The traitors among us who see the white race as a cancer on humanity and the history of western civilization as one continuous litany of evil leave no monument unturned in their search for further evidence to support their psychotic world-view. By flagellating themselves on behalf of the rest of us who are too dim or slow to see the 'truth' as they see it, they are, by some psychic quirk lifted to a higher moral ground (in their own minds).But make no mistake, their demented preaching on the scale and over the long span of time it has been happening has been highly effective, so effective it has informed the zeitgeist. As corrosive as salt water on iron, it has eaten away at the soul of the west, destroying belief in itself and causing the collapse of its value system and, has history has shown repeatedly, the fall of civilizations has always been preceded by the destruction of these two central pillars.
Since just after the last world war we have been riding and escalator through a time of atonement for the myriad of sins we've committed against the peace-loving people of the world. Our atonement will never be complete until we have effectively removed ourselves from the world, destroyed ourselves. Progress towards this goal has been impressive. One of the most effective tools we have at our service for this task is multiculturalism. Again with just a glance at history, the inevitable result of multiculturalism is the poisoning of the host culture through an introduction of a Bacillus and the fragmentation of a nation into a collection of warring tribes. Of course, for a homogeneous people to accept this epitome of violation, massive machinery of mind-control must be constructed to convince them that black is white, that there is strength in diversity (just as there is peace in war) and that it is all for the good in this materialisng heaven on earth.
'Those who control the present control the past. Those who control the past, control the future.' This is probably one of the most profound statements ever made by George Orwell. Controlling the past of course entails rewriting history. The absolute imperative for this was seen by the members of the infamous Frankfurt School who came up with the seemingly academically respectable sounding means for doing this. It was termed 'Critical Theory', with which those whose hopes for world wide communist revolution had been dashed by the First World War in which, instead of workers of the world uniting, they had fought against each other, could change tack and begin Gramsci's 'long march through the institutions'. This insidious infiltration would become known as 'Cultural Marxism'.
As the name implies, Critical Theory's main purpose is to criticise, that is, criticise every achievement of western civilisation, its history effectively turned on its head: good is evil, white is black, black is good, white is evil. One of the best examples of this is what we labour so hard to celebrate on Australia Day. The foundation of a nation becomes dispossession and the beginning of genocide. The bringing of civilization to one of the most unforgiving continents on the planet becomes grand theft Terra Australis.
With this slow drip of poison it is not difficult to understand why a significant proportion of the white race is beginning to lose the will to live.
However, given the contemporary geopolitical climate, the most dangerous and egregious example of Critical Theory doing its worst would have to be the steamrolling leftist version of the Crusades which sees peace-loving Islam as the victim of unprovoked attack by blood-maddened, burning, looting and sword-wielding fanatics of Christendom. This cartoonish caricature has become so unquestioningly accepted that any apologist for Islam automatically assumes that any discussion not going his way can win it simply by uttering the magic words: 'What about the Crusades?' But the discussion need not end here. Feel like some fun? Then simply parry with 'well what about the Crusades?'. Picture a fish trying to breathe on dry land. This is how the ignoramus who thought by one simple snip (or snipe) the discussion was declared won will usually look.
A few undeniable facts about the Crusades: Before the First Crusade Christendom had been subject to the onslaught of Islam for more than six hundred years, as it had to be by a religion launched by the sword. The Byzantine Empire., the Eastern half of the Roman Empire and only half remaining. had been rolled back to not much more than the confines of Greece by the marauding armies of Islam and Constantinople had been attacked on numerous occasions. Indeed, it has been posited that if Constantinople had fallen to one of these earlier attacks instead of its eventually being taken by the Turks in 1453, all of Europe and possible America would now be Muslim.
In the lands overrun by Islam, Muslim overlords professed tolerance for 'people of the book' (Jews and Christians) although as decidedly second class citizens, as Dhimmis, paying a harsh tax (jizya) and subject to other humiliating regulations as well as dress codes. These were the lucky non-Muslims now living under Muslim rule. Those living in cities taken by siege did not fare so well. Males (those with pubic hair and so considered adults) were beheaded, infidel women were raped (as exhorted by the Koran) and then either kept as sex slaves or sold into slavery along with the children.
'Tolerance' waxed and waned. In the best of times infidels were allowed to practise their religion (out of sight of course) and Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were by and large left unmolested. Proselytising was however a beheading offence.
All of this changed with the rise of the Seljuk Turks. This was, ISIS taking over from Al Quaeda, if you will. The party was over; no more Mister Nice Guy. From now on there would be no pussy-footing around. In 1091 Seljuk forces smashed a Byzantine army at the battle of Manzikert. They were now about to own virtually all of Asia Minor, with the populations of a multitude of great Christian cities being subjected to Dhimmitude. In the meantime, tolerance for the book people had effectively evaporated. Christian pilgrimages to the Holy Land were routinely attacked.
This situation was the setting for Pope Uban the second's calling of the First Crusade in 1095 and then only after the pleading for help from from the Byzantine Emperor, Alexis Commenus. Four years later in 1099 Godfrey of Bouillon with his forces conquered Jerusalem. However fortunes would change over the next two centuries and six subsequent crusades until the fall of the last crusader castle in 1291.
The crusaders have been accused of many things, ironically, one of the most shocking being the sacking of Constantinople. The context here, which is usually not alluded to, is the continuous treacherous betrayal and reneging on promises of help by the Byzantines. Once the crusaders had gotten the Byzantines out of immediate danger it was don't call us, we'll call you.
Another 'war crime' of the crusaders was the blood-letting at Jerusalem but this is simply another attempt at the cardinal sin of historiography of superimposing contemporary mores, values and attitudes onto a bygone ere. What happened is shocking to modern sensibilities but was par for the course for the time in which it happened. Universally accepted rules of engagement was that mercy would be shown if the besieged surrendered, if not, then no mercy would be shown, and that exactly was what was meant. The defenders at Jerusalem refused to surrender.
These are just a couple of the many sleights of historical hand and myths that have been perpetuated about the evil white man's Holy Wars which have been equated to colonialism - another mangling of history. Most of the nobles who fought had mortgaged or sold property to finance their individual crusades. It was an expensive business. And in the mostly barren lands over which the crusader state existed there was little opportunity for recouping their expenses.
The supreme irony is that hard feelings about the holy wars weren't harboured by Muslims - that is until relatively recent times. Now with the egging on of demented liberals and Muslim apologists the crusades are being remembered (planted memory?) as something about which a smouldering grudge must be nursed. Indeed, the current conflict between Muslims and 'Christians' is being re-wrapped as an extremely belated eighth crusade.
Sources: God's Battalions The Case for the Crusades
by Rodney Stark
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades
by Robert Spencer
No comments:
Post a Comment