnel, and eventually the secular elite.  Reproductive altruism among the secular elite was mainly the result of coercion but there are also cases of voluntary restraint, as in the case of Louis IX of France—St. Louis. St. Louis was not only a paragon of proper Christian sexual behavior.  He also had a powerful sense of Christian group economic interests vis-à-vis the Jews and he was heavily involved in the crusades to return the Holy Land to Christian control.    Europeans considered themselves part of a Christian in-group arrayed against non-Christian outgroups (particularly Muslims and Jews) who were seen as powerful and threatening enemies. (p. 14)

This reminds us that, although inclined to individualism, Westerners are entirely capable of submerging themselves in a collectivist enterprise if there is a compelling ideology underlying it, including particularly the perception and reality of self-sacrifice, altruism and a threatening outgroup. My view is that National Socialism accomplished this: “National Socialism aimed at developing a cohesive group. There was an emphasis on the inculcation of selfless behavior and within-group altruism combined with outgroup hostility” (see here, p. 1ff).
Crawford concludes by noting that
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.
It is noteworthy that President Clinton is one of the villains here described as using his fact-free version of history to promote his current political agenda. The intellectual assault on the Crusades therefore becomes yet another example of elite sociopathic Westerners promoting their careers by engaging in abject self-criticism—the culture of Western suicide.
Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

107 Comments to "Crusading Popes in Defense of the West"

  1. me's Gravatar me
    May 19, 2011 - 12:04 pm | Permalink

    I am 43, I can remember when the crusades were portrayed positively now its a ‘given’t that they were ‘evil’ – just like people blindly say we ‘genocided’ red indians.. its amazing how many people, conservatives included, accept this narrative – or the ‘saint martin luther king’

    The truth, as the left has made clear, does not matter. and most people understand that, at least subconsciously – i sincerely doubt, for example, at this point anyone with half a brain who tracts middle east/foreign policy does not realize its basically controlled by the jewish elite… but how many people say it??

    • Tom's Gravatar Tom
      May 20, 2011 - 12:28 pm | Permalink

      Couple of things to keep in mind:

      The Pope of Rome really hated the challenge to his authority presented by the church heirarchy at Constantinople, as much, or more than he hated the Moslems. There have been hundreds of good books written about this rivalry. This was an old rivalry going back to the days of the Emperor Justinian pre-Islam.

      Secondly, the Pope’s did one smart thing in attacking European Jewery, before the Christians stared off on the Crusades.

      The attacks on the Jews gave the Moslems clear warning that the fight would be between the Christians & Moslems, and that the Jews would not benefit.

      It also warned the Jews not to cause any problems while the Christian leadership was away on the Crusades.

  2. me's Gravatar me
    May 19, 2011 - 12:07 pm | Permalink

    PS its amazing how clinton starts off with a blatant marxist twisting of truth – this guy must have been well versed in the radical rhetoric – anyone who knows anything about seige warfare of the period knows this was standard practice for towns who refused to surrender. it as disingenuous as saying ‘those evil Christians killed muslims on the battle field!

    I have been looking back on the clinton years -and realize just how damaging and destructive that guy was.. he should really be on trial for multiple treason offenses.

    • Freedom Fighter's Gravatar Freedom Fighter
      May 19, 2011 - 10:16 pm | Permalink

      Clinton was merely a playboy puppet , or as described in earlier periods as an Adventurer–A seeker of fame and fortune ; It seems that American Gov is now blighted with these charlatans . He knew what his handlers want to hear and duly disgorges . There really aren’t any western leaders who represent their countries , they are enslaved to the vision of Globalism and they seem to have forgotten the maxim : Power corrupts and total power corrupts totally .

  3. Janus's Gravatar Janus
    May 19, 2011 - 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Although there is no doubt a group of people out there who purposely twist the narrative to induce guilt in Whites, another aspect is that many people, especially leftists, are simply projecting their own materialistic/nihilistic soul into the past. They feel that their own motivations in such a situation would be base, so therefore the Crusaders motivations must have also been base. If you have no transcendent/heroic feelings in yourself, you can’t see them in anybody else.

  4. May 19, 2011 - 1:24 pm | Permalink

    As historian of religion Rodney Stark pointed out, Christianity took over Europe largely thanks to two factors:

    1. Christian’s antipathy towards birth control, abortion, homosexuality, infanticide, and non-marital sex.

    2. That famous concept of Christian charity. It’s interesting that Pagan Europeans seem to have often avoided the sick and had contempt for them, whereas Christian Europeans were noted for caring for their sick.

    The first factor increased the Christian birthrate relative to the Pagans, who had become all too enamored with purely recreational sex, and the second factor decreased the Christian death rate relative to the Pagans who invested less time and resources into caring for the sick than they probably should have.

    Perhaps the problems Pagan Europeans suffered from during the rise of Christianity weren’t really inherent to Paganism.

    At the same time on a memological level Christianity has strong prohibitions against the very things that were causing a large portion of Europeans, especially the elite and urban populations, to go into a very dangerous demographic contraction, a contraction that I think was only ever reversed because of the rise of Christianity in Europe.

    The irony is that now it’s only with the rivals and/or enemies of Western Civilization that you see leading figures who reflect the kind of attitudes the founders of Western Civilization promoted.

    For example it wasn’t the Prime Minister of Greece who just lashed out against birth control; it wasn’t the Prime Minister of any European country who did that.

    Rather it was the Prime Minister of Islamic Turkey:

    Erdoğan lashes out at birth control in campaign rally

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan lashed out at his chief rival party for promoting birth control for years, reiterating his call for at least three children.

    Erdoğan, who has long claimed that for a healthy and vibrant society people must have at least three children, said the Western societies are now collapsing because of aging and urged his supporters in a campaign rally in Ankara on Monday not to “trap into this game.”

    “They [CHP] have inspired this nation with birth control for having aging population on the world stage,” Erdoğan told at the rally, adding that if population continues to increase at this level, Turkey will be among aging nations by 2038.

    “[Turkish families need to have] at least three children. We as a state have already taken necessary steps and we continue to do so,” Erdoğan said.

    Observers say Erdoğan meant family planning promoted by some politicians and ongoing campaign of having fewer children to match economic capability of families when referring to birth control.

    Of course non-European immigration is the even greater threat to the West than fertility related issues.

    Still the fertility issue is of great importance because:

    1. Low fertility for people of European descent in a country gives them less time to take it back before they become a helplessly small group relative to non-Europeans.

    2. The kinds of sexual attitudes and behaviors associated with low fertility lead to a population which for is for all intents and purposes suffering from a handicap: That handicap being a relative lack of repressed energies within the group which makes it harder for primal drives to find a usefully sublimated expression.

    • Gabor's Gravatar Gabor
      May 19, 2011 - 2:01 pm | Permalink

      David Sloan Wilson in Darwin’s Cathedral made the same point about the usefulness of Christianity (based on either Rodney Stark or some other historian of religion, I can’t remember his sources).

      I think the low fertility is a problem because Western people are individualistic, and tend to only care for their immediate families. Once they have no families, they will only care for themselves, hence old people without descendants will support more welfare for the elderly and more immigration so that somebody would pay for this, and who cares what will happen after they die. Even people with only one child will think that more welfare is better for their families (two elderly parents get welfare, one adult child pays taxes, so the family is a net gainer), which is a way of cheating, but they will do that nevertheless.

      Even young but deliberately childless people tend to vote for more welfare for the elderly, because they think they’ll need it as they get older (they don’t realize society will have collapsed by the time they reach the retirement age). In France young people went to the streets when the retirement age was to be increased a couple years ago.

      The other thing is, if people have less children (1.2-1.8), they will have fewer relatives. This makes them even more isolated both genetically and socially, making them even more vulnerable compared to clannish (Muslim or other) minorities.

      Also people with only one child will tend not to want that child be sent to a war or civil war, they’d rather keep surrendering their countries until it’s too late.

      There are so many aspects, very low (below replacement) birthrates simply mean extinction, not only demographically/biologically but also mentally, politically, economically, etc. We need to have above replacement birth rates in Europe for European whites and try to export the population growth via emigration to countries which accept them – US, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, etc.

    • Edward's Gravatar Edward
      May 19, 2011 - 2:14 pm | Permalink

      The birth dirth is killing our future.

    • May 19, 2011 - 5:25 pm | Permalink

      Excellent points, Gabor and Edward.

    • Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
      May 20, 2011 - 8:11 am | Permalink

      Reginald – the “good things” you mentioned – they’re never part of the original so-called “western culture”. Most of these values were adopted by the Rome when it decided to apply Christianity as a tool for its imperial design.

      Erdogan or Ahmadinejad are not against ‘birth control’ or hoarding of wealth by a few and favor charity and justice and equal rights – because they’re nationalists leaders – but because both of them are practicing Muslims and their faith teaches them all those “good things”.

      Five of the top six world leaders who refuses to bend on their knees in front of the powerful Jewish Lobby – happen to be Muslims.

      http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/worlds-top-independent-leaders/

    • Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
      June 12, 2011 - 2:02 pm | Permalink

      Good points, Reginald. And thank you for alerting me to Rodney Stark.

  5. Edward's Gravatar Edward
    May 19, 2011 - 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Deus vult (Latin for “God wills it”) was the cry of the people at the declaration of the First Crusade by Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont in 1095.”

  6. Steve's Gravatar Steve
    May 19, 2011 - 2:22 pm | Permalink

    It’s refreshing to read an article such as this. I never connected the Holy Crusades with National Socialism and White ethnocentricity, but rather as a way for the Church to extend their realm and keep the masses occupied. After watching a few weeks of PBS or reading Times articles, any White American would have lost all concepts of such thoughts as White racial pride. I can’t count the number of times killer Nazis and Holocaust victims appeared on the screen, or PBS White Guilt programs airing daily.
    The Pope had the means to bring together a multitude of Europeans to combat the threat of Islam. We need the same these days, but each time a White person appears on the horizon and gaining popularity and break the Jewish juggernaut, they meet an untimely end.

    Larry McDonald appeared on Crossfire in May 1983 in which he exposed the NWO consipiracy in detail, even mentioning Arthur Schlesinger’s manifesto “The Future of Socialism” (Partisan Review Volume XIV #3 May-June 1947 issue), and died suddenly September 1983 on flight KAL 007.

    Likewise, Jorg Haider aired on television and spoke of the “banking mafia”, and died shortly afterwards in October 2008 in a suspicious car accident.

    The same can be said of JFK. In 1963 he demanded that the American Zionist Council register as Foreign Agent and also demanded inspections in the Israel Dimona nuclear power plant. Later that year he was killed.

    As Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Nick Griffen of the BNP, or Jean-Marie Le Pen gain in popularity and have a chance to make inroads against Jewish control, I hope they have the wisdom to know how treacherous the road ahead lies.

    • KisP's Gravatar KisP
      May 19, 2011 - 10:29 pm | Permalink

      In Australia the propaganda is endless , thrown in at every opportunity all to protect the guiltless Jsemites .And I see an occasional British production and the writers find the most ingenious ways of working Hitler into the story .
      The strange thing is we never hear a peep about the Gulag Archipelago and the millions murdered by this Jewish religion : Communism .The heads of our Media networks know what and what doesn’t please their Zionist Masters.

  7. Barbara's Gravatar Barbara
    May 19, 2011 - 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Christianity so outpaced Islam and Judaism that there is no comparison. Neither jews nor Muslims could ever conquer us from the outside. But they have certainly wormed their way into where they can destroy us from within. Twisting the history of the Crusades is more propaganda against White people.

    jews have such ironclad control over us we have no way to oppose what is being done to us and everybody is too terrorized to say anything anyway.

    Since there is no place to comment on the videos provided here so this is off topic but I would like to say something about Defamation. I am guilty of always thinking in terms of all jews. I am glad I got to watch the video on this site. I thought it was amazing and I would love to have a copy to share with others if I could find where to get one. There is no information on Shamir’s website.

    I’m not sure I trust Finklestein or the Israeli documentary maker. I have to work on that because I just don’t trust jews. As Birdman said, every time you consider an issue that is detrimental to the West there is a jew associated with it.

    • dc's Gravatar dc
      May 20, 2011 - 1:18 am | Permalink

      Barb,
      Any video that you can see on your machine, can by that very fact be saved as a file. There are plugins available for Firefox and Opera tailored specifically to Youtube. I suggest googling: video capture.

    • steveo's Gravatar steveo
      May 20, 2011 - 5:32 am | Permalink

      (tried posting this earlier – might show up twice. )

      “Neither jews nor Muslims could ever conquer us from the outside.”

      The Muslims defeated the Christians plenty over the course of the Crusades. The Christians acknowledged it and admired them as foes. There’s no reason you shouldn’t.

  8. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    May 19, 2011 - 3:47 pm | Permalink

    I would like to suggest to the administrator(s) of this site to create the special possibility to comment on the VIDEOS that appear on the right side.The subjects of these videos are often so important that they deserve comment. Why not put the titles of these videos among the BLOGPOSTS so that they too can be commented upon?And of course it would be nice if the videos themselves could be stored in the MONTHLY ARCHIVES.

  9. dc's Gravatar dc
    May 19, 2011 - 3:47 pm | Permalink

    I have been reading early Germanic literature for the last 45 years, and I have never come across anything that would indicate undue interest in “recreational sex”. Indeed the whole tends toward probity and decency. The few direct sexual references I have read are infused with humanity and good humour, see for example Grettir’s teasing of the farm maids:
    “Möglich das bei manchem strammer steht der Hammer,
    Größer hängt der Beutel Grettirs gerne wett’ ich”
    in which he modestly advertises the possibility of a ‘good time’.

    Far from Christianity redeeming the pagans, the evidence is all the other way. The pagan North redeemed a stupid Middle Eastern cult, which was modified as needed. Examples
    a) birthdate of Christ adjusted to the Julfest
    b) Resurrection attached to the minor goddess Eastre
    c) Names for the days of the week preserved
    etc etc
    Now Reginald, I am sure that you are deep in the Deutsche Mythologie of the Grimm brothers, and I feel certain that you would not pronounce judgment without the most certain learning. Please permit me to ask that you itemize and publish your sources. This will benefit you: there are simply too many mean spirits all too ready to believe that you are an ignorant ass, shooting his mouth off.

    • Gabor's Gravatar Gabor
      May 19, 2011 - 4:17 pm | Permalink

      Christianity redeemed the pagan Roman Empire, the barbarians didn’t need a redemption, and nobody’s talking about early Germanic tribes. However, they converted to Christianity largely on their own, often before they entered the empire.

      There’s no doubt the Germanic peoples in their original pagan state were healthier in many ways than the peoples of the empire.

    • May 19, 2011 - 5:10 pm | Permalink

      In areas of Europe where there was a much lower population density and a greater proportion of the population still living off the land in small villages, such as outside the Roman Empire, Pagan Europeans probably were significantly less decadent.

      But even in those areas it seems likely that Paganism was something of a ticking time bomb.

      There was always a good chance that at some point Europeans from outside the Roman Empire would see their population increase to point where they would become much more vulnerable to decadence.

      Thankfully those Europeans converted to Christianity before that happened.

      If you look at Germany today, with their high population density, without much Christian belief or power left in their society they’re just as vulnerable to birthrate killing decadence as anyone in Europe.

      a) birthdate of Christ adjusted to the Julfest

      Actually I think the date of Christmas was adjusted to correspond to Natalis Invicti.

      In any event no one denies that both Southern and Northern European forms of Paganism contributed greatly to Christianity’s development.

      But the point is that the reproductive core of Christianity, the prohibitions against birth control, abortion, homosexuality and non-marital sex is of non-Pagan origin and served as a profound aid to Europeans in terms of protecting them from the danger of birthrate killing decadence.

      And even with the Europeans who may have been managing to practice Paganism without being decadent, it was still good for them to put on a surer footing when it came to the regulation of sexuality in their societies before they made the always risky transition to a more diversified workforce and higher population density.

  10. dc's Gravatar dc
    May 19, 2011 - 3:53 pm | Permalink

    A little trouble with the “reply” mechanism. The preceding was intended solely for Reg.

  11. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    May 19, 2011 - 3:55 pm | Permalink

    Unfortunately it seems that Westerners only move toward a collectivist mindset after suffering cataclysmic defeats (eg the Germans after WW1).

    Sociopaths often have superficial charm. Clinton’s presentational skills were used to articulate views that are still widely shared by the indoctrinated white zombies of our ‘elite’.

  12. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 19, 2011 - 4:02 pm | Permalink

    It is a breath of fresh air to read something positive about Christianity .

    Many posters on OO seem to take delight in running Christianity in to the ground . I too have severe criticism of Christianity as having been made to be a sheepish and pathetic tool of the self chosen and the leftist morons .
    But , that is certainly not what Christianity was or could be . Most importantly , and this is the key…
    God did not intend Christianity to be used as a tool to have guilt ridden whites lie down and play dead while leftists spit on the cross .
    I am critical of Christianity absolutely in any way that it serves the purposes of the enemy and much of Christianity at present does exactly that .
    However , I believe that Christianity is very capable of being central to a modern crusade for white survival .

    Christianity is not for everyone and that is fine . Freedom of religion is essential so that WN’s are free to not believe , but Christianity must not serve our enemy .

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      May 19, 2011 - 7:03 pm | Permalink

      Most of the problems that stem from the way Christianity has been practiced stem from the unfortunate emphasis on guilt and humility. I would say these are incorrect interpretations of Christianity – no healthy religion could demand that it’s followers crawl around like sheep kissing the feet of their tormentors.

      There is nothing wrong with a healthy sense of pride, in fact it is a prerequisite for a decent life as an individual and for society as a whole.

    • Rod Mckenzie's Gravatar Rod Mckenzie
      May 20, 2011 - 4:02 pm | Permalink

      My feelings exactly.

  13. May 19, 2011 - 4:28 pm | Permalink

    Truly it is sad to see someone that I thoroughly admire and look up to becoming mired in the Islamophobia perpetrated by the enemies of our race’s survival.

    Who was it that tortured and killed White pagans in Europe forcing them to convert to the middle eastern religion?

    Who was it that committed GENOCIDE against the Cathars?
    The Bishop acting under orders of the Pope at Mont Segur stated to the soldiers regarding the men, women and children at Mont Segur: KILL THEM ALL, GOD WILL SORT THEM OUT.

    IF these are your heroes you are most welcome to them.

    Christians forced Muslims to pay a tax before they could pray at Jerusalem. When the conquered Jerusalem they slew EVERY SINGLE Muslim, man, woman and child inside the fort.

    When the great man of his time, Saladin, took that same fort years later he did not slay a single prisoner, not one.

    It might behoove the author to consider the words of the Victorian sage Thomas Carlyle:

    The lies which well-meaning zeal have heaped ’round this man are disgraceful…Such a man is what we call an original man…the words he utters are as no other man’s words…he was one of those who cannot but be in earnest…(who taught) that we must submit to God. That our whole strength lies in resigned submission to Him (God)….Not by flattering our appetites; no, by awakening the Heroic that slumbers in every heart, can any Religion gain followers… ‘If this be Islam,’ says Goethe, ‘do we not all live in Islam?’

    (Carlyle,”On Heroes and Hero Worship,” May 8, 1840)

    • Edward's Gravatar Edward
      May 19, 2011 - 5:59 pm | Permalink

      According to the rules of war back in those days, a besieged city population that failed to negotiate surrender was massacred if the siege succeeded. Soldiers that become frenzied enough to scale defended walls are difficult to stop from killing. The Jewish-Muslim population did not negotiate surrender to the Crusaders in 1099, but the Crusader population did negotiate surrender to Saladin in 1187. Saladin did not accept the first offer of surrender, but only agreed after his men were repelled.

    • Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
      May 19, 2011 - 8:50 pm | Permalink

      Shiva: “Who was it that tortured and killed White pagans in Europe forcing them to convert to the middle eastern religion?”

      A bunch of Euro-caucasians who would have intermarried with the survivors.

      What could be more unhelpful to the descendants of those same pagans now than to encourage them to focus hatred on Christianity and ancient grievances, ignoring real external enemies and the usefulness that Christianity has sometimes had and still could have?

      I am all for Europe’s pagan traditions. I would love to see a great European Pagan revival. (Or really a great revival of the spirit of Europe on practically any terms.)

      But for now, given the massive crisis driven by Christianity’s traditional Jewish and Muslim enemies, I don’t think it’s wise to criticize Christianity on any but real, practical, current and relevant grounds, like its support for mass immigration.

    • Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
      May 19, 2011 - 11:09 pm | Permalink

      Forget Saladin (who beheaded all the Templars he captured regardless), look at Baibars, who actually finally defeated the Crudsaders. He killed every mature Christian male he came upon, and enslaved the young women and boys for sex.

      As for Shiva, enough with this nonsense. People like you are a cancer that is killing us.

    • Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
      May 20, 2011 - 8:22 am | Permalink

      Shiva – just ignore Athanasius, the house Zionist idiot.

      Templers are one who originated the idea of a Jewish occupation of Muslim-dominated Palestine. They used it as two-prong dager to resolve Europe’s centuries-old “Jewish Problem” and hasten the second-coming of Jesus.

      Salahuddin did not kill any Templer or other creep for religious reasons. If he had, he would not have treated his defeated arch-enemy King Richard the Lion with respect and freed him without asking some European county in return.

      There is no shartage of fool who really believe in the distortion of Muslim-Christian history by the Israeli hasbara liar, Dr. Daniel Pipes.

      http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/no-left-or-right-just-islam/

    • Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
      June 11, 2011 - 1:48 pm | Permalink

      The Church had realized in the late 7th century that if its followers found out the truth about Islamic love for Jesus, Mary and all the biblical prophets and the revelations to Jesus – the cult created by St. Paul and cannonized in 325 CE by a pagan Roman King – will be doomed.

      Vatican received the first translation of Holy Qur’an in 680 CE. Later, it used some of its passages to counter Talmudic filth against Jesus and Mary – and even modified some portions of the New Testament to counter Muslim criticism of NT. World renowned NT authority, Dr. Robber Funk in his research paper (1991) had admitted that 80% of sayings in the NT, have nothing to do with Jesus’ preachings.

      Both Franks in Palestine and Crusaders in Spain – cleansed of the entire Muslim and Jewish population. Contrary to that Salahuddin in 1186 CE, allowed the defeated western Christians to return to their western lands with all their belongings. He also brought several dozens of Jewish families from Syria to settle in Jerusalem.

      http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/history-of-the-arabs/

  14. Helvena's Gravatar Helvena
    May 19, 2011 - 4:28 pm | Permalink

    KM:My view is that National Socialism accomplished this: “National Socialism aimed at developing a cohesive group. – Yes indeed. We have a lot to learn from the National Socialist once we take off the Jew glasses.

    • dc's Gravatar dc
      May 19, 2011 - 8:57 pm | Permalink

      I second this. It is particularly necessary to purge the jew-induced, artificial, emotional reactions to words and ideas that distort our thought. Correspondents here generally understand that the “racism” “racist” smears are rubbish. But the entire emotional world of unsubstantiated horror (the late German Chancellor, the Schutzstaffel, antisemitism, …) and unquestioning adulation (noble liars of the holocaust, innocents of the WTC, …) should be discarded. One cannot be ‘a little bit pregnant’, and it is similarly futile to pick and choose the issues in which one wishes honest investigation.

  15. Venona's Gravatar Venona
    May 19, 2011 - 4:31 pm | Permalink

    Bill Clinton cited the infamous and obviously embellished comment from Raymond about “blood up to the knees” of the Crusaders. There undoubtedly was a massacre after the capture of Jerusalem in 1099. Historians dispute the actual numbers killed. It wouldn’t surprise me if Clinton killed more Serbs with all those bombs and cruise missiles he fired into Serbia in the 1990s.

    • Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
      May 19, 2011 - 11:15 pm | Permalink

      I’ll tell you what Clinton didn’t mention: The Jewish massacre of over 60,000 Christians when the Persians handed the city over to them in 614.

      ” For we found in the court of the government62 28 (18) persons. In the cisterns we found of the slain 275 (250) persons. In front of the gates of Holy Sion we found 2270 persons.63 At the altar of the Holy New 64 we found 600 (290) souls. In the church of St. Sophia we found 477 (369) souls. In the church of Saints Cosmas and Damian we found 2212 (2112) souls. In the Book room65 of Holy New 70 souls. And we found in the monastery of Holy Anastasis 212 souls. And we found in the market place 38 souls. In front of the Samaritan temple 66 we found 919 (723) souls. In the lane of St. Kiriakos we found 1449 (1409) souls. And we found on the western side of Holy Sion 196 (197) souls. At the gate Probatike we found 2107 souls. In the passage of St. Jacob we found 308 (1700) souls. In the flesher’s row we found 921 souls.67 And we found at the spring of Siloam 2818 (2318) souls. And we found in the cistern68 of Mamel 24,518 souls. In the Gerakomia of the patriarch we found 318 souls. In the place called the Golden City 1202 souls. In the monastery of Saint John we found 4219 (4250) souls. In the imperial Gerakomia 780 (167) souls. We found on the Mount of Olives 1207 souls. On the steps69 of the Anastasis we found 300 (83) souls. In the place of Little Assembly we found 202 (102) souls. In the place of Large Assembly we found 317 (417) souls. In the church of Saint Serapion we found 338 souls. We found in front of Holy Golgotha 80 souls. We found in the grottos, fosses, cisterns, gardens, 6917 (6907) souls. At the Tower of David we found 2210. Within the city we found 265 souls. Just where |516 the enemy overthrew the wall of the city we found 9809 (1800) souls. And in Jerusalem we buried many others in addition that were massacred by the Persians beside these saints. The total number of all was 66,509 souls. . . .”

      http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/antiochus_strategos_capture.htm

    • Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
      May 21, 2011 - 4:04 pm | Permalink

      Pity the Clinton did not tell his Jewish girlfriend Monica Lewinsky how the Jews killed 72,000 innocent Persians to celebrate their holy day Purim.

      http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/iran-may-get-a-new-queen-esther/

  16. Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
    May 19, 2011 - 8:29 pm | Permalink

    Christianity hasn’t really reacted to a changed Western way of life based on extended technical education, with young men being in a poor position to marry until they graduate and find jobs, and likely till they have a home too. If you’re a young man pursuing a career as a medical specialist, that could mean that your sex life would start around thirty or so, and till then, NO MASTURBATION, nor any other relief.

    The longer the educational paper chase gets, the more Christian morals demands very long periods of frustration from masses of normal young men with no gift for celibacy. That’s not going to fly. Especially as they observe liberated young women riding the …. carousel.

    Not really engaging with the changed state of the world but just repeating traditional doctrines (or falling silent on them) is the easy approach, from a clerical point of view. But dodging the issue theoretically has forced people to divorce their lives from theory.

    It would have been better all along to get engaged and push as much as possible for practical paths to widespread early marriage and fertility, particularly for smart kids, the ones that are most affected by the long, long credential-hunting fertility pause. I’m not saying it would have worked, but it had to be tried. Without some effort to provide a path to sex for men and women while they’re young enough to care and while the girls are still fertile, Christianity is just a universal call to the monastery and the nunnery.

  17. steveo's Gravatar steveo
    May 19, 2011 - 8:56 pm | Permalink

    “crusading was impractical in worldly terms, but valuable for one’s soul”

    sounds like whitey hasn’t changed much.

    • Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
      May 19, 2011 - 10:34 pm | Permalink

      steveo: “sounds like whitey hasn’t changed much.”

      That’s right. Whitey hasn’t changed much at heart, He’s still the only one that thinks like that, the only one that really, regularly puts ideals and progress above nepotism and robbing Peter to pay Paul.

      And you know what? I like Whitey. I want Whitey to survive.

      I want Whitey to adapt enough to see of the deadly challenge of our highly ethnocentric enemies, but not more than that. I want to see White men walk on the moon again, and see them using it as a stepping stone to the planets and the stars, not just wallow in the swamp of mutual hatreds and beggar-thy-neighbor policies our enemies live in by preference and will drag everyone down to if they are allowed.

      This miserable death by cultural curruption, political and financial usurpation and demographic decline is unworthy of us. We mustn’t let this be the end!

  18. Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
    May 19, 2011 - 9:45 pm | Permalink

    The first Muslim frontlines were drawn in 638 CE in Jerusalem which ended in a surrender by the Christian rulers of the city without a fight. The result of this Muslims’ possession was the return of the site of the Temple of Mount which was used as city dump by the Christians to the Jews.

    Muslim army’s first encounter with the European Christianity was in Spain in 711 CE and within three years, Muslims occupied more than 80% of the country with the help of Jewish and Christian Serf (slaves).

    The so-called eight Crusades (Holy Wars) are considered as ‘pains in the neck’ by Arab/Muslim historians.

    American journalist and author, Rose Wilder Lane, wrote in “The Discovery of Freedom”: “The cause of this war (Crusade) was a struggle for Authority in Europe. The Church was divided; there were two Popes, and Pope Urban was the weaker…..The Crusades enabled him to oust the other
    pope; they diminished the killing in Europe; and during the absence of the fighting men, The Church became The Authority”.

    The former British Royal Force officer, John Adair (born 1934), is author of over 40 books. John’s latest book The Leadership of Muhammad documents the Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) leadership qualities and not his status as Allah’s Last Prophet – ending the prophetic-link from the first man of Earth, Adam, and the last Israelite prophet Jesus (as).

    The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has once again become the centre of controversary since the time Christian Crusades – as part of the Zionists’ propaganda and their numerous False-Flag operations, being put on Muslims’ doors – for the survival of the illegal creation of the state of Israel in Palestine. However, the propaganda lies about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Islam and Muslims – is turning more and more people to search the truth behind Zionist propaganda. As result many educated people are accepting Islam as the Divine Truth. For example, the Swiss politician Daniel Streich who initiated the ban on minaret in his country, later on converted to Islam. “Islam offers me logical answers to important life questions, which, in the end, I never found in Christianity,” says Streich. Last month, former British Prime Minister and ‘Israel-First’, Tony Blair’s sister-in-law proclaimed in public: “What I wanted to share with you today is that I am Lauren Booth and I am a Muslim”.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-leadership-of-muhammad-a-book-review/

    • Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
      May 19, 2011 - 11:17 pm | Permalink

      Thankfully, the Jews had the Muslims to save them once again!

    • Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
      May 20, 2011 - 8:26 am | Permalink

      Athanasius – thank for being one of those Jews who saved the Muslims and not the other way around.

      http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/gods-house-muslims-saved-jews-from-nazis/

    • Caleb's Gravatar Caleb
      May 20, 2011 - 8:26 am | Permalink

      Rehmat, a bit of correction here.

      Although Daniel Streich’s announcement of his conversion to the Moslem faith has gone viral within the digital **Ulema**, he actually converted (so he says) two years ago but kept his religion a secret.

      More to the point, he is NOT the one who initiated the successful campaign to ban minarets in Switzerland. Streich is, or rather was, a minor member of the politically conservative SVP–Swiss People’s Party–holding local office in a rural Canton. The anti-minaret campaign was launched by that party.

    • Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
      May 21, 2011 - 4:07 pm | Permalink

      Caleb – Whoever get the credit for being ‘Islamophobe’ – One can see the Jewish money behind it.

  19. Jett Rucker's Gravatar Jett Rucker
    May 19, 2011 - 11:13 pm | Permalink

    The link to What Makes Western Cultures Unique doesn’t work.

    Pity.

  20. Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
    May 20, 2011 - 1:29 am | Permalink

    One small comment regarding Crawford’s article: Runciman didn’t disparage the Crusades because he felt that the Muslims were treated unfairly. Runciman was a strong partisan of the Eastern Christians (particularly the Byzantines)–and he was highly critical of what he saw as Crusader perfidy against them, particularly of their broken oaths to Emperor Alexius.

    It’s worth noting that the French Chroniclers also accused the Byzantines of perfidy. In any event, this probably isn’t the place for that debate. What I will say is that Runciman was a much needed counterweight to the Enlightenment view that the Byzantines were effete savages. But he shouldn’t be used as a cudgel to beat the West (nor do I think that was his intention).

  21. Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
    May 20, 2011 - 1:36 am | Permalink

    Most likely the Crusades were a medieval version of the 21st century Jewish neo-conservative wars that the U.S. is waging in the Middle East on behalf of Israel.

    Medieval Jews were probably using Christians to reconquer Palestine for them.

    Some things never change.

    • Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
      May 20, 2011 - 2:18 am | Permalink

      You’ve got that backwards. The Jews hated Heraclius and Justinian before him. They actively encouraged the Sassanid invasion of the Byzantine Empire. Later, the Muslims empowered Jews in Iberia, Sicily, and Egypt; and even later, the Turks put them in power in Asia Minor and the Balkans (Jews have written numerous books about how the Turks handed over Salonika to them).

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      May 20, 2011 - 8:19 pm | Permalink

      Athanasius: Apropos Iberia, on the page of First Principles where the Crusades article is posted, there is a link to this article, which examines the facts behind the myth of al-Andalus as multiculti never-never land. Perhaps for TOO purposes the article might profitably be retitled “Some Things about Spain That Rehmat Will Never Tell You.”

      Understandably given the publishing context, the article clearly soft-pedals Tribal perfidy and largely passes over in silence the Tribe’s constant use of its alliances with one Muslim potentate after another to harm Spanish Christians fully as much as to enrich itself. Yet the sheer bulk of factual evidence and academic-reference support the article supplies might well come in handy in many contexts forseeable and otherwise.

    • Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
      May 21, 2011 - 2:31 am | Permalink

      That still doesn’t preclude the possibility that Jewish bankers in Europe funded the Crusades.

      Today Jews are helping third world Muslims invade Western nations, while simultaneously starting and funding U.S. wars against third world Muslim nations for the sake of Zionism and Israel. It sounds like a contradiction, but it’s 100% true.

    • Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
      May 21, 2011 - 9:29 am | Permalink

      Well, at that time, Jews were treated better than Christians by the Ayyubids/Zengids. So why would the Jews want to displace them?

      You should read Albert of Aix’s chronicle regarding Count Emico.

  22. Paul Hausser's Gravatar Paul Hausser
    May 20, 2011 - 8:38 am | Permalink

    Indeed Germany and many other countires that fought against USSR Bolshevism looked upon the Eastern front battle as a crusade against jewry and it’s ant-man and anti-Western culture thinking

    • dc's Gravatar dc
      May 20, 2011 - 3:58 pm | Permalink

      Alas that people like the semi-literate Franklin are still given a hearing.
      Mein Kampf is in fact full of good sense as well as possible exaggerations by a young man.

  23. May 20, 2011 - 9:59 am | Permalink

    KisP: “The strange thing is we never hear a peep about the Gulag Archipelago and the millions murdered by this Jewish religion : Communism .”

    I don’t believe Communism is the Jewish religion; I believe it was yet another pseudo-“secular” Trojan horse largely devised by Jewry to serve its interests, similar to neo-conservatism. Once the Trojan horse has served its purpose or been unmasked as a Jewish weapon, they always devise another.

    On another point, the West needs to stop pretending its “above” Christianity, and to give up its delusions that it can function properly without it. I’m not saying it must abandon science, but rather that it must find a way to reconcile science with the philosophy of Jesus, because without his unifying force, we’re like a scattered flock of sheep being picked off by packs of wolves one after the other.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      May 20, 2011 - 11:03 am | Permalink

      @ Paul Hausser: {Germany’s war against Russia was a “crusade ” against Jewish-led Bolshewism }
      That was the official propaganda,or at most only part of the real motive.Ever heard about LEBENSRAUM?Already in his book Mein Kampf Hitler expressed his idea that the Germans needed Lebensraum (Living Space) in the East. There they would establish their Racial Utopia.As HERRENVOLK (Master Race) they would rule over the Slavic UNTERMENSCHEN (Undermen) of whom only a part would be allowed to survive as slaves.Some ignorant people still consider Hitler as a great White Nationalist.In reality he was a megalomaniac German imperialist,albeit with some racial overtones.
      @ Chris Moore: { The need of Christianity as a unifying force }
      For many people we already live in a post-Christian world.You cannot “revive Christianity” for them anymore.Reconciliation of science with the “philosophy of Jesus” seems impossible to me.Christianity is not a philosophy but a religion and not a very rational one at that (“credo quia absurdum”).The best thing White Nationalists can do is to espouse full religious freedom. People should be allowed to choose for Christianity in whatever form or atheism or humanism or experiment with neo-paganism or Oriental religions or anyother sect.Only Judaism and Islam would be problematic but still be allowed.Since it is an undeniable fact that Christianity is an intergral part of the history of all European peoples,it should enjoy some special prvileges in public life as far as its CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS are concerned,while in private life its specific RELIGIOUS EXPRESSIONS should enjoy the same freedoms as any other religion or philosophy.Thus everybody will be happy.

  24. Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
    May 20, 2011 - 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Former US diplomat, Michael Hamilton Morgan (born 1951), in his book “Lost History: the Enduring Legacy of Muslim Scientists, Thinkers and Artists” (2007) has debunked most of the anti-Islam Zionist propaganda.

    Michael says that many of the foundations of modern civilization rest in the Muslim past. The often fogotten breakthroughs in mathematics, astronomy, science, medicine, engineering, the arts, architecture, tolerance of diversity and civic leadership were undertaken by courageous men and women representing multiple faths and ethnicities. David Shasha in the book review wrote that the very time when Europe was descending into what has been called its “Dark Age”, a new upstart civilization was growing in the Arab world. Islam was not simply a religion; it was a political system, a philosophical system, a scientific system and much else. As Islam developed, it changed those who lived in the Middle East and other areas that were conquered in the first centuries of Muslim civilization. Under Muslim rule, the Jewish literature liberalized too. The Mishnah, Talmud and Midrashic literature began to speculate on new and different subjects to rethink assumptions that were held dear in the past. “It was the learning of Arab Muslims that brought about this massive paradigm shift in world civilization,” wrote David Shasha…….

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/rediscovering-islamic-civilization/

    • Helvena's Gravatar Helvena
      May 20, 2011 - 5:24 pm | Permalink

      Most (but not all) of the achievment you were made my newly converted Jews and Christians. And the reason I believe this is that we haven’t seen any advances since. This isn’t to say that the people in the Muslim world aren’t gentically capable, they most certainly are or we wouldn’t have had the great Persian empires, probably Islam is holding you back as Christianity did us when people really believed it.

    • Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
      May 21, 2011 - 4:10 pm | Permalink

      Helvena – there is no cure for one’s self-denial. But, what the heck – let me try to talk to the 10 ft thick Wailing Wall for fun.

      Last year, Canadian New Scientist magazine, had reported that the scientific growth in Islamic Iran has grown eleven times faster than any other country in the world.

      http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/irans-scientific-achievements-expo-in-damascus/

  25. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    May 20, 2011 - 4:22 pm | Permalink

    “There was intense group identification and group commitment to Christianity among all levels of society, as indicated, for example, by the multitudes of pilgrims and the outpouring of religious fervor and in-group fervor associated with the Crusades to free the Holy Land from Muslim control.”

    Before the crusades: It’s interesting that Charlemagne’s emphasis when battling the Saxons was to convert them to Christianity, while his empahsis when battling the moors in Spain was to win back territory for a European ally. He didn’t seem to have the absurd “everyone is my brother” interpretation to his faith that has corrupted modern Christianity. He seems to have seen the more meaningful connection that he had with other white Europeans…even when they were bitter enemies.

  26. Helvena's Gravatar Helvena
    May 20, 2011 - 4:50 pm | Permalink

    @ Franklin Ryckaert May 20, 2011 – 11:03 am – HERRENVOLK (Master Race) they would rule over the Slavic UNTERMENSCHEN (Undermen) of whom only a part would be allowed to survive as slaves
    This is just more Allied propaganda. If Hitler really felt this way, why would he have allowed Slavic SS men? 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian) World War II German military formation initially made up of volunteers from the region of Galicia with a Ukrainian ethnic background[2] but later also incorporated Slovaks, Czechs[2][3] and Dutch volunteers and officers – Wiki
    Hitler was intersted in gaining back MOST (not all) of the land taken from Germany at Versailles and where large (and I mean large) ethnic German population were. He didn’t take back South Tyrol.

    Stop drinking the Kool-aid

    • peter's Gravatar peter
      May 21, 2011 - 7:05 am | Permalink

      You are quite correct in the herrenvolk/ Untermenchen discussion with Ryckhaert. This is largely a post war propaganda exercise. If the Japanese had won the war the Americans would have been portrayed as having hatred for the ” Jap” and ” Yellow peril”. They would have been vilified as racial haters. The concept of Herrenvolk or a more accurate translation Gentlemenpeople was no more abnormal or strange than the practice pre war in the US of the black man standing at the back of the bus.
      Pre war peoples such as the Slovaks or Croats were largely peasants who hadn’t developed a written language until the 1840s. If the Germans had won they would have still have had their peasant countries and life would have carried on as usual. The Germans woud have dominated Europe beacuse of their greater education and civilisational advancement as they do to a smaller extent today.
      Hitler’s aim was to right the wrongs of Versailles and some Lebensraum would be beneficial . No extermination or enslavement of the slav population was ever the aim, this is post war, soviet, history channel propaganda.

    • Gabor's Gravatar Gabor
      May 21, 2011 - 2:37 pm | Permalink

      Well, there are some factual errors here.

      Croats had a written language way way way earlier. I’m not quite familiar with the history of Croatian literature, but I know that in the XVIIth century one of the greatest Hungarian poets of the time, Zrínyi Miklós (I think his Croatian name was Nikolaus Zrin) was also a Croatian poet (he was a very high ranking peer in both Hungary and Croatia), I’m pretty sure Croatian writing must have been in existence for several centuries by then. The Slovakian language is still essentially a dialect of the Czech language, and Czech writing is known to have been at least as old or older than Hungarian or Croatian writing, meaning the first written records must be around 1000 yrs old. The same goes for Polish writing. We also know eastern Slavs had writing systems devised by Cyrill and Method over a thousand yrs ago. Even the absolute majority of Russian peasants was literate by the time of the 1917 revolution.

      The Germans didn’t have any serious sinister plans with the Croatians or Slovaks, but I can understand why the Poles or Russians were fighting them. Moreover, even though the population in Ukraine was (at least initially) friendly to the German forces, the Germans closed down the university in Kiev, and even curbed high schools (they did the same thing in Poland), expecting the Ukrainians to continue a peasant lifestyle. In an age when they already had large scale industrial cities, and when the national aspirations of all nations in Europe were industrialization and the development of higher education…

      Thinking that the white Slavs with their nearly 100 IQs would have been OK with them being relegated to a role like Negroes in America is something beyond me. (According to Professor Lynn, their IQs are not much lower than that of the Germans, and there might have been some dysgenic effects in the case of Poland where both the Germans and the Russians were systematically exterminating the intelligentsia during and after the war. Even in Russia there probably was some dysgenic effect, since the revolution disproportionately affected the higher classes.)

  27. Tom Brown's Gravatar Tom Brown
    May 20, 2011 - 8:26 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Dr. MacDonald for this important clarification of the Crusades. You, once again, go to the heart of the matter.

  28. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 20, 2011 - 9:52 pm | Permalink

    [ Hitler was intersted in gaining back MOST (not all) of the land taken from Germany at Versailles and where large (and I mean large) ethnic German population were. He didn’t take back South Tyrol. ]

    Yes , Hitler was a gentleman as compared to the allies . Germany was treated so badly in the 20th century that it is a wonder that they conducted themselves in such a typically German stoic but civilized manner .
    The crimes against Germany are something that must be recognized if there is going to be improvement . You can’t just brush this kind of mega- travesty of justice under the rug and expect there to be any improvement in the world . It’s a very bad spirit on a global scale … like a global murderer who has gone on murdering and is being rewarded for doing so .

  29. Jarvis Dingle-Daden's Gravatar Jarvis Dingle-Daden
    May 20, 2011 - 11:47 pm | Permalink

    The love affair of western Jews with communism started to go sour shortly after Stalin’s 1937-1938 purges. Which, in essence, proved to be a campaign of de-judaization of Soviet state apparatus. To give you an idea, Jews used to constitute as much as 40% of the upper echelon of the dreaded Soviet secret police NKVD. By the end of the purges that number had dwindled down to single digits. Likewise, the Soviet Foreign Ministry had been subjected to a major shake-up culminating in the removal of Mayer Finkelstein a.k.a. Maxim Litvinov to be replaced by an ethnic Russian Vyacheslav Molotov. As irony would have it, Molotov’s spouse was a Jewess. (Not uncommon choice for a bolshevik big kahuna in those days.) One Polina Zhemchuzhina a.k.a. Pearl Karpovskya who identified strongly with her fellow tribesmen. So much so that she wouldn’t think twice of attending a Moscow synagogue, community events or engaging then Israel’s ambassador to the USSR Golda Meir in Yiddish during diplomatic receptions. The latter turned out a bit too much for Stalin to stomach.

  30. Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
    May 21, 2011 - 2:37 am | Permalink

    …but rather that it must find a way to reconcile science with the philosophy of Jesus.

    You can’t reconcile science with Semitic superstitious nonsense.

  31. May 21, 2011 - 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Christianity has long been the primary organic antibiotic of Western civilization, preventing or treating social, economic and cultural infections caused by predators and parasites. As traditionally Christianity has fallen, so has the White man, as it has risen, so has the White man, Christian or not, because it also provides a stable, healthy, functional basis for society.

    Christianity isn’t for everyone; fine. But we can all improve ourselves and our plight by studying the philosophy of Jesus. History instructs us so.

    • Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
      May 21, 2011 - 6:44 pm | Permalink

      The “philosphy” of Jesus is insane and contradictory. Apparently you haven’t actually read the four gospels.

  32. Dave's Gravatar Dave
    May 22, 2011 - 10:26 am | Permalink

    @ZOG: You routinely attack Christianity in these threads. If you think Christianity isn’t a good fit for white westerners, what philosophy/ideology/moral dogma should we adopt in your inestimable wisdom?

    @”Ann”: I figured that this blog piece by Prof. MacDonald was only half serious and was intended to send you into an apoplectic fit of anti-popery. I hope you didn’t stroke out when trying to reply to this thread.

    • May 22, 2011 - 10:52 am | Permalink

      ZOG and all the other Christian-bashers here finally found something they have in common with Jewry.

      No doubt, they’ll soon be forming an alliance, proving yet again why traditional Christianity is the ultimate Judeophobic antibiotic, and why those without it lack the intestinal fortitude to repel the ultimate predatory threat to Western civilization.

    • Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
      May 24, 2011 - 3:16 pm | Permalink

      Christianity is a mind virus that was inserted into Western culture by Jews as a form of revenge for their defeats by the Romans during the two Jewish revolts.

      The teachings of Christianity, if taken seriously, are insane and suicidal.

  33. huyt's Gravatar huyt
    May 22, 2011 - 1:39 pm | Permalink

    It’s been asked before, but why do christlings come to the site of an evolutionary psychologist?

    It’s a shame that KMac’s site receives so many more crackpots than Sailer’s. If only there were one section here for evolutionists and another for the Jebu in the sky crowd, because there’s really nothing we can talk about together and it just clutters up the boards and seems ridiculous. The differences are too wide between the camps, and forget any juvenile boardgame blabber about necessary “bridges” and “alliances”. We’re different people, even though plenty seem to think that, because we’re equally “not Jewish” we’re identical.

    • Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
      May 22, 2011 - 2:41 pm | Permalink

      I suspect that you don’t really want an honest answer to that question, obvious though it may be. You might want to consider, however, that it is in fact those of your ideological persuasion who are mental defectives–being unable to differentiate positive and normative values, and being intellectually enslaved to a form of positivism that at least half of the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers thought was nonsense.

      Alternatively, you could be intentionally trying to strip whites of our traditional culture–which has been the Jewish programme all along.

    • Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
      May 24, 2011 - 3:18 pm | Permalink

      Alternatively, you could be intentionally trying to strip whites of our traditional culture–which has been the Jewish programme all along.

      Never mind the fact that this part of “our traditional culture” is Jewish in origin.

    • Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
      May 24, 2011 - 3:20 pm | Permalink

      You might want to consider, however, that it is in fact those of your ideological persuasion who are mental defectives…

      Someone who believes in absurd 1st century Semitic superstition really doesn’t have any room to call someone a “mental defective.”

    • Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
      May 25, 2011 - 10:55 pm | Permalink

      ZOG, do you really deny that Christianity is inextricably linked to European civilization? What did it mean to be a Russian in Ivan’s Tsardom? A Greek in Justinian’s Oikoumene? A Frank in Charlemagne’s empire? A Castillian in Ferdinand’s kingdom?

      Just because you call something absurd–something you clearly do not understand–does not make it so.

  34. Whites Unite's Gravatar Whites Unite
    May 22, 2011 - 4:28 pm | Permalink

    I am personally an Evangelical Christian, but I’m willing to give credit where credit is due: the Popes provided some very valuable leadership to Europe during their time of power.

    1. They stopped the European practice of selling White slaves to the Muslims.

    2. The First Crusade delayed the Turkish invasion of the Balkans for two and a half centuries.

    3. The crusading movement provided crucial assistance to the Spanish in their fight to reclaim their country from the Arab invaders.

  35. May 22, 2011 - 4:35 pm | Permalink

    Huyt: “why do christlings come to the site of an evolutionary psychologist?…If only there were one section here for evolutionists and another for the Jebu in the sky crowd”

    A better question is why are anti-Christians spewing their vituperations in an article on this site that is flattering of the traditional Christian ethic, which itself has been crucial to White social evolution?

    There’s a strong, Zionist-like strain within the White nationalist movement that is hell-bent on excluding and abusing those who don’t buy into the concept of hard-line racial choseness. Sorry, but haughty, particularistic exclusivity is hardly a recipe for political success, let alone a resurrection of Western civilization. Despite decades of “they’re entitled” Holocaust propaganda, the Jews are already well on their way to again becoming public enemy #1, which speaks to exactly how well such a strategy works.

    And therein lies the problem. Like the Jews, these Zionist-like White nationalist rubes don’t want to be part of a larger civilization, have no understanding, respect or appreciation for the concept of a great civilization, and prefer to fantasize about the coming, mythological White Zion, where each of them will no doubt play the role of Abraham, Moses, Hitler, or plantation boss. It’s a joke.

    Such an approach is a perfect recipe for keeping Whites divided, and picked off one by one, which is exactly what’s happened in the post-Christian West.

  36. Difference Maker's Gravatar Difference Maker
    May 22, 2011 - 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Christianity is a weak slave religion, not fit for young boys. If only there were Inquisitors and Crusaders still running around.

    • Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
      May 25, 2011 - 10:56 pm | Permalink

      Maybe we can all be paranoid agoraphobes like Nietzsche?

    • Difference Maker's Gravatar Difference Maker
      May 29, 2011 - 10:03 pm | Permalink

      It is a fool who thinks the only way a person comes by criticism of Christianity is through Nietzsche. Is everyone you know a confused railing nerd?

      I’ve read only one line of Nietzsche and it was charmingly nerdy. But he has the right idea.

      And he is also a derailment. It is far too much time wasted to argue with Christophiles; their predisposition is genetic.

      The world is an evil place. Let you be devout; others must fight the battles, and do not get in our way if you value the continuance of a great civilization.

  37. mentaldefective's Gravatar mentaldefective
    May 22, 2011 - 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Apparently your Kwa-style Christianity can’t differentiate between systems of valuation either, judging from what I, and everybody, see of them. They’re quite a robust group, I tells ya.

    The awesome thing about you Christlings is that, no matter what the tens or hundreds of millions of you believe, or no matter the current stand of your ninety-headed church, one of you can always say, “Wait, that’s not the TRUE Christianity. MINE is. You/they don’t understand the words of Jesus.” That’s been the history of the cult from the get go, hence your nom de monitor, I assume. How many of your current Christian churches can you, “Athanasius”, walk into and spout your blustery beliefs? Or are there just not many espousing “true” Christianity these days, like they were in 380 A.D.?

    “Alternatively, you could be intentionally trying to strip whites of our traditional culture–which has been the Jewish programme all along.”

    Yeah, you nailed me – I’ve long had that nefarious plan to bring down your powerful white resistance movement and awesome modern white culture, all through posting something on a website fourteen people visit. Now I’m found out, and it’s all ruined.

    First of all, anyone who identifies their group as “white”, the color of Q-tips or paper reams, has no culture to begin with. Second, Christianity is known worldwide for crushing every culture it possibly can, including that of the various European groups. There wouldn’t have had to be a Renaissance in the first place without Marxist Christianity obliterating the culture of all that came before. Look, here they come, the Teutonic knights, concerned with the “white” traditional culture of the Lithuanians. And there go the god-fearing white Methodists, teaching the Shona and the Patagonians the one true traditional culture – Joseph, Mary, the Patriarchs, etc… Praise be, check out this statue of Artemis at Ephesus with a cross carved into her forehead – a relic of Christians stamping their traditional culture where previously there’d been nothing. Give me a break, dude.

    As for Jebu follower number 1,000,000,000, Chris Moore – I really like where your “White social evolution,” has led us, LOL. You’ve socially evolved to type messages on a keyboard for fear of speaking on a street corner- that’s where you are, that’s where we all are, bro. Can’t EvoPsych KMac explain to you that it wasn’t the belief in sky gods or the definite knowledge that you’d be walking around in Harpland after death that helped you as “Whites” – it was the group, the group, the group, and it wouldn’t have mattered if instead of Christians Europeans had been a collection of cat jugglers, if they followed a GES they were bound to have unity to some degree. Argh.

    I can’t believe I’ve just wasted this time. Like I said, we are totally different types here. If Jews want to get rid of Christianity, like you say (but not like good old Maimonides and the gang think), then more power to them. Sometimes the Church helped us out. A lot of times it didn’t. But that’s the past, ’cause Darwin let the genii out of the bottle, Haeckel corked it up, and thousands of European scientists and philosophers and academics shattered it to pieces. It might be good enough for you, but for many Christianity is a creepy death cult, with slavery built right into its foundations.

    • Gabor's Gravatar Gabor
      May 23, 2011 - 1:47 am | Permalink

      Read Darwin’s Cathedral by David Sloan Wilson (BTW he’s one of the few mainstream sources to actually reference professor MacDonald in a major part of his book), he explains in 200+ pages why a religion with its imaginary gods and saints and whoever is more effective than most other group strategies.

      National Socialism is the only other strategy that comes to mind as equally effective, however, it had some problems which might have been the reasons behind its demise (although of course it wasn’t in a very good starting position to begin with).

    • Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
      May 25, 2011 - 11:22 pm | Permalink

      That’s right, Athanasius contra mundum, if need be.

      But my beliefs can be stated in any Orthodox or Catholic church. That’s why you and and the Jews hate them so.

      Look, you have a point when you say that ‘white’ is a problematic term. I am much more in favor of pluralistic nationalism–defined and circumscribed by Christendom. How else could we possibly define ourselves? There is obviously, significant genetic/phenotypic correlation among such peoples. But short of checking the mDNA and y-chromosomes of everyone West of Bengal and north of Luxor, I don’t know how we could make any rational grouping.

      In any event, what I want to preserve isn’t ‘whiteness’ per se- Netanyahu is pretty white–but rather mos maiorum–and that, now, is our shared Christian heritage, as well as our pre-Christian history.

      I’m not sure why you’re criticizing the Teutonic knights. Isn’t that just the drang nach ost that Nietzsche would have approved of? In any event, the Lithuanians who converted did so so as to gain German/Polish support to attack the Russians/Belorussians. Hardly innocent victims.

      I never claimed there was ‘nothing’ before Christianity in Europe–but like it or not, Christianity was the ideology that provided a sense of common identity.

      I’m sorry that the difference between positive and normative values is so vexatious to you. I don’t reject scientific/materialistic knowledge at all. Evolutionary biology can teach us much about human nature. What it can’t teach us is what is good and what is bad or what is beautiful and what is ugly.

  38. Lindsay's Gravatar Lindsay
    May 22, 2011 - 7:59 pm | Permalink

    Professor Hoxie at UCLA in 1978 taught us that the Crusades were a unilateral offense of Europe against Arabs.

  39. Dave's Gravatar Dave
    May 22, 2011 - 10:04 pm | Permalink

    @Mentaldefective: critique, Critique, CRITIQUE (sung to the tune of Tradition! from Fiddler on the Roof).

    Note the stammering, name-calling, and general nihilism evident when these trolls were asked what is best for we white men – If they answered honestly – for us to disappear – the game would be up, after all.

    • fig's Gravatar fig
      May 23, 2011 - 6:06 am | Permalink

      How one can note “stammering” in a pixelated visual medium is beyond me.

      That testament to my ignorance made, I ask, “Why would anyone in his right mind state on a site watched by millions of his enemies “what is best for white men”?” Who does such things besides the most ignorant? There are some out there who are working on their own ways, but it’s for particular types, not for your meaningless uber-term “white”. What is clearly best for white christlings is belief in magic. For others what is best is to go along with the current system. For others it’s to stop immigration. For others it’s to purchase as much as they can. There’s no one “thing” to do because there’s no ONE of you. As a group you don’t exist. “White”? Please. Some of us don’t care about the “white” People of Walmart, Jebu shouters, meth heads, sportz fanz, drunks, pop culture consumers, truckling elites, soccer moms, femme dads, Restrepo soldiers, and the rest. They’re for you, singing Dave, to worry about. Others of us have left them behind.

  40. May 23, 2011 - 9:54 am | Permalink

    What this argument comes down to is Christian-partisan advocates of authentic, traditionally anti-Jewish, anti-tribal Western civilization vs. atheist-materialist, Zionist-emulating advocates of particularistic White racial collectivism — but one completely divorced from even the specious “Judeo-Christian” tradition.

    Gee, I wonder which has the largest potential constituency? I wonder which one stands a chance and which one will leave Whites and Westerners bitter, angry, isolated, fractured and ripe for a takedown?

    • Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
      May 24, 2011 - 3:26 pm | Permalink

      You can spout all the superfluous adjectives you want, Chris Moore. It still won’t change the fact that Christianity is a pre-scientific, nonsensical, superstitious Jewish fraud perpetrated upon Western Civilization.

      http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

  41. Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
    May 24, 2011 - 3:31 pm | Permalink

    huyt
    May 22, 2011 – 1:39 pm | Permalink

    It’s been asked before, but why do christlings come to the site of an evolutionary psychologist?

    It’s a shame that KMac’s site receives so many more crackpots than Sailer’s. If only there were one section here for evolutionists and another for the Jebu in the sky crowd, because there’s really nothing we can talk about together and it just clutters up the boards and seems ridiculous. The differences are too wide between the camps, and forget any juvenile boardgame blabber about necessary “bridges” and “alliances”. We’re different people, even though plenty seem to think that, because we’re equally “not Jewish” we’re identical.

    Great post.

  42. Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
    May 24, 2011 - 3:38 pm | Permalink

    We can see a good demonstration of the conflict that Christianity causes right here on TOO. The words of Jesus ring very true:

    Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
    - Rabbi Jesus, Matthew 10:21

    Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
    - Rabbi Jesus, Matthew 10:34

    For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law
    - Rabbi Jesus, Matthew 10:35

    Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
    - Rabbi Jesus, Luke 12:51

    From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.
    - Rabbi Jesus, Luke 12:52

    The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
    - Rabbi Jesus, Luke 12:53

    • May 26, 2011 - 7:28 pm | Permalink

      Yes, and all of those quotes were designed to incite rebellion against the incestuous Jewish status-quo against which Jesus spoke.

    • Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
      May 29, 2011 - 3:39 am | Permalink

      Wrong. Those sayings of rabbi Jesus were designed to cause conflict and strife among the stupid goyim.

  43. fender_strat's Gravatar fender_strat
    May 24, 2011 - 3:42 pm | Permalink

    I get annoyed when people define the West through Christianity. Beyond some Platonic ideas here and there, there is nothing European or western about that religion. It’s still a Jewish philosophy.

    Nietzsche, despite not being an antisemite himself, was in fact trying to de-Judaize western thought and bring it back to its true Hellenic origins. This is what people who are simultaneously pro-white and pro-Christian don’t understand.

    I won’t argue that Christianity is evil or immoral. It did hold Europe together for centuries, and it should be commended for that, but at the same time we shouldn’t make the mistake of considering it our religion, because it isn’t. It’s just a Jewish philosophy that happened to work for us for a while, but it doesn’t anymore, and hasn’t for a long time.

  44. mentaldefective's Gravatar mentaldefective
    May 26, 2011 - 7:16 am | Permalink

    @athanasius

    “That’s right, Athanasius contra mundum, if need be. ”

    LOL. Good luck in that battle, dude.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAozBgPUXRM

    “…my beliefs can be stated in any Orthodox or Catholic church.”

    Name for me some of the Catholic churches where you can state to a congregation, with the explicit support of the clergy, the things about Jews that you say at this site. Name me just one. The Catholic churches in my neighborhood would socially hang you for your statements here.

    “That’s why you and and the Jews hate them so. ”

    Always bizarre obfuscations like this.

    I think we all get that Christianity united Europe, very roughly speaking, for a blip in time. There’s no argument. But that time is gone.

    “What [evolutionary biology] can’t teach us is what is good and what is bad or what is beautiful and what is ugly.”

    Weasel words. “Good” for you doesn’t necessarily mean good for me. Seriously, you guys need to get a different cultural vocabulary. The net’s too broadly woven. Ugh, you use terms like “beauty” even. LOL. Yeah, the Christians were so into beauty when they were destroying the artworks of (Christian) Byzantium, right? How about that homage to Christian beauty we see off the freeway in LA:

    http://braziltravelcenter.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/cathedral_of_our_lady_of_angels_los_angeles_exterior1.jpg

    Wipe out the Cathars! Topple the Roman statues! Chop down the pagans’ groves! Build our churches on top of the Greek temples! Burn the old herbalist women! End athletic competition! Cover the body! Close the academies! Forward, Christians, in the name of teaching beauty!

  45. mehmet's Gravatar mehmet
    June 3, 2011 - 7:40 pm | Permalink

    I think crawford’s arguments are quite uninformed and wrong. The greatest victim of the crusades was not islam. It was fellow orthodox christians. To summarize the facts: In 1204, during the fourth crusade, crusaders suddenly realized that christian byzantium offered much better plunder prospects than moslem palestine. they besieged constantinople, conquered the city, and pillaged it for three months. byzantine empire never recovered from the shock.
    to this day, orthodox christians hate catholics for that. pope can never visit greece, for example.

    yes, crusaders were altrustic to some degree. but they also had very strong plunder and profit motives.
    as for moslem assaults on christian europe: they were 300 years before crusades. today we do not go to war for something that happened on 1711′s, do we? same with medieval europe. between 900-1300, there was no offense on europe on behalf of islam and europe was certainly not on defence.

    one has to learn the facts before writing a history book. crawford failed miserably in that respect.

    • Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
      June 9, 2011 - 6:31 pm | Permalink

      History is written (distorted) by the victors. Had Nazis won, we would be reading a quite different narrative of European history – not anti-Jewish, but anti-Christianity and Islam. Hitler and Nazis were not Jew haters as they’re portrayed by western media. Hitler was brought to power by Jewish Rothschild family to make sure that their ealier stooge, Joseph Stalin, get drunk with power.

      Interestingly, while Hitler’s welknown constant companion Eva Braun was Jewish – Mahtama Gandhi had a German Jewish boygriend by the name Dr. Hermann Kallenbach….

      http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/gandhi%e2%80%99s-secret-love-for-jews/

    • Jonathan's Gravatar Jonathan
      June 10, 2011 - 11:13 pm | Permalink

      You’re totally off the mark Mehmet, the apex of Muslim power and aggression in Iberia was the reign of Almanzor, in the 10th to early 11th centuries who sacked almost all the important cities of the Christian north. The Byzantines had lost almost all of Anatolia between 1071-1099 and much of the land was depopulated. The pace of the Muslim conquests had slowed down in the west indeed but that was mainly due to the political fragmentation of the Muslim powers.

    • mehmet's Gravatar mehmet
      June 30, 2011 - 6:34 pm | Permalink

      To Jonathan:
      I do not think I am totally off the mark. One has to distinguish between large scale assaults between civilizations and border strifes.
      1) Crusades were large scale assaults. All western christianity participated, from faraway scandinavia to france to england to germany. It was an assault of one religion to other.
      2) Almanzor’s wars were local events. only spanish and moroccan muslims participated. %90 of the islamic world (syria, egypt, iraq, iran, central asia etc) did not know about it and had no interest in it.

      Funny isnt it: islam had a very good concept of crusade (ie, jihad) but have no institution capable of organizing one (ie, papacy). Actually, there is no unifying priestly caste in sunni islam.
      christianity had no concept of crusade (judging by bible), but had an institution very capable of organizing one (papacy).
      The rest, as they say, is history. :-)

  46. Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
    June 9, 2011 - 11:47 pm | Permalink

    No assaults ? What happened after manzikert?

    • mehmet's Gravatar mehmet
      June 10, 2011 - 7:56 am | Permalink

      Firstly, I have not claimed that there was no assault. I only claimed that there was no assault on medieval europe between 1100-1300 by muslims.
      Firstly, manzikert (or, malazgirt by its modern name) was not in europe. It is in deep asia. the attack was not on europe, but on byzantines. actually, it was the byzantine army under romanos diogenes which attacked first.
      Secondly, after the great schism of 1054 byzantines were not considered european by europeans.
      Thirdly, during the ottoman assault on europe between 1453-1750s greeks were always on the side of ottomans, not on western europeans. They have tasted feudalism under the latin rule and didnt like it. Turkish army invaded both greece and cyprus on the invitation of local greeks, for example. They only switched side after the rise of nationalism.
      Conclusion: Europe was not under attack btw 1100-1300 by moslems. Byzantines were under attack from both muslims and europeans, and they preferred muslims.

  47. Gabor's Gravatar Gabor
    June 10, 2011 - 8:58 am | Permalink

    @Mehmet: I think your interpretation of the Sack of Constantinaple is a bit misleading.

    After the failure of the third crusade, nobody was really interested in a new one, but still one was launched. With the expected result that not enough people came, and the pious didn’t pay enough money for the purpose…

    So, there they were, too few crusaders with too little money, and already a contract with the Venetians to carry them (and actually an army much larger than eventually turned up) to Egypt. Venice almost went bankrupt preparing the fleet for the occasion, so they needed the money desparately. Hence everything that followed (which was a very complicated matter, including the attack on Zara etc.), but since by that point in time almost every single member of the crusading army was already bankrupt, it’s very difficult not to believe what they claimed had been their motives: simply get the money needed to reach Egypt.

    • Gabor's Gravatar Gabor
      June 10, 2011 - 9:25 am | Permalink

      Of course, once they smelled sack, they probably changed their minds. Nobody is disinclined to redeem his soul AND even enrich himself in the process, but the main reason for the whole enterprise (including Zara and Constaninople) was not primarily money. Maybe that’s what it broke down to after they realized they will not save their souls in Jerusalem (or, alternately, that they have already saved them and now they could turn themselves to more worldly matters).

      The “Greeks preferred Muslims” line may be correct (that’s my impression as well, the Orthodox usually prefer Muslims over Westerners), but it never meant they actually liked Muslims. It seems that e.g. in the Balkans Christian peasants oftenly killed Muslims when they had a chance (when the Christian armies came, a not infrequent occurrance in the 18th century) and cheered Christian armies which did the same thing.

    • Jonathan's Gravatar Jonathan
      June 10, 2011 - 11:20 pm | Permalink

      The Greeks (probably not Bulgarians or Serbs though) might have preferred Muslims in the 1300s, but they were no doubt cheering the Christian fleet at Navarino who gave them their independence by defeating the Turks and Egyptians.

    • mehmet's Gravatar mehmet
      June 30, 2011 - 7:32 pm | Permalink

      The relation of orthodox to muslims (to be exact, turks) is a complicated one.

      1) probably up until 1700′s, orthdox christian peasants preferred turkish rule to any other rule (including byzantine rule), mainly because the tax load imposed by turks is much lighter compared to byzantine one and the justice system was more efficient. Also, there was no internal strife in the empire. After their experience with feudalism, they absolutely, positively hated the latin rule. Turkish armies invaded both cyprus and crete with full support of the local orthodox and kicked out the latins with their help.

      2) Orthodox church was, in one word, “in love” with the ottoman empire. In its last years the power of patriarchate was compressed into byzantine borders. Now, it was expanded into the whole ottoman empire. Patriarchs suddenly became immensely powerful. Their talk was “god sent the turkish empire from heaven to deliver the orthodox from heretics (ie, latins)

      So why did greek and other balkan nationalisms emerged? Two reasons:

      1) The simpler reason is that by 1700′s the ottoman empire was neither just, nor had internal peace.

      2) The rise of greek bourgeois, starting with phanariotes. It was this group who first formulated the founding myths of greek nationalism. They were perfectly aware that ottoman empire was no longer cutting edge and the now west offered a much better alternative. It was them who did the switch.

      As for greeks liking or hating turks: I do not think it was a question of likes or hates. It was a question of picking the best alternative. Otherwise, nobody “likes” the other in this part of the world.

      It is very well known that when greek army invaded anatolia in 1920, many muslims, sick of the misrule of their own rulers, were ready to switch to greek side, had the greeks shown themselves better than the ottoman rule. But the greeks blew it.

      As you can see, at least down to 1920′s this part of the world was quite pragmatic.

  48. spam ham's Gravatar spam ham
    June 26, 2011 - 12:55 am | Permalink

    Christianity was a disaster for western culture, on the verge of shaking it’s self off from theist superstition (read the roman philosopher of your choice) and what happened? the catholic church turned up. regardless of that the crusades can not be viewed as anything other but a series of defensive wars both reactionary (spain) and pro reactionary (the holy land)..

5 Trackbacks to "Crusading Popes in Defense of the West"

  1. on June 7, 2011 at 4:44 pm
  2. on July 23, 2011 at 11:10 pm
  3. on July 24, 2011 at 8:27 am
  4. on July 25, 2011 at 12:17 pm
  5. on August 13, 2011 at 7:49 pm

Comments are closed.