Review of Hilaire Belloc’s “The Crusades: The World’s Debate”

The Crusades: The World’s Debate
Hilaire Belloc.  Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1937; Republished Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1992.

Reviewed by Antonius J. Patrick


Despite its publication a little over eight decades ago, Hilaire Belloc’s The Crusades: The World’s Debate is a book worthy of another look on several fronts.  Not only does Belloc present a novel interpretation of the crusading era while providing an array of interesting insights and thoughts, but throughout his analysis the author talks of the role that race and ethnicity played in the conduct of the crusades and in the establishment and tragic fall of the Latin Kingdoms in the Levant.

Ever since the Second Vatican Council (1962–65), Catholic scholarship, mirroring what was taking place within the historical profession at large, either ignored the subject of race, or when they spoke of it, downplayed any differences that might have had an impact on historical developments.  This was not the case for Belloc nor for most historians of his time.

The Crusades were inspired by the Catholic Church and the Papacy which rightly saw the threat that Islam posed to the West and encouraged military action to counter it.  The Mohammedans had taken over vast parts of the eastern half of the Roman Empire and with it control of the Holy Land which they increasingly made tougher to access for pilgrims.  The Crusades were an expression of Christendom’s highest ideals which contemporary secular Europeans could not hope to grasp or understand.  The expeditions initial success, the creation of societies in the Levant and their later collapse tells a lot about the historical epoch in which the movement took place.

Crusades Historiography

Belloc takes a unique perspective on a number of aspects of the crusading era which differ, in some cases, quite significantly from most modern scholarship. Almost all contemporary histories are of the school of thought that the Crusades lasted until at least the campaign of 1295 (the Fourth Crusade) while some, like the late J. Riley Smith, see “crusading activity” going well beyond that time.[1]

For Belloc, the First Crusade from its “calling” in 1095 by Pope Urban II, to its improbable and truly miraculous capture[2] of Jerusalem in 1099, was the most important.  It not only accomplished its odds-defying goal of freeing the Holy Land for pilgrimage, but in its wake established Western feudal-style governance after its military success.

With the view that only the First Crusade mattered, since it accomplished its objectives, the vast majority of the book covers the years between 1095 to 1187 which ends with the tragic Battle of Hattin in 1187, in which Saladin conquered most of Palestine from the Crusaders. As Belloc asserts:

There was . . . but one Crusade. . . . it was the great breaking out of all western Europe into the Orient for the rescue of the Holy Sepulchre, and within one very long lifetime it had failed; for with Jerusalem in the hands of the Infidel the purpose of the original great campaign was gone, its fruits were lost. [244]

Everything that came in the wake of the first Christian triumph in Asia Minor was something different:

That historical episode, 1095—1187, was the true Crusade, from its inception to its final failure.  All that followed was of another kind. [Ibid.]

Yet, within their initial victory, the seed of the Latin Kingdoms’ ultimate downfall was laid. Strategically, Belloc repeatedly stresses that the crusaders’ failure to secure Damascus proved fatal to their long-term survival.  Without control of the city, the later expeditions were never a serious threat to the Muslim strongholds and were in the historian’s words “the rear-guard action of a defeat.”[4]  The vital position of Damascus in the overall control of the Levant is not emphasized by contemporary historians.

While Muslim rule appeared to be permanent after the defeat at Hattin and especially after the fall of Constantinople, Westerners would later return. After repelling several Islamic assaults on the European heartland, the next sojourn into the Levant was different, but this time the conquerors came not as Christian liberators but as imperialists.

The colonization of the Middle East throughout the course of the nineteenth century up until the time of his book (1937) was accomplished not by Christian knights, princes, kings or inspired by popes, but under the direction of religiously pluralistic nation-states.  Christendom had long been dissolved, and although the new overlords were superior in resources, technology, and skill, their religious vitality was on the wane and would continue to evaporate as the years rolled on.  “We have returned to the Levant,” Belloc laments, “we have returned apparently more as masters than ever we were during the struggle of the Crusades — but we have returned bankrupt in that spiritual wealth which was the glory of the Crusades. . . . [N]or is the Levant held as one whole [Christian dominion], but divided between separate nations to whom the unity of Europe has ceased to be sacred.” [249]

Belloc believed that the West would eventually lose out to a more religiously robust and demographically fertile Islam.  Once Westerners strayed from a Christian social order with its defense of the family, the indissolubility of marriage and the traditional role of women as homemakers and mothers instead of co-equals to men in all aspects of life, a drop off in White birth rates would result.  The now beyond frightening low population replacement rates among Occidental peoples has proven the ever-perceptive Belloc correct.

While a collapse in White birth rates had not taken place during his lifetime, a more ominous event occurred which would shape not only the course of Middle East history, but world events with the founding of the Jewish state in 1948.  With unconditional support from the U.S. government and wealthy Jews throughout the world, Israel would come to dominate the region reducing the neighboring Arab states and extirpating the indigenous Christian population and landmarks.


In the modern era of Political Correctness, one can no longer speak of race, ethnicity, kinship, or “blood” unless one is disparaging Occidental people or their ancestors while at the same time trumpeting the virtues of the assorted non-White peoples of the globe.  Not so with Belloc, who was far from alone among his generation who understood the significance of race in the episodes of the human past and how it played an important factor in the creation of societies.

To Belloc, race did matter, and in his view, it was a significant reason why the Crusades ultimately failed to hold their possessions.  Of course, there were other reasons that the author duly notes—the failure to control Damascus, the lack of reinforcements both in arms and people from Western Europe, the refusal of Byzantium to come to the Crusaders’ aid, and the lack of a strong monarchy in the Latin states.  Race, however, in this instance the “mixing of blood” between the Franks and the Near East population, especially among the leadership, proved deadly.  Few, if any, academics today could write such things.

The miscegenation of the Latin nobility with the upper-class provincials led to an “inferior” ruling elite which lacked the necessary talent, ability, and leadership skills to sustain and build a permanent Christian civilization in Asia Minor.  A stark example of this can be seen in the loss of Edssa:

We have seen that among other causes the mixture of Western with Oriental blood, especially in the case of the rulers, played a chief part.  Now, it was  precisely to this that the first of the great disasters was due. … The loss of Edessa … was mainly due to the character of its ruler, the second Jocelyn. . . .  The mother of the second Jocelyn was an Armenian. . . .  [T]he mixture of blood did here what it so often does; it gave a certain brilliance to the character of the second generation, but that brilliance was accompanied by instability. [192] …

It must be emphasized, for it underlay not only the tragedy of Edessa but all that followed, up to the loss of Jerusalem itself. . . . it was Jocelyn the Second, who with his contemporary, the half breed Queen Melisande, so conspicuously typifies that new and too-sudden mixtures of races which was largely responsible for the catastrophe. [193]

The political structure that the crusaders set up was similar to that of Western Europe at the time—feudalism.  Despite criticism of it and the Middle Ages in general by academics stretching back to the Enlightenment, feudalism mightily contributed to the widespread level of personal freedom and economic growth found in Western societies.  And, it was feudalism’s decline which paved the way for royal absolutism and later the emergence of the totalitarian democratic nation-state.

Like all social systems, feudalism relied on the quality of its practitioners.  While the crusaders brought feudalism to the Levant, its application was inferior to that of Western Europe, mainly because of race as Belloc points out:

In the interval of nearly fifty years there had arisen that large population of mixed blood to which we continually return.  Most of the half-breeds [were] born of Western fathers and Eastern mothers; others in somewhat smaller numbers, sprung from the marriage of Eastern fathers and Western women. [204]

Intermarriage took place among the ruling elites and for Belloc it proved detrimental for the sustainability of the Latin Kingdoms.  The difference in character and quality of the new racial class was unhappily noticed by Westerners:

Of these [half-breeds] a due proportion were nobles: the social equals of the ruling armed class throughout the feudal world.  Some of them (as we saw at Edessa) stood in the highest places.  It was inevitable that the pure-blooded Westerners should look down somewhat on the men of mixed blood. [Ibid.]

While they could do little about it, from their comments and attitudes Westerners understood the disastrous consequences from the dilution of Frankish blood:

[The Frank] had to deal with them; they were necessarily mixed up with his life, often claiming equality and receiving all the outward marks of it. But behind their backs they were now given a slang name—‘the colts’ — and it was not meant to be flattering. [Ibid.]

The historian makes an interesting distinction between what a colony or colonizing means and what took place in the Levant.  “The idea of a colony,” Belloc notes, “connotes the transplanting of men from one place to another and the vigorous growth in the new soil of the thing so transplanted.” [171] In this meaning, colonizing did not take place during the crusading era which proved to be of fundamental importance:

Now, the Crusaders did bring all this Western blood onto the coastal plain of Syria, they did plant our religion, our customs, our social organization.  But the new thing flourished as a thing transplanted, it flourished as a mixture.  There was intermarriage and there was a corresponding change in blood; there was the adoption of Oriental social habits by the descendants of the first Crusaders. [Ibid.]

While Westerners maintained their Latin religiosity, they, mostly because of intermarriage and the difference in climate, became submerged in their host population’s culture:

Men living in Syria had to live under Syrian conditions, or very soon they would not have lived at all.  The kingdom of Jerusalem and its dependencies could not remain wholly like ourselves.  They took on an Oriental color and upon the whole this weakened them in their task, that of resisting the Orient. . . .   That social structure which goes with the climate of the West, invigorated by the northern winter and nourished by the well-watered lands of Gaul and Britain . . . was altered. [Ibid.]

Because of the conditions, perhaps nothing could be done, but the “alteration” was necessary for the crusaders survival which if they had not adapted to the surroundings and from a lack of reinforcements from the West, would not have lasted as long as they did:

It was altered to advantage insofar as it enabled the transplanted to survive — but it was altered to disadvantage insofar as it lessened the pristine energy and tenacity of the transplanted [Ibid.]

Blood lines were instrumental not only in the downfall of the Latin Kingdoms, but in the initial preaching of a crusade by Pope Urban II.  A description like Belloc’s of the character and personality of the first wave of Frankish knights would be hard to find in modern accounts of the Crusades:

The Christian, Western host . . . was mainly Gallic. . . . But the blood told, and the Franci . . . had the weakness as well as the strength of their race as it has been known throughout history. They had its intense energy, its aptitude for arms, its sudden enthusiasms and, in such moods, exalted unity of aim;[2]

In today’s politically-correct environment, an author of such lines would be labeled a “racist” even by the Church which Belloc defended throughout his voluminous writings.  The Catholic Church, after Vatican II, has renounced its role in the Crusades, even though saints, theologians, popes and Divine intervention have all signaled their approval of the undertakings.

In the depth of despair at Antioch, faced with an oncoming Turkish force, plagued by hunger, disease and insufficient manpower, the quality of the Franks came to the fore emboldened by the discovery of the Holy Lance:

Anyhow, the lance head was found, and it worked a moral miracle.  That same French temperament which we must always keep in mind when studying the fortunes of the Crusade, lit a sudden enthusiasm through the army.  It was roused from its lethargy . . . it was filled with the certitude of victory, and in that mood it had sallied out by the bridge gate and won its great triumph over the besieging Mohammedan host. [100]

Despite what has been displayed in movies and television and what has been written in literature and historical accounts, the Western warrior was superior to his Turkish foe in every aspect.  “The French mounted knights, when sufficiently supported by the infantry were certain of victory against the light-armed and light-mounted swarm of Moslem bowmen. . . . Weight for weight, stroke for stroke, energy for energy, the Oriental could not stand up to the Western man.” [93]

Again, it was the “dilution” of Frankish blood that led to the collapse:

The danger would come years on when Western numbers were so depleted and Western blood so diluted that conditions between the opponents would be more equal. [Ibid]

It would be remiss to focus solely on the genetic make-up that shaped the character of the Franks in explaining why the Crusades took place at all.  This was the Age of Faith and despite their personal ambition, those who took up the cross were committed Christians who believed that their sacrifice would eventually merit an eternal reward which Belloc accounts for:

The feudal motive was mixed with the love of personal gain, but it is a misreading of the time to think that the love of gain was the driving power of these men.  And there was not one of them, not even Bohemond, who did not feel the inspiration of the Cross.  The Christian name is perpetually invoked, it is the rescue of the Christian populations in the East which fills the story, and for the common purpose there is always to be discovered, in spite of fierce rivalries, a common action. [70]


Hilaire Belloc’s The Crusades is more than an analysis of the racial make-up of the brave souls which took up the cross and rid the Holy Land of the Mohammedans.  It is an exhaustive account of the factors which made the first wave of Christian liberators so successful and explains why the expeditions and the societies which came in their wake ultimately failed.  Moreover, the book is important for it gives insight on the conditions and the mindset of the peoples of Western Europe when the great movement began.

Belloc’s tome is noteworthy for it shows how the writing of history, as have all the social sciences, succumbed to political correctness.  The author’s masterful weaving of a discussion of race in the narrative is not a display of Eurocentrism or bigotry, but is explanatory—necessary to demonstrate how and why the events of the era came to be.  Ominously, such a historical analysis is no longer possible in the present age.

[1] Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A History, 3rd ed. (London: Bloomsbury, 1987, 2014).

[2] While Belloc does not stress it, the First Crusade was aided by heavenly intervention which has been attested to by Crusaders as well as modern secular historians in their narratives. See Thomas Asbridge, The First Crusade: A New History (Oxford: University Press, 2004).

27 replies
  1. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    “The Crusades were an expression of Christendom’s highest ideals” — if that were true, Christians across Europe would be agitating against foreign invasion. Instead, many Christians welcome foreign refugrees, including Muslims, with open arms.

    No, Christianity’s highest ideal is forgiveness, to love your enemy as yourself, and to embrace a brotherhood of man without racial distinctions. This is why the church looks the way it does today, instead of looking like the Knights Templar or “the brave souls which took up the cross and rid the Holy Land of the Mohammedans.” Those men were taken advantage of, probably by Jews just as we saw with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that continue to this day.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      . . .without racial distinctions. . .hhmmm, where have I heard that. . .who else is anti-racialist?? I believe that BOTH sides are at war with all distinctions- this is the left-feminine side of the spectrum. The right side is masculine and consists of making distinctions, especially in a public setting, like the child in The Emperor’s
      New Clothes. Making distinctions is now illegal via anti-discrimination law. Even the conservative fake opposition has consumed the egalitarian Kool-aid. The war we now enter is mildly feminine vs. total feminine domination. Female domination = Original Sin= World Communism= Jewish. Add a dollop of fake money for the cherry on the top- after all, it’s “equal” to gold. . . who’s that knockin’ at my door. . .

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” Female domination = Original Sin= World Communism= Jewish.”

        Superb observation . However , for greater clarity ___

        Jewish = Male/rabbi Jewish world dominion .

        ” And the Lord God said …

        I will make him an help meet for him .”

        ( verbatim quote , except for … , from
        The Jewish Holy Torah / KJV / Book of Genesis /
        chapter 2 / verse 18 )

        where :

        “him” = man
        “help” = subservient woman ; except in the home
        “meet” = compatible .

  2. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    There is a logical contradiction in Belloc’s racial explanation for the Crusader’s ultimate defeat in the Middle East. If they lost due to racial admixture with the local population, then how could that very same local population win, while they had no (supposedly superior) Frankish blood at all?

    It is difficult for us moderns to feel admiration for the Crusaders who needed the sudden “discovery of the Holy Lance” (an obvious fraud) to recuperate their valor in battle.

    The Crusaders were not only utterly superstitious but also cruel, far more cruel than the Muslims of Saladin, whose chivalry was proverbial.

    All in all, the Crusades were a foolish undertaking (think the Children’s Crusade) and a waste of energy. That energy would have been better used in liberating Spain from the Muslims, thus hastening the Reconquista by at least 3 centuries.

    • Johnny B Good
      Johnny B Good says:

      Well if they were mixed at a large rate they may be stuck betweena loyalty to white christian Europe and the local population in many cases.

      And also more mentally weak. And the locals were allways outnumbering the Cristian WHITES so if they were weaker and less motivated and so on.

      Also the bible teaches whites to only marry whites in effect (or clearly in my views). So a mixed person may feel less of a connection to Christianity…

      That being said alot of the people in the crusades were criminals I heard. Because it was hard getting an army together. So lotsa murderers, rapists and so on thrown in there together with good people supposedly.

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      The whole business of fake relics like the Holy Lance is an historical embarrassment, even though the past is another country. The crusader interim massacre of Jews was no asset, though other readers may disagree. However, fanatical Muslims, whatever the US-Israel provocations, then and are now a threat to Europe, secular or spiritual, despite the friendly comments on this alien faith made by some of our own past literary heroes. Belloc’s close friend and debating colleague Chesterton wriite an un-woke novel “The Flying Inn” which was described by a writer in the “Chesterton Review” as a prophecy in which an “authoritarian modernism ironically makes common cause with Islam”. Deja vu, 2021.

    • scott
      scott says:

      There’s a big difference between Jerusalem and Granada, how exactly could you spark Christian enthusiasm to take back Iberia? It’s two completely different things. Plus if this job wasn’t left to the Spanish themselves, and say done for them, then there would be no explosion of enthusiasm to conquer the Americas, which they the Spaniards set about doing as soon as they’d liberated their homeland.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Cruelty in war is as unfortunate as it is predictable. Though there is no reason to regard the Crusaders en masse as any crueler than the norm, the special guilt that attaches to them is a consequence of their standard having been the Cross of Christ. On the other hand, it can hardly be overlooked that those who have fussed the most about Crusader excesses were and are Jews, Muslims, and other Christophobes, none of whom have notably clean hands.

      As Mr. Patrick rightly suggests at one point, there has for several hundred years been a concerted attempt to muddle the Crusades proper with “crusading activity.” This attempt’s success, by and large, has served no useful purpose for Christian Europeans or their “colonial” outliers in the New World and the western South Pacific. For that reason alone—not to disregard the no less pertinent and far grander claims of historical truth—it is useful to recall the proper Crusade contextualization, the one that was certainly in the forefront of Belloc’s mind.

      It used to be customary to describe the Crusades as eight in number and ought to be so again:

      —the first, 1095–1101
      —the second, led by Louis VII, 1145–1147
      —the third, led by Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur-de-Lion, 1188–1192
      —the fourth, during which Constantinople was taken, 1204
      —the fifth, which included the conquest of Damietta, 1217
      —the sixth, in which Frederick II took part (1228–1229); also, Thibaud de Champagne and Richard of Cornwall later on (1239)
      —the seventh, led by Louis IX (i.e., St. Louis of France), 1249–1252
      —the eighth, also led by St. Louis, 1270

      The so-called Children’s Crusade was a fiasco that quickly became an unspeakable disaster, but it was no more a proper (i.e., capital-C) crusade than was George W. Bush’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a private enterprise organized by people of whom some were fools and the rest were knaves.

      As for the Reconquista, several misunderstandings appear to be at work in Mr. Ryckaert’s comment. The last major Muslim victory took place in 1086, nine years before the First Crusade began. By 1095, the kingdoms of Leon, Navarra, and Castile were already well established—the first two for two hundred years or so—and indeed almost half of Spain and rather more than half of Portugal had already been reconquered from the Almoravids; the latter (and their Almohad successors) remained in irreversible disarray for the bulk of the remainder of their time in Iberia. In other words, the Reconquista had been proceeding apace.

      Furthermore, a major campaign of liberation from west to east was coordinated with the Second Crusade. In short, from Lisbon on the Atlantic to Tortosa on the Mediterranean, 1147 to 1149 were years of triumph for the Reconquista. Finally, five years before the Fifth Crusade was launched (1217), the great victory of the united forces of Aragon, Castile, Navarra, and Portugal at Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) confined the Muslims to an ever-shrinking arc of Andalusian territory, where, alas, they held on in one form or another for 275 years more.

  3. Jez Turner
    Jez Turner says:

    Excellent article that really illustrates the quality of Belloc’s thinking. Regarding the debate about the utility or otherwise of the Crusades, I’m rather inclined to agree with Arthur Kemp’s book, who by the way is an agnostic, that the Crusades was a pre-emptive strike that successfully delayed the non-white, (Ottoman etc), invasion of south-eastern Europe by several centuries. The skills acquired, inspiration and general ethos of the Crusades also provided the impetus for the Reconquista of Iberia.

  4. Dermot Kyne
    Dermot Kyne says:

    In another of his books, entitled “Esta Perpetua,” (In Latin: “You are everlasting”), Belloc writes of an walking tour thru North Africa. Primarily Algeria, because he visited Timgad, the town founded by the Tria Augusta Legion. And possibly, northern Tunisia, as well. In his book, observing the contraction of arable land, and the expansion of the Sahara north into the Maghrib, an phenomenon known as ‘Desertification,’ an direct consequence of the Muslim capture of the North African Provinces at the end of the 7th century, he commented: “Where our race is present, corn and the vine advance. Where we are absent, they retreat.” “Corn” in this instance, should be understood to refer to cereal grains, wheat, oats and barley. There was, for many years in England, in the 19th and possibly the early 20th century, an publication, “Cornhill Magazine.” To which Belloc may or may not have contributed.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      About the Idaho State Motto: [Esto, not Esta]

      The words, “Esto Perpetua” are traced back to the Venetian theologian and mathematician Pietro Sarpi (1522-1623), also known as Frau Paolo. The day before his death he had dictated three replies to questions on affairs of state, and his last words were “Esto perpetua” reportedly in reference to his beloved Venice and translated as “Mayest thou endure forever!”

      The motto, Esto Perpetua was adopted by the National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry, a farm organization constituted in Washington, D.C. on December 4, 1867. The words also appear in the closing words of Jefferson Davis’ History of the Confederacy (1881). It’s thought that the motto’s use on the Great Seal of Idaho may have been inspired by one of these sources.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Thank you for this brief essay. I had not known the history of the famous motto, and I am very glad to learn it.

        When Pietro Sarpi entered the mendicant Order of Servites, he took the religious name Paolo. As was the custom of a few other mendicant orders, Servite priests were typically styled and addressed as “Brother” (in Italian, “Fratello,” or usually “Fra”) instead of the more common “Father” (“Padre”). Thus, Sarpi became Fra Paolo. What “Frau Paolo” might imply to some is a matter best left to racier websites.

  5. Alieu
    Alieu says:

    I’m not surprised that the first comments on this article are about how Christianity is the source of all our problems and if only we’d all give it up and become atheists or pagans, our problems would disappear. This is despite the fact that the article is about the first time in history when all Europeans united together against a common threat to their home continent. Never before or since have Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Englishmen, Scotsmen and Spaniards all united together to fight against a common enemy that was invading European lands – yet still they portray Christianity as the enemy which is preventing European people from uniting together and defending themselves against Muslim invaders and their Jewish collaborators.

    I notice that most of these people are Americans, and maybe since they have no real understanding of European history or culture the idea seems more appealing to them. If you grow up in Europe you cannot help but notice that for the last 2,000 years European culture has revolved around Christianity and that without it European culture will go extinct. Here’s a hint: if you are ever on the same side as the Jews on a certain issue then you should probably question why they would be promoting something that supposedly is going to be good for us. Everything else they do is aimed at weakening and destroying us, but somehow by attacking and denigrating Christianity and the last 2,000 years of European culture – they’re actually doing us a favour. Then we can all go back to worshipping Odin and Jupiter.

    If you get rid of Christianity, it’s not going to be replaced by European paganism. Do you really think that Italian people are going to start doing sacrifices to Mars, or Irish people are going to go back to doing human sacrifice rituals like their ancient Celtic ancestors? No, Christianity will be replaced with nihilistic atheism. People will be taught that nothing matters, not even their own life – everything is irrelevant and malleable. It will be replaced by abortion and gay pride parades, and “secular humanism” about how all cultures are equal and how we should all accept multiculturalism.

    It’s not a coincidence that European civilisation reached the peak of its achievements at a time when the culture was overwhelmingly Christian, and that the decline of that civilisation has accompanied the decline of Christianity.
    All of the problems we have began in a major way in the 1960s, and funnily enough, it’s since then that the biggest decline in Christianity has taken place. Over 90% of America’s population considered themselves to be Christian in the 1960s. Now it’s down to 65%. Is America doing better now than it was in the 1960s? Are white people doing better? For some reason these people never seem to ask themselves these questions. They have their preconceived ideas about building a fantasy Viking/Roman pagan empire and to hell with any evidence that contradicts their worldview.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” Christianity will be replaced with nihilistic atheism.”

      The pagan European Whites were conquered by Catholic Christians . The Christian Whites were eventually conquered by the chosenhite jewmasterss via Protestantism that ultimately is sympathetic with and accommodating to Jews and by way of a Vatican that was eventually captured by crypto-jew Jesuits . Christianity has become , except for very small minorities of Catholics and Protestants , a sheeple-oriented religion of self-enslavement to the chosenhite jewmasterss .

      The Christianized European sheeple majorities will most likely submit to the domineering religio-political power of Islam unless the nonsheeple and nonmuslim European minority somehow miraculously find a way to prevent the Islamic conquest of themselves .

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      In Britain Christianity is already being replaced top down by the Secular Religion of Woke and bottom up by Deobandi Islam. What a fun future ahead for the remaining “nativists” !

  6. Carl
    Carl says:

    If the West does not support Eastern Christians in the Middle East, Caucasus, and North Africa, then anti-Christian powers such as Turkey will have their way.

    Most American and European Christians have no conception of the importance of Eastern Christianity’s ramparts.

    In fact, these “Christians” care more about Israel than they care about Christians.

    And how is it that the “Christian” US is infinitely more supportive of Israel than of foreign Christians?

    How is it that in the US the government and the powers behind it are repressing Christianity here while Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism are glorified?

  7. Marcus
    Marcus says:

    Muslims depict the Crusaders as colonialists. The Crusaders were no more colonialists than Muslim Arabs and Turks. Muslim Arab armies, whose homeland is the Arabian Peninsula, conquered Christian Middle East (Byzantium) in addition to Christian Egypt and the rest of North Africa, eventually taking Christian Spain. They entered France and headed to Paris. They meant to take all of Europe when they were stopped. Yet, Muslims and their Western apologists never talk of Muslim invasions. Muslims also forcibly converted Iran and spread all the way to Indonesia. Muslim Turks, from Central Asia, conquered Christian Asia Minor, the Balkans, Hungary, Romania, and several times were about to take Vienna. Muslims and their Western apologists don’t talk about these facts.
    P.S. Belloc and several commenters refer to Mohammedans. There’s no such entity. The word is Muslim because unlike Christianity, Islam is not based on Mohammed. He was just a messenger.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Belloc and several commenters refer to Mohammedans.

      Until the day before yesterday, everyone in the West referred to that dangerous human detritus as Mohammedans, not least because, taking their lead from Mohammed himself, his followers exhibit tendencies toward wanton violence and cruelty, self-delusion, and erotomania that his concocted “religion” encourages rather than restrains.

      Islam is not based on Mohammed. He was just a messenger.

      In other words, one afternoon in Medina, he just happened to find the Koran sitting atop his laundry basket when he went out to take his spare caftan down from the clothesline. He was so overwhelmed with religious fervor that he never spotted its teachings’ remarkable similarity to Talmudic Judaism.

      • Ned J. Casper
        Ned J. Casper says:

        Muhammad got ideas from Jewish and Christian sects, but the Quran and the Babylonian Talmud are as different as salt and silt. Suras hostile to Jews in the Islamic holy book include 2,88, 4.46, 5.13,5.63-4, 5.78, 17.4, and notably 62.6.

  8. Jacob Hamm
    Jacob Hamm says:

    Very good article. I agree with some of the prior comments that the Crusades prevented an onslaught from the Ottoman moslems who had already been colonizing. If Europe and the United States would grasp that we must be on the offensive against our “replacement” then we would be in step with these forefathers. The weak rulers selling our nations out today have no spiritual or religious inclination, they worship mammon and the golden calf.

  9. Marcus
    Marcus says:

    Belloc claims a major reason the Crusaders failed is that some of them married Middle Eastern Christians thus their blood became weaker and they lost their vigor, dedication, and nobility of spirit. Crusaders’ offspring were “mutts”. I will not waste your time providing details on how the Armenians (the first Christian nation) of Cilicia provided scouts and food to the Crusaders because they considered the European soldiers allies of Armenians who had been fighting Arab, Turk, and Turkomen invaders. The Armenian naively believed the fellow Christians of Europe would make reliable allies. But soon, the Armenians discovered Crusaders were greedy colonialists who would grab Armenian lands with the same enthusiasm they grabed Muslim-occupied lands. Through guile and betrayal, Crusaders, through guile and betrayal, did take Armenian Malatya (Militene) and Urfa. It was the Armenians who were noble and trusting souls while the Crusaders were criminal scavengers who pretended they had come to liberate the Holy Land.
    As to Belloc and his theory that Crusaders became weak when their blood weakened as a result of intermarriage with Armenians and other Middle Eastern Christians.These marraiges produced mutts–flashy but useless. Belloc forgets one thing: He produced 150 books and essays and travel pieces although he was a mutt: he father was French while his mother was English. One of his grandmothers was American. In the past millennium, most British royalty has been comprised of mutts. All the 19th-century tsars had German mothers. Napoleon (Corsican/Italian/French) was a mutt. King Richard Lionheart was a mutt. The much-glorified-in-the-West Saladin was a mutt. His father was born in Tvin, Armenia.

  10. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    For those who still believe that the Crusaders “saved Christian Europe”, during the Fourth Crusade they attacked and sacked Christian Constantinople, which led to the weakening of the Byzantine Empire and its final demise in 1453. For details, see Wikipedia “The Sack of Constantinople”.

    And the Turks are still in what is now called Istanbul. No “Reconquista” here.

  11. Skip Robinson
    Skip Robinson says:

    Religions appear to me to be created by mankind to grant themselves superiority over others. All the majors grant themselves the title of the Children of God. The race card is simply an extension of this lie. Why do you think there have been so many atrocities throughout history such as the Salem Witch Hunt? Societies based on lies will of course all fail over time. The greatest lie is that the legalization of police powers is necessary and why we keep ending up being ruled by sociopaths. The Irish Celts between 650AD and 1650AD and today’s Zomians prove my contention. Our world is now being economically fueled by the monetization of debt by massive bureaucratic nation-states so oppressive and powerful they cannot be stopped. They will die and with them, sadly, many will also perish as the systems transform into something else. We keep doing the same thing again and again expecting different results. Democracies are said to be the best form of government, yet they all fail over time as do democratic republics. Historians sadly do not see the forrest for the trees. As long as we continue to acquiese our inalaible rights for the public good, there will be sociopaths lying to us about how well they can do this and do it justly. How do you know if a politician is lying? their lips are moving.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” Why do you think there have been so many atrocities throughout history … ? ”

      The most historicly significant atrocities are the biggest ones committed by large groups such as the 1917 atheistic jewish Bolsheviks whom , according to many credible historians , immorally and illegitimately produced at least twenty million corpses during the decades of their Soviet Union reign-of-terror against primarily White Russian Christians .

      It took about two thousand years , from the time of the crucifixion of Christ , for the first empirically verifiable political truism to be declared by the famous British historian Lord Acton whom stated ___

      Power corrupts ; and absolute power corrupts absolutely .

      Lord Acton was obviously referring to “political power” — not technological horsepower . In particular , power tends to corrupt the mind and thereby negatively affects the thought processes and decision-making of powerful government officials especially .

      The 1789 Founders of
      presciently , with that famous document and more than a century before { Political Truism 1 } was made known to humanity , honorably provided to the world the basic main KEY for reducing both the frequency and magnitude of governmentally sponsored atrocities ; and it is known as a “separation of power” or “balance of powers” or “distribution of powers”.

      It may be another two thousand years before humanity is in firm grasp of the importance of that famous KEY . Then it may be yet another two thousand years for the world public and especially governments to become proficient in using the KEY to disable unjustifiable commingling of political powers , to facilitate the proper balancing of powers , and to prevent inordinate accumulations/centralizations of political powers by fully rationalizing/justifying distributions of ALL life-sustaining resources . In the meantime during those thousand year intervals many atrocities are likely to occur .

      The priests/rabbis appear to be the first

      ( beginning about 2500 years ago when the founder of judaism Abraham , whom was also a Tower of Babel construction slave , apparently talked a group of his fellow hebrew slaves into sabotaging the Tower project by introducing language confusions at the worksite which resulted in the termination of the project by King Nimrod )

      to rely mostly on psycological controls rather than rely mostly on physical coercions as was normal at the time . Have no doubt , religion is very dependent on the proficient employment of indoctrinations , psychological conditionings , and outright brainwashing . In particular , “Children of God” is employed to indoctrinate adherents with a divine identity . The historical evidence clearly shows that psychological controls are vastly more powerful and more lethal than just physical coercions alone .

      { Political Truism 2 } declared a half-century ago , by famous jewish author Ayn Rand , states that ___

      You can ignore politics ;
      but you cannot avoid the consequences .

      It may be another two thousand years before humanity and especially Westernworld Whites fully grasp the significance of that Truism #2 .

      { Political Truism 3 } is an important clarification of Truism #1 . It was declared a few years ago and states ___

      Political corruption per se is not usually of great
      importance . It is the inevitable abuse of power that
      corruption tends to permit that is of great importance to an
      injured person or any large class of injured people which could be millions or even billions

      ; where “abuse” refers to injuries as a result of

      ; and where “injuries” can be loss of money , loss of credit ,
      loss of livelihood , loss of reputation , loss of health ,
      loss of life , et al .

      Make no mistake ,

      { Political Truism 1 } does not exempt religious persons .

  12. Marcus
    Marcus says:

    Was Belloc a historian? What were his qualifications as a historian of the Crusades? On what research basis did he conceive his theory for the demise of the Crusades?
    Here are some of the reasons the Crusades failed:
    1. Superior, larger, and committed armies kept coming at them.
    2. Fighting far away from home.
    3. Harassed by Byzantium (for good reason)
    4. Lack of diplomacy. Rather than court the local Christians (Armenian, Arab, Assyrian, Chaldean) who were eager to help them against the racist and oppressive Muslim rulers, the Crusaders antagonized these potential allies by wresting lands from them or trying to dominate them.
    5. The heat of the Middle East plus lack of water.
    6. Various local/contagious diseases. Hundreds of prostitutes followed them to the East. Sexually-transmitted disease was a big problem.
    7. Constant pressure, insecurity, boredom.
    8. Self-defeating rivalry and domestic quarrels among the Crusader rulers in Antioch, Tripoli, Jerusalem.
    9. After the initial enthusiasm, they were a sad and unmotivated lot (bored, missing their families and homelands).

Comments are closed.